Critical Thinking and Avoiding Logical Fallacies

[Today’s guest post by Nate Sheets in the first of a series. The next post in the series will arrive sometime next week.]

One pattern I often see online is that people shape their worldviews in black and white. It doesn’t matter what the subject is: abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, Dr. Who, the President, or pumpkin spice lattes–everyone seems to have an opinion, and that opinion seems to rarely declare: “there is grey area here!”

This is striking–at least in my mind–because at no other time have the majority of people (in the US) had virtually all of the wealth of human knowledge literally available at anytime, in virtually any place. We have the internet, with countless dissenting opinions and information, and yet we cling to our perspective with such clarity and confidence, often with little desire to dig into the thoughts of those whose opinions differ from ours. 

I have only recently begun to think critically using certain logical skills. While I have been an atheist for at least 5 years, and a pro-lifer since being a teenager, I only began to recently understand what it means to really think critically. What I found was a whole new world of perspective, leading me to fewer sure opinions, more “I-don’t-know”s, and increased wonderment at the universe. 

Over the next few weeks, I will be working out the concept of logical fallacies with all of you. I am by no means an expert in logic or critical thinking, but one thing is clear to me when I read any abortion-related article, blog post, or comment thread on the internet: people revel in their own logical fallacies. If you point it out to someone, they likely will not care, or they will change the subject. I used to react this way myself when my own logical fallacies were pointed out, because I was not familiar with the big-picture of logic and critical thinking, nor was I appreciative of them. 
Assertions and Evidence
It is easier to assert without evidence than it is to assert with evidence. Because of this reality, we often employ logical fallacies to “enhance” our assertions. What ends up happening is that assertions are made that the other side can quite easily take down. So we scramble and move on to the next argument, or we try and enhance our position with another logical fallacy. (Sometimes we don’t respond or we block people from our Facebook pages, because those things are easier to do than to abandon our original assertions.)
Politicians often rely on logical fallacies and making assertions without evidence. (From xkcd)
We need to make Arguments, not assertions. 
The difference between an argument and an assertion is probably obvious: arguments give reasons for why we believe our position. Logical fallacies come into play here as well–our brains often justify our positions using seemingly-reasonable lines of thought. However, when closely examined, these lines of fault end up being fallacious, and we have to start again. Unless we’re on the internet, in which case we’re already 200 comments in and it’s too late. 
Examples

“Abortion is wrong.”
This is an assertion. There is no argument, nor is there any evidence. In other words, it sucks.

Abortion is wrong because God says so.” 
This is an argument with unacceptable evidence. There are many gods, many versions of his supposed writings, and many interpretations of those said writings. It is not a compelling argument.

“Abortion is wrong. Many biologists and doctors believe this.”
This is an argument with a logical fallacy. Do you know which one? We’ll talk about it in the coming posts!

I am writing these posts just as much for me as for those of you who are interested in critical thinking. Personally, I enjoy having my worldview, my beliefs, and my strategies challenged. This series of posts isn’t meant to reach out to pro-choicers, nor to every pro-lifer. My hope is that when you encounter a bad argument on either side, you can identify it and (hopefully!) correct it in an effective way. My bigger hope, however, is that you begin to see these logical fallacies in yourself. 
I invite other pro-lifers with more seasoned abilities to contact me with corrections, clarifications, or other thoughts you have. You can reach me by email at skepticalprolifer@gmail.com.

455 thoughts on “Critical Thinking and Avoiding Logical Fallacies”

  1. Forced gestationers tend to engage in all sorts of complex arguments, when occam's razor dicates that all their positions (until fairly recently) are far better and more simply explained by wanting to punish people for sex.

    Reply
  2. Sorry, but Occam's Razor does not dictate "blithely ignore all evidence and instead maliciously fabricate an absurd ulterior motive that exempts pro-choicers from having to think about the moral implications of views or arguments outside their ideological comfort zone."

    This "punish people for sex" crap is absolutely nothing more than, "if I pretend nobody else really believes abortion is murder, then I don't have to consider the possibility myself."

    Reply
  3. Umm, no. A 'belief' does not create reality. Some people 'believe' that killing animals for meat is murder. A schizophrenic might 'believe' that taking apart a doll is murder. So no, first of all, I don't have to consider 'beliefs' with no evidence, secondly, I don't have to consider 'beliefs' which are firstly explained in an overly complex way when a far simpler explanation explains it better, and secondly, is contrary to the facts. In this case, the rape exception that most pro-lifers offer is contrary the facts of to your claim of 'really believing that abortion is murder', but is in line with wanting forced gestation as a punishment for *voluntary* sex.

    Reply
  4. And your precious pro-lifers talk continual nonsense, they basically talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to their supposedly 'valuing human life'. Case in point, the pro-lifers here who claim they would be willing to have their entire brain removed, to save 50 'tiny innocent vulnerable fertilized eggs' knowing full well that they will never be called upon to do so. Yet, when asked why they don't give up something far less valuable than their brain, such as 9 months of their life, to pregnancy (which they claim is no more difficult than eating a bag of doritos) in order to save a 'tiny innocent vulnerable frozen embryo' in an IVF facility, suddenly they are all full of excuses why they aren't doing that.

    The only time they EVER value 'human life' is when it will punish others for having sex. They aren't letting homeless people into their houses. They aren't giving away all their extra money to feed starving 3rd world children. The only 'lives' they want to save are those they are using as hostages to try to control other people's sexual behavior.

    Reply
  5. Wow. So much nonsense to unpack.

    First, of course believing abortion is murder doesn't in and of itself make abortion murder. My comment suggested nothing of the kind. I wasn't calling you out for disagreeing with that view, but for impugning its sincerity and choosing to swap a malicious straw-man in its place.

    Second, I cannot fathom the depths of ideological prejudice it must take for someone to believe "abortion opponents actually want to punish women for sex" (which no, you don't have evidence for) is somehow simpler than "people who call abortion murder really think abortion is murder." In purporting to find the shortest distance between two points you're adding a wild detour to the trip while pretending you took a straight line.

    Hint: the definition of "simple" is not "whatever reinforces my prejudices."

    Third, the way your side spins the rape exception is especially demented. It doesn't show what you pretend it shows on any level. For one thing, it may be accepted by "most pro-lifers" if you're going by polls of the general public, but among activists and commentators I've certainly never seen a consensus for it. I don't make it an exception.

    For another, there are numerous perfectly understandable explanations (well, perfectly understandable to those of us who aren't pro-choice zealots) for it that have nothing to do with your sex-persecution complex. For some it simply makes sense given that rape is the only scenario in which unwanted pregnancy is actually difficult to avoid. For some it's a pragmatic/strategic decision to focus on preventing the abortions that the general public is most open to reconsider (seriously, ever heard of political compromise?). And for some, banning rape abortions is an emotional bridge they simply can't bring themselves to cross.

    These motives should be obvious to anyone without ideology in their eyes and malice in their hearts.

    Reply
  6. Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of (a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and (b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

    Of course not. It’s preposterous. You are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that we're are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

    It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to help the sick and poor, to adopt, to help women in crisis pregnancies, etc. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do you know we already aren’t? Do you have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t, say, adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? After all, there is plenty of reason to believe conservatives are generally more charitable than liberals:

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.html

    politico.com/news/stories/0812/79888.html?hp=r5

    Oh, and I have NEVER heard a pro-lifer claim pregnancy's "no more difficult than eating a bag of doritos." Honesty problem, Ann?

    Reply
  7. ** "people who call abortion murder really think abortion is murder.**

    So, what you're trying to say, is that these people who supposedly 'really think abortion is murder', simply stand outside a building where – according to what you claim they 'really think' – is full of psychopaths who are 'really tearing 3 year old toddlers apart', and rather than doing what *I* would do, if I heard of a building where 3 year olds were being ripped apart and charging in there with my gun to stop it, instead simply stand around outside the building carrying signs, and try to get government officials to pass laws to prevent it.

    Sorry, not buying it. Either your pro-lifers are immoral and don't really care all that much about something they 'really think is murder'; or they are simpering cowards, or their real concern is punishing people for having sex. Most decent people will risk their lives to stop a 3 year old from being ripped apart, but people who are really concerned with punishing others for having sex will generally NOT risk their lives to do that, but instead try to get the government to point a gun at the other people.

    Reply
  8. **how do you know we already aren’t?**

    Because when Myintx was asked why she wasn't offering to have extra frozen embryos implanted in her, she weaseled out of it by saying it was the 'parent's responsibility'

    **And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B.**

    No person, A, B, or C, is obligated to allow another person to occupy their body, regardless of whether they need it for their 'very life'.

    **Oh, and I have NEVER heard a pro-lifer claim pregnancy's "no more difficult than eating a bag of doritos."**

    Again, that was stated by the pro-lifer, Myintx on this forum. I will expect an immediate apology from you for your accusation of dishonesty.

    Reply
  9. Good grief, this argument is nuts. And it's more sleazy "heads I win, tails you lose" garbage. When lone fringe pro-lifers do shoot an abortionist, it's supposedly prove we're all trigger happy violence lovers. But when we don't fit that malicious caricature, that condemns us too. Somehow.

    Though I suppose we really shouldn’t be surprised that those who advocate the power to kill their own young can’t grasp that pro-lifers really do revere the sanctity of every human life and our duty as citizens to respect the rule of law, that we genuinely hold ourselves to higher standards than “the end justifies the means.” Though it does show you just how desperately far they’ll go to avoid grappling with challenging beliefs.

    The US is a free society living under a constitutional government. In the social compact theory we’re founded on, forming such a government means the people cede the power to unilaterally punish injustice to representative institutions that will dispense justice impartially. By agreeing to live under government’s protection, we agree to submit all such questions to a political process whose outcomes we’ll obey no matter what.

    As long as the process remains available to us, we don’t have the right to pick and choose which wrongs are evil enough to justify vigilantism, since even if the effect might be good in the short term, in the long term it damages the very concept of rule of law, setting a precedent for others to take the law into their own hands and eroding the people’s confidence in, and respect for, our system of government. No small-scale, temporary victory is worth starting down the road to anarchy.

    Violence is only justified when the process breaks down and people no longer have a legal way of righting wrongs. The Founding Fathers didn’t cast off colonial rule because they simply hated King George’s policies, but because the King’s “long train of abuses” included crimes like taxing the colonies without allowing them representation in Parliament and dissolving colonial legislatures. Similarly, Holocaust comparisons fails for the simple fact that Nazi Germany was a police state without free elections. It’s not as if Germans could have passed a save-the-Jews referendum, or run an anti-genocide candidate against Hitler.

    If these concepts are still stumping you, I suggest brushing up on some Civil War history. According to your logic, more than a few of the diplomatic and pragmatic judgments Lincoln made (considering compensated emancipation, hoping for a gradual state-level abolition of slavery, wanting a magnanimous reunion with the South, etc.) would mean he didn’t really care about slavery or really think it was a horrible injustice.

    Reply
  10. So it turns out the much-ballyhooed “facts” and “evidence” are nothing more than the lone comments of one random person on the Internet? Even assuming you’ve accurately characterized what Myintx said (which, given your…creative…approach to the truth so far, is a shaky assumption), nobody who sincerely values critical thinking should need it explained to them why it’s so blatantly fallacious to pretend they’re representative of the broader pro-live movement.

    No person, A, B, or C, is obligated to allow another person to occupy their body, regardless of whether they need it for their 'very life’.

    (1) You’re assuming your conclusion, rather than making a case for it. Why does no person have such an obligation? Where does the right you’re asserting come from? Even if there is such a right, how would it follow that lethal force is a just remedy for infringements on it? (2) It’s odd to classify pregnancy as an “occupation,” since most “occupied” people don’t knowingly create their own “occupiers” and put them precisely in said “occupied territory,” through no will or control whatsoever of the “occupiers” themselves.

    Reply
  11. You want to talk legal language? Ok. What is the seat of rights? Is it the brain? Or having human DNA and looking cute. If some mad scientist puts my brain in a racoon body, and puts the racoon's brain in my body, which has the rights? My brain (in the racoon body) or the racoon's brain (in my body).

    If the brain is NOT the seat of rights, then were do rights exist? What part of the body? The left arm? Do amputees lose part of their rights? Cuteness?

    I think you are unclear on the notion of what 'rights' are, anyways. 'Rights' do not simply descend from the sky in a golden light, and get magically granted to anything alive because it's 'human'. They are contractual and reciprocal in nature, and an embryo flat out cannot have rights, partly because it has no brain, partly because it's existence is violating the right of bodily autonomy of someone else, partly because it has no agency and is completely unable to choose NOT to kill (or otherwise do harm).

    Reply
  12. Oh, and btw, Lincoln did NOT in fact, care about eliminating slavery. His main concern was forcing the South to remain part of the US, and to pay an unfair share of taxes. Go study some real history.

    Reply
  13. So, I can't help but notice that you're changing the subject to your theory of rights and say nothing more about the original subject being debated, which was your cockamamie conspiracy theories about pro-lifers' "true" motives. Seems kind of like a tacit admission of what a failure your arguments on that score were.

    The seat of rights is in being a human being.

    I think you are unclear on the notion of what 'rights' are, anyways.

    One of us certainly is. But given that I've studied this stuff academically but haven't heard anything from you traceable to an educational source more distinguished than Tumblr, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it's not me.

    'Rights' do not simply descend from the sky in a golden light, and get magically granted to anything alive because it's 'human'.

    Actually, US constitutional law is based on a premise that (mocking rhetoric like "golden light" & "magically" aside) sounds very close to that. Read the Declaration of Independence lately? Read any John Locke?

    The entire pro-choice theory of rights is circular, arbitrarily designed to give yourselves the answer you wanted in advance. You're not making a good-faith effort to objectively, rigorously apply a previously-embraced moral theory to the abortion question, then simply following wherever reason leads.

    They are contractual and reciprocal in nature, and an embryo flat out cannot have rights, partly because it has no brain

    You're assuming your conclusions again. WHY are rights "contractual and reciprocal in nature"? WHY is a brain a prerequisite for having rights?

    partly because it's existence is violating the right of bodily autonomy of someone else

    Assuming your conclusion yet again. "Pregnancy violates bodily autonomy" is an assertion that needs backing up, not a self-evident truth. And I already addressed some of the problems with this comparison (to which you didn't respond). The mother PUT her son or daughter there. In the vast majority of pregnancies, she "violated" HER OWN bodily autonomy. (After all, as you yourself admit, the embryo "has no agency.")

    Reply
  14. If you don't want to punish women for having sex why do you support forced pregnancy and forced birth?

    If a woman gets pregnant from having sex for a reason besides baby making how is it not a punishment to force her to carry to term?

    Reply
  15. Gestional slavery is not the moral high ground. Anti-choicers see pregnancy as a punishment for sex. For your last paragraph I've heard this type of sentiment over and over from anti-choicers like myintx for example. Calvin are you a Virgin?

    Reply
  16. Probably when you say that women who don't want to be pregnant should 'blame nature' and not people such as yourself who want to ban abortion.

    Reply
  17. **The seat of rights is in being a human being.**

    Nice assertion. But you haven't backed it up. Why is the seat of rights in being a 'human being' specifically, rather than a raccoon or a centipede? Did someone, somewhere, spin a roulette wheel to decide which species randomly got rights, and 'human beings' just happened to come up on top.

    **But given that I've studied this stuff academically**

    Kind of like how you studied the civil war, and yet know absolutely nothing accurate about it?

    **The entire pro-choice theory of rights is circular, arbitrarily designed to give yourselves the answer you wanted in advance.**

    Nope. Trying to claim that rights are somehow magical, and have nothing to do with the brain, yet at the same time, apply only to 'human beings' and not animals, is circular. As is the premise that it's possible to have a right to violate rights, such as the 'right' you want to give to the embryo to violate the mother's body. Sorry, no such thing.

    **WHY are rights "contractual and reciprocal in nature"?**

    Because they are not a magical golden light, they are negative in nature, and a social contract. The 'right to life' really means a 'right not to be murdered unjustly'. It does not mean a 'right to whatever you might need to sustain your life, if it belongs to someone else and they don't want to give it to you willingly. That means, you don't have a right to steal food to keep from starving to death, to break into someone's house to keep from freezing, or for an embryo to occup[y someone else's body.

    When you violate someone's rights, by raping, stealing, or occupying their body, you break this contract, and thereby lose your rights. If someone exists in a state where they 'can't help' violating someone's rights, and/or are literally unable to choose not to injure or kill someone, they cannot have rights so long as they exist in that state. Whether or not they exist in that state intentionally is irrelevent.

    WHY is a brain a prerequisite for having rights?

    A brain is necessary (along with not violating someone else's rights' to have rights because objects and animals have no agency are unable to abide by a contract.

    **In the vast majority of pregnancies, she "violated" HER OWN bodily autonomy.**

    Not possible, your statement is the equivalent of claiming that masturbation or consensual sex are the same thing as rape, and you are trying to pretend that my body doesn't belong to me, so doing acts you don't like is somehow 'violating' it.

    It's also irrelevent, even it it WERE possible. If I choose to cut off my left arm, it may or may not be a foolish choice. It isn't violating my own bodily autonomy, and doing so does not somehow magically give other people the right to cut off my right arm against my will.

    **The mother PUT her son or daughter there.**

    And I'm sure that you can show me videotapes of all these women stuffing children up their vaginas and PUTTING them into their uterus. You cannot PUT an object or person ANYWHERE, if the object or person doesn't even exist at the time you performed whatever action supposedly 'put' them in whatever location you claim they were 'put'.

    I'd suggest you get your money back from whatever place you 'studied academically' at, as you lack some very basic concepts like a theory of mind, rights, and time binding ability.

    Reply
  18. **Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of (a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and (b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way”**

    Sorry, YOUR 'moral high ground' doesn't come that cheaply. Pro-lifers want to do handwaving about how it's not 'their responsibility' to save all those 'tiny innocent vulnerable defenseless lives' by volunteering to get implanted with excess frozen IVF embryos.

    Can YOU think of any other scenario where people would get away with the attitude: I will sit around and let a 'baby' die, because I didn't PUT it there, so it's not my responsibilty. Would a pro-lifer simply let a baby drown in a swimming pool, rather than volunteering to go in and fish it out, because they didn't put the baby in the pool?

    Or do pro-lifers realise that embryos aren't really babies, so they have no real concern with 'saving their tiny very lives', but merely *pretend* that they are 'babies' when it comes to trying to force action on others?

    Reply
  19. Never said a pregnant woman should be refused medical treatment. Only the medical treatment that destroys the life she was part of creating.

    Reply
  20. I'm assuming you are considering STDs (and pregnancy) punishments. The idea of punishment assumes a punish-er. I am claiming they are consequences, which would be the result or effect of an action or condition.

    Reply
  21. If you force someone to remain pregnant against their will, to risk life and limb, you are punishing them yes.

    And what if the pregnant person dies from the pregnancy that you would force her to gestate. Does she deserve the death penalty for having sex?

    Reply
  22. Pregnancy is a "natural" consequence of sex, therefore, it is good and women should be forced to remain pregnant against their will.

    Reply
  23. No and yes. No, she does not – sex is not a criminal act. Yes she does – as part of the circle and cycle of life. To "deserve" something is beside the point.

    Reply
  24. Naturalistic fallacy again with the circle of life bullshit.

    And you are effectively treating her as a criminal for having sex if you force her to "live" with the consequences of her action. Women do not forfeit their bodies, lives and health simply for having sex. You want to hold women strictly liable for having non procreative sex.

    Reply
  25. Okay, and here's the disagreement we cannot fix. She does not deserve punishment. Neither does the little human she created. If it were up to me, I would hold both women AND men liable for having non-procreative sex, yes. Why? Because I view sex as an intimate, connected, vulnerable, and committed action. And that within that domain it is healthy and good and whole and safe and wild. And that any child created within that space is one that is safe and cared for. A completely different worldview than yours. One which you cannot understand.

    Reply
  26. And it makes me sad that you can't. Because it reflects the horrible way we have distorted relationships and sex and humanity all to serve our own hedonistic individualism.

    Reply
  27. Men can't be held liable unless you also deny them their bodily autonomy for 9 months and then kill maim or injure them along with the woman.

    And mindless embryos are not punished by abortion. They can't think, they can't feel, they have no self.

    Women and men can suffer. Embryos not so much. It is beyond cruel to cause suffering to sentient sapient people for something that is less aware than an amoeba.

    And again, you and your naturalistic fallacies. Sexual intimacy goes beyond mere reproduction. It exists for social bonding. People can be intimate without reproducing.

    And why would you want a so called selfish couple to have a kid anyway? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of your arguments?

    Reply
  28. You are living in a fantasy world. Sex is not purely for reproduction in humans. Stop romanticizing pregnancy and relationships. People like to have sex for fun and bonding. This need not involve reproduction. Grow up.

    Reply
  29. You think women who have an abortion just be executed. One in three women have abortions including anti-choice women who argue against it. You're saying they deserve death for having an abortion?

    Reply
  30. Wow! So much nonsense to unpack. How about the following nonsense from you:

    **Where does the right you’re asserting come from? Even if there is such a right, how would it follow that lethal force is a just remedy for infringements on it?**

    Gee, I don't know. Where does the magical rights YOU are asserting come from, specifically the 'right to life' of something without a brain, and the 'right to another person's body'? You keep asserting all these magical rights for an embryo, based on it being a 'human being', as if that were some sort of magical state, without giving any sort of reason whatsoever why 'human beings' and not rocks or centipedes should have rights.

    Reply
  31. It is an evasive dodge. If you are going to involve yourself in a discussion, you should do so honestly, and address the comments, queries and concerns that are on the table.

    If you refuse to do so, it is no longer a two way exchange, which is what discussion is all about.

    Reply
  32. There is so much to unpack in this argument and to be honest, I find it difficult to express it sometimes.

    Men cannot be held liable; that does not mean they should not. A great deal of heartache, pain, and poor choices exist in the world because of men who fathered children that they abandoned. Hard to prove because the evidence is in people's lives and not necessarily measure-able or quantifiable. That does not mean it does not exist.

    There is documented evidence that embryos and fetuses experience pain. But you didn't mention pain; you mentioned suffering.

    From everything I've read and seen (and experienced), pain and suffering are very different. Neither are inherently bad or good; they are just things (although probably most of us would choose to do without either of them). Pain indicates physicality and the need
    for change – for instance, break an arm and the pain indicates you have a problem that needs fixing.

    Suffering, on the other hand, is the emotional response to the physical pain. Break an arm and there's often fear, anxiety that it won't repair, etc. That's the suffering part.

    And I agree; suffering has to do with the sense of self, and we do not
    know how early the sense of self develops. But probably far later than
    embryonic and neonatal stage. That doesn't make it okay to kill a human, but that's ANOTHER huge argument to unpack. Obviously.

    I would assume you know that there is choice involved in suffering. While a person may experience pain, and have to live within that pain, they do not necessarily have to "suffer." A person can live well and fully even with pain; it is when that person chooses to wallow and despair that suffering occurs. I'm sure you can think of people who have had pain and not suffered; likewise, you can probably think of people who haven't had pain (or had minimal pain) and suffered a great deal (perhaps more than necessary, at times – or, if not more than necessary, certainly more than SEEMS appropriate for a situation).

    So, ultimately, pregnancy does not "cause" suffering. It's a person's choice to suffer through it or live within it.

    Power of choice, yes?

    I have had two very horrible pregnancies. Hated every minute of them. They caused pain, discomfort, and emotional distress – and I did suffer at times but found that when I chose to bear it hopefully instead, the suffering lost its misery. And before you say that the difference was my desire for these pregnancies, they were not both wanted.

    I never said anything about "mere reproduction" being the only purpose for sexual intimacy. Certainly not. Recreation? Absolutely. Emotional bonding? Sure. But social bonding? Can we not "socially bond" over coffee? And if we choose to "socially bond" in a way that is riskier than just having coffee, can we not be held responsible for assuming the risks and consequences? Is that not the definition of adulthood and "being grown up" – assuming responsibility for our actions without inflicting our responsibility on someone else?

    Finally, why would I want a so-called selfish couple to have a kid? I never said I wanted everyone to have kids, only that aborting kids is immoral. There's a big difference.

    Postscript. I am very aware that there are a lot of philosophical assumptions in my statements. Likewise there are in yours. It would take essays to get into both of them and we still may not agree.

    Reply
  33. Took me a bit to track down where I said anything like that. I found this: liveactionnews.org/case-of-pregnant-brain-dead-mom-has-pro-aborts-unwittingly-making-concessions-about-sanctity-of-life/

    As readers will see, I didn't say "women who don't want to be pregnant should blame nature," but rather people who resent the fact that men can't should blame nature. Nor did I suggest "nature’s unequal distribution of reproductive processes" somehow ends the debate in my favor; simply that it's an insufficient reason to end the debate in yours.

    Try again.

    Reply
  34. Pro-lifers want to do handwaving about how it's not 'their responsibility' to save all those 'tiny innocent vulnerable defenseless lives' by volunteering to get implanted with excess frozen IVF embryos.

    Probably not the best example, since pro-lifers actually do this. Google “snowflake children” sometime. And when pro-lifers do adopt & promote adoption of IFV embryos, does your side credit us with doing what you say you want us to do? No, you attack that too, just like with your constant CPC demonizing.

    Can YOU think of any other scenario where people would get away with the attitude: I will sit around and let a 'baby' die, because I didn't PUT it there, so it's not my responsibilty. Would a pro-lifer simply let a baby drown in a swimming pool, rather than volunteering to go in and fish it out, because they didn't put the baby in the pool?

    Of course not. I didn’t say pro-lifers don’t have a moral obligation to save a life if they can; I was explaining the difference between being a good Samaritan and not being an aggressor.

    merely *pretend* that they are 'babies' when it comes to trying to force action on others?

    I’m still waiting for evidence of this assertion that doesn’t suck.

    Reply
  35. Gestional slavery is not the moral high ground.

    Hysterical euphemisms do not a compelling argument make. They are, however, a handy indicator of ideological extremism and irrationality. Thanks!

    Anti-choicers see pregnancy as a punishment for sex.

    Again, repeating your made-up talking points over and over again doesn't magically make them true. What part of that are you struggling with?

    I've heard this type of sentiment over and over from anti-choicers like myintx for example.

    Frankly, what you claim to have heard carries little weight because you seem to have a problem accurately representing and interpreting things you disagree with.

    Calvin are you a Virgin?

    Yes. What of it?

    Reply
  36. as if that were some sort of magical state, without giving any sort of reason whatsoever why 'human beings' and not rocks or centipedes should have rights.

    Wow. Did you just admit to not understanding why humanity warrants more innate respect than a rock? If that’s not a shining example of how ideology closes off the mind to thought, I don’t know what is.

    Reply
  37. Do you think women who've been raped should be allowed to have an abortion?

    I already answered this in the "word salad" you apparently found too hard to read. The answer was no.

    Reply
  38. If you don't want to punish women for having sex why do you support forced pregnancy and forced birth?

    Because I believe all human beings have a basic right to life, and killing them before birth is a grave evil. You're not really that unfamiliar with the basics of the abortion debate, are you?

    Of course, if you want to be really accurate, I don't support "forced" pregnancy. I support a woman's right to use whatever means of pregnancy prevention she chooses, except methods that kill someone else. This is the same standard everybody's personal freedom is subject to — “Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins," as the saying goes — and I've never seen a convincing reason to carve out a special exemption for pregnant women to have their sons or daughters executed.

    Yes, it's lamentable that once an unwanted child's been created, there's currently no non-lethal way to alleviate the situation. Yes, that could be described as de facto "forced birth" — except for the fact that aside from cases of rape, the woman had it fully in her power to prevent putting herself in an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But it's not as if pro-lifers can just conjure new medical technology out of thin air, and just because someone's in a position they don't want to be in doesn't mean ethics go out the door in deciding what to do about it.

    If a woman gets pregnant from having sex for a reason besides baby making how is it not a punishment to force her to carry to term?
    Because the purpose of denying her an abortion isn't to teach her a lesson, but to prevent an innocent human being's death.

    Reply
  39. I'm sorry, does someone need their reading dumbed down? Believe me, I wish your and your pals' responses weren't crammed with so many falsehoods and un-logic to dissect.

    Reply
  40. No they don't. No intellectually honest reading of the Constitution finds a right to abortion. Even many pro-choice legal scholars admit Roe v. Wade is little more than a sham: washingtonexaminer.com/the-pervading-dishonesty-of-roe-v.-wade/article/1080661

    Reply
  41. p, that actually makes another part of my case for me: since certain
    parts of the body function not solely for the woman’s health, but for
    the health of her son or daughter, we could just as easily say they’re
    jointly owned by mother and offspring during pregnancy.

    You and your naturalistic fallacies.

    Women have uteri, uteri were made for baybeez, therefore, baybeez are entitled to women's uteri.

    Reply
  42. Yeah…the quote in full:

    I’m sorry guys can’t get pregnant, but your quarrel is with biology, not some patriarchal boogeyman. The fact that liberals have devolved feminism into a perpetual temper tantrum about nature’s unequal
    distribution of reproductive processes isn’t a good enough reason to ignore the unborn life at stake.

    Yeah ladies…you were made to gestate unborn babyeez…so you should be forced to…and you should blame nature, not those of us who would ban abortion.

    Because, you know, we *never* override nature, no, not ever!

    ——–

    I"m sorry guys, but prostate cancers are special. They should be protected. Treatment for prostate cancer should be illegal – but your quarrel is with *nature*, not those of us who want to force you to suffer.

    Reply
  43. It's not sexism. Forced gestational slavery is sexism. I could care less if you take me seriously as I don't take what you say seriously.

    Reply
  44. You can only argue with personal attacks calling me "hysterical, extreme, and irrational." None of this is true.

    Forced-birthers are all about punishment for sex. This is not a made up argument as you claim.

    I've argued with myintx personally at great lenght before, so yes this us not hearsay but personal experience.

    For your last paragraph my condolences.

    Lastly, I will have awesome mind-blowing sex, I will use birth control, and if I don't want to be pregnant have an abortion. You will not have any say over what goes in or comes out of MY uterus.

    Reply
  45. Another personal attack that I can't make sense of your word salad. I'm using a phone to post on so I prefer shorter posts and I think people who are good writers don't need to type a long word salad to get their point across.

    You clarified your statement that women who get pregnant as a result of rape, which is a horrible violent abusive act, should be forced to gestate a pregnancy. This is gestional slavery and a violent act against women. No woman should be forced to gestate and give birth against her will, especially a woman who was raped.

    A friend of mine was kidnapped by gunpoint held against her will and raped for hours over and over again. You think someone who has endured such horrible violence should face more violence by being forced to gestate. I find this sick and revolting.

    Reply
  46. Yet another personal attack. We are dumb liars? No. Like I said in my earlier post I'm reading this and posting on a phone. Good writers can make their argument in a sentance or two. I probably have more education than you do and I know I'm older and wiser than you are. Personal attacks don't make good arguments. You don't know me and have no basis to call me stupid, hysterical, or anything else. You dig?

    Reply
  47. I agree. I have a computer but horrible wifi internet access. It's annoying. Hopefully I will get cable access this winter. 🙂

    Reply
  48. "Patriarchal boogeyman…..feminism is a perpetual temper tantrum" that's eff'd up. Thanks for posting Calvin's post.

    People override nature all of the time. Cancer treatments, treating diseases, fracking the earth for oil, etc, etc, etc. I for one was not put on this earth to breed. Screw that.

    Reply
  49. It would be more beneficial for society to adopt a child from foster care that needs a home than a "snowflake baby." I think this would be a more selfless act that would do more good in the world.

    Reply
  50. Like the saying goes, "if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament." (Again another awesome post glad you are here.)

    Reply
  51. A zygote, embryo, fetus is not guilty or innocent and certainly not a person. On the other hand a woman is a person and like men have bodily autonomy. She has the civil right to decide to procreate or not, to carry a pregnancy or not. She is a person with all the rights of personhood a ZEF is not. There is no obligation for women to procreate and certainly no obligation to do so against her will.

    Reply
  52. Abortion existed and was legal during the Colonial period. Who knows why it wasn't written into the constitution at the time. Maybe because it was legal at the time they felt no need to specifically codify it in the constitution. Some of the founding fathers remarked about the wisdom of Native American women to control their fertility by plants and herbs. Abortion had existed for thousands of years. If abortion is made illegal in the U.S. abortion will not seize to exist. Women like me will help to restart the Jane Collective and help women get safe abortions.

    Of course women without privilege and access will be forced to gestate against their will or seek an illegal unsafe abortion or self abort. These options are more medically harmful to women.

    Reply
  53. Obviously, but the goal here is not to help real people who have real suffering and needs, but to use the pretend needs of zefs as an excuse to control people.

    Reply
  54. I've already given you evidence, the fact that you disagree with it doesn't mean it sucks. But here's some more evidence. NOBODY in our society, including pro-lifers, treats 'tiny innocent vulnerable defenseless fertilized eggs' as if they actually thought they were 'babies' EXCEPT when pretending that they are 'babies' allows them to punish other people for having sex.

    When people have REAL babies, and the babies get sick, almost all people will engage in frantic action, rushing to doctors, selling their houses, going across the country to see specialists, anything to keep their baby from dying of natural causes. If the baby does die, the parents grieve for a long time and have a funeral.

    Yet, NOBODY treats zefs like this. 80% of those tiny innocent vulnerable fertilized eggs that pro-lifers claim are 'babies' either die before, or shortly thereafter implanting on the uterus. Where are all the pro-lifers selling their houses and quitting their jobs and frantically seeing specialists in another state to prevent all those precious zef 'babies' from dying? Where are the pro-lifers bringing bloody tampons in for funerals and burying them in a cemetery. Where are all the tears for months and years for those bloody tampons?

    The assertion that 'miscarriage is natural and abortion is not' is bullshit. People with REAL babies (unless they are the minority who are sociopaths) do not react with no concern whatsoever when the REAL babies die of 'natural causes'. The fact that pro-lifers do not engage in the frantic actions I described, when their precious zefs miscarry is proof that they do not regard the zefs as the same thing as 'babies', regardless of what they claim. The ONLY time they pretend the zefs are 'babies' is when doing so gives them a justification for punishing other people for having sex.

    Reply
  55. Oh yeah. Also, a healthy white infant is a valuable commodity, and very expensive in terms of time and money to adopt. If the pro-lifers actually wanted to 'save the babies' they would probably end up with an older child, a non-white child, or a child with illness or disabilities. Which they most emphatically do not want themselves, despite insisting that everyone else must take on such 'responsibility'. If they want a healthy white infant, a 'snowflake baby' is probably cheaper for the same reason that a parrot egg is far cheaper than a hand-fed fledging baby parrot.

    Reply
  56. The excuse given is that *intellectually and factually*, zygotes have the same value as infants, its just that its really really hard to cry over lost zygotes. But since PLers are all about "science", zygote should be granted the same rights as infants.

    Reply
  57. Fantastic post! I've brought up tampon funerals to myintx and other antis. They brush off this idea with telling me I'm a sick person. Yet they don't get the point that many fertilized eggs fail to implant and are sloughed off in a woman's cycle.

    Reply
  58. Which is absolute bull. If they really thought that zygotes were 'babies' then it should not be hard to cry over them. Either that, or are they claiming that they wouldn't cry over their month old newborn dying in the crib?

    As for 'science', using pure science, there is not such a thing as rights. You can't take out the 'rights' from a person and weigh or measure them, or even perform mathematical equations on them that predict physical reality. It's a social and ethical construct. And their personal behavior regarding their own zefs (vs other people's zefs) is inconsistent with a social or ethical belief that it is actually a 'baby'. If you actually, really believe that something is a 'baby', you don't have to SEE it in order to cry about it. Case in point, suppose I performed a magicians trick, and convinced you that I had put a baby in a large box. Then I put the box through a woodchipper. You'd start screaming, because you really believed that a real baby was dead. Even though you didn't really see the baby, you just saw a box go into a woodchipper. But you really BELIEVED the baby was there, so reacted accordingly.

    Reply
  59. **They brush off this idea with telling me I'm a sick person.**

    Ad hominem fallacy, in order to avoid answering the question. I'm not impressed by people who refuse to answer the hard questions.

    Oh, and I'm sure they DO get the point. They just don't want to address it, because it exposes the fallacy in their claim that the zef is a 'tiny innocent vulnerable defenseless real human baby'.

    Reply
  60. **A pretty normal and natural one. Not a punishment.**

    sorry, no. Punishment is a subjective concept. Whether or not it is 'natural' is irrelevent. Anything you force a person to do against their will, such as remaining pregnant, is a punishment. It doesn't matter how cute you think an embryo is, if the person doesn't want it, it is a punishment.

    How about a nice cup of tea? A good brand? Steaming hot? Served on a nice saucer with enamelled flowers and a halo of light around it, like the picture of the baby somewhere on this site? Sound good? Tea is a natural beverage and drinking is a natural process, right? Only thing is, for me, drinking tea is a punishment. My father used to force me to drink tea when I was sick, and spank me when I wouldn't drink it. So don't babble at me about cute, normal, or natural. If the person doesn't want it, and you force it on them, it's a punishment, pure and simple.

    Reply
  61. **Neither does the little human she created.**

    First of all, it's impossible to 'punish' something without a functioning brain. Secondly, the embryo is violating her body, claiming that she is 'punishing' it by removing it from her body is like claiming you are 'punishing' a toddler who wandered off with your wallet by taking your wallet back from them. And, btw, this would also apply if the toddler took something that they needed for their 'very life', such as food, if they were starving. If it's your food, you are not under an obligation to let the toddler take it without consent, no matter how cute people think the toddler is.

    **If it were up to me, I would hold both women AND men liable for having non-procreative sex, yes. Why? Because I view sex as an intimate, connected, vulnerable, and committed action.**

    Your 'views' are firstly contrary to evolutionary reality, since human beings are constructed to have and want sex many more times than they can reproduce, and at times when they are not fertile. Secondly, your particular emotions regarding sex don't dictate other people's rights. Thirdly, people can and do have intimate sex without having or intending to have children.

    **And that any child created within that space is one that is safe and cared for. A completely different worldview than yours. One which you cannot understand.**

    I understand that you want to use sad feelies about children to control other adults who have sex in a way you don't want them to have it. And unless children can keep themselves alive without adults, starting from being able to gestate outside a uterus and ending with being able to perform all the jobs necessary to keep them alive from farmer to truck driver to doctor, the world is going to continue to be run for the convenience of adults, not children.

    Reply
  62. **I never said I wanted everyone to have kids, only that aborting kids is immoral.**

    You want to create a false dichotomy in which everyone else is forced to choose between either complying with your particular views on sex, or being punished for failing to comply with them by having a child they don't want.

    Reply
  63. And hedonistic individualism is evil by definition because why, exactly?

    Defining it as evil is nonsense. I'll explain why. Let's say I have a cake. According to you, it's 'hedonistic individualism' for me to enjoy eating the cake myself, and in order to be 'unselfish', I should instead give the cake to someone else, and be miserable by not getting to enjoy my cake.

    Only thing is, wouldn't it ALSO be 'hedonistic individualism' for that other person, to then eat the cake, thus making THEM evil, by your contention?

    About the only way to NOT be evil, by your absurd standard, would be for NOBODY to get to eat the cake, unless, like a zef, they had no brain and were thereby unable to enjoy the cake. Which I guess is pretty much your point, you want every real person to be miserable, and use the pretend suffering of brainless zefs as an excuse.

    Reply
  64. **If you’re seriously stumped as to what sets human beings apart from other species, if you see no difference between animals and the one species capable of rationality and moral reflection, then your ignorance and prejudices are far beyond my abilities to heal**

    You are talking contradictory crap. You have claimed that the seat of rights is NOT in the brain, but rather in 'being a human being'. Now you claim that our abilities of 'rationality and moral reflection' are what give us our rights.

    Explain this: how does 'being a human being' give one the ability of 'rationality and moral reflection' in some way that does NOT involve our brain?

    God, you're dumb.

    Reply
  65. I agree. I take it you've had the "pleasure" of arguing with myintx. I'm using her as an example of antis I've come across that live in forced birth fantasy land. Their arguments are based in magical thinking.

    Reply
  66. Someone at MJ told me I was anti-science because I'm pro-choice. I had a laugh over that one.

    P.s. A raccoon just ran by me as I was typing this.

    Reply
  67. You believe all human beings have a right to life, but a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a human being. It is a developing potential human being.

    No one should be forced to donate any part of their body to sustain the life of another, but yet you support forcing women to do it for what is only a potential human.

    Why do you want to give rights to the embryo that no actual human on this planet has? Why don't you support forced organ donation as well?

    Regardless of your reason for wanting to force her to stay pregnant, if you succeed you are still ruining her life and are punishing her.

    Also your ethics don't get to govern how I live my life. You can live your life by your values but stop telling other people how to live.

    Reply
  68. When unwanted pregnancy is a punishment. How can it not be a punishment when it is going to disrupt the woman's life for a minimum of 9 months? Pregnancy isn't nine months of fun.

    Reply
  69. Yeah ladies…you were made to gestate unborn babyeez…so you should be forced to…and you should blame nature, not those of us who would ban abortion. Because, you know, we *never* override nature, no, not ever!

    Um, you do realize that people who actually click on the link can see for themselves that your characterization is a lie, right? I already explained my “you should blame nature” line, and nowhere in that article do I say or imply anything like women “were made to gestate unborn babyeez.” Whether you continue to be intentionally dishonest will make clear what kind of person you are and whether any productive discussion with you will be possible.

    I”m sorry guys, but prostate cancers are special. They should be protected.

    Biological Know-Nothingism, check. It never ceases to amaze me how many on your side would rather make themselves sound like snide, ignorant fools than make the slightest admission that the world isn’t as simplistic as you want it to be.

    Reply
  70. I've already given you evidence, the fact that you disagree with it doesn't mean it sucks.

    No, the fact that you’re taking your prejudiced, rambling inferences and calling them “evidence” is what means it sucks. You have offered nothing that would be compelling to anyone who doesn’t already share your fanaticism.

    NOBODY in our society, including pro-lifers, treats 'tiny innocent vulnerable defenseless fertilized eggs' as if they actually thought they were 'babies' EXCEPT when pretending that they are 'babies' allows them to punish other people for having sex.

    I see you’re conveniently leaving out those who protest the destruction of embryos to obtain stem cells. Or protest IVF because it creates so many human lives only to dispose of them. Or who actually do adopt snowflake babies. Or who protest aborting your child for having a disability. Or who mourn or even hold funerals for children lost to miscarriage.

    When people have REAL babies, and the babies get sick, almost all people will engage in frantic action, rushing to doctors, selling their houses, going across the country to see specialists, anything to keep their baby from dying of natural causes.

    What rock are you living under? Ever heard of prenatal health guidelines? Fetal surgery? In the average pregnancy (i.e., one where Mom hasn’t marked her kid for death), the standard reaction to fetal ailments is no different than how we treat anyone else — that is, proportional to our ability to know there’s a problem and to do something about it.

    Yet, NOBODY treats zefs like this.

    Ooh, a caps-lock “NOBODY”? Serious business here. Except not really, since a few seconds with Google debunks it.

    Where are all the pro-lifers selling their houses and quitting their jobs and frantically seeing specialists in another state to prevent all those precious zef 'babies' from dying? Where are the pro-lifers bringing bloody tampons in for funerals and burying them in a cemetery.

    Inasmuch as I’m quickly losing patience explaining things to a bigot who’s clearly not going to consider anything she doesn’t want to hear anyway, here’s an interesting recent article on the subject that normal people reading this may find informative: thefederalist.com/2014/08/12/yes-people-believe-abortion-is-murder/

    Let’s cut to the chase, Ann. None of the crap you’ve spewed here has been anything resembling “proof.” What you’re really doing is conjuring up a never-ending set of hoops a pro-lifer must jump through just to get the simple decency of being acknowledged as sincere. You’re looking out not for the truth but for your own ego. So rabid is your bigotry that you don’t even allow for the possibility that people you disagree with might simply be mistaken, rather than evil boogeymen with secret agendas.

    I don’t know how or how long you’ve had this fanaticism and persecution complex drummed into you, but I see they’ll be very difficult to break free of. I wish you luck in doing so someday.

    Reply
  71. That wasn’t the point. Her point is that pro-lifers actually are doing what Ann accused us of not doing and claimed (apparently insincerely, based on her latest reply) we should be doing.

    Reply
  72. You can only argue with personal attacks

    I merely responded with candor once I saw you and your cohorts setting a tone of malicious, dishonest hostility. If you instead made an effort toward civil, good-faith discussion of where we disagree, I would have given you the benefit of the doubt.

    This is not a made up argument as you claim.

    Then where’s the evidence?

    yes this is not hearsay but personal experience.

    With ONE PERSON. Gee, for someone who claims to be so educated, you’re stumped by awfully simple logical concepts.

    For your last paragraph my condolences.

    No condolences necessary. It’s hardly a tragedy to those of us who aren’t obsessed with sex and worship it like some golden calf.

    Reply
  73. I think people who are good writers don't need to type a long word salad to get their point across.

    Well, succinct didn’t get through the thick skulls in the crowd, so I tried going a little more in depth to correct the many errors and distortions you and your friends offered and preempt further misconceptions. Apparently that was a wasted effort too, since it’s not the method of delivery that’s the problem. The problem is that none of you are willing to process ideas and arguments you don’t want to hear.

    No woman should be forced to gestate and give birth against her will, especially a woman who was raped.

    True, but until medical technology gives us a way to get out of an unwanted pregnancy without killing an innocent third party, that’s the least wrong, least harmful options.

    You think someone who has endured such horrible violence should face more violence by being forced to gestate.

    Millions of pregnant women would take issue with your characterization of pregnancy and childbirth as “violence.”

    I find this sick and revolting.

    You’ve also been parroting Ann’s “punishment for sex!” crapola, and part of her inane reasoning is that favoring a rape exception is proof of that ulterior motive. So according to her logic, not favoring the rape exception is evidence against her proposition. Are you willing to connect the dots she refuses to?

    Reply
  74. A zygote, embryo, fetus is not guilty or innocent

    How silly. Of course he or she is innocent. Unless you believe they can somehow will themselves to be conceived or consciously target women for “occupation.”

    and certainly not a person.

    You’re assuming your conclusion. Again. I’m tired of repeating myself, so could you at least try to think as we go along?

    Reply
  75. a zygote/embryo/fetus is not a human being.

    Since this is a thoroughly discredited scientific falsehood, and the rest of your comment is predicated on it, I don’t see why I should take is seriously.

    Reply
  76. We are dumb liars?

    Well, I’ve repeatedly identified you making dumb arguments and telling lies, and if it quacks like a duck…

    I probably have more education than you do and I know I'm older and wiser than you are.

    If that’s true, then why have you gotten so many facts wrong, and when do your arguments progress above the level of “petulant high-schooler?”

    Personal attacks don't make good arguments.

    Then why do you and your pals make so many of them? Unprovoked, no less?

    Reply
  77. I wasn’t disputing that. I was disputing Morgan’s historically illiterate claim about Lincoln didn’t care about eliminating slavery. Good grief, learn to read.

    Reply
  78. You are talking contradictory crap. You have claimed that the seat of rights is NOT in the brain, but rather in 'being a human being'. Now you claim that our abilities of 'rationality and moral reflection' are what give us our rights.

    No, I said they’re indicators that point to something fundamentally unique and special about humanity (I grant it’s a somewhat subtle distinction, and pro-choicers tend not to do well with nuance). There are countless examples of animal brains to look at, yet none of them produce morality or rationality? Then humanity must be the key variable. Again, it may be lost on you, but here is further elaboration on the subject: blog.secularprolife.org/2013/08/on-brain-requirement-for-personhood.html

    God, you're dumb.

    It may seem that way to a simpleminded bigot. Fortunately, it’s never too late to aspire to something better. The choice is yours whether you’d rather sincerely think about concepts outside your comfort zone, or simply indulge your psychological need to hate us.

    Reply
  79. Your knee-jerk repetition of “naturalistic fallacy” might be an easy way to look smart for rubes, but it’s not a substitute for refutation (neither is sarcastic misspelling). She’s the one who brought up ownership, which implies a natural component, but it seems neither of you want to tease out the full ramifications of your own arguments.

    And if you’ve got a better basis for human rights than natural-law theory, let’s hear it. I’m getting a little tired of pro-aborts coasting through the debate without showing their work.

    Reply
  80. Abortion existed and was legal during the Colonial period. Who knows why it wasn't written into the constitution at the time.

    This is hilarious. You boast about education and wisdom, then show you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. First, the alleged legality of abortion around the the time in no way establishes a constitutional right to abortion. Hell, you even admit “it wasn’t written into” or “specifically codif[ied]” in the Constitution! Not giving a damn about whether anything you say is true may be liberating, but you might want to consider how easy it is to embarrass yourself when you come across someone who isn’t faking it.

    Second, your claim that it was legal during the colonial period isn’t true either. It was generally illegal under common law after quickening, laws in (at least) Virginia and Delaware specifically criminalized it, and abortion’s de facto legal status before quickening was ambiguous not because of any belief in a “right” to abort, but because they were so hard for prosecutors to confirm. James Wilson, whose legal scholarship the rest of the Founders typically recognized as authoritative, said: “human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

    Abortion had existed for thousands of years. If abortion is made illegal in the U.S. abortion will not end.

    Utterly pointless statements. Theft, rape, torture, molestation, and infanticide have existed for thousands of years too, and making them illegal didn’t end them either.

    Women like me will help to restart the Jane Collective and help women get safe abortions.

    Bragging about a desire to participate in black-market murder of people’s own sons and daughters? Simply evil.

    Reply
  81. It seems as if it is only the anti-choice crowd that considers it to be a falsehood and you only provide links to more anti-choice sites to prvoes your point.

    The zygote/embryo/fetus cannot survive unless it is attached to its host and the woman should have the right to decide if she is going to risk her life to carry it to term.

    Reply
  82. Thank you for admitting how little you read on the subject. Do you think that all the embryology textbooks were secretly written by "the anti-choice crowd"? Do you think Peter Singer's an anti-choice plant?

    Reply
  83. So when I took all my biology classes and a genetics class and the professors called the embryo "life form" a "potential" human you are saying they know nothing?

    Reply
  84. Your explanation is inadequate. It's clear that you believe that biology = destiny for those born with uteri. And that such a "destiny" should be enforced by law, should the uterus owner find themselves pregnant. In which case you tell them to take the complaint to *nature* and not you, who wants to force the pregnant person to remain subservient to biology.

    Reply
  85. An embryo is a potential human because there is nothing to guarantee that it will make it to term, even if it is wanted. Pregnancy is nine months so the zygote/embryo/fetus can develop into a viable human.

    I don't need you to be convinced about what my professors called it.

    I think I would have laughed at them if they called it a fully developed viable human as you people seem to think it is.

    Reply
  86. I think we've just found the source of your misunderstanding.

    "Making it to term" and "viable" are not part of the definitions of "human being." If it were, countless people who are terminally ill or on life support wouldn't be human beings either.

    Also, I never said embryos are "fully developed" or "viable." Tell me, is seeing things in what you read that just aren't there a recurring problem with you? It seems like the sort of thing that would warrant professional help.

    Reply
  87. The difference though is that people on life support aren't attached to the body of another person. They are attached to a machine. Now I know that you people view women as incubators so I guess that kind of makes sense for you to compare them to a machine.

    Also you might not have said embryos are fully developed or viable but many other anti-choicers have.

    Seriously why can't you people stay out of the life of women who you don't know. You all claim you want small government but yet you want to regulate the body of women.

    Reply
  88. Something wrong with your reading comprehension?

    FORCED pregnancy = subservience to biology. As in…you must remain pregnant against your will because you are woman and woman was designed by nature/god to make babies.

    ^is objectification, and it is deeply misogynist.

    Reply
  89. Calvin are you a Virgin?

    Yes. What of it?

    Quelle surprise.

    A male virgin wants to dictate the behaviors of sexually active women.

    You have more issues than National Geographic, dude.

    Reply
  90. It’s hardly a tragedy to those of us who aren’t obsessed with sex and worship it like some golden calf.

    I'm sorry no one wants to f**k you, Calvin. Really, I am. But you know what? My husband and I will have sex swinging from the chandeliers if we feel like it. And if my tubal ligation fails? There'll be an abortion … whether some little prude named Calvin approves or not.

    Reply
  91. Please explain how being forced to remain pregnant against one's will (and perhaps contrary to one's health) is anything other than a punishment. I'll wait.

    No love, a woman who was nearly killed by a wanted pregnancy and will not risk that again (and no, I won't be celibate just to satisfy your voyeuristic beliefs that I should do so)

    Reply
  92. What part of you don't get to tell other women how to live their life are you struggling with?

    You do view women as incubators otherwise how do you explain the fact that you support gestational slavery.

    No matter how many times you say it the embryo does NOT have a right to the woman's body. It is her choice and she can remove it from her body if she wants. It has no right to her resources and body and life unless she agrees to risk her body and health for it.

    Reply
  93. Pregnancy is 14 times more dangerous than abortion. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

    I do, however, notice that you deflected the question.

    Reply
  94. I would hold both women AND men liable for having non-procreative sex

    What are you going to do? Peep in at windows and screech if you see people using contraception?

    Reply
  95. problem is there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.

    you believe pregnancy is a form of slavery. not for all women, but for some.

    well aren't you lucky not to be "born with uteri" as you call it! what dreaful, enslaving organs.

    [your view is deeply misogynist. think about it.]

    Reply
  96. There is documented evidence that embryos and fetuses experience pain.

    Oh, FFS. There is no such thing, *especially* where embryos are concerned. Until myelination is complete, which does not happen until approximately 29 weeks' gestation, the fetus is *incapable* of experiencing pain. The system that allows it to do so does not exist. And, in case you missed the memo, no one is getting an abortion at 29 weeks' gestation absent medical necessity.

    Christ on the cross; is biology no longer *taught*?

    Reply
  97. Yep. Pregnancy, according to myintx, is like having a teenager eating Doritos on the couch. It's just how life goes and it's no big deal to clean the orange crud up.

    Reply
  98. Calvin thinks we're nothing but the meat around our uteruses and should be forced to gestate regardless of circumstances.

    This is because Calvin is an angry little boy who couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons, and so all women should be punished for daring to have sex with a) men who are not him and b) perhaps without intent to procreate.

    Calvin also appears to believe that pregnancy is all fairy farts and ice cream … and when it isn't, well, the woman should just be willing to die. Because Calvin is a misogynist.

    Reply
  99. Pregnancy is a form of slavery if forced. It isn't rocket science.

    And you and Calvin are arguing that uterus owners must NOT be permitted to override biology through abortion.

    Reply
  100. the woman had it fully in her power to prevent putting herself in an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

    Allow me to acquaint you with something that you clearly do not know, Calvin: all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilization, have *known failure rates.*

    Reply
  101. If it were, countless people who are terminally ill or on life support wouldn't be human beings either.

    Oh, here's the problem: You don't know the difference between a born, sapient, sentient person and a zygote.

    Much is now explained.

    Reply
  102. FFS, Calvin. A zygote/embryo/fetus is neither guilty nor innocent. It is incapable of *either* state.

    Personhood is a legal concept; it attaches at birth.

    I guess you missed that in civics class; revisit the 14th Amendment if you're confused, okay?

    Reply
  103. Acting like an incensed ape isn't cute.

    You tell me not to use insults, and in the next sentence you write this?

    Wow. You just broke my irony meter.

    Especially since pointing out that someone clearly has issues is NOT an insult.

    Reply
  104. I've already been refuting your hateful crap ad infinitum on this thread

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Seek help for your misogyny and anger issue, Calvin.

    I don't hate you; I pity you.

    Reply
  105. Actually, I argued nothing of the kind. Making assumptions, aren't you?

    I merely read your proclamation that "pregnancy is a form of slavery" and called you out on your misogny.
    At least you honestly admit that you do believe female biology is a form of subservience. That's nothing to be proud of though.

    Reply
  106. I love it when they accuse me of wanting to fuck and run.

    Why do you think I hang around RHRC?

    I get more ass than a toilet seat!!eleventy111

    Reply
  107. Here's the thing, sweetie…there are many people who are born with uteri who do not identify as women. They are LGBTQ etc. They identify as transgender, genderqueer etc. I use the term 'uterus owner' in order to include them.

    Now, they do not view 'biology as destiny', and nor should they. You, and your PL buddies, would happily force such a person to remain pregnant against their will simply because they were born with a uterus

    That is reproductive objectification. That is reducing a person to a body part. To ignore their free-will, and to tell them that they *must* be subservient to the biological function of their bodies.

    We humans override biology *all the time*. Have you ever been to a doctor? So, explain to me why those born with a uterus cannot be permitted to override biology, and why they must be subservient to the contents of their uteri?

    Reply
  108. you don't believe 100% of pregnancies are enslavement. Just some of them.

    Yeah. That should be obvious. If you force someone to labour on behalf of another, to risk life and limb on behalf of another or the state, to treat their bodies as property, you are in effect enslaving them.

    Fiona nearly died to give birth to her son. That was *her* choice. If she had been forced to do so, that would have been slavery.

    Reply
  109. No, it's not clear to anyone who actually read what I wrote. You keep repeating yourself without backing up your assertion — in the same breath that you complain about "inadequate explanations," no less!

    Again, that you continue to keep intentionally lying says it all.

    Reply
  110. That's the legal definition of murder. But murder is neither exclusively nor primarily a legal concept. It's a philosophical/moral/ethical one that denotes unjust killing.

    "Abortion isn't murder because the law currently doesn't recognize it as such" is so blindingly circular that I can't believe we're actually debating it, but I guess your intellectual faculties aren't quite capable of grasping that.

    Reply
  111. You're seriously presenting "I know you are but what am I" as an argument? On behalf of pro-lifers everywhere, I thank you for making your side look like petulant eight-year-olds.

    Reply
  112. It's funny how you rant stuff like this yet (a) don't know why nobody but your fellow fanatics takes you seriously, and (b) expect people to believe "presenting evidence" had anything to do with why you were banned.

    Reply
  113. I was told by an male anti-choicer not too long ago that some men are upset that they can't carry babies–and then he called me cruel when I wished him a pregnancy of his own. *snort*

    Reply
  114. I've already addressed all of this. You're refusing to counter any of it, and just restating your position in the hopes that will magically make it valid.

    Better luck next time.

    Reply
  115. I seem to recall correcting your ignorant nonsense about the 14th Amendment, too. Pity it didn't take. The short version: CITIZENSHIP attaches at birth. Citizenship =/= personhood. A Russian visiting the US wouldn't be a citizen and therefore couldn't do things like vote in US elections, but he wouldn't somehow stop being a person just by setting foot on US soil.

    Reply
  116. An unborn human is entitled to the parts of his or her mother's body that conception that function to sustain his or her gestation.

    This does not mean, as your incessant, inane "biology=destiny" bleatings seem to pretend, that women don't have a right to prevent their son or daughter from coming into existence in the first place.

    Natural law does seem the obvious starting point, inasmuch as we're debating within the US constitutional framework of which natural law is the foundation. But like I said, if you prefer another starting point, let's hear it. Put up or shut up.

    Reply
  117. why the swift change of subject and abandonment of our previous post discussion?

    we agreed that you believe that some pregnancies are forms of enslavement. that means you believe that those born with uteri are more naturally prone to biological enslavement than males.
    and that, my friend, is misogny.

    Reply
  118. You haven't addressed anything. You only repeat the anti-choice nonsense over and over again. You have yet to prove why they actual women is worthless and the fetus is everythinng.

    Reply
  119. Hint: when you're already racking up falsehoods by the pound, adding a new & especially egregious one — that I think "women is [sic] worthless" — doesn't help your credibility.

    Reply
  120. Careful, you're gonna get dizzy from all this circular reasoning.

    Even if you'll never admit it here, I hope you end up learning something from today's exchange.

    Reply
  121. That's crazy talk Jennifer!

    if you are born with a uterus you *should* automatically desire to be pregnant from puberty til menopause because why thwart your biology???

    Reply
  122. we agreed that you believe that some pregnancies are forms of
    enslavement. that means you believe that those born with uteri are more
    naturally prone to biological enslavement than males.

    What you are doing is looking at something that women *can* do, and saying that it is something they *should* be forced to do (should they find themselves to be pregnant) simply because they happen to be born with a uterus. It is reproductive objectification.

    Think of it this way…women were born with vaginas. Vaginas were made for penises. Women must submit to any penis that wants to use their vagina, because vaginas were *made* to be used by penises, and any woman who chooses to thwart that biology is a misogynist. That's your reasoning, in a nutshell.

    Reply
  123. An unborn human is entitled to the parts of his or her mother's body that conception that function to sustain his or her gestation.

    Yeah. No. I might need your bone marrow to sustain my life, that doesn't mean I am entitled to it.

    that women don't have a right to prevent their son or daughter from coming into existence in the first place

    You are saying that biology = destiny once fertilization has occurred. That once her body is 'in use' that she cannot thwart biology, because she must obey 'natural law'. Funny, because we humans thwart biology all the damn time. Why the special rules for pregnancy? Why must we *only* be subservient to biology in the case of pregnancy?

    Reply
  124. yikes – try to stay on subject gauise!

    like i said, you believe those with uteri are more naturally prone to subservience/enslavement than those without them.

    care to defend that belief, or do you just not care that it is blatantly misogynist?

    Reply
  125. "Women can get pregnant, therefore they should remain pregnant, by force of law' because 'nature made women for pregnancy' is your argument 😛

    Reply
  126. An embryo is a live, distinct organism of the human species.

    So what.

    So is a hydatidiform mole, a beating heart cadaver, and an anencephalic baby. None have the right to life, because they, although 1) alive 2) unique human DNA do not have functional brains.

    Functional brain = human being = rights.

    Reply
  127. Adopting children from foster care is doing good and it is my opinion that this is more beneficial. So yes it is a valid point, but you can go ahead and argue against me.

    Reply
  128. obviously not.

    i carried a very unwanted pregnancy to term. not once did it occur to me that my uterus, or its contents, was my slavemaster. i don't think so lowly of the female sex as to proclaim my biology as a form of slavery.

    Reply
  129. That's just you, though. That's not necessarily everyone. And while you made the best choice for you, that's not necessarily going to be the right choice for everyone. Some women may never want or desire pregnancy or motherhood, and they may view their reproductive organs as being enslaving.

    Reply
  130. thank you for proving my point.

    to view female organs as a form of enslavement is to demean female sex. it is a poisonous form of misogyny.

    Reply
  131. Again with the personal attacks, "thick skulls." I'm not parroting Ann. Did I say a wanted pregnancy is a violent act? No. Quit putting words in my mouth. Forcing a woman who is pregnant as the result if rape, or forcing any woman to remain pregnant against her will is violence. Sorry you can't understand that.

    Reply
  132. Fortunately, anyone who wishes to look at LAN for themselves will find that to be false. They will see scores of lengthy debates and comments by many recurring pro-choicers, who are generally given a long leash, even with lousy manners. To get banned, you have either be extremely persistent and beyond the pale in your ad hominem personal attacks (see Fiona), or you have to start talking about how much you want to shoot pro-lifers (like your pal Plum Dumpling).

    Reply
  133. she is the product of a society whose patriarchal structure has convinced her to view her own sex as a form of enslavement.

    i know the struggle well. i grew up in culture with deeply engrained patriarchal views towards women, it was difficult to re-educate myself, and lto earn to be able to view my body/my pregnancy from a point of view that doesn't demean me as a female.

    this, of course, upsets many males, including glauise. most men desperately want to believe women's bodies are subservient by nature. BUT THEY AREN'T.

    Reply
  134. Saying my arguments are "dumb" is your personal opinion and another personal attack. If you call your opponents "dumb" and "liars" it does nothing for the validity of your argument.

    Reply
  135. I get the feeling that I'm about to be fed a line of bull that goes something like "Every woman really wants to be a mommy deep down, she's just been brainwashed by evil feminists/liberals/big pharma into thinking that she doesn't and she should thwart her natural fertility, blah blah blah."

    Reply
  136. I might need your bone marrow to sustain my life

    No natural link between my bone marrow and your life exists that is even remotely analogous to that between mother and offspring. That said, even the forced donation analogy isn't as black and white as you want it to be: liveactionnews.org/pulling-the-plug-on-the-violinist-argument-for-abortion/

    we humans thwart biology all the damn time

    Sure, but never to snuff out other human beings we want to get out of the way. We're never going to get anywhere if you keep sidestepping the relevant facts.

    Reply
  137. You keep saying this, despite the fact that "nature made women for pregnancy" appears nowhere in anything I wrote.

    You're a liar, you know it, and I'm getting tired of you pretending otherwise. Get back to me when you grow a conscience.

    Reply
  138. So is a hydatidiform mole

    No it's not. Take a remedial biology class and get back to me.

    a beating heart cadaver

    Unless you overlook the "live" part.

    Functional brain = human being = rights.

    Still waiting for the "why" on this point…….

    Reply
  139. Whether it's a valid point is another debate. What you're ignoring is that it isn't germane to the specific question I was addressing.

    Reply
  140. she is the product of a society whose patriarchal structure has convinced her to view her own sex as a form of enslavement.

    Or maybe she's just a woman who doesn't want pregnancy or motherhood? Is there something wrong with that? Everyone is different.

    Reply
  141. Why are women treated as second class, often servant class, even livestock class citizens, in many cultures?

    Can you explain that to me, anthropologically.

    Thanks in advance.

    Reply
  142. No it's not. Take a remedial biology class and get back to me.

    Why not? It's alive and has human DNA, unique human DNA.

    You might want to think your ableist position, Calvie-poos.

    Unless you overlook the "live" part.

    Beating heart means it's alive. The upper mind is gone, but the brainstem is alive, and that controls respiration etc. A beating heart cadaver can live a long time with a feeding tube.

    If your cerebral cortex, the seat of your self, were sucked out with a straw, but your lower brain, the brain stem, remained your body would be 100pct alive and 100pct human. But 'you' would be gone, because your mind is gone. Personhood resides in the mind, not the body.

    Still waiting for the "why" on this point.

    See above.

    Reply
  143. No natural link between my bone marrow and your life exists that is even remotely analogous to that between mother and offspring

    So? Your entire argument is that if someone *needs* your body to survive that they are entitled to it?

    Are 5 year olds dying of leukemia not entitled to live? Is a 5 year old worth less than an unborn human? Why should a prenate have the right to the body of another to survive but a dying 5 year old not? Declaring that an unborn human should have extra rights simply based on location/relationship is awfully discriminatory, don't you think? As a general principle, if the 'right to life' includes the 'right to exploit the body of another', then a 5 year old should be entitled to Calvin's bone marrow just as much as an unborn human.

    Sure, but never to snuff out other human beings we want to get out of the way

    5 year olds are dying because you are too selfish to donate your bone marrow.

    Reply
  144. You wrote:

    "but your quarrel is with biology"

    ie, biology is destiny, ie women were 'designed' by evolution/god to bear children ie they should be forced to remain pregnant against their will.

    BTW, one way to 'fight' that biology is to uh, get an abortion, something you want to prevent women from doing…

    Keep denying what you said, and keep digging your own grave.

    Reply
  145. I am not a constitutional scholar it doesn't mean I'm stupid. This is not my area of expertise. Abortion during colonial times was governed under English law and was legal until the "quickening." Abortion isn't murder and isn't equivalent to rape or murder. Yes I will proudly help with a new Jane Collective if needed. You can say I'm evil, again it's your opinion not fact.

    Reply
  146. I'm not denying what I said. I'm calling out you and your fellow liars for endlessly lying about what quarrel that quote was referring to, even though I EXPLAINED IT IN RESPONSE TO THE VERY FIRST COMMENT WHERE IT CAME UP. For halfway decent people with a modicum of honesty, that would have been enough, whatever separate beefs you have with me.

    Sadly, decency is too much to expect from prenatal execution groupies.

    Good luck growing a conscience someday. To me it doesn't matter, since you're just some anonymous twerp on the Internet. But the people in your life deserve better.

    Reply
  147. Gaiuse has posted evidence to the contrary, yet you continue with personal attacks of calling her a liar and that she doesn't have a conscience. Simply not true.

    Reply
  148. Your entire argument is that if someone *needs* your body to survive that they are entitled to it

    I continued this debate as long as I have out of some lingering hope that discussion and elaboration might clear away the misconceptions and caricatures your side has infected the issue with. I think that's been accomplished, with more than enough refuted in these 200+ comments to satisfy the more intellectually curious who might come across it.

    But you? It's clear that you'd rather debate straw men than the actual ideas in front of you. Since you've destroyed the link between what I actually say and what will be accurately reflected in your own words, I have no reason to waste time with you further.

    Reply
  149. did you even read what i wrote earlier?

    i had unwanted pregnancy. and i certainly don't ever want another pregnancy.
    a woman can not want pregnancy AND refuse to view her sex as form of subservience.
    the two are not mutually exclusive.

    Reply
  150. are you implying that your belief that women's bodies are naturally prone to slavery is actually due to anthropology, and not a deeply engrained misogny?

    if so, just come out and say it. no need to throw questions up in the air like confetti.

    Reply
  151. When did I say directly to you "just shut up?" Never. You took what I said out of context. There was no personal attack. I was responding to Gaiuse that men have no uterus hence, "no skin in the game." Men who dictate to women how they should use their uteruses is oppression. I will tell any man who tries to oppress me to shut up. It is my opinion that anti-choicers are punishing women who have sex and punishing female sexuality in general. Go ahead and tell me my opinion and my beliefs are dumb. That's what you've been doing. I've been civil and I'm about to get real ugly and tell you off because I'm really sick of the personal attacks when you try to claim you are being civil.

    Reply
  152. of course! i don't think every woman should desire pregnancy. i just wish women didn't feel compelled to view their own bodies as forms of enslavement. that does not empower women. that only empowers men to view us as 'lesser than.'

    Reply
  153. And it is spelled "ingrained" not "engrained", also, anthropology is the study of humans, in a cultural and biological context, and uhm, can't actually be the " cause" of anything, as it is an academic discipline.
    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

    Reply
  154. ill answer simply, and say it is largely due to patriarchal values that deem woman as subservient, or 'lesser than'.

    is that what you were looking for? how about you just say what you want to say?
    i'm interested to hear your defense of your argument about the biological subservience of those with uteri.

    Reply
  155. The misogyny is when other people treat you as an object to be used based on your female organs.

    Such as…forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

    Reply
  156. english is not my first language. sorry if mispellings, uhm, upset you.
    well, not really, you should really remove the stick from your ass and embrace the global nature of internet debate.

    Reply
  157. Its only a form of enslavement if you force them to remain pregnant against their will. This automatically turns women into second class citizens.

    Reply
  158. My apologies. I had assumed that you were a simpleton.

    But I love having a stick in my ass. You should try it sometime. Also, bananas, watermelons, basketballs.

    Reply
  159. Only if forced

    Get that through your thick skull.

    I know many, many pro-choice women who have *chosen* to get pregnant, and who have done so multiple times. But, to FORCE them to 1) get pregnant or 2) remain pregnant against their will would be a form of enslavement, yes.

    You can *choose* to pick flowers. But if someone *forces* you to pick flowers, denying your free will, that is slavery.

    Understand?

    Reply
  160. i'm sure you know the answer to that question much better than you think.

    the reasons aren't so different from your own: a desperate need to assure themselves that woman are naturally prone to subservience.
    now that women have entered workplace and are no longer confined to home, men need a new reason to claim subservience on part of women. now pregnancy – a female phenomenon – is a disease, a punishment, an enslavement [as you yourself called it].

    Reply
  161. if mispellings really upset you though, you should be sure to note in your disqus profile that you do not wish to engage those who speak english as foreign language, or maybe note that you do not wish to engage people of color, who often do not spell as you see fit.
    just a thought! : )

    Reply
  162. a desperate need to assure themselves that woman are naturally prone to subservience.

    It depends on the culture, actually. It just happens that our culture is a patriarchal, war-like culture, where, throughout most of history, a woman's *only* value has been in creating heirs for her own/husband, acting as a fucktoy for him, and doing the chores.

    In such cultures, and in countries such as Afghanistan, women are treated as property, and biology for them *is* destiny. Women have zero say in who they will marry, how often they will have sex, and in how many children they will have. If the husband wants to 20 kids the woman has literally NO say in how many pregnancies she will have to undergo. And if the pregnancy kills her, he will just replace her with another 'cow'. This is how women are viewed.

    Now, as you correctly state, women in the west have more freedom. They can get jobs, they can vote, etc. However, with bans on abortion, you are in effect forcing women to be subservient to their biology. You are saying that if they own a uterus, that they must act as a delivery system for a fetus – that they do not have a right to self-determination, because they exist as some sort of appliance to be used by men, and by the state, to produce babies.

    Reply
  163. Let's take women staying at home. If a woman chooses to be a stay at home mom, that would not be enslaving. However, if the law forced all women to stay in the home regardless of their wishes, that would be akin to slavery. Much like forcing a woman to remain pregnant who doesn't want to be.

    Reply
  164. you keep going in sad little circles, gauise.
    once again, trying to convince me that women need to be saved from their biology, which we are naturally "subservient" to as you state above.

    why do you believe women are biologically more prone to subservience? and how is that not misogny?

    Reply
  165. Oh, not only am I a misogynist, but I'm a racist now too.

    No, sweetie, don't flatter yourself, I just thought you were a garden variety simpleton. But keep grasping at those straws.

    Reply
  166. most men desperately want to believe women's bodies are subservient by nature. BUT THEY AREN'T.

    No, of course they aren't. But, depending on the specificties of the culture, biology IS destiny based on environmental determinism.

    The Hadza in Africa are egalitarian. In fact, women have more power than men, because they produce 70% of the calories. There is no slut-shaming in Hadza society, and if a woman tires of a man, she can kick him out of her home.

    Now, contrast that with the Yanomomi of Brazil, a war-like, patriarchal people, who need to, in order to survive in a rainforest that is light on resources, produce fierce warriors. In such a culture, the fearsome warrior IS the very key to survival. Defeating enemy tribes, taking their land, resources = survival. Producing more warriors is seen as a communal good.

    Now, what use are women in such a society? Not much. They are consumers. They can't fight. Especially if pregnant all the time, what good are they, other than to gather, but then they consume twice as much due to pregnancy. They are not nearly as valuable to the tribe's survival as a good strong warrior. So, women are relegated to a second class status – they exist to provide future warriors, and as sexual toys. You want to create fierce angry warriors? Teach them to dehumanize women. In such a society, women are property, property that exists for male pleasure and profit.

    Take away the Yanomami's 1) war 2) scarce resources 3) allow women to control their fertility and suddenly women will be able to expand their horizons and have the same opportunities as men. Technology has freed us all from the yoke of biological destiny.

    Reply
  167. , which we are naturally "subservient" to as you state above.

    Are women naturally subservient? NO. But, it is possible TO make them subservient if you deny them their right to self-determination by forcing them to remain pregnant against their will.

    Reply
  168. I love anthropology.

    I have to jump thread for a while and take the orange cat for a walk. He's been meowing to me for the last hour to take him out. I must obey the cat.

    Reply
  169. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You really cannot read, can you? law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

    I'll emphasize the point in this quote:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
    jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
    state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
    shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
    States; 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.

    An embryo, Calvin, is not a person. It has no rights, duties, or responsibilities. Personhood attaches at birth.

    Reply
  170. We all know why I was banned, Calvie-walvie; I presented evidence that you were wrong, with citations, and you got your tighty-whities in knot over it.

    Sucks to be you, Cal.

    Reply
  171. Not my fault no one wants to sleep with you, Calvin. Perhaps working on your social skills, and ceasing your misogyny will help you get past that hurdle.

    Reply
  172. Calvin, your entire position is that of a petulant eight-year-old: "If you don't want a baby, don't have sex! Abortion is murder!"

    And a whole slew of other bumpersticker bullshit that has no basis in reality.

    I remember being an anti-choice dimwit just like you. I thought those arguments were brilliant.

    Then I got out of high school.

    Reply
  173. But murder is neither exclusively nor primarily a legal concept.

    Yes, actually, it is exclusively and primarily a legal concept. That's why there are different charges and definitions for manslaughter and suicide, although both (like murder) are homicides.

    I guess your intellectual faculties aren't quite capable of grasping that.

    Reply
  174. One of the many choices you do NOT get to make for me is the words that I choose.

    Anyone who maintains that a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will and possibly against her health has no class, so you have nothing to show me, dearie.

    Reply
  175. If English is not your first language, perhaps you should realize that you do not always appropriate recognize idiom and stop trying to tone police others. It makes you look like an incensed ape.

    Reply
  176. i carried a very unwanted pregnancy to term

    And that was your choice. Another woman in identical circumstances does not have to do the same thing as you.

    Reply
  177. It’s hardly a tragedy to those of us who aren’t obsessed with sex and worship it like some golden calf.

    I've been thinking about this remark for the past little while, and I find, Calvin, that you are being intellectually dishonest.

    You ARE obsessed with sex. You ARE obsessed with the idea that somebody, somewhere, is having sex without intent to procreate … and you ARE obsessed with trying to stop them. You ARE obsessed with forcing women to gestate despite any risks that it might cause to their life and health.

    You remind me of a character from classical literature, Calvin: Claude Frollo.

    Look the reference up on your own time.

    Reply
  178. You have no idea. My cats are spoiled. The neighbor cats come to my window and ask for catnip. Of course I give in and hand feed them catnip. They could be independent cats and help themselves to the catnip garden. My neighbor calls my backyard the "Haight Ashbury" for cats.

    Reply
  179. so, the trick to making women subservient [as you say] is to subject them to unwanted pregnancy. in this scenario, a woman's biology may be used against her to enslave her.
    the idea that a woman's own biology is a tool of enslavement is a demeaning, misogynistic one. shame on you.

    Reply
  180. Oh, but fiona, we don't rilly, rilly, RILLY don't care if you don't create and welcome new life. Rilly!

    But . . . but . . . whyyy are you having sex if you're not open to pregnancy? Why are you even married if you don't want to have babies? If you don't intend to participate fully in the wondrous circle of life, why don't you just go all in and be celibate? Oh, you're married, you say? Well, you know, married people who don't intend to welcome new life can always just be abstinent. No, *I personally* don't care if you don't have babies! Fine, then, don't have them! But you're doing sex all wrong, too, and I don't like that; so you should stop doing it until you can come to the realization that sex is only for babies.

    Reply
  181. Yes, it's always the old, tired 'brainwashed' line. I know a number of childfree ladies, and we were all what you would call early articulators. I knew when I was seven years old that I wasn't remotely interested in motherhood, and at that age I hadn't exactly had an opportunity to be 'brainwashed' by much of anything in society. Keep in mind that I was also being raised in a fundamentalist christian household, so I was certainly being fed a gender essentialist line of crap and was being 'shielded' from any societal messages that disputed authoritarian patriarchy.

    So, no, the desire to 'thwart' unwanted fertility is often simply an integral component of one's personality. Even if I'd never been exposed to any other culture than the one I was raised in, that still wouldn't have changed my mind.

    Reply
  182. Which makes it all the more bewildering that she won't gestate any snowflake embryos. Perhaps she has much more of an issue with Doritos than she lets on . . .

    Reply
  183. >Millions of pregnant women would take issue with your characterization of pregnancy and childbirth as >“violence.

    YOU have never experienced pregnancy complications. You have NO idea
    what women undergoing complicated pregnancies endure. Pregnancy can affect their health negatively and even scar them for life.

    I had pre-eclampsia when I was pregnant and my daughter had to be delivered via emergency c-section at 29 weeks. The surgery was violent. My daughter was violently removed from my uterus to save my life.

    Women have suffered incontinence and some even have difficulty returning to work after giving birth.
    theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/10/torn-apart-by-childbirth

    I dare you to point your readers at Life Action News all the difficulties involved in gestating a baby, including that article from the guardian. Having children is not all rainbows.

    It's not our fault that birth control can fail. Sex is not just for procreation, and no woman should have to gestate an embryo for 9 months if they do not want to remain pregnant.

    Reply
  184. i take no issue with people wanting to prevent pregnancy. what i take issue with is the belief that women's biology is a potential form of enslavement. a belief you openly adhere to.

    Reply
  185. We don't make up what he said. What he said is sexist and misogynistic. I am not attacking him only addressing what he said.

    Reply
  186. Nope… if anyone without a uterus should 'shut up' about abortion, the SC should have not had an opinion on abortion either… and shouldn't have decided Roe V Wade…. at least by your 'logic'.

    Reply
  187. i did want my pregnancy to end. but my body had other plans. it continued to grow and nurture a human despite all my wishes to the contrary. female body is a form of enslavement, remember?

    Reply
  188. a woman's biology is never a means of enslavement. to believe so is to believe woman biologically inferior to man.

    your analogy doesn't work for that reaosn.

    Reply
  189. You cannot 'successfully refute' Fiona.
    And when you cannot refute someone, your response is then banning them for ridiculous reasons.
    So naturally, your 'refutation' record seems good to you. You get rid of opponents who defeat you.

    Reply
  190. No thank you.
    I will have lots of hot sex.
    I will use contraception.
    If I become pregnant, I will gestate or abort as I see fit.
    Not as YOU see fit.
    Not as the state sees fit.

    Reply
  191. I am pro life. So naturally I am pro choice.
    You are simply pro birth.
    And if you want to criminalize abortion, you are pro death.

    Reply
  192. I AM and I WILL is sufficient argument for having an abortion.

    You are not permitted by general agreement to seize my body to do your will – for treasure or to benefit any 'person.'

    If you break the social contract and seize or attempt to seize my body, I have the right to stop you by force – by hurting you or killing you.

    Explain to me why being female erases those rights and agreements.

    "… every man has a property in his own person, and this no one has a right to but himself." John Locke, Second Treatise on Government.

    Reply
  193. I AM and I WILL is sufficient argument for having an abortion.
    You are not permitted by general agreement to seize my body to do your will – for treasure or to benefit any 'person.'

    If you break the social contract and seize or attempt to seize my body, I have the right to stop you by force – by hurting you or killing you.

    Explain to me why being female erases those rights and agreements.

    Reply
  194. Nope. YOUR view that women must be ruled by their organs while men can do whatever they please with their organs is misogynist. Believing that all pregnancy for yourself is slavery or that just the forced ones are slavery, is not.

    Reply
  195. Abortion isn't execution. And why is it Calvin, that the majority of the so-called Pro-'Life' contingent actually DO support ACTUAL execution?

    Reply
  196. Anthropologically, Homo sapiens has three strategies
    for dealing with unwanted reproduction (births): contraception, abortion and
    infanticide. All three are practiced in every culture worldwide historically
    and currently.

    Those who restrict contraception and abortion make infanticide, child abandonment/abuse and maternal mortality inevitable. We have many in vitro examples of this but the one that troubles me the most at the moment is this example:
    dailymail.co.uk/new…

    There is nothing moral about your position if your position is controlling women's reproductive choices by law or by shaming/blaming.

    Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Women have blood in the
    game. YOU do not. Abortion and contraception are human rights.

    YOU do not occupy the moral high ground.
    un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/254

    Summary
    In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
    enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health considers the interaction between criminal laws and other legal restrictions relating to sexual and reproductive health and the right to health. The right to sexual and reproductive
    health is a fundamental part of the right to health. States must therefore ensure that
    this aspect of the right to health is fully realized.

    The Special Rapporteur considers the impact of criminal and other legal restrictions on abortion; conduct during pregnancy; contraception and family
    planning; and the provision of sexual and reproductive education and information.

    Some criminal and other legal restrictions in each of those areas, which are often
    discriminatory in nature, violate the right to health by restricting access to quality
    goods, services and information. They infringe human dignity by restricting the freedoms to which individuals are entitled under the right to health, particularly in respect of decision-making and bodily integrity. Moreover, the application of such laws as a means to achieving certain public health outcomes is often ineffective and disproportionate.

    Realization of the right to health requires the removal of barriers that interfere
    with individual decision-making on health-related issues and with access to health services, education and information, in particular on health conditions that only affect women and girls. In cases where a barrier is created by a criminal law or other legal restriction, it is the obligation of the State to remove it. The removal of such laws and legal restrictions is not subject to resource constraints and can thus not be seen as requiring only progressive realization. Barriers arising from criminal laws
    and other laws and policies affecting sexual and reproductive health must therefore be immediately removed in order to ensure full enjoyment of the right to health.

    Reply
  197. No, the ones who appear snide, ignorant fools are those that can't manage to comprehend a simple analogy, only because one is something that happens to men and the other is something that happens to women. Keep proving our point, btw, by *ignoring* (there's that word, again, huh?) how you just ACKNOWLEDGED that the statements we've attributed to you and the ones that you actually said have so little difference between as to make them one hundred percent the same, by you yourself making that same assertion about Gaius statement regarding prostate cancer. To put it more simply so that even you can understand, however you state it, in your view, biology = destiny if and only if you happen to be a woman. That's a SIMPLISTIC and CONVENIENT worldview, right there, especially so, considering that you ARE male, no? So, again, self-projection, much?

    Reply
  198. Sorry, but you're talking to someone who pretty much spends her life parsing words and finding actual wiggle room in what was actually said, to ever convince me that these two things are NOT exactly the same: meaning this "women who don't want to be pregnant should blame nature," and this "people who resent the fact that men can't should blame nature". Given that you're the ones who typically only resort to the nachurel causes and laws and attribution of responsibility for the functions of ones organs when it comes to women and giving birth, by RIGHTS the ones who should be placing the blame on nature for the uterine dependency of the fetus are YOU people. Not us, in any way, whatsoever.

    Reply
  199. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a premeditated liar like every other pro-choice troll on this thread, and explain this one. More. Time.

    I was responding specifically to the claim that anti-abortion laws are "sexist" because there's not an analogous restriction on men, as if this in and of itself was a reason to continue allowing abortion.

    So I pointed out that was a ridiculous complaint because the fact that a direct male analogue to abortion — a procedure that kills a separate human being — simply doesn't exist is a fact of biology completely beyond our control. We didn't make it that way, can't do anything about it. Hence, "blame nature" FOR THAT. I did NOT say to just "blame nature" for other aspects of the debate.

    Finally clear enough, yet?

    Reply
  200. I love the irony that you of all people are peddling this lie. SPL readers may be curious to know that these are the comments that got you banned:

    In Libertarian paradise I say shoot them upon expression of an anti abortion opinion.

    liveactionnews.org/breaking-marlise-munoz-removed-from-life-support/#comment-1228501863

    If I were in charge of social order in Libertarian Paradise, and in that Paradise each and everyone is in charge evidently, you are the first one I would shoot.

    liveactionnews.org/breaking-marlise-munoz-removed-from-life-support/#comment-1229575653

    Reply
  201. They are fantasies not plans or promises.

    Your fantasy is making the rape and breeder slavery of women enforced by law.

    So only your fantasies of violence are permissible and mine are not?

    Just as only your morals are to be considered and mine are not. I get that. And I say No thank you.

    In Libertarian Paradise, given the behavior of forced birther cultists in the REAL WORLD, I would stand my ground and shoot a clinic stalker soon as look at it.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss my fantasy here in front of a larger audience. What a poverty your world is. No sex. No fantasy. WTF is wrong with you? Where are you on the autism scale?

    Reply
  202. Thanks for the link. I knew that name sounded familiar. I have a copy of "Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture" on my bookshelf.

    Reply
  203. I gave my copy away years ago, along with 'Cannibals and Kings'.

    I sincerely believe that we are at the mercy of the environment – even if we are responsible, through our technology – of creating that environment. Climate change hello.

    Reply
  204. If you think it's an "insufficient" reason, you simply lack empathy. Nobody wishes to "blame nature" because men can't get pregnant. You want to blame women for not wanting to be pregnant at any opportunity. IF it were possible for you to become pregnant, you would recognize that no matter whether you do everything possible not to be pregnant at a very bad time, it happens. We are human and not infallible. Every pregnancy does NOT need to result in a baby.

    Reply
  205. You are being paraphrased. You're a smart boy. You know what that means. And if the paraphrasing is inaccurate, then you should make yourself clear. Whining about the life of the fetus isn't doing that. That's, in fact, reinforcing her characterization of your statement. The life of the fetus is dependent upon a person who is an actual person, and not a vessel or an appliance. The fetus is human and alive (like my arm is alive) and it may be unwanted. You will never succeed in making it wanted, nor forcing a woman to carry it against her will. She will find a way to lose the pregnancy or die trying.

    Reply
  206. Execution is a punishment levied by the state. Abortion is nothing like execution. Abortion removes the embryo/fetus and other products of conception from the uterus of an unwilling host. The uterus is an organ belonging to a woman (not YOU), and she doesn't want the embryo/fetus there. It's just that simple.

    Reply
  207. Calvin I've read enough of your writing to see that it's not based in much fact and it's misogynistic. I'm sure I could find an example from anything you've posted at LAN.

    Reply
  208. Right-O! Excuse me. I get extremely ugly vibes coming from the story of a suicidal pregnant rape victim in Ireland being forcibly restrained and force-fed until her fetus was delivered by C-section at 25 weeks. She asked for an abortion, and I don't blame her. Her situation under the law called for an abortion. She was suicidal. She was treated as no better than a barnyard animal, breeding sow and fetus farm. That's a freaking human being we're discussing, not an Easy Bake Oven. TIED DOWN AND FORCIBLY FED. TORTURED. That's ugly. It's inhumane treatment. And it's your end-game. I want no part of that.

    Reply
  209. If you believe abortion is murder, don't have one. It's legally NOT murder. And never was, even when illegal. And the law is the only thing that matters. The law says killing (not murder) is legally justified under some circumstances. That isn't likely to change, so may as well deal with it.

    Reply
  210. Murder is a 100% legal construct which does not now, and never has applied to abortion. Murder is not, and never has been the equivalent of "killing."

    Reply
  211. You are correct. Moral high-ground doesn't come cheaply. And being opposed to abortion is a very cheap way of being pro-life, because it never costs you anything. An unwanted pregnancy is always "someone else's problem" both before and after birth.

    Reply
  212. Absolutely not anything wrong with being asexual. Did not mean to imply that for a moment. I mean only that it is hard for the Asexual to understand someone like my who is hyper sexual and hyper fertile. I give thanks for aging. Whole sex thing has simmered down quite a bit. For which I am very grateful.

    Reply
  213. Yeah, having an abortion is not being an aggressor. EVER. It may be self-defense, as in my mom's case. But it's never "being an aggressor." My uterus doesn't belong to you, and it doesn't belong to a hypothetical gestation either.

    Reply
  214. Calvine wrote:

    **I see you’re conveniently leaving out those who protest the destruction of embryos to obtain stem cells. Or protest IVF because it creates so many human lives only to dispose of them.**

    No. These people are STILL not acting as if they 'believe that fertilized eggs are real babies'. They are not acting as if they believe they are real babies with regards to their OWN behavior, and holding funerals for tampons or rushing around the country consulting specialists to do someting about the 80% of fertilized eggs that die of natural causes. They are only acting (pretending) that the fertilized eggs are 'real babies' with regards to trying to control and punish OTHERS.

    **Or who actually do adopt snowflake babies.**

    And so? I've bought duck eggs to incubate when I've wanted baby ducks at a cheaper price. It doesn't mean I think the egg is the same thing as a 'real baby duck'.

    **Or who protest aborting your child for having a disability.**

    Again, a desires to impose responsibility on others that they are counting on the odds and nature that they will never have to live with themselves.

    **Or who mourn or even hold funerals for children lost to miscarriage.**

    And the tampon funerals for those who claim that fertilized eggs and early term embryos are 'real babies' are held where, exactly? Or are you trying to pretend that funerals for 6 month fetuses are somehow 'proof' that these people 'really believe' that fertilized eggs are 'real babies'. Sorry, no. Only tampon funerals would be proof of that, and I don't see those happening.

    **Ever heard of prenatal health guidelines? Fetal surgery?**

    Again, the same thing, trying to claim that how people think of and treat a 6 month fetus is 'proof' that they REALLY think of a fertilized egg the same way, rather than just pretending they do, in order to control others. Sorry, no. Surgery on a 6 month fetus may be proof that people think of a 6 month fetus as (or close to) a 'real baby'. It proves NOTHING as to how they really think of a fertilized egg or month old embryo. I would have to see pro-lifers frantically rushing across the country and selling their house to see specialists to do something about all the 80% of their (or their wives) precious little zefs that fail to implant or miscarry in the first month, to consider that proof.

    **So rabid is your bigotry that you don’t even allow for the possibility that people you disagree with might simply be mistaken**

    'Mistaken' people do not consistently cosmetically small parts of their beliefs to avoid logical inconsistencies others have pointed out, or alternately create a hugely complex gerrymandered position to avoid every logical contadiction, while still being able to conveniently retain a premise that allows them to control others.

    Nor do they talk contradictory nonsense such as you do, and claim that people have rights because they are 'human', and that these rights exist because of human being's 'rational and moral faculties', yet somehow have nothing to do with the human brain.

    Oh, and btw, I'm actually not impressed by your brags that you're still a virgin. For a man to both be sexually repressed like you, and to desire to punish others for their sexual activities (like you) is a big warning flag of a possible potential serial killer.

    Reply
  215. Oh yeah. 366 'snowflake babies' born last year? Out of how many pro-life women who claim to think they are 'real babies'? Doesn't sound to me like they are willing to go through pregnancy to save the 'real babies'. They just want everyone else to.

    Oh, though experiment here. A mad surgeon kidnaps a MAN and implants an embryo next to his intestines, and hooks up a blood vessel to it. A doctor says that the MAN can probably carry the embryo to a viable age, and have it surgically removed at that point, but there is a strong possibility of the man being permanently physically weakened, and a small possibility of the man dying.

    Should the man be forced by law to keep the embryo inside him. If not, why not? Because he didn't have sex? Because he's a man and not a woman? Because such a state is not 'natural' for the man?

    Reply
  216. Umm, no. I've studied human psychology. Sexual repression and a desire to punish others for their sexuality are big red flags for a potential future serial killer.

    Reply
  217. ** a desperate need to assure themselves that woman are naturally prone to subservience.**

    A great many of them are. Face facts, women are physically weaker then men. The only way a woman is not going to be subservient is in a machine age, where machines let her do as much work as a man, and if she owns a gun, which lets her defend herself from a man. The vote is still out on whether our machine civilization will remain for any significant length of time, and most women are such idiotic baa-ing sheep that they are anti-gun.

    Reply
  218. **No, pregnancy is not a disease. It is, however, a medical condition.**

    People do not have an obligation to live with any medical condition in their own bodies, natural or unnatural, desirable or undesirable, that they happen not to want to live with. Not for 9 short months. Not for 9 short minutes.

    Reply
  219. Totally understand. I agree with the age thing. I used to be very hypersexual from my teen years to late 30s. Now at middle age I'm much more mellow.

    Reply
  220. That 'idea' has already been floated around here. A regular wrote an article about how she believes, in her heart, and her head, that embryos are 100pct rational beings, it's just that she can't shed a tear if an embryo dies. However, they are 100pct real people for sure!!!!!!

    Reply
  221. In Afghanistan, anatomy is destiny if born with a uterus
    theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/22/girls-boys-afghanistan-daughters-raised-as-sons-puberty-bacha-posh

    Afghani girls have zero say in who they will marry, at what age they will have sex (think 8 or 9) and how many children they will bear. Its gendered slavery.

    Reply
  222. I have never heard a pro life argument that is not a fallacy. It would be good for you to point out a recent or past pro life statement that is not a fallacy. Can you do that for me?

    Reply
  223. consult a dictionary. subservient does not mean weak. we are all well aware that women are often physically weaker than men. that does NOT mean we are more naturally prone to enslavement.

    Reply
  224. my body didn't force me to continue the pregnancy? yes, it did. only by taking direct action against my body could i have eliminated the pregnancy that my body was quite diligently nurturing.

    Reply
  225. that analogy only works if you equate pregnancy with slavery. in which case, you equate the functions of the female body with enslavement.

    i don't believe that women are natural-born slaves.

    Reply
  226. You murdered my children I tried to save, so how could I molest them. You also plan to murder your own children. I have made the honorable choice, I save your children from your attempts to let them die, by exposing your murders to the world.

    Reply
  227. Pro lifers have a choice, they may save innocent born babies or they may choose to let those babies die and save a fetus instead. Pro lifers make the intentional choice to let babies die.

    Reply
  228. No, sorry, but you're wrong. You could have chosen to have an abortion, but you didn't make that choice. You actively made a choice to continue that pregnancy–you were not a passive participant.

    Reply
  229. very interesting article.
    obviously, countries like Afghanistan hold a perverted view of womanhood: that the uterus is a tool for enslavement. I don't agree with that outlook. abortion is just the flipside of that same mentality: "abortion is a right because a woman's uterus is a means of enslavement. damn those enslaving uteri."

    Reply
  230. So in your opinion, Afghani girls should have no say in how many pregnancies they bear? That this decision should be left to anyone but the girl?

    Reply
  231. Your argument fails. 70 percent of conceptions die naturally in abortion. If pro lifers believe that every conception is a "child" then men can choose not to have sex and end every abortion that could possibly happen. Their are 1.4 induced abortions and 10 natural abortions each second. By choosing to have sex, men cause all those deaths. If you want to end abortion, stop men from having sex.

    Reply
  232. You said that forced pregnancy is NOT slavery, that it is merely your body nurturing a new life.

    Should Afghani girls be permitted to end their pregnancies? Or are they evil if they thwart nature by refusing to have 20 kids?

    Reply
  233. You chose to continue that pregnancy. You could have ended it. You didn't . You made a decision to keep your pregnancy. What about this is so hard to understand?

    Reply
  234. correct, pregnancy is not a form of enslavement. a woman's body can not enslave her. unfortunately, other humans can enslave her. in this case [in most cases], men essentially enslave women.

    that's the difference. you blame the pregnancy for her enslavement, i blame the man for it.

    Reply
  235. Your posts have already been disputed. You call me an "evil psychopath" and place irrational unfounded judgements on me and at the same time launch personal attacks against me. The only evil I see is forcing your beliefs or anti-choice beliefs on women's reproductive health decisions.

    Reply
  236. i don't believe pregnancy is enslavement, so how could i want to make women slaves to biology?
    biology is not a slavemaster. i'm sorry that you believe it is.

    Reply
  237. And if you were forced to have 20 babies against your will, you would NOT consider that to be slavery, because pregnancy = natural.

    Reply
  238. when did i say other people have the right to enslave women? i specifically stated that the MAN is to blame for the woman's enslavement. you seek to reduce man's culpability by pointing fingers at pregnancy. once again, hideous misogyny.

    Reply
  239. Yes. So you side with the men who impregnatr 8 year old girls and force them to bear a child every year until they die

    You side with antebellum slaveowners, who raped female slaves and forced them to bear children from puberty until death.

    You side with people who treat women like cows.

    Reply
  240. You certainly don't talk about your pregnancy in a positive manner. In fact everything you've said, that it was unwanted, against your will, is negative. And you seem to have a desire to force other women to be as miserable as you were.

    Reply
  241. Abortion is the choice for someone who no longer wants to be pregnant, for whatever reason. It's not up too you to judge the reasons.

    Reply
  242. Yep.

    She reminds me of a very confused young woman who came to accuse everyone on TFA of being heartless baby killers. This woman let us know that she found us to be profoundly evil, and that she could never kill her unborn babby…

    Then she told us about the time she had a pregnancy scare and how she prayed and prayed that she would miscarry, and then she did, and she was *so* happy that her precious unborn babby had miscarried, because she really didn't want to be pregnant.

    Talk about cognitive dissonance eh?

    And if you read through here, there are numerous women who 1) procured an abortion 2) yelled at the abortioneers whilst getting the abortion, accusing them of being heartless murderers

    mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

    Reply
  243. who forces me to have these 20 babies? my own body? my body is not a tool of enslavement. if my body creates 20 embryos, i will be appalled, but i will not assume that means my female body is a tool of enslavement.

    Reply
  244. uhhhh, considering the fact that i don't plan on getting pregnant again for quite some time….yeah….i like to think i have a choice in whether or not i get knocked up.
    thanks for inquiring.

    Reply
  245. haha, that presumption would only work if man had control over whether or not a woman's body gestates. he doesn't. the uterus and such handles all that.

    sorry if the word 'uterus' made you wince. i promise it won't try to enslave you.

    Reply
  246. No, that's you. You don't think that a woman who becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be should be able to end that pregnancy. You don't think she can make her own decision.

    Reply
  247. I really this is some sort of projection with her. She doesn't say anything about 'life' or 'babies', she's just pissed that she got trapped with one and she'll be damned if anyone else goes free. It's all about her.

    Reply
  248. Your belief is not every woman's belief. Your choice will not be and should not be every woman's choice. Other women's pregnancies are not all about you, Mariel. And unless you can carry it for them, you don't get to decide. Deal with it.

    Reply

Leave a Comment