Sane conversation about abortion

1159 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

Kerry
Kerry's picture
DRC wrote:   Because the

DRC wrote:

  Because the thread was about having a sane conversation rather than having to agree, I want to thank those who did converse sanely and with respect for one another.

Well, it's hard to have a 'sane conversation' about elective abortions when hypocrites like you, DRC, try to justify it by any other way than 'the choice of the mother'.   Claiming such irrational causes for yourself as 'compassion and caring' justifying killing the fetus--without, at any point, addressing how you would respond to anyone that might claim 'compassion and caring' as a justification to prevent killing the fetus.   Ignoring every other aspect of this, no matter how realistic its premise, as being 'insane'--and, therefore, ignoring much of the reality of this situation to keep your mantra of 'compassion and caring', no matter irrational the premise, as the 'righteous excuse to kill the fetus' going--just like hypocrites tend to do....

DRC wrote:

The essential finding for me is that the law must not intrude, not that there cannot be differences of opinion or conscience. 

What a hypocrite you really are, DRC.  The real legal fact of this matter is that, because there are 'differences of opinion or conscience', the law has to be involved to create it as a 'right'.   If you think that this should be based on 'community standards', then, don't be too surprised when those 'standards' are used, like they have been before, to make elective abortions illegal--even using the very terms you hypocritically claim for yourself--'compassion and caring'--but, this time, for the fetus--not the mother.   And, the real medical fact of this matter is that there is absolutely no medical indication to abort a normal fetus like what a great, great majority of all induced abortions are.   The only role that a doctor plays in this is to perform the abortion safely as has been determined to be legal.   There is absolutely no 'medical' reason to abort a normal fetus--and, in fact, absent the rather unrealistic way a mother's 'suicidal ideation' has been postured with here, there is absolutely no medical reason to intentionally kill a fetus in order to save the mother's life at any stage in pregnancy.  None whatsoever....

Elective abortions are not a 'medical issue'--they are a political and legal one--despite how many times DRC ignores the facts of this issue for DRC's own self-righteous posturing....

DRC wrote:

  I find the politics of conscience particularly ugly,

And, DRC continues the hypocrisy in a position that claims being 'against the politics of conscience'--but, then, turns around and postures with 'compassion and caring (of course, only for the mother)' as DRC's own excuse to justify abortions...even the thought that this is a 'compassionate and caring' issue is a self-rigtheous hypocrisy that ignores the reality of abortion--which is why I described this posturing in the terms of a second-rate horror movie where everyone is standing around holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya' as the fetus about to be born is systematically killed by the 'medical authority with the right opinion' as to the 'medical indications to abort'.....that posturing is that unrealistic when it comes to the real issues--with the rights and personal responsibility this takes--involved in elective abortions....the only thing that distresses me is how much DRC is a hypocrite about it--and how much everyone else wants to 'fall in line' with that hypocrisy.....claiming all sorts of exceptions and excuses other than 'the mother wants it' as the only valid reason for elective abortions and only to be done safely by a physician if legally allowed as a right to the mother--only to be contended against the stage when the fetal has become viable and any issues any state can be compelled to act on with such fetal viability in mind--as Roe vs. Wade acknowledged all along....and, why Roe vs. Wade if there is nothing to be considered here legally?  

Kerry
Kerry's picture
DRC wrote: Echo chamber.

DRC wrote:

Echo chamber. Nobody else is there.

Then, why are you still here?   I know it's not to responsibly discuss the issues of elective abortions with any form of integrity base that you have and anyone else could recognize on your behalf in this issue concering the realities of elective abortions--because you don't have any--and you ignore the realities of elective abortions.    While you may see your ignorance as an act and cause to emulate, I see it as just another way for you (and your clan) to condescendingly and hypocritically remove yourself(ves) from what this issue of elective abortions really entails--and that being killing fetuses--even normal ones that are of no physical risk to the mother--and when that is appropriate and when it isn't....that is not an issue that the mother 'can decide with her doctor' because there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus with a mother that has no physical risks present in her pregnancy--which, by far, is the great, great, majority of all induced abortions...despite how much you (and your clan) want to hypocritically and self-righteously ignore that point in this discussion on elective abortions....

Kerry
Kerry's picture
And, speaking of ignorance

And, speaking of ignorance and stupidity in the issue of elective abortions:

Phadreus76 wrote:

No, sperm-murderer, the people who ought to be commiting suicide are the ones responsible for the murders of 120 - 200 million humans with each ejaculation. Each one of which, given the right conditions, will eventually gain their own rights...

Who has put forth the argument that 'killing every sperm' is a murder?   Who, Phadreus76?  Is that your own hypocritical way of ignoring that killing a fetus right before birth is no different in most 'compassionate and caring' people's minds that killing a fetus right after birth?  

So, Phadreus76, other than your ignorant claptrap, how about something more substantial from you?   Are you in line with D_NATURED's rather vacillating agreement to 'kill the fetus right before birth if the mother wants it'--or Zenzoe's present claim that this 'has nothing to do with mothers wanting to abort all the way to term'?   Or, is DRC's 'compassion and caring' enough as long as the mother finds a doctor that, between the two, can 'agree' that abortion is the answer no matter how it looks to anyone else--or, as far as late stage abortions in surgical suites or hospital rooms (instead of the doctor's own office), who has to look for that matter?   Or, how about just periodic slurs and harassing remarks like Ulysses?  

Any comments whatsoever, otherwise, Phadreus76, or is your only statements on this dealing with something that, as far as I can tell, no one else is even considering--the sperm in semen.....which most will die even if one impregnates the ovum in the mother from the same ejaculation--so, how does that relate at all to the 'sane discussion' of elective abortions?   Other than to indicate your own ignorance and disregard in this issue....

DRC
DRC's picture
Try the refresh button.

Try the refresh button.

Zenzoe
Had verbiarrhea long, Kerry?

Had verbiarrhea long, Kerry?

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Refresh button?   Or,

Refresh button?   Or, reset?  

With that in mind, let's rehash some things, shall we?   The liberal-minded jellyheads here in this 'sane discussion on elective abortions' hypocritically claim to have 'compassion and caring community interests'--and certainly not recognizing this an issue of 'indivdiual rights'--when it concerns how to appropriately consider the political implications of elective abortions.  And, they certainly can't bring it upon their hypocritical selves to, otherwise, justify the kiling of even normal fetuses by the mother's choice (as what an 'elective abortion' really is) by claiming its 'rights' and 'personal responsibilities' this issue entails because that's not in line with what they say they have here as a justification, instead--'compassion and caring'--even if the liberal-minded jellyheads can't recognize that such a 'compassion and caring' could be used in the 'community interest' to remove the maternal rights for elective abortions (in the name of 'being compassionate and caring' for the fetus).  That, again, is 'too rational'--and the liberal-minded jellyheads are 'above rational causes in politics'.    

And, despite that little 'rational glitch' in their posturing, the liberal-minded jellyheads are so persistent in having (of course, their form of) 'compassionate and caring community interest' trump all 'individual rights', anyway, that they can't even bring it upon themselves to comment on the issue of elective abortions in such a manner that would even remotely acknowledge 'indivdual rights' and 'personal responsibility' in this--or any other--issue.   That would be 'too rational', anyway--and the liberal-minded jellyheads claim that they are 'above rationality' and into their 'compassionate and caring community interest causes'--as they appear to posture that a politically rational justification (including such dastard concepts as 'individual rights' and 'personal responsibility') for any act so considered to be so 'blase'' and 'antiquated' when it comes to their 'new world order' of 'compassion and caring in the community' that they say even explains the killing of even normal fetuses.   

But, wait, despite D_NATURED's description, the liberal-minded jellyheads still can't bring it upon themselve to allow such normal fetal killings if for no other reason than 'the mother wants it'.  Oh no, that sounds too much like 'individual rights' and 'personal responsibility'--and they certainly don't want that to be an obligation for even their own actions as well as anyone else's (after all, despite them freely killing all fetuses, they want to disclaim any personal responsibility by such people as DNA-proven child rapist-murderers, even fathers who have raped their children, or just about anyone else that they deserves to be 'rehabilitated' and have 'their motives understood for society's interest', instead--except, apparently, because they never respond about it, someone who murders a late stage abortionist--othewise, it appears that there is no need for anyone to be personally responsible in a liberal-minded jellyheaded world--for anything).    So, as a posture against 'individual rights' and 'personal responsibility', the liberal-minded jellyheads resort to their favorite excuse to justify all political actions and considerations--'victimhood triumph'--as a way to describe why elective abortions happen--or should happen--even all the way to term.  Using such excuses as incestuous rape and suicidal ideation as if they could take that banner to qualify, and justify, every elective abortion--but, of course, since they don't agree with 'personal responsibility', only if done by a doctor's advice.   That's how the liberal-minded jellyheads claim that they are for 'empowering women' in elective abortions (even apparently the one who claims to be a woman here--Zenzoe)--by claiming only 'dire circumstances' as 'their choice'--and, then, only doing so by 'a doctor's advice'--and, of course, recognizing that it's only their 'compassionate and caring community interests' that, alone, can 'empower women'--nothing to do about their rights, or even any moral or ethical choices that they can claim solely for themselves (as Jefferson's 'between them and God'), or even acknowledge their own responsibility to that choice being done in a timely manner because, after all, that's just not what liberal-minded jellyheads are all about. 

They're more about hypocritically and self-righteously claiming to be the sole possessers of a 'compassionate and caring community interest' making this all possible (of course, with the 'doctor's advice'--don't forget that little quip)--and, to them, the sole manner of expressing such 'compassion and caring' is only in the interest of the mother and never in the interest of the fetus.  But, as they claim others to be narrow-minded and stupid, they really can't say why it's only 'the mother' that they should be 'compassionate and caring' about as a 'community'--even if that involves a fetus just about to be born--not once recognizing the point that such 'compassion and caring' can be used against the mother if it is without the very politically and legally pertinent 'individual right', and 'personal responsiblity' to act on that right, that this issue of elective abortion really has had--and realistically should have been all about--all along.....a mother's individual right to choose to abort as long as there is no contention identified by any state with regards to any acquired right of the life of the fetus as the pregnancy ensues (for 'community interest', by the way)--as was recognized by the Roe vs Wade decision so many years ago.....

As I've said before, while the 'new world order' liberally-minded jellyheads think that they offer something 'more communal and compassionate that rational political thought', I think that especially this issue of elective abortions shows that they do not.    The 'sane' way to approach an issue such as how emotionally fired up that elective abortions can be is, as has already been addressed by Roe vs. Wade, by its rational approach with respect to the contention of the individual rights this issues involves--as well as the personal responsibility to act on such rights in a timely manner when fetal viability is of no consequence.   Otherwise, expect 'community interests' to be just as likely to intervene on the fetus's behalf as it is to justify killing the fetus at any stage of development in the pregnancy and for no other reason than 'the mother wants to'--which is the real reason all elective abortions are performed--not the self-righteous, hypocritical, jellyheaded excuses that the liberal-minded here try to concoct to avoid both addressing this as a 'right' and 'personal responsibility' that it really has--no less a 'right to the person' and 'personal responsibility to others' that any political issue like this contains that cannot be 'amalgamated' into some 'compassionate and caring community interest' that has no politically rational basis.....despite how 'compassionate'--yet politically 'irrational'--those intentions can be.....         

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Zenzoe wrote: Had verbiarrhea

Zenzoe wrote:

Had verbiarrhea long, Kerry?

I'll be brief.   Is that your answer as to how you can say this:

Zenzoe wrote:

If I can glean some sense from your sentence: First, nobody here has claimed that women demand elective abortions all the way to term.

And, this:

Zenzoe wrote:

Did anybody catch the whole of Thom's discussion with the founder of "Democrats for Life," or whatever it's called? I only saw a short bit, the part where he said he agreed with Roe's drawing the line at viability. He said at the point of viability, it was reasonable for the state to claim a "compelling interest" in protecting the life the fetus. With that, I turned off the TV and walked out of the room.

And, mean anything other than 'verbal shit' for yourself in line with the other self-righteous, hypocritical, liberal-minded jellyheads (I almost said 'potheads' but that gives you too much excuse for your posturing--at least you'd have a reason to be so 'jellyheaded')?   So, are you claiming that your position on elective abortions is NOT about 'demanding that women be allowed to abort all the way to term'--or are you claiming that you are still 'disgusted with the remarks of Thom Hartmann considering fetal viability to be an appropriate limit to elective abortions'--which, of course, means that 'women not be allowed to electively abort all the way to term'?   Which one is it, Zenzoe?   Other than to be a 'verbal shithead', you can't have it both ways and mean it....other than in the hypocritical world of liberal-minded jellyheads....

 

DRC
DRC's picture
Abandon all hope you who

Abandon all hope you who enter here.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Especially those who think

Especially those who think that the concept of 'elective' has to do with individual rights--and the personal responsibility that entails--because the liberal-minded jellyheads will try to convince you it has to do with incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and a physical risk to the life of the mother as if, in any of these, killing the fetus addresses it.  It's a mindfuck argument that has no business being used as an excuse for the adult decision to electively decide when to abort an unwanted child--a hypocrite's argument that claims a 'compassion' that incites the fetus without cause--yet lets real offenders like DNA-proven child rapist-murderers that actually not only pose a threat but are proven to be a threat to other people--in this case, our children.  Oh, but this crew of 'compassionate and caring' jellyheads thinks nothing of killing children--nor blaming ones that aren't born for things that they didn't do.  

And, just so the liberal mindfuckers don't get to resort to the 'you don't want to empower women' mime (something that I have openly wondered how they can even be 'empowering women' when the excuse they offer for the choice to abort electively constantly revolves around the issue of incentuous rape, 'threats to the life of the mother' that aren't answered by kiling the fetus, and suicidal ideation as their justification to 'about a fetus just before birth'), I am not against elective abortions.   In fact, I am for the woman to have the absolute right to chose to end her pregnancy for any, or no apparent, reason as long as she does so in a timely fashion when the fetus is totally dependent upon her uterus to live--when it gains a capacity to live outside the uterus, I am against that choice.  

 Like Roe vs. Wade's oral arguments, I understand completely why the 'right to life' supercedes (is that the right way to spell that, Ulysses?) all other otherwise absolute rights--and that being because, without life, you have no capacity to have any other right.   It is something that the conservatives also realize very well since they are earnestly pursuing the attempt to define 'life at conception'--a position that I sincerely doubt is adequately redressed by the liberal-minded jellyheaded claim of 'community compassion and care' answering this issue--an excuse that the conservatives will easily contend with by just adding 'we have compassion for the fetus'.   And, the liberal-minded jellyheads, intent on making all rights conditional as well as disregarding any impetus socially or individually to have personal responsibility, will fall flat on their ignorant and hypocritical face--and, as far as I'm concerned after putting up with their 'victimhood triumphant' excuses to kill fetuses near term, should happen despite them--and any right I have, before this bullshit, always held as one of confirming personal integrity and will as a right a woman should have for herself in determining the fate of her pregnancy when there is no contention for the fetus's right to life.....which I have held to naturally be present when the fetus can come out of the womb alive....and, just to remind you, there is absolutely no medical indication to kill a fetus before being born to, in any physical way, 'save the life of the mother'.....resorting to 'doctor's advice' options for elective abortions doesn't recognize that reality of the medical approach to complicated pregnancies that never intentionally kills a fetus to 'save the mother' nor does it recognize the point that elective abortions, as a great, great majority of all induced abortions show, have nothing to do with the 'physical risks of the mother'--only to do with 'what the mother wants'. 

'What the mother wants'--for any reason she has for herself (you know, like Jefferson's 'between her and God').  Something that even those of us that accordingly allow real elective abortions to be 'for any, or no apparent, reason' would now have a contention with that same decision, and that same reasoning, has been delayed until fetal viability has been reached--despite the attempts here to adjust such 'electiveness' in the late stages of pregnancy based on the excuses of victimhood that, of course, have no place in elective decisions to begin with--much less any real medical justification to 'kill the fetus in order to save the mother'--it just does not exist except in the deluded liberal, jellyheaded, minds of those that think 'victimhood triumphs' justify any choice to kill a person that could, otherwise, live outside of the womb....and claim that as a justification to electively abort....it neither justifies that nor does is it really respectful of women that do chose in a timely manner to end their pregnancy when the ability of the fetus to live outside her womb is not a 'contention between rights'....but, again, the liberal-minded jellyheads don't believe in 'rights'--that's too......politically rational..... 

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
Kerry wrote: D_NATURED

Kerry wrote:

D_NATURED wrote:

You have, at times, Kerry, blustered your hypocritical stance as well as I've ever heard it.

Your, and your clan's, claim on how to determine hypocrisy in this rings disingenuous, D_NATURED, when it was you that condoned killing the fetus right before birth--and gave no other reason than the mother wanting to

Liar. I have stated ad nauseum that my reasons for supporting the woman's rights absolutely were societal as well as personal. There is a societal benefit to protecting personal freedoms.

Quote:
--and, now, Zenzoe is claiming 'nobody here has claimed that women demand elective abortions all the way to term'.   So, who's the liar there, D_NATURED?   You, or Zenzoe? 

Nobody said women demand it. Nobody here except for yourself would attempt to lump all women or all fetuses together. I have always maintained that whatever the mother's choice, I support it. I think Zenzoe likes that approach better than the law and order approach.

 

Quote:
And, conspiracy or not, DRC, it is the intent of the tag team to ignore each other's (and even each one's own) inconsistencies in this discussion on 'elective abortions'.....and, of course, to prove how 'compassionate' you all are in this issue of 'empowering women' (but, of course, not holding her 'personally responsible' to that 'empowerment'), holding hands and singing Kumbaya as D_NATURED has the 'medical authority' kill the fetus right before birth as 'the mother wants it'

I have the medical authority? Am I an alleged doctor now too? Talk about hyperbole.

Quote:
.....euphemistically claiming any concern against that act as 'fetal sentimentalism' to a 'parasite' and 'tadpole'....

Ah, and your compassion is soooo fucking transcendent, huh? I mean, for three months, you're a freakin' saint. You say you value life and then only warranty it while it's still in the factory. What a joke.

Quote:
D_NATURED wrote:

There is a "WE", Kerry. There is a majority of humans that like being with and caring for other people, and don't kid themselves into thinking that they are islands.

I know how you are trying to twist my words into something that I didn't say, but my point is that I don't think that 'compassion' is the right excuse (since I really don't see any of you using a consistent 'reason', I resort to having to call your affronts to justify abortions as 'excuses') for elective abotions, D_NATURED.

How dare you call my justifications excuses! What have my innocent justifications done to deserve such treatment. That's it! I henceforth call your incoherence disclarity.

 

Quote:
And, I know how you have a hard time following this discussion, but I"ve also told you why.   Whatever assertion that you and your cohorts can come up with this being a 'compassionate cause' or a 'WE' motive, the exact same assertion can be used on the fetus's behalf to prevent elective abortions.

Now we're getting somewhere. What then are your assertions? What compassion for the "WE" can be used to deny women physical autonomy? I can't wait to hear this...

 

Quote:
So, how do you determine which is the 'right compassionate cause' to follow here--'for the mother' or 'for the fetus'?

I've been telling you over and over how you determine, you just don't listen. You keep asking a question again without addressing the answer you already have.

 

Quote:
I know how you all like to hold hands and sing Kumbaya as you condone the killing of any fetus--especially, as you have positioned yourself, even right before birth just because the mother wants it--but, many can claim a 'compassionate cause' and be totally against that.

Then explain it, dipshit. Explain how forcing women to give birth makes everything better. You can't claim to have a compassion you can't articulate, or can you? I explained the source of MY morality, explain yours outside simple fetal sentimentalism. Tell us how god made tad polls.

 

Quote:
Who gets to determine which is the 'right compassionate cause'--and how are they going to determine that?    Especially without asserting it as a 'claim on (individual) rights'--since, of course, as Zenzoe has indeed postulated, all 'rights' are 'to be conditioned' and the rest of your clan would rather have this addressed as a 'victimhood triumph' instead of 'an issue of (individual) rights', anyway...

Again, you are not following the discussion. Read my "sin-o-meter" statement. Because we cannot determine one life without imposing on one that, by its nature, pre-exists and upon which the other life is dependent. That is why. And, because your idea externalizes the cost of "compassion" to society at large, rather than letting women take responsibiltiy for their own reproductive life.

Quote:
Can you answer any of this and not look hypocritical, D_NATURED?   And, certainly, not go against the rest of your clan?   Huh, D_NATURED?

  Just did it

Quote:
D_NATURED wrote:

You cannot say you are for individual responsibility and then not let people do anything to be responsible for.

Again, as the hypocrites that you are, you do have to ignore a whole lot of what I have said to maintain that posturing, D_NATURED.   There is something a pregnant woman can do to address her personal responsibility--and that is decide what to do about her pregnancy before fetal viability becomes an issue.   For herself--not for such 'victimhood triumphs' that the hypocrites like to posture with as if that justified any abortion as a 'personally responsible' thing to do--much less with an elective abortion.....

Three months, hypocrite. That's not a mischaracterization of your position.

Quote:
D_NATURED wrote:

 It is a medical procedure intended to rid a woman of an unwanted pregnancy. Period.

And, some of us don't think that that is a responsible thing to do electively (personally or socially) when the fetus has reached a viable stage in the pregnancy.  Period.     And, apart from this now rather sophistic excuse offered for the mother 'wanting to kill herself', there is absolutely no medical indication to kill the fetus before birth to 'save the mother's life', otherwise.   None whatsoever....

You say "personally and socially". Really?! Wrong. Personally and socially are the ways that abortion IS a good thing to do electively. Religiously and misogenistically, it's not a good thing. Get your facts straight.

Quote:
D_NATURED wrote:

 On one hand, it means that it can be fatal to women to own a womb, which might at any moment begin to swell with the growing mass of an intruder.

Again, you have to ignore a whole lot to sustain that posturing.   While there are many things in pregnancy that are risks to the mother, there is nothing that the fetus can do that will kill the mother.

Sure...except exist and cause all the changes that are inherent in its existence. Sure.

 

Quote:
And, certainly, there is nothing in killing the fetus that will make whatever risks the mother has in the pregnancy any better than trying to deliver the fetus alive--even if removing the fetus is indicated in whatever risks the mother has in the pregnancy.   I know how you have to ignore that to feel self-righteous about your posturing--but, it has no basis whatsoever in what is really happening in pregnancy--and, of course, is no real excuse for elective abortions....

Don't worry, I don't use that excuse. My "benefit to society by guaranteeing the right to one's own body" argument still stands.

Quote:
All you hypocrites love to 'blame the (innocent) fetus' for any risk to the mother's life as a way to justify killing the fetus--but, then, turn around and claim that killing a (guilty) DNA-proven child rapist-murderer is 'uncivil' and 'inhumane'.    But, that just points out how much hypocrisy you have towards 'killing the one that (you say) may kill a mother' but, then, 'saving the one that (actually does) kill (and rape) a child'--and, unlike your assumptions with the fetus, has been proven to do so.....

I've covered all of that, you just refuse to discuss my points outside some hyperbolic interpretation that allows you to treat me like a baby-eating cannibal.

Quote:
D_NATURED wrote:

Kerry doesn't get that because his focus is so narrow and stupid.

Speak for yourself, dumbass....as you try to justify 'killing the fetus' at any stage of pregnancy without proof of causing any real harm to the mother--yet, condone saving the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer who has been proven to cause harm....and, want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya to prove how 'compassionate' you all are in doing it.....that's stupid as well as hypocritical....no matter how 'broadminded' you ignorantly claim that you are....

I don't have to prove a harm, you're unable to prove there won't be one either way and, thus, the risk and right must remain in the hands of women. Besides, you don't only get to outlaw abortion if there's no physical harm to women. Their future lives being irrevocably harmed is enough. As for the child murderer, I find it funny how you must use a child murderer, as if doing that to a grown woman is any less evil. Then, you are even more hilarious when you attempt to extrapolate from the fact that I wouldn't torture and execute him, as you would, that I am some kind of hypocrite. All you've proven is that you are a sadist.

Abortion aside, expecting society to defend my right to my body also includes society prosecuting someone who violates my person-such as a rapist/murderer. However, the same defense of civil society that makes it wrong to torture and execute that person accused of a horrific crime, makes it necessary to make sure that women have the right to abort any fetus they're growing. It is the inalienable right not to be murdered. Abortion is not murder, it is preventing life not taking it. The word viability is not used on the living and, if exposed to enough Jesus juice, a person can concieve (pun intended) of the idea that an embryo is viable too, given enough time. It then becomes a not-too-great stretch to begin outlawing abortion all together-out of preemptive compassion.

What that does is make women LESS than men who have no legal demands put upon their reproductive ability.

Quote:
D_NATURED wrote:

Just remember the pork shoulder, Kerry, and remember that all of those women are loved by someone.

Ah, but since you and your cohorts are saying that 'compassion' is the cause for elective abortions, are you saying that 'no one loves the fetus'--or, perhaps, more to this point, 'no one should love the fetus'?

Yes, women who want a child should LOVE their fetuses and their existing children alike. Women who don't want a new bundle of joy should see about having their fetus removed, out of compassion for themselves. Simple as that.

 

Quote:
Be careful there, D_NATURED, your words of 'compassion' can come around and negate 'the cause' that you think is the only thing that deserves 'compassion' in this case between a mother and her offspring about to be born.

When I see a pregnant woman, I see only one life. There is only one being for which socity need be compassionate. The fetus does not exist for society until it does.

 

Quote:
'Compassion' has nothing to do with 'this cause'--but, then, for you all, I don't know what would since 'rights' doesn't do it for you, either.....but, don't think that there are those who at least can claim to 'see through' your excuse of 'compassion'--holding hands and singing Kumbaya as the fetus about to be born is killed for no other reason than you claiming 'the fetus is killing the mother' (as, of course, consistent with whatever 'authority' you can muster that actually agrees with that--and I'd like to see the reasoning of such an 'authority' if they do) since you no longer seem to want to be more consistent as far as the real reason to electively aborts goes--and that being because 'the mother wants it'.... 

Again, repeating the same idiocy does not make it profound or even a demonstratably accurate portrayal of the debate thus far. I won't argue fabricated positions and hyperbole.

It's funny you keep talking about consisency. I have been consistent since the beginning. I would give women rights and not tad polls. You've been consistently wrong, consistenly lied to cover that up and consistently repeated yourself in the most ignorant ways.  Congratulations, you're as steadily dishonest as you could be.

Zenzoe
Kerry wrote: Especially those

Kerry wrote:

Especially those who think that the concept of 'elective' has to do with individual rights--and the personal responsibility that entails--because the liberal-minded jellyheads will try to convince you it has to do with incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and a physical risk to the life of the mother as if, in any of these, killing the fetus addresses it.

Remember the 9 year-old, raped by her father?  Let's say she was 21 weeks along, depressed, confused, terrified of her father...  and the fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival at that point. 

You say, let her carry the child to term, then give it up for adoption.  Or, if there's something wrong with the pregnancy, do whatever needs to be done to save the fetus, and the child, I assume?

I say, as I've said before, to force a child of that age to endure a pregnancy all the way to term is an assault against childhood, and her personhood, for that matter. It would represent a second rape, a compounding of the abuse. 

I say, as I've said before, for her to have to face motherhood, even if the baby is adopted, also compounds the trauma of her experience. Instead, a child of that age deserves her childhood free of such traumas.  She does not have to make a "responsible" choice; it wasn't her choice in the first place to be raped and impregnated.

You do not understand these things.  I don't know why you cannot understand such things, but, you don't.  That's all there is to discuss, Kerry.  If you don't care—if you cannot empathize with a little girl; if you cannot empathize with women, there's no cure for that, and no amount of evidence and reality will convince you.

And I cannot be convinced to care more for a fetus, or baby, if you must think of it that way, than for a girl child or a woman. I'm not going to change my opinion, Kerry.  So, drop it!!!

Oh, and by the way, yes, in the case of the 9 year-old, abortion does solve the "suicidal ideation," or fear, confusion and sadness. Absolutely.

Just drop it, Kerry. 

 

Rodger97321
Rodger97321's picture
We missed the

We missed the distinction.

When a GOP women has an operation which results in the termination of a pregnancy - it's called intrauterine surgery and is covered by her insurance.

The same surgery performed on non-GOP women is called abortion and is not covered under the GOP proposed plans.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
D_NATURED wrote: Liar. I have

D_NATURED wrote:

Liar. I have stated ad nauseum that my reasons for supporting the woman's rights absolutely were societal as well as personal. There is a societal benefit to protecting personal freedoms.

Do you call those 'personal freedoms' RIGHTS, D_NATURED?   INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?   And, just to remind you, I am the one that came in this discussion to begin with stating that my definition of a 'leftist libertarian' was 'prioritizing indiviudal rights in government'.   Do you remember that?  

But, instead of this being a discussion on personal freedom and individual rights as can be expressed by elective abortions, there has been an affront that appears to have been started by Zenzoe and endorsed by DRC and all those who claim to be liberal to 'condition all rights'--and, then, in a discussion on elective abortions, toss in every dire circumstance that you can come up with to justify killing the fetus near term as a way to 'condition the right to life' (which was Zenzoe's purpose to begin with).   IF you see some reason to intentionally kill a fetus just before birth that relates to incentuous rape, suicidal ideation, or even your favorite, D_NATURED, 'risks to the life of the mother', I do not.   And, I especially do not when I thought that this topic of elective abortions was based on FREE CHOICE.   Remember that, D_NATURED.   But, I'll say it again (and I do have to keep repeating myself because you don't seem to understand this point), there is absolutely no issue relating to the risks of the mother in the late stages of pregnancy that will be answered by intentionally killing the fetus before removing it.   None whatsoever.   An emergency C-section in a facility that can handle with an experienced physician that does it can be done within 5 minutes--and I doubt you could invent a machine that kills the fetus that quick--plus, you will have to get the fetus out.  

As far as all the other 'victimhood triumphant' excuses offered in a discussion on elective abortions (do you understand my problem with this?), unlike the assumptions put forth here, killing the fetus does NOT address the problem.   Zenzoe likes to say it does--but, then, neither does Zenzoe nor DRC--nor, for that matter, you, D_NATURED--explain how it does.   How does killing the fetus near term address the incestuous rape of a child?   In the interest of elective abortions, did that child, incestuously raped, 'decide' to abort?   Or, was that 'decision' given to that child by someone else?   You see, that's the mindfuck you people allow in this issue of elective abortions when you keep putting up 'victimhood triumphant' excuses to justify it--those are issues of elective abortions and continuing to offer excuses to near term abortions doesn't explain how that relates to elective abortions.   All it relates to Zenzoe is justifying killing the fetus right before birth--as you all, holding hands and singing Kumbaya in 'empowering' that, go along.  But, even Zenzoe doesn't qualify that as FREE CHOICE in ELECTIVE ABORTIONS.   Do you?   Does any of your liberal-minded jellyheaded crowd?   How does incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and even your favorite, D_NATURED, risks of the life of the mother relate at all to elective abortions?   How does any of these issues really 'empower women'?   Or, is the 'empowerment of women' not to be done in the terms of RIGHTS and FREE CHOICE when, as many of us would agree, that choice to have the fetus intentionally killed and extracted out as an elective abortion is not in conflict with that fetus being able to come out alive at that point in the pregnancy?   For any, or no apparent, reason at all.   Do you understand that point in this 'discussion' on ELECTIVE abortions--or is this issue of 'electiveness' to be constrained by coming up with every 'victimhood triumphant' excuse to kill a fetus near term (without FREE CHOICE) as relating, in any way, to elective abortions and the rights involved?     The personal freedoms as can be politically expressed involved......

D_NATURED wrote:

Nobody said women demand it. Nobody here except for yourself would attempt to lump all women or all fetuses together. I have always maintained that whatever the mother's choice, I support it. I think Zenzoe likes that approach better than the law and order approach.

Does FREE CHOICE say anything about it being DEMANDED, D_NATURED?    Get a grip on this situation and quit pandering to what you say you are all about with women.   Are you the one that is going to 'slice the head open and suck the brains out of the fetus right before birth' if the mother wants it--or, only upon a 'doctor's advice' is that to be done in an issue relating to ELECTIVE abortions?    While Zenzoe likes to be wooed by your bullshit, I see it as you saying, 'I'll respect you in the morning, honey'......Witness a few late stage fetal demises coming out looking just like a cute baby that is now dead, sense the emotional drain on every person present in that room having to witness it, and tell me, big guy, how good it is to empower women by allowing them to kill a child that could, otherwise, be born alive and healthy at the point of that 'choice'.....where's your fucking 'compassion and caring' for that, D_NATURED?  

These are Zenzoe's 'statements':

Zenzoe wrote:

If I can glean some sense from your sentence: First, nobody here has claimed that women demand elective abortions all the way to term.

Countered with this from one of Zenzoe's post earlier on the same page before this one:

Zenzoe wrote:

Did anybody catch the whole of Thom's discussion with the founder of "Democrats for Life," or whatever it's called? I only saw a short bit, the part where he said he agreed with Roe's drawing the line at viability. He said at the point of viability, it was reasonable for the state to claim a "compelling interest" in protecting the life the fetus. With that, I turned off the TV and walked out of the room.

So, am I to read that that elective abortions are to be done or not?   In one breath, Zenzoe says this has nothing to do with it--but, then, constantly offers 'victimhood triumphant' excuses in near term situations to justify killing the fetus at that point.    Is that a 'demand' or not?   Is that a justification for 'late term elective abortions' or not?   Or, just what is this doing in a discussion on elective abortions other than obfuscate any discussion on the rights and responsibilities that the personal freedom to choice to kill a fetus contains in elective abortions?   Even to refute them.   But, contrary to how Zenzoe and DRC like to paint this picture, there is really absolutely no medical indication to intentionally kill a fetus before getting it out.   This isn't a 'medical' issue--and, despite how the 'victimhood triumphant' excusers like to paint it, this isn't about incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or any physical risks to the mother's life being 'addressed and answered' by killing the fetus right before birth because that does NOT 'address and answer' any one of those issues--and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with elective abortions as most women ('empowered' by that FREE CHOICE) have them--at a time when there is no fetal viability to contend with and for reasons they don't have to disclose to anyone--even the doctor performing the abortion for her.  

But, it appears that, instead of addressing that very point, where women are 'demanding abortions' and doing so all for 'their own reasons' (that they do not have to disclose to anyone--'between them and God'), Zenzoe, you, DRC, and all the other 'victimhood triumphant' posturers would rather talk about how a fetus should be allowed to be killed right before birth as if that killing answered incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or any physical risks to the mother's life.  

D_NATURED wrote:

I have the medical authority? Am I an alleged doctor now too? Talk about hyperbole.

You can't follow a conversation very well, can you, D_NATURED.   But, like Phadreus76, you can keep putting up the same old claptrap regardless of how it has been responded to or how it relates to this issue.   Especially your bullshit threat to me about how, if I as a medical authority, wouldn't kill the fetus in order to save the mother at birth.   Let me say this to you one more time--that does NOT happen.   It's a non-issue.   Not based on any reality or even any realistic scenario possible.   Search all you can but if you find a medical professional that claims there is a situation where killing the fetus at birth saves the mother, I want to hear the discription that professional offers.   It does NOT happen.  Even Zenzoe has recognized that and resorts to suicidal ideation as 'saving the mother's life if you'll kill the fetus right before birth'--acting all 'insulted' and such when I don't fall for her bullshit.   And, I've said why--including, but not restricted to, how a person that says being pregnant makes her 'want to kill herself' would wait until the latter stages of her pregnancy to 'demand it'....(so, are you all demanding late stage abortions or not here, D_NATURED?).....

The issue behind the 'medical authority of your choice' goes into DRC's claim that my position that there is absolutely no medical indication to kill a fetus right before birth to 'save the mother', 'answer an incestuous rape', or 'address a suicidal ideation', is just 'my opinion' and, by inference, claimed that I should leave open another 'medical authority's opinion' that could disagree with me--if such an authority does 'disagree with me', it won't be on a medical basis--it will be based on what DRC says should stay out of this--its political and legal ramifications.   So, if you aren't will to do what you say you would offer to any woman in the late stages of pregnancy, in other words, kill the fetus yourself just before it comes out, then, you will have to get a 'medical authority that agrees with you' to do it, no?    And, then, you and all your self-righteous buddies intent on holding hands and singing Kumbaya as the fetus's brains are being sucked out, don't have to get your own hands dirty over killing a child just about to be born--and feel 'victimhood triumphantly' satisfied with 'your choice'--of both the late term fetal killing and the medical authority to got to do it (and, I am sure, that hitman didn't do it for free....).....

Quote:

Ah, and your compassion is soooo fucking transcendent, huh? I mean, for three months, you're a freakin' saint. You say you value life and then only warranty it while it's still in the factory. What a joke.

I don't base this decision on compassion--and, despite the 'victimhood triumphant' excuses that try to justify killing a fetus right before birth, I don't think that this should be based on issues of compassion for exactly the reasons that I have been saying all along, D_NATURED.  Have you missed that, too?   The exact same excuses that DRC offers for 'compassion and caring' in allowing a woman to electively abort can be used against that woman being able to chose abortion for the 'compassionate and caring' reasons to the fetus--and, as I see it, some of that 'compassion and caring' has a just cause--or, if you don't feel it once you see a dead newborn, I would question your 'compassion and caring' (the whole point as to why I envisioned you all standing around as the fetus near birth is being systematically killed under the directions of the mother--and 'your medical authority' performing it--singing Kumbaya and holding hands like in a second rate horror movie).  

As all FREE CHOICE (and such involved 'personal freedom') is to be politically evaluated, it has to do with the recognition and application of RIGHTS--which, in a RIGHTS-oriented political environment, has FREE CHOICE as long as that choice doesn't impinge on someone else's RIGHTS.    That is, of course, the only way that a RIGHTS-oriented political environment could sustain itself by recognizing that the only limits to its absolute expression is if it impinges upon someone else's absolute rights.   And, as Roe vs. Wade recognized, the 'right to life' is the primary right because, without it, you could have no other rights.   Roe vs. Wade understood that if the fetus were to have the 'right to life' at conception then no abortion could be performed without going through some form of due process--which is a process in law.   Roe vs. Wade didn't say that the fetus's right to life started at conception (although, there are those now trying to get any state to say that it does)--but did say that the mother's right to FREE CHOICE to end her pregnancy was limited to the first twelve weeks and that any state could restrict that choice afterwards for the fetus's behalf as it saw fit.   Texas, the state that DRC claimed was 'misogynist', 'saw fit' to restrict all elective abortions past the stage of fetal viability--which is 20 weeks.  According to Zenzoe, California (a state that DRC would not say was 'misogynist') has limited elective abortions to 24 weeks.  In fact, as I've asked before (because when Roe vs. Wade was being deliberated, I believe that both California and New York allowed elective abortions all the way to term), what state now does allow elective abortions all the way to term?   And, if none, why it is that all you 'victimhood triumphant' excusers keep harping on issues that have nothing to do with the FREE CHOICE of ELECTIVE abortions to attempt to justify killing the fetus right before birth?   I have also said that over and over, D_NATURED.   Are you having a hard time with short term memory....8^).....

D_NATURED wrote:

How dare you call my justifications excuses! What have my innocent justifications done to deserve such treatment. That's it! I henceforth call your incoherence disclarity.

Goddamn, you're a dense dipshit aren't you, D_NATURED?   When a conservative comes along and claims that 'we have compassion and caring' just like you--but, we have it for the fetus as much as the mother--maybe more because the fetus cannot speak for itself--after all, have you ever seen a dead newborn?   A 'compassionate and caring' person would be disheartened by that sight.  What will your 'answer' be, D_NATURED?   Kill the fetus, anyway, because you say you know two mothers that died in childbirth?   Cry 'incestuous rape' and 'suicidal ideation' as your excuses for elective abortions--and the free choice rights those should contain?  Say that your 'compassion and caring' is more than, better than, their 'compassion and caring'?   You starting to see the problem with applying 'compassion and caring' as the primary impetus to do anything through a political implementation?    And, don't try to pull the bullshit over 'medical indication to abort' because I can tell you that there is NO medical indication to intentionally kill a normal fetus--and 'the mother wanting it' is NOT a 'medical indication'.   So, you 'victimhood triumphant' excusers and liberal-minded jellyheads better come up with some more formidable reasons to allow elective abortions other than 'incestuous rape', 'suicidal ideation', or even your favorite 'real physical risks to the mother' because, especially in the late stages of pregnancy, none of those warrant killing the fetus....your 'compassion and caring' will fall flat on its face--but, you can keep on holding hands and singing Kumbaya as the fetus before you has its brains sucked out right before birth and claim that is 'compassion and caring'--I'm afraid most people in reality (and especially most medical personel if you are claiming a 'medical indication' to do that to a normal fetus) will really be able to see through that.....

D_NATURED wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere. What then are your assertions? What compassion for the "WE" can be used to deny women physical autonomy? I can't wait to hear this...

Read above, dipshit.   Don't use 'compassion and caring' as an excuse to politically impose--people that don't have the same 'compassion and caring' that you say you do will take offense to that--just as if your 'compassion and caring' were with you and your cohorts holding hands and singing Kumbaya as the fetus before you is getting its brains sucked out.   You really think that everyone is going to see 'your form' of 'compassion and caring' in this issue as being 'the form' of 'compassion and caring'.  What a dumbass you are if you do.   What happened to 'personal freedom', D_NATURED?   And, the RIGHTS that entails in the political format (and the limit of such FREEDOM of choice to impose and/or impinge upon someone else's RIGHTS, etc., etc.,...).   I know I have to say things over and over because, really, your liberal-minded, jellyheaded, hypocritical, self-righteous clan just doesn't seem to get it--even in enough of a fashion to respond and/or refute it....'compassion and caring' and all....

D_NATURED wrote:

Then explain it, dipshit. Explain how forcing women to give birth makes everything better. You can't claim to have a compassion you can't articulate, or can you?

You are really dense about this, aren't you?   Read above, once again.   Also, when it comes to the contentions between whose 'compassion and caring' is more meaningful and politically pertinent--yours with 'the woman' (although you and your clan  like to cloud that 'personal freedom choice' with a lot of 'what if's' as if 'late term risks in pregnancy, incestuous rape, or suicidal ideation' determined 'choice' here) or theirs with 'the fetus'--how are you going to determine that if not by an assessment of RIGHTS, D_NATURED?   I've asked Zenzoe that question and Zenzoe ignored it--are you going to also, D_NATURED?   Claim your examples of knowing two women who died in childbirth justifies your position on any killing of fetuses by choice?   You hypocrites are so far off the real reality of this issue (medically and legally) that you can't even see your problem, can you?  

And, I thought conservatives were dense by claiming that the federal ban on 'partial birth abortion' was 'against Roe vs. Wade' (when, all along, Roe vs. Wade allowed any state to ban abortions after 12 weeks gestation--so, what the 'federal ban' was was against Roe vs. Wade acknowledging 'state's rights' to determine this)--but, I really do believe that you all are just as dense--and maybe even more self-righteous to what you claim is your 'compassion and caring' for the woman--but, instead of that 'empowerment' being 'free choice'--you offer up 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and physicial risks to the mother's life' as excuses to 'choose from' in killing the fetus near term.   Which is more back where the 'misogynist state of Texas' was before Roe vs. Wade--even then Texas allowed 'therapeutic abortions' when it did not allow any other.   Would that be something that you and your kind continuing to use the 'victimhood triumphant' excuses to justify kiling fetuses right before birth would settle for?   Let's say that you and the conservatives came to an agreement--they wouldn't allow any other abortions unless it dealt with 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or physical risks to the mother'.   That does seem to be the only things that you 'victimhood triumphant' excusers talk about when it relates to abortions--so, would you settle for that if the conservatives with their 'compassion and care' for the fetuses would want all other forms of abortions for any other reason stopped?   Unless, of course, cleared by due process in law (which is what 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and physical risks of the mother' would also have to be cleared by because there is NO medical indication to kill a normal fetus before being born--none whatsoever....).   

And, that would be about what you self-righteous, hypocritical, liberal-minded jellyheads would deserve.   After all, that's all you have been talking about on a thread that supposedly is about 'elective abortions'....certainly not 'personal freedom', 'free choice'--and the 'rights' and 'personal responsibility' that entails......

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
Dr. Douchebag wrote:there is

Dr. Douchebag wrote:
there is NO medical indication to kill a normal fetus before being born--none whatsoever

How do you "kill" a fetus that is not yet alive?

You are willing to step all over the RIGHTS of actual living women to their own body in order to guarantee the right of life to something that does not yet live. Then, you have the balls to accuse me  of being disconnected from this debate while you are admittedly, obviously disconnected from reality.

When Zenzoe and DRC made the mistake of trying to talk sense to you, a fucking idiot, they did so to explain the sense of nuance they posses on this issue, due to their compassion for all parties involved. They would condition rights against the situation and societal needs but you don't get that. Instead, you choose an arbitrary viability date, at which point you don't have to use your pea brain or your pea heart any more. After that date, you absolve yourself from any responsibility for what happens to that woman's life or society at large focus exclusively on the fetus. That's so very responsible of you, Dr. Douchebag...NOT. Three months is nothing. Either make a commitment to  life or STFU.

I, on the other hand, don't condition shit because I realize that this country is so full of ignorant fucktards who hate women for not being under their control. So, I say women get all the rights and fetuses, no matter how big, get none. That is the only solution I can muster to deal with the rampant fucktardery demonstrated by those like yourself who doggedly and dogmatically insist that women have no right to their own body during the most health-threatening period of gestation.

Now, don't misquote me, Dr. Douchebag, I'm not saying that the abortion will necessarily save their life, so you can quit lying about that. I'm saying that, when there is a threat, the threatened women and not fat assed conservatives from Texas, get to decide which risk she would take. And, furthermore, the fetus being "killed" does not save the woman from immediate physical threat but DOES save her and her family and society from the long-term costs of the live birth of unwanted children. 

My position hasn't changed. It is now what it was in the beginning. Now, either respond intelligently to my actual words or face my next post which will not even attempt to discuss the issue of abortion and will, instead, be all in limerick form-and you know you can't compete there. I remember your "rap" song...horrible.

So, Dr. "D", the ball's in your court. Make it coherent and lacking misquotes and hyperbole or it's going to get real ugly in here...and not just at your mama's house.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
D_NATURED wrote:  And,

D_NATURED wrote:

 And, because your idea externalizes the cost of "compassion" to society at large, rather than letting women take responsibiltiy for their own reproductive life.

I am not sure how you are showing 'compassion and caring' for every woman that decides to abort--so, what you mean by 'society at large' and me 'externalizing compassion', speak for yourself (and, remember,  I am not even the one who thinks this should be based on 'compassion' for the exact reason that I don't think you can actually say your 'compassion and caring for the mother' is more than their 'compassion and caring for the fetus' in any ethical or political context--and certainly not in any medical context if the fetus is normal, otherwise--especially a fetus about to be born that you are sucking its brains out and holding hands with your cohorts singing Kumbaya over like in a second rate horror film).    

In the oral arguments used in Roe vs. Wade, as I have also said before, they pointed out that a fetus even in Texas does start 'gaining rights' by being able to be claimed as a recipient in wills and trusts--but, could only obtain those benefits if born alive.   Now, it is possible that a mother, who has the right to abort for any reason in elective abortions, decide to abort that fetus in order to benefit herself--or another child--in such a will and trust arrangement.  Would you be 'compassionate and caring' to that cause, D_NATURED?   Your 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and physical risks to the mother' doesn't carry such a self-righteous ring to it when you consider every possibility in elective abortions, does it?    Kill the fetus, anyway, D_NATURED?   Just because 'the mother wanted it'?   You and your clan need to get off this self-righteous claim to 'compassion and caring' being all this issue is about.   It is not--and hasn't been since states offered other forms of abortions other than 'therapeutic' ones...face that reality and tell me where you stand, D_NATURED.  Or, do you need to wait and see if Zenzoe and DRC have anything to say on it?   I know DRC doesn't because I have addressed that exact same scenario to DRC--as was discussed in the oral arguments of Roe vs. Wade.....

This isn't all about the condescending and self-righteous claims as the 'victimhood triumphant' excuses offered here as reasons to kill a fetus right before birth--or anytime--like to look down on everyone else who 'doesn't see it' with.   And, there is absolutely no medical indication to kill a normal fetus that could come out alive--none whatsoever....

D_NATURED wrote:

Three months, hypocrite. That's not a mischaracterization of your position.

If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive.   There is NO medical indication to do, otherwise....

D_NATURED wrote:

I don't have to prove a harm, you're unable to prove there won't be one either way and, thus, the risk and right must remain in the hands of women.

I want you to get this clear in your head, D_NATURED.   I want this to be wrapped around your ignorant skull because I know it to be true in every sense possible as far as any medical indication to kill a normal fetus goes because you and your clan have ignorantly asserted something here that does not exist in the real world of medicine.   There is absolutely NO MEDICAL INDICATION to intentionally kill a normal fetus before getting it out.   Not the risks to the mother.   Not suicidal ideation because, if the mother has waited that long, she has issues about clearly choosing (and, besides that, that's not a MEDICAL indication to kill the fetus before being born any more than it would be a MEDICAL indication of killing the newborn right after birth).   And, not incestuous rape because, how are you going to have a 9 year 'choose' to kill the fetus right before birth if that 9 year old hasn't 'chosen' that yet?    That's just frankly a gross mischaracterization on how a late term even incestuously raped pregnancy should be handled and it is a gross misrepresentation of anything that a real elective abortion should be all about--free choice and free choice rights and when those are appropriate to act on....and, despite what Zenzoe likes to say (with DRC's blessing that the only thing worth killing is the fetus because, after all, killing a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer is too 'uncivil' and 'inhumane'--all should be 'rehabilitated'--even, apparently, the father that raped his 9 year old), 'killing the fetus' in an incestuous rape does NOT address the incest.  

D_NATURED wrote:

Abortion aside, expecting society to defend my right to my body also includes society prosecuting someone who violates my person-such as a rapist/murderer.

If the fetus can come out on its own and live at the time the decision to take the fetus out is made, the fetus now, also, has a 'body' and a 'life'.   It is absolutely false that the liberal-minded jellyheads approach this as if the fetus had the same dependence upon the mother's uterus in the late stages of pregnancy as it did in the early stages of pregnancy.   And, remember, there is absolutely no medical indication to kill a normal fetus in the late stages of pregnancy for any reason.   I know that the self-righteous liberals that love 'victimhood triumphant' excuses have been trying hard to find an exception--and the only ones that Zenzoe can come up with have nothing to do with what D_NATURED proposes (which is that killing the fetus would really and physically 'save' the mother's life--which never is appropriate in a real medical setting).  Zenzoe claims the 'saving of life' that would occur in suicidal ideation and incestuous rape--but, how killing the fetus late in pregnancy addresses that 'saving of the mother's life' is still something Zenzoe has yet to explain--either as Zenzoe sees it or as any 'medical authority' that Zenzoe could use sees it.   You know, the same 'medical authority' that D_NATURED uses to suck those brains out as the clan is holding hands and singing Kumbaya and feeling all 'compassionate and caring' and shit.....glad that their 'compassion and caring' holds no responsibility at all to the mother's offspring as the proper 'compassion and caring' to have.....bullshit....

D_NATURED wrote:

 Abortion is not murder, it is preventing life not taking it.

When the fetus could come out alive at the time it is being 'taken'--some people (that I am sure have just as much 'compassion and caring' in them as you do) would seriously disagree--and, whether you can or not, I can see why....

But, you'll still 'respect those women in the morning', won't you, D_NATURED?  As long as you don't have to help 'take care of their kid' (that way the 'fun and games' can still keep going, right?)....real 'compassionate and caring'-like...the 'no personal responsibility' type of 'compassion and caring'......even to the mother to be.   Which leads to this:

D_NATURED wrote:

What that does is make women LESS than men who have no legal demands put upon their reproductive ability.

And, this:

Quote:

Yes, women who want a child should LOVE their fetuses and their existing children alike. Women who don't want a new bundle of joy should see about having their fetus removed, out of compassion for themselves. Simple as that.

What should men do when a woman gets pregnant with their child, D_NATURED?   What's the 'compassionate and caring' thing to do then, D_NATURED?  

I still hear 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'...with D_NATURED's type of 'compassion and caring' in this issue of abortions.....I have told Zenzoe that I am sorry that only women have to take this choice but I am NOT sorry that that choice has to be taken--and should be taken--when there is no contention to have to address with the life of that offspring....one way or the other....

But, instead, I get Zenzoe claiming that this has 'nothing to do with women demanding to abort all the way to term' as Zenzoe 'cut off the radio' when Hartmann agreed to the same point.....and you call yourselves the ones who 'understand nuance'?   Does 'nuance' contain 'rational thought'--it certainly doesn't appear to contain a consistent thought?   Is that what 'nuance' means, you don't have to be 'consistent'?   Just claim to be all about 'compassion and caring'--of course, only for those you can claim to be 'victims'?   And, then, explain them in terms that, of course, keep them as 'victims' so that you can still feel good about your 'nuanced compassion' for them....yep, no 'free choice, 'individual rights' or 'personal responsibility' here....

D_NATURED wrote:

When I see a pregnant woman, I see only one life

Well, it's good that you aren't a doctor, D_NATURED.   If you killed the fetus in that mother and the mother wanted that child, I am not sure you can use as your defense in malpractice that 'you only saw one life'....

D_NATURED wrote:

Again, repeating the same idiocy does not make it profound or even a demonstratably accurate portrayal of the debate thus far. I won't argue fabricated positions and hyperbole.

You mean like your 'compassion and caring for the mother' isn't hyperbole--but someone else's 'compassion and caring for the fetus' is?   It is you and your clan claiming to know the 'nuances' of this issue that haven't even squarely addressed all the points, yet.   So, again, don't be surprised when there are those just as 'compassionate and caring' but more understanding of the political ramifications of this issue get a state to pass 'life begins at conception'.....then, tell eveyone how your 'compassion and caring for the mother' means more than their 'compassion and caring for the fetus'--even as you hold hands and sing Kumbaya as the fetus's brains are being sucked out...

 

 

Zenzoe
D_NATURED, FYI: In Defense of

D_NATURED, FYI: In Defense of "Douchebag" as an insult.  I agree with "Jill," the blogger.  She says, "...I’m happy to see the douchebag demonized. Unlike a lot of other common insults — “bitch,” “cunt,” “retard,” “fag” — “douchebag” actually insults something that deserves to be insulted. Douching is terrible for women; it can lead to infection and irritation. Even teen magazines will tell you this! Douches exist only because women have been told that our bodies are unclean. Douches, and the bags that reportedly accompany them, are terrible, no-good products. Insulting douches doesn’t insult women — the existence of douches insults women.

The term douchebag, too, is also directed as a certain type of dude. It implies a particular parody of masculinity, or it’s the total smarm-ball. Either way, there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between douchebags and bad behavior toward women. Part of the schtick is being condescending and macho and establishing yourself as an alpha male at the expense of women (who are lesser beings by their very existence, and who exist to prop up the douchebag’s ego), and at the expense of other men. The douchebag is a classist misogynist; he’s notably different from your run-of-the-mill tool or blow-hard. Pick-up artists, for example, are most certainly douchebags.

So I say: Hate the douche. Insult the douche. Mock and vilify the douche. My only request is that when we define “douche,” we no longer use the term “feminine hygeine product.” Ain’t nothing hygenic about it"

 

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Zenzoe wrote: Remember the 9

Zenzoe wrote:

Remember the 9 year-old, raped by her father? Let's say she was 21 weeks along, depressed, confused, terrified of her father... and the fetus has a 50/50 chance of survival at that point.

Go to the state of California and abort, Zenzoe.   Is that this 9 year old's 'choice'--or who are you having to make this 'choice' for this 9 year old?   And, what has that got to do with elective abortions?   If the 9 year old carried that pregnancy all the way to term, even with the same complications, are you saying that that fetus is to be killed?   Why?   And, since the 9 year old certainly didn't do it for herself any sooner, how can the 9 year old do it for herself now?    Really, Zenzoe.   You and your clan love to claim you understand all the 'nuances' that even your 'victimhood triumphant' excuses are supposed to portray--I doubt you have even thought about what you are saying.   Who is deciding this if the 9 year old hasn't before now?   And, how is this 9 year old going to clearly decide it now?    And, what are you doing with the father that raped her?   DRC wants that father rehabilitated--even as you both want the product of the rape killed....ijs that the 'nuances' I don't understand here, Zenzoe? 

Zenzoe wrote:

You say, let her carry the child to term, then give it up for adoption. Or, if there's something wrong with the pregnancy, do whatever needs to be done to save the fetus, and the child, I assume?

Listen close, Zenzoe.   If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive.   I know how you want that 'nuanced' away because, for some reason, you don't want to acknowledge here any consideration for the viability of the fetus.   Well, even as your precious and, of course, 'misogynist state of California' apparently has done, in the interest of fetal viability, it has restricted elective abortions to 24 weeks, isn't that what you said, Zenzoe?   So, what really is you and your clan's problem with my position?    Really.   Most every state in this nation restricts the gestational age of elective abortions, doesn't it, Zenzoe?   So, tell me, again, what 'nuance' are you or any of you clan offering that is different from that?   You say that this isn't about 'women electing to abort all the way to term'--but, then, you also didn't like what Thom Hartmann said restricting abortions along the lines of fetal viability that I suspect most every state in this nation uses.   So, what is it really with you, Zenzoe?   

Are you or are you not for elective abortions all the way to term and against any consideration of fetal viability in this issue?   Can you explain what you are really posturing all these late stage 'victimhood triumphant' issues for if it has nothing to do with late term elective abortions?   Or, is it just anyone that has anything to say 'for' the 'life of the fetus' (at any stage of pregnancy or in any condition of viability) that you are against?   How does 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and even real physical risks to the mother in late stage pregnancies' have anything to do with elective abortions and how you conceive and/or condone them in any way you see it?    Really, Zenzoe.  

You sure have a way of confusing and confounding all the men here who say that they are for 'empowering women'--especially D_NATURED who can't decide whether D_NATURED is, or is  not, for sucking out fetal brains right before birth if the mother wants it as D_NATURED's way of claiming to be 'empowering women'.   But, none of you--even you, Zenzoe--can take it upon yourself to respond in any way as to how this relates, if at all, to 'free choice', 'individual rights', and what 'personal responsibilities' (and, therefore, absolute to each person under the same circumstances but with the political limits as established by law and community standards when appropriate).   What 'empowers women' in 'elective abortions' to you, Zenzoe, if it isn't 'free choice'--and the right to choose it?   Limited only that 'choice' infringing on another's rights.   Roe vs. Wade didn't give fetuses such 'rights' as directly as they did the women--but, Roe vs. Wade did give each state the right to restrict the woman's choice past 12 weeks in any interest of the fetus that the state wanted to make on the fetus's behalf--which, in a very nuanced but real sense, has that fetus start gaining and acquiring rights as the pregnancy progresses.   What is it about that decision that you do--or don't--agree with, Zenzoe?   Do you have an opinion that you are willing to state here (since, apparently, unlike your male 'supporters', you aren't claiming this to be about 'women demanding elective abortions to term')--or, is it just you wanting to see what 'response' you can get out of the men that 'support' you?    Really, Zenzoe....

Zenzoe wrote:

I say, as I've said before, to force a child of that age to endure a pregnancy all the way to term is an assault against childhood, and her personhood, for that matter. It would represent a second rape, a compounding of the abuse.

Do all of you, as 'nuanced' and 'complete' as you all claim to be, just ignore everything that I say intentionally, Zenzoe.  Just to claim how 'concerned' and 'nuanced' you are?   Come on, Zenzoe.   I'll state it outright for you to see.   I am for the free choice of elective abortions as I think that any adult facing that issue could understand it.   Now, you tell me how a 9 year old freely chooses to abort.   You tell me how you forcing to have this child abort her child is any better than having this child have this child--and give it up for adoption.    And, furthermore, Zenzoe, you tell me how this relates to this being an 'elective abortion' specifically (again, who is choosing to end this pregnancy, Zenzoe?)--and how it has anything to do with 'elective abortions' generally.   Can you do that, Zenzoe?   Or, what is your purpose of constantly claiming 'incestuous rape' in this issue of elective abortions?  

Are you so much against fetal viability issues that you want to justify killing a fetus right before birth for some reason--even if it's not the free, and clear, choice reason that elective abortions really contain for the great, great, majority of women who responsibly do it at a time when their is no contention of fetal viability to address in the state that they decide to do it in?   Again, what is your point of constantly dragging in 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and even physical risks to the mother's life' in a discussion on elective abortions?   How does killing the 9 year-old's fetus answer the incestuous rape and, since, as the child she is, that 9 year old will have a difficult (if not impossible) ability to decide this issue freely and clearly, who are you saying is making that choice for her and how do you know that, whatever choice you make, that 9 year old is still not going to 'feel raped' the second time?   Come on, Zenzoe, is there such a thing as you and your clan being reasonable?  

Zenzoe wrote:

  She does not have to make a "responsible" choice; it wasn't her choice in the first place to be raped and impregnated.

Yeah, you keep going on and on like you are sure that this child having her child killed before birth is going to solve this issue for her.   Are you sure about that, Zenzoe.   I'm not.   And, again, what are you going to do with the father that raped her?    Rehabilitate him?   Does this 9 year old 'get a choice' about that?   Are you sure that you are acting in the 9 year old's 'best interest'--or is that what you want to believe and 'feel good about' for yourself?   I know how you and all your male supporters claim they are all about 'compassion and caring'--but, for who's benefit and to what end?   It certainly doesn't seem to be about real 'free choice' or the political rights inherent thereof--that's too......leftist libertarian.....for you, isn't it?  

Zenzoe wrote:

You do not understand these things. 

I think that I understand them better than you think.   I think that it is YOU, Zenzoe, who posture with this idea that YOU are 'so sure' about that this 9 year old having their child killed before birth will feel 'less raped the second time' than if the child was born and adopted out.   YOU should understand this better that such a 9 year old may want something to love for herself and, perhaps, she thinks this child would be the thing and she may even want to keep it--but, that doesn't seem to be a part of your 'nuanced understanding' as you and D_NATURED militantly pursue killing the fetus at any stage of pregnancy at YOUR will....viability of the fetus be damned.....singing Kumbaya and holding hands as the fetal brains are crushed before you and the 9 year old as you pat the little tike on the head with that same half smile D_NATURED had when the child looked pleadingly D_NATURED's direction as it was being killed and saying--'There now, child, it's all better.'....Even as the 9 year old might even say, 'But, the child had nothing to do with the rape'....and you respond, 'It's all for the better child.'--as the father who raped her has that same half-smile you all have saying, 'I'm going to rehabilitation classes to learn how not to rape you again, child.   And, even if I slip, well, we'll kill that mistake, too.'.....'Don't you worry none, child' as you keep patting her head....

Zenzoe wrote:

if you cannot empathize with women, there's no cure for that, and no amount of evidence and reality will convince you.

Yeah, Zenzoe, being for killing a fetus at any stage is what is required by you to 'empathize with women', isn't it?   Real 'nuanced' of you there, Zenzoe.   You see, since most of these men that claim that they are all for sucking out the brains of children aren't doing it themselves (and neither are you), I suspect this amount of willingness to kill fetuses is just a ego-drive for you, isn't it, Zenzoe?   I mean you have said on more than one occasion that you haven't got a problem with restricting elective abortions.   Even claim that you had no problem with California law restricting it to 24 weeks and even saying after you 'cut the radio off' when Hartmann claimed the same agreement to Roe vs. Wade in allowing states to restrict elective abortions to 'fetal viability' that you never said you were for 'women demanding elective aboritons all the way to term'.   So, what is your position on elective abortions, Zenzoe?   What is your position on fetal viability having anything to do with it?   And, why are you so insistent on using 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, and even physicial risks to the mother's life' in this issue on elective abortions that you have even admitted has nothing to do with most women deciding to electively abort?    Is it that you want every man who 'supports you' to say 'I'll slice the skull and suck the brains out of the fetus about to be born if you want me to'?   Well, that may impress you--but, I'm not impressed.   I still hear 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey' when I hear it.....and, I suspect you know what I mean there, don't you, Zenzoe?  

I respect women enough to have them decide on the outcome of their pregnancy for any reason when they do so in a manner timely enough to not to have to contend with fetal viability--and I expect women to respect me enough to make that choice in that manner.   When that is not done, I do not think it 'respectful' to claim that 'I' have to be for killing the fetus before birth no matter what 'victimhood triumphant' shit you try to throw my direction--including 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or physical risks to the mother's life' because I KNOW that there is absolutely no medical indication to kill any normal fetus under those circumstances.   In fact, I don't respect you using these as excuses for elective abortions in any way and feel that a woman who understood that respect would understand my point.   I see elective abortions all about the free choice of the mother and her right to carry that choice out as long as she doesn't wait until that fetus could come out alive....and, if you think it 'respectful' that all these men claiming to be able to kill a fetus right before birth if you want it because 'they feel nothing for the fetus' are really telling you the truth as that representing 'compassion' or what they should 'rightfully feel' in those circumstances--well, you keep believing them when they say 'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'.....maybe that gets your rocks off, it doesn't mine...

Kerry
Kerry's picture
As far as you other comments

As far as you other comments go, D_NATURED and Zenzoe, I've got other things to do.  Why can't any of you respond to my questions that I make to you in the manner that I respond to yours?   Not one time have you explained how 'incestuous rape, suicidal ideation, or risks of the life of the mother' have anything to do with elective abortions even as Zenzoe has claimed to that this has nothing to do with most abortions.   Not one time have any of you commented on how you actually see elective abortions with respect to what is involved.  

DRC and Zenzoe make some inference that that is to be 'between the mother and the doctor'---which carries a sort of 'right to privacy'--but, only because the procedure really does not have no 'communal cause'--the decision is a very selfish one--and I don't mind that--and I respect that.   I do mind how this 'decision' on elective abortions--consistent with their 'victimhood triumph' posturing that liberal-minded jellyheads have (as a substitute for personal responsibility)--somehow requires a 'doctor's opinion' when I know there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus (the doctor's role is only to make the procedure safe).   And, I do mind people claiming to be 'compassionate and caring' over killing fetuses before they are born--even going so far as to 'not have any life' when, of course, killing them under the wrong circumstances is a gross malpractice case for physicians.   What self-righteous and condescending bullshit you spew.  

But, you know what, since it takes 'incestuous rapes, suicidal ideations, and risks of the mother's life' to justify the 'victimhood triumphant' excusers' form of abortions even though (as Zenzoe admits) most women who abort have nothing to do with any of those scenarios, I'm really wondering if you can't see that as condescending women in general who take the responsibility to act on their pregnancies in a timely manner and with due discretion that doesn't take the 'theater' of the surgery suite or hospital room to do it--or the 'victimhood triumphant' posturing to excuse it.   Those women (that take this responsibility personally) I still respect and want 'empowered'....

You see, as I see it, all of you are playing a 'liar's game'--with sexual intercourse and pregnancy.   And, I know how all you liberal-minded jellyheads love to disspell (did I spell that word right, Ulysses?) personal responsibility for what you all, selfishly, want to clam as your impetus to 'socialization'--but I am well aware that a society without personal responsibility cannot work--at least not and have any way to assess 'fairness and justice to all' politically which, despite what DRC may say, this issue, of all social issues, contains...

Zenzoe
Kerry: And to think you have

Kerry: And to think you have a daughter, an intelligent woman who went to law school.  I have no doubt whatsoever that had she been raped at age nine you would have dropped all your blatherings on behalf of fetuses so fast your head would have caved in.  No doubt—you would have taken her to a trusted doctor for an abortion, in order to restore her childhood to its proper innocence, so that she could resume her life as it was intended to be lived.  One safe abortion, compared to a painful, horrifying trip down pregnancy and birth lane?  That's an easy choice. The only choice.

When we cease to respond to your tirades, Kerry, it won't be because you've beaten us down with your "logic" or your better arguments.  It will be because we're sane.  It will be because we can see that you're just plain denser than a rock and not worth the bother.  It will be because we have better things to do than come here and engage with a power-oriented numskull. 

Tah tah...

Kerry
Kerry's picture
No, Zenzoe, I would have

No, Zenzoe, I would have taken that daughter and made some honest discussions about what being pregnant and having a child is all about (and if she agreed to abort the child, I would abort it)--and, then, by God, I would have gone after the rapist with every force I could muster.    Again, what are any of you liberal-minded jellyheads to do with the rapist?   'Rehabilitate' him?  What bullshit your 'liar's game' contains.  DRC, so intent on 'compassion and caring' defining this issue, even had nothing to say what to do about the father that raped his own child--that form of 'compassion and caring' is 'too emotional'.   DRC wants to 'rehabilitate' the DNA-proven child rapist-murderer as all of you say that 'killing the fetus' is the answer to every scenario that you could imagine--even when I know that there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance.  

I don't see you 'not responding to my tirades' (and you are saying that 'I' am the only one 'having tirades' in this, Zenzoe?) as actually not addressing my points--starting with the ones that I mentioned (once again) in the post above yours here...

I know DRC told me to 'go to hell'--but, you all need to remember that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'--maybe even 'compassionate ones'--and your 'liar's game' posturing here is leading the way--with DRC carrying the banner: 'We are the compassionate and caring ones'...but, maybe, you will get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya when you're there together watching the brains of the fetus being sucked out right before birth as the only confirmation of 'empowering women' that you will accept, Zenzoe--even though, irrationally and paradoxically, you claim none of this is about 'women demanding to elective abortions right at term'--but, it is about you justifying 'killing fetuses near term' for some other 'abortive reason', isn't it?  Those 'victimhood triumphant' abortive reasons, right?  Not the 'personally responsible' abortive reasons....with there being no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance...

Zenzoe
Kerry wrote: Zenzoe

Kerry wrote:

Zenzoe wrote:

Kerry: And to think you have a daughter, an intelligent woman who went to law school.  I have no doubt whatsoever that had she been raped at age nine you would have dropped all your blatherings on behalf of fetuses so fast your head would have caved in.  No doubt—you would have taken her to a trusted doctor for an abortion, in order to restore her childhood to its proper innocence, so that she could resume her life as it was intended to be lived.  One safe abortion, compared to a painful, horrifying trip down pregnancy and birth lane?  That's an easy choice. The only choice.

No, Zenzoe, I would have taken that daughter and made some honest discussions about what being pregnant and having a child is all about (and if she agreed to abort the child, I would abort it)

That is so breath-takingly clueless —about children, their inability to make choices in their best interest, and about your adult responsibility to your 9-year-old to make choices for her in her best interest— that I am infuriated.  No little girl on planet earth would choose to "kill her baby," as you no doubt would explain it to her, manipulatively.  But that's exactly what would be in her best interest.

That's the whole point, right, Kerry?  You don't care what's in the best interest of a pregnant child, or a woman, for that matter.  It's irrelevant.

That does it.  I'm outta here.

DRC
DRC's picture
Don't get the bends on the

Don't get the bends on the way up from the depths.  But, the sun is shining and the swimming is fine, so I look forward to having you here where sanity is possible.

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian's picture
Unfortunately, I know the

Unfortunately, I know the answer to this question of whether or not a fertilized egg equals life.

I have broken down, wailed in tears, and been driven to the brink of insanity because a fertilized egg is not "life".  I SO wish it was.  If it was a "life", then I would have 2 children now.  Because a fertilized egg is not "life", I do not have any.  (Not being able to have children with the woman that I love is a pain that few people can understand.)

My wife became pregnant (after YEARS of us naturally trying) and it ended up being a "tubal" pregnancy.  That's the case when the egg does not settle inside the uterus but rather inside one of the fallopian tubes.   Not only did the fertilized egg not become a life, it it were allowed to continue, it would have killed my wife (and itself) if a surgical procedure was not invoked.

The 2nd time was through in vitro fertilization.  The eggs were fertilized and then surgically placed into the uterus.  They attached to the wall of the uterus for about 2 weeks... and then they "came off".  Again, my wife had to go through the ordeal of surgery to remove the now "waste" out of the uterus.  Because if she didn't, she would get sick and ultimately die.

A fertilized egg is not life.  It's reorganized genetic material.

A woman has the RIGHT to privacy and ownership over her body.

My hope is that there is an afterlife and that afterlife consists of a "Heaven".  If I could choose my own personal "Heaven", it would be to know what it's like to live with those fertilized eggs and to know what it feels like to have helped  create life and experience the love that goes along with it.

That's my honest to God story folks.  100% true.  I have been tempted in the last couple of years to leave my wife in order to have children.  I haven't.  It's been very hard to keep this marriage going after the crushing effects of trying to have children and not succeed.

I wish pregnancy automatically led to life, but sadly, it does not. 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Zenzoe wrote: Kerry: And to

Zenzoe wrote:

Kerry: And to think you have a daughter, an intelligent woman who went to law school.  I have no doubt whatsoever that had she been raped at age nine you would have dropped all your blatherings on behalf of fetuses so fast your head would have caved in.  No doubt—you would have taken her to a trusted doctor for an abortion, in order to restore her childhood to its proper innocence, so that she could resume her life as it was intended to be lived.  One safe abortion, compared to a painful, horrifying trip down pregnancy and birth lane?  That's an easy choice. The only choice.

When we cease to respond to your tirades, Kerry, it won't be because you've beaten us down with your "logic" or your better arguments.  It will be because we're sane.  It will be because we can see that you're just plain denser than a rock and not worth the bother.  It will be because we have better things to do than come here and engage with a power-oriented numskull. 

Tah tah...

You can't insult anybody who is too obtuse; willfully ignorant; and philosophically tenacious to understand sane discourse and indeed, sometimes even insults.  Some are simply unredeemable, hard though that may be to acknowledge.  Ever see the old Star Trek episode containing their encounter with the black oilslick creature named something like "Aames?"  Here we have unearthed an intellectual analog to that creature, and he'll most assuredly stay as eternally jealous of his prerogatives to remain obtuse; willfully ignorant; and philosophically tenacious as that creature was of his prerogative to remain evil.  There's nothing for it.  In the end, If he leaves self-deluded into thinking he won a rational argument, that'll be of no consequence to sane and thinking individuals.  The afflicted suffer many delusions.  Comfort comes in realizing that although they're regrettably allowed to vote and procreate, the delusional always come to nondescript or negative ends and they're never remembered as thinkers.

 

skip530
skip530's picture
I have heard not one of you

I have heard not one of you address how the impregnated fetus got there, any moral obligation of the implanter of the sperm unless the baby was born of a virgin, and no discussion of the many women who still suffer phycologically from their abortion.

You mention the hardship on the mother, most of your concerns seem to be based on monetary considerations.

 Also unless it happens later in this discussion, it is not mentioned how many current abortions are performed verses how many illegal abortions were done. How many million women have died because of back alley abortions, is it 50 million?

I support abortion for rape and incest, we don't lose many mothers in delivery. Today we can determine the father through DNA, so we can place equal responsibility on both people. One could set an age of responsibility for volunteer -fun sex- pregnacy at say an arbitrary 16 so that anyone that age or younger is allowed an abortion. Also the progressives hide behind the issue of supporting the unwanted child thru the grave by the so-called conservatives, while advocating taking care of the rest of the world, those who were born, the same way, from cradle to grave. Why not advocate the same for all, those who would be aborted and those who are born. 

I have heard the argument used by a racist portion of our society that it is a good thing when all those black n... and brown s.. babies are aborted, I hope your arguments for death  don't harbor any of the overtones. But, the argument for monetary or intellectual gain is equally as offensive to me.

You should be truthfull and say it is right to kill the baby because it just feels good to me. I may have willingly participated in the creation, but, should bear no responsibility. Responsibility may cost me and my fellow participant something. Besides many of you argue for same-sex adoption, this would provide a larger supply of babies to be made available.

You also use the circular argument that conservatives are in favor of the death penalty while being against abortion, what about you who are against the death penalty but pro-abortion, isn't there an inconsistency here no mattrer how you argue about when life starts. 

As far as feeling pain, some of the newest data shows the 'fetus-baby' feels pain much earlier than we thought.

And for being a potential person, we are all  a potential something till we die. Perhaps computers will be able to predict which of us wiil commit crimes and execute us before we commit our crime. Right now we call it hot-spotting. It has been shown that an area of 7% of New York commits 70% of the crime in the city, should we work to fix the problem or plan for abortion of all babies in this area. The crime should go down in less than a generation, is that how progressives would solve the crime problems and or poverty?

Lastly, this whole debate or argument is being used by both of our politrical parties to keep us fighting each other rather than coming together to solve the problems that we face. The most pressing problem is the takeover of our government and the use of the 'moral issues' so they can continue their two party coroprate controlled monopoly. The fights are staged for their benefit, not ours! There is currently no Republican or Democratic party difference, there is only one party that has a first and last name. Mr /Ms.Democratic Republican or Ms/Mr Republican Democrat. Nickname:Repdem or Demrep.

 

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
Quote:I have heard not one of

Quote:
I have heard not one of you address how the impregnated fetus got there, any moral obligation of the implanter of the sperm unless the baby was born of a virgin,

Obviously, you've either not read the entire thread or you simply haven't paid attention.  Most of us favor birth control and have said so, especially having it taught to teens.  Most Cons do not favor it, on grounds that it will stimulate "immoral" teenage promiscuity.  The Cons are misguided hypocrites on that point because a) teens don't require any additional stimulus to want to have sex, and b) it's unrealistic to pule about promiscuity without agreeing to help mitigate its results, through birth control.

Quote:
and no discussion of the many women who still suffer phycologically from their abortion.

This issue has been anything but ignored by the women's movement at large.

Quote:
You mention the hardship on the mother, most of your concerns seem to be based on monetary considerations.

Care to contribute money to help support any impoverished mother and unwanted child after she is forced to carry it to term?  Yes or no.

Quote:
Also unless it happens later in this discussion, it is not mentioned how many current abortions are performed verses how many illegal abortions were done. How many million women have died because of back alley abortions, is it 50 million?

Had abortion been legal and thus, largely safe, before Roe v. Wade, illegal and back alley abortions would have never been necessary.  If abortion remains legal, then future illegal, back alley (and thus, unsafe) abortions will not be done.

Quote:
I support abortion for rape and incest, we don't lose many mothers in delivery.

Good.

Quote:
Today we can determine the father through DNA, so we can place equal responsibility on both people.

Yes, we can.  Deadbeat parents of both genders should be made to ante up, if they're monetarily capable of doing so.  People need to support their children; I haven't seen anybody here take issue with that.  But it's an issue that may or may not have anything to do with abortion rights; lots of people in good economic situations are deadbeat parents.

Quote:
One could set an age of responsibility for volunteer -fun sex- pregnacy at say an arbitrary 16 so that anyone that age or younger is allowed an abortion.

But nobody who's older?

Quote:
Also the progressives hide behind the issue of supporting the unwanted child thru the grave by the so-called conservatives,

If you mean that the progressives point out that the Cons believe in "Love the Fetus, Hate the Child," that's correct.  What progressives are saying when they point that out, as has been said too many times to count, is that the Cons want to demand that unwanted pregnancies be brought to term and birthed into horrid socioeconomic conditions, following which those same Cons are against all social and economic programs that would put those same babies onto some kind of steady course toward decent, normal existences.  Once the babies are here, the Cons don't give a goddam what kinds of abuses or deprivations they may suffer.  That's one of the basest of all hypocrisies of the Libertarian/Conservative movements.

Quote:
while advocating taking care of the rest of the world, those who were born, the same way, from cradle to grave. Why not advocate the same for all, those who would be aborted and those who are born.

Progressives do advocate socioeconomic justice for all; you're twisting it to make it sound like progressives oppose unwanted pregnancies being carried to term because they don't want to help them once they're born, and that's bullshit.  What progressives oppose, and what they point out, is that Cons want to force unwanted pregnancies to be carried to term and then refuse to support any socioeconomic help to those same babies and their mothers, thus denying them at least some basic chance of living normal lives.  "Love the Fetus, Hate the Child," is the default Con mantra because that's what their position dictates; it can't be interpreted separate from its results and outcomes.      

Quote:
I have heard the argument used by a racist portion of our society that it is a good thing when all those black n... and brown s.. babies are aborted, I hope your arguments for death  don't harbor any of the overtones.

Have you seen any such arguments here?  If so, please point them out, citing the numbers of those posts.  If you can't point to any such examples, why bring it up?

Quote:
But, the argument for monetary or intellectual gain is equally as offensive to me.

What "gain?"  If you are equating "gain" with wishing to avoid economic hardship and/or deprivation brought on by carrying unwanted pregnancies to term and then raising unwanted children, you're inaccurately conflating two different concepts.  Again, are you or are you not willing to personally provide any financial assistance in such scenarios?  If not, how and why do you feel entitled to dictate that somebody other than yourself suffer economic deprivation in order to satisfy your philosophical position?

Quote:
You should be truthfull and say it is right to kill the baby because it just feels good to me.

When did you stop beating your wife?  As I said, you've either not read the entire thread before you posted this or you haven't been paying attention.  Your statement I've just quoted brings the whole mess full circle again, to the chicken and egg argument of whether a fetus is a "baby."

Quote:
I may have willingly participated in the creation, but, should bear no responsibility. Responsibility may cost me and my fellow participant something.

Nobody here has said nobody should bear any responsibility for causing unwanted pregnancies.  Again, this is tangential to the issues of sex education and birth control, on both of which the Cons' moral and ethical positions are extremely weak.  But those are  different issues than whether abortion should remain legal and abortion rights should remain fully realized.  Responsibility for making babies is a topic for a thread unto itself.

Quote:
Besides many of you argue for same-sex adoption, this would provide a larger supply of babies to be made available.

This is simply silly.

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
</p> <p>[quote wrote:You also

</p> <p>[quote wrote:
You also use the circular argument that conservatives are in favor of the death penalty while being against abortion, what about you who are against the death penalty but pro-abortion, isn't there an inconsistency here no mattrer how you argue about when life starts.

False equivalency.  I happen to be one progressive who's not opposed to the death penalty.  However, the false equivalency is that the Cons want to execute fully realized people but do not want to abort fetuses, which are not fully realized people.  The progressives who oppose the death penalty do not want to execute fully realized people, but they're often not opposed to aborting fetuses, which are not fully realized people.  There is no equivalent inconsistency there, unless one believes that fetuses are people.  If you do, then further discussion of that particular point is useless. 

Quote:
As far as feeling pain, some of the newest data shows the 'fetus-baby' feels pain much earlier than we thought.

Verifiable source citations?

Quote:
And for being a potential person, we are all  a potential something till we die.

Yeah, once we're born.  Fetuses aren't people.

Quote:
Perhaps computers will be able to predict which of us wiil commit crimes and execute us before we commit our crime. Right now we call it hot-spotting. It has been shown that an area of 7% of New York commits 70% of the crime in the city, should we work to fix the problem or plan for abortion of all babies in this area. The crime should go down in less than a generation, is that how progressives would solve the crime problems and or poverty?

There won't be any need of that.  In a few generations, once genetics reveal sources of personality, people will be genetically engineered.  The wealthy will control that.  Criminal traits will be pre-identified by gene tracking, and those genes will be genetically engineered out of people.  That's good and it's bad, but it's a topic for a different thread.

Quote:
Lastly, this whole debate or argument is being used by both of our politrical parties to keep us fighting each other rather than coming together to solve the problems that we face. The most pressing problem is the takeover of our government and the use of the 'moral issues' so they can continue their two party coroprate controlled monopoly. The fights are staged for their benefit, not ours! There is currently no Republican or Democratic party difference, there is only one party that has a first and last name. Mr /Ms.Democratic Republican or Ms/Mr Republican Democrat. Nickname:Repdem or Demrep.

False equivalency Republican talking point.

 

lance_cady
lance_cady's picture
Quote:I have heard not one of

Quote:
I have heard not one of you address how the impregnated fetus got there, any moral obligation of the implanter of the sperm

Even if that were true, this isn't a discussion about birth control. It's about abortion. Birth control has either failed, or wasn't used at this point. The conversation regarding those issues has passed.

Quote:
no discussion of the many women who still suffer phycologically from their abortion.

Some do. Some don't. For those that do, counselling is available.

Quote:
how many current abortions are performed verses how many illegal abortions were done

Irrelevant. The dangers posed by illegal abortions are reason enough to disregard such silly comparisons. Also, the reasons this comparison can't reliably established are quite obvious. People performing illegal activities tend to not report their statistics.

Quote:
I support abortion for rape and incest, we don't lose many mothers in delivery

What makes "killing a baby" in these situations any different?

Quote:
argument for monetary or intellectual gain

What are these arguments?

Quote:
You should be truthfull and say it is right to kill the baby because it just feels good to me. I may have willingly participated in the creation, but, should bear no responsibility. Responsibility may cost me and my fellow participant something.

Or, nobody really feels that way.

Quote:
You also use the circular argument that conservatives are in favor of the death penalty

Not really circular. One's an actual person, with thoughts and outside human connections. The other isn't even capable of living outside of the womb. It's like comparing eggs to chickens.

 

DRC
DRC's picture
skip, one last point.  The

skip, one last point.  The sperm that is part of conception does not give the sperminator the right to rule the womb.  Where a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy and wants to give birth, her mate's rights are folded into their relationship, but she is the sovereign party.  Parental rights and monetary responsibility is part of the child's rights when born, but it is the woman who is injured if her wanted fetus is damaged by another party, not the father apart from her. 

I appreciate what being a father means, and I can understand how painful a broken  relationship can be.  It still does not make the woman less sovereign over her body and the fetus she carries.  Bringing the law into her sovereignty is misogyny.  The best way to make abortion rare is to create a society that welcomes children and respects women.  Making it safe and legal only removes levels of tragedy and does nothing to help make abortion rare.  Men need to get over patriarchal nonsense and respect women and children as equal human beings.

skip530
skip530's picture
What is this wonderfull

What is this wonderfull feeling of liberation, is it primarily from economic worry? Is it from worry of responsibility for another person, is it a supposed freedom from guilt? Does the celebration of the masses ever make a thing right or wrong? Does inclusion by the masses suddenly give us freedom from guilt, because everyone else does it so it must be alright. Does that really relieve the concience. For many, the decision is made for monetary justification. Is that enough for all the women to relieve their concience. In China baby killing was mandated, there were many that went in for it for the good of the state. Would that be enough to relieve the concience? Someone else then can shoulder the responsibilty for the killing.  Of course if one has no ability for concience there can be no guilt or one could develop a selective concience based on ones own feelings on differing issues. Killing is fine as long as it supports my subjective feelings, my need to be free, my need to be monetarily richer, my need to be happy. 

I am a man, but, have relatives who are women who grieve and have grieved every day for 30 years or more because of a decision they made when they were young. Probably no decision has affected and effected them more, other than the one to sleep with the man that got them impregnated in the first place.

One of the other posters labeled anyone who disagreed as a progressive imposter, that is exactly the issue, disagree and we impune your character. Be a male and you can't possibly understand the female position, be a real father but have no understanding of what a child does to a woman.

I am sure there are many progressive women who are given no voice in the opposition camp 'pro-life 'on abortion. Just as I am sure there are many progressives that are evangelical in their thinking but get no voice other than the one the media serves for it's agenda. Evans are always portrayed as old white men, why?  Does Erica Jong give any credibility to any argument for life? Her cred is no better than yours or mine or the drunk down on the corner. So I guess it all comes down to what we use as our moral compass. 

So, the debate will continue, we are rooted in what ever value we have subscribed to, we just may need, on both sides, to occasionally re-evaluate what caused our subscription to our position. And in that evaluation where is our real focus. 

 

skip530
skip530's picture
Councelling, if one can

Councelling, if one can affort it, does not always cure the guilt, it may make you able to mask or cope with it. If councelling was such a cure all we would have no repeat  issues in our society. We would and could be cured from everything. Marriages would no longer fail, all children would be PHD's. 

Rape and incest are forced implantation. 

The arguments for gain if boiled to their origins mostly come to some sort of financial conclusion. I had too many children already, I couldn't afford it at this time, I had to get my PHD. etc. Please give me answers that don't boil down to personal happiness which is mostly monetary gain in this country.

Illegal abortions that result in death of the mother are counted, so, it is an easy comparison to those aborted and those who died in back alleys. 

To a pro-lifer all human life is the same, starts at conception and may end at death.

DRC
DRC's picture
There are women on both sides

There are women on both sides of the abortion/grief equation.  Trivializing their motivations is not compassion or moral hard thinking.  Doing something to create a "pro-life" culture would mean making the economic factors minimal and removing any stigma to being a single mother.  It would mean loving the child as much or more than the fetus.  I have yet to see any of this from the conservative zealots and those liberals who have tried to create "pro-life" conditions have not found allies there.  It is why I find these religious warriors so repulsive and nasty.  Their Holocaust displays are obscene because they use real human tragedy and crises to push their misogyny.  Fetal sentimentality never goes with a real opposition to war or capital punishment.  It is a sick form of moral compensation and diversion.

The philosophical position of "pro-life" can use whatever biological illustration it wants to.  You can believe that life begins at conception, but you cannot eliminate the miscarriage or any of the ambiguities of gestation where things "go wrong."  You cannot address every human instance or the moral realities faced by those who bear the consequencess of decisions by some "principled stand."  You have to deal with real people in real life, and there is where compassion and conscience have to get real.

I would begin by removing the moralistic guilt trip put on women by the anti-abortion crowd so there is no more grief about the lost baby than natural and real to the human situation.  The same culture warriors make a lot of gay kids feel guilty about being themselves, and it is ugly and wrong.  If there is grief, provide the support, comfort and healing the woman needs.  If she feels liberated, don't try to bring her down with dogma. 

I don't ignore my teeth in order to go to the dentist.  But, cavities happen and sometimes trying to do what you have been advised to do does not work out, so you have to appreciate the skill of those who can give you the best alternative possible.  Getting implants hurt like hell.  It cost a bundle, but I would rather have them than suffer with what made them necessary.  Would I prefer not to have had the problem?  Sure.  But I would not take kindly to anyone who blamed me for bad dental hygene even if I were guilty as charged.  Who are they to lecture me?

I offer this as a trivial, by comparison, analogy to what it would mean to have a pregnancy that I could not accommodate and welcome to birth.  Nobody has a right to tell anyone why they need to feel otherwise or has to go through with something that is in fundamental conflict with mind and conscience. 

All life ends at death, sooner or later.  Learning how to die is our life lesson.  I want to keep the learning going as long as possible, but loving life is not about fearing death.  If you want something deeper than "personal happiness," I think you need to appreciate a deeper sense of happiness.  If you want to get money out of the equation, you have a social and cultural revolution to wage that has little to do with abortion.  Making money irrelevant to happiness is a great idea.

skip530
skip530's picture
It was life, just life for

It was life, just life for whatever reason that did not come to your desired end. That does not negate the fact it, depending on ones definition, was life. One day  a tubal will  be re-implanted into the womb.

Did you and your wife, and are you still grieving over the lose? Do you grieve with your wife in support and love for her? If it was not life there would be no grief. You would and should be, perhaps you are, indifferent about it if it was not life or potential life.

skip530
skip530's picture
How do you know that the lose

How do you know that the lose of the baby does not result in the same grief for those who abort and those who miscarry? Is it dogma that seeks to glorify her abortion when some say she should shout about the new freedom? Is it dogma from parties that have a secondary agenda that keep  people from having honest discussion on the issue. You and I may disagree, but we should not resort to stifeling discourse as both the left and right do. I was once pro-abortion, that was before I realized it would become the contraception of choice. The abortion rate is highest by percent of population in the minority communities, also the out of wed-lock births are highest in these communities. They know about contraception. Why the disparity? Is sex education or abortion the answer to the problem? Then how do we have a real discussion on either of these issues when both sides scream at each other for political gain.

skip530
skip530's picture
We have nine grandchildren

We have nine grandchildren and for economic and hardship reasons any one of them could have been logically aborted. They weren't and they are all loved by their parent and or parents and their grandparents.

DRC
DRC's picture
I have a professional

I have a professional interest here.  I do not have to have been party to "the choice" to understand how the moral zealots have it wrong.  I am never callous about these matters, and miscarriages can also be very disappointing to people trying to have a child.  I do not support eugenics or the attempts to breed basketball players or math geniuses by technology.  Some of the best human beings I know are developmentally challenged or disabled.  Some of the worst are bright and have wonderful cheekbones and athletic bodies.

As a counselor and pastor, I try to appreciate moral and ethical reality and to bring grace and compassion and healing rather than score religious points.  I get angry about those who violate this professional integrity and allow volunteers to err as well.  The politics of conscience is religious warfare, and it has real casulaties.  I want to stop this crap and prevent the damage it causes.

Those who think that respecting the integrity of women's sovereign choice is casual or trivial are wrong.  I cannot stop them thinking what they insist upon thinking, but I don't have to sit still for the insults and abuse to those dealing with serious matters of conscience.  Respect for life leads me to focus on the culture of death, and that is not where abortion is the issue.

bullwinkle
Skip, good for you and your

Skip, good for you and your family. Just this morning on the news was a story of a young woman (I say young because anything 40 and under looks young to me) that while , I am not sure exactly, in some late stage of her pregnancy experienced 2 strokes and a resulting heart attack. Her sister took her to the ER and they realized it was from a tubal malady (i can't recall the medical term) they had to take the baby to save its life and then put in a heart pump until her heart was repaired. Mother and baby were fine, he looked to be about 10-12 months old.

My point is that (if you have been reading the posts here) there are some here that would have advocated aborting the child as being necessary to save the life of the mother. When, in fact, as Dr. Kerry has contended, a viable fetus (one that has attained the ability to live outside the mother's womb never presents a threat to the mother's life.

I agree with the Dr. that a woman should have the absolute "free choice" to aborrt her child (not withstanding any paternal considerations) for any or no reason at all up until the fetus reaches viability. Which, in Texas, is considered 20 weeks. But there are those here that will savagely attack one that contends that at some point in a pregnancy the fetus begans to obtain rights of its own. They want the woman to have the right to abort that child even if right before birth if that is what she wants. Completely ignoring the fact that that decision should and could have been made before such viabiliy. And they call that "compassion for the woman" forgetting about any personal responsibility on her part.

DRC
DRC's picture
I suspect this woman wanted

I suspect this woman wanted her child and did not decide to abort.  What is the issue here?

Ulysses
Ulysses's picture
skip530]</p> <p>[quote

skip530]</p> <p>[quote wrote:
How do you know that the lose of the baby does not result in the same grief for those who abort and those who miscarry?

What if it does?  So what?  If it does, that's their problem; they made the choice, so they own it.  That's true existentialism.  If you're going to posit that there's a high level of personal responsibility involved in creating pregnancies, as you have, then how can you lay claim to logic in positing that those who choose abortion shouldn't have to live with their choices, that, in effect, you're against abortion because you don't want them to experience any of the existential pain that may come from their choice having been a bad one for them, as individuals?  Why do you, as an individual, need to advocate for proactively preventing any such grief by making abortion illegal?  Isn't said potential grief the problem of those who created it by making the choice in the first place?  The inescapable answer is that in a truly existential world, it is, and how much is anybody else morally or ethically obligated to try to prevent grief in others when it's the result of their own choices?  Compassion for the problems of others is one thing, but trying to be everybody's proactive emotional babysitter is quite another, and it's absurd to try.

Quote:
Is it dogma that seeks to glorify her abortion when some say she should shout about the new freedom?

Do you have any real-world examples of anybody actually "glorifying" abortion?

Quote:
You and I may disagree, but we should not resort to stifeling discourse as both the left and right do.

Who's doing that?  If anybody were stifled here, you wouldn't be reading your posts and theirs, would you?  Having said that, when discussions are not enjoyable; productive; informative; or pleasant, and they become completely circular, it's not "stifling" somebody to simply stop conversing with them.  They're then free to go and converse with whomever else they wish to do so, which is the complete opposite of their being "stifled."  Americans have the right ot freedom of association, one aspect of which is freedom to choose with whom we converse.  Choosing not to associate with somebody by refusing to converse with them is not the same thing as "stifling" them.  And it's relevant to point out that while nobody has a right to literally "stifle" anybody, neither is it anybody's personal responsibility to provide somebody else with a soapbox (forum), or to serve as an audience for their discourses.

Quote:
I was once pro-abortion, that was before I realized it would become the contraception of choice.

Well, you're one up on me, then, and I'm a progressive.  I've never been "pro abortion," merely pro choice.  It's an anti-choice talking point that legal abortion will become the contraception of choice. 

Quote:
The abortion rate is highest by percent of population in the minority communities, also the out of wed-lock births are highest in these communities.

The out of wedlock birth rate is high in minority communities because socioeconomic conditions in those communities, which are often, if not mostly, beyond their residents' control, make it extremely difficult to keep cohesive nuclear family units together.

Quote:
They know about contraception. Why the disparity? Is sex education or abortion the answer to the problem?

Fact is, they're NOT always well-informed about contraception or sex education.  Sex education is often poor, minimal, and/or lacking, as I said in a previous post. 

Quote:
Then how do we have a real discussion on either of these issues when both sides scream at each other for political gain.

The bulk of the people are not politicians who participate in discussion of this issue for political gain. 

I was going to write a long response to this point, but then I decided that it doesn't require one.  The issue has been discussed to death in the United States, and what's left is what every individual believes is right.  The built-in conflict arising from opposing positions is unavoidable.  The shrillness level of any given discussion on it is up to that  discussion's participants.

 

skip530
skip530's picture
As a pastor, after the

As a pastor, after the abortion your job is to help the woman heal if she feels guilt for the thing she has done, it is a different time and we as Christians are to preach forgiveness by the grace of God. This discussion should in no way condem a woman to hell for what she has done but to assure her of the love of Jesus and the forgiveness He offers. We are not to glorify the choice or condem the person for the choice. Only God can condem you, and my God offers forgiveness to all who call upon His name. So even then you are not condemed. Our discussion, I thought, was about the before abortion 'moral issues' and possibly any carry over effects of the decision. And the job of the media to keep the issue alive in such a a way as to insure the separation of the political parties for their mutual enslavement of us all. If we found a compromise of any sort it would mean the demise of the Democratic and Republican parties as we know them. 

The thing we often forget is that God is love, Love is not God. So, everything we may do in the name of love is not necessarilly god for the person or God loving. But, saying that, I would never council anyone with condemnation. 

DRC
DRC's picture
If, and I mean if, there are

If, and I mean if, there are feelings of "guilt" instead of sorrow, I would do my best to relieve that false theology while being there for her as I do for many in similar situations.  I do not reinforce homophobia even when parents feel ashamed for having gay kids.  I try to help them get out of that ditch, but I also don't lecture them.  I would not reinforce shame in having chosen an abortion.  I would have to counter a ton of Rightwing moralism in doing so, however. 

I take conscience as seriously as possible.  This is why the politics of conscience is so vile.

lance_cady
lance_cady's picture
Quote:Councelling, if one can

Quote:
Councelling, if one can affort it, does not always cure the guilt, it may make you able to mask or cope with it.

Coping is a lot better than wallowing. Besides, not every woman experiences this regret. Not to mention, there is low cost, or even free counselling available.

Quote:
If councelling was such a cure all...

No one has claimed that it is a cure all. It certainly helps, but is only as helpful as the patient allows.

Quote:
Rape and incest are forced implantation.

True, but a life is a life, and you said that life starts at conception. Just because it was forced conception doesn't make it any less conception. What makes those lives any less valid than ones that were the results of consentual sex?

Quote:
Please give me answers that don't boil down to personal happiness

The reasons for elective abortion tend to boil down to two things. The method of birth control failed, or the person failed to use birth control. If you can get beyond those, go ahead and demonstrate it.

Quote:
Illegal abortions that result in death of the mother are counted, so, it is an easy comparison to those aborted and those who died in back alleys.

False. You only get a fair count of how many have died as a result of a botched abortion. You do not get an accurate count of successful abortions.

Quote:
To a pro-lifer all human life is the same, starts at conception and may end at death.

I look at it more realistically. The survivability rate is relatively low for the first four months. This is only ensuring that the pregnancy fails, like it would statistically.

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
skip530 wrote: As a pastor,

skip530 wrote:

As a pastor, after the abortion your job is to help the woman heal if she feels guilt for the thing she has done, it is a different time and we as Christians are to preach forgiveness by the grace of God. This discussion should in no way condem a woman to hell for what she has done but to assure her of the love of Jesus and the forgiveness He offers. We are not to glorify the choice or condem the person for the choice. Only God can condem you, and my God offers forgiveness to all who call upon His name. So even then you are not condemed. Our discussion, I thought, was about the before abortion 'moral issues' and possibly any carry over effects of the decision. And the job of the media to keep the issue alive in such a a way as to insure the separation of the political parties for their mutual enslavement of us all. If we found a compromise of any sort it would mean the demise of the Democratic and Republican parties as we know them.

How do you compromise on the human right to one's own body? What imposition is acceptable by the state upon my physical person? I say none for me and none for she. If someone's religion prevents them getting an abortion, fine. Just don't tell me your god forbids MY choice.

Quote:
The thing we often forget is that God is love, Love is not God.

First of all, it's an absurd logical fallacy to say that one IS the other but the other is not THAT. If A=B then B=A. Secondly, it's a platitude and means nothing the way you say it. Love IS my god and my god makes a shit load more sense than the gray-bearded cloud-dweller. That external god idea corrupts people by removing spiritual responsibility from people for the initiation of love through their own moral choice. Cloud worshipers have permission to wait around and see what feeling their god washes over their soul. Meanwhile Rome burns.

What good are clouds when our humanly problems are here on Earth? What god should we invent that does not serve us except by accident. We can value whatever we want, Skip. We can have a deliberate god and not just share a legacy of lunacy with great great grandfathers we probably wouldn't trust to watch our children. No book, no matter how old, is so "perfect" that we should destroy ourselves to fulfill it.

Love is the actions of men toward each other, not feelings. It doesn't fall from the sky, it is an intention and an action, carried out by humans. If any god is going to love me, it will have to be through some human action. The blessing will be indistinguishable from the selfless act of an evolved primate who realizes he is not alone on this planet and is, therefore, better for merely BEING better. No external god needed.

Quote:
So, everything we may do in the name of love is not necessarilly god for the person or God loving. But, saying that, I would never council anyone with condemnation.

I disagree. If you're going to do something loving, it has to be good for the person. It should be indistinguishable from a god's love delivered through humans-because that's the only way a god's love CAN be expressed. I don't think a god would need for everyone to give Him credit for all the love, He would merely be happy that his love machine was purring like a kitten. If people come to the conclusion that loving other people (through selfless action) makes sense to them outside a religious context, why would a god care why we decided to love each other. Mission accomplished. He wins.

The idea you propose, though, is contradictory because you seem to believe that an external god who loves us will not stop tyranny and war. If there is a "He" and He is all powerful, you cannot also argue that he loves us. Shouldn't love be good for us? I think so. Saying you'll get your reward later is what johns tell hookers.

 

 

Zenzoe
Oye.  May all misogynist

Oye.  May all misogynist half-wits' tongues get stuck frozen to metal posts in the snow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM

 

Zenzoe
Sorry, D_NATURED, I didn’t

Sorry, D_NATURED, I didn’t notice your comment at #894, when I made mine at #895.  If I had noticed it, I would have been inclined to congratulate you for talking sense to non-sense. I’m afraid I’ve given up on it, thus, my “oye,” etc.  I’ve plainly lost the energy for it, finally recognizing its utter futility.  You’re plainly courageous, by contrast, I’ve noticed.  [Courage—from Old French corage, from cuer = heart, from Latin cor.]  You have heart.

We liberal-progressives don’t have true heart, though, or so we’re told.  We have “bleeding hearts,” according to those whose hearts bleed for the fetus alone. The term “bleeding heart” means a soft-headed renunciation of all things precious to the heart of conservatism— hierarchy, authority, commerce, profit, tradition, conformity, human dominion on earth, etc.  “Bleeding hearts” threaten civilization itself, you understand. 

That the hearts of conservatives, those who claim to be “pro-life,” only bleed for fetuses interests me.  I’ve known a few of those— my niece’s heart, for one.  Once, when I asked her why the lives of fetuses were sacred, while those of condemned-to-death criminals were not sacred, she answered that a fetus’ life was “innocent life.” 

I should have paid more attention, when she said that.  What did it mean, the notions of innocence and guilt within the “pro-life” mind-set?  What’s underneath that? 

I’m not a theologian, nor a psychologist, nor a philosopher, and so I’m not in a position to answer the question with all the depth possible there.  But I know my niece, and I know she is not an innocent herself, nor has she always been a nice, loving person. I know she bears a great deal of guilt surrounding many of her own choices in life, as I do, as all of us do, if we’re honest.  But my liberal-progressive mind-set does not come weighted down by notions of sin, of hell, of the wrath of God, of punishment, of concern for the judgment of a male deity who rules over all. However, my niece’s mind-set does come burdened with such things, as a Catholic; and so, I’m guessing, it might be natural to defend against one’s guilty feelings by projecting those onto whatever person, or act, comes along to weaken one’s defenses against self-awareness. That is to say, to defend the “innocent” fetus makes one an innocent too; it puts one on the side of the angels, erasing one’s own guilt and ensuring one’s entry into heaven. You can be cruel, condemn to punishment, to hell on earth, the criminals, the “enemies” abroad and within, the homosexuals, the animal-rights-activists, the tree-huggers, and, yes, all those “evil women” who defy the law and hierarchy set by God, by wanting to control their reproductive destinies; but no matter how vile your hatred for the Other, in violation of the teachings of Jesus, you will not be condemned yourself. You have sided with The Good, with “Life.”  You, by your innocence, now have permission to judge.

Then our “pro-choice” position comes along, threatening to eliminate the very tool of your absolution!  We refuse to grant any right to control the reproductive lives of women, defying your world-view, but worse, we remind you of your own guilty secrets, your own lusts, your own cowardice, your own fear of the freedom of self-determination. 

It takes courage to make a decision in your own best interest.  It takes courage for a parent to choose abortion for the child who has been impregnated via rape.  It takes courage to look at all the factors involved in a situation —nuance, reality, ambiguity— and make an ambiguous choice in an unhappy situation, a choice that causes the least misery for all.  That’s what I call heart, the real deal.

D_NATURED
D_NATURED's picture
To be a good conservative you

To be a good conservative you must build up your heart callouses. You must learn to numb your self to the needs of other humans with a million canned excuses. "She brought it on her self" or "they'll just spend it on liquor" are the moral escape hatches of hypocrites. Bleeding heart is the conservative code word for moral show-off. They think we're rubes being played by the poor while they pay lip service to a man who said "what thou hath done for the least of these...".

If hypocricy were painful, you could tell the conservatives by their morphine drips.

 

Zenzoe
True.  The thing is, if you

True. 

The thing is, if you have your identity and your self-esteem wrapped up in your beliefs, logic and reason have no effect on you. ("I'm 'pro-life,' therefore I am a Good Person.")  Attempts to get a "pro-lifer" to see your view meet barriers of ego-defenses so immune to good sense that you might as well give up. It's like they have a firewall in place in their heads. Nothing can get past that. It's what fundamentalist religion does, in my opinion.

Perhaps we're the same way, just on the opposite side of the coin? (I don't think so, but maybe...)  Isn't that why this will never be a sane conversation about abortion?

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Kerry wrote: And, speaking of

Kerry wrote:

And, speaking of ignorance and stupidity in the issue of elective abortions:

Phadreus76 wrote:

No, sperm-murderer, the people who ought to be commiting suicide are the ones responsible for the murders of 120 - 200 million humans with each ejaculation. Each one of which, given the right conditions, will eventually gain their own rights...

Who has put forth the argument that 'killing every sperm' is a murder?   Who, Phadreus76?  Is that your own hypocritical way of ignoring that killing a fetus right before birth is no different in most 'compassionate and caring' people's minds that killing a fetus right after birth?  

---

Any comments whatsoever, otherwise, Phadreus76, or is your only statements on this dealing with something that, as far as I can tell, no one else is even considering--the sperm in semen.....which most will die even if one impregnates the ovum in the mother from the same ejaculation--so, how does that relate at all to the 'sane discussion' of elective abortions?   Other than to indicate your own ignorance and disregard in this issue....

The Bible commands to not spill the seed on the soil. It is murder in the Bible. From the Roman Catholic Church's perspective, killing a single sperm, having an abortion at the 8th week, 26th week or 40th week, or killing a newborn are all the exact same act. This is why the Sen. Lick Santorum is the only man any Christian could honestly vote for.

That most sperm will perish a natural death even in intercourse is understood. But, so long as they are allowed to seek their full expression, in the entering of an egg or in trying to do so, that is their right. Anything short of that is murder. This is why the church opposes contraception, and murderers don't.

Zenzoe
Phaedrus, did you see the

Phaedrus, did you see the Colbert Report tonight?  You'd love it—he riffed on the sacredness of sperm.  Apparently, there's a new contraceptive pill out for men —I think he said spermicidal?— and so he insisted that men should have to look into the face of a sperm, before they're allowed to use the drug. Thus, they should have a "trans-urethral ultrasound," first.  He held up the device itself, a long skinny tube, along with gestures... you should look it up, if you haven't seen it.

Hey, at least somebody's on your side, besides the funny fellow in the Pope Mobile.

DRC
DRC's picture
I want the pols who voted for

I want the pols who voted for the Vaginal ultrascan to have coloscopies to find where their brains are.