THE THIRD PIECE OF TAPE
Will hurt like hell while being removed
(Pro-life protester)
Picture by: dunno source Caption by: rafboy via Poster Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous The day Mrs. Jones | Good Joe. Next »
THE THIRD PIECE OF TAPE
» 407 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
MrsQ Of Philly is re… on GREECE !neoritter on Progress Poker neoritter on Time Travel Protester MrsQ Of Philly is re… on GREECE DevAd on GREECE MrsQ Of Philly quick… on Better Than Coffee Whatever on GREECE Whatever on GREECE Whatever on Has This Certain Ring to … SuzyQ on Better Than Coffee 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Lolcats: So ya think
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Sun Salutation
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Run in with Monorail cat
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Pinnipeds Unite!
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Dog Sings Along to Dexter Theme Song
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Surprised Pup
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Out of the Rain
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
I Don't Give a Damn About My Bad Reputation
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Shut Up. Pie
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
MAYBE AT LEAST SPELL DEUX CORRECTLY NEXT TIME???
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
They'll Never Think to Look For Me in a Rap Video!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
J. Cole Totally Looks Like Javale McGee
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Toasted Squee
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Optometrist Dreams
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Streetfront View
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Ordinal me! Or else!
Bondage tape is a 2-3 inch wide strip of thin plastic material that adheres only to itself, without any adhesive; it is typically intended to be used in erotic bondage. Since it does not stick to the hair or skin, a bottom can be tightly bound and/or gagged without causing harm when the tape is removed.
Some tape is thick enough that it can be unwound, unwrinkled and rewound for reuse, but usually it is simply and quickly removed by cutting it with blunt-tipped scissors.
If the tape is applied relatively flat on the body, the risk of losing circulation is minimal. However, until the top has sufficiently practiced, the tape is easily twisted, in which case it becomes like plastic string and thus more likely to pinch and possibly cause a loss of circulation.
Well played, Wino. Well played.
I predict not only heated discussions, but plenty of trolling on this lol. I wonder if it will crack 300 comments?
I’ll take 400. Anyone want 500? Any takers for 500?
I don’t know I think we can stuff enough into it to make it full.
We might be able to get up enough comments to penetrate those barriers… but it looks like someone beat us to it.
Well, with a little effort, anything is possible. Might as well push on through and get cookin.
I know I only slip in and out of these posts lately, but I support this endeavor.
Screw this, this’ll be over way too fast.
Cum on. I’m sure you can think of something to make it last.
Sorry Jack-you-late, this jizzn’t going to spread out.
C’mon guys, if we keep it up long enough we may climax at 400.
I’d like to help keep it going to 400, but I’m afraid I’m gonna have to get off early.
I may have prematurely ended this affair
But I got to be her 400th! Woo-hoo!
Forget this, I am going to eat a muffin.
We hit 400! I win! I win!
ahh those wacky pro-lifers, always trying enforce their views on others by any means neccessary (and the same can be said for peta, cair, la raza, and a dozen or so more organizations that hate the fact people can make their own decisions)
FDA….. IRS…… TSA….. DHS…..
IRS has no views beyond numbers. Everyone knows that governmental accountants and tax adjusters are dead inside. Some may even have been former strippers.
Come on man, they force a deadline on you every year…. I think filing should be free flowing, and when I feel like it. Another case of the man telling me when and when not to do paperwork.
Ok fine, substitute DMV for IRS.
I’ll give you DMV. I don’t think anyone has ever had a plesant experience with the DMV ever. Not even when they were still the DHV (Department of Horsedrawn Vechicles.)
I had a pleasant experience there, but the 3 random letters in my license plate was YOU so that was pretty cool.
*raises hand*
Actually, they seem to have improved our local DMV to the point where it’s surprisingly efficient, considering. Last time I had to renew it took maybe 15 minutes, AND I got a really good photo!
They just closed the two most convenient DMVs in my area. I’m going to have to drive a 1/2 hour to renew my license!
Where I live (Arizona), you can take care of most DMV stuff online. I haven’t been to the DMV since I actually registered my car (you have to do that in person). I can renew my license while sitting at home watching tv. I’m kind of surprised more states haven’t done that. It seems like it would be easier and cheaper for everyone involved.
Well, there is this thing called the vision exam. And actually talking to the driver to see if they are not experiencing dementia?
I can renew my registration on line, but the license requires a once-every-10-year’s trip to the DMV. (used to be able to renew the registration via post, but the DMV got too cheap for sending reminders or forms).
In Oregon, the DMV is fast and efficient. I blame all the lefties in government.
Our DMV has been privatized, I’m told it’s much faster. (I don’t drive.)
But how many illegal Canadian aliens get there license due to efficencies?!?!?
Also Oregon population = 3.8m (highest population center is Portland at 1.6m)
Population of JUST Northern VA (Prince William County, Fairfax County, City of Alexandria, Arlington County) = 2.0m
About as many New York cabbies, from what I’ve heard….LOL. The government still regulates licensing, but it’s all done through private registries.
See the cabbies just drive illegally without a license. Plus NYC is a VERY liberal city.
*their
*efficiencies
Dude, don’t even bother trying to correct ILPB’s spelling. You’ll go mad trying.
use water it makes it easier so pee.
Amazing she has 2 Health bars.
That would make a great caption. You win the Internet!
I… don’t get it. What’s a Health bar?
In most video games the monsters/enemies have little colored bars over them that shows how much health/life/hit points they have left.
Looks like Fetus has plenty of hit points as well. I wonder if it has any special attacks?
Actually, I think that’s just an extra life.
Epic Win!
It’s ok, I had another guy!
umbilical chord super combo!
Fetus used contraction. It’s super effective!
Not to be confused with the Pre-Nup Power Up
LOL thank you EA for making the best golf game ever!
You get extra points for a hole-in-one?
a health bar is commonly found in the snack food aisle of your local grocery store. One of the most common health bar is called Power Bar. It tastes like cardboard covered in chocolate with the occasional nut tossed in.
Best place for a bit of tape – over a pro-liar’s gob…
**Opens up dictionary** The term “b itch” comes from the 1150 word bicche, which was developed from the Old English word bicce. It also may have been derived from the Old Icelandic work bikkja for “female dog.” **looks at CDThe and closes Dictionary** Thus concludes our lesson for the day.
in addition to your defination, synomyn may include:
Asshat: A person, of either gender, whose behavior displays such ignorance/obnoxiousness that you would like to make them wear their own ass as a hat.
cretin: A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in abundance in every single populated internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session. In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the Internet will never be rid of their kind. More’s the pity.
and
nincompoop: a person lacking common sense, a person who lacks good sense or judgment
You never know, she may have shaved before applying the tape.
Hard to tell, since we can’t see under tape strip number 1.
Silent and pregnant.
The way a woman should be.
But she isn’t even in the kitchen! Also I can’t tell whether or not she’s barefoot…
get back in the kitchen and make me some pie? (that next?)
No, no, no. Sammich.
Ooh! I could use a sandwich. That sounds like a good idea. ….
……
Well? What are you waiting for? Hop to it and make me my sandwich!
**looks at Andy with Zombie beard and mustache and then at DU’s big bossom** UUMMM I think YOU need to make the Sammich. Andy’s the man, and as the woman you need to wait on him with hands and foots.
That’s right! Hop to it with a hand and foot sandwich!
*grumbles as she heads to the kitchen* You’re just lucky I have a fresh body in the freezer, Andy. I suppose you want a beer, too?
*grunts and nods*
*reclines chair*
Comfy, dear? Did you want a foot rub as well? How about I turn on the TV for you? *puts on her June Cleaver outfit and begins making hand and foot sandwiches*
*is content*
However, might I suggest you lose the June Cleaver outfit. No, no need to replace it with anything
Now what was that about a foot rub?
And Nucky he means his feet, not the feet going into the sammiches.
Oops *stops massaging feet sandwiches* *takes off clothes, serves Andy with his beer and sandwiches, kneels at his feet and begins massage* Boy, you are demanding, aren’t you?
Oh, I thought you were offering and I was just accepting. Here, why don’t you sit down here… or better yet, lie down here and I’ll massage you.
There, is that better?
Andy, one doesn’t usually use *that* appendage for massaging…
Hush, Atheist. You’re doing fine, Andy….perhaps you could massage a little harder…..thanks.
What’s even more impressive is that he’s detached it to give her the ‘massage’…
*threatens ILPB with Jelly and Bread* I will make another PB&J out of you so help me…!
Plus she’s “speaking” her mind in other forms. If the tape had no words on it, then I could agree. Oh and barefoot and ktichen thing.
Where’s my sandwich? She hasn’t made me a sandwich yet!
oops, reading 2 comments further fail for me
It’s a point worth making twice. Sammich!!!
Silent is ok, but pregnant? -.- don’t be like China! we don’t want to live 7 to a 300sq.ft. apartment.
Umm… China has had a “1 child policy” for about 30 years now, so this would probably never happen (if it’s just one single family).
Yes, but they have that policy because of severe overpopulation. I think he’s implying that if everyone were to have that many children we would reach overpopulation that such law may be imposed. O, I admit, I’m extrapolating some of that because that particular poster hasn’t shown himself to be the deepest thinker and probably wasn’t thinking that far ahead, but the general point is still there.
Interestingly, overpopulation is a case in which “get your laws off of my body” seems to not apply.
Somehow, I don’t think Chinese women understand that concept Dhoti..
Sadly, no. I just think there’s an interesting correlation between the “get your laws off my body” and the “people should need a license to breed” crowds.
I thought they were the same people.
I wonder what sort of logic led up to this… to me, it sounds like Megan’s Law in reverse.
1) Life begins at conception, therefore what’s in the uterus of the weeks-pregnant woman walking past me is the same as a breathing toddler.
2) Abortion doctors and nurses are all incorrigible serial killers who love to murder babies and must be restrained, by violence if necessary.
3) ?????
4) I think I’ll go take my seven-month fetus and hang out in front of them.
Maybe it’s like dangling your pet mouse above a snake cage to get him to improve his behavior?
Well, that fetus has been a d!ck lately. I mean, he never stops kicking his mom! He deserves to be threatened. Violent little bastard.
1/5 of pregnancies end in miscarriage, so that makes god the world’s most prolific abortionist.
80/12 statistics are made up on the spot.
75% of made up statistics sound believable enough to get spread around as facts.
I can’t believe it’s not butter.
Spray.
2012.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics…
Imagine that kid’s baby book someday… Aww, look, shmumpkin! Here you are as an unsightly protruberance in mommy’s abdomen! Sorry to cover up your dimples with that cheap red tape, but if I hadn’t done it, someone might have come right up and aborted you! You better believe it!
Look, sweetie, here’s where mommy used you to push her agenda!
**cough cough** never been done before by liberals **cough cough**
But how does your comment help Michelle Obama’s kids?
Confused. In all honesty I don’t think Obama’s untilize their children anymore than any other politician. I was leaning more towards the child sizes for “Bush R Dumb” T-shirts.
I’ve always prefered the toddler onesies that say “My Daddy is a motherf*cker”
They also make baby t-shirts that say “Recently Evicted” and “I tore Mommy a new one!” Sadly, these were not around when my kids were babies.
I want the boy onsie that says “Boob Man”
I want to see a kid show up to their first day of kindergarten wearing that.
So you wouldn’t approve then of me taking my kids to see Bill Clinton and getting free Obama pins?
This is what pro-life supporters believe women should be like. Pregnant and silent.
That seems a bit harsh.
The “sad” thing is all the “This women’s an idiot/ a$$/ stupid/ other insult” people on here don’t realize this is a pretty tame and “understandable” protest out there. Living in DC I get the luxury of running into the “aborted fetus” truck about once a week. This is a 1970′s Shaggin Wagon Van with pictures of aborted fetuses on it. What a lovely thing to see. Or the violent protestors who throw things at Drs and patients. Really, them “complaining” about this protest is equivalent to righties compalining about an actual Peaceful Protest (with drums), carrying signs that aren’t offensive. IE “Give Peas a Chance”
You got one of those there too? I saw one here recently made out of a delivery truck. I almost drove off the road I was so horrified. The only thing worse than that are pro-lifers who insist on describing abortions to us all. 1. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind. 2. It makes me want to throw up.
Fact of the matter is, the hardcore pro-lifers and the hardcore pro-choicers tend to be assholes. Seriously, folks, you can be pro-life without calling pro-choice people “baby killers” and pro-choice people can get their point across without calling a fetus a “parasite” or whatever else they think of to make pregnancy into some sort of prison.
I HATE PEAS!!!
Peace is fine, though.
That misspelling on purpose. We have a pun here about Whirrled Peas.
Dude. You should stop running into that thing. Your insurance premiums are going to SKYROCKET.
Apparently running into it is a luxury, maybe it causes premiums to go down if you hit it? DCers are fscking weird.
The truth is always harsh.
I’m not a pro-lifer but I think that’s a bit of an unfair generalization.
HA! nope, not at all. that’s the truth.
While I know some pro-lifers definitely believe that, I’ve known those who trend more towards feminists who are pro-life, specifically women. I haven’t talked to many pro-life men, so I can’t really speak for that.
“This is what pro-life supporters believe women should be like. Pregnant and silent.”
Implying you dont have a clue what the picture is trying to say (or dont care) or are nearly blind becuase you dont see what is written on the tape.
(which even if you didnt, an intelligent person would have wondered about the second piece of tape and what it was about…..)
Enjoy it now kid, ’cause as soon as your born, the conservatives won’t give a flying rat’s ass about you. Raise taxes to pay for schools or healthcare?!!! NOOOOOO BIG GUM’NIT!
Yes the ‘third piece of tape’ is over the eyes of the abortion-advocate who doesnt want to acknowledge a basic truth — all for the sake of convienence and irresponsibility.
Ah yes, because convient irresponsibility is the ONLY reason anyone ever gets abortions. If only you had said something sooner then we all would have been informed before. Thank the baby jesus that you came when you did otherwise I might have aborted my non-existant child this very moment for fear they may be as short shighted, narrowminded, and ignorant as yourself.
Its the reason for most of them. If you bothered to look at the statistics very few are ‘to protect the life of the mother’ (which these days includes such a squishy excuse as ‘mental health’ which canm be very widely interpretted) and even fewer to prevent the result of crime (rape).
Most are simply because the person involved was too lazy to use other methods of contraception.
With all the sex information pumped into kids heads these days you really cant claim ‘ignorance’ for any significant number of the executions.
Check the linked stats- more abortions happen to women who had protection fail than happen to those who don’t use protection.
A good friend of mine, self-described as moderate conservative and Christian, just had her oldest child go through the school-taught sexual education in North Carolina. As the daughter of a doctor, who cares about her own daughter’s practical knowledge (as well as her morals), she was appalled at the miss-information they were passing on (handouts were sent home after each class). So I wouldn’t be THAT confident about the accuracy of the “sex information pumped into kids’ heads these days”.
—-
Not to mention, even vasectomies have a failure rate. The percentage failure is small, but there are a handful of kids out there who look just like their ‘fixed’ fathers!
It happened to a friend of mine, the failed vasectomy rate.
the failed vasectomy…without the rate.
As, when, and if you can show a case where pro-choice campaigners forced an abortion on someone who was not deemed legally incapable (by reason of age or mental capacity), you might possibly begin to have a point.
Um, the vast majority of abortions are performed as voluntary birth control. What exactly is your point, beyond “shut up”?
step 1: prove your statement
step 2: realise voluntary means they were not forced by a pro-choice advocate.
I think it’s pretty self evident that they’re performed as voluntary birth control if you take those terms at their literal meaning. They’re not being forced (i.e., your step 2), and they are controlling the birth. Of course, I think Dhoti means something else than what is literally implied, specifically that because women know they’re available they don’t bother with contraceptives or something, which leads to your step 1.
a doctor with rubber gloves (or those creepy looking baby tongs… I don’t know what they are actaully called, but that is sure what they look like) controls birth rather effectively too.
Oh wait… different connotation of the word… nevermind.
back to the subject, you are correct sir.
No — what I mean is that Paws’ response is nonsensical, because zipper isn’t talking about the use of force, but rather spin and propaganda.
And it’s good to see that Kestrel, my new personal stalker, is back…
Hey, does that mean I’m not your stalker anymore?
*looks through computer*
Nice shirt today, by the way.
Diss, you’re way too polite to be a stalker — fangirl, maybe. (And I would be honored to be your stalkee/fangirl-ee.)
Hmm, shows what you know — I’m not even wearing a shirt today.
That was the subtext of “nice shirt”.
I’m just a very neglectful, lackadaisical stalker. I guess you can consider yourself a “free-range” stalkee.
I think Paws was responding that since pro-choicers aren’t attempting to force anyone to choose anything, but rather are arguing for allowing all choices, they’re not abortion-advocates, as zipper seems to be implying. Does it make sense to you now? (I’m not asking if you agree, but rather if you understand what Paws was saying.)
I see Paws’ point, but I still think it’s an extremely specious leap, all to apply the inflammatory “forced pregnancy” stereotype. It doesn’t address zipper’s original point that pro-choicers are deliberately trying to drop the status of the child to promote abortions.
If you think pro-choicers aren’t pushing women to have abortions, then you’re kidding yourself.
*bwahahaha*
Oh, wait… you were serious?
There might be a handful or pro-choicers that push women to have abortions, but if you think even a significant percentage do, then you’re kidding yourself. I know plenty of militantly pro-choice people, and they generally fall into one of two categories: (1) They hate abortions, but don’t think it’s the government’s business, and (2) abortions don’t bother them much, but would never encourage (let alone push) someone else to have an abortion.
It does happen, but normally not in the way you’re thinking (encouraging acquaintances and strangers is what I’m getting?); but in the sense of pushing their daughters, or their girlfriends, or their wives to abort.
That’s a fair point. I’m sure there are several of those, but I don’t think it has much to do with their opinions about a woman’s right to choose…
Well, it can if they go into the situation with the mindset of “this is What You Do about an unexpected pregnancy.”
True. But there’s a marked difference between pushing someone to choose an abortion because it’s in your self-interest, and pushing legislators to stop trying to ban abortion because it’s in the interest of faceless strangers to have the right to make that choice. My experience is only anecdotal, but I’d daresay there’s very little overlap between the two groups.
How many of them work at pregnancy crisis centers, or are otherwise in a position to counsel women towards or away from abortion? They may be in the minority, but if they’re on the “front lines”, as it were, then their influence exceeds their numbers. (Personally, I’m convinced there’s a disconnect between the younger generation, which is more often “pro-choice but anti-abortion”, and the baby boomers, who are, for various outmoded reasons, actually pro-abortion.)
In the US, investigations by pro-life groups have consistently found Planned Parenthood counselors to be anything but neutral.
{http://www.lifenews.com/state4630.html}
{http://www.lifenews.com/state4980.html}
I think that’s a valid point, but keep in mind that they are, as you say, in the minority, so painting the whole group with the actions of those few is misleading.
I didn’t say they were in the minority, just that they might be. Regardless, if the effect is that the “public face” of the pro-choice movement is actually pro-abortion, pro-choicers should be held at least partially responsible.
The same principle holds in other contexts — fiscally conservative Republicans are attacked because their party hasn’t been fiscally conservative, and socially moderate Republicans are attacked because their party includes socially conservative Christians.
So do you think conservatives should be held responsible for Beck’s and Limbaugh’s ramblings since they’re the most prominent public faces?
Well, if you’re going to call them “ramblings” I suspect you’ve already made up your mind…but if they’re not acting in accordance with the ideals they’re putting forth, then yes, they should be called out on it. (That’s true for anyone, not just pundits.)
If I’m anti-abortion but in the pro-choice tent, I’m going to be working to kick the pro-abortion types out. Otherwise, I’m not really all that anti-abortion, am I?
You wouldn’t? I assumed it was a given. You seem to think that making up one’s mind is a bad thing, but I didn’t do it based off random neutrinos hitting my retinas. I made up my mind based off what they said. I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing, though.
Anyways, to the main point…
How does one “kick the pro-abortion types out”? AFAIK, there’s no pro-choice club with officers who get to choose who’s in and who’s out.
I must have missed where my personal opinion about Limbaugh and Beck became germane to the discussion — can you point it out for me, please? Or were you just laying out the groundwork for a litmus test? You certainly seem to be preparing to play the “if you don’t agree with me on what I assert is an innocuous point, then I don’t feel the need to respect your opinion” card.
The pro-choice community is just a social network; if being anti-abortion were truly an important and common belief, the pro-abortion subset would eventually be marginalized.
Your opinion about Beck and Limbaugh are only germane to the discussion in the same way that any other random topic is germane. You seemed to suggest that by calling them “ramblings” I was, well, I’m not sure what the accusation was other than making up my mind, which hardly seems like a harsh accusation, but it certainly felt like an accusation, nonetheless. Maybe I misunderstood your point. What was your point about my word choice again? My point was that, regardless of word choice, I don’t hold you, JAC, or ILPB responsible for what they say. Of course, if you agree with them, then I hold you responsible for agreeing with crazy ramblings, but that’s only marginally germane to this discussion.
Back to the main point…
The pro-choice community is a social network in the same way that the pro-life community is a social network, and the pro-life is a social network in the same way that a whale is a fish (i.e., they’re not social networks).
Both the pro-choice and pro-life “communities” (even that word is a little misleading, but it’s often used, so I’ll overlook it), are merely groups of people who agree on one particular point. You’ll find pro-choicers who voted for Bush, and pro-lifers who voted for Obama. I could argue that the “face” of the pro-life community are those who harass women going into abortion clinics and threaten abortion doctors. Even though those are the most visible examples of pro-lifers, most pro-lifers don’t do that kind of stuff, though, so I don’t make those kind of arguments.
But again, a social network? Please explain how you came to that conclusion.
Are you really asking me to explain why making irrelevant and off-topic assertions in the middle of a discussion is bad form? Really?
Ah, but see — now they’re not just “ramblings”, but “crazy ramblings”. If I say nothing, or if I don’t disagree strenuously enough, you can always say “well, if you don’t agree with me that crazy ramblings are crazy, then obviously you’re crazy too, so I don’t have to listen to you”. Again, bad form — and completely irrelevant.
Wikipedia:
Individuals tied by a shared belief? Sounds right to me.
No, I wasn’t asking you to explain that. Where’d you get that idea? You keep seem to think I’m saying stuff I’m not.
No, because as I said, I’m not asking you to repudiate them. I’m not asking you to throw them out of your “social network”. I’m not judging you by others in your “social network”.
OK. Now that I know how you (and evidently Wikipedia) define “social network”, do you kick out all the people you disagree with from your social networks? Most churches I’m familiar with allow people of different political beliefs (for example) to congregate together, even if they’re patently in the minority in their political beliefs.
So, if your opinion about those two isn’t germane to the discussion, and my opinion about those two isn’t germane to the discussion, and they themselves aren’t germane to the discussion, then why bring it up at all? Like I said, bad form.
Every church (and I think this is a fair statement) has a set of core beliefs/precepts/values/etc., considered important enough that they’re conditions for membership. (The churches I’m familiar with won’t physically kick people out if they don’t share these beliefs, but they will prevent them from formally joining.)
You can simultaneously respect someone’s right to have an opinion and decide that that opinion is so divergent that you don’t want to associate with them in a context where their opinion might be permitted.
(The churches I’m familiar with won’t physically kick people out if they don’t share these beliefs, but they will prevent them from formally joining.)
Aha! Now you’re on to the problem. There’s no formal joining of the pro-choice and pro-life movements! So, the only option is to physically kick these people out, which as you say, your church does not do, so why should you expect completely unorganized non-organizations to do so?
I hear what you’re saying, but most pro-choicers already don’t associate with those who are pro-abortion. I know I don’t know any pro-abortion people. I’m not going to go around hunting down people who are pro-abortion and say “you can’t call yourself pro-choice!”
In these sorts of informal organizations, it seems like the equivalent of denying someone membership is to denounce their beliefs — so I would expect those pro-choicers to espouse their anti-abortion beliefs. (Also, these groups are so big that there are some very large formal organizations inside them — like NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood on the pro-choice side — that can make those kinds of formal statements. I have yet to hear one of the big pro-choice groups make an explicitly anti-abortion statement.)
There are pro-abortion people right here on this thread — scroll down to CDThe, for the most obvious example. The only person who stepped up to criticize him/her was a pro-choice conservative, who was then attacked by, among others, folks who have previously indicated they were pro-choice but anti-abortion.
really?
….really????
you don’t think maybe we are advocating for that right to stay intact. so women can make THEIR OWN DECISIONS.
your side is the one that tries to give women only one option.
we’re making sure they keep all of their options.
Pro-choice =/= Pro-abortion. Thanks for lumping everyone who’s not on your side together.
“since pro-choicers aren’t attempting to force anyone to choose anything”
It all depends who you think has ‘rights’. A fetus is a living thing and its choice is eliminated (and if you ask ‘how can it have a choice’ if you killed a born baby its not really capable of voicing ‘choice’ about it either.
That line of reasoning is similar to claiming that Germans werent anti-jew, just pro-choice and allowed certain others to kill jews wholesale.
And since the Germans laws had changed declaring jews as ‘sub-human’, legally the Nazi butchers werent committing ‘murder’.
That is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard. And you GOOOOODWIIIIIIIIIIIINED!!!!
Funny that you start off trolling me majority of the time, yet I’m the stalker… projection is running rampant around here.
There are many ways you could percieve Paws point (which you later admit to seeing a point after asking for the point, which in itself is a bit muddled, but I digress.)
Also, you still failed to prove your initial data.
carry on then.
The only basic truth is that you’re an anal douche.
Oh weird, I didn’t think this one posted.
The only basic truth is that you’re a butt maggot.
I think that equates to two basic truths.
Unless (no offense intended here Rando) they’re both half-truths, in which case put together they are one basic truth.
No, they’re two different basic truths. One of which I didn’t think had been posted, so I did a different one. LOL
Well, the first basic truth is pissed now because you told it it was the ONLY basic truth and then you ….cheated on it with another basic truth. That’s what it told me over drinks, anyway.
Well, maybe if the first basic truth put out more often that wouldn’t have happened. Excuse me for a second. *kicks own ass*
Well, now it’s gotten all drunk and maudlin and it’s going on about how it always tried to be the best anal douche it could be, and — well, great. It’s puking on the floor of the bar and I think it’s about to pick a fight with that table of fratboys.
I could never take that anal douche anywhere. It needs to admit it has a drinking problem.
Well that, and that ILPB is a lefty liberal.
I don’t agree that abortion needs to be illegal. I do, however, think that this picture speaks to a discomfort in the face of an unpleasant truth: Abortions are the destruction of a human life. If you can’t live with that fact, don’t blame others for your weakness.
When I have a period I get rid of a ‘potential human life’ and frnakly, I’ve passed bigger blood clots during one than I did during the abortion.
Only discomfort I had was physical. Mental stress? None, except relief.
[applause]
Wow you really are a cold hearted b itch! “Only discomfort I had was physical. Mental stress? None, except relief.” Do you know how many couples in this world would KILL to be able to get pregnant, and can’t? I don’t usually get preachy on this issue, but you lady make me fvcking sick.
“HMMM gee I’m too irresponsible to use birth control appropriately, then I’m too fvcking dumb to take the morning after pill, but don’t worry there’s the third option, I can just slaughter the growing life inside me, vice preventing it from ever being made, with no reprecusions at all. Life without responsibility is so fvcking nice.”
Jesus Christ lady you really need some mental help. You really don’t appreciate human life at all do you. Selfish twat.
I really hope all that venom was directed soley at CDThe and not as a generalization of all women who get abortions. My aunt had an abortion when she was a young kid and she’s neither irresponsible or stupid and never was.
*nods*
I understand where you’re coming from. I’m Pro-Choice because I know my aunt’s situation and would never want a woman to do anything with her body she never wanted to do, I was just concerned with the words irresponsible and dumb being thrown out there. All too often, that’s what I hear Pro-Lifers calling ALL women who get abortions and that’s simply not the case.
Squiggs if you look at her comment and the fact I addressed it in my tirade (which I rarely do about abortion) should hopefully clear up I don’t think ALL women are like that (plus my past posts on abortion).
I just wanted to be clear it didn’t apply to all women who got abortion. I hope nobody does come on this thread and sling those words about for, while I will be all too happy to set them straight, I really am not going to be at all nice about it.
Thank you for patiently clarifying it for me, I know I run a little slow sometimes. *ducks head shyly*
Also, zipper tells me you’re left now. How’s that working out for you?
CD’s comment is what helps to feed the Right’s stereotype, and I would have thought the left would have hopped all over that. You’re not slow I could see how one would take what I wrote a certain way if they didn’t know me AND if one has strong feelings about the situation. I probably should have clarified that my post was strictly directed at CD and women like VD I mean CD.
Yeah don’t you see I’m a Commie!!! Go RED!!
However I always find myself kicking myself in the a$$, repeatidly and I don’t know why. I also have this sudden urge to ask the government to provide $hit for me just b/c I’m a citizen.
Eeewww government $hit, whether from an elephant or donkey still reeks… I assume you are using it to fertilize a garden, whatcha growin’?
Taters? ‘Maters? Brussel sprouts for all the haters?
Growing my a flock of Sheeple. Fed on both governmetn hand outs and Fox News.
Careful, boober will pull a PETA and steal your sheeple if he hears they have anything to do with Fox.
But I thought only Sheeple watched Fox News, b/c it lies to you.
Wait, you seriously think that to be a responsible person in the case of an abortion means you must be tortured by your decision to have said abortion?
Seriously, you are clueless. Get a grip. There’s a pretty wide variety of reasons to get an abortion, not all of them need grief, doubt, indecision, and self-hatred to go with them.
I can understand your view here, but unless you know the whys of CDThe’s individual circumstances at that time, judgmental much!!
The way CD presented it allows for me to be judgemental. WHY would you applaud someone who feeds into the stereotype you try so hard to fight? Try reading her post agains and see it’s condescending nature.
I think Serifina and I are thinking the same way here; yes it’s a serious decision, I would never suggest otherwise, but not necessarily one that requires a woman to be a tortured soul as a result of deciding to abort.
CD was treating like she was gettng her nails done. It was sickening. Maybe tortured was too strong a word, but a reflection prior to desicion is a responsible approach, or would you not agree with that?
It’s honestly NOT a big deal to every woman, nor should it have to be. It doesn’t make those of us for whom it wasn’t a big deal ‘cold’ or ‘irresponsible’; it just means we had a different experience than those for whom it was a difficult choice, or anything in between. Some of us are more traumatized by the loss of our beloved wisdom teeth… Everyone is different. It’s not for you to say what emotional reaction is ‘more responsible’. That’s not for anyone to do. Ask any p-doc and they will tell you that everyone’s reactions are different to any given situation.
It isn’t a bit deal for all women- some women just plain know that there isn’t a way for them to make room in their life for a pregnancy, leave a child. It isn’t a huge emotional ordeal to all women, as each of them react differently, and so long as it doesn’t violate any laws, nobody’s reaction should be scoffed at because it isn’t the average.
I agree with you and Serifina, paws, but I think ILPBZCC (seriously, PB, you need a shorter name) took offence to CD’s referring to having an abortion as being akin to “passing a clot”. I found the way she put it offensive as well. A woman may not always agonize over this decision and may in fact welcome the decision with relief , but CD’s complete coldness towards it makes me wonder…
Thanks Nucky, that’s what I took exception to, and why I went off the deep end.
I read CD’s comments the same way as you ILPBZCC. And Nucky’s above comment is spot on.
CD comes across as cold, tactless and ignorant.
Garbage. CD comes across completely rational and free of hypocritical faux guilt. I totally agreed with everything she said – and the fact that she didn’t have to wrap it up in some apologetic rhetoric.
I think part of what is identified as “coldness” is rationalization. It’s a normal psychological process where we mitigate cognitive dissonance by lessening the positive aspects of one scenario and exaggerating the positive aspects of another. Anyone who has ever wondered about a late period should be familiar with this process. Before knowing for sure, you’re almost in a superposition of hoping there’s no pregnancy and seeing the positive aspects of the pregnancy. Then, when the period comes, you explain to yourself why you’re happy about it, and how a baby would have been so much trouble, etc.
I see your point, Atheist, but still, I felt the post was a little…off.
Well, so am I, so…
Big difference Atheist. Hoping you’re not pregnant b/c of irresponsibility or mishap (condom broke) is a lot different than having the embryo or fetus medically removed from your body. (Especially if it’s a fetus with a heart beat. Had long writing to your other post, but it was eaten). CD and I have had arguements in the past and her cavalier attitude towards abortion played into my reaction, and I’ll admit it. To someone who’s watched “natural” occurences of “blood clots” being passed by my wife, I’m pretty touchy about the subject.
A few things:
(1) I wasn’t trying to same they were the same thing or even that similar, except that they both involve rationalization after the fact. I could’ve easily picked another example (e.g., buying a Ford vs. buying a Chevrolet), but the example I chose was primed for obvious reasons.
(2) Being more familiar with neurological development, I’m not sure when the circulatory system develops, but I wouldn’t think something as small as CD describes would have a heart beat.
(3) I’m blissfully unaware of yours and CD’s previous encounters, so I was taking this post as a solitary work. That doesn’t mean my interpretation is “correct” and yours is “wrong”, but it might explain why our interpretations differ.
(4) It’s good you’re aware of your own sensitivity to the subject, yet it’s hard to really counter it. I’m not sure where I’m going with this point other than to say I have a sensitivity about global warming that occasionally causes me to act more hostile than is probably useful.
1) Understood and I guess if you did the Ford Chevy thing someone would throw out the Strwaman arguement.
2) At 6 weeks there can be a heart beat.
3) She pretty much siad I wasn’t a true Pro-Choicer b/c I don’t approve of abortion as a form of brith control
4) I may be aware, but doesn’t mean I won’t still be mean.
3) What part of “blissfully” didn’t you understand?
4) I understand completely.
3b & 4b) Consider that, despite what CD says, there might be some repressed guilt driving her emotions. (I’m not saying there should be as I know nothing about her situation – and I want to keep it that way – but guilt is not always logical.) That might help you in future dealings with her. Or, it might not.
3) Can’t see a liberal blissful…
4) Who wouldn’t.
3b and 4b) My turn to be somewhat cold, if you want to cavalier about a topic like this you will probably get the wrath.
*man hug*
Whoa. Don’t put me in the middle of a man hug sandwich. I may be somewhat enlightened, but some things still don’t feel right to me.
*adds a girl to the mix to make Atheist feel more comfortable* How’s that?
Much better.
Announcement: More girls needed in the hug, post haste!
Andy, are you implying I’m not enough girl for you?
No, I just think the other fellas should get a girl to snuggle as I have decided to claim for myself all of your hug.
Careful Nucky he bites.
Stay out of this PB.
I wouldn’t bite you baby, not unless you wanted me to. Even then, I wouldn’t eat you… well, it isn’t Tuesday yet…
I don’t mind, ILPB.
Yeah, it kinda rubbed me the wrong way as well. Now, I don’t think having an abortion is something to be ashamed of…but I don’t really think it’s something to be proud of either. And she seriously came off as bragging to me. ILPB is right (*twitch*). She is the kind of person who fuels the right’s stereotype. She’s the kind of person Dhoti was talking about up above. Her post actually sounds pro-abortion, not merely pro-choice.
If she’s cool with her decision, that’s fine. That’s a good thing. She shouldn’t beat herself up for the rest of her life over it. But I don’t like her arrogant attitude about it.
No, saying that something didn’t screw with your head the way some people wish it would isn’t bragging at all. Nor arrogant. It’s honest. And I applaud her for that.
I re-read the post, and perhaps you’re right. Perhaps I did let bias taint my perception of her post. It’s obviously a far more emotional topic for me than it is for her, and I think that’s what bugged me about it. But it’s not my right to criticize her for that.
Re-read her post again, and note where she says “I’ve passed bigger blood clots during one than I did during the abortion.” That suggests to me that this was a very early term abortion and hence wasn’t much different than taking a morning after pill (and might have even been effected by taking the morning after pill – many people consider that an abortion). I don’t know much about abortions (nor do I care to), but I have studied human brain development, and I don’t see what the big deal is if the abortion happens in the first couple months.
Exactly what part of her comment allows you to conclude:
1) “gee I’m too irresponsible to use birth control appropriately”
2) “I’m too fvcking dumb to take the morning after pill”
3) “I can just slaughter the growing life inside me”
4) “Life without responsibility is so fvcking nice”
Without an appropriate explanation of your mind-reading technique that allows you to know this is what she did and was thinking, your rant is so nondirectional that it IS aimed straight at ANY woman who has an abortion.
Yes, I did read your later after-the-fact rationalization (projection much?) about how supposedly, what upset you was that she said “blood clot.” That has nothing to do with the rant you actually delivered at this nesting level about her supposed lack of responsibility.
Ah hell I’m sick of you. GO fvck off. Really ari. If you can’t see how she was being a cold hearted beotch (even Rando agreed with me on that) then you’re blind or just too stupid, and I really don’t have the patience to explain that $hit in such minute detail to you.
Well that says more about you than anything, doesn’t it, you arrogant piece of work, ILPBFS. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.
Translation: “I know I don’t have a toe to stand on because my own words condemn me, so I’ll just roll around on the floor and scream epithets like a foulmouthed toddler. Because, you know, that’s always worked for me before to make people who challenge my hypocrisy either roll their eyes and patronize me by pretending they aren’t disgusted, or give up on me in disgust. I consider either one a victory.”
“Cold hearted beotch” has nothing to do with your four epithet-laden rants about how she’s a stupid murderer with no sense of responsibility, and that was the point I brought up that you’re pretending not to hear.
Would you care to name anyone other than Dhoti who’s willing to back you up on how she demonstrated herself to be a stupid murderer with no sense of responsibility? Do you have any evidence for that assertion, other than that she had an abortion?
Don’t drag my name into your reflexive man-bashing. I didn’t even post here.
You’re right; I do owe you an apology. I was self-evidently wrong to assume you would back up ILPB’s venomous response to CDThe and claim it was justified. You hadn’t done so then, and you still haven’t. It was completely unfair for me to drag you in and associate you with something you didn’t say.
But I do want to note that it wasn’t man-bashing, it was ILPB-bashing. (Not that that makes it significantly better; any sort of bashing is repugnant. I just don’t want to give the impression that I believe ILPB’s actions were any reflection on men in general.)
I call “idiot” on your, Zipper.
I put out a half-smoked cigarette today. Should I be damned for discarding what a nicotine addict would cherish?
I threw out an over-ripe pineapple yesterday. Should I be damned for discarding what a starving man would cherish?
I poured out a stall glass of water I had forgotten in my bedroom. Should I be damned for discarding what a thirsting woman would cherish?
Your point is specious. Just because another person would die, or kill, to have something I cast aside does not mean I am a bad person. Merely, a person under different circumstance.
DId you just compare a child to a cigarette? or pineapple?
And stop using that fvcking word specious, you don’t sound smart.
We could use more pineapples around here though.
I do wish these forums had a collapse capability for the threads so I could find whatever posting I made that your response is to (I can only guess that it was my presumption that a fetus has ‘worth’ to some people.)
As for that , your counters are invalid because they deal with inanimate objects (apples & oranges).
But lets follow up that line of logic.
You are just a pile of flesh, of various molecules with little real worth when it comes down to it.
So disposing of YOU without compunction could be the same as your discarding a half smoked cigarette.
If the person disposing of YOU sees no worth in YOU then you have no worth – right ???
Please try again.
Actually, you got it just about right. You have, thus far, failed to provide evidence that humans have some magical quality giving them intrinsic worth. Your argument is based purely in Ethos.
Special Pleading FTW!!!
I would have no worth to the one discarding me, though I may my precious to another, even to myself.
I think you just asked a very simple question that would have a simpler answer to anyone who actually thought about it for more than the time it took to ask it.
Worth is subjective, and you have no right to insult her for discarding something out she found worthless. I’m sure that if you looked upon your own life that there would be plenty for another to condemn YOU for that you thought nothing of.
“I call “idiot” on your, Zipper.”
Now that’s a sweet Freudian slip if I ever saw one. Doesn’t quite have the punch of Robin Williams’ riff on men having two brains and only enough blood to run one of them, but it’s evocative.
Well, sign me up to be a cold hearted, irresponsible, selfish, dumb, slaughtering, b!tch-twat then, PB. Everyone else! Go ahead! Judge! Point your fingers and tell me what a horrible human being I am! That’s right, I HAD AN ABORTION and it was the right decision and I have NO GRIEF about it either! I was, and still am, relieved! Go ahead! Bring the flame!
You know why? Because you all want to judge instead of knowing the story! GO AHEAD AND FRAKKING JUDGE, THEN FRAK IN THE DIRECTION OF OFF.
And charro were you on this board bragging about it. Making light of the deciscion. If you had read the rest of theposts this was directed right at CD for her callous nature. Do you rub it in people’s faces like she did, no. So take your guilt and Frakk OFf yourself. HELL even Rando agreed this chick was being pretty flippant about it. Why not jump on his a$$ too?
Can we leave me out of this please?
Fine whatev….. ILPB is the evil conservative who is judging everyone and must mind every liberal’s life experiences on here and not step on those toes, but if anything offends him of the sort he just has to fvkcing deal with it. Got it. Thanks guys. Keep working eventually all conservatives will either be bitter or driven away.
I’m sorry PB I didn’t realise it was a personal thing with you and her. It just got me wound up thinking about how relieved I was.. I had good reason to be.. And you know. I think of you as a friend. Anyway, ignore the below post. I don’t think you’re evil. Well.. Ok, you are an evil condervative.. But not like, really evil.
Uh, that’s a typo. Not a new insult.
No Rando, you’re too amazing to leave out.
How do I always get myself into these things.
By being amazing.
Frak you PB. Frak you for assuming I have to have guilt. Frak you for assuming anything about me. There is no guilt. I’m glad I did what I did. GLAD.
And no, I didn’t read the rest of the posts before I answered because I felt the same damned way. I felt relieved. There was no tortured soul searching before or after. You’re mad at her because she had the audacity to feel good about a decision she made to abort a pregnancy. Well, I feel the same way.
It’s not that she felt good about it. Like I said above, I’m glad she’s cool with her decision. I wouldn’t want you or her or anyone to feel bad about it. That would be an awful way to live. You made the right decision for you, and I would never judge you for that.
It’s that she’s pretty much bragging about it. Abortion is neither something to be proud of nor something to be ashamed of. It’s just something. Bragging about it just seems…weird.
People are weird. She could be a Sociopath. They don’t value any human life whether it be zygote or old man.
That’s possible. But I wanted to make sure you know that I wasn’t judging you or her for your decisions.
And how was she bragging about it? I’ve read the damn posts from top to bottom and other than being up front and real about it, there was nothing even resembling bragging.
D@mn your Vulcan logic, Spock.
It’s all in how you spin it. Scream loudly enough, and people who want to maintain the appearance of civility will be glad for any excuse to agree that SOMETHING you said had any validity whatsoever. Spin it even harder, and you can pretend that the rest of it is all based on that allegedly-valid point. For example, “She’s a cold-hearted beotch! That proves she’s a stupid murderer with no sense of responsibility!”
Not bragging about it. It was the best choice for ME.
It may not be the best choice for others, I’m just stating my experience that it wasn’t a soul-destroying horror that left me mentally crippled 10 years later.
(sarcasm)Which obviously proves you’re evil incarnate.(/sarcasm)
Sarcasm aside… please tell your husband, on behalf of a lot of us here, that you need a long warm hug. I’m sorry you came back to see yourself pilloried just because a regular decided to make you the poster girl for his wrath.
Rando, et al – please go back and reread her post. Not ILPBFS’s rant spinning how he felt about it, just her post. Can you seriously tell me it deserved this much venom and bile?
I didn’t think so. But a private convo between me and PB did shed some light on his state of mind and I understand where he was coming from. I don’t think she deserved it though.
Although, I do think a part of it may be that people are horrified that there are women who abort and feel no guilt or grief or any other emotion like that. People want to make women feel guilty for it, and people want to believe that deep down women do feel guilty because it’s one more way they can try to make abortion illegal. See PB above when he told me to take my guilt elsewhere. I don’t feel guilty, never did, doubtful that I ever will. I don’t want children, never have, doubtful that I ever will. To me, when I had the abortion, it was not a “life” inside me, nor was even really a “potential life”. I’d go on, but I know a lot of what I have to say further will anger a lot of people, so I won’t. But I do know for sure that I don’t feel guilty no matter what any man may think I feel “unconsciously” because he wants me to feel guilty.
I had it all the time when I used to run an abortion support forum. People would come barging in, screaming about their miscarriages or infertility and demanding to know why we were ‘heartlessly’ throwing away the one thing they wanted.
I’m disabled, I will never walk properly again for the rest of my life. But I don’t feel hatred toward people with functioning spines.
Nahh, I’m not bothered. I’ve hung around enough childfree and abortion forums to grow a thick skin.
I re-read your post, and I admit I read more into it than I should’ve. I let my own emotion taint my response, as I’m one of those people you mention in your post below (I’m still pro-choice though, don’t get me wrong).
Err, I WAS using contraception you twit, but how nice of you to assume that I was some lazy tart. It failed. I had an IUD at the time, so tell me how I was supposed to be ‘too lazy’ to mess that up?
I don’t want kids, I NEVER want kids. Me and my husband are fine with that so what does it matter what you think?
Also, go check out imnotsorry.net. LOADS of women feel relief after abortion.
I don’t think anyone should be made to feel guilty for a personal choice that they make. It’s sad that people want to make others feel guilty for things that they have done. I was being responsible too, but sh!t happens. It’s also sad that women get stereotyped into being irresponsible for getting pregnant.
And yet somehow, the guy involved is NEVER labeled as ‘guilty’ for not having previously gotten a vasectomy, or for having not properly used the condom. Go figure.
Men are studs, women are sluts.
To me, one of the saddest aspects of it all is that this is the 21st century and I’m still hearing women reflexively defending their honor as a way of maintaining credibility and men reflexively attacking it as a way of discrediting them. The only time I noticed this thread even get close to the other way around was when dis brought up the issue of people trying to push a woman into getting an abortion in their own self-interest.
Unfortunately, it’s because even in this day and age (of supposed equality), men are brought up to be Manly Men and women are brought up to be Feminine Girls, and all the nonsense bull$hit that goes with it – including reflexive reactions precisely as you described. And believe me, I’m one who knows, having been on both sides of the gender fence. I’ve seen all of it, and it makes me want to weep.
Try growing up in the South. (;_;)
(There are a lot of reasons I chose to live in the Pacific North-wet as an adult. That was one of ‘em.)
I live and grew up in Florida. My gram is a good ol’ Southern Belle. Believe me, I know exactly what you mean…. which is why I’m trying to move to Seattle.
Good luck; the culture shock will be extreme in the best way. Try roadtripping up to Bellingham or to Vancouver BC sometime as well, if you want to be utterly flabbergasted. (^_^)
The southern suburbs are borderline rednecky, the eastern suburbs are pretentious, some of the southwest-southcentral suburbs can be sketchy… every area has its own problems. But there’s such a complete shift in attitude from the South that all of these differences are trivial by comparison.
I’m looking forward to it, actually. Fortunately, I have a (boy)friend who lives in Seattle, to help with that. I’ll be very glad to get out of the South, with their inherent distrust and/or hatred of people like me. >.>
I visited my adopted kid sister (we adopted each other) in Birmingham last year, and was shocked to hear about some of the stupid prejudice she runs into as a lesbian. But I was outright stunned to hear that it was open prejudice… I’d completely forgotten that occurred, because prejudice is what gets treated as the disturbing aberration in these parts, generally speaking.
Seattle and Portland are two of the most gender-and-gender-identity-neutral cities you’ll ever see. I promise. (^_^)
A very, very good thing, to me. Here in Florida, I pretty much have to keep things quiet about myself (a bi transgender, in the South? Hahahaha… Yeah. No. Not even with Disney.) Florida officially voting in a gay marriage ban back in ’08 is one of the things that cemented my need to move elsewhere. Seattle ended up being my choice both because of how ‘open’ it is… and because of said friend.
Good for you. And good for said friend.
For me, the last straw was driving down I-65 and seeing a sign that said “Y2K SURVIVAL AWARENESS / GUN SHOW”. After I thought about that for five minutes, I realized I wanted to be nowhere near a gaggle of shotgun-toting rednecks who thought the world would come to an end. (^_~)
My best friend is a gun-toting redneck who thinks the world might end! :p
To be fair, the prejudice was only one of a long list of reasons why I want out of this state. Very long list.
Completely understood. The Y2K billboard is a favorite joke, but there were so many real reasons that it’s not even funny.
Let me know when you do manage to get the heck out – I’d be glad to lift a glass in honor of you for escaping, and in honor of your friend+ for providing political asylum to a fellow refugee.
(PS: There seem to be two definitions of redneck floating about – “cheerfully unsophisticated”, and “angrily intolerant”; it sounds like your best friend’s the former. I wish we had a lot more of them, it’s only the latter who scare me.)
Actually, calling my friend a redneck is more of a joke than anything else. He was raised in Texas and Arkansas, so I like to tease him about it. (Different person from my friend in Seattle.)
Believe me, when I do manage to get out of here, the whole world will likely be able to hear my celebrating.
“I’m saying” that anyone who has the utter gall to call someone a stupid irresponsible murderous twat, as evidenced by the fact she had an abortion, has shot their feminist credibility in the balls with a bazooka.
Yes, yes, I know, “She’s a cold-hearted beotch” too, and you claim Rando agrees and that proves you right. If that were true, it would be completely unrelated to the rest of your tirade and wouldn’t rationalize it in the least.
I don’t know I think we can stuff enough into it to make it full.
I only see the pain, soorry.
I don’t get why taping her mouth shut is a good pro-”life” protest… it seems like it’d be a pro-choice thing to do to show that she is now expected to sit down and shut up because the state controls her uterus.
Jello, did you just assert that because abortion is legal, the government controls every woman’s uterus? Are you implying the government can force a woman to get an abortion? Keep in mind, if abortion were illegal, the government would force women to NOT get abortions, and therefore the government WOULD be in control of every woman’s uterus.
However it would NOT control the life within that Uterus.
Please GOD will any Pro-Choicer just admit it, you’re destroying a life that has started. It’s not just about Women’s Rights. If you soley think that abortion is simply a woman’s body, then fine live in your little fantasy world, and njust be happy your parents didn’t decide to abort you (yeah I threw that out, b/c I’m really getting sick and tired of the callous nature in which Pro-Choicer are throwing around $hit, and YES I’m Pro-Choice anti-abortion, but understand it is a necesarry evil at times.
I don’t view it as ending a life because I don’t count it as alive until birth. Kinda the whole defination of birth usually.
Until the fetus can sustain it’s life processes on it’s own, it’s not alive in my opinion. You may be ending a potiental life, such is also the case when people use condoms, masturbate, any form of birth control, or are just really freakishly ugly.
KM: Big difference. Abortion is post uterinal (charro please forgive my make up of a word) happenign while everything else you described is pre-uterinal. After 6 weeks a fetus has a heart beat, and has having a heart beat is medical definintion of alive (See Terry Schiavo case), then you are medically ending a life. So do you believe in late term abortions? Abortions where a fetus can feel, and is somewhat aware of what’s happening?
On the flip side, are you perfectly fine with abortions prior to 6 weeks? (For me, the cut-off is somewhere after 12-13 weeks when the corpus callosum begins forming, not that I want to legally mandate that, though.)
That’s about where I think the line should be for elective abortions, too (with the obvious maternal health and severe fetal abnormality exceptions — and by “abnormality” I mean something genuinely incompatible with life, not “he might have to ride the short bus or need corrective surgery”).
#2 makes more sense to me, but your response to #1 makes it seem like the purpose of not allowing abortion is punishment rather than protecting the life of the fetus. (Just to be clear, not only am I not saying that you’re saying that, I know you’re not saying that.)
Why is it OK to force a woman to carry a fetus in one situation, but not in another? For example, what if the sex was consensual, but the man swapped out her birth control pills with placebos? I realize that’s a silly case that probably doesn’t happen (or even if it does results in a small percentage of the abortions), but there’s a whole continuum there to the “irresponsible” parents-to-be. For example, even without sabotage, the only 100% effective* birth control is abstinence, so should we “punish” a woman (again, not saying you’re saying “punish”, that’s just verbal shorthand) whose birth control failed by forcing her to carry the baby to term? (If she used birth control, she’ll have no reason to even suspect she’s pregnant until a couple days after her missed period, so the morning after pill wouldn’t be used the morning after, that’s for sure.)
Again, just being clinical. I do understand part of where you’re coming from, but I like to analyze these things as logically as possible.
There’s a few gray areas:
(1) When C becomes a life might not happen at either conception nor at birth, and when it happens might vary from fetus to fetus.
(2) The transition to life might not be on/off, but more like many grains of sand does one have to add before you have a sand dune?
(3) Uncertainty in 1 & 2 suggests a “reasonable doubt” balance. If one can argue beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s not a life before week 13 (for example), then abortion is fine. If not, then it might be murder and shouldn’t be allowed. Of course, that it might be murder also suggests a gray area in that we shouldn’t allow it, but we can’t criminally prosecute the mother for murder unless we’re certain beyond a reasonable doubt that it is murder.
Again, I’m just being clinical, so apologies to anyone I’m offending.
Technically, eugenics. (Sorry, I have an obsession with words.)
Personally, I’m not sure what point brain development is sufficient to consider C to be human life… I think science could reasonably support any conjecture between 3 months and 6 months. I was simply taking the position that I’ve heard the vast majority of pro-lifers express, that of “quickening” or ensoulment upon conception, and running with it to its logical conclusion in this case.
Ah, but it’d only be eugenics if you were “begging the question” (of it not being a “life”, that is).
I hereby refute your argument with a heartfelt “Nyah”.
Because, you know, emotive arguments and appeals to one’s own authority hold much more weight than rational arguments. At least here, they do.
If we’re using that boring “reality-based” schema instead of continuing the hypothetical where life begins at conception, then (I believe) it’s even less euthanasia than it is eugenics. You can prevent a life from coming into being because of genetic defects (to accomplish the goal of “good genes”), but you can’t end a life that hasn’t yet begun (to accomplish the goal of “good death”).
majority of late term (3rd trimester) babies can sustain life processes on their own, granted many premature babies have a touch and go situation because they weren’t carried to term, but in the 3rd, they’ve got a shot.
Terry Schiavo was “alive” beforehand, as someone, somewhere, at some point in time, gave birth to her (though her case was a horrible one, I envy not having to make the decision in that regard, though I wager given what I know of the situation, I probally would have made the same call.) so I wouldn’t say that exactly should qualify in the reverse.
Where do we draw the line though? if only the autonomic processes are functioning, but none of the higher level processes, is that alive? To my mind, no, it isn’t, but I also know that others feel differently.
Terry Shiavo’s heart worked fine, nothing else functioned, so she was technically alive at the time only her heart was working. So how is it any different if she was alive beforehand or not. Do we know have different definitions of medically alive? Well if you’re within a womb it’s different than if you had already lived? What kind of bull hunk is that?
Inside a womb, you are not born, until birth, you are not born, in order to be alive by standards that have only been changed recently, you first need to be born.
Hence why the constitution says you must be a natural born citizen to run for president.
The difference is… she was born, a fetus, is not. The fetus, until the 3rd trimester, still gets everything from the mother, bloodflow, autoimmune, oxygen, all the lovely things that our body does without another creature doing those processes for us on a day to day that the fetus cannot do until the 3rd trimester.
See, I also don’t get this argument. I really don’t understand what’s magical about passing through a birth canal.
*snerk*
KM: Terry was the same thing as a fetus, except substitute machine for mother.
Why is alive having to be born?
It has been the working defination of where life starts until (comparatively) recently, and since the very concept of life hasn’t been plainly expressed in an easy answer, life upon this planet and within this form, to my mind, does not begin until birth.
Also, Atheist, it’s more magical depending on which way you’re going. Yes, I went there.
OK, I can see your point that since it’s definitely magical going in that maybe it’s not such a stretch* to think that there’s magic coming out.
*Yes, I know.
Just curious how do you feel about c-sections?
^Sorry, that last post was directed at KM
*facepalm*
Er, make that “our”. My brain’s homophone regulator has been seriously wonky of late.
C-sections are fine, and qualify as birth under most definations. Though I did hear a little while back from an incredibly crazy woman that a C-section is just a late term abortion that failed. It kinda made me giggle until I realised she was serious, then I was sad.
That does bring up a good question though. Since c-sections aren’t what one would call “natural” birth, and the constitution demands they are natural born citizens, does this mean that if a president was birthed via c-section, they are disqualified for the office? How many presidents have been living a lie all this time.
Also, what other forms of birth were considered unnatural at the time that they had to use the phrase “natrual born citizen.”
Oh, another thought: Does a forced or induced labor (to assist with the birthing of the procrastonator babies) count as an unnatural birth?
I wasn’t procrastinating! I was just sleeping in…it was a Saturday after all.
I also suddenly hope that Obama wasn’t delivered via C-Section. If he was, I hope the birthers don’t here about this….
Default: Scary thing is, that’s slightly less of a petty quibble than one might think. Remember Macbeth, and how he felt safe because the witches told him “none of woman born” could hurt him?
Macduff, being “from his mother’s womb untimely ripped”, was the exception.
I severely doubt the Founding Fathers had this in mind. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this goes to court the first time someone on “the other side” was born by C-section, under the claim that the language the FF’s used was intended to be closer to Shakespeare’s wording than modern wording.
(My last reply appears to have gotten lost in the aether…)
I also don’t get this position. I don’t understand what’s magical about passing through the birth canal that suddenly changes the status of an individual. No offense, KMcK. I see what you’re saying about the fetus being dependent on everything from the mother, but that dependency doesn’t seem like an extremely strong reason to me. That said, I’m fairly certain that such late term abortions are done for medical reasons and not just because a mother has suddenly decided she doesn’t want the fetus.
…and my other reply showed up. It must have been my browser, since ILPB found it and responded to it…
It takes 28 weeks for the central neural system to develop. I highly doubt your assertion that a heart along constitutes life. Would you argue, equally, that having an engine inside of a metal box constitute a car?
Specious argument.
Specious. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Look, dude, the fetus is alive. What else would you call it?
I’d call it totally reliant on it’s host… ie, the mother.
Thank you, Grace. I think you’re wrong.
Apparently good or right though lacking real merit.
Your argument fit this description.
Stating that a heartbeat constitutes life demonstrates a complete lack on factual knowledge as to what constitutes life. My example demonstrates this exactly since we are not more than bio-electrical machines. Where they car has metal, we have flesh. Cars even have onboard computers, at this point, that analyze various sensory information and regulates its functions accordingly. Surprisingly similar to how our brain operates, only markedly more complex.
First of all, the original argument was ILPB’s.
Second of all, I tend to think of us as a bit more than bio-electrical machines. Third of all, how many premature babies have you met? Guess what, they’re alive. Again, I don’t know exactly what point you can say they’re alive, but I’d definitely say well before 40 weeks gestation, or even before viability. You may disagree, but I don’t really care.
Firstly: As to when life can be considered, my reply was to ILPB’s faulty assertion that a heart constitutes life.
Secondly: Regardless of what you think my argument remains valid.
Thirdly: A premature baby and a 21 week old fetus are markedly different. There has only been one, in recorded history, to have survived. My argument was against the assertion that a 6 week old fetus is “alive.”
Maybe you should take notes to keep up.
Yeah, true, you saying that about 6-weekers. The nesting gets hard to follow at times. Trust me, I’m well aware of the differences between a 21-week old fetus (my wife gave birth to a 20-weeker last year) and a premature baby. It’s because of this that I firmly believe fetuses are alive well before viability. The question that we can’t really answer is exactly when can we say it begins.
Avoiding Pathos:
Your loss is unfortunate, but this only supports that just because a child is premature does not mean it’s physical systems can support it’s life. If the organism cannot sustain it’s own functions then I fail to see how the claim can be made that it is alive to begin with. There are only a handful of 21 weekers who survive. “Miracle babies” are rare occurrences and should not be used as a standard for determining when a fetus ends and a baby begins.
Actually, as far as I know, no 21 week children survive. And apparently the criteria for what constitutes alive in a fetus is rather subjective. That being said, since my daughter was born alive, she is a citizen of the United States complete with social security number. So as far as the United States government is concerned, a baby born at 20 weeks is alive, even if it is only briefly. And again, if you haven’t seen a premature baby in person, then you can’t say whether or not that child is alive.
PB, Jeremy’s heart was beating. He was not alive. The thing that made him Jeremy was no longer there. The heart beating is an automatic function, and it can be tricked into staying that was as long as it receives the right signals, which don’t have to come from the brain.
Charro: We’ve had arguments about medical definitions before, remember viable?
I’m talking medically, strictly medically. I just happen to agree with it to a point.
Right, but viable =/= heartbeat.
Without lots of support, a newborn baby (alive by your own standards) cannot sustain it’s life process on it’s own. It is as dependent as the unborn baby, but simply is separated from the mother. A newborn could receive it’s care from a person not it’s mother, but that and breathing are the only real differences.
And if they’re early, a lot of times they have to have oxygen because the whole “breathing” thing isn’t developed so great yet.
Before 7 1/2 months, they need a little more than oxygen. Otherwise, I would have a big brother to fight with. (Said ‘little more’ was figured out after the 1960s)
*low, menacing growl*
Seriously.
I know some 30 year olds who can barely sustain themselves without parental intervention.
I have an uncle in his late 40′s who can’t sustain himself without parental intervention. *facepalm*
I suspect Kestrel may feel differently about that in the future should he get to witness the (hopefully healthy and successful) development of his own child. It can genuinely change your outlook to see that tiny being swimming backflips in there before you can even feel it.
If the baby isn’t alive, how the hell is it kicking the crap out of his/her mommy’s uterus?
Oh, for sure!
My point was that (as I’m sure you know) when you look at them with the ultrasound you can see that they’re very, very active before the mom can feel them kicking.
Oh very much so. And obviously I’d have issues with anyone suggesting my daughter wasn’t alive when she was born when she quite clearly was, even though she couldn’t support herself at all.
This will likely annoy the hell out of people as well, but there are other parts of your body that move without you telling it too. I’m not trying to diminish children (that don’t deserve to be diminished, there are a few of them out there.) I’m just saying I view them as an organ of the mother until birth. That’s simply my opinion. This isn’t to say doctors should start counting still borns because something is wrong with the baby, or that women should use their uterus as a rented storage container, it’s just how I view life at this stage in evolution.
In terms of me having a kid… that should worry anyone who actually knows me on so many levels.
You’re right. That annoys the hell out of me. *fishes in junk drawer for sharp objects*
*has already sold the entire contents of Rando’s junk to Squiggle for $20…* Er…sorry?
*hands Rando a rubber duck with a bowtie*
What… he’s sharply dressed…
he said sharp junk in his drawers….
It’d better not be very sharp. No lady is gonna want to get on sharp junk.
Which is why I use birth as that point. I do not view the child as anything but an extension of the mother until birth. Maybe a bit antiquated view with modern reasonings, but that is how I view it.
I think women should be able to choose, because every situation is different and blanket statements applying to specifics usually ends poorly. We know that Love is Blind, and that God is Love, but that doesn’t mean Stevie Wonder is God (or does it?)
The true irony I find is many of the pro-life people also typically strongly support the death penalty. Talk about conflicted morality.
But birth is completely arbitrary, Kestrel. Many babies would be able to survive outside of the womb some weeks before their due date. And if the baby my wife is carrying isn’t alive, it sure can move around for something that isn’t living.
Really? Because some people who don’t think a human/potential human who has never done anything wrong deserves a chance at life also think that there are certain crimes which forfeit your right to keep breathing the same oxygen as the rest of us, you see a conflict? I see a fair amount of consistency there in that both are geared at protecting innocent lives (or in some cases, potential lives, so we don’t get bogged down in semantics) while not protecting those who have willfully and heinously harmed other humans in spectacularly repellent ways, usually.
Ask me, there’s a lot (LOT!) bigger conflict in being pro-choice and anti-death-penalty. But I hear people saying what you said, in an almost flippant fashion, every time the abortion debate comes up.
I won’t mind the protest as long as she never takes the mouth tape off. Can we get another 3,000 feet or so for the other would be women’s rights-oppressors like her?
So b/c she believes that a child should be born, and that the child is NOT a parasite, she’s a women’s right opressor?
So does that mean those that are Pro-Choice are baby’s rights oppressors, I mean they are oppressing the right for a child to live.
Just thought I’d throw that out there.
Babys are a terrible threat to this nation. In 18-20 years those babies will take all of our jobs, healthcare, food, where will it stop? Soon the babys will be demanding better clothes and more money, access to the internet and voting rights. Do we really want these babies controling our future? Will we just roll over and let them take over?
I say NO! Join me brothers and sisters in the fight against babies!
Baby’s take our food and money much sooner that in 18-20 years, try 18-20 months from conception.
all the more reason to fight the scourge of the baby!
Don’t let babies oppress you! Fight for your rights, your freedom. No longer should we bow under the oppressive yoke of Babydom!
That’s right the gubberment will be our parents and WE can be the babies….
No one puts Baby in the corner.
PBZipper, here’s an interesting thing to think about. Do you think women who have abortions should go to prison? If you think abortion should be a crime at some point, what is the appropriate punishment for it? How do you enforce it? It’s all well and good to say that you believe life starts at X time, and that abortion is murder – do you think women who have abortions are subject to capital punishment, if they state they live in has it?
If the law states that a certain time abortions are illegal, then yes. The woman should be charged.
I never siad abortion should be a crime, I said in my eyes that after a certain time you are killing a life, but the definition of life always changes.
Twist that question back on you. Do you think someone who kills a pregnant woman should be charged for two murders? Or what if that person only kills the fetus, should we charge it for murder? This the concerns that “my body my choice” or “life doesn’t begin until X” people don’t think about.
I personally believe life begins at birth, so no, I don’t think a pregnant woman counts as two lives.
Look, I’m plenty pro-choice, but I don’t understand the argument that life begins at birth. Someone explain it to me.
I think it’s because on 6/29 I’l bee 30. Not 30 and nine months. Ergo, my life began when I was born.
So my daughter was never alive? That sounds unlikely. (Yes, she was born, but she was born 20 weeks too early, ergo, she wasn’t supposed to be born and by that logic wasn’t actually alive while in the womb or for the 2 hours after she was born.)
I don’t know. That’s just what I get out of reading these statements. Meaning, that’s the only think that makes sense to me as to why they would think that way.
I know she was alive honey. She still is, in your hearts and minds. In mine too. There are 3 kinds of death: the physical, then when the last person who knew you dies, and then when no one remembers who you were. So pass her life on Rando.
Honestly, I don’t like it when pro-choicers use silly arguments like that. Life begins at birth. Bullsh!t. Take ownership of your belief. I’m pro-choice, and I believe life begins well before birth. Not that I have an exact point where I think life begins. I don’t know that. But I know life begins before birth.
Life begins when i add you as a friend on facebook. end of discussion.
No one shall friend the Amazing Rando! I must remain an enigma! *disappears in a cloud of smoke*
Oh yeah? Well I have you as a cheeze friend! Ha! Ohh…no…never mind, I just have some git named Eric-in-STL.
Eric-in-STL. Pfft. I hate that guy.
Just to dovetail in here, I agree completely that it seems that many pro-choice people often seem to completely disregard the possibility of rights for the fetus, just as many pro-life people seem to completely disregard the possibility of the rights for the mother. I don’t see it as an either/or, but rather as two sets of rights that, at times, might conflict with each other. When those rights do conflict, we need to figure out whose rights trump whose. I think for you that might be at around 6 weeks, whereas for me it’s more like 13 weeks (and i could be convinced to push it back even further with supporting scientific evidence). Regardless, I think it’d be nice if more people could see that the fetus having rights doesn’t preclude the mother from having rights and vice-versa.
As with so many things, there needs to be some type of balancing test between the competing rights of the parties involved.
Unless that right conflicts with the fetus’ right to live, yes. I think you missed the significance of that “unless” clause, though. As diss points out, the difficulty is in figuring out the balancing test.
Why, then, is contraception — as opposed to every other activity in life — not only risk-free, but should be guaranteed by law to be risk-free?
Who’s suggesting that it should be risk-free? I can’t even begin to imagine how you read that out of what I wrote. Could you connect the dots for me?
Normally we assume that, when participating in an activity, the participants are making a rational decision that the risk involved in the activity is below their personal risk threshold. (For example, the government doesn’t guarantee that, while driving, you won’t be killed by another driver — but that doesn’t stop them from mandating lane dividers, traction control, and airbags.)
No form of birth control is 100% perfect, even if administered and used perfectly; therefore, there’s always a risk of getting pregnant.
Contraception seems to be afforded a special guarantee of effectiveness that’s not extended to other activities.
Why do you think that contraceptives are afforded a special guarantee of effectiveness?
Here’s an analogy: I’d like seat belts to work. If they don’t, I’m not going to blame the government, but I also don’t want the government to prevent doctors from saving my life when the seat belts fail in precarious situations.
So, I still don’t understand how asserting that the mother has some rights that might occasionally conflict with the fetus’ rights (and that when they do we need to figure out whose rights are more important), equates to guaranteeing that contraceptives work. Could you maybe try phrasing it differently, because I’m not even close to understanding the connection you’re making. Maybe you’ve misunderstood my position?
I thought I pretty clearly excluded medically necessary abortions in my initial question, so your “prevent[ing] doctors from saving my life” analogy is irrelevant.
Let’s get back to the more fundamental question, then — since abortions are so controversial, why should we allow them to be used for birth control at all? Why can’t we simply say “look, if you’re legally allowed to have consensual sex, you’re expected to understand there’s an inherent risk of pregnancy and that birth control isn’t 100% effective”?
We can already say that. Why should we legally enforce that, however, without a sound medical reason?
Let me try another analogy, since my previous analogy unwittingly threw you off by including a possibly life-saving component. If I’m moving furniture, there’s a chance I might damage it or the floor while moving it. Now, if I forget to put down floor protection and scratch the floor, should the government prevent me from repairing the floor? (Rhetorical question, of course.) Now, to be 100% clear, I am not equating this to abortion, but merely pointing out that not ruling out alternatives is not the same as guaranteeing anything.
Why shouldn’t we? Pro-lifers at at least some (you assert most) pro-choicers can agree that abortion is a bad thing — in a democracy, can’t a majority of people get together and decide that something that’s not an already protected right should be prohibited? (Particularly when, in the US at least, the issue was initially decided judicially rather than legislatively.)
There’s certainly precedence for this with medically related laws, too — euthanasia’s prohibited in most jurisdictions, human cloning’s banned federally, and there are a whole host of restrictions on embryonic stem cell collection and use. There’s no “sound medical reason” to limit any of those, but we’ve deemed them questionable enough to ban, or at least limit.
I think trans-fats are bad, but I have no desire to outlaw them. I think you’re failing to see the middle ground here…
Fortunately, our choices about trans fat consumption don’t affect one another directly. Abortion, however, directly concerns whether another person will/will eventually exist.
You’re so focused on asserting rights that I think you’re ignoring the responsibilities that should go along with them.
You seem to have a blind spot. Re-read what I said, and this time don’t skip over the clause containing “unless the right conflicts with the fetus’ right to live”.
Yes, thank you, I saw that the first time; but you don’t seem to recognize that it’s pretty much meaningless. (Both because “right to live” is entirely undefined and because you’re ignoring responsibilities, which can compel someone to avoid exercising their rights.)
Wait, what? I can’t say I’m following any of that.
Or, and maybe this is just crazy talk, you don’t seem to recognize the meaning behind it, and since you don’t recognize it, you assert that there is no meaning.
It is?
No, I’m not. I’m not sure why you think I am, either. That said, I probably don’t share the same sense of behavioral modification that you do.
I’m afraid I don’t follow you. I can choose to acknowledge my responsibilities and forgo exercising my rights, but my responsibilities don’t compel me to avoid exercising my rights.
Anyways, I’m gone for a while. I hope I didn’t say anything to offend you.
(in case anyone else picks this up)
Nope. For example, I have the right to travel freely within my country’s borders. However, if I have a pet at home, I’m not allowed to exercise that right in such a way that my pet is deprived of food or water, even if I have no other way of ensuring its well-being. My responsibility to the animal prevents me from freely exercising all of my rights.
Dhoti, I don’t understand why you say “abortions primarily for the purposes of birth control”. Can you explain that?
I do think women have the right to 100% effective contraception. I don’t think it’s right that a woman can take her pill faithfully at the same time every day, or wear her ring for the prescribed three weeks, wear and intra-uterine device, get the shot etc., yet get pregnant and then be seen as “using abortion primarily for birth control”. Clearly she wouldn’t be doing those things if she wasn’t being responsible. Why shouldn’t we have a right to 100% effective contraceptives? Why should a woman who does those things and still get pregnant not be allowed to choose to terminate the pregnancy she clearly does not want?
Setting aside the accuracy of “the majority” being uncomfortable with abortion, why should “the majority”‘s comfort or discomfort be the bar for whether someone else’s medical procedure is permitted? An overwhelming majority of men are “uncomfortable” with the thought of prostate exams. Does that mean they should be banned?
Or to put it more directly as a matter of personal choice… if the “majority” are “uncomfortable” with your religion, does that mean it should be banned?
If you genuinely believe it’s a matter of killing a baby, then I would understand your rationale even though I would disagree with you. I can’t understand saying that it should be banned because the majority supposedly don’t like it, rather than as a matter of someone’s rights being violated.
My mistake, arim — my response was directed towards charro, who’s generally not in the habit of deliberately misreading posts to…try to make a point, I guess?
In this context, a reasonable reader would interpret “uncomfortable” to mean “morally or ethically compromising”.
I have the same definition Dhoti, but sex is a little different than most other things. Sex happens to (for most people) be needed to keep a relationship alive. If I’m in a relationship with someone and we don’t have sex, it won’t last no matter how much we love each other. Should someone be forced to spend their entire life not having sex with the person they love just because they don’t want kids?
So far as you “life if wanted” question – no, not really. But then, my world view is a little off these days.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant to say, Dhoti. But for the record, the clarification was needed (and asked for) because none of the dictionary definitions of “uncomfortable” even come close to suggesting a matter of moral and ethical right or wrong (versus one’s own personal preferences). The closest is the one that suggests that something induces anxiety or is disquieting. That doesn’t lend itself to “a reasonable reader” knowing what you wanted the word to mean.
The entire list from dictionary.com:
“causing discomfort or distress; painful; irritating.”
“in a state of discomfort; uneasy; conscious of stress or strain.”
“Experiencing physical discomfort.”
“Ill at ease; uneasy.”
“Causing anxiety; disquieting.”
So far as being forced to permit something people find morally or ethically intolerable, there are people that don’t feel that way. If it were to become illegal, it would still happen only it would b less safe and well, you know the stock argument. I don’t find anything morally or ethically wrong with it, so why should I be forced to accept your morals and ethics? That’s really where the argument ends up. Whose ethics are more valid? The “majority” just because there is more of them? Does more = validity? No, and it shouldn’t.
@charro: It’s part of the social contract — the governed agree on a set of rules by which they’re governed. Playing the “morality card” doesn’t grant one a special exemption. (I can’t stop paying my taxes, for example, even if I think my tax dollars might be going to pay for something that I find morally wrong.)
Do you support the ability of the government to prohibit, for example, polygamy? There’s no imminent danger to society there, but most folks, for and again, respect the power of the government to ban it.
Look, if what you’re saying fundamentally is “I want abortion to remain legal because it’s in my personal interests”, that’s fine. But unless you can give me a compelling legal reason to back that up, this is all just an exercise in trying to obtain special treatment for your point of view, and obviously that’s something I can’t support.
No, I don’t support prohibiting polygamy. I see nothing wrong with polygamy from a moral standpoint. The only potential real issue I see is a tax one, and that being people marrying everyone they know for the tax credit. But I see nothing wrong with polygamy and I don’t think it should be illegal.
I understand how a democracy works, thanks. But I really don’t think either side can say for certain that they have the majority when it comes to pro-life/pro-choice. I’m pro-choice because I believe in a woman’s right to choose whether or not to be pregnant. I’m a first trimester kinda gal, I think that’s where the line should stay drawn. Second and third trimester? Medically necessary only. That’s my view.
Although, in all honesty Dhoti, this isn’t something I want to debate with you because neither one of us will change the other’s mind, and I’ve enjoyed the civility thus far. I appreciate you answering my question.
My main problem with polygamy is it tends to be used primarily by cults to control women. I don’t know how that would change if it were legal in this country, and if it wasn’t primarily being used by cultists, I would have no problem with it. I even know a polygamist couple (though, obviously they aren’t legally married, they consider themselves married and I believe they even had a ceremony to that effect).
I guess I should have said “consensual polygamy”? I don’t have a problem with polyandry either.
Charro: Will you marry me? Don’t worry I’m sure my wife will be up to it.
For the record — I’d only support legalizing polygamy if it gave women the same opportunity to enter into, and status in, multiple marriages as men, Denobulan-style. Otherwise, yeah, it seems to encourage creepy guys who fall somewhere between cult leaders and doll collectors.
But my point was less about whether polygamy should be legal, and more about whether the government should possess the power to outlaw it in the first place, since it could be construed as forcing society’s monogamous morality on others. Cults or not, there are religions that permit, or command, polygamy, yet we don’t permit them to exercise that belief within the US and Utah.
I support polygamy and polyamory. I agree with you Dhoti. On that point anyway…
ILPB: I spent all day trying to come up with a witty retort and I ain’t got one. So sign me up, but you’re not converting me to Conservatism.
I’d have to agree as well that government shouldn’t be able to enforce morality in matters where there’s no compelling interest in the welfare of others, whether it be marrying more than one spouse or assisted suicide or whatever.
(That is, if you count those as two separate issues… ba-dum-bum-ching.)
But unfortunately, there are a lot of laws like that on the books. Doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to stay, but there are a lot of them.
DO you think that for killing an old person (without their consent) who is simply inconvienent should goto prison??? Even people in chronic comas take major legal action and often are stopped by the voice of others (usually relatives).
I have a very Modest Proposal – let’s eat them!
Mmmmm baby back ribs…
Have you seen the hospital bills for a lot of births? It starts right away!
Yeah, I realised after I typed that up that I should have had other timeframes for the money and food stuff… but it’ll be a while before those babies go after my job!
“religious zealots”
Hum hum… No.
Religion might superficially be the main reason for this, but it runs beyond that. You can find atheist anti-choicers and you can find religious pro-choices. So, yeah, nice trawling attempt if you’d been aiming at a more clueless audience than the one here.
Thank you for saying that!
Not even funny,
and a human embryo is a human
I don’t think you got to his “actual real theory, if you’re so pro-life and so pro-child, then adopt one that’s already here and very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it to get it out of a horrible situation”. And you are wrong, it’s extremely funny and I give Bill Hicks (RIP 1994) tons of credit for being one of the only social critics/satirist/stand-up artist to have the cojones to actually address the issue.
Well i have to give him credit for bringing up adoption. But it doesn’t change my opinion on abortion in any way.
And apart from the cemetary joke, it wasn’t that funny imo, but maybe that’s just me.
Pretty sure he’s not trying to make pro-lifers laugh, he’s trying to point out the problem of mandating birth after pregnancy … thousands of unwanted children already exist. Studies linked unwanted children with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. If the unwanted child grows into adulthood they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, be on welfare, possess low self esteem, and receive psychiatric services.
There’s a plethora of problems involving unwanted children, and a lot of them stem from poverty and a lack of a secure family life. Disregarding the existing problems while demanding more unwanted children be born seems very irrational and more damaging than helpful.
People should watch Bill Hicks
am i being thick here in thinking this lady actually is criticizing “pro-life”?
saying that you are giving my unborn child more of a chance than you are giving me? only saying, since she has the tape over her mouth. she seems pro-choice to me…
There does seem to be some ambiguity.
My guess would be that after the clinic they’re picketing got a restraining order against all of her group of protestors because the more “avid” among them were screaming threats at the patients/staff/doctors, this was her way of protesting her loss of free speech. As forms of protest go, gagging oneself and peacefully standing there has a better claim to the moral high ground than most.
But it’s ironic, considering the gag order that the Reagan and Bush administrations had to keep doctors from mentioning abortion as an option to patients.
Consider that many leftards classify ‘prayer’ as ‘threats’ we probably need a few facts here instead of using propaganda as ‘evidence’…
I’m sure you can back up your statement with facts and figures too, right?
Threats? Excuse me? Prayers are threats to people on the left? That’s nonsense.
ah ok, thanks for enlightening me
One of the best LOLs I ever got from this site. That was funny as hell.
Thank you
Glad someone finally shut these feminists up.
*shoots gargsa* Glad someone finally shut gargsa up.
Go gargle with bleach and broken glass.