Planned Parenthood abortion quotas


And Then There Were None. from Abe Films on Vimeo.

We interrupt our regularly scheduled blogging to urge you to watch the above video from And Then There Were None.

We do not use the term “pro-abortion” lightly. We realize that some people truly are pro-choice. But with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy: If you plan an annual budget with 1,135 surgical “terminations” at $313.29 a pop, you might be pro-abortion!

500 thoughts on “Planned Parenthood abortion quotas”

  1. "forced birth" is a pro-abort's propaganda way of saying:

    "the law should require parents to live up to their obligations as parents"

    Reply
  2. Drew Hymer


    22 days ago

    When conception successfully completes, an individual human being
    comes into existence. Not two, not three. That individual human being
    may through asexual reproduction create another human being. We call that twinning.

    i've heard of the possibility that embryos could merge. it's a form cannabalism. But if i eat you that doesn't mean you didn't exist before i served you up.

    personhoodusa.com/blog/unborn-babies-inherent-capacity-means-theyre-persons/#comment-1463375810

    Reply
  3. Which is why you won't force men to donate their bodies (blood/bone marrow tissue) to save the life of their 'unborn baby' because ONLY WOMEN WERE MADE FOR PREGNANCY

    Such a misogynist.

    Reply
  4. and nowhere in that statement did i say anything about chimeras.

    So you need retract your statement and apologize.

    Reply
  5. Yes you did. It's right there. You said:

    i've heard of the possibility that embryos could merge. it's a form cannabalism.

    And now I find out that you've banned me from posting at Personhood USA.

    lulz

    Reply
  6. You are a misogynist but that's not the issue here.

    Both women and men have equal and independent obligation to care for their children. The fact that the father cannot directly fulfill his obligation doesn't undermine the mother's obligation.

    Reply
  7. Pro-choice = pro-abortion because "choice" is merely an abstraction that is meaningless without mentioning what is being chosen. Abortion is the issue and instead of confronting that issue, pro-aborts hide behind euphemism such as "choice".

    Reply
  8. Yes he can. Through the miracle of technology.

    We override biology all the time to save lives. So what is preventing fathers from being legally obligated to donate their bodies to save their young?

    Reply
  9. i wasn't talking about chimerism. I was thinking of two twins who recombine. They are genetically indistinguishable.

    Reply
  10. You lied about me so i banned you. Don't like it, you can retract your statement.

    I wasn't making any point regarding chimerism but i was using an analogy
    to show that simply because one organism combines with another that
    doesn't mean that there weren't two organisms before the combining.

    You want to ride an analogy in order to make me look foolish. Well, that makes you a liar. A banned liar.

    Reply
  11. Fathers should be "legally obligated to donate their bodies to save their young" when the foreseeable consequence of their actions causes the child to need that assistance.

    Reply
  12. It is so easy to be an anti-choice male, isn't it, Drew? You can just flap your piehole about how much medical risk some woman you've never even met should have to face, knowing full well that you will never be affected by your fiats.

    My wanted pregnancy nearly killed me 28 years ago. Frankly, I have reached the point of wishing that every anti-choice male I encounter, whether on the internet or IRL, would experience just *two hours* of the hyperemesis gravidarum that I experienced for 40 weeks. Then maybe you'd stop imagining that pregnancy is all fairy farts and chocolate ice cream.

    I have a 28-year-old son and a 21-year-old tubal ligation. Should said tubal ligation fail, there will be an abortion so fast that your misogynistic head will spin right off. I will not risk my life for pregnancy again.

    I support the full spectrum of reproductive choices: contraception or not, gestation or termination, adoption or rearing alone or with one's partner of choice.

    Let me put it another way: I think the Duggars are lunatics, but you don't see me out there trying to legislate against their right to make their own reproductive decisions via overbreeding.

    PS: I was once an anti-choice dimwit like you. I used every page out of your playbook. Then, I got out of high school and into the real world, where things are not as black-and-white as people like you believe they are.

    Reply
  13. medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8905

    Quote from article: Human chimeras were first discovered with the advent of blood typing
    when it was found that some people had more than one blood type. Most of
    them proved to be "blood chimeras" — non-identical twins who shared a
    blood supply in the uterus. Those who were not twins are thought to have blood cells from a twin that died early in gestation. Twin embryos often share a blood supply in the placenta, allowing blood stem cells to pass from one and settle in the bone marrow of the other. About 8% of non-identical twin pairs are chimeras.

    Reply
  14. 1) Chimeras ARE twins who have combined. Twins are two zygotes from one pregnancy. 2) Most twins are dizygotic, and thus are easily distinguishable.

    Let's see how you will backpedal now.

    Reply
  15. Was there an argument in there?

    It seems that your rant amounts to nothing more than "men who oppose baby-killing" should just shut up. Don't you see how lame that is?

    Reply
  16. I gladly admit that i learned something. And i stick by my original point that when two embryos combine, it's a form of cannibalism. But that doesn't mean that it's the exactly same as one eating the other for lunch. But it's similar in one respect, there were two organisms and now there is only one.

    But rather than accept the analogy as intended, you blow it up into something it isn't. That makes you a liar.

    Reply
  17. Sure. They caused their child to need to be in the womb. They didn't cause their child to need a kidney transplant.

    Reply
  18. it is a form of cannibolism. But it's not exactly the same as eating one another. You should say that i call it "a form of cannabilism" rather than saying that i think it's equivalent to one eating the other.

    Reply
  19. If the woman puts life and health at risk so should the man. Thanks to technology, he can also donate his tissue to preserve fetal life.

    Don't you care about fetal life Drew? Apparently not enough to inconvenience men. Eh?

    Reply
  20. So you make a nonsensical statement, and upon being called on it, you 1) backpedal furiously, 2) claim it was an analogy (fyi: that's not an analogy), and 3) cry about how you're being victimized by an evil liar. You know, alternatively, you could have just said something like "Wow, yeah, that really DID sound moronic. No idea what I was thinking, but I should rephrase that!".

    Reply
  21. i.word.com/idictionary/cannibalismcannibalism

    Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism
    Pronunciation: ˈka-nə-bə-ˌli-zəm
    Function: noun
    Date: 1796
    1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being 2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind 3 : an act of cannibalizing something
    — can·ni·bal·is·tic ˌka-nə-bə-ˈlis-tik adjective

    Reply
  22. Since the combining of embryos has nothing to do with one chewing the other up and putting it through the digestive track, this obvious fact would make you realize that i wasn't saying anything like that. Why would you make such an unwarranted accusation? Except that you're a liar?

    Google "Cannibalize". The first definition has nothing to do with eating.

    "use (a machine) as a source of spare parts for another, similar machine."

    You could have been reasonable and recognized that i meant something like that. But no, you had to be a jerk and a liar.

    Reply
  23. What she said was that no person should decide how much risk another person should have to undergo. Especially when they know nothing about it, and never will.

    Reply
  24. Inconvenience men? This has nothing to with inconveniencing anybody. It has to do with principle that should undergird the law.

    The law should uphold debt. Debt can be incurred when you cause others to be in need. "cause" has to do with the reasonable foreseeable consequence of your action.

    Reply
  25. You explained your position by backpedaling and inventing alternate definitions. Life tip: Other people are not "liars" when they mock you for making a stupid statement. Nor are they "liars" for dismissing your lame attempts at justifying that statement.

    Reply
  26. I think we have some common ground here. I agree that "no person should decide how much risk another person should have to undergo". Yes! Absolutely.

    No one should force an unborn baby to undergo a procedure (abortion) that is 99.99999% likely to end up with her dead. That's just too much risk to force on an unborn baby.

    This is especially true since neither lady_black nor fiona64 "know nothing about" getting ripped limb from limb.

    Reply
  27. This discussion shows that you don't have the maturity to recognize that you were wrong and to apologize. i guess that's that.

    Reply
  28. Women aren't slaves to anyone. But pregnant mothers have an obligation to care for their babies. Obligation and slavery are two very different things.

    Reply
  29. Actually, parents owe their children care because they cause their children to be in need. They cause this need about 9 months before birth. That's why parental obligations begins about 9 months before birth.

    Reply
  30. That's true. And "pro-life" is a euphemism for "pro-abortion."

    It's pretty stupid really. We all know what this is about and that is ABORTION.

    So, from now on I'm going to refer to myself as "anti-abortionist" and to former-pro-lifers as "pro-abortionist."

    Reply
  31. You don't read very well, do you? My point, which you have deliberately overlooked, is that you (and every other anti-choice male) are demanding that women assume risks that you will never have to assume. And that makes your position pretty damned convenient, from where I sit.

    Oh, and Drew? Everyone opposes baby-killing. Infanticide is a crime. If you know of anyone killing babies, call your local law enforcement agency.

    Reply
  32. Wow, so many histrionics and so little content.

    An embryo is not a person. A woman, however, *is.* And I notice that you keep erasing the pregnant woman from the picture in your effort to enslave her to the contents of her uterus. Why is that, Drew?

    Reply
  33. Obligation and slavery are two very different things.

    When you force someone to remain pregnant against her will, you are indeed enslaving her.

    Not that you care, right? Because you will never be affected by the things you support.

    Reply
  34. This discussion shows that you don't have the maturity to recognize that you were wrong

    You must have been looking in a mirror when you wrote that.

    Reply
  35. Not everyone agrees a pregnant woman has a baby, which implies a fully sentient human being. Yes, the fetus is alive and yes, it has human DNA, but some of us just don't can't make the leap of calling it a person. I care about animals, love children, teach my kid not to crush ants for fun, recycle and try to leave the world a better place for future humans and animals. I visit my parents and grandparents, love them to pieces. BUT I have no general emotional attachments to a fetus. When MY kid was a fetus? Sure I loved him. But I know not all pregnancies are wanted. That's just a fact of life, and as long as the parents are okay with it, an abortion is a victimless. A fetus is neither innocent nor guilty, its just a ZERO.

    Reply
  36. No pro-choice means supporting ALL choices.
    I don't care if a woman wants to have 15 kids. I might think she is a little crazy but it is still her choice. So please allow me the same freedom to make my own choice regarding my decision to NOT have kids.

    Reply
  37. Agreed that abortion is certainly one of the CHOICES we advocate.

    Birth being the ONLY choice you advocate, do you admit "pro-life" is a propagandistic way of saying "Forced-Birth"?

    Reply
  38. You assume that life is good by default, and death is bad by default. This is a false assumption. When the available life is a substandard one of misery/neglect/abuse, death IS a better option.

    Furthermore, the method of death irrelevant when the individual being killed is non-sentient.

    Reply
  39. Sorry, Drew. But now you're just lying. Choice doesn't always mean abortion. It doesn't even mean abortion most of the time. Most of the time, the choice is to carry to term.

    Reply
  40. A fetus is a human being, an unborn child. Killing a fetus has the exact same main result as killing a newborn 1 second old – a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.

    Reply
  41. The debate is about abortion. So, when pro-aborts say "choice" they're really talking about abortion. It soothes their consciences to coat their baby-killing with a euphemism.

    Reply
  42. When a couple has sex, they volunteer to be parents — that is, to take on the obligation to care for another human. They're not being forced. The "forced birth" nonsense is just propaganda.

    Reply
  43. Pro-life is really just a short hand way of saying pro-right-to-life. This is obvious from the names of a lot of pro-life groups, Colorado Right to Life, National Right to Life Committee…

    Pro-lifers have no problem being called "anti-abortion" because we are. Abortion is the issue, so using it the terminology of the opposing sides is appropriate.

    Reply
  44. >>It IS slavery to force women to give birth against their will.

    Only in the case of rape is the woman forced to give birth against her will. In all other cases, she volunteered for the job.

    Reply
  45. Sentience is a lame standard because rats have sentience. What separates us from animals is our capacity for reason, morality and so forth.

    Unborn babies and newborn babies don't have that immediate capacity. But they do have the inherent capacity. That's why both groups are persons.

    Reply
  46. fiona64, you support baby-killing. You just pretend it is isn't baby-killing. People always pretend away the humanity of the victims to support human rights atrocities.

    i didn't overlook your argument. i just pointed out that it was stupid. Your argument is "go away and shut up". That's really bringing it! Disagreement should quashed.

    >>assume risks that you will never have to assume.

    Virtually all pro-lifers, men and women, support life-saving medical treatment even when that treatment results in the death and removal of the unborn child. So, your nonsense about "risk" is just nonsense.

    Reply
  47. Drew, you are being deliberately obtuse.

    Not that I'm surprised.

    YOU will never be pregnant. YOU are demanding that women risk life and health to gestate (pregnancy is not a state of wellness). Risks that YOU will never have to assume.

    YOU need to stop taking away the humanity of women.

    Reply
  48. Consent to sex is not consent to gestation. But thanks for demonstrating that you view pregnancy as punishment for sex.

    Reply
  49. i just explained that no one is demanding that women risk their lives to carry a baby. So, your statement is pointless.

    >>taking away the humanity of women

    You're confused. Recognizing that mothers have a responsibility to care for their children doesn't take away their humanity. Rather, it's a recognition of their humanity.

    Reply
  50. Drew won't even entertain the thought that fathers should be legally obligated to donate blood or bone marrow to a sick fetus or child.

    Too much of an *inconvenience* for the man.

    Reply
  51. If you believe that, you're a fool. The "right" to kill an unborn baby was invented by the Supreme Court, not the Constitution.

    Reply
  52. Death from pregnancy cannot be accurately predicted. The woman can bleed to death from post partum hemorrhage. So yes, you are forcing women to risk their lives – when you won't even inconvenience a man by forcing him to donate a teaspoon of blood to his child.

    Reply
  53. >>as punishment
    Thank you showing that you don't understand the difference between punishment and reasonable foreseeable consequences.

    When you engage is an activity that has the reasonable foreseeable consequence of causing someone to be in need and the consequence happens, you become responsible to care for that person's need that you caused.

    Reply
  54. i just explained that no one is demanding that women risk their lives to carry a baby.

    Life and *health* is what I said, Drew. Which you know.

    You reduce women to nothing more than walking, talking incubators with your position, Drew. *That* is how you are taking away our humanity.

    Thanks for continuing to prove how easy it is to be an anti-choice male, though.

    Reply
  55. You are being deliberately obtuse *again.*

    You can go re-read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which quite clearly states that rights are conferred up on the *born.*

    BTW, abortion was only illegal in this country for about 70 years. Why? Because male physicians decided they didn't like the female midwives being paid to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

    Abortion has been going on since before recorded history, and will continue to go on whether it's legal or not.

    Please feel free, Drew, to gestate any pregnancy that happens inside your body. You do not get to make medical decisions for others.

    Reply
  56. A foreseeable consequence of driving a car is being in an automobile accident. You are saying that one should not seek medical treatment in such cases because, well, you *were* driving a car …

    Reply
  57. FYI, Drew knows more about tort law than Unicorn Farm – whose practice is tort law. He said that she was wrong about "foreseeable consequences" but declined to explain how so in detail.

    Thank gawd we have Drew to lecture us cretins on law, embryology and obstetrics.

    Reply
  58. If you walk in a dangerous neighborhood, do you volunteer to getting mugged/assaulted/raped? Are you OBLIGATED to let such attacks go on without protecting yourself because "you should have known better than to walk there in the first place"?

    Reply
  59. There are facts, like fetuses have a full chromosome, that they have a heart beat etc which are indisputable. However when it comes to being a "person", this term is not fully defined. For me, its the fact that fetuses lack sentience and are still inside the mother's body, which makes me categorize them as "not a person". Its not an easy or trivial classification, and the fact that so many well meaning people who love and care about the living and the world do not necessarily see it your way, to me suggests that there is no universal moral standard here. The policy is to let the person who is most closest to the fetus, the mother, decide whether to keep or abort.

    Reply
  60. Once again, taking a action doesn't bind you to its consequences.

    If you leave your door unlocked, are you VOLUNTEERING for squatters to come in take up residence in your home? If they do come in, are you obligated to let them stay because "you invited them by opening the door"?

    Reply
  61. As I replied to Drew, the classification of a fetus as a "person" is a murky one. Unlike observational facts, like its got a full set of chromosomes etc., how one could use a whole different set of criteria to define "person". My criteria is that fetuses are not self aware and still attached to the mother. You obviously have a different criteria. The fact that we can't all come to anything near a consensus as in a question like "it is okay to steal" to me says its not such a cut and dry issue that one answer is best for all. I think its a complex issue that the woman considering an abortion alone is qualified to make.

    Reply
  62. A mother/parent is one who loves, protects and cares for children, and always puts them first, VOLUNTARILY.
    NOT because some asshole forced them to. Parental responsibility can never be forced. When forcing is attempted, it's always the children who end up suffering.

    Spitting out a baby doesn't make a mother. Loving & raising a child does, whether the child is biological or not.

    Whether any woman wants to be a mother is her business, NOT yours.

    Reply
  63. i have entertained and i've thoroughly explained to you the difference. But truth and reason don't matter to you. You'd rather repeat your nonsense.

    Reply
  64. When there's no indication of risk then there's no justification for acting like there is such a risk. That's rational.

    >>women can bleed to death
    Sure. We should take reasonable precautions to make sure that doesn't happen.

    Reply
  65. Why is fetal life not valuable enough to you to force men to even give blood to preserve fetal life? Especially as you have no problem forcing women to risk and life and health to give birth.

    Giving blood = minor inconvenience. Why does male convenience trump fetal right to live?

    Reply
  66. fiona64, you are a sexist bigot. My sex is completely irrelevant to the argument. You somehow think i should shut up because i'm a man. Well, that's just idiotic. Your view: SHUT UP. Wow.

    *health*, in this context, is a weasel word. In Doe v. Bolton the Supremes defined *health* to mean anything you want it to mean — just kill your baby for any reason. So, no *health* isn't justification for removing the baby. Life is.

    Reply
  67. Fiona64, you think if women are not allowed to kill their babies that makes women walking incubators. That's misogyny.

    My position is that woman are responsible moral agents. This means that they are not morons but responsible for the reasonable foreseeable consequence of their actions. They incur a debt to their children by creating those children in a dependent state. That's treating women with respect.

    Reply
  68. You have a sloppy interpretation of the 14th amendment. It makes citizenship dependent on birth. The 2nd half of section 1 is not dependent on birth but applies to all persons (such as unborn babies and illegal aliens). So, the constitution does not say you can murder unborn babies. The Supremes just made it up.

    Reply
  69. >>medical decisions

    To call abortion a "medical decision" is very misogynist because it assumes that pregnancy is a pathology. Since women's bodies are designed for pregnancy, your view assumes women are defective.

    Reply
  70. >>has been going on since before recorded history,

    Other types of murder have also been going on since before recorded history. So, by your "reasoning" all murders should be legal.

    Reply
  71. >>decided they didn't like the female midwives

    No. Abortion was made illegal way more than 70 years ago. When it could be proven that the unborn was alive, abortion was illegal. In the early to mid 1800s, it was discovered that life begins at conception so physicians moved to make abortion illegal from conception.

    Reply
  72. >>driving a car

    Fiona64, that's stupid. The Reasonable Foreseeable Consequence of driving recklessly is an "accident". And yes, you're responsible.

    Reply
  73. That's bad reasoning. If it's true that there's no way to determine who is right, you have to look at the consequences of being wrong and avoid the worst consequence. The death of an innocent baby is a worse consequence than the mother carrying the baby for 9 months.

    Reply
  74. Squatters taking over your house isn't a consequence of leaving your door unlocked.
    But creating a new human being is an reasonable foreseeable consequence of sex.

    Reply
  75. Any idiot can conceive and spit out a baby. Doesn't make her a mother.

    It takes a real parent to RAISE a child, and that responsibility cannot be forced.

    Reply
  76. "Squatters taking over your house isn't a consequence of leaving your door unlocked."

    Of course it is. If you are bound by the consequences of one action, you should be bound by consequences of other actions too.

    Reply
  77. If you caused the mugger to need your wallet (i'm trying to picture this), you are responsible to supply him with your wallet. Walking through a dangerous neighborhood in no way causes the mugger to need your wallet.

    >>Taking an action doesn't automatically bind you to all of it's CONSEQUENCES

    You may have a point here but I'm not making such a global claim. My claim is more limited. If you cause someone to be in need — like hitting with your car (assuming you're at fault) — then you're responsible to care for that need.

    Reply
  78. Pregnancy isn't usually forced it's voluntary.

    We're not talking about being a good parent. We're talking about obligation and how causing someone to be in need incurs that obligation.

    Reply
  79. Yes, you did answer it. By proclaiming that biology = destiny. Which is not an answer, seeing as how we override biology ALL THE TIME.

    So why can biology not be overriden to save fetal life?

    Reply
  80. So every single medical complication can be 100% predicted, is that what you're saying? And people ONLY die because someone made a mistake?

    Reply
  81. What's the point of spitting out a baby if you cannot be a good parent? Aren't you intentionally making a bad situation WORSE?

    Reply
  82. If you caused the squatters to need to be in your house, then you owe them the use of your house.

    Leaving the door unlocked doesn't cause squatters to enter your house. They have will that they exercised in a bad way that was not caused by your action. Furthermore, leaving the door unlocked in no way causes squatters to need to be in your house. But if did (which is absurd, since there appears to be no reasonable cause and effect), then yes you would be obligated to provide them with your house.

    Reply
  83. Once again, you assume the zef NEEDS to continue its life. Wrong assumption.

    Every living being ever conceived is NOT designed to live. Only those faced with favorable conditions get to live. Otherwise this planet would be hell-hole with no standing room & everyone eating each other.

    Reply
  84. Strike the phrase "while female" and change "severe injury and possibly death" to "causing someone to be in need".

    The two activities are similar in that they both may cause someone to be in need. When you cause that need, you incur obligation to care for that need.

    Reply
  85. Yes, there is a point. It is entirely relevant since you are basing your entire argument around female responsibility.

    Reply
  86. i'm making no such assumption. Someone's right to life isn't based on immediate capacities or immediate desires.

    It seems that you are judging someone's life as not worth living. And the penalty for that is death, in your view.

    The solution for "unwanted" children is not to kill them. One's right to life isn't based on whether or not you're wanted.

    Reply
  87. Should a person be forced to give up body parts if they cause someone to be in need as a result of safe, ordinary driving?

    Reply
  88. when we talk about "medical decisions", we're typically talking about confronting a disease or other defect. Getting a nose-job (unless for some abnormality), for example, is not a medical decision.

    Reply
  89. There you go lying again. i never said biology=destiny.

    Biology can be overridden to save fetal life. I'd gladly give my blood to save an unborn baby… or a born person.. maybe even you

    Reply
  90. Killing the baby is making a bad situation worse. It's sick to suggest violence as a solution to a social problem.

    Reply
  91. Once again "violence" matters only if the individual being killed is sentient. It's irrelevant for a zef that's non-sentient.

    You never answered the question. Why spit out a baby if you cannot care for them?

    Reply
  92. So pregnancy is a state of health and wellness, is that what you are saying?

    Then why do women still die from it and are maimed and injured?

    Reply
  93. Are you claiming it's fine to torture rats (or any other animals) DESPITE their capacity to feel pain,
    but not OK to kill zefs despite their LACK of sentience or reasoning?

    Can you explain the logic behind that?

    Reply
  94. Saying that women were 'designed for pregnancy' and that therefore, they must gestate, and that since men were *not* designed to gestate, that men should *not* be forced to donate their bodies to preserve fetal life is in fact a roundabout way of saying 'biology = destiny" yes.

    Reply
  95. In case you haven't noticed, the world is full of shades of grey. There are many instances where there IS NO WAY to determine who is right and who is wrong. Circumstance plays a big part in things. To me, ending a pregnancy while it is a clump of cells with a still non-functioning central nervous system would be preferable to giving birth if I were a woman on welfare or a student pursuing her degree in a highly demanding field. Terminate while the fetus doesn't even know its being terminated. There is no winner but no loser either. If you were in the same situation and wanted to prioritize your fetus, by all means that is your choice.

    Reply
  96. So it's okay with you if a mother chooses to hire an unethical doctor to torture her unborn child in utero? (Say, if she was mad at the bio father and wanted to screw with him.) That's perfectly kosher, in your book?

    Reply
  97. >> When you engage is an activity that has the reasonable foreseeable
    consequence of causing someone to be in need and the consequence
    happens, you become responsible to care for that person's need that you
    caused.

    I agree with this statement. But I also agree that abortion (of a potential person who has not yet developed fear, regret or any emotions) is a responsible choice a woman can make.

    Reply
  98. Many, MANY people are in automobile accidents who were not driving recklessly. By driving a car, you assume the risk that you may be in an accident. That accident may or may not be your fault. But you don't have to live with the results of your actions merely because you choose to drive.

    Reply
  99. I'm taking your logic to its natural conclusion. If a parent "owes nothing" to a human being who is in the z/e/f stage of development, then it must be okay to torture that child in utero, right? Do you think that's acceptable for a parent to do?

    Reply
  100. "Designed for pregnancy" ROFLMAO! No, Drew. An Easy Bake Oven is designed to bake tiny cakes. Women are not "designed" for anything in particular, other than to be human beings.

    Reply
  101. Actually no it is NOT "misogynist." By your "logic" a woman who is incapable of pregnancy is "defective" or if she seeks sterilization surgery to keep herself from becoming pregnant, she is a misogynist. Neither one is true. Childbirth is not to be interpreted by ignorant males as a raison d'etre for females.

    Reply
  102. LOL. You're very funny. Never took a logic class, did you? You have to look at the consequences of being wrong and avoid the worst consequence? LOL. Congratulations. You just put us back in the Stone Age. Every human advancement and innovation has had a distinct possibility of being wrong, and resulting in bad consequences. Let's just start with medicine and move on from there.

    Reply
  103. I don't deal in discussing the impossible, lady. You picked the wrong rube to have this illogical conversation with.

    Reply
  104. It's a hypothetical scenario. I suspect you refuse to answer because you can't do so without exposing the flaws in your position.

    Reply
  105. You keep talking about "need" while avoiding my question.

    You assume that the zef NEEDS a crappy life as an unwanted child. On what do you base this assumption?

    Reply
  106. No, it's an IMPOSSIBLE scenario. I don't even know where you dreamed up this "in utero torturing" nonsense, and frankly, I don't want to know. But it's not possible to torture in utero. And YES, nothing is "owed" to a zef.

    Reply
  107. Yes, you pretty much DID say that biology was destiny, and having sex while female is a de facto fault situation, and a few other wholly unappealing inferences that can be drawn from that smarmy, misogynistic algorithm.

    Reply
  108. If you wish to babble about "causing need" then the male is just as responsible for the need. If he cannot be forced to gestate, neither can she.

    Reply
  109. I disagree. Fetal surgery is not unheard of. One could torture by deliberately ingesting harmful substances. Etc.

    If nothing is owed to an unborn child, then you support the choice of a parent to binge drink/smoke/take hard drugs during pregnancy?

    Reply
  110. Let's assume it's somehow possible to torture a zef in utero.

    First, why would anyone want to torture a zef? (Other than being plain bat-shit crazy)

    Let's say you provided a plausible motive. (I doubt it, there's NEVER an acceptable motive for torturing anything).

    Practically: Considering the zef is non-sentient through the major part of gestation, and the woman is always more sentient than the zef, such a procedure is bound to cause more physical pain to her than the zef. Now why would anyone choose to go through that? It will be far more practical to give birth first & torture the child, as many forced-birthers tend to do. 🙂

    Reply
  111. There's a huge difference between "nothing is owed" and "have a right to actively intentionally torture".

    I owe nothing to a homeless guy. That doesn't mean I have a right to torture him or beat him up.

    Reply
  112. Fetal surgery has nothing to do with what you asked. Now you are asking me if I believe women who *choose* to carry to term should be drinking, smoking or taking "hard drugs." Drinking is legal over age 21 and smoking is legal over age 18. Binge drinking and smoking aren't healthy for anyone, but they are legal adult activities. I'm generally suspicious of laws that purport to make a "special class" of any type of person (in this case a pregnant person) in order to strip them of rights. Yes, pregnant women have as much right to drink and smoke as anyone else. And they ALSO have the right to any lawfully obtained and needed drugs as anyone else. While pregnant with my daughter, I had an atrocious sinus infection to the point where I was in so much pain I could literally not function. I had to fight with my obstetrician for antibiotics. THAT'S TORTURE OF ME, for an entire month, with no reasonable explanation other than being pregnant. Frankly I was in so much pain I didn't care. I just wanted the pain gone. No, I do not think drugs ought to be denied to women because they are pregnant. Nor am I entirely sold on the harm of smoking and light to moderate drinking while pregnant. I believe it to be overblown. If you choose to carry a pregnancy, I believe you should look after your health. That doesn't extend to personal suffering for the sake of a fetus. Generations were just fine with the "moderation in all things" type of common sense that prevailed when our mothers were carrying us. Nothing has changed my mind.

    Reply
  113. Re: motive. Perhaps the woman (who is bat-shit crazy) found out her husband cheated on her and wants some form of twisted revenge. Perhaps she is mentally ill and thinks the child inside of her needs to be punished for some reason. Etc., etc.

    It doesn't necessarily have to cause physical pain to her. For example, she could use meth or heroin, both of which might be pleasurable for her but very harmful to the baby. Or she could sit in a hot tub for a lengthy span of time. Again, pleasurable for her, but not so for the baby. (The reason pregnant women can't sit in hot tubs is because a baby could literally boil alive in in the amniotic fluid.)

    Reply
  114. You "owe nothing" to a homeless guy, but you don't have the right to kill him, correct? Wouldn't that also follow for an unborn child? You could "owe nothing" to an unborn child, but if s/he is a human being with the right to life, you shouldn't have the right to kill him/her.

    Reply
  115. Fetal surgery could a method whereby torture is carried out.

    I'm asking you if any pregnant woman who knows she is pregnant should be allowed to binge drink or do hard drugs *with the direct intention* of harming her unborn child.

    Reply
  116. If the homeless guy is inside your vagina without your consent, I do believe that you would be within your rights to remove him, even if the ONLY way to escape would lead to his death.

    Reply
  117. Are you saying at a 39w6d infant can't feel pain, but once it is born the next day, it can? Again, what is your scientific evidence for that assertion?

    Actual evidence shows that fetuses are indeed capable of feeling pain: nytimes.com/2013/09/17/health/complex-science-at-issue-in-politics-of-fetal-pain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Reply
  118. And what if actions that you consented to directly led to his presence in your vagina (and he was put there without HIS consent)?

    Reply
  119. Yes, but not until late in pregnancy:

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

    And even then, it is likely that the fetus is indeed sedated and anaesthetized whilst in utero.

    Take a look at this, for example:

    westminsterprego.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/amnioticsac.jpg

    A baby born within the amniotic sac. Why isn't it awake and crying? Birth can be pretty traumatic, and getting your head crushed as it is shoved through a tiny opening can't be pleasant. So why is it not up and crying in pain?

    Reply
  120. The link you posted doesn't discuss pain – see the NYT article I posted, above, for more detailed info about scientific research currently posits that fetuses can feel pain around 24 weeks.

    Not sure what your image of an infant in the caul is supposed to prove…?

    Reply
  121. Boy, are you ever stupid. I didn't say it happened 70 years ago, I said it was only illegal for about 70 years. And yes, it was indeed because of the male physicians. Crack a friggin' book, Drew … publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb5z5&chunk.id=d0e1742&toc.id=d0e1742&brand=ucpress

    Reply
  122. Again, you double down on the stupid.

    Murder has a very specific definition: the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person's life with malice aforethought.

    Even when abortion was illegal, it was not considered murder … because :: wait for it:: an embyro is NOT a person.

    Reply
  123. Since women's bodies are designed for pregnancy

    Thanks for proving right my assertion that you believe women are nothing but incubators.

    Pregnancy is NOT a state of wellness.

    No love, a woman who (as I already told you) was almost killed by a wanted pregnancy.

    Reply
  124. Calling a choice about whether or not to gestate a pregnancy a medical decision is factually accurate. What *is* misogynist is your patronizing belief that women are too stupid to know their own circumstances and thus make that call without help from some random internet dude who thinks he knows what is best for strangers … and who knows full well that he will never have to deal with the consequences of what he advocates.

    Reply
  125. If I freely consented to him being placed in my vagina, then by definition it's not rape. (Sad that you don't seem to know what rape is…)

    And how would it work for him to rape me without HIS consent? Are people normally forced to rape others in your world? How sad.

    Reply
  126. Dumbfuck, aside from your nonsense about "murder," the 14th Amendment is very clear that *rights* are afforded to the born. law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

    You are arguing for a law that abridges the rights of *actual* persons (women) by affording them to non-persons.

    Roe v. Wade was based on a woman's right to privacy in medical decisions. This right was founded upon the 14th amendment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision

    You're welcome. Jerk.

    Reply
  127. Any motive that involves "revenge" (or any form of intentional suffering to another individual) is obviously not ethically acceptable. As I said in my other post, intentionally causing harm is entirely different from having no obligation.

    Claims about hot tubs have to be false, considering the internal body temperature would NEVER go up-to "boiling". If it did, proteins will denature and the woman would die too, not just the fetus. i.e. No one would be able to sit in a hot tub, not just a pregnant woman.

    Drug use while pregnant is not advisable NOT due to "torture of the zef" but due to potential adverse effects on the FUTURE CHILD. The zef in its current state feels little if anything, and cannot be "tortured" by drugs or alcohol.
    If the woman plans to have the baby, then she has a duty to avoid things that are potentially harmful to the FUTURE child. If she plans to abort, she may take as many drugs as she wants, as the zef won't feel anything and there's no child to be harmed in the future.

    Reply
  128. The death of an innocent baby is a worse consequence than the mother carrying the baby for 9 months.

    As has already been explained to you inexcruciating detail, an embryo is not "an innocent baby." It is an unconscious entity and, as such, it is incapable of either guilt or innocence.

    You cheerfully assign medical risk to some random woman, knowing that you will never have to assume in.. Pregnancy is NOT a state of wellness. The US is #50 in maternal mortality, with countries like *Bulgaria* doing better at keeping pregnant women alive than we do.

    And that's to say nothing whatsoever of the permanent changes to a woman's physiology that happen with every pregnancy. Each pregnancy creates striations on the pubic symphysis; a forensic anthropologist can look at skeletal remains and tell how many times a woman was pregnant by those marks. With each subsequent pregnancy, the pubic symphysis remains more disconnected than the last. I have a friend who, after having five children, as pubic symphysis diastasis so bad that her gait is affected and she cannot ride a bike.

    And that's to say nothing of how gestational diabetes can convert to permanent type II, or how gestational carpal tunnel can become permanent … or a whole slew of other common risks that come with pregnancy. And you just flap your cakehole about how women are "obligated," by virtue of being life support systems for a uterus, to take these risks (and a host of others) … knowing you'll never be affected.

    As I've already pointed out, that's mighty convenient for you …

    Reply
  129. I love how he doubles down and accuses *us* of being the misogynists.

    I mean, acknowledging that women have the right to self-determination, and are not mere objects to be used for the benefits of a third party is so totes woman-hating!

    It's just another dog whistle. Like the southern racists who whine that the REAL racists are the people who try to help minorities, since after all, being owned and forced to pick cotton until you die gave the blacks something to be proud of!

    Reply
  130. Dumbfuck, there is NO WAY to predict what problems a pregnancy will cause. I had hyperemesis gravidarum for 40 weeks and nearly died. There is no way to predict that or test for it. And do you know what causes that? PREGNANCY (you know, that whole gravidarum business).

    You do NOT get to decide how much risk a stranger should take.

    Reply
  131. You're right, Drew. Women should just allow themselves to be crippled, have their health damaged, etc., to suit you.

    Asshole.

    Reply
  132. The link I posted does discuss pain.

    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

    In other words, prior to 35 weeks gestation, fetuses cannot experience pain – they only react mindlessly, to various stimuli.

    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
  133. Not sure what your image of an infant in the caul is supposed to
    prove…? The amniotic sac is very strong and serves to protect the
    baby, so it's not surprising that s/he was not "traumatized" by the
    birth process.

    So if I wrap you in bubble wrap and feed you to an anaconda you shouldn't feel a thing?

    Give me a break.

    Reply
  134. Prostates are designed to become hyper-plastic or neoplastic with age. Are men obligated to shut up & suffer, and not seek treatment?

    Reply
  135. If I freely consent to sex before, during, AND after the act, it's not rape. But rape =/= pregnancy. Are you saying that an unborn child has to ask his/her mother for consent before implanting in the uterus? How would that work, exactly?

    Reply
  136. I think I understand what you are trying to say. That having sex and forcing life on a zef is like raping a homeless man?

    Reply
  137. What if a woman aborts her baby out of revenge? Should she be able to do so?

    "Boiling" isn't an exact term, obviously, but the danger of hot tubs is that it could raise the body temperature to a point that is dangerous for an unborn child.

    So if an unborn child is born with FAS, it means s/he didn't have FAS prior to birth? How does that work, exactly?

    Reply
  138. No. I'm not sure how you got any of the above from what I said, which is that pregnancy is not analgous to rape. Pregnancy is a natural biological process. Rape is not. And again, if you are being forced to rape others without your consent, I encourage you to call the authorities.

    Reply
  139. That's why I followed up with the example of an animal whom you DO have a legal right to kill (just like a zef who occupies your body). That still doesn't give you a right to TORTURE.

    Reply
  140. mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/pregnancy-week-by-week/expert-answers/pregnancy-and-hot-tubs/faq-20057844

    Only very early in pregnancy. And a 4 week embryo can't feel pain, sorry.

    Reply
  141. Ashlyn Blocker can't feel pain. Is it okay to kill her? abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/05/the-girl-who-cant-feel-pain/

    Reply
  142. You originally compared abortion to randomly killing a homeless man. *facepalm*

    If anything is inside your body without your consent, you have the right to remove it. That includes homeless men, nematode worms and zefs. Even if you initially consented to the use of your body, it becomes a violation when whatever is occupying your body refuses to leave. Consent is always revokable. It is not perpetually ongoing.

    And sweetie, rape is all natural. Rape is a long standing reproductive strategy utilized by males of the species to pass along their genes without expending resources on the future child.

    Reply
  143. I didn't ask if it was okay to torture her. I asked if it was okay to kill her. What if her parents get tired of dealing with her condition? Can they kill her, as long as they do it humanely? After all, she can't feel pain so by your criteria she isn't a person.

    Reply
  144. Out of revenge against whom?
    To the zef itself, it wouldn't MATTER why it was aborted, since it doesn't know or feel anything.

    If it was revenge against the zef's father, she should owe him financial compensation for emotional damage. That is, if she had promised to carry

    then broke the contract.

    A fetus will have FAS, but won't SUFFER due to it until born, or at least until conscious pain perception is functional close to birth.

    Reply
  145. Evidence to back that up? In D&C a the unborn child is quite literally ripped to pieces by a curette. Then a cannula is used to suck out the remaining tissue (any free floating baby parts that remained behind, along with any placental tissue that the curette didn't get).

    Reply
  146. What is rape? Another individual invading/occupying/using your body without your consent.

    What is pregnancy? Another individual invading/occupying/using your body without your consent.

    So what's the difference, if any?

    Reply
  147. Revenge toward the father of the child (see my earlier hypothetical situation of a woman who found out her partner was cheating).

    A woman doesn't currently owe anything to the father. She can get an abortion without his consent, and any emotional damage he incurs as a result is ignored regardless of any contract.

    So it's okay to torture an unborn child as long as you plan to kill him/her at some point?

    Reply
  148. You keep missing the point. Torture or suffering requires SENTIENCE, ability to feel pain.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to torture a non-sentient individual.

    Reply
  149. If you engage in sex, knowing full well that pregnancy could result (given that no birth control method has a perfect use rate of 100%), that is de facto consent to pregnancy. You are engaging in a natural biological process with foreseeable consequences, and in doing so you are accepting the risk that those consequences may occur, even if you do not desire them and take measures to prevent them.

    It is impossible, however, to invite, encourage, or consent to rape. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

    Reply
  150. right here, blog.secularprolife.org/2014/07/planned-parenthood-abortion-quotas.html#comment-1502233259

    Unborn children do not "invade" the mother's body. They are created within her body as part of a natural biological process. If you believe otherwise, you are stating that pregnancy is unnatural.

    Reply
  151. Non-sentience per se is not a reason to kill, neither is sentience alone is a reason NOT to kill. Whether to kill or not are determined based on other reasons. Once killing is justified, the METHOD of killing should be determined based on sentience.

    For animals or living humans, it is important to choose a quick & PAINLESS method of death, whereas for zefs who are non-sentient, the method of death is irrelevant.

    Reply
  152. Sex and rape are not the same thing. (again, it is TRAGIC that you don't already know this.) That's like asking if you engage in sex knowing your partner could murder you mid-coitus, you have consented to murder. If the thing you consented to (sex) becomes something else (rape) then the consent doesn't apply because you only consented to the sex (as well as all of the natural foreseeable consequences that accompany sex, such as pregnancy), not the rape.

    If you call this number, they can help explain to you the difference between sex and rape: rainn.org/get-help/national-sexual-assault-hotline

    Reply
  153. You are comparing apples and oranges. You brought up fetal torture. We debunked your claims. You are now trying to move the goalposts by lying about how we want to kill zefs primarily because they can't feel pain.

    Reply
  154. The thing is, an unborn child is a living human. It is an organism of the species homo sapiens. So your position is that non-sentient living humans can be killed by any method, including violent dismemberment.

    Do you think newborns are sentient?

    Reply
  155. According to your logic:
    If you walk outside, knowing that no neighborhood is 100% safe, that is de facto consent to rape. You are engaging in a social activity with foreseeable consequences, and in doing so you are accepting the risk that those consequences may
    occur, even if you do not desire them and take measures to prevent them.
    If you knowingly walk in a dangerous neighborhood, that is absolute consent to rape, (just like unprotected sex is to pregnancy).

    So once you get foreseeably raped, do you have no right to protect yourself because you should have known it was possible? Are you obligated to allow the rape to go on because "you should have known better than to walk outside"?

    Reply
  156. If you eat unwashed food and get internal parasites as a result, do you have no right to take drugs to kill them because "you invited them by eating unwashed food", and many of them were "created inside your body".

    Reply
  157. Once again, non-sentience is not a REASON to kill. However if the individual being killed is non-sentient, then the method of death doesn't matter.

    Why do you think the method of death matters to a non-sentient individual just because they are human? They still can't feel it can they? So why should it matter?

    While newborns don't have the same awareness as older humans, they do have the capacity to feel pain & distress. So if you decide to kill a newborn, you have to do it with much greater care than a zef.

    Reply
  158. Rape is not a foreseeable consequence of a natural biological process. The primary purpose of intercourse is reproduction via conception/implantation/gestation. The primary purpose of eating is providing nutrition via digestion. The natural biological consequence of walking outside is not rape. The natural biological consequence of walking outside would be getting a callous on your foot, or maybe a muscle strain.

    Reply
  159. Embryos are by nature invasive, and pregnancy is an intimate bodily violation IF THE PREGNANT PERSON DOES NOT WANT HER BODY OCCUPIED.

    Yes, pregnancy is natural. That neither makes it healthy nor wanted.

    Reply
  160. Are intestinal parasites are not meant to be in the human body. The female body contains a pair of fallopian tubes and a uterus for the express purpose of facilitating human reproduction, thus it should not be an unforseeable consequence when reproduction occurs, as intercourse is the natural biological mechanism for human reproduction.

    Parasites are a consequence, but not one that is natural or biological. The biological mechanism for nutrition is not ingestion of parasites.

    Reply
  161. We don't live in a "natural biological world", thanks to overpopulation. In our society, rape is a very real possibility, a FORESEEABLE consequence, whenever you are out in public, (or even in your own home).

    If you are bound by the foreseeable consequences of one action, why shouldn't you be bound by the foreseeable consequences of another action?

    "The primary purpose of intercourse is reproduction via conception/implantation/gestation."

    That's your subjective opinion. Many would say pleasure/bonding is the primary purpose while reproduction is an undesirable side effect. (Why else would they use contraception? duh!) Similarly, while nutrition is the primary purpose of food, parasites are an undesirable side effect.

    If you can get rid of the undesirable side effects of one action, why not another?

    Reply
  162. Nature designed the vagina for the express purpose of receiving a penis. Does that mean women have to shut up and accept every penis that gets stuck there regardless of her consent?

    Reply
  163. Intestinal parasites evolved right alongside humans. In fact, some species evolved primarily to live in our gut, and may even offer a health benefit regarding overactive immune systems. One reason Africans don't suffer from auto immune diseases like we do in the west is because of these various parasites.
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618732/

    Reply
  164. That NEVER HAPPENS. People who binge drink (pregnant or not) have a substance abuse problem. So do people who can't abstain from harmful drugs. I repeat, it is NOT possible to "torture" in utero. The fetus is anesthetized both naturally by hypoxia and by whatever anesthesia is administered to the pregnant woman. I certainly wouldn't tolerate being denied needed surgery because I was pregnant. That's PREPOSTEROUS.

    Reply
  165. I made a choice. I gave birth three times because I chose to. Then I chose to be sterilized. But don't be deceived, Drew. Neither you, nor Jesus Christ and a crowbar, be able to force me to carry a pregnancy I didn't want to term. Whether it was the product of rape, was endangering my health, or doomed for fetal reasons, if I want it out of there… It's OUT OF THERE.

    Reply
  166. Yes just as Vulgarism mentioned, nature designed parasites for the express purpose of living in other organisms. Certain parasites HAVE to live inside humans to complete their life cycle. So if you have to accept pregnancy because nature dictates it, why not parasites?

    Reply
  167. Once again:
    It is IMPOSSIBLE to torture someone who cannot feel.

    -Killing is acceptable for various reasons. Non-sentience per se is not one of them. Presence or absence of sentience matters only in determining the METHOD of death.

    Reply
  168. While newborns don't have the same awareness as older humans, they do
    have the capacity to feel pain & distress. i.e. They have some degree of sentience. So if you decide to kill a
    newborn, you have to do it with much greater care than a zef.

    Reply
  169. One day, an anti-choicer will present an actual argument instead of an asinine straw man. On that occasion, I shall alert the media.

    Reply
  170. You do realize that the majority of abortions take place during the embryonic phase?

    No woman is lying there in active labor asking for an abortion … except in the masturbatory fantasies of the antichoice. And fetal pain is physically impossible until so late in pregnancy that abortion on demand is a moot point anyway. At that point, we're talking about wanted pregnancies gone drastically wrong. Furthermore, when the woman is anesthetized for the procedure, so is the fetus; anesthesia is systemic.

    Reply
  171. heh. She clearly thinks response to noxious stimuli means something. One day, she'll take high school biology and discover that pithed frogs respond to noxious stimuli even though they can't feel a thing.

    Reply
  172. Oh, here we go with the "foreseeable consequence" bullshit again. Is this the latest anti-choice bingo buzzword?

    A foreseeable consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is an abortion.

    Reply
  173. Thalamocortical projections necessary for conscious pain perception don't form until the very late stages of gestation.

    Anyway, even when potential fetal pain is a concern, the answer is anesthesia, NOT banning abortion. Childbirth involves a lot of pain, so do all surgical procedures. Should all these things be banned due to pain?

    Reply
  174. If you engage in driving an automobile, given that no street is 100 percent safe, that is de facto consent to being in an accident. You are engaging in a natural part of driving with foreseeable consequences, and in doing so you are accepting the risk that those consequences may occur, even if you do not desire them and take measures to prevent them.

    You, therefore, may not seek medical treatment for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. After all, you asked for it.

    Reply
  175. The majority of abortions take place during the embryonic phase. There is nothing to "rip to pieces"; the end product of such terminations is indistinguishable from menses.

    I am beginning to think that some of you anti-choicers treat this stuff like pornography.

    Reply
  176. A beating heart cadaver can respond to noxious stimuli as long as the brainstem and spinal cord are functional. Its called an involuntary reflex and has nothing to do with pain *perception*

    Noxious stimuli= poking your heel with a pin.

    Reply
  177. I'm looking for anywhere that I said "driving recklessly." I didn't.

    You're moving the goalposts because you know your position is asinine.

    Reply
  178. Joanna is up there with drew. She stated that humans are intrinsically valuable because nature deems it so, and then linked to the UN Declaration on Human Rights as proof.

    Reply
  179. Actually I am talking about how you would force an 8 year old rape victim to give birth even if it put her in a wheelchair for life.

    Reply
  180. Sure selfish slave owners used to tell people that were against slavery to never own a slave and hope they would go away.

    Reply
  181. Slaves weren't gestating inside another person's body. And as a matter of fact, female slaves who were forcibly impregnated often did end their own pregnancies. Do you think they were wrong in doing so?

    Reply
  182. Fetal surgery is carried out to fix an issue with the fetus. Not to torture. And women who binge drink or take drugs are doing it because they're psychologically and often physically addicted, not because they want to hurt the fetus.

    Reply
  183. Despite your dismemberment fantasies, most abortions take place during the first trimester where that isn't even an issue.

    Reply
  184. I'm talking about the choice to parent, the choice for adoption, or the choice to abort. I'm clearly referring to three choices. I'm obviously not supporting only one of those choices.

    Reply
  185. Are women who sloughed off zygotes that failed to implant (which is most women, whether they have kids or not) 'mothers?' Even if they've never had a successful pregnancy? The childfree women I know probably have purged a few zygotes, but they certainly aren't anyone's 'mother.'

    Reply
  186. If her life was endangered doctors would do a c-section.

    Even if an exception was made, how does this exception justify abortions just because the unborn child is unwanted?

    Reply
  187. Selfish slave owners treated their slaves like property that they could discard if they became inconvenient or unwanted.

    Reply
  188. But if her life isn't endangered and it's just a wheelchair for the rest of her life, you find that totes acceptable?

    Reply
  189. Oh, this is a good one. You thought Rita was ignorant? Or PLM?

    hahaha well…

    Get a load of this:

    Arthur Machado

    So a woman doesn't know she had unprotected sex during her ovulation period, and she can't feel the egg implantation?

    Gotta love ignorance of pro-lifers on parade, eh?

    Reply
  190. Feel the egg implantation? That has got to be the most bizarre and idiotic thing I have never heard. I'm going to go and bang my head on something now.

    Reply
  191. Actually no. A slave was worth more alive than dead. And slaveowners couldn't kill slaves willy nilly.

    Slaves were cash cows, literally, why is why slavers raped female slaves and forced them to give birth. Which is just what turns you on.

    Reply
  192. Arthur Machado

    dudebro

    4 minutes ago

    Sorry, answered below, the woman knew she had sex during ovulation,
    she knows she is at risk, she can take a pregnancy test. And quite
    frankly the vast majority of woman feel egg implantation.

    Reply
  193. I asked him for a citation. He also claims that fetuses are sentient at 8 weeks because they can 'respond to stimuli' and that since women can feel the egg implant and ALWAYS know when they are ovulating, that abortion should be ez pz before a 7 week cutoff.

    He dismissed all of my 8+ citations on fetal awareness and Plan B, because ONE study may have been biased, and then immediately linked a pro-life study that said Plan B was a baby killer:P

    Reply
  194. He's like myintx. He makes shit up. People like him can't be reasoned with.

    I have a unicorn Jennifer. The unicorn is living in my pubic hairs.

    PROVE ME WRONG

    HAHA YOU CAN'T

    Reply
  195. Being pregnant is not owning a slave, and neither is having an abortion. And you cannot enslave women to a zef, either. Not upon any basis, and ESPECIALLY not upon "duties" invented out of whole cloth whereby having sex while female and fertile is a de facto negligent act whereby the female is always held responsible under a doctrine of strict liability. Strict liability is a legal principle whereby a particular act is so dangerous on it's face, that the actor is presumed liable (although this is a rebuttable presumption). An example of some acts where strict liability attaches are 1) harboring a trained attack dog, or a wild animal known to be dangerous, such as a lion or tiger, and 2) the use of high explosives such as dynamite. Strict liability NEVER applies to sexual congress.

    Reply
  196. 1) harboring a trained attack dog or a wild animal known to be dangerous, such as a lion or tiger

    So that's what you call your vajayjay!

    I knew it! No wonder you are 'pro-abortion'!

    Reply
  197. Even if an exception was made, how does this exception justify abortions just because the unborn child is unwanted?

    Reply
  198. But if her life isn't endangered and it's just a wheelchair for the rest of her life, you find that totes acceptable??

    Reply
  199. No, the reason is NOT that a "baby" could boil alive in the amniotic fluid. That is PATENTLY ABSURD, mostly because hot tubs aren't all that hot. If they were, getting into one would kill anyone who got into one. I kept mine at about 102-104 degrees F. That is hardly boiling temperature. And I wouldn't hesitate to use one while pregnant either. The hypothesis (and nothing has been proven) is that the use of a hot tub can temporarily raise body temperature. In any case, using a hot tub, or taking a hot shower is NOT "torturing a baby." It's good for pain, and often done during labor to relax the mother. So it can't be all that damned torturous. You're an idiot, which is why I was hesitant to entertain your nonsense to begin with.

    Reply
  200. Yes, a woman should be able to abort a pregnancy out of "revenge" or any other reason she wishes. In fact, she owes nobody any explanation, and need not justify her decision to you or anyone else. I seriously doubt whether women actually DO "abort out of revenge" as opposed to not wanting to birth the child of a particular man, and wanting no ties to him. If you wish to call that "revenge" knock yourself out. You can put a top hat on a penguin and call it Fred Astaire if you wish. That doesn't make it so.

    Reply
  201. How about women who kill for 15 minutes of fame, or because they want a girl instead of a boy – are they selfish?

    Reply
  202. No, Suba. There is no "contract to carry" and she has a right to change her mind and decide NOT to carry, and she hasn't "damaged" the zef's father in any way. Sometimes you have some pretty scary ideas. This is one of them.

    Reply
  203. I think a woman is allowed to abort for any reason, and a cheating spouse is as good a reason as any. Perhaps she plans to divorce him and doesn't need the additional complication. Additionally (and this is only my opinion), breeding with an adulterous spouse doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to me.

    Reply
  204. If the slave was old, they weren't worth much. In North Carolina, before 1774 slave owners could kill slaves without repercussion. It took years for slaves, and then black people, to get the rights they deserve. Unborn children deserve rights too – a basic right to life. They should not be killed simply because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

    Reply
  205. Tell Artie that NO, we do NOT feel implantation, and we are unaware of either ovulation or fertilization. There is no flashing light that goes off when any of those things occurs, and that's why we actually need a pregnancy test. I wouldn't have believed such ignorance was even possible.

    Reply
  206. Oh cumon. Your tiger doesn't even growl? Pfft.

    Anyways, yes, I told him, and he replied that I am wrong and that he knows this with certainty. Cuz reasons.

    Reply
  207. No, the vast majority of woman have no idea when the egg implants, and I have never even HEARD of a case where a woman has known that. There are ZERO sensory nerves in the endometrium. That is a layer of tissue that builds up every month, and when there is no pregnancy, progesterone levels fall, and the tissue painlessly breaks down and is expelled as the menses. The menses itself can be painful because of contractions of the myometrium (which does have sensory nerves).

    Reply
  208. No, myintx, they do not. I'm pretty sure YOU are a person, not with a "basic right to life", but with a right not to be deprived of life without due process. There actually IS no "right to life" and certainly no right to life inside the sovereign body of another person. YOU don't have that right. I certainly don't have that right. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not "super persons" with rights my born children don't have. That's known as a fallacy of special pleadings.

    Reply
  209. A C-section is even MORE risky. You keep making these silly claims. "Do a C-section, no problem!" Only it IS a problem. It's riskier to the maternal organism and the neonate. So that isn't much of an answer, is it.

    Reply
  210. He is probably thinking of this
    implantationspotting.net/signs-of-implantation-what-to-look-out-for/

    Which doesn't really support his assertion.

    Reply
  211. Some pro-lifers insist that pregnancy isn't a medical condition. I've asked them if they or their wives sought any prenatal care at all during their pregnancies. Not one of them has ever answered that question. They don't even bother to fan-wank a squirmy answer, just completely ignore it. I rather think they all probably did, but don't want to explain to me 'why' they did or why they think others would NOT 'need' to.

    Reply
  212. He's been told that repeatedly, but it messes up his pretty set of "talking points" if you inject any facts into them.

    Reply
  213. where are the getting the bit about torture?

    you want make it about immediate capability and i'm telling you it's about inherent capability. Someone under general anesthesia can't feel pain or reason, yet we recognize that he's a person.

    Reply
  214. Then why did you say that fathers dont owe their fetuses bodily compensation because only women were designed for that job?

    Reply
  215. Being a member of our species is sufficient to have a right to life. Any other standard involves the powerful trampling on the weak because it's the powerful who get to decide who counts and who doesn't.

    As a species, we have the inherent capacity for rational and moral thought.

    i don't need to have a "solution" to see that killing people because they're unwanted is grotesque.

    If people don't want to obligate themselves to caring for someone, they shouldn't engage in the behavior that leads to that obligation.

    Reply
  216. Pro-lifers are not opposed to you making your own choices regarding having a kid.

    if you're pregnant, you already have a kid. Killing the kid is a grotesquely immoral way to avoid your obligation as a parent. Such violence should be illegal.

    Reply
  217. You like to pretend away the fact that the unborn is a valuable human being. Pretending away the human of victim is typical for those who promote human right atrocities.

    Reply
  218. Once you're pregnant, it's a bit late to decide that you don't want to care for the baby. You created that kid with needs and therefore, you're obligated to fulfill those needs.

    Reply
  219. You show amazing ignorance about the natural function of women's reproductive system.

    It's really difficult lady_black to take you seriously. Your comments are just so stupid.

    Reply
  220. Says the self proclaimed reproductive "expert" who claims that women were *designed* to be pregnant.

    Who or what designed women for gestation, drew? You never did answer that. And why did this designer do such a crappy job, seeing as how pregnancy has and continues to maim, kill and injure millions of women.

    Reply
  221. Just so you know, i won't be responding to a lot of your comments because the stupidity is so glaring, it doesn't merit a response.

    Reply
  222. Killing the innocent with the intent to kill the innocent? i am against that absolutely. But perhaps someone might be able to come up with a scenario and i'd consider it.

    Reply
  223. The man does have the responsibility to care for the baby. But his inability to directly fulfill his obligation doesn't undermine the woman's responsibility to fulfill her obligation.

    Your lame statement amounts to "unless men can get pregnant, women should be able to kill their babies". Dumb.

    Reply
  224. we often use analogies that aren't real situations such as Vulcan's coming to earth.

    why don't you answer her question? dodging it is so weak.

    Reply
  225. By ejaculating you caused the innocent unborn human to be in a state of existential dependency.

    So yes, you should be legally obligated to donate tissue to preserve fetal life.

    Reply
  226. All i see is stupid from you, fiona64.

    Since killing Jews in Nazi Germany was legal, it wasn't murder? That what your argument means. See how dumb you are?

    Abortion
    should be considered murdered because unborn babies like newborns have
    the inherent capacity for rational and moral thought.

    Reply
  227. If a person recognizes a biological fact, it means he thinks "women are nothing but incubators"? See how stupid you are?

    Reply
  228. You double down on your misogyny. Not a surprise.

    If you think abortion is medical then you think pregnancy is a defect and you think women are defective.

    Reply
  229. If pregnancy is not a medical condition, then please explain why the WHO wants to monitor the health of pregnant women and take steps to lessen or prevent complications
    apps.who.int/rhl/pregnancy_childbirth/medical/en/

    Tell us drew, is pregnancy as natural as breathing?

    Reply
  230. Not only are you stupid but your language shows that you're filthy and without class.

    The first half of 14th Sec 1 discusses what it takes to be a citizen:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens

    The second half of Sec 1, discusses how persons (not citizens) should be protected under law:

    nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Stop spouting your ignorance, you keep embarrassing yourself.

    Reply
  231. In Roe, baby-killer Blackmum actually couldn't make up his mind which amendment included the right to kill babies. He did think that privacy included the right to rip a baby arms off, crush her skull or poison her to death. Of course, none of that is supported by the Constitution.

    Reply
  232. Once again, you show yourself to be foul and without class.

    None of what you said, rebutted my statement.

    When there's no indication of risk then there's no justification for acting like there is such a risk. That's rational.

    Saying you can murder your baby simply because "there might be a problem even though there's no indication whatsoever for it" is completely irrational.

    Reply
  233. Still doesn't negate the fact that you don't get to decide how much risk a woman should assume with her pregnancy.

    Reply
  234. Well if no sharks are spotted them you can safely be thrown into shark infested waters because there is currently no indication of risk.

    We can also force you to skydive, since, up in the plane, I see no indication that your parachute might fail.

    Reply
  235. We are NOT defined by our reproductive systems, Drew. Nor are we bound by "nature." I am more educated about the female reproductive system than you'll EVER be, on your best day. That's why I find your notions so IRRITATING. You want to run the show, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Reply
  236. Then not being pregnant is a medical condition.

    Neither are medical conditions but an ordinary part of life. A medical condition indicates a problem or defect.

    Reply
  237. My sister lost multiple pregnancies in her youth. I'm pretty sure she didn't have any KIDS before finally carrying to term at age 39.

    Reply
  238. Do you randomly go to a doctor to see if everything is fine? If pregnancy is a state of normalcy, then no doctors visit is required to make sure that your health is fine.

    Reply
  239. Valuable how and to whom? Maybe to the woman who carries it, depending upon whether or not she actually wants to have a baby. And stop with that "she already has a baby" nonsense. She doesn't.

    Reply
  240. Except that everybody support the first two choices you mention. So the real issue the third one, abortion. Pro-choice really means pro-abortion, which is short for pro-legalized-abortion.

    Reply
  241. There is no inherent value in a diploid cell, Drew. You are pretending away the humanity of *women* with your assertions that amount to us being the biological equivalent of EasyBake Ovens. In your mind, our soul purpose is to pop out infants.

    Thanks for proving once again the inherent misogyny of your position, and how easy it is to be an anti-choice male.

    Reply
  242. Yes it is, if the sex results in the creation of a new human being. Because when you cause someone to be in need, you become responsible to care for that person's needs.

    Reply
  243. Way to miss the point, as usual.

    I ask you this in all sincerity: were you homeschooled? Because you seem to have some serious inabilities to read for comprehension.

    Reply
  244. There is no "someone" and even if there were, I don't have to submit to bodily donation. You want to give a zef rights that I don't have, you don't have and my born children don't have.

    Reply
  245. I might also mention that I have moderate to severe reactive hypoglycemia, which is a medical condition that I manage with special diet and exercise. I have actually fainted a few times because of it. But since you've told me that pregnancy isn't at all medical, I'm sure I don't need to go to a doctor or change anything about my daily habits. Gosh,am I relieved.

    Reply
  246. Keep on keepin' on, Drew. You're just proving the inherent misogyny of your position with every single post.

    Do enlighten us: exactly how many life-threatening pregnancies have you gestated, Drew?

    Reply
  247. Abortion is a medical procedure. Pregnancy is a medical condition.

    Really, Drew, it is no one's fault but your own that you are too stupid to understand this.

    Reply
  248. You have STILL not addressed my question.

    You assume that the unwanted zef somehow NEEDS the crappy life it would get as an unwanted child. On what do you base this assumption?

    Reply
  249. Stop spouting your ignorance, you keep embarrassing yourself.

    This is an excellent piece of advice that YOU need to take.

    I'm sorry you are unable to understand civics, biology, or plain English. I really am beginning to believe that you were homeschooled by imbeciles.

    Reply
  250. That diploid cell is a human being with the inherent capacity for reason. That makes her a person with a right to life. You've yet to present a counter argument because you don't have one.

    Recognizing a woman's responsibility to care for her offspring doesn't make her a nonperson. It's pretty misogynist to suggest that it does.

    Reply
  251. Yes you have. You answered with a fallacy of special pleadings. Here it is: "No a parent doesn't have any obligation to bodily donation for a child's benefit. But that doesn't apply to a fetus." That's a fallacy of special pleadings. Guess what that makes your idea? ILLOGICAL.

    Reply
  252. I'm sorry, Drew. There weren't nearly enough histrionics in there. Could you thrown in a few extra exclamation points and some bad poetry allegedly written by a fetus? You really are not trying very hard.

    Reply
  253. And exactly how many pregnancies have you gestated, again?

    And what is your medical expertise, again?

    Oh, none?

    Yeah, that's about what I thought.

    Reply
  254. You are contradicting yourself. If all humans have to live, that's at the expense of all non-humans, i.e. the "powerful trampling on the weak". Which you just claimed to oppose.

    Reply
  255. That diploid cell is a human being with the inherent capacity for reason.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Oh. My. God.

    I just … BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Reply
  256. Not only is that one of the most asinine assertion I think I've ever seen from an anti-choicer (which is indeed an accomplishment), I love how Drew tries to project his misogyny on others who point it out.

    Reply
  257. A threat to your bodily autonomy doesn't necessarily have to be a threat to your LIFE. For example, someone can rape you without killing you, and without serious health risk. That doesn't mean you should shut up & take it. It;'s a violation of your body, and you have a full legal right to kill the rapist to get them off your body. The same if someone tried to take your blood/organs without your consent. Doesn't have to be life-threatening.

    Reply
  258. Pregnancy is indeed a medical condition. You seem to think it's the default position for female anatomy, but you're wrong.

    Reply
  259. When another individual invades/lives in your body, they no longer have rights of their own. If you don't want them in your body you have a full legal right to kill them to get them off your body.

    Reply
  260. I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand the difference between a zygote and a person, Drew. Really, you should seek remedial education in that area.

    Nice Godwin, though. You lose.

    Reply
  261. Since you are so big on forcing women to donate organs (their uteri), I must ask: are you on the bone marrow donation list? Live kidney donor list? Any of that?

    I'm betting you aren't … because anti-choicers always want *others* to make the sacrifice.

    Reply
  262. Pregnancy is not a medical condition but a normal part of life.

    Having teeth isn't a medical condition but it's wise to get them checked occasionally.

    Abortion is typically not a medical procedure because it's not done to solve a medical problem. But just to kill.

    Reply
  263. If people don't want to obligate themselves to caring for someone, they
    shouldn't engage in the behavior that leads to that obligation.

    I knew Drew's real position would come out eventually: "if you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex."

    Tell you what, Drew. You remain celibate. I'll save France. (h/t to Plum Dumpling)

    Reply
  264. Calling someone "stupid" doesn't make it so, Drew. Women are not going to stop having sex. Unwanted pregnancy will always be an issue.

    Reply
  265. Oh. My. God. You seriously just implied that it's not big deal if a woman dies due to complications of pregnancy. And you are still trying to pretend that you are NOT misogynistic? Good god.

    Reply
  266. In YOUR dreams, two people had the sex and now the problem rests solely on the shoulders of one of those people. The one that isn't YOU. You do not now get to dictate the solution. It's not your problem.

    Reply
  267. Let's take some real life examples.

    -When Europeans took over America, they displaced (and massacred) the Native Americans, and put them in a permanent state of need. Are they obligated to take care of Native Americans?

    -When US wages war with any nation, it results in many people in those countries wounded, displaced, widowed/orphaned. Is the US obligated to take care of all of them?

    -When we build houses, roads, factories etc. billions of animals lose their habitats and are put in a state of need. Are we obligated to take care of all those animals?

    According to your logic, the answer is YES to all of them. Now why don't I see any policies to fulfill these "obligations" ?

    Reply
  268. Awfully blase about deaths from pregnancy, Drew. But since you're not the one taking the risk you can't be bothered to care, huh?

    Reply
  269. Anti-choicers are against me making my own choice when it comes to having kids. They are against me deciding to not have kids.

    If you are pregnant you do not have a kid. You have a developing embryo/fetus.

    Do you know how many nonviable embryos are self aborted before the woman even knew she was pregnant? Does you consider each of those embryos to be a kid?

    Reply
  270. You say 'anti-choice' like it's a bad thing. Not all choices are good choices. If the 'choice' is to kill an unborn child simply because he or she is inconvenient or unwanted, I'm proud to be 'anti-choice'. I'm proud to be against the senseless killing of unborn children – i.e. anti-abortion. You are for the senseless killing of unborn children. Are you proud to be pro-abortion?

    Reply
  271. Myintx.. how I have missed your wonderful comments. Its been too long….

    Anti-choice IS a bad thing. Why can you not just let people make their own choice about their own life? Why do you feel the need to try to control the life of people you don't know?

    I am for a woman making her own choice when it comes to pregnancy or abortion. BTW a zef is not a person.

    Reply
  272. A woman can make a choice as to whether or not to become pregnant. She shouldn't be able to make a choice that ends another human beings life simply because that human being is inconvenient or unwanted.

    Reply
  273. Abortion is a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy, regardless of any fairy tales you like to tell yourself in order to justify your desire to control the sex lives of women.

    And don't you frigging *dare* tell me it's not about controlling the sex lives of women, Drew … because you've already informed us that women who do not want to be pregnant should be celibate.

    Reply
  274. See but you don't get to decide for other women what is or is not another human life and you do not get to decide for other women if they carry the "human life" to term. It is her body and it is her choice.

    Reply
  275. Being a member of our species is sufficient to have a right to life.

    Then that means no abortions of hydatidiform moles – they are a member of our species. 100% fully human too.

    Reply
  276. The 'condition' of having teeth can't kill and maim you. Simply having teeth is not a dangerous condition that requires a visit to the doctor. Having teeth doesn't involve having to drink extra water, eat extra food, or avoid lifting heavy objects.

    If pregnancy were the *default* condition of women as you suggest, it would not hinder them in any way. Just like having teeth doesn't hinder you in any way.

    But just to kill.

    Just to kill eh? No other reason? So, you are suggesting that women have abortions because they are all Jeffrey Dahmer wannabes? is that it? The millions of women who have aborted = sadistic killers, is that it Drew?

    Reply
  277. Oh gee, will you look at this:

    ca.news.yahoo.com/hamilton-woman-barred-boarding-cruise-214639636.html

    Hamilton woman barred from boarding cruise ship because she was pregnant

    Ligori said the clerk told her that she would not be able to board the boat — the Oasis of the Seas, one of the largest cruise ships in the world — if she didn’t have a note from a doctor stating that she was fit to travel.

    The clerk contacted a supervisor, who told Ligori to obtain physician’s note. It was a Saturday, and she wasn’t able to get in contact with her family doctor, who didn’t know at the time that Ligori was pregnant.

    Other major cruise lines, including Florida-based Carnival and California-based Princess, have similar policies posted to their websites. Both travel providers say they don’t carry women who are more than 24 weeks’ pregnant, and both require doctors’ notes from pregnant passengers who are less than 5.5 months’ pregnant.

    In a statement on its website, Carnival explains the rationale for its pregnancy policy: “While at sea or in port, the availability of medical care may be limited or delayed. Prenatal and early infant care in particular may require specialized diagnostic facilities and/or treatment that are not obtainable during the cruise on board the ship or ashore in ports of call.”

    OH man. Can you believe that Drew? Now switch 'pregnant' with 'teeth'

    They denied her passage because 'having teeth was potentially dangerous, and without the diagnostic facilities/and or treatment that are not obtainable during the cruise on board the ship or ashore in ports of call"

    I mean, I suppose that since pregnancy is no different from being born with teeth, that cruise ships should be worried about the health of passengers who have teeth, yes, in case something goes wrong?

    You dumbfuck.

    Reply
  278. Drew is amazing. He knows more about reproductive health than you, a nurse with an extensive education in the subject, and this is the really impressive part – he is an expert in tort law . He stated that Unicorn Farm, whose practice IS tort law, didn't know what she was talking about, and that Drew Hymer had a more extensive knowledge of the law. The thing is though, he couldn't explain to me HOW the tort lawyer was wrong about tort law, just that she was.

    Drew is some sort of pro-life Renaissance man, isn't he?

    Reply
  279. Ditto. In mid-1964 (I was about six months old), my mother contracted rubella. She was about 8 weeks pregnant. Her obstetrician explained, quite correctly, that the fetus had a 99 percent chance of being blind, deaf, and developmentally disabled. He told her that he was letting her know those things so that she could think about not only what was fair to the fetus, but what would be fair to the infant she already had. He also told her that he would find someone to help her if she and my dad decided not to carry the pregnancy to term. And he did just that.

    My parents were not willing to risk the quality of life of the entire family on the outside possibility that the fetus would be fine. It was not about "killing."

    Reply
  280. You haven't used any analogies, Drew. Analogies need to be between things that are ::wait for it:: analogous. You have put up nothing but straw men.

    Reply
  281. Fascinating….should a conjoined twin be able to force a sibling into separation surgery against his/her will?

    Reply
  282. Fascinating….do you think that a conjoined twin should be able to force his/her sibling to undergo a lethal separation surgery against his/her will? Keep in mind that not all conjoined twins shared organs….craniopagous conjoined twins simply have skulls which are fused together.

    Reply
  283. Dudebro, forcing organ donation is more akin to forcing a woman to become pregnant.Requiring a woman who is already pregnant to carry to term is more akin to saying that if your organ has been stolen from you and attached to someone else's body, you don't have the right to demand it back, because that would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

    Reply
  284. Lady Black, forced organ donation is more akin to forcibly impregnating someone. Requiring that someone who is already pregnant carry to term is more akin to saying that if your organ has been stolen from you and attached to someone else's body, you don't have the right to demand that organ back, because doing so would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

    Reply
  285. Fascinating….how do you feel about mandatory child support? Women who consent to sex consent to nothing but sex, while men who consent to sex consent to 18+ years of mandatory child support. If mandatory gestation turns women into incubators, I'm guessing that mandatory child support turns men into walking, talking bank accounts.

    Reply
  286. So you believe that fetal life is not valuable enough to force a biological father to donate a little bit of bone marrow or blood?

    Reply
  287. Coma patients are sentient. They are temporarily not using the ability.

    Prenate have never been sentient and may never be. You have been schooled in this already.

    Reply
  288. Did you tell your child that you might have aborted him/her if they were too inconvienent to you? How did they take it? My mother has preeclampsia throughout the second half of her pregnancy with me, and under no circumstances would have gotten an abortion. If she was like you, I would have disowned her long ago. Parents who aren't willing to risk health and comfort for their children aren't worthy of being parents and don't deserve the love and affection of their children.

    Reply
  289. If she was like you, I would have disowned her long ago. Parents who aren't willing to risk health and comfort for their children aren't worthy of being parents and don't deserve the love and affection of their children.

    What a selfish and self-centered person you are.

    Reply
  290. I'd rather be a choice than be forced on my mother. However, I am not a narcissist like some people.

    Do you believe that Fiona is not worthy of being a parent because she is pro choice? That she is selfish and just wants to kill. Be honest now.

    Reply
  291. Forced organ donation is more akin to forcing someone to become pregnant rather than requiring someone carry to term who is already pregnant. The latter is more akin to saying that if an organ is stolen from you and attached to someone else's body, you don't have the right to demand it back, because doing so would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

    Reply
  292. Saying that is like saying that you have no right to support abortion unless you have survived being aborted as a fetus.

    Reply
  293. She's a very special something, all right. That was possibly one of the most obnoxious statements I've ever read.

    Reply
  294. Forced organ donation is more akin to forcing someone to become pregnant than requiring that a woman carry to term. The latter is more akin to saying that if one of your organs has been stolen from you and attached to someone else's body, you don't have the right to demand that organ back, because doing so would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

    Reply
  295. Neither would you…another bro-choicer who support abortion just because he wants to get out of paying child support, but cloaks his selfish desires with fake concern for women's rights.

    Reply
  296. Yes. And if she can't persuade you to join the pro life side with her superior reasoning, she will accuse you of being defensive because you are guilt ridden over the many abortions that you have had.

    Reply
  297. Really? Apparently the US government has a different opinion, when it comes to men. Consent to sex equals consent to 18+ years of mandatory child support for them.

    Reply
  298. Dude, you don't get it. Forced organ donation is more akin to forced impregnation.Requiring a pregnant woman to carry to term is more akin to saying that if an organ is stolen from you, and attached to someone else's body, then you don't have a right to demand that organ back, because doing so would violate the organ recipiant's human rights.

    Reply
  299. Yes. You got me. I just want to get into Jennifer Starr's pants. Perhaps if lucky I can have a fivesome with Jennifer, Fiona, Suba and Lady Black.

    A dudebro can dream, can't he?

    Oh, and you should probably inform the women in my fivesome that they are only pro choice out of guilt for the many abortions that they have had .

    Reply
  300. So far all that she's doing is making me want to apologize to my family for ever sounding like that when I was a 'pro-life' youth.

    Reply
  301. As I stated elsewhere on this thread:

    Non-sentience per se is not a reason to kill, neither is sentience alone a reason NOT to kill. Whether to kill or not is determined based
    on other reasons. Once killing is justified, the METHOD of killing should be determined based on sentience.

    For animals or living humans, it is important to choose a quick & PAINLESS method of death, whereas for zefs or brain-dead people who are non-sentient, the method of death is irrelevant. Comatose people MAY feel some things, and are not completely non-sentient.

    Reply
  302. Damage to the coma patient's brain means that they do not have this ability. A coma patient cannot just become conscious again..they need to recover. A coma patient is not sentient and does not have the current ability to be sentient, just like the ZEF.

    Reply
  303. If my father refused to feed and cloth me as a child, and abandoned me, he would not be my father. I dare say if your father treated you that way, then you would not regard him as your father either.

    Reply
  304. The point is not whether coma patients feel or not, but whether "violence" matters for those who cannot feel.

    For any individuals who can feel, even a little (including coma patients) killing should be done with great care, whereas for those who cannot feel, such care is not necessary.

    Reply
  305. When women have abortions, there is no child support. I would hope that any woman would take into consideration whether her partner is willing to parent or not when deciding whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term. If she doesn't, she's setting up a very hard row to hoe. However, that has nothing to do with the right of the child to be supported by both parents, once born. The child did not ASK to be born. There is no child support for zygotes, embryos or fetuses. If there were such a thing, you might have a point. Supporting a child is what parents are legally bound to do for their children. That responsibility begins at birth, and can be transferred to another party by relinquishing for adoption, or by leaving a baby at a safe haven. Courts cannot force people to parent. HOWEVER, they can force people to support their offspring, and that doesn't apply only to men, either. The man can always take custody himself and raise the child himself. The mother will have to pay him support.

    Reply
  306. New in pro-choice logic—wanting the right to live now consider naracissitic. Come on, tell me that I should have been aborted. I know that you want to.

    Reply
  307. Should a conjoined twin have the right to forced lethal seperation surgery on their sibling? Keep in mind, not all conjoined twins share organs…some just have bones that are fused together.

    Reply
  308. I didn't say "organ donation." I said BODILY DONATION. A gestating woman is donating her entire body. That must be done willingly, and NOBODY has a "right" to the use of another's body.

    Reply
  309. Uhm, if a coma patient has lost the capacity for sentience then how can they possibly ever regain it again?

    No. When a coma patient is non sentient this means that they are now brain dead and won't be recovering. If the brain damage is so severe that they have LOST the capacity for sentience this means that they are merely not temporarily failing to use the ability. It means that the ability is gone.

    In the majority of comas the sentient areas of the brain are intact, and the patient is temporarily not accessing this ability. If a soccer player stubs his toe that doesn't mean that he ceases to be a soccer player- it just means that he is temporarily prevented from kicking the ball. Now if his entire foot or leg were removed (ie brain dead/fetal brain) it would be safe to say that he is no longer a soccer player.

    Reply
  310. New in pro-choice logic—wanting the right to life is now considering naracisstic, along with wanting the support of your parents when you were a minor child and could not care for yourself.
    Go ahead, tell me that my mother should have aborted me–I know that you want to

    Reply
  311. Go ahead, tell me that my mother should have aborted me–I know that you want to

    I want to do no such thing. Do you want me to?

    Reply
  312. Should a conjoined twin have the right to force his/her sibling into a lethal separation surgery? Keep in mind that not all conjoined twins share organs, some just have bones that are fused together, and some are unequally dependant on each other for survival, like Anastasia Dogaru, who depends on her sister Tatiana's kidneys for survival.

    Reply
  313. Conjoined twins are one entity. Also, both are sapient persons.

    A more apt analogy to pregnancy would be to that of a parasitic twin that is draining the resources of the sapient twin.

    Reply
  314. Decisions are made all the time to sacrifice one conjoined twin to save the other. Regardless, conjoined twins are born that way. An organ might be shared, but one twin isn't parasitic upon the other. Parasitic twins do exist, but they are often removed, because they are not people. A parasitic twin is a partially developed twin that didn't completely separate and develop properly.

    Reply
  315. So what about Anastasia Dogaru? Should her sister Tatiana have the right to force her to undergo a lethal separation surgery because Anastasia is living off Tatiana's body? They are conjoined twins and Anastasia is dependant on Tatiana's kidneys for survival.

    Reply
  316. In some states, such as Michigan, the responsibility begins before birth…men forced to pay for prenatal care.

    Reply
  317. So you think those men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion if they don't want to pay for prenatal care?

    Reply
  318. Wanting the "right to life" for yourself, if you want to live, is totally different from FORCING other people into lives of misery without their consent.

    Reply
  319. Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

    In medicine, a coma (from the Greek κῶμα koma, meaning "deep sleep") is a state of unconsciousness lasting more than six hours, in which a person: cannot be awakened; fails to respond normally to painful stimuli, light, or sound; lacks a normal sleep-wake cycle; and, does not initiate voluntary actions.[1] A person in a state of coma is described as being comatose.

    A comatose person exhibits a complete absence of wakefulness and is unable to consciously feel, speak, hear, or move.[2]

    Reply
  320. Parents certainly should risk health and comfort for children to whom they have made a VOLUNTARY commitment.

    No person should be FORCED to risk anything (let alone life & health) for a zef they never wanted to begin with.

    Reply
  321. Sure sounds like a coma patient is nonsentient to me.
    BtW dudebro, your new disguise is not very convincing. I still recognize Purrtriarchy. Deny it all you want, your arguments are the same and so are the things that you say to rile me up. Did you get banned and have to come up with a new profile? Or do you just like have multiple accounts to say the same thing?

    Reply
  322. Nope, sorry. I do not have to donate my uterus to an embryo.

    Your position affords a born, sapient, sentient woman with fewer rights to bodily autonomy than a *corpse.* One cannot just go around harvesting organs from dead people, regardless of who is in need.

    Reply
  323. I'm sorry that you aren't bright enough to understand the point.

    Drew is opining on who should be forced to assume medical risks *that will never affect him.*

    Reply
  324. Does child support apply only to men? Oh well, the things you learn from those who have no idea what they're talking about are astounding.

    Reply
  325. Nope, just pointing out that men are assumed to have certain responsibilities towards children that they contract with sex, while women aren't.

    Reply
  326. Must be a slow day at RH Reality Check…or maybe you all just are spoiling for a fight…but what exactly do you think that you are accomplishing here? SPL blog has a much lower readership compared to other blogs…I'm guessing because most of you all are banned from Live Action News that you come over here.

    Reply
  327. So much ignorance in so little space. You seem to have missed the point that this was a wanted pregnancy … and are clearly ignorant about what constitutes hyperemesis gravidarum, which is far from being a mere "inconvenience."

    My son has been told of how bad my pregnancy was. He understands completely why I will not go through it again should my tubal ligation fail (they can, and do). I will not risk my life to gestate what would most assuredly be an unwanted second pregnancy.

    Parents who aren't willing to risk health and comfort for their children
    aren't worthy of being parents and don't deserve the love and affection
    of their children.

    It wasn't just risk to health and comfort, sweetie; it was risk to *my life.* And you don't get to make those calls for anyone but yourself. Thanks for proving once again how the anti-choice expect *others* to sacrifice, but never themselves.

    I'll tell you what; I'm glad that my son is one helluva lot smarter than you.

    Reply
  328. Then why do you make it your business to FORCE parenthood on women who obviously don't want children? Isn't that the whole purpose of the forced-birth movement?

    Reply
  329. I sure do understand that. My son calls my husband "Dad" and his biological father by his first name, when he bothers to call him at all. He did pay support, but I had to fight tooth and nail for it, and he never did shit else. Not a card, not a phone call, nothing. And he wanted this child.

    Reply
  330. Being banned from LAN is an honor, it shows the LAN-clan's FEAR of logic.

    Also have you noticed, people banned from LAN are not banned from ANY other site? 🙂

    Reply
  331. One entity? I think that most conjoined twins would disagree with you. What about Anastasia Dogaru? She has no working kidneys, so she relies on her sister Tatiana's instead. Should Tatiana have the right to force her to undergo that lethal separation surgery because Anastasia is draining her resources? Would it be okay for Tatiana to assume consent for the surgery if Anastasia became temporarily comatose?

    Reply
  332. Again, the point is not whether coma patients are sentient, but whether "violence" matters to a non-sentient individual being killed. It doesn't. Pain matters only to those who can feel it.

    Reply
  333. So if your kidney was stolen from you and given to someone else, you would demand that kidney back? Because that would be considered a violation of the organ recipiant's civil rights, forcing them to undergo harmful surgery.

    Reply
  334. Really, and you are supporting killing a class of human organisms without ever experiencing what it was like to be killed while in that state of development. Same point.

    Reply
  335. Also, you must be really bored, slow day over at RH Reality Check or did troll account get banned on FB? Funny that you should pick this blog because it has low readership compared to others, my guess is that you are banned from the more popular ones.

    Reply
  336. Um, sweetie? I've been using this handle on Disqus for years.

    My guess is that you need psychiatric help for your delusions. You might want to look into that.

    Reply
  337. If you care to torture yourself by reading past blog posts here, you will notice that SPL likes to fashion itself as the *progressive* face of the pro-life movement. This involves comparing abortion to FGM (both are misogynist) and referencing 'check your privilege' in the above case.

    Reply
  338. I am pretty sure you could come up with a more asinine straw man with just a little effort. C'mon, Tullia. Don't be such a slacker.

    Reply
  339. What about Anastasia Dogaru? Her kidneys failed, so she is dependant upon her sister Tatiana's kidneys for survival. Should Tatiana have the right to force Anastasia to undergo a lethal separation surgery?

    Reply
  340. And you think I don't love my son unconditionally *why,* exactly? Because I told him that my pregnancy sucked instead of telling lies about it being all sunshine and fairy farts?

    Reply
  341. The recipient already has an established life independent from you, and doesn't live inside your body.

    The recipient did not violate your body, the organ thieves did.

    The zef on the other had, IS violating your body, and you have a right to get rid if them to protect your body.

    Reply
  342. She already has…I forgave her. The difference is that she is sorry that she even considered it. She doesn't go around saying that she should have had the right to end my life in utero. If she did believe that, then yes I would, because then should wouldn't be loving me unconditionally.

    Reply
  343. I have already schooled you on this. Multiple times. What a shock you can't actually read for comprehension.

    The main point is that you and your ilk frequently use “capacity” as a way of avoiding the word “potential”, but that doesn’t work, since capacity is actually about something that exists right now. Prenates do NOT have the “inherent capacity for personhood” that you and your ilk talk about, because if the prenate did, they could exhibit the characteristics of persons right now. Thus they ONLY have “potential”.

    The abilities associated with personhood (sentience and sapience) continue to exist during coma; they simply are not being accessed. But the prenate simply does not have those abilities, so the word “access” simply doesn’t apply, for the unborn. They STILL only have “potential” to both acquire the abilities associated with personhood, and to access those abilities.

    Reply
  344. No because you believe that your children are disposable to you before they are born, and that their existence should depend on whether or not you wanted them when you were pregnant or not.

    Reply

Leave a Comment