May 1, 2010

"This shifting landscape is ripe for a row over Roe."

Wielding a triple-mixed metaphor, Charles M. Blow notes some new legislation that will provoke  litigation over abortion.

There's a Nebraska law that bans "most abortions after 20 weeks on the theory that that’s when the fetus can feel pain." There's a Mississippi bill forbidding public financing of abortions. And there are 2 new Oklahoma laws: "One requires women, even those seeking to end a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, to have an ultrasound and have the fetus described to them. The other prevents mothers from suing doctors who withhold information about fetal birth defects." Florida also has a new law requiring ultrasound before an abortion.

Blow frets that the Supreme Court will reconsider Roe. Of course, the Court reconsidered Roe back in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and any new litigation is highly likely to be only about applying the Casey standard to new legislation.

Blow points to polls:
A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Friday found that the percentage of people who think that the Supreme Court is too liberal is at its highest since they began asking the question, as is the percentage of people who say that if Roe v. Wade were to come before the court again, the next justice should vote to overturn it. They’re not the majority, but it’s still not good.
Look at the poll. The question goes back to 7/21/05, when John Roberts was first nominated. 65% of those polled wanted Roe upheld. One month later, the percentage somehow went down to 60%.  When Alito was nominated, the number was 64% and then a few weeks later, down to 61%. With Sotomayor, the percentage came in at 60, and now, it's 59%. I'd say the percentage is pretty stable, and there isn't any real downward trend.
According to a Gallup report released on Wednesday, the percentage of college-educated people who favor legal abortion under any circumstances has been dropping since the early 1990s and has now reached a new low. And while the largest overall drop was among men over 65, it was closely followed by a drop among women under 30.
Note that the Gallup question isn't asking about abortion rights. If the Supreme Court stopped protecting access to abortion as a matter of constitutional law,  the states could keep it legal. Read the material at the Gallup link, and you'll see that it mostly shows stability in opinion on the subject.

In the end, Blow show why he's pushing readers to think there's a big fight coming. He wants Obama to "nominate a warrior" to the Supreme Court. Instead of recognizing the stability of the case law and of public opinion and accepting the idea of a dignified Supreme Court that applies itself diligently to the task of deciding cases according to an orthodox legal methodology, Blow would like us to view the Court as a political battleground, and he wants a well armed new Justice. The metaphor here is military.

He says he'd like his Supreme Court "warrior" to be someone "who agrees with Representative Long." Here's what Blow said about Long (after noting the new state laws "enacted mostly by men, that seek legal control over women’s bodies"):
I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should “stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”
"Stand down." There's that military metaphor again.

ADDED: Chip japes.

177 comments:

Peter V. Bella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter V. Bella said...

I happen to agree with the political principle you should stand up and stand out if you have balls!

Hagar said...

I think that all decisions that rely on Griswold vs. Conn. and "penumbras emanating from the Constitution" should be revisited.
However, I do not think that would result in any return to the view of law prior to Roe v. Wade. The nation, indeed the world, has moved on, and the legislatures would quickly jump in to block any such ideas.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Silly Nebraskan reactionaries-- all science says is that a fetus at 20 weeks might or might not feel pain. Not to worry!

Charles, aren't you one of the people Rep. Long has ordered to stand down? So why don't you?

Roger Sweeny said...

"stand down if you don't have ovaries"

On the principle that only people with ovaries should be able to decide about people with ovaries, women should be free to abort all female fetuses--but males get to decide about the male ones.

Skyler said...

As I recall, Casey said that Roe's standard of trimesters is wrong and a "viability" standard should be used instead.

With all the experience of premies (how do you spell that?) at hospitals nowadays, you'd think that this would continue to push back the time to allow an abortion. I've heard (from a friend of a friend of a friend, so not reliably) that babies have been born at 19 weeks and still survived. It doesn't seem too unbelievable. If they ever learn how to grow a child in a test tube to full term, then conceivably abortions could be made illegal.

It seems to me that this approach to overturning Roe is most sensible.

edutcher said...

As far as polls go, James Taranto's Roe Effect would appear to be at work.

That said, since the balance of the Court hasn't really changed, I don't see how another round is really going to prove anything. Unless the entire administration and Congress is recalled (not a bad idea, BTW) and you have Conservatives replacing some of the old Lefties, we're not going too far on this one.

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveR said...

Maybe we need "preemie panels".

EDH said...

Isn't that a quadruple-mixed metaphor?

Here's what Blow said about Long (after noting the new state laws "enacted mostly by men, that seek legal control over women’s bodies"): I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should “stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

"Roe or hard roe is the fully ripe internal ovaries or egg masses..." [okay, okay, in fish or other marine species]

I thought this was about reproductive freedom, which men have always been denied.

KLDAVIS said...

“stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

What if we're snorting our empathy gas? Can we comment then, or do we also have to tuck?

rhhardin said...

The ultrasound requirement is an acknowledgment of the cuteness standard of morality.

My own argument would be that there's no bright line, but birth is a good one. It's when cuteness and therefore society's actual interest kicks in naturally.

All systems run better when they're aligned with human motivations.

It would be nice to be able to argue that out politically.

Blow's Ode on the Death of Mr. Henry Purcell was my favorite piece in high school.

Brian Day said...

It is interesting to contrast:
I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should "stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”
against our blog mistress who
opined earlier :
Hey, buddy. My career is not your messaging device. My birth canal is not a beacon of light to the unenlightened.
Granted, the topics are different (warriors vs moms with kids), but the theme of ovaries vs non-ovaries is an interesting one.

wv: phave. That is phat.

SMGalbraith said...

“....stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

Blow writes ~1000 words on Roe and abortion and then, in closing, says he agrees with the view that only those with ovaries should consider the matter.

The self-awareness of a turtle.

Of course, what he means by that - as did Beinart with his column two days ago - is only those with ovaries who agree with him should be heard.

It's analogous to his column last week where he called black and other minority Tea Partiers "minstrel show" participants.

Blow doesn't believe in identity politics. He is identity politics.

GMay said...

“stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

Maybe when some women respect the undeniable fact that a fetus/embryo is a genetically unique lifeform that develops into a human being every single time, I'll start trusting their judgment regarding ovaries.

ricpic said...

Job #1 is taking the country back from the marxist thug and his minions. Making a big deal of abortion will muddy the waters and more important lose the mushy middle. Put it on the back burner for now, conservatives.

Ralph L said...

but males get to decide about the male ones
And the majority of feti are male, so you girls lose.

I wonder what effect the surplus of young men in China will have on world politics. Will they get horny and emigrate or find some Sabines?

Pogo said...

ricpic's correct.

This, DADT, and amnesty are attempts to divide the fiscal conservative backlash by focusing on those topics the left dominates.


I don't give a damn about Roe, and we're going to get some flavor of lefty or another on the Supreme Court, so this is bullshit.
DADT? Yawn.
Amnesty? Never gonna happen.

It's time to focus on the money.

Geoff Matthews said...

This is like saying if you don't pay taxes then stand down on discussions of taxes.

I'd take that trade.

info said...

Stand down on abortion...only the mind of a liberal can believe that men should have NO say in the murder of unborn children...but hey...that serious "thinking" got us uhbuhma...

tim maguire said...

Charles Blow seems to be the whipping boy du jour in the blogosphere. Yes, he's a hack, a dishonest joke who thinks with his biases, Exhibit A of the decline of the New York Times.

But even they seem to understand Blow is just an appropriately named space filler throwing meat to their latte sipping readers.

He's a Saturday guy--the newspaper equivalent of the 2:00 AM slot.

Maguro said...

This is why we need a fetus on the Supreme Court.

Stand down if you don't have an umbilical cord.

rick said...

The question of abortion boils down to one question and one question only:

When does life begin? Every other argument, comment, excuse, or rational is ancillary if one cannot determine unequivocally as to when life begins.

Would someone from the pro-abort side help me here?

PatCA said...

“There is nothing approaching a scientific consensus on fetal pain at 20 weeks’ gestation.”

Well, heck, let's just rip them apart and flush them!

This type of argument is akin to the one that refuses to admit that a fetus is a baby. To my knowledge, no fetus has yet to develop into anything other than a baby.

I am pro-choice, but let's be honest: Most women have abortions for convenience. That's between her and her god, but abortion should have restrictions.

mesquito said...

If the Supreme Court stopped protecting access to abortion as a matter of constitutional law, the states could keep it legal.

Funny. Whenever I hear a media reference to Roe v Wade, even on Fox News, it always describes it as "the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

It's infuriating.

Chip Ahoy said...

I do enjoy your metaphor spotting. The garbled mixing is hilarious when you point them out. They do read like rocket surgery.

I've been reading a lot of Egyptian hieroglyphics lately, I should say struggling to. It takes a good deal of flexibility and no small amount of extrapolation. The syntax is hardly parallel to anything I know. I've been struggling to discern what is present in the arrangement of glyphs that would differentiate the meanings of a sentence like this:

When the scribe sees his daughters face, there is joy in his house.

To see the daughters's face, there is joy in the scribe's house.

When the scribe sees his daughter in his house there is joy on his face.

When the scribe sees his daughter's face, it is a joyous house.

Joy in the house because the scribe sees his daughters face.

The scribe is joyful, apparent by his visage, to see his daughter in the house.

To see the daughters face in the house brings joy to the scribe.

Seeing the daughter busy at home fills the scribe with joy.

The scribe's daughter is usually bitchy but today she's a joy in the house.

Daughter, face, his, in, house joy, his.

(It gets down to the placement of horned vipers which represent masculine possessive.)

The problem is, I have no key so there's no way to check where I go wrong.

And now that practice of struggling to understand simple sentences has carried over to everyday English. Here, there's no getting around, the martial analogy "stand down" can confidently be added to the million ways devised in English to say, "Oh, just STFU."

maria horvath said...

I think any former fetus has the right to speak on this issue.

lucid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lucid said...

So, Blowhard's legal principle seems to be that only those parties most directly affected by a law should have a say in establishing it.

Burglars write the laws on breaking and entering, rapists write the laws on rape, hit men write the laws on homicide. Hmmmm..interesting idea.

The level of idiocy in the NYTimes and among orthodox liberals just defies parody.

Kirby Olson said...

I'm with Maria Horvath.

Human rights for all must include the feeble-minded and the unborn.

SMGalbraith said...

To update the Bill Cosby line, "I started out as a fetus...."

(he said "child")

Sara (Pal2Pal) said...

Stand down if you don't have ovaries? What a load of %#@$@.

I lost my overies at age 27. I have two children, one natural, one adopted. I say stand down if you believe in murder, because that is what abortion is. You can dress it up all you want, but it is still murder.

Babies are well on the way to development by 7 weeks and they certainly feel pain long before 20-22 weeks.

It is just beyond my comprehension how any woman can murder her own flesh and blood.

We had to wait yeas to adopt because there were no babies to be adopted, they were all being thrown in the refuse bin. The old canard about sending women back to the back alley is just that, a canard. A talking point. The number of back alley abortions compared to the nearly 50 million babies who have been killed ... it is unconscionable.

There is virtually no stigma today to being a single or unwed mother and the only women I know who have abortions or who support abortion are those who don't want stretch marks or to be saddled with any responsibility for a child because of their careers. And, of course, liberal women who we already know are quite self-centered and selfish.

I say stand down if you are in government. Stand up if you think babies should not be murdered for political or career reasons.

And to head off any comments about how I don't know what its like to be young and pregnant, I can assure you I do. My son was the product of a gang rape at a fraternity house when I was a sophomore in college. I had to drop out, my family disowned me for years, and I was completely unprepared to earn a living. But I never considered abortion. He was my child, my own flesh and blood. We went thru hell for a couple of years and it was rough, but we made it through and when they told me I would never be able to have more children a few years later, I realized that he truly was a gift from God. You see, my tubes were tied in knots like pretzels and the doctors, 4 specialists, told me that conception was impossible ever. They considered the fact that I had conceived to be a miracle they could not explain.

YoungHegelian said...

What I've always found baffling about arguments that only women should get to make decisions (legal and otherwise) on abortion is that these arguments simply flies in the face of empirical fact. Poll after poll shows that women are less supportive of abortion than men. Sometimes, the difference is not statistically significan. What is significant is that, women, taken as a group, are ALWAYS less supportive than men of abortion rights.

See, for example,

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

YoungHegelian said...

Oops, sorry about the grammatical errors in previous post!

Editing in that little box with a wireless keyboard can be harrowing sometimes. Mea maxima culpa!

traditionalguy said...

Another fruit of the womb fight? Would not the truly democratic way be to just kill every other human scum that is born on Gae's Pristine Blue Ball?

themightypuck said...

Is there a gender gap regarding whether abortion should be a right?

Fen said...

I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should “stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

Silly wabbit. You might as well say "stand down if you DO have ovaries".

HokiePundit said...

Sounds like Rep. Long is the same kind of person who thought Saddam Hussein was okay so long as he was only killing "his own" people.

Life begins at conception, but I don't see why states don't at least use the heart or brain tests to determine when there is life. I mean, if it's good enough to tell when someone's no longer alive, how is it not good enough to tell when they are alive?

Fen said...

Maybe when some women respect the undeniable fact... I'll start trusting their judgment regarding ovaries.

If you think about, why trust the judgement of any woman who's had an abortion?

1) she knew there was a risk of pregnancy, but she CHOSE to do it anyway

2) she knew birth control was not 100% effective, yet she CHOSE to risk it anyway.

And now she's whining about not having a CHOICE.

cubanbob said...

"I happen to agree with Representative Janet Long of Florida, who said on Friday that you should “stand down if you don’t have ovaries.”


As a Florida resident I will petition Ms. Long to propose legislation in Florida to eliminate males from having a child support obligation as long as woman have sole authority on remaining pregnant. And to include in the legislation the elimination of state welfare benefits to single woman to cover child expenses. Her body, her choice, her obligation.

Fen said...

There is nothing approaching a scientific consensus on fetal pain at 20 weeks’ gestation.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Try this on for size:

"There is nothing approaching a scientific consensus on fetal pain, so we will err on the side of caution until we know with certainty that there is no fetal pain at 20 weeks"

See, here's the other disconnect. We have the concept of Reasonable Doubt to avoid executing an innocent. "Better to let a hundred perps walk than execute the wrong man".

But when it comes to abortion, we reverse that princple.

Why? Because our appetite for sex is so great, we are willing to kill for it.

Hagar said...

@mesquito
For once the media get something right, though they miss that that's exactly what is wrong with it!

Revenant said...

65% of those polled wanted Roe upheld

I consider that a pretty useless poll question, since most Americans don't have the foggiest idea what Roe means or what the implications of its being overturned would be. There is a widespread misconception that if Roe was overturned, all abortion would immediately become illegal. Nonsense, of course.

The more informative questions are the ones that touch on specific areas of abortion policy -- specifically when it should be allowed, etc. Those polls reveal that Americans have a strong preference for much stricter abortion laws than Roe allows, but not for the total ban that pro-lifers want.

victoria said...

I don't mean to be cruel Roger, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Roe V Wade, not a great law. Repeal of womens reproductive rights, never. I will take to the streets before I let any repeal of Roe V Wade get enacted.

Some of you nimrods feel that women have abortions on a whim, that it is their form of birth control. If you think that then you don't know women.

Vicki from Pasadena

Michael Hasenstab said...

"stand down if you don't have ovaries"

Sure enough, as long as "stand down if you don't own guns" is operative during all cases that involve the second amendment.

mesquito said...

I will take to the streets before I let any repeal of Roe V Wade get enacted.

How is the world changed the day after Roe is overturned?

Roger Sweeny said...

Victoria,

Since I don't agree with "the principle that only people with ovaries should be able to decide about people with ovaries", I don't actually support a males-decide-about-male fetuses-abortion law.

Actually, I like to keep legislators' power over people's actions pretty low, so I pretty much oppose all abortion laws.

I think the idea that only women can legislate about women is sexist trash, and it bothers me when people make that argument seriously.

Briane P said...

I wouldn't be sure that the Roberts Court respects stare decisis the way you think they do, or ought.

While they reached the right result, the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case took out a 1990 and a 2003 decision, and I don't see why Roberts and Alito would be any more respectful of Casey than they were of the two decisions they helped reverse, while Scalia and Thomas argued in Casey that Roe was wrongly decided.

Hagar said...

@Vicki

Roe v. Wade is a misguided (or unguided) Supreme Court decision; not a statute, and it cannot be repealed, just rendered moot or overturned by another Supreme Court decision.

Freeman Hunt said...

Some of you nimrods feel that women have abortions on a whim, that it is their form of birth control. If you think that then you don't know women.

I know women, and there are plenty of them for whom that description is absolutely true.

Freeman Hunt said...

Abortions occur for all sorts of reasons: maintenance of appearance, avoidance of responsibility, to hide some sin like adultery, etc. The idea that there are some noble reasons for abortions and that they are the most common is a myth of the pro abortion rights side of the debate.

Sweet Child O Mine said...

phew thanks Ann!
this is about female reproductive rights, first and foremost, sorry guys.

danielle said...

whether or not Blow is exaggerating the nature of the landscape, we all know Obama is going to pick a SC justice who supports abortion rights. hasent he already said something to that effect ?

and on the issue itself -- i cant imagine telling another woman what she had to do with her womb; and i also cant really see myself terminating a pregnancy. but i dont begrudge women who make that choice, and i'm not nosey enough to ask any woman for her explanation for such a personal choice.

danielle said...

on 'avoidance of responsibilities':

taking on a humongous responsibility that you know you cant handle -- emotional stability, family support, time, money .... that is irresponsible. for people who dont believe a fetus is alive, then terminating a pregnancy can be a responsible choice.

SMGalbraith said...

Congresses and state legislatures and city councils and county boards all pass laws every day that only effect, directly or indirectly, a small segment of the electorate.

To claim that a citizen in a representative democracy can only opine on matters that directly affect himself or herself is an assault on that form of government.

Argue your point; let others argue theirs.

It's called democracy.

Hagar said...

provided you pay for it yourself.

Trooper York said...

I agree that Obama should nominate a baby killer especially one that is happy with letting a baby die if it is born alive after a botched abortion. That is his position after all and he should nominate someone who thinks like he does.

He won the election after all. He is entitled to have his kind of justice.

Trooper York said...

I mean does he want to be the guy who passed over Michael Jordan with his first pick. No way Jose.

Trooper York said...

I mean Lynn Stewart is ready.

She is tanned, rested and radical.

Loves terrorist, hates babys. Perfect.

Skyler said...

Some of you nimrods feel that women have abortions on a whim, that it is their form of birth control. If you think that then you don't know women.

Um, I hate to be so, um, obvious, but if ending a pregnancy isn't birth control, then what exactly is it?

Some people get so caught up in political slogans and propaganda that they miss the obvious.

Abortion doesn't do anything except control births. Claims to the contrary are evidence of mindlessness.

Titus said...

Whores, it's the Derby. Who you rooting for?

Did you know I took a tour of Bluegrass Farms and saw million dollar horses doing it. There were actually bleachers for us to watch. Very interesting.

Is Mitch McConnell there? Love him. So patriotic, republican and may I say a little hot.

I love the jockeys uniforms. So cute and sassy. Definitely would wear them out-when I was younger.

If any of you bet on some Saudi horse you are unamerican and contribute to terrorists.

victoria said...

Freeman, I doubt most of the women you know use pregnancy termination as a form of birth control. I don't know of any woman, save 1, that actually used pregnancy termination as a form of birth control. That was 35 years ago, and she was an idiot. The vast, vast majority of women I have known over the years who have terminated their pregnancies thought long and hard about it and think about it to this day.
And Roger, if you do not support the "males get to decide about male fetus" why did you even mention it?


Vicki From Pasadena

Titus said...

My father was stationed at Ft. Knox and I took my mom and him there for there 50th anniversary.

Then we went to Keeneland and bet on horses.

Then we took a tour of the farms and went to some horse thing and one of the famous horses had just croaked. I placed a small rose at his stable. It was moving.

Horses have big hogs and racing horses get really horny and have to be separated from other horses because they can become violent because they want to shoot their loads.

The poor female horses get fucked every few months, pop up a hopeful winner, desert it, and then go get fucked again. They really are whores. They actually fly internationally to get fucked. International whores I call them. No better than Madonna in my mind.

I sense the jockeys are illegal immigrants.

Skyler said...

Victoria: The vast, vast majority of women I have known over the years who have terminated their pregnancies thought long and hard about it and think about it to this day.

thinking hard about it doesn't mean that it wasn't birth control. It's just very deiberate birth control.

Titus said...

Lets all pray for the future of the Kentucky Horse Farms.

They are currently a mess. Bankruptcy, foreclosures, Saudi fucks. This cannot go on.

Preakness is bankrupt? Tragic and said I say.

Titus said...

Work it Super Saver!!!!!

Titus said...

Let's also pray for the Starfish and Shrimp and Oysters of the Gulf Coast.

Thank you.

Titus said...

I have had 32 abortions and each time it gets a little easier.

Thank you so much and happy happy mayday.

Titus said...

I came to this blog because I heard there were breast sightings.

But after experiencing, and reading this blog over the past week I see no tits.

I want my money back.

Titus said...

How are the foodler options in Madison?

I admit I am concerned.

A.G. said...

I've never understood what part of a state's police power- the power reserved to states under the US Constitution to pass laws in the interest of preserving and protecting the general health, safety, morals and welfare of its citizens- somehow doesn't include the power to regulate abortion.

Too bad reading comprehension isn't a requirement to be on the SCOTUS. :-)

mariner said...

OK.

New slogan for men:

"Keep your ovaries out of our wallets!"

El Pollo Real said...

My father was stationed at Ft. Knox and I took my mom and him there for there 50th anniversary.

Holy crap Titus, I knew that I might have dated one of your sisters in high school but I never realized that our dads may have swilled beers and listened to hillbilly and western music together.
What years was your dad there?

My dad never went back to Ft. Knox after basic. He did enjoy laughing about it in Goldfinger though.

PatCA said...

Ditto, Skyler and Freeman.

Sweet Child O Mine said...

Arent we anti government intervention around here?

ricpic said...

for people who don't believe a fetus is alive, then terminating a pregnancy can be a responsible choice.

Close your eyes and tap your heels together three times. And think to yourself, "there's no place like home."

danielle said...

why do people haggle over specific wording when we all know what terms refer to ? ...birth control ... terminate ... etc.

ricpic, i'm sure you realize that not everyone accepts the personhood of a fetus, and thus the right of the state to get involved.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Sweet Child O Mine said: "Arent we anti government intervention around here?"

I can't speak for the group, it being of, you know, individuals who have their own opinions. But, just because one wants to minimize gov't intervention doesn't mean that all gov't intervetion is wrong. We expect gov't to protect the weak, including the unborn, from infringment of their rights, most importantly, the right to life.

Really, do you think that being anti-gov't intervention would mean that one would be against child abuse laws? I consider a fetus to be a child; therefore, he or she deserves the same protection. Or are you just trying to be snarky because you don't want to think things through?
- Lyssa

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

I would like to see Roe reversed. It is miserable jurisprudence, as is Lawrence, because it purports to impose federal will on what is clearly the jurisdiction of the states.

In political practice the abortion debate is functionally over. The 2005 South Dakota abortion law was every pro-lifer's dream. Yet the people of South Dakota by popular referendum a year later rescinded that law.

We're talking about a state in which 64% of WOMEN voted Bush in '04.

Were Roe overturned we should see widespread restrictions and limitations on abortion -- three-quarters of the population favor either an outright ban (6%) or some relatively minor restrictions on the procedure.

Absent Roe abortion would remain widely available in all but a handful of low-population states.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Sweet Child O Mine said: "Arent we anti government intervention around here?"

I can't speak for the group, it being of, you know, individuals who have their own opinions. But, just because one wants to minimize gov't intervention doesn't mean that all gov't intervetion is wrong. We expect gov't to protect the weak, including the unborn, from infringment of their rights, most importantly, the right to life.

Really, do you think that being anti-gov't intervention would mean that one would be against child abuse laws? I consider a fetus to be a child; therefore, he or she deserves the same protection. Or are you just trying to be snarky because you don't want to think things through?
- Lyssa

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Sorry for the double post, not sure how that happened

Amy K. said...

I don't know of any woman, save 1, that actually used pregnancy termination as a form of birth control. ... The vast, vast majority of women I have known over the years who have terminated their pregnancies thought long and hard about it and think about it to this day.

I don't think you realize that you're not making sense. Just because they thought about it before they did it and still think about it later doesn't mean it wasn't a form of birth control.

You can have a primary and a supplemental health insurance. You keep a supplemental in case your primary doesn't cover everything.

Just because your first method of birth control doesn't work doesn't mean your supplemental (abortion) isn't also birth control.

Titus said...

He was stationed at Ft. Knox in 1950-1954-during the Korean War.

My mom said he drove back to Lodi Wisconsin going 90 MPH in some piece of shit every weekend to see her.

Isn't that nice?

Titus said...

My dad would never buy a German or Japanese car-ever. Because of the wars.

There are too few men like him around anymore.

Fen said...

Danielle: ricpic, i'm sure you realize that not everyone accepts the personhood of a fetus, and thus the right of the state to get involved.

Danielle, I'm sure you agree that not everyone accepts the personhood of Women.

Sheesh. Why is it that oppressed minorities are so quick to oppress?

Fen said...

taking on a humongous responsibility that you know you cant handle -- emotional stability, family support, time, money .... that is irresponsible.

See how far our culture has sunk?

The ProChoice crowd commissioned a study in the 80's - two-thirds of women who chose abortion were Carrie Bradshaws who didn't want to spend their shoe budget on diapers and baby formula.

Kill the child because its not convenient.

peter hoh said...

I wouldn't worry. Reagan's appointees have done an excellent job of upholding Roe. The Republican elite will continue to do its best to ensure that abortion stays out of the 50 state legislatures.

GMay said...

"...that is irresponsible. for people who dont believe a fetus is alive..."

What, is it dead then?

It's just lifeless tissue until the magical breath of life miraculously animates it to the world of the living, giving it the exalted "personhood" status so that it may be afforded the right to continue existing?

GMay said...

"Kill the child because its not convenient."

And that's what every single pro-choice argument boils down to - convenience. They just have to terminate/abort/kill the child for it's own darn good. Stop it before it becomes a "person" and then burdens the unfortunate parent.

Nevermind that if these paragons of responsibility were actually living up to it, they wouldn't even be in that situation.

Fen said...

What, is it dead then?

Sub-human.

Like the native americans that were wiped out because they were sub-human savages.

Like the africans that were enslaved because they were sub-human primates.

I think the pro-abortion crowd has some awareness of how morally wrong their cause is, thats why they have to pretend a fetus is sub-human. So they can kill it.

Prasad said...

1/2 half of all black babies are aborted. Liberal Women scream the loudest for choice because they do not want to be enslaved by children. The real purpose of abortion is to remove "undesirable" elements from society (eugenics) and the destruction of the family by Progressives. The actual cases of abortion for rape or incest are a tiny fraction. Pro abortion advocates should be honest. Camelia Paglia ( http://privat.ub.uib.no/BUBSY/playboy.htm) is at least honest, which then allows a true discussion.

Peter V. Bella said...

Bottom line. The pro-choice professionals, the organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood want Roe v Wade over turned.

The big pro-life groups want it intact and strengthened.

It is all about money and power. These groups would go out of existence if they got what the claimed they wanted. No movement, no existence, no money. They are all about the money. Tens of millions of dollars are at stake here.

These so called non-profits are as capitalist as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, or Merrill Lynch. They really do not care one way or another about abortion. They only care about the kachingo$.

Fen said...

groups would go out of existence if -

Actually, there was an recent article by the Pro-choice crowd lamenting the lack of young energetic women in their movement.

The women who favor abortion aren't passing their values down to their children.

Do you think they get the irony?

sunsong said...

I'm pro-choice. Adamantly so.

Drifting, a bit - I found myself admiring the Stupak group for standing on principle. (I was hoping they would kill the healthcare bill.) I was so disappointed when they caved. It was awful.

It seems to me that Pelosi used the pro-lifers - really took advantage of them. Without them - she would never have gotten a bill passed last fall. But they were no longer useful - so they were dismissed.

I generally don't relate to pro-lifers. They seem to be "my way or the high-way" types - and the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking. But I felt for them after the Stupak betrayal.

GMay said...

"I generally don't relate to pro-lifers. They seem to be "my way or the high-way" types - and the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking."

Your beauty pageant level platitude aside, pro-lifers generally feel you're snuffing out a human life. There's not a lot of room for compromise in that situation.

Why is it difficult to relate to this? The fact that one must engage in some nifty linguistic contortions to reconcile a patently barbaric act with a moral code?

Now that's where I have trouble relating.

Janis Gore said...

So, everyone here is saying that one cell should change the trajectory of a woman's life?

That's large thinking.

danielle said...

what do people think of the octomom ? she had frozen embryos. should she have had those disposed of, or would that have been killing ? so you're OK w/ her having 14 kids that she cant really take care of on her own. responsible ? irresponsible ? do you think those frozen embryos were alive, or are you going to now hedge and say its only when those embryos are implanted that its wrong to dispose of them ?

sunsong said...

Now that's where I have trouble relating.

Indeed - it appears we each have trouble relating. I would suggest that you, (representing pro-lifers who take a *my-way-or-the-highway* view) either cannot or will not consider the possibility that not everyone shares your world view or belief system.

Most pro-lifers (the vast majority) that I have encountered are Bible believing Christians. So much like Muslims - they are *sure* they have a corner on *T*ruth and everyone else is wrong.

As you say - not much room for compromise. I would simply repeat - the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking.

Fen said...

Danielle, do you know with certainty when a fetus is a human life?

If you aren't sure, then how can you go ahead and kill it?

GMay said...

"So, everyone here is saying that one cell should change the trajectory of a woman's life?

That's large thinking."


If she doesn't want her life's trajectory changed, maybe she should take a little more personal responsibility to prevent it from happening.

It's tough for the immature mind to grasp such an alien concept, but if you think a little larger, you might get it someday.

Janis Gore said...

Quit being a being a snot, GMay. I have successfully avoided pregnancy for 40 years.

I have a genetic abnormality that I'm not eager to propagate.

Fen said...

sunsung: Most pro-lifers (the vast majority) that I have encountered are Bible believing Christians. So much like Muslims - they are *sure* they have a corner on *T*ruth and everyone else is wrong.

You make it seem like you support abortion because of those pesky christians.

the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking

Nonsense. Our laws are nothing more than a codification of morality. Why do you think societies [those that survive and flourish] have moral standards to begin with?

And wouldn't those standards start with protecting human life? Or at least include it in their top ten?

Oh wait, they did! Something in the JudeoChristian foundation of law about not killing.

GMay said...

"Most pro-lifers (the vast majority) that I have encountered are Bible believing Christians. So much like Muslims - they are *sure* they have a corner on *T*ruth and everyone else is wrong."

What do you call it when you have a really shitty argument and have to bring up something unrelated in a piss poor effort to elevate yourself above some other group that fits your stereotypical views? The term escapes me at the moment.

"... the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking."

Maybe you could talk about world peace and starving Africans next.

Fen said...

Janis: Quit being a being a snot

Janis, when you insult people they tend to get snotty.

sunsong said...

Fen:

the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking

It may not be something you can *relate* to or understand. It's not nonsense - not even close. It is easier for people to see how cruel Muslims are - in their *my-way-or-the-highway* thinking. They *believe* they know what is right and wrong *absolutely* - and there is no compromise for them.

That's the problem. You see - you have decided that your view of when life begins is *T*ruth - and all the world should abide by it.

I simply continue to repeat - the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking.

Janis Gore said...

What, Fen, saying "That's large thinking?"

I didn't insult him.

sunsong said...

What do you call it when you have a really shitty argument and have to bring up something unrelated in a piss poor effort to elevate yourself above some other group that fits your stereotypical views? The term escapes me at the moment.

I think Karl Jung called it projection - didn't he? :-)

It has been my experience that "my-way-or-the highway" type thinkers just can't or won't grasp the idea that there really are other people that don't believe what they believe.

GMay said...

"Quit being a being a snot, GMay. I have successfully avoided pregnancy for 40 years."

Good for you, but we weren't talking about you now were we? You weren't talking about you until now. I wasn't talking about you either.

If you care to defend or elaborate on what seems to be a remarkably immature viewpoint on the subject in general, then please do so. Until then, irrelevant personal anecdotes don't really amount to much.

Fen said...

you have decided that your view of when life begins is Truth - and all the world should abide by it.

No. I have decided that we don't know with 100% certainty when life begins.

Until you know that you are NOT murdering a human, stop.

Fen said...

the world has been hurt enough by that kind of thinking

Focus please.

that kind of thinking: murder is wrong

GMay said...

"It has been my experience that "my-way-or-the highway" type thinkers just can't or won't grasp the idea that there really are other people that don't believe what they believe."

This is passive-aggressive nonsense.

Let's try this - do you believe rape is wrong?

sunsong said...

Fen:

Until you know that you are NOT murdering a human, stop.

Ok - so you have your own variation - but your conclusion is still "all the world should abide by my view"

I don't. I reject your view. So, what are you going to do? :-)

I, and millions of others aren't looking to you as the arbiter of goodness and truth in our lives. Imagine that?

I think the world can use more understanding and less attempts at control and domination. But then, that is jut my opinion.

Fen said...

or, to back it up even further, do you believe murder is wrong?

Fen said...

I think the world can use more understanding and less attempts at control and domination.

But without any Moral Code.

Good luck with that.

Fen said...

I, and millions of others aren't looking to you as the arbiter of goodness and truth in our lives. Imagine that?

We're talking about whether murder is okay in you life...

sunsong said...

Fen:

Focus please.

Exactly. And the point is that the world has been hurt enough by the kind of thinking that says:

I have a corner on *T*ruth and so you should live by my beliefs.

You say you aren't sure when life begins but you want to control what women do anyway (just in case). And I assume since you believe that - you feel you can now say that abortion is murder?

But - I don't agree. So, again, what are you going to do? Have a fit because I don't believe what you do? Doesn't that kind of make my point :-)

danielle said...

Fen -- as sure as you are that cells, then zygotes then embryos then fetuses are human's with rights protectable by the state, there are people who would dispute that at every step. so is a collection of cells a life ? how many ? when ? what constitutes life ? exactly when is that moment ? pre-implantation ? post-implantation ? if its pre-implantation, maybe you should consider mandating behaviors that make implantation more likely so that no 'lives' are lost. and if its a life, then are you also offering to take up making sure all these lives are properly fed and taken care of ? Are you advocating mandating and paying for pre-natal vitamins and healthy foods ? penalizing pregnant women who smoke .. or maybe also pregnant women who are stressed. stress is really bad for a fetus.

if people who are anti-choice really cared about the unborn, you'd think they'd really want to take better care of the unborn and be willing to shell out more dough since the unborn are so helpless, eh ?

.... i havent found many people who are anti-choice who are really concerned about the unborn. most of them seem to just be very self-righteous, and want to define for others what sin is and impose their views of what is moral.

GMay said...

Fen, something tells me that neither of us are going to get a direct answer to a direct question because it's obvious where it's going to go from there.

And I mean painfully obvious.

sunsong said...

"It has been my experience that "my-way-or-the highway" type thinkers just can't or won't grasp the idea that there really are other people that don't believe what they believe."

This is passive-aggressive nonsense.

Actually no. Maybe slow down and think about it. Has it ever really sunk in for you that there are millions (more likely billions) of people on this planet who don't believe what you do? And if it has - is it ok with you for others to be free to choose their own beliefs?

GMay said...

Sunsong, if abortion were illegal you'd be singing a different tune and you know it.

Now stop being a hypocrite and answer the questions asked of you.

GMay said...

"Actually no. Maybe slow down and think about it."

Actually yes. Now slow down and answer the questions. They're not hard.

Fen said...

Sunsung: Have a fit because I don't believe what you do?

Ah see, now you're cheating. Using rhetorical devices to launch personal attacks. I might just as easily accuse you of having a "meltdown" over this.

But, bottom line, you're only reaching for the ad hom because you cant mount a defense of your "adamant" stand.

the point is that the world has been hurt enough by the kind of thinking

The "kind of thinking" we're discussing is: "murder is wrong". How has the 'world' been 'hurt' by that kind of thinking?

And I assume since you believe that - you feel you can now say that abortion is murder?

Sweetie, if it were scientifically proven tomorrow that abortion = murder, would you stop? I don't think so.

I think you are cloakng yourself in this "world in pain" nonsense to justify doing whatever you want.

danielle said...

...and since we're on the topic, why stop at the unborn. you'd think that all these super-righteous people who care oh so much about life would also want to make sure that life for all children was really good .... you'd expect public schools to be excellent in all areas -- not just wealthy areas. you'd expect all these caring people to be flooding the inner cities and the rural communities where young people are often not getting access to the best educational resources, and just making things better.

but you people don't do that. you just like to call other people immoral, and murderers.

so how about you stop pretending that you are really so concerned about the lives of un/newly born.

Fen said...

Danielle: as sure as you are that cells, then zygotes then embryos then fetuses are human's with rights

Again, I specifically said I am NOT sure. Thats the central point of my argument, so I don't see why you're misrepresenting it.

Why are we killing something when we aren't sure its not human?

danielle said...

define human, Fen. how does that differ from a cluster of < 10 cells ?

sunsong said...

GMay:

I assume you cannot see that you are proving my point - as this drags out. It's like you either just cannot or will not entertain the idea that there really are people living among you who do not look at things the way you do. And, my goodness, the world has been hurt enough by those who are so convinced they are *right* that they would blithely, unconscionably force others to live by their beliefs.

I don't believe that abortion is murder. I don't believe that at all. So now what? Do you think you have a clever argument to then ask me questions about rape and morality? If you have a point to make - make it.

Fen said...

Danille: you'd think that all these super-righteous people -

Another one who supports abortion because of those pesky Christians.

And do I really need to bother with all the fallacies in the rest of your post? Its okay to murder him because no one wants to pay his college tuition? Get real.

Its becoming obvious here that abortion cannot be defended on its own merits.

Danielle, assume you found convincing scientific proof that abortion is murder. Would you still abort?

danielle said...

since you dont know when life begins, I think its too risky for men to ejaculate when not doing so with the intent of impregnating a woman. and i think there should not be fornication. and I think contraception is evil. so no birth control pills. no condoms. sex itself is life producing. we've got to protect life and all its components.

Fen said...

Has it ever really sunk in for you that there are millions (more likely billions) of people on this planet who don't believe what you do?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours." - Napier

sunsong said...

Fen:

But, bottom line, you're only reaching for the ad hom because you cant mount a defense of your "adamant" stand.

I have no need to defend it. That's part of what's not getting through here, imo. I am expressing my view. I don't need to defend it. You are taking issue with it. Why?

Why does it bother you that I don't think abortion is murder and I am adamantly pro-choice?

danielle said...

Fen, if I meant pesky Christians, I would have said pesky Christians.

you didnt answer my question: define human.

and then how about you define what would constitute sufficient scientific proof of life.

Fen said...

And Danielle trots out yet another list of fallacies.

Dodging a question that must be too complex for her to fathom:

Danielle, assume you found convincing scientific proof that abortion is murder. Would you still abort?

Fen said...

Fen, if I meant pesky Christians, I would have said pesky Christians.

But you're saying the same thing as Samsung - you complain about self-righteous busybodies as if it supports abortion.

you didnt answer my question: define human.

I've already answered a dozen times. I've said I don't know when a fetus is human, and that we should not kill it until we are certain its not.

Now, answer your own question...

Or try to hit the other two existing fallacies you forgot to include in your "defense" of abortion.

danielle said...

Wow, fen. I've asked you now 3 times:

define human.

what constitutes 'convincing scientific proof' of life ?

Fen said...

Why does it bother you that I don't think abortion is murder and I am adamantly pro-choice?

It doesn't bother me. Why do you think it does?

Again, it look like your support of abortion is less on its merits and more about poking your finger in the eyes of some self-righteous christian who called you a sinner.

Because you reflexively assume those of us arguing against you are just like them.

GMay said...

Danielle asked: "so is a collection of cells a life?"

Dumb question. We're not talking about just any old collection of cells now are we? Which makes the next questions...

"how many ? when ?"

...just as dumb. This next one isn't as dumb as much as it is ignorant:

"what constitutes life ?"

Not even gonna bother with that, but you can bet your sweet ass if we found a collection of random cells growing on Mars that we'd consider it "life".

"exactly when is that moment ?"

In regards to human reproduction, I'd say it's the moment it has a unique genetic identity. I like easy questions.

"if its pre-implantation, maybe you should consider mandating behaviors that make implantation more likely so that no 'lives' are lost."

Golly, stumbled upon the subject of the thread now didn't we? I think the behavior and the mandate had something to do with the word "abortion".

"and if its a life, then are you also offering to take up making sure all these lives are properly fed and taken care of ?"

Ahhh, the liberal mind hard at work here, showing no grasp of the concept of personal responsibility. No grasp at all.

"Are you advocating mandating and paying for pre-natal vitamins and healthy foods ?"

What this has to do with abortion is anyone's guess. Same for the remainder of that wandering paragraph.

"if people who are anti-choice really cared about the unborn, you'd think they'd really want to take better care of the unborn and be willing to shell out more dough since the unborn are so helpless, eh?"

If the anti-life people had a single clue about being responsible for one's own actions and that actions have consequences, we wouldn't get such asinine statements like this.

".... i havent found many people who are anti-choice who are really concerned about the unborn. most of them seem to just be very self-righteous, and want to define for others what sin is and impose their views of what is moral."

And I haven't found many people who are anti-life that have the first clue about what a moral is and its utility in a civilized society.

danielle said...

oh, that's all you've got ?

Well, when you can prove that an abortion is murder, then come back with your proof. Until then, I've got a list of things here that are unprovable that I also believe that you doing amounts to murder of the unborn -- so you should stop doing all of them. so no more jacking off for you. no more sex except with the intention to procreate.

Fen said...

Wow, fen. I've asked you now 3 times:

And I've answered you. You don't like the answer, fine. Provide your own: define human.

what constitutes 'convincing scientific proof' of life

You're dodging Dani. Its a hypothetical. Assume "convincing [to you] scientific proof that abortion is murder". And I had specifically inserted "to you" in the original question to indicate that the proof meets whatever standard YOU would require.

Would you still abort? A simple yes or no is all thats needed. You refuse to answer, I think we know why. Because, for you, its not about whether a fetus is human. You would kill it anyway.

Penny said...

"Argue your point; let others argue theirs.

It's called democracy."

But then that dang pesky voting business!

Sure...Go ahead and argue all you want, because when the voting is over, we have a winner and we have a loser.

It's all very black and white. Rather like this discussion about abortion.

danielle said...

my dead skin cells have a unique genetic identity. are they life too ?

and one day they could be used for cloning. should i be saving all these cells ?????

sunsong said...

Fen:

It doesn't bother me. Why do you think it does?

Why are you asking me to defend it then?

Again, it look like your support of abortion is less on its merits and more about poking your finger in the eyes of some self-righteous christian who called you a sinner.

Jeez - what to say :-) Does it bother you if my view of abortion has *merit* based on your beliefs and values? It's like you're contradicting yourself here. Can you see that? Do you think it is ok for me to have a different view of abortion than you do or don't you? It's not clear to me that you are ok with me having my own view - regardless of whether or not my view passes your test of credibility. Do you see what I'm saying here.

Because you reflexively assume those of us arguing against you are just like them.

As I said - my experience has been that the vast majority of pro-lifers - the ones I have had interactions with - have been Bible believing Christians. Not all of them have. But the vast majority.

danielle said...

nice try Fen. you cant pose a question, and then decided what a non answer means. that's ridiculous.

all it means is that I wont answer a hypothetical question; esp not when its not clear to me how you'd try to use an answer to a hypothetical in you oh so slippery arguments.

its really unfortunate that you are not reasonable enough to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt about the egregiousness of killing a person.

danielle said...

i know several people who are not christian (or other wise religious) who are pro-life.

danielle said...

GMay said ...

"Ahhh, the liberal mind hard at work here, showing no grasp of the concept of personal responsibility. No grasp at all."

GMay -- we're talking about for the unborn ... for this entity that can provide for itself yet.

danielle said...

...ah, GMay -- you have proved my point with your statement:

And I haven't found many people who are anti-life that have the first clue about what a moral is and its utility in a civilized society.

Fen -- do you defend this obnoxious self-righteousness ?

GMay said...

"I assume you cannot see that you are proving my point - as this drags out.

It's like you...... If you have a point to make - make it."


I assume you cannot see that you're proving my point - that you can't answer a simple question.

It's like you either just cannot or will not entertain the idea that there really are simple questions that are easily answered with minimal effort. And, my goodness, the world has had enough people who demonstrate they aren't either unable or unconscionably unwilling to answer a simple question.

I didn't ask if you believed abortion was murder. I didn't ask that at all. So now what? I'll ask you again, do you think rape is wrong?

It's a yes or no question so you don't have to tax your brain with composing complex sentences:

Is rape wrong? There's the question again. Got it? think about it, then type your one word answer and stop acting like a broken record for fuck's sake.

Fen said...

Samsung: Why are you asking me to defend it then?

Curiosity re how your mind works. On one hand you wail about the world being in pain and hurt. About those that blithely, unconscionably force others to live by their beliefs.

And then you claim its no biggie to kill your babies.

Do you think it is ok for me to have a different view of abortion than you do or don't you?

Sure its ok. You're allowed to have whatever view you want. Why do you think thats even at issue?

my experience has been that the vast majority of pro-lifers - the ones I have had interactions with - have been Bible believing Christians.

I'm just saying that the way you keep harping about those people makes me wonder if its more about them than abortion.

danielle said...

hmmmm.....so what is the conservative, self-proclaimed pro-life, word on care of young people ?

i mean, if you really want to talk about life, you cant possibly just mean life pre-birth. you'd think you folks are really concerned w/ life of children until they are legally adults.

...or is the term pro-life more self-righetousness and you'd actually dont care so much about the life, and you just care about not allowing abortions ?? I think its the latter.

GMay said...

danielle said: "my dead skin cells have a unique genetic identity. are they life too ?"

When your dead skin cells spontaneously grow into a separate human being (which is probably about the time you'll make an intelligent point), call me.

Fen said...

Danielle: all it means is that I wont answer a hypothetical question; esp not when its not clear to me how you'd try to use an answer to a hypothetical in you oh so slippery arguments.

No. There's no trick. There's no follow-up "gotcha" comment. It ends with your answer.

Obviously, you're too ashamed to answer in public. Fine. Tonight, before you close your eyes, think about answering yes or no. No one but you will hear or know:

Assume convincing [to you] scientific proof that abortion is murder. Would you still abort?

Fen said...

GMay: When your dead skin cells spontaneously grow into a separate human being

If you start responding to each and every one of Dani's fallacious arguments, you'll be here all night. Thats why she does it. To distract from a truth she needs to ignore.

GMay said...

danielle mystifyingly says: "GMay -- we're talking about for the unborn ... for this entity that can provide for itself yet."

Yet, for some reason, you're bringing up all sorts of tangiental crap regarding other people caring for children not their own.

Are not able to keep track of your own argument?

danielle said...

GMay, how about you get back to me when humans grow spontaneously from a sperm and an egg.

zygotes dont spontaneously grow into humans. they have to be implanted in a womb, fed via the woman's body who they attach to.

danielle said...

Fen: killing people is wrong.

Now, what is the rest of your argument ? I'm sure there is some more slipperiness to come ...

GMay said...

danielle: "...ah, GMay -- you have proved my point with your statement:"

And I haven't found many people who are anti-life that have the first clue about what a moral is and its utility in a civilized society.

Fen -- do you defend this obnoxious self-righteousness ?

Try reading your blather I was responding to. You really don't keep track of the bullshit that leaves your keyboard do you?

danielle said...

GMay, its too bad you never learned to argue without making personal attacks. You're coming off pretty pathetically.

GMay said...

danielle wanders yet once again: "hmmmm.....so what is the conservative, self-proclaimed pro-life, word on care of young people ?

i mean, if you really want to talk about life, you cant possibly just mean life pre-birth. you'd think you folks are really concerned w/ life of children until they are legally adults.

...or is the term pro-life more self-righetousness and you'd actually dont care so much about the life, and you just care about not allowing abortions ?? I think its the latter."


Are you able to stick to the topic at all? You're stinking up the thread with herring now.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sunsong said...

Fen:

Ok, I can relate to being curious.

And then you claim its no biggie to kill your babies.

No, it you who thinks abortion is murder. I don't. I don't believe that abortion is killing a baby. I assume that you do believe that? :-) That's what I keep trying to point out here. It seems very difficult for some to comprehend the fact that there really are people who do not look at things the same way that they do :-)

I think that calling pro-choice people baby-killers is a big mistake on the part of the pro-lifers. But again, that is just my opinion :-) It certainly doesn't persuade me of anything - or make me want to change in any way or cause to feel guilt or shame or unworthy in some way. I find it off-putting.

My point about the world and the hurt caused by those who so coldly, cruelly even, impose their will on others is just an observation.

Fen said...

I think Dani is arguing that if you cant provide for yourself, she's jsutified in killing you.

Or somesuch nonsense.

Anything to avoid the question:

Assume convincing scientific proof that abortion is murder. Would you still abort?

Instead, we'll be treated to some drivel that babies deserve to be killed because some selfish conservative won't raise it.

Ironic, since my own brother is in Russia atm adopting yet another child. Apparently, there aren't enough prospects in America because Dani and her ilk have killed them all.

GMay said...

danielle: "GMay, how about you get back to me when humans grow spontaneously from a sperm and an egg."

Reeeeeeally now. Considering I didn't say that humans grow spontaneously from a sperm and egg, I'd say you're tilting at strawmen now.

danielle said...

Fen, I answered your question: Killing people is wrong. I CLEARLY do not sanction killing people.

my earlier points related to support for the life of people that you feel need to be protected (by laws -- in this case anti-abortion laws). my point was, if you believe the unborn need protection, then your concern for life should reasonably extend beyond birth in some meaningful way.

danielle said...

Fen, there are plenty of children in America who need homes.

sunsong said...

GMay:

I do appreciate you providing an example of what I talking about :-)

GMay said...

danielle: "GMay, its too bad you never learned to argue without making personal attacks. You're coming off pretty pathetically."

If I were just calling you a dumbass without backing that up, that would be pathetic. But since I'm rebutting you point for point and your arguments are getting farther and farther afield, I'd say my comments are justified.

Stop saying stupid shit and I won't call you on it. Fair?

Fen said...

I don't believe that abortion is killing a baby. I assume that you do believe that?

No. I don't believe that you believe that. ;)

I think you're deliberately fooling yourself with euphemisms to make the act more agreeable to your values. And I think it will damage you.

But "it is ok for me to have a different view than you"

Goodnight Sam.

sunsong said...

No. I don't believe that you believe that. ;)

I think you're deliberately fooling yourself with euphemisms to make the act more agreeable to your values. And I think it will damage you.

But "it is ok for me to have a different view than you"


Sooo, after who knows how many posts - we finally get somewhere :-) You don't think I know what I believe?

Wow. Well, that is probably a good place to end. I agree with that. Who knows - maybe someday - sometime - you will stop and consider that there really are people who don't believe what you do :-)

I don't for a moment believe that abortion is murder.

GMay said...

sunsong misses: "I do appreciate you providing an example of what I talking about :-)"

You mis-typed "I'm not going to answer your question because I know it's going to dick up my argument".

Your argument by assumption has been entertaining though.

Thanks for playing.

sunsong said...

Fen:

One little quote to consider if you are ever in the mood:

You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body. -
C. S. Lewis

Roger Sweeny said...

Victoria,

And Roger, if you do not support the "males get to decide about male fetus" why did you even mention it?

As a reductio ad absurdum. To show one of the unpleasant places that a "only women can legislate for women, only men can legislate for men" rule could lead.

Roger Sweeny said...

Do about 100 of the above posts boil down to:

"Since we can't agree that a fetus is a person, abortion should be legal."

"Since we can't agree that a fetus isn't a person, abortion should be illegal."

?

damikesc said...

The conclusion here of, basically, if you don't have ovaries then you don't get a voice is bullshit.

When men are not required to pay child support, then the men don't warrant a voice. Otherwise, since the man is financially liable, he earned a voice. And I'm a proud dad of two kids and love them more than life

And I think any man who would walk out on their kids is no man...but they're not worse than a woman who aborts hers.

damikesc said...

Victoria, if you take to the streets over it, I hope you wouldn't be offended if a lot of us mocked you and called ylou a racist for supporting an act that kills an awful lot of black babies.

I mean, since youj do it now, its fair.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Everyone's talking past each other, so I doubt this will do much good, but I'd like to respond to a very specific point.

Danielle stated several times something to the nature of that if we want to protect the unborn, we should be providing for children as well. I'm honestly not sure what her point was; there's no way that any of it defends the idea of killng an innocent person because he or she is not visable (without specialized technology).

But, Danielle, I'd like to point out that we do protect children in the same way that we would like to protect unborn children. Society is in wide agreement that born children are not to be abused, neglected, or murdered. Those that do these things are punished harshly. No one cries that you ought to mind your own business when they remove a child from the care of a parent who is beating him.

We also widely agree that children should be cared for, and we have countless charitable and governmental organizations seeing that food and care are widely available for the helpless. No one here would change these things, I'm sure.

I think the unborn ought to be protected as well as children who are born. Using your own logic, no one is hypocritical here.

- Lyssa

GMay said...

"Using your own logic, no one is hypocritical here."

That was logic she was flinging around?

damikesc said...

Sad thing is, I oppose banning abortion...but since so many supporters are such idiots, they make one take the pro-life side else one is gtarred with being part of an illogical mob.

Saint Croix said...

If only the potentially pregnant can speak on abortion, then women who are too old to get pregnant also have to shut up. Sorry, Ann. No free speech for you. Issue doesn't concern you any more. Also, all women have to shut up about war because they can't be drafted. Doesn't affect you, so be quiet.

Amazing how comfortable the left is with censoring and silencing people.