• Tue, Oct 29 - 1:00 pm ET

10 Reasons To Have An Abortion – Illustrated By Adorable Cats

Screen Shot 2013-10-29 at 11.34.38 AMI’m pro-choice. I’ve made my stance on this issue very clear numerous times on Mommyish, and I may not share the same beliefs with my employees or employers, but I am pro-choice. I believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare, and I don’t think the majority of women make the decision to have an abortion lightly. Yesterday our writer Maria Guido reported on the (awesome) news that a federal judge declared today new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional. Maria linked this story on our Facebook page – which we do with many of our articles, and a reader made this comment: Screen Shot 2013-10-29 at 8.27.50 AM Mommyish is a parenting website. We support all parents,including those who become parents by accident, and we also support people who don’t want to become parents. I have children who I love beyond words and I am pro-choice. I don’t think these two things are mutually exclusive. My mother was pro-choice and had children. I know many women do. You can love kids, you can think babies are amazing, and you can also be in favor of a woman deciding what is best for her life and her body.

Due to the fact we have all seen one million sad stories on the Internet illustrated by miserable looking stock photo women sobbing into their hands, I have decided to use cats instead. I’m a cat fan, and I would rather look at cats than whatever comes up when you search photo websites for “abortion.”

I’m very pro-choice, and I can think of 10 reasons to have an abortion.

Having A Baby Would Endanger Your Life  shutterstock_157160969 (Image: DavidTB/shutterstock) Or cause you medical hardship.

Your Birth Control Failed  shutterstock_140663611 (Image: : Cherry-Merry/shutterstock) For whatever reason, your birth control failed. It happens.

You Don’t Want To Have A Child Because Of Your Career  tumblr_m81zn2ccFV1qguhnvo1_500 (Image: Tumblr) You feel like having a baby, taking maternity leave, and caring for a child would harm your career opportunities.

You Feel You Are Too Young  shutterstock_136846994 (Image: Leonid and Anna Dedukh/shutterstock) Maybe you’re a teen with an unplanned pregnancy, or maybe you are any age with an unplanned pregnancy, and you feel you are too young.

You Feel You Are Too Old  shutterstock_116715037 (Image:  Dziewul/shutterstock) Maybe your kids have all grown up and left home and you feel you are too old to have a baby. Maybe you feel like your diaper changing days are done.  

You Feel Strongly About Overpopulation  6a00e5538ab55c88330133f33390f9970b-500wi (Image: Tumblr) And you don’t want to add another human to the world.

You Are Worried About The Health Of The Baby  shutterstock_143928580 (Image:  AdStock RF /shutterstock) Either because of impending miscarriage, Trisomy 13 or Potter’s Syndrome, birth defects or diseases passed down in a family.  

You Want No Relationship With The Person Who Got You Pregnant  shutterstock_146531684 (Image: Petr Malyshev/shutterstock)

This can be anything from cases of rape and incest, to having a partner with drug or alcohol issues, to domestic violence in a relationship to getting pregnant with someone during a one-night stand.

You Don’t Want To Have A Child  shutterstock_118113208 (Image: Beauty photographer/shutterstock)

For whatever reason.

This list is by no means inclusive, and I could have probably easily come up with a hundred or so more reasons why someone should have an abortion.I don’t think abortions are something that women decide to do on the spur of the moment or because they haven’t carefully considered all their options, and I support adoption IF that is what a woman decides she wants to do. Before some of you readers rage at me, I more than welcome your thoughts, debates and opinions. And I hope we have a counter-list published in the future.

(Image: B.Stefanov/shutterstock)

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • Dmember

    I can sure understand why a mother who killed her own child would need at least 10 excuses for doing it. But it won’t help. Killing is the worst sin one can commit.

    • Quis ut Deus

      So, if you were being raped, you would be sinning if you hit the rapist over the head, killing him, in order that you might escape?

      You’d just let him keep on raping you eh?

      Answer my question.

    • TheTrickyTruth

      yes. it’s much better, if you’re obviously overpowered and cornered, to just let the rapist do his/her thing. It’s a power thing and they want you to fight.

    • Quis ut Deus

      So if you have the chance to hit the rapist over the head and get away you should not take it?

      That is your advice?

    • TheTrickyTruth

      are you fucking retarded? or are you so drunk that you cant read and comprehend 2 sentences?

    • Quis ut Deus

      I am trying to figure out where you are coming from because I was making a self-defense argument.

    • TheTrickyTruth

      no, you’re one of those people who only want to talk and never listen

    • Quis ut Deus

      So, if you were being raped, you would be sinning if you hit the
      rapist over the head, killing him, in order that you might escape?

      You’d just let him keep on raping you eh?

    • Gecks

      Better the rapist that committed the crime dies than the child that had no fault in the matter.

    • Quis ut Deus

      So how much jail time should a rape victim do for procuring an abortion?

      Seeing as how rapists can do anywhere from one year to 30 years tell us, should a pregnant rape victim who aborts spend life in prison for the crime of MURDER?

    • CJ99

      considering how those laws are twisted around by antichoicers its far more likely the rapist would go free while the victim gets further victimized for trying not to be forcibly pregnant. What a sick demented world anti-choicers want us all living in.

    • Jennifer Starr

      It’s not a question of fault. It’s the question of whether the woman feels physically and mentally capable of going through a pregnancy that was forced on her.

    • tsara

      Aaaand… fuck your sick punitive morality.

    • CJ99

      yet he gives no thought at all to the woman who was raped.

  • TheTrickyTruth

    we might as well outlaw male masterbation. arent sperm “alive” don’t they move about? oh what about thoughts of having a kid. maybe aborting my thoughts of a kid should be illegal too

    • Gecks

      Sperm cells are not unique individuals with their own unique DNA as children are at the moment of conception.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Sperm cells are unique.

      They are alive.

      They are human (dna).

      By your criteria for ‘personhood’ a sperm would qualify.

      Human genome + alive are the only criteria you are using.

      And no, sorry to disappoint you pumpkin, but a zygote is not a uinque individual from conception.

      The zygote can split into monozygotic twins…and then recombine…and split again. Furthermore, the zygote also contains instructions for the creation of a placenta. I don’t know about you, but viable human *individuals* do not contain blueprints for a placenta and a umbilical cord. In fact, viable humans are not part placenta/umbilical cord:)

      And lastly, two separate embryos can combine to form one embryo. And this creates a chimera. One person with two sets of DNA.

      The monozygotic twin and the chimera are not ‘unique individuals’ by your definition. I guess that means they can’t possibly be people eh?

      You should let Lydia Fairchild know that she isn’t a person:

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

    • tsara

      Yes, they are. Sperm cells have unique human DNA; they are one of the haploid forms of the human life cycle. Please explain to me why polyploidy matters.

    • Quis ut Deus

      yeah, and every cell in your body has the full complement of 46 chromosomes…
      a skin cell is no less ‘alive’ than a zygote

    • CJ99

      then the anti-choicers would have very little left to do in their spare time.

  • Pingback: What is the world coming to? | the secular traditionalist

  • UK mummy

    Good grief this makes me so sad. There is some REAL anger and crazy out there. I have two babies and I’m pro-choice to a degree, in that I don’t agree with abortion as an alternative to contraception, but I do agree with it as a considered,medically recommended process for significant physical or mental wellbeing reasons – and I think the anti-choice brigade who try and claim that its being used lightly are disingenuous. I don’t know any women who have taken the decision lightly. I live in the UK, thankfully. In fact the only women I know who have had abortions are really really struggled with the decision.. I don’t think legislators have the right to dictate what we do with our bodies. I support contraception. And being pro choice is NOT anti life. All lives are not created equal and there are many children alive due to “improvements” in medical science who have very poor quality of life. I myself would NOT abort a baby if I conceived now. But I completely support others right to choose what they do. Anti-choice arguments are all so very narrow minded.” All abortion=wrong.” is a terrible mindset. What if delivering the baby would kill the mother. What if the child would have no cognitive function or constant debilitating pain?what if the pregnancy results from abuse of the woman? Heinous to suggest that abortion should never be an option in such circumstances – unforgiving and unchristian.

    • Gecks

      Anti-choice is anti-life. All life has equal intrinsic value. Having a rough life is practically the story of all humanity. If that were a good factor for killing children, the earth would be desolate right now.

      We talk about not legislating people’s bodies but in special cases where another’s life is endangered, that is exactly what we do. It’s under the banner of our Laws Against Murder, or in other words, “your body is not allowed to murder the body of another person, due to some perceived inconvenience.”

      I don’t use the word “inconvenience” to say that those who’ve had an abortion didn’t have a tough time making the decision. Some certainly did (I would hope most did). However, having a tough time arriving at a final decision does NOT make that decision correct. And we really need to get real about the majority of abortions being performed. Most have nothing to do with the possibility of killing the mother.

    • Quis ut Deus

      All life has equal intrinsic value

      FALSE, because in actual fact there is no such thing as “intrinsic
      value”. All valuations are associated with “desires” of one sort or
      another, and different sources of desire lead to different valuations.
      But an “intrinsic value” is something that would be recognized as such,
      and equally, by every different source of desire. As an example, a
      simple microbe might prefer to digest something organic, instead of
      something inorganic, and so, to the microbe, the organic thing is more
      valuable. If the inorganic thing had been a diamond, the microbe would still prefer the organic thing.

      Meanwhile, unliving things like rocks have no desires at all, and
      most of the Universe appears to consist of unliving things (like stars).
      So, another reason there are no intrinsic valuations is simply that the
      Universe started out lifeless after the Big Bang, and therefore was
      desire-free.

      Therefore, just because humans arbitrarily declare that diamonds are
      valuable, or human life is valuable, for various specific human
      purposes, that doesn’t make it intrinsically true, not in the
      slightest. It is a statement of pure egotistical prejudice, nothing
      more. As another example, a hungry man-eating tiger doesn’t care one whit what humans think about human life, or what deer think about deer life. Again, intrinsic value is something that should be intrinsically
      recognizable as such. Well, the only thing that tiger will recognize
      about a human is “fresh meat value”, insignificantly different from a
      deer, not “life value”….

      We talk about not legislating people’s bodies but in special cases where another’s life is endangered, that is exactly what we do

      No we don’t. We don’t force people to donate tissue and organs to preserve the life of another. We don’t force people to give to blood banks. We don’t force people to go into burning buildings to save others. We don’t force people to risk their health to save others.

      Society does, however, subscribe to ‘it’s my body, no one else can use it as life support’:

      mcfall vs. shimp
      “The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides
      that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue.”

      “For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his
      body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn. This request is not to be
      compared with an action at law for damages, but rather is an action in
      equity before a Chancellor, which, in the ultimate, if granted, would
      require the submission to the medical procedure. For a society, which
      respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the
      jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence. [Forcible] extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the specter of the swastika and the inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends.”

      http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~

      And we really need to get real about the majority of abortions being performed. Most have nothing to do with the possibility of killing the mother.

      Giving bone marrow and blood is less life and health threatening thatn pregnancy. Yet the state decided in mcfall vs. shimp that people could not be compelled to give tissue to save a life. Pregnancy is far more dangerous than giving bone marrow.

      Women have the right to their health and a right to their bodies. The fetus is an attacker. It drills into the woman’s blood supply, takes sugar from her blood, causing diabetes in some cases. Iron from her blood causing anemia. And calcium from her bones causing tooth loss and osteoperosis.

      And then there is birth. Birth can last up to 72 hours and cause extreme pain. It is akin to torture. Unless you think having a bowling ball shoved up your ass would be pleasant Gecks?

      No, pregnancy is not a minor inconvenience. If it was, I have no doubt that women would be happy to have every baby they were impregnated with and give them up for adoption. Pregnancy takes a huge toll on a woman’s body and it is not a minor thing.

    • CJ99

      The diamond example 1 of the best I’ve seen. Too many people thing they soooo valuable when all they are is shiney rocks. Or in another way they’re just really uptight carbon, much like the stuff filling your pencil.

  • Esther

    The inherent hypocrisy of most of these comments, due to the simple fact that none of those espousing the premise contained in this article has ever been aborted, is astounding. Maybe we should ask an aborted baby how they feel about the process. Oh wait, we can’t.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Maybe we should ask an aborted baby how they feel about the process. Oh wait, we can’t.

      The zygote/embryo/fetus can’t have a say because it doesn’t yet exist as a person, especially at the time when most abortions occur.

      People are not non-sentient non-sapient undifferentiated lumps of tissue smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

      Besides, pro-choicers aren’t so selfish that they would *demand* that another person put their life and health at risk to be used as a walking life support machine.

      Every baby should be wanted. Babies should not be punishment, they should not be forced on their mothers, and they should be brought into this world to be loved, not resented.

    • MarcusFenix

      “Every baby should be wanted.”

      And isn’t. Odd how that works out, isn’t it?

    • BJ Survivor

      And your point is…?

    • MarcusFenix

      That reading comprehension isn’t you’re strong suit? Or are you interested in making another non-argument? Either way works out for me.

    • BJ Survivor

      So, you don’t think every child should be wanted and cherished, fed, clothed and educated rather than resented and/or abused? I like children. I want them to have good lives. Forcing them upon someone who doesn’t want them or is not at all prepared to properly care for them is despicable.

    • MarcusFenix

      I think that children should be wanted, loved, fed, cherished, taken care of, and so on. It wouldn’t be very hard to find women who didn’t want to be pregnant, ended up becoming so, and then kept the child…who then didn’t beat, murder, torture, starve, etc.

      Not specifically looking to be pregnant today doesn’t mean that you never, ever want kids or that if you have them and weren’t planning on it, that you’re going to perpetrate all of those horrible things. It’s no less despicable than anything else that’s unexpected. Your specific view of things is a rather large generalization that should something be unwanted or unexpected, that it’s some massive problem. We both can easily find mountains of stories and reports about women having kids, who were neither prepared or even wanted to be pregnant before it happened, who have health and productive children and went on to lead normal, happy lives.

      You want children to have good lives, but are likewise fine with them never making it to that point. Interesting.

    • BJ Survivor

      *Sigh* Yep, I am perfectly fine with the willful expulsion of a mindless cluster of human tissue, the earlier the better, which is what most women want when they find themselves with an untenable pregnancy. Unfortunately, some women have things go horribly wrong with either the pregnancy or with the fetus that don’t come out until later in the pregnancy. And those are the most tragic of all, because they are usually necessary for very much wanted pregnancies, for very much wanted babies. And then they have to soldier through a gauntlet of bible-babbling, judgmental lunatics such as yourself when they already face a horrific situation.

    • MarcusFenix

      Arguments can be untenable. Might want to check how that word comes into context here. Even homeschooled kids would know better and can use it properly.

      If things go horribly wrong and the life of the mother is at stake, then we’ve covered (twice just with you) that I find abortion acceptable in that case. Why continue to argue about a point on which we would agree, other than just to be disagreeable for its own sake? Tragic, yes. Medically necessary to save the life of the mother…sure. Keep beatiing this dead horse if you want, but…my position there is pretty plain.

      I’ve never once injected religion of any kind into this conversation….much less anywhere on the page. Not once. Did you get some inclincation that I was religious because of the lack of religious statements, or do you just randomly assign that label to someone who disagrees with you, contrary to the very things you’re reading and the lack of any evidence of me being a “bible babbling” person? I mean, really…come on. you’re not even trying anymore, it’s just cookie-cutter rejections of someone who disagrees with you, and has zero actual basis in fact.

      We could also address the ones who stand on the sidewalk, silent….btw, there’s a nice article about that on LAN’s main page right now, as a matter of fact…so not as much soldiering to go around as you’d put out there. I can’t deny there are some fringe folks out there, but…they consider my own argument with regards to life of the mother abortion exceptions as horrible, evil, etc. We don’t agree on that point and that’s fine.

      Adding more ad hominems, or reciting the progressive liberal playbook of name calling gets you nowhere, especially when what you’re saying isn’t even close. I did have to refrain from making a crack about “mindless clutters of human tissue”.

    • BJ Survivor

      And you STILL haven’t provided any scenario where anyone else can have their body commandeered without their ongoing consent by another person. You just babble on and on about how women should not be able to or want to “kill their child.” You’re not fooling anyone.

    • Quis ut Deus

      So you argue that potential = actual in the case of a zygote.

      But that a woman’s right to preventative care because the pregnancy MIGHT harm her down the road is immaterial because, in that case potential doesn’t = actual.

      Ok.

    • MarcusFenix

      Way to try and twist the words around, but no. I’m guessing you misunderstood.

      If a woman is pregnant, and what is there is alive…then anything resembling “potential” life is no longer applicable. What is there, in whatever stage of development, is alive. Your equation above (made on purpose,maybe) is trying to say that potential life = actual life.

      Potential only exists before conception…as in there’s a potential that two people having unprotected sex causes a pregnancy. Once that passes and conception occurs, we’re not talking potential.

      You’re trying to tie “potential person” to “actual person”. It’s clearly not the road I chose, nor advocate. Nice try, but no.

      Women, like men, have access to preventative and medical care already. It’s silly to claim that they do not. If the pregnancy were placing her in a dangerous situation and her doctors advised abortion as a way to prevent death, then we’ve already covered that I’d not have a problem with that.

      We could talk about the “right” of health care for people in general, but that’s more politics than anything else.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Potential exists until the fetus is born, or at least, until viability.

      The truth is that a ZEF is a “baby under construction” or a “child under construction“. This should be obvious because of the existence of the placenta. It is a fact that after a blastocyst successfully implants into a womb, it begins to specialize itself into two very different “components”. One becomes the embryo, and the other becomes the placenta. Together, those two components, even just before birth, comprise the whole organism. Neither part can survive without the other for most of a pregnancy, and the whole purpose of the “construction project” is to enable the embryo-cum-fetus to survive without an attached placenta. Therefore that (two-part) unborn organism is not equal to the resulting baby or child that appears during a successful birth.

      Furthermore, the construction process is very complex, and is subject to Murphy’s Law, “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” . You don’t have a baby until it is completed – because gestation is a complex process that might fail to be completed.

      The brain could fail to develop. Or the lungs, or any number of organs that are necessary for survival. A zygote is not a tiny human that simply grows bigger. It is a genetic blueprint.

      The false hope or false expectation involves the unstated assumption that birth is 100% likely –and its false-ness becomes proved, and hopes and expectations become dashed, when Murphy’s Law strikes and natural miscarriages occur.

      Lastly, a fetus has no personality. No mind. No awareness. You are begging the question by assuming that a ZEF is a person because it contains human DNA and is alive. Well, every cell in your body contains human DNA and is alive so that isn’t enough. Tumours and hydratiform moles contain human DNA and are alive. So are beating heart cadavers and anencephalic babies. Yet no one complains when they are taken off life support or their organs harvested. No one is accused of murder. Because it is well recognized that the MIND is what makes YOU what you are, not your body. And until the ZEF is capable of sentience there is no ‘person’, just potential.

      If the pregnancy were placing her in a dangerous situation and her doctors advised abortion as a way to prevent death, then we’ve already covered that I’d not have a problem with that.

      Every pregnancy is a dangerous situation. Birth especially is painful and dangerous. And birth is a *certainty*. C-section involves major surgery which can have deleterious side effects. Vaginal birth can result in post partum hemmorhage and vaginal tearing – many of which cannot be fixed. PPH often results in death. And none of that can be prevented unless the woman gets an early abortion. A ‘healthy’ pregnancy can go wrong at any time. And sometimes the woman can’t be saved. Period. Or she is permanently disabled as a result. The problem with the kind of thinking ‘well if her life is in danger she can have an abortion’ is that often times it is too late. As in the case of Savita Halapannavar in Ireland. Pregnancy may be temporary, but the damage to a woman’s body is permanent. Oh, and as a final tidbit, since the fetus suppresses the woman’s immune system during the pregnancy, it can result in an overactive immune system afterwards, which can bring on auto-immune diseases such as MS and Parkinsons.

      Pregnancy carries risks. This is a fact. And the person facing the risk is the only one who should be making the decision as to whether or not she will continue with it. No one else can decide how much risk another person should take on.

      And seeing as how we do not force people to take even minor risks such as giving blood to save the lives of another – we do not even force parents to give blood to save their born children – then why force a woman to risk her health for a microscopic cell that is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence?

    • BJ Survivor

      MarcusFenix is a dumbfuck who seems to believe in the disproved homunculus theory of development. And doesn’t really believe that embryos are people, since he claims that pregnancy is no big deal, but then offers a rape exception. His whole “argument” boils down to that sex is a crime, but only for women, of course. I am more than done with his disingenuous bullshit.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Yes he is.

      And he claims that pro-lifer behind the TRAP laws are NOT biased in the least. Even though I pointed out that they don’t seem to care about plastic surgery clinics and dental clinics..

      However, he dismisses the opinions of ob/gyns about the uselessness of trap laws because they make money off killin babies!!

    • BJ Survivor

      Yep, just another delusional forced-birther dickbag.

    • Quis ut Deus

      I am having fun with JohnV and Camalla Papalahdarororroro wtf

      both of them *strongly* feel that abortion is murder

      that an embryo has the same moral value as a newborn

      however, they won’t tell me how much time a woman should spend in jail for abortion, and they don’t think rape victims should be punished at all for baby-killin!

    • MarcusFenix

      Stating that the contents of a pregnant woman’s uterus as being alive isn’t submitting to a homunculus theory at all. It’s basic biology 101, unless you’re advocating that dead things magically grow and, after birth, are suddenly alive.

      I’ve stated that pregnancy isn’t as horrible as you, and a few others, have claimed it to be. From the postings here, one could be led to think that the next unwanted pregnancy may trigger some mind blowing apocalypse, but that’s not true. As I’ve told Tsara several times, pregnancy changes things, but it’s not always this destructive doom and gloom situation as you folks would present. It’s just not how things work in the world.

      My “argument” is that people should act like they have some sense in their heads, not engage in unprotected sex all willy-nilly, make positive life choices in which a person who doesn’t want to get pregnant takes the proper steps to prevent that as an outcome (read: tubal ligation, etc), and that using abortion as a method of birth control stemming from stupid behavior is the worst of choices at the end of the day. Those choices and behaviors are for both sexes (as stated multiple times on this board), not just for women. Men going around and knocking up women just because they’re acting stupid isn’t some excuse. They’re just as culpable.

      The fact you willfully glance past those, create ignorant and emotionally baited strawman arguments, because you can’t answer any other way is more telling about your position than mine. Every time you’ve made a point, I’ve answered it. You then act like a spoiled 43-going on-14 year old, throw out insults and ad homimens, and then try to twist or rephrase things in order to readjust the argument. When that doesn’t work, you move on to the next point, lather rince repeat. It’s boring, and it’s worn. Please, continue to come unhinged, like a small child, every time someone challenges an argument you don’t like, don’t understand, or can’t refute.

      Now you can be done with it. ;)

    • CJ99

      marcus, fullmetal alchemist is NOT a biology lesson.

    • MarcusFenix

      Your replies, while short and pointless, still make me laugh a little regardless of how juvenile and baseless they may be.

      Apparently, you don’t actually know what was being talked about, but that’s easily remedied.

      For reference, see BJ’s previous comment about the “homunculus theory” though she was incorrect from that standpoint as well. To better inform you, because it looks like you’re in desperate need, here’s a whole bunch of stuff you likely won’t read, but didn’t know about anyway.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus
      http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/homunculus
      http://www.answers.com/topic/what-is-the-homunculus-theory

      and just in case, the actual fallacy which also bears that name…
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_fallacy

      Saw your fanbot comment too, which a special kind of silly…but hey, keep pushing forward without actually making any real argument or points!

    • BJ Survivor

      Forced-birthers will twist themselves into pretzels to justify enslaving women to the contents of their uteruses. Point out the illogic and inconsistencies and *crickets chirping.*

    • MarcusFenix

      Im sorry that there were crickets, since I have things outside of responding to you and CantStickWithAName here. I even mentioned that after today, I was going on vacation for a week due to the holidays. You’ll get plenty of cricket chirping for a while, but lack of a typed responses doesn’t mean much more than that.

      Of course, I don’t get crickets from you. I get a bunch of mental backflips and rolls, whereby when one thing you can’t answer comes up, you move to another point. Is that how forced-deathers act elsewhere?

    • CJ99

      typical of a gamer fanbot. all hot air no substance.

    • tsara

      *shrugs* my mother kept her options open up until the very last moments. I am perfectly okay with that.

  • http://www.funbookes.com/ www.funbookes.com

    or fucked by other person.

  • yippeekayay

    So when you say you’re “pro-choice” you don’t mean choice for the unborn I take it? Those stupid little fetuses aren’t even persons yet (says the SCOTUS) so why give them a choice? We’d have to wait for them to be born and then you “pro-choice” people would have to give up your oh-so-important consequence-free fornication, adultery and other forms of sexual promiscuity.

    • Quis ut Deus

      The fetus doesn’t have a choice seeing as how it is a non-sentient non-sapient organism that literally attacks the woman’s body negatively affecting her life and health.

    • Gecks

      That fetus is a person the moment of conception. He or she is ALIVE having his/her own unique DNA already established. From then own, he/she depends upon the mother for the nutrition vital to his/her own development.
      Level of mental awareness doesn’t make the child un-alive.

    • Quis ut Deus

      IRRELEVANT, because the uniqueness of perhaps 50% of all human conceptions does not keep them from dying of perfectly Natural causes, before birth.

      While it might then be argued that that fact merely makes the other 50% even more precious, it can equally be argued that it is extremely easy for most sexually active adults to make more conceptions, each one just as unique. One result is, every time some employer says, “There’s plenty more where you came from!”, the individual uniqueness of even an adult human can easily be totally ignored. Which means that human uniqueness can also be ignored before birth, as happens whenever a
      woman seeks an abortion.

      Furthermore, cancer cells and hydratiform moles are human and have unique DNA. You will have to do better. Those two criteria alone are not enough to grant personhood.

      Level of mental awareness doesn’t make the child un-alive.

      Lack of a functioning brain has everything to do with it. If that wasn’t the case, clinically braindead patients would not be declared dead. Anencephalic babies would also not be declared dead upon birth. Without a mind there is no person. Just a sack of skin and bone. And until viability, the fetus is nothing more than a sack of skin and bone.

    • fiona64

      That fetus is a person the moment of conception

      Nope. Personhood is a legal concept, and it attaches (along with attendant rights) at birth.

      He or she is ALIVE having his/her own unique DNA already established.

      Tumors are alive, with their own unique DNA already established. By your standard, a tumor is a person.

    • Quis ut Deus

      I showed him that page you often link – where the embryos all look quite similar – and he told me that the information on the page had been discredited in 1874.

      The moron didn’t even read, or if he did, comprehend, the information in the article that he thought ‘contradicted’ that link

      Typical!

    • fiona64

      1874? What a joke. We know more about embryology today than ever.

    • Jennifer Starr

      So you’re less about ‘saving baybees’ and more about punishing people for having sex and being s1uts. Don’t worry, we get it.

    • yippeekayay

      Right, I’m less about saving innocents and more about preventing them from being oppressed by the guilty. The lengths you go to twist your brain into a lump of blissful self-serving ignorance is amusing, if not amazing.

    • Jennifer Starr

      The guilty being people who have had sex, of course–they must suffer the consequences. You’re not making yourself sound any better, yippee.

    • yippeekayay

      The guilty being people who have sex, disregarding the biological realities of the very nature and purpose of sex and do so without first preparing a reasonably suitable environment for new human life. In case no one taught you this, sex is primarily about reproduction and not about orgasmic titillation and onanistic self-gratification.

    • Quis ut Deus

      The guilty being people who have sex,

      Then I would hope that you would agree that fathers should be legally obligated to donate blood/tissue/organs in order to preserve the life of the child before and after it is born.

      In case no one taught you this, sex is primarily about reproduction and not about orgasmic titillation and onanistic self-gratification.

      FALSE, because, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is most definitely not reproduction. The simplest proof involves the fact that while females of most other species tend to engage in sex only when they are fertile, human females can indulge in sex almost any time. Humanity would not have evolved that significant distinction, from other species, if it wasn’t important. So, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is actually something known as “pair bonding”.

      Basically, human infants are so helpless, compared to other newborns, that caring for one severely handicaps the mother. If she can attract long-term assistance, then the chances of survival, for both herself and her child, increase greatly. And it is well known that sex is a powerful attractant. If it happens to have the side-effect of also making more offspring, well, each attracted sex-participant is, theoretically, still right there, helping out, and still enjoying sex.

      A participant who practices the trick-her-and-run tactic is taking the risk that his offspring won’t survive due to lack-of-assistance, but he tries to compensate by having lots of offspring –”R-strategy” mating. If a society wants to rid itself of that tactic over the long run, then all it need do is ensure none of any practitioner’s offspring survive, not even until birth! Overall, these things are very simple, very logical, very effective –and very destructive to that argument against abortion.

    • Jennifer Starr

      No. If sex were only for procreation, we would go into heat cycles like other animals do.

    • fiona64

      It amazes me how few people understand this. We’re mammals, after all … if sex were only for makin’ babies (as these nitwits claim), women would only be receptive during their fertile cycles.

    • yippeekayay

      Uh. Maybe you’re too young to know about menstruation and ovulation? Talk to your mom.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yeah, those aren’t heat cycles. If they were, women would only desire to have sex during those times with any available males that happened to be around. Try again, baby boy.

    • yippeekayay

      That sounds like a weak rationalization that you yourself don’t even believe (hence you start baiting me with silly grade school tauntint). If you’re entire argument hinges on the fact that humans are fundamentally physically different in their reproductive functions and behaviors: (a) it’ll be an uphill argument in the scientific community for you and (b) you’re going to undercut your best arguments for gay sex (a behavioral aberration that is detrimental to individuals and society).

    • Jennifer Starr

      How does stating that sex is not only for procreation undercutting an argument for gay sex?

    • yippeekayay

      I’m not sure it does. That’s not what I stated. What I stated is that if you want to argue that humans “don’t go into heat” because they’re different from animals, then you can’t argue later that gay sex is natural and normal because animals do it.

    • Quis ut Deus

      I suggest you read the *science* that I provided you with…

      You might learn something.

      Or not, since you seem pretty dumb.

    • Quis ut Deus

      What I stated is that if you want to argue that human’s “don’t go into heat” because they’re different from animals, then you can’t argue later that gay sex is natural and normal because animals do it.

      What you don’t seem to understand is that we are like animals *in some respects* and unlike animals in *other respects*

      Humans are a kind of animal that uses a specific reproductive strategy (the majority of the time) because that strategy is the most successful for human animals.

      Whereas a polar bear mom can look after her babies just fine without male investment, which is why she will go into heat for two weeks, get pregnant, and never see the male bear again.

      Duhhh

      All animals utilize different reproductive strategies.

      I suggest you start here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

    • Quis ut Deus

      And if you want to learn more about how you are talking out of your ass, I suggest you go here and at least watch the first 5 lectures:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

      You’re welcome.

    • Jennifer Starr

      While it’s true that I don’t spend my days obsessing about other people’s sex lives the way that you seem to be doing, I am actually forty years old and more than aware of the various arguments on both sides regarding homosexuality. And you still haven’t proven your claim that menstruation or ovulation is the same as going into heat, I’m guessing you’re not a woman, because if you were, you’d know that was bollocks.

    • yippeekayay

      I can insinuate insults as well as any pre-menopausal last century feminist. I can also make ad hominal assumptions as well as any misochristian, heterophobic activist. If that’s how you want to play this.

      Why don’t you explain to me what exactly the difference is between human female reproductive cycles and “going into heat”. You mentioned that some nights female animals in heat go out to bars to get laid by the first decent looking male they find… or wait, is that humans?

    • Quis ut Deus

      Why are you ignoring the science that I am presenting you with?

      FYI, Jennifer Starr knows all the same stuff:)

      Cheers!

    • tsara

      …I really, really want to link some heat!fic for yippeekayay. Gay, altered-biology heat!fic. I even know where to find some anonymously written stuff so that I wouldn’t be sending the hordes to unsuspecting fic-writers.
      I will resist, though.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Interesting. I never knew such a thing existed.
      Though I do remember an episode of Star Trek Voyager…

    • tsara

      Yeah, it’s a pretty big thing in my fandom right now. I have mixed feelings about it. Played straight, the tropes can be triggering as fuck (lots of ‘breeding’ kink and pregnancy kink and gender essentialism). Subverted or inverted or everted or averted, it can be awesome.
      I really miss when ritual and blasphemy were the big things. :(

    • CJ99

      Why am I thinking of Tenchii Muyo! atm? specifically the pink poodle guy, he & yippee would so hit it off ;P

    • Quis ut Deus

      You mentioned that some nights female animals in heat go out to bars to get laid by the first decent looking male they find… or wait, is that humans?

      Are you *really* this dumb?

      /boggle

    • Jennifer Starr

      You really do have an extremely active imagination, since I never mentioned anything at all about bars. But thank you for sharing your various fantasies,obsessions and insults with us. It’s always so amusing to have a glimpse into the conservative male ‘mind’. And, poor child, I guess this is all you have left when you’ve still failed to prove any of your points. But thanks for playing.

    • yippeekayay

      We’ve exhausted your intellectual capacity? Buhbye.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You have still failed to prove any of your points.

      And, unsurprisingly, failed to refute any of the scientific FACT that you have been presented with.

      Jennifer has the same knowledge that I do, kiddo.

      We are both laughing at you.

    • yippeekayay

      I guess the only polite thing to do is to let you pretend that you won the argument, although you didn’t answer a single one of my points.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You haven’t proven anything, and you haven’t managed to refute any of the scientific FACT that I have presented you with.

      It has not been lost on me – or Jennifer – that you have ignored every point I have made to you over the last week.

    • yippeekayay

      I’m having trouble with the comment manager I use. This is the first comment of yours to show up in my stream. You’ve presented me with scientific FACT?? Don’t tell me you mentioned that according to science life begins at conception and I missed it. Because obviously that is THE salient scientific fact in this discussion isn’t it?

    • Quis ut Deus

      According to science, life does not in fact begin at conception.

      Thanks for trying, however.

      Your ignorance gets sweeter by the second.

    • yippeekayay

      Actually. According to science it does. It’s according to wrong-headed policy-makers that it doesn’t.

      Thank you for trying.

      Your sheer stupidity was monumental from the get-go.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You are just too cute for words!!!

      Conception is not a “moment” but a process that can take hours or days . If “personhood” is a simple black and white/ yes or no question and not a matter of development or shades of grey, then when precisely in this process is a new person created?:
      -The egg and sperm membranes fuse (but the nuclei are still separate)
      -The egg goes through chemical changes to prevent other sperm from fusing
      -The egg finishes meiosis to become haploid and forms a polar body (which doesn’t happen until after the membranes have fused)
      -All parts of the sperm except the nucleus dissolve
      -The chromosomes from the egg and sperm replicate separately
      -Both nuclear membranes dissolve
      -Spindles form to bring all of the chromosomes together (approximately 3-4 hours after the membranes fused)
      -The cell goes through mitosis ending in 2 cells (repeat many times)
      -The embryo implants in the wall (approximately 9 days after the sperm and egg membranes fused)

      Tell me, Mr. Science, at which point during this process is the new ‘life’ created.

      Pin it down. Give me the EXACT moment, oh scholarly one!!

      Furthermore, as more proof that you are wrong, according to cutting edge embyrology research, if the female egg that is created 3 weeks prior to ovulation has defects with something called ‘polarity’ then every.single.zygote.that.is.created will self-abort. 100% of the time.

      http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover

      Biologist Scott Gilbert writes:

      Genetics

      This view states that a genetically unique person begins at conception – a fertilized egg now hosts a complete genome, making it distinct from the sex cells that came before it. This definition has the advantage of saying that a new individual has been created that can be distinct from its parents, but is still limited by the fact that this embryo is still in an early stage of development and far from viable as an individual.

      This view also causes a funny paradox in the case of monozygotic (identical) twins: each twin does not exist as an individual when “its life begins” – that is, when it is conceived as the embryo doesn’t split into two parts until later. This paradox could possibly be resolved by considering the pre-twinning embryo as a disparate entity from either of the resulting embryos. This is why viewing the formation of life as a continuous process rather than a single event is beneficial.

      The details of how twinning happens were discovered in the 20th Century, and, basically, a few days after conception, a single human organism might split to become identical twins –or even identical triplets.

      Well, since identical twins/triplets simply don’t physically exist as individuals until days after conception, exactly when should it be claimed that “life” began for just one of them?

      A completely new factor, in the description of “human life”, was discovered a couple decades ago.
      It turns out that when fraternal twins are conceived (two completely separate egg-fertilizations), the resulting organisms don’t always stay separate. It is possible for them to merge together, to “jointly as a team” construct a single overall and often fairly ordinary-looking human body. The brain might be constructed by one member of the team; the heart might be constructed by the other member of the team. And so on.

      This process is called “chimerism”, and it is basically just another variation on the theme of a “society of organisms”. The relevant fact here is, the merging of the two original organisms occurs several days after conception, much like the formation of identical twins/triplets. When exactly do we say that this chimeric human life began? The two conceptions might have occurred hours apart!

      Instructions for Development and Heredity are NOT all in the Fertilised egg. The view that we are genetically determined by the combination of parental DNA has been shown to fall far short of the complete story. How the DNA is interpreted can vary greatly affected by things such as the maternal diet. Similarly some development requires certain bacteria to be present. Thirdly, and most surprisingly, the level of maternal care can determine which areas of DNA are ‘methylated’ which radically alters how they are interpreted. As such the view that we are ‘complete but unformed’ at conception is far from accurate.

      The Embryo is NOT Safe Within the Womb. Modern research shows that 30% or fewer fertilised eggs will go on to become foetuses. Many of these early miscarriages are because of abnormal numbers of chromosomes. The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

      There is NOT a Moment of Fertilisation when the passive egg receives the active sperm.Again recent research has shown that the previous commonly held view that the fastest sperm races towards the egg and, bingo, we’re up and running is wrong on many levels. Fertilisation is a process taking up to four days. As such there is no magic moment, rather there is a process.

      There is NO consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception.There isn’t even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there’s consensus. However, Scott Gilbert’s paper lists embryologists who support each of the major view points belying the common and oft repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.

      Neurology

      Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.

      The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view.

      When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical issues, surrounding the start of life the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give. It may well be that reality doesn’t have an answer for us, and that “when does life begin?” is, in fact, a meaningless question.

      The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.

      Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes the distinction between “life” and “non-life” purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities – subjective thoughts cannot and should not be forced upon everyone fairly.

      http://www.amazon.com/Developmental-Biology-Scott-F-Gilbert/dp/0878932585

    • yippeekayay

      Sure. I’ve been through all these details with a fine-toothed comb in a professional capacity (unlike you) and thought through them carefully and without prejudice from prior emotional attachment. In fact, it was through studying the science of the moment of conception (taking a more liberal view of the definition of the word “moment’ than you), that I changed my personal views from socially popular and convenient “pro-choice” views to more honest, ethical and consistent “pro-life” views that I now hold.

      Taking a bird’s eye view of the details you presented, we can extrapolate the following conclusions (go ahead, correct me if I’m wrong, which I’m not):

      1) Human life begins at conception;
      2) Scientists are incapable of distinguishing a moment when “personhood” begins.

      What societies have done on the issue of “personhood” is to establish arbitrary lines such as “trimesters”, viability and birth. Time is already proving the hypocrisy and non-viability of this approach. Viability has changed, thanks to the advances of technology and neo-natal care. The concept of “trimesters” has long been discarded in obstetrics, or at least admitted to have been an arbitrary dividing line. And the dangers of drawing the line of personhood at birth have become clear to most people (i.e. what’s the difference between killing a child the day before he’s born or the day after?).

      Denying personhood to a class of persons society wishes to relegated to non-personhood for purely social and material reasons is not new. It’s the same approach that was taken to justify enslaving Africans and other non-caucasians.

      The more logical and more humane position is that all human life, including personhood, begins at conception and deserves the full protection of our laws.

    • Quis ut Deus

      “1) Human life begins at conception;
      2) Scientists are incapable of distinguishing a moment when “personhood” begins.”

      Wrong on both.

      For #1

      1) monozygotic twins and chimaras, plus, the fact that conception takes days, there is no ‘one point’ when a ‘new life begins’. As has been proven, above.

      2) zygotic self-abortion – life begins with a healthy egg, because even if fertilization happens, the zygote will abort itself in 100pct of cases if the egg created 3 weeks previously is defective in a specific way

      If you understood any of this, you would not have replied with this ridiculous ‘overview’

      But, I’ll play along.

      Viability has changed, thanks to the advances of technology and neo-natal care.

      Not really due to the fact that extreme neonates, though they may live, often only live for a short time after birth, and if they do make it past their first year, are often severely disabled.

      Technology is not yet far enough along that the nearly-solid lungs of a 21 week fetus can be successfully intubated by machine.

      The concept of “trimesters” has long been discarded in obstetrics, or at least admitted to have been an arbitrary dividing line

      Citation needed.

      And the dangers of drawing the line of personhood at birth have become clear to most people (i.e. what’s the difference between killing a child the day before he’s born or the day after?).

      Women don’t have abortions at 9 months. So please. If you want to continue to be thought of as an ignorant fool, keep talking about it.

      The reason that birth is often considered the dividing line is because there is no guarantee that the fetus will even make it to that stage. There is a little thing called ‘Murphy’s Law’ – and whatever can go wrong, will go wrong during the development process. This is why babies often develop without lungs, brains, or other organs.

      A fetus is not a complete human that simply grows bigger. It is incomplete and unformed. And until construction is completed there is no guarantee that you will get a baby.

      Denying personhood to a class of persons society wishes to relegated to non-personhood for purely social and material reasons is not new. It’s the same approach that was taken to justify enslaving Africans and other non-caucasians.

      When you subjugate a woman in service of a fetus you are in essence denying her personhood. You are forcing the woman into gestational slavery. FYI, during antbellum slavery, slave women were bred like livestock, and forced to give birth against their will. These women often took herbs to end their pregnancies.

      So, do tell. Are the slave women who aborted their pregnancies, or, as you wold put it ‘murdered their innocent unborn children’ as *evil* as the slaveowners?

      Lastly, about personhood, the existence of the mind is in fact used as a dividing line. This is why clinically braindead corpses (don’t confuse with coma patients) are pronounced dead and often have their organs harvested. This is why anencephalic babies (born without a brain) are also pronounced dead on birth.

      Because without a brain, without the mind, there is no person. Just a sack of skin and bone. And a fetus – or embryo – when the majority of abortions occur – has the same EEG readings as a clinically braindead corpse.

    • yippeekayay

      1) None of that changes the fact that human life begins at conception. It’s human. Right? No argument there. And it begins when a sperm and egg combine right? Conception. You want to confuse it by focusing on the margins and the minutiae but none of that changes the big picture conclusion. Does it? Honestly now.

      2) So you’re admitting I’m right about scientists not being capable of determining a starting point for personhood?

      Stop being such a poser. None of your prevarication is probative. It doesn’t even address the central thrust of my arguments. And none of your in extremis hypotheticals are determinative either. Those are also all statistically marginal scenarios and as a society we are fully capable of applying equity to the margins when need be.

      You are in denial of the force and truth of my arguments because you can’t imagine giving up your imagined moral autonomy — you can’t let go of your made-up “right” to screw whomever you want whenever you want without consequences, not even for the sake of innocent human life. You are monsters.

    • Quis ut Deus

      None of that changes the fact that human life begins at conception. It’s human. Right? No argument there

      You are using DNA and cellular respiration as markers of ‘human life’

      Well honey, I hate to break it to you, but cancer cells are also an example of ‘human life’.

      No, you will have to do better.

      So you’re admitting I’m right about scientists not being capable of determining a starting point for personhood?

      Personhood is a legal term. However, when it comes to what constitutes a human being, science and the law seem to be in agreement that a non-functioning cerebral cortex = no human being/no person. Which is why braindead corpses are unplugged and anencephalic babies are declared dead. Because without a brain, there is no person. And a pre-viability fetus has the same EEG as a corpse.

      None of your prevarication is probative. It doesn’t even address the
      central thrust of my arguments. And none of your in extremis
      hypotheticals are determinative either. Those are also all
      statistically marginal scenarios and as a society we are fully capable
      of applying equity to the margins when need be.

      Nice word salad. i bet you think it makes you look smart. The central thrust of your arguments is that god gave each zygote a soul at the moment of conception.

      Yet you can’t explain *when* exactly conception occurs, since it is a 4 day process, and there is no single point at which a ‘soul’ could possibly be imprated into the zygote. Furthermore, the single cell zygote can split into twins..or triplets…after DAYS have gone by…and then recombine!! And then split again!!

      And you also can’t explain why, if the woman’s egg has defective polarity, the process of conception will still occur, but the resulting zygote/embryo will self-abort in 100% of cases. If ‘life’ began at conception, it would not hinge on the health of the egg created 3 weeks prior to ovulation.

      You are in denial of the force and truth of my arguments because you can’t imagine giving up your imagined moral autonomy — you can’t let go of your made-up “right” to screw whomever you want whenever you want without consequences, not even for the sake of innocent human life. You are monsters.

      Yeah, we are monsters. Because we believe that women are people too, and not just livestock.

    • yippeekayay

      Can you even see the absurdity of your line of thinking? You’re irrational. I think any further debate is pointless. I recommend you re-read what I’ve written and think on it.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Explain how it is absurd.

      If it is absurd, then I guess doctors are wrong to declare clinically braindead patients DEAD eh?

      yippeekayay is smarter than the entire medical establishment!!!

    • yippeekayay

      Keep re-reading and thinking. You’re get closer.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You made an assertion. Back it up.

    • Quis ut Deus

      How much prison time should a rape victim serve for aborting the pregnancy?

      Just answer the question already.

      From what research I have done, a felony manslaughter sentence can be anywhere from 6-10 years.

      Pick a number.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Yeah cupcake.

      My thinking is absurd.

      My medical/fetal development points are all absurd and wrong.

      Yet you refuse to refute a single point.

      Can’t explain how it’s absurd.

      Won’t answer my 3 questions:

      1) how much jail time should murdering sluts receive for procuring an abortion

      2) were slave women who aborted evil murderers as evil as the slaveowners

      3) should rape victims be permitted abortion

      I have asked you these 3 questions approximately 4-5 times

      Yet you continually refuse to answer.

      You keep making up excuses as to why you just don’t have the time…

      You are doing what all ignorant idiots do when they don’t have a leg to stand on – making up excuses and walking away because you are in over your head.

    • yippeekayay

      Yawn. Yup. I guess you’re right.

    • Quis ut Deus

      should rape victims be permitted abortion?

      or should they be charged with felony manslaughter if they abort?

    • yippeekayay

      Okay. My personal stance is that they shouldn’t be permitted abortion any more than victims of slavery should be permitted genocide. They should be permitted to give the child up for adoption. They should be permitted the chance to face their rapist in court and see him fried or hung or injected with poison. But they should not be permitted to terminate the life of another innocent victim. No. That’s my personal view and I would suggest that if that were the majority consensus, society would be better off.

      It takes character to sacrifice one’s self for another, even for a loved one. Not everyone has that kind of character but that doesn’t mean we should encourage people of weak character to throw weaker more helpless more innocent people to the wolves because they can’t muster the courage to do the right thing.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Ok, so, female victims of rape pregnancy during slavery ARE GUILTY OF GENOCIDE.

      Victims of rape should not be permitted abortion cuz it’s murder.

      Ok.

      You stll haven’t answered.

      How much jail time should victims of rape and victims of slavery receive for their ‘genocidal baby killing’ ?

      10 years? 20? what do you think is a good punishment?

      It takes character to sacrifice one’s self for another, even for a loved one.

      Sacrifice is CHOSEN. Not forced. You want to FORCE women and girls (and even slaves, apparently) to give birth because you feel that a woman has less value than a fetus.

      And btw, punishing the rapist won’t do shit for the girl if she simply doesn’t want to be pregnant. I realize that you are incredibly ignorant ,but pregnancy maims and kills. Pregnancy is the #1 killer of girls worldwide, and the #2 killer of fertile women between the ages of 15-44. 20 million women worldwide are permanently disabled as a result of pregnancy. over 1 mililon are disabled in the USA alone.

      We don’t force people to put life and health on the line to save others. That isn’t sacrifice. That’s slavery. And this is why organ and tissue donation are not mandatory.

    • yippeekayay

      rape is chosen too. abortion is chosen too. every deliberate act is chosen in some way or another. people should have informed choice. Do you know that abortion numbers have declined dramatically in the U.S. since pro-lifers began educating people on the true nature of abortion in the mid-90s? Most people aren’t like you. Most people, given the choice, will not choose to kill an innocent human being for the sake of personal convenience.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Abortion numbers have declined because of improved access to contraception and sex education.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Rape is chosen by whom? Certainly not by the victim. And yet you think she should be forced to go through a pregnancy or face criminal charges.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Which is what happens in the pro-life paradises of Gautemala, Nicarauga, El Salvador and Ecuador.

    • yippeekayay

      No sweety. (Isn’t it your bedtime?) I meant that rapists choose to rape, just as murderers choose to murder and abortionists choose to commit abortion. What I’m saying is that everyone is responsible for their own choices and that the most we can do is to help inform people so they make good choices… and punish them fairly and equitably if them make bad choices, bad choices that rise to the level of a crime that is. A lot of bad choices aren’t crimes in and of themselves, like choosing to believe lies because they’re more personally convenient. However all bad choices have bad consequences, legal or not. It’s just the nature of the moral universe.

    • Quis ut Deus

      How much prison time should a rape victim serve for aborting the pregnancy?

      Just answer the question already.

      From what research I have done, a felony manslaughter sentence can be anywhere from 6-10 years.

      Pick a #.

    • CJ99

      Yet you still don’t know its true nature.

    • yippeekayay

      FLAG – putting words in my mouth again. Try to think clearly, hunnybuns. Okay?

    • Quis ut Deus

      Yippeetard wrote:

      ” My personal stance is that they shouldn’t be permitted abortion any more than victims of slavery should be permitted genocide”

      Sounds to me like you are saying that victims of slavery who aborted their rape pregnancies = genocidal maniacs.

      Oh yeah, while we are at it…

      If a slave woman aborted her pregnancy, what kind of punishment should she have received? 6-10 in prison?

    • CJ99

      If I were already enslaved the threat of prison would be a relief.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Not everyone has that kind of character but that doesn’t mean we should encourage people of weak character to throw weaker

      Wow. so if a rape victim doesn’t want to give birth because the idea of being pregnant with the rapists’ baby will drive her to suicide and depression you say she is of WEAK CHARACTER

      You are a piece of shit. And I am being nice.

      Why do you hate women so much?

    • Quis ut Deus

      and just so you know, female slaves were impregnated until they died

      so if a female slave lived until the age of 40, and she was pressed into service as a breeder at the age of 12, that means she would spend 20+ years of her life being pregnant

      and if she dared to perform an abortion at any time, because just maybe, she was sick of being bred like a cow, you have the gall to say that the slave is guilty of genocide?

      And you think that *we* are the monsters?

    • yippeekayay

      yes, I know. tragic isn’t it. What a horrible part of history that was. Did you know that it was Islam that exported slavery to the Christian West?

    • Quis ut Deus

      How much jail time should a victim of rape serve if she murders her unborn baby at say 9 weeks when the majority of abortions occur?

      Would you be happy with 10 years?

      And if a slave woman aborts, should she get the death penalty for the crime of genocide? Because that’s what the Nazis got.

    • Quis ut Deus

      How much prison time should a rape victim serve for aborting the pregnancy?

      Just answer the question already.

      From what research I have done, a felony manslaughter sentence can be anywhere from 6-10 years.

      You really don’t want to answer this one do you?

    • CJ99

      Actually no, it was chrstians who were slavers. Those who ruined so many cultures in south america after columbus were also christians, NONE were muslim.

    • tsara

      If I were pregnant, the prospect of not having to be a parent (i.e., adopting out) would not make me any less suicidally desperate. I’d get the fucker out of me or die trying.

    • yippeekayay

      Yup. Minus the toxic, homicidal self-absorption, that’s pretty much how it works for all baby mommies.

    • CJ99

      so a fertilized egg that doesn’t implant murders itself? clearly you don’t actually read the idiocy you write.

    • Quis ut Deus

      then why do you keep typing if you are so above all of this?

      you intellectual giant you

      and you wrote this 2 hours ago…

    • yippeekayay

      you crack me up.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Well?

      Why do you bother? Smartie pants?

    • CJ99

      You have the same relationship with crack as Rob Ford does.

    • yippeekayay

      Alright then. I’ll answer this.

      Human life. Are you seriously arguing that a zygote is the equivalent of cancer cells? Come on. Be serious. We’re talking about conception, not contamination. I realize you life-haters tend to think in irrational extremes like that (because you have to) but how can you expect me to have a rational discussion with you that way?

      I haven’t mentioned the God as Creator argument at all. You’re just assuming that’s where I want to go. I don’t think this argument even needs to go there at all from my perspective. I guess you’re always arguing with God about everything aren’t you, sweety. It’s all about how you and God don’t see eye to eye and you resent him because he cramps your style. That’s clearly a personal problem. Not mine either.

      My point is that human life begins at conception. You want to say it’s a four day process. Sure. Maybe. Not for everyone but why care about individual details and real facts when we can rely on fake hypotheticals and ideologically-driven dogma? The point is that it’s human life, not dog life or whale life and that it begins at conception. I think you’re retarded for trying to even argue that point.

      My further point, which is what you really object to, is that personhood begins when human life begins, at conception, and that it is monstrously barbaric to pretend that any class of people is less human, less endowed with personhood, than any other. I say that whether the class being denied personhood is a racial class, a gender class or a socio-economic class.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Are you seriously arguing that a zygote is the equivalent of cancer cells

      No. You are.

      You are saying that a human being is 1) biologically alive 2) composed of human DNA

      That applies to cancer. Hydratiform moles. And every single cell in your body.

      I haven’t mentioned the God as Creator argument at all.

      Really? Is that why you wrote a whole bunch of bullshit about how humans are special and were created in god’s image?

      My point is that human life begins at conception. You want to say it’s a four day process. Sure. Maybe. Not for everyone

      Yes, it is for everyone. Because it has been OBSERVED to occur over 4 days. Seriously. How fucking stupid can you be?

      The point is that it’s human life, not dog life or whale life and that it begins at conception.

      Human life is not more valuable than any other form of life. Tell me, if you knew that slowly torturing a puppy to death would save one human zygote somewhere in the world would you say ‘yes, torture the puppy to death to save the human zygote’?

      would you?

      is that personhood begins when human life begins, at conception

      But you are basing that believe on human dna + biological life. Which, as has been pointed out, is insufficient, because cancer cells are human and biologically alive.

      And in fact, a person is considered to be alive if their cerebral cortex is functioning. If it is not, the person is considered to be DEAD – even if their heart beats and the rest of the body is alive. Brain death = death. And a zygote/embryo/fetus pre-viaiblity has the same EEG readings as a beating heart cadaver.

    • yippeekayay

      “When you subjugate a woman….” Blablabla. Sorry, I can’t take anything after that seriously. You consider pregnancy a form of female subjugation?

      Weird.

      I know about what they did to slaves in Richmond. I even know where they did that. I’ve been there to see it and weep over what was done to innocent young African girls in those cattle pens.

      How can you have compassion on people in situations like that and not feel even a twinge of remorse for completely innocent men and women, black, white and brown, who are daily boiled alive in salt and decapitated still living in their own mothers’ wombs?

      Weird.

      Even if it were true that I don’t have a brain (absurd), I’d rather be brainless and still have a heart.

      It doesn’t take a genius to be right and the worst kind of wrong people are the pretentious over-educated kind in positions of power and influence.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Sorry, I can’t take anything after that seriously. You consider pregnancy a form of female subjugation?

      Yes, forcing someone to labour on behalf of another -and to put their life and health at risk of another – is the very definition of slavery.

      I’ve been there to see it and weep over what was done to innocent young African girls in those cattle pens.

      Well. Were the female slaves who aborted their rape pregnancies more evil than the slavers who raped them? Do you deny that forced pregnancy was a part of slavery?

      And you still haven’t answered:

      1) how much jail time should women receive for abortion and

      2) should rape victims be permitted to abort, or are they also guilty sluts?

      It doesn’t take a genius to be right and the worst kind of wrong people are the pretentious over-educated kind in positions of power and influence.

      Whereas you are pretentious and, quite clearly, under-educated.

    • CJ99

      Only a fool would claim another is “over educated”. thats called an oxymoron, try a dictionary.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Professional capacity? Quis ut Deus listed a wide range of scientific facts and you didn’t even reply to a single one.

    • Quis ut Deus

      I am glad you caught that.

      He is lying through his teeth.

    • CJ99

      Liars for jesus is the description I’ve heard recently, except they don’t know him at all.

    • yippeekayay

      Right. Because scanning through, I didn’t see anything new. I did actually comment on the entire body of evidence those facts represent and YOU didn’t answer either one of my points. But you, Jennifer, haven’t answered anything I’ve said all along other than to retreat to a sort of grade school name calling mode, which must be your default mode. In your mind, this isn’t about any real details, it’s just about your side and my side. You probably vote the same way. Mindlessly.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You never did respond to any of my points.

      In detail.

      Since you implied that embryology and developmental biology were things that you studied in your ‘professional capacity’ you would think that you could do better than to avoid all the points and make an appeal to ‘god made us in his image’

      You are seriously flailing here. Flail more, kiddo. We see through it.

      You’re pathetic.

    • yippeekayay

      I’m sorry, did I say I was here to do all your research and thinking for you? If I did, I take it back. Do your own homework. I’ve made points that are intelligent and that you haven’t answered at all. You’ve just regurgitated the usual pro-death talking points. I’ve got better things to do than to walk you through the basics. Try Google.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You’ve just regurgitated the usual pro-death talking points

      The science that I have presented you with is not a usual ‘pro-death talking point.’ In fact, very few people use the science that I use.

      It’s just too cute how you claim to be some sort of embryologist/developmental biologist but are seemingly incapable of actually addressing any of my points in a similar scientific language.

      We.See.Through.Your.Bullshit

    • yippeekayay

      You see through shit. That’s true anyway.

      I’ve never claimed to be a scientist. I’ve not allowed you any knowledge of myself because I’m quite sure you merely wish to label me and attack me personally with more of your asinine ad hominem debating habits.

      I might be persuaded to address your science directly but I am not lying when I say I’ve examined it all before with a fine-tooth comb. I spent nine months examining it in detail and debating it with people on all sides of the debate, much more educated and intelligent people than you, I presume. Although for all your obtuseness you may be a quite intelligent person. As I said earlier, it doesn’t take a genius to be right, or by extrapolation, it doesn’t take an idiot to be wrong.

    • Quis ut Deus

      I might be persuaded to address your science directly but I am not lying
      when I say I’ve examined it all before with a fine-tooth comb.

      Which is why the ONLY coherent argument that you presented was: life begins at conception cuz god

    • yippeekayay

      Life begins at conception because prior to conception there was no life, after conception there was. In latin the phrase is res ipsa loquitur. Google it.

      Is that too logical for you? Not elaborate enough? Not complicated enough? Not enough grey area? Doesn’t leave room for your fake questions and hypotheticals? So sorry.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Life begins at conception because prior to conception there was no life

      Yes, there was life before conception.

      Unless you are arguing that the sperm and egg are DEAD?

    • CJ99

      his problem is scientific language doesn’t come in a king james version.

    • CJ99

      reason being is his “professional capacity” isn’t any more than a mcdonalds fry guy on the overnight shift at a truck stop.

    • CJ99

      you claim it starts at conception yet in the same breath you also claim the moment is unknown. You really are worthy of a darwin award. Do the world a favour: don’t have kids & inflict such garbage on them.

    • CJ99

      when I was young and foolish I believed that. yet since then I’ve discovered it’s very untrue. I didn’t foolishly cling to that erroneous concept despite the evidence otherwise. There lies the difference. I prefer reality, as much fun as fantasy can be fun I don’t want to live there, especially when it’s such a dark delusional one as espoused by dippeekayay.

    • CJ99

      yet it never occurs to you that indeed YOU are the problem not everyone else.

    • yippeekayay

      I was also going to mention that I (speaking representatively and metaphorically) wouldn’t FORCE a woman to get pregnant just because she has a uterus any more than I would force you to eat because you have a mouth. All my arguments here have to do with killing innocent unborn people conceived in some woman’s uterus. As far as women and their “reproductive rights”, all I’m saying is that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you get pregnant because you either didn’t prevent it, chose a stupid partner who also didn’t prevent it, you were too drunk to know you were having sex, your partner was too drunk to know he was coming inside you, or any of the other reasons people get pregnant and then go, Oh shit, and kill an innocent person to prevent disrupting your hedonistic moment, then you deserve to be mocked and ridiculed and lectured and held up as an example of the worst kind of selfishness.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You are saying that women don’t have the *right* like men to have non-procreative sex.

      You are saying that for a women, consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

      You are saying that women must be *punished* for the crime of having sex while female.

      Tell us, should rape victims be permitted to have abortions?

      And additionally ,how much jail time should women serve for ‘killing the innocent human being’ inside their wombs?

    • yippeekayay

      No. I’m not saying any of that. Weird how you have to put words in my mouth just to even debate me. Or is that just how you ignore what I actually said because you have no answer for it?

      Anyway. I think I’ve made my points fairly clear for normal thinking people to read. And you two can leave now. Go ahead and just let it go. You’re not going to win this argument for two reasons: (a) I’m smarter, better educated and more honest than you and (b) you’re wrong and reality has its own way of punishing wrong people.

      I think quite honestly, my motivation for pointing out the truth to you (much as you don’t want it) is more to help you escape the hardship reality will impose on your wrong-headedness, than to try and impose any “punishment” of my own on you or on other women like you.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Why won’t you answer my questions?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Because he doesn’t actually have any answers. He knows he can’t prove that sex is just for procreation, because it isn’t, and he can’t prove that women go into heat cycles because they clearly do not. He just tries to intimidate with personal insults and erroneous assumptions. It’s all that he has.

    • yippeekayay

      Who said I tried to prove sex is “just” for procreation? I think if you read back a little more carefully (later when you’re not so stoned) you’ll see that my point was more that sex isn’t just for your personal gratification.

      Here’s my argument in clear words since you can’t seem to read less pointed dialectic:

      (a) Sex is primarily a procreational function of the body,
      (b) Humans are elevated from the rest of the lifeforms on this planet by intelligence, intentionality and self-awareness (the image God, if you will),
      (c) Because of human personhood (self-awareness, God image etc), humans can choose to have sex merely for pleasure;
      (d) Our society has exalted pleasure over procreation and is in danger of forgetting the procreative role of human sexuality
      (e) Our society has cheapened the value of human life and personhood
      (f) We need a correction in our thinking because exalting personal pleasure over human personhood is wrong both morally and biologically. We don’t tolerate it when it comes to pedophilia for instance.

      If procreation is eliminated from sex by aberrant but popular lifestyles, the future of the human race is in danger. You can already see this reality unfolding around the world. In societies where fertility is down because of lifestyle, entire cultures are going extinct, whereas societies that embrace and celebrate life (including personhood and procreation) those cultures are thriving and growing and becoming more and more dominant. For evidence look at caucasian vs. non-caucasian people groups in Europe and North America. Or more specifically, look at WASP America and Latino America.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You are basing your argument on religion.

      FAIL

      And we both know that you are laying about your scientific knowledge

      Which is why you pretend that you didn’t see all the science that I presented you with, and then ignored my numerous scientific points to spout some bullshit about how life begins at conception ‘cuz god’

      laughable

    • yippeekayay

      You cutting and pasting a bunch of stuff from someone else’s intellectual work product doesn’t constitute “presenting science”. At least not to me and not to the extent that I should spend any more time answering than you did to cut and paste it.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Yes it does. Since it is science, and I am presenting it to you.

      A no-brainer really.

      But some asshat used the same excuse you did. That he won’t ‘refute’ the science because I didn’t personally run experiments myself.

      Your argument is weak.

      if you are a scientist, as you claim, and are intimiately familiar with all manners of embryology and fetal development, then you will refute the claims, instead of using ‘but you cut and pasted’ as an excuse for your inability to respond

    • yippeekayay

      I haven’t claimed I’m a scientist. Check it out.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Not in so many words.

      But you said you were intimately familiar with embryology and fetal development in a ‘professional capacity’

      Yet, you lack the knowledge to actually discuss the points.

    • yippeekayay

      I don’t lack the knowledge to discuss these points. I lack the motivation to get bogged down in a discussion of minutiae when the point I wished to make was already made perfectly clear.

      Here’s a mental exercise for you. I’ve read that mental puzzles and exercises are helpful avoid dementia and senility. Try to imagine a professional setting in which people would carefully examine the social, scientific, and legal aspects of a particular controversy. Remember it’s a professional setting. People would be doing it because it’s their jobs to understand and then to use that understanding in further performing their jobs.

      Don’t worry, if you get it right, I won’t mock you for being repeatedly uncivil and rushing to judgment and displaying a very vulgar and contemptuous character.

    • Quis ut Deus

      I don’t lack the knowledge to discuss these points.

      Yes you do. You couldn’t address a single one.

      I won’t mock you for being repeatedly uncivil and rushing to judgment and displaying a very vulgar and contemptuous character.

      The fact that you think women are non-persons who should be forced to bear a pregnancy against their will for the sin of having sex while female is highly offensive.

      More offensive than cuss words.

    • CJ99

      Thats what he & his ilk dont want to understand. They scream about “cuss words” when its just a word. Only their reaction to it is nonsense not the word itself. yet they force their violent views on others and expect to be accepted without question.

    • CJ99

      You lost the right to brand others as contemptuous when you hold all of humanity in contempt and throw out insolent accusations of dementia when women won’t bend over and take your garbage.

    • CJ99

      yet you keep coming back having done no intellectual work, or even having read any.

    • Quis ut Deus

      If procreation is eliminated from sex by aberrant but popular lifestyles, the future of the human race is in danger

      Not gonna happen. Because people will always want to have babies.

      Population growth should not go unchecked. Every time it has, this has resulted in wars, famine and a host of other unpleasant things. Oh, and infanticide. Yeah.

      For evidence look at caucasian vs. non-caucasian people groups in Europe and North America. Or more specifically, look at WASP America and Latino America.

      They breed because they are poor, they lack access to contraception (which they want btw) and because abortion is illegal in their countries.

      But thanks for making it clear that you oppose abortion out of racism. You are afraid that the browns will outbreed the whites.

      Sick.

    • yippeekayay

      Again. You putting words in my mouth because you can’t win this debate.

      Thanks for outting yourself as a racist classist who doesn’t really care about people as much as about her own personal gratification and popular but thoroughly disproven theories of utopia.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You are the one who said he was worried about the fact that non-whites were outbreeding whites…

      I am sorry you got caught.

      Not.

    • yippeekayay

      Again. You putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say I was worried. I just pointed out a fact. I’m sorry it’s not fair, I know. There are so few facts out there that don’t militate against your argument. Oh well. Maybe you should change your mind on this, like I did, like all the best most compassionate people do.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Of course you did. And it just happens that the most racist of pro-lifers are also the ones who spend the most time talking about how the brown people are outbreeding the whites.

    • yippeekayay

      Maybe because it’s a fact that people notice.

      It’s the whole Reality Slap thing. You can deny reality all you like but look out for the Reality Slap. ;)

    • Quis ut Deus

      Only if they are racist. And you are.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yeah, let’s look at Argentina, where a group of people somehow got a hold of a rape and sex-trafficking victim’s private medical information and were trying to get the courts to force her to carry the pregnancy. Or Mexico, where a woman was excommunicated for getting a medically necessary abortion for her nine-year old, but the man who raped her was not. Or let’s try El Salvador, where the government was going to force a woman with lupus and failing kidneys to die for a fetus without a brain. If that’s your ‘pro-life’ society, you can keep it.

    • yippeekayay

      Seriously? Those are the evidence you’re presenting in favor of slaughtering millions of unborn people every year in completely routine and unexceptional pregnancies? You have to go to the margins of the Third World for your crazy hypotheticals?

      Again. Weird.

    • Quis ut Deus

      No, dumbfuck, the point she was making is that one of the reasons the ‘dirty brown people’ are having more babies than whites is because of poverty and extreme laws which outlaw abortion and often, contraception.

    • yippeekayay

      Really. You know this why, because it’s the logical extenuation of your lame-ass modern-day Marxism? I know it’s not because any of it has any real truth to it.

    • Quis ut Deus

      What?

      No, Catholic countries. Which share your pro-life values. Which treat women as livestock.

    • yippeekayay

      I know where you’re going with this. Christianity is regressive (as opposed to Progressive). Let me just say that not all progress is good. In some cases a little regression would be good for society. Also, let the record show that the losing side in this debate was the first to start using expletives in their ad hominem fever.

    • Quis ut Deus

      No, the losing side is the retard who can’t refute scientific fact and makes up excuses to wave away his ignorance.

    • yippeekayay

      I’m going to start seriously taunting you if you can’t lose more graciously than that. Are you British too? Private school British I bet.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Go for it.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Actually in Britain it would be public school, which are the schools that you pay fees to attend as opposed to comprehensive schools. You might actually know a few things if you bothered to look outside your narrow mindset.

    • yippeekayay

      I said private school on purpose. I didn’t take you for the public school type. Too low brow.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yeah, sure you did.

    • CJ99

      If only George Carlin were still around, he’d soon show you what a serious taunting really is.

    • Jennifer Starr

      You point us to an existing ideal of a perfect ‘pro-life’ society and we’ll look at it.

    • yippeekayay

      Is that a promise? Somehow I don’t believe you.

      But let’s say you’re not a passive-aggressive lying sack of sugar. Just for the sake of argument. There is no such thing as a perfect human society. All of humanity, regardless of race, class, education or any of the other markers leftists love to use to divide up humanity, is prone to finitude and fallibility. We all have limited intellectual capacity and we all are prone to make mistakes from time to time. So there is no perfect example of this or that type of human society. All human societies are fraught with imperfections.

      That said, history is replete with societies that were relatively more humane than our present day Western “First World” one. I’d say 1950s America, relatively speaking, was a much safer place to be an unborn human.

    • Quis ut Deus

      But let’s say you’re not a passive-aggressive lying sack of sugar.

      that would be you.

      still waiting for you to taunt me, baby

    • yippeekayay

      Ah. Really? How flattering. Here’s my advice though, don’t hold your breath while you wait. Who knows if you’ll even realize I’m taunting you.

    • Quis ut Deus

      if this is what you think is ‘wit’, no, I won’t hold my breath

    • Quis ut Deus

      I’d say 1950s America, relatively speaking, was a much safer place to be an unborn human.

      but not as safe to be a born child, because rates of infanticide were higher before abortion was made legal

      in the absence of abortion people kill their kids

      and imo, removing an embryo from a uterus is not the same as smothering to death a newborn

    • yippeekayay

      I don’t know about infanticide numbers for the fifties. But you’re probably right. The type of people who would get abortions are the type who would kill their child after its born if it suited them better.

      “removing an embryo from a uterus”… love that dehumanizing lingo. You really don’t get as much of that now that all the old Nazis and Bolsheviks are dead.

    • Quis ut Deus

      The type of people who would get abortions are the type who would kill their child after its born if it suited them better.

      Actually in certain pro-life countries some studies have been done of very pro-life very catholic communities. Abortion is frowned upon. It is viewed as the worst crime you can commit.

      However, poor families routinely neglect their babies to death. Because they often lack the resources to raise more kids (and view abortion and contraception as evil) they simply let their newborns die through starvation.

      It’s easy to just pretend that the baby died due to external factors than to admit that you purposely let it die or killed it yourself.

      “removing an embryo from a uterus”..

      Yes, when the majority of abortions occur, the embryo is expelled from the uterus. Whole. In the embryonic sac no less. It is an induced miscarriage.

      This is what a typical abortion looks like:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PeAaTLEUtr8/SwvxSTV89rI/AAAAAAAAAAk/7_ZHduvAM74/s1600/CIMG2774.JPG

    • yippeekayay

      I highly doubt your conclusory statements about the infanticidal tendencies of third world Catholics. Could you please provide some substantiation?

    • Quis ut Deus

      I thought you said that anything that I presented that wasn’t my own scientific study was utterly worthless?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yeah I love to wax nostalgic as much as the next person–I was watching Leave it to Beaver only this morning. But I did actually say existing–maybe I should have been clearer and said currently existing. Do you have any?

    • yippeekayay

      Okay. Presently existing. Switzerland has much lower rates of abortion than almost every other western nation. It has also not had war on its territory for more than four hundred years, has had the highest living standard in Europe for most of the past century, is the world’s oldest constitutional democracy and produces the best cheese and the best watches.

      So now tell me how their very low abortion rate is forcing women raped by Catholics to have babies.

    • Jennifer Starr

      And in Switzerland abortion is legal upon request during the first trimester, and covered by the country’s mandatory health-care insurance scheme, which people may opt out of. Contraception is widely available and EC is sold over the counter.

    • Quis ut Deus

      hahah he is so ignorant

    • yippeekayay

      haha. no I’m not. But it’s hilarious how quickly you want to assume that all the time. I can just see it. Every time I smash one of your points, your faces fall and then darken and you start typing furiously. Then you hit “post” and start cackling gleefully and dancing around your cauldron high fiving each other and dancing grotesquely. This is priceless stuff. I’m going to have to preserve this comment stream to use in some cartoon.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You haven’t smashed a single point because you haven’t said anything of substance yet.

    • yippeekayay

      Right. Of course. And yet the rate of abortion is lower than elsewhere. Why? I say it’s because the Swiss are inherently conservative by nature. They’ve had over four hundred years of success with the conservative ethos and they know that even if radicals in the government allow them the freedom to commit abortion at whim, it’s not the best thing for them or their society.

      As I said, there are no perfect human societies.

    • Quis ut Deus
    • Jennifer Starr

      But you stated on another website that you believe that Plan B, which is Emergency Contraception, is abortifacient–in your words, ‘a murder pill’. Now this is just not true, but given that this is your belief, the Swiss are ‘murdering babies’ each time they purchase it over the counter.

    • CJ99

      Leave it to beaver wasn’t real? 0_0

      I’m shocked, next you’ll be telling him the same about the tooth fairy or santa claws ;P

    • tsara

      “I’d say 1950s America, relatively speaking, was a much safer place to be an unborn human.”

      http://englishmemes.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/whut-ian.jpg

    • yippeekayay

      Blew your mind again, eh?

    • tsara
    • yippeekayay

      Oh please. Those are your “sources” that “prove” your argument? That’s so completely laughable. Be serious and post something substantial if you’re going to tell me I’m wrong. For a second I thought you had an argument.

    • tsara

      For a completely trivial side issue? Oh, yeah, I’m going to write a doctoral dissertation.

      I mostly posted the pic because I find it so weird when people say positive things about the 1950s. That’s also why I posted the link to that book’s Amazon page: it’s called ‘The Way We Never Were’ and is about how, no, the 1950s did not look like the rosy, nostalgic picture people have in their heads.

      Infoplease is actually a site run by a well-respected educational company — they print textbooks. Also, the source for those statistics of fetal, neonatal, and infant death listed by year from 1950-2005 at the infoplease link:
      Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. From Health, United States, 2005.

    • yippeekayay

      Your doctoral dissertation is a trivial side issue? I can believe that.

      First of all, who knows what the connection is between infant mortality statistics and abortion. I know the pro-death lobby loves to pull out this stat so in their mind there is one but I can’t see it as anything more than circumstantial conjecture.

      Personally I find it weird that you and people who think like you do constantly refer to the 50s as the Great Satan of the last century. It must’ve been Gloria Steinem. You have to consider the sources of your opinions. From where I stand your revisionist distortion of what the 50s were actually like is “fruit of the poisonous tree” so to speak, a wrong-headed outgrowth of wrong-headed presuppositions and wrong-headed conclusions. It’s like the people who call the middle ages “dark” or refer to “the Enlightenment” as though there was nothing but darkness and ignorance before that. I mean, I’ve personally witnessed the Lame Stream distort the truth of history about the 80s. It’s remarkable how gullible people are and how quickly an entire society can be convinced of a lie about the past when the news/entertainment complex decide to rewrite the truth about the past into what they wish it had been.

    • tsara

      “Your doctoral dissertation is a trivial side issue? I can believe that.”
      That comment (“For a completely trivial side issue? Oh, yeah, I’m going to write a doctoral dissertation.”) was in response to your talking about my ‘argument’ and its insubstantiality. The comment was a snarky one, intended to convey the fact that I wasn’t really bothering to construct an argument (instead just making a quick trip to Google and posting the first things I found) because what the 1950s were like is a completely trivial side issue.

      “who knows what the connection is between infant mortality statistics and abortion.”

      That page also includes fetal mortality rates, which directly addresses the original statement you made (1950s was probably the safest time for the unborn).

      The rest of that… is pretty much a rant.
      My opinion of the 1950s was influenced heavily by my grandparents, who spent most of the decade in a Soviet-controlled country. They did not have a great time.

    • yippeekayay

      Well you should know that America is headed towards where those Soviet controlled countries came from. So in general, things in the past were better than they are now, unlike the former Soviet Union where things are improving, bit by bit (or at least in most of the Warsaw Pact nations they are.) Solzhenitsyn said pretty much the same about ten years after the fall of Communism and everyone laughed at him. But it’s true. Look around you. Today’s America is like Russia in 1900, full of ignorant “intellectuals” debating issues blindly and irresponsibly while a cadre of steely-eyed revolutionaries seizes control. One characteristic of Soviet totalitarianism was a strong pro-abortion agenda. It was part and parcel of the communist disregard for the sanctity of life and personhood in general. If that is your background, I’m surprised at your disregard for the unborn. It’s very Soviet of you.

    • tsara

      Your reality does not look anything like mine, and I am very careful about basing my reality on evidence.

    • yippeekayay

      Oh, so you’re parents were Party members? I see. You’re very careful to base your reality on evidence you like and on interpretations you like, that’s obvious.

    • tsara

      To which Party are you referring?

      “You’re very careful to base your reality on evidence you like and on interpretations you like, that’s obvious.”
      Yes, because when you do epidemiology for money and do your best to make your beliefs conform to reality, you get to just pick your favourite facts. That’s not how it works. That’s not how I work.

    • yippeekayay

      Was there more than one Party in the soviet-controlled country your parents left?

    • tsara

      Ah. I lost the thread of the conversation because it was my grandparents, not my parents. 90% my bad.
      And no, they weren’t. They were university students smuggled out of Hungary and into Canada with the help of a partnership between their university and one in Canada. My grandmother in particular was very anti-soviet, as her family was some minor nobility with no actual power, so they got a lot of extra harassment.
      No, I’m not a fan of the Soviets.
      …well, except maybe their space program XD

    • yippeekayay

      Our realities in that respect are not as different as you allege. My previous statement stands, given your background, I’m surprised at your Soviet-esque position on human life and abortion in particular. I guess three generations is long enough to forget lessons of history. I mean, nowadays it takes a lot less time for people to forget lessons of history. Obviously. Or America would’ve never elected the people they’ve elected over the past decade or so.

    • yippeekayay

      What’s epidemiology got to do with pregnancy? Never mind answering. I know what you’ll say. It’s a rhetorical question, I know the position of today’s secularist pro-abortion health care lame stream on this. I just find it as barbaric as the notion that pre-born human life is terminable because of some arbitrary red line of “sentience” or “viability” or “personhood”.

    • tsara

      Quoth Wikipedia:
      “Epidemiology is the study (or the science of the study) of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations. It is the cornerstone of public health, and informs policy decisions and evidence-based medicine by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive medicine. Epidemiologists help with study design, collection and statistical analysis of data, and interpretation and dissemination of results (including peer review and occasional systematic review).”

      The whole field is about generating and recognizing good data and about finding the most accurate interpretation of that data.

      And I didn’t say that it was relevant to pregnancy, but it is specifically in health-related areas, which means that I read a lot of medical papers — including a fair proportion of articles about pregnancy and/or abortion.

    • yippeekayay

      many of today’s health professionals regard pregnancy as an illness or at least a condition requiring treatment when in fact it’s a natural state and an integral and normal and healthy part of our pro-creative process.

    • tsara

      Well, pregnancy isn’t really a healthy state to be in — at the very least, a pregnant person is at higher risk for common infections like the flu due to the immunosuppression that comes with pregnancy. And pregnant people are classed as a distinct population with distinct health care needs — for instance, very few medications are safe for use during pregnancy. It does make good medical sense to study that population separately and treat it carefully.
      In scientific and medical literature, none of that carries any value judgment. Pregnancy is neither inherently bad nor inherently good; it simply is. If a health professional makes a value judgment, that is an opinion outside of their professional role, though it may be informed by it.

    • yippeekayay

      Pregnancy is inherently good if you cherish life. That’s my closing thought. Cheers.

    • tsara

      That’s a really naïve view to take, given how often pregnancy is deadly.
      It’s also really icky to say that pregnancy is good even when the pregnant person does not wish to be pregnant.

      Good night.

    • yippeekayay

      It’s not icky when the pregnant woman wants to be pregnant though? Because unless I’m mistaken the vast majority of women who get pregnant want to be mothers.

      A lot of things are deadly. We don’t ban them and hate on them all though. We don’t hate flying that way do we? Or dirt-biking or sailing.

      By your logic we could say that “It’s really icky to say sailing is good when the person sailing doesn’t even want to be sailing.” I mean sure, but that sounds like the reasoning of a five year-old.

    • tsara

      “Inherently good” implies ‘in all cases’, which includes those cases in which the pregnant person doesn’t want to be pregnant. It isn’t hating on pregnancy to say that those cases exist.

      For comparison:

      It’s really icky to say that sex is good even when someone involved doesn’t want to be having intercourse; I’d congratulate/be happy for someone who hooked up with someone they were interested in, and offer compassion to someone who was raped.

      It’s really icky to say that heart transplants are good even when the person getting it doesn’t need one; I’d celebrate with someone who’d been waiting for a heart and offer compassion to someone who was forcibly/mistakenly given a heart transplant.

      Sure, it’s great that pregnancy/sex*/heart transplant technologies exist, but…

      Maybe it’s that I don’t subscribe to any views that put value judgments as inherent properties of things/processes but instead has value as a thing bestowed by minds — i.e., nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so.

      *shrugs*

      “By your logic we could say that “It’s really icky to say sailing is good when the person sailing doesn’t even want to be sailing.” I mean sure, but that sounds like the reasoning of a five year-old.”
      Pretty mature five-year-old, then, as it’s pretty well recognized among mental health professionals that trying to define someone else’s experiences for them (e.g., a parent replying ‘no, sailing is awesome and we’re all having a great time’ to a kid’s whining or a sexual abuser telling a kid about how awesome being molested is) generally confuses the hell out of kids and does all sorts of psychological damage.

      *well, I wouldn’t miss it

    • yippeekayay

      Your arguments are weak intellectually (and morally) and annoying because of the hostile and combative tone. I don’t feel like wading through all this hooey and commenting on it.

    • ansuz

      “Your arguments are weak intellectually (and morally)”
      Please, tell me why. I am always looking to improve my views. I love finding out that I’m wrong, even when it’s hard to admit it.

      “annoying because of the hostile and combative tone.”
      Sorry, unless you point out exactly where, in my comments to you, I’m being hostile and combative there’s not really much I can do about it.

      “I don’t feel like wading through all this hooey and commenting on it.”

      Then stop responding to me. I have a lot of patience and your comments take almost no energy to respond to; I can do this forever.

    • yippeekayay

      21st century American abortion = ante-bellum American slavery.

      Abortion: victims = “fetuses” = non-person
      Slavery: victims = “property” = non-person

      Abortion reasoning has led to the slaughter of millions, a massive demographic gap that is wreaking havoc on our society economically and socially.

      Slavery led to untold suffering and death and a network of wounds on the American subconscious that continues to fuel hate and political conflict to this day.

      Both abortion and slavery are founded on rationalizations that deny God, deny the inherent sanctity of human life and therefore deny “basic human rights” wholesale to an entire class of people. Moreover, as it is applied in America, it targets African Americans most heavily.

    • marshmallow

      In the book “Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty”, “[t]he essence of Black women’s experience during slavery was the brutal denial of autonomy over reproduction.” Female slaves’ ability to produce more slaves was central to the economic interests of slaveowners and, once the importation of slaves was banned, to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery. A woman’s reproductive capacity figured into her price on the market and was as valuable as labor in the fields. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man on the farm.”

      Slaveowners beat women who did not reproduce or sold them, separating them from their families. Some engaged in slave-breeding, forcing slaves considered “prime stock” to mate in order to produce particularly valuable new slaves for labor or sale. Evidence exists that slaves resisted slaveowners’ demands that they reproduce by using herbal and other makeshift contraceptive and abortive methods. Slaveowners were free to rape slaves with impunity and the children who resulted increased their wealth. A slave women’s child was not her own, but the property of her master. Even prior to conception, a slaveowner held a property interest in a woman’s future children that could be bequeathed by will.

      Slavery separated black women from their future children at the moment of conception, treating the interests of the fetus as separate and conflicting with that of the mother. Though this conception of the fetus as having distinct interests to be protected from the mother is a familiar part of our discourse and legal framework today, this division did not exist for white women at the time. Professor Roberts describes one method of whipping pregnant women that illustrates this early conception of the maternal-fetal conflict. The mother would be forced to lay with her stomach in a hole dug in the ground so the mother could be beaten while the fetus was protected. “It is the most striking metaphor I know for the evils of policies that seek to protect the fetus while disregarding the humanity of the mother,” she writes.

      Professor Koppelman has previously argued, on the basis of Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude to protect individual liberty and equality, that the government may not prohibit abortion. To do so would be to require physical service from a woman for the benefit of a fetus. The originalist argument relies less on analysis of the case law than a more comprehensive understanding of what antebellum slavery entailed. Though most originalists would likely argue that neither the framers of the Amendment nor a reasonable person alive at the time of its passage would have thought of unwanted pregnancy as a form of involuntary servitude, this is not the question. Forced childbearing is not analogous to slavery, it was an element of it. This is not to equate forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will with permanently enslaving her. It is only to say it is a historical fact that this was a fundamental part of dual oppression female slaves endured by virtue of being black and female.

      As Professor Roberts explains, “[w]e often envision the hallmark of slavery’s inhumanity as the slave picking cotton under the overseer’s lash.” However, “[a]s much as slaves’ forced labor, whites’ control of slave women’s wombs perpetrated many of slavery’s greatest atrocities.” The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits treating human beings as they were treated under antebellum slavery. The denial of reproductive autonomy is a brutal and under-recognized aspect of that treatment.

    • marshmallow

      By your tortured logic, any black slave woman who aborted a pregnancy was equal in evil to the slaveowner.

    • ansuz

      “Abortion reasoning has led to the slaughter of millions, a massive demographic gap that is wreaking havoc on our society economically and socially.”
      Provide evidence of havoc, plz.

      “Slavery led to untold suffering and death”
      Of sapient, sentient beings.

      “Both abortion and slavery are founded on rationalizations that deny God, deny the inherent sanctity of human life and therefore deny “basic human rights” wholesale to an entire class of people.”
      You’ve got at least two things in there:
      1. Denying God: IDGAF. I rejected your argument for why this is a bad thing, and you’ve yet to refute my rejection.
      2. Why is human life inherently sacred? I don’t understand how anything can have an inherent value judgment as an inherent part of it unless it’s a thing capable of doing the value judging itself.

      “Moreover, as it is applied in America, it targets African Americans most heavily.”

      And if the ostensibly pro-life Republicans would stop cutting food stamps and generally shrinking the social safety net, that would change. As it stands, Black people are statistically less likely to have access to effective contraception, more likely (probably) to experience sexual coercion, less likely to be able to afford a pregnancy or a child, and if a Black person has a child and gives it up for adoption, that child is less likely to be adopted.

    • yippeekayay

      Sorry. Can’t take this seriously enough to rebut.

    • marshmallow

      proclaiming it isn’t the same as proving it

      so far you’ve proven nothing other than that you are a hypocrite

    • ansuz

      Apropos of nothing, I like your new ‘nym.

    • marshmallow

      Thanks! i see that you changed yours as well! No more confusion!

    • ansuz

      Just out of curiosity, which confusion are you talking about?

    • marshmallow

      Oh, I thought you made a comment, on another thread, maybe I misread, but it’s more gender-neutral this nick?

    • ansuz

      Oh, yes, that is 80% of the reason I changed it and I put that in my bio as one of the reasons. There were other confusions you could be talking about, though, like how to say ‘tsara’ in your head :P

    • marshmallow

      I always pronounced it like ‘zahra’ or ‘tsar’ for the Russian tsars.

    • ansuz

      That’s how I pronounced it maybe half the time, too. Th rest of the time I cycled through about a half dozen other pronunciations.

    • ansuz

      Also, yes! I changed my ‘nym. Ansuz is a rune from the Elder Futhark, and it represents all of those ‘words: how do they work’ things and ‘the real world: what the hell is it’ and ‘science: how does it work’ things (in a sense, because these rune things can sort of mean whatever you want them to mean)(well, they’re complicated, and I know way too much about them).

      It’s a really cool concept, regardless. You can read about it here:
      http://runesecrets.com/rune-meanings/ansuz

    • marshmallow

      I will!

      It almost sounds Egyptian, but not quite…

    • ansuz

      Old Norse, actually. :) I love Old Norse.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Well you should know that America is headed towards where those Soviet controlled countries came from

      what an idiot

    • CJ99

      So your willing to keep your lovejunk trapped in some medieval torture device to curtail your nocturnal emissions?

      Oh and btw, I’ve noticed its you also using a lions share of explitives.

    • Jennifer Starr

      You were the one telling us how wonderful ‘pro-life’ societies were.

    • yippeekayay

      Ah. I see. You equate pro-life with the antithesis of “progress”. Of course. That makes sense. You should try and step back and see the absurdity of that line of argument. Let the record show that you are the one attempting to draw a connection between poverty and support for life.

      I should also point out the absurdity of claiming that abortion has ancient historical roots and then out of the other side of your mouth extolling Progress and calling pro-life faith primitive. (Sorry did I just sink your ship before you could fire?)

    • Quis ut Deus

      Yeah, the pro-life position keeps women barefoot and pregnant chained to the sink.

      The pro-life position keeps people poor. Because people won’t ever stop having sex. And in the Philippines where contraception is illegal (esp if you’re poor) the average low income family has 8-10 kids. That they have to feed. On a dollar a day. Which keeps them poor…

    • yippeekayay

      You’ve obviously never really met any pro-life women. This just makes me laugh.

      Have you ever been to the Philippines? Do you know any Philippinos? Everyone’s poor and it’s not because they can’t kill their unborn babies at abortion factories in every community.

    • Quis ut Deus

      yeah because if they are poor they cannot afford black-market contraception so they just keep having more kids:

      http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/population/la-fg-population-matters5-20120729-html,0,5897961.htmlstory#axzz2mBgHBWCB

    • yippeekayay

      Or maybe they don’t care that much that by your standards they are “poor” and maybe they love life and don’t wish they could kill all their unborn children.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Read the article.

    • CJ99

      so you claim every community has an abortion factory that somehow only you has ever seen or heard of.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yeah, I didn’t actually say any of what you just claimed I said.

    • yippeekayay

      I didn’t say you did.

    • Jennifer Starr

      If a country makes abortions illegal in all or almost all situations, these are the kind of situations you end up with. The countries I mentioned above are exactly what ’100 % Pro-life, no exceptions’ looks like.

    • Quis ut Deus

      BTW, you me and Jennifer all know that you are talking out of your ass:)

    • yippeekayay

      You and Jennifer might be. That might explain your lack of articulation (I had just chalked it up to stupidity). I’m speaking from my heart, with passion, and as I said, you will never win this argument so you might as well leave.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You are also lying about your scientific knowledge.

      Furthermore, answer the questions you refuse to answer:

      1) how much jail time should a woman receive for killing her unborn baby?

      2) would you allow abortion n the case of rape?

      3) are female slaves who ended their pregnancies as evil as the slavemasters who raped them?

    • yippeekayay

      I’m not lying about anything and the fact you accuse me of lying makes me fairly sure that you’re the one who’s speaking dishonestly.

      1) Traditionally, abortion was not treated the same way as other murders. I might give it the same weight as a felony manslaughter, at least as much as running someone down while driving drunk, even though it’s much closer to premeditated (i.e. with malice aforethought) murder.

      2) Everyone always asks about rape. It’s this habit of using emotionally-loaded marginal hypotheticals to establish a general rule. It’s not good law or public policy and the only ones who do that are leftists, seeing as how they don’t believe in fixed moral standards. Everything’s an opinion poll with them. I believe in capital punishment for rapists not for the innocent unborn victims of rape. Would you kill an orphan if his parents were murdered?

      3) How should I know who’s more evil? Are you more righteous than Jennifer? A more logical question would be, “Is abortion more evil than rape?” I would say yes because every abortion ends in the unwarranted killing of an innocent person, whereas the causes and consequences of rape vary greatly. Of course I think rape should be a capital crime. I can understand society sanctioning the killing of rapists. I can’t reconcile myself to society sanctioning the killing of the innocent unborn.

    • Quis ut Deus

      1) I don’t care about tradition. You consider abortion to be a crime of murder. Premeditated killing. So why the manslaughter charge?

      So, felonly manslaughter would be what, 10 years?

      2) Yes. Rape. How much jail time should a rape victim serve if she kills her unborn child with premeditated malice? Also 10 years?

      3) I can’t reconcile myself to society sanctioning the killing of the innocent unborn.

      So in other words, the victims of rape during antebellum slavery were guilty of a more serious crime than the slaveowners because they chose murder over slavery which is just kidnapping and forced confinement.

      Should the female slaves who committed the crime of abortion also receive the felony manslaughter charge?

    • yippeekayay

      1) It’s abundantly clear that you don’t care about tradition, or truth, or logic, or sanity, or humaneness or compassion or anything else that most other people do care about.

      2) Okay, you have a good point. We should treat abortion like any other killing. We should examine the mens rhea and the actus rheus. We should consider circumstantial evidence. Abortionists should get life or the death penalty and their co-conspirators should get the same except for any mitigating circumstances. I guess I was thinking that most young girls in particular who are talked into getting an abortion are indeed victims of the abortion industry and that they should be accorded consideration of this as a mitigating factor.

      3) What’s with you and antebellum slavery? I guess that’s just the fallback atrocity everyone l ikes to attack Christians with, much like everyone wants to attack Germans with the Holocaust or wants to attack Communists with the Gulag… Oh wait, no one tries to hold communists accountable for their past atrocities. People only ever care about tearing down the Christian free world because Christians are so obstinate about not endorsing promiscuity and self-centered materialism.

      So yeah. Your fake slavery question… I suppose to be consistent I’d have to say I’d reserve judgment on slavery and slavers until I can get detailed evidence on each individual instance. I think facts matter. Don’t you?

    • Quis ut Deus

      1) You used ‘tradition’ as a the reason to make abortion manslaughter and not murder. I DONT CARE. Don’t choose mansulaughter because it has been the TRADITIONAL punishment. Choose MURDER if you believe that abortion IS MURDER. Don’t use weasel words to avoid answering the question.

      2) I guess I was thinking that most young girls in particular who are talked into getting an abortion are indeed victims of the abortion industry and that they should be accorded consideration of this as a mitigating factor.

      Oh ,that one. Gee, if I had a nickel for every time I have heard THAT excuse. No honey, sorry, ignorance/I was brainwashed is NOT an excuse.

      3) You keep asserting that abortion is the most heinous crime. And you compare abortion TO slavery.So, I want to know, the slave women who aborted their rape pregnancies – were they as evil as the slave masters who raped and impregnated them? Remember, you say abortion = slavery. So, if a slave woman aborts, is she a slaveowner?

      I suppose to be consistent I’d have to say I’d reserve judgment on slavery and slavers until I can get detailed evidence on each individual instance. I think facts matter. Don’t you?

      Which is a cop-out. They took herbs to end their pregnancies. You just don’t want to answer because it shows you cannot be consistent where abortion is concerned.

      And you still refuse to answer this question. How much jail time should a rape victim serve for murdering her unborn baby?

    • CJ99

      for you to speak from the heart you need to first have one.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Oh, and if you had any actual scientific knowledge you would have imparted it to us:)

      Instead of making baseless assertions.

      Can’t back up your claims, and you refused to answer my questions.

      Proof that you don’t have a leg to stand on.

      But go ahead, run away with your tail between your legs.

      You’re just pissy because young good looking women aren’t fucking YOU.

    • Arekushieru

      If it’s wrong for women to terminate a pregnancy because a fetus dies, you ARE saying that women don’t have the right like men to have non-procreative sex. Seriously, for someone who claims to be so much ‘smarter’ you certainly can’t grasp simplified logic, CAN you?

      Self-projection much, btw?

      Yeah, if by ‘normal’ you mean thinking that only understands something when it is put into words. MOST people, however, understand the context behind the words.

      Or is it just the fact that you don’t want to realize upon whom reality is REALLY going to impose hardship for being wrong-headed to the EXTREME?

      If you want QuD and Jennifer to stop talking to you, there’s a simple solution to that, stop talking to THEM. You really like to ‘talk the talk’ of responsibility but not walk-the-walk, as they do. So typical of antis. Again, sad.

      Suggestion: try not to redefine words when arguing with people who obviously have a better understanding of them than you do. Punishment is: an instrument used to modify behaviour. If you want people to believe that abortion is wrong, then you are attempting to modify women’s behaviour. Oops.

    • yippeekayay

      I don’t feel like bandying terminology. If by “fetus” you mean an unborn human being, just say so. I just can’t take you seriously when you play these silly word games.

      Did I say anywhere that men have some sort of “right” to have non-procreative sex? Seriously, did I? Please show me where I actually stated anything like that.

      What’s sad is the dishonest way you try to take the high road. You’re lying about what I said and yet you want to pretend that I’m the one who lacks integrity. That’s laughable.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Did I say anywhere that men have some sort of “right” to have non-procreative sex?

      Because you believe that if a woman has sex or is raped, she should be forced to give birth under threat of 10 years in jail.

    • yippeekayay

      Simplified logic? Don’t flatter yourself.

      If I say that killing an innocent unborn is wrong, I’m not saying that women shouldn’t practice non-abortifacient birth control to avoid facing that reality. Nor am I saying that men have a right to have non-procreative sex just because they can. Dogs may have a right to lick their balls just because they can (or not, who cares) but my whole point here is that humanity is capable of making choices that contravene the “natural” tendencies of their animalism. We do it all the time. In fact some people consider self-control and discipline to be the very cornerstones of civilization.

      Oops yourself, you twit.

    • Quis ut Deus

      But forcing an innocent rape victim to give birth isn’t wrong, in your eyes.

    • CJ99

      and thats hour your insanely huge ego gets you into so much trouble. you claim “self control and displine” as “very cornerstones of civilization”. newsflash: civiliaztion doesn’t consist of you alone. You’re standing outside looking in and raging cause you cant make the rest of us just as foolish as you.

    • CJ99

      Truth divorced you a long time ago for someone intelligent.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Funny how all of your arguments involve some form of slut-shaming.

      FYI, married women also have abortions. Women in monogamous relationships with children have abortions.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Just as a matter of curiosity, why the earlier diatribe against homosexuality? If all you’re concerned about is protecting ‘babies’ and life, why attack the group that doesn’t have abortions?

    • Arekushieru

      Selfishness is not a sin. You certainly ARE misrepresenting the actual teachings of Jesus Christ, AREN’T you? GREED, however, IS. And you have shown no lack of propensity for forcing others to live the way you wish to live. Pretty much the textbook definition of greed, especially when you are willing to force others to do something that is not only the second leading cause of death for women, WORLDWIDE, thereby leaving motherless orphans all over the WORLD, it’s also something that you will never have to face being forced upon YOU

      If you are too drunk to know you were having sex, then that is rape. It’s no surprise that you neither lack the propensity for victim-blaming. You have demonstrated that quite well throughout all of your posts.

      And we’re saying that abortion is not a wrong, for very simple reasons, one being that otherwise rape would be legal and a ‘right’. And, yes, rape is possible during sex, not JUST before.

      Sorry, but I’m asexual. I have probably had less sex than the typical Pro-’Lifer’. I would STILL abort if I were to ever get pregnant. So much for wanting to prevent the ‘disruption’ of my ‘hedonistic’ moment.

      Having a kid that you’re not ready for and unwilling to care for, is the utmost in selfishness. Continuing an expensive pregnancy as a single impoverished mother at the expense of your already existing children’s health and life is not only the utmost in SELFISHNESS but greed, as well.

      A fetus is neither a person, innocent/guilty, NOR killed by abortion.

    • yippeekayay

      Selfishness is not a sin? That’s your opener and then you want to lecture me on the teachings of Jesus?? That’s ludicrous. I won’t even respond. No one’s forcing anyone to do anything from my side. We’d prefer it if the federal government didn’t attempt to force Christians to violate their conscience on the matter of abortion but hey, have at it if you must. Didn’t work well for Rome or any other misochristian political systems since then either. Good luck.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Considering the fact that you would choose to send a rape victim to jail for 10 years for aborting a pregnancy then yeah, you’re the selfish one.

      Your morality trumps her right to not suffer.

    • CJ99

      If Jesus passed you in the street you wouldn’t know him, nor would he claim to know you. If you ever did meet him & knew it you’d no doubt try to do him harm for not conforming to your insanity.

    • tsara

      “No one’s forcing anyone to do anything from my side.”
      Whut.

    • yippeekayay

      Did that blow your mind? Doesn’t fit your prejudicial preconceptions? Doesn’t match up with what they told you to think about us?

    • tsara

      No, it’s just demonstrably untrue; anyone with any eye on the laws surrounding women’s health in the US can see it.

    • yippeekayay

      You seem to consider yourself to have the requisite expertise to make you an authority on the topic. Why don’t you demonstrate the untruth for us?

    • tsara

      I’m not an authority — or even American.

      But still:
      Rick Perry. Paul Ryan. Rick Santorum.
      All would be perfectly happy forcing people to remain pregnant, forcing health clinics to close down, etc.
      Also:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state#State_attempts_to_ban_abortion

    • yippeekayay

      You’re not American so I decline to respond to your uninformed opinions regarding American politicians. You’ve obviously only been fed one side of the story of what’s going on in America.

    • tsara

      Or I’ve done a significant amount of research looking at multiple sources and viewpoints.
      But I’m not ‘Murikan, so it doesn’t count.

    • yippeekayay

      How significant? I’ll bet you’ve never honestly or sincerely read and considered anything from an intelligent pro-life position.

    • tsara

      To look at and evaluate the pro-life arguments specifically, I spent a good forty hours reading on lifesitenews and liveactionnews each, and I read what the Catholic church has to say on the subject (papal writings, mostly). I considered, sincerely, if/to what degree the fact that I have mental health issues that make pregnancy a terrifying prospect invalidates my arguments.
      For news things, I read news items on a pro-choice site, a pro-life site, a mainstream news site, and international sites (for a bit of perspective), and then did some fact-checking (watched the videos of politicians saying things, checked what legal sites had to say about changes in law, went into epidemiological research, etc.).

      The trait I value most highly is that of examining all of the evidence and following it where it leads. I have done the absolute best I can at that.

    • yippeekayay

      Well, okay. That sounds sincere enough. I bet there is evidence you haven’t considered or haven’t given due consideration. But I admit that there are people who consider all the evidence and still choose to come down on the side of arbitrariness and death. In my experience (and I have accompanied dozens of people on an elaborate and detailed and very thorough examination of the entire abortion controversy), there are people who choose to support abortion because they can’t fathom the degree of change they’d have to make in their personal values and most of all their lifestyle. It takes great courage to reverse course and choose what’s right when one has already adopted a lifestyle centered on what’s wrong.

    • CJ99

      Now I remember who you’re most like

      Roger Ramjet!

    • tsara

      ” you were too drunk to know you were having sex, your partner was too drunk to know he was coming inside you”
      This is called ‘rape’.

    • yippeekayay

      Yes, or “dating”, in college.

    • tsara

      No. That is rape, and it is not okay.

    • yippeekayay

      Don’t be so narrow-minded and ignorant.

    • tsara

      What the hell? It’s rape, ethically and legally (even in the US!).

    • yippeekayay

      It’s rape for you to get drunk and take a boy home to have sex?

    • tsara

      Yes. It is illegal to have sex with someone who is impaired by alcohol. The specific blood alcohol content or degree of impairment varies state by state, but if someone is too drunk to know they’re having sex, we’re not in a moral grey area. It’s rape.

    • yippeekayay

      Well just to be clear, I wasn’t referring to rape or even to date rape. I was merely referring to voluntary drunk sex resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. FYI, I’m quite clear on the definition of rape. In all seriousness, aren’t you being a little presumptuous and condescending here?

    • tsara

      I’m not being condescending (or, well, not trying to be). There are a lot of misconceptions about what rape is, and it was not at all clear that you were joking (I’m still not quite sure I can make that assumption, tbh) — see Steubenville. The specific words you used were ‘too drunk to know you were having sex, your partner was too drunk to know he was coming inside you, and in a context (list items separated by commas and not semicolons) where it was not obvious whether you meant that to be one list item or two (IOW, two equally drunk people having sex = nobody is at fault. Two list items makes that two different incidents where the status of one partner is ‘unaware of sex’ drunk and the status of the other partner[s] is unknown.).
      tl;dr: Lots of people are not clear on the definition of rape, and it’s a problem. Ambiguity in your writing made it seem likely that you were serious and didn’t know.

    • yippeekayay

      Sure. And don’t forget your predisposition towards thinking of men, Christians and pro-lifers as rapists. Of course I suggest you re-examine your prejudices at some point. You’ve got some massive blind spots, no offense. In general, I find the views of 21st century feminists and of many professional women who wouldn’t necessarily think of themselves as “feminists” per se, to be very chauvinistic and ignorant. In fact, I’d say that to the extent it is true that men in the 50s were “male chauvinists”, the tables are turned and many of today’s women are now at least as chauvinistic and sexist and abusive as men were. I suppose it’s to be expected. Women wanted to “shatter the glass ceiling” and now that they’re upstairs they’ve a lot to learn about treating the opposite gender fairly in the workplace.

    • tsara

      “And don’t forget your predisposition towards thinking of men, Christians and pro-lifers as rapists.”
      Assfax. You don’t know whether this is true of me or not. I have given no possible indication of this.

      “In general, I find the views of 21st century feminists and of many professional women who wouldn’t necessarily think of themselves as “feminists” per se, to be very chauvinistic and ignorant.”
      Uh huh. I’m not a woman, btw. And reverse sexism? You may or may not have noticed, but I use gender-neutral language wherever applicable.

      “In fact, I’d say that to the extent it is true that men in the 50s were “male chauvinists”, the tables are turned and many of today’s women are now at least as chauvinistic and sexist and abusive as men were.”
      I don’t think that the tables are turned (evidence does not support this), and I do not want to see the tables turned. But, yes, women are people capable of the full range of human behaviour and emotion, including being sexist and abusive and assholes.

      Also, has nothing to do with anything I said.

    • yippeekayay

      I was making ad hoc observations and stating opinions. You disagree. I’m shocked.

    • yippeekayay

      “reverse sexism”… an interesting term that displays a gender-bias. Why is sexism by women towards men “reverse sexism”. You’d probably say the same of racism by black people towards whites or asians. That’s not “racism”, that’s “reverse racism”. Congratulations on not being a woman. What’s that got to do with anything here? (other than according to many pro-abortion feminists, you have no business even discussing this issue at all).

    • tsara

      Reverse sexism: Using the term because I’m tired and it’s convenient, and the actually appropriate way to refer to that would take about two hundred words.

      “Congratulations on not being a woman. What’s that got to do with anything here?”
      Your post was addressed to me and seemed to be implying that I was one of these career women. I dislike being misgendered, so I pointed it out. Not a big deal; note the ‘btw’ indicating an aside.

      “(other than according to many pro-abortion feminists, you have no business even discussing this issue at all).”

      Actually, possessing a uterus, the issue is central to my life.

    • yippeekayay

      Oh so you’re mincing words and playing games. Gotcha.

    • tsara

      What? Are you referring to the not-a-woman,have-uterus-anyway thing? I’m genderqueer. I starved myself to get rid of my hips and my period (I kept freaking out when it was shoved in my face that they existed). I forget that people see me as a woman. I sometimes bind my breasts down. I’m investigating the possibility of hysterectomy and/or (probably temporary) testosterone treatments: the former because my uterus makes my life significantly more miserable than it needs to be, and the latter because I want my voice to change. I get happy when people use gender-neutral pronouns for me. (etc., etc., etc.)
      (and, no, not a trans man.)

    • yippeekayay

      Sorry. I personally don’t buy any of that trans/bi terminology. You’re a woman or a man, whether you’re in denial, surgically and/or hormonally altered or both. But I guess it’s easier to see things that way when you give up the fiction that we live in a random and ultimately meaningless universe in which we are our own personal Gods with absolute moral autonomy.

    • tsara

      Was that what you were referring to, though?
      And I’d appreciate it if you could either continue not using pronouns to refer to me or use gender-neutral ones (Wikipedia’s got a page on them, but the singular ‘their’ is probably easiest). Call it a preference, or humouring me.

    • yippeekayay

      Yes. I have no need to use any pronoun but “you” when I speak with you, however, your having a uterus makes you a woman in my books. People are unique from other terrestrial life-forms in that they are capable of transcending their animalism by force of will. They are also capable of warping themselves by the same. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s advisable, admirable, or sometimes even allowable.

    • tsara

      “I have no need to use any pronoun but “you” when I speak with you”
      That is sufficient. Thank you.

    • Jennifer Starr

      So you’re a pro-rape apologist. Why am I not surprised.

    • yippeekayay

      You lie like a piece of dried up doggy do. I am absolutely not a pro-rape apologist and you have to twist your mind into a butt-plug to make anything I said spin that way. I’m a pro-truth apologist, which is why I find liars like you so repulsive.

    • Jennifer Starr

      I think it’s hilarious how it takes you several days of fuming to come up with an incredibly lame response. And you absolutely are a pro-rape apologist.

    • yippeekayay

      Unlike you apparently, I have a life. Here’s another valuable tip for righteous living: repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t eventually make it true, in spite of what they taught you in your lame stream publicly-funded “education”.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yes, and you’ve yet to repeat anything that’s actually true.

    • yippeekayay

      whatever.

    • Quis ut Deus

      I just ate a baby.

    • CJ99

      Just cause thats what YOU called “dating” doesn’t make it right.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Does it bother you that all those good looking women at the bar aren’t fucking losers such as yourself?

    • Jennifer Starr

      He has to go to the bars when his girlfriend has a puncture.

    • CJ99

      Not asking how he did that. Would be TMI.

    • Arekushieru

      Sorry, Christian, here. And the only one who appears to be a ‘miso’Christian (which is actually an impossibility, as there is no systemic form of prejudice and discrimination specifically targeted towards Christians, ditto heterosexuals) is YOU.

      The one with the positive CLAIM is the one with the burden of proof. If you can’t prove a link exists, then it’s not another person’s job to educate you. It’s just a friendly reminder that perhaps those who do not know whereof they speak should just keep silent (about it).

    • yippeekayay

      There is systemic prejudice against Christians who actually still hold to the validity of truth and to Christ the literal person of Jesus’ claim to literally actually BE the truth. You would know not whereof that would be methinks. But hey, nice try at simply talking me down with brashness. That work for you at CloudOn? From the look of you, I bet you are an insufferably paternalistic boss.

      I decline to shoulder your “burden of proof” as in my viewe, the more orthodox view, you’re the one with the revisionist claims such as that the Bible is a merely some sort of mythological metaphor one can pick from as from a buffet. I find that position laughable.

    • Arekushieru

      Nope, you want to make Jesus Christ a mythological figure of EPIC misogynistic proportions. NOT me.

      Nope, the ones who DO the persecuting are Christians, I am just intelligent enough to recognize my privilege, unlike SOME.

      Wow, I am glad to see that I am right that misogyny and appearance-shaming by you would indeed go hand in hand. Guess what? There’s some brashness for ya, but I’m just giving what I get. Really too bad that you can’t recognize that.

      Please prove that I am trying to claim that the Bible is merely some sort of mythological metaphor? If you can’t, then, as YOU said, the proof falls back on you. Oops.

    • yippeekayay

      Nope. (Since I take it that’s an acceptable form of argument for you.)

    • Arekushieru

      Nope, it’s not. Because I do explain myself, unlike some, I see. So sad.

    • yippeekayay

      Cry me a river. If you think you have an argument I should consider on the topic of abortion that other pro-deathers haven’t already made, feel free to try and make it. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with this silliness.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You should read Numbers 5. Your precious bible proscribes an aboritifacient for a woman suspected of adultery.

      If she drinks the bitter water + ergot (from the temple floor) and miscarries ,she is guilty of adultery.

      That is abortion. IN the bible. Sanctioned. By temple priests.

    • CJ99

      Now you’ve done it, you baked his noodle. Spaghetti coded his wetware.

    • yippeekayay

      NOTICE to other “Christian” proponents of what used to be known as Higher Criticism (i.e. non-literal revisionist anthropocentric readings of Scripture and accompanying re-interpretation of the Christian faith): You can’t convince me that merely redefining words and substituting content makes you real Christians. It wouldn’t work in any other context of life, what makes you think it’s a legitimate approach when it comes to Christianity? Of course the truth is that you don’t. Your purpose in adopting this approach is subversive and dishonorable.

    • CJ99

      That’s whats wrong with religion at large in this world. It too often puts things in gods mouth that he never said, much of it opposite to what he really thinks. One of the big things human beings were given minds of our own, and free will that goes with it and trusting us enough that we can learn not to keep repeating our mistakes.

    • Quis ut Deus

      cj, i sent you a message a half hour ago
      check it

    • CJ99

      yeah thanks, thought of it but atm it looks like even thats above the level of the trolls.

    • Jennifer Starr

      He makes a habit of creating straw men and putting words in people’s mouths. Not very Christian at all.

    • CJ99

      Brash all you like, Mind if I join you in a non perverted way?

    • CJ99

      the problem is you talking about Christ since you don’t know him. I believe he exists, I believe god exists. but you do NOT speak for either of them. I prefer to let them speak for themselves as their quite capable of doing. btw, the bible doesn’t speak for them, it was written & misused by humanity.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Oh, so you believe that PLan B ‘kills babies’

      Tell us, yippee, if a victim of rape takes plan B should she also spend 10 years in jail for felony manslaughter?

    • CJ99

      If you want ad hom then it could be said (rightly so) that bars were invented to get ugly bigots (being you) could get some action. but that’s clearly not working for you, which says nothing good….about you.

    • yippeekayay

      Bollocks? You’re British. That figures. Morally decrepit, society on its way to extinction. If you were a more humane human than you think you are, you might spend a little time obsessing about the innocent people you and your friends have killed for your own personal convenience and pleasure. I’m not sexist like you. I don’t believe that abortion is solely a woman’s matter. Abortionists kill the male and female unborn. If modern women have lost the compassion and the kindness to care about babies, men should step in and defend the helpless.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You are sexist because you believe that a woman should be subjugated in service of a cell that is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

      You value cells over women.

      That’s pretty sexist.

      If modern women have lost the compassion and the kindness to care about babies

      Again, a cell isn’t a baby, and furthermore, anatomy isn’t destiny. You are objectifying women (which is sexist btw) by your desire to see women be FORCED to be mothers just because they have a uterus.

    • Jennifer Starr

      No, sorry, not British. Just well-traveled and well-read. Which is more than you appear to be.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. The primary reason that I brought up gender was to say that if you were a woman,you would know that you don’t go into heat. Actually, if you had any experience at all with women, you would know this wasn’t true.

    • Quis ut Deus

      How much prison time should a rape victim serve for aborting the pregnancy?

      Just answer the question already.

      From what research I have done, a felony manslaughter sentence can be anywhere from 6-10 years.

      Still waiting.

    • CJ99

      wow racism too, no surprise coming from a roy rogers fanboy.

    • Jennifer Starr

      He’s an Anglophobe, he doesn’t like Canadians (even though he was born there) and he doesn’t care for anyone east of where he lives.

    • Quis ut Deus

      He messaged me like ten times but I am not even going to read his drivel.

      There is a far more interesting discussion over at TFA

    • Quis ut Deus

      He messaged me like ten times but I am not even going to read his drivel.

      There is a far more interesting discussion over at TFA

    • Jennifer Starr

      Link?

    • Quis ut Deus
    • Quis ut Deus

      The Starship Maxima

      Quis ut Deus

      6 minutes ago

      You know, one could say that
      “slut-shaming” is just another weasel word for “no one should be held
      accountable when their actions unjustly harm the life of another. Multiple times.

      ——–
      This guy is up to his eyeballs in slut-shaming. And he can’t even see how he keeps putting his foot in it.

    • CJ99

      I’m a guy & even I know what he said is bollocks.

    • CJ99

      the only time you even see the scientific community is when you look over your shoulder at what your desparately fleeing from.

    • yippeekayay

      And if you go on to argue that humans are self-aware, whereas other lifeforms on the planet aren’t, to the best of our knowledge, and that therefore we can and should have sex merely for pleasure at whim, you’re then entering another logical quandary: if humans are fundamentally different from animals (and superior) why do we care more about saving whales and baby seals and spotted owls than we do about saving unborn human lives? Your entire position is fraught with absurdity and no matter which way you cut it, you can’t make abortion look sane and civilized. It’s as barbaric as genocide, which is basically what it amounts to and people like you who argue for it are intellectually dishonest and morally decrepit.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Your ignorance is truly astounding.

      You should be proud of what a dumbfuck you are.

      For humans, the primary purpose of sex is most definitely not reproduction. The simplest proof involves the fact that while females of most other species tend to engage in sex only when they are fertile, human females can indulge in sex almost any time. Humanity would not have evolved that significant distinction, from other species, if it wasn’t important. So, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is actually something known as “pair bonding”.

      Basically, human infants are so helpless, compared to other newborns, that caring for one severely handicaps the mother. If she can attract long-term assistance, then the chances of survival, for both herself and her child, increase greatly. And it is well known that sex is a powerful attractant. If it happens to have the side-effect of also making more offspring, well, each attracted sex-participant is, theoretically, still right there, helping out, and still enjoying sex.

      A participant who practices the trick-her-and-run tactic is taking the risk that his offspring won’t survive due to lack-of-assistance, but he tries to compensate by having lots of offspring –”R-strategy reproduction” thinking, basically. If a society wants to rid itself of that tactic over the long run, then all it need do is ensure none of any practitioner’s offspring survive, not even until birth! Overall, these things are very simple, very logical, very effective –and very destructive to that argument against abortion.

      http://www.relating360.com/index.php/sex-is-for-bonding-sexuality-and-pair-bonding-why-sex-is-not-for-making-babies-sex-is-for-fun-2866/

      And as usual, you are wrong about the gay sex, fucktard.

      If gays were an evolutionary dead end, they would have died out eons ago.

      Gay sex is practised across all species.

      So far, scienctific and anthropolgical studies have shown that:

      1) extremely fertile women tend to have more gay men in their families. This hints at the existence of a gay gene – that basically the gene that makes women more fecund, also turns a percentage of male babies into homosexuals

      2) in certain societies, gay men, since they never get married, spend their lives as ‘helpers’ – ie, they help to raise the numerous children of their very fecund mothers and daughters

      http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

      Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.

      The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn’t already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

      A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

      http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2010/02/super-uncles-of-samoa.cfm

      One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the “kin selection hypothesis.” What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own prospects by being “helpers in the nest.” By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men—bachelor
      uncles in effect—would perpetuate the family genes, including their own.

      Science +1

      Yippeetard -100

      Before you start lecturing others on science I suggest you look in the mirror and examine your own ignorance.

      We are laughing at you.

    • Quis ut Deus

      And certain animals have sex for pleasure.

      Dolphins and bonobos, to name two.

      In fact, bonobo sexuality is primarily a form of social bonding.

      bonobos are incredibly peaceful, and they have sex rather than go to war

      Some more studying for you:

      http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/jjp1/ansci_repro/misc/project_websites_07/thur07/bonobo%20reproduction/behavior.html

      http://awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/Spring02/bonobo.htm

    • Quis ut Deus

      Since you said you missed it, but are most likely lying because you can’t refute it:

      What I stated is that if
      you want to argue that human’s “don’t go into heat” because they’re
      different from animals, then you can’t argue later that gay sex is
      natural and normal because animals do it.

      What you don’t seem to understand is that we are like animals *in some respects* and unlike animals in *other respects*

      Humans are a kind of animal that uses a specific reproductive
      strategy (the majority of the time) because that strategy is the most
      successful for human animals.

      Whereas a polar bear mom can look after her babies just fine without
      male investment, which is why she will go into heat for two weeks, get
      pregnant, and never see the male bear again.

      Duhhh

      All animals utilize different reproductive strategies.

      I suggest you start here:

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

      And certain animals have sex for pleasure.

      Dolphins and bonobos, to name two.

      In fact, bonobo sexuality is primarily a form of social bonding.

      bonobos are incredibly peaceful, and they have sex rather than go to war

      Some more studying for you:

      http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/jjp1

      http://awionline.org/pubs/Quar

      our ignorance is truly astounding.

      You should be proud of what a dumbfuck you are.

      For humans, the primary purpose of sex is most definitely not
      reproduction. The simplest proof involves the fact that while females of
      most other species tend to engage in sex only when they are fertile,
      human females can indulge in sex almost any time. Humanity would not
      have evolved that significant distinction, from other species, if it
      wasn’t important. So, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is actually
      something known as “pair bonding”.

      Basically, human infants are so helpless, compared to other newborns,
      that caring for one severely handicaps the mother. If she can attract
      long-term assistance, then the chances of survival, for both herself and
      her child, increase greatly. And it is well known that sex is a
      powerful attractant. If it happens to have the side-effect of also
      making more offspring, well, each attracted sex-participant is,
      theoretically, still right there, helping out, and still enjoying sex.

      A participant who practices the trick-her-and-run tactic is taking
      the risk that his offspring won’t survive due to lack-of-assistance, but
      he tries to compensate by having lots of offspring –”R-strategy
      reproduction” thinking, basically. If a society wants to rid itself of
      that tactic over the long run, then all it need do is ensure none of any
      practitioner’s offspring survive, not even until birth! Overall, these
      things are very simple, very logical, very effective –and very
      destructive to that argument against abortion.

      http://www.relating360.com/ind

      And as usual, you are wrong about the gay sex, fucktard.

      If gays were an evolutionary dead end, they would have died out eons ago.

      Gay sex is practised across all species.

      So far, scienctific and anthropolgical studies have shown that:

      1) extremely fertile women tend to have more gay men in their
      families. This hints at the existence of a gay gene – that basically the
      gene that makes women more fecund, also turns a percentage of male
      babies into homosexuals

      2) in certain societies, gay men, since they never get married, spend
      their lives as ‘helpers’ – ie, they help to raise the numerous children
      of their very fecund mothers and daughters

      http://www.livescience.com/262

      Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.

      The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is
      hereditary, it hasn’t already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay
      people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

      A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay
      men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a
      computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal
      line could produce this effect.

      http://www.psychologicalscienc

      One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call
      the “kin selection hypothesis.” What that means is that homosexuality
      may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of
      close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men
      might enhance their own prospects by being “helpers in the nest.” By
      acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men—bachelor
      uncles in effect—would perpetuate the family genes, including their own.

      Science +1

      Yippeetard -100

      Before you start lecturing others on science I suggest you look in the mirror and examine your own ignorance.

      We are laughing at you.

    • CJ99

      Hinto for you: “superchristian JC” from the Art Bell show in the mid 90′s is not a well educated justifiable source of information.

    • Quis ut Deus

      ovulation in female humans is hidden dumbfuck

      ever wonder why?

      oh gee, could it be because sex in humans if for pair bonding, not fuck-for-a-week-get-pregnant-never-see-the-guy-again type of reproduction

    • CJ99

      Since you’re a guy you’re the one who doesn’t have a clue how that works. yeah we know you didn’t talk to your mom, if she’s even half as offensive as you she’d probably slutshame you.

    • CJ99

      do the rest of us a favour and don’t projectile vomit your alphaghetti every time you reply.

    • Quis ut Deus

      The fetus is not ‘innocent’.

      Consider the crime of “manslaughter”. One need not have any intent whatsoever to commit that crime to be declared guilty of it, after the fact (provided that it was indeed a fact). Similarly, an unborn human is guilty of committing assault, three different ways: First, it sucks someone else’s blood like a vampire; second, it dumps toxic biowaste products into someone else’s blood –worse than a vampire!; and third, it injects addictive drugs into someone else’s blood, like the very worst sort of drug pusher. The drugs are “HCG” and “progesterone”; the withdrawal symptoms are known as “postpartum depression”.

      It should be noted that the “placenta” is the tool used by the unborn human, to commit those assaults. Remember that most women experience “morning sickness” in response to the stuff being dumped into her body, as pregnancy begins. While their bodies usually adapt to the assaults, abortion is the only known way to force those assaults to end quickly, when unwanted. Yes, there is an alternative to abortion, “forgiveness”, just as many more-ordinary assaults are forgiven (legal charges are not pressed). But forgiveness is always optional, not mandatory.

      Note that the preceding is another reason why God is not so stupid as to put new/innocent souls into unborn humans at conception; in just a few days a soul would become guilty-by-participation of assault, starting when the zygote has passed through the “morula” stage and become a “blastocyst” that implants into a womb. God is not so stupid as to put a soul into the situation where Assault becomes part of its Record for Judgment Day, even before being born!

      Finally, there is another and totally different relevant thing that can now be mentioned. Evolutionary biologists know that there are two major reproductive strategies followed by the majority of sexually-reproducing organisms in nature, called “R strategy” and “K strategy” (those are the extremes; many gradations exist between them).

      Imagine an alien species as intelligent as humanity, but biologically different in that its normal reproductive event yields a thousand offspring at a time. These are quite small and are released “into the wild”, where they will forage for food, and can grow to eventually become persons –except that most of them will die in the process, eaten by other life-forms.

      Humans are K-strategists; we normally have very few offspring at a time, and give them lots of nurturing and protection. But intelligent R-strategists will care very little about their offspring. Those small “growing” electronic machines previously described were deliberately introduced in terms of R-strategy reproduction, because they can be mass-manufactured by their True Artificial Intelligence “parents”.

      As long as two or three biological offspring reach adulthood for each breeding pair of R-strategist adults, no matter how many thousands of their other offspring die, the species can continue to survive. And it should be obvious that the intelligent adults must accept that situation, because anything else is a recipe for an ultra-extreme overpopulation disaster.

      The facts about K-strategy reproduction make it completely understandable how humans can object to killing some offspring by abortion. Caring for offspring is built-in! Nevertheless, it is usually very easy even for humans to make more –and to even make more offspring fast enough to end up with an overpopulation problem. Logically, therefore, humanity needs to learn that its natural tendencies to care for offspring can be over-done, and it is that thing, the over-doing of caring for offspring, which must be overcome. Too much of a good thing is always, always a bad thing!

      Women menstruate out of self-defense:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528014/

      Furthermore if the pain involved in childbirth were induced by other means, it would generally be recognized as a form of torture, and a nation that required women to undergo it would be found in violation of Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Since you said you missed it the first time (we know you’re lying)

      The fetus is not ‘innocent’.

      Consider the crime of “manslaughter”. One need not have any intent
      whatsoever to commit that crime to be declared guilty of it, after the
      fact (provided that it was indeed a fact). Similarly, an unborn human is
      guilty of committing assault, three different ways: First, it sucks
      someone else’s blood like a vampire; second, it dumps toxic biowaste
      products into someone else’s blood –worse than a vampire!; and third, it
      injects addictive drugs into someone else’s blood, like the very worst
      sort of drug pusher. The drugs are “HCG” and “progesterone”; the
      withdrawal symptoms are known as “postpartum depression”.

      It should be noted that the “placenta” is the tool used by the unborn
      human, to commit those assaults. Remember that most women experience
      “morning sickness” in response to the stuff being dumped into her body,
      as pregnancy begins. While their bodies usually adapt to the assaults,
      abortion is the only known way to force those assaults to end quickly,
      when unwanted. Yes, there is an alternative to abortion, “forgiveness”,
      just as many more-ordinary assaults are forgiven (legal charges are not
      pressed). But forgiveness is always optional, not mandatory.

      Note that the preceding is another reason why God is not so stupid as
      to put new/innocent souls into unborn humans at conception; in just a
      few days a soul would become guilty-by-participation of assault,
      starting when the zygote has passed through the “morula” stage and
      become a “blastocyst” that implants into a womb. God is not so stupid as
      to put a soul into the situation where Assault becomes part of its
      Record for Judgment Day, even before being born!

      Finally, there is another and totally different relevant thing that
      can now be mentioned. Evolutionary biologists know that there are two
      major reproductive strategies followed by the majority of
      sexually-reproducing organisms in nature, called “R strategy” and “K
      strategy” (those are the extremes; many gradations exist between them).

      Imagine an alien species as intelligent as humanity, but biologically
      different in that its normal reproductive event yields a thousand
      offspring at a time. These are quite small and are released “into the
      wild”, where they will forage for food, and can grow to eventually
      become persons –except that most of them will die in the process, eaten
      by other life-forms.

      Humans are K-strategists; we normally have very few offspring at a
      time, and give them lots of nurturing and protection. But intelligent
      R-strategists will care very little about their offspring. Those small
      “growing” electronic machines previously described were deliberately
      introduced in terms of R-strategy reproduction, because they can be
      mass-manufactured by their True Artificial Intelligence “parents”.

      As long as two or three biological offspring reach adulthood for each
      breeding pair of R-strategist adults, no matter how many thousands of
      their other offspring die, the species can continue to survive. And it
      should be obvious that the intelligent adults must accept that
      situation, because anything else is a recipe for an ultra-extreme
      overpopulation disaster.

      The facts about K-strategy reproduction make it completely
      understandable how humans can object to killing some offspring by
      abortion. Caring for offspring is built-in! Nevertheless, it is usually
      very easy even for humans to make more –and to even make more offspring
      fast enough to end up with an overpopulation problem. Logically,
      therefore, humanity needs to learn that its natural tendencies to care
      for offspring can be over-done, and it is that thing, the over-doing of
      caring for offspring, which must be overcome. Too much of a good thing
      is always, always a bad thing!

      Women menstruate out of self-defense:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm

      Furthermore if the pain involved in childbirth were induced by other
      means, it would generally be recognized as a form of torture, and a
      nation that required women to undergo it would be found in violation of
      Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    • CJ99

      You just proved you’re not a support of life but hate that others can experience things (such as love) that you don’t have.

      I’m a person who hasn’t had much romance in his life. Difference is I’m not being hateful & jealous of those who do.

  • scott

    CThis is wrong on so many levels. I’m a single mom and NEVER NEVER did I consider aborting my baby. If anything else she made my life better. I have a better job a more stable relationship better friends… not to metion she could one day be the one to bring the cure to cancer

    • Quis ut Deus

      not to metion she could one day be the one to bring the cure to cancer

      UNBALANCED, since abortion might kill a Hitler. The two possibilities
      cancel each other out, leaving this argument neutral, with respect to
      the overall abortion debate.

      Furthermore, if a woman is permanently injured, dies, or has to quit school due to a forced birth, she could lose her chance to be the one to ‘cure cancer.’

      And besides, if you really want to play the potential game, every time you don’t have sex you are denying life to the potential person who might one day cure cancer.

    • Jennifer Starr

      She could also be the next Charles Manson, but I digress… I am glad you made the choice that is best for you. Please allow other women the freedom to make that choice as well.

  • Gecks

    Thanks for the lesson!
    Today I learned that cats don’t make abortion cute. Maybe tutus will do the trick!

    • CJ99

      maybe you should ask the tinfoil hat on your head you think keeps the real world. We can all see how well that works, which is not at all.

  • heather
  • johnV

    Where’s the cat that illustrates to keep your pants on and be responsible?! Why do you justify your selfish reason to abort (murder) a child because you are irresponsible and cannot control yourself? Why does the child have to pay for your immaturity and reckless mistakes. If you want to have sex, fine… protect yourself get on the pill. If you don’t want the responsibility, have your man wrap it up!

    • Quis ut Deus

      How much jail time should a woman get for aborting a pregnancy?

      And should rape victims be allowed to abort?

    • johnV

      Should the unborn, innocent child pay with his life because of the stupidity and the crimes of the adults?

    • Quis ut Deus

      So how much jail time should a rape victim get if she aborts the rape pregnancy at say 9 weeks which is when most abortions occur?

      Life in prison for the crime of murder?

      Rapists usually get only 15-30 years. Sometimes even less than 15.

      Tell us what you think JohnV.

    • johnV

      I don’t think rape victims should be punished for being a victim of a hideous crime such as rape… Obviously a rape victim didn’t ask to be raped… I also I don’t think that a poor, innocent child should be aborted… Obviously, the child did ask for his life to end before it began.

      Do you think that an unborn baby’s life should be terminated?

      Tell us what you think Quis ut Deus?

      By the way interesting choice for a name…. I wonder to which phrase are you referring to….

    • Quis ut Deus

      don’t think rape victims should be punished for being a victim of a hideous crime such as rape…

      Well you consider the removal of an embryo smaller than a pea to be ‘murder’ so, why not punish the rape victim as a murderer?

      If the rape victim gave birth and then snapped the neck of the newborn would you also choose not to punish her for murder because she didn’t ask to be raped?

    • CJ99

      Y’know its a common saying about having your cake & eating it too. And it went so far over your head you’d need a high end telescope to even see it.

    • Quis ut Deus

      And this is what a 1st trimester abortion looks like JohnV:

      http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

      So what do you say? Life in prison for the whore who got raped and then didn’t wanna carry the rapist’s offspring to term?

      Of are you in favour of the death penalty?

      What if the girl is 12 years old? or 9?

    • Quis ut Deus

      crimes of the adults?

      clearly you think the rape victim deserved it

    • johnV

      Clearly you like to create your own version of the argument. I no point did I ever type or refer to the rape victim deserving anything. I believe you are the type the thinks that two wrongs do make a right…. you must lead sad and cynical life.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Then why did you write’ crimes of the adults’?

    • johnV

      Rapist are criminals…. they’re adults.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Teens can rape too, you know.

      And you said ‘crimes of the adults’ – generally, in a rape situation, a man rapes a girl.

      If they are both adults…crimes of the adults.

    • johnV

      Teens, adults… semantics. If a teen rapes another… they should be tried as an adult.

      If you thought that my “crime of the adults” comment was referring to the victim as well, then you need to start pointing the finger in the mirror. It’s obvious that there is one criminal and one victim in that situation. So what I was referring to was that the unborn child should not be punished because of an idiot who commits a horrible crime of rape. The victim should not be jailed or anything absurd like you were saying… but the child shouldn’t be killed for that reason either. There a plenty of couples who can’t have children who would do anything to take that child.

      I answered your question… answer mine.

    • Quis ut Deus

      You consider abortion to be murder.

      Why are you giving rape victims a pass?

      And, you still haven’t answered my original question. In abortion that doesn’t result from rape how much jail time should women do? Life? 30 years? Remember..you said abortion = murder.

      Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    • johnV

      I didn’t give rape victims a pass…. I think they should keep the baby and give it to people who want but can’t have children.

      Yes. Abortion is murder. I’m no judge and I’m one person. So I can’t comment how long or the type of punishment would be. But there should be something. Not rape victims, but for the irresponsible and immature adults.

      I will however say that the only time abortion should happen, is if the mother’s life is in danger. Other than that… no

      Now answer and stop avoiding my question…. Should an unborn child die?

    • Quis ut Deus

      I didn’t give rape victims a pass…. I think they should keep the baby and give it to people who want but can’t have children.

      Yes you are. You are saying that abortion is murder but not the kind of murder that should be punished with life in prison.

      I’m no judge and I’m one person

      Well you think that abortion should be illegal because selfish sluts are ‘murdering’ their ‘babies’.

      So, if YOU personally consider a pea sized embryo to have the exact same moral value as a 5 year old child, and if you believe that a woman should go to prison for shooting her 5 year old in the head then you will agree with me that women who ‘murder’ the embryo should also pay with life in prison

      Yes?

      Should an unborn child die?

      Children are born entities. And no born child has the right to use another person’s body as life support. Parents cannot even be legally forced to donate blood and tissue to their children. Why do you want to force pregnant women to be gestational slaves? Oh right…because they are sluts.

    • johnV

      Who are the sluts you are referring to? Because I never called anyone a slut. It’s funny how you jump to that conclusion and you are so blinded to your misguided opinion.

      I like how you call women gestational slaves… real classy.

      You keep bringing up rape victims…. that’s your only argument. Even though, according to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, less than 1% of all abortions are performed on women who were raped or were victims of incest. But that’s enough for you to make abortion OK for all the so called “sluts” out there. Your words.

      Let’s not forget that YOU were once that pea sized embryo. And if people had it your way, you would have been aborted just because someone didn’t want your life to interfere with their career.

      My original comment (had you read it correctly) wasn’t to the rape victims, but to all those irresponsible adults that go around and have promiscuous relationships without caring about consequences… because all you have to do is go get an abortion… “Everything is better now! I’ll see you at the club tomorrow!”

      I believe that abortion is wrong… Make your excuses and continue your liberal trendy sheep life. Go ahead and make your senseless comments. Just remember that with abortion, the baby always die.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Because I never called anyone a slut. It’s funny how you jump to that
      conclusion and you are so blinded to your misguided opinion.

      You wrote this:

      Why do you justify your selfish reason to abort (murder) a child because you are irresponsible and cannot control yourself? Why does the child have to pay for your immaturity and reckless mistakes. If you want to have sex, fine… protect yourself get on the pill. If you don’t want the responsibility, have your man wrap it up!”

      That’s the very definition of slut-shaming, asshole.

      You keep bringing up rape victims…. that’s your only argument.

      I bring up rape victims because you consider all embryos to be actual children. You consider abortion to be MURDER. So, why on earth would you let a rape victim get away with MURDER? With KILLING HER BABY??? Please, be consistent.

      Let’s not forget that YOU were once that pea sized embryo. And if people had it your way, you would have been aborted just because someone didn’t want your life to interfere with their career.

      That embyro was not ‘me’. Due to how DNA is interpreted, ‘me’ never existed back then. Only a very basic genetic blueprint.

      And unlike you, I am not so selfish and narcissistic that I think ohter’s lives should be ruined because I am such a special snowflake. I don’t believe in enslaving others to serve me.

      but to all those irresponsible adults that go around and have promiscuous relationships without caring about consequences… because all you have to do is go get an abortion… “Everything is better now! I’ll see you at the club tomorrow!”

      Which is slut-shaming. 1 in 3 women will have an abortion. Many of them are married, monogamous and already have kids. And you’re a fucking idiot if you expect a married couple to remain CELIBATE for 40+ years of marriage.

      I believe that abortion is wrong… Make your excuses and continue your
      liberal trendy sheep life. Go ahead and make your senseless comments.
      Just remember that with abortion, the baby always die.

      Well if it’s murder and an honest to god ‘baby’ dies then you still have to tell me if the sluts who murder their baybeez should spend life in prison for the crime?

    • fiona64

      to all those irresponsible adults that go around and have promiscuous
      relationships without caring about consequences… because all you have
      to do is go get an abortion… “Everything is better now! I’ll see you
      at the club tomorrow!”

      Kind of a long-winded way of calling people sluts, IMO …

    • Quis ut Deus

      Hey, he is erudite and articulate about his slut-shaming:)

    • CJ99

      He is to articulate as Ed Wood was to movies.

    • CJ99

      John are you sure you’re not Rob Ford? you sound just like an angry violent drunken crackhead.

    • Jennifer Starr

      A rape victim is not obligated to go through nine months of a pregnancy which was forced upon her to provide some barren couple with a baby because they’re too selfish to adopt one of the 100K kids currently languishing in the foster care system.

    • johnV

      You’re right. But from a horrible situation can come a huge blessing. A pure and innocent child. That can be raised in a good family. With either the birth mother or a family who would love him forever.

      And nine months is nothing compared to never being born…

    • Jennifer Starr

      As long as the choice to continue the pregnancy is freely made by the victim herself, without coercion and pressure, and she feels mentally and physically prepared to do so, I have no problem with that. And I think that she deserves full support for her choice. I do, however, have a big problem with the law forcing a rape victim to carry a pregnancy against her will.

    • CJ99

      problem as we all know is said victims don’t get much if any support, they’re abandoned to their own devices by pro-lifers who are also avidly pushing for the widespread cancellation of programs that help the poor.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Oh yeah. There’s actually a story on Reality Check about a woman who was raped and chose to keep and raise the child. The CPC she visited was no help at all, they tried to make her feel like the rape was her fault and tried to pressure her into giving the baby up for adoption. However, Planned Parenthood was able to help give her the resources for what she wanted to do.

    • Quis ut Deus

      I had a good laugh when PrincessJasmine the moron told us that CPC’s are at the front lines of contraception, sex ed, free healthcare, food. housing…everything for women’s health!!

    • Jennifer Starr

      Oh that’s just too, too funny…

    • Quis ut Deus

      I bet she is going to claim that we are strawmanning her!

      Too bad she doesn’t know what a strawman* is!!

      Oh well, what else should we expect from a pathological liar..

      Who sounds retarded yet claims to have gone to a private school in France..

      Claims to have a rich husband who ‘pays the bills with his guitar’

      Claims to teach ‘female ejaculation’ courses…and claims to have Louis XIV furniture…

      And lastly, uses the photo of a famous actress on her facebook and pretends to be that actress…

      And hilariously, thinks I am stalking her, all because a little bird told me about her LIES :)

      Indeed. What a tangled web you have woven, eh Jasmine?

      You should *really* see a doctor about those delusions..It isn’t healthy.

      *And it isn’t a strawman Jasmine, since you DID in fact claim that CPC’s and the pro-life movement are at the forefront of sex ed, contraception, pre and post natal healthcare…etc etc

      ———

      Anyways, time to get back to my game. As entertaining as Jasmine’s pathetic lies are, it’s more fun killing orcs. I mean, killing BABIES.

    • Jennifer Starr

      That’s not stalking.
      Picketing someone’s private residence, sending threatening letters, posting private information online,protesting in front of their child’s school, making up wanted posters and sending pamphlets to neighbors–now that’s actually stalking. And “pro-lifers” engage in and support most if not all of those activities.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      You know what, I agree with you.
      But
      Not every pro lifers engages in that behavior

    • Jennifer Starr

      I am aware that not every pro-lifer does that, yes. However, there are some pretty prominent people in the movement who support at least some of this behavior. Jill Stanek, for instance is a big supporter of home protests, as she calls them, and posts videos of them from time to time. Check out a youtube channel called jc4runner, for instance. She also supports sending pamphlets and letters to the neighbors. And in the early ’90s Troy Newman (Operation Rescue), took advantage of the fact that Kansas did not yet have anti-stalking laws in order to follow and terrorize clinic workers in Wichita–even going so far as to have them followed while they were shopping in the supermarket.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      Hmmmm….

      I’m not sure if I should be flattered or alarmed that your life is so pathetic that you need to try to stalk me. Oh wait… your ‘friend’ told you… that’s right.

      I know how desperate you are to need to believe that my life is as pathetic, terrible and uneventful as yours and that I somehow must be lying.
      It’s ok dear…
      I quite understand.

      You go ahead and believe whatever you like. It’s no skin off my back.
      I just appreciate being able to laugh at you. So I thank you at the very least for your entertainment value.

      If I’m telling the truth, then your life is even more pathetic and sad than you’ve ever realized (yes, I know that you know how sad and pathetic you are).

      I get it, I know how you feel.

      All you have is your sad little computer screen which you frequent all too often.

      I get that your jealous. I’ve had to deal with jealously all my life…. (oddly, even when I was poor college student)

      I’m sorry that my lifestyle is so offensive to you… it’s the classic tale of the Have’s vs the Have-Nots.

      But’s it’s ok.. i understand your insecurities… I had them once too.

      Oh, and I don’t have time for facebook , you silly little girl!
      I actually have a life.

      At any rate.. You’re attitude just makes it easier for fence sitter to come over the pro life side.

      So please… keep up the hate, the lies and the straw men.

      *And I never said that CPC’s were at the forefront of sex ed and contraception.

      I said that the local CPC helped me during MY crisis pregnancy.

      To be exact, this is what I said:

      CPC’s really help women. When I was faced with my unwanted pregnancy, the local CPC helped me tremendously
      They helped me (and countless others) financially and they helped me with day care after my first child was born so that I could continue my education and start a career.
      Planned Parenthood doesn’t do that.

      You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills as you have none. I’m also sorry that you’re not very bright. You get an “A” in copy and paste
      But, unfortunately, you’re not very bright
      At.
      All.

      Ok.. kids are going nuts vying for my attention and I have to help my oldest with play practice—he’s got the lead this year! :-)

      Not sure I’ll be answering your verbal diarrhea anytime soon, but please feel free to continue to provide me with the rich entertainment
      I love it! :-)

      PS.
      You really should try ejaculating sometime.
      It’s amazing.
      As a fair warning though, once you start, it’s hard to stop.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Yes, you caught me. I am jealous of your rich fantasy life. . YOU wish I was. However, the boring story is that I mentioned, in passing, to a friend, that you were an idiot, and that friend happens to read LAN and other pro-life sites. She told me that you were fond of inventing stories about yourself. We had a laugh.

      No honey, sorry, you also said that the pro-life movement was on the forefront of contraception. sex ed, and healthcare and charity.

      You get an “A” in copy and paste

      I do. Because unlike you, I actually back up my claims. And not once were you able to refute the words of the embryologists I referenced…

      ————

      And I was just taunting you. For the entertainment. Thanks for *stalking* me and responding to the bait.

      I could be nice, and say that you ‘made my night’. But honestly, your response was well, exactly what I expected from you.

      Laughable.
      Pitiful.

      Cheers!

    • Quis ut Deus

      OH, and the fact that you have been obsessively keeping track of all my nickname changes…
      And telling everyone that I am utterly depraved..

      lolololololol
      hahahahaahahahaha
      hahahahahahahahahahaahahah

      Who is stalking who, sweetie?

      I don’t read LAN, as I said, I find it boring. It’s just an echo chamber. However, I do have little birds who keep me apprised of the silly lies that you invent;)

      You must be really desperate for attention. If your life was as fulfilling as you say, you wouldn’t have to pretend that you’re being stalked. Dumbass.

      I am going to return to my game. Do enjoy your life of leisure, you gorgeous rich rock star wife you!

      If only pro-choicers were as *fabulous* as you.

      /faint

    • CJ99

      Perhaps she should invent a story about being kidnapped by people from venus. With any luck they’d keep her there.

    • CJ99

      Your so delusional its almost scarey, you openly support such activities and in the same breath claim to be the victim of the same.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Honestly, I’ve read Jackie Collins novels with more realism than the story you’ve been telling about your life.

    • PrincessJasmine4

      Meh
      Not so concerned about the opinion if someone who reads Jackie Collins novels Haters gonna hate
      Believe whatever makes you feel better about your own life dear

      Doesn’t change anything for me

    • fiona64

      It reads more like a crappy After-School Special to me …

    • Jennifer Starr

      Or an extremely cheesy Lifetime Movie :)

    • CJ99

      More like the latest Kirk Cameron flick that debuted in the mal wart bargain bin for less than a cup of mcdonalds “coffee”

    • fiona64

      Why would you need so much financial help if you’re rolling in dough, sweetie?

    • PrincessJasmine4

      Another pro abort with no reading comprehension skills
      *eye roll*
      And you’re telling me to get an education

      Go back and actually read what I wrote sweetie
      Perhaps you’re the one who needs an education

      Go slow and start with the basics
      You don’t want to hurt yourself

    • fiona64

      I’m sorry, did I confuse you? I’ll try to make it even simpler for you.

      You claim to be filthy rich, but you had to get financial help from a CPC.

      Which one is it, little girl?

    • PrincessJasmine4

      I’m sorry
      I’ll go even slower for you
      I was a poor college student
      I even stated that in one of my replies

      Slow enuf? Or should I dumb it down even more?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Didn’t you supposedly attend posh private schools in Europe when you were young?

    • PrincessJasmine4

      *eye roll*
      Do I really need to explain myself to you?

      When I got pregnant… I was really on my own. :-(

      My parents didn’t talk to me for like 2 years…not even to see their own grandson.

      I’m sure that last part makes you especially happy.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Depends on what you define as especially wealthy. Even someone who would be classified as ‘upper middle class’ would have trouble paying the fees for a private exclusive boarding school, either here or abroad.

    • Quis ut Deus
    • Jennifer Starr

      And pretty lousy parents, too.

    • fiona64

      I can very well believe that you were a poor college student (and a poor elementary school student to boot, since you can’t spell “enough” correctly …).

    • Quis ut Deus

      She, while lecturing me on my ‘stupidity’ would often misspell:

      1) conscious as ‘conscientious’

      2) beginning as ‘begging’

      And some I can’t even remember, but I had a good laugh when she kept telling me that feti were ‘conscientious’

      And then she blamed it on being ‘up late’

      She’s a barrel of laughs, this one.

    • CJ99

      In your case no, your brand of willfull ignorance is incurable. You refuse to admit you’ve got a problem.

    • CJ99

      paying bills with guitar is probly her way of saying paying an overdue bill by pawning a guitar.

    • CJ99

      Are those the places with candy cane fountains & streets paved with gold?

      I never stop wondering how those people don’t gag themselves with a spoon.

    • Quis ut Deus

      Yes, and they always claim victory even when wrong.

      Marcus Fenix here claimed that forcing a woman to remain pregnant is righteous because:

      1) organ donation is forced in china

      2) pregnancy is an exception to the rule that we don’t force people to biologically support others, cuz it is!

      and he is bragging that he ‘crushed that crap’

      lolololol

    • Quis ut Deus

      So you believe that rape is a blessing?

      Sicko

    • CJ99

      Put the shoe on the other foot & tell everyone here if you’d be willing to put the shoe on the other foot & have yourself permanently sterlized so more children don’t end up as orphans.

    • fiona64

      I think they should keep the baby and give it to people who want but can’t have children.

      That’s a mighty generous position of you, an anti-choice male who will never have his life or health endangered by a pregnancy, to take with other people’s bodies.

      Why are those people who “want but can’t have children” bothering with some of the 100K children currently available for adoption in this country alone? Are you really arguing that they are owed the contents of a pregnant rape victim’s uterus?

    • CJ99

      then you are not pro-life you are pro-abuser.

    • Quis ut Deus

      There a plenty of couples who can’t have children who would do anything to take that child.

      a rape victim doesn’t *owe* infertile couples a child

      politics and prejudice are what make adoption difficult; the world is over-full of adoptable babies, as proved by so many of them starving to death every year. If the politics regarding international adoptions was simplified, then anyone who wants to adopt will be able to succeed at it. And any who dislike the available choices will be exhibiting prejudice, such that they probably don’t deserve to adopt.

      100k kids stuck in the US adoption system. Why does a rape victim have to go through a painful pregnancy for people who won’t adopt a black kid. Or a disabled kid. Or one of the 100k who are not healthy white male babies?

    • CJ99

      I was a caucasian male baby & was adopted. Back then at the start of the 70′s if I wasn’t an infant or was asian / black / female or any combination of those I’m certain I wouldn’t have have been adopted. but the life I’ve had with the fanatical christians I ended up with was worse than being an orphan.

    • Quis ut Deus

      And were you made to feel grateful that you were adopted?

      There have been many stories of adoption on RHRC, and adoptees speak out about how they are often erased from the picture.

      How they are supposed to never complain, or be unhappy, because ‘hey, you were given the gift of life and adopted by a loving family!!’

      Nothing but one big guilt trip.

    • CJ99

      Actually as far as I know the adoption wasn’t catholic though it was in a catholic area. And yeah my adoptive family still acts this way to this day. Theirs is the kind of love that makes me feel like the orphanage was the better alternative. Theres been times I wished I was asian, a girl or both. they do think being male & caucasian is somehow more virtuous but in my life it’s been anything but. In fact many times they’ve gone out of their way to decry me as unworthy cause I’m “not of their blood”.

    • fiona64

      There a plenty of couples who can’t have children who would do anything to take that child.

      Then they should get on the goddamned stick and adopt one of the 100K kids currently available for adoption in this country … most of whom will “age out” of the system without having permanent homes while some selfish couple whines about having to wait for a perfectly healthy Caucasian (preferably male) newborn. Most recent statistics are here for your edification: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-20

    • CJ99

      So “john” how many women have you raped?

      yeah not so much fun when the accusatory questions fall back on yourself.

    • tsara

      Yep, if the person who is pregnant thinks it should. Why? Because it has fuck-all to do with the “child” and everything to do with the invasion of the pregnant person’s body.

    • CJ99

      The only crime is the 1 your advocating that being the crime forcing rape victims to have their attackers children victiminzing them many times over. You “johnV” are one sick puppy.

    • fiona64

      Where’s the cat that illustrates to keep your pants on and be responsible?

      Well, there it is, folks: “If you don’t want to be pregnant, keep your legs shut.”

      Yeah, no anti-choicer has ever said that … /sarcasm

      And John, like so many of his ilk, is naive enough to believe that all contraception is 100 percent effective. Laughable.

  • http://soarlikeaturkey.com/ Tony McGurk

    I’m not getting involved in this touchy subject but I love the way you used the cats. Gotta love that overpopulation photo

  • Maddi Holmes

    I feel like some prolife people think the choice to have an abortion kis like this: “Woops! Slipped and had an abortion!”

    The comments on this article are really depressing. Sorry everyone but if I get pregnant now (I’m 17) I’m aborting faster than you can say abortion.

  • Pingback: I Interview Pattie Mallette About Justin Bieber Believe

  • MollieZHemingway

    “Mommyish is a parenting website. … we also support people who don’t
    want to become parents.”

    Having an abortion doesn’t mean you’re not a parent. It just means you are a mother to a dead child.

    • RonPaul2012

      Children are born entities.

  • Lela

    I just don’t understand pro choice people. I’m all 4 equality between woman & men (I’m a girl!) but why should the WANT of the mum come before the LIFE of the baby. And most pro choice feminists are against gender based abortion, but that’s agnologing the RIGHT of the fetus. Should a humans right to live really depend on why the mum wants to give them up? And I know there’s the violinist argument but willfull disregard for human life is against the law (in Canada). So it’s just not logical. Don’t get me wrong, I really feel for those women who feel so hopeless they think they have to do that, but its a human all the same. At least it schouldnt be on demand. There should have to be proof it will endanger the mothers life.

    • Defamate

      but that’s agnologing

      New word?

      And I know there’s the violinist argument but willfull disregard for human life is against the law (in Canada).

      Really? I thought it was legal in Canada. with no laws whatsoever restricting it.

      There should have to be proof it will endanger the mothers life.

      Does a woman have a right to avoid permanent disability? Or should she go blind/cancer/diabetes/obstetric fistula/permanent nerve damage/sepsis/prolapsed uterus/anemia/broken bones/vaginal and anal tearing/multiple sclerosis/depression/psychosis/hemorrhoids/osteoperosis/pelvic floor disorder/permanent injury hip dysplasia affecting walking/riding bike

      Should a woman be forced by law risk all that for a microscopic zygote?

  • Tyler

    To be able to murder for convenience is the most entitled attitude I have ever come across.

    • Mirable

      “That means each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.”

      Data modeling suggesting 21/100,000 US maternal mortality rate

      In 2004/2005, 1.7 million women per year suffered adverse health effects

      http://search.worldbank.org/data?qterm=us%20maternal%20mortality%20rate&language=EN

      http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

      http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html

      http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/10/torn-apart-by-childbirth

      http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/opera-singer-suing-hospital-episiotomy-left-her-severe-162302400.html

      http://healthland.time.com/2014/02/13/increased-risk-of-blood-clots-lasts-12-weeks-after-pregnancy-not-six/

      Women denied abortion slip deeper into poverty:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/magazine/study-women-denied-abortions.html?pagewanted=all

      Normal, frequent
      or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

      exhaustion (weariness
      common from first weeks)

      altered appetite
      and senses of taste and smell

      nausea and vomiting
      (50% of women, first trimester)

      heartburn and indigestion

      constipation

      weight gain

      dizziness and light-headedness

      bloating, swelling,
      fluid retention

      hemmorhoids

      abdominal cramps

      yeast infections

      congested, bloody
      nose

      acne and mild skin
      disorders

      skin discoloration
      (chloasma, face and abdomen)

      mild to severe backache
      and strain

      increased headaches

      difficulty sleeping,
      and discomfort while sleeping

      increased urination
      and incontinence

      bleeding gums

      pica

      breast pain and
      discharge

      swelling of joints,
      leg cramps, joint pain

      difficulty sitting,
      standing in later pregnancy

      inability to take
      regular medications

      shortness of breath

      higher blood pressure

      hair loss

      tendency to anemia

      curtailment of ability
      to participate in some sports and activities

      infection
      including from serious and potentially fatal disease

      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with
      non-pregnant women, and
      are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

      extreme pain on
      delivery

      hormonal mood changes,
      including normal post-partum depression

      continued post-partum
      exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section
      – major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
      fully recover)

      Normal, expectable,
      or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

      stretch marks (worse
      in younger women)

      loose skin

      permanent weight
      gain or redistribution

      abdominal and vaginal
      muscle weakness

      pelvic floor disorder
      (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers
      and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal
      incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus,
      the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

      changes to breasts

      varicose veins

      scarring from episiotomy
      or c-section

      other permanent
      aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed
      by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

      increased proclivity
      for hemmorhoids

      loss of dental and
      bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

      higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

      newer research indicates
      microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and
      mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

      Occasional complications
      and side effects:

      complications of episiotomy

      spousal/partner
      abuse

      hyperemesis gravidarum

      temporary and permanent
      injury to back

      severe
      scarring
      requiring later surgery
      (especially after additional pregnancies)

      dropped (prolapsed)
      uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
      pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
      and enterocele)

      pre-eclampsia
      (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated
      with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

      eclampsia (convulsions,
      coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

      gestational diabetes

      placenta previa

      anemia (which
      can be life-threatening)

      thrombocytopenic
      purpura

      severe cramping

      embolism
      (blood clots)

      medical disability
      requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
      many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
      or baby)

      diastasis recti,
      also torn abdominal muscles

      mitral valve stenosis
      (most common cardiac complication)

      serious infection
      and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

      hormonal imbalance

      ectopic pregnancy
      (risk of death)

      broken bones (ribcage,
      “tail bone”)

      hemorrhage
      and

      numerous other complications
      of delivery

      refractory gastroesophageal
      reflux disease

      aggravation of pre-pregnancy
      diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5%
      of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment
      prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

      severe post-partum
      depression and psychosis

      research now indicates
      a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments,
      including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors

      research also now
      indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity
      in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

      research also indicates
      a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary
      and cardiovascular disease

      Less common (but
      serious) complications:

      peripartum cardiomyopathy

      cardiopulmonary
      arrest

      magnesium toxicity

      severe hypoxemia/acidosis

      massive embolism

      increased intracranial
      pressure, brainstem infarction

      molar pregnancy,
      gestational trophoblastic disease
      (like a pregnancy-induced
      cancer)

      malignant arrhythmia

      circulatory collapse

      placental abruption

      obstetric fistula

      More
      permanent side effects:

      future infertility

      permanent disability

      death.

      ———–

      Pregnancy maims and kills. Unless you believe that all people should be forced to undergo the above’ minor inconveniences’ to save a life, you can shut your trap.

    • myintx

      If a woman’s life is truly endangered then an abortion can be done to save her life, otherwise there would be 2 dead human beings instead of one. Abortions to save the woman’s life are rare though.
      Most abortions are done for selfish reasons and reasons of convenience.

    • Mirable

      Citation needed. Oh, and a lifesaving abortion can’t exactly save a woman from death during childbirth can it? For that matter, not all lifesaving abortions actually save the woman’s life. She might just die anyway.

      Also, you seem to think that abortion only counts in the case of life or death. So, if a woman has sex, you think it is ethical to impose permanent injury on her? Should she suffer disability for the rest of her life?

    • myintx

      From surveys on excuses for abortions (source: Guttmacher), ‘fear of getting injured during childbirth’ isn’t in the main excuses listed.
      If a woman has a fear of getting injured she can avoid getting pregnant in a consensual relationship. Once pregnant though, there are TWO (occasionally more) human beings involved in the pregnancy. Interesting how pro-aborts seem to forget that.

    • Mirable

      If a woman has a fear of getting injured she can avoid getting pregnant in a consensual relationship.

      All known forms of contraception fail.

      From surveys on excuses for abortions (source: Guttmacher), ‘fear of getting injured during childbirth’ isn’t in the main excuses listed.

      So? The risk is still there. Pregnancy is not a minor inconvenience. Or is it? Have you started gestating those IVF embryos yet sweetie?

    • myintx

      The risk can be minimized to almost zero. More than 40% of women who kill their unborn child admit to not having used birth control AT ALL in the month they became pregnant. If they weren’t worried about birth control, I guess they weren’t paranoid about potential complications if they became pregnant. I’d bet most of the rest of the women who have abortions only used one form of protection… guess they weren’t paranoid either.
      Paranoia seems to be something that YOU suffer from.

    • Mirable

      800 dead per year isn’t almost zero. Neither are the 1.2 million injured per year. And those numbers are rising.

      We do not require anyone else, under any circumstances, to risk death and permanent injury to save a life.

      So, why the special rules for pregnancy? Why should a fetus have rights that no human being has? And why should a woman be stripped of her constitutional rights the minute she has sex? Even prisoners are not forced to donate organs. Or people guilty of causing an accident through negligence.

      And if those risks are ‘almost zero’ then please explain why you have NOT yet started gestating a snowflake baby that will soon be incinerated. Too inconvenient for you? Are you too selfish to donate your body to create life?

    • myintx

      About 1 MILLION unborn children are killed every year. No concern about them eh?
      Every innocent human being should have a right to LIFE.
      There is no ‘constitutional rights’ to kill an unborn child. There were so-called ‘rights’ given by a WRONG Supreme Court decision. One that misinterpreted the constitution. One that should be overturned.;
      A parent has a responsibility to take care of their child. That responsibility (I know you HATE that word, lol) should start before the child is born.

    • Mirable

      Every innocent human being should have a right to LIFE.

      So you support forced organ/blood/tissue donation across the board to help innocent people, yes?

    • myintx

      I support parental responsibility – a parent has a responsibility to take care of the basic needs of their children – food and shelter. That responsibility should start the moment their child comes into existence – at fertilization.

    • Mirable

      So you would let a baby that wasn’t related to you die instead of helping it simply because you’re not genetically related?

      What the fuck is wrong with you sick fucking sicko?

    • myintx

      I never said I would… would you?

    • Mirable

      Yes you would. You said that ONLY parents have any responsibility whatsoever to children.

    • myintx

      Legally only parents and guardians have a responsibility to children. Parents are obligated to provide basic food and shelter to their child. It’s the law. That obligation should start from the moment they become parents – at fertilization.

    • Mirable

      Pregnancy is not merely providing’ food and shelter’ and you know it. Your teenager doesn’t live inside your body, taking iron and calcium from your blood, raising your blood pressure, and shitting and peeing into your bloodstream. Your teenager also doesn’t shove it’s head up your pussy, causing intense pain.

      So, do you agree that all parents should be forced to donate their bodies to save their children – inside and outside of the womb?

      And, are you telling me that you’d let a newborn die because you’re too selfish to donate blood to it?

    • myintx

      Parents are responsible for providing basic food and shelter for their children, and they should not kill them. The responsibility should start when their child is conceived. It’s as simple as that.

    • Mirable

      Pregnancy is not ‘basic food and shelter’

      Pregnancy is far more serious, as I explained. So, why the double standard? you want to give prenates a right that no born child has. You would let a newborn die because the parents are too selfish to donate their bodies to save it’s life. Why is that?

    • myintx

      There is no double standard.
      - Every innocent human being should have a right to life (born and unborn)
      - No one should kill an innocent child (born or unborn)
      - Parents should provide basic food and shelter for their child – born and unborn.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Anyone can care for a child once it is born. Only the woman can be pregnant. You can’t be pregnant for her, so you don’t get to make her reproductive decisions.

    • myintx

      And, if there was no one around to care for a child once it was born and a woman just HAD to go to that party? What would she do? OH NO!!!! She would be inconvenienced! Could she kill her child then?
      Oh, and what about the so-called “mental anguish” of putting her child up for adoption? You know, if she has pro-abort friends that say adoption is worse than abortion. She’d have to either keep the child or suffer that mental anguish of putting her child up for adoption… poor woman. Can she kill her child then?
      A woman makes her own reproductive decisions when having consensual sex. Once pregnant there is a living human being inside the mother’s womb. She should not be able to kill it for senseless and selfish reasons.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Not quite the same thing. A big difference between being pregnant and having a born child, despite the fact that you keep trying to pretend that there isn’t. The uterus is not just a location.

    • myintx

      The same human beings are involved though – a woman and her child (born or unborn). Death should not be part of the picture – at all.

    • Mirable

      If someone was to assault you the way the prenate assaults the woman, you would be within your rights to remove them from your person – even if it killed them.

      Why do you make special rules for prenates that you will not apply to everyone else, Mathilde? Or do you think that a rapist’s life is more important than your right not to be brutally raped?

    • myintx

      There are no special rules – every innocent human should have a right to life.

    • Mirable

      Does the rapists right to life override your right to bodily autonomy?

    • myintx

      I said INNOCENT. A rapist isn’t INNOCENT.
      And a rapist isn’t going to die if he doesn’t rape anyone… so, your statement is wacked.

    • Mirable

      If the rapist is sleepwalking or mentally I’ll ze is also innocent.

    • myintx

      A rapist isn’t innocent.

    • Mirable

      If they are sleepwalking or schizophrenic they are.

    • myintx

      He still doesn’t have a ‘right’ to rape anyone. And, if a woman killed her rapist while he was attacking her she wouldn’t be charged, even if they determined he was sleepwalking or schizophrenic.

    • Mirable

      A fetus assaults a woman’s body. Often worse than a rapist. Or are you going to tell me that hours of painful labour and a bowling ball sized object shoved inside your genitals isn’t a violent painful torturous experience? If a sleepwalking rapist committed the exact same assaults on your body that a fetus does, you would be within your rights to kill in self defense if that was the only way to escape the torture. The fetus may not torture you with intent, but neither does the sleepwalker who is unconscious- just like the fetus. An assault on your body is an assault no matter who or what does it.

    • myintx

      If a woman doesn’t want a bowling ball inside her, in most cases, she can avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Once pregnant though, there are 2 (occasionally more) lives to consider. BOTH should have a right to life. Unless your life is truly endangered by the pregnancy, suck it up and do the right thing so that a new human being can have a possibility of a full and productive life. Quit being a selfish wimp.

    • Mirable

      So if you invite someone on a boat, and they start raping the shit out of you, and the only way you can escape is by throwing them off said boat, you cannot do so, because you asked for the torture in the first place? (by inviting them on the boat)

    • myintx

      Rape is a CRIME. Pregnancy is not a crime.

    • Mirable

      Using someone’s body against their will and assaulting them in the process IS a crime. A fetus assaults a woman to stay alive. Period. If the assaults committed on a woman by a fetus during pregnancy were committed by a stranger on that woman, the stranger would be guilty of assault and thrown in jail. Or, in the absence of jail, the woman would be within her rights to kill the stranger in order to escape.

      Your argument holds no water. You keep talking about ‘equal rights’. Well, if your husband or a stranger can’t torture you the way a fetus does, then the fetus should NOT have that right either.

    • myintx

      “Using someone’s body against their will and assaulting them in the process IS a crime.” – Abortion after viability is restricted in most states – your statement does NOT apply to pregnancy. HA!

      If a woman didn’t want to be pregnant, in 99% of cases, there are ways to prevent that. Killing a human being is WRONG – before or after birth. Parents have a responsibility to provide the basic needs of food and shelter to their children. That should apply to unborn children as well. Unless their life is truly endangered from the pregnancy, any parent who does not do that is SELFISH.

    • Mirable

      No human being – born or unborn – has the right to torture another human being in order to preserve their life.

      Period. You are trying to give rights to feti that no human being has. You lose.

      http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/write.ign.com/22365/2011/05/laughing-cat-300×291.jpg

    • myintx

      So, if a newborn baby wakes up at midnight and wakes its parents up, is that torture? can the parent kill it? CPS isn’t open at midnight, and the thought of putting her baby up for adoption tortures her… OH NO..A woman may lose sleep. What will she do? OH, I know… KILL her newborn! NO, she will suck it up, live with it.
      If your lame statement had ANY credibility, there would not be post-viability abortion restrictions! DUH!

    • Mirable
    • myintx

      No valid rebuttal I see. lol

    • Mirable
    • Mirable

      Pregnancy is not ‘basic food and shelter’

      The right to life does not include using another person’s body as life support – especially when that use involves physical assault – which is what pregnancy is.

      And all of those ivf embryos that are NOT gestated by selfish people such as yourself are incinerated. So no, you don’t give a flying fuck about life. If you did, you’d gestate one -but you’re too lazy and selfish to do so. You consider pregnancy to be too great an inconvenience for you.

    • myintx

      A parent should have a responsibility to provide basic food and shelter for THEIR unborn child. Pregnancy is the only way that can be done now.
      I am a responsible person. I take care of my family (never killed a child – born or unborn) and do what I can to help others.
      You, on the other hand, hate the word RESPONSIBILITY. You’d kill to get out of being responsible because all you can think about is ‘me, me, me, me, me, OH, and me!’

    • lady_black

      Murder is a word that has a meaning. I’m betting you don’t know that “murder” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    • Mirable

      “Murder” is just a euphemism for ‘masturbate’

  • dansama

    The baby is given no choice if people want to have sex. The baby is given no choice if people conceive that baby. The baby is given no choice if wants to slaughter the baby before or after birth(Yes it does happen after birth too) for fun, profit, convenience, or to be tough like your friends. What does that make you now??? Pro-aborts are bloodsucking vampires. Pro-aborts actually have so much in common with vampires, seriously. Not that I am arguing for the existence of vampires, but pro-aborts are so hideously evil, seriously, which are more merciless and oblivious to their owns actions and reasons for them?

    • Mirable

      You want to enslave women to a microscopic cell that can kill and maim them.

      You think that women are of less value than a cell that doesn’t even have a nervous system.

      You’re the monster here, not women who want to be treated like people, not incubators.

    • dansama

      Try that crap on the LORD when HE throws you into the Lake of Fire. You are obviously not one of HIS. Beside that, you find it repugnant to show mercy to even a little baby, and HE promises in the Bible to show no mercy to you on that terrible day. Remember, you brought it on yourself.

    • Mirable

      God is pro genocide and pro fetus killing.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Old Danny Boy is also pretty racist against Muslims and pretty much everyone who isn’t white and male. He’s left several expletive-laden rants on youtube that I’m not going to repeat here–such family values. What a ‘lovely’ man, huh? .

    • Mirable

      His own words will judge him. How ironic.

    • CJ99

      First try your own crap on god and see how far you get. The creator is not your henchman you can use to threaten anyone who calls you on the garbage you spew. It’s unbelievable arrogance on your part to think that you alone speak for god and that he won’t speak for himself. In fact if you ever met him you’re the one who’d be in for a shock. Mirable was right, you are disgusting.

    • dansama

      Your own words will judge you, and they are a part of you like festering sores.

    • CJ99

      Nope, you don’t get to judge anybody as you’re not the creator. Really nobody cares what a sadsack troll you are. Look around nobodies agreeing with you. And the vengeful maniac you think god is, is farthest from reality as you can get. The delicious irony is when people look past your trolling is how laughable you can be, but that doesn’t justify your hubris. Sooo buh bye & don’t let the door smash your butt on the way out.

    • dansama

      Yes! Far, far more will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire than enter the Kingdom of God, and I will not be the one sending you there. Your own heart will witness against you. The Lake of Fire, a truly terrifying site, spreads out before you like space itself. Your torment will never end. As in the Great Flood, having the great majority in numbers will avail you no advantage whatever.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Wow–you’re a real ray of sunshine, Danny Boy–just listen to that ‘Christian love’.

    • dansama

      Ever sad for you will it be when you remember on that day that you refused to listen.

    • Jennifer Starr

      To who? A crazy racist old man? I don’t think so.

    • dansama

      Think what you will, I know you will anyway, but at least I did try to help you.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yeah, I saw the expletive-ridden garbage you’ve posted on youtube and a cached copy of your suspended twitter account–easy to see why it was suspended. Your kind of help I don’t need. No one does.

    • dansama

      Very similar words to Noah before he went into the Ark.

    • Mirable

      The bigger the cushion the sweeter the pushin’

    • dansama

      Is that some kind of reference to sex? Makes no sense, not that much what you people say does. Sounds more like a growing lust for more innocent blood to me.

    • Mirable

      Even Rottweilers follow the Impala

    • Jennifer Starr

      Love on the rocks, ain’t no big surprise.

    • Mirable

      :P

    • Jennifer Starr

      If you think that any of the filth you’ve posted on youtube or twitter is biblical in any way, you are truly delusional.

    • Mirable

      I prefer the filth that I am posting.

    • Jennifer Starr

      As do I.

    • dansama

      I have no desire for filth. I am conveying and accurate portrayal of the picture here.

    • Mirable

      YOU GIVE LOVE A BAD NAME

    • Jennifer Starr

      It’s been a while since I’ve read the bible, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t include the filthy stuff you’ve posted. Or the racist stuff, either.

    • dansama

      I could get into the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words here, but there is no point. Your mind is bent that way and there is no way to converse with you without a total twisting of what I say.

    • Mirable

      You keep comin’ back for more.

    • dansama

      Just hoping when there is no reason too.

    • Mirable

      Ain’t nobody left out. Everybody gets to go. It can never be too crowded.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Oh first they say they want you, how they really need you, suddenly you find you’re out there, walking in a storm.

    • Mirable

      Let the good times roll.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yes, your favorite word would appear to be a constant stream of English variations of merde, laced with the ‘n’ word. Are you really trying to claim that as Christian language?

    • Mirable

      Sounds like Dr Dre (I am listening to him now btw)

    • dansama

      I was making a point. But very few people also understood what the LORD said either. What you thou thought was ‘cussing’ was really something else when referring to people who would shoot a little baby in the face, or cut a boy’s throat on a school bus, not that you would care.

    • Jennifer Starr

      No, it was cussing.

    • dansama

      Like I said, you do not care.

    • Mirable

      Like I said, you do not care..

    • Jennifer Starr

      It’s a stiff. Bereft of life, he rests in piece. If you hadn’t nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies.

    • dansama

      You too, huh?

    • dansama

      Like I said, you do not care.

    • Mirable

      Like I said, you do not care.

    • dansama

      Parrot.

    • Mirable

      I can taste you on my lips and smell you in my clothes.

    • dansama

      Sounds not so flattering.

    • Mirable

      I want to take you to a gay bar.

    • dansama

      Ok, but you will be disappointed to know that I have already repented from the gay lifestyle and I can give them the gospel same as anyone else.

    • Mirable

      I want to stick something in you.

      At the gay bar.

    • dansama

      Probably a knife, if your honest about it.

    • Mirable

      7 inches

    • dansama

      Thought you said we wanted things for each other?

    • Mirable

      It would be awesome; if we could dance.

    • dansama

      I doubt that.

    • Mirable

      I wanna make it last forever.

    • dansama

      So, what you are saying is that opposites attract? I am not feeling the attraction yet.

    • Mirable

      I”ve got so much love, I don’t know where to put it.

    • dansama

      You make yourself sound like a Black Widow that destroys every male it comes across.

    • Jennifer Starr

      If a boy had a chance, a chance with someone like you. Are you gonna break his heart, let him cry for the moon?

    • dansama

      I am not gay anymore. He needs Jesus Christ as his LORD and SAVIOUR.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Buying bread from a man in Brussels. He was six foot four and full of muscles.

    • ansuz

      Oh I am a man on an Odyssey, so tie me to the mast I must believe!

    • ansuz

      Eye patch tongue ring little black hook
      Welcome fishies to my hook

    • Mirable

      I’m just an average man with an average life. I work from 9 to 5.
      Hey, hell, I pay the price. All I want is to be left alone. In my average home

    • ansuz

      I like the sound of St Petersburg bells banging in my head.

    • ansuz

      I am in the air now, I am in your lungs

    • ansuz

      They put the bottle with the corpse to keep that whiskey cold

    • Jennifer Starr

      It’s not pining, it’s passed on.. This parrot is no more. He has ceased to be.

    • Mirable

      oh yeah, tell it like it is Jenn

    • Jennifer Starr

      It’s a stiff. Bereft of life, he rests

    • dansama

      Huh? Your what hurts?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Our chief weapon is surprise… surprise and fear… fear and surprise… our two weapons are fear and surprise… and ruthless efficiency. Our three weapons are fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our four… no… amongst our weapons…. I’ll come in again.

    • dansama

      I am not Catholic.

    • Mirable

      At the gay bar.

    • Jennifer Starr

      The Swallow may fly south with the sun. Or the House Martin or the Plover may seek warmer climes in winter. Yet these are not strangers to our land.

    • Mirable

      Let the good times roll..

    • dansama

      And that is exactly what it is for you. Not so much for others who do not want that kind of thing.

    • Mirable

      What kind of fool do you take me for?

    • ansuz

      “help.”
      That word. I do not think it means what you think it mans.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      God is not your bully boy.

    • dansama

      I never even remotely thought such a thing. It is an easy and very clear reading of what the Bible says. Although you will deny anyone ever warned you about the truth when you actually see the Lake of Fire in front of you, no lies will save you then, and truth will only condemn you.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      I wish you what you wish me.

    • Mirable

      I’m just lookin for a big yella in 6 inch stilletos

    • Mirable

      Read Numbers 5. The LORD is in favour of abortion to prove that a woman has been sleeping around.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Which Lord? Jehovah is into abortion as a tool of genocidal war. Jehovah is kool with abortion.
      You do not read the Bible?

    • dansama

      Your lies are only serving your own eternal damnation. Do you really want eternal torment that badly?

    • Mirable

      As if I need to make more. I got a mansion and six cars that are paid for.

    • dansama

      Wonderful! Lots of money, huh? We will see how quickly it all goes up in flames, except for you. Your spirit will last forever, but it will spend eternity in a very unpleasant place.

    • Mirable

      Walk without rhythm, and you won’t attract the worm.

    • dansama

      Try it and see where takes you in place like that.

    • Mirable

      I got sunshine in a bag.

    • dansama

      That’s nice!

    • Mirable

      Wake up in the morning, see your sunrise loves to go down.

    • dansama

      The SON rise I am waiting for will never go down.

    • Mirable

      Well, did she make you cry, make you break down, shatter your illusions of love?

    • dansama

      Someone sure is twisting yours.

    • Mirable

      Why are you right when I’m so wrong, I’m so weak but you’re so strong, everything you do is just alright, and I can’t walk away from you, baby if I tried.

    • dansama

      I do not understand why you think it is about me. Your spirit has an itch it cannot scratch?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight?

    • dansama

      Is that line of thinking all that runs through your mind? You seem obsessed with it, like a lot of others here.

    • Jennifer Starr

      If your mother says don’t chew it do you swallow it in spite?

    • dansama

      Can’t converse on a meaningful level? I understand.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Can you catch it on your tonsils, can you heave it left and right?

    • Mirable

      I see our time has gotten stale.

    • dansama

      I offered you some medicine. Actually, your situation is rather putrid.

    • Mirable

      It’s tricky!

    • ansuz

      …I think I know that song.

    • Mirable

      Song?? My *entire* conversation with dansama comes directly from my heart:P

    • dansama

      Charmed.

    • Mirable

      ALL THE GOYUMS SAY IM’ PRETTY FLY FOR A RABBI

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      You do not read the Bible. You just use it as a weapon.
      Hosea 13:16.

    • dansama

      We shall see what we shall see.

    • Mirable

      It’s comin’ on.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Who is “we?”
      Not you and me.
      You got a crab in your drawers?

    • dansama

      It is chummy sarcasm. You would not understand it.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      We are not chums.

    • dansama

      Certainly not! That does not mean I am looking forward to watching all you people swim in eternal fire either. I would rather spare you, and myself, that experience. You seem determined though despite my best efforts.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      I wish you what you wish me.

    • dansama

      You certainly do not talk like it.

    • ansuz

      Plum Dumpling is being very polite to you, for someone who wishes hellfire on you.

    • Jennifer Starr

      I think we’re all being excruciatingly civil, given your behavior.

    • dansama

      Sorry! You were only concerned about me while I was concerned about all those babies crushed without mercy like this one. You know. Those blobs of cells and tissue.

    • dansama

      Try this on yourself if you believe in it so much.

    • Mirable

      You’re a superstar.

      At the gay bar.

    • Jennifer Starr

      We shall say “Ni!” again to you, if you do not appease us.

    • lady_black

      Are you sure that isn’t a stillbirth? I’m not sure.

    • dansama

      Absolutely certain. See how the back of the neck is torn open?

    • Mirable

      Could have been obstructed labour. Could have been a late term abortion for severe fetal anomaly (which isn’t visible).

      Just because it looks gross isn’t proof that someone killed it for funsies.

    • dansama

      Stop obsessing over lies. I have heard your lies and know it way too well.

    • Mirable

      citation needed

    • dansama

      Read the first chapter of Romans.

    • Mirable

      read it to me, in your sexy voice

    • lady_black

      That means nothing. You know that, right? Depending on how long between intra-uterine demise and delivery, significant decomposition takes place. Furthermore, it’s well known that neonates begin to spoil much quicker than deceased adults. Being that I see what looks like forceps in the photo, it may have been necessary to drag the stillborn out. That could easily explain the injury. Unless I know what the source of that photo is, I’m not taking your word that this was an abortion. Posting pictures of stillborns and misrepresenting them as abortions is a favorite tactic of pro-liars, and it’s been going on for decades.

    • dansama

      It will never mean anything to you, until you are screaming for eternity in the Lake of Fire.

    • lady_black

      Yep, I get it. Your lack of knowledge is so embarrassing to you that you dream up lakes of fire. It’s part of your psychosis.

    • Daniel Barbour

      It will be your reality with no psychosis, or any figment of imagination.

    • lady_black

      Look… the only place I’ll be for eternity is dead. No lake of fire, no heavenly reward. Just dead. You must mistake me for an immortal to insist I’ll be around to burn for eternity.

    • Daniel Barbour

      GOD created your spirit to be eternal, whether you believe it or not, whether you are happy or sad, whether you have joy or terror.

    • lady_black

      Oh really?? Not like I believe your Bible or anything, but doesn’t that sort of make your “god” a liar?
      “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.” – Genesis 2:17.
      (The implication, of course, is that had Adam not disobeyed, he would have gone on living indefinitely. That is still not the same as immortal. It is the definition of life everlasting, dependent on continued obedience.)
      So either what you said is untrue according to your Bible, or you’re calling your “god” a liar, and the devil honest. Take your pick.

    • Daniel Barbour

      You think twisting my words, or the Bible’s, gains you anything? That is like hating yourself to spite me.

    • lady_black

      Don’t you hate when someone uses your own weapon against you? I hate when that happens. According to your Bible, Adam (and his descendants) were never granted immortality. “You shall surely die.” And that’s what happened. Can’t argue with that.

    • Daniel Barbour

      That was after the Fall of Man, and there is no point in debating what would have happened if they did not eat of the tree.

    • lady_black

      No Daniel. The implication (look that word up if you don’t understand it) is clear. “Tree of life” is pretty self-explanatory. “Tree of knowledge” = death. The clear implication being that continued obedience = living indefinitely. You’re saying “there’s no point debating what would have happened” is an admission that what your Bible actually says doesn’t line up with what you are claiming it says. Here’s another question for you to ponder… if death isn’t real, why did Jesus need to be resurrected? Answer: for parts of three days, he was actually dead. I have no problem with people who swear by myths. But at least be honest about the myths.

    • Daniel Barbour

      I have heard all this before and I will say it again. There is no point in fantasizing what could have, might have, would have, etc… You are very good at twisting words to convince the naïve and uninformed, but you have no idea who I am, and you are a total joke.

    • Daniel Barbour

      And yes, you are twisting words again.

    • lady_black

      Yeah you keep saying that. I don’t think it means what you think it does. What “words” am I twisting? And be specific. There is NOTHING in your Bible that says humans are immortal, and plenty that says they aren’t.

    • Daniel Barbour

      ” There is NOTHING in your Bible that says humans are immortal, and plenty that says they aren’t.” What a bogus pack of lies. You are almost better than Obama, almost-but not quite.

    • lady_black

      I see. There are no scriptures backing your point of view. It’s not enough to call someone a liar, toots. You have to back that up with evidence.

    • Daniel Barbour

      It’s like what JESUS told the Pharisees. I did answer you, and you did not believe.

    • dansama

      You certainly do not talk like it.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      I talk what I talk.

    • dansama

      Ok.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Not okay. You are an anus.

    • Mirable

      Yes he is, and I want to stick something in it. At the gay bar.

      Keep your paws off the merchandise.

    • dansama

      Its ok to not be ok. I’m ok for me.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      You are an anus. You are not okay. You think God is your bullyboy.
      Tell me again how I am going to burn, Piscialetto.
      Like a lullaby coming from an anus.

    • HijadeDios

      is not a cell, is a life!!

    • Mirable

      http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg?t=20111027092220

      Looks like a cell to me. Are you saying that a single cell is of more value than a sentient sapient woman?

    • myintx

      No one said ‘more valuable’. An unborn child is EQUALLY valuable. Every innocent human being should have a right to life.

    • Mirable

      Cool. I am equally valuable to you. So I can take your kidney without consent to save my life.

    • myintx

      Not saving someone’s life is DIFFERENT from intentionally killing them.
      Parents have a responsibility to take care of the basic needs of their children. I do NOT have a responsibility to save your life. It’s a lame comparison. Nice try though.

    • Mirable

      So you’d let your kid die by refusing to offer up a kidney?

    • myintx

      I wouldn’t… I wouldn’t kill my child before he (or she) was born either.

    • Mirable

      But other parents would let their children die. So surely, you agree that all parents should be legally obligated to donate blood, tissue and organs to their offspring in order to preserve their lives? You are fighting for legislation to support this, yes?

    • myintx

      And how many kids have died because their parents haven’t donated blood, tissue or organs to their kids? Bet it was no where near the 1 MILLION unborn children that are killed every year for selfish and senseless reasons.

    • Mirable

      Well, if a pro-choicer is going to have an abortion, don’t you think that said pro-choicer would happily refuse to donate blood/tissue/organs to their child, cuz you know, pro-choicers are all baby killing psychos, right?

    • myintx

      Thanks for admitting that about pro-aborts, lol :)
      What happened Jejune.. had to change IDs?

    • Mirable

      Well? You keep telling us that pro-choicers want to kill babies. So, don’t you think that pro-choicers, if they have born children, also want to dismember them?

      So, shouldn’t all parents be forced to donate organs to save their kids – esp. considering how pro-choice parents are hellbent on dismembering their kids – born and unborn?

    • myintx

      Parents have a responsibility to take care of their children – provide them basic food and shelter. They should have that same obligation to their unborn child.

    • Mirable

      So you find it ethically acceptable to let someone else’s baby die because you’re too selfish to help it?

    • myintx

      Do you?

    • Mirable

      Do you?

    • ansuz

      Here you go, have some facts (quoting myself from elsewhere, because I can’t be assed to write this again):

      “It isn’t just that they’re saying that someone has to let a fetus or embryo remain in hir body for nine months (which would be bad enough), they’re saying that pregnant people have to let the fetus or embryo suppress their immune systems, steal nutrients from their bloodstreams and calcium from their bones and teeth, and shove waste products back into their bloodstreams for nine months, and then either undergo major abdominal surgery or push something the size of a bowling ball out of their vaginas.

      …point is, pregnancy is dangerous, and pro-life people are trying to set the exact levels of danger pregnant people have to endure before it’s okay. For example, I’ve had people tell me that there should be no exemptions for my potentially life-threatening mental health issues, and that I should be forcibly taken off my (mental health, again) meds (not safe for pregnancy) if I were to become pregnant.”

    • myintx

      Post viability laws set rules for when abortion should be allowed. Doctors decide if a woman should be able to have an abortion for health reasons. Doctors can decide if a woman’s health is truly endangered before viability too.
      If I were to become pregnant, I would talk to my doctor to see if there was any way I could go off my medications or change medications to ensure my health AND the health of my unborn child – because I CARE about my unborn child. Anyone who thinks only about me, me, me, me, me, OH and me, is SELFISH. If a doctor says my medication could not be changed without my life becoming truly endangered then I would stay on the medication and hope that my unborn child was not affected by the medication. That is in line with what pro-life physicians say is ethical. What is unethical is killing an unborn child because a medication ‘might’ affect them.

    • Mirable

      You’re too selfish to gestate an ivf embryo.

    • myintx

      it’s a parent’s responsibility to take care of their children – born and unborn. That includes IVF embryos. If the parents don’t want them, they can put them up for adoption. There are couples that have used donated IVF embryos.

    • Mirable

      So you would let a baby die because you’re too fucking selfish to donate blood all because it’s not related to you?

      What, afraid of a minor inconvenience?

    • myintx

      I do my part to help others in society (donated blood, financial donations, volunteering, etc). How about you, do you care? You obviously don’t care that about 1 million unborn children die every year. Do you care about the born children too, or can they be killed because your #1 priority is women?

    • Jennifer Starr

      So why won’t you adopt one?

    • lady_black

      At the risk of stating the merely obvious, no “parent” is under any obligation to provide anything for an IVF embryo. Things happen. The IVF embryos are created to allow a specific couple who cannot conceive the normal way (due to fallopian tube scarring or absence) to conceive. It merely “jumps” the fallopian tubes. When they’re finished with them, they can be donated. That’s an option. Or they can be discarded. I have no problem with that. They cannot be “adopted” because adoption applies only to a born child.

    • myintx
    • lady_black

      Those are by definition, donations. NOT ADOPTIONS. You can only adopt a born child.

    • myintx

      not necessarily…. look at the definition of adopt. Doesn’t always apply to children.

    • lady_black

      Clearly you didn’t read your own link, cupcake. Your link clearly states that adoption applies only to a born child. This is more closely paralleled to egg donation, except the egg is fertilized. When and if a pregnancy occurs, and leads to birth, the gestating mother is the legal mother, and no adoption is necessary.

    • myintx

      Adoption is a valid term for this. The legal work is done up front, not when the baby is born.

    • Mirable

      So, shouldn’t all parents be forced to donate organs to save their kids -
      esp. considering how pro-choice parents are hellbent on dismembering
      their kids – born and unborn?

      yes or no?

    • myintx

      Do you think they should?
      Parents do have a responsibility already to provide basic food and shelter to their children – that responsibility should start when their unborn child comes into existence – at fertilization.

    • Mirable

      I am asking you. Stop trying to avoid answering you dumb fuck.

      So, shouldn’t all parents be forced to donate organs to save their kids – esp. considering how pro-choice parents are hellbent on dismembering their kids – born and unborn?

      yes or no?

    • lady_black

      There is nothing to be done for a fertilized ovum. You know that, right? You have zero control over what becomes of it. Most of the time, nothing becomes of it.

    • lady_black

      No. Anyone can take care of a child. Only a specific person can be pregnant.

    • myintx

      So? Doesn’t mean an unborn child should be killed. It’s called RESPONSIBILITY. Unless the woman’s life is endangered, the parents of that unborn child have a responsibility to bring their child into the world, not wimp out and kill to avoid that responsibility. In most cases abortion is a selfish act.

    • Mirable

      I”ve changed my nickname about 500 times since we last met. I get bored easily.

    • myintx

      Bored? or BANNED?

    • Mirable

      I can barely fit my dick in my pants

    • Mirable

      http://nation.time.com/2014/02/19/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/

      Do you think faith healing parents would donate their bodies to a child to save it’s life if they can’t even take the kid to a doctor?

      Well?

      How about parents who beat their kids to death, lock them in closets and refuse to feed them. Do you think THEY would happily donate an organ to save the child’s life.

      Yes or no/

    • myintx

      Lame try at DIVERSION. It’s sad that born children are killed. But the numbers are no where near the numbers of unborn children that are killed. Just because there are born children that die does NOT justify the senseless an selfish killing of so many unborn children.

    • Mirable

      It isn’t diversion. You told me that no parent would ever refuse to donate blood/organs/tissue to save their child’s life.

      You still have to explain why parents who 1) neglect and starve their kids 2) parents who kill their children would also be willing to donate an organ to save the child’s life?

    • myintx

      I didn’t say no parent would ever refuse, I asked how many have… And, the answer is no where near the number of parents who kill their unborn children.

    • Mirable

      So even one child dying because it has been denied organ/blood/tissue from a parent doesn’t bother you?

      how fucking sick can you be? have you no empathy? you sick fuck

    • myintx

      Of course it bothers me. Does it bother you? What do you want to do about it?
      A million unborn children being slaughtered bothers me too. Doesn’t seem to bother you though. That’s sick.

    • Mirable

      Then surely you support forced organ/blood/tissue donations so that parents can save the lives of their innocent children, yes?

    • myintx

      I don’t… do you?

    • Mirable

      Why don’t you?

    • myintx

      Do you?

    • Mirable

      Then surely you support forced organ/blood/tissue donations so that parents can save the lives of their innocent children, yes?

      You care about saving lives, don’t you?

    • myintx

      I guess you are saying you DONT care about saving lives since you are for the senseless killing of unborn children.

    • myintx

      You care too don’t you? Or is a woman’s life more important than a newborns life and she should be able to kill whenever she wants?

    • Mirable

      So you wouldn’t give a drop of blood to save a dying baby that is not related to you? Because ‘letting something die’ is completely moral in your view?

      Sick!

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      There is no right to life. If there were a right to life, the government could execute no one.

    • myintx

      For innocent human beings there should be a right to life.

    • Mirable

      That right to life does not include the use of another person’s body. Or does it? You never did tell us if you support MANDATORY blood/tissue/organ donation for people who injure others in the commission of a crime and/or accident.

      If you are out driving, myintx, and you hit someone, and they need your kidney, you should be forced to give it up, yes? After all they are innocent, and you caused them to need your kidney.

    • ansuz

      The so-called ‘right to life’ derives from the right to bodily autonomy. I have the right to not be dismembered by an axe because I have the right to not have my body interfered with. Fetuses have no bodily autonomy. If one is inside of me, I can do what I like to it.

    • myintx

      Interesting that you bring up dismemberment… exactly what happens in those late term abortions that you most likely support.
      So, if you think you can do what you like to your unborn child, if the technology existed would you allow a woman to cut off her unborn child’s arms and legs and gouge it’s eyes out while its still in the womb, let it live and then give birth to an armless, legless and blind baby? It’s ‘her body’ according to you. If you think that’s gruesome, its not far off from what happens in an abortion. If you think it’s wrong then your whole argument for abortion goes out the window.
      There no such thing as full bodily autonomy. Women cannot sell their organs, prostitute themselves (in most states), do illegal drugs, etc. A conjoined twin cannot kill the other twin for ‘bodily autonomy’ either. And a woman should not be able to kill her unborn child, because that child is a different human being.

    • Mirable

      exactly what happens in those late term abortions that you most likely support.

      How did you know that ansuz supports abortions at 18years?

    • myintx

      I did say ‘most likely’… Do you support 4th trimester abortions? ;)

    • Mirable

      If the illusion is real, let them give you a ride.

    • ansuz

      “So, if you think you can do what you like to your unborn child, if the technology existed would you allow a woman to cut off her unborn child’s arms and legs and gouge it’s eyes out while its still in the womb, let it live and then give birth to an armless, legless and blind baby?”
      Generally speaking, I go for ‘the most humane death we can manage’, but in some imaginary circumstance in which doing it the way you’ve described has a significantly better outcome than current standard practice? Yeah, sure, why not?

      “There no such thing as full bodily autonomy.”
      And this is a good reason for restricting it further. Yes. I can see how that makes sense.
      /s

      “Women cannot sell their organs, prostitute themselves (in most states), do illegal drugs, etc.”
      In the majority of cases, the thing that is illegal is a transaction; I am free to donate my organs and to have sex with whomever I please (while respecting their bodily autonomy), but I may not accept money for doing so. Leaving aside whether these restrictions are right or wrong, they are still not a restriction of my bodily autonomy, but a restriction on how I can make money.

      Myintx, you are embarrassingly outclassed here.

    • Mirable

      Myintx, you are embarrassingly outclassed here.

      don’t be ableist

    • ansuz

      As far as I’m aware, I’m the only one here with a learning disability :) That’s what makes this embarrassing.

    • Mirable

      I hope she brings out her secret weapon – tiny feet!

    • myintx

      ‘humane death’? really? nothing humane about killing an unborn child. You were the one who said “I can do what I like to it”. That means you would support someone disabling their unborn child and then letting it be born. sickening.
      ‘In the majority if cases’.. but not all… Killing an unborn child shouldn’t be legal either (unless absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother).
      yawn.. declaring yourself a ‘winner’… lol… The people with no class are the ones that support the senseless killing of unborn children.

    • Mirable

      Strawman.

      So, should all parents be forced to donate blood/organs/tissue to save the lives of their born children

      yes or no?

    • lady_black

      No, not equally valuable. Not by a long shot. A lot of time and resources would be needed to achieve equal value.

    • myintx

      So, a newborn born at 23 weeks doesn’t have an equal right to life as every other human being? it’s mother can still kill it? Can a mother kill it until it’s 18 then – is that when it has equal value – or only if it’s a girl?

    • lady_black

      You cannot kill a newborn.

    • myintx

      And, you should not be able to kill that same human being before it is born either.

    • lady_black

      It’s not the same. A newborn is viable.

    • myintx

      An unborn child at 23 weeks may be viable (some have lived if born prematurely at 23 weeks). Yet you support a woman being able to kill her unborn child at 23 weeks right?
      And, viability does not a human being make (Yoda speaking). An unborn child is a human being before viability and after viability. Abortion kills a human being.

    • Mirable

      A mother can kill it when she’s 100 and it’s 80!!!!!

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      You probably should not have an abortion.

    • rg9rts

      If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament

    • dansama

      I am a man, and I still do not have your bloodlusts.

    • Mirable

      Admit it, you wanna fuck me.

    • rg9rts

      idiot

    • lady_black

      “Pro-aborts” are EXACTLY like vampires. Neither creature exists in reality.

    • dansama

      Abortion is not a myth, and neither are the pro-aborts who want the baby’s blood. What is the major concern of late-term abortions? That the baby might live, but doctors assure the mother they will still kill the baby if there is a live birth. You are most certainly a vampire.

    • Mirable

      You, and only you, have been able to discern LB’s ulterior motives. She’s all about sucking blood from prenates.

      You are one clever motherfucker.

    • dansama

      Did you know it is legal in Texas for a teacher to send sex text messages to students? I once knew an abortion nurse who said the bloodier, the better. Yup, I know exactly what you, and she, are.

    • Mirable

      Were you that teacher? is that why you gave up the gay lifestyle, couldn’t keep your hands off the kiddies?

    • dansama

      Happy to disappoint you, no. But I knew a number of gays, not all of course, who really loved young smooth bodies. I was a child at one time too.

    • Mirable

      Thanks for sharing.

    • ansuz

      “I was a child at one time too.” :( I hope you get whatever help you need. You should know, though, that the evidence does not support the popular idea that gay people are more likely to have or to act on attractions to minors.

    • ansuz

      “Did you know it is legal in Texas for a teacher to send sex text messages to students?”
      Hello, non sequitur.

      “I once knew an abortion nurse who said the bloodier, the better.”

      To be fair, nurses are generally sent by Satan*.

      Seriously, drinking and bathing in blood is really a bad idea. I might be possibly related to Elizabeth Bathory**, and even I don’t think it’s a good idea. We have this thing called ‘germ theory’; blood is pretty dangerous.

      *except, no, not really.
      **this is true; my cousin was doing some genealogy research

    • Mirable

      That’s cool ansuz. I am related to the Scots-Metis dude who fired the very first shot in the Riel Rebellion.

    • Jennifer Starr

      One of my ancestors rode with Frank and Jesse James.

    • Mirable

      Cool!

    • Jennifer Starr

      This is what reading Jack Chick tracts and taking them seriously will do to you.

    • dansama

      SOME of his stuff is actually true, at least the Bible quotes.

    • dansama

      You on the other hand, nope.

    • Jennifer Starr

      It ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
      It don’t matter, anyhow
      An’ it ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
      If you don’t know by now

    • lady_black

      I never said abortions are myths. They are medical procedures. I said “pro-aborts” are myths.

    • dansama

      Your Nazi concentration camps did ‘medical procedures’ too. And you too will be screaming for eternity in the Lake of Fire.

    • lady_black

      You have displayed almost as much ignorance about Nazis as you have about what the Bible actually says. And you want to lead ME?

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/254

      Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

      Summary

      In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health considers the interaction between criminal laws and other legal restrictions relating to sexual and reproductive health and the right to health. The right to sexual and reproductive
      health is a fundamental part of the right to health. States must therefore ensure that
      this aspect of the right to health is fully realized.

      The Special Rapporteur considers the impact of criminal and other legal restrictions on abortion; conduct during pregnancy; contraception and family planning; and the provision of sexual and reproductive education and information.

      Some criminal and other legal restrictions in each of those areas, which are often discriminatory in nature, violate the right to health by restricting access to quality
      goods, services and information. They infringe human dignity by restricting the
      freedoms to which individuals are entitled under the right to health, particularly in respect of decision-making and bodily integrity. Moreover, the application of such
      laws as a means to achieving certain public health outcomes is often ineffective and
      disproportionate.

      Realization of the right to health requires the removal of barriers that interfere with individual decision-making on health-related issues and with access to health services, education and information, in particular on health conditions that only affect women and girls. In cases where a barrier is created by a criminal law or other legal restriction, it is the obligation of the State to remove it. The removal of such laws and legal restrictions is not subject to resource constraints and can thus not be seen as requiring only progressive realization. Barriers arising from criminal laws and other laws and policies affecting sexual and reproductive health must therefore be immediately removed in order to ensure full enjoyment of the right to health.

    • Daniel Barbour

      Blah, blah, blah blah, blah…

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Profound.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      neener neener neener

    • Jennifer Starr

      And now I know you’re dissatisfied
      With your position and your place
      Don’t you understand
      It’s not my problem

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      I see you brought your murder-porn for show and tell. How special.

    • Daniel Barbour

      Aren’t you so proud of your work just like Gosnell?

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Oooooh, comparing me to Gosnell. Oh how it burns. Imbecile.

    • Daniel Barbour

      Everything you say screams you love it.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      You have a rich full fantasy life.

    • rg9rts

      Daniel is a lost cause.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      I agree. He has no game but full on insult and raving. Poor thing.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      You want me. It is ever thus. Ho hum.

    • Jennifer Starr

      You look just like her, you do
      I know by lookin’ at you
      That you’ve been listening to your Auntie Grizelda

    • Daniel Barbour

      And how about Gosnell’s babies, huh? No problem even after birth. Just a little snip in the back of the neck. He liked cats too. Made quite a mess though as they licked up blood after killing babies, or was that how he kept the place clean?

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      ILLEGAL ABORTION and sepsis/homorrhage from CHILDBIRTH are leading killers of women worldwide.

    • Daniel Barbour

      Sorry sweety. They were legal abortions, but not very safe. But maybe Gosnell had it right after all. No woman deserves a safe abortion anyway. He has a business to run. You people should eat each other like piranha fish.

    • Daniel Barbour

      If the innocent baby is saved, help both mom and baby. If mom aborts the baby, and then Doctor Slaughter aborts the woman, then I do not care what happens to the woman. Neither do those doctors if you want an honest answer.

    • Daniel Barbour

      People who kill babies should understand what goes around, comes around.

    • Daniel Barbour

      You idiots actually believe PP cares about women?! You really do deserve how well PP maintains those ‘clinics’ and ‘doctors’. Try looking into the issues involving their botched abortions and ‘doctors’ remedy those ‘mistakes’ you sorry subhuman trash.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Look out kid, it’s somethin’ you did
      God knows when,but you’re doin’ it again

    • Daniel Barbour

      I have JESUS CHRIST. What do you have?

    • Jennifer Starr

      I can still hear you saying those words that never were true, spoken to help nobody but you.

    • Daniel Barbour

      If my words were not true, what is your point here?

    • Mirable

      Get sick, get well

      Hang around an ink well

    • Jennifer Starr

      Short pants, romance, learn to dance
      Get dressed, get blessed
      Try to be a success
      Please her, please him, buy gifts
      Don’t steal, don’t lift

    • Mirable

      You better duck down the alley way

      Lookin’ for a new friend

    • Daniel Barbour

      Why?

    • Jennifer Starr

      I’m not your steppin’ stone.

    • Mirable

      Maggie comes fleet foot

      Face full of black soot

    • Daniel Barbour

      No problem. I got Muslims threatening to kill me now. You think you can do better?

    • Mirable

      Talkin’ that the heat put

      Plants in the bed but

      The phone’s tapped anyway

    • Jennifer Starr

      They must bust in early May
      Orders from the D.A.
      Look out kid
      Don’t matter what you did
      Walk on your tiptoes
      Don’t try “No-Doz”

    • Jennifer Starr

      Better stay away from those
      That carry around a fire hose
      Keep a clean nose
      Watch the plain clothes

    • Daniel Barbour

      I will leave that up to you.

    • Mirable

      You don’t need a weather man

      To know which way the wind blows.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Get sick, get well
      Hang around a ink well
      Ring bell, hard to tell
      If anything is goin’ to sell

    • Jennifer Starr

      Well, I wus sittin’ home alone an’ started to sweat
      Figured they wus in my T.V. set
      Peeked behind the picture frame
      Got a shock from my feet, hittin’ right up in the brain

    • Jennifer Starr

      A man in a coonskin cap by the big pen wants eleven dollar bills, you only got ten

    • Mirable

      Get jailed, jump bail Join the army, if you failed

  • myintx

    Number 11 – Because I’m SELFISH! Oh. That would be redundant for reasons 1-10. oops.
    Unless the woman’s life is truly endangered from the pregnancy, the reason listed above are selfish excuses to kill another human being.

    • Mirable

      So joeblow can torture you to save his life? just as long as it doesn’t kill him? It’s ok if joeblow permanently disabled you, cuz his right to life overrides your right to not be disabled?

    • myintx

      in most pregnancies, there is no ‘torturing’ going on. Grow up. Grow a pair and do the RIGHT thing. Quit placing your convenience over another human beings LIFE.

    • Mirable

      Really? So if someone was to punch you viciously in the abdomen for 6-72 hours and then push a bowling ball up your vajayjay you would NOT consider it torture?

    • myintx

      Millions of women give birth every year. And millions do it AGAIN :)
      It’s called giving life and doing the RIGHT thing.
      Sometimes doing the right thing isn’t the easiest thing to do.

    • Mirable

      Considering the risks, it’s the kind of thing that should remain voluntary.

      I think that you would object if someone forced you to undergo all the side effects of pregnancy in order to save a life, yes? What if Person A said that myintx had to be tortured for 72 hours and have a bowling ball shoved up her ass or else Person C dies! and Person B did what Person A said and tortured myintx to save the life of Person C. Would you agree that such torture is just, because it’s to save a life? Well? yes or no?

    • myintx

      If I get pregnant, I would NOT kill my unborn child. Period.

    • ansuz

      If I’m pregnant, a new human being is not passively growing inside of my womb. It is drilling into my arteries and forcibly removing nutrients from my bloodstream, then dumping its waste into me for my kidneys to process. It is building its bones and teeth out of my bones and teeth. It pumps hormones into me, altering my body and my mind, and suppressing my immune system.
      It is not benign; it can kill me.
      I do not give my consent for this. I do not value a non-sapient, non-sentient being enough to feel the slightest bit upset or sad about the fact that it will die when I remove it from my body, but that doesn’t matter: I’d still have the full moral right to revoke an ongoing full-body donation at any time, for any reason.

      (this is copypasta’d from myself elsewhere)

    • myintx

      Consent to sex is a consent to pregnancy.
      And, your rant just proves that pro-aborts only think about ‘me, me, me, me, OH, and me!’ instead of the other human being involved in the pregnancy. That’s the definition of SELFISH.

    • ansuz

      “Consent to sex is a consent to pregnancy.”
      I disagree, and the above comment lays out my reasons for that (seriously. Try diagramming the argument.). You, on the other hand, have provided no arguments at all.

      “That’s the definition of SELFISH.”
      I see no problem with this. I’ve said this to you many, many times before. Pick a new tactic.

    • Mirable

      She is edging into kitty pic territory. Couple more replies from me and that’s where I will be at.

    • ansuz

      *goes kitty-pic hunting in preparation*

    • myintx

      All you basically said was “I do not give my consent”… If a woman has sex, there is a possibility she get pregnant. That’s why many people use birth control. And, even then, people know it can fail. Yet, they choose to have sex anyway knowing they can get pregnant. Consent to sex is a consent to pregnancy.
      And, besides, only a selfish person would KILL an unborn child, unless their life was truly endangered. At least you admit you’re selfish. Yet, you don’t want to try to make yourself a better person. wow.

    • Mirable
    • myintx

      Unless the woman’s life is truly endangered, abortion is not self-defense. DUH!

    • Mirable

      Unless your life is truly endangered, you have no right to kill the person who is raping the shit out of you – because that would be an unjust killing. Self-defense ONLY applies if your life is in danger – not if you’re being raped or being tortured.

      http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/81/8180b7a74061d402bbd1a32d77965b2431c990b7386ac39c7559c5af5ccedaec.jpg

    • myintx

      A pregnancy is NOTHING like rape. I a pregnancy, a DOCTOR can determine if a woman’s life is truly endangered from the pregnancy.
      If pregnancy were anything like rape, there would be NO post-viability abortion restrictions :)

    • Mirable
    • ansuz
    • Mirable

      It has begun. Let’s go full kitty.

    • ansuz
    • rg9rts

      Pssssssfty X 6

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      You want to FORCE selfish women to give birth to children they do not want and/or cannot afford.
      Do you dislike children? You are not particularly sane.

    • myintx

      Someone has never heard of the words ADOPTION or RESPONSIBILITY have they?
      People have a responsibility to take care of their children (born or unborn). They should NOT kill them (that’s the definition of irresponsibility).
      If a parent doesn’t want their child when it’s born (or after it’s born), they can put it up for ADOPTION. Most adoptions work out. ALL abortions end in death.
      the people that dislike children are the ones that want to kill them – before or after they are born.

    • Mirable

      the people that dislike children are the ones that want to kill them – before or after they are born.

      Well it’s a good thing that you support forced organ donation on the part of parents in order to save the lives of their born children – since clearly, as you hast just stated, pro-choice parents want to kill their born children.

    • myintx

      Abortion KILLS. Not donating an organ means someone might die (or they might get an organ from someone else). It’s not intentional killing. Learn the difference.

    • Mirable

      No, letting someone die isn’t morally and ethically superior to killing them. Especially when they can be easily saved through minimal effort – such as an organ donation!!

      You beileve it is acceptable for pro-choice parents to deny their born children medical treatment even if it kills them. That = killing them.

      You sick fuck.

      If you actually gave a shit about LIFE, you would agree with me that ‘letting someone die’ is just as evil as ‘killing them’. But you don’t. You don’t care enough about born children to demand that parents donate blood and organs to save their lives.

      You are full of hot air.

    • myintx

      Didn’t say it was morally and ethically superior to killing…
      Do you think there should be laws demanding that parents donate organs to their children if needed?

    • Mirable

      You think it’s morally and ethically acceptable for parents to let their kids die

      That’s pretty fucked up. You have NO moral high ground.

    • myintx

      Do you think there should be laws demanding that parents donate organs to their children if needed?

    • Mirable

      You think it’s acceptable for parents to let their born children die. You have lost the debate.

      http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2009/090606-wrong-neighborhood.jpg

    • myintx

      Answer the question: Do you think there should be laws demanding that parents donate organs to their children if needed?
      Are you afraid to answer the question?

    • Mirable
    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Pffsssst!

    • myintx

      Don’t talk about yourself.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      No thank you. I will have HOT SEX. I will use birth control. If I become pregnant, I will give birth or abort as I see fit. Not as YOU see fit.
      Cry me a river.

    • myintx

      In most states you can’t abort after viability for any reason you wish. And, laws are being passed all the time to restrict the lame ‘as I see fit’ part.
      I will continue to vote for politicians that pass laws restricting the senseless killing of unborn children.

      Years ago, slave owners bragged to others about owning slaves as they ‘see fit’. That was wrong. Killing unborn children is wrong too.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Ridiculous comment in the face of this FACT:

      ILLEGAL ABORTION and sepsis/homorrhage from CHILDBIRTH are leading killers of women worldwide.

      Fertility is serious business for women. Abortion/contraception is a human right.

    • myintx

      Then, don’t have an illegal abortion – DUH!
      Women occasionally kill their born children. They are arrested, they go to jail, and their lives are RUINED! Boo freakin hoo! Doesn’t mean we should make killing children legal does it? It’s all about the woman right? lol.
      If a woman is so afraid of childbirth complications then DON’T GET PREGNANT. Over 40% of women who kill their unborn children didn’t do a single thing to try to prevent getting pregnant. most likely a majority of the rest of them only used one form.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Unsafe Abortion: The Missing Link in Global Efforts to Improve Maternal Health
      By Sneha Barot
      The World Health Organization (WHO) released a new report in March documenting that the number of women dying from unsafe abortions worldwide has declined significantly over the last two decades. This welcome news is consistent with last year’s much-publicized studies from the United Nations (UN) and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation regarding an overall drop in maternal deaths. Still, maternal mortality remains a serious global problem, and unsafe abortion is undeniably one of the main causes of maternal mortality. Yet, that reality could easily be missed by looking at recent policies to address maternal health. Despite the international community’s growing attention to and resources for maternal health, many leading advocates, policymakers and donors—including the United States—are reluctant to even acknowledge the role of unsafe abortion in maternal mortality, much less address it directly.

    • myintx

      You seem to forget that there are 2 human beings involved in a pregnancy. About 1 MILLION unborn human beings are senselessly KILLED every year.
      If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant there are things she can do to avoid getting pregnant in most cases. Once pregnant though, there are TWO (occasionally more) human beings involved.
      Abortion KILLS.

    • rg9rts

      Texas says it all

  • myintx

    Ten Reasons DEBUNKED: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/10-reasons-10-reasons-to-have-an-abortion-is-a-pack-of-lies

    “Since Mommyish is known as a parenting site, the author also makes an attempt to explain why an article on abortion (i.e., getting rid of your children) is posted on the site:

    Mommyish is a parenting website. We support all parents, including…people who don’t want to become parents.

    Ok, so you “support” people who don’t want to be parents by encouraging them to kill the children they don’t want to parent? Wow. Sounds like a scary method of “parenting” to me.”

    • Jennifer Starr

      Read several times before. Wasn’t overly impressed.

    • myintx

      Cause nothing impresses you more than a woman with the ‘courage’ to kill, eh?

    • Jennifer Starr

      More like nothing impresses me less than overly simplistic and black and white reasoning for an issue that’s not black and white at all.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Ms. Starr, always good to see you.

      This freak shames and blames with a vengeance. Sneers. Accuses. And fancies that it will be seen as caring and compassionate.

      All these freaks suffer from delusions of various kinds and this particular delusion is a nickel a dozen.

    • myintx

      The freaks are the ones that think its OK to kill an unborn child for whatever freakin reason a woman wants. She wants a girl instead of a boy, you’re OK with her killing an innocent unborn child. She simply cannot be inconvenienced with a child, you’re OK with her killing an innocent human being. The freaks are the one who kill for senseless reasons and the freaks are the ones who pat them on the back for it.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Jesus said: He who beats his brother must answer for it to the court; he who sneers at him will answer for it in the fires of Hell.

      You are gonna burn, SweetTart.

    • myintx

      Like you believe in Jesus. Lol

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Illegal abortion and sepsis/hemorrhage in childbirth are the 3 leading killers of women worldwide.

      Abortion/contraception is a human right.

      Fertility is serious business for women. You have no standing.

      You probably should not get an abortion.

    • myintx

      It’s a woman’s ‘choice’ to have that illegal abortion..If a woman kills her born child, she goes to jail and suffers the consequences. Boo freakin hoo. I’ll bet you have lots of sympathy for women who kill their born children too. Cause it’s the same human being before birth as it is after birth. If you support a woman killing it for a senseless reason before birth, you should support a woman killing it for a senseless reason after birth. In both cases, there are other options. You’re just all ‘pro-women’. Who cares about anyone else, right?
      If a woman’s life is truly endangered from the pregnancy, she can have an abortion to save her life. Otherwise, if she doesn’t want any ‘risk’ associated with pregnancy, in 99% of cases, she has control and can avoid getting pregnant. Once pregnant though, she has a responsibility to her unborn child. Killing that human being should not be an option.
      Killing an unborn human being is a right given by a bad SC decision. One that should be overturned.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Word salad.

      I am discussing the first proposition in the article you linked. I am not wading through that deluge of BS to get to the place where you speak to that propostion alone.

      I want to have a substantive discussion. You seem incapable of that. Does not surprise me. Most fetusfreaks suffer from compulsions and delusions.

      The biggest delusion being that their opinion is somehow wanted or potent in my sexual/family life or should be.

      Clean up the mess and we can talk, literally and figuratively. No ranting. It is tiresome. Or not. Other people can see you and your act.

    • myintx

      I answered your previous post. Sorry you’re too delusional in the ‘right to kill’ bs that you cannot see it.
      There are LAWS saying what you cannot do in your ‘family life’ – i.e. you cannot kill your born child. There are laws saying you cannot kill your unborn child after viability unless you meet one of the exceptions in the law. Is that interfering in your life? boo hoo.
      Killing a child – born or unborn – is wrong. I will continue to state my opinion and continue to vote for pro-life candidates.

    • ansuz
    • Mirable

      Yep.

    • ansuz

      lifesitenews has an article entitled ‘Are Muslims our natural allies?’

      I haven’t read it yet, but it looks like it might be entertaining.

    • Mirable

      I will have to check it out. If you ever want a laugh, check out secular pro life perspectives – the arguments are mostly religious, and they try to say that abortion is misogynist like FGM.

    • Mirable

      I checked it out. Not much to see, actually. They ended up talking about how misogynist and horrible Islam is, and how Christianity really really cares about women.

      The funny thing is, of course, that while certain Christians want to outlaw contraception and abortion, the former and the latter are both allowed in Islamic countries because *the man* decides if and when his property will get pregnant.

    • ansuz

      Debunking your link:

      Quote from this piece:
      “I’m a cat fan, and I would rather look at cats than whatever comes up when you search photo websites for “abortion.””
      Quote from your link:
      “I’ll be the first to admit that it’s easier to look at photos of cute cats than to look atphotos of real abortions. Or a video of what abortion really is.”
      Me:
      Except that a shitload of the things that show up when you search “abortion” are not actually pictures of abortion but staged horror-p0rn. And pictures of cats suit the tone of this article much better than pictures of somber women and clinical settings. I’d especially like to note that the author of this piece specifically mentioned ‘sobbing women’, and that imagery is definitely inappropriate for this piece, and that imagery also erases the wide variety of reactions that people have to obtaining abortions. (Abortion regret is still very much not mental illness, or significantly different from regretting any other major life decision.)

      Quote from your link:
      “But what informs women more accurately? Reality? Or an unrelated subject? How can it be truly empowering to encourage women to avoid the truth?”
      Me:
      This is not a piece of serious journalism whose intent is to inform. The intent of this is obviously to lighten the tone surrounding abortion discussions.

      Quote from this article:
      “Mommyish is a parenting website. We support all parents, including…people who don’t want to become parents.”
      Quote from your link:
      “Ok, so you “support” people who don’t want to be parents by encouraging them to kill the children they don’t want to parent? Wow. Sounds like a scary method of “parenting” to me.”
      Me:
      No children have ever been harmed in safe, legal abortions (except for possibly the ones who were pregnant, but I’m pretty sure that carrying a pregnancy to term is more harmful for children than abortion). And this (support for those who don’t want to become parents) is a good stance for Mommyish to take — society is still pretty hard on the childfree, especially female-presenting, and it’s good to present that as a valid lifestyle choice. Further, ~61% of people who get abortions are already parents, so a discussion of abortion is very relevant for a parenting website.

      On to the main points, now:

      1. The author of the linked article does not seem to have very good reading comprehension. This piece is a tone-lightener and thought-provoker; it is (obviously) meant much more to make people think about why people would get abortion (and to affirm those choices as valid) than to be handing down oughts by fiat.

      2. This is not a point that I’m going to address, because it’s been done to death and I doubt redoing it here would help anything (for the curious, please ask and I’ll find you a link).

      3. Again with the ‘musts’.

      4. Okay, this one I can say something. Adoption is not an alternative to carrying a pregnancy to term, it’s only an alternative to parenting. Some people capable of becoming pregnant are too young for their bodies to safely carry a pregnancy to term. Also, avoid Crisis Pregnancy Centres like the purveyors of Jesus-flavoured coercion and bunk that they are. And, just to reiterate, this article (not the linked one) is saying that ‘feeling too young to have a baby’ is a reason (and a valid one) why somebody might choose to abort, not saying that all young people should abort.

      5. As maternal (and paternal) age goes up, the risk of certain issues (can’t be assed to check which ones) goes up as well. Also, older people might not feel that they have enough energy to be wrangling kiddies. Both of these age-related reasons are (valid!) reasons why older people might abort.

      6. Concern about overpopulation does not justify killing someone who isn’t living inside of you, but it is a pretty damn moral reason to not bring any new people into the world (as is done by carrying a pregnancy to term).

      7. Doctors should not pressure people to abort, and people should be given medical information that is as accurate as possible, true, but if someone is considering abortion (for health of the fetus-reasons or any other reasons), it is best to abort quickly. And, you know what? Life is not always worth saving. It is perfectly valid to obtain an abortion because you don’t want someone to suffer, or because concerns over the health of the fetus have changed your ability to cope with pregnancy and/or the possibility of parenthood.

      8. As noted in the linked article, rapists have parental rights over their rape-conceived offspring in many states. The more horribly wrong thing in the linked article, though, is that abortion of embryos/fetuses conceived in rape is not punishment of the zef (nor is it experienced as such, as zefs do not experience) but rather about mitigating the harm done by the rape, making it easier for the victim to put it behind them. It also allows them to reassert sovereignty over their bodies. People who are coerced or forced into having abortions after being raped will obviously not have good experiences, as being forced to have an abortion is, in fact, a second violation of bodily autonomy on par with rape. There are other reasons why someone would not want to have the connection with someone else that bearing their child would probably force them to have, though, and all of those possible reasons are (perfectly valid) reasons why someone might obtain an abortion.

      9. Not wanting to have a child (for whatever reason) is a great reason to consider alternatives to having a child. And, no, a child is not present as soon as conception happens. And, no, abortion is not murder.

  • Steven John

    conception is death

  • K

    Oh…my…this article is the most immoral and immature piece of writing I’ve read concerning abortion.

    • CJ99

      The only thing immoral & immature about it are comments such as yours. If you come back check your massive ego at the door.

  • Liz

    Imagine you’re fifteen and raped and accidentally end of pregnant. You can try to move past it and be a teen mother of a reminder of a traumatizing incident. You can give that child up for adoption and years later have this wonderful child find you and regret you decision not to keep her. You can have an abortion and have to answer questions, deal with another traumatizing event, and deal with it for the rest of your life. That baby may be a miscarriage or be thrown away by a panic stricken teen, it might survive or not. What is the lesser of all evils? You have to be semi selfish in this decision. I don’t think abortion is write but neither is putting a girl in the position of not having an option. Don’t you think some of these girls regret this and deal with the hurt forever? Let’s not make it worse and point a finger and label them “baby haters”. Some today are mothers or maybe can’t have children or are trying for a child. They think about the baby they chose to not have, some regret it and others come to term that it was the best decision for them. Men in fancy suits should not get to make this decision, as Rachel said in Friends, “No uterus, no opinion.”

  • the_truth

    If you don’t want to have a child then dont have sex. Is that simple, and abortion is just killing babies. Do you think about their rights? You need to think before you have sex about the effects. If you are not mature enough to have a kid then you are not mature enough to have sex.

  • alasia min

    If you don’t want children don’t have sex or get a female vasectomy. Unless you were raped or having a child could possibly kill you for whatever medical reasons, then an abortion should not be an option for you. Sex means the potential of getting pregnant, You don’t want that consequence, then don’t have sex. If you went and had sex anyways and got pregnant then that’s your fault and you should be able to accept the consequences without killing a potential life. Stupid irresponsible people shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce so I think that if irresponsible are allowed to get abortions, they should be sterilized in the process.

  • Very Cold Dude x10

    0_o

  • “?”

    that really geo stineman?

  • Very Cold Dude x10

    If she adds “Product of Rape” I think the picture should be of a dog owning a cat.

  • http://Mommyish.com/ Eve Vawter

    haha, see, you guys are one minute all annoying, and one minute funny. stop confusing me