The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Ghouls

August 17, 2005 | 190 Comments

I call a cease-fire in the battle for Julia Sweeney’s soul to lend my enthusiastic support for Project MaxDawn Eden’s commendable campaign to publicize Planned Parenthood Golden Gate’s reprehensible pro-abortion animation, A Superhero for Choice. Although PPGG has apparently removed the cartoon from its site, you can view the abomination at any of the links listed here and/or read the full transcript here.

I have argued previously that the slogan “pro-choice is not pro-abortion” and the notion of “abortion neutrality” are largely myths. Since PPGG receives approximately $1.5 million to perform over 3,000 abortions (estimates drawn from the California State Attorney General’s records and PPGG’s Annual report), it is at the very least pro-abortion in the way that a pizzeria is pro-pizza. And PPGG’s cartoon certainly dispels any doubts about the mindset confronting any expectant woman who might walk through its doors.

In the opening seconds of the presentation “Dian” (who soon turns into the superhero “Dianysis”) provides a few examples illustrating how very trivial the organization deems the “choice” to terminate a pregnancy:

Every day you and I are faced with about a million different opportunities to make a choice. Like I choose to eat organic vegetables, or I choose to stop at a red light, or I choose to root for the Giants and not those Bushleaguers from Los Angeles.

(Emphasis supplied). Why PPGG considers compliance with basic traffic safety laws to be optional is mystifying, but it typifies the lawless amorality that follows — Dianysis’ slaughter of concededly peaceful and non-violent clinic protestors. Yes, I suppose it’s all tongue-in-cheek, and no, I don’t consider it incitement to murder. But the message is clear enough: the abortion decision has no actual moral content and those who believe otherwise are (as portrayed in the cartoon) foolish, grunting ghouls.

The cartoon cannot be dismissed as an mere aberration or accident. It plainly represents the official policy of PPGG, and was funded out of its $20 million budget. The protagonist “Dian” is deliberately modeled after the organization’s president, Dian Harrison. To date, Planned Parenthood’s national organization has not renounced it or even commented on it.

For nearly a year I have volunteered for a Crisis Pregnancy Clinic. It provides medical assistance, shelter, diapers, toys and other supplies for new and expectant mothers. Some of its clients are recruited from in front of abortion clinics by the “ghouls” so ignorantly portrayed in Superhero. But as demonstrated by the baby pictures lining the CPC’s walls, their “victims” join the ranks of the living rather than the dead.

Comments

190 Responses to “Ghouls”

  1. worldcitizen
    August 17th, 2005 @ 10:48 am

    I have argued previously that the slogan

  2. DamnRight
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:10 am

    The “pro-abortion” lobby has co-opted the “pro-choice” label… fact is, the “anti-abortion” lobby are the true “pro-choiceers”… they are the ones suggesting there are other choices… “pro-abortionists” offer only 1 choice… it’s a great example of trying to show yourselves in the best light possible…

  3. a different tim
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:38 am

    Kind of like the anti abortionists claiming to be “pro life” then planting bombs near clinics in order to..duh..kill people? That kind of showing yourself in the best light?

    To be honest, I’m unhappy about this one. I’m male. This means that I am unlikely to suffer the pain of childbirth or the agony of termination. But it seems to me that both RA and PPGG are assuming that pregnant women are unable to make their own moral choices and must be guided by us ‘cos we’re so much smarter than them. I think this assumption sucks.

    I guess according to RA this makes me pro death or something. So be it.

  4. Sean
    August 17th, 2005 @ 12:17 pm

    We need a poll of atheist RA readers who are “pro-life”. I’m one, but there appears to be few others. It seems to me that because most pro-lifers tend to be on the evangelical side of the religious spectrum, atheists tend to take the opposite view in spite of them. It

  5. the elissawainian
    August 17th, 2005 @ 12:28 pm

    I hear you Tim. Honestly I’m not sure what to make of this. For someone who claims they examine: “The Culture of Belief: How Religious Devotion Trivializes American Law and Politics” I find the misrespresentation of this video (which I watched) and of Planned Parenthood to be disturbing. A word to the wise Ms. “atheist” – any type of devotion ruled and fueled beliefs and emotion trivializes our political structure. You are way too conveniently moral to be a true athiest. And the ease by which you follow other bloggers leads me to believe you are ripe for the next evangelical who comes alongs picking.

  6. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 12:33 pm

    I’m one of those mythical people RA says don’t exist. I am against abortion in general. Under most circumstances, if asked, I would counsel a woman not to have an abortion because I think it is a decision she will regret for the rest of her life. If my son got a girl pregnant, I would do what I could to discourage an abortion, and would help support the resulting child, if necessary, or even raise it myself. However, I’m not willing to concede the very personal decision about an abortion to the State. If for example, my wife were pregnant with a severely deformed fetus, and the consequences of having and raising this child was likely to severely and negatively impact the lives of my already living children, I would want my wife to be able to make the decision that is in the best interest of her entire family, and not just the fetus, so in that sense, I am “pro-abortion.”

  7. ashli
    August 17th, 2005 @ 12:51 pm

    not willing to concede the moral decision to the state? hahaha! that’s ridiculous. abortion ends the life of a human child. the state already makes the moral decision for people who want to kill their (born) children. there are still those who want to kill their (born) children and do in spite of it. the state doesn’t give people the personal moral choice to kill their (born) children because it’s a terrible thing to do. children who are only hidden by a few inches of maternal flesh should be protected by law. “you’re in my body so i have the right to rip your head off,” is pretty pathetic logic.

  8. Eric
    August 17th, 2005 @ 1:21 pm

    Like worldcitizen said, you are full of shit, RA. I would love to see more smiling faces on the CPC walls as well, and if I were a woman I hope that is the choice I could make, but as a man it will never be my body at issue. Up to a point (which point is the better argument) I don’t see abortion as any more a moral issue than birth control, which is already under a mans control, if he takes some initiative. The groups that are anti-birth control as well as anti-abortion seem exclusively motivated by religion instead of logic, morals, or practical reality. (and the “abstinence” groups are just deluded)
    I have only seen clinic protesters on TV, so I might be watching a sub-set, but they didn’t seem non-violent if you count physiological attacks.
    Condescending self-righteous judgement about the ability of women to make their own decisions about their own lives is easier to justify if you have a god on your side (and about the only way if you are a man) so it always surprizes me to find atheists in the “pro-life” camp.
    I guess this does help the argument that atheism isn’t a life philosophy.

  9. leon
    August 17th, 2005 @ 1:23 pm

    Project Max

  10. Graham
    August 17th, 2005 @ 1:30 pm

    That video is stunning in its hubris. The part where the “hero” kills the anti-abortion demonstraitors is appaling.

    I am an agnostic who doubts the validity of our abortion laws, and I applaud RA for standing up for what he/she believes in. No doubt 90% of this sites readers (the anti-religion ones anyway) are pro-choice, and RA is taking a risk in repeatedly coming out with these anti-abortion posts.

    The anti-abortion camp is not trying to take away anyones’s choices. They are trying to defend individuals (fetuses) whom they see as citizens under the protection of the state. I know that it is human nature to frame one’s opponents in the context that most demonizes them, but the idea that anti-abortion adovocates are “anti-choice” is ridiculous. Of course, it’s mean-spirited to label pro-abortionists as “anti-life” as well.

  11. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 1:34 pm

    Just more chick hate. Same shit different day.

  12. Chris
    August 17th, 2005 @ 1:50 pm

    Elissawainian, I’m curious to hear what exactly you found to be a “misrepresentation of the video.”

    Also, your statement, “…any type of devotion ruled and fueled beliefs and emotion trivializes our political structure. You are way too conveniently moral to be a true athiest. And the ease by which you follow other bloggers leads me to believe you are ripe for the next evangelical who comes alongs picking.”

    Hmm, sounds like an emotional statement fueled by your own personal belief. Or maybe you’re just being judgemental because as you say on your own blog you “have self esteem issues and I always try to act tough so my feelings don’t just get stomped on in the end.”

    I apologise if I hurt your feelings by calling you on this.

  13. franky
    August 17th, 2005 @ 1:59 pm

    One: A Superhero for Choice was about the shittiest idea that Planned Parenthood could have every achieved. Honestly, someone needs to be fired for something as incomprehensibly stupid as that. I also agree that they trivialized the notion of an abortion as “just another choice”.

    Two: Being a young parent, whether male or female is extremely difficult. Having (and still am) been in that situation where you are faced with a life-altering circumstance, I gotta admit, abortion was looking very attractive. We (my wife and I) chose not to, but it was the most difficult choice of our entire life. Not only raising a child while going to college, but also dealing with the stigma of being a teen parent. The people that are protesting outside of abortion clinics are hardly “peacefule”. They are antagonistic and judgemental. I’ve had to experience it firsthand. They make an already difficuly desicion, that much harder.

    That was a long rant, but the long lost point that I was trying to make is that all this talk is great and I commend the effort in what looks like a worthy cause like PPGG, but at the end of the day, it’s the expectant mother’s decision. She’s the one that’s going to have to wake up in the middle of the night to deal with a crying child. She’s the one that’s going to have to deal with the stigma of being a single (oftentimes) teen mother. She’s the one that’s going to have to sacrifice, not you. It’s her choice, and one that she is going to have to live with and not you.

  14. Frank
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:04 pm

    The notion that the decision to abort or not is the woman’s entirely is ridiculous. The old saying, “It takes two to tango,” applies very well here. No woman ever got pregnant by herself. A man was a contributing factor in the equation every time. The child in question is not the woman’s alone it is also the man’s. He has just as much right on the decision as to the fate of the child as she does.

    It always amazes me that a woman who reserves for herself the right to “choose” and then delivers a baby can file a paternity suit to force a man to pay for expenses and live up to his responsibility as the father. That’s crap. You can’t have it both ways. If the man is responsible after birth he’s responsible before birth and in both cases has every right to be an equal part in the important decisions.

  15. Sparki
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:09 pm

    As feminist author Fredericka Matthews-Greene once wrote, “Women choose abortion the way an animal caught in a trap chooses to gnaw off its own leg.”

    I hear some of you guys thinking you’re being all noble in saying, “It’s her body…it’s her choice.” Dude, a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy needs to know whether the father of her child going to be around or not. Staying out of it and saying, “It’s up to you,” might as well be running out the door. If you’re willing to lie in the bed you made (as the commendable Franky is), then tell her you’ll be a father to the child and ask her how together you can make the choice to have the baby possible. If not, please keep your pants zipped so you’re not helping cause the problem of unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

    Franky, you are a great guy. Sorry about the stigma — it’s not fair for people to look down on you when you’ve sacrificed so much to parent this child the two of you created.

  16. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:10 pm

    Frank said:

    It always amazes me that a woman who reserves for herself the right to “choose” and then delivers a baby can file a paternity suit to force a man to pay for expenses and live up to his responsibility as the father.

    I agree, if both parties don’t want the child the woman should terminate the pregnancy – however, if the man wants the child he should not be able to force another person to take the child to term anymore than he should be required by the state to donate blood if someone is ill and he has the right blood type.

  17. freethought
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:15 pm

    RA – how very rational of you to claim potentiality is actuality.
    Whatever respect you were building in my view has vanished.
    Pathetic!

  18. a different tim
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:22 pm

    Alisha said “Abortion ends the life of a human child”.
    Well, that’s arguable. In fact us “pro death” people (Can’t be neutral, AR says so) would argue that precise point, at least in the case of an early term fetus. I’ll argue it if you like (tomorrow – I’m about to go cook my supper – it’s food time here in the UK. I’m having fetus on toast if you’re interested). And because it is arguable I would leave the moral choice to the mother to be.
    I repeat that pregnant women are, in my experience, capable of thought and don’t need me or anyone else to order them about which is why in point 3 above I felt that all this – I can think of no other word for it – bullying of pregnant women by both sides is so objectionable.
    Yeah, ok, the father is involved as well. But he’s not the one carrying the fetus is he? is Frank trying to uphold the right of prospective fathers to force women to have abortions? I assume not but that’s the logical inference from his post. I may be “pro death” but I’m not that pro death…..

  19. a different tim
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:23 pm

    sorry. Ashli. I meant ashli.

  20. leon
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:24 pm

    ashli said:
    not willing to concede the moral decision to the state? hahaha! that’s ridiculous. abortion ends the life of a human child.

    Good point ashli. Because actually you are not really conceding to the moral decision of the state but to the

  21. exmoron
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:46 pm

    I’m really kind of shocked by this post… for several reasons. First, I agree that the PPGG video wasn’t very tasteful. Who ever came up with that script should be fired. But that aside, why would any right thinking person want to limit anyone else’s reproductive rights? It simply makes no sense to me. Let me give a couple of reasons:

    1) My wife is a genetic counselor. Part of her job (on a daily basis) is to see patients who are pregnant with children that have horrific genetic conditions, conditions such that the child is almost 100% guaranteed to die within days, weeks, months, or, at most, a couple of years. From a purely pragmatic stance, an abortion costs about $2500 (depending on where you live, etc.). To keep the infant with the serious health problems alive in many cases costs upwards of $100,000-$200,000. And the quality of life for that child? Non-existent. It suffers until it dies. You honestly want me to believe it makes sense to not allow women to abort that child? That’s just stupid!

    2) At what point does life stop mattering? I ask this because I’m assuming RA is not opposed to birth control. Sperm and eggs are alive. When do we begin outlawing masturbation (“every sperm is sacred”)? When do we begin harvesting women’s eggs so they can’t “waste” them by not getting pregnant during their monthly cycles? When do we begin worrying about the daily sloughing of skin cells, cutting our hair and toenails, etc.? In all honesty, what’s the difference between throwing away ejaculate and aborting a zygote? Where do you draw the line? Can you abort a child at 1 week, 2 weeks, or never?

    3) You may or may not have seen the recent Nova special on James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. In it his views on abortion and genetic engineering are laid bare. He is all for both. He advocates abortion when the child is going to be born with a disadvantage, going so far as to advocate aborting children with Down’s Syndrome (a position with which I agree 100%). Why? Because they are a net negative when it comes to contributing to human society. He also advocates genetic engineering because he recognizes that humans are animals, just like any other animal, and that through willful manipulations, we can take part in evolution. Whether that will have positive or negative consequences, no one knows. But how will we know unless we try it? Sometimes you have to push just a little past the breaking point in order to make significant discoveries.

    4) Is RA (and the other anti-choice people on the board) not aware of the problems that go along with outlawing abortion? When you outlaw a safe medical practice, you push it into the less reputable areas of society. That’s when you get coat-hanger abortions and women drinking acids to kill their unborn children. Look at the statistics; the number of women who have died due to complications with pregnancy have declined significantly in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade passed, in large part because they are no longer turning to black-market doctors for abortions.

    5) I don’t know any pro-choice people who advocate abortions! Most advocate birth control and smart decisions, and only encourage abortions when absolutely necessary. Abortion should not be a primary means of birth control; it is difficult on women’s bodies and far more dangerous than condoms, the pill, IUDs, etc. No pro-choice people advocate abortion, they simply don’t want the last ditch option to be removed (see all of the reasons above).

    I simply don’t see how a rational thinking person can advocate taking away an essential medical procedure. That’s insane!

  22. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:54 pm

    Ex

  23. Sean
    August 17th, 2005 @ 2:54 pm

    RA is a guy. So “Ms. ‘atheist'” is off, it is Mr. “Atheist” to you Ms “the elissawainian” the “conveniently moral” atheist. How dou you define true atheist anyway?

  24. DAJ
    August 17th, 2005 @ 3:04 pm

    I could’nt have said it better exmoron. I’ve been a practicing OB/GYN for 30 years and have seen it all. RA and most other “pro lifers” have no clue what happens on a daily basis in a gyn office. From IVF to tubal ligation to counselling the daughter of the fundamentalist preacher about her STD (she got it without intercourse), every (and i do mean every) situation is different and unique. For RA or anyone else to presume that they can make decisions for these folks is laughable. Yes they make choices, but often these young folks make questionable ones.

  25. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 3:10 pm

    Ashli: “not willing to concede the moral decision to the state? hahaha! that’s ridiculous. abortion ends the life of a human child.”

    Well, Ashli, as is typical of those people with an agenda, especially a religious one, you paraphrased what you wanted to respond to and not what I actually said. The fact is, I said “personal” decision, not “moral” decision. I didn’t use the world “moral” even once in my entire statement, and this was on purpose. If you want to take the moral high ground, why don’t you start by being honest?

    All of your moral posturing comes down to the assertion that a fertilzed egg is a child: it’s not. When does a fetus become a child? I don’t know. When does a child become an adult? When they can legally give consent to sexual relations at 16 (in some states) and get a driver’s liscense? When they are eligible for the draft, or can volunteer to kill other people, or be killed themselves? At 21, when they can legally drink alcohol (in most states)? There is no exact point when all children become adults so the law makes a decision that balances competing interests.

    I realize we can go nowhere with this debate, since your position is that a fertilized egg is a child, and my position is that it’s not. The only reason I bothered to respond to you is to correct your dishonest interpretation of my remarks.

  26. Sydney Carton
    August 17th, 2005 @ 3:25 pm

    exmoron,

    1. What is the price of your life? If you break a leg, can we kill you? If you suffer a debilitating combat wound, can we kill you? Perhaps we should end funding for 911, ambulance services, and heck, emergancy rooms altogether. We’re talking billions here that can be saved just by funneling all money into preventive measures. But if something happens to you, like cancer, AIDS, or an accident – forget it – it’s not worth the money.

    2. At what point does life stop mattering? Well, based on your first point – when it gets too expensive, obviously. But a greater point is raised by your question – a newborn baby is really no different than a preborn baby at 8 or 9 months. So infanticide is obviously ok. And maybe we can bring it up to 5-6 years. After all, WHERE do you draw the line? The question answers itself – it cannot be drawn. So don’t draw it.

    3. “Sometimes you have to push just a little past the breaking point in order to make significant discoveries.” I think it was Lenin who said, you can’t make an omlet without breaking some eggs. Yay for eugenics! All those fat, overweight, ugly, stupid people – they’re just fodder now. After all, they just “suffer until they die,” and “at what point does life stop mattering?” We’d be doing them a favor to get rid of them, and think of the savings and benefits to society! Woo hoo! Hope you’re tall enough, and preferably blond, blue eyed, and with big bozankas. Let’s be frank, EQUAL rights? People really aren’t EQUAL, since everyone’s different. Screw that outdated concept. Humans are just animals, like cows. So let’s end insurance for the sick, disabled, the short, fat, and the ugly, and the mentally retarted. The only people worth preserving are the beautiful, strong, rich, powerful, tall, and smart. Eugenics sure goes hand in hand with totalitarianism, but since we’re all animals anyway and at some point life stops mattering, it’ll be great! We’ll no longer suffer until we die. Want some soma?

    4. Problems with outlawing abortion? Please, there are plenty things that are LEGAL that we have problems with. Like high insurance costs, wasted government funds, and the daily nuisence of having to put up with IDIOTS who think that just because they’re “human”, they deserve the same treatment as everyone else. And the elderly too! They’ve served their purpose, they’re just taking up space, they’re only suffering, and they’re too expensive to care for. They deserve death.

    5. “5) I don’t know any pro-choice people who advocate abortions!” Except for your wife, you mean. “Most advocate birth control and smart decisions.” Well, as you said, “it’s just stupid” if you don’t abort.

    exmoron, next time you post, you might as well fisk yourself since it was too easy.

  27. worldcitizen
    August 17th, 2005 @ 3:30 pm

    I don’t know any pro-choice people who advocate abortions!

    Er, except for James Watson, who you just quoted….

    Why? Because they are a net negative when it comes to contributing to human society.

    Let’s leave eugenics out of the discussion for now, shall we? Or next thing you know, someone is going to be telling me I can’t be both pro-choice and anti-eugenics.

  28. Frank
    August 17th, 2005 @ 3:32 pm

    a different tim — I am not suggesting that a father has the right to force a woman to abort (although I can see where you got that idea from my post). What I am suggesting is that a woman hasn’t the right to abort a child when the father wants to have and raise that child. That is his child, too. Pro-abortionists like to use the slogan “every child a wanted child” … well, if the father wants the child then the child is wanted and should NOT be killed for the sake of the mother’s convenience.

  29. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 3:36 pm

    Frank, You were right the first time. Should a man be required to donate an organ against him will?

  30. Frank
    August 17th, 2005 @ 3:51 pm

    Jennifer — neither a man nor a woman should be required to donate an organ against their will. But a baby is not an organ of it’s mother. The two things are so completely unrelated I can’t believe you’d even try to draw an analogy between the two.

  31. Mookie
    August 17th, 2005 @ 3:56 pm

    exmoron, great post!

    You stole the words out of my mouth, er, fingers. It doesn’t get much more logical than that. Abortion is not a choice people WANT to make. A $.50 condom is certainly cheaper than $2500 for an abortion, or $1,000,000 to raise a child in a modern country.

    I’ve seen plenty of poor, ignorant, religious folks have kids when they were not even in a stable economic state to take care of the child, let alone themselves. The male often left the female, so she is left with her poor, ignorant, religious family to help take care of the child. They all work like dogs to avoid the repo man, which means the kid is not properly supervised. The parent(s) and grandparents do what they can to care for the child, of course, but their limited understanding of the world perpetuates idiocy, it does very little to prepare the child for functioning in a modern democracy. The child goes to school and is all angry and stupid and disgruntled because its situation is horrible. It will meet another person with a similar experience, and they will breed more poor, ignorant, and religious children. The cycle continues…

    On a larger scale, we don’t need more people anyway. Most of the pollution the world experiences is the result of people living in industrialised nations. Each person that is born in such a country produces (on average) so much pollution. Keeping the human population in check is sound environmental policy. Also, for each person that is born, just that much more natural resources are needed to care for the child, reducing everyone’s share. Each slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller the more we have to divide it.

    RA, please stop being stupid. Your assault on religious dogma is commendable, amusing, and sharp. Your assault on abortion is ridiculous, absurd, and pointless. Drop it. We like hearing about religious nutballs doing stupid things. We don’t like this nonsensical, illogical “morality” because it sounds just like what the religious nutballs believe. You can keep your backwards beliefs, just don’t post them on a site about atheism. Make another site about abortion and why you believe its wrong.

  32. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 4:01 pm

    Frank – I think you are being deliberately obtuse because you can see where this is going, but giving you the benefit of the doubt I will try again. Suppose that the day after the baby is born he requires a kidney to survive. Should the father be required by law – even if it hurts his health – to donate the kidney. After all you have required the woman to bare the child and put her health at risk. Should not the man also have that responsibilty.

    Nothing brings the sound of crickets into this argument like the suggestion of men making a sacrifice

  33. Eric Gunnerson
    August 17th, 2005 @ 4:29 pm

    I’m not for abortion. In other words, I think that a world with fewer abortions would be better than a world with more abortions. It would also be very good if there were fewer unwanted and/or under-attended children.

    I think that trying to do one without the other is pretty disturbing, and I find it amoral that some people consider the number of lives without considering the quality of such life.

    That being said, it seems obvious that you need to do things that actively reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The way to do that is contraception and sex education – the studies are pretty clear on that. But, because of certain religious beliefs, you can’t advocate contraception, and because of other beliefs, you can’t do much sex education. So, you end up complaining about abortion, but not really doing things to fix it.

    In the old days, kids that got pregnant got married. That may be better from a societal sense, but you still have a kid with young and immature parents who aren’t stable financially. Not really a solution in my book.

    It boggles my mind that, as a society, we don’t want our kids to be exposed to things involving sex or nudity on TV, but we allow murder and mayhem galore, despite the fact that we expect that our children will engage in the former and hope that they will never engage in the latter.

    I think you can agree to disagree on whether abortion should be allowed, and then discuss whether it’s possible to agree on ways to reduce the number of abortions. But that doesn’t help you raise funds or get you media time…

  34. Frank
    August 17th, 2005 @ 4:31 pm

    Jennifer — You are equating the donation of a kidney with child birth? Seriously, you need to stop making such huge leaps. You are talking about two completely different things. Women have babies every day. People donate their kidneys a bit less frequently. One of these two things is completely natural and a part of the natural order of things. The other is quite invasive. One represents a much, much bigger health risk than the other (care to venture a guess as to which one).

    But gosh, for the sake of argument I’ll answer. No, the father should not be required by law to donate his kidney, (Now pay attention, Jennifer, here comes a legitimate comparison …) but neither should a mother be required by law to donate her kidney. (See how that works? Apples to apples, so to speak.)

    Having said that I will also say that if my kidney could help my child I’d donate it in a second. Your cutsy comment about the “sound of crickets” and men making a sacrifice is just stupid. There are legions of responsible men who sacrifice every freakin’ day for their families and their children. Abortion is not a man vs. woman issue. It is a moral issue about whether or not it is okay to kill another human being. The characterization that this is a “woman’s issue” and men should butt-out because they don’t actually give birth is just plain wrong.

  35. exmoron
    August 17th, 2005 @ 4:34 pm

    worldcitizen… let me clarify one thing. By saying I don’t know any pro-choice people who advocate abortions, I’m not saying they don’t defend the right to have abortions. What I’m saying is they aren’t running around with banners screaming “abortions for everyone!” Come on! No one does that. The pro-choice position is not pro-abortion. It is exactly what it says: pro-choice (Paul Ehrlich’s book “The Stork and the Plow has a good explanation in it; read it). Ideally, no one would ever have to have abortions (I say that as a pro-choicer), as people who don’t want to have kids would have perfect success avoiding pregnancy using other forms of birth control and those who have genetic conditions would get tested before hand either themselves or their embroys (using an existing technology called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) so they have healthy kids. In short, in an ideal world, no one would need an abortion. Reality check: this is not an ideal world. People have mutant babies – fact of life. Sometimes people get pregnant when they cannot afford to take care of the child – fact of life. I say, why take away women’s right to choose whether they want the child or not, especially when there are a lot of factors to consider?

  36. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 4:34 pm

    “well, if the father wants the child then the child is wanted and should NOT be killed for the sake of the mother’s convenience.”

    I agree that children should not be killed. I bet even the most extreme pro-abortion people posting here agree that “children” should not be killed.

    Now, back to the the actual debate, where people are advocating a woman’s right to abort or “kill,” if you like that term better, a “fetus.” The consequences of allowing anti-abortion extremists to define a fertilized egg as a child, or a “human being,” will be draconian. Followed to its logical conclusion, this will prohibit any chemical means of birth control (and who knows, if this kind of extremism is accepted, perhaps all birth control); it will require that women suffering spontaneous abortions be treated like criminals, and investigated to insure they didn’t kill a “child,” (since in the modern world, things like morning after pills will still be available illegally); it will require all doctors who perform any procedure that results in termination of pregnancy, even if it isn’t an intentional abortion, to be investigated; and any woman known by acquaintances to be pregnant, who loses her fetus for any number of reasons beyond her control, and especially a woman who doesn’t satisfy “Christian” expectations of “moral propriety,” along with non-believers, and those who are not sufficiently religious, will be subject to accusations of “murder” by their Bible Thumping neighbors and relatives.

    Furthermore, if a fertilized egg is a “child,” then an abortion is premeditated murder, and the mother, and her hired killed, the doctor, should be tried for premeditated murder and executed in those states that have capital punishment. This is what all the “pro-life” people who say a fertilized egg is a human being are really advocating. What would be done with a mother that hired someone to kill her two-year old, and the hitman who did the job? All the pro-life extremists are telling us there is no difference between a two-year old and a fertilized egg. Hence, there is no justifiable reason to punish a woman who has an abortion (or the doctor who performs it) any differently than a woman who murders her two-year old or her six-year old or her thirty-year old son.

  37. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 4:36 pm

    Frank, Women put their health at risk when they have a child and your position just made it a man vs woman thing. Congratulations. ;-)

  38. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 4:38 pm

    Oh and Frank. Should he be required by law to donate blood? Tissue of any kind?

  39. Dom
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:00 pm

    Abortion is the premeditated killing of a human in its early stages of development, generally because a child is not wanted at the time. Abortion has been a common means of birth control by humans throughout recorded history, and is generally a concensual act of the mother. Outlawing of abortion has historically decreased the number of abortions and increased the number of deaths from poorly performed abortions. Such laws tend to be selectively enforced, targeting, for the most part, poor young women. The vast majority of abortions are performed before six months into the pregnancy. I have no problem with abortion. I do have a problem with coercing or forcing an unwilling woman to carry and bear a child. What does the RA think should be the legal punishment for abortion?

  40. Frank
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:00 pm

    hermesten — you are saying that the only difference between a “child” and a “fetus” is location? One split-second after birth you have a “child” but the split-second before birth you have a “fetus?” It’s okay to kill one and not the other? Here’s a flash, it’s the same thing. Where the “fetus/child” happens to be does not matter. Whether you use the word “fetus” or “child” does not matter. Check the DNA, this is a whole different person, not some “tissue mass” of the mother’s.

    Jennifer — I didn’t say child birth was not a health risk. I was there for the birth of both of my daughters and am aware of the risks. But they are natural risks and not to be equated with organ transplant surgery.

    Oh and Jennifer, just because I’m a man and happen to be on one side of this issue and you are a woman and are on the other side does not define the issue as a man vs. woman issue ;-) I could turn my argument over to my wife (she’s adamantly opposed to abortion) would that, then, make this a woman vs. woman issue?

    And, again, (please try to understand me this time) NO, there should be no law that requires a man or a woman to donate blood or tissue against their will. Clear enough?

  41. Sailorette
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:03 pm

    Basic science: a fetus is alive. A human fetus is human. Therefore, abortion ends a human life.

    If that human has any rights…. under current law, they do not, until they are entirely outside of the womb.

  42. exmoron
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:17 pm

    Sydney…
    “1. What is the price of your life? If you break a leg, can we kill you?”
    Why not address my argument instead of building a straw man? I didn’t say we should run around killing anyone we think is debilitated. Shit happens. We deal with it the best we can. But if we have the ability to prevent it, why not use it? Finally, I do believe in euthanasia for people who are terminally ill and request it or for people who are in a permanent vegetative state. It’s a pragmatic argument. Sure, boiling things down to pragmatics overlooks the emotions and what not, but I’m not trying to simplify things. What’s more, if someone doesn’t want to abort, I’m not saying they have to. If someone doesn’t want to euthanize, I’m not saying they have to. You, on the other hand, are taking away my choices. That is why the anti-choice position is abhorrent to me. You’re not protecting rights, you are taking them away.

    “2….a newborn baby is really no different than a preborn baby at 8 or 9 months. So infanticide is obviously ok. And maybe we can bring it up to 5-6 years. After all, WHERE do you draw the line? The question answers itself – it cannot be drawn. So don’t draw it.”
    I agree it is a difficult line to draw. I think “viable outside the womb” is gray enough to work, but that’s just my opinion. Where do you draw your arbitrary line? Conception? Or implantation in the uterine wall? Or is all life sacred, including sperm and eggs that are summarily discarded when conception does not occur?

    “3… Yay for eugenics! All those fat, overweight, ugly, stupid people – they’re just fodder now… Let’s be frank, EQUAL rights? People really aren’t EQUAL, since everyone’s different. Screw that outdated concept. Humans are just animals, like cows.”
    Boy you like your straw man arguments. Who here is advocating eugenics? I didn’t. No one in the field of genetics today (who is taken seriously) advocates eugenics. Since when is willing, selective breeding eugenics? Eugenics involved FORCED breeding or the removal of one’s ability to breed. Watson isn’t advocating that and neither am I. You destroyed the straw man, but avoided my argument entirely.

    “4…. Please, there are plenty things that are LEGAL that we have problems with.”
    You killed that straw man with the last point. Now, would you mind examining the statistics? Unless you can show me that Ehrlich’s statistics (read the Stork and the Plow) or any other on this point are flawed, you have no argument.

    “5… Except for your wife, you mean.”
    She gets accused of that a lot by evangelical Christians. She’s never advocated an abortion. If she did, she’d lose her job. She provides information and explains alternatives, alternatives people like you want to take away.

    “exmoron, next time you post, you might as well fisk yourself since it was too easy.”
    Stanley, next time you post, address my points instead of attacking straw man arguments. I believe since you compared me to Hitler (and Lenin), I have won the argument by default ;) (Godwin’s Law)

  43. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:18 pm

    “are you are saying that the only difference between a “child” and a “fetus” is location? One split-second after birth you have a “child” but the split-second before birth you have a “fetus?”

    No. As I said in a previous post: 1) the law must decide when a fetus becomes a child, just like it decides when a child becomes an adult, by balancing competing interests; and 2) a fertilized egg is not a child. Personally, I could accept a law that defined a fetus as a “child” in the range from about two to four months after conception –no abortions after four months, except to save the life of the mother, or in some other extreme situation related to the health of the mother or the fetus (not for birth control).

    “Here’s a flash, it’s the same thing. Where the “fetus/child” happens to be does not matter. Whether you use the word “fetus” or “child” does not matter.”

    Listen up everybody, this is exactly what I said earlier: the extreme pro-life people say there is no difference between a fertilized egg, a fetus, or a child. The logical consequences of this position are obvious. People like Frank what to imprison or execute women who have abortions. They prefer to avoid speaking to this aspect of what they seek to impose on everyone, but logically, they cannot simultaneously argue that there is no difference between a fertilized egg and a child and then argue that a mother who gets an abortion shouldn’t be executed in states where a mother who kills her five year old would be executed.

  44. DAJ
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:18 pm

    “Abortion is not a man vs. woman issue. It is a moral issue about whether or not it is okay to kill another human being.”

    Wrong, Frank. I doubt anyone here would condone “killing another human being”. That is not the issue. The real issue is what constitues a human being. Having dealt with sperm, eggs, miscarried placental tissue, blighted ovum, embryos (fresh, frozen, defrosted), blastocysts, morula, and fetus at every stage of development during my 20 yrs of practice, I have an opinion about what constitutes a “human”. It just happens to be different from yours. I doubt we will ever agree on the definition, that is the meat of the issue.

  45. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:19 pm

    Frank you are saying that a woman is worth less than the slough, but a man is not and there is nothing more sexist than that

  46. Tess
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:28 pm

    Abortion ends a potential life? No, abortion kills a life and its potential. Watching my son’s heart beating at only a few weeks gestation was incredible. He was alive, not just a “blob of tissue”. Murder isn’t a “choice”.

  47. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:33 pm

    Tess how ironic that if your child had been a girl she would have been worth less to you out of the womb than in it.

  48. eric
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:35 pm

    I guess 45 posts later it would be hard to argue to TRA that abortion is an unpopular topic on his page. Has he (she?) weighed in on sex ed, and birth control? Morning after pills? Any atheist here that are “against” birth control? Like ID, they seem to only be a debate with the truth and faith croud, but I’ve been surprized a couple times in this thread.

  49. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:46 pm

    And as Jennifer says, if people like Frank get their way, every woman who uses a chemical means of birth control will be considered a murderer. Frankly, I think a lot of this anti-abortion stuff has nothing to do with a concern for unborn children, and everything to do with reversing the “evils” of the “sexual revolution” made possible by modern means of birth control.

    Most of these people balk when you ask them how a woman who has an abortion should be punished. Few have either the logic or the courage of their convictions, or just the balls to say they support imprisoning or executing women who have abortions. I think this is partly because all this crap about a fertilized egg being a child is simply a way to attack “unapproved” sexual activity by ending the availability of birth control measures like the pill (to which a lot of our current day “promiscuity” is attributed in their literature); and partly because they know a fertilized egg and a child are not the same, and punishing women as if they are is irrational. As far as my second supposition goes, the fact that many many Bible Beaters use the birth control pill is testament to this fact, as well as to Christian hypocrisy. Also, there is no inconsistency between these two suppositions: they want the pill available to those practicing “Christian approved” sex, just not to those without a good Christian blessing for their sexual activity. Frank may know, but I’ve yet to meet a Christian in person, who says life begins at conception, and who uses the pill for birth control, who knows how the pill actually works. Sort of a studied ignorance for people who are so passionate about their self-righteousness.

  50. Frank
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:46 pm

    hermesten — “People like Frank what to imprison or execute women who have abortions.”

    You know that I want to imprison or execute women who have abortions? That’s a neat trick. Well, considering that you are dead wrong about my thoughts on the matter, it’s not so impressive after all.

    Jennifer — You think I’m “saying that a woman is worth less than the slough, but a man is not…”

    I have not stated nor implyed that a “man’s life is worth something but that a woman’s life is not.”

    Jennifer, in your mind you have obviously allowed this debate to be defined by the pro-abortion crowd as a feminist issue and you can’t see past the rhetoric. You are demonstrating an inability to see my comments objectively (and not framed by your perception of what you think I’m saying) and to reasonably respond to my arguments. I’ve not once implyed the life of a woman is worth less than a man’s. Not once.

  51. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 5:52 pm

    Frank, I”m just giving you the benefit of the doubt as a logical person. If they shouldn’t be imprisoned or executed like other murderers, please tell us how women who have abortions, and their doctors should be punished? If a fetus and a child are the same thing, as you’ve repeated more than once, please tell us why killing one should be treated less severly than killing another?

    I won’t be holding my breath waiting for your answer.

  52. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 6:07 pm

    Come on all you “fetus and child are the same” people, you don’t have to wait for Frank: tell us how a woman and her doctor should be punished for an abortion, and if the punishment is not to be prison or death, why, if a fetus and a child are the same thing, killing one should be punished less severely than killing the other?

    Anybody? Anybody?

  53. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 7:12 pm

    So you feel it is ok for her to terminate the pregnancy if her health is in danger

  54. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 7:14 pm

    Frank that was to you. So you feel it is ok for her to terminate the pregnancy if her health is in danger

  55. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 7:16 pm

    hermesten :-) they smell the Leviticus lecture…good for you.

  56. Rev_Holy_FIre
    August 17th, 2005 @ 7:43 pm

    It’s murder and you atheists know it. The child has a right to live. You will be acccounting for your sins to King Jesus.

  57. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 7:57 pm

    Thank you Reverend. I am saved.

  58. Mary
    August 17th, 2005 @ 8:06 pm

    where people are advocating a woman’s right to abort or “kill,” if you like that term better, a “fetus.”

    Which is Latin, and it means — humm, humm — oh, yes, “child.”

  59. Sydney Carton
    August 17th, 2005 @ 8:11 pm

    exmoron,

    I’m sorry if you thought I was constructing a straw-man argument, but what I was merely doing was following the logical end of your assumptions. Perhaps you don’t see them yourself. A society which holds as its values the idea that humans are “merely” animals, that life isn’t worth anything beyond a certain cost, that the creation of better humans is to be desired, that the culling from the pouplation undesireable humans is to be desired, well, that kind of society will get you an amoral totalitarian situation, OR an amoral rule-of-the jungle dictatorship of the strong, pretty darn quick. We’ve seen it before and experience and wisdom should indicate that it is to be avoided. This doesn’t mean that your average, run of the mill pro-choicer wants all that crap. He or she typically doesn’t. But all too often, one’s value system creates unforeseen consequences in society (see: e.g, welfare and the need for its reform, for one such example).

    I think you made a mistake bring up Dr. Watson, a man who said he wants his mentially retarted son to have been aborted (there’s a Father of the Year for you…), since he is too unsavory for a usual run-of-the mill abortion discussions. And don’t equivicate with your wife’s job. What would be an ethical violation in counseling to have an abortion? She can’t? Well, why the hell not? What ethical line does that cross? It’s no different, or shouldn’t be in a pro-choice value system, from counseling on any other surgical procedure that if left untreated would require ongoing medical expenses. It should be no more different than counseling on whether to get one’s wisdom teeth removed. Shouldn’t she give her opinion as a doctor?

    As for the idea of taking away choices. Please. Talk about straw men arguments. Statutory rape laws take away choices. Bigamy laws take away choices. These are choices involving intimate consentual sexual decisions. And yet we seem to get along fine with such laws on the books. We also get along fine with speed limit laws, child abandonment laws, and laws requiring payment of taxes. All of them limit choices. Boo friggin’ hoo.

    And hermesten, as for the consequences of making abortion illegal: I have no idea, but I suspect society would work out a system involving varying penalties depending on the viability of the fetus. Just like there are varying penalties for murder depending on the situation, or different penalties for other criminal acts. Like it or not, the criminal law is a compromise with reality, so I think that were abortion made illegal a compromise with reality would be made recognizing that abortion makes women a victim as well as the child (obviously). Why abortion advocates seem to think this is a topic that pro-life people would want to avoid is beyond me. If this is a trump card, it’s not very satisfying. There, I just explained it for you: deal with it.

  60. Benjamin
    August 17th, 2005 @ 8:16 pm

    I was pleasantly surprised to see RA had classified this video the same way I would, since most atheists are pro-abortion. I must say I was also surprised at the number of immoral acts performed by Dianysis in such a short time, and the way she portrayed a decision regarding abortion to be as trivial as what kind of fruits to eat. Planned Parenthood made a rather large mistake creating something like this, as it will most likely generate greater opposition to their cause. To address some of the abortion issues discussed here, I would like to add that one’s right to life does not stem from the expectation that they will contribute positively to society, or from their mother’s desire for their lives to continue. Popular Science recently had an article on artificial wombs, and I was reminded that once the information describing a new and unique human comes together in fertilization, all that is required for that person to mature is the proper sustenance and environment, just as with every other living human already protected under the law.

  61. Paul
    August 17th, 2005 @ 8:49 pm

    Sailorette said:
    “Basic science: a fetus is alive. A human fetus is human. Therefore, abortion ends a human life.”

    How about this?
    “Basic science: my finger is alive. A human finger is human. Therefore, cutting off my finger ends a human life.”

    There is clearly more to it than that.

  62. Paul
    August 17th, 2005 @ 8:57 pm

    Frank has evaded addressing the logic behind herm’s post #36 twice now (posts #40 and #50).

    I’d like to see Frank (or anyone) address it exactly, not change the subject, etc.

  63. JLOVE
    August 17th, 2005 @ 10:08 pm

    Paul is dead wrong because when you cut your finger off the rest of the human doesn’t die. A finger can’t live on it’s own. Why set up absurd arguments that are obviously wrong? Is that the best you can do? Respectfully, that’s kind of dumb. You were right in saying that a human fetus is alive so abortion is murder. You should have stopped there. I wonder how many “pro-choice” women feel the same way when pregnant. As for “hermesten”, what sort of name is that? It sounds like a medical condition, one that apparantly causes delusions (some of grandeur). Simbol was right, people do kiss up to Hermesten. I don’t really see why though. Grade school logic is impressive to atheists I suppose

  64. Sydney Carton
    August 17th, 2005 @ 10:09 pm

    Paul,

    Read my post on comment #59. I addressed that point.

  65. JLOVE
    August 17th, 2005 @ 10:12 pm

    I agree with carton. some sense at last

  66. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 10:15 pm

    Paul, I’m waiting for Francis to but Herm pulled out Leviticus and he split…I don’t think he’s coming back.

  67. Paul
    August 17th, 2005 @ 10:16 pm

    Sydney: Sorry, I’m not sure what point you mean that you say you addressed in post #59.

    To be clear: my *only* point in my post #62 (and this is a reply to JLOVE’s #63), is that there is more to it than that logic of Sailorette’s. If that logic were completely sufficient, then the proposition about the finger in my post #62 would make sense, which it doesn’t.

    This may seem like a small point, but I’m trying to build some areas of agreement, which will help clarify the areas of disagreement.

  68. Mookie
    August 17th, 2005 @ 10:18 pm

    All the terms used here could get someone mighty confused.

    “Pro-life” is not necessarily so. The most adamant anti-abortion folks resort to violence and even murder to “save the children!”. “Pro-life” sounds more appealing than “anti-choice”, but amounts to no less. They equate abortion with murder, because their definitions of “life” and “viable”, etc, are slightly different from ours. Even atheists, like RA, will side with the anti-choice crowd over such definitions.

    Many atheists are pro-choice because we don’t take our definitions from religious texts, we use more detailed and scientific ones. In most cases, the argument stems from the religious/non-religious thing. If its between atheists, its a matter of definitions, or control. Even atheist males can be control freaks, dictating what women do with their bodies.

    “Pro-choice” is a bit different than “pro-abortion”. The “pro-choice” crowd believes that it is a woman’s right to decide what goes on with her body. We do not advocate people getting abortions, we advocate abortion as being a possible choice. We would prefer there to be as few abortions as possible. We are not “anti-life” either. There are several reasons why a fetus should be terminated, and sometimes these reasons outweigh the reasons for its continued existence. In such situations, it is nice to know that people have the abortion option available.

    It may seem harsh and cold to be so pragmatic with human life, but we must realize that morality and pragmatism do not always agree, because the former is subjective, the latter is not.

  69. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 10:22 pm

    The problem Mookie is that the Anti-choice crowd views life as beginning at conception. Since a pill causes you to abort they are against the Pill. I am in favor of Birth Controll and take the pill, and so, using their definition, am not trying to reduce abortions…sugery sure.

    Remember these are the people that advocate taking the morning after pill out of the rape kits. Their’s nothing “Pro-life” about them.

  70. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:26 pm

    Sydney: “And hermesten, as for the consequences of making abortion illegal: I have no idea, but I suspect society would work out a system involving varying penalties depending on the viability of the fetus.”

    “There, I just explained it for you: deal with it.”

    You guys love to answer the question that wasn’t asked. Or, well, in this case, sort of answer the question that wasn’t asked, since, ah, “I don’t know” ….”I think society would work out a system” isn’t an answer to anything, much less the question I asked. Seems like you people that want to criminalize something should be able to say what penalties YOU think are appropriate.

    Again, the question is: tell us how a woman and her doctor SHOULD be punished for an abortion, and if the punishment is not to be prison or death, why, if a fetus and a child are the same thing, killing one should be punished less severely than killing the other?

    Note, the question is how YOU think a woman, and her doctor, SHOULD be punished for abortion; AND, if the punishment YOU think appropriate is less severe than the usual penalty for the PRE-MEDITATED MURDER OF A CHILD, why YOU think the punishment SHOULD be LESS SEVERE?

    Also Sydney, please tell us how “abortion makes women a victim as well as the child?” You mean adult women aren’t responsible for the decision they make to kill a child? Why not? How do they become “a victim” by choosing to kill an innocent little child? And if a mother who kills her precious little baby in the womb is a victim, why isn’t a mother who kills her five year old a victim too, or is she?

  71. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:34 pm

    “Grade school logic is impressive to atheists I suppose.”

    How come you Jesus lovers, who think loving Jesus buys you a free ride to “Heaven,” and are always telling everyone else how morally superior belief in your silly God makes you, don’t have the moral courage to answer a simple question?

    Don’t be scared JLOVE, Jesus will help you through this one, just answer the question. I’ll repeat it for you: the question is how YOU think a woman, and her doctor, SHOULD be punished for abortion; AND, if the punishment YOU think appropriate is less severe than the usual penalty for the PRE-MEDITATED MURDER OF A CHILD, why YOU think the punishment SHOULD be LESS SEVERE? Got that? Don’t let the grade school logic defeat you.

  72. leon
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:42 pm

    A lot of you are not getting it. The Catholics are not concerned about life; they are concerned about their religion and the promotion of the church. Period.

  73. Petra
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:44 pm

    @Mookie:

    We would prefer there to be as few abortions as possible.
    Oh why??? It’s nothing really – only like cutting your hair…

    There are several reasons why a fetus should be terminated, and sometimes these reasons outweigh the reasons for its continued existence.
    There are also several reasons why I should kill my two-month-old baby who is crying day and night…

    that it is a woman’s right to decide what goes on with her body
    Oh cool. A woman with body parts that have different DNA! Has she already been shown on the Discovery Channel??

    we must realize that morality and pragmatism do not always agree, because the former is subjective, the latter is not.
    Ah great. So do you shoot drivers on the road who behave dangerously? I mean, it’s only pragmatic – they shouldn’t put other people to danger, after all…

    And, why do so-called pro-choice people always rant about “religious perspective” and “moralism”, while claiming for themselves that they are oh so scientific?
    From the point of view of biology all this is quite clear-cut: the embryo has human DNA that is different from the mother’s.

    A unique biological entity with human DNA…. lemme think…. what could that be???

  74. Petra
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:47 pm

    @leon:
    The Catholics are not concerned about life; they are concerned about their religion and the promotion of the church. Period.

    Seeing your reactions, not very successfully, apparently. (I’m a Catholic, by the way.)

  75. Jennifer
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:51 pm

    Leon, I’m pretty sure we’re dealing with Fundies here, not Catholics.

  76. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:56 pm

    Mary: “Which is Latin, and it means — humm, humm — oh, yes, “child.””

    Sorry, I don’t speak Latin, I speak “English.” Maybe you can’t get a good English dictionary in your country so I’ll help you out. The sense in which I was using the word is this, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    fetus: a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

    You guys want to call zygotes and fetuses “children,” but we’re not buying it. However, I invite you to answer the same question I’ve now asked several times of Frank, Sydney, and JLOVE, and anyone else who thinks a fetus and a child are the same thing, and I’ll repeat it once again so there is no confusion: the question is how YOU think a woman, and her doctor, SHOULD be punished for abortion; AND, if the punishment YOU think appropriate is less severe than the usual penalty for the PRE-MEDITATED MURDER OF A CHILD, why YOU think the punishment SHOULD be LESS SEVERE? Got that? Don’t let the grade school logic defeat you.

    So, how about you stop your irrelevant blather about etymology and answer this simple question, which goes right to the heart of what you believe and what you advocate the government do to people who believe differently? And by the way, Mr. Webster says the English “fetus” is “akin” the the Latin “fetus.” Want me to look up “akin” for you?

  77. hermesten
    August 17th, 2005 @ 11:59 pm

    Petra, I don’t want you to feel left out, and since in my experience, Catholics, not being bound to literal interpretations of the Bible can be quite reasonable, I invite you to answer the question I keep asking as well. I’d love to get a number of different responses.

  78. JLOVE
    August 18th, 2005 @ 12:02 am

    Sorry, Paul, I misunderstood your point, and now it is well taken.

  79. JLOVE
    August 18th, 2005 @ 12:06 am

    what is your (medical?) problem hermesten? You now seem to be ranting and repeating yourself. Take a break and collect your thoughts, and maybe you will gain some understanding.

  80. hermesten
    August 18th, 2005 @ 12:24 am

    Asking a Bible Beater a simple question like how a woman should be punished for having an abortion is like asking questions about WMD’s or Cindy Sheehan at a White House press conference –you get everything BUT an answer. JLOVE isn’t YOUR handle, is it Scott?

  81. Hookflash
    August 18th, 2005 @ 12:57 am

    RA’s irrational, anti-choice drivel is so incongruous with his otherwise witty and apt social commentary that I can’t help but wonder if he’s just going out of his way to individuate himself. I’ve noticed that atheists often have a tendency to do this: We agree on so many issues that we feel compelled to take an absurd stance on some randomly chosen issue just for the sake of argument (and to make ourselves feel “unique”). Then, we can say, “Sure, I may be an atheist, but I still support X. How ’bout that!”

    It’s unfortunate that RA had to follow this path. My respect for him has gone down several notches.

  82. Eric
    August 18th, 2005 @ 1:01 am

    Hermesten,
    do you know off-hand what the typical “punishment” was (in most states) before abortion was legalized? I had always assumed it was “practicing without a licence” for the “doc”, but I don’t know if there were any charges against women. Just wondering. Good luck on getting your answers, I would like to hear them too.

  83. Sydney Carton
    August 18th, 2005 @ 1:14 am

    hermsten,

    Are you always this wound up? Raving might be the title of this blog, but it sure isn’t doing you any favors in the argument department, bub. And if it makes any difference to your tribalist mind (“you Jesus lovers/”you guys”/”we’re not buying it”), I’m Catholic.

    Now, ask a simple question, get a simple answer. You want to know MY opinion, you’ll get it. But don’t expect a Restatement of the Law on Criminal Penalties for Abortion (fellow lawyers out there will know what I mean). This will be simple. Of course, I’m sure you’ll claim shock when you discover that perhaps my opinion doesn’t necessarily agree with your predetermined idea of what penalties should exist. And you’ll probably string that difference up as either (i) a lie on my part, or (ii) evidence that even the pro-life side has disputes on these matters and so should be ignored. In any event, I’m sure you’ll do a masterful job of huffing and puffing like the Big Bad Wolf.

    I am surprised that you apparrently don’t see how women could be victims in an abortion. What about the standard pro-choice argument of economic necessity for poor women, or the realization that the father has abandoned a woman and will not help support the child? Surely you’re not ignorant enough to dismiss those ideas – they’re part of the standard abortion-rights supporters’ debate. So I must assume that you’re framing ignorance on this issue, as part of your hyperbole. If you really don’t understand this, then talk to your fellow abortion rights supporters for their arguments on it first.

    A little lesson on criminal law, as you also sound pretty ignorant on this issue. The mere fact that a human being dies from an act of another does not necessitate the same penalty. Differing acts and differing circumstances apply. I’m sure you know that hitting someone accidentely with your car isn’t the same as shooting a person. State laws typically differ even on penalties for the same act. Manslaughter might get you 7 years in NY, or 15 years in Ohio. It depends.

    My differing recommendations depend on the increasing gruesomeness of abortion as viability is achieved and passed, as well as the culpability that should form in the mind of a guilty person that awarness of killing a human would increase as viability increases (these sort of differences in mental state are made all the time involving killings: recklessness is different from crimes of passion which are different than premeditation. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you). First, penalties for the doctor. Performing an abortion is a felony. A partial-birth abortion is similar to infantice and should receive the same penalty (typically equal to standard murder penalties: life in prision or the death penalty). In the 2nd semester up to just before viability, the penalty should probably be the same as intentional manslaughter (aka: a crime of passion intending death, although certain states don’t distinguish between intentional manslaughter and plain manslaughter) (typically 7-15 years). In the first several weeks, from contreception to perhaps the first month, the penalty should be the same as unintentional manslaughter (a crime of passion not intending death) (aka: 3-7 years). Don’t get confused by my references to manslaughter, though – it’s only a semantic guide to parallel the penalties I have in mind.

    As for the mother? Simple. She’s charged as an accessory to the crime, as typical with those people intending it to happen but who do not substantially perform the crime itself. Now, since as with prosecutors, convictions are hard to come by depending on the evidence, and women who plead with prosecutors would receive a lighter sentence or a lesser charge if they testify against abortionists.

    Anyway, hopefully this’ll satisfy your apparrent insatiable curiosity. As I said, it’s just my opinion, not a treatise, and I’d expect that someone else might have a different idea. Now, go back to your script and rant and rave about how cruel these punishments are and how it’ll encourage backdoor abortion, ruin the medical community, etc.

    Can I ask a question for you? Why do you think answering this would be hard at all? I actually found it kinda fun.

  84. Sydney Carton
    August 18th, 2005 @ 1:21 am

    Sheesh… sorry for the spelling errors in that last post.

  85. hermesten
    August 18th, 2005 @ 2:26 am

    Nope, like all you good Christians (with the lone exception here of Frank), lots of condescension, lots of insults, and insulting tone, though you still haven’t answered the question. You picked the easiest target, the doctor, and were very specific about the penalties though, and that’s a good start. But you still haven’t answered the most important part of the question, which is why, if a fertilized egg, a fetus, and a child, are all the same thing, there should any difference in the penalties because the “child” is one month old instead of nine months old or nine years old. Oh wait, yeah, you did give a reason, because “viability” increases, or, in other words, a fertilized egg, or a fetus, before a certain point, are not really “children.” Like I said earlier, when push comes to shove, you guys don’t really believe the zygote is a child bullshit. And at the prospect of putting a mother in prison, you get all weak in the knees and start blabbering about “viability,” and “accessories,” and turning state’s evidence. Come on Sydney, who ya gonna sue if you start putting the docs with the highest malpractice exposure in prison?

    Your classification of the mother as an “accessory” is a fucking joke, right? The mother has contracted the doctor to kill her child and is present at the scene of the murder. This is more like a mom who holds her two year old still while the killer she hired stabs him. Accessory my ass, she’s a participant in the murder. If you’re really a lawyer, no wonder the legal system is so fucked up.

    “What about the standard pro-choice argument of economic necessity for poor women, or the realization that the father has abandoned a woman and will not help support the child?”

    Why isn’t this poor woman responsible for getting pregnant? Like Frank says, doesn’t it take two to tango? Now I am confused: I thought you conservative Christians believed in personal responsiblity? And I thought you were going to give YOUR opinions? Are you pro-choice now? How about a poor woman with a five year old who has been abandoned by the father and has no help supporting her child, and kills it, is she a victim? Is your argument is that poverty is an extenuating circumstance for murder?

    “Why do you think answering this would be hard at all?”

    A couple or reasons. One, a smart guy like you still hasn’t managed a complete answer after two attempts. Two, no one else has made any attempt to answer the question. Three, I’ve asked other’s in your camp this question before and can’t quite seem to get an answer.

    And by the way Sydney, there is absolutely nothing surprising in your answer, it’s exactly the politically expedient answer I expected.

  86. PhalsePhrophet
    August 18th, 2005 @ 3:06 am

    Abortion: Natural Selection or just another eraser for an Intelligent Designer?
    Until a woman has the choice to drop off the unwanted parasite/zygote/fetus/unborn child/potential life with life

  87. mbains
    August 18th, 2005 @ 6:14 am

    This is my comment – verbatim – on the Dawn Patrol site. WTF ???

    Holy freakin’…

    I totally endorse utilizing a Parental Planning system that offers all the relevant information regardless of anyone’s silly cultural superstitions. I’ve usually been a PPGG supporter but…

    If I didn’t know better (and a little research ensures that I do) I’d say that Rae’s son was right. Unfortunately PPGG really put this effer out there themselves! They .. uh.. wtf??? Sheesh! They made that insane little AO gremlin look RATIONAL by comparison!

    Time to write some letters to PPGG.

    Back to RA’s site: DamnRight hits a good point (and yes RA is emotional attached to this issue worldcitizen! LOL!) that the PPGG seems to have given the emotionalists a free pass on this one! WTF???

  88. Jennifer
    August 18th, 2005 @ 7:30 am

    Sydney, you forgot the mother that takes the morning after pill.

  89. Jennifer
    August 18th, 2005 @ 7:40 am

    People that look at little girls and only see “The Vessel” remind me of how lucky I am not to be raised in a household like that (Christian or otherwise) and make me sad for every little girl that is born to such hatefull and unimaginitive parents.

    Who looks at their baby girl and thinks “You are worth less than a fertilized egg.”

    And who can support the Criminalization of Reproductive Freedom and think that they are any different than those idiots that flew planes into the sides of buildings and castrate their women.

    Different Gods, but the hate filled froth is the same.

  90. Dada Saves
    August 18th, 2005 @ 8:40 am

    Hey Mary, stop frigging around with Latin. It’s obviously out of your depth.

    From Etymology Dictionary:

    fetus
    1398, from L. fetus “the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young,” from L. base *fe- “to generate, bear,” also “to suck, suckle” (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of “offspring, brood” (cf. “Germania quos horrida parturit fetus,” Horace), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of “fruit, produce, shoot.” The adj. fetal was formed in Eng. 1811. The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.

  91. hermesten
    August 18th, 2005 @ 9:26 am

    Sydney, as Jennifer points out, I forgot to question your most significant evasion: how the mother should be punished when she has an abortion without assistance, whatever abortifacient she uses. Let’s make the case cut and dried for you: a woman aborts herself and makes a full confession. Feel free to describe the full range of penalties as you did for the doc.

  92. Paul
    August 18th, 2005 @ 9:47 am

    Sydney, you missed a couple of things.

    Just because there are different degrees of felony and different penalties does not address Herm’s point that the penalty for abortion should be the same as (first degree?) murder.

    All the distinctions you brought up do not apply in the case of abortion. The abortion is not accidental, as a traffic accident is.

    Differences in penalties may change with recklessness, passion, and premeditation, but an abortion (in the normal cases, putting aside truly strange cases) can only be premeditated. How do you have a “reckless” abortion?

    I’m awaiting your response to herm’s idea that the mother’s role in an abortion, according to pro-life ideas, would have to be the same in terms of legality as a mother holding her two-year old child while someone stabs them.

  93. greeseyparrot
    August 18th, 2005 @ 10:26 am

    Jennifer, thanks for speaking up early-on in this dust up, with your advice to: “nod, smile and enjoy an otherwise excellent forum”. I’ve just been coming to the site for over a week, and felt a huge disconnect when I saw today’s post. If I hadn’t seen your comment up top, I would have simply left and not returned. Thanks, Greg.

  94. Frank
    August 18th, 2005 @ 10:28 am

    Wow! Lots of action since I last checked the board.

    hermesten — I’ll answer your questions concerning potential punishments for abortionists, etc. But first let me remind you I have stated I see no difference between a fetus and a baby. I’ve made no such statement about a zygote. Clearly a zygote is a living thing. Clearly it is (in some form) human. It has a complete set of genetic code in DNA. Everything necessary for a human person is present in the zygote. No question. The question begged here is this: is a zygote a person. If not, why not. Is it because there are no legs yet? No arms? Eyes? If that is the criteria then are we saying that a 30-year-old person with no legs, arms or eyes is less than human? I don’t think so. But clearly there is some difference between a newly fertilized embryo and a fetus. Where is that line? I’ll be perfectly honest … I don’t know. Since I don’t, I prefer not to even attempt to draw that line, preferring instead to err on the side of life.

    For the sake of being practical in the matter (as I am convinced we will never come to a consensus on where that line should be drawn) I would be willing to adopt a standard where we agree abortions are no longer legal. Perhaps once we get a heartbeat then that child is protected under law. I’m personally not satisfied with that scenerio but would be willing to adopt it as a compromise standard.

    My most ardent arguments have been toward late-term abortions. It continues to amaze me that someone could go in, kill a “fetus”, withdraw it from the womb complete with legs, arms, nose, brain (unless that’s been sucked out), heart, etc. and not be able to see that this is a human being. Even worse is the partial birth abortion where you deliver a baby … oops, except for the top half of the head (like that makes a difference) … and then murder it with a stab to the base of the brain. This is where I will maintain there is no gray area. That is murder of the most heinous kind. Dr. Mengele would be proud. I honestly question the mental capacity and moral capability of a person who can’t see anything wrong with such a procedure. It is depraved.

    My hope here is this: That one day everyone will see abortion (even down to the zygote) as something morally wrong. Just as this country once debated the morality and legality of slavery … now you are hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks slavery is moral and should be legal. It is my hope that this country would arrive at that point with regard to abortion as well. I don’t think that will happen but it sure would be nice.

    Now about punishments for abortionists …. see my next post.

  95. Frank
    August 18th, 2005 @ 10:50 am

    With regard to punishments for abortionists …

    After having established some standard under the law for the protection of unborn children (I suggested the point at which we have a heartbeat) then I don’t see where a distinction could be made. Aborting a baby after that point, in my estimation, is murder. A doctor who performs an abortion at that point should be subject to the law as if he or she had killed a 6-month-old infant. If the mother contracted with the doctor for the purpose of killing her unborn baby then she should be held accountable as if she had hired a hitman to take out her toddler. Ask yourself this: Why is it murder for a pregnant woman to have her boyfriend punch her in the belly until she miscarries but it’s not if she has a doctor kill the baby? What’s the difference? The method? Come on! By this standard there would be some distinction between shooting a person in the head and strangling them. The result is the same: the victim is dead.

    A partial-birth abortion I would consider a capital crime. To hold the body of a little baby in one hand while you jab surgical steel into it’s brain with the other is the stuff of Jack the Ripper. It’s brutal and heartless and inhuman.

    Now, hermesten, you have accused me of wanting to impose my will on everyone else. That’s not true, either. I don’t think this issue should be a national issue. I subscribe to the federalism model of government intended by our founders. This should be a state-by-state decision. If the people of California want to legalize abortion then I think that is their business. I don’t live there. But they should not be able to impose their will in the matter on the people of Indiana who think abortion is wrong.

  96. Frank
    August 18th, 2005 @ 10:57 am

    Jennifer — If the life of a mother is in danger then it is okay to abort. Her life is every bit as precious as the life of her baby. If my wife were in such a situation (and unable to make the decision herself) then that would be my call as the husband and father. I would, without hesitation, tell the doctors to save the life of my wife. And then I would grieve unbelievably for the loss of my child.

  97. leon
    August 18th, 2005 @ 10:59 am

    Sydney Carton said:
    Sheesh… sorry for the spelling errors in that last post.

    Pfffft your post was just idiotic and your worried about your spelling errors; your spelling wasn

  98. Frank
    August 18th, 2005 @ 10:59 am

    Oh, Jennifer — with regard to your post #66. I don’t know how well you pay attention to discussions where I’m involved, but I don’t cut-and-run when the questions get hard. Hard questions is why I come here.

  99. leon
    August 18th, 2005 @ 11:00 am

    Jennifer said:
    Sydney, you forgot the mother that takes the morning after pill.

    Mother? A woman is not a mother until she births.

    Sister Cartoon,
    You forgot the woman who lies over a banister with her full weight and rolls back and forth on her lower abdomen repeatedly over several weeks until a miscarriage is achieved.

  100. Graham
    August 18th, 2005 @ 11:34 am

    I agree with the logic behind Frank’s recent string of comments. That is all. Carry on.

  101. hermesten
    August 18th, 2005 @ 11:35 am

    Frank: “Now, hermesten, you have accused me of wanting to impose my will on everyone else. That’s not true, either. ”

    I made this accusation on the basis of the assumption that you considered a zygote, fetus, and child to be the same. Acutally, it pleases me to see that I was wrong.

    “After having established some standard under the law for the protection of unborn children (I suggested the point at which we have a heartbeat) then I don’t see where a distinction could be made. Aborting a baby after that point, in my estimation, is murder.”

    In principle I agree with you. A heartbeat can be detected something like 42 days after conception though, when the fetus is only less than an inch in size, and that seems a little tight to me, but not outrageously so. However, with an abortion window this narrow, I’d like to see some exceptions for extreme circumstances, and of course, and as you indicated to Jennifer, the life of the mother must always be an exception.

    “If the mother contracted with the doctor for the purpose of killing her unborn baby then she should be held accountable as if she had hired a hitman to take out her toddler.”

    At the point where we agree that a fetus becomes a “child” I agree with this 100%. Sydney’s excuses for the mother are complete bullshit. In fact, under such circumstances I think the mother is morally more culpable than the doctor.

    “Ask yourself this: Why is it murder for a pregnant woman to have her boyfriend punch her in the belly until she miscarries but it’s not if she has a doctor kill the baby?”

    Again, I agree 100%. Would that the others in the pro-life camp would be this logical and morally consistent. I wouldn’t draw the lines in the same places, but for the most part, I agree with your emphasis, and I respect the fact that you’re willing to follow the logic of your convictions.

  102. hermesten
    August 18th, 2005 @ 11:46 am

    Eric, sorry, I don’t know how women were penalized before Roe v. Wade. I did a little reasearch, but what I found spoke primarily to the law itself and not to how it was prosecuted. According to Wikipedia, abortion law in the US pre 1820 was primarily based on English Common Law, and in general, abortion was only illegal if it occurred after quickening. Around 1820 the laws began to change, making all abortion illegal –and generally, a misdemeanor before quickening, and a felony after. I suspect, that for the most part, penalties were of the politically expedient nature proposed by Sydney. And as usual, the most severe punishments were probably reserved for the poorest and least educated segment of the population; the middle class probably pretty much got away with it; and rich people were unaffected by the law, or just went somewhere they could have an abortion without being prosecuted.

  103. Dada Saves
    August 18th, 2005 @ 12:12 pm

    Poor Frank. First he invokes Mengele, then says “If the people of California want to legalize abortion then I think that is their business.” So if the rest of the country allows choice and Indiana does not, that’s fine with you?
    If you truly believe abortions are murder, why are you wasting time on internet comment threads instead of doing something to stop them?

  104. Frank
    August 18th, 2005 @ 12:23 pm

    Poor Dada Saves, he can’t see where I’ve drawn a clear distinction between zygotes and babies 90 percent delivered. My reference to Mengele was in the context of partial birth abortions and, I believe, I said in this there is no gray area. I spoke clearly and strongly in my opposition to the practice.

    My area of compromise dealt with early-term abortions where I admitted I did not know the line between a zygote and a person (if, indeed, a line exists). The federalism approach to dealing with the subject should be with regard to these types of abortions, the definition of the “line” we’ve discussed before, and the appropriate punishment for offenders. But partial-birth abortion should be outlawed, period.

    I invite your comments, Dada Saves, but please, do try to keep up.

  105. Dada Saves
    August 18th, 2005 @ 12:55 pm

    I saw your arbitrary line, Frank. It makes as much sense now as it did then.

    Again: what are you wasting time here when babies are being murdered? Do try to pay attention.

    Re “I invite your comments” — Hee hee hee.

  106. leon
    August 18th, 2005 @ 12:56 pm

    Ironic. Max Kolbe tries to do good and dies while Ratzinger does nothing and even contributes to the evil by joining the Hitler youth and becomes Pope Benedict XVI.

    Speaks volumes

  107. Frank
    August 18th, 2005 @ 3:21 pm

    hermesten — it is encouraging to see that there is, potentially, some common ground on this issue. Unfortunately there are way too many people who have polarized to the extremes and have lost the ability to see the issue outside of their own rhetoric. Jennifer is a good example. Every time someone expresses an opposition to abortion her reaction is to paint them as a woman-hating sexist. I don’t think she’s capable of seeing beyond the extremist, preconceived notions with which she has been indoctrinated. Likewise there are just as many irrational extremists on the other side. My fear is that these two extremes are likely to keep the issue at a fever pitch making a reasoned resolution next to impossible.

    I hope I’m wrong.

  108. JLOVE
    August 18th, 2005 @ 5:16 pm

    Instead of murdering the child, why can’t these women simply give the child up for adoption. Ask any adopted child if they wish they had been killed in thewomb. Even those who have had difficult lives still appreciate not being killed by their birth mothers, wiith or without help from doctors

  109. hermesten
    August 18th, 2005 @ 5:31 pm

    Frank: “My fear is that these two extremes are likely to keep the issue at a fever pitch making a reasoned resolution next to impossible.”

    This is how the system has evolved to faciliate control via our gatekeeper media. It’s impossible to say anything to any kind of general audience that doesn’t flatter the conventional “wisdom.” Anyone who deviates from the the approved limits of discourse is immediately excoriated. Practically anything intelligent is effectively banned from our mass media. TV is almost pure crap, and the only way you can see any real “news” is by watching documentaries. Only twenty or thirty years ago there were actually thoughtful discussions on TV, with shows like “Firing Line” and “The Dick Cavet Show.” Now we have pure trash talk for idiots, put out by rank hypocrites and flacks like O’Reilly and Limbaugh. The Ann Coulter style of demogouery is now so pervasive that it affects everybody to some degree. The attacks on Cindy Sheehan in behalf of Der Chimpenfurher are both vicious and idiotic. A “debate” today is just a bunch of posturing idiots yelling at each other and name calling. I don’t think there is much of a future for a country where somewhere like my son can spend a year at a major college without encountering a single freshman who has read a book in it’s entirety.

  110. hermesten
    August 18th, 2005 @ 5:32 pm

    I meant to say I don’t thiere there is much of a future for “reason” in a country…..bla bla bla, but maybe that’s the same thing anyway.

  111. ms. jared
    August 18th, 2005 @ 5:54 pm

    i’ll admit that the commercial or cartoon or whatever that is is super cheesy and lame, but i don’t see what all the outrage is all about. i mean, except that you are against abortion. so what’s new?

    i escort at PPGG on saturdays and can tell you from personal experience that the protesters we get there are NOT just these peaceful, caring, baby lovers. they’re ALL catholic “evolution questioners” (as demonstrated by their various pro-moron bumper stickers) and they consistently break the law by approaching women, handing out false or misleading information, guilt tripping them, passing judgement on them and telling them that they’re “going to regret it” blah, blah, blah. what they seem to forget however, is that PPGG is a HEALTH CLINIC. the majority of people entering the clinic are there for pap smears, condoms, pills, vacinations, STD tests etc., not just abortions. in fact, abortions are only performed a couple of days a week and not even the full day at that.

    i remember one time one of our regular protesters illegally approached a woman entering the clinic and begged her not to do it. “please,” she pleaded, “let us help!” “what, you’re gonna give me a pap smear?” was the reply.

    just a few weeks ago another woman was admonished for aborting her child and screamed at the protesters “i have a fucking YEAST INFECTION so mind your own fucking business.”

    amen, sista.

    i know each and every one of the protesters at PPGG and they are ALL fucking assholes who only try to humiliate and intimidate the women entering the clinic. and they lie too. (even though they know it hurts the baby jesus’ feelings when they do.) THEY are the ones you should be outraged over: encouraging low income women not to get immuniztions for their children or other basic healthcare because they’re too stupid and narrow minded to realize that PPGG provides more than just abortions.

    i *heart* PPGG! (and i’m wearing my PPGG pro-choice power t-shirt today to prove it!)

    xoxo, jared

  112. hermesten
    August 18th, 2005 @ 6:07 pm

    Interesting ms. jared, and it squares with my experience with nuts like these in Oklahoma. In fact, common sense tells you that people who think the message they have to communicate is so important that they must stand in front of a building and impart it to women they don’t know, are likely to be breathtakingly self-righteous, smug, and arrogant.

  113. Jennifer
    August 18th, 2005 @ 8:10 pm

    Frank missed me.

  114. Jennifer
    August 18th, 2005 @ 8:39 pm

    i remember one time one of our regular protesters illegally approached a woman entering the clinic and begged her not to do it. “please,” she pleaded, “let us help!” “what, you’re gonna give me a pap smear?” was the reply.

    Ms Jared, that was hysterical. My experiance as an escort was similar, except in our neighborhood all the protesters were these older guys. There was a definite sexual element to their rage. Sadomasacists with little girl fantasies. It was very creepy.

    There was one study out that said if a boy asks a girl to take the pregnancy to term she almost always does it, so my question to all the Fundies here is why aren’t you hunting down the father? And please don’t tell me you can’t because you hunt the doctors.

    The answer is that its not fun to harrass a teenage boy.

  115. Sydney Carton
    August 18th, 2005 @ 8:51 pm

    hermesten,

    As I predicted, you huff and puff, accuse me of lying, and also use my response as an evidence that the pro-life side is in dispute.

    You lack significant reading comprehension. I said that CULPABILITY and GRUSEOMENESS were the reasons for differing penalties. In fact, those are pretty standard reasons for differing penalties in response to an act. They are reasonable practical realities to deal with when imposing penalties. If you don’t like them, I could care less, since you asked for MY opinion. That you might find it a “fucking joke” (there’s a convincing rebuttal) is irrelevant.

    I see now why you think that this stupid question of yours is apparrently supposed to generate fear in pro-lifers. You think that, “when push comes to shove, [pro-lifers] don’t really believe the zygote is a child…. And at the prospect of putting a mother in prison, you get all weak in the knees and start blabbering about “viability,” and “accessories,” and turning state’s evidence.”

    As I said, you accuse us of essentially lying. And the reason for this lie? Apparrently it’s because “because all this crap about a fertilized egg being a child is simply a way to attack “unapproved” sexual activity by ending the availability of birth control measures like the pill (to which a lot of our current day “promiscuity” is attributed in their literature).”

    Let’s see if I can condense this so-called logic: pro-lifers don’t like promiscuity and unapproved sexual activity, so they tell a lie that a zygote is a child in order to stop abortion, which is an indirect way of stopping unapproved sexual activity. Or something like that.

    Personally, I’d find resources better directed at stopping unapproved sexual activity by not fighting abortion but fighting… unapproved sexual activity. Quite frankly, this argument seems to ignore the fact that surely abortion can occur within relationships that ARE so-called “approved,” like traditional marriage. So if this really IS the reason that pro-lifers apparrently say that a zygote is a child, it’s a stupid reason because it’s aiming for a larger target than a smaller one (which is supposedly the real reason behind the attack in the first place). Furthermore, while many people who attack abortion also attack promiscity and other “unapproved” sexual activities, it seems more likely that they do so not for a causal relationship (ie: attack abortion to attack promiscuity) but rather because both fail a perceived value system (ie: both abortion and promiscuity fail a traditional notion of sexual morality).

    To use jargon, hermesten’s idea behind the perceived pro-life lie just doesn’t pass the smell test.

    I will consider that perhaps he’s not really stating himself clearly, and perhaps he’s NOT asserting a causal relationship, but instead is saying that people lie about a zygote being a child because people can be hypocrites in their sexual relations, and thus if they lie when it comes to promiscuity they’re also lying when it comes to abortion. A reasonable inference, but it is wholly without the important reference of severity. Yes, people can be hypocrites about promiscuity. But this can be referenced up and down the scale of severity to no end. People are hypocrites in general. All of us are human, so we make mistakes, and fail to live up to standards of morality at some point. But that doesn’t mean that a failure to live up to a SMALL infraction means that if we are hypocrites about a small infraction, we are hypocrites about large moral infractions. Telling a lie doesn’t make you a mass murderer. Jaywalking doesn’t make you a war criminal. So we must consider severity. Even a serial adulterer (like Bill Clinton) seems to know that murdering is still wrong even if he continues to engage in adultery. And if pro-lifers are to be believed, if they really believe that abortion is the killing of a human, then such a severe crime shouldn’t be disregarded as immoral merely because a pro-lifer might also be a hypocrite about something else. And as considering the severity of promiscuity as an immoral act seems to be getting off on an extreme tanget, since the point can be made about nearly any “hypocritical” act, I think the point is made without going off topic.

    Thus, hermesten’s entire underlying purpose in asking these so-called difficult questions can be disregarded, and he can be safely ignored.

    Jennifer – I forgot about morning after pill and other things. Assuming that a crime could be proven (ie: that evidence could be introduced to show an abortion took place), then I’d probably throw it into the same general category I did for other less-gruesome acts, which was 3-7 years. It might be easier to take the drug off the market and prosecute for the illegal use/purchase of the drug, if the evidence of the abortion is hard to come by. Of course, since there is less evidence for a crime a lesser penalty would have to be imposed. But ideally, in instances where the evidence was there, then 3-7 years is what I’d pick.

    leon – your rapier wit defeats us all. congratulations.

  116. Rev_holy_fire
    August 18th, 2005 @ 9:02 pm

    An embryo is a child, deal with it!! Feminists are so obsessed with their rights, they have forgotten the child, not fetus, child growing in them. WIthout God, and absolutes, anything will be believed (i.e. evolution) and all forms of evil justified.

  117. rev_holy_fire
    August 18th, 2005 @ 9:04 pm

    ATHEISTS ARE MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  118. Jennifer
    August 18th, 2005 @ 9:10 pm

    Rev_Holy_Fire, do you wear a billboard that says “The End Is Near.” Nothing wrong with it, I’m just wondering.

  119. Vernichten
    August 19th, 2005 @ 7:38 am

    Sorry Herm, it looks like once again only Frank has the courage of his convictions. No one else is going to provide a straight answer. Yapping about “CULPABILITY and GRUSEOMENESS” really doesn’t cut it, since the mother is obviously culpable and most fundies would agree that there is no such thing as an abortion that isn’t gruesome. Maybe you should re-phrase the question:
    (this is in caps so there will be no mistake about the syntax)
    DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WILLFULLY MURDERING A FETUS IN COLD BLOOD IS THE SAME AS WILLFULLY MURDERING A SMALL CHILD IN COLD BLOOD? IF THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS SIX MONTHS, AND EVERY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE IS THE SAME, WHY SHOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENCE IN THE PUNISHMENT IF A PRE-BIRTH FETUS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN A POST-BIRTH BABY? THE DOCTOR IS A NON-ISSUE HERE, AND THE FATHER IS LONG GONE. IF THE MURDERER OF A SMALL CHILD GETS LIFE, SHOULD THE MURDEROUS MOTHER GET LIFE ALSO? DEATH? IF DEATH IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE MURDEROUS ABORTION DOCTORS THEN WHY NOT DEATH FOR THE MOTHERS?

    And there’s another underlying question that serves to out irrational would-be vagina-controllers: Do you believe that men and women are completely equal in the eyes of god? Do you believe that men are the god-endorsed heads of the household?

  120. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 9:29 am

    Actually Vernichten, Sydney answered also, its just that we doubt his sincerety. And as far as the “god-endorsed heads of household.” They are going to quote you verse that makes it ok.

    The thing that is most alarming to me isn’t that there are men that think they should be in charge due to an arbitrary physical difference, but that there are women that are willing to go along with it.

    I guess laziness, even more than viciousness is the most consistent human trait, for what could be lazier than abdicating all of your decision making to another human being – or to a book written (and re-written, and re-written, and rearranged) by other humans hundreds of years ago.

  121. Frank
    August 19th, 2005 @ 9:41 am

    I am struck by the conduct of the protesters described by ms. jared. hermesten correctly described them as “nuts” and said, “…common sense tells you that people who think the message they have to communicate is so important that they must stand in front of a building and impart it to women they don’t know, are likely to be breathtakingly self-righteous, smug, and arrogant.”

    I’d have to agree with his assessment.

    I appreciate their convictions but sure do with they’d find a more constructive, compassionate way to express them. They remind me of the PETA-type nutters who throw red paint and blood on people wearing fur coats and pass out KFC buckets full of blood to people who just want to enjoy a nice fried chicken dinner. Both of these people represent the kinds of fruits who inhabit the extremes on both the left and the right.

    Now, I agree in principle with the anti-abortion folks but the fact that this kind of behavior on the part of the PETA folks makes me want to wear fur just to spite them (and I don’t even like fur) is a pretty strong indication to me that these types of methods may not be the most effective way to initiate change.

  122. Benjamin
    August 19th, 2005 @ 9:43 am

    Jennifer, have you ever considered that when men say they don’t see abortion as a sexism issue, they might be telling the truth? What about women who don’t see it as a sexism issue? http://www.feministsforlife.org/ If you haven’t then that’s your laziness.

  123. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 10:02 am

    Ben, I already addressed this in the statements above, but out of curiosity, what is Feminist about Feminists for Life, because none of us (Liberal women that have looked over the site and talked about it) can find anything Feminist on it. Another shill for George. Named by the same group that named the “Clean Air Initiatve” and “No child left Behind”

  124. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 10:06 am

    I do not think its possible for someone to be feminist and anti-choice. Certainly no one commenting here qualifies, including RA

  125. hermesten
    August 19th, 2005 @ 10:08 am

    Sydney, Syndey, Sydney, another Chimp worshipper and bitter neocon from the Ann Coulter school of demogoguery. If you really are a lawyer, I hope you’re a prosecutor –you certainly possess the required skills of evasion– and not someone with actual clients who can be damaged by your incompetence. I’m sorry, but your sputtering nonsense about “cupalbility” and “grumesomeness” is just as stupid as your classification of a woman getting an abortion as an “accessory.” On second thought, even prosecutors aren’t this dumb, and they do have to try cases in court –you must be in regulatory law, where skilled obsfucation is a stand-out talent among all the mediocrity.

    Just how does “culpalbility” change with the vicitm’s age? And if this is really the argument you want to make –silly as it is– wouldn’t culpability decrease with the victim’s age? Doesn’t it make more sense that the younger and more “innocent” a human being is, the more egregious is their murder, and therefore, the more culpable the murderer? Isn’t it worse to murder a five year old than a fifty year old? Of course, if a younger fetus is less of a human being, then you’ve got something; but since you say it’s not, you’re just spewing nonsense. Or do you just not know what the fuck the word “culpability” means?

    As far a “grumsomeness” goes, fucking come on. If you murder someone with a fast-acting painless poison you should be charged with less of a crime than if you club them over the head with a baseball bat or blown them away with a shotgun? Did you find your law degree in a fucking Cracker Jack box? Jesus Christ, who did you fucking blow to pass the bar exam?

  126. Benjamin
    August 19th, 2005 @ 10:12 am

    Jennifer, I think all you are saying is: “No one can be pro-life and fit in with my definition of feminist.” But that’s because of your own ignorance and confusion.

  127. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 11:11 am

    Good one Ben, now I’m convinced

  128. Benjamin
    August 19th, 2005 @ 11:24 am

    Well, you sound exactly like a theist when you say anyone claiming to be a feminist who is pro-life simply isn’t an actual feminist. They may not be your brand of feminist, but they are feminists none-the-less.

  129. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 11:33 am

    And again I say, what is feminist about their views. Go visit the site, and bring me back a feminist ideal that they are supporting. See Ben I have visited the site and I know that there isn’t anything there except the advocacy of a antichoice position. Nothing about work, nothing about child abuse, nothing about healthcare. Nothing.

    You have this idea that “feminist” means “chick”…nope.

  130. Vernichten
    August 19th, 2005 @ 11:58 am

    Here is a much easier question for every smug, self-satisfied pro-lifer reading:
    What are the names of your adopted children?
    Don’t bother answering, since your answer can’t be verified and as we all know “all men are liars”.

  131. kmisho
    August 19th, 2005 @ 12:00 pm

    I object to the current terminology normally used in this abortion debate.

    pro-life: so vague as to be meaningless. But changing it to pro-HUMAN-life doesn’t help, from an atheist perspective. Humans are not more important than other lifeforms.

    pro-choice: equally vague. pro-women-to-be-legally-allowed-to-select-abortion is more like it. But that’s not pithy. So I guess we’ll stick with the nonsensical soundbite.

    pro-abortion: Though this term is semi-accurate it is still highly inadequate because it seems to imply being pro-death, conjuring images of throngs of pro-abortionists having a ticker tape parade every time there is an abortion. But ‘pro-abortionists’ are not pro-abortion in this sense. They are pro-allowing-abortion:

    For me, the terms we should use as clearest are:
    ANTI-ABORTION: The so-called pro-lifers. These people are in fact against allowing abortion, so being anti-abortion is an accurate description of them.

    ANTI-ANTI-ABORTION: That is, for whatever reasons, being opposed to those people who would altogether disallow abortion. This terminology dispels the idea that those who are against the anti-obrtionists must necessarily desire that there be abortions.

    These terms of course will never be adopted (or re-adopted) because we humans are apparently generally incapable of being honest when talk about things we feel strongly about. Anti-abortionists became pro-lifers for the Orwellian reason that they did not want to SEEM to be ‘against’ anything, even though they know full well that there is something that they are against, namely abortion. Resorting to these rhetorical tricks is one of the most horrifying (to me) things in politics.

    Do you recall recently when the administration decided that they no longer wanted to talk about the ‘war on terror’ and instead talk about the ‘global struggle against violent extremism’? The thing that bothers me about this sort of obfuscation is the implication that changing how you talk about things changes the things themselves. Those who really think this (or expect to fool people using this trick) must be considered among the most cynical people on the planet.

    For myself, I never use the term ‘pro-life’ unless to critique it, as here. There are only anti-abortionists and those who oppose them. In anticipation of certain rejoinders, I add that all the middle-ground positions such as allowing abortion in certain cases must considered examples of anti-anti-abortionism. Does the structure of this argument sound familiar? It should to well-read atheists!

  132. Benjamin
    August 19th, 2005 @ 12:29 pm

    Jennifer, you should be able to think and research for yourself. Since you can’t seem to do that: http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/index.htm check out the stories about sex trafficking, and the FFL’s involvement in the Commission on the Status of Women where FFL’s Marie Smith is quoted as saying: “The increasing feminization of poverty in developing countries will be solved when a woman is empowered through lasting measures like micro-credit loans and the rights to own and inherit land and property, receive an education and acquire job skills. These are lasting solutions that lead to sustainable development.” I suggest to you that the site is almost entirely about abortion, but that’s not because the members aren’t feminists, but because the feminists who join FFL are working together to promote a pro-life stance first and foremost. Should I attend a pro-republican group, I wouldn’t cease to be an atheist, and the feminists who join FFL don’t cease to be feminists, except in your ignorant, closed-minded opinion.

  133. Benjamin
    August 19th, 2005 @ 12:41 pm

    kmisho, I disagree that “the middle-ground positions such as allowing abortion in certain cases must considered examples of anti-anti-abortionism” I would consider my stance anti-elective-abortion a subset of anti-abortion, rather than a subset of anti-anti-abortion. However, I do agree that anti-abortion is a more appropriate term than pro-life. Anti-anti-abortion will never catch on, even if it’s the most precise.

  134. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 12:54 pm

    Ben, and yet she is against women using birthcontrol, feels that “self induced abortions” are safe. And has no answer when asked how FFL will be “supporting pregnant women.”

    Please

  135. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 12:56 pm

    And for the record Ben, its obvious to me that you are religious. No atheist would be aganist Birth Control.

  136. benjamin
    August 19th, 2005 @ 1:33 pm

    Jen, you just don’t get it. Feminists can be pro-life, and atheists can be for or against any damn thing you name, as long as the reason isn’t due to belief in God(s). Atheism implies one and only one thing, and that is lack of a belief in God(s)… everything else you attribute to atheists is of your own invention, and is incorrect.

  137. Sydney Carton
    August 19th, 2005 @ 1:37 pm

    hermesten’s response basically boils down to: fuck fuckity fuck fuck. Nice argument.

    Noticeably, he’s still clinging to my own opinions about penalties, and didn’t address the eviceration of his idiotic claim that people really don’t believe zygotes are children because in reality it’s a lie told to attack promiscuity. Or something like that. And he has the gall to say I’m evasive. Heh.

    RA, it’s been a pleasure to comment on your blog. Although, I have to wonder: does “raving” really describe you, or comments posted here by others? It might be a question too extistential to deal with on a blog devoted to athieism. :)

  138. DAJ
    August 19th, 2005 @ 1:40 pm
  139. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 1:42 pm

    Ben, why are you against women having birth control. What would be the point of denying any person birth control?

  140. benjamin
    August 19th, 2005 @ 2:00 pm

    Jennifer, you assume way too much, and seem to erroneously see everything as a woman’s issue. I have nothing against any form of birth control that leaves alone already fertilized eggs. I have nothing against condoms (which MEN carry quite often) or pulling out or abstinence, or anything else that fits the description I gave. Is changing the subject your way of admitting your logical errors?

  141. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 2:05 pm

    Well FFL is against all birth controll including condoms.

  142. hermesten
    August 19th, 2005 @ 3:07 pm

    Sydney, you’re the funniest right-wing ass clown that has posted on here in quite sometime, but you’re not by any means unique. You all start off with long posts intended to impress us ignorant atheists with your superior wisdom, start sputtering and flinging insults when your nonsense is challenged, and end with a couple of sentences along the lines of your last post: “hermesten’s response basically boils down to: fuck fuckity fuck fuck. Nice argument.” Then you close with your tongue firmly planted up RA’s ass. Do you guys get some kind of handbook from Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, or is this oft repeated script just a natural progression for sputtering disseminators of received opinion? I’m not unsympathetic though, it must be quite a shock to post where people aren’t impressed with your “legal skills,” or your ability to repeat your catechism or Republican Party talking points, like the mouth-breathers over at FreeRepublic.

    Sydney: “…didn’t address the eviceration of his idiotic claim that people really don’t believe zygotes are children because in reality it’s a lie told to attack promiscuity.”

    Here is what I actually said. Your assignment for the day is to look up the word “partly,” or, if you really are a lawyer, just ask your secretary what this mysterious word means. And while you’re at it, ask her also to explain the meaning of the phrase “simply a way to attack “unapproved” sexual activity.”

    “Few have either the logic or the courage of their convictions, or just the balls to say they support imprisoning or executing women who have abortions. I think this is partly because all this crap about a fertilized egg being a child is simply a way to attack “unapproved” sexual activity by ending the availability of birth control measures like the pill (to which a lot of our current day “promiscuity” is attributed in their literature); and partly because they know a fertilized egg and a child are not the same, and punishing women as if they are is irrational.”

    First, let me point out that your subsequent comments and silly legal theories pretty much validate the second clause of this statement. And in spite of the fact that I was making a comment, on a blog, and not writing with the precision expected of a treatise or an actual article for publication, I think most people of moderately accomplised reading skills should be able to figure out what I was trying to say. You’re posting on an atheist blog man, try to keep up. You did catch me out though; in light of your subsequent posts my sugggestion that someone like you is not completely irrational is looking rather silly.

  143. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 3:15 pm

    I think this is partly because all this crap about a fertilized egg being a child is simply a way to attack “unapproved” sexual activity by ending the availability of birth control measures like the pill

    herm, this is what I think as well. If you were on dkos for the pie wars, one of the most interesting things that happened was when one woman posted a diary who’s title read “My pussy is hot and wet” (not me, but I wish I’d thought of it). All of the sudden all of the men that had been screaming about the prudery of the women that didn’t care for the porn in the sidebar of a political forum were now screaming about propriety and “What if politicians visit and see this” and then Markos changed the heading of the womans diary – calling it inappropriate which was a pretty damn funny thing to post next to a picture of two faux lesbians laying on top of each other.

    The lesson was that while its ok to look at naked women, for women to pose, it is really not ok for women to want sex, to have sexual demands, to enjoy their bodies. And this idea is not “right specific,” but it is sexist, and it is the driving force behind the attempt to criminalize reproductive rights.

  144. Marc
    August 19th, 2005 @ 3:34 pm

    Why is it that “keeping the government off our bodies” only applies to abortion? Why aren’t “pro-choice” people fighting for my right to sell my organs to the highest bidder or to legalize prostitution and drugs?

  145. Jennifer
    August 19th, 2005 @ 3:37 pm

    I’m in favor of those things. If you are asking why the Dems are doing it, its because the Dems aren’t liberal anymore. They are fighting to be the new right.

  146. benjamin
    August 19th, 2005 @ 3:44 pm

    Why is it that “keeping the government off our bodies” wouldn’t apply to drug traffickers who swallow drugs for transporting?

  147. Paradoxx
    August 19th, 2005 @ 3:45 pm

    I find both the pro-choice and pro-life labels annoying… People should just stop the bullshitting and say what there position is without trying to sugar cout it. Most of these so called “pro-choice” organizations seem to think that the government should force tax-payers to pay for other peoples abortions, so how is that pro-choice? While most of the people i run into who call themselves “pro-life” also support war and the death sentence for convicted criminals, so how the fuck are they pro-life. The “pro-choice activists” should just call themselves abortion rights activists and the “pro-life activists” should call themselves anti-abortion activists like they really are.

  148. hermesten
    August 19th, 2005 @ 4:13 pm

    It depends on the man I think, but in my experience, many men get very quickly uncomfortable when confronted with a sexually aggressive woman. This is true even for men who are avid consumers of pornography, and successful lotharios, and is quite opposite to the behavior the popular culture might lead one to expect.

    Futhermore, the birth control pill has long been the enemy of the religious-right, supplanting even the previous fixation on masturbation –don’t forget about them and Joycelyn Elders. Read their literature. Ever since the pill was invented they have been citing it as the progenitor of promiscuity. And condoms used to be illegal in this country in as many as twenty-two states, the most notorious, where you could go to prison for using one: Connecticut. The fundies blame the pill for everything from our general “moral decline” (“unauthorized sexual activity which usually has nothing to do with “morality”) to women fleeing the home for the workforce.

  149. hermesten
    August 19th, 2005 @ 4:30 pm

    “Why is it that “keeping the government off our bodies” only applies to abortion? ”

    Who says it does? –mostly religious wing-nuts, and the hypocrites who pander to them, like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.

    “Why aren’t “pro-choice” people fighting for my right to sell my organs to the highest bidder or to legalize prostitution and drugs?”

    Why aren’t “pro-life” people out fighting for Der Chimpenfurher to stop the war in Iraq? Are you suggesting that someone can’t support one cause without actively supporting every related cause?

    You should have the right to sell your organs to the higest bidder, but I warn you, some questions, like the ones in your last post, might might drive the price down for at least one of them.

    Prostitution is legal. Lots of “journalists,” like Armstrong Williams, are for sale. Politicians are for sale. The Bush administration is for sale. Oh, sorry, you just mean “sexual” prostitution. You don’t want to stop Rush Limbaugh from whoring for the Republican Party, you just want to put some poor woman in jail for renting her pussy. But prostitution is legal in Nevada, and it should be legal everywhere, but our “elected” officials are still pandering to people like you.

    Drugs are legal, for people like Der Chimperfurher and Rush Limbaugh. After all, Der Chimpenfurher bought and sold them at Yale, and Rush is a total slut for oxycontin, and has even admiited it on the radio, and I don’t see him in jail. They should be legal for everybody though.

  150. hermesten
    August 19th, 2005 @ 4:37 pm

    “Why is it that “keeping the government off our bodies” wouldn’t apply to drug traffickers who swallow drugs for transporting?”

    Because we have fucked up drug laws. But this is kind of a dumb question, don’t ya think? Yes, it should apply, but it’s only an issue because the government has already inteferred with a person’s right to smoke grass or snort coke, or whatever; and Americans, being mostly stupid, learned virtually nothing from the history of prohibition. If we didn’t have all these stupid and counterproductive drug laws, then no one would have any reason to swallow drugs to transport them.

  151. Frank
    August 19th, 2005 @ 4:56 pm

    hermesten said, “You should have the right to sell your organs to the higest bidder, but I warn you, some questions, like the ones in your last post, might might drive the price down for at least one of them.” … and I about fell out of my chair laughing.

  152. Seldonster
    August 19th, 2005 @ 8:59 pm

    The issue here is what role should the goverment play in protecting our life and liberty.

    RA is proposing that the goverment needs to protect the lifes of all of our citizens, even the unborn ones. The problem is that if the goverment forces all pregnancies to term it is infringing on the liberties of the mother and the father.

    Even if the goverment guarantees adoption of every child born that still does not make up for the 9 months of labor, the risky pregnancy (some women still die during childbirth), the after effects (stretch marks, incontinence, scarring), lost wages, hardship, etc. To be fair, if the goverment forces women to term then it should recompense them for all this trouble.

    Of course, if they did that then I am sure we would soon see welfare moms whose “job” it is to have children and given them up for adoption.

    Oh well, tough problem!

  153. PhalsePhrophet
    August 20th, 2005 @ 12:09 pm

    The potential life with life

  154. gmanedit
    August 20th, 2005 @ 8:05 pm

    Anybody who gets self-righteous about “partial-birth abortion” is, to be charitable, ignorant. Educate yourself. Start here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/abor-o24.shtml. Excerpt:

    Most of the D&X

  155. addict_no_more
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 12:27 am

    I don’t think I’ve ever commented here before, but I’m just amazed at how much shit you all are spewing at RA for this post. Admittedly, he’s a bit more… hostile, maybe(?) than I’d be about the entire fiasco. That said, the video in question is appalling.

    I’m pro-choice. My mother had two abortions, and I will always be glad she did. She was an alcoholic at the time and totally unfit to parent the two kids she already had. Those kids would’ve been my half-siblings… but I am glad they didn’t have to suffer the life my brother and I did.

    However, life begins at conception. It may not be “viable life” outside the mother’s womb, but it’s life nevertheless. To abort is to end that life. The funny thing is, so many who argue against this, will mourn a miscarriage. It’s like, a wanted baby is alive from conception, but an unwanted baby is seen as an invader, a parasite (and, just to further confuse the issue, scientists have theorized that this is the very reason some spontaneous abortions occur – because the body DOES react to the embryo as a parasite or invader).

    Having said that, I’d NEVER be anti-abortion. There is a big, huge difference, in my opinion from being anti-abortion and pro-life. I am pro-life. I believe that anyone going in for an abortion should be counseled. I even think that the 24 hour waiting period some states have is a good idea. I believe all the options should be presented, including adoption and crisis centers like the one RA mentions. At the end of that time, if a woman is certain she’s unable to carry a child to term, it’s HER right not to. I think it’s great if she consults with the baby’s father, but at the end of the day, it’s her body. If there was some way to pass it on to the man, to give it to him to carry with him for nine months, or to extract it and put it in a test tube, that would be another story…

    Women have different reasons for abortion. Some are the horror stories of rape and/or incest. Others are young, scared, not ready. Still others, like my mother, have addiction problems and cannot adequately care for a growing baby… then there are the women who should probably simply be sterilized, because they use abortion as birth control, like my step-aunt who’s had about 7 abortions. Those women disgust me… there’s no excuse for that.

    I will always be pro-choice. I will also always be pro-life. You can argue the two don’t mesh, but abortion is a necessary evil. Sometimes there’s a damn good reason for it… but most of the time it could be avoided, if only people were better educated about their bodies and sex. I firmly believe we should be working to minimize the need for abortions, but I just as firmly believe in a woman’s right to have one… even when that woman is my disgusting step-aunt.

    I personally feel that abortion is horrible. I can’t imagine having to live with the emotional trauma of having one, and don’t know someone gets through that without some serious turmoil. But I want children badly (and, in an ironic twist of fate, have fertility issues that may make that a difficult process)… for someone terrified by the idea of children, the situation is very different. When she goes for the abortion, she has to live with that for the rest of her life… I don’t.

    It’s not my choice to make for anyone other than me… so, sorry, but I think you can be personally pro-life, and still be pro-choice for the general population.

  156. Vernichten
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 7:21 am

    You touched on a good point, addict_no_more. If men were given the ability to carry babies that WOULD be another story. If an anti-abortionist told a man what to do with his body he’d tell them to fuck off, which is just what women should and often do tell them.

  157. Frank
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 10:09 am

    gmanedit — First of all, to apply a moral standard to a particular practice is not getting “self-righteous.” I guess, by your standards, you think everyone who condemns the holocaust is “self-righteous,” huh? How dare anyone presume to make such a sweeping judgment against someone else.

    There is nothing necessarily “self-righteous” about condemning the practice of partial-birth abortion. Instead, it is recognizing the practice for what it is, applying a moral standard to it, and proclaiming it as something that does not meet that moral standard.

    Second, your post implies that partial-birth abortions are only performed in the rare cases where the health of the mother is a concern. Anyone who thinks this is the case is, to be charitable, ignorant.

    In a single abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey more than 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed annually. The testimony of the doctors, themselves, squashes your argument. Please consider …

    “We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it’s a miniscule amount,” said one of the doctors. “Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical reasons: people who didn’t realize, or didn’t care, how far along they were. Most were teenagers.”

    A doctor in Ohio, who has performed more than 1,000 partial-birth abortions, admitted that more than 80 percent of the procedures were elective, not medical.

    What I find more than remarkable is that, after taking the time to defend the practice of partial-birth abortion, you actually had the nerve to characterize the opponents of the practice as “heartless.”

    Amazing.

  158. Eva
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 11:06 am

    addict no more, i agree 100% with your post.

  159. Vernichten
    August 22nd, 2005 @ 12:15 pm

    Frank, I believe the definition of self-righteous includes “moralistic”. Believing you have the authority to judge the morality of any activity is self-righteous, whether you’re an atheist or someone who believes in fairy tales, and whether everyone agrees with you or no one does.

  160. Nietzsche
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 3:38 am

    Well, you people just have a really flawed logic there, if you are going to argument about potentialities you are in fact argueing about probabilities, so in order to make that argument hold any water at all you need to calculate all posibilities to show that the positive one (will be born ok, will have a nice live, etc.etc.) is more probable as the negative one (will be born sick, will live in poverty, etc.etc.)

    Being born does not give any assurance that someone will have much of a life.

  161. Sperm Defender
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 9:49 am

    I am against abortion … especially the self-abortion of developing human life in the form of sperm. Billions upon billions of sperm are aborted in horrible ways, in particular masturbation, every day.

    The state needs to pass a law protecting this sperm. It does not, in fact, belong to the man. Self-Abortion of sperm (Masturbation) is part of the sickening culture of death that is found in every level of society.

    Raving Atheist, and others who have chimed in as being “against abortion” are as Death-Loving as those who claim to be “pro-choice”. By drawing the arbitrary and ludicrous line that “life begins at conception” they devalue the UNBROKEN CHAIN of life. It is EQUALLY arbitrary to draw the line of “life” at conception as it is at birth, or 3 months, or whatever.

    My stance is the stance of highest morality. It is based on reason, not on religion. As the stance of highest morality, it is the stance that should be enforced by federal law. The state has a vested interest in every sperm, every egg, every ‘potential’ human.

    It has a responsibility to protect them. Outlaw masturbation. Outlaw condoms. The state must enforce my view on this matter.

    It doesn’t matter how many people disagree!

  162. Brian K
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 8:31 pm

    OK, its time to kick out the **** arguments.

    First off, Masturbation and Abortion are two entirely different things. To deny otherwise simply shows ignorance. There is massive difference between a growing human being inside a womb of any age and a spermatazoon that will not become a human being unless injected into a fertile female with an egg at the ready. So the whole “masturbation destroying potential lives” bit is BS at its finest.

    The Abortion issue should be approached with logic and common sense. First, there should always be the PROPER reasons for abortion, reasons like truly dangerous medical situations, which any logical person of any viewpoint should be able to understand.

    As to living poor lives: We’re all here right? There wern’t massive killings during the Great Depression. The whole “quality of living” bit is incredibly stupid when we’re talking about America. I mean, the poor in America live better than the middle in other coutries for God’s(GASP!) sake. So that argument holds little water. Growing up in poverty never stopped the people who really worked hard from being successful.

    As to the whole “MY BODY” shtick, does anyone else find it amazing that there’s this big hubbub about “I’m not ready to have a baby”,and yet none of them think they aren’t ready to have sex (the action which causes said baby having)? where is the logical connect between those two opinions? Its like saying you are ready to go skydiving but object to hitting the ground.

    Moreover, noone has suggested “bringing all pregnancies to term”, nor does doing this impinge on anyone’s rights, this is why we have adoption people.

    Logic – The Anti-Drug.

  163. leon
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 8:48 pm

    How does some woman getting an abortion become any of your business?

  164. Brian K
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 9:13 pm

    “Some woman getting an abortion” is actually some woman killing a human being for one of two general reasons. A: true medical need or B: personal gratification. I take no issue with the first, it is the second which becomes my business, because it is the second which violates another human beings rights by its very nature.

    Abortion is not like choosing which soda to drink, it kills a human being in the process. If you do not concede this point(which can be empirically proven), it is you, not I who needs to find out what an abortion is.

  165. Sperm Defender
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 10:18 pm

    If sperm isn’t human life, then what is it? Monkey life? Octopus life?

    It isn’t a BS argument at all. Sperm has as many rights as a fetus, or you, or myself. Each sperm has the right to life, and it is only because you have been indoctrinated in the culture of death that you disagree with me.

    It doesn’t matter, though. My morality is the only important one, as it is based on undenyable reason and logic. The fact that there are so many people in this country that have differing views doesn’t matter. It is my duty as an american to make sure that my view of morality be turned into laws.

    Abortion should be outlawed. So should masturbation. And birth control. It is all immoral. Human life does not “begin” at fertilization. It exists as an unbroken chain from father and mother to child. There is no “non human, non life” point of existence.

    To say otherwise is EQUALLY ARBITRARY as setting the start of human life at birth, or 3 months, or whatever.

    Masturbationists and Birth Controlists are as immoral as Abortionists, if not more so, because they commit their crimes against humanity on a MUCH LARGER scale.

    And to reiterate. It doesn’t matter if you or millions of other people disagree or what your viewpoints might be on the subject. It is MY morality that must be made into law, and anyone who disagrees or acts against my morality should be arrested.

  166. leon
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 10:19 pm

    An abortion is not killing a human. There is no human. A fetus is not a human. See the dot at the end of the last sentence? That’s how big a 1 day old zygote is. It is not a human. A 9 month old fetus is not a human; it is a fetus. As I said before aborting a 9 month pregnancy is disturbing to me, but for only one reason and that is the fact that this woman let the fetus grow for so long. It is disturbing only because it took this woman 9 months to decide to abort the pregnancy and it should not take that long. I can see her perhaps planning to give birth on the promise that her male companion was going to come home from Iraq to marry her or live together. But what if he is killed in her 9th month? Then I could understand her aborting at 9 months. But as I said, it is NONE of your business or mine.

    Suppose Joe Blow kills Fred Flick in cold blood in a city hundreds of miles away from you. Is that any of your business? Hardly. Unless Mr. Blow is coming for you next.

  167. Brian K
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 11:19 pm

    Sperm Defender: I have no clue whether you are being satirical or serious(text makes this difficult sometimes)

    I will say that the sperm is a human cell, just as is a cheek cell, brain cell, et al.

    A sperm however, cannot grow into a wholly seperate human being(without uniting with an egg, that is). That is the key difference, an embryo/fetus requires only time and nutrients like the rest of us to grow(circumstances surrounding that growth being wholly different, but only due to frailty and an early developmental stage, the same as a newborn cannot care for itself), and that is the critical difference that makes it a seperate human being.

    Although I must applaud you, at least your absolutism is consistent. I’d hate to see a moral relativist who thinks moral relativism is the only absolute(which is self-defeating).

    By the way… I’m curious… What makes legislating “Christian” morality any less “evil” than legislating “Atheist” morality or “Hindu” or “Wicca” morality or “Humanist” morality? Allow me to take a guess, its because you feel that your morality is in the right and others are wrong? Since everyone feels this way about their beliefs, telling everyone to shut up is idiotic. Somebody’s morality is going to pass more approval than somebody else’s, and everyone else is going to contest that morality by offering their own versions… this is how society grows and develops. Call it a neccesary “evil” if you will.

    So then leon, what is an abortion doing, is it “termination of a pregnancy” is it “removing a clump of cells” or some other such garbage? The PC movement is all about distortion and brainwashing, they avoid the reality of abortion because it is a gruesome one, so they sidestep it with veils such as “choice” and “women’s rights”, and “termination of pregnancy”, all vague terms that distract people from the reality: Abortion is a procedure which destroys a human being.

    Size does not matter, DNA evidence can prove that an embryo/fetus is a human being. The fact they are not a size of your liking is irrelevant. 6’4 265 lb. Football players are not any “more” human than 5’2″ 110 lb Asian women.

    And I love the “it is a fetus not a human”, by this logic “canis lupus” is not Wolf because using the greek word for wolf instantly changes it from a wolf into something other than a wolf. A rose by any other name, in other words. Are you so foolish to believe that “its not human untill the head is out”, the difference between a baby before and after birth is the length of the tract said baby has to travel through. And if it is a human after birth, it is a human before birth and subsequently is a human throughout its existence.

    If Joe Blow killed Fred Flick it is my job to see that laws are in place to bring Joe Blow to justice before he can consider killing me, Mary Lovejoy, or Sandra McSomeone, which is exactly what the pro-life movement is shooting for: legislation that will limit abortions to medical neccesity only.

  168. leon
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 11:34 pm

    What makes legislating “Christian” morality any less “evil” than legislating “Atheist”

    The word atheist is not capitalized. Atheists can strive for objectivity. It is impossible for xians to be object.

  169. Jennifer
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 11:45 pm

    Brian K, this one was especially crap filled.

    s to the whole “MY BODY” shtick, does anyone else find it amazing that there’s this big hubbub about “I’m not ready to have a baby”,and yet none of them think they aren’t ready to have sex (the action which causes said baby having)?

    So the only reason to have sex is to procreate?

    Could be a human is not a human, and all “life starts” points are arbitrarily choosen. Brian, do you think that a father should be legally forced to donate blood if his new baby needs it.

  170. Brian K
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 11:45 pm

    So you are saying that atheists are objective when dealing with other atheists? I find that hard to believe, any social group will strive to protect their own and exclude others, and atheism is no different. Ex. athiests can strive for objectivity but xians can’t is a statement favoring athiests over some other group, in this case christians.

    Claiming the moral high ground because you are atheist is as ridiculous as claiming the moral high ground because of *any* faith system, belief system, or political ideology you happen to hold. The moral high ground can be tested by that which seeks to harm the fewest human beings possible, with the absolute preference being none.

    I am a Christian and yet I do not claim inherent superiority. I am open to debate because I realize simply throwing the bible around is an idiotic way to debate, it is irrelevant to those who do not believe it and therefore while it guides facets of my life and provides an ethos and ideal for me, it is detached from any debate I enter into. Christians are quite capable of being objective, saying otherwise is a subjective statement. You cannot make an objective statement that applies to an entire group of people because that requires you to prove such a reality exists. I believe in God, you do not. This is ultimately irrelevant to the debate, I will use my logic and ethos to debate within what I understand to be the truth, and you will use your logic and ethos to debate within what you understand to be the truth. If we can reach the same conclusion by understanding the methods by which the other came to the same conclusion, chances are we have found an objective truth.

  171. Brian K
    August 23rd, 2005 @ 11:51 pm

    Jennifer: Nowhere have I made the argument that sex is only for procreation. If I have, please find and quote it for me so I may rescind such a statement.

    What I have said and I shall repeat any number of times I need to is that sex, regardless of the reasons that you are partaking in it, carries the risk of pregnancy. If you wish to avoid pregnancy the logical answer is to either A: avoid sex or B: have the organs which are used in the process of becoming pregnant removed(on either male or female members, or both).

    Based on this, I find the “MY BODY” argument to hold little water. If the body is so sacred that it cannot make room for another human life, I fail to see why it would let anything else enter it which could potentially cause such an outcome.

    (Moreover, the fact an abortion destroys a human life who has a seperate body that just happens to be encased inside someone elses temporarily kind of makes the “MY BODY” argument irrelevant, since the abortion’s purpose is to seek and destroy their body, but I digress).

  172. leon
    August 24th, 2005 @ 12:52 am

    So when you have eggs for breakfast you

  173. leon
    August 24th, 2005 @ 1:00 am

    A fetus cannot under any circumstances have eminent domain over the female in which it grows. A pregnant woman cannot become a slave to a mindless fetus. Adoption is not an option.

  174. lucyMuff
    August 24th, 2005 @ 2:11 am

    you all speak wank, for JESUS is and always wll be LORD
    LORD TO ALL

  175. The Big Picture
    August 24th, 2005 @ 6:16 am

    Carnival of the Vanities #153

    This is my second time hosting Carnival of the Vanities; I last hosted COTV #116 in December, and once again, I really enjoyed putting it together. I'm going to try a variation on a layout originated for last week's COTV at Willisms. In this …

  176. Sperm Defender
    August 24th, 2005 @ 8:10 am

    Brian K, what is a fetus if not a collection of “human cells”?

    You sick, death-dealing bastard.

    You really are brainwashed by the culture of death, and don’t realize the monstrosity which you are defending.

    It is a good thing that it doesn’t matter what you think. All that matters is that my morality is the one that should be legislated and no matter how right you think you are, I am going to do everything I can to make sure that people like you are put in jail for masturbating and using birth control.

    Each sperm, if given the right environment (an egg, a womb, etc) can indeed grow into an independent human being. The fact that sperm-abortionists are arbitrarily drawing the line at “fertilization” is as sick and demented as fetus-abortionists drawing the line at 3 months or birth, or whatever.

    You sick, death-loving bastard.

    Masturbation is immoral. Condoms are immoral. Birth control is immoral. And everything that is immoral should be against the law and people who practice it should be put in jail.

    If you aren’t responsible enough to care for your sperm, you shouldn’t be having sex (especially self-sex).

  177. dmatt33
    August 24th, 2005 @ 8:10 am

    That video is stunning in its hubris. The part where the “hero” kills the anti-abortion demonstraitors is appaling.

    But I doubt that the “anti-abortionists” would find it appalling when a real-life un-cartoon bomb blows the legs off the receptionist who works at the clinic, or the semi-retired security guard. It’s God’s will!

    Comparitively, I think pissy-assed, self-righteous people being torn apart by cartoon super-heros a real hoot.

  178. hermesten
    August 24th, 2005 @ 9:56 am

    Brian K: “I am a Christian and yet I do not claim inherent superiority. I am open to debate because I realize simply throwing the bible around is an idiotic way to debate, it is irrelevant to those who do not believe it and therefore while it guides facets of my life and provides an ethos and ideal for me, it is detached from any debate I enter into.”

    This makes you a very unusual Christian in my experience. And from my perspective you’re not one of the people we have to worry about. These Christians are: Grooming Politicians for Christ

  179. leon
    August 24th, 2005 @ 12:37 pm

    Brian K said:
    If you wish to avoid pregnancy the logical answer is to either A: avoid sex or B: have the organs which are used in the process of becoming pregnant removed (on either male or female members, or both).

    Ever hear of rubbers?

  180. Brian K
    August 24th, 2005 @ 12:46 pm

    leon 172: Not all eggs are fertilized eggs, in fact, usually farmers grow eggs for market in pens with only hens and eggs for keeping their hen and rooster supply fresh are in pens with both hens and roosters. It only takes a chicken about a month to develop from an egg to a chick. If the farmer only checked for eggs once a week, there would be a whole lot more off-colored looking eggs in people’s breakfasts in warmer parts of the nation. However, all pregnancies are indeed an indication of living beings(because de facto, unless a woman miscarries, chances are she’ll be giving birth). Moreover, by the time we’re using the word “fetus” we’re talking about something far larger than a mere clump of cells, since “fetus” covers such a nebulous timeframe(over half of the entire pregnancy).

    leon 173: Since when have women been “mindless slaves” to fetuses. I mean, if you’re at the 9th month of pregnancy, does that make you a zombie because the fetus is now so large and powerful and has become so bloated that it could make you jump off a cliff on one of its infantile(pun intended) whims? Besides, how can they be mindless slaves if they are the ones who can utilize the “abort” button at any time they please (at least in your opinion)?

    dmatt: By your logic, I should doubt that if a real live bomb took out a few places of worship you would be happy because you would think something along the lines of “Serves ‘em right for believing in something non-existant”. Point: Don’t apply ludicrous illogical thought processes to people you cannot represent without inserting your bias against them.

    Sperm Defender: Well, thats one way to answer a question. The fact still remains: Humans can be classified as “clumps of cells”, however, that means there is really no justification for not killing people because really, by that logic we’ve just become too big for petri dishes, and the way to remedy this is to make bigger ones. Sperm have no potential for their own to be an “I”. Fetuses do, that is the difference. It is the “I” which makes killing wrong, not some other person’s ethos.

  181. leon
    August 24th, 2005 @ 1:44 pm

    Brian K said:
    leon 172: Not all eggs are fertilized eggs, in fact, usually farmers grow eggs for market in pens with only hens and eggs for keeping their hen and rooster supply fresh are in pens with both hens and roosters. It only takes a chicken about a month to develop from an egg to a chick. If the farmer only checked for eggs once a week, there would be a whole lot more off-colored looking eggs in people’s breakfasts in warmer parts of the nation.

    irrelevant

    However, all pregnancies are indeed an indication of living beings
    A fetus is not a being.

    (because de facto, unless a woman miscarries, chances are she’ll be giving birth).
    Unwanted pregnancies can and should and will be aborted.

    Moreover, by the time we’re using the word “fetus” we’re talking about something far larger than a mere clump of cells, since “fetus” covers such a nebulous timeframe(over half of the entire pregnancy).
    Hmmm lets see now, what is a good word for

  182. Paul
    August 24th, 2005 @ 7:52 pm

    [paraphrasing Brian K.] “First off, Birth and Abortion are two entirely different things. To deny otherwise simply shows ignorance. There is massive difference between a separate human being outside a womb and a fetus that will not become a human being unless carried to term. So the whole ‘abortion destroying lives’ bit is BS at its finest.”

    Leon has it right, but not completely. (Ahem, allow me.) The whole argument is where to draw the line: birth, conception, or where? Leon shows that even drawing the line at conception is arbitrary. *Any* drawing of the line, rather, any justification for drawing the line at a certain point is arbitrary without the religious or philosophical [b]assumptions[/b] that underline it.

    I’ll go Leon one step further: not taking every single opportunity to make a pregnancy is killing a potential human life. If you’re not cranking out those rug rats, you’re destroying a potential life. I’ll entertain your futile attempts to reject this idea. My success proves the arbitrariness of any position: it’s all a judgment call, there’s no black and white (because there’s not god), we have to muddle through as best we can. Your muddle may not be mine.

  183. Brian K
    August 24th, 2005 @ 8:39 pm

    leon: Ever hear of “PHAIL”. As in Birth Control failing, I mean? Rubbers fail, rubbers do not protect you, that is simply how it goes. And besides, skydiving with a parachute still does not excuse the fact of your actions is that you will hit the ground. The parachute only lulls you into a sense of security and when it fails simply makes the inevitable ground hitting-conclusion harder.

    Paul: Leon’s inability to draw a line comes from his inability to accept anything other his own world-view as being factual. Scientific evidence showing life characteristics? We can’t use that, because that would be DRAWING A LINE(GASP! HORROR!). God(GASP!) forbid we could use any standards to judge(OH NOES, not THAT!) anything.

    Btw. leon, I suggest you check the definition of “being”.

    I also find it ironic you mention eggs in breakfast, but then when I show you the facts, you state “irrelevant”. So why bother asking the question then?

    And lets not go down the potential life sidetrip, shall we?

    After all, a fetus is currently living, if it is indeed jump some random clump of cells or a mere growth, you have nothing to worry about. After all, “potential beings” would by nature of being potential have no physical form. Things without physical forms do not grow, therefore fetuses either A: are actual, not potential human beings and thus deserve protection or B: are nothing but potential, a mere thought in someone’s mind, and thus abortions are merely paying doctors to cut women up for no reason at all.

    Those who view life as a muddle on matters of such importance are only confusing themselves. If you are not willing to draw a line because you claim scientific evidence(which can prove through DNA evidence that the being we are dealing with is in fact human) is arbitrary, then I feel you seriously need to reconsider what you currently consider arbitrary.

    Oh and the only one successfully making an ass of themselves is the one who brought it up.

    It has been nice entertaining your insanity leon, but you can’t honestly expect me to believe someone whose position is founded on the false assumption that fetuses aren’t even beings. If they aren’t beings they don’t exist, if they don’t exist abortions are unneccary because they are removing the non-existant.

  184. Viole
    August 24th, 2005 @ 9:22 pm

    Brian, you’re starting to sound like Ayn Rand.

    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The one who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between good and poison, it is only death that can win.

    Yeah, whatever. Here’s the joy of moral relativism; there’s no right, no wrong. A middle, certainly. This is why I offer a compromise; I’ll let you keep it illegal to murder post-born fetuses, if you keep it legal to abort pre-born children. ‘Kay?

    As a side note, the main debate is about choice, something which science can’t answer. It can solve the problem, though; just invent a foolproof way of temporarily preventing pregnancy(better than having your balls cut off, don’t you think, Brian?). No more unwanted pregnancies, no more abortions.

  185. Brian K
    August 24th, 2005 @ 11:30 pm

    The main debate is VEILED as choice. At what point does “no elective killing of innocent human beings” become morally inferior to “Its my right to privacy!”. The fact is it doesn’t, its just that 5/9 people in Black robes ruled in 1973 that even though they can’t define life, they think its perfectly safe to kill it for no reason whatsoever.

    How about “I’ll keep it illegal to electively kill human beings on a whim, if you keep it legal to save yourself when your life is actually in danger.

    Everybody wins. In elective abortion, there is always someone who loses unnecesarily, and sometimes both people lose because of botched killing jobs.

    The joy of moral relativism is that it is moral complacency.

    White: “It is wrong to murder those you consider “not good enough” just because they don’t meet YOUR personal and arbitrary standards.
    Black: It is fine to kill whoever you want for whatever reason
    Relativist: I can’t really decide which, so I will make it legal to kill only people who don’t meet your personal standards, but not for whatever reason you want.

  186. Jennifer
    August 25th, 2005 @ 12:48 am

    Oh that bothersome “people” definitiong again.

  187. Paul
    August 25th, 2005 @ 1:00 am

    Brian K., you missed my point. My point wasn’t about drawing the line in the wrong place, but that everyone – you, me, leon – are drawing lines, and fairly arbitrary ones at that, at least ones based on a lot of assumptions. It’s not about absolute morality, it’s merely which muddle feels the best. So we have to take a relativistic approach and let each woman decide.

  188. Paul
    August 25th, 2005 @ 9:27 am

    lucy dont be fool or unbelieve stupidiot these are need for relativism in at all any way for jesus (jesus is not lord) and bible (bible is not instruction on how live) fool all in absolute term so it all is not known is you can bothered be to read and misunderstand. Not for god father and holy ghoost deciding, but for women. If in doubt, go to school and there can ask smart man for best advice there be for humans for to come from evolution and bnooks of knowledge can be no bester

    We seem to be at an impass.

  189. hermesten
    August 25th, 2005 @ 10:05 am

    “Ever hear of “PHAIL”. As in Birth Control failing, I mean? Rubbers fail, rubbers do not protect you, that is simply how it goes.”

    I’ve heard of it: never experienced it. I’ve never had a rubber fail in over 30 years of sexual activity. Not one. I’ve been married for over 20 years: never had an unplanned pregnancy. Given how often I hear from Christians about how unreliable birth control is, God must be watching out for me. After all, if the failure rate is just 10%, I’d have seen roughly one failed rubber out of every ten uses. Yep, God is watching out for me, that’s the only possible explanation.

  190. LucyMuff
    August 27th, 2005 @ 10:17 pm

    why would fool waste space with gibberish?

    JESUS IS LORD

    for real

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links