Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, February 27, 2010
Politics Legal Abortion Worse For Blacks Than Slavery
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:37 PM
Another Republican opens his mouth.
1
What kind of life would those fetuses grow up to have, given that their mothers weren't confident that they should be born for whatever reason?
It's arguments like these that they ignore. They don't really have any clue. no one really does.
It's arguments like these that they ignore. They don't really have any clue. no one really does.
2
If the KKK or Aryan Nation could kill half of all black children they would probably think that a good tally.
They should have gone to medical school.
They should have gone to medical school.
3
75% of those who escape the Abortionist are born out of wedlock.
Only one of eight conceived Black babies manages to be born into an intact family.
Liberal policies seem to be extracting a grim toll.
Only one of eight conceived Black babies manages to be born into an intact family.
Liberal policies seem to be extracting a grim toll.
5
Even before he gets to the offensive comments, he already sets things up for me to dismiss what he says. When he says "in this country we had slavery for God knows how long." God may know how but also any person with some knowledge (or with access reference information) the history and law of this country. Its not some big metaphysical question that needs an eternal all-seeing being to answer.
9
@4: And that father was likely to be the white slaveowner, since planters would quite often rape their female slaves and then sell the children produced.
And hey, even if the children were born from a loving relationship, they were liable to be separated from their parents and sold at auction during their early childhood. Anyone who thinks that abortion is worse for blacks than slavery is a moronic hypocrite.
Slavery ruined the lives of countless innocents; the judicious use of abortion can prevent lives from being ruined.
And hey, even if the children were born from a loving relationship, they were liable to be separated from their parents and sold at auction during their early childhood. Anyone who thinks that abortion is worse for blacks than slavery is a moronic hypocrite.
Slavery ruined the lives of countless innocents; the judicious use of abortion can prevent lives from being ruined.
10
9
Slaves struggled mightily to survive.
Suicide would have been relatively simple.
Even slaves prefer life to death.
So do aborted babies.
Slaves struggled mightily to survive.
Suicide would have been relatively simple.
Even slaves prefer life to death.
So do aborted babies.
11
@9
" ...the judicious use of abortion can prevent lives from being ruined."
Is that a cruel joke or typical arrogant Liberal cluelessness?
" ...the judicious use of abortion can prevent lives from being ruined."
Is that a cruel joke or typical arrogant Liberal cluelessness?
13
@ 2,3,4,10 & 11
A born sentient child dies somewhere on the face of the earth from preventable illness, famine, or violence. Prove to me that fetuses before the third trimester are sentient and suffer, or would choose to be born to a parent or parents who think they are better off not being born, or ending up being bounced from house to house in foster care because infertile white people only want white infants and then maybe, just maybe you'll gain a shred of credibility, but I doubt it.
A born sentient child dies somewhere on the face of the earth from preventable illness, famine, or violence. Prove to me that fetuses before the third trimester are sentient and suffer, or would choose to be born to a parent or parents who think they are better off not being born, or ending up being bounced from house to house in foster care because infertile white people only want white infants and then maybe, just maybe you'll gain a shred of credibility, but I doubt it.
14
Sorry that should say "A born sentient child dies somewhere on the face of the earth from preventable illness, famine, or violence every three seconds."
15
Right. Because this country would be so much better off with all those millions of unwanted black kids raising hell. What a maroon.
17
Hey Rep. Franks, maybe all those black women would feel better about bringing their kids into this world if they thought that old, rich, white men like yourself actually gave a shit about them?
18
Abortion is the best thing to happen in the ghetto. Could you imagine the world with 3 times as many of these people? Just imagine Westlake Center with 3 times as many.
Keep abortion safe, legal and available.... Especially in hoods, barrios and trailer parks.
Keep abortion safe, legal and available.... Especially in hoods, barrios and trailer parks.
20
"if they thought that old, rich, white men like yourself actually gave a shit about them?"
Isn't that their father's job?
Isn't that their father's job?
22
9
"Slavery ruined the lives of countless innocents..."
I wonder about the uncounted innocents' lives that are ruined by abortion....
"Slavery ruined the lives of countless innocents..."
I wonder about the uncounted innocents' lives that are ruined by abortion....
23
13
"ending up being bounced from house to house in foster care because infertile white people only want white infants"
So it is the fault of white people that black babies are conceived unwanted?
And, damn your hypocritical ass, if you aren't personally willing to raise this baby don't complain if Planned Parenthood cons the mom into killing it...
"ending up being bounced from house to house in foster care because infertile white people only want white infants"
So it is the fault of white people that black babies are conceived unwanted?
And, damn your hypocritical ass, if you aren't personally willing to raise this baby don't complain if Planned Parenthood cons the mom into killing it...
24
Unwanted and unloved children already exist in the millions. Clearly right wing morons aren't adopting. Good thing. Big mouths and mean spirits.
25
@13-
"or would choose to be born or end up being bounced from house to house in foster care..."
I think you are on to something.
These poor kids deserve, and obviously want, something else-
let's dismantle an expensive, failed and ineffective foster care system and build gas ovens instead.
"or would choose to be born or end up being bounced from house to house in foster care..."
I think you are on to something.
These poor kids deserve, and obviously want, something else-
let's dismantle an expensive, failed and ineffective foster care system and build gas ovens instead.
26
The Republicans have a genius for seizing on injustices they themselves create and using them to gain votes. Three things help teen girls not get pregnant: a sense that they have a future to look forward to if they don't bear children early, a healthy family or community that supports their self-esteem and empowers their self-determination, and access to sex ed and birth control.
Which of those things does the GOP support?
So really, in an odd way, the high abortion rates among black teens, like the high motherhood rates, do reflect racism and the legacy of slavery. You just gotta love the chutzpah of someone seizing on this as a political talking point for these old white guys and their token brown men.
Which of those things does the GOP support?
So really, in an odd way, the high abortion rates among black teens, like the high motherhood rates, do reflect racism and the legacy of slavery. You just gotta love the chutzpah of someone seizing on this as a political talking point for these old white guys and their token brown men.
27
"So it is the fault of white people that black babies are conceived unwanted?"
Every problem in the black community is the fault of white people!
Every problem in the black community is the fault of white people!
28
"Three things help teen girls not get pregnant: a sense that they have a future to look forward to if they don't bear children early, a healthy family or community that supports their self-esteem"
Wow, Somalia an Ethiopian families manage to do this quite well and last time I noticed, they are black.
Never blame black urban culture though!
Wow, Somalia an Ethiopian families manage to do this quite well and last time I noticed, they are black.
Never blame black urban culture though!
29
Wow. Trolls out in force today. Can't you guys get dates? I thought Kim had slain the abortion troll with her kindness yesterday, but obviously I was wrong.
Off to dress for dinner....
Off to dress for dinner....
30
Ah, yes. The old "abortion is genocide" ticket. I've read many essays and watched a 2 hour video on this nonsense.
This concept is utter bullshit. "Margaret Sanger was a Eugenicist" is just the tip of this floating pile of shit.
Just ask black president of planned parenthood from 1978 to 1992 Faye Wattleton. Did I mention she's black?
This concept is utter bullshit. "Margaret Sanger was a Eugenicist" is just the tip of this floating pile of shit.
Just ask black president of planned parenthood from 1978 to 1992 Faye Wattleton. Did I mention she's black?
31
this makes me crazy. forcing women to give birth to children they don't want is THE ACTUAL GENOCIDAL TACTIC. there isn't a genocide of any stripe that hasn't included rape as a tactic both for the psychological trauma it inflicts and the damage done to a culture when women bear and raise children they don't want.
32
@20,
Rail all you want against abortion, but don't act surprised and pissy when people demand better access to health care, better sex ed., more funding and support for adoption agencies, and more paid leave from work after childbirth.
If you want to force women to have kids they don't want, especially women who are poor, with low self-esteem and ignorance about sex due to society's training them to feel shame about it, then you'd better chip in to help make sure this kid doesn't end up like the mother or become a criminal.
It's sad that so many abortion opponents are more concerned with making sure the mother feels punished and shamed, rather than making sure the kid grows up well.
Rail all you want against abortion, but don't act surprised and pissy when people demand better access to health care, better sex ed., more funding and support for adoption agencies, and more paid leave from work after childbirth.
If you want to force women to have kids they don't want, especially women who are poor, with low self-esteem and ignorance about sex due to society's training them to feel shame about it, then you'd better chip in to help make sure this kid doesn't end up like the mother or become a criminal.
It's sad that so many abortion opponents are more concerned with making sure the mother feels punished and shamed, rather than making sure the kid grows up well.
33
@25
Or we could just allow women to take charge of their own reproduction, provide easy access to education, birth control and abortion in order to make sure that children are born into homes that are able to care for them.
@23
Yes actually, if you're not willing to help raise the child you are a giant hypocritical ass if you want to force the mother to incubate it until it becomes sentient enough to suffer.
Or we could just allow women to take charge of their own reproduction, provide easy access to education, birth control and abortion in order to make sure that children are born into homes that are able to care for them.
@23
Yes actually, if you're not willing to help raise the child you are a giant hypocritical ass if you want to force the mother to incubate it until it becomes sentient enough to suffer.
35
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to state that I always wanted to be raised by a 13-year-old.
And based my observations, yore "intact families" are also a joke.
And based my observations, yore "intact families" are also a joke.
36
@"Final Solution" et al: You 'pro-life' people are objectively pro-rape. You want to protect the right of rapists to force unwilling women to bear their offspring.
38
I live in the area he represents. I've seen people holding tea bagging signs outside his office. At least he isn't as popular as Sheriff Joe.
40
i don't know why CHOICE is such a hard concept for people. in slavery there was NO CHOICE. in abortion, there is CHOICE. while i wish someone would muzzle these rethugs i keep hoping they will dig themselves into a hole with all of these big mouth antics. that doesn't seem to happen though. there are too many idiots in this country who relate to these morons.
41
ATTENTION, CITIZENS!!
YOUR URB IS SHRINKING!!
MOVE TO SECTOR G > > > SECTOR G ! ! !
Bing-emphasizes-need-to-shrink-city
Quote:
Mayor Dave Bing said Wednesday he "absolutely" intends to relocate residents from desolate neighborhoods and is bracing for inevitable legal challenges when he unveils his downsizing plan.
Is Barack Obama the next Bernie Madoff?
http://yrihf.com/viewtopic.php?t=3974&si…
YOUR URB IS SHRINKING!!
MOVE TO SECTOR G > > > SECTOR G ! ! !
Bing-emphasizes-need-to-shrink-city
Quote:
Mayor Dave Bing said Wednesday he "absolutely" intends to relocate residents from desolate neighborhoods and is bracing for inevitable legal challenges when he unveils his downsizing plan.
Is Barack Obama the next Bernie Madoff?
http://yrihf.com/viewtopic.php?t=3974&si…
42
"i don't know why CHOICE is such a hard concept for people."
Not hard at all. I'm so pro-choice I want free Fed-A-Bort clinics in every hood, barrio and trailer park offering free rims for the 1st abortion, a Playstation for each subsequent abortion. I'd rather pay to get these honeys vacuumed than pay all the welfare and judicial costs these wastes of human life will inflict on us.
THe flip side is, we need upper middle class white women to achieve their educational and professional goals to keep
this economy going and their taxes rolling in to support the welfare class, so it's off to Fed-A-Bort for you too, girls of Delta Delta Delta, you have careers to think of.
Can you imagine what America's underclass would be like if there was no abortion? Have you spent a Saturday afternoon at Westlake?
Not hard at all. I'm so pro-choice I want free Fed-A-Bort clinics in every hood, barrio and trailer park offering free rims for the 1st abortion, a Playstation for each subsequent abortion. I'd rather pay to get these honeys vacuumed than pay all the welfare and judicial costs these wastes of human life will inflict on us.
THe flip side is, we need upper middle class white women to achieve their educational and professional goals to keep
this economy going and their taxes rolling in to support the welfare class, so it's off to Fed-A-Bort for you too, girls of Delta Delta Delta, you have careers to think of.
Can you imagine what America's underclass would be like if there was no abortion? Have you spent a Saturday afternoon at Westlake?
43
Hey, 5280--
I think the word you're looking for is "moron," not "maroon."
However, I will act like you & take this opportunity to insult you, as everyone makes editing errors. (I'm far more interested in refuting your actual ideas.)
I think the word you're looking for is "moron," not "maroon."
However, I will act like you & take this opportunity to insult you, as everyone makes editing errors. (I'm far more interested in refuting your actual ideas.)
44
39: Oh, I'm sorry, somebody brought up war-torn Africa, where mass rape is a commonly used tactic in genocides.
46
"36 Rape and Incest account for less than 1% of Abortions in America.
Keep them legal."
Not to the Looney Left, for these radical babes, any time they have 'sex' it's rape. They learned this useful fact at Evergreen State's College of Sex is Rape.
Keep them legal."
Not to the Looney Left, for these radical babes, any time they have 'sex' it's rape. They learned this useful fact at Evergreen State's College of Sex is Rape.
48
I've been to Olympia; not sure I saw any womyn there, though, just what look like guys with tits.
50
44
You are right, there it is a horrific situation, I was referring to this country.
I do not support rape.
You are right, there it is a horrific situation, I was referring to this country.
I do not support rape.
54
@10: If you'd read any accounts of the Middle Passage, you'd know that enslaved Africans often killed themselves, whether by jumping overboard or refusing to eat, rather than be subjected to such degradation. It's the same spirit as "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees." MIRITE?
To all who jabber "Aborted embryos don't have a choice!":
So? They are not human beings. They are clumps of cells within their mother. Embryos lack even the most rudimentary sentience of a newborn. From the standpoint of depriving an innocent being of its life, it is far worse to slaughter a pig; pigs have intelligence comparable to that of great apes (including humans) and cetaceans, while human embryos, but for their genetic code, are no more human than the embryo inside a chicken egg. We don't seem to have a problem with killing pigs, though, and human genetics don't mean a whole lot; you kill human cells every time you clap your hands.
So what is it about a semi-amorphous cluster of cells with no sentience, no consciousness, and no ability to survive without leeching off of their mother by use of a placenta that makes their destruction so abhorrent? Riddle me that.
To all who jabber "Aborted embryos don't have a choice!":
So? They are not human beings. They are clumps of cells within their mother. Embryos lack even the most rudimentary sentience of a newborn. From the standpoint of depriving an innocent being of its life, it is far worse to slaughter a pig; pigs have intelligence comparable to that of great apes (including humans) and cetaceans, while human embryos, but for their genetic code, are no more human than the embryo inside a chicken egg. We don't seem to have a problem with killing pigs, though, and human genetics don't mean a whole lot; you kill human cells every time you clap your hands.
So what is it about a semi-amorphous cluster of cells with no sentience, no consciousness, and no ability to survive without leeching off of their mother by use of a placenta that makes their destruction so abhorrent? Riddle me that.
56
You can't prove that anything else is sentient or suffers. What would you do, give people an IQ test and bump them off if they fail?
He is simply making a quantitative comparison. It's like saying more people died of influenza in 1920 than died fighting in WWI.
If you have any qualms about abortion, any notion that personhood is formed before the child leaves the womb and that child is not just a lump of cells until it takes its first breath unaided (I'm just a lump of cells, as far as anyone can tell) then the numbers give pause for reflection on a disproportionate, self-inflicted evil.
If those children weren't aborted, they would be voting to advance the rights of their community today.
He is simply making a quantitative comparison. It's like saying more people died of influenza in 1920 than died fighting in WWI.
If you have any qualms about abortion, any notion that personhood is formed before the child leaves the womb and that child is not just a lump of cells until it takes its first breath unaided (I'm just a lump of cells, as far as anyone can tell) then the numbers give pause for reflection on a disproportionate, self-inflicted evil.
If those children weren't aborted, they would be voting to advance the rights of their community today.
57
Sorry, Allegedly (@20), deadbeat dads‡ aside, there are plenty of cases in which paternity cannot be established, when a man is unsuitable to parent (or when the mother is unsuitable to parent, for that matter), and when parents are abusive to each other or the child. There are also plenty more cases where circumstances are just plain wrong, such as in the present economy (and notably in the Reagan/Bush economy) in which an otherwise suitable parent cannot provide support due to lack of adequate employment. (Most workers are underemployed and underpaid.) There are also plenty of cases in which an infant at the wrong moment will ruin the opportunities for one to become a suitable parent. But we radical liberals have been arguing that issue for years and you obstructionists have been ignoring it.
So, if the state is going to enforce birthing (even partially, through reproduction health care and contraceptive limits and obstructions), it naturally follows the state will provide support for the child when said support is unavailable through the parents' personal means, including adequate medical care, food, shelter, child supervision and schooling opportunities to thrive (which means through secondary school, if the child / young adult qualifies). If you're going to proceed on the pretense that every elective abortion could have been President of the United States (or a football star, or a science prodigy, or whatever), you have to guarantee an actual opportunity to become President (or a football star, etc.). That means school opportunities (through college) and a stable home and community environment that will nurture proclivities to study. Are you ready to put your tax dollars where your mouth is, Allegedly? The best I've heard from an abortion-obstructionist such as yourself is the willingness to donate some diapers during the neonatal months. (Which is not only inadequate, but insulting.) I can't imagine you'll give better than your snarky, insulting excuses, but go on, surprise me.
In the meantime, I begin to wonder, Allegedly, what would you imagine would happen when all the surrender sites (and, consequently, the foster-care system) were flooded with unwanted children? Draft them all into the military? Open adoption to corporations? Give them guns and let them slaughter each other in the slums? (That's pretty much what we do now). Tell me, Allegedly, what is your protestant conservative, small-government, free-market solution to this problem? Mmm?
‡ A grotesque term to refer to those fathers who are able to participate in parenting and support of a child, but do not (according to the laws described as such). Deadbeat dad laws, instead, tend to be applied to fathers who are disabled, who are unable to parent or support, themselves, or whose relationship to the mother is untenable, hence their rights to equal custody are denied due to circumstances.
More...
So, if the state is going to enforce birthing (even partially, through reproduction health care and contraceptive limits and obstructions), it naturally follows the state will provide support for the child when said support is unavailable through the parents' personal means, including adequate medical care, food, shelter, child supervision and schooling opportunities to thrive (which means through secondary school, if the child / young adult qualifies). If you're going to proceed on the pretense that every elective abortion could have been President of the United States (or a football star, or a science prodigy, or whatever), you have to guarantee an actual opportunity to become President (or a football star, etc.). That means school opportunities (through college) and a stable home and community environment that will nurture proclivities to study. Are you ready to put your tax dollars where your mouth is, Allegedly? The best I've heard from an abortion-obstructionist such as yourself is the willingness to donate some diapers during the neonatal months. (Which is not only inadequate, but insulting.) I can't imagine you'll give better than your snarky, insulting excuses, but go on, surprise me.
In the meantime, I begin to wonder, Allegedly, what would you imagine would happen when all the surrender sites (and, consequently, the foster-care system) were flooded with unwanted children? Draft them all into the military? Open adoption to corporations? Give them guns and let them slaughter each other in the slums? (That's pretty much what we do now). Tell me, Allegedly, what is your protestant conservative, small-government, free-market solution to this problem? Mmm?
‡ A grotesque term to refer to those fathers who are able to participate in parenting and support of a child, but do not (according to the laws described as such). Deadbeat dad laws, instead, tend to be applied to fathers who are disabled, who are unable to parent or support, themselves, or whose relationship to the mother is untenable, hence their rights to equal custody are denied due to circumstances.
58
Some Old Nobodaddy, I way prefer maroon in the Warner Bros., Bugs Bunny tradition.
I think the full insult is ultramaroon.
I think the full insult is ultramaroon.
59
Regarding the quantification of sentience or pain:
Higher brain functions.
It is the rule by which we salvage a beating-heart cadaver for organ transplants.
If it works to mark the end of a person's life, why cannot it work to mark the beginning?
Higher brain functions.
It is the rule by which we salvage a beating-heart cadaver for organ transplants.
If it works to mark the end of a person's life, why cannot it work to mark the beginning?
60
So, Allegedly (@49), do women get a choice? Who gets priority? The person, or the potential?
Are a woman's rights honored always? Or does she lose the status of human citizenship because she's pregnant?
Are women allowed choice to find their own destinies? Or is destiny chosen for them as breeding vats?
Where do a woman's rights fit in, Allegedly?
Or do you just disregard them?
What if the fetus is female? What then?
Are a woman's rights honored always? Or does she lose the status of human citizenship because she's pregnant?
Are women allowed choice to find their own destinies? Or is destiny chosen for them as breeding vats?
Where do a woman's rights fit in, Allegedly?
Or do you just disregard them?
What if the fetus is female? What then?
62
You can't prove that anything else is sentient or suffers. What would you do, give people an IQ test and bump them off if they fail?
Um, yes, yes you prove that sentient beings suffer, likewise we can prove that embryos and fetuses before a certain stage of development do not suffer during an abortion because their central nervous systems are not developed enough to process "pain", nor do they have any sort of consciousness whatsoever. When a sentient being suffers they can tell you, or you can observe it yourself.
Um, yes, yes you prove that sentient beings suffer, likewise we can prove that embryos and fetuses before a certain stage of development do not suffer during an abortion because their central nervous systems are not developed enough to process "pain", nor do they have any sort of consciousness whatsoever. When a sentient being suffers they can tell you, or you can observe it yourself.
64
And what was the infant mortality rate for babies born into slavery? Undoubtely high, possibly higher than today's 'abortion rate.'
Oh, that's right. In the eyes of anti-choice activists, once the kid is born, they're on their own to survive.
Fucking hypocrites.
Oh, that's right. In the eyes of anti-choice activists, once the kid is born, they're on their own to survive.
Fucking hypocrites.
65
Bullshit Raindrop, pure bullshit.
If people like you were REALLY concerned with the issue of "potential", you'd be doing EVERYTHING in your power to ensure that actual born children are given every opportunity to thrive and realize that potential: by making sure they have adequate nutrition, housing and education, by striving to provide them with a positive and nurturing home environment, by keeping the planet in good working condition so it will be there when they're old enough to take over responsibility for it themselves, by giving them access to resources that help them in developing their intellectual and physical capacities.
I don't see ONE SINGLE plank in the GOP platform that promotes ANY of the above; rather the opposite, since pretty much everything you-all advocate: cutting government spending, relaxing environmental regulations, giving more power to corporations than to people, rejecting universal health care, et al, are intended to do nothing but at the very least maintain the status quo with the folks at the top firmly and permanently entrenched there, to make sure the people what gots keep gettin' and them that don't stay down in the gutter where they belong.
In fact, I would posit that the very notion of tens of millions of these children growing up to actually achieve this potential scares the living daylights out of you folks. Can you imagine a nation with several million Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's? Or Malcolm X's or Ralph Ellisons, or Cesare Chavez's, or Doris Wilkinsons, or Cornel Wests, or MarÍa Elena Toraño-PantÍns? Because, if you actually practiced what you're preaching Raindrop, that's what you'd get - an unstoppable army of minority authority figures with intellects so far surpassing your own that you'd piss yourself in terror every morning.
So yeah, keep harping the hypocritical "it's all about their POTENTIAL as human beings" canard, while simultaneously not lifting so much as a finger to see that they ever in fact realize that potential.
Unless of course by "potential" what you actually mean is: "their potential to be cannon-fodder for our wars, their potential to our flip burgers, mow our lawns and pick our vegetables, or their potential to provide 'prayer warriors' for our Ecumenical Army", then yeah, I guess I would call that at least being consistent with your message.
But, of course, you'd actually have to come out and SAY that, wouldn't you? And I'll bet you and your ilk don't have the coglioni to publicly avouch what you really believe, now do you?
More...
If people like you were REALLY concerned with the issue of "potential", you'd be doing EVERYTHING in your power to ensure that actual born children are given every opportunity to thrive and realize that potential: by making sure they have adequate nutrition, housing and education, by striving to provide them with a positive and nurturing home environment, by keeping the planet in good working condition so it will be there when they're old enough to take over responsibility for it themselves, by giving them access to resources that help them in developing their intellectual and physical capacities.
I don't see ONE SINGLE plank in the GOP platform that promotes ANY of the above; rather the opposite, since pretty much everything you-all advocate: cutting government spending, relaxing environmental regulations, giving more power to corporations than to people, rejecting universal health care, et al, are intended to do nothing but at the very least maintain the status quo with the folks at the top firmly and permanently entrenched there, to make sure the people what gots keep gettin' and them that don't stay down in the gutter where they belong.
In fact, I would posit that the very notion of tens of millions of these children growing up to actually achieve this potential scares the living daylights out of you folks. Can you imagine a nation with several million Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's? Or Malcolm X's or Ralph Ellisons, or Cesare Chavez's, or Doris Wilkinsons, or Cornel Wests, or MarÍa Elena Toraño-PantÍns? Because, if you actually practiced what you're preaching Raindrop, that's what you'd get - an unstoppable army of minority authority figures with intellects so far surpassing your own that you'd piss yourself in terror every morning.
So yeah, keep harping the hypocritical "it's all about their POTENTIAL as human beings" canard, while simultaneously not lifting so much as a finger to see that they ever in fact realize that potential.
Unless of course by "potential" what you actually mean is: "their potential to be cannon-fodder for our wars, their potential to our flip burgers, mow our lawns and pick our vegetables, or their potential to provide 'prayer warriors' for our Ecumenical Army", then yeah, I guess I would call that at least being consistent with your message.
But, of course, you'd actually have to come out and SAY that, wouldn't you? And I'll bet you and your ilk don't have the coglioni to publicly avouch what you really believe, now do you?
66
@61: Does an embryo walk, talk, metabolize, respire, think, interact with others, or sense its surroundings like a person? No.
Do people of other races? Yes.
Completely invalid comparison, corkstacker. MIRITE?
Do people of other races? Yes.
Completely invalid comparison, corkstacker. MIRITE?
67
@50: Yes, you do. You support it as a reproductive strategy. Also, since you support Capitol Punishment, you are not really pro-life. But you are pro-forced-conception.
69
"Now Moynihan's basic premise—that slavery destroyed black family structure—has apparently been laid to rest by City University of New York Historian Herbert G. Gutman in his new book, The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925.
"Gutman's conclusion: from the earliest days of slavery until the eve of the Great Depression, the black family was surprisingly close, strong and intact.
"Gutman found that the two-parent household and long-lasting marriages have been typical among blacks for most of their American experience. In the slave quarters, marital fidelity was highly regarded and defended
"Gutman finds the same strong sense of marriage and the extended family (including grandparents, cousins and other relatives) in the postwar years and well into the 20th century. "
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl…
"Gutman's conclusion: from the earliest days of slavery until the eve of the Great Depression, the black family was surprisingly close, strong and intact.
"Gutman found that the two-parent household and long-lasting marriages have been typical among blacks for most of their American experience. In the slave quarters, marital fidelity was highly regarded and defended
"Gutman finds the same strong sense of marriage and the extended family (including grandparents, cousins and other relatives) in the postwar years and well into the 20th century. "
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl…
70
"Gutman focuses primarily on the family unit and showed that a unit consisting of man, woman, and child existed in about two-thirds of the cases of slave unions during the last decades of slavery on the large plantations in the Southeast.
"Gutman dispels the assertion made by Daniel P. Moynihan in The Negro Family in America: The Case for National Action (1965) that "the deterioration of the Negro family," were "rooted.in a historical process that had its origins in the enslavement of seventeenth-and eighteenth-century Africans".
"Gutman demonstrates that slaves, in spite of their condition, did exercise some control over their lives and developed their own unique patterns of culture and social organization. His book is as much about the existence of a black family unit as it is about its function."
"Gutman dispels the assertion made by Daniel P. Moynihan in The Negro Family in America: The Case for National Action (1965) that "the deterioration of the Negro family," were "rooted.in a historical process that had its origins in the enslavement of seventeenth-and eighteenth-century Africans".
"Gutman demonstrates that slaves, in spite of their condition, did exercise some control over their lives and developed their own unique patterns of culture and social organization. His book is as much about the existence of a black family unit as it is about its function."
71
65: Wow COMTE, since you’ve gone off the deep end, extrapolating up-the-wazoo, my 3-word philosophical answer to Venomlash’s philosophical question, maybe I should clarify.
I support a woman’s right to have an abortion. Period. Any other reason besides health of the mother (note I didn’t say ‘life of the mother’), rape, or incest is an incredibly sad choice in my opinion. But it’s the woman’s prerogative.
Also, AZ Rep. Franks made an incredibly stupid and mean-spirited comparison, that should damage his career and it will.
That’s all.
I support a woman’s right to have an abortion. Period. Any other reason besides health of the mother (note I didn’t say ‘life of the mother’), rape, or incest is an incredibly sad choice in my opinion. But it’s the woman’s prerogative.
Also, AZ Rep. Franks made an incredibly stupid and mean-spirited comparison, that should damage his career and it will.
That’s all.
73
Well, if that's what it takes to get you to actually articulate your position on the issue Raindrop, then I consider it time well-spent.
74
Oh, look 72, you're making fun of my name again! You know how totally mature that makes you look, as if you learned that one at recess. By deriding my name you tell the world This is the man who has something to say. This is the guy that has it all together. This is the frood who really knows where his towel is.
Tell ya what, you send me a secret signal each post letting me know it's you and I'll use your very special name. Yes? What shall we call you? How about:
Monstercock, because it's so obvious you have one.
Titanium, impenetrable, like your arguments.
Candyfloss, since your personality is so saccrine sweet!
Powerdrill because your posts probe straight to the core!
Ultramaroon, that very, very special color of your upholstery.
Iamnotajackass, because, you know, you aren't.
Get back to me, dude, and we'll work something out. 'Kay sport?
Tell ya what, you send me a secret signal each post letting me know it's you and I'll use your very special name. Yes? What shall we call you? How about:
Monstercock, because it's so obvious you have one.
Titanium, impenetrable, like your arguments.
Candyfloss, since your personality is so saccrine sweet!
Powerdrill because your posts probe straight to the core!
Ultramaroon, that very, very special color of your upholstery.
Iamnotajackass, because, you know, you aren't.
Get back to me, dude, and we'll work something out. 'Kay sport?
75
@71: Agreed, and COMTE did fall prey to the hazards of extrapolating.
http://xkcd.com/605/
An embryo's potential could be considered to make it more important. However, potential must be weighed against probability.
Let us consider a concept which I will call the "weighted expected quality of life", abbreviated as WEQOL. I would define it as SUM( outcome(i)*prob(i) ), where the sum is taken over the i's, i being an index variable with different values representing different outcomes of the embryo's life should it be brought to term and grow into a child; since we live in a highly complex world, there will be infinitely many unique i. Outcome(i) is a series of values, each value approximating the overall quality of life for the embryo given that its life proceeds by the outcome indexed at some unique value of i. Prob(i) is the probability that the outcome indexed at i would occur, and all values of prob(i) will be between 1 and 0 by the laws of probability.
Positive values of outcome(i) would represent outcomes resulting in a high quality of life (i.e., social and economical success, healthy in body and mind), whereas negative values would represent outcomes fraught with misery, illness, and/or poverty; the higher/lower the value, the better/worse the life represented. Basically, outcome(i) is a crude representation of the quality of a certain life.
Outcome(i) will be considered to be the same for all computations of WEQOL; this is trivial to prove. What differs from embryo to embryo is the values in prob(i) that correspond to those in outcome(i). For example, for an embryo in the womb of a poor single mother already raising two children and struggling with a substance abuse problem, values of prob(i) corresponding to high values of outcome(i) will be relatively low and vice versa; such a child, should the embryo grow into it, would be much less likely to become a professional from a loving and close family and much more likely to become a drug addict and die young and painfully.
There must be some cutoff value for WEQOL below which it is best to abort an unthinking, unfeeling, barely alive clump of cells rather than condemn a thinking and feeling human to almost certain misery and torture; let us call this value alpha. Alpha will always be below zero, and its exact value depends on one's sensibilities and the distribution given to outcome(i). If an embryo is in such a position that any child coming from it would be born into a family where it would almost certainly live a short and painful life (i.e., WEQOL
More...
http://xkcd.com/605/
An embryo's potential could be considered to make it more important. However, potential must be weighed against probability.
Let us consider a concept which I will call the "weighted expected quality of life", abbreviated as WEQOL. I would define it as SUM( outcome(i)*prob(i) ), where the sum is taken over the i's, i being an index variable with different values representing different outcomes of the embryo's life should it be brought to term and grow into a child; since we live in a highly complex world, there will be infinitely many unique i. Outcome(i) is a series of values, each value approximating the overall quality of life for the embryo given that its life proceeds by the outcome indexed at some unique value of i. Prob(i) is the probability that the outcome indexed at i would occur, and all values of prob(i) will be between 1 and 0 by the laws of probability.
Positive values of outcome(i) would represent outcomes resulting in a high quality of life (i.e., social and economical success, healthy in body and mind), whereas negative values would represent outcomes fraught with misery, illness, and/or poverty; the higher/lower the value, the better/worse the life represented. Basically, outcome(i) is a crude representation of the quality of a certain life.
Outcome(i) will be considered to be the same for all computations of WEQOL; this is trivial to prove. What differs from embryo to embryo is the values in prob(i) that correspond to those in outcome(i). For example, for an embryo in the womb of a poor single mother already raising two children and struggling with a substance abuse problem, values of prob(i) corresponding to high values of outcome(i) will be relatively low and vice versa; such a child, should the embryo grow into it, would be much less likely to become a professional from a loving and close family and much more likely to become a drug addict and die young and painfully.
There must be some cutoff value for WEQOL below which it is best to abort an unthinking, unfeeling, barely alive clump of cells rather than condemn a thinking and feeling human to almost certain misery and torture; let us call this value alpha. Alpha will always be below zero, and its exact value depends on one's sensibilities and the distribution given to outcome(i). If an embryo is in such a position that any child coming from it would be born into a family where it would almost certainly live a short and painful life (i.e., WEQOL
76
@66: Does a 40 week old fetus walk, talk, think, interact with others, or sense its surroundings like a person?
No?
Oh boy!
Can I kill it?!
No?
Oh boy!
Can I kill it?!
77
74
tough nite, eh Uri?
you could do all that.
or you could just quit obsessing over who the various anonymous trolls are.
we're sure they'll let you know if and when they want to-
in the meantime maybe you could work on understanding and respecting personal boundaries
tough nite, eh Uri?
you could do all that.
or you could just quit obsessing over who the various anonymous trolls are.
we're sure they'll let you know if and when they want to-
in the meantime maybe you could work on understanding and respecting personal boundaries
78
@66
You really don't want to go there.
Come up with any (competent) list of criteria for "Life". (have someone help you, yours needs a little polishing...)
Compare it to an embryo the instant after conception*.
You will find that your embryo is alive.
And a human**.
Which is why abortionist hide behind the concept of "personhood".
"Sure is a live human being-
But can it touch it's nose with it's tongue?
Can it count backwards from 10?
Can it skip?
no?!
oh- so sorry- it's not a 'person'..."
.
Vocabulary used in this post:
>*Conception: (biology) (or; fertilization) the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species.
>**hu·man [hyoo-muhn] n.- a human being.
>human being n.- a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens
You really don't want to go there.
Come up with any (competent) list of criteria for "Life". (have someone help you, yours needs a little polishing...)
Compare it to an embryo the instant after conception*.
You will find that your embryo is alive.
And a human**.
Which is why abortionist hide behind the concept of "personhood".
"Sure is a live human being-
But can it touch it's nose with it's tongue?
Can it count backwards from 10?
Can it skip?
no?!
oh- so sorry- it's not a 'person'..."
.
Vocabulary used in this post:
>*Conception: (biology) (or; fertilization) the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species.
>**hu·man [hyoo-muhn] n.- a human being.
>human being n.- a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens
79
77
ps
If you freak when the trolls make fun of your name someone less mature than us might find it hard to resist...(isn't that right, venom?)
Of course, the guy that has it all together knows that....
ps
If you freak when the trolls make fun of your name someone less mature than us might find it hard to resist...(isn't that right, venom?)
Of course, the guy that has it all together knows that....
80
@76: Have you ever seen a human baby in your life?
Well, I'll tell you something. The answer to the question you posed is actually "yes"; newborns actually do all of those things, albeit on a level somewhat below that of adults.
Babies from the beginning make primitive attempts at locomotion in the form of crawling.
Babies vocalize to the point of depriving their parents of sleep.
Babies exhibit active brain patterns from a very young age.
Babies identify faces and associate them with their owners from early in life.
Babies track objects in their field of vision quite well from very early on.
Embryos neither crawl, vocalize, think, recognize faces or identities, nor utilize any senses. In fact, until even a fetus is nearly old enough to survive out of the womb, it doesn't really do any of these to an appreciable degree. Your comparison is not only invalid but factually incorrect. I advise you to let someone else inspect your hemorrhoids.
@77: Respect personal boundaries? HAH! That's a laugh, coming from the rabble who want to prevent women from exercising a fundamental right of theirs!
Seriously, nobody likes you. Go yammer somewhere else.
Well, I'll tell you something. The answer to the question you posed is actually "yes"; newborns actually do all of those things, albeit on a level somewhat below that of adults.
Babies from the beginning make primitive attempts at locomotion in the form of crawling.
Babies vocalize to the point of depriving their parents of sleep.
Babies exhibit active brain patterns from a very young age.
Babies identify faces and associate them with their owners from early in life.
Babies track objects in their field of vision quite well from very early on.
Embryos neither crawl, vocalize, think, recognize faces or identities, nor utilize any senses. In fact, until even a fetus is nearly old enough to survive out of the womb, it doesn't really do any of these to an appreciable degree. Your comparison is not only invalid but factually incorrect. I advise you to let someone else inspect your hemorrhoids.
@77: Respect personal boundaries? HAH! That's a laugh, coming from the rabble who want to prevent women from exercising a fundamental right of theirs!
Seriously, nobody likes you. Go yammer somewhere else.
81
@79: I don't freak when you make fun of my name, you twat. I just point out the lunacy of expecting me to believe you've got the big things right (i.e., your argument makes logical sense) when you can't even get the little things right (e.g., getting my name right, basic grammar and mechanics).
@78: I think you're reading into my post a little too much. That was not intended as a list of criteria for life. Sponges, for example, are alive and do none of the things I mentioned.
What makes a human, anyway? You really just gave circular definition. If you go by the rule of "anything with a non-chimeral genome typical of Homo sapiens sapiens", then a blood sample is also to be afforded the rights of a human being. I'm not sure if that's your definition, though, so enlighten me.
If you think, by the way, that we are saying it's just fine to kill embryos, you're dead wrong and should probably have yourself sectioned. It is traumatic to the mother and kills an embryo (which, while not taboo, is still bad). What we say is that it is acceptable; to in most cases be discouraged, but not for us to judge. You lot (thankfully less than 1 out of every 5 Americans) think that you somehow have the right to make that decision for everyone else. So really, you're just arrogant punk bitches.
@78: I think you're reading into my post a little too much. That was not intended as a list of criteria for life. Sponges, for example, are alive and do none of the things I mentioned.
What makes a human, anyway? You really just gave circular definition. If you go by the rule of "anything with a non-chimeral genome typical of Homo sapiens sapiens", then a blood sample is also to be afforded the rights of a human being. I'm not sure if that's your definition, though, so enlighten me.
If you think, by the way, that we are saying it's just fine to kill embryos, you're dead wrong and should probably have yourself sectioned. It is traumatic to the mother and kills an embryo (which, while not taboo, is still bad). What we say is that it is acceptable; to in most cases be discouraged, but not for us to judge. You lot (thankfully less than 1 out of every 5 Americans) think that you somehow have the right to make that decision for everyone else. So really, you're just arrogant punk bitches.
82
Actually, Allegedly (@78), I bet Venomlash does want to go there, since you already dropped the haggis.
But tell me, Allegedly under your true list of criteria for life, does a pregnant woman qualify? Does she qualify as a freewoman if she's born in the United States?
I gave you the chance to change what I called you to Titanium once before. Sure you want to throw away this valuable opportunity? Going twice...
But tell me, Allegedly under your true list of criteria for life, does a pregnant woman qualify? Does she qualify as a freewoman if she's born in the United States?
I gave you the chance to change what I called you to Titanium once before. Sure you want to throw away this valuable opportunity? Going twice...
84
82
the
"Right to Kill"
doesn't show up on any lists of
'criteria for life'
that I'm familiar with.
the
"Right to Kill"
doesn't show up on any lists of
'criteria for life'
that I'm familiar with.
85
So, if I impressed you into being stuck in a hospital bed for nine months and used your bodily fluids via apheresis to save the life of a violinist, you'd be okay with that, yes, Allegedly?
I promise you, he's a really good violinist, and we're talking about his life.
I promise you, he's a really good violinist, and we're talking about his life.
87
My point remains, a woman's body is hers, and it is still the burden of the State to determine if and why she should be conscripted into birthing involuntarily, which includes establishing what is part of her body as a separate identity from herself. Once you do this, of course, you challenge her rights to liberty as a US citizen. Once you force her to birth involuntarily, you are taking those rights away, in deference to the rights of another citizen (the fetus gestating inside her). You can do so only on the basis that the fetus rights supersede the mother's. Since the fetus depends on the mother's own life, This also makes her life the property of the state (or of the fetus - it's debatable) rather than her own. Are you sure you want to do this, Allegedly?
Do you believe a living mother is the property of any fetus she carries, Allegedly?
Do you believe a living mother is the property of any fetus she carries, Allegedly?
89
Now that I think about it, this could be set some interesting precedents: If a woman's body can be seized as property of another (slavery is such an ugly term...we'll say drafted into medical service) it would infer that any US citizen can be equally drafted into medical service either if a situation was dire enough (i.e. it was necessary to maintain the integrity of the chain of command) or if the rights of another superceded your rights (such as, another man's life depends on a procedure that only risks your life.) So any fellow citizen needing a kidney (you have two) or a VIP required for your liver since he's in the chain of command and necessary for the continuity of operations needs your liver (you'll be put on a waiting list), they could very well have the right to take it by order, and if necessary, force.
How about that, Allegedly, you might be of actual service to your nation after all.
How about that, Allegedly, you might be of actual service to your nation after all.
90
Uriel, the blank-verse abortion troll outed him/herself on Friday as a grieving parent of a mid-trimester loss (Read the comments on the "miscarriage as a crime" thread and start reading at 125, continuing to the end). Apparently s/he is under the misapprehension (not uncommon, in my experience) that s/he can undo/rectify/negate that loss by preventing other women from having abortions. Her post on that thread is heart-breaking, and very instructive.
I once worked with a gifted ICU doc who had several children. His wife was pregnant again and got a terrible uterine infection, had to be aborted at about 19 weeks (she would have died otherwise). You would think that would make him an advocate for safe and legal abortions but you'd be wrong: he became the most rabid pro-lifer you can imagine. He'd hector and lecture us, simply couldn't believe that there were any valid reasons for abortion EVER--and yet we'd saved his wife's life.
I think grief is very powerful, and that our blank-verse troll may not be capable of rational discourse on this subject. You and I both know that forcing other women to carry unwanted/abnormal/risky pregnancies won't bring that child back, but I don't think the troll has been able to accept the finality of that loss.
I once worked with a gifted ICU doc who had several children. His wife was pregnant again and got a terrible uterine infection, had to be aborted at about 19 weeks (she would have died otherwise). You would think that would make him an advocate for safe and legal abortions but you'd be wrong: he became the most rabid pro-lifer you can imagine. He'd hector and lecture us, simply couldn't believe that there were any valid reasons for abortion EVER--and yet we'd saved his wife's life.
I think grief is very powerful, and that our blank-verse troll may not be capable of rational discourse on this subject. You and I both know that forcing other women to carry unwanted/abnormal/risky pregnancies won't bring that child back, but I don't think the troll has been able to accept the finality of that loss.
91
Wow, raindrop @71, I had written you off. I see now I was wrong. Thank you for articulating your position. FWIW, I would express myself similarly. I'd rather work to prevent pregnancy than to end it.
92
It would seem that the argument boils down to the belief that the woman has no rights, she is only a uterus? Her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to the will of the state? Men have rights. The state has rights. But, the woman she is nothing... just a uterus to incubate without person hood and subject to the rights of an embryo which can not survive without her forced compliance? And, should that embryo finish gestation and develop and be born a female, then she will join the ranks of uteri with less rights than she had as an embryo?
Sad.
Sad.
93
I am so very sorry, unregistered commenter(s), if you suffered a loss of a much wanted pregnancy. So, so very sorry.
A wise person shared with me in the midst of my own grief a quote by Elizabeth II, after 9/11, that "Grief is the price we pay for love." and it is the truth. There is no balm of comfort. Again, I am sorry.
A wise person shared with me in the midst of my own grief a quote by Elizabeth II, after 9/11, that "Grief is the price we pay for love." and it is the truth. There is no balm of comfort. Again, I am sorry.
94
@83: It's bad to kill an embryo because you're destroying living tissue and also wiping out its germline. It is, however, always overridden by the mother's welfare and the welfare of any child that may grow from the embryo, since the rights of thinking beings come before the preservation of unthinking tissue, even if it is genetically distinct. What I don't understand is how you think that abortion is not traumatic to the mother. Miscarriage of any sort may cause very little physical damage, but the emotional trauma can persist for years.
@84: The right to kill would not show up on anyone's list of criteria for life, unless that person was a raving lunatic. If it was on the list, then you and I and Uriel-238 would all be nonliving, since none of us has the right to kill others. Try to think about what you post, as difficult as such mental exertion may be for you.
@Uriel-238: Bravo! I've just been dealing with the biological and moralistically analytical sides of this, and it's good to see someone who can cover the legal ramifications.
@84: The right to kill would not show up on anyone's list of criteria for life, unless that person was a raving lunatic. If it was on the list, then you and I and Uriel-238 would all be nonliving, since none of us has the right to kill others. Try to think about what you post, as difficult as such mental exertion may be for you.
@Uriel-238: Bravo! I've just been dealing with the biological and moralistically analytical sides of this, and it's good to see someone who can cover the legal ramifications.
95
What really gets me is that you hear a lot from pro-life protesters screaming about how we shouldn't "murder" our babies, and you hear the pro-choice protesters screaming about how it's a woman's right to choose...and you hear from fundie Christians about how they "chose life", and look at little Timmy and how amazing he is...but you rarely, if ever, hear from women who actually had abortions telling the world about how it benefited them.
The implicit rule is this: "Sure, you can have one, but you'd better shut up about it!"
I'm sick of women being silenced about exercising our legal rights as citizens because we are told to be ashamed, and any woman thinking about getting an abortion has never met another woman who has (that she knows of...), and she is stuck making his unpleasant decision on a lose-lose situation by herself.
And @Uriel and Venom: You guys are geniuses. Really. :)
The implicit rule is this: "Sure, you can have one, but you'd better shut up about it!"
I'm sick of women being silenced about exercising our legal rights as citizens because we are told to be ashamed, and any woman thinking about getting an abortion has never met another woman who has (that she knows of...), and she is stuck making his unpleasant decision on a lose-lose situation by herself.
And @Uriel and Venom: You guys are geniuses. Really. :)
96
And here we get to the simple solution for all you pro-lifers out there who can understand and respect U-238's basic point: A woman's life is her own and it is the greater evil to force her to shoulder the non-trivial risks of pregnancy against her will than to tolerate abortion.
You still want to end abortion? Fine.
Take all that energy, all that money, all that passion you're wasting trying to save the fetuses of today and put it into developing the uterine replicator to the point it can be used to save the fetuses of as little as ten years from now.
This technology is already up and running and being used to cook up little gray nurse sharks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_rep…
It'll take years and cost billions to get it developed to the point where it can be used to gestate little humans, but hey, y'all gots the billions, doncha?
You still want to end abortion? Fine.
Take all that energy, all that money, all that passion you're wasting trying to save the fetuses of today and put it into developing the uterine replicator to the point it can be used to save the fetuses of as little as ten years from now.
This technology is already up and running and being used to cook up little gray nurse sharks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_rep…
It'll take years and cost billions to get it developed to the point where it can be used to gestate little humans, but hey, y'all gots the billions, doncha?
97
@96: A better and more practical solution would be to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Fetus adoption would lead to a surplus of children in foster care (and there are already few enough people looking to adopt). Also, the human population is already above the normal carrying capacity of the planet; only our technology is maintaining us, and must continue to improve if it is to continue doing so. It's really better that such unwanted children never be born, given that we are limited to just this one planet.
So yes, religious types. None of us think that abortions are good, and if you too want to stop them from happening, throw your weight behind comprehensive sex ed and research into better and cheaper birth control medication. And stop calling contraception immoral, seriously, guys. Problem solved.
So yes, religious types. None of us think that abortions are good, and if you too want to stop them from happening, throw your weight behind comprehensive sex ed and research into better and cheaper birth control medication. And stop calling contraception immoral, seriously, guys. Problem solved.
99
Sadly, attitude devant one of the consequences of having the option to post in SLOG anonymously is that those who do so cannot be identified from one post to another except by context. Usually, this is to a troll's advantage as it makes it harder to identify inter-post contradictions (assuming the troll is not interested in his or her own ideological consistency). But this also makes it more difficult to build an empathetic comprehension of the people behind these posts. The cutting edge of anonymity cares not what it divides.
That said, I still would rather the option to anonymously post be there, and to suffer the nameless, than to force registration on casual posters.
One of the Allegedlies (the one who sometimes reverts to modernist verse - also the one who might be Titanium‡) takes pride in being legion, both that he is one of multiple posters with the same style of moniker (that sometimes disagree with him) and that he is allegedly representative of a significant silent bloc (one of the reasons he was so dubbed).
I have no idea if this Allegedly is the same person as Rachael's Mom or Dad. Generally I identify each Allegedly iteration by his‡‡ behavior, and the usual one on abortion articles hisses at personhood as if it were demon-possessed.
Rachel's Mom or Dad's situation reminds me of Erin Runnion whose daughter Samantha was one of the ~50 school children per year abducted, molested and murdered by a stranger in 2002. Erin was driven to make the world better and safer for children, but realized quickly that abduction by a stranger is extremely rare compared to, say, sexual assault by someone known to the family (or in the family), or for that matter, vehicle accidents and life-threatening cases of influenza.
Rachael's Mom or Dad, I'm truly sorry for your loss. I hope you can come to realize there are far, far better, more effective ways to save innocent lives than directly getting in the way of abortions, and that ultimately we want to create a world in which such procedures are absent (or, at least, rare) due to lack of necessity, rather than lack of availability.
‡ I am titanium was Allegedly's response when I once mentioned we were all gray iron here (hence equally scorched by the fires that blacken the kettle). If I could consistently single Titanium out, I'd call him thus. On the other hand the one who consistently takes offense at being called Allegedly and intentionally revises my and venomlash's handles is new. I'll start calling him Candyfloss whenever he outs himself unless he gets back to me.
‡‡ I usually assume Allegedly, in whatever iteration, is male, especially in this case, as it's hard for me to understand why a woman would advocate her own social disregard. Yes, many do, usually out of ignorance. Most abortion access obstructionists are male, and I've yet to be corrected by Allegedly.
More...
That said, I still would rather the option to anonymously post be there, and to suffer the nameless, than to force registration on casual posters.
One of the Allegedlies (the one who sometimes reverts to modernist verse - also the one who might be Titanium‡) takes pride in being legion, both that he is one of multiple posters with the same style of moniker (that sometimes disagree with him) and that he is allegedly representative of a significant silent bloc (one of the reasons he was so dubbed).
I have no idea if this Allegedly is the same person as Rachael's Mom or Dad. Generally I identify each Allegedly iteration by his‡‡ behavior, and the usual one on abortion articles hisses at personhood as if it were demon-possessed.
Rachel's Mom or Dad's situation reminds me of Erin Runnion whose daughter Samantha was one of the ~50 school children per year abducted, molested and murdered by a stranger in 2002. Erin was driven to make the world better and safer for children, but realized quickly that abduction by a stranger is extremely rare compared to, say, sexual assault by someone known to the family (or in the family), or for that matter, vehicle accidents and life-threatening cases of influenza.
Rachael's Mom or Dad, I'm truly sorry for your loss. I hope you can come to realize there are far, far better, more effective ways to save innocent lives than directly getting in the way of abortions, and that ultimately we want to create a world in which such procedures are absent (or, at least, rare) due to lack of necessity, rather than lack of availability.
‡ I am titanium was Allegedly's response when I once mentioned we were all gray iron here (hence equally scorched by the fires that blacken the kettle). If I could consistently single Titanium out, I'd call him thus. On the other hand the one who consistently takes offense at being called Allegedly and intentionally revises my and venomlash's handles is new. I'll start calling him Candyfloss whenever he outs himself unless he gets back to me.
‡‡ I usually assume Allegedly, in whatever iteration, is male, especially in this case, as it's hard for me to understand why a woman would advocate her own social disregard. Yes, many do, usually out of ignorance. Most abortion access obstructionists are male, and I've yet to be corrected by Allegedly.
100
Kim, I suspect most often it is a matter of defensive or lazy thinking; obstructionists seldom are willing to openly admit they regard women as walking incubators, but this is either through a dismissal (e.g. she squatted on a cock and hence sewed the seeds she reaped‡) or through avoidance of the topic by focusing on the rights of the unborn and avoiding the topic of the mother altogether. Indeed, Allegedly in all his accusations of intent to murder and of neglect of responsibility he's yet to admit outright that the rights of a woman to her own life and body are superceded by the rights of a fetus. Indeed, I've been waiting for him to cross that very line.
Granted, there are plenty of institutions that have misogyny built right into their mission statements (the Church of LDS and the Southern Baptist Convention are big ones in the US), which allows parishioners to reframe their own issues as loyalty to their faith. Dissolution of responsibility allows these institutions to be more bold in their displays of animosity, and once again, this is why human rights fronts tend to be furthered in the courts and not through referenda.
As I've stated plenty of places elsewhere, the first order when addressing abortion access (even before the personhood question arrises) is the sovereignty problem. Women own themselves, and to take that away leads to some dark human rights implications (some of which I suggested above). I think the courts know this, which is why they're not in any hurry to overturn Roe, even in the face of squicky issues such as abortion addiction (it happens!) and gender selection. Heck, suggesting that a woman's duty is to her womb is one morality skip from allowing the rich to harvest clones of themselves for transplant material. Wheee!
The Max's idea is one I've been advocating all this time, though I referred to the more general ectogenesis, since, fully developed (a clean, low-risk, low-invasive transfer procedure and vats available to all who want them), it would eliminate the sovereignty problem entirely. And venomlash, while I do think there will be a short baby boom (smaller than the WWII boom), it will be short lived as we narrow eligible candidates (to probable viability) and increase access to contraception to compensate.
‡ It's disturbing how often this comes up, completely failing to acknowledged that a) women are sometimes raped or otherwise coerced into sex, b) contraception isn't 100% effective ever, and c) it is good, proper and healthy for an adult woman to be sexually active even if she doesn't intend to procreate; unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment for sex.
More...
Granted, there are plenty of institutions that have misogyny built right into their mission statements (the Church of LDS and the Southern Baptist Convention are big ones in the US), which allows parishioners to reframe their own issues as loyalty to their faith. Dissolution of responsibility allows these institutions to be more bold in their displays of animosity, and once again, this is why human rights fronts tend to be furthered in the courts and not through referenda.
As I've stated plenty of places elsewhere, the first order when addressing abortion access (even before the personhood question arrises) is the sovereignty problem. Women own themselves, and to take that away leads to some dark human rights implications (some of which I suggested above). I think the courts know this, which is why they're not in any hurry to overturn Roe, even in the face of squicky issues such as abortion addiction (it happens!) and gender selection. Heck, suggesting that a woman's duty is to her womb is one morality skip from allowing the rich to harvest clones of themselves for transplant material. Wheee!
The Max's idea is one I've been advocating all this time, though I referred to the more general ectogenesis, since, fully developed (a clean, low-risk, low-invasive transfer procedure and vats available to all who want them), it would eliminate the sovereignty problem entirely. And venomlash, while I do think there will be a short baby boom (smaller than the WWII boom), it will be short lived as we narrow eligible candidates (to probable viability) and increase access to contraception to compensate.
‡ It's disturbing how often this comes up, completely failing to acknowledged that a) women are sometimes raped or otherwise coerced into sex, b) contraception isn't 100% effective ever, and c) it is good, proper and healthy for an adult woman to be sexually active even if she doesn't intend to procreate; unwanted pregnancy is not a punishment for sex.
101
@92
Wonderfully articulated, but the plural of uterus is "uteruses" not "uteri."
I should know- I was born with two!
Wonderfully articulated, but the plural of uterus is "uteruses" not "uteri."
I should know- I was born with two!
102
venomlash, I do not envy you the untidy task of untangling the moral philosopher's knot that is abortion access. The biggest problem, and the fallacy (if one could call it that) most committed by the obstructionist sector is the presumption that it can be treated as if it were a deontological problem. We see it in a lot of the presumptions they make: Resposible women do not get unwanted pregnancies / A blastocryst will always become a zygote will always become a fetus will always become a healthy baby / Two parents and a little willpower is all that an infant needs to survive and thrive in the US. and so on.
Trust me, coming at it from the legal standpoint is a lot easier.
I would say no, Candyfloss. What's your point?
Trust me, coming at it from the legal standpoint is a lot easier.
I would say no, Candyfloss. What's your point?
103
88
Women are not Impressed and impregnated by the state.
They become pregnant as a result of behavior they willingly engage in. If they feel oppressed by the fact that they are pregnant they should consider their behavior choices that made them so.
Pregnancy is not a punishment.
It is a biological fact of life.
Railing that the Universe is Unfair because women get pregnant and men do not is spitting into the wind.
You totally ignore Responsibilty for ones' actions.
This is, of course, an article of faith of the liberal secular humanist theology.
Women have full control of their bodies.
They have exercised that control, chosen and taken actions, and now are pregnant.
Choice carries Consequences.
Did you know that?
Not punishments, just Consequences.
If those consequences are perceived as Punishments it signifies that the person engaging in the behavior did not think out the consequences before they took action.
Many women see pregnancy as a desired blessing.
They engage in behavior that makes them pregnant and are pleased with the outcome.
They excercised their control of their body wisely.
Other women engage in the same behavior with the same known consequences and achieve the same result.
Shocking, isn't it.
They see those consequences as Unfair.
They haven't handled their freedom very well.
They have Rights.
they have excersised their rights.
They just aren't happy with the outcome.
No one cares if these women have babies or not.
Society does not covet their bodies to produce babies.
If they never wish to have any babies that is fine.
It is up to them to excersise the Contrl of their bodies that they have in a way that the consequences of their actions match their desires.
That is what mature grownups do.
If they don't want to be pregnant they should not get pregnant.
Is that too complicared?
Less than 1% of abortions involve cases of rape/incest.
Women who actually become pregnant against their will should have the option to end the pregnancy.
More...
Women are not Impressed and impregnated by the state.
They become pregnant as a result of behavior they willingly engage in. If they feel oppressed by the fact that they are pregnant they should consider their behavior choices that made them so.
Pregnancy is not a punishment.
It is a biological fact of life.
Railing that the Universe is Unfair because women get pregnant and men do not is spitting into the wind.
You totally ignore Responsibilty for ones' actions.
This is, of course, an article of faith of the liberal secular humanist theology.
Women have full control of their bodies.
They have exercised that control, chosen and taken actions, and now are pregnant.
Choice carries Consequences.
Did you know that?
Not punishments, just Consequences.
If those consequences are perceived as Punishments it signifies that the person engaging in the behavior did not think out the consequences before they took action.
Many women see pregnancy as a desired blessing.
They engage in behavior that makes them pregnant and are pleased with the outcome.
They excercised their control of their body wisely.
Other women engage in the same behavior with the same known consequences and achieve the same result.
Shocking, isn't it.
They see those consequences as Unfair.
They haven't handled their freedom very well.
They have Rights.
they have excersised their rights.
They just aren't happy with the outcome.
No one cares if these women have babies or not.
Society does not covet their bodies to produce babies.
If they never wish to have any babies that is fine.
It is up to them to excersise the Contrl of their bodies that they have in a way that the consequences of their actions match their desires.
That is what mature grownups do.
If they don't want to be pregnant they should not get pregnant.
Is that too complicared?
Less than 1% of abortions involve cases of rape/incest.
Women who actually become pregnant against their will should have the option to end the pregnancy.
104
100
Society accepts a responsibility to protect and care for its members. We watch out for each other. If a child is starved or beaten or neglected or abused, even (and especially) if by a parent, society reserves and claimns the right to intervene to protect the child.
Does this oppress the abuser parent?
Does it strip them of their citizenship?
Does it interfere with how they treat their 'property'?
Does this offend you?
The most helpless and vulnerable are the most needing of society's protection.
There are no more helpless and vulnerable members of the human race than the newly conceived.
There is agreement that they are Human and Alive.
There is disagreement on what protection they deserve.
We come down on the side of protecting Life.
We come down on the side of the helpless.
...the vulnerable.
...the defenseless.
...the innocent.
Society accepts a responsibility to protect and care for its members. We watch out for each other. If a child is starved or beaten or neglected or abused, even (and especially) if by a parent, society reserves and claimns the right to intervene to protect the child.
Does this oppress the abuser parent?
Does it strip them of their citizenship?
Does it interfere with how they treat their 'property'?
Does this offend you?
The most helpless and vulnerable are the most needing of society's protection.
There are no more helpless and vulnerable members of the human race than the newly conceived.
There is agreement that they are Human and Alive.
There is disagreement on what protection they deserve.
We come down on the side of protecting Life.
We come down on the side of the helpless.
...the vulnerable.
...the defenseless.
...the innocent.
105
92
"Her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to the will of the state? "
OMG- did the state get her pregnant?
Oregon must be different from where we live...
Let's fix this:
"Her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to her choices and actions. She is a free agent with endless options and choices and opportunities. It is up to her to exercise her choice in such a way that complements and facilitates her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights."
But she is a Big Girl- who demands Responsibility for her Own Body!- so we're sure this will be no problem...
oh, one more correction:
"Her child's hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to her whims under current law. She can snuff them out at will. And that is not right."
much better, don't you think?
"Her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to the will of the state? "
OMG- did the state get her pregnant?
Oregon must be different from where we live...
Let's fix this:
"Her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to her choices and actions. She is a free agent with endless options and choices and opportunities. It is up to her to exercise her choice in such a way that complements and facilitates her hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights."
But she is a Big Girl- who demands Responsibility for her Own Body!- so we're sure this will be no problem...
oh, one more correction:
"Her child's hopes, dreams, goal, aspirations, potential, health, and human rights are all subject to her whims under current law. She can snuff them out at will. And that is not right."
much better, don't you think?
106
92
"Men have rights. The state has rights. But, the woman she is nothing... just a uterus to incubate without person hood and subject to the rights of an embryo which can not survive without her forced compliance? "
"Men have rights."
Men have responsibilities, as well.
True, they often shirk them.
Worthless scum, it's really innacurate to call them 'men'...
Before a woman lets some clown use her perhaps she should have a talk.
She has the Right to do it, you know...
About Rights.
And Responsibilities.
And Expectations.
Maybe she should hold out for a pretty firm understanding before she puts herself out on a limb.
Maybe a ring?
An ounce of precaution beats a pound of bitching about how sorry men are and how unfair life is.
Just a thought...
'the woman she is nothing... '
gosh- excuse me a moment while I weep....
'just a uterus to incubate without person hood'
ah, "personhood"- we like how you sneak that in there...
They're taking away my Personhood!!!
How does it feel?
If they were really taking away your 'personhood' you'd be dead.
it happens 840,000 times a year...
"subject to the rights of an embryo ..."
..'an' embryo...
I have No Idea how it got there, doctor-
just get it out!!!
"without her forced compliance"
A little dramatic, even hysterical, don't you think?
Do the same State thugs that impregnated her stand guard over her uterus?
"Men have rights. The state has rights. But, the woman she is nothing... just a uterus to incubate without person hood and subject to the rights of an embryo which can not survive without her forced compliance? "
"Men have rights."
Men have responsibilities, as well.
True, they often shirk them.
Worthless scum, it's really innacurate to call them 'men'...
Before a woman lets some clown use her perhaps she should have a talk.
She has the Right to do it, you know...
About Rights.
And Responsibilities.
And Expectations.
Maybe she should hold out for a pretty firm understanding before she puts herself out on a limb.
Maybe a ring?
An ounce of precaution beats a pound of bitching about how sorry men are and how unfair life is.
Just a thought...
'the woman she is nothing... '
gosh- excuse me a moment while I weep....
'just a uterus to incubate without person hood'
ah, "personhood"- we like how you sneak that in there...
They're taking away my Personhood!!!
How does it feel?
If they were really taking away your 'personhood' you'd be dead.
it happens 840,000 times a year...
"subject to the rights of an embryo ..."
..'an' embryo...
I have No Idea how it got there, doctor-
just get it out!!!
"without her forced compliance"
A little dramatic, even hysterical, don't you think?
Do the same State thugs that impregnated her stand guard over her uterus?
107
92
"And, should that embryo finish gestation and develop and be born a female, then she will join the ranks of uteri with less rights than she had as an embryo? "
Oooh- CatFight!
Women oppressing Women!!
SteelCage Deathmatch-
'This uterus isn't big enough for the both of us, sister...'
But which woman is oppressing which?
The woman who kills her Daughter?
"Listen, Sweetie, I'm only doing this to protect your rights as a Woman!"
"Yes, general- we had to Destroy that Woman in order to Save her..."
Of course not, silly.
The daughter is the Oppressor.
She Raped her Mother.
She Forced her to get pregnant.
She Impressed her mother's body- for Nine Months!
She Forced Compliance on her mother.
(damn. imagine what she'll be like as a teenager...)
"And, should that embryo finish gestation and develop and be born a female, then she will join the ranks of uteri with less rights than she had as an embryo? "
Oooh- CatFight!
Women oppressing Women!!
SteelCage Deathmatch-
'This uterus isn't big enough for the both of us, sister...'
But which woman is oppressing which?
The woman who kills her Daughter?
"Listen, Sweetie, I'm only doing this to protect your rights as a Woman!"
"Yes, general- we had to Destroy that Woman in order to Save her..."
Of course not, silly.
The daughter is the Oppressor.
She Raped her Mother.
She Forced her to get pregnant.
She Impressed her mother's body- for Nine Months!
She Forced Compliance on her mother.
(damn. imagine what she'll be like as a teenager...)
108
Anonymous commenter @103-107 (or more before I post this? Uriel-238's right, might as well call you "Allegedly"):
Unless you can demonstrate that women have accurate knowledge of fertility, conception rates, birth control functioning and failure rates, and common myths and fallacies (e.g., douching prevents pregnancy) than you can't assume that women "made a behavior choice... with the same known consequences."
Many women (and men) truly don't know enough about fertility, sex, and birth control to understand the real consequences. Remember, not everyone in the world knows everything you know, not everyone has had the same upbringing, schooling, or experiences you have had. Don't be surprised that some people truly don't know that babies are made from sex and that birth control sometimes fails... It's true, despite how much you want to believe it's not true.
If we as a country are:
1. Not going to educate people properly and comprehensively on reproduction and birth control, and
2. Not going to provide medical care and public assistance for needy families, and provide generous support and promotion of adoption services -
Then we should allow women easy and guilt-free access to abortions.
Trying to eliminate abortions by cutting off supply will be as ineffective as trying to eliminate marijuana use by cutting off supply. The solution to reducing abortions is education and cheap and accessible birth control and family planning care. Cut off demand for abortions and you won't have to worry about supply.
Unless you can demonstrate that women have accurate knowledge of fertility, conception rates, birth control functioning and failure rates, and common myths and fallacies (e.g., douching prevents pregnancy) than you can't assume that women "made a behavior choice... with the same known consequences."
Many women (and men) truly don't know enough about fertility, sex, and birth control to understand the real consequences. Remember, not everyone in the world knows everything you know, not everyone has had the same upbringing, schooling, or experiences you have had. Don't be surprised that some people truly don't know that babies are made from sex and that birth control sometimes fails... It's true, despite how much you want to believe it's not true.
If we as a country are:
1. Not going to educate people properly and comprehensively on reproduction and birth control, and
2. Not going to provide medical care and public assistance for needy families, and provide generous support and promotion of adoption services -
Then we should allow women easy and guilt-free access to abortions.
Trying to eliminate abortions by cutting off supply will be as ineffective as trying to eliminate marijuana use by cutting off supply. The solution to reducing abortions is education and cheap and accessible birth control and family planning care. Cut off demand for abortions and you won't have to worry about supply.
109
108
We agree with your basic premise that eliminating unwanted pregnancy addresses the root problem.
One can favor comprehensive extensive sex education and still find abortion morally indefensible.
A nice starting point might be to require every birth certificate list the name of the father/sperm donor.
DNA testing is such that it would be feasable.
Raising babies cost a lot.
More and more of that burden is thrown on the state/taxpayer.
Society has a right to demand from Bobby that if he is going to make a baby he will get to help pay for the cost of raising it.
Say, $350 a month until the child turns 18.
At a minimum.
Adjusted annually for inflation, of course.
If Bobby is underage then Bobby's mom and dad can pay it until Bobby himself turns 18.
It's about taking responsibility.
(Is that too offensive to liberal sensibilities?)
Bobby may be an irresponsible schmuck but he's probably not stupid.
If Bobby sees a few classmates nailed for the 'daddy fee' he probably will figure out real quick how do use a condom.
Or, heaven forbid, keep it in his pants.
Or in his hand.
Bobby's mom and dad may also find it in their interest to help Bobby understand.
And it's iot just the high school Bobbies.
Bobby's brother in college.
Bobby's dad.
All men might take a more realistic view of their behavior.
It just might cut down on unwanted pregnancies a little.
We agree with your basic premise that eliminating unwanted pregnancy addresses the root problem.
One can favor comprehensive extensive sex education and still find abortion morally indefensible.
A nice starting point might be to require every birth certificate list the name of the father/sperm donor.
DNA testing is such that it would be feasable.
Raising babies cost a lot.
More and more of that burden is thrown on the state/taxpayer.
Society has a right to demand from Bobby that if he is going to make a baby he will get to help pay for the cost of raising it.
Say, $350 a month until the child turns 18.
At a minimum.
Adjusted annually for inflation, of course.
If Bobby is underage then Bobby's mom and dad can pay it until Bobby himself turns 18.
It's about taking responsibility.
(Is that too offensive to liberal sensibilities?)
Bobby may be an irresponsible schmuck but he's probably not stupid.
If Bobby sees a few classmates nailed for the 'daddy fee' he probably will figure out real quick how do use a condom.
Or, heaven forbid, keep it in his pants.
Or in his hand.
Bobby's mom and dad may also find it in their interest to help Bobby understand.
And it's iot just the high school Bobbies.
Bobby's brother in college.
Bobby's dad.
All men might take a more realistic view of their behavior.
It just might cut down on unwanted pregnancies a little.
110
@91: Thanks attitude devant. I admit that I occasionally delve into hyperbole and my thoughts are not always coordinated.
112
@111 Do you think it will support your argument to transform your opponent"s name into a toilet joke? Do you think that it will help win the hearts and minds of those of us following this debate to your side? If so, you are in error.
113
@103: "Women who actually become pregnant against their will should have the option to end the pregnancy."
So a woman who engages in sex (protected or unprotected) with the man of her choice and becomes pregnant unintentionally should be able to get an abortion. I agree. But by saying this you have just said that virtually all abortion should be legal, something with which I also agree. After all, how many women become pregnant intentionally and then decide to have an abortion?
Thank you for articulating this for us; we now know that at least one Alleged supports a woman's right to abortion.
@107: You might come off a little smarter if you READ THE FUCKING POST. The point of the quote you took from kim in portland was not that a female embryo or child oppresses the mother, you twat. It is, rather, that if the child is born female, then she may eventually come to some point in her life where she too would find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and have her rights as a person violated by the state in favor of preserving a mindless clump of cells within her uterus.
Your utter lack of reading comprehension (of ONE FUCKING SENTENCE) leads me only to the conclusion that you are taking the piss and should really stop before you find yourself with gout.
@109: Your suggestion is somewhat logical but entirely unfeasible. DNA testing, remember, can only prove the identity of the father if he is tested; it also cannot prove for certain that a certain man is the father, but is limited to proving that he COULD HAVE BEEN the father. So what will happen is that men whose paternity tests come up positive but who lack the ability or desire to pay will get a lawyer and argue that the actual father was just some other schmuck with a genome similar to his. In the end, it will probably cost the state more money for DNA testing and legal battles than it would to pay modest (and believe me, they are very modest) benefits to single mothers who are not receiving child support from the father.
More...
So a woman who engages in sex (protected or unprotected) with the man of her choice and becomes pregnant unintentionally should be able to get an abortion. I agree. But by saying this you have just said that virtually all abortion should be legal, something with which I also agree. After all, how many women become pregnant intentionally and then decide to have an abortion?
Thank you for articulating this for us; we now know that at least one Alleged supports a woman's right to abortion.
@107: You might come off a little smarter if you READ THE FUCKING POST. The point of the quote you took from kim in portland was not that a female embryo or child oppresses the mother, you twat. It is, rather, that if the child is born female, then she may eventually come to some point in her life where she too would find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and have her rights as a person violated by the state in favor of preserving a mindless clump of cells within her uterus.
Your utter lack of reading comprehension (of ONE FUCKING SENTENCE) leads me only to the conclusion that you are taking the piss and should really stop before you find yourself with gout.
@109: Your suggestion is somewhat logical but entirely unfeasible. DNA testing, remember, can only prove the identity of the father if he is tested; it also cannot prove for certain that a certain man is the father, but is limited to proving that he COULD HAVE BEEN the father. So what will happen is that men whose paternity tests come up positive but who lack the ability or desire to pay will get a lawyer and argue that the actual father was just some other schmuck with a genome similar to his. In the end, it will probably cost the state more money for DNA testing and legal battles than it would to pay modest (and believe me, they are very modest) benefits to single mothers who are not receiving child support from the father.
114
I'd suppose if your position is that abortion is murder, it would be fair thing to say.
Though, I think his numbers are fictitious and the basic premise, abortion = murder, is absurd.
Though, I think his numbers are fictitious and the basic premise, abortion = murder, is absurd.
115
@109,
Ok, but realize that all those paternity tests and the medical staff necessary to administer and analyze them, and all those extra family court judges and lawyers, and all those case workers tasked with making sure child-support payments keep coming in is going to cost the state/taxpayer a HELL of a lot of money too.
This is an issue that conservatives often seem to forget. "Just make the mothers and fathers pay for it... personal responsibility" doesn't work unless you actually ENFORCE them to pay for it, and the only way to do that is to use government agencies to do so (enlisting a private/non-government agency to do so would be asking for a nightmare... imagine a child-support payment mafia enforcement squad).
Ok, but realize that all those paternity tests and the medical staff necessary to administer and analyze them, and all those extra family court judges and lawyers, and all those case workers tasked with making sure child-support payments keep coming in is going to cost the state/taxpayer a HELL of a lot of money too.
This is an issue that conservatives often seem to forget. "Just make the mothers and fathers pay for it... personal responsibility" doesn't work unless you actually ENFORCE them to pay for it, and the only way to do that is to use government agencies to do so (enlisting a private/non-government agency to do so would be asking for a nightmare... imagine a child-support payment mafia enforcement squad).
116
Because a fetus cannot survive without its host, It fits entirely within the definition of a parasite. We were all parasites once, and our mother had or should have had the right to rid herself of us, for a number of social reasons. The moral implications are her's alone. Because women are burdened with these parasites, and not men, it's more than a bit unjust to limit these rights.
118
116
liberal women conceive parasites that they long to get rid of.
conservative mommies conceive precious darling babies that they are happy to bear and raise.
liberal women conceive parasites that they long to get rid of.
conservative mommies conceive precious darling babies that they are happy to bear and raise.
119
@118: If "conservative mommies" never have unwanted children, it is only because they are so brainwashed into a society of male dominance that they find themselves good only for raising children.
The parasitic nature of an embryo is scientifically accurate, not a reflection on the mother's attitude. An embryo or fetus is, strictly speaking, parasitic. It taps into the mother's bloodstream via a placenta (which is generated by genes from the father), tampers with her hormonal levels to persuade her body to feed it, and gives no physiological benefit while in the womb.
Whether an embryo or fetus is wanted or not, it is a parasite while in the womb; this means that its right to existence is trumped by the mother's right to autonomy. We are not saying, here on SLOG, that abortions are necessarily good; we are saying that they are the mother's choice, and not yours.
And your mommy obviously does love you if she lets you live in her basement commenting rabidly on SLOG rather than actually working. I'm assuming that's your deal, considering the sheer volume of posts you churn out.
@117: It's only potty humor if it's funny. Groucho Marx you're not.
The parasitic nature of an embryo is scientifically accurate, not a reflection on the mother's attitude. An embryo or fetus is, strictly speaking, parasitic. It taps into the mother's bloodstream via a placenta (which is generated by genes from the father), tampers with her hormonal levels to persuade her body to feed it, and gives no physiological benefit while in the womb.
Whether an embryo or fetus is wanted or not, it is a parasite while in the womb; this means that its right to existence is trumped by the mother's right to autonomy. We are not saying, here on SLOG, that abortions are necessarily good; we are saying that they are the mother's choice, and not yours.
And your mommy obviously does love you if she lets you live in her basement commenting rabidly on SLOG rather than actually working. I'm assuming that's your deal, considering the sheer volume of posts you churn out.
@117: It's only potty humor if it's funny. Groucho Marx you're not.
122
@120: According to Princeton's wordnetweb a parasite is:
"an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
An embryo lives in the mother: check.
It obtains nourishment from the mother: check.
It provides no physiological benefit to the mother: check.
Embryos typically do not kill the mother: check.
A developing embryo is scientifically parasitic. You really should learn that not all parasites look like this: http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/9846/i…
"an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
An embryo lives in the mother: check.
It obtains nourishment from the mother: check.
It provides no physiological benefit to the mother: check.
Embryos typically do not kill the mother: check.
A developing embryo is scientifically parasitic. You really should learn that not all parasites look like this: http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/9846/i…
123
122
a parasite is of a different species than its host.
but thanks for sharing your favorite Pokemon
a parasite is of a different species than its host.
but thanks for sharing your favorite Pokemon
124
@123: What makes you so adamant that a parasite must be a different species from its host? Tell me why your definition is right and Princeton's is wrong.
And in the interest of accuracy, my favorite Pokemon is actually this one: http://o.guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/1204…
And in the interest of accuracy, my favorite Pokemon is actually this one: http://o.guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/1204…
125
124
we're not being 'adamant'.
it's just a fact.
even your definition says it:
"an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (ANOTHER animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
by "another" they mean 'another species'
we're not being 'adamant'.
it's just a fact.
even your definition says it:
"an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (ANOTHER animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
by "another" they mean 'another species'
126
I answered your question, Candyfloss. Go find it.
Oh and, when you send someone to go get help (or seek it, yourself), I'm the one that's there to help you. Hi, Candyfloss. Take a seat on the sofa there.
And, Allegedly, you're repeating yourself again. Read the dialog from top to bottom, and start over. You obviously missed where you move on to the next step.
Hint: liberal secular humanist theology is an oxymoron, perhaps one you intended. The conservative Christian agenda, however, is a grim, anti-American reality.
Oh and, when you send someone to go get help (or seek it, yourself), I'm the one that's there to help you. Hi, Candyfloss. Take a seat on the sofa there.
And, Allegedly, you're repeating yourself again. Read the dialog from top to bottom, and start over. You obviously missed where you move on to the next step.
Hint: liberal secular humanist theology is an oxymoron, perhaps one you intended. The conservative Christian agenda, however, is a grim, anti-American reality.
127
However, a gestating zygote does, at least in mammal cases, have a very parasite-like relationship to the mother. Yes?
Since you're just arguing semantics, can you agree with that, Allegedly?
Since you're just arguing semantics, can you agree with that, Allegedly?
128
Incidentally, it's not a fact, more like an axiom.
Way too many concepts are called facts when they aren't. It's sloppy.
Way too many concepts are called facts when they aren't. It's sloppy.
129
@125: How do you know that they mean a different species? Can you read their mind? There's plenty of intra-species parasitism out in the natural world. Whistling ducks, for example, often lay their eggs in nest cavities tended by other whistling ducks.
The embryo lives as a parasite to the mother; a wanted parasite, perhaps, but a parasite, scientifically speaking. End of story.
The embryo lives as a parasite to the mother; a wanted parasite, perhaps, but a parasite, scientifically speaking. End of story.
131
Seriously guys, go to Westlake on a Saturday afternoon...now imagine what it would be like if black women didn't abort 40% of their pregnancies!
I say free federal abortion clinics in every hood, barrio and trailer park. Now!
I say free federal abortion clinics in every hood, barrio and trailer park. Now!
135
"That statement is racist and sick."
What, you're not pro-choice? It's not like they aborting actual gang bangers, just fetuses, clumps of cells, parasites. According to you, they're not even people they're aborting.
What, you're not pro-choice? It's not like they aborting actual gang bangers, just fetuses, clumps of cells, parasites. According to you, they're not even people they're aborting.
136
As a woman I find it absolutely appalling that so many of you, other women included, presume to control MY body. Do you really not find that disturbing, that you could be FORCED to carry to term and deliver, in great pain and altering your body forever, a child that you don't want? Who if you put up for adoption will probably bounce around the foster care system, which is rife with abuse? Who would suffer from the inadequate care of an impoverished, uneducated mother who never wanted him and resents him? You don't seem to care what happens to the "babies" once they are born, just that they get born in the first place to soothe your own perceptions of what's morally right and wrong and to punish women.
I get birth control for free. It's readily available at the nearest county health department. But how many women are actually aware of this? Not as many as you would think. If you REALLY don't want abortions then it should be in your best interests to educate the community thoroughly on birth control and sex education instead of relying on abstinence training, which has been proven by many, many studies to actually have an ADVERSE effect. As for the poster that said that Planned Parenthood would con someone into having an abortion, that's just plain GOP bullshit. Planned Parenthood requires that you go through counseling before making the decision and they lay out the facts.
An embryo is not a full fledged human being. It does not have dreams, desires, or thoughts of it's own. The mother does. The mother is already a grown member of society. I find it obvious who is most important in this scenario. Is it a glob of unformed goo? No.
I have yet to hear any convincing arguments against legal abortion that don't involve religion in some way. That is not a sound basis for legislation in a government that is separate and contains individuals of varying backgrounds and beliefs.
After all, with miscarriage as common as it is, God is the greatest abortionist of all.
More...
I get birth control for free. It's readily available at the nearest county health department. But how many women are actually aware of this? Not as many as you would think. If you REALLY don't want abortions then it should be in your best interests to educate the community thoroughly on birth control and sex education instead of relying on abstinence training, which has been proven by many, many studies to actually have an ADVERSE effect. As for the poster that said that Planned Parenthood would con someone into having an abortion, that's just plain GOP bullshit. Planned Parenthood requires that you go through counseling before making the decision and they lay out the facts.
An embryo is not a full fledged human being. It does not have dreams, desires, or thoughts of it's own. The mother does. The mother is already a grown member of society. I find it obvious who is most important in this scenario. Is it a glob of unformed goo? No.
I have yet to hear any convincing arguments against legal abortion that don't involve religion in some way. That is not a sound basis for legislation in a government that is separate and contains individuals of varying backgrounds and beliefs.
After all, with miscarriage as common as it is, God is the greatest abortionist of all.
138
Sorry, Lovely Linda @ 131, 135, 137.
You're going to have to find another playmate. I have no intention of entertaining you and further responding to your vile racist statements. Here's hoping your a better person then you present.
Click goes the button.
You're going to have to find another playmate. I have no intention of entertaining you and further responding to your vile racist statements. Here's hoping your a better person then you present.
Click goes the button.
139
@134
How is @131 racist and sick?
Are black women too stupid to know when they should have an abortion?
And if abortion is morally defensible why does it matter if 40% or 99% end in abortion?
How is @131 racist and sick?
Are black women too stupid to know when they should have an abortion?
And if abortion is morally defensible why does it matter if 40% or 99% end in abortion?
140
I say illegalize abortion and legalize gay adoption. Then every happy well adjusted gay couple can have a black child to boot! Or maybe ship them off to Canada! Did you know there's a two - four year waiting list for a baby here?
I know that preferring adoption to abortion is my most (I could probably say only) "right-wing" trait and that it will alienate me from many commenters, but I'm just too much of a baby lover. If you are worried that your unborn child would not want you as a parent or not enjoy the life you could give them, why not let a family who WOULD be good for them adopt the child of their dreams? However, I'm sorry, but I don't think, "What would my family/friends/classmates/church think if they found out?" is a good enough reason. Now, I'm not saying keep a child you do not want! Do not keep a child you cannot take care of!
If abortion was the go-to unwanted baby fix, I dare say Dan Savage could not be the happy father he is.
I know that preferring adoption to abortion is my most (I could probably say only) "right-wing" trait and that it will alienate me from many commenters, but I'm just too much of a baby lover. If you are worried that your unborn child would not want you as a parent or not enjoy the life you could give them, why not let a family who WOULD be good for them adopt the child of their dreams? However, I'm sorry, but I don't think, "What would my family/friends/classmates/church think if they found out?" is a good enough reason. Now, I'm not saying keep a child you do not want! Do not keep a child you cannot take care of!
If abortion was the go-to unwanted baby fix, I dare say Dan Savage could not be the happy father he is.
141
Alea, sometimes nine months of hormone-ridden pregnancy really, really sucks, and some women don't like being a walking incubation tank for someone else.
But once we have ectogenesis and a clean, cheap transfer procedure, you're on.
But once we have ectogenesis and a clean, cheap transfer procedure, you're on.
143
@140,
Gay marriage won't resolve the huge problem with unwanted children, just like 2- 4 year old waiting for a baby lists that you mentioned haven't resolved it.
Gay people are not angels, they are like any other people. Only some would want to adopt unwanted, black, sick, with AIDS, born with cocaine addiction, etc etc. Most would want the usual - healthy, white, or maybe asian, if there are no white ones available.
So while I appreciate the humor in your post that's the reality of the situation....
Gay marriage won't resolve the huge problem with unwanted children, just like 2- 4 year old waiting for a baby lists that you mentioned haven't resolved it.
Gay people are not angels, they are like any other people. Only some would want to adopt unwanted, black, sick, with AIDS, born with cocaine addiction, etc etc. Most would want the usual - healthy, white, or maybe asian, if there are no white ones available.
So while I appreciate the humor in your post that's the reality of the situation....
146
You know, Alea @ 140, it's a nice idealistic solution to see adoption as a viable alternative to abortion, but it ignores the reality of pregnancy. Take me: I vomit five or six times a day for the whole nine months. Only been pregnant twice, happened both times. Worse yet, I have these incredible blood pressure problems (only when I'm pregnant) so that my babies deliver early and small. Last time I bedrested for twelve, count 'em!, twelve weeks. Even so, I nearly had a stroke, in spite of the best care available. Luckily I had good insurance to support me and my family during that time or I would have lost my home.
Much as I love all kids, and mine in particular, I will not go through this again. Adoption is NOT a viable alternative for me. Hell, I myself may not be viable if I carry again. I've been lucky enough to never have a birth-control failure (and ALL birth control methods fail) but I would (with real regret) abort any pregnancy.
Being pregnant isn't a state of suspended animation, nine months of wafting about and then you're released to go about your business. Pregnancy carries real consequences, for your health, to your career, in your education, among your friends and family. Nobody has the right, moral or legal, to demand that women lay their lives down for a fetus. Nobody.
Much as I love all kids, and mine in particular, I will not go through this again. Adoption is NOT a viable alternative for me. Hell, I myself may not be viable if I carry again. I've been lucky enough to never have a birth-control failure (and ALL birth control methods fail) but I would (with real regret) abort any pregnancy.
Being pregnant isn't a state of suspended animation, nine months of wafting about and then you're released to go about your business. Pregnancy carries real consequences, for your health, to your career, in your education, among your friends and family. Nobody has the right, moral or legal, to demand that women lay their lives down for a fetus. Nobody.
147
Attitude Devant,
Sorry re rough pregnancy. My morning sickness was every day multiple times a day for 9 months, with both. I ended up with ulcers in my throat. I did not have any issues with blood pressure, mine was always too low and I was prone to passing out. It sure was hard to stay hydrated. My body did not like being pregnant, I am fortunate to have the two I have. I don't plan on having more.
Sorry re rough pregnancy. My morning sickness was every day multiple times a day for 9 months, with both. I ended up with ulcers in my throat. I did not have any issues with blood pressure, mine was always too low and I was prone to passing out. It sure was hard to stay hydrated. My body did not like being pregnant, I am fortunate to have the two I have. I don't plan on having more.
149
Ximena's odessy with Vancouver General Hospital began the day she was born. After attempting an abortion at a free-standing mill in Bellingham, Wash. Ximena's birth mother entered VGH, where she gave birth. According to court documents, staff delivered the child into a "hat"--a plastic pot--and then senior nurse Vera Wood whisked her away. Ximena was placed in a room "where dead fetuses were stored," even though she was "moving, gasping, (and) crying weakly."
Court documents say Wood checked back some 26 minutes later, to find the child still alive. A nursing supervisor was called and arrived almost an hour after Ximena's birth. She found the child still in the "hat," uncovered, on a stainless-steel counter. By the time the Infant Transport Team arrived, Ximena had suffered a severe loss of heat, which in turn caused extensive and permanent brain damage.
Ximena's adoptive family eventually sued VGH. Hospital officials petitioned to have the case heard before a judge only, but the B.C. Supreme Court ruled it would be best heard before a jury. In June of this year, facing the prospect of a public trial, the hospital settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.
Meanwhile, pro-life activists are calling for criminal charges to be laid. B.C.'s pro-abortion Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh initially balked at the idea of investigating, but then instructed his criminal justice branch to contact Vancouver police. As of press time, no announcement had been made on whether further action will be taken. The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons have claimed the incident is out of their jurisdiction.
VGH continues to face heat over the case. Pro-lifers are now handing out literature outside the hospital, warning women of the events surrounding Ximena's birth. Some pro-lifers are suggesting VGH's recent request for a no-protest "bubble zone" around the facility is an attempt to cover up the case and hide it from patients and possible donors.
But it seems unlikely officials will be able to put a lid on the story, since it may have happened before. A Vancouver Sun article quotes nurse Kathryn Larouche, who spent a year working in the VGH ward where abortions were committed. Larouche stated she saw three infants "die after they were delivered live."
"We were supposed to turn the other way," Larouche said. "We weren't supposed to do anything. There were a couple of people ... I don't want to say who. They told us, ‘Don't do anything. Leave it alone. It will die.'" The events left such emotional scars, Larouche eventually resigned. Five other nurses left with her.
VGH officials insist that, according to their records, there has been no other case where a "viable" infant was born and allowed to die. They have not provided an explanation of what "viable" means.
More...
Ximena's odessy with Vancouver General Hospital began the day she was born. After attempting an abortion at a free-standing mill in Bellingham, Wash. Ximena's birth mother entered VGH, where she gave birth. According to court documents, staff delivered the child into a "hat"--a plastic pot--and then senior nurse Vera Wood whisked her away. Ximena was placed in a room "where dead fetuses were stored," even though she was "moving, gasping, (and) crying weakly."
Court documents say Wood checked back some 26 minutes later, to find the child still alive. A nursing supervisor was called and arrived almost an hour after Ximena's birth. She found the child still in the "hat," uncovered, on a stainless-steel counter. By the time the Infant Transport Team arrived, Ximena had suffered a severe loss of heat, which in turn caused extensive and permanent brain damage.
Ximena's adoptive family eventually sued VGH. Hospital officials petitioned to have the case heard before a judge only, but the B.C. Supreme Court ruled it would be best heard before a jury. In June of this year, facing the prospect of a public trial, the hospital settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.
Meanwhile, pro-life activists are calling for criminal charges to be laid. B.C.'s pro-abortion Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh initially balked at the idea of investigating, but then instructed his criminal justice branch to contact Vancouver police. As of press time, no announcement had been made on whether further action will be taken. The B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons have claimed the incident is out of their jurisdiction.
VGH continues to face heat over the case. Pro-lifers are now handing out literature outside the hospital, warning women of the events surrounding Ximena's birth. Some pro-lifers are suggesting VGH's recent request for a no-protest "bubble zone" around the facility is an attempt to cover up the case and hide it from patients and possible donors.
But it seems unlikely officials will be able to put a lid on the story, since it may have happened before. A Vancouver Sun article quotes nurse Kathryn Larouche, who spent a year working in the VGH ward where abortions were committed. Larouche stated she saw three infants "die after they were delivered live."
"We were supposed to turn the other way," Larouche said. "We weren't supposed to do anything. There were a couple of people ... I don't want to say who. They told us, ‘Don't do anything. Leave it alone. It will die.'" The events left such emotional scars, Larouche eventually resigned. Five other nurses left with her.
VGH officials insist that, according to their records, there has been no other case where a "viable" infant was born and allowed to die. They have not provided an explanation of what "viable" means.
150
Gianna's birthmother (named Tina) sought a saline abortion at seven months pregnant. Saline abortions involve injecting a caustic saline solution into the amniotic fluid, which (normally) causes the fetus to be scalded to death and then delivered dead. In this case, however, things didn't go according to plan. Tina went into labor and gave birth to a living baby girl, Gianna. Fortunately for Gianna, she was born before the abortionist had arrived at the clinic for the day. As a result, instead of being killed at birth by the abortionist, she was transported to a hospital. She was severely injured by the abortion attempt, requiring a three month stay in the hospital, but she survived to be placed in a foster family specializing in high risk babies.
As a result of injuries from the abortion, Gianna was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Doctors believed she would never be able to sit up, let alone walk. She surpassed all expectations. Today she is able to run, dance, and walk...and has even taken up rock climbing. She has also become a tireless advocate for the pro-life cause.
Many would expect Gianna to be bitter or angry about the fact her birthmother tried to abort her, especially at such a late point in the pregnancy. However, Gianna does not have any hatred towards her birthmother. She has forgiven her mother for the traumatic circumstances of her birth and treats the post-abortion women who hear her speak with compassion.
Gianna testified before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of abortion. Sadly, out of 13 members of the subcommittee, only 2 were willing to listen to her testimony; abortion supporters boycotted the meeting.
Gianna's birthmother (named Tina) sought a saline abortion at seven months pregnant. Saline abortions involve injecting a caustic saline solution into the amniotic fluid, which (normally) causes the fetus to be scalded to death and then delivered dead. In this case, however, things didn't go according to plan. Tina went into labor and gave birth to a living baby girl, Gianna. Fortunately for Gianna, she was born before the abortionist had arrived at the clinic for the day. As a result, instead of being killed at birth by the abortionist, she was transported to a hospital. She was severely injured by the abortion attempt, requiring a three month stay in the hospital, but she survived to be placed in a foster family specializing in high risk babies.
As a result of injuries from the abortion, Gianna was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Doctors believed she would never be able to sit up, let alone walk. She surpassed all expectations. Today she is able to run, dance, and walk...and has even taken up rock climbing. She has also become a tireless advocate for the pro-life cause.
Many would expect Gianna to be bitter or angry about the fact her birthmother tried to abort her, especially at such a late point in the pregnancy. However, Gianna does not have any hatred towards her birthmother. She has forgiven her mother for the traumatic circumstances of her birth and treats the post-abortion women who hear her speak with compassion.
Gianna testified before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of abortion. Sadly, out of 13 members of the subcommittee, only 2 were willing to listen to her testimony; abortion supporters boycotted the meeting.
151
If you looked at Ana Rosa Rodriguez at first glance, she might look like an average little girl to you. However, if you look closely, you'll notice that this child is missing her right arm. That's because her arm was ripped off in the process of an abortion on New York's Lower East Side. Ana Rosa was 32 weeks old at the time of the abortion. It was performed by Abu Hayat. Rosa, Ana Rosa's mother (who was only 20 years old at the time), said when she awoke, she was told that the abortion was incomplete and that she should come back the following day. That evening, however, she experienced increasing pain and bleeding. Her mother took her to Jamaica Hospital by taxi, where, five hours later, baby Ana Rosa was born. Aside from the loss of her right arm, Ana Rosa is a perfectly healthy little girl.
If you looked at Ana Rosa Rodriguez at first glance, she might look like an average little girl to you. However, if you look closely, you'll notice that this child is missing her right arm. That's because her arm was ripped off in the process of an abortion on New York's Lower East Side. Ana Rosa was 32 weeks old at the time of the abortion. It was performed by Abu Hayat. Rosa, Ana Rosa's mother (who was only 20 years old at the time), said when she awoke, she was told that the abortion was incomplete and that she should come back the following day. That evening, however, she experienced increasing pain and bleeding. Her mother took her to Jamaica Hospital by taxi, where, five hours later, baby Ana Rosa was born. Aside from the loss of her right arm, Ana Rosa is a perfectly healthy little girl.
153
Oh, god 149-151----do you keep this Grand Guignol in a zip drive or do you type it in every time? Every time logic fails you, you tell these stories.
These are not abortion stories, these are incompetent (at dating of pregnancy) doctor stories. No one here is advocating for abortion after viability. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. BTW, many pregnant women seeking termination are so desperate to end their pregnancies that they actually delude themselves into thinking they are much less pregnant than they are, so a sensible doctor evaluates gestational age VERY carefully.
These are not abortion stories, these are incompetent (at dating of pregnancy) doctor stories. No one here is advocating for abortion after viability. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. BTW, many pregnant women seeking termination are so desperate to end their pregnancies that they actually delude themselves into thinking they are much less pregnant than they are, so a sensible doctor evaluates gestational age VERY carefully.
154
Attitude devant,
no, the troll gets it off the net.
here they are:http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html
for fee they even speak at antichoice events and rallies
Troll,that is mostly for you. Stop posting your stupid bullshit.
no, the troll gets it off the net.
here they are:http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html
for fee they even speak at antichoice events and rallies
Troll,that is mostly for you. Stop posting your stupid bullshit.
155
But back to this nonsense about the great conspiracy to abort America's black babies:
The fertility rate in the U.S. (this is the number of born children over a woman's entire life) among white women in 2008 was about 2.0, and the figure for black women was ....
ALSO 2.0.
We can therefore infer the following (besides the obvious: this is one ineffective genocide): "Women have the quantity of babies they intend to." Of course, they have intercourse way more than 2 times in their life, so some pregnancies are prevented, and some are aborted. Black women have a very high rate of abortions, while white women have a high rate of contraception. It should be noted that education and access to birth control can really make a dent in a community's need for abortions. Making up bullshit about a "genocide" does not.
The fertility rate in the U.S. (this is the number of born children over a woman's entire life) among white women in 2008 was about 2.0, and the figure for black women was ....
ALSO 2.0.
We can therefore infer the following (besides the obvious: this is one ineffective genocide): "Women have the quantity of babies they intend to." Of course, they have intercourse way more than 2 times in their life, so some pregnancies are prevented, and some are aborted. Black women have a very high rate of abortions, while white women have a high rate of contraception. It should be noted that education and access to birth control can really make a dent in a community's need for abortions. Making up bullshit about a "genocide" does not.
156
Thank you, attitude devant for being here to shoot down Allegedly's crap. I still feel ever so betrayed by my own high school for exposing my class to miscarriage gorn and telling me they were abortion results. At a primal level, I find the obstuctionist front's willingness to lie and misrepresent to support their position as revolting than than the position itself.
Oh and thank you for educating me re: Grand Guignol
Oh and thank you for educating me re: Grand Guignol
158
141
Sucks doesn't begin to describe it.
My hemmorhoids and breasts both swelled like balloons and hurt like hell.
How about you?
Sucks doesn't begin to describe it.
My hemmorhoids and breasts both swelled like balloons and hurt like hell.
How about you?
159
"access to birth control can really make a dent in a community's need for abortions"
Have you been to a ghetto? You can't walk 50 meters without getting free rubbers at clinics, schools, community centers. The problem for the baby mamas and their sperminators ((can we call them fathers?) in the barrios, hoods and trailer parks is there unwillingness to use the fucking things.
Stupid and lazy. Conditions best removed from the gene pool by abortion.
Have you been to a ghetto? You can't walk 50 meters without getting free rubbers at clinics, schools, community centers. The problem for the baby mamas and their sperminators ((can we call them fathers?) in the barrios, hoods and trailer parks is there unwillingness to use the fucking things.
Stupid and lazy. Conditions best removed from the gene pool by abortion.
160
@159: Your ignorant racism aside, you are just an idiot.
Access to birth control is worthless without decent sex ed to teach the kids how to use the damn things, and sadly, schools in ghettos tend to be remiss in this as well as most other aspects of teaching.
Have you been to a ghetto? Two big problems with inner-city poor neighborhoods are the LACK of clinics and community centers, and the chronic underfunding of schools. Don't expect to see many places where teenagers can get free party balloons if necessary.
I live on the South Side of Chicago and tutor kids from the area (and they live in relatively good neighborhoods, for the South Side) and have at least some sense of what poor areas have to deal with. Don't think that just because you're a white trash bitch (judging by your attitude and relative illiteracy) you actually know what ghettos are like. Shut your fucking face, uncle fucker.
Access to birth control is worthless without decent sex ed to teach the kids how to use the damn things, and sadly, schools in ghettos tend to be remiss in this as well as most other aspects of teaching.
Have you been to a ghetto? Two big problems with inner-city poor neighborhoods are the LACK of clinics and community centers, and the chronic underfunding of schools. Don't expect to see many places where teenagers can get free party balloons if necessary.
I live on the South Side of Chicago and tutor kids from the area (and they live in relatively good neighborhoods, for the South Side) and have at least some sense of what poor areas have to deal with. Don't think that just because you're a white trash bitch (judging by your attitude and relative illiteracy) you actually know what ghettos are like. Shut your fucking face, uncle fucker.
161
@160 well I went to parochial schools with no sex ed, and you know what? We knew squating on cocks had side effects. No baby mamas at St. Lukes for the 10 yrs I went.
Face it, this is a cultural problem in the ghetto. Just watch an hour of BET on cable if you don't think so.
Face it, this is a cultural problem in the ghetto. Just watch an hour of BET on cable if you don't think so.
162
@161: I repeat my previous post:
"Access to birth control is worthless without decent sex ed to teach the kids how to use the damn things"
People tend to figure out how babies are made by the time they're capable of making them. What sex ed helps to do is teach kids how to bump the uglies without making any babies; things like how to use a condom properly or why coitus interruptus doesn't work need to be taught. It's really more of a financial problem in the ghetto; underfunded schools, underfunded community centers (or even a total absence), and a cycle of poverty. Bad neighborhood=>fewer companies based in neighborhood=>dearth of jobs=>people turn to drug dealing for money=>drugs sold by or through violent gangs=>bad neighborhood. Repeat ad nauseum.
Thank you for answering my question, though. The fact that you think that dirt-poor people in the inner city arrange their priorities so as to buy cable service shows that you have no idea what slums are even like. Go read There Are No Children Here by Alex Kotlowitz if you want a primer.
Your posts really demonstrate that you're just on a crusade against black people and black culture. Well, take it somewhere else, you cracker-ass bitch. We minorities are about sick of people like you.
"Access to birth control is worthless without decent sex ed to teach the kids how to use the damn things"
People tend to figure out how babies are made by the time they're capable of making them. What sex ed helps to do is teach kids how to bump the uglies without making any babies; things like how to use a condom properly or why coitus interruptus doesn't work need to be taught. It's really more of a financial problem in the ghetto; underfunded schools, underfunded community centers (or even a total absence), and a cycle of poverty. Bad neighborhood=>fewer companies based in neighborhood=>dearth of jobs=>people turn to drug dealing for money=>drugs sold by or through violent gangs=>bad neighborhood. Repeat ad nauseum.
Thank you for answering my question, though. The fact that you think that dirt-poor people in the inner city arrange their priorities so as to buy cable service shows that you have no idea what slums are even like. Go read There Are No Children Here by Alex Kotlowitz if you want a primer.
Your posts really demonstrate that you're just on a crusade against black people and black culture. Well, take it somewhere else, you cracker-ass bitch. We minorities are about sick of people like you.
163
I was going to say that perhaps Lovely Linda was obsessing on cock squatting the way Allegedly likes to obsess on butt-fuckery, but in fact it was Looney Left. Indeed, he knew how to spell tenses of to Squat.
Regardless, Lovely Linda, for the sake of St. Luke's I wouldn't advise you advertising your tenure there. It does make me wonder if St. Luke's lack of baby-mama-drama is due to the Roman Catholic policy to cover up anything embarrassing (and successful implementation thereof) or if it was simply that students there weren't trusted to be within a furlong of boys until they graduated.
Regardless, Lovely Linda, for the sake of St. Luke's I wouldn't advise you advertising your tenure there. It does make me wonder if St. Luke's lack of baby-mama-drama is due to the Roman Catholic policy to cover up anything embarrassing (and successful implementation thereof) or if it was simply that students there weren't trusted to be within a furlong of boys until they graduated.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Confidential to Conservative Christians: Keep Doubling Down On Hate, Assholes by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Show This Woman Some Love by Dan Savage
-
Dharun Ravi Sentenced to 30 Days by Dan Savage
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Seattle's Forthcoming Waterfront Ferris Wheel by David Schmader
-
NOM's Brian Brown Said I Could Name the Time and the Place by Dan Savage
-
Why KeyArena Won't Work by Goldy
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
SL Letter of the Day: Anti-Gay Sister-In-Law Getting Her Kink On by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (163) RSS