July 26, 2012

Rand Paul's anti-abortion campaign.

"Whereas: Science is clear that human life begins at conception...."

350 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 350 of 350
jimbino said...

It's getting tiresome to have to keep pointing this out:

Our Amerikan self-defense law grants you the right to kill anyone, including a Obama or a fetus, who insists on touching you without your consent for nine months, especially when all the while threatening you with risk of death and serious bodily injury.

We'll see how this works out with Zimmerman.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

So Andy's doing the same thing the "pro-lifers" do - fixating on material form. You are using his example to make the same argument against them that I, or anyone else, can make.

jr565 said...

O Ritmo wrote:
Individually distinct DNA is not the same thing as an individually distinct person. Cells are not people.

No shit. You're the one that keeps trying to break down life into it's relevant components and suggesting that they too are alive (which is irrelevant to the discussion). Skin cells may be alive, but they are not a human. Thanks for getting us back on track and not on peripheral matters about whether sperm are living things.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

jr,

Becoming mad at me for pointing out the flaw in your own argument (just because you happen to agree with me in hindsight), does not improve your position.

It just shows that you are learning.

Lewis Wetzel said...

That was cruel, Segundo.
I look the way I do because I was burned rescuing cadets after the battle plates ruptured on a starship.

chickelit said...

Ritmo wrote: Individually distinct DNA is not the same thing as an individually distinct person. Cells are not people.

Ritmo once gave me a brilliant idea. I reduced it to practice (link) and then I strangled it.

jr565 said...

O Ritmo,
If you want we could argue that a sperm is not really a sperm either. If you want to go deeper into the makeup of a sperm then it's just citric acid, and what have you. And if we then say what is citric acid, we could then divide that up into its ingredients. And then those ingredients could be divided up into those ingredients on and on until we get to the smallest units or particles that make up anything in life. I mean, why fixate on material form, when anything that is could technically be deconstructed to smaller and smaller particles.

Bill said...

To everyone who seems to be suggesting that human life doesn't begin at conception because all living matter is alive or because some creatures reproduce asexually or whatever, can you please help me out here?

I'm having a hard time following your reasoning to its logical conclusion. It seems that ultimately either eating plants is murder or killing small children isn't.

We pro-lifers have explained our position and given the commonly held scientific evidence to back up our claims and apparently it's not good enough. Since we're talking about whether it should be permissible to end a pregnancy and if so, when, can you please explain at exactly what point a human life comes into existence (and why) and at what point it should be deserving of legal protection (and why)?

Since this is potentially a matter of life and death, I'm afraid I must insist.

wyo sis said...

A fetus is invited.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Glad you were able to go somewhere with the idea, Chick.

Jr, as long as you're wedded to remaining a hard-core materialist, it's turtles all the way down.

The mind and psyche may have material origins, but that doesn't mean they remain material phenomena. And they're what matter not only in this discussion, but in most if not all moral/ethical discussions.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Lol. Love the comparison to Dreyfus' character, BTW.

I remember you showed me some other, close examples, and I was relieved to know that others had come up with similar ideas. But I swear that back then in college I had no idea that alternative, 3-dimensional tables had been thunk up. Sometimes similar ideas are "conceived" at the same time, independently. And whoever gets the fame is a matter of circumstance. Didn't some German dude come up with the calculus at the same time Newton did?

Such is life.

jimbino said...

Yo Wyo Sis,

You should know by now that whether or not you invited the encounter, you can yell "rape" or "stop" at any time.

You do NOT give up your right to defend yourself against death or serious bodily injury by consenting to touch a person at first.

If you had been subject to "date rape" you might have a clue.

jr565 said...

The mind and psyche may have material origins, but that doesn't mean they remain material phenomena. And they're what matter not only in this discussion, but in most if not all moral/ethical discussions.

I don't really get where you're going with this. The mind is a material thing. It has material origins and remains the mind through its stages of development. And its material in its makeup. If we dissect it, its' something concrete. Thoughts are not material things, true. But the process whereby one creates a thought certainly are. IS there any point where you would argue that a brain wasn't a brain?
You're kind of wedded to the material makeup of something, if we are talking about a definition of something. as in, what is a brain?

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I don't really get where you're going with this. The mind is a material thing. It has material origins and remains the mind through its stages of development. And its material in its makeup. If we dissect it, its' something concrete. Thoughts are not material things, true. But the process whereby one creates a thought certainly are. IS there any point where you would argue that a brain wasn't a brain?

I already did. I'm pretty intent on getting the pro-life crowd to admit that the perception of and interaction with such non-material phenomena as pleasure, pain, consciousness and the like are the hallmarks of what we define as human. There are neurological structures and receptors that are both physical in nature and crucial for these things, but once an individual can make use of them then they cease to be a primarily material concern. They become spiritual concerns - for the non-materialists among us, at least.

damikesc said...

Why are you considered 9 months old right before birth, and then start out as 1 day old? Not a gotcha question, just always struck me as an oddity.

Because date of birth is way easier to determine the date of conception.

I'm arguing for some fricking respect for the psychological identities that define who we are, as well.

Those are the most important, "parts", if you will.


So, if you enter a coma, you should be killed the first moment you're not responsive?

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

That abominable strawman needs just a bit more hay if you intend to build it up to the Goliath proportions I foresee, damikesc. Maybe it will be so big that crows could actually build nests inside and live in it.

But thanks for playing.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Why expend all that effort just to restate the gnostic heresy, Segundo?

jr565 said...

O Ritmo wrote:
I already did. I'm pretty intent on getting the pro-life crowd to admit that the perception of and interaction with such non-material phenomena as pleasure, pain, consciousness and the like are the hallmarks of what we define as human

So, until the doctor slaps teh baby and it starts crying it's not technically alive?
Ive seen plenty of pictures of babies in wombs that show them doing things like sucking their thumbs, and have felt the baby kicking while still in the mothers womb. Not to mention the fact that a baby has heart beat very early on in its development.

The Unknown Pundit said...

Reading NRO some years back, Ramesh Ponnuru laid out what he believed the pro-life consensus was at the time concerning punishments for illegal abortions if they were to become illegal in the future. Paraphrasing here, but he mentioned 2-5 year prison sentences for abortion providers along with heavy fines ($10-$25M) and that women that testified against their abortionists should be given immunity from prosecution. Interestingly, he never mentioned what the punishment should be if they didn’t testify for the government. I took it to mean that women breaking the abortion laws would be handled a lot less harshly than the medical staff would be.

And that was was it.

For decades I’d heard abortion called murder over and over again. Yet here were recommended punishments that fell far short of what is normally called for convicted murderers.

And to top that off, he recommended immunity for the person most responsible for the murder, the woman who sought the abortion, providing she is willing to testify for the prosecution. Since there is no abortion but for the woman seeking one, she should rightly shoulder most of the blame for the crime and certainly deserving of punishment. But evidently personal responsibility doesn’t apply to women who would seek and receive an illegal abortion that results in "murder".

Lastly, he never mentioned what the punishment should be, if any, for those women that don’t testify. Shouldn’t they be punished severely, perhaps even more so than the medical technicians, given that these women are choosing to break the law? Again, the medical staff isn’t forcing her to break the law to get an abortion.

I had an epiphany that day. It’s obvious to me that pro-lifers are not interested in justice when it comes to laws and punishments on this issue. They would focus the punishments on the medical staff and away from the person most responsible for the illegal abortion, the woman seeking it. That, my friends, is injustice and therefore immoral. This of course is a political compromise from the “no compromising on abortion” crowd. They know their political support would shrink if they proposed harsh punishments for the women like they do the abortionists.

In closing, if you can't bring yourself to punish the woman who would get an illegal abortion as severely as you would the medical folks, just shut up because it's obvious you aren't interested in justice. And if you think 2-3 years in prison is just punishment for violating abortion laws, then please stop describing abortion as "murder" because it is clear that you don't mean it.

Now go on with you moral preening.

jr565 said...

I already did. I'm pretty intent on getting the pro-life crowd to admit that the perception of and interaction with such non-material phenomena as pleasure, pain, consciousness and the like are the hallmarks of what we define as human. There are neurological structures and receptors that are both physical in nature and crucial for these things, but once an individual can make use of them then they cease to be a primarily material concern. They become spiritual concerns - for the non-materialists among us, at least.

DO you think life is just a dream, Ritmo? Perhaps there is no real reality. Perhaps you are still in your mothers womb and this universe that we think we are living in, is simply the imaginings of a fetus?
Maybe our reality is like the guy in the Twlight zone, who is on death row, and he's begging the guards to not put him to death because since he's dreaming as he dies in the dream he'll wake up and thus end the reality of his dream (and thus killing the world that his dream conjured).
Mabye we're in the Matrix, and the we're at the Oracles house watching the kid bend the spoon, only "there is no spoon".

wyo sis said...

Yo jimbino,

You should know by now that when you invite a baby into life it will be inhabiting the mother's body.

A woman does NOT give up her right to defend herself against death or serious bodily injury by consenting to be pregnant. But to pretend that being inconvenienced is equal to death or serious bodily injury is morally repugnant.

If you had ever been pregnant you might have a clue.

damikesc said...

That abominable strawman needs just a bit more hay if you intend to build it up to the Goliath proportions I foresee, damikesc

You provided the rationale. Don't get snippy when people notice it is an asinine one.

Didn't you ALSO say
I already did. I'm pretty intent on getting the pro-life crowd to admit that the perception of and interaction with such non-material phenomena as pleasure, pain, consciousness and the like are the hallmarks of what we define as human

A comatose person cannot feel that. A person under anaesthesia cannot either. Feel free to provide any legal consistency.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

At what age does a fetus show physical response to invasion--like poking & proding and the like?

What qualifies as pain? Of course a fetus can't express pain or respond to feeling like we do.

OTOH I can't really feel your pain, but if I pretend to, it's because I'm human.

chickelit said...

@wyo sis: I'm sure that jimbino as felt the pain of birthing large feces...probably twins even.

jr565 said...

Unknown Pundt wrote:
In closing, if you can't bring yourself to punish the woman who would get an illegal abortion as severely as you would the medical folks, just shut up because it's obvious you aren't interested in justice. And if you think 2-3 years in prison is just punishment for violating abortion laws, then please stop describing abortion as "murder" because it is clear that you don't mean it.

Now go on with you moral preening.

It's a tough question to answer,partly because its putting the cart before the horse. (i.e. since the law would first have to be changed it would be tough to come up with the proper punishment)
But suppose theres another situation. Suppose there's a woman that wants to give birth and her boyfriend kicks her in the stomach until she miscarraiges, because he wants to not have to pay child support. SHould he face murder charges? OR,
what if she planned on getting an abortion next week, but he grew impatient and kicked her in the stomach this weekend. If the intent was to get an abortion anyway, should he not be charged with murder since ultimately she wanted to get rid of the baby anyway?

jimbino said...

Yo Wyo Sis,

I'll explain this to you in the simplist way I can, using, of course your own words:

You should know by now that when you invite a man into your twat, it will be inhabiting your body.

A woman does NOT give up her right to defend herself against death or serious bodily injury by consenting to be fucked. But to pretend that being inconvenienced by an unwanted pregnancy is equal to death or serious bodily injury is morally repugnant.

If you had ever been sane you might have a clue.

wyo sis said...

jimbino
I'll let your comment stand as it exposes you as fundamentally morally bankrupt far better than anything I could say.

chickelit said...

Kudos to jimbino for giving the most chilling description of pregnancy ever: "invaded....inhabited"

Now wonder he uses terms like "breeder" elsewhere so fondly.

Just how many women fucking him over did to take to get him in his sorry state? Or is he confused about his orientation?

Saint Croix said...

Here's the text of the bill.

Senator Paul makes a strong argument. The 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the authority to enforce the equal protection clause. Thus if a state tries to dehumanize people, Congress can put a stop to it.

Of course, as the Supreme Court itself has held, the equal protection clause applies to the federal government as well as the states. Thus if the Supreme Court has dehumanized people, Congress can step in and remedy the evil.

I wish pro-life people would stop trying to define every abortion as murder. It distracts us from the obvious murders that the Supreme Court has legalized (for instance, the Carhart murders).

Defining a microscopic organism as a "baby" is dishonest, in my opinion.

For instance, say a lab assistant in a fertility clinic drops a test tube, and a hundred frozen embryos are destroyed. Would you prosecute him for mass murder?

I think that's ridiculous as a matter of law. In fact you can't prosecute him for a homicide because a zygote in a test tube has no brain activity. Thus it's not a homicide under the death statutes in all 50 states.

It drives me up the fucking wall when pro-life people insist on fighting the battle at conception. You want to define IUD as murder?

What Paul's bill should do, I think, is outlaw any abortion that would be a homicide under state law. That's what equal protection requires. And I think that's a magnificent step. So that's what Paul needs to do. Focus on the legal discrimination against babies and fight that fight.

wyo sis said...

Isn't it reasonable that if you want to be pro-life it's better to take the fight to that which bends the benefit of the doubt toward life?

jimbino said...

Wrong Wyo Sis:

Read your 14th Amendment, which exalts "life, liberty and property."

Life is not favored over liberty and property.

Live with it.

Joe Schmoe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wyo sis said...

You don't get to kill people just because they live.

Joe Schmoe said...

Abortion continues to disproportionately affect (or afflict; your choice) the black community.

Some sobering census numbers:

In 2007, there were almost 50 million white women and 10 million black women aged 15 to 44. 5 to 1, white to black.

There were 668,000 abortions by white women; 448,000 by black women. The rate was 13.2 per 1000 for white women; 48.2 per 1000 for black women.

That astounds me. Whether you are pro whatever, this is a troubling statistic.

Saint Croix said...

if you can't bring yourself to punish the woman who would get an illegal abortion as severely as you would the medical folks, just shut up because it's obvious you aren't interested in justice.

Discrimination doesn't actually prove that babies are property, dumb ass. This is why racists don't actually turn black people into commodities, and why Nazis can't actually turn Jews into sub-humans. If a baby's a person, she's a person regardless of what our laws say or how irrational we might be.

Perhaps pro-lifers are irrationally fond of young 16-year-old girls, while we hate the millionaires who butcher babies for a living. And maybe this prejudice in favor of young girls, and this hatred of doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath, marks us as irrational. But our irrationality in regard to punishments says nothing about the baby and her right to life.

We can't turn her into a commodity any more than you can. Yes, maybe we are bigots who don't love the baby enough. You caught us!

But at least we're not baby-killers. You define her as sub-human and butcher her when she gets in the way of your orgasms. So while we might be irrational, we are nowhere near as ugly, as mean, as vicious as the people who fight for the right to murder our young.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I happen to believe that morality requires rationality, at least it does if it's a proper morality when applied to situations complex enough for only humans to devise.

To argue otherwise is to imply that our lower, more primitive and beastlier natures are stronger bases for determining morality. And that's a strange position for someone conservative enough to call himself a "pro-lifer" to take.

jr565 said...

Saint Croix wrote:
It drives me up the fucking wall when pro-life people insist on fighting the battle at conception
I wasn't arguing when to start the battle over when to give rights to fetuses. I was simply making the argument that you have to define the start of a babys life at its' conception. That defnitionally would be the start of "human life".

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

A "commodity" implies a use - a definition that is negated by the fact that abortion "disposes" of an organism, embryo/fetus... what have you. So your rhetoric is getting the better of you.

Have your feelings, as irrational as they are. Admitting that they can't be scrutinized through a rational lens, however, is pretty much an admission of moral defeat.

wyo sis said...

Situational ethics is too mushy to built morality on. There are moral absolutes those are the things that are firm enough to hold a structure for a liveable society. One of the moral absolutes is the sanctity of life. Ask your rational self about the situation that baby is in.

Saint Croix said...

Isn't it reasonable that if you want to be pro-life it's better to take the fight to that which bends the benefit of the doubt toward life?

A murder prosecution is quite serious. I think you ought to be certain that a human baby has actually been killed.

I agree that states ought to outlaw even early abortions, out of a respect for human life and a humility that our definitions of death might be wrong.

But I don't think it's appropriate for Congress to answer that question for all 50 states.

I believe in federalism. It's up to the states to define when people die. But what the federal government can insist, under equal protection, is that every person in the state is receiving the same rule of law.

Thus if a state defines human death as total brain death (and all 50 states do), then it's unconstitutional to do an abortion that would be a homicide under that law.

You can't kill babies. It's up to the state to define what is a killing. But it's up to the federal government to make sure that whatever the rule is, it's applied to all the people in the state.

A baby in the womb has been defined as property. That's what this law needs to strike down.

Congress doesn't have authority to outlaw abortion. But it does have authority to make sure that our state governments are not dehumanizing people in order to kill them.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I wasn't arguing when to start the battle over when to give rights to fetuses. I was simply making the argument that you have to define the start of a babys life at its' conception. That defnitionally would be the start of "human life".

Again, only if you take the idea of a "human life" (or better yet, of "being alive") to be comprised by the creation/possession of a diploid genome. Arbitrary.

Saint Croix is on the right track. You have to first accept that we might not have medical access to any single, discrete point for determining the transition to "being alive". It is a process, after all. The need for a specific, easily identified definition on that step is human and understandable (it provides a basis for agreement - OR for disagreement), but it leads to arbitrary conclusions if done incorrectly.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

A baby in the womb has been defined as property. That's what this law needs to strike down.

Not only that. "Born" children are pretty much given over to the will of however their parents want to raise their "property", too. That won't be struck down, either. Good luck. Sure, there are restrictions to what a parent can do to his/her minor child, but the domain over them belongs to the parent. The state only has ward over them in extreme circumstances.

Accept complexities. You argued for as much, earlier.

Saint Croix said...

You have to define the start of a baby's life at its conception. That defnitionally would be the start of "human life".

I know a lot of people say that, and believe it, but it's really sloppy.

Conception is when we start existence. Our body has started to come into being. But our physical appearance does not actually mean we're alive.

A dead person, for instance, has a body. We can see her form. The body is right there in front of us. But she's dead. She's not alive.

Existence is not the standard. Life is the standard.

If we talked about death the way pro-lifers talk about conception, we would define death as the point when our body finally disintegrates into nothing. Ashes to ashes. Microscopic organism to microscopic organism.

But we don't do that. We don't wait for pure nothingness. Even though the body is still there, we draw our line and say life is over.

I believe it would be absurd to say that we have to wait until nothinness to define human death. We simply don't do it.

Maybe we're impatient. Maybe we're arrogant. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe we're practical!

Regardless, we define human death. We have laws on the books in regard to when you or I die. And our rule is total brain death.

What this means is that you have to have activity in the brain to be alive. If a doctor stabs you and causes your brain to cease function, he has killed you.

Activity in the brain is the difference between a stillborn infant in a womb, and a kicking baby. Both have bodies. But one is alive and one is not. And we have a biological marker that we use to make that determination.

If we're talking about homicide and murder and making sure we're not killing babies, the real question is not "when does life begin" but rather "when do people die?"

And that question we can answer. We have answered it. And we have absolute consensus as a society in regard to when people die. Same rule in all 50 states.

And I'm not insisting that we're right about brain activity. Maybe we're wrong! But what I'm saying is that's our law, and we should apply our law to all our people, not just some of them.

Saint Croix said...

I happen to believe that morality requires rationality

Yeah, whatever. I get annoyed when a rapist points a finger at me and says, "You have a speeding ticket! Hypocrite!"

Lewis Wetzel said...

I happen to believe that morality requires rationality, at least it does if it's a proper morality when applied to situations complex enough for only humans to devise.

Oh, who cares what you believe, Segundo. Maybe you believe in Tooth Fairy as well.

wyo sis said...

Saint Croix
That's one of the best arguments I've heard for a determination of when life starts. It sure beats the standard being applied right now. It's a sane move in the right direction. I wonder how pro abortions people answer it. The problem is the incessant moving of the standard in the name of ethics.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

That was too irrational to bother responding to. Nonsensical, even.

Why not a crying fit? Just use the sad face emoticon. Blame it on feeling, you know, "overwhelmed".

And you were doing so well.

chickelit said...

Ritmo reasoned: 'Born' children are pretty much given over to the will of however their parents want to raise their 'property', too.

An important restriction on those property rights is a prohibition against of killing them. St. Croix is just asking for consistency. You're introducing unneccessary complexity when the real question is when the life is human.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I also believe people who can't use the definite article are not to be trusted when suggesting a superior mythology.

At least you admit that you are inept in the way of humanity's greatest gift. Perhaps that is why you are so afraid of being defined as lacking human life, and being aborted.

Saint Croix said...

Accept complexities.

Defining a human being as sub-human isn't a complexity, Ritmo, you fuckwit. It's pure fascism.

What's complex about a knife in the neck? For fuck's sake.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Saint Croix is fine when he's being rational (an endeavor he unfortunately insists on engaging only when he WANTS to!). And the material/life is "human" all the way through; that's not the issue. We agree that there are transitions that may or may not be easily subjected to division into discrete "points", and that at some point the rights of born children (to being kept alive, for instance) doesn't apply. We agree that the death standard should relate to the life standard. So that's a lot. Necessarily so.

Shanna said...

It’s obvious to me that pro-lifers are not interested in justice when it comes to laws and punishments on this issue.

I think they are interested in prevention, more than 'justice'. Birth control, adoption, abstinence...or stopping the abortions at the source.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Apparently this incidental foray of yours into rationality isn't as easy for you as it is for others, Saint Croix. You keep reverting to type. The brainless, cagey and inarticulate type. Like an animal, and not a human being.

Human wasn't the point. But words have meanings. Yes, "human being" is not the way that lab assistants refer to zygotes in test tubes.

Learn words. Fuckwit.

Saint Croix said...

That's one of the best arguments I've heard for a determination of when life starts. It sure beats the standard being applied right now.

They have no standard. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." Direct quote from Roe v. Wade. That was the sentence that, for me, brought down the whole house of cards.

The problem is the incessant moving of the standard in the name of ethics.

More specifically, the problem is that they dehumanized babies so that they wouldn't have to apply any standard of law to them.

And let me emphasize too there are strong arguments for protecting future life, the life to come. Even if early abortions are not homicides, they may still be quite evil.

Consider the miracle of creation, and how horrified we are when somebody destroys a beautiful work of art. Isn't a human life far more miraculous than any painting or sculpture? Flushing one down a toilet is just as vicious and rude as putting your fist through a Monet.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Also, zygotes don't have necks. Let alone necks large enough for knifes to be thrust into them.

But maybe that's too complex and "fascist" (lol) for a "fuckwit" to understand.

Except when he's just trying for some chest-thumping creds. It helps him seem like his rationality isn't colliding with his claim to the right team!

Chill the fuck out.

wyo sis said...

"Learn words. Fuckwit"
Clearly words of reason.

Anonymous said...

Shanna, do you think it's a good idea to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the abortion that follows, by making sure birth control is plentiful and cheap or even free? Have pro lifers who think insurance companies should not be made to cover birth control pills been wrong?

wyo sis said...

Saint Croix
Thank you for staying rational. Reading through your comments has helped me clarify some issues I've had with the life begins at conception argument.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

"Learn words. Fuckwit"
Clearly words of reason.


Not of reason. Of style. Sometimes your (perceived) opponent only sees his limits when you repeat them back to him.

But he's doing a splendid job of convincing y'all of the point re: abortion. He just resents the fact that it's the same point I've made all along.

But that's not my problem.

wyo sis said...

O Ritmo I wouldn't have any idea of any point you've been making all along, because your "style" is offensive and your arguments are all over the place. After being exposed to your "style" I seldom read your comments except as other smarter people engage with you.

Shanna said...

Shanna, do you think it's a good idea to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the abortion that follows, by making sure birth control is plentiful and cheap or even free?

I think it already is pretty cheap (prescription and condoms) and they sure gave out a lot of free condoms when I was in college. I'm pretty sure planned parenthood will get you all sorts of things as well, if you have no money. I don't think the government is required in this process, though. These things are available, the people who don't use them do have other reasons than lack of availability.

Have pro lifers who think insurance companies should not be made to cover birth control pills been wrong?

I don't think insurance should be made to cover it, so no I don't think that's wrong. (Most insurance does seem to cover birth control, regardless - except the ones who started deciding some of it was cosmetic because it also helped with acne)

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

"Offensive" is a matter of taste and is an adult's way of saying, essentially, that you hurt his feelings by infringing upon his idea of how the world should work. "All over the place"? I call that comprehensive. My phrasing is technical, and I don't apologize for understanding and speaking in the language of those who understand the subject.

And your last sentence is an ungrammatical doozy. Rewrite and hopefully it will make sense.

wyo sis said...

Oh, the humanity!

Saint Croix said...

I get annoyed when a rapist points a finger at me and says, "You have a speeding ticket! Hypocrite!"

That wasn't aimed at you, Ritmo, but rather an argument made by the Unknown Pundit. He says that pro-lifers are lawless hypocrites, and thus infanticide is excused.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I appreciate the clarification, Saint Croix.

Saint Croix said...

Thank you for staying rational. Reading through your comments has helped me clarify some issues I've had with the life begins at conception argument.

Thanks for your kind words. I am way too hot-tempered.

wyo sis said...

All the really smart people I know use fuck as a technical adjective when they write. Because, it's a way to bring out their great wit and intelligence, because shut up is for the unintelligent.

Saint Croix said...

All the really smart people I know use fuck as a technical adjective when they write. Because, it's a way to bring out their great wit and intelligence, because shut up is for the unintelligent.

Fuck is such an interesting word. Why is it a bad word? I think fucking is a bad word, a bad act, because it's sex without love. And sex without love is bad because it leads to infanticide.

The Christian oppositon to the word "fuck" reflects our 2000-year war on infanticide. We want people to have love in our hearts when we have sex, so that we don't kill our babies.

It's ironic that infanticide is now a constitutional right, but saying "fuck" can still get you in trouble.

Anonymous said...

St. Croix, what about the silly young girls who think they love their boyfriends, but then get pregnant and the boyfriend rejects them? Sex with love still ends up in unwanted pregnancies.

But in a perfect world....

wyo sis said...

Using fuck indicates that you are out of ideas. It's not the word so much as it's the mistaken idea that it's sophisticated or edgy to use it. To me, it's an indication that something is lacking in your argument or in your intelligence.
The smart people I know don't use it. It's infantile. I feel that way about most swear words.
The fact that it's genuinely offensive to some people makes it even more important to refrain if you want to be taken seriously. I get that it's everywhere and common usage and all that and I even get that I use swear words sometimes, but it's just a poor use of words to my mind. I always feel like I'm out of reasonable things to say when I descend to swearing. Or else, I use them for what I think is humorous effect. And, that is also a problem, because many people don't think they're funny at all. If I'm trying to make people angry I might use them in an aggressive way. All those things weaken my thoughts and I think they weaken the discourse in general.

Maybe, It's just me.

Saint Croix said...

St. Croix, what about the silly young girls who think they love their boyfriends, but then get pregnant and the boyfriend rejects them?

Well, if it's Bristol Palin, I believe we're supposed to mock her without mercy.

Sex with love still ends up in unwanted pregnancies.

To me an "unwanted pregnancy" is the opposite of love. You're angry at the baby, you're annoyed at the baby, you wish the baby didn't exist.

When we say that people should have love in their heart when they have sex, this also means that you love any baby that you create.

Sex leads to babies all the time. I know we're surprised by this. But it's true!

As the Beatles sang, "love is all you need."

(Dr. Carhart has another song. "Poison is all you need." Not as catchy).

Saint Croix said...

Also, zygotes don't have necks. Let alone necks large enough for knifes to be thrust into them.

Ritmo, the Supreme Court has dehumanized babies throughout the pregnancy, including partially born infants. Justice Scalia has argued that newborns and "the incompetent elderly" might be legal non-persons as well.

It's all very well to point out the non-baby characteristics of the zygote. That was precisely my point for why pro-lifers should focus on the obvious homicides.

For instance, 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester. That's a small percentage but it's a huge number (500,000).

That's what is so dangerous about being pro-choice. You can be 99% right, and you're still a mass murderer.

Anonymous said...

St. Croix, ideally sex is an act of love. Ideally silly young girls will love their babies even when the boyfriend vanishes, ideally they will have access to birth control and and use it, before becoming pregnant out of marriage.

Again, if only we lived in an ideal world...

It seems as if stressing prevention is not being taken as seriously anymore and being replaced with unrealistic moralistic expectations. Demanding people be responsible hasn't worked, wouldn't it be better to not have demonized Planned Parenthood for the abortions they facilitated, and instead appreciated the work they do in preventing pregnancy?

Jim S. said...

I've heard two accounts of when there are measurable brain waves. One, stated on the Senate floor, is that we can measure brain waves 39 days after conception. The other is that we can't measure it until about 25 weeks after conception. Does anyone have any information on this and why there's such a disparity? If there is a functioning brain at 39 days, before nearly all abortions are performed, that would seem to me to be an important point.

Jane the Actuary said...

A human fetus is an individual human life. "Individual human life" is more specific than "alive": the latter can, yes, refer to the fact that a cell is alive, but it is part of a larger organism. At the point of conception (or its analogue in cloning or other such techniques), this being begins to grow, develop, exist as a unique being with its own unique DNA. It is also undoubtedly human: it's not a fish, or a monkey, or any other kind of creature. It doesn't magically "become" a human being -- we know there is no magic period equivalent to the ancient idea of "ensoulment." Markers such as the development of a brain are always thrown out (e.g., prior to that, the fetus isn't "alive" but equivalent to a "brain dead person") but there is no magic single instant in time when a fetus comes to have a brain ex nihilo; it's also a gradual process. Clearly, most people recognize that there is further nothing magical about birth, nothing that changes fundamentally, what this being IS.

No, the label "human being" (as in "a fetus is not a human being") is really a shorthand for "entity with the right not to be killed." That's all.

The realilty is that prochoicers don't believe there is anything special about an individual human life -- there's nothing sacred. The fetus has a status more like a pet -- and thus statements such as "I would never have an abortion, but I support abortion rights" have the same logical sense as "I would spend tens of thousands of dollars on vet bills for my pet rather than put him to sleep, but I'm not going to force other people to do the same."

There is thus nothing magical about birth, but prochoicers recognize it's a pragmatic dividing line -- and at the same time, the lack of any sense of sacredness to the human life means they're perfectly OK with "allowing to die" anyone with a low "quality of life."

All that being said, I don't understand why prochoicers don't acknowledge this.

jr565 said...

Saint Croix wrote:
A dead person, for instance, has a body. We can see her form. The body is right there in front of us. But she's dead. She's not alive.

And there's also an end of life too (Fancy that) and the end of life would be WHEN IT ENDS.

jr565 said...

Allie Oop:
Demanding people be responsible hasn't worked, wouldn't it be better to not have demonized Planned Parenthood for the abortions they facilitated, and instead appreciated the work they do in preventing pregnancy?

Don't you mean, facilitate murder? Isn't that how YOU defined it. And we should appreciate that? IF they were demonized,its because many (inluding you apparently) call what they do, murder. I think there is some cognitive dissonance going on with the views you hold, or you have a different definition of murder than most.

Saint Croix said...

It seems as if stressing prevention is not being taken as seriously anymore

That's because the Supreme Court moved the lines. When abortion was illegal, birth control was taken very seriously.

But in their quest to eliminate any and all "accidents," the Supreme Court said that abortion is just as right as birth control.

And when authorities tell you something is right, many people simply follow what they are told.

Abortion is right. And since abortion is right, and cannot be criticized, what's the point of using birth control?

What happened after Roe v. Wade might seem counter-intuitive (single moms went up!) but of course it's utterly predictable. People stopped using birth control.

I might add that drunk people are notoriously bad at using birth control. (Drunk people are also bad at driving cars!) We really should not be surprised when drunk people have an accident.

Of course you had an accident. You were drunk! Drunks are sloppy stupid. We all know this. And when you have sex without controls, of course pregnancy happens. Surprise! Sex leads to babies!

and being replaced with unrealistic moralistic expectations.

It's not an "unrealistic moralistic expectation" for people to love and care for the babies they create. It's basic Christianity. It's Judaism 101. I know the pagans can't believe that we want to outlaw infanticide (again). But we do. And we always will. And what this means is that our sexual practices will have to change. As impossible as that might seem to people who really like sex.

I really like sex, too. But unlike liberals I do not deny the reality that sex leads to babies. I am not surprised when a baby happens. And my sympathy is with the baby and not the people who conspire to make her disappear.

Saint Croix said...

I might add, Allie, that the baby-denying and father-denying rhetoric of the pro-choice movement ("it's my body! it's my choice!") has been an utter disaster for women. Far better to recognize the importance of babies and fathers.

I've had pro-choice people tell me that I can't have an opinion about abortion. Because I'm man, and it doesn't concern me.

Yes, yes, women spontaneously impregnate themselves. And there's no baby to worry about. No, it's just woman tissue.

The feminist desire to have absolute control over human reproduction has reduced men to sport fuckers. And that has made relations between the sexes far more brutal than in the period when abortion was illegal.

You can't complain about runaway dads when your entire rhetoric is based upon the irrelevancy of fathers, and how babies may be ignored.

Saint Croix said...

Markers such as the development of a brain are always thrown out (e.g., prior to that, the fetus isn't "alive" but equivalent to a "brain dead person") but there is no magic single instant in time when a fetus comes to have a brain ex nihilo; it's also a gradual process.

That's not actually true. Brain activity starts ten weeks after the last menstrual period. Doctors can see it and measure it. It coincides with voluntary movement in the baby.

It's the point when the brain has started development. Activity that is sporadic will develop into high level consciousness. But brain activity certainly does have a beginning. (And when it stops, we are dead).

Our death statutes don't require high level consciousness. Our death statues that we wrote for ourselves are very cautious and conservative. We don't want to define people in comas (or asleep!) as dead. So we say total brain death, which is the absence of any activity in the brain stem or cerebral cortex.

And criminal laws require moral certainty. You can't prosecute abortion under the homicide statutes if you don't know what a homicide is, or when people die.

Rusty said...

AllieOop said...
Shanna, do you think it's a good idea to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the abortion that follows, by making sure birth control is plentiful and cheap or even free? Have pro lifers who think insurance companies should not be made to cover birth control pills been wrong?


How about we start by insuring responsible human agency first and then determine how much we're going to steal from our neighbor. "babies just happen", isn't working any more.

Rusty said...

Ritmo wrote: Individually distinct DNA is not the same thing as an individually distinct person. Cells are not people.

Of course they are. We're made of them. If we were to take cells from your body and clone them we wouldn't get a giraffe.

The question has always been not that are the rapidly subdividing cells human, but at what point in their development can we kill them. Is it homicide?

chickelit said...

Allie wrote: Demanding people be responsible hasn't worked,..

True to some degree, but expecting people to be responsible never, ever goes out of style. When individuals flout personal responsibility, others should be able to push back. I see it in almost physical terms.

Anonymous said...

Allie,

Demanding people be responsible hasn't worked,

What are you talking about? Paying young girls to have children (welfare) is "demanding people be responsible"? Are you high?

wouldn't it be better to not have demonized Planned Parenthood for the abortions they facilitated, and instead appreciated the work they do in preventing pregnancy?

Recommending killing a lot of black children (72% of all abortions are for black children) shouldn't be demonized?

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

Same old conservative blindness at work, demand morals, try to legislate them, fixate on controlling human behavior instead of recognizing that people won't be controlled.

Instead of providing free and cheap birth control to at risk teens and young women, they want to make them even harder to get, what is the end result? More abortions.

Round and round we go, it's endless and futile.

But oh, if only it were a perfect world.....

The Unknown Pundit said...

That wasn't aimed at you, Ritmo, but rather an argument made by the Unknown Pundit. He says that pro-lifers are lawless hypocrites, and thus infanticide is excused.

Many pro-lifers call abortion "murder", yet they would find it difficult to punish the women getting illegal abortions. Conversely, they wouldn't have any problems punishing abortion providers. As both the woman and the abortionist would share responsibility for the crime of illegal abortion, they both should share the punishment.

After 40 years, the boudaries are drawn and everyone's positions are well known. Since that is the case, that is why I focused on the punishment issue. After all, what good is having a law if there aren't punishments. To say that there are moral inconsistencies in the pro-life position regarding punishments is an understatement.

jr565 said...

AllieOop wrote:
Same old conservative blindness at work, demand morals, try to legisislate it, fixate on controlling human behavior instead of recognizing that people won't be controlled.

What morals are you talking about? Don't kill your babies? That's somehow beyond the pale when it comes to legislating morality?Are laws against infanticide "legislating morality" to you and we should recognize that people (read, women) are just baby killers and can't be controlled?

Instead of providing free and cheap birth control to at risk teens and young women, make it even harder to get, what is the end result? More abortions.

So you don't just want the govt to not control you or legislate morality, you want them to subsidize your sex life. Providing free and cheap birth control has a cost, just as providing anything has a cost. Why not provide guys free viagra? Or, how about, if you have sex, you pay for your own birth control. It's not that expensive.
Typical of liberals to demand that govt get out of peoples bedrooms but then also demand free birth control. I'm noticing that liberals seem really incapable of taking responsibility for anything. It's my body, no one can control me ! But, you need to pay for my birth control!

Anonymous said...

Ken, did Planned Parenthood or anyone twist the arms of those black mothers to have the abortions? To kill their own children?

Your faux outrage over the death of black babies is very transparent. I doubt you would express the same concern over millions of live black children.

Anonymous said...

Jr, I most certainly do not need to use birth control at my age, lol. So your assertion that I want my sex life subsidized is well..... Laughable.

jr565 said...

That's not actually true. Brain activity starts ten weeks after the last menstrual period. Doctors can see it and measure it. It coincides with voluntary movement in the baby.

So your argument is as soon as brain activity starts a baby shouldn't be aborted? I disagree that that is the start of life. The start of life is the start of development of the distinct individual. As there are 9 months in the development period, the first day would be the start of life.
However, for the purposes of when to grant protection to a baby, the beginning of brain activity could be a good place to start. Or beginning of the heart activity. All of which takes place within the first trimester.

jr565 said...

AllieOop wrote:
jr, I most certainly do not need to use birth control at my age, lol. So your assertion that I want my sex life subsidized is well..... Laughable.

You want it subsidized for others though. same argument applies.

jr565 said...

Allieoop wrote;

Your faux outrage over the death of black babies is very transparent. I doubt you would express the same concern over millions of live black children.

the disconnect is that you call the outrage over the death of black babies faux, but also call the act murder. What's faux, is your rationalization that you think it's murder but that society should have no say in allowing people to murder other people. In other words, you don't really think it's murder.
Which is a fair thing to say, only don't try to argue out of both sides of your mouth. You, like Andy, think it's red stuff in a jar.

Anonymous said...

Jr.don't tell me what I believe. Again, so controlling.

I believe that what is is that jar is the remains of a human baby. It's my own personal belief that it had a soul. That soul will move on to another body when the time is right.

Didn't I and and several other commenters here say yesterday that there are inconsistencies? Life is not written in black and white there are mostly gray areas. Deal with it as an adult.

YES! Absolutely subsidize birth control, what is the alternative? Abortion.

Saint Croix said...

So your argument is as soon as brain activity starts a baby shouldn't be aborted?

My argument is that as soon as brain activity starts, abortion is a homicide, and should be criminalized under the same rules that apply to you or me (murder, manslaughter, etc.).

Earlier abortions can (and should) be outlawed. But that should be done at the state level, and there are some states that will want to legalize those abortions. They can do that without offending equal protection.

I disagree with an attempt to outlaw all abortions by Congress. I don't think they have that power. My point is that Paul is right about the humanity of the baby, and her right to life. I support his bill but I'm a little aggravated by how he's talking about it.

Saint Croix said...

Many pro-lifers call abortion "murder", yet they would find it difficult to punish the women getting illegal abortions.

U.P, google "Prom Mom." She got 3 years for leaving a baby in a trash can at her prom. The baby starved to death, which is a horrible way to die.

You might say that our society doesn't care enough about babies. Hence, just 3 years in jail for the prom mom. But our irrationality in this regard does not actually mean that the baby has no right to life. You understand? Proving discrimination does not prove anything in regard to the baby.

Saint Croix said...

I can point to many kinds of historical discrimination against people, for instance Africans and Jews. Pointing out that this discrimination is irrational and wrong does not actually mean that we resolve the discrimination by dehumanizing Africans and Jews. The point of recognizing humanity is to stop discrimination.

Thus my belief that we should apply our death statutes to the abortion issue. So that we give babies the same rule of law that the rest of us get.

Of course babies actually are weaker and more helpless than other people. You have to feed a baby and shelter her. She's non-viable on her own.

But we don't apply viability standards to you or me. Doctors don't go through hospitals shooting cancer patients.

Babies do need affirmative action. But needing affirmative action does not mean that it's okay to kill the weak and the helpless.

Anonymous said...

Allie,

Instead of providing free and cheap birth control to at risk teens and young women

First and foremost, THERE ARE NO FREE GOODS. If you're not paying for them, someone else is, you vampire. Condoms are less than 5 bucks for a three pack and birth control for a month is between $15-$50. Do you even know what "cheap" means?

did Planned Parenthood or anyone twist the arms of those black mothers to have the abortions? To kill their own children?

Do hired killers twist the arms of their employers to make them hire them for hits?

Killers are killers and should be demonized as such.

Your faux outrage over the death of black babies is very transparent.

You shouldn't use words you don't understand. Look up with "faux" means before you use it.

I doubt you would express the same concern over millions of live black children.

Except that I do, which is why I oppose the democrats at every turn. The democratic party has done more damage to blacks in the last 50 years, than the entirety of Jim Crow (another product of democrats).

Anonymous said...

YES, I know we are paying for them! Isn't it worth the price to prevent an abortion?

Anonymous said...

Ken, you are simply living in lala conservative wonderland. Because you demand people to behave in a way you want you think they will! Magical thinking.

Nathan Alexander said...

Ken, did Planned Parenthood or anyone twist the arms of those black mothers to have the abortions? To kill their own children?

This argument might have a little more weight if liberals and PP didn't screech with outrage over the requirement to give pregnant women more information about their baby before getting to have an abortion.

Or if liberals and PP didn't screech with outrage over pro-lifers "tricking" pregnant women into sonogram vans or to go talk to counselors before going into PP.

It's all about the abortions, AlleyOop. Anything that even hints at getting women to slow down and think a little more before getting an abortion is met with shrieks of rage from pro-choice women.

So maybe they didn't twist any arms to get women to have an abortion. But they fight like hell to prevent any social pressure to reduce the demand for abortion.

Still evil, no matter how you slice it.

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

PREVENTION, can't we a s a society do what it takes?

REDUCE the demand for abortions, by employing prevention, quit trying to close Planned Parenthoods, quit trying to make unrealistic demands.

Live in REALITY.

Anonymous said...

Allie,

Because you demand people to behave in a way you want you think they will!

You think that demanding people not kill innocent children to be "lala conservative wonderland"? After all your talk of honoring and valuing life, this is what you have to offer?

Do you have any idea what logic is? Or even the basic definitions of what honor and value are?

Anonymous said...

Allie,

REDUCE the demand for abortions, by employing prevention, quit trying to close Planned Parenthoods

So in your world, making it easier to get abortions will reduce demand for abortions, but I live in "lala conservative wonderland"? You are precious.

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

Ken, Planned Parenthood has been used to prevent pregnancies FAR more than to end them.

Seriously what is wrong with you? I don't think you really care about aborted babies at all, and are just parroting the conservative line.

chickelit said...

@Allie, I half agree with you about Planned Parenthood and birth control. Yet it was a blatant poke in the eye of the Catholic Church to try to require them to subsidize birth control. And that whole Fluke charade was another swipe at the Catholic Church. People know "what's up" behind those attacks. A better approach would be to leave them be and let people decide, "Hey, I'll just go someplace else."

Same old conservative blindness at work, demand morals, try to legislate them, fixate on controlling human behavior instead of recognizing that people won't be controlled.

It's pretty easy to turn the logic of that rhetoric against liberals regarding other matters. Just sayin'

Anonymous said...

Ken you cannot claim honor and value human life if subsidizing prevention of abortions is too "expensive" for you. Talk about rational thought and being inconsistent.

How much is that aborted baby's life worth to you?

Nathan Alexander said...

AlleyOop,
What about individual responsibility?

Very rare exceptions aside, no one twists anyone's arm to have sex. There is no danger that not having sex will end in death.

The law (and feminists) insist that a man has to be ready/willing to support a child for 18 to 21 years on the whim of a woman if he wants to have sex (variations of "can't handle the results, keep it in the pants" come up all the time), but that is equally true for women, if not more so that women are less biologically driven toward casual sex than men.

As long as you focus only on the contraception and ignore the problem of abortion, there will always be those who aren't careful enough; or who are careful enough but the contraception fails.

That means that if you subsidize contraception, you are increasing abortion.

No two ways about it. By insisting on no-cost-to-user contraception, you are contributing to a greater number of murders.

Nathan Alexander said...

How much is that aborted baby's life worth to you?

How much is it morally worth to not be an accessory to murder?

You cannot claim to honor and value life if you support no-cost-to-user contraception.

Anonymous said...

Nathan, you couldn't be more wrong. It's magical thinking once again. How many MORE babies do you think would've been aborted if not for Planned Parenthood and prevention services?

Wow.

Anonymous said...

Allie,

Ken you cannot claim honor and value human life if subsidizing prevention of abortions is too "expensive" for you.

I don't claim that subsidization is too "expensive", although, with the way the government will administer it, it certainly would. It's morally wrong to force one person to subsidize another's activities.

Additionally, this doesn't even make any sense. I don't support the welfare system either, but that doesn't mean I'm inconsistent when I say you shouldn't round up the homeless and execute them.

And lastly, I don't consider children to be a burden or a mistake, like you seem to. I actually honor and value their lives.

How much is that aborted baby's life worth to you?

What are you asking here? How much I would pay someone to not commit murder? Are you going to try to extort money out of me by threatening to kill a baby?

The price of murder is death and I would happily pull the trigger on someone who willfully destroys innocent lives.

Anonymous said...

Allie,

Ken you cannot claim honor and value human life if subsidizing prevention of abortions is too "expensive" for you.

Additionally, you seem to think that cheap access to contraception would somehow reduce the number of abortions. Care to explain how that would work? Even with the availability of incredibly cheap contraception easily available everywhere, 59,000,000 innocent children have been murdered.

You seem to not understand the incentives of sex if you think cheap contraception reduces the number of abortions or even unwanted pregnancies.

chickelit said...

AllieOop said...
How many MORE babies do you think would've been aborted if not for Planned Parenthood and prevention services?

Logic fail, Allie. Without both birth control and abortion there would just be more babies. Like the Third World.

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

Chickelit, logically, doesn't it make sense to you that more unwanted pregnancies more abortions?

You think ALL these women will just stay pregnant and have the babies?!

Unbelievable disconnect.And they say squishy pro choicers are inconsistent.

Anonymous said...

Seriously Ken, you reveal what a jerk you are when you make personal attacks on my honor, my respect for human life and now my motherhood.

I had four pregnancies when married to my husband, gave birth to four health babies who grew up to be four healhy productive intelligent adults, who I raised on my own after my husband passed away. Not a one of them had a unwanted child out of wedlock and I am a proud grandmother of three.

Then you end your paragraph with a threat to kill those who don't share your view on abortion, you are a sick man.

Anonymous said...

Allie,

Seriously Ken, you reveal what a jerk you are

You're the one calling for the deaths of babies and I'm the jerk? Ha!

Then you end your paragraph with a threat to kill those who don't share your view on abortion, you are a sick man.

Because killing babies it totally cool, but killing those who kill innocent people is totally not cool? And you call me the sick one? Again, ha!

And what a fantastic achievement it is to get pregnant and not kill your kids! Guess what? You're not supposed to kill your kids. Does your pregnancies and children have anything to do with your support of killing other people's children? If so please explain.

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

Allie,

If a man were to kill a woman's child while she was pregnant, should that man be arrested and charged with murder? If so, why not the woman if she kills her baby while she's pregnant? Are women to be treated so differently and as such loving angels, that it's totally fine when she kills a baby, but a man is a monster if he kills a baby?

Your moralizing fails when you call me a jerk and a sick man when your support for abortion is provably twisted and immoral.

Anonymous said...

Ken, you are not connected to reality, seek help. I am not calling for the death of babies. This is getting too weird, I'm out. I hope I don't read about you or see your mug on TV one day.

chickelit said...

AllieOop said...
Chickelit, logically, doesn't it make sense to you that more unwanted pregnancies more abortions?

I really don't know. My grandmothers each had 8+ kids. There wasn't B/C or abortion back then (in Wisconsin). Were some of my aunts and uncles unwanted?

Nowadays most women only want one or two kids, so any more must be unwanted. And when a woman does dare to have more, she's pounced on by the left for inexplicable reasons, especially if she's in politics. That's just social reality--I can't explain it.

Anonymous said...

Allie,

I am not calling for the death of babies.

Do you or do you not support abortion?

If I were to say it's okay to kill homeless people, no doubt you would claim I am calling for the death of homeless people. It's only fair that your own words be turned against you to see your own moral twistedness and complete disregard for the most helpless of human lives.

You should be weirded out. Killing babies should weird you out. It means your human.

Anonymous said...

Allie,

I'm out = "I have failed utterly in my defense of killing children"

Anonymous said...

Allie,

I hope I don't read about you or see your mug on TV one day.

Unlikely as I lead a quiet peaceful life and don't go around randomly hurting or killing people or supporting those who do, the way you do.

Anonymous said...

Ken, if I were you I would delete your words about shooting an abortionist or women who have the abortion too?

jr565 said...

Allie oop wrote:
I believe that what is is that jar is the remains of a human baby. It's my own personal belief that it had a soul. That soul will move on to another body when the time is right.

Didn't I and and several other commenters here say yesterday that there are inconsistencies? Life is not written in black and white there are mostly gray areas. Deal with it as an adult.

not good enough saying "there are inconsistencies". Is there any other example of a human with a soul that you would say its ok for another person to kill/murder as a personal choice? If we're talking about a baby one day out of a mothers womb that is strangled by its mom, for whatever reason would you argue that the act was killing a person, BUT who are you to judge or would your argument be one with a bright and distinct moral argument (absent inconsistencies). Are you pro choice on infanticide for example, or will.you put your foot down and say no.

jr565 said...

Here's a quick way to show that Allie oops logic is in fact an endorsement of abortion. Apply it to any other issue, and you would quickly find it to be an immoral argument in favor of the indefensible. Would Allie oop be pro choice when it comes to slavery? There are a lot of parallels there.In that case We're dealing with people who are considered not fully human, who because of that view are treated like property by their owner. and this treatment was codified into law making the slaveowner right under law.
Slave owners could even make the argument that abolishing the practice could decimate the economy.
So then let's apply Allie Oops argument to slavery. She would argue that blacks aren't 3/5ths human but fully human with souls even. And that it's not only immoral but unlawful to continue to enslave blacks, however, she thinks that the slave owners have to come to this conclusion themselves, and she is not their confessors or judges. Plus, she never personally had slaves, but if others did, she cannot judge their actions, and they will come to see the error of their ways in the hereafter.

chickelit said...

Looks like al Qaeda has infiltrated.

Anonymous said...

And they are selling Samsung! Everyone's a Capitalist.

chickelit said...

Each line of that "arabic" comment is probably a different malware link. Good thing I have self-control and don't even need protection. Is that old-fashioned of me?

chickelit said...

Or am I "vastly incurious"--a favorite term slung around here by lefties years ago.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

The feminist desire to have absolute control over human reproduction has reduced men to sport fuckers. And that has made relations between the sexes far more brutal than in the period when abortion was illegal.

This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. (Surprise!). I'd say that giving women more and more choice and say in not only their reproductive choices, but their relationships (these developments were basically simultaneous), encourages them to take more responsibility for how they treat and think of the people with whom they choose to become involved in this way.

Of course, it hasn't been entirely successful. And the persistence of basic sexual norms, translated through culture and economics into a modern-day reality whereby visual attractiveness in women is so desirable that it can remain essentially a glamorous commodity, means that there will be women everywhere who only look upon men as a financial commodity in return. It's mutually demeaning and reductive, and contributes no less so to the cheapening of both fatherhood and motherhood (you can't reduce one without reducing the other). But not something that conservatives have a better answer for. This is one huge part of the media culture that they seem to have willingly accepted.

Liberals just see it from both sides and accept that objectification and depersonalization is always bad, no matter the gender of the person. They do not go so far in their capitalism to endorse turning people into commodities, even if by non-coercive means.

Saint Croix said...

Liberals just see it from both sides and accept that objectification and depersonalization is always bad, no matter the gender of the person.

Yes, yes, liberals are wonderful! Unless you're unborn, in which case it's poison in the neck.

You liberals say you love the handicapped. You pass laws outlawing discrimination against the handicapped.

But in private, in secret, you have a 95% kill rate on the handicapped. And you mock Sarah Palin for keeping her child.

They do not go so far in their capitalism to endorse turning people into commodities

Yes, because Roe v. Wade is so respectful of human life. Are you aware that Blackmun cited the pagan baby-killers, Plato and Aristotle, for the viability doctrine?

You can't get more reactionary than going back into the B.C. era to find your laws. The pagans defined women and children as sub-human because they are physically weaker than men, Ritmo. Just like a baby in the womb--or halfway out of it--is weak and helpless.

Is vulnerability a suitable rational for denying humanity?

The viability doctrine is a measure of weakness. You can't survive, so it's okay to kill you.

And yes, this is fascism.

You can't win this fight, Ritmo, which is why liberals always, always want to change the subject. You, for instance, want to talk about men and women. Justice Ginsburg wants to change the subject to rape. You liberals avert your eyes from the baby's plight because you cannot stand to think about it. You know you will feel awful if you do.

Saint Croix said...

Even if we dehumanize the baby and define her as a commodity, Roe v. Wade is still a horrible opinion because of all the injuries and deaths inflicted on women.

For instance, Roe v. Wade itself says that a state cannot protect a woman's health in the first trimester. The rhetoric Blackmun uses is "an abortion free of regulation by the state."

Insanity!

Blackmun goes on to say that states can require a doctor in the second and third trimester. But not the first.

Madness!

That was the very first error the Supreme Court had to fix. And the Supreme Court takes forever to hear cases. So it was almost 3 years before the Supreme Court could clarify and say, oh, yes, of course a state can require a doctor in the first trimester. We didn't mean what we said!

They fucked up the law for three years. They accidentally legalized all the abortion mills. And you can imagine all the injuries and deaths caused by unlicensed doctors doing abortions.

Saint Croix said...

Or consider the D&E abortion. This is a late-term abortion procedure where the doctor rips the baby out, piece by piece. Is that dangerous to the woman? Of course!

And yet the Supreme Court insists that this dangerous procedure cannot be regulated by the state. You cannot require a hospital visit, for instance.

For decades the Supreme Court insisted that abortion is always safer than birth. Anytime a state tried to regulate the abortion industry to protect women, the Supreme Court would strike the regulation and say "abortion is safer than birth!" They would repeat this like a mantra.

And then it turned out that abortion doctors were inducing labor and delivering babies. Why? Apparently birth is sometimes safer than abortion!

Justice Breyer writes this:

The D&E procedure carries certain risks. The use of instruments within the uterus creates a danger of accidental perforation and damage to neighboring organs. Sharp fetal bone fragments create similar dangers. And fetal tissue accidentally left behind can cause infection and various other complications.

He would go on to write of the "free floating fetal head" problem, which is when the doctor rips off the baby's head and loses it in the uterus.

This is the same Supreme Court that has been insisting for decades that the D&E is safe, that it's a constitutional right, that it cannot be regulated by the government, and that we have to accept all the injuries and deaths that women receive from this abortion practice.

In Akron the Supreme Court would say shit like this: "D&E abortions may be performed as safely in an outpatient clinic as in a full-service hospital."

You don't know this! You're not a doctor, are you? For decades the Supreme Court would prattle about the D&E abortion without actually knowing what the fuck they were talking about. Only in Carhart would the Supreme Court bother to inform themselves about the D&E. Finally they list all the dangers of the D&E. And still the assholes insist that we cannot regulate the D&E!

Any health regulation of abortion has to be run by the judiciary. It's a scandal how little the abortion industry is regulated. And the press fails its duty because the press is utterly biased, and blind, to any and all criticisms of abortion.

Often young girls who have a D&E find out the hard way that they will suffer miscarriages after their abortions. You have to break open the cervix to perform a D&E abortion, and this damages your cervix. There are plenty of injuries and even deaths to women from the D&E.

The abortion industry is filled with doctors who violate their Hippocratic Oath. And many of these doctors have no admitting privileges in hospitals. They represent the bottom of their medical class. It's hardly brain surgery to use your medical skills to kill a small baby. I imagine a lot of them do it because they can't find other work.

Their incompetence is so notable that it's considered a major abortion breakthrough to deliver the baby and kill her outside the womb.

So that's the logic of Carhart. "Yes, we've been wrong about the danger of abortion for decades. It's actually quite dangerous. Oops. Sorry. You might want to give birth instead. And the only reason we're saying this is because this particular birth involves killing the baby in the middle of it. You could put the baby in a neonatal care unit, which might keep her alive. And of course birth terminates the pregnancy either way. But we're not actually trying to keep the baby alive. Or, for that matter, worried about your health. We're just trying to protect abortion, and our reputation. Have a nice day. Safe sex!"

Saint Croix said...

I should make clear that early abortions (the D&C) are safe for women, for the most part. Certainly not as dangerous as the D&E.

But of course working in a bakery for 12 hours is safe, for the most part. And yet when libertarians found an unenumerated right to do that in Lochner, liberals jumped up and down.

"We should be able to regulate industry for people's health!"

So what's riskier, working in a bakery or having an abortion?

Which is a more fundamental right, terminating a pregnancy or baking bread?

And yet Lochner is bad constitutional law, but Roe v. Wade is right?

I swear, if we took the baby out of the argument, and just attacked Roe for all the injuries inflicted on women, liberals would have nothing to say.

Imagine a Supreme Court that found a constitutional right to breast implants, and then ignored all the injuries that women suffered from the surgery.

Saint Croix said...

To say that there are moral inconsistencies in the pro-life position regarding punishments is an understatement.

The prosecutors who are charging Dr. Kermit Gosnell with murder are not prosecuting any of the women involved. Under your theory, since this is a "moral inconsistency," we cannot prosecute Gosnell for killing any of the babies he has killed.

That's just absurd as a matter of law. Prosecutors have a lot of flexibility in regard to whom they decide to prosecute for murder.

In the grand jury indictment against Gosnell (and the other "doctors") the women seemed like victims. They were described as drugged, half-naked, and in a great deal of pain.

In many cases, the woman is going to be unconscious when the crime occurs. Most of them (perhaps all of them) had no idea that Gosnell would be killing a newborn.

Of course in many cases there are fathers involved as well. You could theoretically prosecute these men for the murder of the baby--particularly if they are paying for it.

But it's far easier to make the case against Gosnell. He's greedy, he's lazy, he put his patients in jeopardy (accidentally killing at least one woman). He violated the ethics of the medical profession. He killed for money. And he did it over and over and over and over.

A woman might kill one baby in the course of her life. Or even two or three. Gosnell killed two or three every day. He killed thousands of babies in the course of his practice.

Of course women (and men) have been prosecuted and convicted for killing their own children. See this. But it's notable that no matter how outrageous the crime, we don't seem to seek the death penalty against mothers who kill their own children.

Another moral inconsistency! So perhaps, since we've detected a moral inconsistency, these women have a right to kill their children?

Criminal law is not that rigid. We want everybody to receive equal justice. But every case involves different facts, different prosecutors, different defense counsel, and different juries. Casey Anthony killed her child and got away with it. The prom mom served three years in prison for manslaughter. All the women who hired Gosnell will go free. Okay. We should fight for justice in the criminal justice system. But it's absurd to think that every case can (or should) get the exact same punishment.

If and when abortion is criminalized as a type of infanticide, I would not exclude mothers from the crime as a statutory rule. And of course that's done for political purposes. Millions of women have had abortions, and they may fear that they can be punished retroactively. That's not the case (the ex post facto clause forbids retroactive punishments). But I think excluding the mother from the criminal statute is an attempt to say, "you're not to blame for this." Pro-lifers really want to punish the mass murderers who kill for profit.

That may be a moral inconsistency. But it hardly follows that the desire to focus on the worst of the bunch means that no crime is going on.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Oh whatever, Dude.

You, yourself, admitted that for a great deal of time post-conception embryos still lack the brain activity that legally defines life. You said this as a way of arguing against defining conception as the point of legal, living personhood. You probably did this as a way to keep the ideas of your own "pro-life" side, as biased as they are, "viable".

So settle down and be consistent. Just because you are afraid of the rhetorical and illogical excesses of the anti-4th amendment crowd doesn't mean that everyone else is a "fascist".

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

And the paranoia that anyone on the left cares about Governor Half-Term and her interest in spawning one retarded kid out of the burgeoning brood (while supposedly flying over a thousand miles after her water broke to do so - how's that for not "caring" for the unborn?) is laughable. It gives your side the sense of martyrdom it seems to pine for, I suppose. But really, no one cares.

Although it does seem interesting that mental handicaps stir the right wing's heartstrings moreso than other handicaps. I wonder if there's a reason for that...

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Casey Anthony's "mom" was acquitted, dude. Something that can happen to anyone accused of ANY crime.

You really need to chill out for a spell. Just because you had a flash of reason and insight that happened to limit the excesses of your ideology, doesn't mean the sky will now fall. You are confusing morality with some kind of totality.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

The whole reason D & E procedures ("late-term abortions"?) exist in the first place is because the risk of delivery is a GREATER threat to the life of the mother. That's pretty much the reason this phenomena exists. You are simply being ignorant and paranoid. And they comprise a miniscule proportion of abortions. You can be concerned about them all you want to be. That's fine. But you are not describing the medical risks of not performing them fairly.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Has the Supreme Court even been asked to weigh in on the dangers of breast implants? It seems that good old fashioned tort law and class action suits have addressed this issue just fine.

But I forgot. In this case state medical boards have been given the breathing room to focus on the actual, you know, MEDICAL issues without being forced into some confusedly ideological moral crusade.

Which is as it should be.

Saint Croix said...

The whole reason D & E procedures ("late-term abortions"?) exist in the first place is because the risk of delivery is a GREATER threat to the life of the mother.

You're confusing the D&E with the D&X and recyling pro-choice rhetoric from 1979.

Read Carhart, Ritmo. I link to it in every other abortion thread. Read the damn opinion!

The Carhart cases are in regard to partial-birth abortion (a.k.a. the D&X). This abortion procedure requires the doctor to induce labor and deliver the baby.

Everybody agrees the D&X is safer than the D&E. Why? Because birth is safer than the D&E. Why? Because when you give birth to the baby, the doctor doesn't have to rip the baby out of the womb piece by piece.

All of this stuff is in the Supreme Court cases, which you obviously haven't read. Your rhetoric is 15 years out of date. Try to keep up.

Saint Croix said...

You, yourself, admitted that for a great deal of time post-conception embryos still lack the brain activity that legally defines life.

Yes, some abortions are not homicides. So? Many abortions take place in the last few weeks of the first trimester, in the second trimester, or in the third trimester. Let's focus on the homicides, shall we?

You said this as a way of arguing against defining conception as the point of legal, living personhood.

Equality requires applying our death statutes to all our people.

Under our death statutes, many abortions are homicides. I focus on those. They outrage me.

You don't care, because you continue to dehumanize babies throughout the pregnancy. I know you're a sensitive man, and thus I know you are aware that this is highly immoral and unethical.

I believe that's why you keep changing the subject. You don't want to think about the homicides. You continually revert to talking about the early weeks of the first trimester, as if every abortion happens in the early weeks of the first trimester.

I tell you that 1% of abortions happen in the third trimester. You say this:

And they comprise a miniscule proportion of abortions.

Yes. It is a small percentage of abortions. 1% is a tiny percentage.

But the numbers of abortions are so high (50,000,000), that the actual body counts are mind-boggling (500,000).

Decent people are appalled by this. You would be, if you thought about it. But you shut your brain off and try to change the subject.

her interest in spawning one retarded kid

This is so vile I ask you to reflect on what you said. You might contemplate that there are lots of people who have handicapped children.

jr565 said...

her interest in spawning one retarded kid

This is so vile I ask you to reflect on what you said. You might contemplate that there are lots of people who have handicapped children.


Why are you asking reflection of Ritmo. Do you think him saying "spawned a retard" is in any way out of character for Ritmo? It sounds like you're giving him WAY too much credit to not be a complete douche.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

I used that language because I don't feel that the Palins and their ilk respect life or its quality so much as they respect procreation. They reduce people to acts, minds to material, people to DNA, and then ask (demand, really) that I grant the worldviews that revolve around such dehumanizing reductions respect. But I don't respect these attitudes, I never have, and - barring some incredibly unlikely arch-conservative outreach into a sort of reason that is both empathetic and relevant - I see little reason to do so in the future.

Look at the way they've treated the other baby's father. It's disgusting. Years ago conservatives would have had a problem with that. But nowadays I suppose they find no opportunity for celebrity or supposed/(feigned?) martyrdom too cheap a vehicle to advance themselves politically. It's really pathetic and I have no inclination to succumb to its justifications. Ditto the "fertility cult" perspective they've made of the poor handicapped baby. As unfortunate as his condition is, their choice to make a spectacle out of that, for the sake of their own self-aggrandizement, goes way beyond unfortunate. It's morally obscene. An obscenity matched only by how blind they are to it, this gluttonous need of theirs to define themselves as the heroes in everyone else's situation.

So this response is moreso for the confused jr. The rest of Saint Croix's replies are worth considering, even if some were still worded in a more emotionally distorted way than they needed to be.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 350 of 350   Newer› Newest»