A salute to the pro-lifers of the internet

[Today’s guest writer is anonymous.]

It’s easy to dismiss online pro-life work as slacktivism. Sure, you might say, sharing your opinion on the internet will expose you to ad hominem attacks and insults—but if you really want to make a difference, go volunteer in the real world, reaching out to abortion-minded women. And of course reaching out to families in need is a great thing. But I want to challenge the assumption that internet activism is solely about the realm of ideas, while real-life activism is about actually helping people. It’s entirely possible for pro-lifers to assist pregnant mothers in need, without even leaving their homes.

There are numerous websites out there which (inadvertently) provide pro-lifers with the ability to dissuade individuals from seeking abortions. Simply Googling such sites (including forums, message boards, and blogs) will return a litany of locations where people are asking for advice about whether or not they should make a destructive, tragic decision about their unborn child. Yahoo! Answers often features such sad questions in sections regarding Women’s Health, Pregnancy, and Adolescent. If people are directly asking for internet opinions about whether their unborn children should live or die, pro-lifers have a duty to speak up—and to go further by sharing local resources that can provide material assistance.

Yahoo! Answers is uncensored. Other forums are unfortunately run by administrators who want to prevent women from hearing the pro-life perspective. Ironically, one of the worst offenders is BabyCenter.com. You’d think that a site called BabyCenter would have no involvement in the end of babies’ lives, but you’d be wrong. On that site, there are two forums dedicated to encouraging abortions: one for abortions for socioeconomic reasons, and one for abortions done because the baby has been diagnosed with a disability, such as Down Syndrome. BabyCenter.com actually does provide extensive information about prenatal development, revealing the humanity of the unborn child—but keeps that information segregated from the forums where they are most desperately needed. The admins block pro-lifers on both of the abortion boards; abortion is never discussed in less-than-positive terms, and the unborn child is dehumanized to the point of obscurity. It’s truly troubling and deeply depressing stuff, especially when one considers how many lives those two forums have taken in the span of roughly six years.

And yet, despite this, the censors haven’t won: BabyCenter’s direct messaging system remains available for pro-lifers to share the truth to women considering abortion. On BabyCenter, Yahoo! Answers, and a plethora of other sites, a compassionate, understanding pro-life advocate—taking a religiously neutral position, of course—can indeed provide a lifeline to women who are struggling.

I understand people feeling discouraged. Some days you look at the internet and see little more than pro-abortion trolling. But the internet is an incredibly valuable asset to the pro-life movement. It provides pro-life individuals with practical outlets to make their visions of peace and nonviolence into a reality. So hook up your laptop and get to it!

370 thoughts on “A salute to the pro-lifers of the internet”

  1. It is interesting that pro-life people would feel discouraged. The abortion rate is at an all time post-Roe low. At 16.9% it is almost half of the 1980 high point of 29.6%. This is a contentious issue and one in which anyone (on either side) who thinks that the stakes aren't that high is a pinhead. Thinking that "you're side" (regardless of which side that is) is going to just bend half the country to your will seems utterly irrational to me. But, hey, that's just me, I suppose.

    Why it has decreased is, IMO at least, is a matter of some discussion and, again IMO, likely to be an assortment of reasons, rather than any single one. Both pro-choice and pro-life people, despite their differences, have common interests where they could work together to advance both of their causes, at least in theory. My guess, totally unsupported of course, is that this where progress is most likely.

    My only gripe with activism, internet or otherwise, is that people, myself included unfortunately, all too often think that changing people's minds involves something other than working with them to address their real concerns.

    Reply
  2. I applaud the pro lifers who support legislation that helps pregnant women. Sadly, they are not the strongest most vocal force in the PL movement, as that belongs to the evangelicals, who use abortion and contraception as a dog whistle to force those filthy independent sluts back into the kitchen, biblical style, where they belong.

    Reply
  3. No you don't, not if you seek to legally obligate women to remain pregnant against their will, knowing that many women *will* die and that many *will* be irreparably harmed.

    Reply
  4. If you want to resort to character assassination in discussing this matter, then there's nothing more for me to do. Likewise, if you remain incapable of recognizing that there are two lives involved in every pregnancy, then I can't do anything more to make you see that fact.

    Reply
  5. Many young people and consistent life ethicists have taken it upon themselves to educate people on the dangers of all forms of violence. That's what I'm getting at here.

    Reply
  6. It isn't character assassination. You can claim that you respect women's lives until you are blue in the face, but if you mandate forcing women to remain pregnant, with the full knowledge that a percentage of women will DIE as a result, then how can you, with a straight face, claim that you care about female life?

    I have been told, by many on this site, that a rise in maternal mortality is an acceptable scenario, because more embryos will be saved if abortion is illegal.

    Reply
  7. Actually, it is. You're attributing a viewpoint to me which I do not hold. The destruction of all life is unacceptable, and everything should be done to save both lives involved in a pregnancy. Furthermore, I don't see how it's pro-woman to support the killings of roughly 62,500 girls per day.

    Reply
  8. Not all women can be saved from dying from pregnancy. Pregnancy related deaths can neither be predicted nor prevented with strict accuracy.

    How is a lifesaving abortion going to help a woman who bleeds to death during birth?

    How is a lifesaving abortion going to help a woman who is bipolar and commits suicide because pregnancy hormonal imbalances made the symptoms worse?

    How about all of the desperate girls who will attempt unsafe abortion with a pencil? Or poison? Or suicide?

    You know that All of the above will happen if abortion is illegal. Yet you still want to ban it.

    So, I stand by what I said, you cannot claim to be for female life when you know that legislation you approve of WILL KILL WOMEN AND GIRLS.

    Reply
  9. And the lack of legislation you support has also led to those things, in addition to the deaths of millions of other unborn girls (and boys).

    Consistent life ethicists support life for everyone, not just one class of people.

    Clearly, I can't engage with you on this issue without you resorting to some level of intellectual dishonesty. So, I won't.

    Reply
  10. You are not consistent if you support legislation that you know for a FACT will kill women. Sorry.

    You should be honest, like other abortion opponents here, and admit that a few thousand dead women is acceptable in order to save embryos. Because that is *exactly* what PL legislation will result in.

    Reply
  11. I understand the pro-life standpoint and I don't have the same pointed criticism of it when it is expressed in the way you put it rather than an appeal to tradition or essentialism or pseudo-philosophical arguments relating to responsibility (e.g., Humanae Vitae). Rather, I agree with you in so much as I think what you have expressed is ONE of the values that we should live by.
    That being said, the pro-choice position is underpinned by appeals to individual freedom, or more accurately, autonomy. The idea that each of us gets to choose the kind of life we live is also a powerful value we seem to hold. Especially in a society in which we seem rather skeptical about using societal resources to compensate individuals for personal choices they make.
    That, I think, is the crux of the problem. We have two fundamental values that come into conflict here (and a third if you hold a politically libertarian viewpoint).
    IMO the problem is
    exasperated because both sides seem to think that issue should be easily resolved without actually addressing and finding a solution to the conflict. That is, both sides prefer to resort to brute political force to "get their way." I think this is bad for finding a solution to this particular problem and, more generally, why American politics is so dysfunctional that sometime I hope we get invaded by Canada.

    Reply
  12. Actually, I think that acknowledging that fact (two lives) on BOTH sides is the first step in actually making some real progress on this issue.
    Unfortunately, however, I think most people, on both sides, are too interested in "winning" to do that.

    Reply
  13. I'm game.

    I think that most of the consistent life ethicists I've talked to are capable of addressing that fact. It's all about going mainstream, though.

    Reply
  14. Yep. And it comes down to which lives should take precedence. Honest pro lifers will admit that women should die to save a greater number of embryos. It is strictly utilitarian.

    I guess if a woman was unconscious in an IVF clinic, and 1000 embryos were housed next door, and there was a fire, and there was only time to save one, the pro lifer would save the embryos, because embryos = more lives.

    Reply
  15. Oh secular natural law. How cute. I'm wondering something: do you think that I could change your mind about abortion by appealing to Kant? I expect not.
    So why do you think that appeals to secular natural lawz ("philosphizen') are likely to be very persuasive with regards to convincing someone that they should do something as life changing as having a child when they either don't have the resources or rebel against the very idea being forced to have a child against their will?

    Reply
  16. I'd argue that natural law protects all individuals and their lives, liberties, and properties. Those protections would be expanded to all lives in a truly fair society.

    Reply
  17. I'm reminded of the neoconservatives who argue that we need to bomb them before they bomb us. Or that we need to torture The Terrorists™ before they kill an innocent person.

    I keep forgetting not to engage.

    Reply
  18. See. This is the point where dialogue always breaks down.
    PCers are REALLY committed to the idea of autonomy. Arguing that some nar'url law somehow trumps those concerns leads the unenviable position where we are the world leaders in late term abortion. Yay 'merica!
    Really, its the intellectual equivalent of PCers who argue with PLers by trying saying things like "an eight month fetus is just a clump of cells." Great! Good to know! Glad we all agree!

    Reply
  19. And Canada is somehow a society which values unborn life?

    No, I think that individualism and the protection of unborn life can be reconciled. I may not agree with everything he said, but Lysander Spooner made many good constitutional arguments in the name of defeating slavery.

    Reply
  20. Read my post below. My main point is that individual liberty extends only so far as one is not jeopardizing another's life.

    Reply
  21. "Evasion."

    …is your middle name.

    I oppose progressives who favor the destruction of unborn lives, and I oppose neoconservatives who favor the destruction of Afghan/Iraqi/Pakistani lives. Neither side is consistently pro-life.

    Reply
  22. Yeah, that's productive. Argue that the state should decide that a woman's uterine wall isn't hers by appeals to slavery.
    Ugh. This is why PLers get labeled misogynists. Its not anything about being PL per se that entails that someone be a misogynist to be a PLer. But those that thing that a woman's physical integrity and her interest in her own autonomy are so trivial that they don't need anything more than, at the very most, a gloss over are rather hardcore misogynists.

    Reply
  23. Reading comprehension is key. I said that one can use constitutional arguments to advance the cause of human life, and I used slavery as a past example of that.

    No, I'm not a misogynist. I don't despise somebody because of a factor they cannot control (gender, race, sexual orientation). There are two lives involved in every pregnancy, and failing to recognize that the unborn child's is her own is unscientific. That's what the opposition fails to recognize.

    Reply
  24. So you admit that you are not in fact consistently pro life, since dead women is an acceptable loss to save unborn lives.

    Reply
  25. You have no room to pretend to understand what being pro-life means, since you disregard the 62,500 girls killed through abortion every day.

    Reply
  26. If individual liberty does not extend to your body internally then that concept is content void.
    Your posts have an utter disregard for liberty issues other that being born. After that, meh, it seems. Fair enough. You don't care about the hardship that the rules you want to impose will cause. OK. That, I take it, is because you don't see those that you harm as being worthy of your concern.
    But don't complain when your concerns are treated in the same dismissive way.

    Reply
  27. You haven't managed to refute me, you just come up with ad homs.

    You cannot logically claim to be FOR EVERY LIFE if you want to force some people to die.

    Forced gestation and birth will kill women. This is a FACT.

    Reply
  28. You're the one who's being dismissive…of the unborn child's right to her body.

    I've read the other side's arguments, and I disagree with the notion that the unborn child's body is the mother's property. And like I've said before, we should do everything we can to help pregnant women. I'm not in favor of tossing them out in the cold. There are two things which need to be done: protecting all life by refusing to acknowledge the destruction of any life as legitimate, and working to help those in dire circumstances through any nonviolent means possible.

    Reply
  29. Two lives, you say. Odd, you only seem to care about one of them. Interesting.
    But if you are talking about tactics then, sure, you can make constitutional claims in support of PL positions. And I can make constitutional claims in support of PC positions. Heck, you'd be hard pressed not to be able to make constitutional claims in support of any position if you have even a modicum of creativity. So what?

    Reply
  30. 62,500 girls.

    You're the one who compared me to slavers; your every argument, from the very beginning of this conversation, has been marked by character assassination and ad hominems.

    Double yawn.

    Reply
  31. Being PL means privileging the unborn over women's autonomy, health and lives.
    At least honest pro lifers will admit this.

    Reply
  32. I agree. I am being dismissive. Do you find it persuasive? No? THAT is my point.
    Why do you think being dismissive on your end is likely to be anymore persuasive?
    I can assure you that it is not. In fact, I find that people like you are no small part of the reason that I tend to think all PLers are Rick Santorum clones.

    Reply
  33. I care about both. Like I said, we should help everyone facing dire circumstances. If you cannot see that I am in favor of helping both the woman and her unborn child, then I can't open your eyes. But you cannot help both by destroying one life.

    And you cannot extend constitutional arguments to favor destroying human lives.

    Reply
  34. Yes, condemning women to a loss of autonomy, physical harm and death in favour of a fetus is exactly what the slavers did.

    Reply
  35. Rick Santorum favors warfare. I don't.

    I've read the arguments made by the opposition claiming that autonomy legitimizes destroying other lives. My rebuttal is that autonomy does not extent toward violating others' rights, including the rights of the unborn.

    I have made that point before.

    Reply
  36. Youre not in favour of helping the woman if you know for a fact that the pregnancy could irreparably harm and even kill her. Empty words.

    Reply
  37. The unborn human has no right to the woman's body, just as slavers had no right to their slave's bodies.

    See how that works?

    Reply
  38. I could care less about your appeal to warfare. I had pizza for lunch. So what? That is a really weird non-sequitor, bro.
    But, OK, lets take you at you face value when you say that you value women as actual persons and not just baby makers. I have a question then, how do you think that society should shield women from the harshness of your proposed legal rules? How do you think that they should be compensated for being forced to something as big as bring a child into the world against their will?
    Because if you're answer is, fck em', not my problem, you can save me the crocodile tears.

    Reply
  39. Its always telling when people who say they value life think that their wallet should largely be immune from the values they profess.
    I see you value life soooo much that you'd be willing to help a women out, provided that it was in dire circumstances.

    Reply
  40. You have? No, you just deny and put your fingers in your ears and refuse to explain how it is possible to be *for all life* while willingly condemning women to death for having sex.

    Reply
  41. I'd be willing to help ANYONE if they were in trouble. I participate in charities and serve my community. I just don't boast about it.

    Reply
  42. No one should be allowed to end another person's life. Neither a man nor a woman should be given that ability; it's unjust.

    I don't view women as just "baby makers"; at no point did I suggest that, and if you associate all pro-life speech which condemns abortion as anti-woman, then there's nothing I can do for you.

    I'll help anyone who is in trouble, be it emotionally or financially. But I will not support the destruction of another person's life in the name of "autonomy".

    Reply
  43. If you know that women will die, and you know that this absolutely CANNNOT be prevented 100% of the time, then you can't claim that you want to help the woman.

    Reply
  44. If you want to place a huge burden on the lives of certain individuals, the least you should do is pay the full cost of admission.
    So, I suppose, you don't want women to have an abortion. Fine, you should compensate them for the emotional, physical, and financial hardship that results from the imposition of your preferences. If you balk at the idea, fine, but that seems like prima facie evidence that your concern only runs wallet deep.

    Reply
  45. It sounds as if you're holding the child hostage unless someone pays up.

    But yes, I would have no problem paying people to not kill other people.

    Reply
  46. OK. If you'd be willing to pay the full cost of the burden you want to impose then I don't really have much to criticize you about.
    But you're going to have to be willing to pony over the full amount not just pennies on the dollar.

    Reply
  47. Read. What. She. Says. On. That. Matter.

    Here's another link worth looking at: lifenews.com/2013/10/14/abortion-doctors-not-really-any-reason-for-an-abortion-to-save-a-mothers-life/.

    If you believe that it should be legal to kill millions in order to save a few, then you can't claim to profess morality. I want to save both, but I will not support the full-scale devaluation of unborn or born lives.

    Reply
  48. The "unborn child's life" is NOT "her own." You are correct that two *parties* are involved with every pregnancy. One party will get along just fine without the other. The other party, not so much. The "needy" party is always beholden to the interests of the one supplying the need when it comes to our physical structures. To put it a different way, your need for my blood (or any other tissues, organs, etc.) is secondary to my right to keep it for myself. Even if it means you die. If I decide to give you my blood, organs (including the use of my uterus) that's a gift. NOT an obligation.

    Reply
  49. Exactly. If a woman's body, life and health comes second to that of a fetus, because LIFE IS PRECIOUS, then why do PL wallets come before that life?

    Reply
  50. Fair enough. I'd be willing to trade increased restrictions on abortion in return for universal free healthcare, universal free day care, mandatory paid maternity care, etc…

    Reply
  51. If one were to extent that argument to money, he would be regarded as a social Darwinist.

    Depriving others of needed resources, be it money or a body they are physiologically bound to, is amoral. Hence my support for charities and my opposition to killing.

    Reply
  52. Would you advocate that a suicidal woman be forced to give birth, if the unwanted pregnancy is the source of the suicidal ideation?

    Reply
  53. Your argument:

    "I want to keep my wallet for myself." = evil.

    "I want to keep my body, which my child is physiologically dependent on, for myself." = moral.

    Reply
  54. If you are more concerned about your money than people's lives, then you certainly do.
    So, how much savings do you have and why haven't you used to save the lives that you say are so precious?

    Reply
  55. Thank you for being honest and finally admitting that women are of less value than embryos and that you are not in fact "for all life" as you consider women to be EXPENDABLE.

    Reply
  56. And if you are more concerned about your right to your body than other people's lives, then you certainly have no room to talk.

    Your second argument essentially boils down to shut up and give me everything you have.

    Reply
  57. Well, at least we've teased out your real concern. Well, good luck with your bank account.
    Now, if only those damn women would stop caring so much about their own lives….

    Reply
  58. You cannot help both, period. Here's a few other things you can't do. You can't make someone who really, really doesn't want to be pregnant accept the pregnancy. You cannot relegate women to gestational slavery because of sad feelies. And you cannot extend constitutional protections to the unborn. These protections vest at live birth. They vest at live birth precisely because you cannot force gestational slavery on women. Women are intelligent and will not accept that. She will destroy an unwanted pregnancy by any means necessary, just as real life slaves did. Even by the taking of her own life. Just how far into the police-state are you willing to go?

    Reply
  59. I won't be writing back to you anymore, so you might as well save your breath.

    If you aren't smart enough to realize that that isn't the worldview I hold, then you aren't smart enough to debate others. You used ad hominems, and I'm returning the favor.

    Bye.

    Reply
  60. My argument is that you should compensate people if you make then choses to do things they would not otherwise do.
    I'm a monster. I know.

    Reply
  61. Money would lower the infant mortality rate. If every pro lifer sold their house and paid for medical assistance, the lives of many sick babies could be saved.

    Reply
  62. No police state. Just an opposition to destroying an unborn life because he or she is inconvenient.

    Are the women in the womb also intelligent? You can save both, and those who deny that fail to understand the pro-life position.

    Reply
  63. That argument doesn't extend to money. Money is not bodies. And I don't "owe" any part of my physical body to anyone. EVER.

    Reply
  64. And my argument is that no man or woman should be able to end another's life. I'm a monster, I know.

    That's enough for today.

    Reply
  65. That would only happen if pro-lifers were as concerned about saving unborn lives as they say they are.
    Which they are not, of course.

    Reply
  66. Well if you don't believe in forced organ and tissue donation from everyone, then you are putting bodily autonomy ahead of lives.

    Reply
  67. And your real concern is not having to take care of others' lives.

    I will always insist on helping those who need help, but I won't declare that to the whole world for all to hear.

    Bye.

    Reply
  68. Yes you are. Not because you are against abortion but because you think that you should have no obligation for the misery you intend to cause.

    Reply
  69. "I will always insist on helping those who need help, but I won't declare that to the whole world for all to hear."
    Shhhhh….. It would just be horrible to express such a sentiment publically…

    Reply
  70. Because boasting about acts of, say, community service is what community service is all about.

    But yeah, I help people. I help people all the time. I could be helping people right now. But I'm wasting my time trying to talk to you.

    And now I'm done trying to talk to you.

    Reply
  71. Oh, it's clear that this is the worldview you hold, you are just too chickenshit to admit it, because it shows your true colors, which is why you keep telling me off.

    Reply
  72. Oh I understand it. And I understand the science (probably better than you). I have pointed out to you that 1) there are no women in wombs, 2) there is no intelligence in wombs, 3) you cannot help a fetus, only it's mother can help it, and she isn't obligated to do so. And finally 4) the constitution doesn't apply to potential persons, only actual persons. This is science, and this is law. Money is not the same thing as your body, so I'm ignoring any comparison you make between the two. You are not *using science* so stop deluding yourself. I get it that you have sad feelies about a lost pregnancy. Get over it. It's not your issue, and it never was.

    Reply
  73. And my argument is that no man or woman should be able to end another's life

    No, your argument is that pro-lifers should be able to end female lives through forced gestation and birth.

    Reply
  74. Explain to me why you think I hate women. Because I don't. I simply disagreed with your argument that the right to one's body extends to ending someone's life.

    I'm only interested in hearing your argument.

    Reply
  75. I should rephrase. I think that you display a rather shockingly callous disregard for the wellbeing of women. Here is my argument:
    P1: Respecting a person mean valuing the interests, concerns, goals, and wellbeing of the person.
    P2: You don't think that pregnant women who don't want to have a child has an interest in her autonomy that is even worth addressing let alone placing some modicum of value on.
    C1: You don't think (pregnant) women are worthy of respect.
    TO BE VERY CLEAR, I do NOT think that sort of callous disregard for women is typical for SPLers generally.

    Reply
  76. Here is my rebuttal, and I'll leave this here for all to read:

    Some seem to believe that I am anti-woman because I do not believe that the right to one's body extends to taking the life of the unborn child. I still hold to that, but it has nothing to do with the person being a woman and everything to do with the fact that the unborn child should not be killed.

    Likewise, there is never a need for direct abortion in order to save the mother's life. If the mother's life is in danger, then physicians should work to save both lives; if they can't, then they can work to save the life of the mother. There are always means of doing this without resorting to direct abortion, as Abby Johnson has written about in regards to ectopic pregnancies.

    I hope that clears things up.

    Reply
  77. I addressed these below.

    1. I understand her socioeconomic concerns. I think that we should help her by providing her with food, clothing, shelter, and any other nonviolent resources. But we shouldn't legitimize the idea that the unborn child's life should be taken.
    2. It should be addressed. I get why women don't want to give birth; I just don't think it should be legal. Instead, financial and personal support. And no screaming "murderer". That doesn't help.
    3. I respect pregnant women, and I'll help make their lives easier in any nonviolent way possible.

    I hope that cleared things up, again.

    Reply
  78. Is there really so much pro-abortion trolling on the Internet?
    Your anonymous commenter forgot to congratulate this blog for a comments-section that is, as far as I can see, completely free of it.

    Reply
  79. "Some seem to believe that I am anti-woman because I do not believe that the right to one's body extends to taking the life of the unborn child."
    NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
    I'm certainly not painting all pro-lifers as woman haters. You are one because you don't give a sht about the misery your proposed rule will cause to women.
    So here is the difference. You could care for starters. And you could show that care by showing how you think that we could change the legal rules we live in to make the effect of your proposal less harsh.
    Or you can walk around with your baby killer sign. Your choice.

    Reply
  80. I just said that I hate the term "baby killer" and would never use it.

    I do care. I just said that we should give them the resources that they need. But we shouldn't legalize the destruction of life; most pro-lifers recognize that abortion should not be legal. Like I said, let's ban it, but let's also make it unthinkable by giving people what they need to prevent it from happening: financial resources. Makes their lives easier.

    Reply
  81. Let's help them by giving them everything they need so that ending their unborn children's lives will remain unthinkable, while also seeing to it that such an act will not be legitimized or legalized.

    Reply
  82. Nah. I just couldn't resist making a snarky comment about secular natural law, whatever that is supposed to be.
    I have to admit that I find the whole notion that we should look to nature for moral inspiration as rather counter intuitive.

    Reply
  83. They only look to nature when it comes to abortion, as they can't say that life trumps bodily autonomy and then deny dying 5 year old children their bone marrow (,because tissue donation is not natural).

    Reply
  84. Many of the posters here are well aware of the harm that pregnancy can cause. They have acknowledged this, and explained that unborn life is more important. However, they just use more euphemisms and speak of negative and positive rights. They hide behind elite intellectualism, but in the end they know full well that what they seek will cause misery, and they don't care.

    Reply
  85. Yes, you are definitely anti-woman, as you put your wallet and your own bodily organs ahead of 'saving lives' yet you are completely nonchalant about harming and even sending women to their deaths should abortion be outlawed.

    Likewise, there is never a need for direct abortion in order to save the mother's life

    Not true at all. In certain cases the embryo will have to be removed in pieces.

    Reply
  86. 1) You gonna fork over 250k to raise a kid? You gonna pay her hospital bills and lost wages if she loses her job because she came down with toxemia and has to spend a month in bed?

    Yeah. Thought not.

    2) Financial and personal support aren't gonna help a woman who would rather be dead than be forced to gestate. What are you going to do, tie her down for 9 months and force feed her?

    3) No, you don't respect pregnant women at all, which is why you would gleefully condemn them to death by fetus for the crime of having sex and/or being raped.

    Reply
  87. Oh there are ways we could work together. But you're assuming that reducing the number of abortions is really their goal. It isn't. What they want is to control the fate of women via their fertility. There's no way to work together with that goal in mind.

    Reply
  88. No, there are NOT *always* ways of dealing with ectopic pregnancy that do not involve "direct abortion." You are babbling meaningless papist nonsense. Catholicism is full of pretending. Removing the entire fallopian tube is just as "direct" an abortion as cutting into the tube and removing the embryo. The difference to the embryo is none. but the woman is punished with infertility. There are ways to treat ectopic pregnancy without inflicting infertility on the woman, and they ought to be used. There is no harm done to the embryo either way, because a tubal pregnancy is not sustainable under any circumstances.

    Reply
  89. In all fairness, that is their right to do so. They don't owe bone marrow to anyone. And you don't owe the use of your uterus to anyone either.

    Reply
  90. I agree and I disagree, but this is just my opinion, so take it for what its worth.
    I don't think that very many PLers are using abortion as a mere pretext to control women's fertility (are sexuality).
    I do think that many pro-lifers, especially the religious variety, do think that it is important to control women's fertility (and sexuality). I think these are two interrelated but separate goals though. These folks are easy to identify– they spend an inordinate amount of time pratting on about responsibility and how the purpose of sex is procreation.
    And I do think that there are PLers who are not motivated to control women or by pernicious old world believes about sex, sin, souls, etc..
    Its the last group of PLers (and NOT the first two) that I think PCers (who are motivated by the right reasons as well) really ought to be able to work together. Because many of the policies that would actually reduce the demand for abortion are policies that would make women's choices regarding pregnancy and abortion less constrained in a meaningful way.
    Or at least that is my take on it.

    Reply
  91. Sure they do. And the secular ones prattle on about responsibility, too. They omit the ooga-booga about "souls" and "gods" and substitute nature and so-called human rights. Only there is no human right to the body of another, ever. And women are the ones with the human rights, including the right to determine the trajectory of her own life, and not have that plan derailed by a random biological occurrence. Scratch the surface of any anti-choicer, and you get a misogynist. EVERY time.

    Reply
  92. Point being, they prattle on about how life is precious, so *very* precious that women must be deprived of their bodily autonomy, and perhaps even harmed or killed, but when you bring up their wallets or their bone marrow to save the PRECIOUS LIFE of a dying child, they suddenly list 500 reasons as to why it is wrong to deprive them of their money and/or their bodily autonomy.

    If life is so precious that it requires such a sacrifice from women, then why isn't life as precious under any other circumstance? Why does this rule ONLY apply to pregnancy?

    Reply
  93. Yeah. KB went on at length about the preciousness of life, and how it is a tragedy if cut short, but she assured me that her concern only applies to the unjust death of embryos and not diseased children.

    So the lesson I get from this is that ONLY embryonic life is precious, based on location.

    Reply
  94. I wouldn't. That being said, if all those things were reality, abortion rates would decrease all on their own. There would be no need for more restrictions, because women wouldn't be pressured as they are here. Nations that have those things also have liberal abortion laws, but much lower abortion rates.

    Reply
  95. Not very often I meet someone more pessimistic about human nature than myself.
    I think I share your visceral reaction when people think that they can dismiss the real world implications of their actions through ostensibly disinterred "arguments." Nietzsche's insight about people who are quick to punish seems on point here.
    Still, there is plenty of content here about helping women in need out, providing better maternity care, etc that, in my opinion at least, shouldn't be dismissed.

    Reply
  96. Of course it shouldn't be dismissed! If we had a society that did more for women and mothers than "lip service" there would be no need for restrictions on abortion. That isn't what they want.

    Reply
  97. Yeah, they will talk about universal healthcare and whatnot, but when push comes to shove, they want to see abortion banned before any socialist reforms materialize, if they ever do.

    I don't have a problem with the folks who simply want to change hearts and minds, as they are not voting to deprive women of their rights. Though the misogyny can still be irritating

    Reply
  98. I was reading a thread for 'mums' out of the UK the other day. They were discussing a young mom who was having a hard time coping with her little kids – no family near, partner not near helpful enough, etc. They suggested calling social services, which would have a worker come around for evaluation, then provide a helper to come tale the kids for a couple hours a week.

    Many of the other women had been there, done that and had glowing things to say about the services, that just that little time to themselves to look forward to each week got them through.

    Socialism! Communism Yeah, and who knows how many families' sanity saved each year. Gotta be be 'satan's work, for sure.

    Reply
  99. Nature – the actual, observable kind – has shown us that pregnancy and childbirth are often the most deadly times of a woman's life. How many of us have grandfathers, et al, with one, two, three wives and numerous children? Those weren't divorces those couples were getting, people. Figure it out.

    Reply
  100. 'unborn child's right to her body.'

    ……………………………
    There is no body until I make it out of my flesh and pain. I will decide when and if to do that. YOU will decide nothing.

    Reply
  101. An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
    Ayn Rand
    “Of Living Death”
    The Voice of Reason, 58–59

    Reply
  102. **I'm opposed to killing anyone, be it through abortion, war, the death penalty, or any other method.**

    Such as your spending spare money on cable TV and eating meat, rather than giving up tv, and being a vegetarian? Because by doing the former, rather than donating all your extra money to charity, you are starving 3rd world people to death.

    Reply
  103. **There are two lives involved in every pregnancy**

    The same is true if a dialysis patient 'needs' your kidney for his 'very life'. As it is if you have a tapeworm in your intestine.

    **failing to recognize that the unborn child's is her own is unscientific**

    If the embryo cannot sustain it's own life, without parasitizing the mother, then the embryo does not and cannot own it's own life. At any rate, it's irrelevent, as is the fact that a dialysis patient's life is their own. That doesn't give them a right to your kidney.

    Reply
  104. **Depriving others of needed resources, be it money or a body they are physiologically bound to, is amoral. Hence my support for charities and my opposition to killing.**

    So, you're claiming here that you live in a single room with several other people, live on a diet of rice, potatoes, and other staples, have no TV, and have donated all the money you might have spent on a larger dwelling, meat, and entertainment to charity, and also have only one lung and one kidney.

    Otherwise you're full of shit

    Reply
  105. Actually, you are demonstrably full of shit. Either you have a computer, which you don't need for your very life, and have spent money on that could have been spent buying food for people, or else you are sitting on your ass at the public library using THEIR computer, when you could have been using that time to work and donate the money you earned to buy food for people.

    Reply
  106. **If you believe that it should be legal to kill millions in order to save a few,**

    Which pretty much describes the use of antibiotic and insecticides.

    ** I will not support the full-scale devaluation of unborn or born lives.**

    Refusing to give zygotes an unrealistic inflated value that your sad feelies imagine they should have does not constitute 'devaluing' them no matter how sad you are about it.

    Reply
  107. I have no respect for people who handwave and refuse to answer the hard questions, and if you think anyone with an mental age over 10 does, you are delusional.

    Reply
  108. **62,500 girls.**

    Does gender convey rights?

    If so, do female fish have rights?

    If not, why doesn't the unfertilized egg have rights, other than it being inconvenient to you?

    Reply
  109. **One can support both helping pregnant women and making the destruction of unborn life illegal.**

    Which is utter nonsense in the real world. You can mentally 'support' two contradictory things, but in the real world you CANNOT enact both of them. You MUST choose which of them you are actually going to enact, making your supposed 'support' for the other option mere sad feelies.

    Reply
  110. ** I simply disagreed with your argument that the right to one's body extends to ending someone's life.**

    Do you believe people should be forced to donate kidneys? Or is it only women who shouldn't have a right to their bodies?

    Reply
  111. **My main point is that individual liberty extends only so far as one is not jeopardizing another's life.**

    So, we should probably sell your computer and donate the money to charity for starving children?

    Reply
  112. YOUR argument:

    "I want to keep my wallet, which 3rd world children are nutritionally dependent on for myself." = GOOD.

    "Others want to keep their body for themselves" = EVIL

    Why is your right to your wallet more sacred than other people's right to their own bodies?

    Reply
  113. **But yeah, I help people. I help people all the time. I could be helping people right now. But I'm wasting my time trying to talk to you.**

    Make up your mind? Are you helping people all the time? Or are you talking to us right now? If you are talking to us right now, you aren't helping people all the time. And by your claimed standards, that makes you immoral.

    Why do other people have to abide by your proclaimed moral standards while you get to violate them for your own enjoyment?

    Reply
  114. Evasion. And lies. If you are spending money on a computer and internet service, rather than donating it to charity, you are placing a monetary value on lives, and also lying about it.

    Reply
  115. **Your second argument essentially boils down to shut up and give me everything you have.**

    So? If you don't place a monetary value on lives, why would you object to that course of action?

    Or is what you mean is that you don't actually calculate exactly how much money it costs to keep someone alive, but you value your own pocketbook more than all those 'very lives' and feel sanctimonious because you don't know the exact numerical amount?

    Reply
  116. **And killing unborn children doesn't cause them misery?**

    Can you explain how something without a functional brain is capable of experiencing misery?

    Or is what you mean is that YOU experience misery, and project it onto something not capable of feeling it?

    A psychiatrist can probably help you with that.

    Reply
  117. **Many young people and consistent life ethicists have taken it upon themselves to educate people on the dangers of all forms of violence.**

    Uh huh. So if Charles Manson broke out of prison, dragged a 5 year old girl into your house, and proceeded to torture her, even if you had a gun in your pocket you'd simply sit there and whimper, because of 'the dangers of all forms of violence'?

    You are not fit to survive, much less tell others how to survive.

    You're also a liar, since you want to pass laws to have things your way, and laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. But I suppose you will sit there and feel holy, because it is the government using the violence on your behalf, rather than getting your own precious lily-white hands dirty with guns and blood.

    Reply
  118. Slavery means not having autonomy over your body.If you are anti -abortion(anti-autonomy),yes you are a proponent of slavery.

    Reply
  119. I just want to say that SPL has some of the more thoughtful abortion opponents on the net. Whenever I visit any of the major news magazines, the majority of the pro life arguments are "pro choicers are baby killing nazi scum"

    Yeah. I am having a "discussion" with one such intellectual now. Every rebuttal is a reminder that I am allied with Hitler, as a pro choicer.

    Reply
  120. There is no such thing as a right to life.There is the right to not be unjusitfy killed.But if the fetus infringes on mother body autonomy,so the mother is justified in killing the fetus.

    Reply
  121. That's called respite care, and I have nothing but good things to say about that, for ALL 24/7 caregivers. They need some down time to care for their own needs.

    Reply
  122. Except, it ain't necessarily true, is it? I would do all I could to help a woman make any choice she wanted, whether it was to end a pregnancy, keep a pregnancy, or not get pregnant to begin with.

    Reply
  123. Yep. It's a gift, not an obligation.
    You know, I do wonder how the details outlined at L4L would work in the real world…

    Say that the USA is now a libertarian fantasy. The non-aggression principle = law

    So, you can't evict a widdle embwyo under any circumstances, and if you are kidnapped and hooked up to a dialysis patient, it would have to be illegal for you to disconnect yourself, would it not? I mean, that would be a crime…

    So, say technology does exist whereby a dialysis patient *can* be kept alive simply by hooking you up to their bodies through this new technology. So if my buddy is dying, I can simply kidnap you, hook you up to him in a room…and if you unhook yourself, YOU are the criminal. As long as he is an unwitting participant, he is not actually actively aggressing against you, and thus for you to unhook yourself against an innocent party = an act of aggression = you go to jail.

    Yeah. That kind of scenario would be sure be abused a lot, wouldn't it?

    Reply
  124. Innocence is irrelevant. Unwillingly remaining hooked up to another for their benefit IS an act of aggression. The use of lethal force would be justified. A point lost upon them completely.

    Reply
  125. Is that not the goal of the evangelicals who believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen?

    I mean, evangelicals do NOT support any legislation that will help pregnant women in the workplace, and in fact, pro life leaders such as Pat Robertson and evangelical GOP congressmen go on at length about how single mothers are destroying America.

    Also, have you not heard of the purity movement? The entire movement, of which the Duggars are a part, is centred around how women are the de facto property of men, and how it is their job to breed for God.

    Reply
  126. There are no unborn children. And I will be as rude as I like to someone who advocates killing innocent men for doing things they 'can't help' while the pwecious embwyo gets a pass.

    Reply
  127. **The destruction of all life is unacceptable,**

    Then you're going to have a real big problem living in the universe, because the destruction of life is pretty much inevitable. Starting with the majority of precious zygotes failing to implant, and continuing with most children dying before age 5 until very recently in history, and even now, only in luckier countries.

    I'd recommend LSD as a means of blotting out reality, if this is 'unacceptable' to you.

    Reply
  128. **The non-aggression principle**

    Floid, what the 'Non-Aggression Principal' means is the non INITIATION of force. Should someone else initiate force against you FIRST, acting to defend yourself is entirely acceptable to a Libertarian.

    The law in the US today is actually the opposite of what a Libertarian would believe, as increasingly, offensive force is legal, but defending yourself is illegal.

    Reply
  129. **And if you are more concerned about your right to your body than other people's lives, then you certainly have no room to talk.**

    He has PLENTY of room to talk, because he is not a hypocrite. He freely admits that his, or anyone's right to their own body is more important than someone else's 'need' to use that body for their 'very lives'.

    YOU, on the other hand, ARE a provable liar, because you repeatedly insist that nothing is more important than 'very lives', that you are doing 'everything possible' to save all the 'very lives' you can, and that you don't place a monetary value on this. Which is provable crap, because you still own a computer that you could have sold and given the money to charity, as well as having an ISP that you are spending money on. Also, you are spending time talking on this board, which is time you COULD be spending saving people's 'very lives', so you are NOT doing 'everything possible' to save all the 'very lives' you can. You are living a comfortable lifestyle, while demanding unlimitted sacrifices from others to cater to your sad feelies.

    Reply
  130. So, if you were being raped and the only way to get the attacker off of you was to kill him would you ask him first if he was innocent (mind controlled) and then let him rape you if he was?

    Reply
  131. You're handwaving again to try and justify yourself. The scenario I proposed was one in which you ALREADY KNEW the rapist had a computer chip controlling his brain, and you specifically stated numerous times that you would kill him, despite that fact. Stop trying to backpedal and change the scenario.

    Reply
  132. Assuming I knew that he had a computer chip in his brain, no, myintx, I would NOT kill him.

    Unlike you, I actually value human lives for reasons other than their (gasp) precious unique DNA and widdle vulnerable cuteness, and don't regard the sanctity of my genitals as a sufficient reason to kill someone who can't help their actions.

    This might surprise you, but unless there was something very wrong (medically) with me or with an unborn child, I personally wouldn't get an abortion, either.

    But my choice in both cases is irrelevent. Tolerating an invasion of my body, even from someone who 'can't help it' is a pure gift on my part, not a right on their part, nor can I obligate others to tolerate such a thing merely because I would

    You, however, are a spoiled hypocrite, because you keep weeping over how the widdle embwyo should get a pass because 'can't help it', while you would kill the mind controlled rapist, KNOWING he was mind controlled. That being the case, you cannot validly claim 'can't help it' as being your great moral principle. Your morals are based on cuteness and who happens to be offending your precious genitals.

    Reply
  133. If I was being raped by anyone (mind controlled or not), I would try anything I could do to get away from him. The last resort would be killing and it wouldn't make a difference whether he was mind controlled or not. I don't believe that you would let him rape you if he was mind controlled but wouldn't if he wasnt. Not buying it for a second. If you fight a rapist they typically fight back to a point where your life is endangered. You're telling me you wouldn't fight at all? wouldn't even scratch him to try to get away? Again, not buying it.

    No one should have a 'choice' to kill an unborn child. Your comparison of an unborn child to a 'mind controlled rapist' is sickening and laughable.

    Reply
  134. **The last resort would be killing and it wouldn't make a difference whether he was mind controlled or not.**

    So, in other words, you are now flat out admitting that 'can't help it' does not actually get you a pass, and your sanctimonious morality is based on cuteness.

    ** I don't believe that you would let him rape you if he was mind controlled but wouldn't if he wasnt.**

    Newsflash here – simply because you are an immature spoiled bitch who demands that everyone else tolerate everything because of your sad feelies, while you yourself are willing to tolerate absolutely nothing does not mean that everyone else in the world is equally spoiled and hypocritical. Your inability to conceive of someone with real morality does not mean that such people do not exist

    **You're telling me you wouldn't fight at all? wouldn't even scratch him to try to get away? Again, not buying it.**

    Since calling me a 'liar' in this matter is not something you can accurately do unless you can read my mind, that is not a statement you can make unless you have psychic powers. Do you have psychic powers? Have they been verified by the amazing Randi?

    **Your comparison of an unborn child to a 'mind controlled rapist' is sickening and laughable.**

    The fact that my comparison exposes you as a spoiled brat whose real basis for morality is cuteness and demands everyone else tolerate everything for your sad feelies, while you will kill someone rather than put up with slight discomfort for 9 short minutes does not make my comparison sickening and laughable.

    Reply
  135. ** If you fight a rapist they typically fight back to a point where your life is endangered. **

    btw, your attempt to change my scenario from rape to assault and attempted murder has been noted. Trying to change the scenario is a logical fallacy, but typical of sad feelie forced gestationers such as youself.

    Reply
  136. btw, your killing of innocent human beings with a functioning brain, and capable of experiencing real pain and fear for their lives, while sobbing over the imaginary distress of brainless embryoes, simply because they are cute, then trying to claim that you have the moral high ground, is sickening and laughable.

    Reply
  137. btw, your killing of innocent human beings with a functioning brain, and capable of experiencing real pain and fear for their lives, while sobbing over the imaginary distress of brainless embryoes, simply because they are cute, then trying to claim that you have the moral high ground, is sickening and laughable..

    Reply
  138. I agree with this (not necessarily in regards to abortion, but overall). Frankly, I seriously hope that humans will eventually be able to bend nature in ways which you yourself might not even imagine right now.

    Reply
  139. Out of curiosity: what if one would save one adult human being over 2+ human infants? Would you consider such a position to be acceptable or disgusting/repulsive?

    Reply
  140. So, if you kill someone in their sleep and they suffer no 'distress', that's OK? Doesn't matter if there is distress for the one being killed, it's wrong to kill a human being that has done nothing wrong.

    The fact that you support the killing of about 1 million unborn children a year in this country alone is what is sickening.

    Reply
  141. You helped bring an interesting thought into my mind: Do body parts outside of the head really mean that much (*other* than in terms of survival, obviously)? After all, it appears that head transplants onto other bodies is possible: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_transplant

    Thus, it appears that, at least theoretically, all body parts outside of one's head *can* also be replaced.

    Reply
  142. "including the right to determine the trajectory of her own life, and not have that plan derailed by a random biological occurrence."

    Do you also support males' right to determine the trajectory of their own lives, and not to have their life plans get derailed by a random biological occurrence?

    Reply
  143. I disagree as well, and take some exception to the "Right wing" inclusion. Right and left indicate economic ideals, not social ones. There are plenty of hard right libertarians who are pro-choice. "Mr.Conservative" Barry Goldwater was pro-choice. As for evangelicals dominating the movement, BULLSHIT, the faith based pro-life movement and the secular pro-life movement are not the same group. One cannot dominate the other. One is easier to defame, so it is the target of most of the pro-choice arguments, but I probably disagree with more of the faith based pro-life beliefs than you do. I view the death penalty, violence and war as the biggest issues in the secular pro-life argument, and couldn't disagree with the typical faith based pro-lifers more on those issues.

    Reply
  144. Social conservatives merged with economic conservatives in the 1970s. There was a time when evangelicals *and* the fiscal conservatives were pro-choice, as fiscal conservatives didn't want more welfare babies to be born. and evangelicals didn't think that zygotes were babies – that was the job for the RCC.

    Then everything changed after RvW, and it is NO secret that the GOP is the part that opposes abortion, and that pro-life tea party evangelicals overwhelming vote pro-life, and that they oppose socialism, along with their fiscal conservative bros:

    blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/03/when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/

    And it's also no secret that pro life evangelicals are overwhelmingly anti-gay, in fact, they come here to talk about how marriage is 'designed' to be between a man and a woman only, since the 'purpose' of marriage is procreation. BTW, i recently learned that the RCC does not consider a marriage of an impotent man and woman to be valid, because if penetration can't occur, there can be no child, however, a marriage of infertile couples is acceptable, because a dick can go into a vagina. And of course, gays are absolutely exempt, because marriage and sex were not 'designed' for dicks to go into butts, mouths or ears!

    Reply
  145. Evangelicals are a large group, and not all of them believe what you imply.

    Of course not. And not all republicans are pro-life etc etc

    But for the most part, when you think of evangelicals, and of the leaders of the pro-life and anti-gay movements, you see people like the Duggars, and Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Lindsay Graham, Bryan Fischer, and all of the other influential and famous evangelical pastors who say that abortion and gays are why ISIS, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina all happened.

    If there is a majority of evangelicals who are socialist, pro-choice and pro-gay, I'd love to hear from them.

    Reply
  146. I disagree. To be pro-life is to erase women and to consider them to be secondary to unborn humans, even if you truly believe that you love women, if you know that women will be miserable, be harmed, and even die from the legislation that you support, and you dismiss it, or agree that pregnancy is tough but say too bad so sad, it shows that no, you really, truly value fetuses more than women.

    Reply
  147. Would it be ethical to create a new life just to use it to save the life of another?

    Come to think of it, what's wrong with harvesting stem cells from embryos to save lives? Yeah, you're using them as a mere means to an end, but as long as you don't kill them, it's ok, right?

    Reply
  148. No–I don't appear to have said anything inaccurate. Rather, my point was that honest anti-abortion people would also support forcing cis-males to remain pregnant if cis-males were also capable of getting pregnant. Thus, the politically anti-abortion is misogynistic in practice, but *not* in theory.

    "To be pro-life is to erase women and to consider them to be secondary to unborn humans, even if you truly believe that you love women, if you know that women will be miserable, be harmed, and even die from the legislation that you support, and you dismiss it, or agree that pregnancy is tough but say too bad so sad, it shows that no, you really, truly value fetuses more than women."

    It's not so much that politically anti-abortion people (or at least the honest ones) value prenates over cis-females (and trans-males, for that matter); rather, they simply think that an individual who is more responsible for something occurring should receive less priority than an individual who is not responsible for this situation occurring (and in fact, this is the same rationale which is used to justifying forcing males to pay child support if these males previously consented to sex).

    Reply
  149. "Would it be ethical to create a new life just to use it to save the life of another?"

    I am tempted to say that it depends on whether or not this new life should be considered a person. If not, then Yes, it is ethical to do this; else, it is unethical to do this.

    "Come to think of it, what's wrong with harvesting stem cells from embryos to save lives? Yeah, you're using them as a mere means to an end, but as long as you don't kill them, it's ok, right?"

    Even if I was still politically anti-abortion, then Yes, I would agree with you in regards to this on the condition that both of this embryo's parents consent to this beforehand. After all, isn't there a possibility of these embryos (or at least some of them) themselves benefiting from the medical advances that their stem cells would help produce?

    Reply
  150. Also, is it legal to, say, have parents force their minor postnatal children to donate their own blood and/or bone marrow in order to save lives? Serious question, for the record.

    Reply
  151. rather, they simply think that an individual who is more responsible
    for something occurring should receive less priority than an individual
    who is not responsible for this situation occurring

    Yeah, it's about punishing people for having sex. BTW, they invent many many excuses, however, as to why men, and anyone else who harms someone does *not* owe their bodies/organs/tissues to that person. This 'responsibility' of body donation, and risk to life and health ONLY applies to pregnancy. I mean, they won't even demand that a man donate his tissues and organs to save the life of the fetus *during* the pregnancy, or the life of the child *after* the pregnancy. Heck, they don't even think the man should help to pay the woman's hospital bills – nope, it's all her fault for spreading her legs.

    I think that you are forgetting how deeply ingrained the puritan belief is that a woman's place is in the kitchen, and that women can't dare enjoy sex for sex' sake. There is no visceral, hateful reaction to the thought of a man denying his child bone marrow, but you will find pro-lifers fainting at the thought that a woman might use contraception and therefore prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

    Reply
  152. After all, isn't there a possibility of these embryos (or at least some
    of them) themselves benefiting from the medical advances that their stem
    cells would help produce?

    Yes. Well if that's ok, then, as you just stated, can't parents simply rent their children out to scientists, against the children's will, and those scientists can experiment on the child, provided the lives of other children can be saved? How much is too much?

    Reply
  153. "Yeah, it's about punishing people for having sex. BTW, they invent many many excuses, however, as to why men, and anyone else who harms someone does *not* owe their bodies/organs/tissues to that person. This 'responsibility' of body donation, and risk to life and health ONLY applies to pregnancy. I mean, they won't even demand that a man donate his tissues and organs to save the life of the fetus *during* the pregnancy, or the life of the child *after* the pregnancy. Heck, they don't even think the man should help to pay the woman's hospital bills – nope, it's all her fault for spreading her legs."

    I wouldn't consider such politically anti-abortion people misogynistic *in theory,* though I will certainly *not* consider such anti-abortion people to be decent ones. And Yes, I certainly agree with you that they are very inconsistent about this and that this is a huge shame. 🙁

    "I think that you are forgetting how deeply ingrained the puritan belief is that a woman's place is in the kitchen, and that women can't dare enjoy sex for sex' sake."

    Sure–unfortunately, people with views such as that still exist today. 🙁

    "There is no visceral, hateful reaction to the thought of a man denying his child bone marrow, but you will find pro-lifers fainting at the thought that a woman might use contraception and therefore prevent a fertilized egg from implanting."

    Wouldn't these anti-abortion people (or at least many of them) at least consider it morally wrong for a male to use a condom during sex as well, though?

    Also, out of curiosity–what exactly is your position on the idea of giving males some sort of child support opt-out?

    Reply
  154. Just as an aside, people with super rare blood types – in some cases, no more than 100 living people with these blood types – cannot be forced to donate their blood, and in fact, cannot even be compensated, as that would be trafficking in human body parts. They have to give it, freely.

    Reply
  155. If I was politically anti-abortion, then I would say that it would be too much to force a child to donate an organ to someone else and that it would be too much to have a child endure something which will *certainly never* benefit him/her himself/herself in any way whatsoever.

    Reply
  156. You don't see them saying that condoms kill, do you? Whereas you will see stuff like this all over the place:

    google.ca/search?q=the+pill+kills&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=W_qMVPaHFs2togTP-4HgCA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1920&bih=946

    Also, out of curiosity–what exactly is your position on the idea of giving males some sort of child support opt-out?

    I've told you this before, if a woman chooses to have a child without the consent of the man, I do believe that he should be permitted to opt out. And especially if she takes his sperm without his permission – that's rape, in a sense. However, if both parents agree to have a child, and they bring that child into the world, then they both owe it their wallets, unless of course they agree to give it up for adoption.

    This is the one issue that Lady Black and I disagree on, but I see her point, and can certainly empathize – once a child is born, a child that can suffer, you really don't want to see the child go without.

    Reply
  157. "You don't see them saying that condoms kill, do you? Whereas you will see stuff like this all over the place:"

    Do they say that female condoms kill and/or that tubal litigation kills, though?

    "I've told you this before, if a woman chooses to have a child without the consent of the man, I do believe that he should be permitted to opt out."

    Even if this sex was consensual, correct? Also, I don't think that you told me this beforehand, though I might be forgetting something.

    "And especially if she takes his sperm without his permission – that's rape, in a sense."

    I would call that theft, rather than rape.

    "However, if both parents agree to have a child, and they bring that child into the world, then they both owe it their wallets, unless of course they agree to give it up for adoption."

    OK; now, I have a question–if a female hypothetically utilizes a safe-haven law to anonymously give up her infant without the "baby daddy's" consent, then can the "baby daddy" get back this infant and force this female to pay child support for this infant in all such cases?

    "This is the one issue that Lady Black and I disagree on, but I see her point, and can certainly empathize – once a child is born, a child that can suffer, you really don't want to see the child go without."

    That is an *extremely* poor argument for this, in my honest opinion. After all, if (hypothetically) someone died when his or her child is extremely young, then while it would be great if this dead individual's extremely wealthy identical twin would pay large amounts of financial support to this child, this individual's twin should *not* be forced to pay anything to this child due to this being a violation of his or her rights. Do you see where exactly I am going with this?

    However, as long as this remains the law, males should be given the opportunity to get sterilized in a safe, medical setting in a way which is 100% effective; currently, only castration appears to qualify for this, though I hope that this will eventually change. After all, telling most males to abstain from sex with females for life is *utterly* unrealistic and similar to what politically anti-abortion people tell females to do.

    Frankly, in my honest opinion, there are four (or more, if I will think of more questions later) important questions to ask here:

    1. Should one be able to transfer/give his or her property to someone else?
    2. Should one be held responsible for what someone else does with this property after he or she transfers/gives it to this other individual?
    3. Should one be held responsible simply for creating an offspring (regardless of whether this offspring is born or not yet), as opposed to being held responsible for an actual harm? For the record, this is an argument which Chalkdust appears to use.
    4. Should we try achieving as much equality in practice as possible in spite of people's biological differences and in spite of all other considerations (such as prenatal lives, et cetera)? For the record, this also appears to be an argument which Chalkdust uses.

    What exactly are your thoughts in regards to these four questions, Mirable?

    Reply
  158. For the record, I can see how questions #1 and #2 can apply to child support if one accepts the pro-choice view of personhood.

    Also, as a side note, I don't think that I ever heard a convincing argument from Lady Black as to why exactly males should be forced to pay child support in all cases of consensual sex where a female decides to raise their child afterwards. Taking about the child's rights doesn't work for this; rather, this appears to be question-beginning due to the fact that, if I looked at this from a pro-choice perspective, I wouldn't necessarily agree that a child should always have such rights in the first place.

    Reply
  159. That's a lot to unpack.

    I will get to it tomorrow, as I just got home from a long day out and am totes pooped.

    onlyfunnyjokes.com/bestoftheweb/photos/2010/04/sleepy-kitty.jpg

    Reply
  160. OK:

    Out of curiosity, though, a couple of quick questions:

    1. Do you have your own blog? If so, can you please post a link to it here? I think that you previously talked about this, though I don't remember exactly (my memory can sometimes fail me).

    2. How old are you right now? I am currently 22 years old, but I am wondering as to what the age demographics on the SPL blog are.

    3. Is your name Lily Bery? I got this impression from your Disqus user URL.

    Reply
  161. if I looked at this from a pro-choice perspective, I wouldn't
    necessarily agree that a child should always have such rights in the
    first place.

    From a libertarian perspective, and Ann Morgan has made such an argument in the past. I see how it can also apply to pro-choice, but, I think that the argument made by prochoicers is that use of your body = a step too far, but of your wallet, not so much. And in fact, we can turn this around on pro-lifers, and ask them why, if people can be deprived of their bodies to sustain the lives of others, then why don't wallets also qualify? The rate of infant mortality would go right down if more pro-life Republicans would support the expansion of medicaid, which would specifically lower the rate of infant mortality amongst black people, which, I might add, should be a pro-life goal, as PL Tea Partiers routinely accuse Pro-choicers/liberals of inventing contraception and abortion to wipe out the black race. No, I'm not kidding. Head over to Allen B West sometime…

    I also think that LB has great empathy for the suffering of the child once born, whereas, as has been stated, a zygote is a blank slate that may or may not become a child, it has no hopes no dreams no thoughts and may never have them.

    Reply
  162. I thought that you are extremely tired right now.

    "but of your wallet, not so much."

    Not quite–after all, not everyone should have a right to anyone else's wallet. After all, as in my earlier example, a child with a dead parent would not and should not have the right to the wallet of his dead parent's identical twin. In order for one to have rights to someone else's wallet, this other individual needs to have done something which would generate an obligation to the first individual. As for which things should generate obligations, well, that is what we appear to be debating here right now.

    Reply
  163. " And in fact, we can turn this around on pro-lifers, and ask them why, if people can be deprived of their bodies to sustain the lives of others, then why don't wallets also qualify? The rate of infant mortality would go right down if more pro-life Republicans would support the expansion of medicaid, which would specifically lower the rate of infant mortality amongst black people, which, I might add, should be a pro-life goal, as PL Tea Partiers routinely accuse Pro-choicers/liberals of inventing contraception and abortion to wipe out the black race. No, I'm not kidding. Head over to Allen B West sometime…"

    I agree that politically anti-abortion people are inconsistent in regards to this.

    "I also think that LB has great empathy for the suffering of the child once born, whereas, as has been stated, a zygote is a blank slate that may or may not become a child, it has no hopes no dreams no thoughts and may never have them."

    The part about empathy appears to be irrelevant to this debate; after all, I also certainly have empathy for the child with a dead parent in my earlier hypothetical scenario. However, this certainly does *not* mean that I would support forcing this child's dead parent's extremely wealthy identical twin to pay child support/financial support to his child.

    Reply
  164. 1) I don't blog, I am too damn lazy.

    2) 40. Debating abortion is a relatively new thing for me, as, after college, I gave up on intellectual pursuits for a few years and just kind of vegged out. After playing WoW for a while, and only typing in half formed thoughts, I noticed that my ability to complete a coherent sentence was severely shot, as was my capacity for critical thought. Debating is one way to get back on track!

    3) No, I just like flowers and fruits

    Reply
  165. I didn't realize that you are that old; I thought that you are in your 20s considering that you talked about having a boyfriend.

    Also, thank you very much for your responses/answers here. 🙂

    In addition, one more question, for now:

    1. What race/ethnicity are you?

    As for me, I am of Russian, Jewish, and Belorussian ethnicity/descent and would probably be considered either White or Middle Eastern (as per the likely 2020 U.S. Census categories) by race.

    Reply
  166. No there will not be a need. Most abortions are elective, meaning non-emergency. Please do not confuse "elective" with "unnecessary." Elective means scheduled in advance, as in you are admitted for the purpose of a planned surgical procedure, as opposed to being rushed into surgery via the ER. Most surgeries are elective, PERIOD, regardless of what they are. Therefore, a woman having an abortion due to intra-uterine demise, or fetal defects, or as a result of rape are having elective abortions. So sorry, but those will always be with us. Your "politics" are poisoned, and we do not need any restrictions on abortion other than that doctor and patient both agree that it's the best course of action under the circumstances. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SURGERY.

    Reply
  167. I was talking about this from a politically anti-abortion perspective (which, again, I *no longer* adhere to); obviously you and other pro-choicers would disagree with this.

    Reply
  168. I don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else "believes" or "agrees to." There simply IS no "human right" to the body of another, nor should there be, under ANY circumstances. Even when it means the other person dies. In fact, strapping someone down against his will and stealing tissues from his body is classified as torture and is a definite violation of human rights. It just ISN'T DONE.

    Reply
  169. I thought that you are extremely tired right now.

    I am, but I can handle short questions, and am still going through the final 60 emails in my inbox!

    Reply
  170. Yeah, that's not happening for a long time, if ever; thus, your position here appears to be sexist in practice.

    As a side note, though, I *do* hope to eventually get pregnant if I will live long enough, though I am not counting on it.

    Reply
  171. Once again, you appear to be guilty of question-begging here. You might view such a position as extremely offensive, and that's your right, but telling this to someone who doesn't agree with you on this isn't going to make a valid argument.

    Also, though, if one *does* advocate giving everyone such a right, then it would probably make more sense to punish people who refuse to donate body parts rather than to literally use force to force people to donate body parts.

    Reply
  172. Thank you very much for this info.

    Also, I previously thought that you are American; I guess that one learns something new every day. 😉

    Reply
  173. Fair enough; however, if possible, please try to respond to my long reply (you know which one–the one with four questions or so) to you tomorrow. 🙂

    Reply
  174. Also, cis-males will obviously *never* accidentally get pregnant as a result of having sex with cis-females since that is simply not biologically possible for humans.

    Reply
  175. **So, if you kill someone in their sleep and they suffer no 'distress', that's OK?**

    You are handwaving to try and excuse yourself. You flat out admitted you would kill an innocent man, KNOWING he was innocent, just to spare your precious self 9 short minutes of embarrassment to your sacred genitals.

    It is irrelevent what I might or might not do. You do not get to play the 'innocent human beings should not be killed card' any more.

    Whining about what I might or might not do is simply an ad hominem fallacy to try and distract from your hypocricy so you can keep playing a card you have no right to.

    Reply
  176. Well, first of all, in the thought experiment, you only have time to rescue one. However, anyone could conceivably pick up two infants in their arms. OR if you have anything that can be used as a slider(sheet, blanket, etc.), you could place the adult and two babies on it and drag them all out. I think the point is 1) time, and 2) the inability to manage both human beings and a bulky freezer at the same time. Also the point is that living human beings take precedence over property. And embryos in a freezer are property.

    Reply
  177. **Out of curiosity: what if one would save one adult human being over 2+ human infants?**

    That's an interesting question. A person isn't really obligated to save anyone, if they don't want to. They may or may not be an asshole for failing to do so.

    It probably depends on the situation. As an infant weighs far less than the adult, I can imagine situations in which weight or space may be a factor, and you can save several infants in the space it would take to save one adult.

    Also possible depending on the situation – if I save the adult, they may be able to help me save a *greater* number of infants immediately afterwards.

    Also, arguably an adult may be responsible for being in the particular fix they are in, or may be able to save themselves, and refuses to do so.

    It also depends on the particular SORT of infants and adults. I would probably save one *normal* adult before saving several severely retarded infants. However, if the *normal* adult were, say, Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson, I would save the severely retarded infants first.

    But all this is irrelevent to the embryo, an infant has *low* brain function. An embryo has ZERO brain function. The two are not comparable.

    Reply
  178. "Well, first of all, in the thought experiment, you only have time to rescue one."

    OK.

    "However, anyone could conceivably pick up two infants in their arms. OR if you have anything that can be used as a slider(sheet, blanket, etc.), you could place the adult and two babies on it and drag them all out. I think the point is 1) time, and 2) the inability to manage both human beings and a bulky freezer at the same time. Also the point is that living human beings take precedence over property. And embryos in a freezer are property."

    OK; however, let's modify this scenario of mine–there are two buildings of approximately equal size both of which have fires which began at approximately the same time and spread at approximately the same rates and approximately the same distance. If there is an extremely serious possibility (which later turns out to be the case in reality) that one can only save the two or more human infants in one burning building or the one human adult in the other burning building , which one(s) would you yourself save, and would you consider it disgusting/atrocious/repulsive for someone to give an answer to this question which is different from your answer?

    Reply
  179. ** Right and left indicate economic ideals, not social ones. There are plenty of hard right libertarians who are pro-choice. **

    The problem here, is that 'right' and 'left' are a deliberate oversimplification of political positions, in order to keep the democrats and republicans in power. That a libertarian would have the position you describe is not surprising. It is simply the democrats and republicans who like to pretend that it is.

    Reply
  180. **You appear to be question-begging here considering that not everyone agrees that there *shouldn't* be such a right**

    And you are handwaving. While it is probably true that there are some people who think there SHOULD be a right to the kidneys and bone marrow of others (people can hold all sorts of odd beliefs), most pro-lifers who claim the embryo has a right to the mother's organs without her consent for it's 'very life' will turn around and deny a 5 year old leukemia patient and a 30 year old dialysis patient a 'right' to THEIR bone marrow or kidney without their consent, even though they may need it for their 'very life'.

    Reply
  181. Thank you for your detailed response to this.

    Anyway, though, my point here is that this scenario doesn't appear to be a good one for determining which rights various individuals should have. After all, just because I would probably save my parents from one burning house rather than save, say, 5 strangers from another burning house (hypothetically assuming that I could not save both of these groups) certainly does *not* mean that I think that my parents should have more rights than these 5 strangers should have.

    Reply
  182. You are still evading the key issue here which is hypocricy. The pro-lifers keep proclaiming this great human right to the organs of others for one's 'very life', but then apply this supposedly 'great human right' ONLY to embryos and pregnant women, while handwaving it away in EVERY other instance.

    If something is a 'human right', then EVERYONE has it, and the exceptions should be very rare. Prolifers want to apply this 'great human right' ONLY to the embryo, and handwave it away in the vast majority of cases.

    Reply
  183. "You are still evading the key issue here which is hypocricy. The pro-lifers keep proclaiming this great human right to the organs of others for one's 'very life', but then apply this supposedly 'great human right' ONLY to embryos and pregnant women, while handwaving it away in EVERY other instance.

    If something is a 'human right', then EVERYONE has it, and the exceptions should be very rare. Prolifers want to apply this 'great human right' ONLY to the embryo, and handwave it away in the vast majority of cases."

    Yes, I agree with this, and Yes, I agree that anti-abortion people shouldn't be inconsistent in regards to this.

    Reply
  184. Out of curiosity–do you think that *non-viable* embryos and fetuses should be considered the property of the women who are pregnant with them? Serious question, for the record.

    Reply
  185. That's a tough one. I would probably save the adult, and no I don't think it's heinous that someone else might make a different choice. The only thing I can say for certain is that I would save human beings, and any property can burn as far as I'm concerned, including freezers containing embryo.

    Reply
  186. **Do you also support males' right to determine the trajectory of their own lives, and not to have their life plans get derailed by a random biological occurrence?**

    Actually, as a matter of fact, I do. Except in the case of marriage (which constitutes a contract) I think that if a woman legally has X number of months to decide whether or not she wants to gestate a child and get an elective abortion if she does not, then a man should also have X number of months to decide if he wants to be financially responsible for a child, and his X number of months will start when he first becomes aware of the existence of the pregnancy and/or child. There will be no nonsense of a millionaire football play having a one night stand with a woman who claims she is on the pill, but who, in fact, is not only not on the pill, but tested positive on her fertility strips early that day, then he never sees her again until 10 months later when she shows up with a month old baby and an army of lawyers demanding $5000 a month child support.

    If a woman does not like this, then she should probably not have sex with men she is not married to without actually using one or more forms of birth control. If she is too stupid to understand that, too bad. One person's stupidity does not constitute a blank check on someone else's wallet.

    Reply
  187. **Also, out of curiosity–what exactly is your position on the idea of giving males some sort of child support opt-out?**

    (reposted from above)

    Actually, as a matter of fact, I do. Except in the case of marriage (which constitutes a contract) I think that if a woman legally has X number of months to decide whether or not she wants to gestate a child and get an elective abortion if she does not, then a man should also have X number of months to decide if he wants to be financially responsible for a child, and his X number of months will start when he first becomes aware of the existence of the pregnancy and/or child. There will be no nonsense of a millionaire football play having a one night stand with a woman who claims she is on the pill, but who, in fact, is not only not on the pill, but tested positive on her fertility strips early that day, then he never sees her again until 10 months later when she shows up with a month old baby and an army of lawyers demanding $5000 a month child support.

    If a woman does not like this, then she should probably not have sex with men she is not married to without actually using one or more forms of birth control. If she is too stupid to understand that, too bad. One person's stupidity does not constitute a blank check on someone else's wallet.

    Reply
  188. Thank you very much for your response here.

    Also, I would like to slightly modify/amend your last paragraph here; frankly, if I looked at this from a pro-choice perspective, such a woman should only have sex (especially sex with no or "little" contraceptive usage) with males who consider opting out of paying child support to be morally unjustifiable and/or morally wrong. In other words, if a male has no moral or political qualms about someone opting out of paying child support, then a woman who is unsure as to whether or not she will get an abortion or who is unwilling to get an abortion should *not* have sex (especially vaginal sex) with such a male in the first place.

    Reply
  189. Point of fact, I would regard both you and myintx as assholes for killing a mind controlled rapist, knowing that he was mindcontrolled. But my personal opinion that you are assholes is irrelevent. Neither of you has an obligation to allow your body to be used by someone, regardless of his personal lack of evil intention, or how sad I might feel about it.

    Also, myintx is a HYPOCRITICAL asshole. You are not. Myintx keeps weeping over how 'innocent human beings shouldn't be killed', but only wants to apply this to CUTE human beings, and handwaves it away if they are not so cute.

    Reply
  190. Point of fact, I would regard both you and myintx as assholes for killing a mind controlled rapist, knowing that he was mindcontrolled. But my personal opinion that you are assholes is irrelevent. Neither of you has an obligation to allow your body to be used by someone, regardless of his personal lack of evil intention, or how sad I might feel about it.

    Also, myintx is a HYPOCRITICAL asshole. You are not a hypocrite in this matter. Myintx keeps weeping over how 'innocent human beings shouldn't be killed', but only wants to apply this to CUTE human beings, and handwaves it away if they are not so cute.

    Reply
  191. I've got a question–you think that married females should be able to get abortions without their spouse's consent, correct?

    Also, frankly, I think that telling females to only have sex with males who have moral and/or political qualms about people opting out of paying child support to be a *much* more realistic piece of advice than lady black's previous suggestion that males should abstain from vaginal sex with any fertile and potentially fertile female for the rest of their lives (advice which I consider to be both *utterly* unrealistic and sexist in practice).

    Reply
  192. OH YES it DOES make a difference. No such right exists. No such right has ever existed. And no such right will ever exist. You can't make property out of human beings. I am not denying there are modern-day slavers (and that's what you're advocating, make no mistake), but nobody pays attention to them, and nobody ever will. We do have a constitution, and liberty here.

    Reply
  193. No I am NOT an asshole. "Can't help it" doesn't fly with me, and I am NOT obligated to allow an assault on my body, EVEN if the one perpetrating the assault "can't help it." That's irrelevant to my right of self-defense.

    Reply
  194. "OH YES it DOES make a difference. No such right exists."

    Appeal to authority fallacy.

    "No such right has ever existed."

    Appeal to tradition fallacy.

    "And no such right will ever exist."

    Your prediction.

    "You can't make property out of human beings."

    Agreed.

    "I am not denying there are modern-day slavers (and that's what you're advocating, make no mistake), but nobody pays attention to them, and nobody ever will."

    I am *not* necessarily advocating this myself, though I am unsure that I would consider this to be slavery.

    Reply
  195. If you use someone as a mere means to and, denying their free will, as you would an appliance or a machine, you are treating them as nothing more than an object, as 'property' to have your way with, and that = slavery.

    Slaves were the machines of the plantation before machines were used to harvest cotton. Biological machines. They were used as human objects for the purposes of collecting cotton for their owners to make those owners rich.

    Reply
  196. What if one pays these individuals for losing their body parts? After all, lady black said that slavery is only considered to be work *without* pay.

    Reply
  197. What the hell else will you call it when I'm not the master of my own body and someone else can put a lien upon my tissues? That's a slave. That is not liberty. That is not even humane. And for your information, smart-ass, there are no fallacies when discussing law. And when you discuss *rights* you are discussing law. I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States of America. We have laws here. And your rights never extend to the body of another citizen. NEVER. EVER. There is no basis in the Constitution upon which to assert such a right. That is my *legal* argument. Not a fallacy. I don't even owe blood or any body tissues to family members. Not to my husband, and not to my kids. If I should choose to donate them, that is a gift. Not an obligation.

    Reply
  198. "What the hell else will you call it when I'm not the master of my own body and someone else can put a lien upon my tissues? That's a slave. "

    What if you are getting paid for this? Also, technically speaking, you don't appear to be working in this scenario.

    "That is not liberty."

    Agreed.

    "That is not even humane."

    Well, I am unsure that locking up people in jail for life is humane, but we sometimes (rightfully and thankfully) do it.

    "And for your information, smart-ass, there are no fallacies when discussing law."

    Hahahahaha! This appears to be incorrect; after all, the law can be and sometimes is changed. Also, frankly, sometimes the law deserves to be changed even when it is unlikely to get changed, such as that part of the U.S. Constitution preventing naturalized U.S. citizens such as myself from running for U.S. President (or do you support that part of the U.S. Constitution?).

    "And when you discuss *rights* you are discussing law."

    Agreed.

    "I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States of America."

    I also live in the good ol' USA.

    "We have laws here. And your rights never extend to the body of another citizen. NEVER. EVER."

    Once again, appeal to tradition and appeal to authority fallacy.

    "There is no basis in the Constitution upon which to assert such a right."

    I know someone who appears to be very knowledgeable in regards to Constitutional law who might disagree with you in regards to this.

    "That is my *legal* argument. Not a fallacy."

    On the contrary, it very much appears to be a fallacy.

    "I don't even owe blood or any body tissues to family members. Not to my husband, and not to my kids. If I should choose to donate them, that is a gift. Not an obligation.

    As of right now? Yes, correct.

    Reply
  199. Your statement is goofy for a couple of reasons:

    1 You appear to be trying to claim that it does not matter to you if you are forced to donate a kidney for someone's 'very life', because you, in turn, can get your missing kidney replaced. The problem here, is that unless kidneys can be grown in a vat, in which case your kidney would not have been needed in the first place, your replacement kidney must be taken from someone else. Who, in turn, according to you, can get THEIR kidney replaced from some 3rd person.

    2. What this constitutes is a game of 'musical chairs' with kidneys and it is an extremely stupid game for a few reasons.

    3. The first reason it is stupid, is that it started out short one kidney. Someone, at the end of this idiotic process is going to end up short one kidney, so why go through it?

    4. A donated kidney, unless it is from an identical twin, is never a perfect match. Your game of musical kidneys is going to end up with several people with health problems, rather than just one.

    5. Surgery is not free. Your game of musical kidneys means several people are going to have huge medical bills, rather than just one.

    Reply
  200. On that we can agree, however I am not a Libertarian either. That's just one more "groupthink" trap. I do tend to agree with them more than any other party though. I just like pragmatic conservative (as in small government) ideals and individualism. I have serious problems with some of their platform though. I think they have the right idea, but are too spineless on gay marriage. Leaving it up to the states is half right, but it should also be cleared up that it's not the government's role to dictate romantic relationships. As far as they are concerned it's a contract between two consenting adults. They shouldn't have any concern with whether those two adults are having sex, or what kind of sex they are having. It seems like they are missing the boat on making a good credible conservative argument in favor of full recognition for same sex marriage. They get enough right to let some stuff slide though I guess. Still not joining up though. I'll keep my vote unassigned and make whoever wants it earn it.

    Reply
  201. "1 You appear to be trying to claim that it does not matter to you if you are forced to donate a kidney for someone's 'very life', because you, in turn, can get your missing kidney replaced. The problem here, is that unless kidneys can be grown in a vat, in which case your kidney would not have been needed in the first place, your replacement kidney must be taken from someone else. Who, in turn, according to you, can get THEIR kidney replaced from some 3rd person."

    I was talking about the future, when we will probably be able to use stem-cells and/or something similar to grow new kidneys for humans with their own DNA.

    "2. What this constitutes is a game of 'musical chairs' with kidneys and it is an extremely stupid game for a few reasons."

    This does not appear to be true in the sense that I was talking about this here (please see my response to #1).

    "3. The first reason it is stupid, is that it started out short one kidney. Someone, at the end of this idiotic process is going to end up short one kidney, so why go through it?

    4. A donated kidney, unless it is from an identical twin, is never a perfect match. Your game of musical kidneys is going to end up with several people with health problems, rather than just one.

    5. Surgery is not free. Your game of musical kidneys means several people are going to have huge medical bills, rather than just one."

    Since I was talking about this in a futuristic sense, none of these criticisms appear to be valid.

    Reply
  202. **Anyway, though, my point here is that this scenario doesn't appear to be a good one for determining which rights various individuals should have.**

    Actually it is. As I stated in my above post, if there were a reason, such as space or weight, why I could either save several infants, or one adult, assuming they were of equal quality (the infants not being retarded and the adult not being a criminal) and I did not know any of them, I would save the several infants. This implies they have equal rights, and I am going for saving the greatest number.

    The same is not true of several frozen embryoes vs a single newborn infant. Assuming there was nothing wrong with either the infant or the zygotes, I would still save the infant. For much the same reason I would save a single person rather than several rats. I am not saving the greatest number. A person has more rights than a rat, or even several rats, and an infant has more rights than a zygote.

    Reply
  203. "This implies they have equal rights, and I am going for saving the greatest number."

    Where exactly did I imply that they have (and should have) equal rights?

    Also, would you save your parents or 5+ strangers assuming that you could only save one group of people?

    Reply
  204. I am not sure what you are trying to say. However, it probably doesn't matter. So long a woman has a legal choice to end a pregnancy, I do not feel that she can validly CHOOSE to carry it to term, then demand money. Unless a man is married to the woman (which constitutes a contract), then if the woman could choose to have an abortion, the fact that she doesn't feel like having one cannot create a right to the man's wallet.

    Rights come with responsibilities, and vice versa. For instance, an adult has the right to eat candy all day, since they are paying their own dental bills. A child does not pay their own dental bills, so they do not get to decide how much candy they get to eat. The person paying the dental bills gets to decide that. If the child wants the right to decide whether or not they can eat candy, then with that right comes the responsibility of paying the dentist.

    Likewise, if a woman wants the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, with that right comes the responsibility for paying for the child if they carry it to term. She cannot legitimately claim the right to have an abortion, but if she decides not to, the man has to pay. If the man has to pay, then the woman not have a right to an abortion. Claiming otherwise is acting like a spoiled child who insists they have the right to eat all the candy they want, but their parents still have to pay for the dentist.

    Reply
  205. Also, one more question: if you don't mind me asking, what is your sexuality (straight, gay, bisexual, et cetera)? As for me, I guess that I am very slightly bisexual, probably along the lines of being 99% heterosexual and 1% homosexual.

    Reply
  206. You are not a Hicksite Quaker. No Quaker would ever say they attend 'church.'
    You must be one of those Quakes who are just Protestants. Went to a conference in Ohio with those kind of 'Quakers.' They employ 'magic gestures.' Talk about 'notions.'

    Reply
  207. Make abortion illegal and you kill women. You are not pro life. You are pro death.

    ILLEGAL ABORTION and sepsis and hemmorhage in CHILDBIRTH are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide.

    Abortion and contraception are human rights. How many peaches will you get if you harm the tree?

    Reply
  208. That will never change. And I'd be very interested to hear ANY constitutional argument by which the government can steal body parts from a citizen for the benefit of another citizen. I don't believe anyone has such an argument. This has been tried. I am not appealing to "tradition." I'm appealing to the supreme law of the country. It is what it is. The fourth amendment wouldn't allow for this. So, not just "as of now." As of forever.

    Reply
  209. "That will never change."

    In your opinion, though as I previously said a while back, this will become irrelevant once we are able to grow new body parts for people with their own DNA (using stem-cell research and/or something similar).

    "And I'd be very interested to hear ANY constitutional argument by which the government can steal body parts from a citizen for the benefit of another citizen."

    I'll see if I will be able to get this person to elaborate on this; I haven't talked much with him on Facebook over the last year or so, so I'll see what I can do.

    "I don't believe anyone has such an argument. "

    We will see.

    "This has been tried."

    Yes, though even court decisions can be and sometimes are repealed/overturned (or whatever the correct name for this is). Interestingly enough, though, (for the record, I obviously *oppose* this ruling) I think that the U.S. Supreme Court previously did say that it was okay to forcibly sterilize (some) people in its 1927 Buck v. Bell decision. Thus, to claim that U.S. courts *always* made good decisions appears to be an idiotic claim.

    "I am not appealing to "tradition." I'm appealing to the supreme law of the country. It is what it is. The fourth amendment wouldn't allow for this. So, not just "as of now." As of forever."

    But the U.S. Constitution itself can and sometimes is changed; after all, the 18th Amendment previously get repealed by the 21st Amendment (or something along those lines). Thus, you *do* appear to be guilty of an appeal to authority and/or of an appeal to tradition fallacy here.

    If I will have a debate with someone about whether or not naturalized U.S. citizens such as myself should become eligible to be U.S. President after they reach 35 years of age, and this other individual tried using the U.S. Constitution to back up his argument that this part of the U.S. Constitution should not be amended (or whatever the correct term for this is), then I will accurately accuse this individual of being guilty of the is-ought fallacy and laugh really hard at what this individual said for a very long time.

    Reply
  210. Also, please don't forget to respond to my long post from yesterday (the one with the four questions) if you are able to do this. 🙂

    Reply
  211. Also, out of curiosity–do you yourself think that naturalized U.S. citizens who are 35+ years old should become eligible to be U.S. President?

    Reply
  212. Do they say that female condoms kill and/or that tubal litigation kills, though?

    I haven't heard them talk about female condoms at all, or other barrier methods.

    Remember, the great advantage of the pill is that a woman can *always* be ready for sex without having to go to a great deal of effort, and taking a tiny pill enables her to do so in secrecy.

    I have seen two responses to tubal ligation. 1) if you don't want to get pregnant, get a tubal ligation the moment you hit puberty 2) tubal ligations are an abomination, as the purpose of sex is to procreate.

    Even if this sex was consensual, correct?

    Biology is not destiny, for either the man or the woman.

    I would call that theft, rather than rape.

    Yeah, it's stealing. Just like a man steals from a woman when he rapes her and she is then forced to bear his child. The rapist gets to pass his genes along whilst donating zero resources. That is one reason why rape evolved, according to some scientists – rape is a way for males to transmit their genes to the next generation with zero effort on their part.

    can the "baby daddy" get back this infant and force this female to pay child support for this infant in all such cases?

    That's a good question. I would assume so.

    Do you see where exactly I am going with this?

    No. And I don't feel like using my brain this morning. Brrrr.

    After all, telling most males to abstain from sex with females for life
    is *utterly* unrealistic and similar to what politically anti-abortion
    people tell females to do.

    Agree.

    1) yes

    2) no

    3) no. Which brings to mind, to be completely fair, if the woman is force to donate her body to her unborn human, then the man should be as well, and this should also apply after birth and even after the kid has been given up for adoption. If you create it, you owe it period. This is the only way to be fully consistent, imo.

    4) Well, that depends. If we are going to force women to gestate, then yes, no one else should have fully bodily autonomy either, if it has been established that people have a right to other people's bodies.

    Obviously, that would be bad, as that would be slavery, so in this case no, we shouldn't seek equality:P

    Men often do lose when it comes to family law, and that is regrettable. This is largely because for hundreds, even thousands of years, women were property and their job was to make babies for the man, and those babies were his property. He could ditch her and he'd keep the kids. This is how they do it in Islamic countries. Also, before the days of court ordered child support, men could literally run around, knock up as many women as they wished, skip town, and she's stuck with a kid and grinding poverty. So things have swung in the opposite direction, and many *good* men have been caught in the crossfire.

    Reply
  213. Frankly, what I hope to eventually (maybe a couple of/several hundred years from now) see would be a reality in which there would no longer be *any* discrimination worldwide against *anyone* as a result of his or her sex/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity/race/ethnicity/et cetera. In addition, I would seriously hope that such a reality would have things such as free, 100% effective/efficient contraception* (which is less drastic than castration and ovary removal, obviously; though, for reference, I would still think that elective castration should be an option for those who genuinely want it during this time (I am unsure about elective ovary removal, which I certainly *don't* recommend)) for everyone worldwide, cheap or free anti-aging technology for everyone (so that everyone or almost everyone is able to stop and reverse the aging process), a Western European-style social safety net, things such as good education, cheap or free (meaning paid for by the government) artificial wombs (so that everyone or almost everyone will be able to afford them), cheap "designer babies", and (if this ever becomes possible) safe technology to change one's sexuality and/or gender identity (in both directions) for individuals who genuinely want to utilize such technology.

    What exactly are your thoughts on such a reality? Frankly, it appears to be pretty great to me, though unfortunately, we are an *extremely* long way from achieving such a reality right now. 🙁

    Reply
  214. For reference, if you are wondering: While I myself prefer pussy (hey, you brought up this term here!), I also sometimes get "pretty hungry" when I see dick and balls (Yes, I plan on getting myself castrated, but I *am* attracted to men's balls). The rest of a man's body is often (but *not* always) not that physically/sexually appealing to me, though. Frankly, in regards to the rest of a man's body, I appear to be *extremely* picky to the extent that 90+% of men are probably not good enough for me. However, even if I did find a man who was good enough for me (and, to me, even such a man would *pale* in a physical/sexual sense in comparison to many women), I still *wouldn't* want to have sex with him (even if STIs and STDs were hypothetically *not* a problem/an issue) unless I myself already fully transitioned into a female/woman by that point in time. Also, I would like to point out that, at least throughout all of my life so far, I appear to literally have *zero* physical/sexual attraction to males which have more than a minuscule amount of body and/or facial hair. Sorry if I am being too detailed here, but I asked you a question, and thus, I feel a need to reciprocate by answering this question myself.

    Also, out of curiosity, but extremely random question–What exactly is your height? As for me, I think that I am 1.83 meters (or 6 feet and 0 inches); frankly, I myself am *extremely* pleased with the fact that I am apparently taller than 98% or 99% of all women. 🙂 Heck, if I will ever transition from male to female in the future, then I will be one tall woman, which definitely pleases me *a lot.* 🙂

    Reply
  215. It's still legal to forcibly sterilize some people and I have no problem with it. In cases (for instance) where a person is so profoundly damaged that they will never pass the mental age of an infant of three months. The reason? Such a person will never be competent to consent to sex (or anything else for that matter). Therefore any sex would be rape, and this person should never be forced to undergo either birth or abortion. That would be torture. I have read of such a case, and I agree with the sterilization as a humane measure. But I'll say it would have to be a VERY hard luck case like the one I just mentioned. That wouldn't be right for someone with Down syndrome. And NO, there is ZERO chance of the fourth amendment being overturned. It's part of the original bill of rights. None of the bill of rights have been considered for overturning by any serious legal minds. I'm not taking about prohibition and the repeal thereof. That didn't give rights to anyone. It was bad law, and it was repealed unanimously. In fact it was the only constitutional amendment EVER to deprive people of liberty, and it had a very short life, as it should have. One day was too long, and nothing good ever came of it. You can't claim the same thing about any part of the bill of rights.

    Reply
  216. Who cares if everyone does not agree that they have no right to my body or its contents?
    I am not interested in their opinion.
    I will kill them if they try to do something about it.

    Reply
  217. "And NO, there is ZERO chance of the fourth amendment being overturned. "

    I wasn't talking about repealing the Fourth Amendment; heck, it appears to be a pretty good amendment. I was simply stating that the U.S. Constitution can be and sometimes is changed/amended.

    Reply
  218. Try to take my kidney or my fetus and we will see what happens. The right to self defense is absolute. I am starting to wonder if you are entirely crazy or just experimental.

    Reply
  219. Nope. I would be standing my ground. Self defense is legal. Even more legal than it used to be because now I have no 'duty to retreat.'
    Do not talk about the law if you know nothing about it.

    Reply
  220. Hold your breath. And twirl. Better yet – twirl while holding your dick. Be careful. Easy to fall down doing that.
    You want a conversation with me? Stop acting like such a shitweasel.

    Reply
  221. Ah, penis envy from the plump dumbling. No surprise there. And you concede the point about the right to self-defense being 'absolute'. Maybe you can ask the pretend law student ladyblack to cite some cases for you.

    You're just an internet bully. I don't want a conversation with you. You're good for an occasional laugh–at you–and that's about it.

    Reply
  222. I have dicks. I also have a couple of excellent dick links. If you go to this one you will never think of dicks in the same way again.
    luriddigs.com/
    If you have a bagina, you can have all the dicks you want.

    Reply
  223. You're damn straight I am. Not so much anti-Catholic, as anti-Catholic hospital. I don't care what those men in dresses want to do with their own lives. But I want them keeping their rosaries off patient's ovaries.

    Reply
  224. Partly. But we weren't talking about Roe, so that's neither here nor there. That's what happens when you butt in without reading the entire thread.

    Reply
  225. Yes, although personally I would not really understand the point of a woman deliberately deciding to retain ownership of a non-viable fetus or embryo. But it's not really my decision to make on anyone else's behalf.

    Reply
  226. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that the *quality* of the infants and the adult are equal. That is to say, none of them are fatally ill and going to die shortly, none of them are severely retarded (or extraordinarily gifted), the adult is not a criminal, and I don't know any of them.

    That being the case, I would probably save the two or more infants.

    In regard to your question about the pigs, here is what I would do in various scenarios:

    1. I am not sure if I would save a pig or frozen embryoes. It would depend on several things, such as whether this was a pig that was a pet or prize stud (thus looking forward to a fairly long comfortable life rather than being bacon next week). Also, whether or not any of the parents of the embryoes were now infertile and this was their last chance for a baby.

    2. I would save almost all born human beings, even severely retarded ones before any number of pigs. With one exception.

    3. I would save a pig before I would save a serial killer like Charles Manson.

    Reply
  227. Greg – I am actually opposed to the current fuss over 'gay marriage' for a similiar reason. Mind you, I agree it is not the government's or anyone else's business which adults are having sex with which adults, in what numbers, or combinations.

    That said, I think 'marriage' has become pretty much of a con (it doesn't have to be, but that is what it has become), which people buy into partly because they've been sold on the ideas that it firstly 'validates their relationship' and secondly, getting permission from some self-appointed third party somehow magically transforms 'evil' sex into 'legitimate sex'.

    I don't agree with either notion, I don't need other people to tell me if my emotions are valid or not, and hardly see how getting the permission of some third party can turn 'evil' into 'good'. That's ludicrous to me, and I don't see how gay people buying into the same particular con that straight people have bought into will improve matters.

    Reply
  228. **Ah, penis envy from the plump dumbling.**

    No penis envy here.

    Adam got the ability to pee standing up.

    Eve got multiple orgasms.

    Reply
  229. Coyote – since you mention you are only 22 years old, I am going to tell you a few things about the pro-life politicians you may be unaware of.

    1. Politicians very often will loudly claim to be in favor of a position or passing certain laws that they know are never going to be passed. They may even actively write up and attempt to pass such laws. They are putting on a dog and pony show to get votes from certain people in favor of this position who are to naive to know that it is a dog and pony show, and the politician is putting it on knowing that the laws will not be passed.

    2. Myintx talks like a parrot and squawks certain words she has learned will get sad feelies from people, like 'person', 'human being' and 'right to life'. These are NOT magic words. They have very complex legal meanings, imposing numerous rights and responsibilities on both 'legal persons' and on society.

    Even assuming that what myintx claims to want, and laws were passed tomorrow declaring a zygote to be a 'legal person', what would then happen would NOT simply be what myintx imagines, and drug and surgical abortions that give her sad feelies would simply go away like an old fart, and otherwise everything else would go on the way it does.

    Sorry, no. The resultant laws would probably be hundreds of pages long and the cost to society would be astronomical. The 'rights' of 'legal persons' including the right to life and numerous others cover many things other than simply violent death. Among other things, you cannot throw the body of a 'human being' out in the trash. So all tampons and pads will have to be given to the police, and tested for the presence of a zygote, as well as the presence of any substance that might prevent a zygote from implanting. Myintx's claim that the police would only investigate if it 'seemed suspicious' is ludicrous. Death certificates must be filled out on ALL dead 'human beings', suspicious or not, and the police will determine if things are suspicious, not her. And there's definitely a motive, such as the $250,000 it costs to raise a child. Human beings can and have been murdered for far less money than that.

    I might also mention that failure of the police to do this will result in armies of lawyers having a feild day suing the negligent police department on all sorts of grounds. The police cannot discriminate against any sort of group, or fail to investigate their deaths or file a death certificate on them. Do you think the police are going to let themselves get sued because it would be inconvenient to myintx? She just thinks they would, because she's a spoiled idiot.

    Reply
  230. Nonsense. You have never seen me, let alone my snatch.
    ::: singing :::
    "… Oh-oh, yes I'm the great pretender.
    Pretending that I'm doing well
    My need is such I pretend too much
    I'm lonely but no one can tell …"

    Reply
  231. I have never seen the shitweasel make a pleasant or informed remark. It has even snarled at its fellow fetus freaks – for no good reason. Purity perhaps.

    Reply
  232. The fetus 'life' IS my life – a fetus is alive like my arm is alive – until so late in gestation that abortion is moot. Science is your friend.

    Reply
  233. There are a number of occasions when killing is acceptable and legal = assisted suicide, defense of self or others, war, police work, execution, abortion.
    You cannot give a right to the fetus you have not taken from the host.

    Reply
  234. Self defense isn't necessarily defined by hitting someone back. You can duck. You can block. You can leave the room. In that situation, violent self-defense isn't needed. Of course, you aren't going to allow the hitting to continue, correct? I've never been struck by a patient, because I'm great at ducking and blocking. But there have been plenty of attempts. I've even had canes swung at me. That's a pretty good indication to stop what you're doing and try again later. Sorry about your employer's reaction. You do know that employers are required to post conspicuous posters in the workplace concerning what the procedure is if you are injured on the job, right? You are also entitled to written information at hire, and after reporting an incident.

    Reply
  235. I don't have a bigoted bone in my body. Just an issue with bishops practicing medicine without a license. I will tell you this. I regard all religions as being equally idiotic. That doesn't mean I'm bigoted, though. I'm an atheist. I have many believing friends and family members, and I don't hate anyone for their faith. That would be bigoted. Now, so long as those of faith do not attempt to force their beliefs upon my life, we'll have no problems. When their beliefs affect any part of my life, including but not limited to health care, then we have a problem.

    Reply
  236. Some people are just angry. I tell myself that it's better that they "yell at strangers" rather than friends and family.

    Reply
  237. What on earth do you mean by "here?" If you think the fourth amendment has nothing to do with the government's lack of ability to steal organs or tissues from one citizen for the benefit of another, you're delusional. That was the gist of the conversation you still insist on butting into without even knowing what you're talking about. The conversation I was having with Coyote is over, and the conversation is over with you too. You have nothing of value to add.

    Reply
  238. I do not know if it is better or not. Might act as a kind of safety valve.
    I can remember being as angry as AOG. I was not a happy or productive person. Anger expands to fill the psychic space available. And it leaks out when you do not need it or want it. And people start to run when they see you coming.

    Reply
  239. Well, I left the room. Not good at ducking and dodging.

    I was not given the information about the existence of workman's comp at any time there, including after I reported the incident (which was right before I went home for the day because I couldn't see good without my glasses) I don't remember if it was posted anywhere, as this was about 20 year ago. Possibly it may have been posted somewhere, and I simply didn't read it, as work places tend to post a lot of crap irrelevent to me, so I get to ignoring most of it.

    There were a lot of things that went on in that particular nursing home that I found to be both immoral and peculiar.

    Reply
  240. Well, that was federal law 20 years ago, and the nursing home nursing supervisor likely violated company policy by not filling out an incident report when the incident was reported. That's as much to protect themselves as to protect you. I can't say much about your attitude of not reading posters concerning your rights, other than it's not wise. There are all sorts of legal requirements that you be informed of various rights, and it's your responsibility to keep yourself informed. Of course, knowing what you're supposed to do when injured on the job is extremely important information. What if you were seriously injured, and required hospital care?

    Reply
  241. You are a good example of restraint and general good humor for me. I have never experienced a raging MagnaDave. And I do not want to ever. You are really effective and can be scathing (without being particularly abusive) now.

    Reply
  242. **nursing home nursing supervisor likely violated company policy by not filling out an incident report when the incident was reported**

    I have no idea if an incident report was filled out or not. All I know is that when I reported it, they did not tell me of the existence of workman's comp, and simply got pissy because I said I could not continue to work that day without my eyeglasses.

    ** I can't say much about your attitude of not reading posters concerning your rights,**

    If I know a poster is about my rights, I would read it. As I said, I didn't even know such a thing as workman's comp existed at that time, or what it was so wouldn't have read a poster about it. There are too many irrelevent things for me to read them all, so I tend to filter them out. Same thing where I work now, a lot of people in the company are too lazy to properly address emails, so send them to the whole company, so we get emails about issues in another building 50 miles away that have nothing to do with us. Bad habit, maybe, but I can't spend 4 hours a day reading irrelevent stuff.

    **What if you were seriously injured, and required hospital care?**

    I did have insurance through that job, and was aware of it. But it didn't cover eyeglasses.

    There's too much screwy bureaucracy and government programs nowadays, anyway, and not enough common sense. It doesn't seem much like real life to me, it seems like a bunch of frantic paper shuffling, and I have serious doubts that it's sustainable.

    Reply
  243. Don't know what happened to my other reply. But there is way too much paperwork shuffling and unproductive legalistic BS in our society today. Which is one of the things I did not like about working in the nursing home, there was so much paperwork to do to DOCUMENT the cares on the residents, that there was not time to actually DO the cares. Instead, the time was spent filling out reports that the cares had been done. When in fact, they had not been, there wasn't time to do them, largely because too much time had to be spent filling out all the paperwork claiming they had been done, in order to satisfy about 200 pages of state requirements or whatever.

    Reply
  244. I ended up skipping my meal break most days, in order to actually do the cares. This pissed off my supervisors, they said the state required me to have a meal break. So I clocked out, stood in the stairwell, then clocked back in 2 minutes later and went back to work. This seemed to make them happy. I don't know why.

    Reply
  245. Let me explain something to you that isn't drilled into nursing assistants. All that documentation (some related to state requirements, and some to protect the liability of the institution and it's employees) is necessary, whether you deem it "busywork" or not. Documentation should be as streamlined as possible, and the better health care facilities are moving to electronic documentation. In nursing, the saying is "not documented, not done." Ideally the documentation should be initials on patient flow charts detailing the care each resident needs. More detailed nursing notes can be written as required (for example, to prove Medicare is getting it's money's worth, one nursing note per shift is required). Look at it this way… good documentation will protect you in a court of law when you're being accused of neglect or abuse. You don't know enough about the subject to be opining on it. You would find out very quickly how important it is if you were running the show.

    Reply
  246. **In nursing, the saying is "not documented, not done."**

    Only problem is, that it was 'documented'. But it wasn't actually done.

    **Look at it this way… good documentation will protect you in a court of law when you're being accused of neglect or abuse.**

    That's great. Problem is, the abuse and neglect can still be going on, regardless of what the documentation says. Being 'protected in a court of law' by such lies might be wonderful for the nursing home, but it's not really going to help the patient.

    Reply
  247. Marriage is probably an antiquated idea, but it serves some legitimate purpose. I agree that a lot of people view it horribly wrong, which is probably the cause of the fuss. From a strictly objective view, marriage is a contractual arrangement. The only thing it really affirms is that two people agree to share decisions, consequences, finances etc. It's kind of like a mini-corporation. Romantic ideals, sex, and familial issues are just none of the governments business. I think the gay rights activists are being a little short sighted, they better be sure to argue for full divorce rights as well. To me it would make more sense to argue that ALL marriage be viewed by the government as a civil union.

    Reply
  248. Words to live by, Dave — something I'm prone to forget if I'm "Fatigue Posting" — thank goodness no recent examples leap to mind? (hope, hope, hope …)

    Reply
  249. You're not 'using science' either, killer nurse. I doubt you're competent to use science, and your legal knowledge is pretty darned lacking, too, racist "ladyblack".

    Reply
  250. No point in arguing with racist garbage like you, killer nurse.

    As far as packing the gear, take your misandrist attempts at insults and shove them up your fat ass!

    Reply

Leave a Comment