Solutions

[talloulou]

A blastocyte is not "A" human. Human is defined: 1. of, relating to, or characteristic of man (does a blastocyte fit that description?) 2. consisting of men (does a blastocyte fit that description?) 3. a. having human form or attributes (does it??) b. susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of man's nature (NO!)

Biology isn't everything. You can have a "biological" mother and a "real" mother. A biological mother generally, not always, becomes a "real" mother over the course of a pregnancy.

Well given that a blastocyte is "pre-embryo" I'll agree. But an embryo is a human as in a human noun. And the blastocyte becomes an embryo in like what? Apx 5 days after conception. That's one of the reasons the MAP doesn't bother me. But once it becomes an embryo it is undeniably A human.

Now "human" has many definitions. Clearly a human dwelling is not a building with human dna. So when it comes to the adjective "human" there are many definitions and when the term is used as an adjective it's used to describe qualities associated with humans.

All that said however the noun HUMAN refers to homosapiens. End of story.

And as far as mothers they come in all kinds....loving, caring, patient, inpatient, absent, abadoning, abusing, ect...... But none of those adjectives gets them out of being the "mother" they merely describe the type of mother she is/was.

 

[OKgrannie]

Actually it wasn't till the prochoice crowd started insisting that the unborn not be called babies that anyone objected to this. Drs. routinely refer to the unborn as babies as well as many dictionaries. I can see why you would like to make a distinction as a means of justification but it's merely semantics and matters not to me. Clearly you are right that they don't have the same value to society in fact currently they have zero value on their own and only become valuable if their mother grants them that status.

OK. Call it what you want, "baby" is the emotional term conjuring up visions of teddy bears, rocking chairs, and a "complete" snuggly, cute, little baby. A pregnant woman who intends to give birth anticipates a "baby" and thinks of the zef that way, it doesn't mean it is reality, or that a woman who doesn't want to give birth should think of it that way. Dr.s tend to humor their patients.

 

[talloulou]

OK. Call it what you want, "baby" is the emotional term conjuring up visions of teddy bears, rocking chairs, and a "complete" snuggly, cute, little baby. A pregnant woman who intends to give birth anticipates a "baby" and thinks of the zef that way, it doesn't mean it is reality, or that a woman who doesn't want to give birth should think of it that way. Dr.s tend to humor their patients.

Well if the mother chooses not to kill the unborn then it's quite possible that they will have use for teddy bears, rocking chairs, and all that other snuggly stuff.

 

[OKgrannie]

Well if the mother chooses not to kill the unborn then it's quite possible that they will have use for teddy bears, rocking chairs, and all that other snuggly stuff.

Great, if that's her CHOICE.

 

[talloulou]

Great, if that's her CHOICE.

Right the definition of what's in the womb "A human" doesn't seem to matter because the fight is not over the definition of what lives in utero and it never has been. The fight is about whether or not a woman should be able to kill what's in her uterus regardless of what it is and all these ridiculous attempts to misguide others into believing the unborn aren't humans and the women making the choice to kill them aren't mothers is an inane attempt at trying to make something sound less horrific.

 

[talloulou]

And by the way I don't really mind the attempts at making abortion less emotional and more clinical. However I do get angry when these attempts enter the arena of outright lies such as the whopper you spewed when attempting to claim that an unborn human isn't a human.

 

[Felicity]

RE: the "thanks" above

That was for the whole string of excellent posts talloulou. :applaud

Next: two things...

I find it offensive that you believe childbearing to be essential to the dignity of women, and even more offensive that you do not realize that forcing women to bear children they do not want destroys the dignity of women.

The word essential is not correct in what you state above. What I believe is that childbearing is one of the things that is uniquly woman. When you take steps to chemically or surgically or socially deny/destroy that ability, it is a direct attack on womanhood. Not an attack on "a" woman...an attack on what womanhood is. The sociological result of the medical procedure called abortion is equivalent to an attack on woman AND children.

A woman is not pregnant until implantation,

Only since the late 60s as the medical feild paved the way for legal abortion and abortifacient contraception (the great moneymakers) by CHANGING the definition from "conception" to "implantation." The FIRST step in any well organized attack is to start with the very language of the assault. (as Okgrannie attempted to do in the above posts)

 

[OKgrannie]

Right the definition of what's in the womb "A human" doesn't seem to matter because the fight is not over the definition of what lives in utero and it never has been. The fight is about whether or not a woman should be able to kill what's in her uterus regardless of what it is and all these ridiculous attempts to misguide others into believing the unborn aren't humans and the women making the choice to kill them aren't mothers is an inane attempt at trying to make something sound less horrific.

You're right, the fight is whether or not a woman controls her uterus, or a blastocyte/zef controls it. I believe pro-life led the linguistic fight by not only calling "it" "a" human, but "a baby" and to top it off "innocent baby", all in an inane attempt at trying to make a simple medical procedure sound horrific. When the linguistic thing didn't work, they brought in the doctored pictures. Humanness requires a working brain, even if it doesn't work very well; a being without a working brain may be human tissue, but it isn't "a human".

 

[OKgrannie]

The word essential is not correct in what you state above. What I believe is that childbearing is one of the things that is uniquly woman. When you take steps to chemically or surgically or socially deny/destroy that ability, it is a direct attack on womanhood. Not an attack on "a" woman...an attack on what womanhood is. The sociological result of the medical procedure called abortion is equivalent to an attack on woman AND children.

Chemically or surgically controlling childbirth is giving women the power to control their lives. Denying women that choice is denying them their own lives in order that they reproduce. Denying women that choice is denying them the ability to protect their own health. Denying women that choice is reducing them to the status of cattle, whose primary purpose in living is to reproduce. The value of women's contribution to society of bearing children is increased when they do so willingly. Incidentally, MOST women choose to have children.

Only since the late 60s as the medical feild paved the way for legal abortion and abortifacient contraception (the great moneymakers) by CHANGING the definition from "conception" to "implantation." The FIRST step in any well organized attack is to start with the very language of the assault. (as Okgrannie attempted to do in the above posts)

Traditionally, the beginning of pregnancy was implantation. How would anyone know there is a fertilized egg floating around in there before implantation? Possibly the reason is that so many fertilized eggs don't implant. IF you are going to value the fertilized egg as "a human", don't you think funding for research on why many eggs don't implant is seriously neglected? After all, if you don't make a massive attempt to save those eggs, you are discriminating on account of age.

 

[Cremaster77]

I said that unborn human life doesn't matter because of the evidence for the larger Objective Fact that there isn't anything that matters...Which inevitably makes all values Subjective, none are Objective. The result is that to say "unborn human life matters" is indeed a subjective fallacy.

As I've addressed in another thread, the point at which you state that valuing human life (born or unborn) is a subjective fallacy, you lose your credibility. Once you agree that anyone can make the decision as to what qualifies as a person or who is not defective, you commit the error that has been committed throughout history with disastrous results. It's an arrogant position that has demonstrates how little you actually understand about how a functional society works.

Next, if you put your words in somebody else's mouth, you can make others say anything you like. I suggest that that is nonproductive, and that you shouldn't do it.

I appreciate the admission that the phrasing of your statement was off. However, I'm not sure how I'm putting words in your mouth when I quote you directly with the interpretation of the quote as it was (self-admittedly) poorly phrased as it would normally be interpreted. If that is not what you meant, it was due to the phrasing, not due to me "putting words in your mouth."

Anyway, you did not really answer the point I was presenting in #159, that just because the Social pendulum might swing back to disallow abortions, that does not mean that that is "correct". I fully expect the abortion debate would continue, and that the pendulum would swing back to allowing abortions, eventually. That's because the disallow-abortion side mostly works with invalid data, while the allow-abortion side mostly works with valid data.

What is the "valid data" compared to the "invalid data"? You're stance has always been that there is some amorphous point at which a human becomes a person and that only "non-defective" humans are subject to protection. As I said, it's a foolhardy and arrogant position with no actual data to support when personhood occurs. I asked for this and you ramble on about symbol recognition, Free Will, and recognizing time, as if these are definitive endpoints that define a person. I still have yet to see you address my post in the other thread regarding other factors such as language, upright posture, cooperative play, imagination, etc that you don't use in your definition of "person" nor did you address whether a cleft palate or sickle cell anemia constitutes defectiveness. Without the ability to equate a newborn child to a housefly, you're entire argument falls apart. This equation has been tried and failed throughout history. Why are you able to do so when many smarter men tried and failed?

Oh, I understood what you meant, but your imprecision in phrasing also meant that your prejudice got to be exposed. (Why should the government only take a role of protecting innocent human life? Why not protect innocent flies and mosquitoes and cockroaches, etc, also? See answer below.) And a prejudiced argument is always "loaded". Always.

Actually, government has laws that also protect animals and plants. But that's besides the point. I have already admitted a species prejudice. I am comfortable with it. As I've said before, the fact that you don't see the difference between a housefly and a human speaks volumes.

Hey, I wasn't disagreeing with the "inalienable right" thing, mostly because I know that extremely few things qualify as "inalienable rights" (and "right to life" isn't one of them). The standard list are all legal fictions. What I was disagreeing with was the notion that your analogy about drugs and prostitution was valid. Do note that making them illegal does not make them go away. Why isn't it obvious that laws are stupid, when they don't actually work? Perhaps you should look up the history surrounding the original Law, back in the early 1900s, that made heroin an illegal drug. England at the same time was considering a similar law, but instead they made it a prescription-only drug. By the 1960s we got to compare the long-term effects of the two laws: In New York City alone there were 100,000 heroin addicts; in all of England there were maybe 500. Which law was more stupid? Let me tell you that one genuine inalienable right is the right to make choices.

This is the same stupid argument always made by pro-choice people which completely ignores the fact that society as deemed it governmental role to have laws. The fact that laws are broken does not mean those laws should not exist. Do people speed through school zones? YES. Do is happen often? YES. Does that mean that there should be no school zones and there should be no law prohibiting people from driving 80 MPH through those zones? That doesn't mean people still can't physically drive 80 MPH through that zone. It means that society has deemed it harmful to society to do so and therefore the government has a role in prohibiting it.

In other words, you can't argue with Scientfic Fact, that newborn humans are not significantly different from plenty of ordinary animals, and so do not deserve prejudical granting of "person" status. That's fine; that's smart, and the Law is indeed prejudiced/stupid.

The Scientific Fact, as I have pointed out, is that humans are genetically different from other animals. The fact that you choose to ignore genetics is your own Prejudice. But the genetics are the only steadfast scientific difference between humans and animals. Once you start granting personhood to some humans and not other, you exhibit folly to a degree that to me is stunning that you do not see. I guess there will always be fools in this world who think they know better than those who came before them who tried the exact same thing they are trying and failed, I just never thought I would be talking to one on the Internet.

Because you are prejudiced and I'm not.

Similarly, you are arrogant and foolhardy. I am not.

But to-the-extent that they are in Scientific Fact equate-able, why should we? Much of the last century was about eliminating prejudice from Law, from granting women's suffrage to ending poll taxes and "separate but equal" nonsense, to stomping the Nazis and allowing abortions and even going overboard (the PETA extremists).

How is equating humans to houseflies different that what the Nazis did?

Yet I've argued elsewhere that if the UNWANTED are aborted first, then these killings after birth would likely not happen, except very rarely. I notice you haven't replied to that (elsewhere), as I post this.

And I've argued your statement is false. The assumption is that all unwanted children are unwanted fetus. That is simply not the case.

 

[Felicity]

Chemically or surgically controlling childbirth is giving women the power to control their lives.

This attitude makes women REACTORS to life--not people in CONTROL of their destiny. The life choices people make demonstrate their competence. When you insist that there MUST be a means to eradicate the consequences of poor choices, you do not "empower" women with anything but an EXCUSE to be incompetent and a means to hide their incompetence. By your insistence that these ready-made excuses must be available, you insult the integrity of women and say, with your drugs and procedures, women do NOT have the competence to forge their destinies as they deem appropriate. You undermine the competence of women by convincing them that the exact opposite is what you offer with your drugs and procedures and they hear your siren song of the "free-pass" on responsibility. Responsibility DEMONSTRATES competence--Irresponsibility demonstrates Incompetence. You, in fact, are the one promoting a misogynistic view of women and their abilities.

Denying women that choice is denying them their own lives in order that they reproduce. Denying women that choice is denying them the ability to protect their own health. Denying women that choice is reducing them to the status of cattle, whose primary purpose in living is to reproduce.

Right here is an example of how your thinking has been warped by the misogynistic message of BC and abortion. You equate childbirth to burden and detrimental to health. You equate women to cows. That is misogyny. Childbearing is a unique and awesome ability that belongs to women alone. Your characterizing it as something that subjugates women to a life of herd animals is disgusting. No WONDER people think abortion and contraception are the panacea when such insulting lies are spewed—most frequently by women themselves! It is self-hatred and misogyny that produce such rhetoric and place women at the mercy of irresponsible choices. They are lulled into incompetence through anti-woman propaganda. The position held by many men and woman as a result of this propaganda is that sex does not need to be ruled by rational thought and responsible behavior—the message is that it is all about immediate gratification and individual passions. That is a warped view of the depth of meaning that is contained in the act of sexual union. That view OBJECTIFIES the partners and makes them a means to an end—selfish pleasure. This irresponsible sexual behavior then leads to the unintended consequence of the creation of new life. BUT, since people have already been reduced to OBJECTS by separating rational though and responsibility from the sex act, it is not much of a further step to objectify the product of such a union. When the product of such a union is merely an unwanted OBJECT—of course killing it with the abortion procedure seems entirely consistent with the warped and demeaning view of women and sex.

In your position, you demonstrate a hatred of women, sex, and children.

 

[talloulou]

You're right, the fight is whether or not a woman controls her uterus, or a blastocyte/zef controls it. I believe pro-life led the linguistic fight by not only calling "it" "a" human, but "a baby" and to top it off "innocent baby", all in an inane attempt at trying to make a simple medical procedure sound horrific. When the linguistic thing didn't work, they brought in the doctored pictures. Humanness requires a working brain, even if it doesn't work very well; a being without a working brain may be human tissue, but it isn't "a human".

There are plenty of humans with "broken" or "non-functioning" brains. I assure you that doesn't make them some other species. The unborn are homosapiens as are others who are mentally challenged. Homosapiens are "humans" much as a fetus is a "baby."

As for the pictures, where are the non-doctored non horrific ones? Seems to me if all the pics are fake then the prochoicers need only release real ones that show the true non-horrific nature of the procedure, no?

As for your ridiculous attempt to cling to the notion that the unborn aren't human? Can you please find one source where a doctor or scientists agrees with that?

 

[talloulou]

Chemically or surgically controlling childbirth is giving women the power to control their lives. Denying women that choice is denying them their own lives in order that they reproduce.

Birth control goes along way in allowing women some control over their reproductive process and I agree that is beneficial. However one never has complete control. There are women who can't get pregnant regardless of what is done and women who will get pregnant regardless of having their tubes tied. Just as the woman who can't ever get pregnant isn't guaranteed a baby of her own the woman who gets pregnant despite birth control options shouldn't be guaranteed an "out" for the sake of convenience.

I fully believe in supporting women in having some control of their reproductive organs however once they are pregnant they have already lost control. Once they are pregnant there is a living human in their womb and that human's lilfe takes precedence, in my opinion, over the inconvenience of being pregnant. At that point she is no longer attempting to not have children so much as attempting to kill the child she has.

Respecting human life does not make you akin to cattle. In fact I think it's more the opposite. Other lower animal forms are way more likely to kill and eat their babies when compared to humans.

 

[OKgrannie]

This attitude makes women REACTORS to life--not people in CONTROL of their destiny. The life choices people make demonstrate their competence. When you insist that there MUST be a means to eradicate the consequences of poor choices, you do not "empower" women with anything but an EXCUSE to be incompetent and a means to hide their incompetence. By your insistence that these ready-made excuses must be available, you insult the integrity of women and say, with your drugs and procedures, women do NOT have the competence to forge their destinies as they deem appropriate. You undermine the competence of women by convincing them that the exact opposite is what you offer with your drugs and procedures and they hear your siren song of the "free-pass" on responsibility. Responsibility DEMONSTRATES competence--Irresponsibility demonstrates Incompetence. You, in fact, are the one promoting a misogynistic view of women and their abilities..

HOGWASH! 50% of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Do you really think THAT many women are incompetent and/or irresponsible? That is truly a misogynistic view of women!

Right here is an example of how your thinking has been warped by the misogynistic message of BC and abortion. You equate childbirth to burden and detrimental to health. You equate women to cows. That is misogyny. Childbearing is a unique and awesome ability that belongs to women alone. Your characterizing it as something that subjugates women to a life of herd animals is disgusting. No WONDER people think abortion and contraception are the panacea when such insulting lies are spewed—most frequently by women themselves! It is self-hatred and misogyny that produce such rhetoric and place women at the mercy of irresponsible choices. They are lulled into incompetence through anti-woman propaganda. The position held by many men and woman as a result of this propaganda is that sex does not need to be ruled by rational thought and responsible behavior—the message is that it is all about immediate gratification and individual passions. That is a warped view of the depth of meaning that is contained in the act of sexual union. That view OBJECTIFIES the partners and makes them a means to an end—selfish pleasure. This irresponsible sexual behavior then leads to the unintended consequence of the creation of new life. BUT, since people have already been reduced to OBJECTS by separating rational though and responsibility from the sex act, it is not much of a further step to objectify the product of such a union. When the product of such a union is merely an unwanted OBJECT—of course killing it with the abortion procedure seems entirely consistent with the warped and demeaning view of women and sex.

In your position, you demonstrate a hatred of women, sex, and children.

More HOGWASH!! Pregnancy/childbirth IS a burden if it is unwanted, and it IS detrimental to a woman's health. There is nothing particularly awesome about pregnancy/childbirth, after all 50% of the population can do it. All one has to do is to be in the right place at the right time, or...in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is those who deny women choices who equate them to cattle. It is not the availability of BC or abortion that leads women to make bad choices regarding sex, as plenty of bad choices were made before BC/abortion were readily available. I agree that many unwanted pregnancies, not all, are a result of bad choices, but I disagree that the pregnancy must be used as a punishment for one mistake, or as you seem to think pregnancy/childbirth is such a fantastic thing, I guess it would be a reward.

 

[OKgrannie]

Birth control goes along way in allowing women some control over their reproductive process and I agree that is beneficial. However one never has complete control. There are women who can't get pregnant regardless of what is done and women who will get pregnant regardless of having their tubes tied. Just as the woman who can't ever get pregnant isn't guaranteed a baby of her own the woman who gets pregnant despite birth control options shouldn't be guaranteed an "out" for the sake of convenience.

I fully believe in supporting women in having some control of their reproductive organs however once they are pregnant they have already lost control. Once they are pregnant there is a living human in their womb and that human's lilfe takes precedence, in my opinion, over the inconvenience of being pregnant. At that point she is no longer attempting to not have children so much as attempting to kill the child she has..

Pregnancy/childbirth is not just an inconvenience.
THE EFFECTS OF PREGNANCY - complications of pregnancy

"Can a function so perilous that in spite of the best care, it kills thousands of women every year, that leaves at least a quarter of the women more or less invalided, and a majority with permanent anatomic changes of structure, that is always attended by severe pain and tearing of tissues, and that kills 3%-5% of children -- can such a function be called normal?"
-- Joseph, B. BeLee, obstetrician, quoted in Wendy Mitchinson, Giving Birth in Canada 1900-1950 (2002) Toronto Press, ISBN 0-8020-8471-0, a history of childbirth in Canada

M. Fathallah, M.D. (researcher)
World's Top Five Causes Of Disease Burden In Young People And Adults Ages 15-44
Female: 1. Maternity 2. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 3. Tuberculosis 4. HIV Infection 5. Depression
Male: 1. HIV Infection 2. Tuberculosis 3. Motor Vehicle Injury 4. Homicide And Violence 5. War BACK TO TEXT

Respecting human life does not make you akin to cattle. In fact I think it's more the opposite. Other lower animal forms are way more likely to kill and eat their babies when compared to humans.

Respecting human life requires valuing women, which means allowing them to follow their dreams and desires, to have choices in their lives. You cannot deny women the choice regarding childbearing without devaluing women and overvaluing fetuses.

 

[talloulou]

HOGWASH! 50% of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Do you really think THAT many women are incompetent and/or irresponsible? That is truly a misogynistic view of women!

That seems high! Birth control really is quite effective if taken responsibly and if you top that off with condom use to boot than you're not going to get pregnant! So if the unplanned pregnancy rate really is that high I do think it's cause many women aren't using their options as effectively as they could. Now we even have the MAP over the counter so even if your condom breaks you can get that the very next day and be in the clear.

More HOGWASH!! Pregnancy/childbirth IS a burden if it is unwanted, and it IS detrimental to a woman's health. There is nothing particularly awesome about pregnancy/childbirth, after all 50% of the population can do it. All one has to do is to be in the right place at the right time, or...in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is those who deny women choices who equate them to cattle. It is not the availability of BC or abortion that leads women to make bad choices regarding sex, as plenty of bad choices were made before BC/abortion were readily available. I agree that many unwanted pregnancies, not all, are a result of bad choices, but I disagree that the pregnancy must be used as a punishment for one mistake, or as you seem to think pregnancy/childbirth is such a fantastic thing, I guess it would be a reward.

In my mind it's about responsibility and being honorable. It may not feel rewarding at first, may not be easy, but ultimately doing the right thing vs the wrong thing is always more rewarding. Pregnancy isn't really a "reward" or "punishment". It's a new human life.

I understand your arguments. But to me they sound similar to this.... Let's say a woman has 3 boys and she really wants a girl baby next. I'm all for science using in vitro fertilization to assure her a girl. She can use the lastest methods, have the sperm sorted, basically do everything available to make sure she carries a girl with her next pregnancy except kill it for being a boy! Once she is already carrying a boy than she missed out on the options to ensure a girl or the options didn't work but neither of those two scenarios should give her the right to kill a baby for being a boy because she wanted a girl.

A woman should be able to use whatever means necessary to avoid being pregnant but she shouldn't be able to kill her baby to no longer be pregnant. Once she's pregnant she needs to do the right thing and accept responsibility for the offspring in her womb.

 

[talloulou]

Respecting human life requires valuing women, which means allowing them to follow their dreams and desires, to have choices in their lives. You cannot deny women the choice regarding childbearing without devaluing women and overvaluing fetuses.

That's ridiculous. Of course I can. There are so many options available to women that it is not hard at all to keep from getting pregnant. Regardless, I can judge a woman for being a bad mother. Some womens dreams include staying out all night in the bar while their kids are at home alone with no dinner. Certainly that woman is a piece of shite and it has nothing to do with valuing her children over her so much as it has to do with recognizing her choices and priorities as selfish crapola!

Mothers who abort can be judged for their poor choice in exactly the same manner. Deciding to kill your unborn child for convenience is a selfish dishonorable choice.

 

[Roberdorus]

Respecting human life requires valuing women, which means allowing them to follow their dreams and desires, to have choices in their lives. You cannot deny women the choice regarding childbearing without devaluing women and overvaluing fetuses.

Respecting human life requires valuing abusive husbands, which means allowing them to follow their dreams and desires (e.g. keeping their wives in shape with the help of corporal punishment), to have choices in their lives. You cannot deny men the choice regarding spousal abuse without devaluing men and overvaluing women.

 

[1069]

Respecting human life requires valuing abusive husbands, which means allowing them to follow their dreams and desires (e.g. keeping their wives in shape with the help of corporal punishment), to have choices in their lives. You cannot deny men the choice regarding spousal abuse without devaluing men and overvaluing women.

Ah, the bitterness of losers... it's music to my ears. :mrgreen:

Women have the right to reproductive choice, and they always have, and they always will.
And there's nothing any of you antichoicers can do about it.
You can piddle your lives away posting hateful, venom-filled messages about it all over the internet, but what you can't do is prevent women from controlling their own bodies and their own lives, and choosing whether or when they will have children.

When it's all said and done, that's the bottom line.
I salute Granny and other right-minded folks who still have the patience to try and reason with you.
I've become bored with it, myself.
I find your relentless shrillness, hysteria, and hostility incredibly tedious.

 

[Roberdorus]

Ah, the bitterness of losers... it's music to my ears. :mrgreen:

Bitterness? Nah. The only thing I feel for people like you is sympathy. Other than that, it's pure indifference. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Women have the right to reproductive choice, and they always have, and they always will.
And there's nothing any of you antichoicers can do about it.

Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!!! Grow up.:roll:

You can piddle your lives away posting hateful, venom-filled messages about it all over the internet,

No hate, no venom. I was using grannie's twisted logic to poke fun at her lame attempt to paint talloulou as some sort of reverse-sexist.

When it's all said and done, that's the bottom line.
I salute Granny and other right-minded folks who still have the patience to try and reason with you.
I've become bored with it, myself.
I find your relentless shrillness, hysteria, and hostility incredibly tedious.

That must be why you keep writing back. In fact, that must be why you've consistently written like 20 abortion posts a day since last October. 'Cause I'm just like such a drag, right? Or maybe it's because I'm some sort of lab animal in your f-cked up life... eh, who knows.

 

[OKgrannie]

That seems high! Birth control really is quite effective if taken responsibly and if you top that off with condom use to boot than you're not going to get pregnant! So if the unplanned pregnancy rate really is that high I do think it's cause many women aren't using their options as effectively as they could. Now we even have the MAP over the counter so even if your condom breaks you can get that the very next day and be in the clear.

SOME birth control is highly effective with SOME women. I suppose by responsibly, you mean one must NEVER forget. Humans are fallible, birth control itself is fallible. I really do not think that people in a committed relationship are going to be sold on using condums IN ADDITION to other BC. Hopefully MAP will help reduce unplanned pregnancies, but it is not available to women under age 18 without prescription, the group possibly most in need of it. Also pharmacists may make it more difficult to obtain. Many women aren't using their options as effectively as they could because many women don't know about their options, many women have difficulty obtaining their options.

In my mind it's about responsibility and being honorable. It may not feel rewarding at first, may not be easy, but ultimately doing the right thing vs the wrong thing is always more rewarding. Pregnancy isn't really a "reward" or "punishment". It's a new human life.

I understand your arguments. But to me they sound similar to this.... Let's say a woman has 3 boys and she really wants a girl baby next. I'm all for science using in vitro fertilization to assure her a girl. She can use the lastest methods, have the sperm sorted, basically do everything available to make sure she carries a girl with her next pregnancy except kill it for being a boy! Once she is already carrying a boy than she missed out on the options to ensure a girl or the options didn't work but neither of those two scenarios should give her the right to kill a baby for being a boy because she wanted a girl.

A woman should be able to use whatever means necessary to avoid being pregnant but she shouldn't be able to kill her baby to no longer be pregnant. Once she's pregnant she needs to do the right thing and accept responsibility for the offspring in her womb.

It is only your opinion that it is the "right thing" for a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion can be the most responsible thing for a woman to do. While I am opposed to abortion for sex selection, I still would not want that woman forced to bear the child she doesn't want. People who only want children of one sex shouldn't get any.

 

[talloulou]

Ah, the bitterness of losers... it's music to my ears. :mrgreen:

Women have the right to reproductive choice, and they always have, and they always will.
And there's nothing any of you antichoicers can do about it.
You can piddle your lives away posting hateful, venom-filled messages about it all over the internet, but what you can't do is prevent women from controlling their own bodies and their own lives, and choosing whether or when they will have children.

When it's all said and done, that's the bottom line.
I salute Granny and other right-minded folks who still have the patience to try and reason with you.
I've become bored with it, myself.
I find your relentless shrillness, hysteria, and hostility incredibly tedious.

Now you sound like aquapub! Losers? I entered this debate because granny was claiming that unborn homosapiens don't qualify as humans. Neither you or her has brought forward any evidence to support that claim and the entire field of taxonomy disagrees with Granny's assertion.

Furthermore the very idea that Granny must insist that the unborn aren't humans speaks volumes about her beliefs. Killing an "it" is okay cause it's not human. Except that she's freaking deluding herself because the unborn living and residing in the womb of a homosapien is also a homosapien!

Just because a woman wants to abort that doesn't mean the living organism in her womb magically morphs into some other species.

Granny's attempts are to make the human fetus less than human so her mind can accept abortion on terms that are false. At least have the balls to face your own beliefs for exactly what they are.

Yeah we're losers! :roll:

I pity you and your lame attempts.

 

[talloulou]

It is only your opinion that it is the "right thing" for a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion can be the most responsible thing for a woman to do. While I am opposed to abortion for sex selection, I still would not want that woman forced to bear the child she doesn't want. People who only want children of one sex shouldn't get any.

How odd? So in your mind a woman should be able to abort for any reason or no reason at all but aborting for sex selection is distasteful???? :rofl

People who only want children of one sex shouldn't get any

That makes no sense. Why is a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant right now because it is inconvenient any less distasteful than a woman with four boys who aborts because she'd prefer a girl?

If there is nothing inherently wrong with abortion than the reason for the procedure should be irrelevant. Sounds like you are saying you feel abortion should be justified and you have sympathy for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and don't find it distasteful to abort in that scenario. However you don't have sympathy for a woman who wants a girl instead of a boy.

Oh and all this talk of sex reminds me that the unborn can be sexed. A dr. can perform in vitro fertilization and make it so that all implanted eggs will be female vs male. And if these unborn are males and females to what species do they belong? Oh that's right. They're homosapiens. Humans. :lol:

 

[OKgrannie]

That's ridiculous. Of course I can. There are so many options available to women that it is not hard at all to keep from getting pregnant. !

Many women do find it hard to keep from getting pregnant. Fertility levels vary and BC doesn't work well for everyone. Some women cannot use some methods for medical reasons. A woman with an unplanned pregnancy is not necessarily stupid or irresponsible. Success with BC depends a LOT on luck.

Regardless, I can judge a woman for being a bad mother. Some womens dreams include staying out all night in the bar while their kids are at home alone with no dinner. Certainly that woman is a piece of shite and it has nothing to do with valuing her children over her so much as it has to do with recognizing her choices and priorities as selfish crapola!

It would be better for such a woman to recognize that she can not handle the demands of motherhood and abort them instead of neglecting them.

Mothers who abort can be judged for their poor choice in exactly the same manner. Deciding to kill your unborn child for convenience is a selfish dishonorable choice.

Abortion is not necessarily a poor choice in every circumstance, and no one knows that circumstance better than the pregnant woman. Pregnancy/childbirth is NOT just inconvenient. "Inconvenient" is when the phone rings while you're in the shower, "inconvenient" is when the doorbell rings while you're on the phone, "inconvenient" is when you realize you're out of vanilla in the midst of mixing a cake, etc., it doesn't BEGIN to cover pregnancy/childbirth.

 

[OKgrannie]

How odd? So in your mind a woman should be able to abort for any reason or no reason at all but aborting for sex selection is distasteful???? :rofl





That makes no sense. Why is a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant right now because it is inconvenient any less distasteful than a woman with four boys who aborts because she'd prefer a girl?

If there is nothing inherently wrong with abortion than the reason for the procedure should be irrelevant. Sounds like you are saying you feel abortion should be justified and you have sympathy for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and don't find it distasteful to abort in that scenario. However you don't have sympathy for a woman who wants a girl instead of a boy.

Oh and all this talk of sex reminds me that the unborn can be sexed. A dr. can perform in vitro fertilization and make it so that all implanted eggs will be female vs male. And if these unborn are males and females to what species do they belong? Oh that's right. They're homosapiens. Humans. :lol:

You're right about my sympathies, but I would not disallow abortion, as the fetus is unwanted FOR ANY REASON, the child would be unwanted also, and suffer as a result.