Home - List All Discussions

Abortion promotes incest

Pro-choicers use abortion to conceal adult-on-child sex

by: whosays

America then: Mom & apple pie.

America now: Mom & abortion!

ProlifeAmerica.com has posted this story:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-526abortion,0,5818221.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines after arranging an abortion for her daughter. A 'legal' abortion!

The problem?

The problem is that the abortion in this case, just like a vast number of the other abortions in America, was being used to conceal sexual abuse - this time it was incest.

Learn more about how http://www.childpredators.com/States_seek_abortion_clinic_records.cfm

You can bet that pro-choicers will tut-tut and pretend that this is concealing incest is the exception - but since we know that over 90% of the time Planned Parenthood clinics will knowingly and willingly conceal child rape, who in their right mind would believe that these baby killers would suddenly get a conscience and actually report THIS sex crime (incest) to law enforcement while they are routinely concealing child rape?

For abortionists to report incest crimes would truly be an "exception for cases of incest"!

reply from: Hereforareason

I have been meaning to bring this up. What do you who support abortion say about this?

Amber

reply from: salspua

How often is an aborted fetus conceived through incest? I have no idea. How often does the adult giving consent aware of the abuse? I don't know that, either. What I do know is that incest is insidious.

Often the mother or parents do not know. The abused often are shamed or threatened into keeping the secret and protecting the abuser. If the parents often don't know, how would the abortion provider? How often does a child tell the OBGYN that she was raped by a family member when she carries the child to term?

I agree that any health care provider needs to intervene when he/she is aware that abuse is going on, but how can that person know if the child doesn't tell?

What are the clinics' motivations to conceal it? How do they benefit?

It sounds to me like you're linking one to the other for shock reasons. It's like assumptions that some straight people make around homosexuals - they assume gay people have bad sexual boundaries, blurring homosexuality and pedophilia, when no connection exists.

In my perfect world, no one would want an abortion ever. That perfect world isn't going to happen until rape stops, oppression of women stops, life destroying hereditary defects stop, until desperation comes to an end. Until that time, safer abortion needs to be legal. (Back alley abortionists are surely not ever going to report incest.) It is a symptom, not the root of the problem.

sal

reply from: ChristianLott

They are the pregnancy profiteers.

reply from: salspua

So are OB/GYNs and pediatricians. They also profit from pregnancy. They make less per hour, but they (and the hospitals) make much more per person. Pharmaceudical companies make lots of money on immunizations and antibiotics that are handed out at an alarming rate.

reply from: ChristianLott

You asked the reason abortionists would conceal rape and incest.

They don't want to scare off business.

reply from: whosays

The clinic's motivations? Duh! Follow the money.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics make money selling abortions, etc. and, just like the tobacco companies, they stay in business by marketing to kids. Kids that cannot be legally involved in sex - and therefore the clinics will either willfully violate the mandatory reporting statutes that are on the books in every state or they will take it in the neck financially. So they, for the most part - over 90% - willifully ignore the mandatory reporting laws which are in place to protect children from sexual abusers.

In NO state are the mandatory reporting laws based on waiting for the child to "tell."

Abortion clinics make money selling abortions (and usually other items like birth control, pregnancy tests and treatements for sexually transmitted diseases). They knowingly sell these services to underage girls. ANY/EVERY sale of these products/services is evidencing that the child-customer is sexually active.

In order to protect children from adults that would seduce them into 'consenting' to sex, every state has determined that an underage girl BY LAW cannot consent to sex. Thus, the sale of any of the above mentioned products and/or services to an underage girl automatically requires a report to child protective services or the designated law enforcement agency under the manditory reporting statutes. This occurs, of course, because the adult medical professional that is dispensing/selling this/these products/services to the child now has knowledge that this child is engaged in sexual activity -- and the report is thue required BY LAW so that the state's investigative agency to then determine if this is a case of adult-on-child sex and, if so, prosecute the pervert.

But abortion clinics don't report because they depend on the revenue that comes from children that are having sex with adults - and, if they obeyed the mandatory reporting laws even 50% of the time, the loss in revenue to them would be catostrophic!

reply from: yoda

So as long as the child stays quiet, you think the clinic ought to "look the other way"? Is that your idea of protecting young girls from older male predators?

reply from: bobinsky

Good point, Amber. All medical professionals profit from the medical/psychological needs of others. An abortion provider is no more a profiteer than is an OB. Almost no one becomes a physician for non-profit reasons. If OB/GYN are in private practices, they do make good money, even with HMO's and all the other impediments. They can refuse to see certain patients - those without insurance, for instance. The cost of terminating a pregnancy can vary widely, but it's nowhere near the costs of prenatal care, birth, postnatal care, well-baby care, shots, pediatric check-ups, so all of these various medical professionals benefit as much or more than a doctor who performs abortions.

Also, keep in mind when pro-choice people discuss keeping abortion legal for all women because of necessity, we are reminded by anti-choicers that only a tiny percent of abortions are due to rape/incest. So for the anti-choicers to claim that these clinics do not report incest cases because of the buckets of money these tiny percent of cases bring in is illogical and irrational.

reply from: ChristianLott

Yeah. All that caring costs money. Kill 'em all.

If it were financially more sound to have children, would you still be opposed to saving them?

Tell that to them:

http://www.childpredators.com/

reply from: ChristianLott

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Endtimes/Abortion2.html

reply from: Hereforareason

More money. If they don't turn that rapist in, he will most likely be bringing more girls (Or the same girl) back for more abortion. Each abortion is worth so much money.

That wasn't me bobinksy.

Amber

reply from: salspua

A couple of things. Y'all keep saying that abortion clinics fail to report underaged patients becasue they want them to keep getting raped and return again and again. What if they don't report it because if they do, the young girls will have illegal abortions instead. What if it actually protects them from back alley medical practices. There's only so much they can do.

Besides, do you think an environment that creates a 14 year old girl pregnant via incest is an acceptable environment for that 14 year old to raise a baby?

I agree that abortion is an awful thing. I agree that the fetus is innocent. If we want to end abortion, we have to stop the causes of the need for abortion. I say "need" because a woman wouldn't do something so drastic unless she felt she had to. SHE is the measure of need. It is a waste of time to attack the symptoms instead of treating the cause.

sal

reply from: bobinsky

Sorry Amber. I believe I meant Salspua. Got mixed up there.

Guess what, Amber? i also support adoption and keeping the kid - whatever the woman's decision is.
As far as the particular article is concerned, a mother takes her pregnant minor daughter for an abortion; nothing wrong with this. If the authorities really don't have a case because the mother and daugher were not prohibited from terminating the pregnancy. As mentioned in the article, the authorities should have asked for an injunction but they didn't, so technically, the mother did not break the law.
However, non-tehnically speaking, if there is even a hint of incest involved, and there's no reason not to believe the daughter although there have been instances of persons lying about incest previously, then they (mother/daughter) should have proceeded with the abortion and had the fetus saved for evidence against the stepfather.

As far as the other claim made about "Abortion clinics fight to protect the privacy of pro-choice sexual predators" this is hokum. It's probably happened in isolated cases, but again, this information is from an anti-choice website, so what else do you expect them to say?

Do you really believe this, Amber? I think you're far too smart to fall for this junk. And obstetricians make much more money than abortionists do.

reply from: sarah

Those would be very poor reasons for not reporting a very serious crime, IMO. To allow a sexual predator to get away with something so horrible is without excuse. If the crime isn't reported then the sexual predator is free to continue his heinous actions. These predators must be stopped and the consequenses the girl must face could still be dealt with, though with all my heart, hopefully not via abortion.

Naturally there is the "choice" of adoption. But, even more importantly, if the crime is reported and the home situation is dealt with, the "environment" at least stands a chance of improving. If the girl just gets the abortion and goes home to deal with this situation over and over, how can that possibly be considered an acceptable alternative?
No, the best situation would be the person doing this is apprehended and made to stop and pay for his crime.
It's my understanding that if and when a child comes to the ER or shows up at school with reasons to believe they are being abused in any fashion that the medical professionals as well as the school officials are under an obligation to report such abuse. Why shouldn't the abortion clinics be made to do the same?

I agree, and one of the necessary ways of "treating the cause" is to have this man who is committing incest be stopped. Not reporting these crimes is beyond the pale on the part of any abortion clinic. There is no justifiable reason.

reply from: yoda

Well intentioned folks have been trying to do that for years, and abortions keep happening. I'm afraid that approach has built in limitations.

If you look at the reasons women give for having abortions, the majority of them are things that other people can't have any effect on. They are either purely financial, or social, or a combination of the two.

So if a woman thinks that having an aborition will help her to "get ahead" in her life, there isn't much that can be done to "remove the cause" of her desire to have an abortion.

reply from: Driux

We are not opposed to the saving of children. Maybe that's your limited interpretation of our stance. What we are opposed to is the suffering of humans.

Abortion is the are aborting embryo or a fetus and before it develops onto a child. The mind of a child is substantially more developed than that of a fetus, capable of conscious thought, complex feelings etc. To abort the fetus is the humane and responsible thing to do, before substantial suffering can occur at a later stage.


So I'm changing your question to:
If it were financially more sound to have children, would you still consider abortion as a viable option?

Offcourse. Of upmost importance is the health and wellbeing of a potential child.
In some cases finance can be a factor that affects the wellbeing of that potential child, in other cases it may be foreseen medical complications, unfit parents, or something else entirely. It depends on the individual case. It's silly and irresponsible to jump to the conclusion that none of these factors will ever be a problem. It's irresponsible, to have a single rule that we all have to follow under any circumstance. Laws need to be flexible, to be able to cope with various conditions, and even the most extreme circumstances. Medical complications exist, human error exists, rape exist; the question is, what do we do about it?

reply from: ChristianLott

Sal, when abortion is legal women use it to mask their promiscuous behavior. That's lying.

When abortion is illegal women have no excuse not to be honest.

Do you really hate preborns that much, Sal?

http://www.afterabortion.info/petition/Forced_Abortions.pdf

Hate to be so blunt.

reply from: ChristianLott

They talk about all the back alley abortions that would go on.

If we devoted half the time we do arguing and fighting about this ONE issue, if PP devoted an ounce of it's time on really meaning what they say about their concern for women, there would be LESS abortion than there was before Roe V Wade - but there's NOT.

reply from: Driux

Using this kind of logic, we can also conclude:
When car safety systems are illegal, people will have no excuse but to drive safely.

This is true. So why don't we make car safety systems illegal? Why do we need safe cars at all?

...

Because humans a fallible.

reply from: ChristianLott

Do you have a study on this?

reply from: Driux

Do you have a study on this?

Ow, and I suppose you have a study for your statment...

Why would I provide a study that supports the very logic I am mocking?

Edit: I edited that last post to read "car safety systems" instead of "car safety", before I saw your reply. It's a bit clearer that way.

reply from: ChristianLott

Why would I have information which supports your mockery?

Is that it? Is that how you like to argue?

reply from: ChristianLott

Not so.

WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH

by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke

CHAPTER 14

FETAL PAIN

YES AND BY 8 WEEKS

http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp

http://www.lifeissues.org/pp/

What is more substantial than death?

So the limit of who we should kill is proportional to how much they suffer?

That's easy to get around. Instead of clothing and feeding the poor and hungry - kill them so they won't suffer.

Doublespeak!

"Of upmost importance is the health and wellbeing of a potential child." so kill it!

Parent's 'unfit'? Don't you mean 'child' is 'unfit' to live?

No gas chambers yet?

It's called adoption and foster care. Stop acting like it's a fate worse than death to be poor or handicapped. The ultimate abuse is when someone decides you should die and you've done no crime.

So let's have twenty rules which can be bent and twisted at the drop of a dime?

Anyway, you've not defined 'single rule' - so that's an unfair statement. How am I supposed to understand what you mean when all you've said is one thing?

Oh, you said more? Let's find out...

You were arguing for 'choice'?

reply from: Driux

Why would I have information which supports your mockery?

You provided a claim, "When abortion is illegal women have no excuse not to be honest". Then I made a claim about car safety systems that used the same line of logic (to show how silly your line of logic really was. I dont really believe that car safty systems should be made illeagle. I would have thought you would pick that up). Then you asked if I had a study that supports that claim, offcourse I don't, since I don't support that argument.

Why would you have information which supports my mockery? You misunderstood me completely, thats not what I'm asking. I'm asking: Why would you require me to support my "mock" claim (which I clearly do not believe or support), when you don't even have a study supporting YOUR OWN claim (which you do believe and support).

reply from: Driux

The death of a developed child is more substantial than the death of a fetus or embryo, but you seem to like blurring the two together.

No. The important issue here is human consciousness. If something does not have a consciousness, then it isn't a "who". The emphasis should be on the conscious entity, not a organisms bio-matter itself. In the decision to abortion is essentially to whether or not to terminate the organism before a consciousness is developed.

The fetus does not have the ability to be hungry if it is hasn't developed the neural pathways to do so.

Doublespeak!

"Of upmost importance is the health and wellbeing of a potential child." so kill it!

You conveniently neglected my use of the word "potential". The organism is really not yet a conscious child. Through an abortion we are avoiding the potential suffering and/or killing of a conscious child. Once the organism has become a conscious child, we are certainly not going to terminate it then, that's exactly what we are trying to avoid.

The death of a developed child is more substantial than the death of a fetus or embryo, but you seem to like blurring the two together.

No, not exactly. The important issue here is human consciousness. If something does not have a consciousness, then it isn’t a "who". The emphasis should be on the conscious entity, not a organisms bio-matter itself. In the decision to abortion is essentially to whether or not to terminate the organism before a consciousness is developed.

The fetus does not have the ability to be hungry if it is hasn’t developed the neural pathways to do so.

Doublespeak!

"Of upmost importance is the health and wellbeing of a potential child." so kill it!

You conveniently neglected my use of the word "potential". The organism is really not yet a conscious child. Through an abortion we are avoiding the potential suffering and/or killing of a conscious child. Once the organism has become a conscious child, we are certainly not going to terminate it then, that's exactly what we are trying to avoid.

No, I said unfit parents (not parent's unfit). A parent/s that will be unfit to care and provide for the potential child for whatever the reason may be in that individual circumstance.

No gas chambers yet?

I'm not sure which abortion clinics your referring to. =P

It's called adoption and foster care. Stop acting like it's a fate worse than death to be poor or handicapped. The ultimate abuse is when someone decides you should die and you've done no crime.

Adoption my be okay in some situations, is not really a solution to every situation. We need to respect the fact that the maternal parants have a sufficient right over there future of their potential child.

We need to look at a parant:
That Isn't currently capable of looking after a child, but in the case that they do have a child, they don't what anybody else to raise their other than there maternal parents. Why should the system be exclusive of people with this stance?

So let's have twenty rules which can be bent and twisted at the drop of a dime?

You really believe that simple rules can't be manipulated?
Let's put a restriction for every issue we can't be bothered thinking about. Let's not worry about regulation, and human intellect, lets just restrict everything! What's the point of applying speed limits on our roads when we can just ban cars altogether. Why bother taking crimes to court when we can just have a simple rule that someone is guilty if they look guilty. Human life is complex and you cant always regulate it with simple rules.

You were arguing for 'choice'?

I am pro-choice. But I'm arguing that laws need to be accountable for all circumstances, not only the circumstances that are most apparent on first glance.

reply from: Driux

Well, I at least mock your statment. =)

Maybe not you.

reply from: ChristianLott

Could you please repeat that for the audience.

reply from: Driux

sure...

"Why bother taking crimes to court when we can just have a simple rule that someone is guilty if they look guilty."

And my conclusion is unchanged. Simple rules don't always work. The very point I was making when I first posted this analogous statment.

p.s. I'm not sure, but you seem to like taking my analogies out of context.

reply from: ChristianLott

Yes, some points can be made in one sentence. Their context is contained within the statement or you could say their context can fit multiple circumstances.

'look guilty'. That's exactly what we want to do. We want to see if someone looks guilty.

reply from: Driux

ROFL @ ChristianLott. You're so wound up in your own perspective, you still don't understand what I'm saying.

I made that statement to show you how silly it sounds (kind of like a parody), the fact that you agree with it really disturbs me.

p.s. next time please look at the overall context of what I'm saying.

reply from: ChristianLott

Sorry I'm acting the simpleton, but this subject is so cut and dry (excuse the pun).

reply from: yoda

Now that's an interesting outlook! So the death of an adult (much more developed) is "more substantial" than the death of a 10 year old, right? Or is it that YOU would be more affected by the death of someone you knew than by the death of an anonymous unborn baby? So is it really all about YOU?

Horse pucky. An unconscious man isn't a "who"? A sleeping man isn't a "who"? Or have you simply siezed upon the pronoun "who" as a handy device to justify abortion? If that's the case, then look at what the dictionary says: (www.m-w.com) "who: 1 : what or which person or persons ". What, no mention of that magic word "consciousness"?

Suppose someone gave strong pain killers to born people before they killed them, would that make it okay? Or would the fact that we had robbed them of their life matter? And does the fact that killing an unborn human rob it of it's life, it's potential to life 80 years or so, matter to you?

"Sufficient right"? Is that a euphemism for "right to kill"? Why resort to euphemisms?

According to you, we encourage them to consider killing their unborn babies if they don't want to be bothered with them, right?

reply from: Tam

Druix--do you believe murder should be illegal? If so, what are your reasons for holding this belief? (Yes, obviously, I'm going somewhere with this--I just don't know where until I know your reasoning...)

reply from: Driux

I never implied direct proportionality between development and the level os substantial death. If a fetus is at an early stage of development where it isn't not capable of consciousness, then the termination of this fetus is less substantial that of a fetus which has already developed the ability to be conscious, has feelings, able to experience sensation etc. That is what I am suggesting. The death of an adult as and the death of a 10 year old are both substantial. Drawing a distinction between these two lives (as to the death of which would more substantial), serves little purpose, and is irrelevant to the scope this discussion.

Horse pucky. An unconscious man isn't a "who"? A sleeping man isn't a "who"? Or have you simply siezed upon the pronoun "who" as a handy device to justify abortion? If that's the case, then look at what the dictionary says: (www.m-w.com) "who: 1 : what or which person or persons ". What, no mention of that magic word "consciousness"? An unconscious man, and a sleeping man are both still partially conscious, in a dream state etc. (but that's not most important thing to consider). The important thing with an unconscious/sleeping man, is that he is already developed neural pathways required for conscious thought, is capable of conscious though, has already been conscious, and will likely recommence his consciousness if/when he wakes. A fetus that has not yet developed the neural pathways in order to facilitate for consciousness, has never been conscious, and has no pre-existent conscious, thought, feeling, or sensation. It will not be affected by an abortion since it has had no way or mechanism of being aware of its own existence.


Suppose someone gave strong pain killers to born people before they killed them, would that make it okay? Or would the fact that we had robbed them of the life matter?If there was no choice in the matter (eg. an unavoidable incident), I would rather the person take the pain killer, rather than die in pain. Or let them choose, it depends to whether they are able to communicate there choice to me or not . If there was a choice to whether the person lived or died, I would prefer that the person lived of course. I do believe that taking live of a conscious person is a significantly bad thing to do. Most particularly if it's against their will of that person, and/or against the will of there loved ones, but a bad thin none the less.

It isn't:
"unborn, vs. born."
It is:
"Undeveloped and incapable of consciousness, vs. Capable of conscious and having existent and/or pre-existent consciousness."
... IMHO that should be main conceptual goal in determining moral abortion threshold.

I find the argument of potential of life irrelevant. There is potential for human life everywhere.
eg.
There is the potential of the baring of an offspring given almost every possible male to female combination of adolescent males and females in a high school.
The potential of each individual sperm cell in a single ejaculation of about 15 million sperm, to undergo fertilisation and inevitably developed into a human.
etc.
Most potential for life fails. In order for a potential at life to succeed, you need a coincidence of several variables conducive to the production of the child. Criteria need to be pasted for potential at to life succeed. Some criteria would be, two mate who are psychologically, physically, and sexually compatible. A mental willingness by at least one of the two mates (but more usually both), to have and raise and look after a child. Mates that are more likely to have good general heath, to have healthy reproductive systems. A healthy sperm cell is more likely to succeed in fertilization. etc.
If parents have decided that they are not willing to have a child, and choose to abort it before significant development can occur then that is another criteria the potential at life has failed to meet, willing parents.

"Sufficient right"? Is that a euphemism for "right to kill"? Why resort to euphemisms?By "right", I am referring right of a parent to keep any of their natural children, if they don't whish them to be raised by anyone other then their natural parents. If such a person falls pregnant due to a mistake, such as human error, rape, whatever, and are incapable of rasing that child in the immediate future (financially or otherwise), why should that person be forced to give birth to the child that will be given to another family when it could have been aborted the embryo at an early stage? Then the person has the freedom have future children without concerns of a separated family or whatever other complications they may wish to avoid.

According to you, we encourage them to consider killing their unborn babies if they don't want to be bothered with them, right?We do not "encourage" the killing of unborn babies. We simply believe that the illegalisation (if that's a real word) of safe abortions is irresponsible.

I wholeheartedly believe that that murder should be kept illegal. But I think by definition, murder IS legal.

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
www.dictionary.com

btw. should I use the comuter or the apple as my avatar? can't decide. hehe

reply from: Tam

I wholeheartedly believe that that murder should be kept illegal. But I think by definition, murder IS legal.

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
www.dictionary.com

Ok, I am not surprised that you believe murder should be kept illegal. The more important part of the question was the part I've put in bold above.

When you say that you think by definition, murder is legal--do you mean illegal?

If you mean to say that what makes murder "murder" is a law, I guess that you are right. Let's go back in time to a time before laws. Let's take a hypothetical guy named Cain, and have him kill his hypothetical brother, Abel. Now, the fact that there is no law means that this act is not, technically, murder. Of course, in our land before time, the English language has yet to be developed, but it's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say you're on the tribal council and you have decided something needs to be done about all this slaying. You decide you will make a law. The very first law ever made. And it's going to be a law that will make Cain's action punishable by the elders of the tribe. It's going to be a law that will define murder. A law that will make certain killing criminal in nature. Would you support such a law? If so, why? What are the reasons you would support such a law?

reply from: yoda

Sure you did, whether you acknowledge it or not. You used the word "developed" to describe a human being in your "protected group", with no other distinction made between them. That clearly implies that devlopment is the principle difference between the groups.

Is it too much of a stretch to expect you to recognize that you are once again using "development" as your criteria? Do you not see the word "developed" in your sentence? Are you not saying that "development (of consciousness)" (if such a thing exists) is your criteria for allowing a human being into your "protected group"?

Hey! Here's an idea! A sleeping man can't communicate his wishes to you until he wakes, can he? And no human being can communicate their wishes until they develop communication skills, can they? So why are you so impatient that you aren't willing to wait for a baby to develop it's communication skills and learn what it's wishes are? Is it because you don't care what it's wishes are?

Sure you do, for other folks. How about for yourself? If you were killed right now, wouldn't that be immoral because it would rob you of the rest of your potential life? Is there any more important reason why it's wrong to kill innocent human beings?

Oh, so it's all about "freedom"? Take away all of the baby's freedom forever in order to give the mother more freedom now? Is that how it works? Sure, it's okay to "force" the baby to die if the mother doesn't "want it", but it's not okay to tell her it's immoral to kill it? That's kind of one-sided, don't you think?

Indeed you do, whether you acknowledge it or not. Every time you opine that killing a baby "before it's consciousness develops" is not a moral problem for you, you encourage mothers to kill more babies. If you're going to take the side of those who willfully kill babies, at least have the courage to take responsibility for your words.

reply from: bobinsky

Yoda, you're even more clueless than I thought. I love the way you twist others' words around. A fetus has NO freedom in any sense of the word.

Okay, take a partial statement and ignore the context of the poster's answer. Good job, yoda. See, the difference between pro-choicers is that we encourage the woman to make her own decision because we believe that women are wholly capable, competent human beings who are able to make these decisions by themselves, without input from anti-choicers or other irrelevent parties. You AC aren't going to carry the pregnancy, miss work, be sick, deliver the child, go on maternity leave, pay for daycare, buy formula, sit up at night with a crying baby, so what you ACs think itsn't really important to the pregnant woman.
Your beliefs are important to you and BRAVO! But your beliefs of moralit, immorality, consciences, etc. have nothing to do with the woman in the situation. However, the group that you have chosen to protect - the feti - is given primacy over the nameless, faceless women whose lives are the ones affected by the pregnancy.

reply from: yoda

And I'll bet you're proud of that fact, aren't you? And I'll bet you also are too impatient to allow a fetus to grow, develop, and enjoy the same freedoms the rest of us have, aren't you?

Whoopee! Such brilliant, wise women ought to be allowed to decide by themselves whether to kill born children or not, right? You're all in favor of changing the law to allow that, right?

No? Why not?

reply from: ChristianLott

No one is capable of making a decision about something they know nothing about. You refuse to tell them the truth about abortion or even acknowledge millions of women regret their abortion and have been hurt by their abortion and hate pro choicers for setting it up to so easily murder their own child.

Just like the last statement, you think this is men against women. Cut the schoolyard/playground trash and realize this one thing - most men could care less about abortion and most RTLers are women. Also, please never forget - adoption is an option and stop acting like it's not.

reply from: bobinsky

Driux said:
Yoda said:
You ARE truly clueless, yoda. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Guess I don't need to anymore. In Driux's statement, s/he did not mention an adult; s/he compared a developed child to a fetus/embryo, and you start babbling about the death of an adult being more substantial than the death of a 10-yo old. An adult is not more "developed" than a 10-yo; more educated, more experienced, more physically grown, but not more "developed". And then you twist Driux's words and start babbling about it all being about HIM/HER? How in the sam hill did you make this connection?

If your wife/daughter/son died tomorrow, would you be more affected by their death than by the death of a fetus in Nigeria? We are all affected more by the deaths of people we know than anyone - fetus, baby, child, adult, elderly - we don't know. What an imbecilic statement, yoda. Would you skip your wife's funeral to stay home and cry for a dead embryo in Russia? In all my born days I've never heard such an insipd statement, nor have I seen such a pathetic attempt at twisting someone's words.

reply from: bobinsky

I'm not the one that developed the reproductive systems that are in place. The fetus is tethered to the woman via the umbilical cord; it is enveloped in the womb; hence it has no physical freedom. We were talking about feti, nothing else, and that's the bottom line about a fetus: no freedom of any sort. Again, I did not invent the reproductive systems in use today, so I can't take any credit or blame for the way it is.
It doesn't matter how patient or impatient I am, it depends on the situation and circumstances of the woman carrying the pregnancy.

Nice try, yoda. Again, we were talking about feti, not born children. Why can't you stay on track? Stop changing the subject. As far as my feelings concerning the killing of born children, I've answered that question multiple times on this forum. Look up a past post.

reply from: yoda

Look Forrest, I know some of this is way over your head, so why don't you just sit quiely on the sideline until something real simple comes up?

For everyone else, the key word is "developed" child, as if development makes the difference. But don't tell Forrest, she'll call you bad names.

Yes, that's the point I was making....... and yet you pitch a hissy fit while you agree with me...... is this your time of the month or what?

So the objection Druix has to the killing of a child (born) is how it would affect her feelings.... not the harm it would do to the child. For proaborts, it's all about THEIR feelings, not the life of the child.

reply from: ChristianLott

You are told what to feel. If you don't feel it, you don't understand it. If you don't like it, you can't have it.

We don't care about regret. We care about money.

reply from: yoda

Sure it does. You're the one handing out all this advice about how women ought to be given the choice of whether or not to kill their unborn baby, so that demonstrates a lack of patience on your part, IMO.

Yes, I know..... you oppose it because it's against the law and for no other reason. So if it was perfectly legal to kill your born children, you'd have no problem with it....... I understand.

reply from: Driux

Oops sorry, yea... that was a typo. Thanks for picking that up Tam.

Sure you did, whether you acknowledge it or not. You used the word "developed" to describe a human being in your "protected group", with no other distinction made between them. That clearly implies that devlopment is the principle difference between the groups.
I never implied direct proportionality between development and the level of substantial death.
That is your own assertion.

Look Forrest, I know some of this is way over your head, so why don't you just sit quiely on the sideline until something real simple comes up? bobinsky hit the nail on the head in terms of grasping what I was talking about. Maybe you should be the one to sit down yoda. Or maybe you should respect the opinions of others, and not be to quick excommunicate them if they see things from a different perspective to you.

Actually, I'm not sure why you are dwelling on the word "development", Yoda.
"Development" is an incredibly general term. Many things develop in respect to a fetus. A hand may "devalop", a foot may "develop", cells "develop", and the mind "develops", thoughts can "devalop". Anything that is acquired change, can be considered a "development". I only used the word "development" as an indication of an acquired difference over time.

If there are two fetuses that are "different", the first is incapable of consciousness and has never been conscious, the second other is capable of consciousness and has been conscious and/or has pre-existing consciousness, then I would consider the life of the second fetus, that has conscious capabilities, as more significant.



I thought that I already cleared up the fact that the threshold it isn't or not the child is born.

I would think that this threshold would occur sometime before birth. Nevertheless, my discussion is only relevant within the scope of abortion, which takes place before birth.

anyway...

Feelings are a factor. Within my use of words, feelings would just be one aspect of consciousness, but not necessarily the main emphasis. Without consciousness, feelings would not exist. Feelings would be considered a "subset" of consciousness, if you will. Consciousness is the main emphasis.

In my opinion, the key importance is the preservation of a pre-existing and/or continuing consciousness.

----
Yoda, in another thread, you said something along the lines of: "fertilization is the earliest moment in which a unique individual exists". Well, something unique exists, but it's only unique coded genetic information. I would not call that a "unique individual". Although the information is "unique" and it is "individual" in that there is not a direct copy, but the term "individual" is most commonly used to refer to some sort of conscious entity. Perticularly in this kind of context.

in·di·vid·u·al

1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness.
b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion.
2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
3.
a. Marked by or expressing individuality; distinctive or individualistic: an individual way of dressing.
b. Special; particular: Each variety of melon has its individual flavor and texture.
c. Serving to identify or set apart: "There was nothing individual about him except a deep scar... across his right cheek" (Rebecca West).

www.dictionary.com

reply from: bobinsky

Hello, Druix. Good points. If I may, and I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with your post, but the anti-choicers refer to the fetus as an "individual" with its own complete set of DNA - an entirely different individual than the parents - or whatever their twaddle is. What they're missing is that the fetus features genetic codes of both parents mixed in the DNA; this is why paternity and maternity can be established beyond the shadow of a doubt - because the kid's DNA sprung from the parents' and therefore, its DNA is part of the parents' DNA. For example, our son can be traced back to us, back to his grandparents, back to his great grandparents because the DNA builds on the generation.

reply from: Tam

Oops sorry, yea... that was a typo. Thanks for picking that up Tam.

You're welcome.

So, hey, I know everyone wants to debate with you (heck, everyone has noticed that you're the only pro-choice person on the board worth debating, at least so far today!), but I just want to ask this again because I want a turn, too, and I'm interested in your answer.

As for the discussion about development and death--just to clarify: from conception until maturity, physiological development is taking place. So, let's just clear up what relationship you feel exists between physical development (or was this more about psychological development?) and having the right to continue to live. We're not talking about whose life is "more significant" than another--there is no gray area, here. Some lives are protected by law (ours, for instance), and some are not (unborn children, for instance). So it's not a spectrum of possibility--it's two buckets. One bucket holds all the lives worthy of legal protection, the other holds those lives unworthy of legal protection. Some folks, for example, put "unborn children" in the protected bucket, and convicted serial killers in the unprotected bucket. I personally place no one in the unprotected bucket--that's my view. I can see that you place some unborn children in the protected bucket and some in the unprotected bucket. We're just trying to figure out where, and why, you're drawing this line and saying that on this side of the line, your life cannot be taken from you, and on the other side of the line, it can be taken from you. Can you explain a bit more about the relationship between development and the right to continue to live? I see a bunch of stuff about having the capability for consciousness. There is a whole thread about consciousness that might interest you as well. In fact, now that I think about it, I think it would be more appropriate than "abortion promotes incest" for what I'm writing right now! So if you want to move it there, that's ok with me. I also made some points about why conception is the dividing line, and I'm interested in your response to those as well.

Sorry--not to put too much on your plate. As I said, you're the only prochoicer on today worth debating, so I'm really glad you're here. No pressure to answer all of this immediately, I know you just got here, I just wanted to make sure it didn't get neglected, because it's interesting to me--and, I know, to others here.

reply from: yoda

"Development" was the only differentiating factor you mentioned.... what else are we to conclude?

Then your nail was incredibly well hidden. Would you like to try again?

Then why did you use it, and only it as the distinction between the protected and non-protected human being?

What exactly do you infer by the word "significant"? That the life of the other fetus is "insignificant"? And does "insignificance" mean that it's okay to kill that fetus, IYO?

Ah, so it is a blurred line, an indistinct point in time? Hmmm..... would that make you tend to err on the side of caution, or would that make you inclined to say it's okay to kill any fetuses that can't be proven to be conscious? To which side do you give the benefit of the doubt, life or death?

Indeed..... WHOSE feelings? You totally dodged the point that it is YOUR feelings that you are protecting when you object to the murder of a "conscious child", not the feelings of the child.

And I'm sure you have your reasons for that reluctance..... even though the definitions you posted began with:1. a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: and only listed consciousness as an afterthought....... the only way you can come to the conclusion that a fertilized human egg is not a "unique individual" is to take one of many listed usages and saying those eggs don't fit that particular one..... and ignore the rest of them. That's intellectual dishonesty, to say the least.

reply from: yoda

All human DNA on the planet came into being that way...... what's your point?

reply from: ChristianLott

It's okay to murder tiny babies.

Thought you'd catch on by now, yoda.

reply from: salspua

It offends me that you used the menstrual cycle as an insult.

It's a symptom of a sexist society - a society where women matter less than men. Big surprise that one who thinks a woman should not have control over ending a pregnancy under any circumstance would use something so fundamentally feminine as an insult.

sal

reply from: ChristianLott

I'll laugh this one off.

I'll ignore the rest.

reply from: SpiritualisticBuddhist

Yes, laugh. Offense is funny so long as you're doing it to someone who doesn't believe what you do.

You're a very small creature. You and Jenny would get on like a house on fire.

reply from: yoda

Ah, but you weren't at all offended when bobinsky made the same "insult" to Tam? Oh, just a little double standard there? That's okay, we understand.......... ;-)

Find something substantial to whine about, okay?

reply from: yoda

Yet another poster who didn't mind the "insult" when bobinsky used it..... only when I did. No double standard here... no siree!

reply from: ChristianLott

Could you link and quote?

reply from: yoda

Could you link and quote?
In the thread "What's the difference": (emphasis added)
Author Icon
bobinsky
Senior Member

Posts: 371
Joined: 05/06/2005



quote:
Bobinsky--was this intended to be threatening? To intimidate me? If not, what is the meaning of the comment? Do you know who I am? Do you intend to harrass me? It seems from your post that the answer to both is YES. That is not okay with me.

Tam, take a Pamprin or a Xanax or whatever will do the trick.

reply from: salspua

Did it ever occur to you that I didn't see bobinski's insult your sex?

I don't have time to search for it right now.

Ya know, all of you who think it's all fun and good to employ oppression are part of the problem that leads to abortions going on. Abortion will not end before we have equality. Don't y'all even look at what you're saying?

sal

reply from: yoda

Ah, someone else who doesn't read her posts........ okay, no problem, I quoted it for CL so you can find it easier.

Ya know, I find it very disturbing that you mention "oppression" as if expressing an opinion on a matter of this importance is somehow immoral. I also find it disturbing that you mention it as if the "oppression" of taking the very life of a baby is immaterial in this discussion.

Yes, let's have equality....... and include the babies, okay?

reply from: ChristianLott

Oh yes! I remember this.

Too much.

Bobinsky has said it all.

So insulting someone about their sex is okay when you're of the same sex as the person you're insulting.

Just needed to learn the rules of your "equality".

Is that what abortion is about? I didn't know.

So you're saying abortion is bad?

OKay.

As soon as I stop insulting women, they'll stop aborting?

Women murder their children because they feel insulted?

So can I have the same right to murder when I feel insulted?

Pettiness.

Ridiculous.

reply from: Hereforareason

Who said that?

Amber

reply from: salspua

Hereforareason-
Yoda did.

ChristianLott -
No, using one's sex as an insult isn't ok, even between women. It's a symptom of the insane paradigm we live in. When women do it, they're internalizing their own oppression.

May I assume you are a white male? As a white male, your priviledge is invisible to you. If you have any interest in the part your (and others who are unaware) attitudes and beliefs play in the sad state society is in, I recommend looking into Men's Studies to deconstruct your assumptions.

Women's Studies is also powerful.

sal

reply from: Hereforareason

Let me just make a point. When it gets down to name calling and personal assults, it's past time to stop. I don't have any respect for someone who will attack a person in that manner. No matter what side they are on. They are humans who have feelings the same as you do. And if you are attacking them, how are they supposed to accept what you are saying?
amber

reply from: yoda

But of course, you will only "chastise" me, and not your friend bobo, right? Yes, I understand.....

No one used "sex as an insult", that's your fantasy. Someone noted that fact that an irrational act of hostility had occured, and speculated on why it had. Hey, biological differences between the genders are a fact of life, and if you're unable to deal with that fact being referred to, that's your problem.

reply from: yoda

Yet another person chimes in with a one-sided attack. Are you also excusing the same comment from the proabort side?

In addition to which, there was NO PERSONAL "ASSULT" in that comment, only in your imagination. Bobo has called me so many names I can't recall how many it has been, and you stayed perfectly silent throughout every one. Kinda selective in your indignation, aren't you?

reply from: Hereforareason

No I am not. (And by the way, I am really ashamed that people who claim the same name I do, Pro Life, would treat a life with out respect)

I'm sorry, but I find it very rude to refer to something like that. I've been silent? Yes that's because I haven't been able to follow a lot of the threads. I have not read through everything and see what's going on. I have a life to live off line. () Did you mean bobinsky or was bobo random name calling?
No, I am not being selective. I don't support anyone resorting to personal attacks. I am not the moderator either, but I wanted to voice my opinion on the matter. I wish I did have time to go through and read all the posts. Sorry, I don't.

Amber

reply from: ChristianLott

Wow.

So what's your point?

reply from: salspua

So your comment about bobinsky's menstrual cycle was concern for how she felt? Or were you saying that bobinski responded inappropriately to something you said so she must be bleeding, therefore irrational?

I, too, don't have time to read every detail of every post. I have friends, family, and a full time job. My point is valid. Would you tell racist jokes and then tell someone of color that the insult was their fantasy?

I have no problems with facts. I do have a problem with devaluing one another (yes, you too, bobinsky and anyone else employing this tactic) and resorting to power-over as a way of interacting. I have a major issue with oppression, and insulting a woman in regards to her menstrual cycle is just that.

Among boys and men - it's an insult to be called a girl or likened to a woman. Did you ever think about what that means about the value of women in our society? It means being a woman is a low thing. I want abortion to end, too, but we must eliminate the causes, not oppress women more.

amber -
Good point about one's message being lost in a verbal attack.

sal

edited for spelling

reply from: ChristianLott

Exactly. If a black person calls me or my friend 'boy' - he shouldn't get upset when I use the same term on him.

(BTW, I'm white and my hypothetical friend is white.)

'someone of color'? I'm offended. Isn't white a color? Don't white people of color have feelings too?

reply from: yoda

Let me spell it out for you: bobinsky made the same comment to Tam that you are criticizing me for, in addition to the endless name-calling she's done. So she must not think it's such an "insult", since she used it herself, right? BTW, bobinsky hasn't complained about my comment, why do you think that is?

reply from: salspua

You're not making a whole lot of sense to me here, but I see a couple of things going on. When your friend likens you to a child, that's about insulting children - they're not as good as adults. When you say he shouldn't get upset when you do the same thing to him, you're saying that it's ok to do to others what they do to you, rather than taking responsibility for your own actions. Your response also has nothing to do with a priviledged person (you - white male) insulting an oppressed person's (black friend) race and then telling him the insult was his fantasy. I imagine that my commentary makes no sense to you, but that's a part of your priviledge being invisible to you.

reply from: yoda

I would say her response was irrational because she agreed with me, and attacked me in the same paragraph. Does that seem rational to you?

Then in that case, here's a fact for you: I've worked with women who were perfectly rational, calm, and courteous most of the time. Then for about one or two days a month, they were completely over the top with rage and hostility, for no apparent reason. This pattern continued for months on end, and there was usually an apology for the isolated behavior a day or two after it had occured. Granted that she was an exception, but that behavior pattern was A FACT. Do you demand that no one ever refer to such a fact, and pretend that it does not exist? Are such facts politically forbidden subjects?

And one final point: since she herself made the same comment to someone else, doesn't that tell you that she doesn't find it "offensive"?

reply from: yoda

I can't speak for CL, but that seems miles off target to me. What he said was that if you call someone "boy", then you shouldn't get upset if they call you "boy".

In other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...... or do you see the need for a double standard here?

reply from: salspua

Bobinsky - I'd like to see your input.

Besides, I don't think it's relevent that she hasn't complained. Social dynamics are social dynamics. A lot of times insults like that don't really sit right with people, especially oppressed ones like women, but they don't speak out. I'm pretty aware and vocal about things like that. In an abusive situation, how often does the abused person keep quiet about it? How many then abuse others? Is it then ok?

reply from: yoda

Why in the world not? How CAN she complain about it, since she did it herself? Or do you think women must be allowed to enjoy a double standard of behavior?

"Oppressed"? Is that where you're coming from? Do you percieve the "oppression" of women to be some kind of excuse for bad behavior? Sorry, I'm not buying any of that today.

reply from: salspua

Ah, facts. You see, there is an assumption that when you see rage and hostility those few days, that it's irrational. In those few days women are particularly less able to put up with things. A good woman puts up with a lot, and she can suppress it with denial most of the time. (I'm not saying you are the source of what she's putting up with.) When people stuff things instead of being conscious of them and making changes, that anger comes out sideways. I don't get angry for no reason. I am more sensitive in the week before my period, but I'm not irrational, and I do not further deny whatever is being triggered for me by blowing it off as an isolated event caused by monthly cycle.

No, such facts are not forbidden subjects. It's one thing to talk about it, but to use it in the context of a put down is not the same thing. And, no, it's not different if a woman does it. It's a symptom of the same societal attitude.

That's not relevent. She may accept your comment as socially normal. In it I see symptoms of societal ills, and I'm pointing it out. Yes, it ties in with abortion. More oppression isn't the answer. Why do you think women make such drastic decisions? Not because of period jokes, but the realities of oppression and our social structure heavily enter into it. How can we move to an egalitarian way of living without looking at our own behavior?

reply from: salspua

I haven't been clear. I am not excusing anything. I am not saying that it's ok for her to employ insults and power-over with you. I'm saying anyone who does that is communicating poorly and is part of the problem. Relax.

No, I don't advocate double standards. I also don't advocate bad behavior because someone else started it. I don't buy it from my children and I don't buy it from adults.

If you feel picked on because I'm having this conversation with you, it's because bobinsky isn't here. If she argued with me, I'd have the same kind of responses.

reply from: yoda

No, it isn't an assumption. She told me herself that it was her cycle that made her that way. And I've heard the same thing from other women. They are a minority, but they are real people, and their situations are FACTS.

I thought I was giving her a perfectly valid possible reason for her behavior. YOU are the one calling it a "putdown", not me.

Then it IS relevant, since I made the comment TO HER, and NOT YOU!

Because they want to take the "easy way out" by sacrificing their child to their own comfort, their own lifestyle? Anyway, that's what the Planned Parenthood survey said:

Women who have had abortions cite the following reasons*:

Table 2. Percentage distribution of women who had an abortion, by main reason given for seeking abortion, various countries and years (U.S. 1987-88, by percentages)
25.5 -Wants to postpone childbearing
7.9 -Wants no (more) children
21.3 -Cannot afford a baby
10.8 -Having a child will disrupt education or job
14.1 -Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2 -Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
2.8 -Risk to maternal health
3.3 -Risk to fetal health
2.1 -Other (includes rape)
100 -Total (1773 -Number surveyed)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

reply from: yoda

As long as SHE does not see her actions as "a problem" then SHE should have no objection to being addressed the SAME way she addresses others, right?

And if SHE has no problem with how she's being addressed, who else has any right to complain?

reply from: salspua

Table 2. Percentage distribution of women who had an abortion, by main reason given for seeking abortion, various countries and years (U.S. 1987-88, by percentages)

25.5 -Wants to postpone childbearing
So it is wrong for a woman to have a baby when she is economically and emotionally ready? Why can't she create a good environment for her child by choosing when she raises children?

7.9 -Wants no (more) children
A woman must have a child she doesn't want? A woman must raise children she does not have the resources to support?

21.3 -Cannot afford a baby
Poverty can be pretty cruel.

10.8 -Having a child will disrupt education or job
For a woman, this is a reality. It is not uncommon for women to be denied a promotion because she has had a baby. One woman I met said that she was told that having a baby meant she didn't take her career seriously enough.

14.1 -Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
Partner doesn't want pregnancy? And you question oppression?

12.2 -Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
My ex's daughter had a baby right before she turned 16. The daughter can hardly read due to learning disabilities and dropped out of school last year. The step mother is a drug addict, the mother's father got out of prison 3 years ago for manufacturing meth. The baby's future is bright. I can understand not wishing this environment on a child. Others objecting to pregnancy? See the sick paradigm under which our society functions.

2.8 -Risk to maternal health
When one denies this, the fetus is given precedence over the mother.

3.3 -Risk to fetal health
Sometimes a woman aborts 2 of 4 so 2 stand a good chance of living. Tay-Sach's and being born without an immune system are cruel disorders.

2.1 -Other (includes rape)
The mother should at least have the option of carrying the rapist's baby or not. You're right, it's not the baby's fault, but the mother has to matter.

100 -Total (1773 -Number surveyed)

A number of these situations have applied to me, and I chose not to abort - my choice. I also prefer the idea of adoption to abortion in most cases. (Someone had a great idea about offering a kickback to PP to refer people for adoption.) In my son's case, the father who pressured me to abort refused to consent to adoption. I had even picked out parents. I kept him, even though I could not afford it, and lived under the poverty line for years. My formal education ended. Keeping him was the right decision for me, but it sure was a tough road.

In another thread, after saying you always give life the benefit of the doubt, you mentioned that you don't kill for trivial reasons. Maybe to you these women's reasons are trivial. I can guarantee you that for them they are not. Abortion is a big deal, as is carrying a baby to term and giving him or her away. I can't understand thinking that that many women are just plain selfish and killing for trivial reasons. It just doesn't make sense.

sal

reply from: salspua

Wow. You're vehemently defending your right to behave badly. What's up with that?

I believe the events you describe, but I don't so easily call it fact because societal conditioning is involved. Yes, I've heard it from other women, too.

It was in a context of hostility. No, you're not calling it a putdown. I'm calling a duck a duck. I'm pointing out a behavior that you don't want to see because it makes you uncomfortable.

reply from: yoda

It seems to me that your conclusion is a non-sequeter. There's nothing in that "reason" that says it's "wrong" to postphone childbearing, it simply says that's the reason they give for killing their child. And I think it's wrong to kill your child because you want to "postphone" that which already exists (your unborn child)

Again, a non-sequeter. She already HAS a child, but she kills it because she doesn't "want it"... and I think that's very WRONG.

Not as cruel as death in the womb.

IMO killing a baby for those reasons mean you don't take LIFE "seriously enough".

How does one "question oppression" What does that question mean?

Me too. But I can't for the life of me understand killing your child to "protect him/her from this enviorment".

Isn't there some way for her to "matter" without killing her child?

Then you earned the right to be a very proud mother.

The word "trivial" by itself means almost nothing. Let's make some comparisons here. Is a human life a trivial thing? Then, by comparison, is a new boyfriend, or a chance at a promotion on the job "trivial"? That's the real question, how these things stack up as compared to an innocent human life.

If you can't make those comparisons, then I don't know what to say to you that will have any effect on your thinking. If you can, then tell me which is more "trivial" in your moral opinion.

reply from: Tam

No I am not. (And by the way, I am really ashamed that people who claim the same name I do, Pro Life, would treat a life with out respect)

I'm sorry, but I find it very rude to refer to something like that. I've been silent? Yes that's because I haven't been able to follow a lot of the threads. I have not read through everything and see what's going on. I have a life to live off line. Did you mean bobinsky or was bobo random name calling?
No, I am not being selective. I don't support anyone resorting to personal attacks. I am not the moderator either, but I wanted to voice my opinion on the matter. I wish I did have time to go through and read all the posts. Sorry, I don't.

Ah, facts. You see, there is an assumption that when you see rage and hostility those few days, that it's irrational. In those few days women are particularly less able to put up with things. A good woman puts up with a lot, and she can suppress it with denial most of the time. (I'm not saying you are the source of what she's putting up with.) When people stuff things instead of being conscious of them and making changes, that anger comes out sideways. I don't get angry for no reason. I am more sensitive in the week before my period, but I'm not irrational, and I do not further deny whatever is being triggered for me by blowing it off as an isolated event caused by monthly cycle.

No, such facts are not forbidden subjects. It's one thing to talk about it, but to use it in the context of a put down is not the same thing. And, no, it's not different if a woman does it. It's a symptom of the same societal attitude.

That's not relevent. She may accept your comment as socially normal. In it I see symptoms of societal ills, and I'm pointing it out. Yes, it ties in with abortion. More oppression isn't the answer. Why do you think women make such drastic decisions? Not because of period jokes, but the realities of oppression and our social structure heavily enter into it. How can we move to an egalitarian way of living without looking at our own behavior?

LOL You know, I must tell you all: when Bobinsky made that inappropriate (and yes, yoda's similar remark was similarly inappropriate) remark to me about taking a Pamprin, I *was* a bit extra cranky that day, and Bobinsky did hit the nail on the head as to the reason I was extra cranky (and "extra cranky" does not equal "irrational"--okay? Some people are irrational all month long, and many of them are men!). Not that my fuse being shorter minimizes in any way Bobinsky's inappropriate comments, etc. As for why a different set of posters jumped up to complain about yoda's comment from the set that jumped to my defense after Bobinsky's bad behavior, I think it's probably not so much a factor of time. Remember when Bobinsky got all upset with me for not jumping to her defense at some point? I admitted without shame that the more I respect someone, the more readily I jump to his/her defense. I mean, that's true for everyone, I think, even if not everyone will admit it. If I saw somebody getting beaten up, for example, I might try to help the person, and I might not. If the victim were a little kid, getting beaten up by a bigger kid, I would try to help. Of course, a friend of mine got badly hurt doing that very thing--bigger kids with hard objects to use as weapons can be just as dangerous as adults, especially when the kids are hopped up on some kind of drug. So it's not always wise, unless you know some martial arts or something, to jump into a fight. But you might try it anyway if you wanted to help someone--what if it were an elderly person getting attacked by a thug of some sort. I might try to help the person, unless I thought it would get me hurt--in which case I'd still try to help, but not by jumping to their defense immediately, personally, and alone--by getting cops involved. If it were my little sister, I'd be all over anyone who was hurting her, even if the assailant had a weapon. But if I saw someone getting beaten up, and the victim were wearing eight huge swastikas on his/her clothes, I admit that I would probably just shake my head and keep on walking. If I saw a cop, I'd tell him/her there was a fight, but unless I thought the swastika-sporting victim were going to get seriously hurt or killed, I wouldn't probably bother calling the police about it if I didn't happen to see one. Why? Because I don't respect racists, and the swastika, although its origins were innocent, has been turned by the Nazis into a sign of hate and racism, and anyone who would proudly display such symbols of hatred and error is not someone to whose defense I feel like jumping, frankly. And there's a whole spectrum in between. I don't think we have to treat anyone with any more respect than is merited by the person's behavior. Being pro-life does not require us to respect bad behavior, it only requires us to insist that no one be killed for it, or any other reason (although, I guess, some people who call themselves "pro-life" do feel that bad behavior is reason to kill someone, if the behavior is bad enough--but I digress).

I have been curious, too, about whether anyone would jump up to defend Bobinsky. It's like, have you ever brought a friend to a party and found out the hard way that you didn't know the guy as well as you thought? You think he's cool and you bring him into your social scene, but then he gets drunk, spills things, throws up, starts a fight, breaks a lamp, and gets the cops called on the party, and meanwhile you're out back innocently listening to the band and you can't hear anything because the bass is too loud? Hey, maybe the bass is too loud. No one denies that (we all have a life outside this forum). But--and I don't mean this to be harsh, but I think this is what's on many of our minds--once you come inside and see the mess, maybe there's something to be said besides, "oh, well, of course I despise fighting. But the music was loud and I didn't hear any fighting in here. Plus, I'm not a cop--how rude of you to think I am in any way responsible for anything to do with whatever alleged catastrophe has taken place here!." It's easy to see what happened even to those who were out back with the band--the house is trashed and half the guests have gone home from the party because it's been such a drag for the past month. Hey, this analogy reminds me of http://www.lyricsdepot.com/they-might-be-giants/your-racist-friend.html. I think most of us would just like to move on from the recent nightmare and have some peace here again.

reply from: ChristianLott

Tam, how long were you actively pro abortion? 15 years?

reply from: yoda

"Bad" is your description, not mine, and you have not yet applied any equal examination of bobinski's "behavior". I asked a simple question (while she made an insinuation), and you want to make a federal case out of it. Knock yourself out, I am not intimidated by your demands for political correctness.

"Societal conditioning" does not alter the facts does it?

Yes, HER hostility, which you so vehemently ignore. Until SHE complains about the comment, (since SHE made the same comment to someone else) YOUR complaints mean nothing to me.

reply from: Tam

Tam, how long were you actively pro abortion? 15 years?

No... people keep asking me about this and I finally went and found where I've written about it before.

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=150&highlight_key=y&keyword1=activist

oh, wait, I have to go--I'll come back and finish this thought later (sorry CL)

reply from: Adonaismom

Often the mother or parents do not know. The abused often are shamed or threatened into keeping the secret and protecting the abuser. If the parents often don't know, how would the abortion provider? How often does a child tell the OBGYN that she was raped by a family member when she carries the child to term?

I agree that any health care provider needs to intervene when he/she is aware that abuse is going on, but how can that person know if the child doesn't tell?

Hello if a child is a pregnant, it is abuse pure and simple!!! A child can not consent to sex by law and therefore regardless if she consented to the act or not it is still a crime! Therefore if she shows up for an abortion that needs to be reported to the proper authorities so a full investigation can be launched. And of course the parents know if the child is being raped by a family member because most times it is the parent doing it! The mother always knows even if she doesn't want to admit it is happening-she knows! Stop trying to cover for them!

reply from: ChristianLott

Tam wrote in her first post:

So 15 years you were an active pro abort or this was a gradual conversion?

Are you responsible for murdering any babies - like advising a woman to get an abortion and she did?

I just want to know specifically what changed you, in one or two words. poppa said it was the pictures. What was it for you?

reply from: salspua

In a simpler world, this would be true. It seems to me that a reason for *not* reporting the child's pregnancy would be if she knows it will be reported, she will seek no care at all or seek an illegal abortion. No prenatal care - nothing. No birth attendants.

In the eyes of the law, yes. In her eyes, not necessarily. More than half of my friends were sexually active before age 18. Only one of them was the victim of incest which went on for some time. No, her mother did not know until later. She was horrified when my friend told her. My now 16 year old step daughter (kind of - my ex's daughter) has a small infant. She wanted to have sex. (The father is also a minor.) Even though she cannot legally consent to sex, she did. It's not the same as my friend who was abused by her father.

I wish we had a social worker participating here - or someone who has more perspective on this subject.

Tam - It's good to see you!

Yoda-

Good. I don't intend to intimidate you. I'm pointing out something that you're not aware of.

It alters what we consider to be facts. It colors our if-then thinking. It's epistemology.

I had been taught that women have breasts that are apparent whether we're nursing or not to attract men. It was a fact. It took a nursing mother to make the connection that human babies are the only babies with flat faces, and if we didn't have protruding breasts, they'd smother. Societal conditioning in action.

Hey, I'm just trying to raise awareness. My complaints may mean nothing to you, but may strike a chord for someone else, even if they don't reply.

sal

reply from: yoda

You've made your opinion abundantly clear, as have I. That's more than adequate for this subject, IMO.

reply from: Tam

So 15 years you were an active pro abort or this was a gradual conversion?

Are you responsible for murdering any babies - like advising a woman to get an abortion and she did?

I just want to know specifically what changed you, in one or two words. poppa said it was the pictures. What was it for you?

Good question. It was finding out that certain persons for whom I had (without knowing their positions on abortion) developed a great deal of respect, were pro-life, listening to what they had to say without the giant blinders I'd been wearing, and giving their views some serious thought.

In fact, I changed my mind more than once. The first time, it was the pictures. But then I was persuaded that 1) late-term abortions didn't really happen; 2) early abortions don't look like murder because they're not murder; 3) abortion laws kill women; and 4) just as many abortions would happen if it were illegal anyway, so a law does no good.

The problem is, once you think you're pro-choice, even if it's for the "right" (specious) reasons, it's too easy to get drawn into the whole pro-choice side, riddled with lies and distortions. And I fell into that trap for nearly a decade. In fact, I'm going to start a thread about a chant we used to do at protests.

Edited to add: http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=482&highlight_key=y&keyword1=sexist


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics