Dispatch from Moloch:
The horror! The video they don't want you to see!P.Z. Myers:
[Emily Lett, who videotaped her own abortion, is] comfortable with the choice, she smiles through the procedure, and it’s so quick — having watched my wife go through three childbirths, the contrast is striking. I suffered far more than Letts in having a cyst removed last week, but what I went through was trivial compared to what women experience in labor.
There is so much fuss over something that ought to be regarded as a fairly simple decision for most women.Her child couldn't be reached for comment.
And if the “child” had been reached for comment the interviewer would have been disappointed that it had yet to develop any of the capabilities that make us uniquely human. They may as well ask Myers' cyst for comment.ReplyDelete
Troll: "They may as well ask Myers' cyst for comment"Delete
No need. We have you, Popito.
What a sick way of thinking KW.Delete
Human is uniquely human from the moment of conception. When two pronuclei, one from sperm, one from ovum fuse they form a single nucleus. The whole information is right there in that nucleus to produce a human.
Hopefully you are not confused by it's size-it's still a human life. Let's treat it as such, not as a trash to be vacuumed.
And what are those aspects that make us uniquely human? When do they manifest themselves? I hope your definition isn't when the child is able to give comment, because that might actually be a few years after birth.Delete
You're a sicko, KW. I have three children. If I had had an abortion, I would have been aborting one of my babies, not a mere clump of cells. That person was formed inside of me long before he/she came screeching down the birth canal. In fact, the voyage down the birth canal, which happens to be the demarcation line between baby-hood and fetus-hood, is an arbitrary line with no real meaning of its own in terms of development.
KW, suppose you had an accident and went into a coma. You couldn't be reached to comment. No volitional speech = no right to life. You could argue that if this state is temporary, you have a right to live until you can come out of the coma and insist on being preserved a little while longer. But the fetus' lack of volitional speech and "uniquely human" capabilities are also temporary.Delete
What about a child with severe intellectual disabilities? They are unusually unable to give a reasoned defense of their right to continue living. A lack of such uniquely human capabilities must surely reduce their status to sub-human?
Follow your position to its logical conclusion and tell me its not... really, really awful.
"The video THEY don't want you to see..."ReplyDelete
"The truth about how THEY control the economy..."
"The facts about how THEY make you poor..."
THEY are The Other. THEY are dangerous. You know who THEY are...
And the Guardian's headline is a a chuckle as well: "The Emily Letts abortion video gives voice to women in the shadows". [emphasis added]
Women in the shadows? Shadows?
More like "women shrieking into scratchy microphones and tinny PA systems at Occupy [insert city here]"; "women testifying to Congress under the cameras of an admiring press corps"; "women writing in the New York Times"; "women attacking women exercising their faith on public sidewalks..."
One can make the argument that pregnant women who want to kill their offspring have suffered, but it's hard to make the argument that they've suffered in silence. :-)
I hate to break the nooz to ya, Empire Trooper Peeze, but this really isn't the video you are looking for.
I forgot: "women caught carrying poop and piss in plastic baggies into the chambers of the Texas Legislature".Delete
Wouldn't want to leave them out.
Screeching pro-abortion women are the second loudest people in our society, after homosexuals. Oh yes, they're suffering "in the shadows." Actually, they're strutting around town in their "I had an abortion" t-shirts.Delete
Back when I lived in Boston, my erstwhile girlfriend and I spent a lot of time playing squash and putzing around at the gym. I had a of of fun teasing her about working out with those little dumbbells, which I called "chickweights".
Well, here's an extremely amusing video set to the perfect musical score: the theme song from the "Benny Hill Show"...
I give you.... President Jeebus McLightworker and his Chickweight Workout Video.
I'll bet Putin was impressed.
The Bimbeaux McLightworker Administration is determined to root out the last vestiges of counterrevolutionary thought:
The Secret Service is looking to buy software that can detect sarcasm on social media....
“[Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said] "Our objective is to automate our social media monitoring process. Twitter is what we analyze. This is real time stream analysis."
--- Washington Post
Johnathan Swift, call your office.
Senile old fart,ReplyDelete
Five comments so far and just one is (barely) on topic. You're an Internet troll.
Ova and spermatozoa have nuclei too. Are they also uniquely human?
Bachfiend, you're too scared to even answer the question of where life begins, only about where you "draw the line" as to when an abortion should be allowed. Even you admit that the line you draw is arbitrary.Delete
And yes, you are extremely hypocritical. After the twentieth week, you suddenly believe that you have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, to force her to carry a child to term she doesn't want.
Here's your convoluted point of view: prior to twenty weeks, a point in time that even you believe to be meaningless, you are staunchly "pro-choice." It's a woman's body and a woman's choice. After twenty weeks it's suddenly...NOT her body? I guess that's what you're saying. It's not her body and thus not her choice, and it's okay to force women to bear children they don't want.
Ova and spermatozoa carry one half of the genetic material of a new human being. When they meet, a new human being is formed. It's a non-arbitrary, defensible line, unlike the twenty weeks rule.
I think it should be noted that Texas tried to restrict abortion to twenty weeks and the liberals went nuts. Wendy "Abortion Barbie" Davis became a celebrity overnight for her filibuster.Delete
If Bachfiend really thinks that abortion after twenty weeks is murder, he ought to understand that there are plenty of murders taking place in abortion clinics all over the country.
In Canada, there is no limit to when a "fetus" can be aborted. So Bachfiend, I'd like you to admit that Canada has essentially legalized the killing of children, even by your definition.
He'll never admit that, Ben. Bachfiend is a mindless, talking-points spouting ideologue. I used to think he was a thinking person who happened to disagree but I soon learned otherwise.Delete
He's quite incapable of changing his mind. A few months back I challenged him to read the Climategate emails. He replied that he would, if he had the time. He wanted to read them >>in context<< not distorted by some right-winger with an agenda. I believe he claimed that he hardly had time to read his email. I later pointed out that he seems to have plenty of time to respond multiple times per day to this blog. Reading the Climategate caper shouldn't be that difficult. He then told me that time wasn't the issue, it's just that his belief in global warming was never based on the East Anglia CRU so he doesn't really care what they say anyway. Actually, if his belief in this debunked turd of theory was in any way based on the United Nations and its supposedly authoritative IPCC, then in fact his opinion on the issue is based on East Anglia, as well as some others working at the University of Massachusetts and others.
But I understand well. >>I don't have time<< was a good excuse until I pointed out that he has plenty of time. I suppose that it's easier than admitting that he's too chickenshit to open his eyes to the rot that festers in the scientific establishment. He fears what would happen if people found out the truth.
It doesn't take long to comment on this blog. Only a few minutes a day. Reading the Climategate emails would take several weeks. And I accept AGW on the basis of the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases. Not because of the CRU or the IPCC.
do you or people who support abortion feel all powerful and all mighty? Is there such power in nonchalantly destroying human life and controlling destinies?
Power is always dangerous. Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best.
It was all so painless for mommy and daddy. That's really all that matters, right?ReplyDelete
I support a cutoff point of 20 weeks as a reasonable compromise - it's also the law in the state I live in ((Western Australia), which allows 'choice' up to then, and after then there has to be adequate reasons (dangers to the woman 's health or serious irremedial defects in the foetus), which has to be verified independently.ReplyDelete
I think 20 weeks is reasonable because there's evidence that the foetus hasn't developed sufficiently to suffer till 24 weeks.
I also don't think that abortion should be encouraged. It is a surgical procedure after all, with complications. It should be the last not first resort. I don't think that 20 weeks is an absolute barrier. It is just that there should be adequate reasons.
Anyway. A fertilised ovum isn't a person. Even the conservative voters of Mississippi refused to swallow that. The state of Colorado won't even give legal rights to a 7 month gestation foetus.
I don't comment on other country's laws regarding abortion.
Eugen - I don't feel pleasure at having power regarding abortion - I don't have any. But I do enjoy annoying you.
Ben - what makes you think that I regard abortion after 20 weeks as being murder? Are you a mind reader?
"I don't comment on other country's laws regarding abortion."Delete
You're such a slippery liar. You can't be nailed down to a coherent position. You most certainly do comment on the abortion laws of other countries, like mine for example.
In Canada, a child can be killed right up to the moment of birth. Essentially, he is an unperson until the moment he pops out. It's the logical conclusion of the flawed premise that a fetus is not a person. The line that separates fetuses from babies is birth, so they legalized abortion right up to birth. Now, can you honestly tell me that a child five minutes before birth is a completely separate thing from a child five minutes after birth?
Canada's abortion laws are infanticide even by your definition.
Annoying is OK. I just thought you are too dense.
I agree with you. If Canada's laws allow abortion up to birth, then I disagree with it. I don't know whether it does though (I don't have the time to look, and I imagine that each province would have different laws much the same way that each Australian and American state does too). I can only comment on what I know and accept as being reasonable.