Unproductive responses to the Emily Letts abortion video

[Today’s guest post by Rachel Enders is part of our paid blogging program. Get more thoughts from Rachel at her Pro-Life For All tumblr. She also blogs about sexual health at Birds, Bees, and Other Things, which is not remotely safe for work.]

Emily Letts is a woman from New Jersey, and she is pro-choice. She participates in abortion-related activism, and she is an abortion counselor at the Cherry Hill Women’s Center. In November, she decided to have an abortion. This choice has sparked an onslaught of respect and condemnation from people on all sides of the abortion issue.

Why is Emily’s abortion different than the fifty-five million other abortions that have taken place since 1973? Emily Lett filmed her abortion… and it went viral.

Miss Lett entered her video into the Abortion Stigma-Busting Competition sponsored by the Abortion Care Network in an attempt to dissipate the shame that many women feel after an abortion.
She says:

I know there are women who feel great remorse. I have seen the tears. Grieving is an important part of a woman’s process, but what I really wanted to address in my video is guilt… Our society breeds this guilt. We inhale it from all directions… I had one woman who messaged me saying she’d had an abortion that week, and she was plagued with guilt. Her boyfriend called her a killer…

Unfortunately, these sorts of reactions to post-abortive women are far too common in some facets of the pro-life movement.
When I was perusing facebook looking for information about this case, the amount of pure vitriol coming from the peanut gallery was simply terrible. I’ll share a few (adjusted for privacy).

Some were slut-shaming:

Others wished her infertility:

Some even wished her death:

And some were simply a bit stupid:

All of these examples are very, very sad.

I’m writing this in the early hours of Mother’s Day, and I’m appalled by so many aspects of this case. On one hand, there is a woman who has bought into the lies that support abortion. On the other hand, there are people who supposedly support life that are wishing another person violent death.

I understand the anger of the commenters. I really do. It makes me mad that this woman chose to end her child’s life. I am disappointed that in her sexual activity she was not using any form of birth control, by her own admission. It also makes me angry to see fellow pro-lifers spit this sort of hatred at a woman they’ve never met. I am even more livid that high-profile pro-life websites have allowed this sort of commenting to go unchecked on their Facebook pages.

I’ve drawn one conclusion about this story: Nothing has occurred so far that’s positive.

However, we do have the opportunity to improve the situation. Many women who are considering abortion or are post-abortive feel a great deal of shame and condemnation from society and the people around them. Unfortunately, too much of that comes from people who claim to be pro-life.

We can change this. Bringing positivity to the abortion dialogue does a lot. Firstly, it decreases the amount of totally unnecessary stress to someone who is facing an unwanted pregnancy or has just lost a child. In any circumstance that’s difficult and nobody needs to be called a whore when their lives are going to be changed forever. Secondly, if a woman has had or is seeking an abortion, do you think this sort of trash talking will convince her to choose life? I don’t think so. Lastly, it’s just the kind thing to do. That factor is enough for me to use only productive language in any circumstance. The list goes on and on, but I’ve picked out the highlights.

I truly believe that with some hard work, the pro-life movement will ultimately triumph over abortion. It’s a firm conviction of mine. For this to occur, we have to stay productive and open. We can let our anger drive us to action, but we can’t let it consume us. Overall, I believe that we can change hearts and minds, but hatred only hurts our cause.

Calling someone scum doesn’t save the unborn – it only hurts people.

299 thoughts on “Unproductive responses to the Emily Letts abortion video”

  1. The comments have been dreadful. I've been ashamed of many members of the pro-life community, and have actually stopped reading comments on most Emily Letts' stories because I couldn't stop cringing. It's unhelpful and unproductive.

    Reply
  2. Would you treat a woman who just dismembered her infant with compassion? No. Most people would not. If one believes truly that abortion is the equivalent of torturing an infant to death, then they are completely justified in wishing death and destruction on any woman who has an abortion. The vitriol and violence is justified.

    Reply
  3. If people were dismembering babies in your city would you not try to stop it violently?

    Also, I mainly meant rhetorical violence.

    Reply
  4. What if she was your daughter? Obviously I would be disappointed and horrified if she was mine. I would have thoughts akin to "I can't believe I raised someone who would murder her own baby in such a cold and dismissive fashion." But I also would not tolerate others wishing death, infertility, and hell upon her…especially if they voiced yheir wishes out loud.
    Emily Letts represents the epitome of pro-abortion thought and action which is full of selfishness, ignorance, and brain-washing. Wishing for her to come to a similar fate as her child may feel "fair" as in an-eye-for-an-eye, but it only adds to the problem and only brings the wisher down to her level.

    Reply
  5. People do dismember babies in my city. Every time I drive by the Planned Parenthood where it happens, I feel angry. But I don't do anything violent – rhetorical or otherwise.

    Reply
  6. People who dismember and torture infants/embryos deserve zero sympathy. Only contempt. Like Nazis.

    If you are saying that vicious and violent murder is OK because of brainwashing, then the Nazis should never have been vilified for their crimes after all it was just brainwashing.

    If my kid cheerfully and happily tortured and dismembered her baby for a YouTube video I would treat her with contempt just like those angry hateful commenters.

    Reply
  7. If people were taking their children to dismemberment clinics instead of going to kindergarten that day I assume you would be just be just as blase about it as you are now?

    Reply
  8. The frustration felt on the prolife side of this issue is tremendous! Why don't we show the same positive support for these prolifers whose hearts are broken by all the selfish proaborts who kill their children? They would not physically harm these women who get abortions. How are we supposed to vent the feelings when we hear these stories? If we comment to prochoicers in calm rational tones, we are always met with rage and ridicule. We are only human, as they are only human also. It's a tough place to be in this society….on the prolife side.

    Reply
  9. My ability to empathize is strange. Do you know what pisses me off more than genocide in Africa? Having a crappy internet connection.

    My empathy is maybe lacking, but I can recognize what an injustice looks like. As I've explained in another blog, this is just an awkward reality that has been going on since before I was born. If we want to make a difference, it is important that we are able to show our sanity and give reason. Blowing up abortion clinics is not going to bring change.

    And the take away from this well articulated thought is that this sort of behavior is harmful in the important matter of reversing inertia in this plight.

    No differently than how a moral vegetarian feels killing animals for meat is akin to murder, if he wants to make a difference, violence isn't going to help his cause.

    Reply
  10. Violence ended the holocaust…

    If abortion is truly a holocaust.. Then the people who resort to violence and vilify women who get abortions are in the right.

    Reply
  11. Yes, purrtriarchy is a troll. I have learned not to engage with her the hard way. Nothing productive comes of it.

    Reply
  12. Most abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the child feels no pain. So in general calling abortion the equivellent of "torturing a child to death" is not scientifically accurate.

    There are also other things to consider. Most women who have abortions don't know that the fetus is a living human being and they don't understand what they are doing. I also think the bodily component of pregnancy makes abortion less bad than infanticide because it involves a conflict of the rights of the child and the mother's bodily rights. I don't think it justifies abortions that actively kill the unborn child but it does, I think, change the morality if the situation to make it not as bad.

    Lastly, violence is almost never justified and it certainly isn't justified in this case

    Reply
  13. I think violence in an attempt to stop abortion would be justified as defense of others. BUT it would also, and I say that as a pro-life christian, remove the abortionists chances of ever being saved, and THAT is inexcusable. Also, violence would backfire at our movement and pourt credibility, it would lead to abortion being legal even longer than if we don't use violence, and ultimately more babies will die. Unless we are willing to use massive violence, and then we are back to the backfires and the souls lost.

    As long as abortion is legal, and the police are on the abortionists side, violence will never work. And should abortion be illegal, we could call te police, and violence would not be nessessary.

    Plus, pro-life means exactly that, we are a non-violent movement. So yes, the violence if abortion can cause us to consider the justification of defending the unborn with violence. I have an assumption you believe we are not true pro-lifers if we don't defend the unborn as we would a born child.

    But all those points I have made, makes violence a very bad idea, and will only cause us to be killers and abortion to be legal even longer. Thus, violence is CONTRAINDICATED. Still, that doesn't minimize the horrible violence of abortion and the humanity and rights of the unborn

    Reply
  14. Pro-lifers routinely tell me that 6 week embryos have functioning brains and hearts and that they are awake and can feel pain and all of the emotions…

    Besides, a paralyzed person can't feel pain, but it would still be torture to cut them up, wouldn't it?

    Most women who have abortions don't know that the fetus is a living human being and they don't understand what they are doing.

    The Nazis didn't understand that jews were people either. The slavers didn't understand that non-whites were people either. Ignorance is not an excuse for cold blooded torture and genocide.

    I also think the bodily component of pregnancy makes abortion less bad
    than infanticide because it involves a conflict of the rights of the
    child and the mother's bodily rights.

    Yes, there is a conflict, but she is responsible for it because she put it there, kind of like kidnapping. She coerced it into existence, and put it into a state of existential dependency. It's all her fault, and she needs to take responsibility.

    Reply
  15. Abortion is the equivalent of antebellum slavery and the holocaust. Those were only stopped with violence. The true believers are in the right, with violence and angry rhetoric.

    Reply
  16. It's called examining the issues and the motivations of people in the pro-life movement.

    If you're going to go around saying that abortion = WORSE than the holocaust and slavery put together, then you can't say 'but I am going to combat it by writing my congressman and saying nice things'.

    No, that is not how we humans have EVER dealt with mass murder and crimes against humanity.

    We need to examine the issues, instead of issuing worthless platitudes and making excuses for people.

    BTW, you're just butthurt that you weren't able to convince me that zygotes and coma patients were exactly the same re sentience. Which is why you had to cowardly resort to ad homimen attacks, accusing me of having had abortions and going over to LAN and saying that I have a personality disorder. Sad!

    Reply
  17. Not true, this cannot be compared, as we don't have any government behind us, like the west had during the war or the US north. We would be hunted down and accomplish nothing. The only way for us to achieve anything, would be to win people's hearts and babies lives. We then can fight to make unborn lives protected, and then we can prosecute abortionists. There is a difference between a just war and plain stupidity because we can achieve only the opposite of our goal.

    Nice try though. It took the allied years to fight the nazis, all the german humanists could do was try to save the ones they could. And we are the german humanists

    Reply
  18. And we are the german humanists

    Yes, which is why it really won't go that far. As I said, the true believers, the ones who will go to war, are the ones who will only ever end it. Especially if abortion really IS worse than every holocaust and crime against humanity put together. (according to many pro-lifers, and the people insulting Emily Letts in the article)

    Reply
  19. No, you are wrong, because we have to relate to the reality we live in. We have to measure our position, and how society is regulated. Making the public our enemies in a democratic society will cause MORE deaths in the long run. You WANT us to be villent, because then you will go back to Rhrc and claim we ARE that. You want us to be, because then you win. If the german humanists were violent against the nazis, they would save less lives, because they themselves would be killed. We have to save as many as we can, working to win hearts and minds and votes, and one day, we will get the human life amendment

    Reply
  20. Think about it this way. The people who blow up clinics and assassinate abortion doctors literally do save lives. For every doctor that is killed or clinic bombed, women literally CANNOT get that abortion. There is one less clinic and one less evil doctor.

    Compare it to bombing a train track during the holocaust. The is one train carrying jews that won't make it to the gas chambers. Those are some lives that are saved.

    The true believers might not be playing the long game, as you are, but they are playing the immediate game, which is to IMMEDIATELY save lives. As in, they believe that actual babies are being murdered in the most horrific ways, and they are taking immediate steps to stop it.

    And no, I don't want you to be violent, nothing of the sort. However, instead of flat out condemning the violent/angry anti-abortionists, I am trying to understand where they come from. And where they come from, is that they believe that abortion is genocide, and that this is a war, and that babies must be saved RIGHT NOW – because each and every life that can be immediately saved is precious.

    Understand?

    Reply
  21. I understand them, really I do. But I do believe it is counterproductive and will cause more deaths in the long run. But yes, I do understand why people shoot abortionists, although the train comparison is not the same as the train itself isn't bombed. But as I said, it is counterproductive and leads to more deaths in the long run. But I understand were they come from

    Reply
  22. Psst. Don't feed the trolls.

    I'm glad my piece has gotten a good amount of views so far. I think this issue is so important.

    Reply
  23. That's all I am trying to do. Thank you Ingrid for understanding!

    By their logic, I think, it can take decades to shut down abortion clinics and eventually outlaw it. How many millions of babies will die in that time ? They are looking at the small picture, and trying to save *individual* lives.

    Reply
  24. When clinics are bombed and abortion doctors are killed, women reschedule their appointments. I have never heard of a single woman who did not have her abortion because of clinic violence. it certainly does not eliminate her desire to abort, it only makes her even LESS likely to consider alternatives. When clinics are set on fire or doctors shot, women go elsewhere. Violence also energizes the pro-choice movement. It convinces people that pro-lifers are evil and crazy – and fewer women go to them for help when they are pregnant. Fewer women go to crisis pregnancy centers because they associate prolifers with violence.Fewer people listen to pro-life arguments or read pro-life blogs or trust pro-life info. Medical students for choice is a group that was founded after the first abortionist was killed. The pro-choicers who founded it said that they would not have been inspired to found it if the killings hadn't happened. MSFC had trained over 300 abortionists. We killed five. These are people who may have been won to the pro-life side if not for the violence. If you look at statistics, the biggest amount of clinic violence took place in the in the 90s. The highest number of abortions EVER was in the 90s. Staistics show that the violence saved no lives and even may have contributed to the death of more babies. When people are convinced that pro-lifers are crazy and evil, and that their arguments are not worth listening to, babies die.

    Reply
  25. There is no excuse. Their behavior is abhorrent. But so is slinging vitriol and hate the way a chimp slings feces.
    You want to hate her and treat her like garbage and wish ill upon her then that's your prerogative. But know that such an approach only further entretches people like her in their abomidable behavior, and gives them fodder to sling likewise back at you.

    Reply
  26. I've been trying to get people to ignore the trolls on my articles for a long time. You haven't lived until the comments on your article breach 200 because people can't let the trolls get the last word.

    Reply
  27. What's your opinion of the White Rose project? Were they heroic for trying to save innocent people at great personal cost, or were they just cowardly hypocrites for not picking up guns and shooting a bunch of S.S. officers or whatever?

    Reply
  28. "Some were slut-shaming:"

    Yes, this could probably be interpreted as slut-shaming. However, it is worth noting that even some/many pro-choicers tell males who don't want to pay or to risk paying child support something similar ("Keep it in your pants!").

    Thus, it appears that it should either be okay to say something such as this to both sexes/genders or that it should not be okay to say something such as this to either sex/gender. Otherwise, it appears to be a case of double-standards.

    Reply
  29. If a day comes when every single child is welcomed & loved, and GUARANTEED a life free from neglect/abuse, then you may have an ethical argument against abortion. (Not a legal one.)

    That day is not today. Far from it.

    Reply
  30. "Would you treat a woman who just dismembered her infant with compassion?"

    Dismembered? No. Painlessly euthanized her infant with the "baby daddy's" consent in a hypothetical situation where there is currently a shortage of adoptive parents and where what she did is legal? Probably Yes.

    Reply
  31. You are aware that you appear to be begging the question here, right? Else, your rationale here could likewise be used to justify things such as elective late-term abortions and infanticide in the hypothetical event of a shortage of adoptive parents.

    Reply
  32. The people who say that she's a nazi killer slut who should die for her crimes.

    The GOP members who say that fetus's should have guns etc. That stand your ground laws should be applied to fetuses, so that if anyone is going to harm a fetus should be shot dead (ie kill abortion doctors)

    Reply
  33. "Violence ended the holocaust…"

    Violence in the sense that various countries went to war and defeated the Nazis, thus stopping the Holocaust.

    Reply
  34. "If abortion were happening in one country then you might, MAYBE, have a point."

    Perhaps, but only if she was talking about using violence in the sense of having countries go to war with this country, rather than about ordinary individuals taking the law into their own hands and committing violence.

    Reply
  35. "The people who say that she's a nazi killer slut who should die for her crimes."

    OK, but this appears to be a possible threat and/or incitement on their part. I don't approve of either of these things, so yeah.

    "The GOP members who say that fetus's should have guns etc."

    Fetuses shouldn't have guns because they are incapable of using them. Heck, even already-born children shouldn't have guns.

    "That stand your ground laws should be applied to fetuses, so that if anyone is going to harm a fetus should be shot dead (ie kill abortion doctors)"

    I oppose doing this regardless of whether or not abortion is legal. Why? Because I don't think that abortion doctors should be given the death penalty even if abortion is made illegal.

    Reply
  36. As a side note, though, even if all other arguments are unconvincing to someone, it is worth noting that supporting having individuals take the law into their own hands in regards to this could very well *hurt* their cause, which is an outcome that I don't think that these individuals want.

    Reply
  37. -Not hypothetical. There IS a huge shortage of adoptive patents. Otherwise our foster care system would not be clogged.

    -I have no problem with late term abortion.

    -The decision to carry a pregnancy instead of abort, is a commitment made to the future child. It's tantamount to a legal contract never to abuse or kill the child, and should be treated as such.

    -Spitting out a child does not end your parental responsibility. That's where it effectively begins. If all your "consideration" for fetuses were actually directed towards living children, these problems would be pretty much solved by now.

    Reply
  38. Oh, and as a side note, the only change of government which I support are a change of government which is done through democratic means, rather than through something such as a coup d'etat.

    Reply
  39. Yeah, frankly, I might need to side with purrtriarchy (a.k.a. Lieutenant Nun, a.k.a. Mirable, et cetera) in regards to this. I think that she provides interesting points to consider, at least sometimes.

    Reply
  40. What if someone does not consider human infants to be persons and thus considers elective painless infanticide to be morally justifiable in the hypothetical event of a shortage of adoptive parents?

    Reply
  41. "-Not hypothetical. There IS a huge shortage of adoptive patents. Otherwise our foster care system would not be clogged."

    OK. Thanks for this info.

    "-I have no problem with late term abortion."

    What about with elective painless infanticide as long as both parents consent and as long as a shortage of adoptive parents remains?

    "-The decision to carry a pregnancy instead of abort, is a commitment made to the future child. It's tantamount to a legal contract never to abuse or kill the child, and should be treated as such."

    I am not entirely sure that I would agree with you on this. After all, people *do* change their minds in regards to this–for instance, a woman could purposely get pregnant only to change her mind later on and get an abortion. Thus, why exactly couldn't such a rationale apply to infanticide as well in certain cases?

    "-Spitting out a child does not end your parental responsibility. That's where it effectively begins. If all your "consideration" for fetuses were actually directed towards living children, these problems would be pretty much solved by now."

    Actually, I have no problem with helping out children who are already born. This is why I support liberal economic policies, a social safety net, et cetera.

    Reply
  42. -There should be a reasonable time limit to change your mind. Whether it should extend beyond birth is debatable. Personally I think 9 months of pregnancy should be more than enough time to decide between commitment or abortion.

    -I agree with liberal economic policies & social safety net. But what's most important is to STOP adding more children to an already overburdened system.

    Reply
  43. "-There should be a reasonable time limit to change your mind. Whether it should extend beyond birth is debatable. Personally I think 9 months of pregnancy should be more than enough time to decide between commitment or abortion."

    But why exactly draw the line there if one does not think that personhood should begin until at some point (say 1 month, or 2 months, or half a year, or a year) after birth?

    "-I agree with liberal economic policies & social safety net. But what's most important is to STOP adding more children to an already overburdened system."

    Aren't you begging the question here by assuming that abortion is morally justifiable, though?

    Reply
  44. No assumption. I know abortion ethically justifiable. (Don't like the word moral as it sounds religious).

    Reply
  45. "Personally I would draw the line at birth. Others may disagree, and I may change my mind upon new evidence."

    OK, but that is precisely the point that I was trying to make here. If you draw the line at birth and say that it is morally/ethically unjustifiable (they both essentially mean the same thing, and for reference, I myself am an agnostic) to kill someone after birth (even if doing this will result in less unwanted and miserable children), then someone else can likewise draw the line somewhere else, such as at conception/fertilization. (If you think that drawing the line at birth is the best position in regards to this, then that's fine, but that is a separate debate.)

    Thus, my overall point here is that focusing *solely* on reducing the number of unwanted and miserable children appears to be a poor move and that rather, there are other factors (such as when personhood should begin and at what point killing someone is morally justifiable) which should also be considered.

    And for reference, some/many politically anti-abortion people, including myself (though my views on abortion aren't as clear-cut as those of many other people), support various measures, such as greater contraception availability/accessibility and teaching comprehensive sex ed everywhere, in order to reduce the number of unwanted and miserable children. However, since they draw the line at conception, they cannot (unless they change their mind) support legalized abortion as a tool to achieve this goal.

    Hopefully what I wrote here makes sense.

    Reply
  46. Purrtriarchy, killing abortionists and villifying women who have abortions does nothing to save unborn babies. It turns people away from the pro-life movement. Pro-life legislation was not passed because Dr. Tiller was murdered. If he had not been murdered, chances are good that he would have gone to jail for several crimes that he had committed. Murdering him turned him into a pro-choice hero, while if he had lived, he might now be viewed the same as Gosnell.
    All of the former pro-choice women that were post-abortive that I know did not experience a change of heart because people yelled at them and called them murderers. They changed because pro-life people loved them even when they were proud of and boasted about their abortions.
    If infanticide was legal and common in our nation, i would deal with that problem the exact same way.

    Reply
  47. "How many millions of babies will die in that time?"

    Semantic issue, but embryos and fetuses, not babies.

    "They are looking at the small picture, and trying to save *individual* lives."

    If you are talking about individuals which kill abortion doctors here, then I would like to point out that animal rights activists who support terrorism in order to reduce the amount of animal killings and/or of animal abuse appear to have a pretty similar mindset. Frankly, I wonder if the people which kill abortion doctors support doing what these radical animal rights activists are doing.

    Reply
  48. I have now read this entire article itself, and overall, I appear to agree with your main point here. It is better to be constructive rather than to be critical and insulting. After all, as you said, being constructive might cause more people to support your side on this issue and/or on other issues.

    Reply
  49. Tiller would not have gone to jail because the late term abortions that he performed were on fetuses with fatal deformities. Missing organs, brains, spinal cords etc.

    Reply
  50. Sources please…according the Adoption Encyclopedia, there are waiting lists for adoptive parents wanting to adopt healthy newborn infants. Also, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, only 24% of all foster children are there because they need to be adopted, the rest are there for temporary placement until they can be returned to their parents. According to them, 21% of those who exit the foster care system are adopted, and since only 24% need to be adopted, that's a pretty good success rate.

    Reply
  51. There were other things that he did, like failure to report statuary rape. Also, he did abortions on fetuses with Down Syndrome and other non-lethal defects, as well as on perfectly healthy fetuses, according to former employees. In the movie After Tiller, his collegues discuss what they do-they say that they frequently abort for non-lethal abnormality and for women who just found out that they were pregnant and don't want to be anymore. Dr. Susan Robinson did an interview about it where she candidly discusses third trimester abortions on healthy fetuses and healthy mothers.

    Reply
  52. I fully agree with all the preventive measures such as comprehensive sex education & unlimited access to contraception.

    I completely disagree with drawing the line at conception, because unwanted pregnancy can always happen despite all the preventive measures in the world, then women get stuck with an obligation they didn't ask for. (Besides if some people are irresponsible enough to have unsafe sex despite the availability of all the sex-ed & contraceptives, they are unlikely to be responsible parents to a child.)

    As to personhood, EVEN if a zygote were considered a person from conception, no person should have a legal right to inhabit another person's body without their consent.

    Reply
  53. Where did you get that information? Even pro-choice sources deny that. After Tiller clearly shows that many of these third trimester abortions are on healthy mothers and healthy fetuses.

    Reply
  54. What about conjoined twins? They inhabit each others bodies and both have to consent for separation surgery, even if one is somewhat unequally dependent on the other. This requirement exists unless the parasitic twin is incapable of ever having a conscious existence or if it threatens the life of the dominant twin.

    Reply
  55. "I fully agree with all the preventive measures such as comprehensive sex education & unlimited access to contraception."

    Good. 🙂

    "I completely disagree with drawing the line at conception, because unwanted pregnancy can always happen despite all the preventive measures in the world, then women get stuck with an obligation they didn't ask for."

    Your description of this situation here is accurate, but not much different from the current reality in regards to males and child support. Despite all of the precautions that a male takes, unwanted pregnancy can happen and he can be forced to pay child support for 18+ years afterwards.

    "(Besides if some people are irresponsible enough to have unsafe sex despite the availability of all the sex-ed & contraceptives, they are unlikely to be responsible parents to a child.)"

    Perhaps, but if one considers abortion to be morally unjustifiable, then it would be better to have these kids be in such a situation than to have these kids be aborted (just like people who oppose infanticide, such as yourself, would prefer kids to be in such a situation than to have these kids be killed back when they were infants).

    "As to personhood, EVEN if a zygote were considered a person from conception, no person should have a legal right to inhabit another person's body without their consent."

    I might disagree with you in regards to this. Frankly, if anything, I think that the right to bodily autonomy nowadays might be too broad, whereas the right not to be killed nowadays might not be broad enough.

    Here are two videos about this (one of these videos is a constitution of the other one):

    youtube.com/watch?v=Bv_GZuhY_9c

    youtube.com/watch?v=di09C7BTRpo

    Basically, he responds to Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario, but what he says here could be applied in a general sense as well. He also makes his argument from a rights-based perspective (by advocating in favor of reducing the scope of bodily autonomy and in favor of extending the scope of the right not to be killed).

    Interestingly enough, even if I was pro-choice, I might still support making the right to bodily autonomy less broad than it currently is.

    Reply
  56. Conjoined twins are a different case because both of these twins had an equal claim on their shared organs (since, as far as I know, both of them already existed before their shared organs were completely created).

    Reply
  57. Ugh, I think I know a few of these people even with the names taken out. I know hate speech all sounds the same, but there's a few familiar phrases in there.

    Reply
  58. Well, in that case a defender of the bodily rights argument would need to hold that a woman who is born pregnant doesn't have the right to an abortion, but a woman who becomes pregnant later in life does.

    (it's weird and impossible of course, but so is the violinist analogy)

    Reply
  59. "Well, in that case a defender of the bodily rights argument would need to hold that a woman who is born pregnant doesn't have the right to an abortion, but a woman who becomes pregnant later in life does."

    Perhaps, unless of course such a pregnancy would threaten this female's life and one has to pick between saving this female and saving no one.

    Interestingly enough, something which *might* be close to what you are talking about are parasitic twins and what is called a fetus-is-fetu or something like that.

    Reply
  60. Nah, I was more going for a hypothetical case where the fetus slowly grows into a mature person (just like in a typical pregnancy), not one where they're braindead.

    There was a parallel case with conjoined twins, where lethal separation was allowed to be carried out. The judges made it clear however that it was only permitted because both would have died otherwise (so the choice was either letting both die or saving the stronger one).

    theguardian.com/uk/2002/feb/05/sarahboseley

    Reply
  61. I disagree with mandatory child support laws. If a woman chooses to have a baby against the father's will, he should NOT be held responsible for child support at all.

    The existence of one bad law doesn't justify creating another similar bad law. Instead the first one should be repealed.

    Haven't watched the videos yet. Will do so & comment later.

    Reply
  62. Not necessarily. What about Anastasia Dogaru? She is joined at the head to her sister Tatiana. Anastasia has no kidneys, and so depends on her sister Tatiana for kidney filtration.

    Reply
  63. But what if that wasn't the case? Also, Anastasia can have a kidney transplant or dialysis, while it sounds like Tatiana will always need her sister's circulatory system.

    Reply
  64. Yup… that was really helpful in outlawing abortion and helping women to choose life for their little ones. Outstanding.

    Reply
  65. "We can change this. Bringing positivity to the abortion dialogue does a lot. Firstly, it decreases the amount of totally unnecessary stress to someone who is facing an unwanted pregnancy or has just lost a child. In any circumstance that’s difficult and nobody needs to be called a whore when their lives are going to be changed forever. Secondly, if a woman has had or is seeking an abortion, do you think this sort of trash talking will convince her to choose life? I don’t think so. Lastly, it’s just the kind thing to do. That factor is enough for me to use only productive language in any circumstance. (…)

    I truly believe that with some hard work, the pro-life movement will ultimately triumph over abortion. It’s a firm conviction of mine. For this to occur, we have to stay productive and open. We can let our anger drive us to action, but we can’t let it consume us. Overall, I believe that we can change hearts and minds, but hatred only hurts our cause."

    Nothing to add: 100% of agreement here!

    Reply
  66. No. Forcing pregnancy (or abortion) is always unethical.
    I said you MAY (not will) have an ethical argument if those circumstances ever occurred.

    Reply
  67. May suggests possibility though. How can you suggest the pro-life group may have an ethical argument if they still advocate forced birth?

    Reply
  68. But you chose to concentrate on the life of the child in your argument on the possibility of an ethical pro-life argument. No mention of the woman carrying the fetus…

    Reply
  69. "I disagree with mandatory child support laws. If a woman chooses to have a baby against the father's will, he should NOT be held responsible for child support at all."

    I strongly admire your position on this issue.

    "The existence of one bad law doesn't justify creating another similar bad law. Instead the first one should be repealed."

    Yes and No. Ideally, you might be correct on this. In practice, however, since the odds of having the current child support laws changed, at least during the next several decades, are extremely low, it might be better to seek logical consistency by changing the law in another direction (in other words, by seeking to repeal Roe v. Wade and to implement a ban on most abortions).

    If changing the current child support laws ever becomes a very real possibility, and if legalizing elective late-term abortions everywhere likewise becomes a very real possibility, then I (if I will still be alive at that point in time) *might* join your side on this issue.

    "Haven't watched the videos yet. Will do so & comment later."

    Thank you. Yeah, personally, I might consider his arguments in regards to this pretty convincing, regardless of whether I was politically anti-abortion or pro-choice.

    Reply
  70. Regarding the argument in the video: Killing an already existing independent person (or letting them die) is quite different from preventing a brand new person from ever being born.
    In the former case you are robbing a person of their established life, causing a loss to that person and extended repercussions such as emotional & financial distress to his family. Latter case, the fetus doesn’t have an established life to be robbed.

    Killing a fetus only takes away the POTENTIAL for an established life, and in case of an unwanted fetus, their potential life being a good one is very slim.

    If you are unable/unwilling to ensure a good life complete with all resources & love, you are knowingly condemning a future child to suffering. That in my opinion is far worse than killing a non-sentient being right now.

    In a practical sense, if abortion were banned there will be far more children needing support, and mandatory child support
    laws would never be repealed.

    Furthermore if a woman can be forced to bear a child she doesn’t want, why shouldn’t a man be forced to support a child he doesn’t want? BOTH those concepts are unfair, and two wrongs don’t make a
    right.

    Reply
  71. I would point out that suba here makes a statement about there being an ethical argument, but uses an unethical (and immoral) point to justify it. 🙂

    Reply
  72. See, you can't even take a genuine compliment without acting like a jackass. The next time you ask "why is he spanking me all over the message boards?", you'll have an answer.

    I absolutely believe in fairness, and abhor double standards. I', unlike you, however…understand how they interact and don't pretend that the world is coming down around my ears.

    Reply
  73. Your agreement is a compliment? Talk about an ego!

    Curious to know how I acted like a jackass. I am known for my courtesy even in the face of the worst insults.

    The world doesn't have to be coming down in order to get rid of double standards or act with compassion. Those weaker than us are ALWAYS suffering. Don't need a special reason to extend a helping hand.

    Reply
  74. "Regarding the argument in the video: Killing an already existing independent person (or letting them die) is quite different from preventing a brand new person from ever being born. In the former case you are robbing a person of their established life, causing a loss to that person and extended repercussions such as emotional & financial distress to his family. Latter case, the fetus doesn’t have an established life to be robbed."

    Yes, you are correct that abortion would still be morally justifiable even if one accepted the premises in this video if one does not consider embryos and fetuses to be persons.

    However, your point here does not address the needs of actual persons to use someone else's body part(s). For instance, if an adult human (whom you obviously consider to be a person) got stabbed in the kidney by another adult human, should he have a claim to this other individual's kidney if there is currently a shortage of available kidneys?

    I will respond to the rest of your points here in a little while.

    Reply
  75. "Your agreement is a compliment? Talk about an ego!"

    If i let ego get in the way, i'd have trolled you again, rather than say we agree on something. Clearly, your idea of "ego" needs a tweak. In this case, us agreeing is, in fact, a compliment…since it's nice to see you pull your head out of your rotund ass and see things clearly for once.

    See how fast I flipped the script there?

    "Curious to know how I acted like a jackass."

    Um, by acting..like a jackass? I say we agree, and you get snotty about it. Always the simple things that you seem to miss.

    "The world doesn't have to be coming down in order to get rid of double
    standards or act with compassion. Those weaker than us are ALWAYS
    suffering. Don't need a special reason to extend a helping hand."

    You're absolutely right..and i'll both compliment you AND agree (see, its easier to just say it all out, rather than imply it!)

    I also don't have to pretend that it IS falling down to lend a sense of urgency to the matter.

    You're welcome. 🙂

    Reply
  76. "UNLIKE you, I don't advocate double standards."

    Is this more of your debate style, where you make a claim, and then cite the thing you're claming as the reason for it? Bit circular, don't you agree?

    What double standard am I perpetrating here? You've yet to point that out.

    "Mandatory child support is a no-brainer, just like forced-birth. Both are unethical."

    But forced death -is- ethical? Please, enlighten us on the ethics of this.

    "Again, anyone who cares about those suffering, doesn't NEED any ball of fire to do something about it."
    You're absolutely right. But while the rest of us accept that, you make claims that every child unwanted at the time of conception is doomed to a life of suffering, failure, pain, and horrors (that you've claimed to see firsthand, remember?).

    So no, some of us (and by "us", i mean anyone other than you) don't need to work under that premise…but you'll pimp it out as a reason for your unethical and immoral decision making process anyway.

    Reply
  77. It is very hard to convince people that pro-life advocates are not anti-woman when there are such hateful comments toward women by people who claim to be pro-life.

    And death wishes are also not something that comes from a pro-life person.

    Reply
  78. “It depends on how one defines "life" here. In regards to fetuses, it is
    worth noting that they are some cases where a male wants to raise and take care of this fetus (after this fetus is born, obviously) but a female does not and
    thus gets an abortion instead. Thus, your point here doesn't apply to these
    fetuses.”

    True, such fetuses do have a better chance at a good life. Such situations are not
    that common though, and the fact remains that the fetus is not being robbed of
    an established life.

    In situations where the future child can be GUARANTEED a good life, it becomes a purely a matter of bodily autonomy. In my opinion the woman’s rights should still come first because she is sentient and has an established life.

    “Well, it is worth noting that these offspring/children should be able to end their
    own lives if they will genuinely be that dissatisfied with their lives.”

    Unfortunately suicide is not a legal option in our society. Children born into bad situations get raped & tortured for years before some commit or attempt suicide, others get scarred for life & become addicts or otherwise unproductive people, and others go on to repeat the cycle of abuse.

    “I am saying that I prefer logical consistency when it comes to the law and that
    if my preferred way of achieving logical consistency is unlikely to be achieved (at least right now), then I will support other ways in order to achieve greater logical consistency in regards to the law.”

    I like logical consistency too, but it’s important that the laws be ethical.

    Reply
  79. When a person harms another person's body UNINTENTIONALLY, forcing them to sacrifice their body as payback is unethical. I'm sure our law agrees with this. The law does not force anyone to give up a body part for any reason.

    Even when people hurt others deliberately with forethought and malice, they are still never required to pay with body parts, and any kind of mutilation is considered cruel & unusual punishment. Now personally I disagree with this concept in cases of truly heinous criminals who commit child abuse, serial rape, prolonged torture etc. I think people give up their bodily autonomy when they DELIBERATELY harm others with malicious intent. But not if the harm was done accidentally or without intent.

    Reply
  80. “What double standard am I perpetrating here? You've yet to point that out.”

    Isn’t it obvious? Forcing women to carry children they don’t want, while opposing men having to support children they don’t want. In your ideal world, women will be saddled with so many children that they have to support all alone, men having no responsibility at all.

    “But forced death -is- ethical? Please,enlighten us on the ethics of this.”

    Who’s FORCING death? All I am advocating is CHOICE, to carry or terminate as the pregnant woman sees fit, and it’s nobody else’s business. Forced death would be forcing abortion AGAINST her will as they do in China. Very similar to forced birth. They both take women’s rights away.

    “You're absolutely right. But while the rest of us accept that, you make claims
    that every child unwanted at the time of conception is doomed to a life of suffering
    , failure, pain, and horrors (that you've claimed to see firsthand, remember?).”

    Unlike a wanted welcomed & loved child, an UNWANTED child has the odds stacked against them from the very beginning.
    (Again, a no brainer). If they somehow manage to have a successful life, it is against great odds, and the exception rather than the norm.

    “but you'll pimp it out as a reason for your unethical and immoral decision making process anyway.”

    Again it’s not MY decision but that of the pregnant woman’s, whose rights you seek to take away.

    More importantly, you have provided zero reasoning why abortion is unethical except that “It takes a life!” Boo hoo cry me a river! THAT argument would be believable if you weren’t simultaneously advocating the killing of those YOU see fit.

    Reply
  81. "When a person harms another person's body UNINTENTIONALLY, forcing them to sacrifice their body as payback is unethical. I'm sure our law agrees with this. The law does not force anyone to give up a body part for any reason."

    So you think that intent *should* be the main factor in determining whether or not someone has a claim to someone else's body?

    "Even when people hurt others deliberately with forethought and malice, they are still never required to pay with body parts, and any kind of mutilation is considered cruel & unusual punishment. Now personally I disagree with this concept in cases of truly heinous criminals who commit child abuse, serial rape, prolonged torture etc. I think people give up their bodily autonomy when they DELIBERATELY harm others with malicious intent. But not if the harm was done accidentally or without intent."

    I want to clarify that I am *not* advocating physically removing people's body parts in such cases, but simply to punish them (more) if they refuse to do this. The choice would still be theirs–there would simply be consequences if they refuse. As for cruel & unusual punishment, I am not sure that I would consider this a punishment as much as an attempt/effort to protect someone else's right not to be killed.

    Reply
  82. One more thing–while I myself am tempted to *oppose* the draft in all cases, I want to point out that the fact that we previously had a draft (and also, I think that we still have Selective Service) indicates that there appears to be a legal precedent for forcing people to risk their lives and well-being for the sake of others (and in the case of the draft, these people who are forced to make these risks are not responsible in any way, either international or unintentional, for the fact that a war is going on at that point in time).

    Reply
  83. As I mentioned before, such a possible ethical argument wouldn't matter, because it cannot supersede the LEGAL (and ethical) rights of the existing person, the woman.

    Reply
  84. Forced surrogacy is what happens before forced birth. Nine months carrying a fetus you don't want? That's what I call forced surrogacy. He only mentioned the ethical side of pro-life regarding the fetus, but left the woman out of the argument.

    Reply
  85. Then why did he leave the woman out of his argument? His whole argument on ethics concentrates only on the fetus, not the host

    Reply
  86. Arguing by misquotation? When did I quote him? All I said is that there are two parts of the ethical argument. The fetus and the woman. He nailed the fetus part of the argument but left out the woman part of it.

    Reply
  87. Oh, okay sorry. I misunderstood I thought we were just arguing about the fetus. I tend to be a little too jumpy when the woman is left out of the argument.

    Reply
  88. Sorry, call it s3xist. I don't know so I try to switch up he and she when I don't know people. I usually end up getting it wrong. Is your user name your name or is there a different meaning behind it?

    Reply
  89. Not meaning to be stalkerish, but I googled your name to try to see what ethnicity it is and I came upon a care2 page. Do you have one of those?

    Reply
  90. Is that a good site? Like do they really donate money or whatever with those butterfly rewards? Because I've been looking for a type of charity portal if that makes sense.

    Reply
  91. Yes they have lots of petitions & action alerts. You earn butterfly rewards for posting & signing petitions etc. & can redeem them for donations to various charities.
    It's easier to navigate than discus, but way too many annoying ads 🙂

    Reply
  92. I am not against child support in all cases, only in those situations where a woman had a baby AGAINST the father's will.

    Just like a woman shouldn't be forced to carry a child she doesn't want, a man shouldn't be forced to support a child he doesn't want (Provided that he makes his wishes known with ample time for her to get an abortion).

    Reply
  93. So in essence, he has a say over what happens in her body. He can coerce her into an abortion with economic threats. Besides the obvious he said/she said issues. If a man doesn't want a child, then he needs to do something about it before someone is pregnant. A man (unlike a woman) is 100% in charge of where his gametes wind up.

    Reply
  94. Just like with a woman, condoms are not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. Just like pregnancy should not automatically force a woman into parenthood against here will, it should not force a man to parenthood against his will. Both man & woman should have a right refuse parenthood after pregnancy & before birth.

    Now if the man claimed he WANTS a child, then changed his mind after she gets pregnant, that's a different story.

    My objection is to forcing a man to pay for a child he NEVER wanted, and expressly stated so.

    Reply
  95. I know all of this. I was simply asking about cases where a female wants to get an elective late-term abortion *and* where the fetus is viable and alive *even though* she can simply give birth instead.

    Reply
  96. Actually, I think that her position on this issue might be more sensible than your position on this issue is.

    Your position on this issue might be an example of pro-choicers wanting to both "have their cake and to eat it too".

    Reply
  97. "So in essence, he has a say over what happens in her body. He can coerce her into an abortion with economic threats."

    I don't think that this will apply if a legal contract is signed beforehand. If a female wants to a male to pay child support, then she shouldn't sign such a legal contract beforehand.

    "Besides the obvious he said/she said issues."

    This can probably be dealt with by having both parties sign a legal contract in front of a lawyer and/or a notary beforehand.

    "If a man doesn't want a child, then he needs to do something about it before someone is pregnant."

    The thing is that no contraception is 100% effective/efficient. Thus, the only options for such a male are either permanent abstinence, gay sex, sex with a trans-woman, or perhaps castration (which you consider to be unethical; of course, I don't appear to buy your arguments in this regard).

    And for the record, everything which you said in regards to males here could similarly be said for females–if a female does not want to risk her partner being a "deadbeat dad", then she should not have sex with him in the first place, not sign such a legal contract with him, use the best contraception available, get an abortion if contraception fails, give her offspring up for adoption, and/or et cetera.

    "A man (unlike a woman) is 100% in charge of where his gametes wind up."

    What exactly do you mean by the "unlike a woman" part?

    Reply
  98. Pingback: tangledsynthesismusingsofageekfeminist.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/emily-letts-feminist-hero-or-narcissist/

    Reply
  99. True but I completely disagree with using this law (or any excuse) to ban or restrict abortions.

    The existence of one unethical law does not justify creating another unethical law.

    The goal of being fair is to make life BETTER for everyone, not worse. And banning abortions will make life worse for all, particularly children.

    Reply
  100. Yeah? That's only going to happen IN YOUR DREAMS. And such a contract would never hold up in court. It's not a legal contract. ROFLMAO.

    Reply
  101. P.S. If I have to explain female reproductive biology to you, you really don't belong in this conversation.

    Reply
  102. You might think so, in fact I'm sure you do. You have never studied family law. Ask an attorney why it doesn't work this way.

    Reply
  103. Yeah that makes no sense. You just contradicted yourself. If a man doesn't want a child, I suggest he not stick his penis in a vagina. There *are* other ways, you know.

    Reply
  104. Forced-birthers say the exact same thing about women, i.e. if a woman doesn't want a child she shouldn't have sex. Do you agree with that? I don't. Why should men be held to a different standard?

    A woman should have the right to have sex even if she doesn't want children. She shouldn't have to abstain or get a tubal ligation just because she doesn't want children right now. Why shouldn't a man have the same right?

    Reply
  105. I understand what you are both saying. And you are both right.

    If a woman invites him into her vagina with an express understanding beforehand it doesn’t give her the right
    to change the conditions of those operands just because she wants to afterward.
    It is a two way street.

    When a person is in a relationship they should have a trust and if one violates that trust its wrong no matter
    what. If both confer and agree, no children, then she changes her mind and he
    still doesn’t want to, that shouldn’t give her carte blanch to use him as a
    stud against his will. That’s actually a contract and she violated it.

    While it is her body and she can do with it as she pleases it doesn’t give her the right to use others for her purposes. In this instance if he doesn’t want to participate [monetarily or emotionally]
    in the child’s life, he should have that option not to.

    On the other hand there are many men who don’t care, use women how they like, drop babies everywhere and don’t pay a dime in child support. Those are the ones we should be going after, not
    those who were trying to be responsible beforehand.

    Reply
  106. Notice that the double standard you accuse me of is really not. They are totally independent issues. The fact you have no ability to make a distinction between the two is telling, obvious, and idiotic on your part.

    I'm also not "forcing birth"…so even the premise is incorrect from the start. Sorry, you lose again.

    "Who’s FORCING death?"

    Um, you do know that abortion is the termination (a long word for death, i KNOW you hate lots of syllables) of a living being. It's not complicated. The fact you actively campaign for it as some idiotic "choice", to make it sound more pleasant, doesn't change the process or act. Why do you not understand this very simple idea?

    The China comment, btw…incorrect/ambiguous application. "Force" there is actual force, as in by members of a police state…versus the idea of "force", an in the woman is exerting her ability to force the issue. If you were being intellectually honest, you'd see that the intended recipient of the procedure, in both cases, is having something done without their ability to consent or avoid the consequence. You're fine with one, and not with the other. That's what is known as being a hypocrite.

    "Unlike a wanted welcomed & loved child, an UNWANTED child has the odds stacked against them from the very beginning."

    Only in a world where you believe that "unwanted" status is permanent and unable to change, that there's zero chance -anyone- wants the child, or that there's just suffering attached with no reason. You're asking for people to accept justifications for things you can't predict, can't know, and trying to pass it off as inevitable. It's massively incorrect.

    " If they somehow manage to have a successful life, it is against great odds, and the exception rather than the norm."

    Notice the stretching language. "Great odds". Woman doesn't want to get pregnant and finds herself that way…your idea is that she'll never, ever ever ever want the kid. That the kid will suffer it's entire life and be miserable and life is horrible.

    Sorry, it's just not that easy or predictable, no matter how much you wish it were to justify your oddly held position.

    "Again it’s not MY decision but that of the pregnant woman’s, whose rights you seek to take away.

    Quick recap…i mention two very specific terms…immoral and unethical. Your response…oh, it's not MINE. You had ZERO response to that phrase, other than to shift the argument back to me. Total fail.

    "More importantly, you have provided zero reasoning why abortion is unethical except that “It takes a life!” "

    So, taking the life of an innocent doesn't fall into the "unethical" realm? Oddly enough, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with 2 firing neurons who believes that killing innocents is ethical under your sets of circumstances. Allow me also to short circuit your inevitable response of "mentally challenged person raping you"….that's not a case of innocence, is a lack of understanding with regards to right and wrong during the commission of a crime. That's a horribly flawed analogy.

    Any number of philosophers can be cited for the argument i'm making. Feel free to read a few centuries of it to catch up to what most other people already know.

    "Boo hoo cry me a river! "

    Seems like all that empathy you talk about having goes right out the window as a matter of convenience. Perfect.

    "THAT argument would be believable if you weren’t simultaneously advocating the killing of those YOU see fit."

    Except i haven't advocated such a thing at all. I have said nothing about killing innocent human life because *I* say so. Clearly, you are mixing up arguments.

    Reply
  107. "Unlike a wanted welcomed & loved child, an UNWANTED child has the odds stacked against them from the very beginning. (Again, a no brainer). If they somehow manage to have a successful life, it is against great odds, and the exception rather than the norm."

    Sweetie, I WAS an "UNWANTED (IN GREAT BIG SHRIEKING CAPITAL LETTERS, NO LESS) child born to a bona fide narcissist 40 year old mother. She told me that she went to the family doctor for an abortion. When he refused to do it, she was too afraid to trust a stranger. I struggled with self-esteem issues throughout my teens and twenties. However one day, I woke up and discovered that the way Mom felt about me did NOT define who I was. I decided to ditch the huge self-pitying chip I had on my shoulder and to stop blaming Mommy because my life still sucked. I got therapy and turned my life around. I have a loving husband, a family and uncountable positive experiences that I would not have had if someone would have had the liberty to "spare" me a "lifetime" of suffering by killing me before birth, and thus denying me of the choice of making something of my OWN life. So look into MY eyes and tell me that I'd be better off dead!

    To hell with your lethal "compassion"! I am NOT an "exception".

    Reply
  108. BINGO MARCUS!!!!

    Excellent post. I've often asked the "poor unwanted child" types what they would do if the parents didn't want to care for a toddler..a difficult teenager and all I hear are excuses….

    Reply
  109. Well, if we use their method and process, we'd have to march them out back and shoot them in the head twice. It would be the humane, Eugenics thing to do.

    Also, be careful.

    This idiot with double accounts already thinks that Adam, PJ, Calvin, me and Ingrid (at least) are all me, so….i don't want you to get lumped into the pile as being me #6 (or more, depending on which profile our friend here is using at any given moment).

    Reply
  110. You just proved my point that unwanted children are MORE likely to be neglected/abused than wanted children.

    You had a bad childhood for the specific reason that you were unwanted. Some have worse childhoods than you for that same reason, and end up harming/killing themselves, addiction, low self esteem, & go onto unproductive lives.

    The fact that some beat the odds is NOT a reason to knowingly condemn many to this same fate.

    More importantly, EVEN IF such neglect/abuse was not an issue, a woman still should have a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, no questions asked.

    Reply
  111. Isn't it funny that YOU are the one who keeps bringing up this unfounded allegation, yet fails to provide an ounce of proof, huh Calvin?

    Reply
  112. “Also, be careful.”

    See, you’re afraid Calvin. But the truth is out and OZ is in flames. Man you are one frightened little boy.

    Reply
  113. Suba, the little boy isn’t getting it. Calvin’s got one hand typing and the other is pleasuring him to sock
    puppets porn.

    I need to hit the hay.

    Reply
  114. "Yeah?"

    Yeah.

    "That's only going to happen IN YOUR DREAMS."

    Do you have a crystal ball? I didn't think so.

    "And such a contract would never hold up in court. It's not a legal contract."

    Depends on what the law and the U.S. Constitution will say at that point in time, as well as how the judges at that point in time will interpret it.

    "ROFLMAO."

    Right back at you.

    Reply
  115. I know female reproductive biology. However, these facts do not appear to strengthen your position on this issue. If you fail to realize this, then you really don't belong in this conversation.

    Reply
  116. HOT DAMN!!!! I FINALLY got some of your Lucy Van Pelt Psychiatric Help for a Nickel analysis!

    I can go to bed happy now!!!!!

    Reply
  117. Bravo! Some pro-choicers, such as lady_black, love telling males this despite the fact that anti-abortion people could likewise tell the same thing to females.

    Reply
  118. LOL! He is even more idiotic than that Pat whatsisname on Care2. Do you remember, the one who claimed to be "totally secular" then all of a sudden erupted into religious meltdown?

    Reply
  119. "If a man doesn't want a child, I suggest he not stick his penis in a vagina. There *are* other ways, you know."

    Let me re-phrase this:

    If a woman doesn't want a child, I suggest that she not let a fertile man stick his penis into her vagina. There *are* other ways, you know.

    Reply
  120. Suba, your own account patting you on the back doesn't get it.

    -Insert Calvin repeat-

    You also clearly are unfamiliar with the term "sock puppet", though you're guilty enough of it. If you're going to make an insult, at least make it a good one.

    Do you wish i was a little boy…because i KNOW how much you "love" those.

    See, i made sick grandpa joke there. You're welcome for the lesson.

    Don't forget your fiber pills and heart meds in the morning. Mondays suck when your poop isn't right, and grunting hard might cause extra strain on your ticker!

    Reply
  121. Actually, I already appear to have established to you that the law is ultimately based on someone's morality and that the law can be unchanged.

    Thus, your point here does not appear to have much merit if we are talking about what the ideal law should be.

    Reply
  122. Because your health is important.

    schizophrenia.com/earlysigns.htm

    Talking to yourself is a bad sign. Might want to give yourself a checkup, with your psych degree and all.

    Reply
  123. Isnt it funny that you doth protest too much, but whine if someone says "no" to your allegations 20+ times?

    Isn't it past your bedtime? You just say you needed to hit the hay.

    Oddly enough, no one has told me if you've gone back to LAN to post to the real Calvin, to get proof, in the last few days.

    It's like you're scared. 🙂

    Reply
  124. He’s supposedly the mod of LAN [aka OZ]. I and Suba were banned from there for starting a debate. Calvin claimed
    I and Suba are one. Which we are not. After being baned I created two accounts to challenge Calvin the coward to prove his allegations and he never did. Instead this this joker, Fenix comes instead speaking for and defending Calvin. He is actually Calvin.

    Reply
  125. "True but I completely disagree with using this law (or any excuse) to ban or restrict abortions."

    You are more than welcome to have this view. Personally, at least in this case, I am tempted to disagree with you.

    "The existence of one unethical law does not justify creating another unethical law."

    To be fair, though I don't think that I would consider either this law or abortion bans to be unethical if I would argue that personhood should begin at conception/fertilization. Frankly, ideally, I don't know when personhood should begin, but if drawing the line either at some point after birth or at birth (and by this, I mean legalizing all elective late-term abortions as well, in addition to not prosecuting people who kill embryos and fetuses without a pregnant woman's consent for either murder or manslaughter) is not an option, then the next best place to draw this line might be at conception/fertilization.

    "The goal of being fair is to make life BETTER for everyone, not worse. And banning abortions will make life worse for all, particularly children."

    Actually, I'd argue that the goal of being fair should be determining which rights who should get and then protecting these rights, in addition to what you are talking about.

    Also, banning most abortions will not make life worse for everyone. The lives of some males might be better, as well as the lives of some embryos and fetuses.

    In addition, though, I would like to point out that legalizing painless elective infanticide in the event of a shortage of adoptive parents might also make life better for some individuals, but you and most people don't support this because you consider infants to be persons and infanticide to be morally unjustifiable. This is similar to how politically anti-abortion people view embryos/fetuses and abortion.

    Reply
  126. Well, he's the moderator there and he said that Rainbow Walker and Suba Gunawardana were posting from the same IP address. This lead to Rainbow Walker suggesting that Calvin and Marcus were in fact the same person. They've been talking about this non-stop for a few days now.

    Reply
  127. “FTR…you have *yet* to know when that's even the case, hence why it has to be spelled out for you repeatedly.
    Now you know.”

    Wrong. As I already stated, you claiming something doesn’t make it so, and your opinion is not worth much.

    “Also, it points that I've rejected your arguments and talking points”

    Again, your “rejection” doesn’t
    invalidate the arguments. Only shows that you have no rebuttal.

    As I said before, two things don’t have to be identical (or in the exact same category) to be comparable. If you
    cannot grasp the comparison the problem is with you. And this applies to EVERY point you keep avoiding citing the same reason.

    “Actually, that's not what i'm
    advocating. We went over that.”

    Banning abortion is to FORCE women to carry unwanted pregnancy. No two ways about it.

    You throw around words without knowing their meaning. Eugenics is to reduce certain populations based on WHAT they are, i.e. genetic traits they have no control over. I prefer to
    assign value based on people’s CHOICE to be compassionate or cruel. There’s no name for that, but huge difference from Eugenics.

    “so then why the hypocracy when it comes to men not wanting to be involved either?”

    I specifically said men should NOT be forced to support children they didn’t want from the beginning.

    “You and a tiger might be alive, but you're nothing alike. “

    Neither are a woman and a fetus.

    “Second, i'll point to your postings from a few days ago making the argument that killing an innocent, in those
    terms, was wrong. Your Care2 page confirms your position.”

    NEVER said that, here or on Care2.My consistent argument was that if you can kill SOME innocent individuals you have no right to stop others from killing OTHER innocent individuals.

    As to your “example” self-defense is not the only reason animals are killed. Far from it. Stop pretending to not get the point. If it’s fine for you, or HUMANKIND, to kill animals for necessity, convenience or sheer pleasure, the same should go for fetuses.

    Reply
  128. No problem. I can see why some of what's going on here may be confusing to people who did not see the comments in question.

    Reply
  129. That's the long and short of it.

    In some cases, it's just circular reasoning. It's legal because it's ok, and it's ok because it's legal. Any attempt to look outside of that circle is met with her acting like a complete harpy.

    Something I've noticed too..she'll make the case about life, when it starts, the whole nine. She'll then make the case it's ok because of choice and/or bodily autonomy. She then barely skips by with taking positive premises and making a negative conclusion, all by virtue of her lovely circles.

    When that fails, she gets angry and goes haywire.

    I asked her once, or maybe someone like her (hard to tell sometimes!) a long time ago, that if the law were the determining factor, why enact Roe anyway? The answer i got was nothing more than "because I don't like it" as an answer.

    Reply
  130. That’s a whole lot of inference. I never said that.

    There are two reasons for suicide. One is genetics the other is logical reaction to environment. What I mean by the latter is, when something IS bad suicide can be a logical alternative. Prisoners, POWS, the ill and others who see an unsurmountable problem in their life. This is not a pathology. A pathology is where there is none of these factors and they still want to kill themselves.

    And yes far more unwanted children attempt suicide then wanted.

    “and killing "unwanted"
    children before birth would just automatically make depression, child abuse and suicide just go away.”

    If a child doesn’t exist, how can
    they experience any of these? And it’s not killing and they aren’t children. It’s
    a ZEF

    Reply
  131. Yes. I'd like to add that Fenix knows very well I am a separate individual, has been to my Care2 page etc. & still makes an active effort to keep up the "sock-puppet rumor" for the past 3 days. Now why would he feel such a need unless he isn't the moderator who failed to prove his allegation when challenged?

    Reply
  132. Didn't you say it was bedtime? You always lie to others like this? 🙂

    "You will never get it, Calvin."

    Not if you don't actually post to Calvin….

    "The jig’s up."

    Nyaaaa, seeeeee. The caper has done gone bad, boys! We gots ta get outta da city before the boys in blue get here and throws us into da paddywagon!!

    Thanks for the chuckle…and you're welcome for another demonstration of funny versus not.

    "And I know sock puppets [you’re one]. But you have a fetish, hence the over use of the term."

    -Insert repeat phrase-

    It's not really overuse..it's just calling it what it is. Sorry if that's not clear for you.

    "A sick joke or a peek inside your demented mind? Do you like children younger than you?"

    Awwww, the vaunted "rubber and glue" argument. You state repeatedly you work with kids…clearly, i'm just pointing out the obvious in your case. No need to be snide about it otherwise.

    I did say that deflection was not rejection..and you didn't actually dismiss it as untrue.

    Uh oh. 🙁

    "And the rest is just a child’s
    verbal diarrhea."

    Now that we've reached the heart of your style, by your own admission, you're free to stop crapping allover the page!

    "We can get help for your problems, Calvin."

    -Insert repeat phrase-

    "But you have to stop playing childish games."

    But i'm dealing with someone who presents and acts like a child. Clearly, doing anything else for you would go over your head, and thus…i'm stuck having to dumb it down to Chutes and Ladders for you.

    Reply
  133. Hahaha!

    Seriously, one day you're going to have to share your secret about the Fastest Upvote in the West. Crazy fast.

    Reply
  134. See, childish item mentioned by a childish person. Really, we're not in first grade, and it's ok to not use "rubber and glue" as a rebuttal.

    *facepalm*

    Reply
  135. "There’s a huge difference between a wanted child and an unwanted one."

    That's true, just as there's a huge difference between a male child and female one. Is it acceptable to abort a daughter because your culture favours sons?

    protectourgirls.com/

    Reply
  136. "This idiot with double accounts already thinks that Adam, PJ, Calvin, me and Ingrid (at least) are all me, so…."

    Well, the game is up–it's finally been exposed that the entire pro-life movement consists of exactly one person.

    Reply
  137. I did have EXCELLENT shoulders when i was healthy, for what its worth.

    Guess if someone has to do it, I can. Who doesn't love an Atlas impression? 🙂

    Reply
  138. I'm not sure that my flow is anything to brag about–I'm no certainly no Brian Williams.
    youtube.com/watch?v=Z8EKjgU5Lts

    Reply
  139. Wrong as usual. I don’t “reject” arguments. I rebut every one presented. Unlike you I NEVER waste thousands of words making flimsy excuses why I cannot rebut anargument

    “I'mnot for total deconstruction of abortion. Legally, I'm perfectly fine withcases of rape, incest, or life of the mother as exceptions…though morally andethically, life of the mother is the only clear winner. I'm against on-demandabortion, and if you even for a split second believe your own rhetoric, you'dagree with me.”

    My rhetoric? I’ve ALWAYS argued against the so called “right to life” crap. So no,there’s no reason I would agree with you.

    “I would also, by virtue of our conflation idea, put it out there that i'm perfectly fine with preventing unwanted pregnancies across the board to start
    with, and no restrictions to birth control and non-abortifacients.”

    That’s a no-brainer. What’s your point?

    “Being human is a genetic trait. Kind of thought that was obvious. The trait doesn't have to be race, hair color, or other factors..it can simply be that the trait is an undesired human being. The fetus has no control over its species, its original mode of birth, or any other item you can name.”

    I never said fetuses should be killed just for being human, According to that
    logic YOU are the one advocating eugenics, considering you wish to kill
    non-humans just for being non-human

    “Eugenics isn't limited to s pecifically genetic
    traits, in the frame of mind you wish it. Removing "unwanted suffering" is another mode of thinking, not to mention the "negative
    eugenics", which encompasses pretty much every reason on the map one can name as being a "valid" reason.”

    Same thing. You advocate eugenics for non-humans. Therefore you cannot whine EVEN IF I advocated eugenics for humans.

    “Which is completely arbitrary. *You* assign that value, then based your view on it. It's nothing more than a bare assertion on your part to justify your own points.”

    Obviously I am presenting my opinions. I am not a sheep like you, & don’t need validation from authority or the crowd.

    The rest of your post is, as usual, a bunch of excuses why you cannot rebut my
    points. Not worth my time addressing the repetitions again. If you ever present
    anything other than an excuse or insult, I will respond.

    For the hundredth time, I NEVER argued against killing anything. Get off that false premise & present a valid rebuttal for once.

    Reply
  140. Actually, i'd state…again….that i don't know that. Someone else, on a different website made the claim that your 2 accounts are from the same IP address.

    You were banned for multi-account hijinx. Plain and simple.

    I have no way to know, nor have you actually given me a reason to believe, you're 2 different people. Hell, when you use one account to post one message, then continue the argument for 2 hours using the other, without missing a beat, it takes away credibility.

    Reply
  141. Glad JDC was able to.

    There's also one slight caveat, that i usually don't mention.

    If i were the moderator there, I wouldn't have banned myself from the page.

    (FTR, I said something that wasn't nice, but one of the mods there took umbrage and i got banned. I did it, don't back away from it and support their right to do exactly as they did.)

    Reply
  142. Since apparently, PJ and Ingrid are me, along with a dozen or so other folks….you could have just said so here! *snicker*

    Reply
  143. No it doesn't apply both ways. A man's part in reproduction is finished when he ejaculates. A woman has a long way to go to complete her part.

    Reply
  144. Then if you know female biology, you realize that women do not control ovulation. Men do control where their ejaculate goes.

    Reply
  145. A woman can do all those things now if she doesn't want to risk ending up having a child with a deadbeat dad. But it doesn't always work out that way. "Signing a contract" wouldn't change anything. The contract fails because it's a contract in violation of statute, and because such a statute is a violation of public policy. Now let me explain this to you as simply as possible. No two people (let's call them party A and party B) can form a legal contract that affects the rights of a third person (party C). It simply can't be done. To be bound to a contract, a person must be a party to that contract. And that is what you're talking about.

    Reply
  146. People are allowed to change their minds. I agree that this is something that ought to be discussed in advance, and too often it isn't discussed at all. What I'm trying to get Coyote to understand is that two people cannot contract to remove rights from a third person.

    Reply
  147. Nice deflecting. I don't speak of morals as anything other than a personal issue. If something is legal, but you believe it to be immoral, you need not participate. They are not the same thing, nor should they be.

    Reply
  148. If a woman doesn't want children (or more children), she should probably have a tubal ligation. A man in a similar position would be wise to have a vasectomy. That would be the wise thing to do. Nobody is saying "don't have sex." I'm not talking about abstinence. There are ways to have sex that do not involve the risk of pregnancy. "Wishes" do not do any good. Action is required.

    Reply
  149. I agree. However there are exceptions.

    Some people don't want children right now but may want them later, so reluctant to take drastic measures.

    Also vasectomies do fail sometimes (as do tubal ligation at a lower rate) & pregnancy can still occur.

    Reply
  150. Why should I prove anything to YOU, Einstein, when you happen to be the coward who banned us in the first place, (knowing very well that we are two different people)?

    Reply
  151. And the failure of such could not be construed to relieve the person from a duty to support his/her child once born. By "not wanting children" I am referring to never wanting them. Even so, he could freeze his sperm if there were a future doubt.

    Reply
  152. There's a 9 month window between conception & birth.

    That's the time for the woman to get an abortion if SHE doesn't wish to be a parent. Similarly, that's the time for the MAN to speak up if he doesn't wish to be a parent.

    If he had used protection and consistently stated that he didn't want children (WELL before birth, not after), but the woman went ahead with the pregnancy fully aware of his intent, then she shouldn't have a right to hold him responsible for child support.

    Reply
  153. Unwanted children are not the only ones who commit suicide, but I am sure they are far more likely to commit suicide or have any number of negative effects in their life (as you demonstrated with your own account).

    If there were no more unwanted children, (i.e. EVERY child was wanted welcomed & loved), a HUGE part of that problem would go away. The remaining few suicides, substance abuse etc. would be for different reasons, and easier to deal with.

    Reply
  154. "Frankly, ideally, I don't know when personhood should begin, but if
    drawing the line either at some point after birth or at birth (and by
    this, I mean legalizing all elective late-term abortions as well, in
    addition to not prosecuting people who kill embryos and fetuses without a
    pregnant woman's consent for either murder or manslaughter) is not an
    option, then the next best place to draw this line might be at
    conception/fertilization."

    If its a toss-up between the former & the latter, I'll vote for the former hands down.

    Drawing the line at conception will force many many unwanted children to birth WITHOUT responsible adults to care for them, magnifying the current problem of child neglect/abuse.

    Drawing the line at or after birth will PREVENT a lot of new people from coming into existence. Consequently it will reduce child abuse, reduce population, & make life better overall.

    My objection to infanticide is not person-hood. I believe that when abortion is available (as it is now), the 9 months of pregnancy is more than enough time to make up your mind whether you are able/willing to be a parent or not. By choosing NOT to abort, the mother made a commitment to the future child, to always put the child first. Personally I think that should be considered a legal contract, and she shouldn't breach it at whim.

    By choosing not to abort, she committed to protect the future child for as long as is necessary, from neglect/abuse from hersefl or anyone else. If she can't care for the child she now has an obligation to find someone who can, due to the aforementioned commitment. .

    If abortion were ILLEGAL, on the other hand, I wouldn't blame any woman for committing infanticide. NO person should be forced into parenthood against their will. If abortion were banned, there WILL be a lot more infanticide.

    "Also, banning most abortions will not make life worse for everyone. The
    lives of some males might be better, as well as the lives of some
    embryos and fetuses."

    How? Most males will be forced to pay child support against their will, and most embryos/fetuses will become unwanted children.

    Reply
  155. Indeed there are. Many children are wanted for the wrong reasons & end up being abused.

    That's why I think parenthood should not be every idiot's right, but rather a PRIVILEGE to be earned. Every responsible profession requires training and a license. Why doesn't parenthood? That's how little our society thinks of children.

    However, the fact that wanted children are abused too, is NOT an excuse to force more & more unwanted children into birth against the mothers' wish.

    Reply
  156. Well, you have a nasty case of subject-verb number disagreement here, to say the least.

    "You are the one . . . fails . . . "

    Reply
  157. "Woman matters more than the fetus, because she is sentient and has an established life,"

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    They are both human beings. It's not a contest.

    The right to continue to live is not based on sentience as a standard.

    A fetus has an established life, right from the start. With that standard, old folks should be killing the young because our lives are more "established."

    Reply
  158. I said nothing about going to bed. More importantly what's your obsession with with other people's bedtimes? This is not the first time you mentioned bedtimes.

    This time your ENTIRE post is a string of excuses, insults & flailing. Getting rather old.

    You couldn't even manage to prove your claim that I ever argued for "right to life" for ANYTHING. Duh! Apparently your whole debate is based on lies.

    Now Einstein, here's the argument in a nutshell, once again. Rebut if you can. If all you can come back with are yet more personal attacks, that means you lost long ago.

    Summary of YOUR view: “We, forced-birthers, wish to retain our right to kill/use/abuse other individuals for our own necessity & convenience, but to take away WOMEN’s right to kill a fetus for their necessity & convenience. Killing is fine when we say so but not when anyone else says so. We wish to propagate the human species at whatever cost to non-humans, OR to human women & children. This includes forcing every single fetus to birth, regardless of the mother’s wishes or the well-being of the future child. We call this concept “human ethics” which makes it easy to fool the gullible into thinking it’s for their own good”.

    My rebuttal: There’s nothing ethical about sacrificing the well-being of individuals for ANY cause. Nothing remotely ethical about running roughshod over living breathing sentient individuals (children, women, animals) in your quest to propagate the human species. If you want to propagate the species, fine, do it yourself. You have no right to force others to participate in your goal, and to make them sacrifice their bodies and well-being in doing so.

    Let me make it simpler: YOU claim it's important to propagate the human species. Why should I agree? More importantly, why should any woman sacrifice HER body & HER freedom for your ideology?

    Reply
  159. I disagree. Child support is the right of the child. What he thinks about having a child is irrelevant to the child's right to be supported by both parents.

    Reply
  160. Again, Einstein:
    -Anecdotes (which you have provided a-plenty) are not proof.
    -More importantly, getting banned for something you actually DID is very different from getting banned under unfounded allegations.

    Reply
  161. Actually, btw…since it totally went over your head, not surprisingly…

    That statement was a backhanded way of pointing out your values or morals (which admittedly, you display a stunning lack of) carry no more or less weight than mine.

    Of course, deflecting the fact that you, indeed, cannot make a moral or ethical argument for an immoral or unethical act didn't escape me, but..the fact i have to take time to explain this bit is rather telling, eh sweetie? 😉

    Reply
  162. YOU labeling abortion (or any act) unethical/immoral does not make it so, considering
    your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else’s according to your own “argument” here. (Based on your history of using underhanded tactics to avoid responding to arguments, your opinion carries LESS weight than those of others.)

    Reply
  163. "YOU labeling abortion (or any act) unethical/immoral does not make it so, considering
    your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else’s according to your own “argument” here."

    Except your telling me it's not valid bypasses the entire argument i've made for it. Your out of hand dismissal is worthless, regardless of your opinion.

    If you can logically deconstruct it, you wouldn't have wasted a week posting nonsense.

    " (Based on your history of using underhanded tactics to avoid responding
    to arguments, your opinion carries LESS weight than those of others.)"

    LOL…calling you a retard and showing where you're wrong, or pointing out why, or the fact you're nothing more than a utilitarian Eugenics believer, is "underhanded". Yeah, i'll be sure to file that properly under "you're still an idiot".

    Reply
  164. Right, because replying to your idiocy is cowardly? Maybe fruitless, and certainly it's not because you make even a possibly valid argument, but…..

    If you're going to use insults, at least use ones that work with the flow of the posting.

    I know English is like you're 4th language, (being, in order of skill, "Idiot", "Moron" and "Double Speak"), but at least try to do better. You're embarrassing yourself.

    Reply
  165. That would mean sperm donors could be forced to support children made out of their sperm.

    I don't know the legal aspects of it, but in my opinion every person should have the right to opt out of the obligation of parenthood within a reasonable time. (The reasonable time being enough time to get an abortion, NO abandoning a born child.)

    That right should apply to all, regardless of gender.

    Reply
  166. "Who cares Calvin? The "dual account" crap is getting really old."

    Then stop using them? Stop being an idiot. Stop posting. Seems pretty straightforward on how to get by that.

    "All you have proved is you would go to ANY lenghts to avoid addressing an opposing view."

    Except when I address them. I just dont feel the need to repeat myself but so many times, while you whine, b!tch and stomp your feet on the matter. You were given a rebuttal, even on your idiotic stances and points. Your reply, here at the end, is "your opinion is worthless".

    I said like a week ago…you weren't looking for a debate. You wanted an argument. You got one, with someone that ran circles around you, and *these* postings are what you're reduced to.

    "You are getting quite boring. If you ever bring a valid rebuttal I will
    still respond. Certainly won't hold my breath, based on your conduct in
    the past week.

    Bring an actual argument then. If you're bored, do us all a favor and log off. Conversations end that way incredibly fast. Just saying.

    Reply
  167. Says the guy who AVOIDED the point at all cost. And here you go with the same dance again. Look who's repeating LOL

    Reply
  168. No. Wrong, as usual.

    Says the guy who rebutted and slapped your ridiculous points from the first post I made. It's ok to save face and think that's not the case, but your reply to those was basically "I don't agree"…and now you've spent a week whining about it.

    I'll say it again since you're slow. Will use small words when possible, since you're acting like you're 5…i'll treat you like a 5 year old.

    I wrote you. Said they were bad. Showed why they were bad. You said no. You not understand what "non sequitur" mean. You cry for week over not making argument.

    Hope that helps.

    Reply
  169. Just for the record, here's the argument that you failed to rebut, and repeatedly avoided using all kinds of diversion tactics. (Obviously you have no response & I don't have the patience to wait another week). Enjoy!

    Summary of YOUR view: “We, forced-birthers, wish to retain our right to kill/use/abuse other individuals for our own necessity & convenience, but to take away WOMEN’s right to kill a fetus for their necessity & convenience. Killing is fine when we say so but not when anyone else says so. We wish to propagate the human species at whatever
    cost to non-humans, OR to human women & children. This includes forcing every single fetus to birth, regardless of the mother’s wishes or the well-being of the future child. We call this concept “human ethics” which makes it easy to fool the gullible into thinking it’s for their own good”.

    My rebuttal: There’s nothing ethical about sacrificing the well-being of individuals for ANY cause. Nothing remotely ethical about running roughshod over living breathing sentient
    individuals (children, women, animals) in your quest to propagate the
    human species. If you want to propagate the species, fine, do it yourself. You have no right to force others to participate in your goal,
    and to make them sacrifice their bodies and well-being in doing so.

    Let me make it simpler: YOU claim it's important to propagate the human
    species. Why should I agree? More importantly, why should any woman
    sacrifice HER body & HER freedom for your ideology?

    Reply
  170. I didn't even need to get past the preview for this before i could spot that the entire thing you're posting is incorrect, not what i said, and is erroneous. You've purposely misrepresented every single person here, and elsewhere, that have posted to you, and then get all whiny and teary when it's rejected for being incorrect (or not even an argument).

    Not surprising, really. Your entire post there is the second biggest straw man you've used in 2 days.

    See, like this piece from the bottom.

    "Let me make it simpler: YOU claim it's important to propagate the human
    species. Why should I agree?"

    Could you incorrectly present something faster next time? That "one person is replying" thing for such crappy content took you forever.

    I didn't state i wanted to "propagate" the species. Far from it, in fact. You could have bothered asking about my views on overpopulation, but you don't have time for things like facts or asking questions to get real answers.

    I'm not campaigning that we get women pregnant for the sake of increased population. My point was that abortion is unethical and immoral as a practice, when used on innocent life, and that killing said life was wrong. You spun that into all kinds of things, even to the point where your argument was that basically, people and animals are on the same playing field. Sorry, it's not even close to reality.

    It's really just that easy. You can't even take the time to actually acknowledge your opponents actual argument, and have spent a week doing THIS kind of replies instead.

    How about this bit?
    "There’s nothing ethical about sacrificing the well-being of individuals for ANY cause."

    Which was my point, in regards to abortion. YOUR actually point was that it was wrong to sacrifice innocent life for convenience and so forth. Directly, that's your statement.

    When challenged by pointing out that a fetus fits EVERY qualification of what you state about being innocent requires your rebuttal:

    "I don't believe that's they are".

    Well, now that we've got the tripe out of the way, how about WHY it's wrong? Miss that day in Debate 101? If i fits every qualification, there's no reason TO exclude it.

    The start of an easy syllogism, using your own definitions.

    P1. Killing innocent life for convenience is wrong.
    P2. Animals are innocent life.
    C1. It is therefor wrong to kill animals for convenience.

    See, very easy. You could have done that crap a week ago, rather than wasting time.

    Now, since a fetus fits YOUR parameters for innocent behavior, let's try again.

    P1. Killing innocent life for convenience is wrong.
    P2. A fetus is an innocent life.
    C1. It is therefore wrong to kill a fetus for convenience.

    And Presto. That's how its done, and again…your reply to this idea was "I don't believe that to be the case".

    Of course not, because having to admit this would make you intellectually honest and beholden to follow the logic. This runs contrary to your "belief"…which oddly, you point out is for idiots, i might add…so you won't change it.

    It's no wonder your arguments are all full of crap. You don't understand what's being said by anyone else, and when they do say something, you twist it until it gets to what you need it to say, via straw man, to knock down.

    Please, take a week. That might be enough time to let some of this sink in.

    Reply
  171. Once again, “rejecting” an argument is the coward's way out. At least you made an attempt this time.

    After flailing & deflecting for over a week, you STILL failed the grasp the point. Even after I literally spelled it out, you are still getting it backwards! LMAO!

    Let’s start again.

    “YOUR actually point was that it was wrong to sacrifice innocent life for convenience and so forth.”

    I NEVER said that. Stop lying to try & justify YOUR position. I challenged you to point out where I ever said this, & you miserably failed (as with all challenges).

    “P1. Killing innocent life for convenience is wrong.
    P2. Animals are innocent life.

    C1. It is therefor wrong to kill animals for convenience.”

    HUGE fail. My position has always been the OPPOSITE. This is just ONE instance (among many) where I stated the exact opposite, which of course, you totally danced around true to form.

    >>Now Einstein: I am NOT
    questioning your right to kill animals, but merely pointing out your hypocrisy in opposing the killing of certain individuals while merrily killing other individuals, all the while calling yourself “Pro-life”.

    You being a slave to definitions, rules & technicalities, you should be the first to realize that NOBODY can be pro-life. To live is to kill. There’s no human alive who hasn’t killed others directly or indirectly. So your “Pro-life” label is a hypocritical lie,
    created solely to oppress others while fooling the gullible to think it’s a
    good thing.<<

    Nowhere did I EVER claim that killing animals was wrong. My consistent position was that: Considering it is perfectly legal & acceptable to kill SOME innocent individuals (animals, plants, certain humans) for our necessity & convenience, you have no
    justification to selectively object the killing of OTHER innocent individuals (fetuses) for the same reason.

    You have tried every tactic under the sun, stooped to every low, trying to avoid this point. (like a monkey
    throwing crap) You can keep avoiding, or finally have the courage to face &
    address an opposing viewpoint. Choice is yours.

    Let me make it even simpler.

    P1. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to kill innocent life for our necessity & convenience.

    P2. Animals are innocent life. So are fetuses

    C1. It is therefore FINE to kill fetuses for necessity & convenience.

    You have yet to provide a valid objection to oppose killing fetuses while killing animals & plants “because we can”. ALL are innocent life.

    As you know now, there’s no such thing as a “pro-lifer”, only forced-birthers. Forced-birthers can be classified into two categories. Those who can grasp a point (even respond), and those who cannot grasp anything
    even if their life depended on it. Guess which category you fall into? As I said before your hypocrisy will fit in nicely with that of the “Veganazis”.

    Reply
  172. Sperm donors of the anonymous type are not held liable for child support. The reason for this is precisely to prevent married men from claiming they aren't the biological fathers of children born through sperm donors. If it's all there in the medical records, too bad if he isn't the biological father. For people who try DIY sperm donors, the legal frontier is murkier, and the courts will come down on the side of the child, as they should. The fact is, without medical intercession, the man is left without the legal protection of claiming no relationship. As far as the court is concerned, the two may have been lovers. The fact of legal abortion is legally and morally irrelevant to the right of a child to be supported by both parents. I think you are viewing child support as "her" right when it is not. It is the CHILD'S right. In too many cases, the alternative is the taxpayers supporting the child. I don't know too many taxpayers who see that as a good idea.

    Reply
  173. Yet another pathetic attempt at dodge & denial.

    There's nothing valid in your whole diatribe, considering it is aimed NOT at my argument but what you IMAGINE my argument to be. I will rebut anyway, as dodging & deflecting is not my style.

    Remember, I repeatedly challenged you to prove where I EVER said "It's wrong to kill animals". You have failed to show a single quote. That alone disproves your whole premise.

    "You said it like a dozen times."

    Really? WHERE? How come you can't show even a single quote, let alone a dozen? Again, FAIL. (Miserable attempts at generalizations don't count, neither does you CLAIMING I said something. Remember, your word is worth nothing).

    "You kept using it as an example. You referred to it over and over as some go-to."

    WHERE Einstein? In your dreams? Referring to a certain action doesn't mean I personally advocate it or oppose it.

    "Sorry, but in this late hour, you're stuck with your own examples. Your example, almost verbatim, was that if it's wrong to do it in one place, it's wrong to do it in another. I simply took your own example, and applied it. If you disagree, then you're welcome to go back to the very first post of yours, where you made this argument, or the other multiple times you made it over and over, after having to "simplify" it."

    Flail, dodge, deny, & repeat. Keep up dance son. At least you are entertaining me although you failed at the debate.

    "You did question it, several times, before totally misrepresenting it as you've done with everything else."

    LOL! By now even YOU should realize how pathetic it is to keep repeating I said something without providing a single quote. An actual quote from me, not your flapping gums.

    "Killing an animal or plant for food is survival."

    Amazing how you keep repeating the same wrong statement. I have said this a hundred times: Animals & plants are killed NOT just for our survival but for all kinds of reasons which have NOTHING to do with survival. Are you that stupid as to not know what they are?

    The point is, the humankind that you worship, deem it perfectly fine to use/exploit/kill those weaker than them. "Ethics" is just a word used to fool the gullible into following you. In a system based on exploiting those weaker, there are no real ethics.

    Humans have EXEMPTED certain specific individuals from this exploitation (able-minded adults who have not openly broken the law; children & the disabled to SOME extent; a VERY FEW types of animals), again for selfish reasons. The rest are fair game. IF you wish to exempt any group & give them "right to life" or any other right, you have to provide a valid justification. "Innocent" is absolutely not good enough, considering the vast majority of other individuals humankind is free to kill are also innocent.

    The rest of your post is of course, nothing but venom & insults. Obviously you are capabler of nothing more, considering you have no argument. Surprise me if you can, boy, and present a REAL argument why "fetuses should have right to life".

    Reply
  174. Hello. Not sure if this is the best place to drop this or not, but it's partly for the benefit of anyone who happens to follow me on Disqus as well. Anyways, if you're still interested in Crawford's craziness, you might be interested to know that there is two Facebook groups I know of that were created to counter his work.Neither is very large or active, but I have read some funny stuff on them.

    facebook.com/pages/Natural-Abortion-Flaws/212582372184644

    facebook.com/pages/Debunking-the-Natural-Abortion-Laws/163945530389413

    Reply
  175. For additional fun, you may want to read his 'indisputable abortion facts', which is apparently what he was pushing before the scientific laws we know and love today. Did you know that if you can be frozen and brought back to life, you are not "living human life"? Also, I love how the guy who claims to be doing science uses the term "spark of life.' Because that's totally a scientific term.

    docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ItouP7qed2sr_SzR9rMT_UKVAFvlrZd8KSes4AazoP4

    Reply
  176. Your longest post yet!

    Holy fuck.

    I haven't been reading this conversation (way too many words), but the size of this post in my email caught my eye lol.

    Reply
  177. LOL….compliment or detraction? 😉

    It is a bit long, but…at some point, sometimes you have to bring out a sledgehammer to knock down a wall.

    Reply
  178. The Natural Abortion Flaws site is a bit more updated and current. The other page, there were quite a few times where i wasn't sure if it was the admin or Crawford talking…i figured it was crawford, since the post itself was beyond stupid, but…it wasn't made specifically clear.

    I am reading them now tho, since…looks like i'll be up all night again. 🙁 Excellent stuff though, thanks!

    Reply
  179. Well, I'm glad you're enjoying it. I'm just glad that some people were keeping track of the conversations on his Facebook page. Apparently, he has a strong tendency towards deleting things there, so much of this would have been lost otherwise.

    Reply
  180. It's nice to see him being held to account.

    I know about 3 months ago when i was just running roughshod on him, i took screenshots of everything..the actual argument, me just trolling the hell out of him for the fun of it, everything. It is good to know that he's as big of a loser with everyone else as he was with me.

    Reply
  181. Evidently you still don’t get it,
    or care. How are you equating gender selection to ensuring no child is unwanted? I forgot, you want more children to torture and abuse.

    As for gender selection. What
    culture is that? We don’t practice that here. And at least there will be less girl children for religious nuts to abuse, rape and sell.

    Reply
  182. I’m not going to run around this thread chasing your nonsense, Calvin. At least others are starting to see you for what you are and not swallowing your lies.

    “I think we're about done here. You lose. Again.”

    I come back and the kid is still at it? I think the dentist was more pleasant then listening to this retarded
    child.

    You are just like a vegan, a dogma is a dogma.

    “Yet you keep mentioning. You keep going to it, as a red herring to detract and side step my discussion point.”

    Yet you keep trying to argue the law. You did it with me the very first time you posted. The only one I see
    trying to sidestep the issue is you.

    “As a matter of survival, which YOU excluded as being just the way it is, remember?”

    You use it as an excuse. You don’t want to see the exploitation because it will mean you must revaluate your ideology and it hurts your head to think.

    “Secondly, here you are….making the case for animals again as being equal…after swearing up and down you aren't.”

    Suba responded to this. It doesn’t sink in with you. You are the one trying to give rights to a fetus. Trying to
    give rights by taking away those of others. This is the same tact vegans take. In
    order to be a juridical person one must be able to actuate those rights and be responsible. Do you want to put a fetus on trial for killing a pregnant woman, or an animal for following its instinct and eating your baby?

    You are using your religious beliefs to justify cruelty and systematically striping the rights of others away.

    Reply
  183. You are wrong. You are trying to punish both the mother and the child. Studies show unwanted children are far more neglected and abused than those that are wanted. Passing fancy? Ever heard
    of rape or coercion? Over 60% of all sex in this world falls in that classification. Most women don’t report rape, being too scared of the perpetrator. Beyond that why can’t a woman choose to evacuate a fetus if she wishes? I remember.
    Your bybull subjugates women and makes them second class citizens. It’s better for you to take her rights away, give rapists and molesters the green light and ensure that child will be neglected and abused just to satisfy your Iron Age thinking?

    Reply
  184. I’m waiting for you to be held accountable, Calvin. And talk about deleting, you do a lot of it on OZ [LAN]. “We must cover our tracks.” And you seem to like trying to run roughshod over people [not surprising your whole ideology follows this pattern]. Of course
    only idiots fall for your stupidity. And the only ones who leave are the individuals who tire of arguing with a child. Given your arguments here you probably had your ass handed to you and don’t want to admit it.

    Reply
  185. So, after all of this, you just don't have an answer. Got it. 🙂

    You keep saying that you're not saying those things…but you keep making the argument that "IF it's wrong to do one"….and then say the rest.

    But please keep upvoting yourself, if it makes your loss feel any better.

    Reply
  186. I answered you on your other account, no need to do it here.

    But i'll let Calvin know you're still multi-boxing over here. 😉

    Reply
  187. What, no dance tonight? Uh-oh did we get our little feeling hurt….?

    "You keep saying that you're not saying those things…"

    True to form, not a single shred of proof, but what more can I expect from you, huh Pinocchio?

    Reply
  188. Still trying to spread lies, Calvin? Of course that’s all you have left considering you’re delayed development
    leaves you with an inability to grasp the simplest concept.

    Reply
  189. Still no answer. No surprising. He didn’t understand the argument.

    “But please keep upvoting
    yourself, if it makes your loss feel any better.”

    No one’s doing this but you Calvin, considering, you live on the net. Sad actually.

    Reply
  190. He can’t dance. He can’t cognate. I think we’re barking up the wrong tree. This is a special needs child we’re
    picking on.

    Reply
  191. LOL yes. Did you know that it took him nearly 10 days to even remotely grasp the exact same argument that most other forced-birthers grasped within a day or two? Shameful even for a forced-birther…

    Reply
  192. Looks like he is pouting & stopped dancing. Oh well… I will miss my nightly entertainment, but should use my time better anyway 🙂

    Reply
  193. Not at all. I just don't see a reason to repost 6 pages of material, that you have no rebuttal to, when saying that is just fine.

    What proof do you need past the fact it's in the last two posts. You do know you can scroll upwards and see it? I'm pointing it out, not hard to find.

    Why reply to me on your other account? you were doing so well by not acting like a sock puppet turd. 🙂

    Reply
  194. I'll pass your message along to him.

    Still pretending to be a psychologist lawyer fireman unicorn ninja?

    Responded on your other account, don't need to go much past here with you.

    Reply
  195. I answered. There's like 12 pages of answers. How stupid can you get?

    Calvin would love to know that he lives on the net. I'll let him know.

    Reply
  196. "How are you equating gender selection to ensuring no child is unwanted?"

    Because girls are sometimes unwanted the abortion industry has been happy to dispose of them.

    "As for gender selection. What
    culture is that? We don’t practice that here."

    Apparently they do in Canada: cmaj.ca/content/184/3/E163.full.pdf+html?sid=701eb7c8-5ccb-48c9-8fc1-4f7ebb37046a

    "And at least there will be less girl children for religious nuts to abuse, rape and sell."

    If that's the case then why not also target the ones that are outside the womb, too? Being dead is better than being unwanted, isn't it?

    Reply
  197. True. The funny thing is, he always claims that no one has refuted his laws, but it's more like everyone has. People constantly come to his page and point out the same problems with his work over and over again, only to get banned and have their comments deleted. The whole thing honestly makes him look quite petty.

    Reply
  198. When i first started in on him like what, a year ago(?) on Twitchy, i made that claim. Stated that he was setting the bar so high, on something already so over the top and illogical/nonsensical, that the burden of proof (in his own mind, not for everyone else) was impossible. He does it so that his approach looks intelligent and that it appears as if no one can scale his ivory tower of intellect.

    Except, he didn't get a tower…he got a rancher house, and wonders why people keep getting in through the front door. 🙂

    He's shown to be quite petty. I'm just sad that he removed the pure troll comments i was leaving for him one day, though i did save a screen shot of it. 😉

    Reply
  199. The funny thing is that when he debates off of his home turf, he accuses others of deleting and editing his comments. The projection is really astounding.

    Reply
  200. I know…i always found it hilarious that he accused me of deleting his comments.

    On his website. Where he owns it. And runs it. And moderates it.

    Never could get him to answer how that worked. 🙂

    To me, him (along with the idiots i've been going back and forth here for, going on over a week now) are *perfect* examples of Hanlon's Razor.

    Reply
  201. 12 pages of stupidity. Go home
    boy. You can’t debate and definitely can’t reason. You had your ass handed to you so many times I stopped counting.

    And yes Calvin you live on the
    net. Now go to bed, you have school tomorrow and your lack of understanding should be painfully embarrassing to you.

    Reply
  202. Hmm, I had actually forgotten that he accused you of deleting comments on his website as well. But he's so crazy that it doesn't really surprise me.

    Reply
  203. "12 pages of stupidity. Go home
    boy."

    Awww, you seem upset. You keep saying I live here (as well as others like Calvin, PJ, Ingrid, and the 14 other people you seem to think i am), so do you typically get confused and tell people to go to places where they already are, in fact, present?

    "You can’t debate and definitely can’t reason."

    Which is why you have no actual rebuttal to the syllogism offered, or anything else? Makes perfect sense, right?

    "You had your ass handed to you so many times I stopped counting.'

    You seem to have a thing for male asses. If that's your thing, i mean…it's your lifestyle and all, but we don't need to hear about it. I do find it curious that your inability to debate properly, or even respond without sounding like a cretin, somehow constitutes having "my ass handed to me". Ironically, it happens on your other account, and you then come here to argue the opposite. Glorious.

    "And yes Calvin you live on the net."

    Since Calvin isn't here, you'll have to go to his own page and tell him this.

    "Now go to bed, you have school tomorrow and your lack of understanding should be painfully embarrassing to you."

    Since it's not 1995, I only have other things, which are more fun, to do tomorrow. I do have to giggle, though, when someone like you tries to point out a lack of understanding…after demonstrating it for like 10 days straight.

    G'nite gramps 😉

    Reply
  204. Honestly, if it wasn't as insane as it sounds, I wouldn't have really remembered it either. The whole thing is nuts.

    Reply
  205. Touched a nerve. And real slow on the uptake.

    “Which is why you have no actual rebuttal to the syllogism offered, or anything else? Makes perfect sense, right?”

    Syllogism offered? First of all go to school and learn how to use syntax. And second no logic was offered only childish stupidity. It was rebutted, trashed and shown for the idiocy it was.

    “You seem to have a thing for male asses”

    Constantly leveling and
    projecting. Look, kid this doesn’t work with me. I outed your sock puppet fetish and you have to come back with something.

    And the rest isn’t worth
    addressing, Calvin. I know telling you once more you have school in the morning
    is no lark. You can’t fix stupid.

    Reply
  206. You have this thing with touching…oddly enough, it's never a nerve. It must be a very simple world, where you think text gets to people. <_<

    "Syllogism offered? First of all go to school and learn how to use syntax. "

    So, you don't actually have a rebuttal? And that sentence, in it's current form, is correct. A syllogism was offered. You'll notice that comma there (which isn't edited in, btw), which continues the sentence after said comma? Of course you didn't see it, because had you, this tripe wouldn't have made it to the screen. It's entertaining for you to try and correct something that's not in error to begin with, and i thank you for pointing out how ignorant you are yet again. Please don't offer corrections where they're not needed.

    "It was rebutted, trashed and shown for the idiocy it was.'

    It wasn't. It was dismissed out of hand, and i repeatedly stated that to be the case. You used a lovely straw man to deflect it, and then stated your "belief" about it. There wasn't a single logical rebuttal point in the entire thing, past your opinion and say so.

    you're welcome to try again, using facts or anything that isn't just a bare assertion/dismissal, but you don't have the chops for it, obviously.

    "Constantly leveling and
    projecting."

    As opposed to constantly thinking everyone is "leveling". Very sad. Clearly, you got about as far with your psych degree as you did with the bar exam.

    " Look, kid this doesn’t work with me."

    Clearly it does, because you keep responding with the same errors and idiocy time and time again.

    "I outed your sock puppet fetish and you have to come back with something."

    Calling your actions a "fetish" is entertaining, but calling you what you are isn't really a fetish. Saying it over and over makes you feel better, and I get it. It's ok to admit you have a problem. Isn't that Step 1? You do know that step, don't you? 🙂

    "And the rest isn’t worth
    addressing, Calvin."

    It's a good thing you're not addressing Calvin (or that i noticed the comma there….get it?).

    " I know telling you once more you have school in the morning is no lark. You can’t fix stupid."

    If it's a lark, then with all of your AMAZING detective skills…what grade am I in? Where do I go to school? You've clearly stated on your accounts here that you know and can find these things.

    I'll give you a hint…i'd have school tomorrow if the date was 5/22/95.

    You're right though. You can't fix stupid…which explains a multitude of problems with you, your accounts, and your entire reasoning as a whole.

    don't you have someplace to be, other than online? Nick At Night has some reruns of shows that were around when you were a kid maybe? 🙂

    Reply
  207. “Because girls are sometimes unwanted the abortion industry has been happy to dispose of them.”

    First of all there is no “abortion industry”. Second, this didn’t address the question. Just because one gender is prized over another doesn’t mitigate the fact that unwanted children are abused
    and killed.

    In Canada they don’t. They have forced birth propaganda there too. Sex selection is illegal in Canada. Using reproduction medicine to select the gender of a child was made illegal in Canada
    in 2004.

    “If that's the case then why not also target the ones that are outside the womb, too?”

    Because it’s not inhabiting a juridical person we cannot terminated it. However, many children I treat think being dead is better than being unwanted. Want to tell the child whose parents beat them to a pulp that this life is better than being aborted?

    Reply
  208. And 10 days of this crap from someone who was "diagnosing" our posters! It seems to me that if he were a REAL psychologist he wouldn't be whining about being banned from somebody's web site or trying to "out" Marcus as Calvin as a part of some kind of internet conspiracy. But then again, according to our Resident Psychic, I'm supposed to have Mommy issues or sumpthin like dat….

    Reply
  209. It is sad. More sad because the abortion industry drowns out the voices of the mothers who have or are suffering from the trauma of their abortions. The women whose voices need to be heard, are belittled and shouted down.

    Reply
  210. First of all there is no “abortion industry”.

    No, just a group of people who collect hundreds of millions of dollars a years for performing abortions. You're right–that's nothing like an industry at all.

    Second, this didn’t address the question. Just because one gender is
    prized over another doesn’t mitigate the fact that unwanted children are
    abused and killed.

    And if the reason why a particular child is unwanted is because her parents don't like her gender then that's a perfectly acceptable reason to abort her, right?

    In Canada they don’t. They have forced birth propaganda there too.

    Yes, the Canadian Medical Association Journal (the ones who published the article that I provided) are known as a veritable hotbed of forced birth zealotry.

    Because it’s not inhabiting a juridical person we cannot terminated it.

    Well, you could encourage these unwanted children to do the job themselves. Acetaminophen is reasonably cheap, after all, and it doesn't take that much to induce liver failure.

    "Want to tell the child whose parents beat them to a pulp that this life is better than being aborted?"

    Yep, right after I reported this abuse to law enforcement.

    Reply
  211. -Cost of an abortion? Under $500. Cost of childbirth? $20-30K. (NOT including pre and post natal care). Cost of adoption? Another 20-30K. Guess who’s the
    profit-making industry?

    -Personally I disapprove of gender discrimination. However, being abused or discriminated against as a living child is far worse than being aborted. (If I were the girl fetus inside a mother who didn’t want girls, I’d rather be aborted than live with a family who didn’t want me).

    -Death from acetaminophen overdose is painful & inhumane. If you even consider such an option you obviously have no consideration for these children. (Most methods of suicide are painful).

    -“Yep, right after I reported this abuse to law enforcement.”

    Unfortunately a LOT of abuse is never known or
    reported, and children suffer in silence until its too late. Until every child
    is wanted (for the right reasons) and loved, abuse will not stop.

    Reply
  212. Cost of an abortion? Under $500. Cost of
    childbirth? $20-30K. (NOT including pre and post natal care). Cost of adoption?
    Another 20-30K.

    Guess who’s the profit-making industry?

    Reply
  213. Wrong as usual Pinocchio.

    I challenged you to provide a QUOTE where I ever said animals (or anything
    else) should have right to life.

    You failed. (Not in the last two posts, not anywhere.)

    Now use logic sonny:

    -Obviously I wouldn't have said anything like that, considering my argument was always AGAINST the
    right to life. Isn’t it ironic that your desperate attempt at debate is to now claim I am somehow on your side?

    -Given your juvenile nature, if I had ever made even a single slip of the tongue you would’ve been so quick to jump on it. Your repeated lack of such a quote is what? Proof that you lied, yet again.

    For the record, here’s the my basic point (among others) that you NEVER managed to properly rebut:

    While YOU go on killing innocent individuals
    for your own convenience, you have no right to impede others killing innocent
    individuals for their own convenience. Basically, you cannot throw rocks while
    living in glass houses.

    Reply
  214. Cost of an abortion? Under $500. Cost of childbirth? $20-30K. (NOT
    including pre and post natal care). Cost of adoption? Another 20-30K.
    Guess who’s the
    profit-making industry?

    Oh yes, they're both industries. The difference is that one puts children into adoptive families while the other one puts them into vats labelled as "Medical Waste."

    Personally I disapprove of gender discrimination. However, being abused
    or discriminated against as a living child is far worse than being
    aborted.

    So in other words, the female population of large chunks of the world would be better off dead. Even if that were true, why not let girls decide for themselves whether they want to keep living after they're born? You're approach doesn't sound very "pro-choice."

    Death from acetaminophen overdose is painful & inhumane.

    That's true, but being pulled apart is likely not a positive experience either so I figured it wouldn't be an issue for you.

    Until every child is wanted (for the right reasons) and loved, abuse will not stop.

    And we should keep killing them until that situation changes. Gotcha.

    Reply
  215. “Oh yes, they're both industries.The difference is that one puts children into adoptive families while the other one puts them into vats labelled as "Medical Waste."”

    -Breeding and selling children is not necessarily a good thing. In an already overburdened country/world without enough resources to care for the existing children, breeding & selling MORE is detrimental to many of those children. In the same situation, abortion is not a bad thing, considering those fetuses were unwanted anyway, and were unlikely to have found loving homes. As to medical waste, what happens to a body after death is immaterial.

    “So in other words, the female population of large chunks of the world would be better off dead. Even if that were true, why not let girls decide for themselves whether they want to keep
    living after they're born? You're approach doesn't sound very "pro-choice."

    I already said I DISAGREE with and DISAPPROVE of gender discrimination. But unless you stop gender discrimination first, throwing vulnerable girls into a hostile environment is the worst thing you can do to them. Such girls will be raped, tortured, enslaved, sold. They don’t get a choice over their body, including whether to kill themselves. Have you seen the documentary “Half the sky” regarding the situation of women across the world? Women don’t get a choice.

    That's true, but being pulled apart is likely not a positive experience either so I figured it wouldn't be an issue for you.

    The difference is, a child can FEEL pain fear and distress, UNLIKE a fetus who can’t.

    “And we should keep killing them until that situation changes. Gotcha.”

    Yes. Once the number of children is equal to the number of responsible caring adults ready to be parents, there will be no more abuse.

    Reply
  216. cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900885-2

    Highlights

    The human brain may discriminate touch from pain from 35–37 weeks gestation

    Before 35–37 weeks, touch and noxious lance evoke nonspecific neuronal bursts

    After 35–37 weeks, touch and noxious lance evoke modality-specific potentials

    Summary

    When and how infants begin to discriminate noxious from innocuous stimuli is a fundamental question in neuroscience [1].
    However, little is known about the development of the necessary
    cortical somatosensory functional prerequisites in the intact human
    brain. Recent studies of developing brain networks have emphasized the
    importance of transient spontaneous and evoked neuronal bursting
    activity in the formation of functional circuits [2, 3]. These neuronal bursts are present during development and precede the onset of sensory functions [4, 5].
    Their disappearance and the emergence of more adult-like activity are
    therefore thought to signal the maturation of functional brain circuitry
    [2, 4]. Here we show the changing
    patterns of neuronal activity that underlie the onset of nociception and
    touch discrimination in the preterm infant. We have conducted
    noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) recording of the brain neuronal
    activity in response to time-locked touches and clinically essential
    noxious lances of the heel in infants aged 28–45 weeks gestation. We
    show a transition in brain response following tactile and noxious
    stimulation from nonspecific, evenly dispersed neuronal bursts to
    modality-specific, localized, evoked potentials. The results suggest
    that specific neural circuits necessary for discrimination between touch
    and nociception emerge from 35–37 weeks gestation in the human brain.

    Reply
  217. Also in 2005, David Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of
    evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the
    womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain simply
    extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He
    questions the value of such data:

    Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however,
    that there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal
    neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially
    incorrect.

    He and his team detected the presence of such chemicals as adenosine, pregnanolone, and prostaglandin-D2
    in both human and animal fetuses, indicating that the fetus is both
    sedated and anesthetized in the womb. These chemicals are oxidized with
    the newborn's first few breaths and washed out of the tissues, allowing
    consciousness to occur. If the fetus is asleep throughout gestation then
    the possibility of fetal pain is greatly minimized. “A fetus,” Mellor told The New York Times, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.”

    Mellor, DJ; Diesch, TJ; Gunn, AJ; Bennet, L (2005). "The importance of 'awareness' for understanding fetal pain". Brain research. Brain research reviews 49 (3): 455–71. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.01.006. PMID 16269314.

    Paul, AM (2008-02-10). "The First Ache". The New York Times.

    Reply
  218. It’s not necessarily the women but the prefatory adoption industry that profits from selling children to the highest bidder. The women could be just as much their victims as the children are.

    “Further,if we need to reduce the population then why not encourage suicide as well?”

    Suicide is a personal choice, and many DO make that choice. No need of encouragement. Same for abortion. It’s a personal choice of the pregnant woman, NOT yours or
    mine.

    “These daughters are clearly unwanted and you've already said
    that it's best if unwanted children are selectively aborted. “

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said it’s best to be SELECTIVELY aborted. For any unwanted child, male or female, in general its better to be aborted than be born into a hostile environment.

    If I were the unwanted fetus (male or female) and if the choice is abortion now vs
    a lifetime of rape & torture, I would choose abortion hands down. In countries where blatant gender discrimination exists, the LIFE of an unwanted girl is far worse than non-existence.

    “There's evidence that says otherwise”

    If fetal pain is a concern, the answer is NOT to abolish abortion but to provide anesthesia/analgesia. Doesn’t childbirth involve pain? And all surgical procedures? According to your logic shouldn't all those things be abolished due to pain?

    Furthermore, if you are that concerned about fetal pain, where’s your concern for the pain & suffering of living breathing sentient CHLDREN (about whose capacity for suffering is there’s no question)?

    Reply
  219. I have not mentioned anything about the Bible. In fact, I was pro-"choice" for about thirty years, during which time I practiced no religion. THAT was when I became pro-life, without any religion at all.

    There is no religious argument that can effectively be made against abortion, because you don't have to be religious to see what a bad idea it is.

    All humans are connected, and we have all been connected ever since long, long, long before Moses ever wrote down the Decalogue.

    Your pro-abort slogans subjugate babies and make them second class citizens. They are human beings like us. They are a part of the human family. It is not okay to kill them.

    Do you have a link to these "studies" to which you refer?

    Sixty percent of pregnant women were raped? I've never heard of that.

    But, I've heard that 60 to 80% of moms who have aborted felt coerced.

    Reply
  220. Why not get help for that abused child AND her or his parents?

    Actually WANTED children are also abused and murdered, as well. (After all, those are the parents who have such high expectations in advance.)

    In fact, there was a stat that I heard a long time ago, that wanted kids had a higher rate of abuse. I think we learned that in sociology class. I don't know if it still applies.

    Reply
  221. "Furthermore, if you are that concerned about fetal pain, where’s your
    concern for the pain & suffering of living breathing sentient
    CHLDREN (about whose capacity for suffering is there’s no question)?"
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Well, here's the answer to that question:

    There is no U.S. Supreme Court decision making it perfectly legal to dismember and kill living, breathing, sentient children about whose capacity for suffering there's no question.

    But, I'd also like to address your question about "predatory adoption agencies."

    First, I have no doubt there ARE such places. (Anything can be tainted by corruption and greed, not just adoption. Who knows, perhaps the abortion industry itself might someday be subject to that.)

    But, every county has an adoption agency, I believe. My son was adopted in 1966 by our county agency, when he was only five months old. (Because I was not yet 18 when he was born.)

    Then, the county found some very nice adoptive parents for him.

    Nobody had to pay anything, except the agency itself. They paid for legal fees.

    Reply
  222. "There is no U.S. Supreme Court decision making it perfectly legal to
    dismember and kill living, breathing, sentient children about whose
    capacity for suffering there's no question."

    And why do you think that is? Because children are SENTIENT, fetuses are not.
    It's not OK to dismember sentient individuals, but dismembering or any method of death is fine for NON-SENTIENT individuals.

    More to the point, dismembering is NOT the main threat facing living breathing sentient children. ABUSE is, which could include any number of atrocities including starvation, beatings, rape, torture. .

    Reply
  223. Lookee here… Pinocchio is trying to prove his age
    with anecdotal evidence, which is what? Unverifiable!

    Here's a tip. If you want to be treated like an adult, ACT LIKE ONE.

    Reply
  224. Aww, you say the nicest things on your multiple accounts.

    Still wanting the wood, I see. That's a bit telling. 😉

    Reply
  225. "There is no religious argument that can effectively be made against
    abortion, because you don't have to be religious to see what a bad idea
    it is."

    I agree, considering the bible has absolutely NO problem with abortion.

    There's no real non-relgious argument to be made against abortion either. To force pregnancy & childbirth on a woman against her will is to advocate slavery.

    Reply
  226. Well, you keep calling me Pinocchio, I figured you'd at least get the reference.

    Why would they indeed? Guess it's just one more piece of wood that doesn't want you, and that you'll never get to see. So, typical day for you.

    Cheers!

    Reply
  227. A case of sour grapes I see 🙂

    My position stands. If anyone wanted wood, why would they ever come to you?

    And don't try to distract & deflect again. You don't have to be made of wood to be a Pinocchio, all you have to be is a LIAR.

    Reply
  228. Sour grapes over what? You not getting laid? So sad, your projection and all.

    "My position stands. If anyone wanted wood, why would they ever come to you?"

    Who knows? It's not like you'll ever find out, so why ask unless you're really curious and want it? 😉

    "And don't try to distract & deflect again. You don't have to be made
    of wood to be a Pinocchio, all you have to be is a LIAR."

    So, your grandfather is Geppetto? Notice the original, proper spelling with 2 P's…which is still WAY more "P" than you likely have gotten.

    It's funny how you make accusations, but all you do is run your mouth. Are you done embarrassing yourself yet? It's going to be a long weekend otherwise. 😉

    Reply
  229. Didn't you just leave? Looks like you are not done embarrassing yourself.

    Obviously Geppetto would be YOUR grandfather, but this is getting really boring.

    My accusations were about the number of OBVIOUS lies you told on this thread, just to get out of responding to an argument. (For example, claiming I said something then failing to prove it.)

    Anyway you already demonstrated you are excessively slow even for a forced-birther. If you can ever learn to grasp & rebut a point, we may continue.

    Reply
  230. "Didn't you just leave? Looks like you are not done embarrassing yourself."

    See, this is the problem when you try to be all "internet cool" guy, and just copy what someone else is doing. It's completely unoriginal, obvious fawning after something you don't have, and…it makes no sense. I said nothing about leaving…why even mention something like that, when it's not even there, could be an inference to anything said, and just looks like you're being an idiot?

    "Obviously Geppetto would be YOUR grandfather, but this is getting really boring."

    Simple minds are easily amused, and bore easily. Words to live by, since you do so well in application. already.

    "My accusations were about the number of OBVIOUS lies you told on this
    thread, just to get out of responding to an argument. (For example,
    claiming I said something then failing to prove it.)"

    you mean, because i didn't copy/paste the words from the post *immediately* before it…which i referenced. Is your short term memory shot, grandpa? Cant' remember what you wrote 5 minutes ago and need some young whippersnapper to read it back to you like a court reporter?

    Please. Don't strain yourself any farther. 🙂

    "Anyway you already demonstrated you are excessively slow even for a
    forced-birther. If you can ever learn to grasp & rebut a point, we
    may continue."

    and back to the "you don't get it" line…which was as wrong the first time you said it over a week and a half ago as it is now. Notice that your statement about this is the same exact one i levy at you….yet, i point exactly to where the problem was, and you fail to grasp it.

    If you're bored, its because you can't keep up and don't know what else to do. Concede and stop posting, and then all the hurting will stop. 🙂

    Reply
  231. No Pinocchio you just said goodbye, but came back just to do another dance for me. I appreciate it.

    Given your lack of debating skills, I understand that the only way you can retain a modicum of self-esteem is by insulting & personally attacking your opponent.

    Every juvenile attack from you is a notch in my belt, a reminder that you are pouting from losing this debate (whose subject matter you didn't comprehend in the first place).

    Keep dancing Pinocchio. Try to refrain from repetition if possible, but I'll excuse you if you do.

    Reply
  232. Our resident troll below replied, and might make a good point..if not for the obvious items that go with it. and the price tag she states has no citation, so there's that.

    Aborting a child doesn't take a staff of doctors, additional pediatricians and/or support staff just in the delivery room and after, operating in a -real- hospital, using -real- hospital equipment. It doesn't take into account the length of the stay, not to mention all of the other items that go into it (medications, etc). Suba apparently thinks all of those people work for free or something I suppose.

    Past this fact, anyone with even halfway decent insurance doesn't see a 30k price tag. Birth of my last child…the bill i got was the cost of the ER admitting and the phone calls made from the room afterwards to family. Less than 400 bucks. Granted, insurance lessened the blow, but…we're not talking about rich people here. That is not an uncommon scenario. Even if you max it out at 30k, it's not like you have to take the kid back if you don't pay it all in 30 days.

    Her adoption stat is also suspect. The average cost for adoptive parents is a really wide gap…and not always 20-30k.

    adoptionhelp.org/qa/how-much-does-adoption-cost

    County adoptions: $1000. that's it.

    Notice the cost of the "Attorney Adoption"…it's high. It's also mainly lawyer fees, which is something you run into -every- time you use a lawyer….surprise that they charge a bunch?

    Most of the cost of adoption is for investigative services and the cost of actually placing the adoption, which can take a great deal of time and manpower to do properly. Again, she thinks they should do it for free?

    Abortion, OTOH….if it's the chemical version…the meds and visit are less than 200 bucks. And she's lowballing the number. The average cost is usually agreed is about 500, but can go higher depending on the facility and method, sometimes over 1000. I notice she didn't actually give a range, and went with the lowball number to give the appearance of it being something that it's not.

    Also, she forgets to mention that places like PP also receive a mass amount of funding from the government, so one could make the argument that in theory, they're subsidized.

    Suba isn't going to make a logical argument, so don't waste too much time with the stupidity there.

    Reply
  233. "No Pinocchio you just said goodbye, but came back just to do another dance for me. I appreciate it."

    So, you -didn't- notice i was telling -you- goodbye. *sigh* See, comprehension. It's not your strong suit.

    "Given your lack of debating skills, I understand that the only way you
    can retain a modicum of self-esteem is by insulting & personally
    attacking your opponent."

    Actually, i already finished our debate, and moved on to the mocking and derision portion of the program. You already lost, didn't refute a thing i said with logically valid evidence, and keep going on about nonsense. What else is there to do, otherwise?

    "Every juvenile attack from you is a notch in my belt, a reminder that
    you are pouting from losing this debate (whose subject matter you
    didn't comprehend in the first place)."

    It's fine to keep telling yourself that, except even a cursory reading would show this to be a lie. Back to you for the Disney reference bit now. Now, for every parroted reference, for every time you've not actually used logic or rebutted anything said..I'm going to need a new belt or two, because mine is already full. Notice how you "believe" you've won a debate…based on your "belief" of suffering (which didn't prove anything other than your mixture of utilitarian and eugenics ideas wholesale)….notice it all comes down to your "belief"….something you belittle others for having.

    Sadly, I -know- i debated it properly, -know- i made a syllogism (offered even! haha!) that you could not refute with an actual point (hell, you didn't even refute it…you replaced it with another one that was off topic and then stated you did, and in the process justified why it was wrong anyway, which was a HUGE bonus!)….you believe something, and i know it and can demonstrate it.

    So don't go carving on the belt just yet…you should stick to macaroni art, so there's no sharp objects. They taught you that at a place you've likely stayed before right? No sharp objects, don't believe the voices, and don't eat the glue at craft time?

    "Keep dancing Pinocchio. Try to refrain from repetition if possible, but I'll excuse you if you do."

    You've not done that so far, and won't continue to do it past here, if you keep going. Why lie about it again now? 🙂

    Bye bye….to you. Just so you're clear. It's directed *at* you. To leave. Not that I'm leaving. Just…it doesn't surprise me that i have to explain "bye bye" to you. Fits perfectly, actually.

    Reply
  234. Interesting that you had to write yet another thousand words to attempt to prove that you "did not" lose the debate. Who are you trying to convince?

    "moved on to the mocking and derision portion of the program."

    No sweetypie mocking & derision was ALL you ever had. And that doesn't win a debate without substance. Even you should have learned that by now, but keep dancing.

    Reply
  235. Actually, after removing your tripe, it was 331. That's only 3x the difference as in "another thousand".

    Do you know how to count? Or do you like to bloviate? Would make sense, since you blow everything else out of proportion.

    Also, it's not really hard to bang out a really solid reply at 90 WPM. clearly, you struggle, that short and wimpy post took forever.

    "No sweetypie mocking & derision was ALL you ever had."

    After the first few posts, sure. You weren't worth much more than that, since the argument was effectively over before it began.

    "And that doesn't win a debate without substance."

    Ironically, i used your "substance" to frame a debate you couldn't beat. Must suck losing to your own garbage, when someone applies it against you.

    " Even you should have learned that by now, but keep dancing."

    If it's not touching, it's dancing. Clearly, you have some issues.

    Do a word count next time, before acting like a spastic child about a post. Can you guess how many words of mine there are here? Pro-tip…if it's got 4 digits, its too high. 🙂

    Reply
  236. Hilarious! Pinocchio is now calling ME a troll (while throughout your past posts you proudly claimed YOU were a troll.)

    So you are either complimenting me or INSULTING YOURSELF.

    Also interesting you have to "warn" others about me rather than let them judge for themselves. What are you afraid of? 🙂

    Now let me point out that the only substance in your post was to try & EXCUSE why abortion is so much cheaper than childbirth & adoption.

    Also as you should know, NO government funding goes to abortion. Massive amounts go to childbirth. Abortion is still cheaper.

    Reply
  237. "LOL are you still busy lining up technicalities to try and prove you "didn't lose" ? Again who are you trying to convince?"

    Simply replying to you. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

    "I forgot, what you had in addition to insults were lying & bragging (again about inane & unverifiable things)"

    So, you were wrong the first time? It's a pattern of yours, so…you might as well have told us the sky was blue or something. 🙂

    Little tip: To be in a position to brag you have to be better than others. Then again people better than others don't brag 🙂

    Apparently, you just need a little tip…been a while eh? Just the tip even?

    It's amazing that you feel as if my bragging is negative. If it makes you feel better, i only brag to people that i *am* better than, so allow that to ease your troubled little mind.

    "As I said, not just to win a debate but even to grasp you are IN a debate, one needs substance, which you didn't."

    Says the one who provides your opinion and belief in response to a logical syllogism that you never actually refuted. Nice try though!

    "Here's a few basic things you have as yet failed to grasp."

    Oh goodie, a list of your beliefs again.

    "-There's no such thing as "Pro-life". Only forced-birth."

    Apparently a few million people or so didn't get the memo. This is your pejorative opinion, and nothing more. If i call abortion supporters "forced deathers"…would you accept that as equal and let it stand?

    "-You have no right to stop others doing the same thing you are doing (i.e. killing for convenience)"

    Except i'm not killing innocent life "because i dont want to change my lifestyle", like abortion's number one answer. You STILL are using "convenience" as a replacement for "necessity"…which we've covered.

    "-"Innocence" is not a good enough reason exempt an individual from being killed. If it were, we won't be here today."

    Practically every facet of the law (you know, the thing you kept trying to straw man me with) disagrees. We don't have the right to kill the innocent whenever we want, for any reason. Doing so initiates a penalty…the fact you dislike that someone wants to extend a right to a life that you couldn't care less about is the actual irrelevant part. If you were being consistent, you'd see the parallel and see your view is incorrect…especially since "innocent" is the term YOU started with at the beginning.

    "There's no justifiable reason for the forced-birth position (Control, profit or pleasure are not justifiable reasons)."

    But those 3 reasons DO encompass the entire pro-abortion agenda. It's odd you keep using the very arguments that point to the error in your posts AS the error in mine. We can't both have the same argument here, sweetie. LOL Of course, this is also your opinion and nothing more than an invective for the sake of disagreeing with someone who's been all mean and said unkind things to you.

    Every single one of those is an opinion…not even good ones really…that you've provided not a single shred of logical proof for believing. In the end, it's just that…your belief….with nothing to back it up.

    to quote you:

    "You can lie twist & divert all you want, but the fact is you never managed to rebut (or even comprehend) the above facts."

    See, I get to use your own argument and words against you AGAIN. Seems like bragging rights for me one more time.

    Reply
  238. "Hilarious! Pinocchio is now calling ME a troll (while throughout your past posts you proudly claimed YOU were a troll.)"

    Yes, but being a good one is different than being a shrill, insignificant one. It's not like there's just one kind out there. Was that not obvious?

    "So you are either complimenting me or INSULTING YOURSELF."

    Since "bad troll is bad" describes you, i get to do *neither* AND still point it all out. It's like you just want this to be easy for me.

    "Also interesting you have to "warn" others about me rather than let them judge for themselves. What are you afraid of?"

    Nothing. You made a comment. I placed one there as well. Why does everything have to be about fear and touching with you? Can something not just -be- what it is? I pointed out how you're basically an idiot and a liar. Thought that was pretty self evident? If not, then..now you know!

    "Now let me point out that the only substance in your post was an attempt
    to EXCUSE why abortion is so much cheaper than childbirth &
    adoption."

    So, your rebutal is…an opinion? No actual stats. No links. No facts. Just….your say so.

    See, it's like a pattern i predicted somewhere, isn't it?

    I pointed out that abortion is cheap, and thus those involved make a profit, versus others who have to work hard, train for years, and expend a great amount of effort to be good at their jobs. Why did that escape you so easily?

    "Also as you should know, NO government funding goes to abortion. Massive amounts go to childbirth. Abortion is still cheaper."

    Correct…so why would PP get all upset for the3% of funding they'd lose, since they claim that much of their business is abortion. It's like they're afraid of losing…profit? I'm simply stating that one could, in theory…you know, the things you don't seem to understand very well…that if such a small % of their business was involved with it, that there's little to no way to prove that funds aren't being used that way. It's already proven, publicly, that PP is a dishonest business……but again, theory. Just shooting from the hip, as it were.

    In the grand picture, abortion is cheaper. It's also the base destruction of a life…which should tell you how little life means to people like you, and how important the motive of convenience and profit are….see what i did there?

    Go outside, get some sun. It's a holiday weekend, and there's I've seen some seniors specials out in the papers that might interest you. 🙂

    Reply
  239. Famous last words, i know. But, I've got a barbeque/bonfire this evening, and tomorrow there's a few things going on. And i have somewhere to be on Monday, so…but you're right, we'll see 🙂

    Reply
  240. Of course it’s obvious. You are the shrill insignificant one, considering your whole “debate” consisted of insults
    lies & backpedaling, with hardly any substance. I couldn’t care less about your self-proclaimed trolldom. Present some substance if you got any.

    “Why does everything have to be about fear and touching with you?”

    Interesting…. I never mentioned touching, and this is the first time I mentioned fear. Hmmm someone's a little jumpy lately???

    Your whole post is a string of groundless insults as usual. Another string of notches in my belt.

    “So, your rebutal is…an opinion? No actual stats. No links. No facts. Just….your say so.”

    Why should I present links for you, Pinocchio? You are not worth it. When people who can grasp & rebut my
    points ask for links I always provide them.

    Now you try to claim abortionists need no training? Look who’s been reading religious propaganda sites while
    claiming to be non-religious….

    “Correct…so why would PP get all upset for the3% of funding they'd lose”

    You provided no proof showing they are upset about loss of funding. I personally would be upset about all the women & children harmed from being denied abortion. IF PP is upset that’s probably their reason too.

    If “PP is a dishonest business”, the answer is to get them clean up their act, or to provide abortions somewhere else. NOT to abolish abortion, duh!

    Senior specials? When I qualify for them I would have EARNED them, unlike you…

    Reply
  241. Who is this Crawford? I bet your self-proclaimed "hammering" is just as pathetic there as it's been here.

    Hint: When you have to repeatedly declare how badly you behaved, its an attempt reassure your own self and/or a cry for crowd approval.

    Reply

Leave a Comment