I’m not sure if I like the “reader” function that wordpress offers as a part of its blogging platform. Searching the Abortion tag seems to consistently raise my blood pressure because of beastly shite that I find out there. Today’s turd of a post is entitled ‘Tough Choices” and after reading it my tough choice was either to cry or vomit. Luckily I chose option “3” and will employ the red pen of justice and take this privileged anti-choice dude apart.
“A young girl, around 12 or 13, is walking down the street at dark, when suddenly a man takes her and violently rapes her. Devastated, she falls into a state of depression. She is ready to put it all in the past when she realizes something–she’s late on her period. Terrified, she obtains a pregnancy test which confirms her fears. She is pregnant with the child of a rapist’s.
Now, I know some people would say that she needs to have the right to an abortion. Well–and yes, I know this is probably an unpopular opinion–I disagree.”
[Well it is good to establish that you have a firm hatred of women and their bodily autonomy from the outset.] Yes, rape is traumatic.[The faux-empathy begins here]
I can’t even begin to imagine having to go through it [It’s shitty, and you don’t want first hand experience].
However, if a victim of rape realizes she is pregnant, she probably feels scared, alone, and vulnerable. Some women would want to turn to abortion. But abortion is a cold lie [Where the frack does this come from? Abortion is not a lie, it is a medical procedure Is an appendectomy a cold lie too?]. It may seem appealing, like you can magically “undo” all that happened by a simple procedure, but in reality, it is the killing of a child[anti-choice distortion, the first of many – It is not a child, we get a child after the little event called “Birth”. Acorns are not oak trees]. Should a child’s life [*facepalm* – repeating misinformation does not make it more true] be taken just because of the crime the father committed?
Abortion in cases of rape takes a vulnerable, traumatized girl and further disturbs her by killing her child [Like carrying the results of rape for 9 months isn’t traumatizing?]. The results of abortion in cases of rape is one dead child [one terminated pregnancy, FIFY] and one extremely wounded mother [keep in mind the author is talking about a 11 or 12 year child, the term “Mother” is grossly misused].
Which seems more traumatic to you: being raped, becoming pregnant, having the child killed, and having to live with that the rest of your life; or, being raped, becoming pregnant, delivering the child, putting the child up for adoption, and living knowing that your child is alive as well? [you missed the option of suffering though and possibly dying in pregnancy] (though some women choose to keep their children rather than giving them up for adoption, a most admirable move)
Some pro-lifers want an exception for rape[yes, they have something resembling empathy and respect for women]. However, I don’t think there should be one. It may seem heartless at first[because it is], but once you look at the real reasons[fetus worshipping] why abortion shouldn’t be allowed in cases of rape[women should be second class citizens/incubators nothing more], I think you will better understand[We do understand, the hate for women and their autonomy screams from every line of this post].
45 comments
August 20, 2012 at 8:24 am
tildeb
Yes, the religiously misguided anti-choice crowd needs to see what their moral hypocrisy looks like in action: dead girls who were also pregnant sacrificed on the alter of their fetus worshiping.
LikeLike
August 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Action Hero Supplies » 65 Roses
[…] Christian “Anti-Choice” Site Advocates No Abortion for Child Rape … […]
LikeLike
August 24, 2012 at 9:03 am
christianprolife
Thanks for the publicity.
Oh, and I am a woman, not a “dude.” Are you really that paranoid about the “man” trying to keep us down or something?
LikeLike
August 24, 2012 at 9:36 am
The Arbourist
@christianprolife
You are welcome. Such definitive exemplars of poor argumentation and morality are hard to find.
Well, congratulations on internalizing the patriarchal message, I’m sure you get lots of cookies from dudes.
Paranoia is the unjustified fear/anxiety about a problem/entity. The fact that Patriarchy exists and it is keeping women oppressed, would categorize my concerns as relevant and justified.
LikeLike
August 27, 2012 at 10:06 am
christianprolife
Trying to make the killing of unborn children illegal is hardly “opressing women.”
LikeLike
August 27, 2012 at 10:34 am
The Arbourist
Giving the State power over what goes on in my uterus is completely a recipe for oppression. You have no rights to my kidneys even if you would die without a transplant. Why? Because the kidneys are mine, end of story.
This same bodily autonomy applies to all of my body – there is no magical exception when it comes to my reproductive system.
Blastocysts, fetuses are not children. Children are what we get *after* giving birth. Acorns are not oak trees (again).
LikeLike
August 27, 2012 at 12:35 pm
christianprolife
Fetuses are in fact, children. Abortion rights are not rights to one’s own body, they are rights to kill another human being. http://christianprolife.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/what-are-unborn-babies/
LikeLike
August 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Mystro
@christinprolife The argument presented in your linked article would mean that the cells on your nose are humans – they have DNA and they are live cells. Thus every time you scratch your nose, you kill off a few hundred people in shed skin. So either everyone on the planet is a mass murderer every time they scratch an itch, or your argument doesn’t work.
Or hey, if you want to only classify distinct DNA as lives (although why you would want to invalidate the personhood of twins is beyond me), then the untold trillions of daily occurring dead human sperm cells will still fit your definition.
If any of this is sounding at all ridiculous, congratulations: you now know what it’s like to listen to anti-choice arguments like yours.
LikeLike
August 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Another Week of GW News, August 26, 2012 – A Few Things Ill Considered
[…] 2012/08/20: DWR: Christian “Anti-Choice” Site Advocates No Abortion for Child Rape Victi… […]
LikeLike
August 27, 2012 at 6:17 pm
tildeb
Those who make up the vociferous anti-choice crowd confuse values with rights. They assume that their values trump the legal rights of others to equality under the law so they use legislators to bias the law as their weapon of anti-choice. They fail to appreciate that abortion itself is a medical issue, which is why legislators ignorant of medicine think themselves capable of creating intrusive and harmful laws that put patients at risk in the name of these anti-choice values.
Christianprolife assumes that people should be compelled to live by his/her values regardless of how they infringe upon the legal rights and medical concerns of patients. He/she simply doesn’t care about these fully formed autonomous enfranchised citizens. S/he is concerned only about the potential human life in a womb with zero consideration of the human life incubating that potential human. This is a truly bizarre value when examined in detail because it is exactly opposite what it purports to be about: concerned about human well-being. S/he doesn’t care about human well-being or he/she would be concerned about legal rights of equality and autonomy and choice and best practices in medicine and patient welfare and so on. But all of these are not concerns to christianprolife with one notable exception: the potential gestating human. But even here we find hypocrisy in action because christianprolife will not advocate for access to reproductive health care to reduce the need for abortions. As well, christianprolife will not advocate for early sex education, make freely available contraception, fund preventive measures for at risk youth, or lobby for free health clinics for women. S/he only wants to impose his/her assumed vaunted values at the direct expense of other women. And that’s why s/he’s a delusional nutjob, unable and unwilling to form a rational thought around this intensively private issue and presumes s/he is sanctioned by god to impose his/her values by reducing the rights and freedoms and health of others to suit his/her belief that the potential value of a fetus supersedes all other legitimate considerations. He/she is as dangerous a lunatic as any other terrorist willing to reduce your rights, freedoms, and even your life on the alter of his/her warped religious values – an anti-choice, anti-life value cleverly disguised by naming what it is not: pro life.
LikeLike
August 27, 2012 at 7:24 pm
christianprolife
@Mystro Actually, my argument isn’t claiming that. DNA in unborn children is separate from the mother. It is as different from the mother as a toddler’s DNA is from his/her mother.
@tildeb Saying that I just want others to live by my values when it comes to this situation is like saying the same thing because I don’t believe murder should be legal.
Also, I care about women AND children. Abortion hurts women–women deserve better than to be tricked into thinking their unborn children are not alive, only to regret a terrible decision later in life, and suffering. Also, I care about men. A woman could go and have her unborn child killed without the father’s consent. Men may also pressure women into abortion because they also believe the lie that unborn children aren’t alive. So, abortion hurts men as well. Abortion takes the life of an unborn, who is a sibling, child, grandchild, or cousin of someone who will be hurt because this child died.
So by trying to make abortion not only illegal, but unthinkable, it spares these people pain.
And of course I care about preventing pregnancy. I believe all people should be able to have what they need to prevent pregnancy (though I believe abstinence is the best prevention).
And if trying to save unborn children makes me a terrorist, so be it I guess. And if trying to give equal rights to unborn humans beings makes me a nutjob, okay. But I am not anti-choice, I am not anti-life, I am pro-life for all women, men, children, and unborn children.
LikeLike
August 27, 2012 at 10:13 pm
bleatmop
Arb – You managed to attract a grade A Fetusfascist. Full of the usual quality straw men and non sequiturs.
Hey CPL, this is what your world looks like:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/pregnant-dominican-teen-center-abortion-debate-dies-delayed/story?id=17044066#.UDxERqPsavw
and
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GmZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zFIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5691,2705908&dq=year+old+pregnant+denied+abortion&hl=en
and
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00146.htm
and
http://bigthink.com/focal-point/pregnant-13-year-old-peruvian-rape-victim-denied-medical-treatment-confined-to-wheelchair-video
and
http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20051121125625960
and
http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/07/nicaragua-therapeutic-abortion-ban-a-quotdisgracequot-says-rights-group/
Need I go on?
LikeLike
August 28, 2012 at 9:14 am
The Arbourist
@tildeb
Well said. Hypocrisy for the lose!
You are on a roll Tilbdeb, keep it up. :)
LikeLike
August 28, 2012 at 9:19 am
The Arbourist
@christianprolife –
Oh, I didn’t see the fetus size diapers available, or the fetus formula or really..anything that denotes that we consider fetuses children. Well other than your insidious campaign against women, the list is pretty slim.
LikeLike
August 28, 2012 at 9:32 am
The Arbourist
@bleatmop
I know, I always get the super high quality rational ones too. I do ask for it a bit though because sometimes (a pox on the wordpress reader) I read argumentation that is just soooooo wrong that I need to do something about it.
The auto-moderation kicks in after 4 links, sorry about that Bleat.
Take a look at the links CPL, that is the world and society you are trying to bring *here*.
Not on my watch.
Not ever.
LikeLike
August 28, 2012 at 3:47 pm
christianprolife
@ bleatmop
Your first link shows a situation where the baby could not be saved if chemo was delayed, so I do support abortion in rare cases such as this.
As for the rest of your links that show rape cases, rape is a tragic crime. However, we cannot punish children whose fathers’ are rapists. Counseling is needed for the rape victims, I believe. They should not go through their ordeals alone. However, abortion will not, and cannot, solve a rape victim’s problems. You wouldn’t support the killing of a born baby of a rapist, would you?
@The Arbourist
I didn’t realize you need diapers and formula for a baby still in the womb. Maybe you should learn a little more about pregnancy and unborn babies? And you decide whether someone is alive or not because of what society says? If society said you weren’t alive, wouldn’t you argue against that?
Oh, and I hate women, yet fight for the rights of unborn women? hmm
LikeLike
August 28, 2012 at 8:39 pm
bleatmop
@shristianprolife
Bullshit. You are a blatant liar. Earlier you posted:
You not only want to make abortion illegal, but want to make people unable to think about it. Thought crimes anyone?
Also fuck your fucked up sense of morality. You favour a blastocyst over the health of young girls, many under 12, who will be physically damaged by the pregnancy.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-10/news/30384749_1_mexican-girl-abortions-young-mother
But hey, what they fuck ever. Just so long as your blastocysts can turn into fetuses, inhabit the bodies of children against their will and potentially kill both the child and the fetus then its all good by you. Have fun living your life with your fucked up morals that favour potential persons than actual persons. I’m just happy we live in Canada, where our conservative PM refuses to reopen the abortion debate, the CMA stands firmly in favour of choice rights, and for the most part sanity rules the day. I feel sorry for the USian women that you are fighting against.
LikeLike
August 28, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Mystro
@christianprolife
“DNA in unborn children is separate from the mother.”
Just as the DNA in sperm is separate from the father. You haven’t dodged the ludicrous implications of your position at all.
“I am not anti-choice”
You are for forcing a person to harbour and unwanted foreign body against their will. You are for forcing a person to risk their mental and physical health (possibly their lives) when they don’t want to. The key words here are ‘force’ ‘against their will’ and ‘don’t want to’. Very strong indicators that you are indeed anti-choice.
LikeLike
August 28, 2012 at 9:51 pm
christianprolife
@bleatmop
I see you have began to use cursing to get your point across. Anger and rudeness does not help your position.
@Mystro
It seems the pro-choice position is really anti-choice for unborn children. And DNA in new babies is one strand from the father and one from the mother, creating a whole new, unique DNA, a DNA code which that child will have the rest of his/her life.
LikeLike
August 29, 2012 at 12:08 am
Mystro
@christianprolife
“It seems the pro-choice position is really anti-choice for unborn children”
So you think blastocysts make choices do you? You are talking more nonsense than usual.
“a whole new, unique DNA”
Which come from unique sperm cells, each one slightly different and special in it’s own little way. There is still no difference, and you are still being ludicrous. No matter what you come up with for a blastocyst, there is a comparable point for sperm. That’s why you make as much sense as someone campaigning for the rights of all those poor murdered sperm cells.
LikeLike
August 29, 2012 at 9:36 am
christianprolife
@Mystro
So what exactly do you consider alive? What characterizes a living person for you?
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Mystro
@christianprolife
You’ve given up, huh? You can’t defend your position so you are now trying to divert focus from your failed attempts to justify your ludicrous claims.
That won’t work.
Either admit that your position is bogus or attempt to defend it. I suggest you do the former as you are demonstrably unable to do the latter.
(Hint: You can’t defend it well because it’s wrong)
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 5:47 pm
christianprolife
Of course I haven’t given up. I will never give up when it comes to defending the rights of unborn children. I simply want to know why you think unborn children aren’t alive. Whatever you say you probably can’t defend well because it’s wrong. Science has advanced past the old “unborn babies aren’t alive” argument. There is nothing born babies have that unborn babies don’t. Heartbeat? Check. (at 21 days) Brain waves? Check. (at 42 days) Unique DNA? Check. (at conception)
What else is necessary to prove babies in the womb are alive?
(But maybe, even if someone proved to you they were alive, you would still support abortion?)
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Mystro
@chistianprolife
Of course they are live cells. I never said that they were not. Quit arguing against positions that are not being made. It is dishonest. When you go around lying all the time, you shouldn’t be surprised when people get angry at you.
The point was that sperm cells are alive too. They also have DNA. And they will ultimately have a heartbeat and brain waives if they make it to the required stage of development. So, by your reasoning, every ejaculation entails the death of a few hundred million people. This is, of course, ridiculous, which shows that your reasoning is ridiculous.
Quit being dishonest and address what was actually said instead of the make-believe lie positions you make up.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 6:59 pm
christianprolife
@mystro
The point is that at conception, there is more than just cells with DNA. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, there becomes a DNA unique to the mother and father. Sperm are live cells with DNA, but they have DNA unique to the father. Same with eggs. However, zygote really has a new DNA unique from the mom and dad. Sure, sperm are living cells, but not humans. Zygotes, however, are human. Zygote is just a name for a live human at an early stage of developement, much like the terms “baby” or “child” or “teenager.”
The truth is not dishonest. It may seem hard to accept the fact that millions of unborn children are killed every year, but the truth is hard to take.
LikeLike
August 30, 2012 at 11:53 pm
The Arbourist
@CPL – What you are saying is an absurdity. Let me quote a paper written about how if we took your claim as correct what we would have to accept.
Now I don’t actually expect you to read the paper because is seems that you dogmatically ignore reason as par for the course. But here is the link any ways for shitz and giggles and for the people lurking to educate themselves.
Some of the conclusions we can draw from your stance are as follows:
1. 60% of all people are killed by no one other than your loving, generous psychopath of a god.
2. Who is the most prolific abortionist of them all – god
3. So not only is your anti-woman claim spurious, it highlights your other atrocious moral stance – belief in god.
So, go ahead claim personhood for fetuses or “unborn children” [sic] and accept the fact that your delusional oooga-booga of choice is a mass murder on a scale unparallelled in history. Murder is wrong, so why do you believe in a murderous god?
Or did you want to rethink that whole personhood at conception bullcookery?
LikeLike
August 31, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Mystro
@christianprolife
“However, zygote really has a new DNA unique from the mom and dad.”
So what? All you are saying is that a zygote is further along in the life cycle than a sperm. You fail to mention why this is relevant.
“Zygote is just a name for a live human at an early stage of developement”
If this is so, then ‘sperm’ is just a name for a live human at an even earlier stage of development. – Think how ridiculous this sounds, and you have a good idea how your position looks.
“The truth is not dishonest”
I called YOU dishonest. Equivocating yourself with ‘The Truth’ is arrogance in the extreme. On top of that, I told you exactly how you were being dishonest. So, not only did you ignore the real charge (betraying your cowardice) you also tried to make it about something else (betraying, once again, your dishonesty).
I assure you, I find nothing hard about taking the truth. Perhaps your difficulty comes from your incessant manufacturing of lies.
LikeLike
September 1, 2012 at 5:08 pm
christianprolife
To quote a friend, “Which is more irrational? Believing in a God you cannot see, or being angry at a God you do not believe exists?” You blame a loving God, who gave His Son Jesus for our sins, for the deaths of unborn babies by miscarriages? (while humans murder millions more)
Oh, and sperm is not human. It is only when sperm and an egg combine that causes a human being to form. Therefore, by my logic, sperm is NOT a name for a live human at an earlier stage of developement because it is not yet human. The point made was that sperm are alive, yes, and a zygote is alive, but they are different in that sperm are cells and zygotes are humans. This is the truth. The truth is not dishonest, and I am speaking the truth, so I am not being dishonest. I am not manufacturing lies, I am speaking facts. (oh, and you never told me what you considered the characteristics of a living human)
LikeLike
September 1, 2012 at 5:41 pm
tildeb
cpl writes sperm are cells and zygotes are humans
When I compare and contrast a zygote with an adult human female, I detect rather significant physiological differences. These are not equivalent things. But I understand that a zygote has the potential to become an adult human. It is this notion of intentionally confusing and blurring potential with actual (like calling a blastocyst a ‘child’) that I think lies at the heart of the disinformation and misrepresentation of the anti-choice movement.
LikeLike
September 1, 2012 at 9:53 pm
christianprolife
There are differences between toddlers and adults when it comes to how far developed they are, mentally and physcially, but toddlers are still humans, just humans at an earlier stage of developement. So are unborn babies, even at their earliest stages. Sperm and eggs have the potential to form human beings, but zygotes have already become humans.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 8:20 am
The Arbourist
@CPL – Stop dodging the question(s) and repeating the same bullshite argument over and over. It is tiresome exercise.
It is okay to say that you believe that fetuses are babies from the point of conception. It’s okay to say jebus died for our “sins” etc cetera. You can hold those opinions. Realize that they are mere opinions and just because you feel them passionately does not make them right.
If you want to persuade people that your views are correct then you need more than zeal to get the job done, especially when people hold contrary views to yours on a particular topic. Saying the same thing over and over is not arguing it is just exposing how dishonest your style of argumentation is and how rotten the position you are trying to defend is.
Which is more frustrating arguing with someone who is stupid or someone is dishonest? Do you really think I’m *angry* at god, it is like being angry at the Sun for sunburning my nose. It doesn’t accomplish anything and it was NOT what I was saying. I’m annoyed at you for misrepresenting what I said and then doubling down with the stupid by adding your dogmatic christian babble to the mix.
The question posed is rather simple, if believe in the fully human being status at zygote stage – which you said you have – then the person who is doing the most murdering is god/jebus/ooga-booga. Have fun worshipping the mass-murdering torture loving god, because he is responsible for waaaay more deaths that us mere humans – if we are killing millions then he is doing billions and has been doing since our inception. Kinda gross huh?
No, not really. You are putting your opinions out there and not answering people who hold contrary positions to yours. Repeating what you’ve said is not defending your position – answering other peoples arguments and then showing why your argument is closer to reality is how to defend and promote your position.
You have not, and most likely will continue not to do so. That is why people get angry with you (along with the repugnant argument that you make) is because you refuse to engage them. This isn’t church, the top down, “I know the TRUTH” bullshite doesn’t work, we are not gullible. This is the internet you have to think for yourself out here and persuade people by using your intellect and behaving charitably toward those who opinion you wish to change.
To change from trolling which you are doing now to arguing, you need to take the arguments presented against your position in the strongest and best possible light and show why they are wrong.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 11:33 am
bleatmop
I’ve noticed a funny thing with these theotards and I’ve been waiting for it here ever since CPL responded to me. It’s a simple thing really, they think they are god. Probably unwittingly and they will all deny it. But the truth is that they all think their will is the manifestation of their god’s will.
It happened her when Mystro questioned CPL’s integrity by call her dishonest and this simply cannot be tolerated. See, CPL has an inside track to her god’s will and she is out in the think of the internet spreading her gods will. That Mystro called her dishonest means she called her god dishonest, therefore CPL came back with the whole questioning god is a fools argument schtick that is to be expected in these circumstances.
It always amuses me when theotards do this. They take an attack on their character and translate it to an attack on their god. They can never be wrong, because god is on their side. They know god’s will and it lines up perfectly with their vision for the world. When their vision changes, it’s simply god letting them know that they were wrong before, but now they have the real truth. It’s all very convenient for these narcissists. They can never be wrong because god is telling them what to do, except for the times they are wrong, then it’s simply just god correcting them.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 11:57 am
Mystro
@CPR
“Oh, and sperm is not human. It is only when sperm and an egg combine that causes a human being to form. Therefore, by my logic, sperm is NOT a name for a live human at an earlier stage of developement because it is not yet human…Sperm and eggs have the potential to form human beings, but zygotes have already become humans.”
One, there is not ‘my logic’ and ‘your logic’. Either your reasoning follows a valid form or it doesn’t.
Two, what you say definitely does not follow valid form.
Yet again, you fail to give any reason why you are correct or why I’m wrong. You just keep on repeating that you are correct. Simplified, what you said looks like this
Premise 1: I’m right
Conclusion: Therefore I’m right
This just doesn’t fly. If you don’t understand this, you are in serious need of some basic education regarding rationality. See to it.
“I am speaking the truth, so I am not being dishonest”
Sigh, I’ve explained this twice now and you still get it wrong. One last time. Read carefully.
Even if you are right about zygotes (you’re not, but hypotheticals can be enlightening), how you’ve conducted yourself is still dishonest. You answer weak objections that I don’t make, so you can avoid the objections that I do make.
You are lying about what I’m saying. You are lying about your ability to answer objections. You are lying about how serious you’re thinking about the issues presented. You are lying.
Again, note that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your position is correct. It does, however raise some questions that you ought to ask yourself. For instance, why, if your position is right, must you resort to dishonest debating tactics to maintain it?
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm
The Arbourist
@bleatmop
Yet another reason why my “religion poisons everything” tag gets such a vigorous work out.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 9:43 pm
ITMoose
I know that there is freedom of speech, but isn’t this a little much? Taking someones beliefs and picking them appart doesn’t make you any less right or wrong in your opinion. All people should have the right to say what they believe without being critisized by another who doesn’t think the same way. And if it is any consolation, a female wrote the original post.
LikeLike
September 2, 2012 at 10:02 pm
ITMoose
I realise that everyone has their own opinion but isn’t this a bit much? Harrassing a person just because of their beleifs? There will always be speculation about abortion; why can no one realise this? Arguing over the topic will not change someones mind if they truely believe in what they are saying. The comments on this post are proof of that. Please understand that no matter what there will be people who disagree with you and will argue, when they do that it is best to leave the person alone because you will get no where.
LikeLike
September 3, 2012 at 1:30 am
bleatmop
@ITMoose
Wrong. People should have the right to say whatever they please. We have the right to call them out for bullshit beliefs. If what you are saying is true, someone could express the belief that raping children is A-Ok and that everyone should do it. Fortunately, freedom of expression allows us to tell that person that they are all kinds of bad things and their opinion is stupid. Restricting a person’s right to criticize is actually restricting their right to “say what they believe”, thus making the first part of your statement in direct conflict with the second part.
So your solution for everyone to shut up about controversial topics because you won’t convince the other side of the their error? Are you for real? Even if that was true, the discussion is worth having to convince those that have not taken a side yet. One wonders why you would even post this, if this is what you truly believe. By your own argument, you are going to “get no where” with those of us on either side of this issue.
LikeLike
September 3, 2012 at 7:01 am
tildeb
ITMoose, it’s one thing to ‘harass’ another person over beliefs you don’t agree with and have the disagreement left alone there. It is quite another to advocate that your beliefs should be inserted into law and imposed on all, wouldn’t you agree? When another person’s beliefs become the support for invasive procedures contrary to best medical practices to be carried out by health care practitioners on certain patients, beliefs that when practiced demonstrably kill women and puts their health and welfare at risk, beliefs that force a different class of citizenship to be applied to pregnant women, beliefs that intentionally restrict access to health care for this class of women, beliefs that empower highly discriminatory legal sanctions against real people in real life that reduces their legal autonomy in the name of promoting equal rights for cellular clumps, then ‘taking apart’ the beliefs becomes rather important to show why they are harmful in practice, don’t you think?
If people would keep their beliefs out of the public domain and in the private and those who disagreed sought them out only to vilify them, then your point would be one of politeness and relevant. I have no problem with those who decide to impose on themselves their private beliefs. But as a responsible citizen, I have a duty to criticize those who would impose their beliefs on me – a member of the public – and reduce my autonomy in law to suit their private beliefs. Such a practice is intolerable because it is disrespectful to all of us.
If PLC refused to have a therapeutic abortion and died for her beliefs about it, I would respect her decision to exercise her autonomy even if I disagreed with the particulars. I do so out of respect not to the decision itself but to the rights of the person making it. This respect is not reciprocated by the anti-choice crowd. All who advocate for legal sanctions against abortion services and reducing the rights of the pregnant woman to second class citizenship in the name of protecting the non-existent legal rights of the fetus are a great danger to the rights of all of us – themselves included. Their confusion about why the use of law to impose their beliefs on others is such a gross abuse of state power is very much in need of loud and sustained criticism. Those who don’t understand why this is important – any you seem to fall into this category – need to wake up if you care at all about your legal autonomy because the anti-choice crowd is coming for you next.
LikeLike
September 3, 2012 at 9:25 am
The Arbourist
@ITmoose
If it were all “just opinion” it really would not be an issue now would it? Scurrilous factual claims were/are being made by CPL and need to be exposed and corrected. I am very well aware that I will not change CPL opinion on anything, but what I can do is show how poorly constructed her arguments and the fetid foundations of why she believes what she does. I do this because other people who are undecided might read the blog and comments section and gain more information hopefully constructing a more well informed opinion on Abortion.
I have nothing personal against CPL, just the views she holds are archaic, barbaric and viciously anti-woman. It is her publically stated views, not her, that I disrespect.
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 8:35 am
christianprolife
To respond and explain my position fully, here is what I think about abortion:
1) Life begins at conception. Why? Once a sperm and egg become one, a being with distinct DNA is formed. Sperm has DNA. Eggs have DNA. However, they have DNA specific to the father and mother. A sperm has only one man’s DNA, and an egg has only one woman’s DNA. But a zygote, or newly formed human, has a new DNA unique from the mother and father’s–it has special DNA of its own. Sperm and eggs have potential to become human beings, but once they are joined, a human being has been formed. As a child grows in the womb, he/she develops a heartbeat at around 21 days, brain waves at around 42 days, and after just 10 weeks, the baby begins to move about. It is a fact that every surgical abortion performed stops a beating heart. (yes, a non-debatable fact)
2) Unborn children should be regarded as people. Why? Well, some would admit that they are alive and human, but should not have the same status as born people. However, this claim is insane. It is not our place to pick and choose which humans get to be “people” and which humans do not. That’s what they did during slavery (deeming African Americans “not people”) and during WWII (deeming Jews “not people”) History repeats itself, sometimes in deadly ways. Humans cannot continue calling people “not people.”
3) Just to touch briefly upon what you’ve said about “God being a murderer”–by that logic, you say that since God kills millions of unborn babies, we should be able to do so? Well, millions of people die every day, should we be able to go out and kill anyone we want to?
4) Abortion is killing a child, and should only be accpetable in very rare cases in which a mother’s life is in danger, and the baby cannot be saved. We wouldn’t accept the killing of a born baby who was conceived through rape, so how could we accept the killing of an unborn child? It was the father who commited the crime, not the child.
5) I do not claim to “be God.” I know God wouldn’t want us killing, however, as He states it clearly in the Ten Commandments.
6) I am not anti-woman. I don’t understand how I can be against my own gender. I don’t understand how trying to protect unborn women is anti-woman. I don’t understand how trying to protect women from abortion is anti-woman. And I don’t understand how trying to help pregnant women is anti-woman.
7) I am not being dishonest when I am using viable scientific research and proven facts.
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Alan Scott
The Arbourist ,
I have been wanting to join in, but this discussion is so long and with so many points, it is difficult to choose a starting point . I have sifted out a few of your arguments that I wanted to question.
Your equating Patriarchy with the oppression of women requires a broad definition of Pariarchy .
Then there is your total denial of personhood of an unborn child . Okay lets take it to a logical conclusion . Why then is infanticide murder ? Just because the little tyke forced himself out of his mother, does he now deserve to live ? As long as he, no lets call him she, as long as she stays put she is on death row .
But that is not fair , is it ? We were speaking of a 9 month fetus and many of the littles tykes get terminated at a much earlier stage . If you go back far enough you can’t even tell they were human . What of a premature baby ? It can live with help outside of mom . It is legal to kill her inside of mom, but it is murder to kill her in her incubator .
By the way, you better be right about the flying spagetti monster . It would really suck to wake up in the next life and be embarassed .
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 8:05 pm
The Arbourist
@Alan Scott
Well thank you for picking mine to “comment” on, it is always a pleasure to respond to your queries.
Go read now. Thanks.
Do we celebrate our conception day every year? Of course we do not, we celebrate the day when we started breathing our own air, eating our own food and pooping in our pants. Up till that point we do not possess full personhood as we are living off the avails of another. You should be against this Mr.Scott, it is your favourite dirty word – Socialism!!1!!!!!1
Anyhow, bodily autonomy can’t stop for certain spots in your body. Arguing that women should not have full control of their body is just inviting the state to make other parts ‘public property’ as well…(damn guv’ment). Why should you be allowed to keep both your kidneys when one would save the life of another? We’re preserving life here Mr.Scott and the state should legislatively mandate the use of your kidneys to protect life, no?
Feels kinda icky? Yah… well then imagine that the state is trying to legislate what is going on in your uterus. Again protecting and preserving life…? Nope, not a good deal for you or your bodily autonomy.
Alan, any being that would condemn another to suffering in hell forever for not believing in him, while letting mass-murders, child molesters and rapists into heaven simply because they repent is not a heaven where I would want to stay. But thanks for the concern. :>
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Mystro
@cpl
1) you still haven’t answered my ‘so what?’ question from before. Getting the chromosomes from the egg is just the next step in a sperm’s life cycle. The sperm is alive and it is human (it certainly isn’t dead and it certainly isn’t from some other species), so by your criteria, it still counts.
2) Your reasoning still says that sperm are people too. It’s still ridiculous.
3) If god is perfectly good and can go around killing people every day, then yes, it would mean that if we were to replicate it’s behaviour and also kill, we would be doing good as well. The point here was to show theistic grounds to be ridiculous in the same way I showed your ‘alive and human’ bit to be ridiculous.
4) No, abortion is getting something unwanted out of a person’s body. Forcing someone to risk their physical, mental, and emotional well being – not to mention their lives- is wrong. In the process the development of a blastocyst or fetus is terminated. That’s all.
5) Bah on your 10 Commandments
6) You want to stop women from having control over their bodies.That’s how.
7) I’ve explained in great detail how you’ve been dishonest. You still ignore it and talk as if I meant something other than what I’ve clearly laid out. That’s dishonesty squared.
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 11:43 am
Alan Scott
The Arbourist ,
Pardon me me going off on different tangents, but you bring up points that lead in new directions .
” Anyhow, bodily autonomy can’t stop for certain spots in your body. ”
What are your thoughts on Mayor Bloomberg and his war on big gulps ? Fortunately I do not live under his oppression, but hey if you can comment on American politics, I can opine on New York . Wouldn’t my stomach be as off limits to the Nanny State as a woman’s uterus ? Then there is his highness’s trying to force birthing women to breast feed . I do not come down on either side of the baby formula question, I just hate the Mayor involving himself .
” Of course we do not, we celebrate the day when we started breathing our own air, eating our own food and pooping in our pants. Up till that point we do not possess full personhood as we are living off the avails of another. You should be against this Mr.Scott, it is your favourite dirty word – Socialism!!1!!!!!1 ”
You have a valid point as far as you go with it . A person’s body is their’s . You always believe that our involvement in the issue is strictly our need to oppress women . No our involvement is strictly our caring of that unborn life . Your view of that poor creature seems to me to be that of a parasite living off of the host woman .
I will now go off on another logical tangent . You are a big Socialist, yes ? Society owes it’s poor unfortunate victims everything it can do for them . The means are to be extracted from those who have stolen more than their fair share, right ? Okay, you just said that personhood begins when we are breathing our own air, eating our own food, and pooping in our pants . I suppose that is so that the host woman’s body does not have to provide those services free of charge to the little free loader within her .
Well now why does society have to provide free food, free education, and all of the other necessities of life to the poor? They do seem to breathe on their own . Yet they seem not to be able to shelter or feed themselves . They therefore do not meet your definition of personhood and I fear for their safety . Well they also can poop in their pants, so that maybe means they are half persons .
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 2:52 pm
The Arbourist
@Alan Scott.
Mr.Scott, the situation you comment on is similar, yet different in a couple of significant ways. Mr.Bloomberg is legislating an act to curtail the size of soft drink containers as a public health ordinance. He is not saying you cannot drink copious amounts of beverage, just that you’ll have to get your soft drink in smaller denominations. Or bring your own garganutan bucket and fill it for yourself and not rely on the business to provide you with a container that provides an unhealthy serving size for you.
For this case to be analogous to what women are facing, the Mayor would have to be enforcing mandatory bariatric surgery (stomach stapling) on the population of new york. Certainly it would save Life, but the surgery, as pregnancy is a dangerous procedure and making it mandatory would be a violation of your right to bodily autonomy. Baring a certain sized cup from being used in the public is largely an economic decision, one that can be easily circumvented by ordering two cups, or bringing your own container thus even your economic sovereignty has not really been impaired.
Which is nice, but it seems to mostly come at the expense of the already fully functional member of society, and that would be the woman. One should value the already existing person over the potential existence of another.
As an aside, it would seem to be in your interest to go along with the government paying for women’s reproductive services and contraception, as preventing conception would be a win-win for both sides it. The amount of push back from the right, and I take you be a representative the of religious right, would seem to be issue is more about taking away the rights of women that preserving the potential lives of the unborn.
Is giving people the means to survive such a crime Mr.Scott. Let me rephrase this in language that might help you gain perspective – You work hard for your stuff right and want to keep it safe? Poor people will do whatever it takes to feed their families and keep them safe – why not provide that basic safety net so society can eliminate the desperate poverty that is the cause of much crime and many social ills (drugs,domestic violence, et cetera). If people can meet their basic needs with help from you and me, they won’t stealing your stuff and making your neighborhood a dangerous place to live in. So, you pay some extra taxes to make *everyone’s* life a little better.
Because we are a civilized(?) society? The situation you seem to be endorsing seems a little 19th century in flavour. The industrial revolution was a stage in development, not a goal to shoot for. Anyways, all of society does better the more egalitarian it is. This is evidence fact, and I know I have sent you to the equality trust before Mr.Scott, but I will link again because many on the right like to dismiss arguments for social and economic equality as academically soft-headed flights of fantasy. The truth of the matter is that the quality of life of the people in society is strongly correlated on how egalitarian it is, socialism distributes wealth and makes societies more equal, thus is a benefit to said society.
Mr.Scott, this is a stretch even for you, and I think you know it. Furthermore, discussions of social economic systems and egalitarianism is a derail of this thread, if you want to discuss these idea’s further please go to this thread where I would be happy to discuss your thoughts on socialism and the economy.
LikeLike