Blogs home Modest Proposals
On Abortion
Firstly,
In response to the commonly prescribed euphemisms representing the (falsely) dichotomous sides of the debate, I propose new dysphemisms:
Pro-Choice > Pro-Fetal "Death"
Pro-Life > Anti-Reproductive Freedom
Secondly,
If you don't like abortions, your response should be simple: don't have one. End. Of. Debate.
Does your outdated mythology abhor the medical procedure? Don't have one!
Keep your absurd theocratic dogma to yourself.
29 September 2008
at 11:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines fetus as “The unborn offspring.”
So,
Pro-Choice > Pro-killing of unborn offspring.
Pro-Life > Pro-Life
(to claim reproductive freedom in your argument is false. The reproduction has already occurred and that is a scientific fact)
If you don't like children being abused, your response should be simple? don't abuse your child?
If the methods of abortion are so humane and all, why don't they show this most common medical procedure on television?
Why the hatred of unborn offspring so much that they should be killed? Have you ever been hurt by an unborn offspring? What about atheists who are against abortion? Why do you discriminate against people who believe in God?
30 September 2008
at 12:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
How about keep your absurb-bigoted-atheist dogma to yourself?
Pro-Choice > Pro-Fetal “Death” Yep. that's about the size of it. After you get tired of killing babies, what's next?
Maybe a few theocrates just for the memory of Stalin?
30 September 2008
at 12:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
So much wrong with this……don't know where to start…..
Why prod the beast unnecessarily? Isn't Vick doing time for similar antipathy? And I noted one 'otomous' and two multi-syllabic 'ism's'……. too much absinthe and dope or are you trying to prove to yourself that you're really smarter than your average bear, Yogi? Give us all just a slight break, s'il vous plait.
On this issue I believe two things with all my heart……….
1.) Pro-choice; because I'm not a woman
2.) If men gave birth abortion would be a 'God given right'
I understand a pro-life position and cannot argue against it except in the case of rape. Anyone who pontificates one way or the other as if they're on the side of the angels is kidding themselves. And I for one am VERY tired of it all.
30 September 2008
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SeanS (Anonymous) says…
Why is it that we as a society think that we have the right to re-define what life is? I mean really, what's next? If we let every group out there with a fresh new outlook re-define life, we could ultimately end up with an elitist class who views anyone inferior to be subject to death. I mean honestly, why not? If we don't draw the line somewhere, then why couldn't it start to pertain to those less skilled or smart than an elitist group. When you start defining life outside of the biological definition, then we have no definite stopping point. Biology gives the definition of life as this, for any organism: Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli, and Reproduction. A fetus has all of these qualities, end the debate here. It is just as much scientific as theocratic, come on now. Now I am in no way saying that Pro-choice advocates intend to take this outside of the fetus, like what I said could happen earlier. But, you must draw the line here before it goes too far.
30 September 2008
at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…
“Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli, and Reproduction. A fetus has all of these qualities, end the debate here.”
I would assume, then that you would be against the killing of any animal under any circumstances, as animals also share these characteristics. Fish, for example. If I am incorrect, please distinguish a fetus from a fish in your argument.
30 September 2008
at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
Well, if this blog were truly worthy of making an informed comment, I would.
Sorry, BigPrune and SeanS. Your posts were great, but mostly wasted breath here. The blogger is so slanted that s/he can't see straight.
30 September 2008
at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SeanS (Anonymous) says…
Haha I knew that someone would try to rip that one out of context. Gladly Genius. That was my mistake, I should have used the term human fetus. I kinda figured that in this debate it was implied but I guess I give some people too much credit. Scientifically the word human means a member of the species Homo sapiens. So no, I am not against killing those things because they are not humans and there is no law against killing those types of animals as there is such law against killing a human. (Of course endangered species are an exception).
Informed thank you and I couldn't agree more, but something in me just had to do it. :)
30 September 2008
at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…
So if there were no law against killing humans, it would be okay with you to kill humans? This isn't a moral issue, but a legal one?
30 September 2008
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
Oh, good. Well… thanks for clearing that up. . .
… once and for all, I'm sure.
30 September 2008
at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
couranna1 (Anonymous) says…
it is a woman's right to choose based on they are human plain and simple end of discussion
30 September 2008
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SeanS (Anonymous) says…
I personally do believe that murdering a human is morally wrong. I don't know when I stated that it was strictly a matter of the law. If you would please read what I said more carefully. “So no, I am not against killing those things because they are not humans and there is no law against killing those types of animals” There are two stipulations in there. 1. They are not humans, and 2. There is no law against killing them. I'm really getting tired of you trying to find flaws in my logic but if you must continue then by all means. Or, you could actually present an argument of your own.
30 September 2008
at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Potawatomi (Anonymous) says…
Everyone join the winning team. http://www.prochoice.org/
30 September 2008
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“You see, it's all about how you define life.”
And neither you, nor I, nor anyone, is able to make that call for someone else.
I am against abortion. I am also against being told what to do with my life. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, don't put yourself in a position in which it is a possiblilty, and work to eliminate the causes and situations that lead to unwanted pregnancies.
That's pretty simple, no?
30 September 2008
at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…
I'm trying to get to the heart of your argument — that is, why are you drawing the line where you do?
Why from conception? It's clearly not from the science-based reasons you listed, as you were unable to distinguish a fetus from a fish on these grounds. Then why?
Why only human? You haven't answered this question. If your answer is going to be something supernatural like “a soul,” then I'm not sure why you're posting. You're wasting air (or, in this case, electrons). You're never going to convince anyone of anything if, when you get to difficult points in your argument you say “Because God said so”, or “because of magic.” It's okay if you believe these things, but you're preaching to the choir in expressing them the way that you do. If your just expressing an opinion for the sake of saying “This is what I believe — I'm taking a stand!” then I'm not sure why you would do so anonymously.
I apologize if you are “getting tired” of discussing this. No one is forcing you to do so. I am genuinely interested in your (or anyone else's) answers to these questions. I usually avoid these threads like the plague, in that you just get polemic nonsense from both sides that lowers my IQ several points. For some reason — out of boredom, I suppose — I decided to try and see whether an intelligent discussion might be had on this thread. It's been unavailing thus far.
30 September 2008
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Between this, Marion's, and bearded_gnome's recent blogs, it is painfully obvious that the LJWorld has no interest in monitoring the kind of garbage that is posted from their web site.
Too bad when extremist tripe gets mixed in with the rest of the news.
30 September 2008
at 10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
I'm pro-choice, btw.
30 September 2008
at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
In the hopes of kickstarting a rational debate:
16 days pass between fetilization and embryo.
During this period, it is no certainty that a developing fetus will result.
Given those facts, why should conception be the dividing line between what deserves the right to life and what doesn't?
Part of the problem here is that no scientific dividing line exists to “end the debate”. It is a philosophical question, plain and simple—where do you believe “personhood” begins?
Drawing the line at where “life” begins makes no sense, as the subparts of a fetus—sperm and egg—are certainly “alive”.
I personally think that from a legal standpoint we must use birth as the dividing line for functional reasons—there is too much grey area prior to that to definitively rule one way or the other. However, that is not to say that I support partial-birth abortions or that I would be unable to accept a compromise where late-term abortions are prohibited.
My primary concern is the right of a living human being to make her own choices regarding the medical procedures performed on her own body. I don't think that requiring a woman to make that choice sometime within a 3-4 month timeframe is an unreasonable burden or restriction upon her rights.
30 September 2008
at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
duplenty - your post says it all.
very well said
30 September 2008
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…
I don't know if I could ever have an abortion, if I had to make the choice, but I, too, believe I cannot make that choice for someone else.
And until murder charges can be filed in every state for death to a fetus when a pregnant woman is killed, then you can't start to outlaw abortion. And in Kansas, if a pregnant woman is killed, only one murder charge is filed. None for the fetus/baby.
30 September 2008
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says…
Amazing! This isn't worth a response. Just type the word Abortion and you liberals come out of the woodwork like hungry dogs.
Go cash your government check and DO something.
30 September 2008
at 11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
duplenty—we have to make that call regarding how life is defined. Our legal system, in order to function, has to make clear definitions of what is and what is not criminal behavior.
30 September 2008
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“we have to make that call regarding how life is defined. Our legal system, in order to function, has to make clear definitions of what is and what is not criminal behavior.”
Indeed. And as we speak, abortion is legal. For better or for worse.
30 September 2008
at 11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“And in Kansas, if a pregnant woman is killed, only one murder charge is filed. None for the fetus/baby.”
I personally think that should be changed. If you kill a pregnant woman, damn, but you got to go. Like asap.
30 September 2008
at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
zbarf (Anonymous) says…
logicsound04
Birth (40 weeks after conception)? You have got to be kidding. So a 30 week old baby that is born early is not a human? Or are you just saying the act of birth makes it a human?
I know it is not birth…lets be reasonable. I say the first heart beat or maybe when it can feel pain. But not birth.
30 September 2008
at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SeanS (Anonymous) says…
Genius you seem like a pretty reasonable guy, so I'm puzzled at some of the comments you make. I obviously was able to make the distinction between a human fetus and a fish, it is a human. It doesn't get more distinct than that. I am a Christian, and I don't argue based on the fact that God says “There shall not be abortions.” I do personally believe that most original law in this country stems from the Bible, but even as secular as society has become murder is still looked at as one of the worst criminal acts that man can commit. That being said, I think that we can both agree that Biblically speaking or not, murder is a bad thing. Why I draw the line where I do is to me it is the only thing that makes sense. If you are familiar with Roe V. Wade then you should know that the Supreme Court did not argue that a fetus is human or alive, they argue the personhood of a fetus. That is the reason they ruled how they did. They believed that a fetus doesn't have the qualities of personhood. It's funny because they don't even have a definition for the word. The dictionary definition is “The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality.” Members who might be excluded are the disabled, long-term brain damaged, those in a coma, fetus' and people in a vegetative state. I could not in my right mind say that the murder of someone with long-term brain damage or in a coma should be okay. That is my reason for drawing the line where I do. I believe that personhood is a bad place to start because many members of society do not display personhood even after birth. And when you condone killing them then like I argued earlier it will snowball into something even more horrible. Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth said “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.” That is why I draw the line at conception. Why only human you ask? I'm kind of confused by this one. I would make this argument exclusive to humans only because of my moral values. I am a Christian and if you have no basis for what is right and what is wrong then anything goes. I think that there must be a clear right and wrong established and I support that the murdering of humans is wrong.
30 September 2008
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…
Thank you MHC for reinforcing the fact the left and especially the far-left are very, very angry people.
30 September 2008
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…
Why are some people so hysterical about abortion? If you don't like abortions, don't have one. It's that simple. There are plenty of babies being born every day, and it's VERY easy to make 'em.
30 September 2008
at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SeanS (Anonymous) says…
KansasVoter all I have to say is that I'm glad you're not arguing for my side…that's just lame.
30 September 2008
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says:
Why are some people so hysterical about abortion? If you don't like abortions, don't have one. It's that simple. There are plenty of babies being born every day, and it's VERY easy to make 'em.”
Marion writes:
And in the midst of the Great American Holocaust, just as easy to kill'em!
Fifty million and counting.
30 September 2008
at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
zbarf,
Please re-read my comment. I said birth must be the LEGAL dividing line based solely on function. If you declare a point before birth as deserving of the same rights as living human beings, then we must be prepared to address the consequences of that definition. That means that, upon reaching whatever point we decide upon, the rights of the mother must be reduced to provide for the rights of the fetus. Point being—if a fetus with a heartbeat has a right to life, then one implication would be that a mother's right to choose what she eats is secondary, that we should legislate what pregnant woman carrying a legal human being can or can't do. That, to me, is a problem.
Second, I went on to say that I was open to some sort of compromise—for example, that we use birth as the point at which someone becomes a legal human being, but we could have very stringent laws regarding when abortions could be performed—in order to account for the fact that viability sometimes occurs before birth.
30 September 2008
at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
geniusmannumber1 (Anonymous) says…
SeanS —
I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the issue, and if I hadn't completely wasted this morning getting very little work done, I would continue the discussion. Perhaps later, if I decide that today's a wash.
30 September 2008
at 1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“I say the first heart beat or maybe when it can feel pain.”
––––––-
Are you aware that the medical definition of pain is “something that is unpleasant”?
Now I'm not arguing that a fetus has no nervous system nor that it fails to react to stimuli that might cause it physical harm, but pain is something that fetuses, by definition, cannot feel.
30 September 2008
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SeanS (Anonymous) says…
haha sounds good Genius, always a pleasure having some good intelligent debate.
30 September 2008
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…
SeanS said…
“KansasVoter all I have to say is that I'm glad you're not arguing for my side:that's just lame.”
What's lame about my argument? Everything that I said is true.
Marion Lynn said…
“And in the midst of the Great American Holocaust, just as easy to kill'em! Fifty million and counting.”
What's your point? Have any of those abortions directly affected you? If a woman wants to abort her fetus that's her choice and it's none of your business. Like I said earlier, if you don't like abortions, don't have one. It's that simple.
30 September 2008
at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Windlass (Anonymous) says…
*Liberal media
*Corporate media
*Right-wing media…….it's all one and the same - biased.
30 September 2008
at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tsicissalcdedeahlatme (Anonymous) says…
BigPrune,
“to claim reproductive freedom in your argument is false. The reproduction has already occurred and that is a scientific fact”
Obviously repreduction has already occured if a woman is pregnant; restricting her rights concerning her own body (read: reproductive organs)—unborn fetis including—is, in fact, a reproductive issue. Surely preventing her from aborting an unwanted (unborn, legally non-living) fetis is a issue concerning personal, reproductive freedoms.
“If the methods of abortion are so humane and all, why don't they show this most common medical procedure on television?”
How many human BIRTHS do you see on television? Don't get me started on censorship.
“What about atheists who are against abortion? Why do you discriminate against people who believe in God?”
Of course, some atheists are agiainst abortion for their own secular reasons. They're entitled to their opinion (as you are to yours).
I “discriminate” against theists because throughout history and in our modern world, they have systemically discriminated against rational non-theists (Spainish Inquistion, anyone?).
–-
ReadingSports,
“How about keep your absurb-bigoted-atheist dogma to yourself?”
Why should I keep my rational-“bigoted”-atheist “dogma” to myself? I believe in free speech. If you can make a compelling argument for your personal religious belief, I'm all ears.
Christians certainly don't keep their views to themselves: they indoctrinate their children (yes, they do), send missionaries all over the world, and proselytize in the streets.
“Maybe a few theocrates just for the memory of Stalin?”
Your Stalin reference is irrelevant, but I must say I commend communist nations for their anti-religious traditions. “Thecrates?” Was he Socrates' long-lost, theist brother?
––
jaywalker,
Thank you for your pro-choice stance, but I don't appreciate being called an Absinthe-fiend just because I'm a stronger writer than you are.
30 September 2008
at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tsicissalcdedeahlatme (Anonymous) says…
Thank you, kansasvoter.
This entire thread has gotten waaay off topic.
No one is forcing women to have abortions, they chose to based on their current circumstances. Conversely, every woman has the right NOT the have an abortion if she so chooses.
Trying to get a religious-minded person think rationally about the desires of other people is like trying to bathe a cat (neither is recommended).
30 September 2008
at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…
I wonder how people would respond to the following situation? Let's say that instead of a fetus that is connected to the mother, it is an adult that is connected. Let's say one of the adults can survive on her or his own and the other one cannot. The adult that can survive wants to be disconnected even though the other one will die. Do you support this person's right to be disconnected EVEN if this person gives you no reason to do so. Does that person have a right to exist on their own?
It is my contention that “where life begins” is irrelevant to these arguments. As logicsound is alluding to, this is strictly about private bodily rights. I have found most right to life people to be inconsistent when it comes to this point. In order to be consistent, if you are a right to life supporter, you have to argue that a person does not have private bodily rights. In other words, you should be favoring mandatory blood donations, mandatory organ donation upon death, and, likely, a very high rate of taxation (since lives could be saved by giving our money to famine-stricken areas, and presumably if we have no right to bodily privacy when others' lives are at stake, we have even less of a right to our property.) When forced to look at it this way, I have found most right to lifers lose their consistency by claiming that the rights of adulthoods do not apply to the rights of fetuses simply because the fetus cannot fend for themselves. However as the above example illustrates, adults can and will also fall under the exact same condition, that of not being able to fend for themselves.
30 September 2008
at 2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
I could barely read the blog entry due to its poor grammar and horrible sentence structure. This kid should be less concerned about the abortion debate and concentrate on finishing school instead.
30 September 2008
at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tsicissalcdedeahlatme (Anonymous) says…
Thank you for your valuable contribution to this debate, Hiaku.
I admit I let passion cloud my grammer and fluency in this blog, but you really have no reason to irrelevantly criticize my writing style.
I'm no Joyce, but I get by (just ask my English professors).
30 September 2008
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:
that we should legislate what pregnant woman carrying a legal human being can or can't do. That, to me, is a problem.
******************************
Damn, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Everyone else in the world is restricted as to what they can and can't do regarding a pregnant woman's child. A doctor can't negligently treat the woman; her husband can't hit her and harm the child and so on. And legislate? Seriously, do you know what the common law is?
30 September 2008
at 3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Satirical (Anonymous) says…
Protecting the most vulnerable in our society…what a ridiculous idea. Since “life” or what is a “human” can be difficult to define, even among those outside the womb, we should create an arbitrary line, devoid of all rationality and scientific evidence, to determine when the unborn get “rights”. Because humans are incapable of making intelligent decisions this line should be bright to avoid any possibility of rational thought. How about when the “fetus” is “born”? Sounds good? Until then everything is fair game, including killing the unborn to avoid paying child support or due to malice against the mother. (I mean pregnant female, since “mother” may indicate being the parent of a “child”)
30 September 2008
at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“Everyone else in the world is restricted as to what they can and can't do regarding a pregnant woman's child.”
How many of those who you characterize as “everyone else in the world” have said child inside their body?
Did you spend much time thinking about this?
30 September 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says:
“What's your point? Have any of those abortions directly affected you? If a woman wants to abort her fetus that's her choice and it's none of your business. Like I said earlier, if you don't like abortions, don't have one. It's that simple.”
Marion writes:
Well, then by your logic (sic), we should not be concerned with the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis; they only killed maybe six million and those deaths may or may not have directly affected me personally; I don't know.
I suppose that it is OK to kill fifty million people as long as I am not “directly” affected.
Yeah, right.
30 September 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
Well why everyone is yelling about when life starts and the ins and outs of that, let me interject this into the conversation, it is my understanding that the republican party wants to repeal R v W, which would take it out of the hands of the feds and bring it back to each individual state. Why are people threatened by that?
There is no good argument for “want to go back to back alley abortions?” because that will never happen, even IF abortion was outlawed in every state, it still would not happen. Abortion is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, mostly ran by men. Let me say that again, its mostly overseen and preformed by men.
I will not give my name but say that I have had an abortion, not once but twice, neither time by my own choice, but because it was dangerous for me to continue and then I lost a child at 21 weeks, the procedure to get that child out of my body was a “late term abrotion” prefomed by a special doctor they brought into OP regional. Abortions should never be used as a form of birth control, the women who are doing that are whores, plain and simple, not only that but they are incredibly stupid as a simple pill would prevent this.
Also, what happens years down the line when she pulls her head out, and meets someone and wants to have a baby and cant because of scar tissue etc…then guess what happnes? She sues the doctor! Guess who pays for that?? you and me in the form of malpractice insurance.
And since R v W is a federal law, guess who is profiting off the wombs of women all over the US?
So the argument should not be about when does life start? when do WE as a society determine when life begins, but rather it should be a wake up call to everyone, including men who have wives, daughter, mothers, sisters, aunts, who are being proded by the media and the hype to just have an abortion…go on with your life, this has nothing to do with the rights of women, it has nothing to do with the right of life, but rather it has everything to do with the profit of their almighty dollar, so lets think about that, and that should be enough to make you spitting mad! All this of course is my opinion and I just want to say that I am a christian and I do not believe in abortion, but I am more than outraged by the amount of money that is being profitted by fat cats who could care less about women or their rights.
30 September 2008
at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
To the contrary, kansas778, YOU don't have a clue what I am talking about.
I was talking about what a pregnant woman's ability to manage her own behavior. I even gave specific a specific example—diet—which you conveniently ignored. Try again.
==========================================
Sorry Marion, your ideologically motivated links don't convince me that my understanding of what they currently teach in medical school is wrong. Pain is defined as something that is unpleasant. A non-conscious fetus has no capability to decide what is pleasant or not, in spite of what reactions to stimuli your studies may interpret as “pain”
Plus, you lost a long time ago with your childish reference to the Holocaust. Godwin's Law.
And here, allow me to take this:
“The fetus also responds violently to painful stimuli-needle puncture and injection of cold or of hypertonic solutions- stimuli which you and I find painful, children will tell you are painful, and the neonate, to judge from his responses, finds painful”
And make it scientific:
“The fetus also responds violently to stimuli-needle puncture and injection of cold or of hypertonic solutions.”
There. Everything else was the “researcher” spewing his own opinions all over everything. See that part where he says “to judge from his responses”? There is nothing scientific about that “conclusion”. It is a judgement, and he admits as much. There are a number of reasons, having nothing to do with the perception of pain, that a fetus might respond to a plethora of stimuli. Perhaps
30 September 2008
at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
“Protecting the most vulnerable in our society…what a ridiculous idea.”
–––––—
No, the ridiculous idea is believing that a fetus is a member of society.
30 September 2008
at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SeanS (Anonymous) says…
Kansas voter your argument is lame because it shows no real knowledge of the issue at hand. The ease of baby making has nothing to do with the value of life. And the issue is obviously not that simple. It's obviously not just a matter of personal preference. Once again, Lame.
30 September 2008
at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…
ksdivakat — You say that you've had 2 abortions, but you then say that you don't believe in abortions. Which one is true? Also, since you brought up the subject of money, how much did your abortions cost?
SeanS — It IS that simple! If you don't like abortions, don't have one. A fetus isn't a person, so your argument is the one that's lame. And the ease of baby making has everything to do with the value of life. I could see your point if human females were only fertile for a certain period of time once every few years, but that's not the case. Any woman can get pregnant at any time, so what's the big deal about a few abortions? If a woman can't get pregnant, maybe that's “god” telling her that she shouldn't have kids. Again, if you don't like abortions, don't have one.
30 September 2008
at 5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
“Thank you for your pro-choice stance, but I don't appreciate being called an Absinthe-fiend just because I'm a stronger writer than you are”
You're a stronger writer than I am? But apparently you lack the comprehension skills that might make that conceited and improvable claim a possibility. Sorry to have offended you so, ironic as that is considering your blog was submitted to illicit a similar reaction from those you obviously hold with disdain and disregard. But I never called you a 'fiend' nor suggested you were such. I asked a sarcastic question and you chose to take it as a smear. That's a 'you' problem, again ironic on its face.
And if you believe you're a 'strong writer' because you strung three words in one sentence that even the most pompous of intellectuals wouldn't dare attempt, well, bully for you. But it don't make it so, Yogi.
“If you don't like abortions, your response should be simple: don't have one. End. Of. Debate. ”
And sorry to poke another hole into your patronizing yet ever so….flawed?… 'intellectuality', but do you really believe your above declaration ends the debate for those who fight against abortion? That's sorta like telling someone who's against the torture and mutilation of cats (apparently a topical subject around town these days) not to torture or mutilate their own cat. Brilliant, Yogi. Ya really cracked the case with that one!
30 September 2008
at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
metalheadedclassicist:
“Firstly…”
“Secondly…”
Lastly… what a jackass.
30 September 2008
at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SeanS (Anonymous) says…
Kansasvoter, man you really suck at this. If the ease of reproducing a human life makes that life have no value then why would it be wrong for someone to murder someone else? Answer me that. If ease is what determines value then age should have nothing to do with it… at least that's what your argument implies. And just because a fetus may not possess personhood doesn't make it ok to kill. Are you also saying that we should be able to kill those in coma, or with long term brain damage, or disabled?
30 September 2008
at 6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
tsicissalcdedeahlatme,
I believe in free speech… “but I must say I commend communist nations for their anti-religious traditions.”
One of these things does not go with the other. Please educate yourself as to which one.
And if you're commending those murderous regimes then I'm not sure I can accurately describe your position without crossing some lines I would rather not cross. Many, many, many theists and others have died at the hands of those butchers. Of course that's just my nasty Christian sensibilities getting in the way of your true faith, isn't it?
And the “Spanish Inquistion” was not directed at non-theists. Orginally the target was Muslims, then it was directed at Protestants, and eventually at any “enemy” of the Spanish Crown.
However by your own admission “I discriminate against theists” , you seem to have some problem with bigotry.
Your posts also seem to be insulting, condescending, arrogant, ignorant, and lacking in reason.
30 September 2008
at 8:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
tra,
I beg to differ with your last post. Your description of the original poster is off-base.
I believe the word you're looking for is twit.
You know that I hate to disagree with you.
Although, I would find the term nit-wit generally acceptable, and a useful compromise. You know that I'm an amiable sort and willing to give ground when it is justified, as are you.
:-)
30 September 2008
at 8:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…
You know, I don't think this debate will ever be settled because it's too complicated.
If it was such a black and white issue, there wouldn't be so much vehement public discussion about it.
30 September 2008
at 8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
RS: “I beg to differ with your last post”
You know, RS, I made that post in the heat of the moment.
I consummated it, as much to see whether it would be removed as anything else, having seen folks make similar remarks with substitutions such as jacka$$. ( I even clicked the “Suggest removal” link next to it. )
If I weren't so strapped for time, these days, I might even join the fray
-after all, TRUTH is on *my* side! ( Besides, it pisses logicso off. )
,;-D
I do love to see you “beg,” though.
,;-)
30 September 2008
at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
Calliope… to differ-I'll leave the begging to RS-it is really very simple…
so simple it defies comprehension.
And regarding the “vehement” public discussion, regardless of the words flung, anyone truly embracing the life being defended would, of necessity, have to embrace those *opponents* who also survived that precarious first trimester… bastards!
30 September 2008
at 9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
“… it's only words, and words are all I have, to steal your time away….”
( hmm… I think the Brothers Gibb may have said that… before they did the puberty regression, and their voices *changed* )
30 September 2008
at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
Huh, I thought that we had resolved this argument. Wasn't that what the blog was about?
30 September 2008
at 9:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
Jonas,
Sarcasm?? I can never tell, and it was such a well-written blog.
I opted for the more direct approach this time. Your approach was better.
Tra, that's the Brothers Grimm, tis abortion after all, and Tiller is the witch in the woods giving Hansel and Gretal sweets.
30 September 2008
at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
skinny (Anonymous) says…
Woman's choice, end of story!
30 September 2008
at 10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
“Woman's choice, end of story!”
skinny, *that* story never ends… until the fat lady sings.
30 September 2008
at 10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
RS: “tra, that's the Brothers Grimm….”
,;-)
ah, I can see you're well on your way…
would you like me to set you up with the support group?
30 September 2008
at 11:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
readingsports: What, me, sarcastic? Perish the thought.
1 October 2008
at 12:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Agnostick (Anonymous) says:
For the past several months, I've been engaged in a semi-covert operation to shamefully promote a book that I think is rather cool. I frequently tack the author's accompanying blog at the end of many of my posts.”
Marion writes:
I'll bet you do.
So you get to post your affiliate links on the LJW and market someone's book for profit without paying for ad space?
Post reported and “removal” suggested!
1 October 2008
at 12:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous)
No, I'm afraid it's not simple because if it was there wouldn't be any discussion about it. Public discussion isn't just limited to the LJ World forum. Abortion is a national topic.
1 October 2008
at 6:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansas778 (Anonymous) says…
LS04, sorry buddy, but you're in over your head. Do you know the elements for negligence? The law has been clearly established regarding anyone else *but* the mother hurting the child. The only thing missing is an actual duty on the mother's behalf. So in your dietary example, do you even have a clue how a case would proceed?
1 October 2008
at 6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Hey, can I start spamming the LJW boards with my affiliate links like Agnostick does?
1 October 2008
at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
Calliope: “No, I'm afraid it's not simple because if it was there wouldn't be any discussion about it. Public discussion isn't just limited to the LJ World forum. Abortion is a national topic.”
Oh, I agree, the “discussion” is not simple-rather convoluted, in my assessment. It is the *resolution* which is simple-simple to all but the convolutionists.
1 October 2008
at 8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
Agnostick,
I gotta say that Marion's criticism of you is right on the money.
I would add that your constant assertion of being a centrist has worn a bit thin especially since you seem to be toeing the NARAL party line, and our recent discussion of your draconian proposal to remove tax-exempt status from churches, and leave it intact for your liberal political causes.
And I would ask if you actually been in an evangelical church lately or even at all. If I remember correctly you're Catholic by background. I go to a pro-life evangelical church, and I assure you that our spiritual lives are heathly. But we also fall short. Though I appreciate your concern.
Though I would say that I am actually a Christian as opposed to this clown or any of his followers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0…
:-)
1 October 2008
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
Jonas, What, me, sarcastic?
Only very rarely….
1 October 2008
at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
Skinny, your argument is….
1 October 2008
at 8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
duplenty (Anonymous) says…
“I go to a pro-life evangelical church, and I assure you that our spiritual lives are heathly.”
Um, isn't that kind of assurance kind of the problem with all religions?
I'm sure a suicide bomber would say the exact same thing…
1 October 2008
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ReadingSports (Anonymous) says…
Duplenty,
“Um, isn't that kind of assurance kind of the problem with all religions?”
No, not really, but a lengthy and complex topic, another time perhaps. And a bit off topic, not that we aren't far a-field here.
“I'm sure a suicide bomber would say the exact same thing:” He might say that…That is until he actually meets the 72 that have never been with a man.
72 demons that is…. Hell is a warm place, after all.
Catch ya later, gotta go…
1 October 2008
at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
funkdog1 (Anonymous) says…
I love how this thread is mostly guys telling other guys what women should or should not do with their bodies. It's just so *male* of you all.
1 October 2008
at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink