Abortion advocacy groups often point to high maternal mortality rates from abortion in developing nations where abortion is illegal. The same countries show high mortality rates in childbirth, which is, of course, legal. This suggests that it is a general lack of adequate medical care, not the legal status of abortion, that is causing women’s deaths.
To remove this confounding factor, we can look at developed countries where abortion is illegal. In poland, abortion was legal during Russian occupation, but was banned with limited exceptions by a politically independent poland in 1993. The number of abortions dropped dramatically, from 59,417 in 1990 to 777 in 1993. And contrary to predictions from abortion rights groups, abortions were not replaced by faked miscarriages, as the number of miscarriages decreased. Maternal and neonatal deaths also fell.
This pattern is not limited to Europe. In almost every region of the world, when comparing nations of similar economic development, the one with the lowest maternal mortality rate is the one with the pro-[abortion] laws!
Ah, the typical "so that means infants/deaf people/braindead people should be killed too." No, that is not what I am saying, dingbat. Obviously infants are in the process of developing language. Deaf people don't have language? It's called sign language, dummy. Lacking hearing says nothing about their linguistic ability. As for braindead people... well, people pull the plug on them all the time, and if there is no hope in recovery, why waste resources? But the difference between THESE people and fetuses is that these people have already been born and already have families that love them. Nobody knows the fetus; therefore, nobody loves the fetus (except maybe the mother, who out of love might choose to birth it, or out of love might choose to nip it in the bud so it won't grow up having to face hardships). So that COMBINED with the facts that it is useless, unconscious, and undeveloped means that it is not of any more value than a cricket. If the mother choose to place a value on it when she decides to birth it, good for her and good for it, but if not... oh well.
I'll suggest you read "The Ape That Spoke: Language and the Evolution of the Human Mind." Not only will it educate you a bit on things you clearly know nothing about, but it is very interesting.
I'll also pose this question to you: what would admitting to yourself that your existence is worthless do to your sanity? I mean, my sanity is fine since I was never as delusional as you in the first place. I think you just don't WANT to accept the fact that humanity is no more special than a termite mound because that is simply what you were brought up to believe. But just because ANOTHER delusional human being tells you your special, that we're special... that doesn't make it so.
Obviously infants are in the process of developing language.
Infants are “in the process” of developing faculty for language, but no slightly lesser developed form of the same human being is? At what point does a developing human begin the development of language? And what scientific proof do you have supporting that claim?
Nobody knows the fetus; therefore, nobody loves the fetus
You know, there’s this bum I pass when I take the quick way to work. A smelly, disgusting man. Can’t be right in the head. He’s been out there every single day since I moved here around a year ago. I’ve never seen him with anyone and I can’t imagine many people love him—he doesn’t even have the standard hobo dog. At the very least, he serves absolutely no purpose to society.
Killing him, a-OK? I must say that I wouldn’t mind the security of knowing he’d never stink up that alley again. Killing him would save me a lot of emotional (and possibly physical!) trauma…
the mother, who out of love might choose to birth it, or out of love might choose to nip it in the bud so it won’t grow up having to face hardships
That’s some tough love right there. I wonder how much the pro-borts would admire a poor mother who decided to take her potentially hardship-ridden child and “nip it in the bud” at around, oh… two years old?
I’ll also pose this question to you: what would admitting to yourself that your existence is worthless do to your sanity?
I can’t honestly say it’d do much. I dismissed all of that God/afterlife hokey back in high school, and it took me until my sophomore year in college (as a philosophy major) to I adopt my anti-abortion stance, which is logically derived. Why do you ask?
You’ve all heard the argument that goes something like this:
"In the bad old days, thousands of women died every year getting abortions in back alleys. When Roe v Wade made abortion legal, women stopped dying. If you want to end abortion, you don’t care about women dying!"
Since we do care about women dying, let’s examine these assertions carefully. NARAL co-founder Bernard Nathanson has admitted that the figures claimed by the early abortion movement—five to ten thousand women dying each year from illegal abortions—are “totally false.” So what are the real numbers?
The above graph from the National Center for Health Statistics indicates, not surprisingly, that maternal mortality from illegal abortion was highest in the years before antibiotics. With the introduction of penicillin, the rate declined steadily. In 1972, the year Roe v Wade was decided, 39 women died in illegal abortions. Not reflected in the graph are 25 women who died that year in states where abortion was legal.
The most important thing to notice about this graph is that after Roe v Wade, the rate of decline did not change. A few women each year died from abortion that were illegal under the new law, such as self-induced abortion and other restricted practices, in a pattern consistent with the decline that had already been occurring. It is therefore misleading to claim that Roe v Wade saved women’s lives. It is particularly dishonest given that over 300 women have died from legal abortion since its passage.
OK, so I’m probably talking to a pretty narrow audience here, but I’d like to talk about Saved by the Bell.
I was born in 1980. I grew up with ABC TGIF, and I religiously followed the exploits of Cory Matthews, Steve Urkel, Blossom, Cody Lambert, Balki Bartokomous, Fresh Prince (though, if I remember right, he was on NBC), Mike Seaver, and Michelle Tanner. In the afternoons, it was always Ducktales and Rescue Rangers—but in the evening, the cartoons were over and it was time for the “real life” stuff. There’s no arguing that, despite being entertainment, these characters impressed some life lessons upon me. Cory was the archetypal every-kid, literally trying to find his place when Boy Meets World. Mike Seaver was that cool older brother I never had. Urkel was that incredible dork who showed us all why you should love being who you are, damn what anyone says. Balki… well, you just kind of wanted to slap him, but… Hmm. Now that I think about it, what the hell was the point of Balki in the first place?
Nevermind, it’s not important.
Point is, as an adolescent coming of age, Saved by the Bell was the show that we all emulated. And for boys, we all wanted to be either Zack or AC. Zack was the popular, chic ne’er-do-well; AC was the popular jock badass-with-a-heart-of-gold. Screech, of course, was the object of ridicule—and it’s how we all learned to ridicule the nerds and geeks in high school (while accepting their existence and allowing them into the fold).
I wasn’t buff enough to be AC, so… although most people my age (especially on this site) are probably remiss to admit it, we all wanted to be Zack Morris. He was cooler than cool. He was the definition of cool. He dominated every situation, he got both Kelly Kapowski and Tori Scott (and Stacey Carosi), and he was the king of inventive ways to get out of detention. And he had great hair. And the first cell phone. Zack Morris was my hero in those turbulent pre-teen years.
But why am I writing about this? Who gives a damn about a show from 20 years ago?
Well, it’s an interesting contrast these days. For anybody that has seen the show, ask yourself: which character did you hate the most?
Some people probably want to say Screech. He was a nerd that, despite four years of high school (and even in “The College Years”) never actually managed to go through puberty and was constantly prone to crying. Some want to say Mr. Belding. He was the authoritarian figure (who didn’t actually seem to have any real authority) but he made an active effort to lampoon himself in every episode—which got old because it was always the same exact joke. But if you think either of these, you’re wrong. The single most hated character on Saved By The Bell was Jessie Spano.
Jessie was a self-righteous, whiny, politically correct, environmentalist, vegetarian, feminist bitch—who routinely picked fights for NO reason, developed a drug habit (to caffeine pills), and was insanely jealous when she was not made valedictorian and scored lower than Zack on the SATs.
Naturally, she was unilaterally rated the most unpopular character on the show. Against Screech, who went out of his way—in every single episode—to annoy us.
Even the actual nerds in high school hated Screech. Because he was too unrealistic. He was over the top. People hated him, sure—but we hated Jessie even more. Because Jessie was a reflection of reality. 20 years ago, we all hated the Jessie Spanos of this world. Why? Same reason we liked Six more than we liked Blossom. Yeah, we were supposed to identify more with Blossom—but, secretly, we all wanted to be more like Six. Dana Foster grated on our last nerve, but JT Lambert was our pal.
Why? Because nobody likes a whiny self-righteous bitch who spends all her time ramming PC dogma down everyone’s throat. How often did she pick a fight with Slater, for no reason but that she had a bug up her ass about something (that didn’t even have anything to do with him!)? AC Slater was written to have the patience of Job. I can’t tell you how many times he should have shoved Jessie’s face into a locker (especially that episode where she chains herself to the school doors… for some protest… against something… while he and every other sane character, except the hippie trying to get into her pants [eww], goes to the beach to have fun). It’s easy to spot the flaws in Kelly and Lisa. Kelly was vapid. Lisa was incredibly shallow. But we didn’t hate them. Not like we hated Jessie. Screech was annoyingly endearing. But you just wanted to punch Jessie in the face every time she played a primary plot role.
Not that there wasn’t an episode written for the other characters to “play Jessie” once in a while. To the top of my head come “Zack, the duck, and the evil evil oil,” “AC doesn’t want to join the military,” “It ain’t easy bein’ Screech,” “Kelly’s so popular it hurts,” and “Oh my god an episode about Lisa?” But these were very specialized episodes. They were written for a specific purpose. In the regular episodes, they played their roles—including Jessie. The problem is, Jessie’s natural role was to be a whiny pain in the ass. Even Screech ditched on Cut Day. But did Jessie? No. For Jessie, Cut Day was yet another excuse to bitch about something and complain that her friends and her boyfriend were total assholes for not caring about… whatever she was going on about in that particular episode. My god, this episode had Zack feeding Mr. Belding dead insects to get out of class. How does that comedy gold come second to “What’s Jessie whining about now?”
Jessie, despite her inclusion in the clique, was everything that is wrong in the world. She was the bitch who bitched about everything for sake of bitching. As if it gave her purpose and meaning. And it truly bothers me that we have far too much Jessie in the world, and not enough Zack. Is that really what we want? Did all the people of my generation watch Saved By The Bell and decide, “Hey, Jessie’s the one we should be like when I grow up!”—despite the fact that we universally hated her when we were kids?
Hey, I’m only twelve years out of high school (and almost 20 years out of Saved By The Bell), so what do I know? But I’ll be honest, I miss the Zack Morrises of the world a whole lot more than I do the Jessie Spanos. I’d rather have a creative solution that’s basically an exercise in complete irresponsibility than be a stuck-up, uptight, tight-assed bitch that whines about everything just to whine about it and feel self-important.
Imagine Saved By the Bell for a moment, but recast it to have Zack, and 100,000 Jessies. And then look at the world in which we live. It’s awful, isn’t it? God I hate all you Jessie Spanos of the world.
OK so you are pro-life I get it, but what about the current over population of the world we are facing? Fact, more children are born than can possible survive to adulthood so wouldn't it be better to allow women the right to chose and instead of forcing them to have a child they know they can not take care of. I guess you would rather see children die of neglect or malnourishment, as opposed to letting a women abort a fetus that is a part of her body. As cold as it may sound fetus are no different from a parasite except they kinda look like humans so people feel attached to them. I bet you will say someone shouldn't have sex if they can't afford a child, yeah while you are at it why dont you tell people not to eat bad food if they cant pay the medical bills they might have if they have a heart attack.
Population control as an argument in favor of abortion is a very slippery slope, Anon. “They’re unwanted, so they’ll just have shitty lives anyway, might as well kill them”? Sounds like a stone’s throw away from class-based eugenics to me. Why not cleanse the ghettos while we’re at it?
You’ll wanna be careful with that little word “fact,” too. Tertullian wrote, “We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us… Truly, pestilence and hunger and war and flood must be considered as a remedy for nations, like a pruning of the human race becoming excessive in numbers.” That was when the Earth’s population was around 100 million or so, by the way. Some modern estimates say the Earth could support as many as one trillion people—others say that we’d need approximately four Earths if the global standard of living were raised to that of the United States. Say tomorrow that it’s conclusively proven that abortion is murder. What would you suggest to curtail our breeding habits instead? Anything not fascistic?
"Kinda like humans?" No. Are humans. As in, “composed of human DNA,” “having their own personal blood type, heartbeat, and genetic makeup.” No scientific, biological, or medical text reference states that life begins at any other point. By the by, a parasite is a creature of a different species than the host. Also, during pregnancy, a woman’s body goes through changes to deliberately provide nutrients and protect her baby. This does not occur in parasitic relationships.
why dont you tell people not to eat bad food if they cant pay the medical bills they might have if they have a heart attack.
I do. I wish most people didn’t eat like such idiots. When fat people ask me how they can become healthier or better-looking, I tell them. But of course, I’d never force healthy food upon them or campaign to illegalize McDonald’s, as that’s a slightly different principle—people being fat and unhealthy and having heart attacks infringes upon nobody’s rights.
Besides, there are lots of things that can result in heart attack. There’s only one that can result in pregnancy.
Lastly, it should be noted that, except in the case of rape, no one is being forced to rear a child they didn’t ask for.
Yes, I DO define humanity by its consciousness, but on a more self-aware level. I hope you realize that the only thing that really distinguishes us from other animals is language. Without language there couldn't be self-awareness, or else how would we be able to label the things around us and within us? We wouldn't. We'd be stuck in the present like pretty much all other animals.
If you don't define humanity by its consciousness, then what is it to YOU? Is it just the fact of LOOKING like a human, meaning humanity is just a superficial thing, an appearances thing? I mean, you HAVE argued the point that one reason abortion is wrong is that fetuses look like people very early on in the womb. Is that all it is? Just the fact that we are bipedal and are faces are more smashed in than an ape's?
I suppose you think it's because we're godly and divine and "special" somehow. But why? If not consciousness, then what? Can you give me, an atheist, a reason not to abort a fetus when it means no more to me than a cricket? Or is it a purely theological reason?
If you’ll notice, the one time I argued that first-trimester fetuses still carry human features, I also appended the explicit disclaimer, “Not that it means anything regarding their humanity.” So no, I “HAVEN’T.”
But what you’re saying is, basically anyone unconscious or asleep (thus, not self-aware) isn’t human, and anyone without language (like, infants/deaf people) aren’t human. OK.
Go call Peter Singer. He’ll love you.
Seriously? You’re reasoning backwards. The reason we’re special isn’t because we’ve got language—language is a result of what makes us special. And no, it isn’t some infallible Something in the sky. I’m sure you can figure this one out, big girl.
As far as humans not being animals is concerned... we are animals. What abilities do we have? Language. Creativity. Consciousness. Self-awareness. But that's just what works for us, as animals, and what natural selection gave to us. Who are we to say other animals don't have consciousness or emotions? Elephants mourn their dead, do they not? Many cetacean species refuse to leave the side of an ill member of their pod even if it means stranding, do they not? Some primates use tools, do they not? And of course the things that WE have are what WE consider important. But that's just what our massive human ego makes us believe.
We do not have the ability to echolocate. We do not have the ability to produce millions of offspring in hopes that at least a few will survive. We do not have superb senses of smell or hearing. Why? Because that's the way we evolved, and since we're doing so well already, we figure that WE have it best. But look at ant colony, or a bee hive. They are pretty successful. Who knows if those ants are snickering about how useless humans are and how prone to dissent and rebellion we are. Yeah, that's anthropomorphism, but it's POSSIBLE.
We think we're so vital, but basic nature disagrees. We die and become dust like every other animal. We have miscarriages and disease and the like. We are able to be swept away by hurricanes and swallowed by the earth during earthquakes. We are powerful creatures and at the top of the food chain. But we are still animals. We still have instincts and are more likely to give in to those than to the human, self-aware INVENTION of morality and ethics unique to our species. People say I'll have a hard time in life because I don't believe in god. But THEY don't believe in the very essence of nature. I'm much more comfortable being an animal than a divine supercreation, because it allows me to be connected to the earth as it is, not to spend my entire life wishing to be free of it to enter a place that likely doesn't even exist.
OK. humans are unremarkable, unchanged by any characteristic making us superior to the rest of the animal kingdom. Then what’s the difference between murdering a fetus and murdering a 40yr old man? Those you care for and the your neighbor’s yappy dog? They’re all just animals, no more meaningful than a fly. Screw it, let’s kill ‘em all. No biggie.
So, wait let me get this straight. According to you, human lives are of zero importance when it comes to politics? And the Earth we need to sustain our unworthy living (since it isn't worthy enough to be engaged in the political realm, no matter how horrific the crimes or injustice may be) is also a dull and dingy subject that just doesn't 'matter'...? What's left to give a shit about besides yourself? Is that it? Seriously?
Wow, you are a very pitiful piece of work sir. I just want you to know, that you are not a beautiful fucking snowflake, and you're made from same decaying matter we all are. Your life is no more important or less than important than anyone else around you, and if you really aim to keep up this pretentious political tumblr guru bullshit, start giving a shit about the real world. And all of the people in it.
Good day, sir.
Why should I? My life is mine and mine alone to live, right? And the same of yours. Are you under the impression that one of us is not well-suited to living our own lives? I’m not.
Of course my life is more important than those of people around me—it’s my life. And yours should be important to you. If it isn’t—hey, that’s not my problem. Enjoy your codependence.
I appreciate the Fight Club reference though, thank you.
I have a question regarding your views on abortion. I myself support abortion because I do not consider an embryo/early fetus some kind of equal to conscious humans.
I think it can be agreed upon that fetuses in the first trimester do not have self-awareness or consciousness, and definitely not language. These three things are what essentially what makes a human, human. My question is, when you kill a bug, which probably has more "life" so to speak than a fetus, how is that any different? Is it because the fetus WILL become a human? Because it is a human fetus? Do you feel any guilt when you squish a bug? Since you likely do think a fetus should not be killed ever because it is human, what are your reasons if not religious?
I'm one of those people who takes bugs outside rather than killing them, when possible. Yet I support abortion. It is just because I do not buy into the idea that humans are somehow "better" than other species, so while I would not go about having an abortion lightly, I'd probably just have the same amount of guilt while having an abortion as I would killing a cricket. That is, just a bit, and then proceed to get on with my life and not care anymore.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8305217.stm - Does this change your opinion at all? Let's say you're 100% pro-life, as I'm guessing you are from your stance on the death penalty. Banning abortion would do nothing to save the fetuses, but would save mothers from dying.
"Abortions are gonna happen anyway, so we might as well make them safe, legal and rare!” "Robberies are gonna happen anyway, so we might as well make them safe, legal and rare!” "Slavery is gonna happen anyway, so we might as well make it safe, legal and rare!”
See the faulty rationalization there? The purpose of the law isn’t prevention—it’s retribution. The threat of criminal activity is not reasonable justification for its legalization. If women die/are greviously injured during illegal abortions, honestly—that’s their problem. It’s the risk they assume in doing something they shouldn’t be doing.
Do you only respond to arguments that you are able to argue back? I recall presenting two different arguments to you, one about abortion and one about humans being animals, and you responded to neither of them, even though I think they were presented well. Why not?
Because I sometimes have more important/interesting things to do than respond to each and every one of the 172 messages in my Ask Box that all say the exact same thing. I work 60 hours a week and have an incurable comic book habit. The few posts of mine you’ve seen since the 16th were on queue, to help prevent complaints I had during my last absence. I’ve also had faithful followers unfollow me due to the ungodly amount of controversy I create, so I try to have peaceful intermissions between the endless vitriolic debate.
Both of the unposted arguments you’ve submitted to me have been addressed in the past. I do plan on getting to them, but in the mean time, you could search a few hot words from your messages and see if they turn anything up. I’m putting this on queue too. I apologize for the delay.
You never even back up half of what you say and you never give a straight answer to anything you are ignorant about.
All you do is bash bash bash.
But then again? how should anyone expect more from a conservative?
you will never be taken seriously by any sensible person.
I am 16 yet i feel like i am MORE informed than you.
Liberals/Democrats ftw <3
Followers, you deserve a good laugh every so often.
Regarding your arguments about abortion, are you arguing this in a "this is what I think should be implemented into law" sense or a "none of this would work in a practical world/philosophy 101 course" sense? Because a federal law that grants personhood at the moment of conception (and all that that would entail) and arguing that *ethically* or *morally* this is what you believe is right are two very different things.
Laws are derivative of morality. I’m making a moral argument because it’s what should be implemented into federal law. Practically, I only do this for fun. While I do think Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned due to its immorality (not to mention its unconstitutionality, but those two go hand-in-hand), I really couldn’t care much either way. The country’s doomed at any rate.
“Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout man’s history, in every version and form—from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries—it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’”—John Galt, on Sanction of the Victim.
I think you might be a tad confused about what rights are, Jon.
Then by all mean, enlighten me! I’d love to hear how making abortion illegal isn’t restricting the right to determine the use of your body. I’d love even more for you to defend the notion that “It’d be fine if it were illegal and unavailable”, since the unavailability of abortion kills around 70,000 women per year.
And would you look at that! Not a single fucking response from that ridiculous, pompous little fuck!
Oh, sorry. I wrote one out and everything. Must’ve plumb forgot to click “post.”
Although there’s really not much I can say here that’ll surprise you unless you develop a greater capacity to appreciate syllogism. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem like you and people like you will ever be able to understand my arguments.
But, just so that you don’t accuse me of copping out, here:
Contributions to Gov. Jan Brewer’s special legal defense fund now top $1 million, mostly in website donations of less than $100 pouring in from all over the country. Arizona, California, Texas, and Florida are the states with the most online donors.
As of Tuesday, website contributions totaled $1,104934.63 from 23,955 donors, according to the governor’s office. Additional mail-in donations totaled $93,084, with contributions still coming in, says Tasya Peterson, a Brewer spokeswoman. The average donation is about $46.
Lol@the anon bragging about his Ph.D. I can BUY a Doctorate in Philosophy, as can most anyone with the right amount of money and a credit card or paypal account. Having any sort of degree, these days, even a post-graduate degree, doesn't say much about anything. It's what you do with the knowledge.
For instance, I have a Masters in Computer Science and Network Engineering, as well as am a MCSE and Novell CNA. It does shit for me if we're arguing about whether or not the ending phrase of a McDonald's worker should be "Would you like fries with that?"
The debate that's been going on is clearly an ethical one, regardless of whatever semantics are being presented both in the original article you linked to, and any other data that has been brought into the argument, since. Being that it is an ethical debate, and that morality is something people can learn and know without ever having stepped foot in an institution of higher learning, listing one's academic achievements doesn't lend any credibility to one's stance.
The debate that’s been going on is clearly an ethical one
Yes, and I wish we could stop being distracted by these idiots and get back to that. Alas, that always seems to be too much to ask of the internet.
Q: So women's rights and health, the environment, and rape victims don't matter?
A : At the expense of another person’s life? No, they don’t.
So you're willing to dismiss horrible trauma, and throw away and an actual living, breathing human being's life - for just the POSSIBILITY of another life? Why should someone who is already so terribly broken be forced to go through nine months of pregnancy, and then labor - a hugely triggering and stressful event? Someone who has just been raped - and absolutely NO ONE should EVER have to experience that - is not going to be mentally or physically stable enough to have a child.
There’s as great a difference between killing the mother and allowing her to die (and between aborting the fetus and allowing it to be killed by natural causes) as there is between me holding your head under water and me simply watching you drown from the docks. I agree, it sounds pretty shitty practically, empathetically. But ethically, so what? What does her trauma or instability have to do with the rights of the fetus?
I mean, we can come up with crappy circumstances until we’re blue in the face. She was raped. It was incest. She’s only 13. The baby will be retarded. The man bailed on her. So what? All of these things, all of them, are completely irrelevant. They have no bearing over whether or not it’s OK to terminate a fetus.
You say that the woman who has been raped doesn't matter, if it's at the expense of another life. If there were less women raped, there would be less abortions because of rape. Instead of blaming the woman for not wanting to either go through childbirth after a traumatic event or to bear her rapist's child, how about you prevent the rapes from happening in the first place? Take action against rape instead of punishing those who it happens to.
Just what are you proposing I do? Become some sort of anti-rape superhero?
Actually, that sounds like it would be pretty damn cool…
No, no, I’m getting distracted. In the absence of some sort of awesome Rape Avenger, rapes are always going to happen. As Conservativegirl put it, “Why are pro-abortionists so keen on the idea that if a woman is raped that she’ll want to have an abortion? Do they believe it is some magical cure for rape? That if a woman can kill the child growing inside of her that she will somehow be completely healed?” And don’t even try to give me that shit about rape victims never truly loving their children. The fact of the matter is that horrible, traumatic things will happen, and it simply isn’t justification for murder—not even the state-sanctioned kind.
"“Medically necessary abortions.” That’s such a funny concept. I can’t imagine the mother that would consent to kill her own kid just to save herself. (Or maybe I just don’t want to. Because that’s pretty fucked up.) I always wonder if that same mom if she needed some other “medical necessity”—say, a new heart—would rip the heart out of her kid to save herself too."
I came across this in your blog. Just to clarify- are you aware that if a pregnant woman dies, the baby dies too? Wouldn't denying a sick mother medical care that results in her death (and the death of the fetus) be worse than abortion? If we're talking about saving lives, don't you think it's better to save one life than to just let two people die?
Practically, yes, of course.
But there is a marked difference between practicality and morality. Unless you’re a utilitarian, in which case you’re probably just wrong about everthing you’ve ever believed.
I think someone's a little sore about the fact that his momma wishes she'd aborted him.
P.S You're wrong 99% of the time, and I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy. You're willing to cast judgment and slant articles in your favor, yet when someone asks you a direct question ...you say, "It's irrelevant" when you're unsure how to answer it.
Obvious troll is obvious.
yet when someone asks you a direct question …you say, “It’s irrelevant” when you’re unsure how to answer it.
Hardly. Pointing out its irrelevancy is addressing it.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Says the anonymous-ask-boxer who started with an insult and pretends to have an education.
"I suppose you’re all for murdering someone unconscious or mentally retarded, then? Or those afflicted with Riley Day Syndrome or CIPA, right? Sounds consistent to me."
None of those things is the same as not having a brain, not being sentient and not being able to feel pain- all of which are characteristics of a fetus. You said "When someone offers a cogent, logical argument to the contrary of whatever it is I have found to be true, it’s not hard at all to change my mind about something," but you're obviously not applying that same logic to abortion- a fetus does not have a brain that works until 24 weeks into it's existence. It cannot think. It cannot feel. It does not have sentience. Although rights are an abstract legal concept, the reasoning for defending them does not apply to a fetus, since it's not (in any reasonable definition) a person.
Rights are actually a pretty concrete philosophical concept, of which legal rights are derivative.
But I don’t plan on getting married to anyone any time soon. And I’d never be with a lady who’d have an abortion. That’s just common sense. Drugs? They’re okay, I had some fun in college, but now I tend to stick with the hooch. Delicious, delicious hooch. I like sex as much as the next guy, believe you me. I just tend to be a little more discerning in deciding who I want to bed. Take away anyone’s rights? I’d never think of it.
"Hey, just for fun, let’s suppose that, tomorrow, there emerged indisputable scientific proof that it did cause a man physical discomfiture, psychological injury and long-term monetary loss to not have the legal right to choose to rape women. Would you advocate that right if it did?"
Women can think and feel and are autonomous. Fetuses up to 24 weeks don't even have the neural capacity to feel pain, much less have sentience or consciousness.
I suppose you’re all for murdering someone unconscious or mentally retarded, then? Or those afflicted with Riley Day Syndrome or CIPA, right? Sounds consistent to me.
"Yeah? How far does that extend? Let’s flip the tables here for a sec. Suppose I said: “A man has every right to his own power of choice to make his own decisions in every area of life, and he certainly doesn’t need a woman’s permission.”
But when he isn't given the choice to rape, just as you propose women are not to be given the choice of abortion, does he undergo physical pain & discomfort? Does not being able to rape put the man at risk for a range of health issues, or even death? Does it give him emotional trauma? Will not being able to rape a women stay with him his whole life costing him HUGE amounts of money and limiting his opportunities? NO. Of course not. But all of these things are true if women aren't given the choice of abortion.
Your analogy is incorrect, unfair, and quite frankly makes no sense.
Hey, just for fun, let’s suppose that, tomorrow, there emerged indisputable scientific proof that it did cause a man physical discomfiture, psychological injury and long-term monetary loss to not have the legal right to choose to rape women. Would you advocate that right if it did?
You've said you don't want children, but my impression is that you are categorically opposed to abortion. So if you were to get a woman pregnant (perhaps this is a non-issue because you're celibate or gay,) I assume you would support her financially, emotionally, etc., and still be involved in the life of this child you didn't want?
Of course I would. I’ve mentioned this before. I wouldn’t so much as associate with the kind of scumbag who woudn’t. I’d marry the girl—if only to get the kid on my health plan.
I may not have expected that kid, but I’ll have him for the next 18 years. The least I could do is provide him a nice stable family life.
Fuckin’ man up and take responsibilities for your actions. It wouldn’t be about me anymore. It’d be about what’s best for that kid.
While I disagree with your stance on just about everything, some of your posts have got me thinking about political issues from not a strictly liberal standpoint. While I would, much to your dismay, call myself a liberal based on my own personal views, I highly respect your opinion and your views because of the way you present them. It's quite clear that your opinion on these topics will not change and I find myself pitying the people that try to do so. Anyway, nice blog and I appreciate how you've called it a "Tumblog" rather than a "Tumblelog" because the two just go together so nicely. Have a good life. :)
I appreciate your willingness to think. Contrary to popular belief, my position can and has been changed on some of the toughest subjects. I used to be pro-abortion; I used to think Bush was a good president; I used to be a pretty big anti-homosexual bigot. That is, until my stances on those subjects were proven wrong. When someone offers a cogent, logical argument to the contrary of whatever it is I have found to be true, it’s not hard at all to change my mind about something. The trouble is that most people don’t seem capable of doing that.