Abort or die?

[HAL_9000]

Abortion is, in almost every case, and by definition, a mistake. The baby is not the mistake, the baby is just the evidence a mistake was made by two people fucking.

No letting her carry her crack/heroin addicted baby from who knows what John to full term would be a mistake:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Jaupib_rSiE/TpedUgW6g5I/AAAAAAAAO5g/T-IoklOyocM/s1600/faces%252Bof%252Bmeth_35.jpg

 

[coachdb18]

So aborting 57th trimester deer is fine. Check. Life is sacred and God has a plan unless they're deer. God hates deer.

So you wanna try McDonalds or Lowes Foods for murder, be my guest...

 

[Recidiva]

So you wanna try McDonalds or Lowes Foods for murder, be my guest...

"We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor we're aware of."

 

[coachdb18]

"We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor we're aware of."

Coulda sworn that was the IRS...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Well, I took the challenge, and was surprised. It seems that when the onion is peeled back, there are more deaths that can be attributed to to abortion or as a sequalae of abortion than anyone thought possible.

Abortion Related Deaths Compared to Childbirth Related Deaths


My story: The woman I dated through college became pregnant shortly before I left to join the Navy. I asked her to marry me, but she declined, wanting an abortion instead. I pleaded with her to have the child and either give it to me or give it up for adoption. I asked her to marry me, which is something I wanted to do anyway. This was just months after Roe v Wade. She was adamant. I paid for the abortion. We both immediately regretted it. She sent me a "Dear John" while I was in Boot Camp. That was in 1974. To cope, I named the child, I am sure that she would have been female, and a beauty, and I ask for her forgiveness often. I ran into the my former girlfriend by accident last year. She has not yet come to grips with her depression, and continues to be miserable. We talked for hours, and I suggested that she get some help. I hope that she does.

Hello motherfucker, my name is RobDownSouth and it's time to take your abortion-funding ass to school.

Your first link, by the anti-choice "we care experts" is a house of cards. It claims that one percent of all depression suicides are directly attributable to post-abortion depression.

Unfortunately (for you), the author of this "research", a quack named Phyllis Coleman, gets her statistics about abortion-related depression from another paper she wrote in 2009.

Coleman's 2009 research was shown to group women who suffered from depression BEFORE THEY EVEN GOT PREGNANT with the tiny sliver of the female population who actually do suffer from depression after an abortion in order to have her data fit her preconceived conclusions.

This was confirmed in 2010 by researchers who were unable to replicate Coleman's findings.

In February 2012, the Journal of Psychiatric Research, which originally published Coleman's erroneous research, published this statement "This is not a scholarly difference of opinion; their facts were flatly wrong. This was an abuse of the scientific process to reach conclusions that are not supported by the data."

Here's a great link exposing Coleman for the scientific fraud she is.

So, please, take your "scholarly research",
shine it up real good,
turn it sideways,
and stick it up your squid ass.

....and thank your ex-girlfriend for me the next time you see her. The world owes her a debt of gratitude for not propagating your rancid DNA.

 

[HAL_9000]

The anti-abortion people should at least want more welfare.

Don't they ever watch "Who's the Daddy", aka Maury?

 

[mustang200]

Hello motherfucker, my name is RobDownSouth and it's time to take your abortion-funding ass to school.

Your first link, by the anti-choice "we care experts" is a house of cards. It claims that one percent of all depression suicides are directly attributable to post-abortion depression.

Unfortunately (for you), the author of this "research", a quack named Phyllis Coleman, gets her statistics about abortion-related depression from another paper she wrote in 2009.

Coleman's 2009 research was shown to group women who suffered from depression BEFORE THEY EVEN GOT PREGNANT with the tiny sliver of the female population who actually do suffer from depression after an abortion in order to have her data fit her preconceived conclusions.

This was confirmed in 2010 by researchers who were unable to replicate Coleman's findings.

In February 2012, the Journal of Psychiatric Research, which originally published Coleman's erroneous research, published this statement "This is not a scholarly difference of opinion; their facts were flatly wrong. This was an abuse of the scientific process to reach conclusions that are not supported by the data."

Here's a great link exposing Coleman for the scientific fraud she is.

So, please, take your "scholarly research",
shine it up real good,
turn it sideways,
and stick it up your squid ass.

....and thank your ex-girlfriend for me the next time you see her. The world owes her a debt of gratitude for not propagating your rancid DNA.

Ohhhhhhh, I'm hulled between wind and water. Should I faint away? Piss off, asshole.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ohhhhhhh, I'm hulled between wind and water. Should I faint away? Piss off, asshole.

Curl up and die, matey.

 

[mustang200]

Curl up and die, matey.

Did you write that, or have to look it up in a comic book?

 

[coachdb18]

I agree.

I also think the typical pro-lifer doesnt really want define life at conception, they simply want to prevent women from choosing to not have a child.

Most of us I suspect detest the expectation that abortion is a legitimate form of birth control, with many women just getting repetitive abortions for this purpose. Perhaps there needs to be a simple requirement that abortion be in conjunction with a tubal ligation. It is not too much to expect if there is no desire to have a child.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

There's probably a magic deer or something that appeared in a vision and told him hunting was totally cool.

That would be his patronus, right?

http://images.wikia.com/harrypotter/images/8/83/Harry_Potters'_Patronus.jpg

 

[RobDownSouth]

Welcome back my friends to teh show that never ends....

Did you write that, or have to look it up in a comic book?

♫♫ We would like it to be known...
the invective that is thrown...
is exclusively our own....
all our own, all our own ♫♫

♫♫ Performing on a stool
is that Mustang who's a fool
Watch him sucking off a mule...
what a tool, what a tool... ♫♫

 

[dolf]

I propose mandatory reversible sterilization of all women before they experience their first menses.

This is not a sexist position, just statistically logical.

Then, in order for the sterilization to be reversed, the woman would have to provide proof of responsibility including marriage.

Problem solved.

the cheapest way would be to do it to men. far less invasive & risky too. you can do it under a local and have him home in a couple of hours.
the cost of doing this to women would just be far too high. and the risks of complication are a lawyer's wet dream.

 

[mustang200]

♫♫ We would like it to be known...
the invective that is thrown...
is exclusively our own....
all our own, all our own ♫♫

♫♫ Performing on a stool
is that Mustang who's a fool
Watch him sucking off a mule...
what a tool, what a tool... ♫♫

Gosh, Robbie, I'm impressed. What website did you steal that from?

 

[mustang200]

This is what a fetus looks like at twelve weeks gestation. Is it human? I'll leave that for you to decide. It certainly is not just a collection of indiscriminate cells, though.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/564728_10151128454263688_2015611844_n.jpg

 

[dolf]

sure.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is what a fetus looks like at twelve weeks gestation. Is it human? I'll leave that for you to decide. It certainly is not just a collection of indiscriminate cells, though.

<erroneous picture of model babby snipped>

Snopes on the "12-week-old babby model" that anti-abortion sites are promoting.

14 weeks can be 12 weeks if you really really want it to be, but hai, let's not quibble.

There are actually six separate arguments that comprise the abortion debate:

1. Is it alive?
2. Is it human?
3. Is it a person?
4. Is it physically independent?
5. Does it have human rights?
6. Is abortion murder?

Let's see if we can find some common ground here.

1. Is it alive? My answer is yes.

2. Is it human? Again, I'll answer yes.

3. Is it a person? No, it's a "potential person", which is both separate and distinct from a "person", inasmuch as an acorn is distinct from an oak tree.

4. Is it physically independent? Absolutely not. A fetus is dependent upon another human being for nutrients and oxygen. It's worth noting that many of the anti-abortion folks raise the false equivalency that because a newborn infant is also dependent upon another for nutrients and oxygen, a fetus should be considered the functional equivalent of a newborn. This shows an inability to distinguish between the concepts of "physical independence" and "social independence". Social independence is where a child depends on society to feed, clothe and nuture him/her. Physical independence, on the other hand, is when something depends on the physical body of another for its continued existence. This seems to be a point you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

5. Does it have human rights? A qualified yes. A human fetus has rights to the extent that the do not infringe upon the rights of another, in this case the woman carrying the fetus. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body, because one will automatically have veto power over the other, and by definition this precludes "equal rights".

6. Is abortion murder? No. It's only murder when it's an independent person. Infants, even premature infants, are considered "independent" of their mother and are accorded full human rights.

As you can see, Mustang is narrowly focused on one of the six questions, his unspoken premise is of course that his is the soooperior argument.

I challenge Mustang to address all 6 questions.

caveat: I took this 6-position questionaire from elroy.net, sadly no longer available (they had much more detailed answers than I gave).

 

[mustang200]

Its fun watching Robbie cycle on station.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Maxi-Derp

Its fun watching Robbie cycle on station.

Just like I suspected, mustang200 cannot or will not rise to teh challenge. (Amicus did the same thing, so musty is in good company).

He just wants to save babbies now.

"Do as I say, not as I did!"

 

[mustang200]

12 weeks, 14 weeks, does it really make a difference? And you believe Snopes? They've been caught in so many lies when they attempted to advance their Progressivism that they no longer have any creditability. And neither do you, if you continue to rely on them.

I'm answering Robbies 6 questions for this specific baby. You can then infer from there my answer for the general question.

Is it alive? Probably, though I doubt that it will be for long.

Is it human? There is not a doubt in my mind that it is fully human.

Is it a person? It is fully a human person, with all of its constitutional rights, assuming that it was born here in the good ol' USA.

Is it physically independent? That depends on how you define independent. It is independent of the mother's uterus. It will not be fully independent of its parents until emancipation some 18 - 20 years later. 26 years later under Obama, but we'll save that for another time. Robbie calls this poor unfortunate child (I think that we can all agree on that, can't we) physically dependent on its mother. That tie, for good or ill, has been severed. What Robbie is arguing for here is a slippery slope, leading to retroactive abortions. If, after a few years, you don't like your kid, or it interferes with your life style, not problem, abort it. It is not fully a person, yet. On the other hand, there might be some use for that idea. We might be able to agree on some politicians for retroactive abortion....

Does it have human rights? Of course.

Is abortion murder? Yes. Curious that Robbie gives this an unqualified "No," but there have been many cases when perps have been successfully prosecuted for murder when the pregnant woman has been shot in the abdomen and survives, but the "unorganized lump of tissue without any rights" that is growing in her uterus does not survive. Clearly that lump of tissue is thought of as human and has rights, otherwise the charge would not have been murder.

Caution, Robbie's spin cycle is approaching.

 

[RobDownSouth]

12 weeks, 14 weeks, does it really make a difference? And you believe Snopes? They've been caught in so many lies when they attempted to advance their Progressivism that they no longer have any creditability. And neither do you, if you continue to rely on them.

I'm answering Robbies 6 questions for this specific baby. You can then infer from there my answer for the general question.

Awwww....don't like Snopes? How about a fundie website chuckling over giving these dolls...and your picture DOES show a doll...for Halloween presents? LINK

Is it alive? Probably, though I doubt that it will be for long.

Nope, it's plastic. If it was real, you'd see a huge hole for an umbilical cord and the fetus' skin would be transparent. But translucent clear skin looks a bit creepy and wouldn't provoke teh 'awwww....what a cute babby" reaction that teh fundies want.....

In any event, there is this pesky concept called 'viability'. 'Viability" does not occur before 20 weeks EVAR, with 23 weeks the minimum gestation period for a viable fetus without mental retardation. A 12 week fetus cannot survive independently of its mother, period.

Is it human? There is not a doubt in my mind that it is fully human.

Yay, we found something to agree on!

Is it a person? It is fully a human person, with all of its constitutional rights, assuming that it was born here in the good ol' USA.

A fetus by definition is something that hasn't been "born" yet. Nice deflection attempt though! Derp!

Is it physically independent? That depends on how you define independent. It is independent of the mother's uterus. It will not be fully independent of its parents until emancipation some 18 - 20 years later. 26 years later under Obama, but we'll save that for another time. Robbie calls this poor unfortunate child (I think that we can all agree on that, can't we) physically dependent on its mother. That tie, for good or ill, has been severed. What Robbie is arguing for here is a slippery slope, leading to retroactive abortions. If, after a few years, you don't like your kid, or it interferes with your life style, not problem, abort it. It is not fully a person, yet. On the other hand, there might be some use for that idea. We might be able to agree on some politicians for retroactive abortion....

Look up at my answer about the distinction between "physical" independence and "social" independence and marvel at babby killer's inability to distinguish between the two separate and distinct concepts.

Does it have human rights? Of course.

As I said, these rights are not absolute. Like I mentioned above, who decides the tie-breaker when the fetus' rights conflict with those of the mother?

Is abortion murder? Yes. Curious that Robbie gives this an unqualified "No," but there have been many cases when perps have been successfully prosecuted for murder when the pregnant woman has been shot in the abdomen and survives, but the "unorganized lump of tissue without any rights" that is growing in her uterus does not survive. Clearly that lump of tissue is thought of as human and has rights, otherwise the charge would not have been murder.

The mother, and the mother alone, has sole discretion as to whether or not to bring the fetus to term. The Supreme Court said so in PP v. Danforth.

Congress, in its wisdom, has declared that anyone interfering with a mother's decision can be prosecuted for murder.

These are very separate, very distinct concepts, despite your best efforts to co-mingle them.

Caution, Robbie's spin cycle is approaching.

I prefer to think of it as "educating your ignorant ass" but let's not quibble.

 

[mustang200]

ummmm Robbie, fetus, by definition, is "little baby," or did you fail Latin, too? Only dweebs like you make the distinction, and only to aswage your conscience, if you have one.

Since you have lost the moral argument, you feel the necessity to attack the messenger, like the true lefty that you are.

I admit that I was sucked in by the pretty picture, but that does not negate the larger argument now, does it?

I'm glad that you agree that it is human. Since it is human, why do you argue that it has no rights?

I was arguing that what I took to be a preemie in the photo was fully human and had all of its rights. But, since we both agree that a fetus in the womb (uterus) is fully human, it too has all of its rights. By the way, they are God-given, and cannot be taken away by man.

I fully understand your distinction between physical and social dependence. It is a distinction without a difference.

The Supremes are not infallible. Read Dred Scott.

 

[HAL_9000]

the cheapest way would be to do it to men. far less invasive & risky too. you can do it under a local and have him home in a couple of hours.
the cost of doing this to women would just be far too high. and the risks of complication are a lawyer's wet dream.

Cheaper individually.

But statistically inferior. You see, many men have the potential to impregnate one woman. You "take out" one man, and there are many others waiting in line to take his place. You take out a woman's ability to procreate, and you effectively take out her entire line of suitors, as well.

 

[Liar]

Cheaper individually.

But statistically inferior. You see, many men have the potential to impregnate one woman. You "take out" one man, and there are many others waiting in line to take his place. You take out a woman's ability to procreate, and you effectively take out her entire line of suitors, as well.

Because that's the only woman they can find?

Sorry, not seeing the logic.

 

[RobDownSouth]

ummmm Robbie, fetus, by definition, is "little baby," or did you fail Latin, too? Only dweebs like you make the distinction, and only to aswage your conscience, if you have one.

Here in America, where we speak English motherfucker , the generally accepted definition of fetus is "An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception".

...but that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

Since you have lost the moral argument, you feel the necessity to attack the messenger, like the true lefty that you are.

I'm not "attacking the messenger", I'm refudiating your pathetic unfocused arguments one incoherent statement at a time. And I fail to see you presenting a quote moral unquote argument anywhere.

I admit that I was sucked in by the pretty picture, but that does not negate the larger argument now, does it?

Apology accepted.

I'm glad that you agree that it is human. Since it is human, why do you argue that it has no rights?

Who said the fetus has "no rights"? I certainly didn't, that's you putting words in my mouth. I said a fetus has rights that are subordinate to those of the mother, for reasons I explained above.

I was arguing that what I took to be a preemie in the photo was fully human and had all of its rights. But, since we both agree that a fetus in the womb (uterus) is fully human, it too has all of its rights. By the way, they are God-given, and cannot be taken away by man.

You reach a conclusion not supported by your argument. Your logic seems to be If fetus and babies are human, and all humans have rights, then both have rights. Does your dead great-great-grandfather have rights? I would argue that he does not, that his rights terminated upon his death. Likewise, a fetus has limted rights (which I explained above, which you ignored) until it has been born. To summarize: complete human rights begin at birth and terminate at death.

I fully understand your distinction between physical and social dependence. It is a distinction without a difference.

I recognize that you most likely sucked on your mother's breasts until you were well into your teens, but that's an exception rather than the rule.

Most people can comprehend the difference between physical independence and social independence as I explained above. Naturally, since it doesn't fit your narrative, you claim it is a "distinction without a difference".

I'm not sure if that statement is the result of willful ignorance or natural ignorance.

The Supremes are not infallible. Read Dred Scott.

So if I understand you correctly, it's okay for you to make wildly implausible legal arguments ("mothers and criminals can both murder babbies") which the Supreme Court categorically said was not the case.

I never said that the Supreme Court was infallible. I simply pointed out that, as of today, your specious legal conjecture has been rejected by the highest legal authority in this country.

So far, my friend, you've given us a pastiche of far-right talking points, and very little cogent thought to back up your position. Let's see if your inevitable reply to this post has a bit more substance, m'kay?