but does not apply the same standard when a conservative group is attacked. Well, I'd like to apply the same standard, but how many times has a conservative group been attacked? You have that 1 guy you give as an example. And? OK, how about PUBLICLY proclaiming conservatives to be killed? ... crickets? Oh, there must be an example similar to Christian preachers who were overjoyed that gays got gunned down in Orlando (Rodrigo Jimenez, Pastor Anderson), or who called for governmental extermination of gays (Pastor Anderson) or who called for gays to be put on a desert island to die (Pastor Worley), or who travelled to Africa to help write the "Kill the Gays" legislation (Pastor Lively) or who .... well, you get the idea. Countless bombings of clinics, harassment of doctors and patients, shootings. So how many times has a Christian-run equivalent been bombed or shot up? I'd like to apply the same standard, but there just hasn't been any cases to apply it to.
IDK, maybe the BLM inspired Dallas cop killings just a few months ago. Or the BLM motivated cop killings in New York last year. Or the murder of Jim Pouillon. Just googling "abortion protesters run over" brings up dozens of articles and youtube videos showing just that, with pro choice outlets like Jezebel cheering on the violence. Hell I generally support BLM. but if you are gonna blame all pro-lifers for events like the PP shooting, in order to be logically consistent you have to blame all BLMers for the Dallas and New York cop killings.
The cop killings are certainly not justified, no matter how many times the police are proven to have planted evidence or lied about shooting because they were charged at or had their gun stolen (kudos by-stander video and bodycams) nor how many times they roll-up to a 12-year old boy and open fire on him in less than 2 seconds. I agree with you there. Most cops are good cops, and there are even many within the ranks who call out the bad cops. And certainly one shouldn't cheer protesters getting run over, no matter how much they harass you, as you have told me that there are protesters who do indeed harass in another thread. But I don't see pro-choice leaders actually calling for violence in the way that there are some that do on the pro-life side. And of course, Mr. MinorityStress up above does a tremendous job in wishing me death because he thinks I'm gay. Sad to say, this is not the first time I've seen the Godly pro-life types say something like this, and probably one of the main reasons I'm having a hard time dissociating pro-life from homophobic, Christian bigotry. BTW, I'm not blaming the guy who shot-up a PP clinic (yet again) on you guys, even though he was mumbling something about baby parts, the new buzzword in your circle that seems to persist despite 20 or so states having investigated and found nothing to substantiate the claims. He was probably crazy, and this just pushed him over the edge. Of course, it seems pretty clear that had not fake videos been put out, this wouldn't have happened, but no, its not your fault at all.
also, isn't it funny that PP never sued CMP for libel? I mean, they went after them in court for using fake IDs, and that case was dropped. But they never sued for libel. Why not? I mean, if what you say is true and the videos are faked, why not sue for libel?
Uh-huh. You never have apologized for completely misjudging me and how i have tried to stop the harassing street preacher outside of my local clinic. And yeah, I am very sorry for the homophobia. however, I have a hard time distinguishing pro-choicers from ableist bigotry. After all, your side is currently exploiting ableist prejudice about people with microcephaly to legalize abortion in other countries and to legalize late term abortion in certain US states. Even disabled pro-choicers have called out this disgusting use of prejudice. The fact that you seem not to care that ableism is present throughout the medical community, and affects our right to life, not only before birth but after as well, and that so many "pro-choice" doctors pressure parents to abort for fetal abnormalities that entire support groups are filled up with parents dealing with it, shows me the true depth of your character. And you may not be aware, but there is still a federal house investigation of the PP tapes. And both the PP and the Alliance Defending Freedom paid for forensic analyses showed no evidence of video manipulation. ADF report found no substantial evidence of any manipulation. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9764 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/planned-parenthood-undercover-videos-report-finds-manipulation-121800.html
OK, so I apologize for misjudging you and it is admirable that you told the street preacher to STFU. But the whole idea that you put forth: a pro-life woman is in danger if she goes to a PP because she'll be harassed by pro-lifers... still sounds boundlessly stupid. To that I say... cry me a river. Maybe pro-lifers shouldn't have started a movement of directly protesting to patients going to PP, and thereby inviting the crazies to have direct access to patients, in the first place. your side I'm not necessarily a pro-choicer in the US mold. I go more the way of Europe and Japan, and think that the procedure should be restricted, and there should be no late-term abortions unless medically necessary.
Also, can you point out any well respected members of the anti-abortion movement that have advocated for vigilante violence against abortion providers?
and Black Lives Matter protests have often turned into riots in places like Baltimore, Ferguson, and Milwaukie. Should BLM activists not protest at all then, since the protest might turn into a riot which harms people and destroys the neighborhood?
No, go ahead and protest all you want. I'm just saying stop complaining about the possibility that you yourself will now be on the receiving end of the same protests that you're gladly taking part in now. turned into riots And white college students riot, oh I'm sorry "party", when their school football team loses, turning over cop cars and setting shit on fire. White people being unruly == "party" or "boys will be boys". Black people being unruly == "riot by thugs". http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-latest-kentucky-riot-is-part-of-a-long-destructive-sports-tradition/ But I digress. BLM is irrelevant to this discussion, even though now even Donald Trump is saying he's "Troubled" by the recent Tulsa shooting. I'm saying stop making yourself out to be a victim of the very protest that you're currently a part of. It sounds dumb. The analogy isn't BLM protesting. Rather, its a BLM protester who was out protesting the night before, going the next morning to catch the bus, finding the roads closed because of the burned out cars and such, and complaining about the state of his/her city. I'm not saying pro-lifers don't have a right to protest (though going up to individuals and screaming at them doesn't really seem like protest, but I digress again). Protest and partake in your hobby all you want. I'm saying then complaining about the state of affairs your protests have brought about, that these clinics aren't safe because you'll get harassed.... um, I shed crocodile tears.
Uh-huh. If we weren't out there, holding up signs that say "You and your child are both loved", crazy hateful street preacher guy would still be there. The harassment would still be there, but the kids who are alive today who were saved by our peaceful protest would not be. You assume that i don't support BLM. I do. I also support their right to protest. And if a peaceful BLM protester complains about the burned down buildings in his neighborhood because of the riots, he has every right to, because he was peacefully protesting an injustice, not burning down those buildings. He has every right to decry rioting while promoting peaceful protest of police brutality. And he shouldn't be told to stop his peaceful protests because others might escalate the situation into a riot, since the alternative is ignoring blatant injustice.
"You are so full of hubris and exaggerated self-importance." I must respectfully disagree with you. I have had an email correspondence of sorts with this guy, and he's the total opposite of what you said. He nearly always responds to his emails (unlike most of us!), and acknowledges people. He's treated me with nothing but kindness and I would be honoured to make his further acquaintance if ever I get the chance.
I have a hard time imagining that I would be able to find common ground and have a productive dialogue with somebody who thinks I ought to be classified as a "domestic terrorist."
Hi, you just talked to my abuser: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html Scroll down the Newest button on that article and look at what he did to me. He screwed with my mind, Josh. Then he tried pulling this same crp on me on this page: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/donald-trump-is-disaster-waiting-to.html If it hadn't been for two very good friends going to bat for me I would have been emotionally devastated. I've taken your advice; we haven't exchanged *a word since that incident. Also, even before that, he was making inappropriate comments to me on YOUR website, saying things like "I wouldn't want to procreate with you" and casting doubt on some of my words. How would you react if I told you I didn't want to procreate with you? You're lucky he didn't try screwing with your mind the way he did with me, and I think he did it because I am PL.
Another point - I respect the general commentariat at the site where I had that small confrontation, because the high majority of them have treated me with respect despite my strong stances on the matter, and I am willing to acknowledge that. However, a very small handful have been hostile and, while I respect them as people, I disagree with them and don't have much to do with them as I'd rather talk to the majority, who at least respect me despite their disagreements with my views.
Again, this is how I see it, James. Legally speaking, abortion isn't murder. But it should be made illegal so that unborn persons are protected. Morally speaking, however, it IS and I have no problem saying that without apology; I have gotten into trouble for this on more than one occasion. I'm not sorry for that. This is what I said once, and it earned me brownie points for intolerance: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/if_the_gop_defunded_planned_parenthood_this_is_how_americans_would_suffer/#comment-2203901557 My point is that I try to remember this: Loving, truthful people are almost always more persuasive than unloving, truthful people. I would rather turn people away from belief in abortion than ridicule them for it. Sometimes, people believe in abortion because they have heard no other way and it's my job to let them know, there is another way. How am I going to communicate that if I am hostile to the people? The action, however, deserves righteous anger; I agree with you there and I admire your desire to speak out on behalf of the unborn. I hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from. I have no desire to compromise on the topic but rather to reach people with the truth and challenge them to think, and the best way to do that is to be respectful. That being said, in a way I agree with you. The PL movement has made a shoddy job of things and it's time we manned up and spoke about the action in the strongest of terms.
Fair question. No, it doesn't look like a baby to me. That's why I'm not pro-life because I get warm, fuzzy feelings when I look at an embryo. I don't. I'm pro-life because one of the strongest beliefs I have is that all human adults should have an equal right to life, and when I try to make sense of that view, I come to believe that it must be because we all have something in common, something that we have equally. Most pro-choice people I talk to think that thing is something like sentience, self-awareness, viability, or something similar. The problem with all of the pro-choice definitions I've heard is they either would give the equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, and/or they would exclude newborns from having an equal right to life. I think having the intrinsic ability to think and act morally is the thing that ACTUALLY makes us equal. But that's a rational view, not an emotional one.
We do not all have an "intrinsic" ability to think and act morally, and no, we are not all equal. I'm very cautious to label anything with "intrinsic value" because value is highly situational. Just as an example of that, were I to have a choice between being marooned away from civilization with a) the Hope Diamond, or b) a magnifying glass, I would find the magnifying glass to be of much greater value than the gemstone. Priceless items in such a situation quickly become "just another pebble." Adult women are of more value than any hundred fetuses, and that's just how it is.
An intrinsic ability is not the potential to develop an ability, it’s an ability that you have in virtue of the kind of thing you are. I believe that all humans, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered toward developing the ability to think and act morally, and that is what matters. You can certainly argue that that intrinsic ability is NOT something that matters morally, but arguing that not everybody has that intrinsic ability seems to me to be a losing argument. Your paragraph about intrinsic value is confusing to me, because you say that value is situational, and then describe the case where two items have different instrumental value depending on the situation. So we certainly agree about the thought experiment you made, but it's not about intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the idea that something has value because of the kind of thing it is. Instrumental value is when something has value because somebody else values it, like dollar bills, or a magnifying glass. So when you assert that "adult women are more valuable than any hundred fetuses," I would ask you what you mean by "value." Presumably you mean "instrumental value," because it doesn't look like you meant "intrinsic value" in anything you said. I would agree that an adult woman has more instrumental value than any hundred fetuses. I would however argue that all people have equal intrinsic value, because people are things with serious moral status. I think most likely the main area where we disagree is I think a human fetus is a person, and you don't. I'm glad to discuss that. I know that fetuses are not clear cases of persons for many people. I'm open to the argument that some people are more intrinsically valuable than others, but it'll be pretty hard to convince me, because one of the strongest views I have is that all people are equally intrinsically valuable. *Enjoying the discussion, but forgive me if I don't respond quickly in the next few weeks. We're about to leave for two trips, and won't be able to access my computer very much during them. :)
Women are more valuable than fetuses both instrumentally and intrinsically. And seriously, how much "naturally ordered ability to think and act morally" does your 18 month old have? Or even a three year old? Because some humans will never progress past that point in development. And I would never chose to deliberately bring one of those into the world. That wouldn't be loving. It's difficult enough to deal with children that you don't lay awake at night worrying about what will become of them when you die. That would be a horrible burden to inflict on someone without the means to do it.
"Women are more valuable than fetuses both instrumentally and intrinsically." A huge part of the debate hinges upon that question. I'm more interested in arguments for a view versus merely asserting a view. My argument that both have the same intrinsic value is that I don't think we can make sense of human equality in a way that makes sense without excluding the unborn. I want to know WHY all humans should have an equal right to life EXCEPT for the unborn, in a way that's not ad hoc. Every attempt I've seen by pro-choice people to define personhood as something like sentience or self-awareness or viability has at least one of two problems: they either give an equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, or they exclude obvious cases of persons like newborns. Again, I want to hear your argument for why the unborn aren't persons, but simply asserting that women are more valuable isn't enough. "And seriously, how much 'naturally ordered ability to think and act morally' does your 18 month old have?" You misquoted me. I said, "I believe that all humans, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered toward developing the ability to think and act morally, and that is what matters." The way you quoted me changes what we're talking about from an intrinsic ability to an immediate ability. It's worse than a strawman. It's literally quoting me as if I'm saying the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying. I believe all humans, including fetuses, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered towards developing the ability to think and act morally, thus they have the intrinsic ability as soon as they are their own organism.
Because, sir, you do NOT have "a right to life." Only the right not to be unjustly killed. I'd like to know why YOU think a fetus possesses a right you don't have, to wit, the right to take what you need to live from the body of another? Nobody has that right. Not you, not me, and not my born children. And before they were born, they had no such "right" either. That's the crux of the issue. Answer the following question: My body belongs to________. a) You. b) The state. c) The church. d) Anyone and everyone who "needs it." e) Me. Answer, using yourself, and you will have your answer.
I actually agree with your first sentence. When I say "right to life" I basically mean "the right to not be unjustly killed." So we're on the same page there. My body belongs to me, but that doesn't give me the right to directly kill people with my body. I don't think a mother is intrinsically obligated to carry her child up until birth. I know that sounds weird, but stay with me. If we could Star Trek beam the baby into an artificial womb that it could survive in, I'm fine with that. The problem is that the only alternative to her carrying her child until birth is intentionally destroying her child. Given our current technology, she has to carry the child but it's because of the alternatives. She cannot kill the unborn child. She cannot kill a born child who wants her kidney, though she can deny the kidney. She can unplug from the violinist, she may not take a machete to him. I notice that you haven't responded to any of my arguments regarding human equality.
That's too damn bad. She doesn't need to use her body to sustain fetal life, or any life. And neither do you. Abortion is more on point with unplugging the violinist. He will die. But he never had the right to use her body to sustain his life to begin with. That requires continuing consent. I haven't addressed human equality, because it's irrelevant. We all EQUALLY have no right to level a claim to the body of another. How's that?
And this is where we disagree. I think the biggest disanalogy between Thomson's violinist story and at least most abortion methods is the difference between letting someone die of a kidney illness and directly killing another human being that you were responsible for creating.
I hope you don't mind if I ask a clarification question here - do you believe that direct killing of the fetus via abortion = unplugging and asserting bodily autonomy?
A little late to the party here, but I felt compelled to post. Only one problem here that derails the whole argument. The author and his brother implicitly acknowledge that there ARE circumstances where killing abortion practitioners are not only necessary, but morally justified (which is an inevitable conclusion given the language we use to describe abortion). They even lay out the circumstances necessary (a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed). Here's the problem. Right wing politicians and demagogues are stating exactly that. That Obama is a terrorist or a muslim extremist, that at the end of his term he's going to usurp control of the government, that he's a manchurian candidate in league with muslim radicals...The language the Pro Life movement uses the language of war and implied despotism (holocaust, state sanctioned mass murder, etc.) You've got politicians, TV personalities, and Pastors stating that this is 'The End Times,' that we must take action now, that the great battle between good and evil is at hand. So on the one hand you have a movement implying that drastic action is only acceptable in specific circumstances, and on the other you have TV personalities, religious leaders, and politicians all using language and imagery designed to stoke the imaginations of this specific audience into believing that those very circumstances are at hand.
Necessary does not mean sufficient. Necessary conditions: a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed. Sufficient conditions: [none stated] Definitely insufficient: Some street preacher with a cardboard sign saying the world is about to end, or a talk radio host calling the U.S. president a Muslim terrorist.
You are ignoring the disproportionate influence media has on the perception of reality. If you aren't even going to factor that in, I can't take your comment seriously.
Not really. Plenty of media personalities have called Donald Trump a fascist, compared him to Adolf Hitler and Lord Voldemort, and falsely claimed that ISIS is using his speeches to recruit terrorists. George W. Bush's critics regularly called him a Nazi and said that his administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. Idiots that equate the anti-abortion movement with the Taliban are awarded with airtime. You still don't get "let's start killing people!" out of that. I can't take your comment seriously. Ironic. I'm not the one blaming a lunatic's violent actions on a peaceful social movement.
Yeah. Even if all that garbage were true, that comparison is still a big slap in the face to victims of actual terrorist movements. You should be ashamed.
I'm open-minded. I know some prolifers would like nothing more than to execute abortion practitioners and drive them into the ground. However, there are others who work peacefully to change laws. Most grassroots at least, and I think some of the leaders too, seek to save life rather than terrorise people. You and I belong in the latter category, and I'm proud to say Josh does as well :)
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2386771601 I said let's suppose that the CMP had misrepresented Planned Parenthood as having broken laws, and asked: "You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to PP's being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not make the CMP culpable -- because even if PP is criminal, violence would be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?" Two weeks later, this occurs to me: I think that a person has some culpability even for an unreasonable response to what they said, if what they said was a lie that increased the chance (however small the chance might be) of the response that took place. Probably the laws of some countries would agree with this.
"Hands up Don't Shoot" was a lie. I still don't blame think it's fair to blame Black Lives Matter activists for the few sympathizers that kill police officers, torch cars, and burn down retirement homes.
That WP article says: Another witness . . . heard a man. . . . The man was saying something to the effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and . . . people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’ atmosphere.” What does "it" refer to? Did people find an excuse to riot because of the mere existence of the narrative, or because they sincerely believed the narrative? Anyway, though the article doesn't mention Black Lives Matter itself, I don't think that Black Lives Matter itself was on the scene at that moment in Ferguson. The article also says, it is important for us to note that the initial “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant after Brown’s shooting has evolved into a message that is no longer connected solely to the Ferguson event. A series of other fatal shootings by police occurred following Brown’s death, and the “Hands up, don’t shoot” came to symbolize the need to hold law enforcement accountable If the use of the slogan cannot reasonably be expected to dupe anyone into believing that Brown actually had his hands up, then I don't think those who use the slogan are responsible for what anyone hearing it does. But if it may well dupe people, and if those who use it know that Brown didn't likely have his hands up, and if someone is motivated by being so duped to do something violent, then clearly those who used the slogan helped cause the violence -- maybe they only helped slightly, but they helped -- and did so knowing they were lying. I think the lying makes them partially responsible. Whether we use the word "blame" would depend on whether we think that the violence was definitely a bad thing in the greater scheme of things, and think that that bad was not offset by some greater good that would justify it.
I appreciate your sharing, IHB :) "I suspect the anti-abortion agenda of the PLM is a ruse for a hidden covert patriarchy objective ... as suggested by their refusal to reallocate their focus and resources on birth-control during Realities 1, addressing the risks females experience during Realities 2, and addressing the sober harsh realities non-wealthy females and children do and would experience in Realities 3." Agreed and disagreed. I agree in the way that the PL movement is generally run by abstinence-only, conservative-minded Christian people. I find their sex ethics generally shocking, to be frank. Also, what you say makes sense in this way: making all children be born into a world that will not value their existence once they are born is not a good thing. I simply don't think the solution to this is abortion. What I do believe is that the solution lies at least partially in addressing the issues you stated, and I quote: "1. Pre-Conception-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs 2. Pregnancy Risk Realities - Female Autonomy 3. Post-Birth-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs" To be honest, I doubt that some of the PL leaders even care for unborn persons. Their incremental laws disgust me for two reasons: they treat unborn persons as political pawns rather than persons in need of protection under the law, and they treat pregnant persons as political pawns rather than thinking, feeling people. Furthermore, the views of some of the RW individuals running things behind the scenes, such as theonomy, make me shudder. I might be a strict PLer but I can empathise with the emotional insecurity a woman feels when she has no way of controlling her reproductive output on her own terms. I have felt the sick, cold feeling in the pit of my stomach, in my daydreams, as I have imagined what being a married woman with no recourse to prevent pregnancy via contraception must be like. To top it all off with fear of pregnancy and childbirth - ugh. So I despise these politicians and leaders because they make matters worse. I disagree in the sense that the PL movement is focused primarily on saving unborn persons, and that is a good focus to have. I do not think that focus should be shifted away from unborn persons, yet I believe that unborn persons should not be the only focus they have, as abortion is a banaid issue covering up a host of other issues - poverty, etc - as you mentioned. Keeping it focused only on illegalising unborn persons yields only one result - illegalisation - and not only addresses nothing in reality but can also be abused so that pregnant persons receive the short side of the stick. The fact that PLers haven't really thought through the implications of abuse of pregnant persons is highly troubling to me. Such laws might eliminate the taking of life legally (which is a good thing) but they won't answer the issues that cause women to get abortions, and this is wrong to me. I like to ask my fellow prolifers sometimes, if they are so keen to eliminate this morally unacceptable practice, why would you not want to understand the hows, whys, and wherefores of the action, and once you have the understanding, to eliminate the reasons for abortion so that women will not have the incentive to have abortions anymore. I will write up more later. Again, I deeply appreciate your contributions!
I have not come across any data filtered/sorted by racial group other than breaking Catholic responses down to White/Hispanic and Protestant into White/Black. I think Pew broke down the opinions of people who pray daily about abortion by race but, if I remember correctly, there were only 5 racial categories.
Well, I was surprised because it was so unexpected! I appreciate your love for me. Please know I love you and your partner as well. I hope that I have made it clear that I care about all people, not just unborn persons; that I care very much about post-birth guarantees for making the world a better place; and that I do not like the idea of ensuring unborn persons are born then left to die because society did not do its job by caring for them, ensuring they had a reasonable standard of living and educating them.
My debate with LB is not about her position, per se. It is that I don't see her arguments supporting that position as sound. They mainly consist of her personal opinion she provides little in the way of credible evidence to support that opinion. When factual evidence; e.g., statistics or semantics, to the contrary is presented, rather than address it, she builds a straw man. However, she doesn't do any better with her straw man because she presents no credible evidence for that argument either. Regarding Roe v Wade, I have stated, on many occasions that I do not believe it will ever be overturned, and pro-life people are wasting their time trying to do so. I try to stay on top of surveys and statistical information concerning people's opinions on abortion. Most polls indicate the vast number of people do not favor overturning Roe v Wade in its entirety. They (Pew and Gallop) also, indicate the majority do not support the extreme positions of either; opposition to abortions regardless of any circumstances, and support for abortions under any/all circumstances. Most people end up somewhere in the middle. I think the available data is clear about two things. The first is that most people have moral reservations about abortion. They and believe there must be some sort of justification or rationale for such an action. The second is that most people do not believe abortions should simply be illegal. I found some data from a poll commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee that had a greater degree of detail than most. It also assured I couldn't be accused of a pro-abortion bias. [http(colon)//www(dot)nationalrighttolifenews(dot)org/news/2013/04/new-poll-shows-pro-life-majority-on-abortion/#.VlAsbv9dFy0 I drew the following conclusions: This poll showed only 11% are in favor of banning all abortions. The number who think it should be legal in all circumstance is almost the same at 12%. So, that correlates well with other poll data I've presented, so it appears to be very reasonable to say both represent extreme minority positions. Only 30% see the stage of fetal development of the fetus as an exclusive criteria. 20% see three months (much like Roe v Wade's trimester plan) as a cut-off point for abortions for any reason. Only 10% support viability (six months) as the cut-off point. More people (over 42%) see other circumstances as a criteria for allowing abortion. Only 14% see the life of the mother as the sole criteria for allowing, those who include rape and incest represent another 14%. The study asked one question about all three circumstances together which was 28% and then asked exclusively about the life of the mother. I need to take a break, but I will be happy to take up the rest of your comments soon.
"1. Re-allocate its labor and millions (resources) to reducing systemic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control ... excluding setting up their own abortions providers beyond those that already exist." I believe in partial reallocation of the funds rather than complete, and that is where we will have a difference. However I believe we agree on these other measures you mentioned - "reducing systematic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control".
To be honest, I'm a wee bit surprised. I thought you said this was your last comment on PL topics, at least on this forum. "This sounds like you're suggesting the medical staff (or mother) LIE about needing the abortion." No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that in some cases, the doctor made a mistake and deemed it "life-of-the-mother" when that baby could have been saved. At the same time, I recognise that, for the present, the life that can be saved should be saved. Which sometimes means saving the mother even if that involves an abortion. I do, however, hope for a day that will employ technology to save both*. "Also, I'm stunned that you would focus on society mobilizing and allocating resources to make sure that fetus is born (regardless of what you consider the "female incubators" wishes) into what real world conditions ... that the same society does not currently mobilize and allocate resources to guarantee a middle class or wealthy class LIFE." I hope I can assure you that I *do not want to see a society that keeps people alive because they're not born yet, but does not care for them and simply leaves them in the slums to die after they're born; in my book that is as anti the prolife ethic as taking their lives before they are born. If I have given the impression that I care only for saving unborn persons to the exclusion of all else, I am sincerely saddened, because that is not what I want at all. "You want society to find a way via criminalizing abortion, inventing technology, and mobilizing and allocating resources to GUARANTEE THAT BIRTH ... but remain silent about ANY POST-BIRTH GUARANTEES." Well, actually, did I mention that there would have to be a lot to change in the post-birth world as well? If not, I should have. No, I'm not solely for replacement of abortion via high techs, nor solely for protecting unborn persons via legal means, although that is something I'm not ashamed of. I appreciate the fact you pointed this out, because, if this was going to work, a number of things would have to change or at least improve, as follows:
1) Adoption would need to be reformed. The adoption system, at the present time, is in a terrible mess. People who shouldn't be allowed to adopt children are, and that concerns me. 2) Social safety nets would have to be strengthened rather than taken away from women, because if women are going to keep their babies, then they will need help and support in that. 3) Contraceptives would have to be improved, strengthened, multiplied and freely available. 4) Sex education would also have to be freely available. But it would have to be a type that did not shame people for not fitting into cultural norms. 5) Altering our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy would have to be a must*. We would have to be far more accepting of solo motherhood than we are now. Also, women could no longer be seen as criminals for having sex whilst in possession of a uteri. Furthermore, no woman should have to ever, ever be afraid when she gets pregnant. She would need the security of knowing she can apply for nonjudgmental help, and that she would be aided, and the path to being a parent or adopting out would be made simple for her, rather than hard as it is now. 6) Combating the actual causes of abortion would be imperative also. If unborn persons have a right to life, so do born persons. As I mentioned, we would have to deal with poverty, domestic violence, rape culture, rape and incest, etc. Also we would have to channel our greatest services for free education, free healthcare, free help of all types, etc, into poor neighbourhoods, so that young people could have a chance to grow up without living in slums. Any woman who wants to escape an abusive relationship would have to know she could get a hotline. Also any woman who got pregnant would have to go to a healthcare center and have her options explained to her, without judgment. Last but not least we would have to believe rape victims and victims of incest rather than the perpetrators. While I have my opinions I recognise that abortion is not just a moral issue by itself, but a bandaid on a host of other issues. Therefore, simply guaranteeing birth without guaranteeing born citizens are looked after is absurd and wrong because the bandaid would only be changed, not disregarded. In other words, if we dealt with the issues that caused abortion, we would be reducing abortions nearly half-way at least and that would be a good thing. You are correct in saying that if birth was to be guaranteed we would have to change post-birth conditions as well in order to ensure our future generations had a better world to grow up in. I hope I have made myself clear that I don't hold to the adage "If you're pre-birth, you're fine; if you're pre-school, you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned." "Wow ... all pregnancies must be born no matter what reality going on with the "female incubators" and "post-birth" ..." In regards to that, I mentioned the technology that would ensure that unborn persons got to live yet pregnant persons got to decide whether they wanted to carry or not, because I am not for women being made to carry a pregnancy if they don't wish to. I simply part ways with the legal abortion advocate crowd on the issue of abortion being the best method to achieve this bodily freedom. "Heck, the GOP opposes our government allocating food stamps to already born poor and low-income struggling human beings whom need to eat, plus a whole scope of other life sustaining and empowering resources." You know what? I *agree with you on this! I am very much for food stamps and other such social services going to poor people, and I have no problem paying my taxes to ensure that these people get fed. "Our species doesn't even know what such a concept or reality looks like ... all human life and quality of life guaranteed." That is a world I would like to see a reality, as I explained above. "I'm sorry, but I have to opine ... the PLM is so misguided in how it mobilizes and allocates its labor hours and millions of dollars in resources ... all of which could be focused 100% on guaranteeing a quality life for already alive human beings outside the womb ... and yes, even those unborn fetus they demand be born by "female incubators" worldwide." I agree. They need to care for everyone. The problem is that they are run by this capitalist mindset that makes poor people into automatic criminals. As for me, I want my resources to help everyone - unborn and born alike. Not just one group of people, everyone. I hope we understand each other a little better now.
Hi IHB I deeply appreciate that you explained what you believe about the movement itself without attacking those who adhere to PL belief. It was a very thorough and thought-provoking critique, IMO. I don’t really have too much to say in response except that it is an area worth seriously researching and self-examining, more than I have. If you’re wrong, I will let you know. But if you’re right, I’ll let you know that too. I don’t represent or belong to the PL movement but am rather an outlier, because it is run, at least in part, by conservative Christian people who believe in old-fashioned abstinence ideals that don’t help matters any. In my heart, I left it a while back (I was never officially part of it) because I questioned some of their legislative methods and could see their laws generally (not always, but generally) weren’t helping. I’m still PL in my heart and I’m open to listening to both sides (prolife and advocate for legal abortion) of the topic so I can learn more about how to treat this sensitive issue. I have a lot to say about how I believe abortions can be reduced, and I want to talk about it more one day if you’re comfortable with that, but I will leave my thoughts for the present at this as I wish to focus on where we do share common ground: we agree that the causes of abortion – poverty, rape culture, domestic violence, etc – should be dealt with or at least seriously reduced, plus both of us believe contraception should be promoted far and wide. IMO science and reason are the best way to handle this controversy in society, not bombs and death threats of abortion practitioners. I am not a moderator here. However, I care about the fellow commenters not being banned or deleted, and deeply value their contributions, which is why I will send them comments letting them know if and when they’re stepping over a line. The reason I told you about people versus actions was that I did not want the mods censoring your comments. Although I have no problem resuming discussion of this topic with you if you change your mind, I respect the fact you have no desire to discuss this for the present as I understand that discussing abortion is not for everyone. However, you have made me so happy for such a brief period of time that I strongly desire to talk about topics we do agree on when we both feel comfortable doing so, if that is all right with you. Would you mind if we move our conversation over to Love Joy Feminism where we can keep discussing that rape culture article that you commented on yesterday, because it would mean so much to me if you could do that for me and also because I find you to have a very insightful perspective on many topics. Also if you want to drop by on The Friendly Atheist (which is not prolife BTW) I will be happy to talk when I see you :)
No apology required. I think it fair to state that I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. It seemed to me, at the time, that the comment about jihad was completely unrelated to the issue at hand, namely, anti-abortion terrorism. I appreciate your explaining your intentions as to why you made that particular comment; now I understand a little better where you are coming from and this is very helpful in that it puts your comments in context. "I thought the unspoken issue raised in the PLM article was whether people identifying with the politics of PLM should be viewed as potential Domestic Terrorist? This ISSUE speaks to all people whom identify with the politics of other groups and whether they too can be defined as potential DTs." AFAIK you were correct to judge that that was the topic the article was discussing. This is the intention of the article, and I quote: "Many pro-choice people have responded to the recent shooting by blaming pro-life advocates. In this article I show why such claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence." "In other words C ... this article is a political polemic ... not legal analysis ... about whether a Mass Murder whom identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a Domestic Terrorist." No, it isn't a legal analysis. But it's not about whether a mass murderer who identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a domestic terrorist either. I'm pretty sure the author of this article would recognise him as a domestic terrorist or a murderer at the very least. It's an article written by a prolifer who recognises that anti-abortion terrorism is a problem, and is seeking to explain why most prolifers are not responsible for one man's actions. Yet it's also explaining how a person could incite violence through their words so that they can avoid falling into that trap when they honestly critique the abortion issue. "In other words, if we "compartmentalized" our analysis (online and offline) ... don't conduct "comparative analysis" of politically motivated murders ... then we fail to identify and deconstruct the common patterns of "hate" and "dogma" all potential DTs share ... whether it's specifically PL mass-murders, School mass-murders, Jihadist mass-murders, Gang mass-murders, etc ... notwithstanding our federal government has official definitions of domestic terrorism." Since seeking to analyse the commonalities between different types of mass murderers seemed to be your intentions when you commented and called the PL movement a terrorist organisation, I actually appreciate the critique because I think it is good to hear a dissenting voice. "The same polemic could be written by any political group ... including DAESH ... regarding any person identifying with and articulating their politks." I can agree with that because it's true. "But if you don't see these common patterns comparatively between all these mass-murders, then I'll respect the articles' online compartmentalization ... although offline that's not how reality works." Well, would you mind explaining the common patterns comparatively between the mass-murders of PL and jihad, because I have no problem having that conversation with you at all. "I can 100% guarantee you "compartmentalization" isn't how our NSA, CIA, FBI, and ATF intelligence analysts view these mass murders. To the contrary they're looking for "common patterns" of "ideological and political dogma"." Oh, okay. Fair enough. Let's see here: there is surely a difference between criticising an ideology and hating people who believe that ideology, yes? Please remember that when you critique, because the prolifers I know are good people who would never want to terrorise any abortion practitioner. Yet I admit that there are some who wish to employ these kinds of tactics on abortion practitioners and it is not helpful. I am open to hearing evidence on either side either for or against the idea that the PL movement generally supports terrorism, although, so far as I know, it doesn't. So if you have genuine evidence and can prove it I will at least look at it. In other words, seeking to accuse prolife people, out the gate, of holding terrorist notions or ideas won't help, and the moderators will not appreciate condemnation of people*. However, a thoughtful analysis of why you believe the PL *movement supports domestic terrorism would contribute greatly to the content of this forum as that is very much part of the subject that the moderators want everyone to discuss, AFAIK. Last but not least you were far more on-topic than I realised so thanks for clearing up the confusion. I have no problem resuming this conversation if you are so inclined. So thanks for your contributions!
I can understand your frustration, but I think we're getting a little off-topic here. If this article was covering Islam I'd discuss that with you. However it's not.
You can count the number of people sympathetic to the pro-life cause that have actually killed people for ideological reasons on your fingers. Most (if not all) of them are just like Robert Dear - mentally unstable loners with criminal backgrounds living in sheds or off the grid. To date, no pro-life activist has ever flown an airplane into a building, strapped a bomb to his face, thrown acid on a woman's face for going to school, beheaded a journalist, or opened fire on an office because of a cartoon. There aren't tens of millions of pro-life advocates applauding such behaviour. There are no organized anti-abortion terrorist groups on social media promising young people 72 virgins if they leave their families to overthrow the government and destroy monuments. You don't see a huge fraction of the pro-life population that believes in killing their daughters for dishonouring their families (by changing religion, or by refusing to cover their hair/forehead/face/full body). Unless you can say the same about jihadists, stop insulting victims of radical Islam by suggesting the two are even remotely similar.
Although I am open to hearing both sides of the issue on anti-abortion terrorism, I do believe the vast majority of grassroots prolifers and a few of the leaders deplore violence against those who do not share their views. So I appreciate your critique.
I think we agree on the conclusion, but the "try again" you added here is fairly snarky, or at least doesn't tend to lead to productive dialogue between people who disagree. Please refrain from jabs like that on this forum. Thanks.
What you say seems to me to be intuitively true. However, if you say that to someone who doesn't feel the same way, I don't think just the fact that you believe it will impress or influence them very much, if at all. That seems to be the case here. Is there an actual reasonable argument you can make to support that statement or is it just a dogmatic, religious (or quasi-religious) assertion?
The only pregnancy you can protect is the one in your own uterus. There is no such neutral zone, known as "da woooomb" where "unborns" just hang out getting bigger without having negative effects on the health of real persons. No they are not persons. However, women are.
Those sources are using LMP instead of post-fertilization age. Post-fertilization age is around 21 days. Source: http://www.drplace.com/Evaluation_of_fetal_arrhythmias.16.20197.htm FYI: Don't feel bad. Common pro-life confusion, and a lot of sources are vague about which they're using. Most sources use LMP.
And there would be no beating heart without the beating heart of the mother, regardless of when it starts to beat. Cardiac cells will beat in a petri dish with electrical stimulation. If there are a group of them, they beat in unison, because that's what they do. No one is obligated to preserve beating cardiac cells, regardless of location.
Do you believe that an embryo is a group of beating cardiac cells then? I'm not trying to be dumb here, just wondering exactly what you do believe about the composition of the ZEF.
Until it's able to live outside someone else's body? Pretty much. I think differently about viable fetuses. They're still not entitled to a uterus, but if there's a threat to the mother's health, they can be delivered. In fact, it's a delivery after 20 weeks, even if the fetus won't make it. Which brings up another misconception about "abortion." "The day before delivery", "the month before delivery", "8 1/2 months" or any other false situations anyone might lay out, abortion is not EVEN possible. At that point, it's a delivery, even of a dead fetus. NOT an abortion.
Well, thank you for sharing what you believe. I can understand where you're coming from a little better now. Personally if a baby is dead and would be stillborn in the natural, I am not against the abortion procedure being used at that point.
That is not "an abortion procedure" at all. It's a delivery 100% of the time, regardless of the life-status of the fetus. You must realize that a fetus over a certain size cannot be suctioned out with a cannula, removed in pieces in a D&E, nor can it be teleported to outside the uterus. Thus delivery is the only option.
This is 100% correct. A late-term abortion is a 2-3 day procedure because of the necessity of dilating the cervix with laminaria. This is why one of the arguments many pro-choice organizations used against the ban on D&X abortions (commonly referred as "partial-birth abortions") that the ban would put women's lives at risk was so deceptive. If a woman's life is at risk late in pregnancy, a partial-birth abortion would never be done. An emergency C-section (like the one that was used to birth my youngest son Eli, whose umbilical cord had wrapped around his neck) can be done in 10-20 minutes.
I was wondering what happened to you. Did you reply to my comments and I missed it, or did you choose to not reply. If you chose not to reply, can I assume you agree with what I said? I proved my claim by providing a source from a medical journal. Since you currently claiming that the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means after a certain stage of the pregnancy is considered a delivery rather than an abortion, could you please do likewise and provide a similar type of medical source supporting that claim?
Before I address my previous comment, I would ask if you are going to address this one? Regarding the medical source I provided supporting my claim, it was in response to: "Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ." The actual data showed that twice as many doctors go with conception as implantation. That was part of a reply I made to you 2 days ago. Here it is in its entirety. "An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy. He doesn't lose bodily autonomy. In particular, a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy." You are simple playing word games. But, that's fine lets look at it semantically: i.e., based on the meanings of the words: Autonomy is simply an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance. Bodily simply means of or concerning the body. Bodily autonomy is therefore simply an individual's ability (synonym for capacity) to determination or govern their own body. You admit that "An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy." So I would ask they lose the freedom of movement of what? The only logical response is their body, of course. So, based on semantics; i.e., the meanings of the words involved, it is simply incorrect to say he doesn't lose bodily autonomy. Conceptually, bodily autonomy is not limited to the reproductive aspect of the body. So, the fact that "a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy" may be true, it does nothing to negate the fact that controlling a convicts freedom of movement also results in a loss of their bodily autonomy. "Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ." You need to read something other than whatever propaganda you have been reading and be better informed, and less dogmatic, with your assertions. Implantation is not the consensus of the OB GYN's in the country and repeating negatives and using caps does not change that. In fact, implantation is the minority view. A study of "Obstetrician-gynecologists' beliefs about when pregnancy begins" was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology -- February 2012, Volume 206, Issue 2, Pages 132.e1–132.e7. it stated: One-half of US obstetrician-gynecologists (57%) believe pregnancy begins at conception. Fewer (28%) believe it begins at implantation, and 16% are not sure. "This is simply NO. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Rights are not subjected to the whims of others. That would be mob rule. We DO have a Constitution, you know. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority. More repetition and caps. I have pretty well lost hope in a civil intelligent conversation with you, at this point, I'm glad this is almost over. Your original comment was: "People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another." How do you think rights are determined? For example you mentioned the constitution. Were the men who wrote the constitution not people who believed what they wished to believe, defied a king, and had a huge impact on the rights of a whole lot of "anothers". The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority as a direct result of their beliefs. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers. It was a series of papers arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius (under which all of The Federalist Papers were published), Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings. It addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, united republic would be better able to guard against those dangers than would smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject. So the fact that rights are not subjected to the whims of others and that the rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority are the results of the beliefs of people like Madison which had and do still have considerable impact.
What is "pregnancy?" It is the state of females while they are carrying an embryo or a fetus. Now with all due respect for those OBs who think otherwise, at fertilization a female isn't "carrying" anything. There is a free-floating ball of cells that have a far better chance of ending up passing harmlessly out of her body than attaching to her and starting to grow. I would also ask these "doctors" if they consider petri dishes to be "pregnant" since there are embryos in them. Pregnancy is a dance involving two, not merely the presence of an embryo that at this point is doing nothing but floating in space. Therefore, I stick by what I was taught in nursing school. As far as the federalist papers? Those are not law. They can tell us something about what the founding fathers were thinking when they drafted the Constitution, and I agree that the notion of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority originated there. The time of the founding fathers has come and gone, and the Constitution must be interpreted according to life in 2015, not in the late 18th century when it was written. Otherwise, it just isn't worth much. For example, they thought only white male landowners should vote. In today's society, such an idea would be laughed out of court. Today we have the 14th amendment that clarifies everything. No state or federal government may deny any person equal protection under the law, and defines exactly who is a citizen. Anyone born inside the United States or naturalized therein. No federalist papers are needed to clarify that. Therefore, the rights of a minority cannot be subjected to the whims of voters. Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave. That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy. A prisoner cannot be drugged or treated medically against his will. He cannot be strapped down and forced to donate blood. He cannot be raped without it being a crime. He cannot be forced to eat. He cannot be forced into medical experimentation. He cannot be forcibly sterilized. And in the case of a female prisoner, she cannot be forced either to abort a pregnancy, nor to carry one to term. THAT is BODILY autonomy. Loss of bodily autonomy is not defined as the loss of freedom of movement. That would more accurately be called a loss of liberty than bodily autonomy. It's not a semantics game. Words mean what they mean. And even then, prisoners are not deprived of ALL liberty. They cannot, for instance, be forbidden to marry... even on death row.
First of all, does your silence mean you are not going to provide a medical source supporting that claim that "the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means after a certain stage of the pregnancy is considered a delivery rather than an abortion"? Next, I would point out that your comment that I originally addressed was: "Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ." That was factually incorrect and your lack of research was blatantly apparent. So rather than admit that you were wrong you build a straw man argument instead. But, in doing so, you don't effectively knock your straw man argument down either. You offer no evidence from a credible source and instead present only your own opinions based on you remember from nursing school. You believe that should overrule the opinions of doctors who specialize and currently practice in that field If you think about it, isn't the development of pregnancy actually counted from the first day of the woman’s last normal menstrual period (LMP), even though the development of the fetus does not begin until conception, which is about two weeks later, which assumes each menstrual cycle to be her body is preparing for pregnancy.? Aren't you really just saying pregnancy begins at implantation simply because you prefer that definition because it better serves your argument? I have used that argument too, because I understand how effective IUDs are at preventing pregnancies and thus reduce abortions. But, I was wrong. It is not the consensus of doctors who practice in that field. The next comment I addressed was: "People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another." That is conceptually about the relationship between beliefs and rights and I addressed it on that basis. The Federalist papers were an example of the selling of a set of beliefs having an impact on the rights of others, in case it was Madison addressing the rights of the individual, which is the issue the raised. I could have used many other examples to illustrate beliefs that found themselves incorporated into the legal system that has a great impact on rights. You completely miss the point by attacking the examples rather than the concept itself. Next you say: "Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave. That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy." Semantics is the study of words and their meanings. I have clearer defined the words "bodily" and "autonomy" using standard reference material for the English language and showed how when combined they can mean precisely that. Your comment: "That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy." is simply incorrect based upon semantics. The use of improper capitalization for emphasis doesn't change that and only accentuates the fact it is purely your opinion.
A medical source? How about any medical dictionary? My knowledge is primary. I was taught in nursing school that abortion is the termination of pregnancy prior to viability. Since then they have tightened up the standards a bit, but it still amounts to the same thing. Are you not aware that ALL pregnancies terminate? Whether they terminate in birth (delivery) or abortion is a matter of stage. But since you evidently have a problem with this, tell me how YOU would term them?
"Whether they terminate in birth (delivery) or abortion is a matter of stage." Apparently, not: Abortion - elective or therapeutic Alternative names Therapeutic abortion; Elective abortion Definition Elective or therapeutic abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. http(colon)//medical-dictionary-search-engines(dot)com/encyclopedia/?encyclopedia_name_url=48&level=2 I would call it an abortion if it meets that criteria; i.e., it is intentional. Do you have no reply to my other comments?
Under that logic, you are calling my daughter's labor induction "an abortion." Screw you. It was intentional. It was also a delivery. Abortion (medically) applies to the* premature* termination of pregnancy by natural or induced means, and has no relationship to the life status of the fetus. An abortion, natural or induced, will always result in fetal death, because the fetus is unviable. A delivery will usually, but not always, result in a living child.
It's not my logic, nor did I write that definition. I merely said I would define abortion in accord with it. Your response was completely inappropriate. You apparently couldn't argue factually, so instead, you (I suspect) feign personal hurt and outrage. You then "shoot the messenger". At least you have dropped the pretense of objectivity and civility.
Admit it. You made it up. It didn't come from a medical dictionary. "The intentional termination of pregnancy" is NOT the medical definition of abortion. I tend to get angry with people who lie to my face. I have told you what I was taught in nursing school about what abortion means, and I have told you what the specific medical definition is. ALL pregnancies "terminate" and a great many of them are intentional, and are not abortions. And you can also lump my two C-sections, and my sister's three C-sections in with your screwball definition of abortion as well. All were intentional. All terminated a pregnancy. NONE were abortions.
More kill the messenger responses from you and now the all out, murderous rage denoted by the dreaded ALL CAPS. I am almost to scared to respond. Can you read? I provided even provided a link. Did I make up a website too, just to prove I was right? If "The intentional termination of pregnancy" is NOT the medical definition of abortion, please provide a link to a medical dictionary that proves otherwise and I would be happy to acquiesce on this. It seems to take a lot less get you angry than people who lie to your face, just disagreeing with you seems a quite effective way to do it as well. I not terribly impressed by what you were taught in nursing school. My wife attended a nursing school attached to the Mayo clinic. One of her teachers taught that a women could not get pregnant the first time she had sex. The quality and accuracy of the information is very depended on the person teaching it. Not all teachers are of the same caliber.
"I don't care what you were taught in nursing school. My wife was taught a women couldn't get pregnant the first time she had sex at a nursing school attached to the Mayo clinic." No, she was not taught that. They don't teach "old wive's tales" in nursing school. And you didn't supply any link. You went to http://web.md, not a medical dictionary.
I'll tell her you called her a liar. I doubt she lose much sleep over it. I simply see that as typical of your responses. I believe http://Web.md does provide sources. Besides, you made the assertion initially and you still haven't provided any evidence, except your typical "because I said so!!". However, I have found your continuing nasty and condescending (though consistently wrong) motivational. Consequentially, its worth the effort to find and present evidence, for no other reason than to embarrass you. Here's how the Merc Manuals describe abortion: "Induced abortion is the intentional ending of a pregnancy by surgery or drugs." https(colon)//www(dot)merckmanuals(dot)com/home/women's-health-issues/family-planning/abortion
Wow, that's awesome! Night :) I wish your partner well, if that's all right. Because she sounds like a very smart woman from what you tell me :) PS: Thanks for calling me a co-leader! Because one mark of a man of character is to recognise women as co-leaders :)
"please don't let anyone (especially males ... lol) tell you otherwise" As I battle misogyny in my soul and in my body and in my environment, I will remember your words - guaranteed!
"And now you know 100% why I was 100% correct about how sharp you are and a superb LEADER ... it's not a binary males vs females or vice versa ... it's humans loving humans:)" God, I agree 100%! Personally, as I've stated before, I find men to be magnificent, strong, bright, brave leaders IF they are doing what is right and good and treating others with respect as well. Men have the inherent capacity to do so much good and to be so incredibly intelligent, but they have to earn respect through character and are not entitled to it simply because they are men*. If a man is good and trustworthy, stern yet gentle, wise yet open-minded, etc, I will trust and respect that man. But he has to prove himself to be good first, before I can even consider pledging my trust so completely. Please don't ever underestimate your intelligence and leadership skills, nor talk yourself down to put others up either, just because you happen to be a man. To me, what is needed is not only to value the leadership of your own sex but also to value the leadership of the opposite sex - I mark a note that this is a great failing in society, that everyone brags about how great their sex is while putting the opposite sex down, or praises the opposite sex while downplaying the positive contributions of their own. This statement is not a criticism of either of us but rather an affirmation that our society seriously needs to change in this area, and, as we agreed so capitally, that men and women need to lead *together rather than fighting each other all the time. As a leader, then, plus as a supporter, I support your decision to get off this forum and do what you must do. Many cheers go with you for the wonderful day you gave me, and I hope I made you happy too!
I thank you, yet again. I am deeply touched by your opening your heart to me like this! I cannot help but respond back with respect, appreciation, and love. I'm sorry I was a little mad at you at the very beginning, but I'm glad I restrained myself and tried to understand where you were coming from, and no I didn't hate you either even then, and certainly don't now! Thank you so very much for encouraging me to be a leader; and to think of myself as that; and for noticing, remarking on, and praising those qualities. I have never really been told I have the capacity to be a leader (except for once or at the most twice), only the capacity to be LED, partially because of my nature and partially because I am, in the eyes of others, a sweet young woman. I will try not to underestimate myself!
Thank you so much for talking and listening to me. I'm aware we didn't exactly like each other at first but once we got past the initial animosity we hit it off just fine, like I suspected, and a part of me wonders if you thought the same. I have to go too; I've got RL (real life) to live. I appreciate the fact you want to check out those places and I hope to see you again soon so we can discuss loads of topics more - feminism, PL, racism, etc. You have taught me a great deal today. I hope we can respectfully find common ground where we can, and disagree with compassion when we must. You've made me think a lot of noble thoughts about my sex and appreciate good men who support women all the more. If ever I get the right man I want someone who highly appreciates female leadership so thank you for bringing that to my attention. I agree with and feel deeply inspired by your desire to see women lead. I also think that men are intelligent and strong, and make brilliant leaders as well; that doesn't mean I'm seeking to willfully misunderstand your beliefs about women's intelligence and leadership qualities; quite the contrary. I was raised traditional so I appreciate these good qualities in males, and there's a reason men and women should lead together - they need each other. I will check out your link. Time for bed for me too, sorry :*(
That's because you're genuine and respectful. I knew we'd have a lot in common once we got past the rough stage :) I don't feel threatened at all, nor do I sense you are flirting with me. You are talking to me like a person and that's great! BTW, I couldn't flirt to save my life. Do you mind if I gently encourage you to stop being a procrastinator? It is a hurtful habit, I know from sad experience :(
I thank you. Honestly, I never thought of myself as a leader! In real life I am rather meek and compliant I'm afraid. But I know there's a tiger inside waiting to be unleashed if she's given the opportunity :) I do not know how I managed to win you over like that. Can you tell me how I did it, if you wouldn't mind? I persisted because I like people, and I think of what we can agree on far more than on what we disagree on. Finding common ground, especially on such a tough issue as abortion or anything else equally as controversial, is important to me because at that point we're viewing each other as enemies and we need to forget that we disagree and see each other's humanity. Please, make Love Joy Feminism a new home if you feel comfortable with that. Also, check out Friendly Atheist. I post there a lot sometimes and I would love to run into you again because you are a very sharp, bright, intelligent man yourself. Yes, men are right on the ball! A female leader has to recognise that rather than pandering to the idea that men are dumb and women are smart, because that's nonsense.
I don't do cyber space or anything, just comment on a few articles. I'm not into social media either, certainly no FB or Twitter. Of course it is flesh-and-blood human beings. Why the spontaneous responses from so many Disqus owners? You should have read his comments. I felt threatened, like I mentioned. I knew he couldn't touch me because of the computer screens, but I also knew he was a real person and his intentions towards me were less than honourable. You have to be very careful what you put up on the Internet, no kidding!
No offence, hahahaha! I love a good laugh - just as long as I get the gist of what I'm laughing about :) Aww, you're really laying it on thick; that's so sweet, thank you!
I value, respect, and love you too, first and foremost as a person. Also, as someone who has taught me a lot, and I deeply appreciate our conversations and the insight you have brought into them :) I don't think the agreement we have is perfunctory now, but rather sincere.
Hey, I'm aware you're not trying to brown-nose me, LOL. You were - and still are - pretty frank with me about where we disagree, I think. No brown-nosing there!
I believe in your integrity. I know you're not being disrespectful or sexually harassing me. I have experienced that once online and it was not fun believe me. BTW: thank you :)
I hope you don't mind if I copy your comment to the article on rape itself. Your thoughts are that good. I will respond to this comment at that article commenting section as well.
I am female, and proud to be a woman :) I do not believe in being dishonest about my identity, despite my desire for privacy. I'm not sure where I said you were Marxist, but thanks for clarifying. "as you'll learn about the Italian scholar whom created the term and analytical framework" Please tell me more. Who is this person? "I'll do to the other article (website) ... what's your aka name there?" It's Crystal there as well. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html When I respond to your off-topic comments I will take my responses there and let you know I have done so. Thank you for agreeing to shift the conversation. I do not want your good thoughts deleted just because they weren't on-par with the theme of this blog.
"I also have issues with whites defining, interpreting, and dictating the realities of non-whites ... not to be misconstrued with all human beings having input (voice) into the complexities of our species as "human beings" ." Can you please explain the difference between the two, as I'm a little mystified. I've never really heard of the word "hegemony" before speaking with you, so I would say you taught me something new. http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hegemony "Hegemony is political or cultural dominance or authority over others. The hegemony of the popular kids over the other students means that they determine what is and is not cool." Based on that definition, I can see totally what you mean - if indeed you are working by that definition. In other words, are you saying that people's choices, how they view themselves, and how they act, are influenced by the cultural and political hegemony around them? PS: I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take this discussion to at least one of those web pages I mentioned, because we are getting off-topic and I want to respect the moderator's rules while enjoying our chat. If you're agreeable, we can take it to that article on nonconsensual sex you enjoyed so much.
"I don't loathe or hate religion or spiritual folks. I just loathe when it becomes a rationale for killing or murdering or oppressing people:)" You're right; I should have taken note of that. I am spiritual but not religious myself. I have read that article about Doug Wilson in the past. On seeing it referenced, I can identify with why you're agnostic and critical of white hegemony. I read portions of his Southern Slavery as it Was with disgust. The man obviously has serious problems with critical thinking skills as it relates to morality :(
Of course they will be! And don't fear, our discussions will generally be very earth-centered and worldly, LOL. I hate Biblical Patriarchy and all it stands for with a passion. Unfortunately it is off-topic so I cannot expound but I feel that cult has helped to ruin any credibility conservatives might have had with liberals. They are a crazy lot. I especially loathe Doug Wilson.
I'm a Westerner. I have never been raped or abused by incest. However, I have read and have had the privilege of knowing people who have been raped, so their pain resonates with me. Also I am tokophobic, meaning I struggle with fearing pain and downsides in childbirth. I have also struggled with mental illness, meaning I am unprepared to have children. I'm definitely not trying to speak from a place of privilege. The only reason I believe abortion is wrong is that it takes an innocent human life. That's it. If it didn't do that I wouldn't be dead set against it.
Cool. If you ever want to discuss feminism or Biblical Patriarchy with me, that will be the place to find me. I deeply enjoy Love Joy Feminism and The Friendly Atheist.
Thanks for expressing your opinion on the article. I can understand your discomfort. I recognise that you want to be respectful to my sex by not bossing our bodies around and, while I disagree with your position on the abortion issue, I can appreciate the actual thought of wanting to respect female decisions. "I won't lie, the symbolize 50s looking white female with her baby image didn't resonate with me, for all kinds of cultural reasons ... including why "WHITE" still the default "universality" for "human representation" I share your deploring of white being the default state. I am white myself, yet in a way racism bothers me a lot more than sexism. White is not necessarily delightsome, the Book of Mormon be screwed. We need more non-white representations of models, protagonists in stories, etc. The white privilege - I find it bothersome.
No it isn't. It's a website dealing with a variety of topics. The mainstream commenters would generally share your views on the issue of abortion more than mine, although that's not the only thing discussed.
Your behaviour is almost no better, I'm sorry to say. While I would not approach the issue the way he does, I appreciate the fact he told it like it is.
Exactly so. As you yourself said, no right matters once your right to live is gone. I have tried and tried explaining this repeatedly but sometimes with little success. Do you think it is accusing advocates of legal abortion of ethnic cleansing to assert such a thing? Because I don't. To me, it's just stating a moral principle. Ironically I would consider myself a progressive person (in some ways). Yet I can see this sort of act runs afoul of all progressive values. We fight against ageism, for disability rights, yet we include abortion, euthanasia. Something's gotta give somewhere.
There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they're a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party that treats taxpayer funded abortion on demand for any reason throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy as the highest sacrament in the progressive/liberal religion. That's right, I said religion.
"There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they're a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party..." That statement seems ideological rather than factual: According to Gallup, in 2012, following are the percentage, in descending order, of people who identify as pro life in each party: Republicans - 72% Independent - 47% Democrats - 34% The percentage of US adults who identified as pro-life was 50% http(colon)//www(dot)gallup(dot)com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low(dot)aspx To put that 34% in perspective -- 70% of the US population is Christian, Evangelicals are 25% of the US population, that means Evangelicals are 36% of all Christians in the US. Would you consider Evangelicals a tiny minority of Christians?
Even if the poll you cite is accurate as to the percentage of supposedly pro-life Democrats, only a tiny minority of Democrats who hold elective office are pro-life. Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology.
"Even if the poll you cite is accurate as to the percentage of supposedly pro-life Democrats, only a tiny minority of Democrats who hold elective office are pro-life." What you said was: "There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they're a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party..." I provided data, to show that was not true. I do not intend to play move the goalposts with you. If you do, please do likewise, and provide some data to support your contention. "Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology." Again, purely ideological, in no way factual, and totally unimpressive intellectually. The fact that you repeat it just makes you look even less impressive. However, I did find some factual information about liberal and progressive theology. I have provided it below. However, no where does it mention "unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand" as a sacrament, much less their highest one: Liberal theology, covers diverse philosophically and biblically informed religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century onward. Liberal does not refer to Progressive Christianity or to a political philosophy but to the philosophical and religious thought that developed as a consequence of the Enlightenment. Progressive theology was much harder tp pin down, but I eventually found something from a Methodist church in the Midwest. In their promotion materials about who they are, they claim progressive theology as one of their unique identifiers. Below is a direct quote from their materials: 8 Points of Progressive Theology: by calling ourselves progressive we mean we are Christians who... find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty--more value in questioning than absolutes form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping another for the work we feel called to do; striving for justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of brothers and sisters invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us. have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus. understand the sharing of bread and wine in the name of Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient version of God's feast for all peoples know that the way we behave toward one another is the fullest expression of what we believe recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege
No, liberal/progressive theology was your term. I merely explained that the terms you were using actually had meanings that were nothing like what you characterize them as. I don't "believe" in theology at all. However, I do find it interesting from an academic/intellectual standpoint and have read a considerable amount about it. Why would you assume that the fact that I know something about a subject makes a statement regarding my relationship to it? For example, you likely understand the digestive system. Can I assume that makes you a turd?
It was meant to be a humorous analogy, not an insult. I like the fact that mudslinging is discouraged, but not hypersensitivity that would consider something like that mudslinging and/or offensive. However, I appreciate your concern.
Thanks for understanding and explaining why you said it. I think your contributions are good so I do not want to see you get banned or have your comments deleted. You sound like a real thinker.
Jim wouldn't be banned for that, because he wasn't slinging mud. He was making an analogy. It perhaps could have been made a little clearly and more effectively, but his intent is obvious.
How do you know that? If Jim H is Marxist won't he call himself that? From what I read of him, he hasn't made a decision on life issues either way but rather is very open-minded on the topic.
Nothing! My circumstances, at present, unfortunately do NOT permit me to get a Disqus registration or I would happily do so. It's a privacy measure. Also, I am not a troll. I realise a few people have abused the guest commenting facility but I would rather give thoughtful, rational reasons for what I believe than troll people.
"Wrong. Abortion stops a beating heart. An unborn baby. Try again." The above prior comment of mine was removed. Josh Brahm and his blog are pathetic. Last you'll be hearing from me on this thread.
I am in agreement with you that that comment should NOT have been removed, because it's the confounded truth, and we can't deny it to pander to sad feelies.
Why do you call it a religion? To me, it's more like a philosophical affiliation. There are different types - Marxists, SJWs (social justice warriors), more questioning liberals, etc.
This is why I call them "unborn persons"; so that we don't fight over the terminology yet I am strongly acknowledging their personhood. I created the term myself, off "pregnant persons." That aside, I agree with your comment. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that is why I am so dead set against it. I doubt anything will change my mind on the issue.
I've appreciated this conversation so much; it would be an honour for me to bring you to this website where we can talk some more if that's okay with you: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ You sound as if you'd get on well with the people there :)
I will answer your thoughts in detail later. You've won my respect because you care for us, the women. Thank you :) When I say, embrace my femininity, that means that I will appreciate myself in every way possible including my biological processes. Never mind the offence that causes. I think you will enjoy the Suffragette movie coming out then. I appreciate reading about the struggles women faced just to vote.
I'm not religious. Being prolife, for me, has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with standing for life-preserving morality. Also, I mentioned that I have no wish to suppress anyone. That being said, I am seeking a solution to this problem before us that will grant both pregnant persons their right to bodily autonomy and unborn persons their right to live, via technology and many other methods. I seek to care for and consider both because both are equally important, and it's time prolifers recognised that. That being said, my ideas of caring for both pregnant and unborn persons will not please everyone, and I recognise that as well. I appreciate your contributions to this forum and I have found you to be respectful and considerate. Thank you. However, as a woman I appreciate men and their intelligence a lot too. I think men and women need to rule together, not one over the other.
"UNTIL procreation takes place outside the female body" - do you think technology will ever make it possible for the procreated person to be moved to another location, after it was created inside the female body, to finish development before birth, without killing it? I do agree that women need to step up to the plate and take charge of their lives though. The only difference between you and me is that I don't believe that abortion is the best way to make that happen. Also the only difference between me and the mainstream PL movement is that I don't believe traditional views on female sexuality or even the status of unborn persons are the best way to make that happen either.
"1. If that "toddler" was a "zygote" ... NO, that decision will always be hers:)" I can understand that. I wonder though - didn't we start from a small beginning? Also, if the zygote has less worth than the toddler due to developmental differences, would the toddler have less worth than a teen due to such differences? Also, in regards to bodily autonomy - which type do you believe in, and I quote: "The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body." "The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with anything inside the sovereign zone of her body." http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/ 2. At least you are consistent with your view. You are correct to observe that humans generally don't step out of line to save the lives of others unless they feel up to the challenge. The Hunger Games illustrates that quite well. 3. What's a DSM 5 medical condition? PS: "cuz I love you ... cyber wise ..." Thanks for the compliment, returned, cyberwise :)
I've read feminist theory enough to sympathise with your views. We are definitely a special breed. I saved your comment for future reference. As I mentioned, my primary focus is foetal rights and not punishing women for sex, hence the mention of high techs. I don't choose to be viewed as an incubator. I'm not one. What I do choose is to seek out a solution that will genuinely reduce abortions while allowing women their right to live as they see fit. I do appreciate your concern for our sex, and I have noticed the obsequious deference to male judgment myself. Which is why I'm trying to reclaim my femininity back, so these guys can't dominate me.
Thank you for explaining your reasons. "but rarely on the technology to procreate outside the female body ... and rarely on the systemic and institutional conditions that make it unfathomable to bring a child into this world ... poverty, war, disease, bigotry." On this, we agree. I do have a question though: if you saw a woman trying to drown her toddler due to depression and anxiety on her part, would you step in to stop the drowning taking place, or not?
Well, we finally found something to come half-way on, and that's good. I'm not sure poverty will ever be completely eradicated but it helps to reduce it, yes? Also I advocate for contraceptives, sex education, and social safety nets. I am sorry that the mainstream PL movement hasn't made preserving bodily autonomy and unborn human life together its primary focus.
"If a majority or minority of women decide ALL FEMALES MUST PROCREATE or be defined as evil, immoral, criminals, murders, etc ... or raise their kids in poverty, crime, eventual prison or death ... then let that be the political-decision of ALL FEMALES ... never EVER male patriarchs:)" Agreed 100%, because conservative Christian men who preach abstinence aren't helping IMO. One question to ask though - do you personally believe it is your prerogative to step in when you see something unjust being perpetrated, even if that injustice does not personally affect you?
With respect, you've made a few mistakes. First off, I am not American. Second, I believe in the core doctrine of prolife, which is protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. However, I agree that the mainstream PL movement is doing more harm than good with its incremental laws. What I would like to see happen is superior technological alternatives that will allow unborn persons to live while granting women bodily autonomy, because I have talked extensively to abortion advocates and agree with the principle of respecting the bodily autonomy of both unborn and pregnant persons. BTW, prolife to me means protecting ALL life of humans and animals, not just unborn human life. Which is why I appreciate the work that Black Lives Matter does.
Thanks for responding back. "Bringing a child or children into poverty conditions is cruel!" I agree that it is cruel. Which is why I advocate for fighting poverty, one of the root causes of abortion. May I ask what led you to advocate for abortion to remain legal?
May I please remind you of the commenting policy: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/ Please read it before proceeding here. Josh's rules are so strict that even a few of your friends failed to pass muster.
Of course not. I simply don't want to see you get banned. I was making friends with PJ4 and Infadelicious and BOOM! They're gone. It was quite a shock to me, and I don't want the same happening to you.
Frankly, after hearing the comments from fellow pro-lifers, including the ones you mentioned, it does not matter to me either way. Thank you for your concern Crystal. Have a great week. -:)
Have a great week too, Wild_Bird. I deeply appreciate your barrage at me when you misunderstood my position because you clearly and concisely stated my views so well. I hope you don't mind if I borrow it, LOL. Also please let PJ, Infadelicious, and all the other banned folks and the ones that won't comment for fear of banning know that I appreciated their company, conversation, and contributions, and if they want to see me again they can write in at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives.
Thank you for your comment Crystal. PJ4 and Infadelicious are great. I hold them both in high regard. This post will serve as a message to PJ4 and Infa that Crystal holds them in high regard and that you would be happy if they re-connect with you at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives. Kind regards, Wild_Bird
Yes, but can they see it? Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL. And thank you!
"Yes, but can they see it? Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL. And thank you!" I do not have any of their email addresses. My reply to your post on Disqus will have to suffice. Note you are free to register on Disqus and follow anyone you wish also. I cannot even see your dashboard.
"You Pro Life are Domestic Terrorist and should be viewed and dealt with like such!" How do you know that for sure? Also, may I point your attention to the comment policy please: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 I am sure that you have a lot to contribute provided you read the commenting policy and observe it properly.
"That's what abortions do ... solve the problem of UNWANTED pregnancies . . ." If a woman does not want the "problem" of an unwanted pregnancy, then she should take responsibility BEFOREHAND. If she fails to do that, the unborn baby's inalienable right to life should be protected. Once the baby's most fundamental human right has been protected and the baby has been born, the mother is free to put that child up for adoption. Interestingly, your most fundamental human right, the right to be born, was respected yet you would callously deny that same right to others. Have you no shame?
I mean this respectfully - sometimes it is necessary. However if you're wanting to discuss the matter civilly and hopefully persuade people to your views then it's not the best course.
You may want to say a more nuanced version of this. There are obviously cases where killing human life is not wrong, like self-defense. I think you mean something like, "abortion kills a valuable person without good justification."
I could call your movement pro-abort (because I would have good reason to do so), but I won't. Also, I'm very sad that we can't talk about the things we have in common. I saw you were a multicultural, third-wave, feminist, African-American man, and I thought that was so nice, because I deeply appreciate multicultural, third-wave philosophy. I'd like to talk to you about these things and to understand why you advocate for abortion to remain legal, but I'm not sure I can if you're going to take digs at me the way you did.
I am sorry you feel that way about us. I can assure you we are not terrorists. I would respectfully ask you not to call us pro-death because it is extremely offensive. If I'm not allowed to say "pro-abort" despite having very good reasons for using the term, then it would be a good thing for advocates for legal abortion to reciprocate the favour, if you understand what I mean. That put aside, I think we share a lot in common and you would be an interesting person to talk to.
It is one thing to be kind no matter what someone says. We are talking killing here! There is NOTHING wrong with righteous indignation toward defenders of slaughtering the innocent! Jesus made that perfectly clear. Being kind is nice to a point. But shaving that point to much and you end up with nothing and the evidence is obvious..the baby loses because of that mans NONSENSE! Being articulate is great on paper!
This is becoming a fairly common response from pro-lifers to me and other pro-life advocates like me that try to have positive interactions with pro-choice people. This post might help you understand that we're not telling people to be "too nice:" http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dont-be-too-nice/
Okay, James, this is how I see it. I try very hard NOT to be nice to the action of abortion (I struggle in this area because of fear of humanity, more than anything). I consider it morally reprehensible and and have gotten into serious trouble for expressing such a sentiment and similar ones to it on more than one occasion. However the people need to be reached, and I'm not going to be able to reach them if I start insulting them and using pejorative terms. I'd rather get someone to really think, and reconsider their position by being respectful than put them off by name-calling. I'm very much for calling a spade a spade, and I understand there is a balance at the same time. You have every right to your anger, James. You are right, babies are dying. However taking out your anger on the action and the causes of the action rather than ridiculing and name-calling the people is the best way to handle this, IMHO. Please read the comment policy before continuing to comment here as I appreciate your input here and don't want to see you get moderated: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I deleted a lot of comments from you were you calling people names. It would take me too long to find whatever deleted comment you're referring to right now. I think I was being gracious by not banning you for how much name-calling you did. Now I'm going through hundreds of new comments from the last 48 hours, and moderating that.
I don't know what that deleted comment said. Another person, one of whose comments you deleted, is an online friend of mine. I don't know what that comment said either. But overall I'm clear that your moderation efforts have made this site a better space for dialogue. Thanks for doing the extra work that was required this time.
Honey I'm not buying the crap your selling. Save it for Salon. Those asshats may take you up your bullshite but not here. Now scat! You are an tremendous waste of space and time.
Please remember the comment policy before proceeding: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 Oh, and this blog is a safe space, for prolifers who want to hear themselves think and advocates for legal abortion who want to explore prolife ideas.
My friend Josh Brahm will be HIGHLY offended when he sees your comment. If you dislike the comment policy, take it up with him. I'm just trying to enforce the rules: Oh, and here's a relevant section for you to mull over carefully before proceeding further with any comments here: "5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine. Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is, in my sole opinion, (a) snarky; (b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site or your most recent blog post." PS: I don't take drugs. I'm a teetotaler.
You began this conversation not me. I don't care who you are friends with, your threats are of no concern. There is no need to reply, your long winded comments "trigger me". I'm gonna look for a safe space, hooefully government provided.
I didn't threaten you. I simply pointed out that the moderators have strict rules on this blog, and also pointed out that your comments about safe spaces were triggering to survivors of traumatic events. I have no plans to quarrel with you so will leave you to your own devices.
But I went back and viewed the discussion you were responding to. I have to say the whole thing was pretty much off the wall You were the voice of reason.
So your claim here is that the baby comes out in a painless puff of smoke, and that you don't want to force women to remain pregnant against their will?
If I was not a vegetarian at heart, of course not, because the steak would be dead. Unborn persons are living. Ann, I believe I should remind you of the commenting policy; please read it: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Then you're good with clamping off an artery leading to the uterus, right? Let me guess, dead fetuses are too specialty-special to dismember. Certainly they are too special to do medical research on, such as is often done on other dead bodies, because a dead fetus is so much more important and special than a live infant. Especially since that would get around your real purpose of making the woman suffer as much as possible by removing it in small pieces, rather than one large one. How about this - I will make you eat a grapefruit. You will prove how easy it is to get a large object through a small hole by letting me stuff it intact, down your throat. If you prefer it be cut up, then you will have proven that you are a forced birth liar.
So, what you are saying here, is that if some pervert is sodomizing a 'pwecious baybee', I should either stand around wringing my hands or go whine about it on the internet, rather than use 'force and violence'. There is no right to someone else's body. Or any property belonging to someone else. If you have managed to get a hold of or occupy something belonging to someone else, it will be removed, or you will be removed. Even if it is necessary to use 'force and violence'. Even if it costs you your 'very life'. Even if you are really cute and even if spoiled teenage girls are really sad.
There is no right to someone else's body. If you truly belive this, then why would you spend large sums money attempting to create a baby, to impregnate yourself... Why do you believe you have a right to a baby's body?
"If you truly belive this, then why would you spend large sums money attempting to create a baby, to impregnate yourself..." I certainly wouldn't spend any amount of money trying to create a baby, and knowing Ann Morgan, she wouldn't either. That being said, adults who wish to procreate have every right to do so. The right to procreate is in no way, shape or form a "right to someone else's body." It's the human right of adults to create a family (or not), and you have no right to interfere in that in any way.
That is a fair answer, IMO. The only way this moral dilemma can be solved in our society is through love. If it's true what you say about hate and abortion, then prolifers who hate people who disagree with them are no better off.
To him, yes. But please don't stop responding to me, Bucksergeant, as I'm sure you have some valuable insights to offer. For instance, did you get my question about the idea of abortion being murder being responsible for the massacre that occurred recently? I think that idea is faulty; what do you think?
Back at you. Wherever you roam. I don't care about affiliation or party or stance, only how I am treated and interacted with. You did not deserve my initial hostility, but I remain accountable for my good faith error in response. You're not my enemy. Be well.
Thank you; I work hard at being civil and factual. I can be horrifically nasty -- I view it as a personal weakness -- so I am very, very careful most of the time to remind myself there is a real person on the other end. I do slip sometimes, especially when I'm stretched thin IRL. Then I take a break. :)
With your nod, Shifty, I'm pleased to edit my comments to you to be less abrasive; you've treated me well and I'm happy to PAX. The only reason I haven't is a sense of accountability for my posts, good or bad. For the record I neither flagged nor reported you.
I understand how difficult it can be, Bucksergeant. I do not believe in people stalking others. There wasn't really anything wrong with your three-letter comment, and I know people can hurt others. You have my sympathy as well. However, I think that, due to Josh's strict rules, it would be best that you stopped responding. You're feeding him every time you write up. Besides, I appreciate your presence here and feel you have much to contribute provided you follow the commenting guidelines. I would like your opinion on something though: what do you think of the idea that prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they call abortion murder?
Shifty, I must sternly remind you: According to the comment policy, name-calling and quarrels from other websites are strictly prohibited: And I quote: "5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine. Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is, in my sole opinion, (a) snarky; (b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site or your most recent blog post."
At least one definition of murder is "unlawful killing". Some forms of killing are not unlawful and those who kill in those situations are not subject to being charged with murder.
I find it self-serving. I have found little conviction in the positions of "Pro-choicers". It seems more like an issue of convenience to push a flawed ideology to me. A political wedge to divide opponents into discrete clumps so they are less pesky. An elite solution to an unsolvable problem. All it does is justify elites.
Although I have found both positives and negatives in legal abortion advocate philosophy, I agree with you. Positives:
1) a strong love for bodily autonomy 2) a deep respect for women's choices and possibly a few other traits. I state this for many reasons, not the least of which is that bodily autonomy and consent arguments can be used to fight forced sterilisation and forced euthanasia, which is good. For all these, their arguments, no matter how brilliant, cannot justify the wrong that is done every time an innocent human life is snuffed out of the world. They are academic, philosophical attempts to justify the unjustifiable. I'm a simple person, with a simple knowledge that "abortion stops a beating heart" and that is all I need to know.
Well, I'd like to apply the same standard, but how many times has a conservative group been attacked? You have that 1 guy you give as an example. And?
OK, how about PUBLICLY proclaiming conservatives to be killed? ... crickets?
Oh, there must be an example similar to Christian preachers who were overjoyed that gays got gunned down in Orlando (Rodrigo Jimenez, Pastor Anderson), or who called for governmental extermination of gays (Pastor Anderson) or who called for gays to be put on a desert island to die (Pastor Worley), or who travelled to Africa to help write the "Kill the Gays" legislation (Pastor Lively) or who .... well, you get the idea.
Countless bombings of clinics, harassment of doctors and patients, shootings. So how many times has a Christian-run equivalent been bombed or shot up?
I'd like to apply the same standard, but there just hasn't been any cases to apply it to.
And certainly one shouldn't cheer protesters getting run over, no matter how much they harass you, as you have told me that there are protesters who do indeed harass in another thread. But I don't see pro-choice leaders actually calling for violence in the way that there are some that do on the pro-life side.
And of course, Mr. MinorityStress up above does a tremendous job in wishing me death because he thinks I'm gay. Sad to say, this is not the first time I've seen the Godly pro-life types say something like this, and probably one of the main reasons I'm having a hard time dissociating pro-life from homophobic, Christian bigotry.
BTW, I'm not blaming the guy who shot-up a PP clinic (yet again) on you guys, even though he was mumbling something about baby parts, the new buzzword in your circle that seems to persist despite 20 or so states having investigated and found nothing to substantiate the claims. He was probably crazy, and this just pushed him over the edge. Of course, it seems pretty clear that had not fake videos been put out, this wouldn't have happened, but no, its not your fault at all.
And yeah, I am very sorry for the homophobia. however, I have a hard time distinguishing pro-choicers from ableist bigotry. After all, your side is currently exploiting ableist prejudice about people with microcephaly to legalize abortion in other countries and to legalize late term abortion in certain US states. Even disabled pro-choicers have called out this disgusting use of prejudice. The fact that you seem not to care that ableism is present throughout the medical community, and affects our right to life, not only before birth but after as well, and that so many "pro-choice" doctors pressure parents to abort for fetal abnormalities that entire support groups are filled up with parents dealing with it, shows me the true depth of your character.
And you may not be aware, but there is still a federal house investigation of the PP tapes. And both the PP and the Alliance Defending Freedom paid for forensic analyses showed no evidence of video manipulation. ADF report found no substantial evidence of any manipulation. http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9764
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/planned-parenthood-undercover-videos-report-finds-manipulation-121800.html
your side
I'm not necessarily a pro-choicer in the US mold. I go more the way of Europe and Japan, and think that the procedure should be restricted, and there should be no late-term abortions unless medically necessary.
I'm just saying stop complaining about the possibility that you yourself will now be on the receiving end of the same protests that you're gladly taking part in now.
turned into riots
And white college students riot, oh I'm sorry "party", when their school football team loses, turning over cop cars and setting shit on fire. White people being unruly == "party" or "boys will be boys". Black people being unruly == "riot by thugs".
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-latest-kentucky-riot-is-part-of-a-long-destructive-sports-tradition/
But I digress. BLM is irrelevant to this discussion, even though now even Donald Trump is saying he's "Troubled" by the recent Tulsa shooting. I'm saying stop making yourself out to be a victim of the very protest that you're currently a part of. It sounds dumb.
The analogy isn't BLM protesting. Rather, its a BLM protester who was out protesting the night before, going the next morning to catch the bus, finding the roads closed because of the burned out cars and such, and complaining about the state of his/her city. I'm not saying pro-lifers don't have a right to protest (though going up to individuals and screaming at them doesn't really seem like protest, but I digress again). Protest and partake in your hobby all you want. I'm saying then complaining about the state of affairs your protests have brought about, that these clinics aren't safe because you'll get harassed.... um, I shed crocodile tears.
You assume that i don't support BLM. I do. I also support their right to protest. And if a peaceful BLM protester complains about the burned down buildings in his neighborhood because of the riots, he has every right to, because he was peacefully protesting an injustice, not burning down those buildings. He has every right to decry rioting while promoting peaceful protest of police brutality. And he shouldn't be told to stop his peaceful protests because others might escalate the situation into a riot, since the alternative is ignoring blatant injustice.
I must respectfully disagree with you. I have had an email correspondence of sorts with this guy, and he's the total opposite of what you said. He nearly always responds to his emails (unlike most of us!), and acknowledges people. He's treated me with nothing but kindness and I would be honoured to make his further acquaintance if ever I get the chance.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html
Scroll down the Newest button on that article and look at what he did to me. He screwed with my mind, Josh.
Then he tried pulling this same crp on me on this page:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/donald-trump-is-disaster-waiting-to.html
If it hadn't been for two very good friends going to bat for me I would have been emotionally devastated. I've taken your advice; we haven't exchanged *a word since that incident.
Also, even before that, he was making inappropriate comments to me on YOUR website, saying things like "I wouldn't want to procreate with you" and casting doubt on some of my words. How would you react if I told you I didn't want to procreate with you?
You're lucky he didn't try screwing with your mind the way he did with me, and I think he did it because I am PL.
Legally speaking, abortion isn't murder. But it should be made illegal so that unborn persons are protected.
Morally speaking, however, it IS and I have no problem saying that without apology; I have gotten into trouble for this on more than one occasion. I'm not sorry for that.
This is what I said once, and it earned me brownie points for intolerance:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/if_the_gop_defunded_planned_parenthood_this_is_how_americans_would_suffer/#comment-2203901557
My point is that I try to remember this: Loving, truthful people are almost always more persuasive than unloving, truthful people. I would rather turn people away from belief in abortion than ridicule them for it. Sometimes, people believe in abortion because they have heard no other way and it's my job to let them know, there is another way. How am I going to communicate that if I am hostile to the people? The action, however, deserves righteous anger; I agree with you there and I admire your desire to speak out on behalf of the unborn. I hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from. I have no desire to compromise on the topic but rather to reach people with the truth and challenge them to think, and the best way to do that is to be respectful.
That being said, in a way I agree with you. The PL movement has made a shoddy job of things and it's time we manned up and spoke about the action in the strongest of terms.
Does this look like a baby to you?
That's why I'm not pro-life because I get warm, fuzzy feelings when I look at an embryo. I don't. I'm pro-life because one of the strongest beliefs I have is that all human adults should have an equal right to life, and when I try to make sense of that view, I come to believe that it must be because we all have something in common, something that we have equally.
Most pro-choice people I talk to think that thing is something like sentience, self-awareness, viability, or something similar. The problem with all of the pro-choice definitions I've heard is they either would give the equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, and/or they would exclude newborns from having an equal right to life.
I think having the intrinsic ability to think and act morally is the thing that ACTUALLY makes us equal. But that's a rational view, not an emotional one.
I'm very cautious to label anything with "intrinsic value" because value is highly situational. Just as an example of that, were I to have a choice between being marooned away from civilization with a) the Hope Diamond, or b) a magnifying glass, I would find the magnifying glass to be of much greater value than the gemstone. Priceless items in such a situation quickly become "just another pebble."
Adult women are of more value than any hundred fetuses, and that's just how it is.
You can certainly argue that that intrinsic ability is NOT something that matters morally, but arguing that not everybody has that intrinsic ability seems to me to be a losing argument.
Your paragraph about intrinsic value is confusing to me, because you say that value is situational, and then describe the case where two items have different instrumental value depending on the situation. So we certainly agree about the thought experiment you made, but it's not about intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the idea that something has value because of the kind of thing it is. Instrumental value is when something has value because somebody else values it, like dollar bills, or a magnifying glass.
So when you assert that "adult women are more valuable than any hundred fetuses," I would ask you what you mean by "value." Presumably you mean "instrumental value," because it doesn't look like you meant "intrinsic value" in anything you said. I would agree that an adult woman has more instrumental value than any hundred fetuses. I would however argue that all people have equal intrinsic value, because people are things with serious moral status.
I think most likely the main area where we disagree is I think a human fetus is a person, and you don't. I'm glad to discuss that. I know that fetuses are not clear cases of persons for many people.
I'm open to the argument that some people are more intrinsically valuable than others, but it'll be pretty hard to convince me, because one of the strongest views I have is that all people are equally intrinsically valuable.
*Enjoying the discussion, but forgive me if I don't respond quickly in the next few weeks. We're about to leave for two trips, and won't be able to access my computer very much during them. :)
A huge part of the debate hinges upon that question. I'm more interested in arguments for a view versus merely asserting a view.
My argument that both have the same intrinsic value is that I don't think we can make sense of human equality in a way that makes sense without excluding the unborn. I want to know WHY all humans should have an equal right to life EXCEPT for the unborn, in a way that's not ad hoc. Every attempt I've seen by pro-choice people to define personhood as something like sentience or self-awareness or viability has at least one of two problems: they either give an equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, or they exclude obvious cases of persons like newborns.
Again, I want to hear your argument for why the unborn aren't persons, but simply asserting that women are more valuable isn't enough.
"And seriously, how much 'naturally ordered ability to think and act morally' does your 18 month old have?"
You misquoted me. I said, "I believe that all humans, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered toward developing the ability to think and act morally, and that is what matters."
The way you quoted me changes what we're talking about from an intrinsic ability to an immediate ability. It's worse than a strawman. It's literally quoting me as if I'm saying the OPPOSITE of what I'm saying.
I believe all humans, including fetuses, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered towards developing the ability to think and act morally, thus they have the intrinsic ability as soon as they are their own organism.
I'd like to know why YOU think a fetus possesses a right you don't have, to wit, the right to take what you need to live from the body of another? Nobody has that right. Not you, not me, and not my born children. And before they were born, they had no such "right" either.
That's the crux of the issue. Answer the following question:
My body belongs to________.
a) You.
b) The state.
c) The church.
d) Anyone and everyone who "needs it."
e) Me.
Answer, using yourself, and you will have your answer.
My body belongs to me, but that doesn't give me the right to directly kill people with my body.
I don't think a mother is intrinsically obligated to carry her child up until birth. I know that sounds weird, but stay with me. If we could Star Trek beam the baby into an artificial womb that it could survive in, I'm fine with that. The problem is that the only alternative to her carrying her child until birth is intentionally destroying her child. Given our current technology, she has to carry the child but it's because of the alternatives. She cannot kill the unborn child. She cannot kill a born child who wants her kidney, though she can deny the kidney. She can unplug from the violinist, she may not take a machete to him.
I notice that you haven't responded to any of my arguments regarding human equality.
Abortion is more on point with unplugging the violinist. He will die. But he never had the right to use her body to sustain his life to begin with. That requires continuing consent.
I haven't addressed human equality, because it's irrelevant. We all EQUALLY have no right to level a claim to the body of another. How's that?
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Mahatma Ghandi
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Mahatma Gandhi
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Mahatma Gandhi
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
Only one problem here that derails the whole argument. The author and his brother implicitly acknowledge that there ARE circumstances where killing abortion practitioners are not only necessary, but morally justified (which is an inevitable conclusion given the language we use to describe abortion). They even lay out the circumstances necessary (a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed).
Here's the problem. Right wing politicians and demagogues are stating exactly that. That Obama is a terrorist or a muslim extremist, that at the end of his term he's going to usurp control of the government, that he's a manchurian candidate in league with muslim radicals...The language the Pro Life movement uses the language of war and implied despotism (holocaust, state sanctioned mass murder, etc.) You've got politicians, TV personalities, and Pastors stating that this is 'The End Times,' that we must take action now, that the great battle between good and evil is at hand.
So on the one hand you have a movement implying that drastic action is only acceptable in specific circumstances, and on the other you have TV personalities, religious leaders, and politicians all using language and imagery designed to stoke the imaginations of this specific audience into believing that those very circumstances are at hand.
Necessary conditions: a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed.
Sufficient conditions: [none stated]
Definitely insufficient: Some street preacher with a cardboard sign saying the world is about to end, or a talk radio host calling the U.S. president a Muslim terrorist.
I can't take your comment seriously.
Ironic. I'm not the one blaming a lunatic's violent actions on a peaceful social movement.
"You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact
became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to
PP's being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that
even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not
make the CMP culpable -- because even if PP is criminal, violence would
be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?"
Two weeks later, this occurs to me: I think that a person has some culpability even for an unreasonable response to what they said, if what they said was a lie that increased the chance (however small the chance might be) of the response that took place.
Probably the laws of some countries would agree with this.
Another witness . . . heard a man. . . . The man was saying something to the
effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The
witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and . . .
people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’
atmosphere.”
What does "it" refer to? Did people find an excuse to riot because of the
mere existence of the narrative, or because they sincerely believed the
narrative? Anyway, though the article doesn't mention Black Lives Matter itself, I don't think that Black Lives Matter itself was on the scene at that moment in Ferguson.
The article also says, it is important for us to note that the initial “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant after Brown’s shooting has evolved into a message that is no
longer connected solely to the Ferguson event. A series of other fatal
shootings by police occurred following Brown’s death, and the “Hands up,
don’t shoot” came to symbolize the need to hold law enforcement
accountable
If the use of the slogan cannot reasonably be expected to dupe anyone into believing that Brown actually had his hands up, then I don't think those who use the slogan are responsible for what anyone hearing it does. But if it may well dupe people, and if those who use it know that Brown didn't likely have his hands up, and if someone is motivated by being so duped to do something violent, then clearly those who used the slogan helped cause the violence -- maybe they only helped slightly, but they helped -- and did so knowing they were lying. I think the lying makes them partially responsible. Whether we use the word "blame" would depend on whether we think that the violence was definitely a bad thing in the greater scheme of things, and think that that bad was not offset by some greater good that would justify it.
"I suspect the anti-abortion agenda of the PLM is a ruse for a hidden covert patriarchy objective ... as suggested by their refusal to reallocate their focus and resources on birth-control during Realities 1, addressing the risks females experience during Realities 2, and addressing the sober harsh realities non-wealthy females and children do and would experience in Realities 3."
Agreed and disagreed.
I agree in the way that the PL movement is generally run by abstinence-only, conservative-minded Christian people. I find their sex ethics generally shocking, to be frank. Also, what you say makes sense in this way: making all children be born into a world that will not value their existence once they are born is not a good thing. I simply don't think the solution to this is abortion. What I do believe is that the solution lies at least partially in addressing the issues you stated, and I quote:
"1. Pre-Conception-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs
2. Pregnancy Risk Realities - Female Autonomy
3. Post-Birth-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs"
To be honest, I doubt that some of the PL leaders even care for unborn persons. Their incremental laws disgust me for two reasons: they treat unborn persons as political pawns rather than persons in need of protection under the law, and they treat pregnant persons as political pawns rather than thinking, feeling people. Furthermore, the views of some of the RW individuals running things behind the scenes, such as theonomy, make me shudder. I might be a strict PLer but I can empathise with the emotional insecurity a woman feels when she has no way of controlling her reproductive output on her own terms. I have felt the sick, cold feeling in the pit of my stomach, in my daydreams, as I have imagined what being a married woman with no recourse to prevent pregnancy via contraception must be like. To top it all off with fear of pregnancy and childbirth - ugh. So I despise these politicians and leaders because they make matters worse.
I disagree in the sense that the PL movement is focused primarily on saving unborn persons, and that is a good focus to have. I do not think that focus should be shifted away from unborn persons, yet I believe that unborn persons should not be the only focus they have, as abortion is a banaid issue covering up a host of other issues - poverty, etc - as you mentioned. Keeping it focused only on illegalising unborn persons yields only one result - illegalisation - and not only addresses nothing in reality but can also be abused so that pregnant persons receive the short side of the stick. The fact that PLers haven't really thought through the implications of abuse of pregnant persons is highly troubling to me. Such laws might eliminate the taking of life legally (which is a good thing) but they won't answer the issues that cause women to get abortions, and this is wrong to me. I like to ask my fellow prolifers sometimes, if they are so keen to eliminate this morally unacceptable practice, why would you not want to understand the hows, whys, and wherefores of the action, and once you have the understanding, to eliminate the reasons for abortion so that women will not have the incentive to have abortions anymore.
I will write up more later. Again, I deeply appreciate your contributions!
I think Pew broke down the opinions of people who pray daily about abortion by race but, if I remember correctly, there were only 5 racial categories.
I appreciate your love for me. Please know I love you and your partner as well.
I hope that I have made it clear that I care about all people, not just unborn persons; that I care very much about post-birth guarantees for making the world a better place; and that I do not like the idea of ensuring unborn persons are born then left to die because society did not do its job by caring for them, ensuring they had a reasonable standard of living and educating them.
Regarding Roe v Wade, I have stated, on many occasions that I do not believe it will ever be overturned, and pro-life people are wasting their time trying to do so.
I try to stay on top of surveys and statistical information concerning people's opinions on abortion. Most polls indicate the vast number of people do not favor overturning Roe v Wade in its entirety.
They (Pew and Gallop) also, indicate the majority do not support the extreme positions of either; opposition to abortions regardless of any circumstances, and support for abortions under any/all circumstances.
Most people end up somewhere in the middle.
I think the available data is clear about two things. The first is that most people have moral reservations about abortion. They and believe there must be some sort of justification or rationale for such an action.
The second is that most people do not believe abortions should simply be illegal.
I found some data from a poll commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee that had a greater degree of detail than most. It also assured I couldn't be accused of a pro-abortion bias.
[http(colon)//www(dot)nationalrighttolifenews(dot)org/news/2013/04/new-poll-shows-pro-life-majority-on-abortion/#.VlAsbv9dFy0
I drew the following conclusions:
This poll showed only 11% are in favor of banning all abortions. The number who think it should be legal in all circumstance is almost the same at 12%. So, that correlates well with other poll data I've presented, so it appears to be very reasonable to say both represent extreme minority positions.
Only 30% see the stage of fetal development of the fetus as an exclusive criteria. 20% see three months (much like Roe v Wade's trimester plan) as a cut-off point for abortions for any reason. Only 10% support viability (six months) as the cut-off point.
More people (over 42%) see other circumstances as a criteria for allowing abortion. Only 14% see the life of the mother as the sole criteria for allowing, those who include rape and incest represent another 14%. The study asked one question about all three circumstances together which was 28% and then asked exclusively about the life of the mother.
I need to take a break, but I will be happy to take up the rest of your comments soon.
and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing
procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting
and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control ...
excluding setting up their own abortions providers beyond those that
already exist."
I believe in partial reallocation of the funds rather than complete, and that is where we will have a difference. However I believe we agree on these other measures you mentioned - "reducing systematic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing
procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting
and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control".
"This sounds like you're suggesting the medical staff (or mother) LIE about needing the abortion."
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that in some cases, the doctor made a mistake and deemed it "life-of-the-mother" when that baby could have been saved. At the same time, I recognise that, for the present, the life that can be saved should be saved. Which sometimes means saving the mother even if that involves an abortion. I do, however, hope for a day that will employ technology to save both*.
"Also, I'm stunned that you would focus on society mobilizing and
allocating resources to make sure that fetus is born (regardless of what
you consider the "female incubators" wishes) into what real world
conditions ... that the same society does not currently mobilize and
allocate resources to guarantee a middle class or wealthy class LIFE."
I hope I can assure you that I *do not want to see a society that keeps people alive because they're not born yet, but does not care for them and simply leaves them in the slums to die after they're born; in my book that is as anti the prolife ethic as taking their lives before they are born. If I have given the impression that I care only for saving unborn persons to the exclusion of all else, I am sincerely saddened, because that is not what I want at all.
"You want society to find a way via criminalizing abortion, inventing
technology, and mobilizing and allocating resources to GUARANTEE THAT
BIRTH ... but remain silent about ANY POST-BIRTH GUARANTEES."
Well, actually, did I mention that there would have to be a lot to change in the post-birth world as well? If not, I should have. No, I'm not solely for replacement of abortion via high techs, nor solely for protecting unborn persons via legal means, although that is something I'm not ashamed of. I appreciate the fact you pointed this out, because, if this was going to work, a number of things would have to change or at least improve, as follows: 1) Adoption would need to be reformed. The adoption system, at the present time, is in a terrible mess. People who shouldn't be allowed to adopt children are, and that concerns me.
2) Social safety nets would have to be strengthened rather than taken away from women, because if women are going to keep their babies, then they will need help and support in that.
3) Contraceptives would have to be improved, strengthened, multiplied and freely available.
4) Sex education would also have to be freely available. But it would have to be a type that did not shame people for not fitting into cultural norms.
5) Altering our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy would have to be a must*. We would have to be far more accepting of solo motherhood than we are now. Also, women could no longer be seen as criminals for having sex whilst in possession of a uteri. Furthermore, no woman should have to ever, ever be afraid when she gets pregnant. She would need the security of knowing she can apply for nonjudgmental help, and that she would be aided, and the path to being a parent or adopting out would be made simple for her, rather than hard as it is now.
6) Combating the actual causes of abortion would be imperative also. If unborn persons have a right to life, so do born persons. As I mentioned, we would have to deal with poverty, domestic violence, rape culture, rape and incest, etc. Also we would have to channel our greatest services for free education, free healthcare, free help of all types, etc, into poor neighbourhoods, so that young people could have a chance to grow up without living in slums. Any woman who wants to escape an abusive relationship would have to know she could get a hotline. Also any woman who got pregnant would have to go to a healthcare center and have her options explained to her, without judgment. Last but not least we would have to believe rape victims and victims of incest rather than the perpetrators.
While I have my opinions I recognise that abortion is not just a moral issue by itself, but a bandaid on a host of other issues. Therefore, simply guaranteeing birth without guaranteeing born citizens are looked after is absurd and wrong because the bandaid would only be changed, not disregarded. In other words, if we dealt with the issues that caused abortion, we would be reducing abortions nearly half-way at least and that would be a good thing. You are correct in saying that if birth was to be guaranteed we would have to change post-birth conditions as well in order to ensure our future generations had a better world to grow up in. I hope I have made myself clear that I don't hold to the adage "If you're pre-birth, you're fine; if you're pre-school, you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned."
"Wow ... all pregnancies must be born no matter what reality going on with the "female incubators" and "post-birth" ..."
In regards to that, I mentioned the technology that would ensure that unborn persons got to live yet pregnant persons got to decide whether they wanted to carry or not, because I am not for women being made to carry a pregnancy if they don't wish to. I simply part ways with the legal abortion advocate crowd on the issue of abortion being the best method to achieve this bodily freedom.
"Heck, the GOP opposes our government allocating food stamps to already
born poor and low-income struggling human beings whom need to eat, plus a
whole scope of other life sustaining and empowering resources."
You know what? I *agree with you on this! I am very much for food stamps and other such social services going to poor people, and I have no problem paying my taxes to ensure that these people get fed.
"Our species doesn't even know what such a concept or reality looks like ... all human life and quality of life guaranteed."
That is a world I would like to see a reality, as I explained above.
"I'm sorry, but I have to opine ... the PLM is so misguided in how it
mobilizes and allocates its labor hours and millions of dollars in
resources ... all of which could be focused 100% on guaranteeing a
quality life for already alive human beings outside the womb ... and
yes, even those unborn fetus they demand be born by "female incubators"
worldwide."
I agree. They need to care for everyone. The problem is that they are run by this capitalist mindset that makes poor people into automatic criminals. As for me, I want my resources to help everyone - unborn and born alike. Not just one group of people, everyone. I hope we understand each other a little better now.
I deeply appreciate that you explained what you believe about the movement itself without attacking those who adhere to PL belief. It was a very thorough and thought-provoking critique, IMO. I don’t really have too much to say in response except that it is an area worth seriously researching and self-examining, more than I have. If you’re wrong, I will let you know. But if you’re right, I’ll let you know that too.
I don’t represent or belong to the PL movement but am rather an outlier, because it is run, at least in part, by conservative Christian people who believe in old-fashioned abstinence ideals that don’t help matters any. In my heart, I left it a while back (I was never officially part of it) because I questioned some of their legislative methods and could see their laws generally (not always, but generally) weren’t helping. I’m still PL in my heart and I’m
open to listening to both sides (prolife and advocate for legal abortion) of the topic so I can learn more about how to treat this sensitive issue. I have a lot to say about how I believe abortions can be reduced, and I want to talk about it more one day if you’re comfortable with that, but I will leave my thoughts for the present at this as I wish to focus on where we do share common ground: we agree that the causes of abortion – poverty, rape culture, domestic
violence, etc – should be dealt with or at least seriously reduced, plus both of us believe contraception should be promoted far and wide. IMO science and reason are the best way to handle this controversy in society, not bombs and death threats of abortion practitioners.
I am not a moderator here. However, I care about the fellow commenters not being banned or deleted, and deeply value their contributions, which is why I will send them comments letting them know if and when they’re stepping over a line. The reason I told you about people versus actions was that I did not want the mods censoring your comments.
Although I have no problem resuming discussion of this topic with you if you change your mind, I respect the fact you have no desire to discuss this for the present as I understand that discussing abortion is not for everyone. However, you have made me so happy for such a brief period of time that I strongly desire to talk about topics we do agree on when we both feel comfortable
doing so, if that is all right with you. Would you mind if we move our
conversation over to Love Joy Feminism where we can keep discussing that rape culture article that you commented on yesterday, because it would mean so much to me if you could do that for me and also because I find you to have a very insightful perspective on many topics. Also if you want to drop by on The
Friendly Atheist (which is not prolife BTW) I will be happy to talk when I see you :)
this point; I left a comment at this article and could you respond to it as it's not about prolife:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/can-we-talk-about-those-faux-victorians.html#comment-2410200298
Also there's another comment I would appreciate your thoughts on at this address, if that's okay, as this is from the article about rape culture you read last night:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html#comment-2410203572
I think it fair to state that I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. It seemed to me, at the time, that the comment about jihad was completely unrelated to the issue at hand, namely, anti-abortion terrorism. I appreciate
your explaining your intentions as to why you made that particular comment; now I understand a little better where you are coming from and this is very helpful in that it puts your comments in context.
"I thought the unspoken issue raised in the PLM article was whether people identifying with the politics of PLM should be viewed as potential Domestic Terrorist?
This ISSUE speaks to all people whom identify with the politics of other groups and whether they too can be defined as potential DTs."
AFAIK you were correct to judge that that was the topic the article was discussing. This is the intention of the article, and I quote:
"Many pro-choice people have responded to the recent shooting by blaming pro-life advocates. In this article I show why such claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence."
"In other words C ... this article is a political polemic ... not legal analysis ... about whether a Mass Murder whom identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a Domestic Terrorist."
No, it isn't a legal analysis. But it's not about whether a mass murderer who identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a domestic terrorist either. I'm pretty sure the author of this article would recognise him as a domestic terrorist or a murderer at the very least. It's an article written by a
prolifer who recognises that anti-abortion terrorism is a problem, and is seeking to explain why most prolifers are not responsible for one man's actions. Yet it's also explaining how a person could incite violence through their words so that they can avoid falling into that trap when they honestly
critique the abortion issue.
"In other words, if we "compartmentalized" our analysis (online and offline) ... don't conduct "comparative analysis" of politically motivated murders ... then we fail to identify and deconstruct the common patterns of "hate" and "dogma" all potential DTs share ... whether it's specifically PL mass-murders, School mass-murders, Jihadist mass-murders, Gang mass-murders, etc ... notwithstanding our federal government has official definitions of domestic terrorism."
Since seeking to analyse the commonalities between different types of mass murderers seemed to be your intentions when you commented and called the PL movement a terrorist organisation, I actually appreciate the critique because I think it is good to hear a dissenting voice.
"The same polemic could be written by any political group ... including DAESH ... regarding any person identifying with and articulating their politks."
I can agree with that because it's true.
"But if you don't see these common patterns comparatively between all these mass-murders, then I'll respect the articles' online compartmentalization ... although offline that's not how reality works."
Well, would you mind explaining the common patterns comparatively between the mass-murders of PL and jihad, because I have no problem having that conversation with you at all.
"I can 100% guarantee you "compartmentalization" isn't how our NSA, CIA, FBI, and ATF intelligence analysts view these mass murders. To the contrary they're looking for "common patterns" of "ideological and political dogma"."
Oh, okay. Fair enough.
Let's see here: there is surely a difference between criticising an ideology and hating people who believe that ideology, yes? Please remember that when you critique, because the prolifers I know are good people who would never want to terrorise any abortion practitioner. Yet I admit that there are some who wish to employ these kinds of tactics on abortion practitioners and it is not helpful. I am open to hearing evidence on either side either for or against the idea that the
PL movement generally supports terrorism, although, so far as I know, it doesn't. So if you have genuine evidence and can prove it I will at least look at it.
In other words, seeking to accuse prolife people, out the gate, of holding terrorist notions or ideas won't help, and the moderators will not appreciate condemnation of people*. However, a thoughtful analysis of why you believe the
PL *movement supports domestic terrorism would contribute greatly to the content of this forum as that is very much part of the subject that the moderators want everyone to discuss, AFAIK.
Last but not least you were far more on-topic than I realised so thanks for clearing up the confusion. I have no problem resuming this conversation if you are so inclined. So thanks for your contributions!
Unless you can say the same about jihadists, stop insulting victims of radical Islam by suggesting the two are even remotely similar.
Try again.
http://www.newhealthguide.org/When-Does-A-Baby-Have-A-Heartbeat.html
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302
FYI: Don't feel bad. Common pro-life confusion, and a lot of sources are vague about which they're using. Most sources use LMP.
Cardiac cells will beat in a petri dish with electrical stimulation. If there are a group of them, they beat in unison, because that's what they do. No one is obligated to preserve beating cardiac cells, regardless of location.
In fact, it's a delivery after 20 weeks, even if the fetus won't make it. Which brings up another misconception about "abortion." "The day before delivery", "the month before delivery", "8 1/2 months" or any other false situations anyone might lay out, abortion is not EVEN possible. At that point, it's a delivery, even of a dead fetus. NOT an abortion.
I proved my claim by providing a source from a medical journal. Since you currently claiming that the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means after a certain stage of the pregnancy is considered a delivery rather than an abortion, could you please do likewise and provide a similar type of medical source supporting that claim?
Regarding the medical source I provided supporting my claim, it was in response to:
"Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ."
The actual data showed that twice as many doctors go with conception as implantation.
That was part of a reply I made to you 2 days ago. Here it is in its entirety.
"An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy. He doesn't lose bodily autonomy. In particular, a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy."
You are simple playing word games. But, that's fine lets look at it semantically: i.e., based on the meanings of the words:
Autonomy is simply an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance. Bodily simply means of or concerning the body.
Bodily autonomy is therefore simply an individual's ability (synonym for capacity) to determination or govern their own body.
You admit that "An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy." So I would ask they lose the freedom of movement of what? The only logical response is their body, of course.
So, based on semantics; i.e., the meanings of the words involved, it is simply incorrect to say he doesn't lose bodily autonomy.
Conceptually, bodily autonomy is not limited to the reproductive aspect of the body. So, the fact that "a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy" may be true, it does nothing to negate the fact that controlling a convicts freedom of movement also results in a loss of their bodily autonomy.
"Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ."
You need to read something other than whatever propaganda you have been reading and be better informed, and less dogmatic, with your assertions.
Implantation is not the consensus of the OB GYN's in the country and repeating negatives and using caps does not change that. In fact, implantation is the minority view.
A study of "Obstetrician-gynecologists' beliefs about when pregnancy begins" was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology -- February 2012, Volume 206, Issue 2, Pages 132.e1–132.e7. it stated:
One-half of US obstetrician-gynecologists (57%) believe pregnancy begins at conception. Fewer (28%) believe it begins at implantation, and 16% are not sure.
"This is simply NO. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Rights are not subjected to the whims of others. That would be mob rule. We DO have a Constitution, you know. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority.
More repetition and caps. I have pretty well lost hope in a civil intelligent conversation with you, at this point, I'm glad this is almost over.
Your original comment was:
"People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another."
How do you think rights are determined? For example you mentioned the constitution. Were the men who wrote the constitution not people who believed what they wished to believe, defied a king, and had a huge impact on the rights of a whole lot of "anothers". The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority as a direct result of their beliefs.
Have you ever read the Federalist Papers. It was a series of papers arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius (under which all of The Federalist Papers were published),
Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings. It addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, united republic would be better able to guard against those dangers than would smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject.
So the fact that rights are not subjected to the whims of others and that the rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority are the results of the beliefs of people like Madison which had and do still have considerable impact.
As far as the federalist papers? Those are not law. They can tell us something about what the founding fathers were thinking when they drafted the Constitution, and I agree that the notion of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority originated there. The time of the founding fathers has come and gone, and the Constitution must be interpreted according to life in 2015, not in the late 18th century when it was written. Otherwise, it just isn't worth much. For example, they thought only white male landowners should vote. In today's society, such an idea would be laughed out of court.
Today we have the 14th amendment that clarifies everything. No state or federal government may deny any person equal protection under the law, and defines exactly who is a citizen. Anyone born inside the United States or naturalized therein. No federalist papers are needed to clarify that. Therefore, the rights of a minority cannot be subjected to the whims of voters.
Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave.
That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy. A prisoner cannot be drugged or treated medically against his will. He cannot be strapped down and forced to donate blood. He cannot be raped without it being a crime. He cannot be forced to eat. He cannot be forced into medical experimentation. He cannot be forcibly sterilized. And in the case of a female prisoner, she cannot be forced either to abort a pregnancy, nor to carry one to term. THAT is BODILY autonomy. Loss of bodily autonomy is not defined as the loss of freedom of movement. That would more accurately be called a loss of liberty than bodily autonomy. It's not a semantics game. Words mean what they mean. And even then, prisoners are not deprived of ALL liberty. They cannot, for instance, be forbidden to marry... even on death row.
Next, I would point out that your comment that I originally addressed was:
"Wrong. And NO "the majority of doctors" do NOT go with "conception. I'M not even sure ANY of them do. ."
That was factually incorrect and your lack of research was blatantly apparent. So rather than admit that you were wrong you build a straw man argument instead.
But, in doing so, you don't effectively knock your straw man argument down either. You offer no evidence from a credible source and instead present only your own opinions based on you remember from nursing school. You believe that should overrule the opinions of doctors who specialize and currently practice in that field
If you think about it, isn't the development of pregnancy actually counted from the first day of the woman’s last normal menstrual period (LMP), even though the development of the fetus does not begin until conception, which is about two weeks later, which assumes each menstrual cycle to be her body is preparing for pregnancy.?
Aren't you really just saying pregnancy begins at implantation simply because you prefer that definition because it better serves your argument? I have used that argument too, because I understand how effective IUDs are at preventing pregnancies and thus reduce abortions. But, I was wrong. It is not the consensus of doctors who practice in that field.
The next comment I addressed was:
"People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another."
That is conceptually about the relationship between beliefs and rights and I addressed it on that basis. The Federalist papers were an example of the selling of a set of beliefs having an impact on the rights of others, in case it was Madison addressing the rights of the individual, which is the issue the raised. I could have used many other examples to illustrate beliefs that found themselves incorporated into the legal system that has a great impact on rights. You completely miss the point by attacking the examples rather than the concept itself.
Next you say:
"Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave.
That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy."
Semantics is the study of words and their meanings. I have clearer defined the words "bodily" and "autonomy" using standard reference material for the English language and showed how when combined they can mean precisely that. Your comment: "That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy." is simply incorrect based upon semantics.
The use of improper capitalization for emphasis doesn't change that and only accentuates the fact it is purely your opinion.
Are you not aware that ALL pregnancies terminate? Whether they terminate in birth (delivery) or abortion is a matter of stage. But since you evidently have a problem with this, tell me how YOU would term them?
Apparently, not:
Abortion - elective or therapeutic
Alternative names
Therapeutic abortion; Elective abortion
Definition
Elective or therapeutic abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.
http(colon)//medical-dictionary-search-engines(dot)com/encyclopedia/?encyclopedia_name_url=48&level=2
I would call it an abortion if it meets that criteria; i.e., it is intentional.
Do you have no reply to my other comments?
Abortion (medically) applies to the* premature* termination of pregnancy by natural or induced means, and has no relationship to the life status of the fetus. An abortion, natural or induced, will always result in fetal death, because the fetus is unviable. A delivery will usually, but not always, result in a living child.
Your response was completely inappropriate. You apparently couldn't argue factually, so instead, you (I suspect) feign personal hurt and outrage. You then "shoot the messenger".
At least you have dropped the pretense of objectivity and civility.
Can you read? I provided even provided a link. Did I make up a website too, just to prove I was right?
If "The intentional termination of pregnancy" is NOT the medical definition of abortion, please provide a link to a medical dictionary that proves otherwise and I would be happy to acquiesce on this.
It seems to take a lot less get you angry than people who lie to your face, just disagreeing with you seems a quite effective way to do it as well.
I not terribly impressed by what you were taught in nursing school. My wife attended a nursing school attached to the Mayo clinic. One of her teachers taught that a women could not get pregnant the first time she had sex. The quality and accuracy of the information is very depended on the person teaching it. Not all teachers are of the same caliber.
No, she was not taught that. They don't teach "old wive's tales" in nursing school. And you didn't supply any link. You went to http://web.md, not a medical dictionary.
However, I have found your continuing nasty and condescending (though consistently wrong) motivational. Consequentially, its worth the effort to find and present evidence, for no other reason than to embarrass you.
Here's how the Merc Manuals describe abortion:
"Induced abortion is the intentional ending of a pregnancy by surgery or drugs."
https(colon)//www(dot)merckmanuals(dot)com/home/women's-health-issues/family-planning/abortion
You are one very sick puppy little Shifty. Why don't you get a life?
Night :)
I wish your partner well, if that's all right. Because she sounds like a very smart woman from what you tell me :)
PS: Thanks for calling me a co-leader! Because one mark of a man of character is to recognise women as co-leaders :)
As I battle misogyny in my soul and in my body and in my environment, I will remember your words - guaranteed!
a superb LEADER ... it's not a binary males vs females or vice versa
... it's humans loving humans:)"
God, I agree 100%!
Personally, as I've stated before, I find men to be magnificent, strong, bright, brave leaders IF they are doing what is right and good and treating others with respect as well. Men have the inherent capacity to do so much good and to be so incredibly intelligent, but they have to earn respect through character and are not entitled to it simply because they are men*. If a man is good and trustworthy, stern yet gentle, wise yet open-minded, etc, I will trust and respect that man. But he has to prove himself to be good first, before I can even consider pledging my trust so completely. Please don't ever underestimate your intelligence and leadership skills, nor talk yourself down to put others up either, just because you happen to be a man.
To me, what is needed is not only to value the leadership of your own sex but also to value the leadership of the opposite sex - I mark a note that this is a great failing in society, that everyone brags about how great their sex is while putting the opposite sex down, or praises the opposite sex while downplaying the positive contributions of their own. This statement is not a criticism of either of us but rather an affirmation that our society seriously needs to change in this area, and, as we agreed so capitally, that men and women need to lead *together rather than fighting each other all the time.
As a leader, then, plus as a supporter, I support your decision to get off this forum and do what you must do. Many cheers go with you for the wonderful day you gave me, and I hope I made you happy too!
I'm sorry I was a little mad at you at the very beginning, but I'm glad I restrained myself and tried to understand where you were coming from, and no I didn't hate you either even then, and certainly don't now!
Thank you so very much for encouraging me to be a leader; and to think of myself as that; and for noticing, remarking on, and praising those qualities. I have never really been told I have the capacity to be a leader (except for once or at the most twice), only the capacity to be LED, partially because of my nature and partially because I am, in the eyes of others, a sweet young woman. I will try not to underestimate myself!
I have to go too; I've got RL (real life) to live. I appreciate the fact you want to check out those places and I hope to see you again soon so we can discuss loads of topics more - feminism, PL, racism, etc.
You have taught me a great deal today. I hope we can respectfully find common ground where we can, and disagree with compassion when we must. You've made me think a lot of noble thoughts about my sex and appreciate good men who support women all the more. If ever I get the right man I want someone who highly appreciates female leadership so thank you for bringing that to my attention.
I agree with and feel deeply inspired by your desire to see women lead. I also think that men are intelligent and strong, and make brilliant leaders as well; that doesn't mean I'm seeking to willfully misunderstand your beliefs about women's intelligence and leadership qualities; quite the contrary. I was raised traditional so I appreciate these good qualities in males, and there's a reason men and women should lead together - they need each other.
I will check out your link.
Time for bed for me too, sorry :*(
I knew we'd have a lot in common once we got past the rough stage :)
I don't feel threatened at all, nor do I sense you are flirting with me. You are talking to me like a person and that's great!
BTW, I couldn't flirt to save my life.
Do you mind if I gently encourage you to stop being a procrastinator? It is a hurtful habit, I know from sad experience :(
Honestly, I never thought of myself as a leader! In real life I am rather meek and compliant I'm afraid. But I know there's a tiger inside waiting to be unleashed if she's given the opportunity :)
I do not know how I managed to win you over like that. Can you tell me how I did it, if you wouldn't mind?
I persisted because I like people, and I think of what we can agree on far more than on what we disagree on. Finding common ground, especially on such a tough issue as abortion or anything else equally as controversial, is important to me because at that point we're viewing each other as enemies and we need to forget that we disagree and see each other's humanity.
Please, make Love Joy Feminism a new home if you feel comfortable with that. Also, check out Friendly Atheist. I post there a lot sometimes and I would love to run into you again because you are a very sharp, bright, intelligent man yourself. Yes, men are right on the ball! A female leader has to recognise that rather than pandering to the idea that men are dumb and women are smart, because that's nonsense.
Of course it is flesh-and-blood human beings. Why the spontaneous responses from so many Disqus owners?
You should have read his comments. I felt threatened, like I mentioned. I knew he couldn't touch me because of the computer screens, but I also knew he was a real person and his intentions towards me were less than honourable. You have to be very careful what you put up on the Internet, no kidding!
Aww, you're really laying it on thick; that's so sweet, thank you!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/05/half-of-the-new-canadian-cabinet-members-chose-to-skip-so-help-me-god-in-their-oaths-of-office/#comment-2345535945
I felt guilty over that for a long time.
I don't think the agreement we have is perfunctory now, but rather sincere.
BTW: thank you :)
I do not believe in being dishonest about my identity, despite my desire for privacy. I'm not sure where I said you were Marxist, but thanks for clarifying.
"as you'll learn about the Italian scholar whom created the term and analytical framework"
Please tell me more. Who is this person?
"I'll do to the other article (website) ... what's your aka name there?"
It's Crystal there as well.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html
When I respond to your off-topic comments I will take my responses there and let you know I have done so. Thank you for agreeing to shift the conversation. I do not want your good thoughts deleted just because they weren't on-par with the theme of this blog.
realities of non-whites ... not to be misconstrued with all human
beings having input (voice) into the complexities of our species as
"human beings" ."
Can you please explain the difference between the two, as I'm a little mystified.
I've never really heard of the word "hegemony" before speaking with you, so I would say you taught me something new.
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hegemony
"Hegemony is political or cultural dominance or authority over others. The hegemony of the popular kids over the other students means that they determine what is and is not cool."
Based on that definition, I can see totally what you mean - if indeed you are working by that definition. In other words, are you saying that people's choices, how they view themselves, and how they act, are influenced by the cultural and political hegemony around them?
PS: I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take this discussion to at least one of those web pages I mentioned, because we are getting off-topic and I want to respect the moderator's rules while enjoying our chat. If you're agreeable, we can take it to that article on nonconsensual sex you enjoyed so much.
it becomes a rationale for killing or murdering or oppressing people:)"
You're right; I should have taken note of that. I am spiritual but not religious myself.
I have read that article about Doug Wilson in the past. On seeing it referenced, I can identify with why you're agnostic and critical of white hegemony. I read portions of his Southern Slavery as it Was with disgust. The man obviously has serious problems with critical thinking skills as it relates to morality :(
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/11/ttuac-ignore-your-childs-tears.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/doug-wilson-have-his-views-on-slavery-changed.html
If you want to you could put your opinion up on that and I'll find you and we can talk - if that's okay with you.
I especially loathe Doug Wilson.
"I won't lie, the symbolize 50s looking white female with her baby image
didn't resonate with me, for all kinds of cultural reasons ... including
why "WHITE" still the default "universality" for "human representation"
I share your deploring of white being the default state. I am white myself, yet in a way racism bothers me a lot more than sexism. White is not necessarily delightsome, the Book of Mormon be screwed. We need more non-white representations of models, protagonists in stories, etc. The white privilege - I find it bothersome.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/
It's very feminist-oriented, LOL. I learned a lot from her!
While I would not approach the issue the way he does, I appreciate the fact he told it like it is.
For instance, what do you think of this article:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html
As you yourself said, no right matters once your right to live is gone. I have tried and tried explaining this repeatedly but sometimes with little success.
Do you think it is accusing advocates of legal abortion of ethnic cleansing to assert such a thing? Because I don't. To me, it's just stating a moral principle.
Ironically I would consider myself a progressive person (in some ways). Yet I can see this sort of act runs afoul of all progressive values. We fight against ageism, for disability rights, yet we include abortion, euthanasia. Something's gotta give somewhere.
That statement seems ideological rather than factual:
According to Gallup, in 2012, following are the percentage, in descending order, of people who identify as pro life in each party:
Republicans - 72%
Independent - 47%
Democrats - 34%
The percentage of US adults who identified as pro-life was 50%
http(colon)//www(dot)gallup(dot)com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low(dot)aspx
To put that 34% in perspective -- 70% of the US population is Christian, Evangelicals are 25% of the US population, that means Evangelicals are 36% of all Christians in the US.
Would you consider Evangelicals a tiny minority of Christians?
Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology.
What you said was: "There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they're a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party..."
I provided data, to show that was not true. I do not intend to play move the goalposts with you. If you do, please do likewise, and provide some data to support your contention.
"Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology."
Again, purely ideological, in no way factual, and totally unimpressive intellectually. The fact that you repeat it just makes you look even less impressive.
However, I did find some factual information about liberal and progressive theology. I have provided it below. However, no where does it mention "unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand" as a sacrament, much less their highest one:
Liberal theology, covers diverse philosophically and biblically informed religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century onward. Liberal does not refer to Progressive Christianity or to a political philosophy but to the philosophical and religious thought that developed as a consequence of the Enlightenment.
Progressive theology was much harder tp pin down, but I eventually found something from a Methodist church in the Midwest. In their promotion materials about who they are, they claim progressive theology as one of their unique identifiers. Below is a direct quote from their materials:
8 Points of Progressive Theology: by calling ourselves progressive we mean we are Christians who...
find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty--more value in questioning than absolutes
form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping another for the work we feel called to do; striving for justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of brothers and sisters
invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable
recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.
have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.
understand the sharing of bread and wine in the name of Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient version of God's feast for all peoples
know that the way we behave toward one another is the fullest expression of what we believe
recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege
I don't "believe" in theology at all. However, I do find it interesting from an academic/intellectual standpoint and have read a considerable amount about it.
Why would you assume that the fact that I know something about a subject makes a statement regarding my relationship to it?
For example, you likely understand the digestive system. Can I assume that makes you a turd?
Two rules I follow: 1) Don't treat others badly
2) Don't let the bad treatment of others get you down
If Jim H is Marxist won't he call himself that? From what I read of him, he hasn't made a decision on life issues either way but rather is very open-minded on the topic.
Why do you only comment as a guest?
What are you hiding?
My circumstances, at present, unfortunately do NOT permit me to get a Disqus registration or I would happily do so. It's a privacy measure.
Also, I am not a troll. I realise a few people have abused the guest commenting facility but I would rather give thoughtful, rational reasons for what I believe than troll people.
Try again."
The above prior comment of mine was removed. Josh Brahm and his blog are pathetic.
Last you'll be hearing from me on this thread.
That aside, I agree with your comment. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that is why I am so dead set against it. I doubt anything will change my mind on the issue.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/
You sound as if you'd get on well with the people there :)
When I say, embrace my femininity, that means that I will appreciate myself in every way possible including my biological processes. Never mind the offence that causes.
I think you will enjoy the Suffragette movie coming out then. I appreciate reading about the struggles women faced just to vote.
Also, I mentioned that I have no wish to suppress anyone. That being said, I am seeking a solution to this problem before us that will grant both pregnant persons their right to bodily autonomy and unborn persons their right to live, via technology and many other methods. I seek to care for and consider both because both are equally important, and it's time prolifers recognised that. That being said, my ideas of caring for both pregnant and unborn persons will not please everyone, and I recognise that as well.
I appreciate your contributions to this forum and I have found you to be respectful and considerate. Thank you. However, as a woman I appreciate men and their intelligence a lot too. I think men and women need to rule together, not one over the other.
I do agree that women need to step up to the plate and take charge of their lives though. The only difference between you and me is that I don't believe that abortion is the best way to make that happen. Also the only difference between me and the mainstream PL movement is that I don't believe traditional views on female sexuality or even the status of unborn persons are the best way to make that happen either.
I can understand that.
I wonder though - didn't we start from a small beginning? Also, if the zygote has less worth than the toddler due to developmental differences, would the toddler have less worth than a teen due to such differences?
Also, in regards to bodily autonomy - which type do you believe in, and I quote:
"The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a
human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use
of her body."
"The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the
unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an
abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with
anything inside the sovereign zone of her body."
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/
2. At least you are consistent with your view. You are correct to observe that humans generally don't step out of line to save the lives of others unless they feel up to the challenge. The Hunger Games illustrates that quite well.
3. What's a DSM 5 medical condition?
PS: "cuz I love you ... cyber wise ..." Thanks for the compliment, returned, cyberwise :)
As I mentioned, my primary focus is foetal rights and not punishing women for sex, hence the mention of high techs.
I don't choose to be viewed as an incubator. I'm not one. What I do choose is to seek out a solution that will genuinely reduce abortions while allowing women their right to live as they see fit.
I do appreciate your concern for our sex, and I have noticed the obsequious deference to male judgment myself. Which is why I'm trying to reclaim my femininity back, so these guys can't dominate me.
"but rarely on the technology to procreate outside the female body ...
and rarely on the systemic and institutional conditions that make it
unfathomable to bring a child into this world ... poverty, war, disease,
bigotry."
On this, we agree.
I do have a question though: if you saw a woman trying to drown her toddler due to depression and anxiety on her part, would you step in to stop the drowning taking place, or not?
I'm not sure poverty will ever be completely eradicated but it helps to reduce it, yes?
Also I advocate for contraceptives, sex education, and social safety nets. I am sorry that the mainstream PL movement hasn't made preserving bodily autonomy and unborn human life together its primary focus.
or be defined as evil, immoral, criminals, murders, etc ... or raise
their kids in poverty, crime, eventual prison or death ... then let that
be the political-decision of ALL FEMALES ... never EVER male
patriarchs:)"
Agreed 100%, because conservative Christian men who preach abstinence aren't helping IMO.
One question to ask though - do you personally believe it is your prerogative to step in when you see something unjust being perpetrated, even if that injustice does not personally affect you?
First off, I am not American. Second, I believe in the core doctrine of prolife, which is protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. However, I agree that the mainstream PL movement is doing more harm than good with its incremental laws. What I would like to see happen is superior technological alternatives that will allow unborn persons to live while granting women bodily autonomy, because I have talked extensively to abortion advocates and agree with the principle of respecting the bodily autonomy of both unborn and pregnant persons.
BTW, prolife to me means protecting ALL life of humans and animals, not just unborn human life. Which is why I appreciate the work that Black Lives Matter does.
"Bringing a child or children into poverty conditions is cruel!"
I agree that it is cruel. Which is why I advocate for fighting poverty, one of the root causes of abortion.
May I ask what led you to advocate for abortion to remain legal?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/
Please read it before proceeding here. Josh's rules are so strict that even a few of your friends failed to pass muster.
If not, then kindly worry about yourself.
Thank you for your concern Crystal. Have a great week. -:)
Also please let PJ, Infadelicious, and all the other banned folks and the ones that won't comment for fear of banning know that I appreciated their company, conversation, and contributions, and if they want to see me again they can write in at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives.
PJ4 and Infadelicious are great. I hold them both in high regard.
This post will serve as a message to PJ4 and Infa that Crystal holds them in high regard and that you would be happy if they re-connect with you at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives.
Kind regards,
Wild_Bird
Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL.
And thank you!
Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL.
And thank you!"
I do not have any of their email addresses. My reply to your post on Disqus will have to suffice.
Note you are free to register on Disqus and follow anyone you wish also.
I cannot even see your dashboard.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2408439366
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2408462399
There's a little button at the bottom of each comment that says "Share". You put your cursor over it and see three little icons. The third one will drag the comment address out and create a new tab where you can view the comment to your satisfaction.
I thank you for writing back. Did I say I appreciated your fiery post at me?
How do you know that for sure?
Also, may I point your attention to the comment policy please:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I am sure that you have a lot to contribute provided you read the commenting policy and observe it properly.
If a woman does not want the "problem" of an unwanted pregnancy, then she should take responsibility BEFOREHAND.
If she fails to do that, the unborn baby's inalienable right to life should be protected.
Once the baby's most fundamental human right has been protected and the baby has been born, the mother is free to put that child up for adoption.
Interestingly, your most fundamental human right, the right to be born, was respected yet you would callously deny that same right to others.
Have you no shame?
However if you're wanting to discuss the matter civilly and hopefully persuade people to your views then it's not the best course.
Also, I'm very sad that we can't talk about the things we have in common. I saw you were a multicultural, third-wave, feminist, African-American man, and I thought that was so nice, because I deeply appreciate multicultural, third-wave philosophy. I'd like to talk to you about these things and to understand why you advocate for abortion to remain legal, but I'm not sure I can if you're going to take digs at me the way you did.
I would respectfully ask you not to call us pro-death because it is extremely offensive. If I'm not allowed to say "pro-abort" despite having very good reasons for using the term, then it would be a good thing for advocates for legal abortion to reciprocate the favour, if you understand what I mean.
That put aside, I think we share a lot in common and you would be an interesting person to talk to.
I try very hard NOT to be nice to the action of abortion (I struggle in this area because of fear of humanity, more than anything). I consider it morally reprehensible and and have gotten into serious trouble for expressing such a sentiment and similar ones to it on more than one occasion.
However the people need to be reached, and I'm not going to be able to reach them if I start insulting them and using pejorative terms. I'd rather get someone to really think, and reconsider their position by being respectful than put them off by name-calling.
I'm very much for calling a spade a spade, and I understand there is a balance at the same time. You have every right to your anger, James. You are right, babies are dying. However taking out your anger on the action and the causes of the action rather than ridiculing and name-calling the people is the best way to handle this, IMHO.
Please read the comment policy before continuing to comment here as I appreciate your input here and don't want to see you get moderated:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
But first they have to be born....
When we deny a life by stifling it, we deny ourselves a chance to be blessed.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Oh, and this blog is a safe space, for prolifers who want to hear themselves think and advocates for legal abortion who want to explore prolife ideas.
Oh, and here's a relevant section for you to mull over carefully before proceeding further with any comments here:
"5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives
you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine.
Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is,
in my sole opinion, (a) snarky;
(b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing,
threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or
which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of
decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws;
or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise
promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site
or your most recent blog post."
PS: I don't take drugs. I'm a teetotaler.
Let me guess: you do?
Ann, I believe I should remind you of the commenting policy; please read it:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Let me guess, dead fetuses are too specialty-special to dismember. Certainly they are too special to do medical research on, such as is often done on other dead bodies, because a dead fetus is so much more important and special than a live infant. Especially since that would get around your real purpose of making the woman suffer as much as possible by removing it in small pieces, rather than one large one.
How about this - I will make you eat a grapefruit. You will prove how easy it is to get a large object through a small hole by letting me stuff it intact, down your throat. If you prefer it be cut up, then you will have proven that you are a forced birth liar.
There is no right to someone else's body. Or any property belonging to someone else. If you have managed to get a hold of or occupy something belonging to someone else, it will be removed, or you will be removed. Even if it is necessary to use 'force and violence'. Even if it costs you your 'very life'. Even if you are really cute and even if spoiled teenage girls are really sad.
If you truly belive this, then why would you spend large sums money attempting to create a baby, to impregnate yourself...
Why do you believe you have a right to a baby's body?
I certainly wouldn't spend any amount of money trying to create a baby, and knowing Ann Morgan, she wouldn't either. That being said, adults who wish to procreate have every right to do so. The right to procreate is in no way, shape or form a "right to someone else's body."
It's the human right of adults to create a family (or not), and you have no right to interfere in that in any way.
So, you are admitting that Ann is a liar?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
For instance, did you get my question about the idea of abortion being murder being responsible for the massacre that occurred recently? I think that idea is faulty; what do you think?
I don't care about affiliation or party or stance, only how I am treated and interacted with. You did not deserve my initial hostility, but I remain accountable for my good faith error in response.
You're not my enemy. Be well.
Kudos.
I do slip sometimes, especially when I'm stretched thin IRL. Then I take a break. :)
Take care.
For the record I neither flagged nor reported you.
However, I think that, due to Josh's strict rules, it would be best that you stopped responding. You're feeding him every time you write up. Besides, I appreciate your presence here and feel you have much to contribute provided you follow the commenting guidelines.
I would like your opinion on something though: what do you think of the idea that prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they call abortion murder?
According to the comment policy, name-calling and quarrels from other websites are strictly prohibited:
And I quote:
"5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives
you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine.
Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is,
in my sole opinion, (a) snarky;
(b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing,
threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or
which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of
decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws;
or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise
promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site
or your most recent blog post."
Positives: 1) a strong love for bodily autonomy
2) a deep respect for women's choices
and possibly a few other traits. I state this for many reasons, not the least of which is that bodily autonomy and consent arguments can be used to fight forced sterilisation and forced euthanasia, which is good.
For all these, their arguments, no matter how brilliant, cannot justify the wrong that is done every time an innocent human life is snuffed out of the world. They are academic, philosophical attempts to justify the unjustifiable. I'm a simple person, with a simple knowledge that "abortion stops a beating heart" and that is all I need to know.