Woman Live-Tweets Her Abortion

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Woman Live-Tweets Her Abortion

Posted by samzenpus on Friday February 26, 2010 @04:52AM from the making-mom-proud dept.

27-year-old Angie Jackson has decided that it isn't inappropriate or in any way distasteful to live-tweet about her experience taking RU-486, also known as the abortion pill. According to Jackson nothing is off-limits on Twitter. "I don't feel like I'm doing anything different from what I do every day," said Jackson. "But now I have people calling me a killer; it's surreal."

160 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

every day? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 07:08 · Score: 3, Funny

She has abortions every day? Wow, someone needs to teach that girl how to close her legs....or swallow.
1. Re:every day? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 05:05 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The most efficient contraception is this: an aspirin.
  the trick is to use it this way:
  place between the knees
  press very hard
2. Re:every day? by plastbox · 2010-03-02 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  My grandfather uses this joke but with a game piece (Ludo) in place of the aspirin. And honestly, I'd expect even my somewhat religious and rather proper grandfather to understand that keeping your knees together in no way stops you from having sexual intercourse..
3. Re:every day? by Hognoxious · 2010-03-07 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  someone needs to teach that girl how to close her legs....or swallow.
  Or to lie on her front.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
RU-486 by ichthus · 2010-02-26 11:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Ask your doctor if RU-486 is right for you.*
*Side effects may include freaky, hoochy mamma eyelid discoloration.

--
sig: sauer
1. Re:RU-486 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 12:53 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I'm waiting for RU-586 to come out. It will apparently work twice as fast, but every once in a while there will be a rounding error: 5% of the brain will be left and your baby will come out as a teabagger.
2. Re:RU-486 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  she needs to abort those moles on her face too..
3. Re:RU-486 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  Have a great and God-LESS day.
4. Re:RU-486 by skelly33 · 2010-03-04 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that RU-586 works with dual pipes more than makes up for the 95% effectiveness rate.
Everyday? by fahrbot-bot · 2010-02-26 12:38 · Score: 1

"I don't feel like I'm doing anything different from what I do every day,"

You take RU-486 every day?

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:Everyday? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  You are being sarcastic and you know it. She tweets every day. And she is not going to stop tweeting because of the abortion. Or hide it.
2. Re:Everyday? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 05:24 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Her clientele isn't into using condoms.
3. Re:Everyday? by amiga3D · 2010-02-28 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know? Maybe she does take RU486 everyday. I mean if you're favorite form of birth control is retroactive then that's the best bet in town. Beats hell out of having a DNC every day.
4. Re:Everyday? by skelly33 · 2010-03-04 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  "... the abortion pill is comparable to the cost of surgical abortion procedures at $300 to $500..."
  
  Still think reaction "beats the hell out of" prevention?
5. Re:Everyday? by ickleberry · 2010-03-08 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  No I am waiting for the RU-x86_64
Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-26 17:07 · Score: -1

Now when some religious fundamentalist kills her she can claim a Darwin Award!
(I think she is eligible because you can't really hold the individual nutjob responsible when she publishes her name and details on the Internets)
Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 01:34 · Score: 0

Someone hit that?!?!
1. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 03:06 · Score: 0
  
  Someone hit that?!?!
  Obviously someone hit that, look at her eyes.
2. Re:Damn! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-28 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  I hate to say it but it looks like the baby is better off not being born if he's going to have that to deal with as mom.
More power to her. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-27 04:03 · Score: 0

Any stance on abortion is irrelevant here. This is about tweeting it. She kept tweeting (which is something she does every day) through something controversial, instead of self-censoring, so more power to her!.
1. Re:More power to her. by amiga3D · 2010-02-28 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  I know her parents are surely proud.
That's a man, baby! a man! by ZERO1ZERO · 2010-02-27 23:43 · Score: 1

As Austin Powers, international man of mystery would say.
What a moron. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-28 05:29 · Score: 0

I wonder if she also tweets about all the meth she does. Ugh, her scary eyes and terrible skin and hair are proof enough.
what next by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-28 08:45 · Score: 0

What next?
Live webcam showing someone switching sex. All sexes are equal, so hey ...
Not quite an abortion by mdf356 · 2010-02-28 10:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

While RU-486 terminates a pregnancy, it only does so during the early weeks, before the embryo becomes implanted in the uterus. At that time of gestation, the spontaneous abortion rate (i.e. miscarriage) is 33% to 50% -- we don't really know the number exactly because that early in a pregnancy many women don't realize they are pregnant.

--
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
1. Re:Not quite an abortion by darkpixel2k · 2010-03-03 15:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  While RU-486 terminates a pregnancy, it only does so during the early weeks, before the embryo becomes implanted in the uterus. At that time of gestation, the spontaneous abortion rate (i.e. miscarriage) is 33% to 50% -- we don't really know the number exactly because that early in a pregnancy many women don't realize they are pregnant.
  I think you're missing the point.
  If I juggle chainsaws, and one day I mess up and die--that's an accident.
  If someone comes over to my house and chops me into bits with a chainsaw, that's murder. Same method of death (chainsaw), different motive.
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
2. Re:Not quite an abortion by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-05 03:16 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  lol, and did you have a point
3. Re:Not quite an abortion by Kerstyun · 2010-03-07 06:50 · Score: -1
  
  we don't really know the number exactly
  
  But THE LORD JESUS does.
  
  --
  Keep the whitehouse white, vote Trump & Palin 2020.
4. Re:Not quite an abortion by Supurcell · 2010-03-07 18:29 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  So why did he kill all those poor, innocent babies, then?
5. Re:Not quite an abortion by aywwts4 · 2010-03-08 06:20 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Jesus aborts the baby Hitler/Antichrists. Turns out there are a lot of them, and if you miss just one or two in an entire century he never hears the end of it.
  
  --
  Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
6. Re:Not quite an abortion by WindBourne · 2010-03-09 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  It is murder only if you are a living breathing person, or were at one time. And to say otherwise is horrible twisted logic.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
7. Re:Not quite an abortion by darkpixel2k · 2010-03-10 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  It is murder only if you are a living breathing person, or were at one time. And to say otherwise is horrible twisted logic.
  Ok--living and breathing. Got it. This child was only in his mothers womb for 3 months--and he survived. So would his abortion at 2.9 months been 'ok' in your book?
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
8. Re:Not quite an abortion by Ash+Vince · 2010-03-11 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ok--living and breathing. Got it. This [hyscience.com] child was only in his mothers womb for 3 months--and he survived. So would his abortion at 2.9 months been 'ok' in your book?
  The child survived? Or was the child kept alive by medical science basically fulfilling all his bodily functions for him in an incubator?
  The reality is that we could grow a child outside the womb already, it is just illegal to engage in this sort of research. Does this mean that every time a sperm reaches an egg a new life instantly spring into existence?
  Is it murder to turn off a life support machine to someone who is clinically brain dead?
  We can already take people to hospital and provide all the functions of their organs without the brain being involved. In these situations we eventually switch off the incubator keeping them alive, are you actually saying that is murder?
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
9. Re:Not quite an abortion by darkpixel2k · 2010-03-11 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  The child survived? Or was the child kept alive by medical science basically fulfilling all his bodily functions for him in an incubator?
  Yes, doctors kept him alive and he survived.
  Maybe we should use the same argument if you have a heart attack at 35 and have to be zapped--or maybe your child has an asthma attack and needs abuterol/atrovent so they can breathe...did they survive? Or were they kept alive by medical science? Are you arguing we *could* have let them die since it was only medical science that kept them alive?
  
  The reality is that we could grow a child outside the womb already, it is just illegal to engage in this sort of research.
  Really? Where is it illegal? Maybe the US, Canada, Europe. How about Russia, China, or durkastan? Remember when stem cells were illegal but other countries engaged in the practice? Where are the countries growing babies? I'm willing to bet that no one can grow a child outside the womb.
  
  Does this mean that every time a sperm reaches an egg a new life instantly spring into existence?
  Uh...yeah. Unless you can show some 'magical' other point when something goes from non-living to living. Is it when the doctor slaps the kids behind and he starts crying?
  
  Is it murder to turn off a life support machine to someone who is clinically brain dead?
  Not if they were a responsible adult and made their wishes clear through a living will that they don't want life support.
  
  We can already take people to hospital and provide all the functions of their organs without the brain being involved.
  What? Without the brain being involved? I've heard of artificial hearts, but never artificial brains.
  
  In these situations we eventually switch off the incubator keeping them alive, are you actually saying that is murder?
  Your last sentence is a bit confusing. But I think you're getting at something like "If someone is being completely supported by machines for life support, is it murder to turn them off?". Please correct me if I misunderstood your question.
  
  Another longer-winded way of asking that question is "If a human being is alive, but being kept alive by machines and then you end that human beings life without their permission by turning off the machines that support their life, is that murder?". Yeah. Just as if you turned off a patients pacemaker without permission and they died.
  
  But fear not--if you are an adult in the United States, (and I'm sure elsewhere) you can make your wishes known in a legal document. My grandmother did exactly that. When she got very sick, she wasn't hooked up to anything except an IV and she passed away. That's her choice.
  
  That's not to say that your wishes are guaranteed to be followed--sometimes courts, lawyers, and the government get involved. Meh.
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
My Live Tweet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-28 17:10 · Score: -1, Troll

"Swallowed Pill"
"Starting to feel cramps"
"A bit of blood on the pad"
"OMG my entire world has changed, I now know that everything I used believe is a lie. There is no god. There is only free will and it's my choice to have this abortion."
"Eww I've got a stain on my pants, I knew I should have used the extra flow pads. :( "
Moral of the story is: lots of women have abortions everyday, it's not a big deal. Abortions are here to stay, publicity is the only reason from bringing them up. Use extra flow pads cause it tends to be a bit messy.
1. Re:My Live Tweet by Nutria · 2010-02-28 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  If those jackass Women's Libbers had just sat on their hands, the political process would have worked though, a consensus would have been reached, and the Republicans wouldn't have had such an effective wedge issue for 20 years.
  Same with Gay Marriage. By forcing the issue via the courts, idiot activists created a rallying cry against "activist judges" and The Gay Agenda, 30 states wouldn't have passed anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
2. Re:My Live Tweet by Jason+Levine · 2010-03-01 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Do you think that "colored folk" (to use a term from that era) shouldn't have used the courts to fight against "separate but equal" and equal rights in general? Perhaps they should have just sat quietly and waiting patiently for white men to decide that it should be changed.
  When you see something you perceive as unjust, you shouldn't just sit back and wait for it to correct itself. You take action to get it corrected. And if correcting it generates push back from groups that what to perpetuate the injustice, well those groups would have likely prevented "spontaneous injustice correction" anyway.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
3. Re:My Live Tweet by Nutria · 2010-03-01 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Perhaps they should have just sat quietly and waiting patiently for white men to decide that it should be changed.
  Excellent rhetoric, but invalid logic. Negros (to use another term of the era), had no political power whatsoever, and so needed a suit like Brown to kick-start things. The forced-bussing lawsuit, though, was just a B-A-D idea.
  By 1973, though, women were gaining more rights through the legislative process, as were gays before Goodridge in 2004.
  When you see something you perceive as unjust, you shouldn't just sit back and wait for it to correct itself. You take action to get it corrected.
  This is a republican democracy. You change policy through the legislative process. It's long and messy and imperfect and no one gets everything they want when they want it, if ever, but it's an agreed-upon consensus.
  The alternative is the extremely divided country that we live in now.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
4. Re:My Live Tweet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because things magically workout for the best when you just sit down and shut up. Maybe someone should have told Mrs. Parks that.
5. Re:My Live Tweet by skarphace · 2010-03-05 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because things magically workout for the best when you just sit down and shut up. Maybe someone should have told Mrs. Parks that.
  Actually, I'm pretty sure she did sit down and shut up.
  
  --
  Bullish Machine Tzar
6. Re:My Live Tweet by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2010-03-07 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  If those jackass Women's Libbers had just sat on their hands, the political process would have worked though, a consensus would have been reached, and the Republicans wouldn't have had such an effective wedge issue for 20 years.
  What? What makes you think that would work?
  Plausibility FAIL.
  
  --
  http://outcampaign.org/
7. Re:My Live Tweet by spazdor · 2010-03-09 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  idiot activists created a rallying cry against "activist judges" and The Gay Agenda, 30 states wouldn't have passed anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments.
  
  ...Yeah, and the anti-gay-marriage status quo would have continued in those 30 states, without anyone ever feeling the need to codify their bigotry into constitutional law. Who, exactly, would be helped by that?
  Those amendments are the frightened flailings of people who are losing their influence.
  
  --
  DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
8. Re:My Live Tweet by Nutria · 2010-03-09 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  and the anti-gay-marriage status quo would have continued in those 30 states
  Somehow women won the vote without a court case, and -- last I checked -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is, well, it's an Act not a SCOTUS decision.
  Those amendments are the frightened flailings
  My point exactly. They wouldn't have become frightened if the legislative process had been followed.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
9. Re:My Live Tweet by hairyfeet · 2010-03-12 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  And for all these bible thumping moral suckheads? News Flash: There was abortions before they were legal, it just tended to kill a LOT of women! Oh and the rich were able to hop on a plane to France, get an abortion, and do some shopping in Paris before heading hom. Tell me, is that REALLY what you want to go back to? where the poor die by coat hanger while the rich enjoy a little French food before hoping back to the "moral" US of A?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Sick by AbbeyRoad · 2010-02-28 21:41 · Score: 1

sick
A question about abortion by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 01:59 · Score: 0

If having an abortion isn't killing anything to any greater degree than pulling out a fingernail, and so the major arguments should be about convenience (is this a convenient time for me - do I have other things to do in my life), then why aren't fetuses with genetic illnesses and deformities aborted by default? After all, they would be inconvenient for the mother.
1. Re:A question about abortion by WindBourne · 2010-03-09 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Most are. It is called a Miscarriage.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
her abortion? by frovingslosh · 2010-03-01 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

If she really tweeted her abortion I would be very impressed, but I suspect that she really tweeted her child's abortion.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:her abortion? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  "Tyler, I want to have your abortion - and live-tweet it."
2. Re:her abortion? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  If you're going to be pedantic, then I think you meant her _fetus' abortion_.
3. Re:her abortion? by NotBornYesterday · 2010-03-02 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to be pedantic, then I think you meant zygote, or possibly embryo, since it isn't a fetus until well after the time RU-486 is useful.
  
  --
  I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
4. Re:her abortion? by tnk1 · 2010-03-02 11:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, you are comparing the two words as though they were both equivalent in terms of being scientific terms for the stages of human gestation. "Child" is not a member of the development sequence that would go something like zygote to embryo to fetus. It is a term that designates a relationship to the mother. In that sense, a child could be considered a child of someone from the day it is conceived to the day it dies.
  You could argue the point where the relationship begins from (ie. not real until it is born), but there is nothing in the definition that implies that this must be the case. Therefore, you can't improve on his pedantry with your statement because your assertion is debatable.
  It's also wrong, because it's not a fetus at that stage, but that's not as much fun to type.
5. Re:her abortion? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-03 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  Hurr, I'm smart cuz I know that fetuses ain't children
6. Re:her abortion? by StikyPad · 2010-03-04 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  If she really tweeted her child's abortion I would be very impressed, but I suspect that you are using the word abortion in a manner inconsistent with its definition.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Emaotional kiddy roller coaster! by revdrmr · 2010-03-01 02:03 · Score: 1

When I think of all the emotional, religious and social responses that run through me when I watched that was, LOL!
That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by raymondcarver · 2010-03-01 02:14 · Score: -1, Flamebait

She didn't have to say, "Have a Godless day." What a piece of detritus she is for including that little "gem." Tsk Tsk. I hope for the sake of her son that she finds some compassion and spiritual enlightenment. God knows she needs it.
1. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by bmecoli · 2010-03-01 03:35 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Personally, I find her a hero for doing that. We need more people like her in our society, and less people believing in imaginary friends.
2. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by smooth+wombat · 2010-03-01 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  She didn't have to say, "Have a Godless day."
  
  Nor do people have to say "Have a blessed day". Same thing.
  
  What a piece of detritus she is for including that little "gem."
  
  Thank you for proving the point that religious people aren't as peaceful as they claim to be.
  
  God knows she needs it.
  
  If God doesn't exist, how can it know what she needs?
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
3. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 06:48 · Score: -1, Redundant
  
  If you have the right to say "God bless you" then I have the right to say "have a Godless day" thumper-man!
4. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-02 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  She didn't have to say, "Have a Godless day."
  Exactly. From there it stopped being about "well, it's my life and my choice" to "LOL I TROLL U MORALFAGS."
5. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by clone53421 · 2010-03-03 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nor do people have to say "Have a blessed day". Same thing.
  Nowhere close. You can bless others by your conduct or you can be an ass. Nothing in the word “blessed” demands that you believe in God.
  The opposite of saying “have a blessed day” is saying “here’s hoping life treats you like shit today”.
  Similarly, when I say “merry Christmas”, I’m not ordering you to be happy because Jesus was born on this day (he wasn’t, as I’m sure we’re all aware). I’m wishing you to be happy, because the alternative is to be an angry, irritable, insensitive clod, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. You can, of course, feel free to be that as long as you aren’t doing it on my lawn.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
6. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-03 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  She didn't have to say, "Have a Godless day."
  What a piece of detritus she is for including that little "gem." Tsk Tsk.
  I hope for the sake of her son that she finds some compassion and spiritual enlightenment. God knows she needs it.
  We're expected to believe this kind of nonsense? Come on, I'm like her ex-foetus: I wasn't born yesterday.
7. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-03 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  what lawn?
  http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/03/0018217/Officials-Sue-Couple-Who-Removed-Their-Lawn
8. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by iamhassi · 2010-03-03 11:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "I hope for the sake of her son that she finds some compassion and spiritual enlightenment. "
  
  Her poor son! Someday he's going to ask "Hey mommy what are you famous for?" What's she going to answer? "Well son, I was the first** (that we know of) to have an abortion on youtube!"
  
  **she's not really having an abortion on youtube, she's just taking a pill, and since we can't verify her taking the pill we really don't even know if she's done that.
  
  This is all one big publicity stunt. She has a book coming out and she's trying to be famous.
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
9. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-03 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  So why not simply say what you mean without attaching religious connotations (and, sorry, blessing implies approval from an authority figure; in such a context, it is meant to be from a deity)?
10. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-04 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  Not everyone needs spiritual enlightenment so tsk tsk yourself for saying god knows she needs it
11. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-05 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Because "Have a great day" is too atheist.
12. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2010-03-07 13:06 · Score: 0
  
  I hope for the sake of her son that she finds some compassion and spiritual enlightenment.
  She has. You just disagree.
  
  God knows she needs it.
  How do you know that? Is it possible in your worldview for your God to disagree with you?
  "ought" != "is"
  
  --
  http://outcampaign.org/
13. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  You didn't have to reply to it, either. Just like slashdot didn't have to be made.
  The big bang had to happen though. If only to show that deities are mostly not what you're made to think they are.
14. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by nawcom · 2010-03-10 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Similarly, when I say “merry Christmas”, I’m not ordering you to be happy because Jesus was born on this day (he wasn’t, as I’m sure we’re all aware). I’m wishing you to be happy
  Sorry man, but telling me to have a merry christmas (Christ's Mass) has a little more meaning than "I wish you to be happy." It sort of feels like shit when people tell you to have a happy religious day that you don't celebrate because of cultural and religious differences. Happy holidays is more than enough. Telling people to enjoy the celebration that YOU are having is disrespectful. Sorry man. People who complain about how there are policies to not be holiday specific when wishing a good day during December (whaah Christmas is what everyone celebrates, im not stoopid) are people who need to get out of their little cultural bubble.
  By the way, why celebrate a mass of a man who was born on a completely different day other than the date that all the other sun gods and heros where born on in pagan religions? It doesn't matter to you. Tradition and the norm matters to you clone53421, which is why you hate the experience of mixed culture. Not everyone celebrates Christmas. Telling them to have a merry Christmas makes them feel disrespected in a varying amount depending on the person and how serious they take their own beliefs. So for fucks sake show some tolerance. Get over it.
15. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by clone53421 · 2010-03-10 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  you hate the experience of mixed culture
  Quit assuming things about me. You’re welcome to wish me pleasantries on any day of the year that is meaningful to you.
  
  Telling them to have a merry Christmas makes them feel disrespected in a varying amount depending on the person and how serious they take their own beliefs.
  Depending on how shallow and precarious their own beliefs are, you mean. Seriously, being offended when someone wishes you a merry anything... just goes to show that your religion isn’t tolerant of mine, not vice versa.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
16. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by stokessd · 2010-03-11 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Nor do people have to say "Have a blessed day". Same thing.
  Nowhere close. You can bless others by your conduct or you can be an ass. Nothing in the word “blessed” demands that you believe in God.
  I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. The word "blessed" is as closely tied to Christianity as "holocaust" is to the Nazis. Sure we can use it in other contexts, "I was blessed with extra chicken on my burrito by the hot server at Chipotle". Or: "The Haitian earthquake was a real holocaust". But both of those sentences cause you to think of the main meaning of the words and the sentences are really awkward.
  Sheldon
17. Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... by clone53421 · 2010-03-11 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sure we can use it in other contexts, "I was blessed with extra chicken on my burrito by the hot server at Chipotle".
  Well, of course it’s awkward. You’re using a word that means divine kindness to refer to somebody throwing an extra few chunks of meat in your burrito.
  If somebody just spent 8 hours helping you move, or brought you meals while you were laid up and unable to cook for yourself, it would be appropriate and not awkward at all to describe that as a huge blessing.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Re:RU-486 abort those moles on her face, too by raymondcarver · 2010-03-01 02:19 · Score: 1

Buck Russell: "Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face! Good day to you, madam. "
Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 04:24 · Score: 0

Another worthless person decides that they want their 15 minutes of fame so they pull this with a little extra shock value for the religious crowd.

We've already gone from Balloon Boy to this in about 6 months? What's next?
Just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 06:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

once she starts having kids, and one of her kids looks up his/her mommie's old tweet threads.
"So you're saying I could have had an older brother??"
1. Re:Just imagine... by Ihmhi · 2010-03-01 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  And she can reply about how it's irresponsible to try to raise a child (or even go through a pregnancy) when you are not prepared for it.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
2. Re:Just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 11:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  RTFA. She already HAS a kid, almost died delivering him, was told another pregnancy would kill her, and had an IUD, which failed, resulting in the pregnancy she just terminated.
3. Re:Just imagine... by Xamusk · 2010-03-01 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  She clearly stated that she aborted her late pregnancy because it was dangerous to her, and that she already has a boy. This means she won't have any more.
  So, the only thing that could happen is him asking her if he could have had a younger brother.
  Anyway, he probably won't be as bitchy about abortion as some other people around these days.
4. Re:Just imagine... by Black+Gold+Alchemist · 2010-03-01 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the christ-heads would have to explain to her current kid that his mother died because of them. Feel the love of the Christian faith!
  
  --
  Responsibility is an addiction
  Virtue is a temptation
  Community is a cartel
5. Re:Just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  Her early pregnancy, actually. She was only at 3 weeks.
  The pill only works for early pregnancies. If you don't catch it quickly, you need a surgical abortion.
6. Re:Just imagine... by NotBornYesterday · 2010-03-02 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  If the consequences of her giving birth are that serious, it makes me wonder why she didn't elect to have a tubal ligation, instead of relying on a less perfect form of birth control.
  
  --
  I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
7. Re:Just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-02 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  $ $
8. Re:Just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-02 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  Because she might actually want to get kids, but not yet at this part of her life?
9. Re:Just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-03 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  "So you're saying I could have had an older brother??"
  The answer to this question is *always* "yes." Nobody has their first child the moment they are capable of having a first child, and every moment that a woman is not pregnant is a moment that she could have been pregnant.
  Every time a woman menstruates, a potential older sibling is lost.
  Every time a man jerks off, millions of potential older siblings are lost.
  So what's the difference?
  An embryo is not a person. An embryo could potentially become a person someday...just like a sperm cell...but isn't yet a person...just like an egg.
  To draw the line so early in pregnancy is ludicrous.
10. Re:Just imagine... by McBeer · 2010-03-03 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  If the consequences of her giving birth are that serious, it makes me wonder why she didn't elect to have a tubal ligation, instead of relying on a less perfect form of birth control.
  The Marina IUD is actually 0.3% more effective then a tubal ligation, the Paraguard on the other hand is 0.1% less. Really about the same though.
  
  As fun as it is to blame women for getting pregnant, the fact is there are always going to be a non-trivial number of women who get pregnant through no fault of their own. Even if every woman in the country got a tubal ligation and didn't have willingly have sex, we'd still see about 450 pregnancies from the 92,000 rapes that happen each year combined with the 0.5% failure rate of tubal ligations within the first year.
  
  --
  Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
11. Re:Just imagine... by McBeer · 2010-03-03 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  It ocurrs to me that the numbers I gave in that post are misleading. The failure rate is for an average woman in the first year. I suspect the average woman has a lot more sex then just once... All the same, my point about many women getting pregnant through no real fault of their own remains valid.
  
  --
  Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
12. Re:Just imagine... by NotBornYesterday · 2010-03-04 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Just to recap, in case you hadn't read it earlier: She has one child already, and childbirth nearly killed her. Another pregnancy will probably be the last thing she does. Literally. So, you think she might want to die in childbirth later in life, just not now?
  
  --
  I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
13. Re:Just imagine... by NotBornYesterday · 2010-03-04 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Understood. I assumed the success rate for tubal ligation was higher than an IUD, but apparently I should have googled it. Plus, I figured that tubal ligation would offer a permanent solution.
  
  --
  I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
14. Re:Just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-04 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  Why's it so important that she survives? She is already past her expected lifetime for a woman with childbirth complications.
  Reproduce and leave your place to your likely better adapted child. If the kid was going to die too then it is different. It would be an evolutionary disadvantage for the other kid not to have his/her mom.
  But two kids beat one kid and a weak and barren mother any day in the Game of Evolution(tm, patent pending).
15. Re:Just imagine... by pandaman9000 · 2010-03-11 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Why's it so important that she survives? She is already past her expected lifetime for a woman with childbirth complications."
  Self preservation instinct trumps logic. She could have saved us all the trouble of discussing this by not allowing her ( going by her makeup/hair choices) trashy boyfriends ride her bareback. I have great disdain for people who's entire contribution to this world is showing how absolutely worthless they are. While she was getting her pill, and all these tests, perhaps she should have gotten HIV/Chlamydia/Hepatitis/Ghonorrhea testing also. Please note, additionally, that much like how C-sections are somehow "medically necessary", people do lie about their situations to avoid the inconvenience attached to paying for being irresponsible. Some women put a nice tight snatcheroo over risks to their unborn child, and others claim fake medical conditions to facilitate easy fixes to their mistakes.
  Women have been beating the odds of dying during childbirth for centuries. Knowingly or not, many women have avoided dying from these "potential risks" since humans first walked the earth. Yes, that last bit is an assumption based on the likelihood that risks to the mother aren't a recent invention. IUDs are the least effective of the medically proven methods of birth control. Condom + IUD is pretty damned effective at it and helps her not lose her life to stupidity. I assume that she's stupidly promiscuous, because I didn't see or hear her boyfriend/husband's opinion in there. Maybe I just missed that part.
  Her explanation of how "easy" an abortion really is does not include emotional or physiological damage that any current abortion tech can cause, once 4 or more weeks have passed.
WOW , DIE by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-01 11:06 · Score: 0

I want my 5 mins of my life back.
1. Re:WOW , DIE by NotBornYesterday · 2010-03-02 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Then, er, don't hang out on "Idle".
  
  --
  I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-02 06:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait

What is surreal is that she's able to do this in this day and age.
There should be laws against abortion, and those pills should be illegal.
1. Re:Murderer by Duradin · 2010-03-02 07:42 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  So what about when an embryo naturally fails to implant? Is that murder too? The outcome is the same.
  What about all those un-fertilized eggs that are flushed out as part of the menstrual cycle?
2. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-02 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Really, you can do way better than that.
  Try again; if you think of a real argument, I'll address it with an actual answer.
3. Re:Murderer by Duradin · 2010-03-02 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm really curious as to what logic allows for one type of abortion to be murder while another isn't.
4. Re:Murderer by NotBornYesterday · 2010-03-02 09:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not defending the GP, just pointing out a logical fallacy: "Failing to implant" is more analogous to "spontaneously dying from a brain hemorrhage" than murder. Murder involves intent and action, as does abortion. Failing to implant does not.
  
  --
  I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
5. Re:Murderer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-02 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  I bet you're one of those people with a Confederate flag hanging in his window complaining about "all that nigger music they play on the radio these days.
  And I bet you'll die as miserably as you lived.
6. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-03 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  No logic. All (intentional) abortions are killing innocent life. You still lack arguments.
7. Re:Murderer by clone53421 · 2010-03-03 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  So what about when you naturally fall off a cliff? Is that murder too? The outcome is the same as if I had pushed you.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
8. Re:Murderer by DeadCatX2 · 2010-03-03 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Did it have a name? Date of birth? Did it even have eyes, or a brain to feel with?
  If you want to be anti-choice, that's fine. But until cells start to differentiate, it's not a human, not a baby, not even a fetus; it's a parasite that feeds off of its host. For all we know it might not even be viable.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
9. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-03 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. From the first cell it's a new being with distinct DNA which determines all of its characteristics visible after birth. It's obviously alive and human. So abortion is killing human life. It doesn't mean if human can experience it being robbed of life.
  To call a baby a parasite is sick ugly idea that bunch of murderous women gathered with the same unholy goal thought of.
10. Re:Murderer by DeadCatX2 · 2010-03-03 07:16 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Some humans have multiple distinct DNA types in their body. Ever heard of a chimera? If someone kills a chimera, can they be charged with two counts of murder?
  As far as I'm concerned, if it can't exist outside of the womb, it's a parasite that requires a host body to survive. I don't care if the negative connotation of parasite insults your senses, because it doesn't change the fact that the cellular mass is incapable of surviving without the host from which it obtains nourishment. Once it can survive on its own, even if it is in an incubator requiring artificial machines, then you can call it a human being and killing it would be murder.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
11. Re:Murderer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-03 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  This pregnancy in all likely hood would have killed her, leaving her current special needs son without it's biological parent. She used a contraceptive that failed.
  Basically you are saying it's ok to have two motherless children (assuming the second one survives as well), one who has special needs, than to have one child that gets to keep his mommy, who he needs even more than the average child. If that's your opinion sure you are entitled to it, but I damn well do not agree with it. This in my opinion is a perfect example of why abortion needs to be legal.
12. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-03 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Is the elimination of chimera result in the being being killed? Because a murder of a first cell will. And your comparison is as empty as your "machines" argument. See human kids are notorious for not being able to function on their own for several months *after* they are born. That, or being unconscious (comma, sleeping) makes a person no less human. Parasite by definition or not, calling a baby that is being disgusting and inappropriate. You're a parasite on the world's resources, and I'm not voting to remove you from the face of the Earth on those grounds.
13. Re:Murderer by DeadCatX2 · 2010-03-03 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Is the elimination of chimera result in the being being killed?
  I don't get how this is relevant. There are human beings with two distinct sets of DNA. If your qualification for "human being" is "distinct set of DNA", then chimeras are two people, and killing a chimera (or a mosaic) would result in two charges of murder.
  You chose "distinct DNA" in an attempt to justify your position, without having carefully thought it out. That's not my fault. Come up with a better way of defining how a pack of undifferentiated cells is a human.
  Because a murder of a first cell will.
  You love this word, murder. Not all embryos survive to become a fetus, so if a non-viable embryo was aborted, would you still be screaming murder? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aborted embryo was in fact a viable embryo that would have grown into a human being?
  See human kids are notorious for not being able to function on their own for several months *after* they are born.
  This is such a horrendous distortion of my position that this blank stare is the only response it deserves. o.o
  calling a baby that is being disgusting and inappropriate.
  It wasn't a baby. It wasn't even a fetus. The woman aborted an embryo because the pregnancy would have probably killed her.
  You're a parasite on the world's resources
  You know nothing about me and what I do. If it makes you feel better to demonize me, go ahead. I have enough faith in my position that I don't need to call you names...I'm sorry that you lack such faith of your own.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
14. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-03 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  >then chimeras are two people
  I insist the comparison is flawed because removing chimera is not killing a whole being, whereas killing a zygote clearly is.
  >Come up with a better way of defining how a pack of undifferentiated cells is a human.
  No, I don't. Why would I want to argue an obvious thing like that? That's as preposterous as if I asked you to prove that removing cells from your body is murder. You don't need a cell here or there, but eventually you'll die regardless.
  >Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aborted embryo was in fact a viable embryo that would have grown into a human being?
  Huh? I don't need to. Zygote alone is a human being, I don't need it to grow into an embryo to establish that.
  >This is such a horrendous distortion of my position
  Right, you were saying that a human being is human since the moment it can survive with non-natural help. That's much more rational (I bet you thought of this on your own).
  >The woman aborted an embryo because the pregnancy would have probably killed her.
  I'm sorry, I missed any woman we were talking about. Would the "parasite" consume her? Also "probably" is very nice. Killer non-babies. As long as we keep in mind who's the victim here, right?
  >You know nothing about me and what I do.
  You think I'd care? You're still a "parasite". See in a world of relative morality, we don't think that even feeding the third world is deserving of being fed. In fact, you're wasting even more resources on other "parasites".
  >If it makes you feel better to demonize me, go ahead.
  Your words demonize you just fine. However, I fear readers here might not see through the mask of rationality you put on. Who was it - Hitler? - that said people are more willing to believe a complex lie than a simpler truth. You can rationalize everything, but I'm still going to call it what it is.
  >I have enough faith in my position that I don't need to call you names...I'm sorry that you lack such faith of your own.
  Don't mistake my being angry about your willful ignorance for being wrong.
15. Re:Murderer by DeadCatX2 · 2010-03-03 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I insist the comparison is flawed because removing chimera is not killing a whole being, whereas killing a zygote clearly is.
  Careful about your terms. A pack of cells is only a zygote for the first few days. Then it's a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus, then finally a baby.
  You don't know that removing the chimera/mosaic nature of a being wouldn't kill it. The heart could be all descended from one cell line and the brain from another. You were the one who suggested the "distinct DNA" criteria, not me, so it is your burden to show that "distinct DNA" is a valid way of counting humans.
  Zygote alone is a human being, I don't need it to grow into an embryo to establish that.
  Chromosomal abnormalities regularly render human embryos incapable of growing into a viable fetus. These pregnancies are typically terminated by miscarriages. A woman could have an embryo with a chromosomal abnormality that would prevent it from ever becoming a human, and she could abort it before the miscarriage occurred. If the embryo never stood a chance of surviving, but was aborted anyway, would you still call it murder? That is why I said, "can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the embryo could become a viable fetus." How can you murder something that could never have become a human being?
  I'm sorry, I missed any woman we were talking about.
  That's weird, because I could have swore we were talking about 27-year-old Angie Jackson. You know, the woman in the video at the top of the page.
  You think I'd care? You're still a "parasite".
  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  If I am a parasite, what organism is my host?
  we don't think that even feeding the third world is deserving of being fed
  You say this as if you know whether or not I donate any money to charities which feed the poor and/or third world countries.
  Don't mistake my being angry about your willful ignorance for being wrong.
  See, the funny thing is, if you actually had a logical and rational argument that was supported with scientific facts, I would believe it in a heartbeat. Instead, you have nothing but your anger.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
16. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-03 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  >How can you murder something that could never have become a human being?
  If the DNA isn't human, it's not a human. If it is, it is. There's developing stages, but it's all human. Reaching a stage or not is irrelevant for that fact.
  >If I am a parasite, what organism is my host?
  Farmers. *shrugs*
  >See, the funny thing is, if you actually had a logical and rational argument that was supported with scientific facts, I would believe it in a heartbeat. Instead, you have nothing but your anger.
  Yeah, hilarious. Interesting how you can define a human being as other than a live organism with human DNA. And then expect me to disprove you without opposing your anti-definition. Had it not been for your presumption of what a human being is, you'd admit alive zygote with human DNA qualifies.
17. Re:Murderer by DeadCatX2 · 2010-03-03 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  If the DNA isn't human, it's not a human. If it is, it is. There's developing stages, but it's all human. Reaching a stage or not is irrelevant for that fact.
  I'm talking about the ability to reach a stage, not whether it actually reaches that stage or not. I find it hard to believe that an embryo with massive chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with human life could still be considered "human".
  Farmers. *shrugs*
  It's obvious your line of reasoning is absurd, or you wouldn't have shrugged, or ignored the other half of my post.
  Interesting how you can define a human being as other than a live organism with human DNA
  Yes, it's such a travesty to suggest that perhaps it's not a human being until it can survive without a placenta. Interesting how you can define a clump of undifferentiated cells a human being just because of the DNA it contains, without regard to whether that DNA is a blueprint for a viable human. It has no mind with which to think. No heart with which to pump blood. No lungs with which to breathe. It cannot feel, see, or hear. Humans have more in common with my pet cat than a blastocyst.
  Why don't you just admit that you have a preconceived notion - abortion is wrong - and you are going to repeatedly grab at any straw you can in an attempt to support your preconceived notion regardless of what the facts are?
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
18. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-03 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  >it's not a human being until it can survive without a placenta. Humans have more in common with my pet cat than a blastocyst.
  I give up. There's no helping you.
19. Re:Murderer by DeadCatX2 · 2010-03-04 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  No helping me? You would put someone away for "murdering" a clump of cells which lacks even the potential to become a human being. You're willing to ruin people's lives because you've formed an immutable opinion before fully considering the complexity of the situations that can occur. You'd also end up banning in-vitro fertilization, because they do throw away lots of embryos.
  You're the fundamentalist idealogue with his fingers in his ears screaming wrong at me while I take your definitions and show you how short-sighted they are. Distinct DNA led to chimeras, human DNA led to chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with human life.
  Fortunately, society is mostly populated with people that are more reasonable than you, which is why it has generally adopted the view of "abortion is bad, but...alright...we'll try to change your mind, but definitely not into the third term"
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
20. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-04 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  >You'd also end up banning in-vitro fertilization, because they do throw away lots of embryos.
  Of course I would. It should be banned.
  >You're the fundamentalist idealogue with his fingers in his ears screaming wrong at me while I take your definitions and show you how short-sighted they are.
  You take stuff from me. Then you take stuff from thin air, add some of your own dirt and mix it all together. Few presumptions and you're ready to fire. I feel proven wrong already.
  EVERYONE defines zygote as human life but you. The fact that dispite this fact they still see it undeserving of life because it doesn't resemble them is stupidity. You think you proved something, but indeed you didn't prove anything except that you can't differentiate human life from unfertilized eggs, and that you like your cat more than people.
  The thing is, I'm refusing to stoop to your level of reasoning, and view things mechanically, simplified - broken down to elements. I'm not going to try to convince you using your logic. Even if I did that, you'd create new bubbles to hide in (been there). So I won't. Human life begins with conception. No if's or but's. Killing it is murder.
  You call me whatever you want. But I'm not a murderer and will never allow for it. And I'm proud that I let emotions into what I say. At least I have them.
21. Re:Murderer by zippthorne · 2010-03-04 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe, but conception is a fairly instantaneous, well-defined event (nth countable cell division might suffice, too). If you can't define a clear, definable and measurable event, then you're relying on "statistical personhood" which means that wherever you draw the line there is a chance that what you terminate isn't not-a-person. That chance goes up when you're performing the procedure a lot of times, until it's almost certain that you'll have murdered at least one person.
  A case where the very life of the mother is in danger though is a grey area. Self-defense principles come into play and complicate things, but it wouldn't mean that you're not talking about a person, only that killing a person in self defense of mortal danger is not a murder.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
22. Re:Murderer by DeadCatX2 · 2010-03-04 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Birth is also a fairly clear, definable, and measurable event. Arguably more definable than conception, since it is what goes on the legal certificates.
  When dealing with the legal system, we must remember that criminal convictions require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. First-trimester abortions would have quite a lot of reasonable doubt as to whether it could constitute a human (and, indeed, if you wish to try those folks for murder, you should add every IVF doctor and/or patient to your indictment as well). Second-trimester is where it gets far more gray, but by the third it's pretty much viable on its own and so it becomes much less gray.
  That said, when Dr. Tiller was murdered, I remember reading about a few of his patients. As terrible as late-term abortion is, I can't help but think that in some instances, he had the moral high ground.
  
  --
  :(){ :|:& };:
23. Re:Murderer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-05 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  No logic. All (intentional) abortions are killing innocent life. You still lack arguments.
  What's wrong with killing a little bit of innocent potential life if the greater good of society is met? Deleting a few cells here or there can prevent a potential person from becoming an actual person.
  Or, a converse argument... If all life is sacred, why should we as a society allow people to slowly kill themselves? You shouldn't have the freedom to consume things which are not healthy, because... lets face it. Obesity is a long-term death sentence. Stats don't lie.
  Do you bleed for this potential person simply because it died in an acute manner? Where are your tears for your brothers who are putting themselves into the grave, one french fry at a time?
24. Re:Murderer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-05 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Lol, la la la I can't hear you
25. Re:Murderer by justinlee37 · 2010-03-05 07:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What is surreal is that people still feel the need to have children in this day and age. Overpopulation is the world's most serious economic crisis; every other economic problem is simply a symptom of overpopulation. We should be encouraging citizens to sterilize themselves and perform as many abortions as possible so that the human race as a whole may have a higher quality of life.
26. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-05 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  There are many people who think overpopulation is a myth (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM). Western countries are compromised by demographic death (I know mine is), and becoming overtaken by immigrants from eastern countries who have a lot of children (not mine, but see perhaps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a60A3mw2XgQ).
  So, not that I condone your thinking (I severely oppose it), but people already succeed in it by other means. Only third world countries and some others are resisting the trend (as well as many other trends of the "West").
27. Re:Murderer by justinlee37 · 2010-03-05 16:14 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  There are many starving and homeless people right now who would suggest that overpopulation isn't a myth. Even if we can hypothetically sustain infinitely large populations with proper advances in technology, that doesn't change the fact that the cost of things like food, housing, education, cars, and so on increases every time more babies are born and more people start demanding those things. Imagine the utopia we would live in if the earth only sustained 25% of the population it does today.
  Yeah, if third-worlders living in poverty were better educated and had more resources to things like condoms, birth control pills and abortion procedures, they probably wouldn't breed so much. However, the reality is that they aren't and they don't, and we've got to deal with it in the present. You don't have to feel like you have to fight against them. It's not a race war, nobody is being "overtaken," but the global economy as a whole is suffering from a scarcity of supply and an abundance of demand. There's no need to contribute to the problem just because we aren't the ones "causing" it.
  I feel like abortion causes more good than harm. What's worse, killing an unborn fetus or allowing a child to grow up in poverty or with abusive parents, eventually leading them into alcoholism and a dead-end job mopping floors, or into a "gangster life" where they rob, kill and steal to survive?
  The guys over at VHEMT have some pretty sound points that you might consider reading. I don't really advocate the idea of voluntarily wiping out the ENTIRE human race, but I get what they are saying and we need to seriously reconsider how we think about reproductive responsibility and what we want for our lives and what we want to make life like in the future.
28. Re:Murderer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-05 22:42 · Score: 0
  
  >You'd also end up banning in-vitro fertilization, because they do throw away lots of embryos.
  Of course I would. It should be banned.
  >You're the fundamentalist idealogue with his fingers in his ears screaming wrong at me while I take your definitions and show you how short-sighted they are.
  You take stuff from me. Then you take stuff from thin air, add some of your own dirt and mix it all together. Few presumptions and you're ready to fire. I feel proven wrong already.
  And that right there is your problem. You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is a clear right or wrong that can be proven or disproven. This sort of moral absolutism is a typical example of how religion poisons the mind.
  
  EVERYONE defines zygote as human life but you. The fact that dispite this fact they still see it undeserving of life because it doesn't resemble them is stupidity.
  I think this statement says a lot more about you than you probably realize. It tells me that you think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and that you are unwilling to engage in a rational discussion.
  I am not entirely sure what it means to "define zygote as human life," but I presume you mean that the genome of a human zygote belongs to the human species. Nobody would contest that point, but it is not a particularly powerful statement either. In any case, you are looking for answers in the wrong places. You will not find it through some clever interpretation of the meaning of a word.
  
  You think you proved something, but indeed you didn't prove anything except that you can't differentiate human life from unfertilized eggs, and that you like your cat more than people.
  The thing is, I'm refusing to stoop to your level of reasoning, and view things mechanically, simplified - broken down to elements. I'm not going to try to convince you using your logic.
  So in other words you admit to being unable to rationally justify your position. You might as well just give up right there and admit that you are arguing from some source of moral authority.
  
  Even if I did that, you'd create new bubbles to hide in (been there). So I won't. Human life begins with conception. No if's or but's. Killing it is murder.
  You call me whatever you want. But I'm not a murderer and will never allow for it. And I'm proud that I let emotions into what I say. At least I have them.
  What is it about conception that is so special to you? The sperm and the egg were just as much a human being as they were a second before they were fused. It still is not capable of love, thought, or pain. None of the reasons that we, as human beings, consider murder to be so morally repugnant are applicable at this stage of a pregnancy. While we might not be able to determine precisely when a fetus has obtained the necessary qualities to make it unethical to terminate its life, it is easy to say when that time isn't. Most people who have not handed over their rational faculties to some religious organization would agree that conception is not an adequate criteria.
29. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-06 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  >There are many starving and homeless people right now who would suggest that overpopulation isn't a myth.
  Wrong, these are proof of evil, and heartlessness of the rich Western nations.
  >Yeah, if third-worlders living in poverty were better educated and had more resources to things like condoms, birth control pills and abortion procedures, they probably wouldn't breed so much. However, the reality is that they aren't and they don't, and we've got to deal with it in the present.
  Maybe you should join the eugenics club or something.
  >the global economy as a whole is suffering from a scarcity of supply and an abundance of demand.
  I disagree. Heck, they even make cars that run on biofuel which takes a heck of a lot of fertile land to grow.
  >There's no need to contribute to the problem just because we aren't the ones "causing" it.
  If there is a problem, solidarity is the way of solving it, not killing less developed nations.
  >What's worse, killing an unborn fetus or allowing a child to grow up in poverty or with abusive parents, eventually leading them into alcoholism and a dead-end job mopping floors, or into a "gangster life" where they rob, kill and steal to survive?
  Your line of reasoning is astonishing. You are not God, and you have no right to kill even if your (false) logic would imply it's "better". It's not your decision to make.
30. Re:Murderer by Dare+nMc · 2010-03-06 18:10 · Score: 0
  
  We did have laws against abortion once, it just pushed abortion "underground" where their was no counseling, no safety. We were killing the mothers, and the kid without any chance to tell of other options (like birth+adoption.) I realize you may think it is OK to kill the woman having a abortion as retribution for her acts. But the majority of people do not agree, and thus we have the more humane law (again in the eyes of most people) allowing them.
31. Re:Murderer by justinlee37 · 2010-03-07 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, there must be some miscommunication here. Access to birth control and education is tantamount to eugenics and "killing less developed nations?" You know, by "no need to contribute to the problem," I meant that there's no reason for us to continue breeding like rabbits.
32. Re:Murderer by raddan · 2010-03-07 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think the debate is much simpler than many people make it out to be. The simple fact is that both sides (pro- and anti-abortion) play the rhetoric card to their advantage, but in neither case does it actually help to deal with the real moral and policy choices that people have to make.
  
  Abortion is the killing of a pre-birth human. Whether we call this "murder" is a moral and legal question. For instance, war is also killing, but when it is "just" (i.e., "justified"), it is not legally considered "murder", and in many cases it is not morally considered to be "murder", either. Almost no one thinks that killing an attacker in self-defense is "murder".
  
  So it's clear that we make this distinction between simple killing and murder, where murder is killing that should be prohibited. Morally, it is easier to make generalizations about killing than legally, where there are important public policy implications to consider. Let's take vaccination, for example. Some people consider vaccination to be "murder" because it kills people, and indeed it does-- no one disputes this. However, vaccination often saves many more people; this was especially true for smallpox. So now, we're in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether the lives of one larger group of people is more important than the lives of another, smaller group of people. No amount of speechifying can get around this uncomfortable state, but these are the kinds of decisions that modern humans have to make.
  
  There is good evidence that the legalization of abortion in the United States is in part responsible for the drop in crime in the 1990's. These findings are discussed in the book Freakonomics. Abortion probably also has a large economic impact on the social mobility of the affected women. So if these things are indeed the case, how do we decide what to do about abortion? It is the killing of a human, however it is also true that this human is barely what we would consider human: as far as we know, it is hardly differentiated, and as far as we know, it is not "aware" in any sense. Do the pros ouweigh the cons? What do we consider to be unacceptable? This is another difficult position to be in, but it's part of being a modern human.
33. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-07 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  >We did have laws against abortion once, it just pushed abortion "underground"
  All criminal acts tend to go "underground" once they are outlawed.
  >We were killing the mothers, and the kid without any chance to tell of other options (like birth+adoption.)
  Those were always options. Catholic church had nun run orphanages for ages. Having a legal murder has to do with adoption.
  >I realize you may think it is OK to kill the woman having a abortion as retribution for her acts.
  That's not retribution. If a policeman sees a killer aiming to shoot an innocent down, he shoots him down first, does he not?
  >But the majority of people do not agree, and thus we have the more humane law (again in the eyes of most people) allowing them.
  Making abortion legal is certainly not a "more humane approach". You are protecting the killer (see bp. Fulton Sheen's sermon on false compassion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip7pKqfhWeo), who is then able to kill as many as she wants.
34. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-07 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  There's no reason for us to kill our offspring either. It's not birth control (not that IT is somehow dependent on "education" so that those two broad terms must be coupled together).
35. Re:Murderer by justinlee37 · 2010-03-07 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to think that the morning after pill is tantamount to infanticide. We're talking about a group of cells that doesn't even have a brain yet. Killing a fly is more of a sin, at least a fly has a fully developed consciousness.
36. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-07 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's still faulty logic. Stage of human development has nothing to do with it.
37. Re:Murderer by justinlee37 · 2010-03-07 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure your logic is faulty in thinking that saving the "life" of an unborn fetus is more important than maintaining and improving the quality of life for those who are already born, and developing a sustainable society.
38. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-07 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  See now? That's why I said eugenics.
39. Re:Murderer by justinlee37 · 2010-03-07 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want to selectively breed to improve human genetics. I just want to reduce the world's population gradually and naturally by encouraging people to voluntarily reduce the birth rate. Abstinence, condoms, birth control pills, and abortions all have a contribution to offer towards that noble goal.
40. Re:Murderer by paxcoder · 2010-03-08 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  It may not be eugenics per se, but it's still wrong. You look at children at developing countries as mere resource wasters.
41. Re:Murderer by davidbofinger · 2010-03-08 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  conception is [...] fairly instantaneous
  Could this be why you're having trouble keeping a girlfriend?
  
  If you can't define a clear, definable and measurable event, then you're relying on "statistical personhood"
  Shifting to serious answers, one would be to err on the side of caution.
  Another would be: the potential abortee starts out as a fertilised egg with perhaps zero rights and ends as a human being with full rights. You seem to be assuming that there's a moment in-between where it quantum jumps from one to the other but it probably makes more sense to assume it's continuous. In which case somewhere in-between it has the rights of, for instance, a dog. In that case we might only be committing mild violations of rights, though rather more often. People tend to be uncomfortable with seeing personhood as continuous, though.
  Caveat: I am biologically incapable of requiring an abortion.
42. Re:Murderer by Gastrobot · 2010-03-08 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  A human can be a human without a name. I'm having trouble finding an example but I believe that some cultures wait a period of time before naming infants.
  A date of birth does not define humanity. Consider a woman two weeks past due. Her baby is fully developed, feeling, thinking, dreaming, moving. The fact that that baby has not yet been physically separated from its mother is irrelevant to its humanity.
  Some human beings are born without eyes.
  
  You argue that having a brain to feel with is a requisite for humanity. I disagree. Consider a man in a coma. If I kill him then it is wrong because he may have come out of his coma at some point in time. The fact that at that point in time he appeared to have no thoughts, sensory input, or motor output, does not stop me from being a murderer. At this point I see several options: One can concede that I am correct and that not yet having developed a nervous system does not preclude humanity. One can argue that it is not murder to kill the comatose man. One can argue that my example is inappropriate. I'll skip the first two possibilities and focus on the third.
  
  One could say that the comatose man is distinguished from the zygote in that the comatose man is not brain dead and presumably has some neural activity. Granted. I chose a comatose man because it fits our current level of technology. If that comparison causes quibbling then I'll change my comatose man into a cryogenically frozen normal man. He's at absolute zero - there are no chemical reactions occurring within him. He can be safely thawed out with nanotechnology to repair his shattered cell membranes. He is just as unthinking as the zygote. If it is wrong to destroy him then I'd say that the zygote being unthinking has no relevance on the morality of destroying it. An interesting side-note is that the zygote is arguably more alive than my ice-man.
  
  Alternatively one could argue that my coma patient is distinguished from my zygote in that he was once thinking while the zygote has not yet progressed to such a level. The entirety of this debate could be brought to a discussion of the metaphysical since "human" is a definition that we've come up with and not something truly innate to nature but particularly an attempt to distinguish between two equally unthinking things based on the fact that one once thought seems to step outside of what the situation is and looks to a level outside of nature. It may hinge on the idea that humanity is gained at a certain point of intellect and not lost until death. If we go the route of the metaphysical then I'd say we need to define the criteria for what metaphysical aspect makes a human a human (personally I'd say ensoulment). Moreover you'd have to choose a point in time that this trait was gained. I can understand arguments that demand a higher level of thinking than what is possessed by a zygote but I think that it is quite difficult to nail down a point where humanity would be gained when one considers the span of human intelligence and, in particular, the limitations that some human beings live with. If a certain manner of thinking or awareness is required then we'd have to be open to the idea that some among us don't possess it.
  
  The comparison to a parasite is not helpful. I acknowledge that there is a similarity to parasitism in that a developing child normally puts an increased burden on the mother to supply resources. The similarities end there. I am not a doctor but my understanding is that having children increases the life expectancy of a woman. I am not a biologist but I've never heard anyone talk about parasitism in regard to parent/child relationships (except in other abortion discussions). I believe that parent/child relationships are generally excluded from the classification of parisitism. Beyond the biological aspect of your statement you seem to be undermining the idea of a zygote being human by comparing it to a parasite. Even if it were a parasite then that would not preclude humanity.
43. Re:Murderer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  lol u mad?
44. Re:Murderer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  >It may not be eugenics per se, but it's still wrong. You look at children at developing countries as mere resource wasters.
  
  Actually, I'll go ahead and say the entire Middle East is a huge resource waster. The world would be better off without Muslims who breed at the rate of insects. I think even someone like you would agree with me on this point, though perhaps for different reasons.
45. Re:Murderer by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-09 20:16 · Score: 0
  
  Well,there really should be a rule that everybody on /. has to have an IQ above 75, but that has not stopped you.
46. Re:Murderer by WindBourne · 2010-03-09 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  EVERYONE defines zygote as human life but you
  I do not. Right there, that proved that you lie. Science does not. Ever read an embryology book? That is more proof that your statement is positively false and you are a liar.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
47. Re:Murderer by tibit · 2010-03-11 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think that Carl Sagan has pretty much nailed it in his essay, published in Billions and Billions. To summarize: the extremes (all-on pro-life or all-on pro-choice) are just political stances and are thoughtless positions to take; we need to think of what makes us human -- what's the difference between us an say, a chimpanzee which we share more than 99% of the active genes with. He concludes that the breaking point is the emergence thinking -- thus third-semester abortions are out, unless mother is in danger.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
48. Re:Murderer by pandaman9000 · 2010-03-11 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Because he/she obviously isn't so brilliant as to pointlessly and weakly attack someone the way you do. Even your flamebait use of racist characterization fails as an attack. Instead of attacking people who clearly out-think you, try learning from them.
49. Re:Murderer by pandaman9000 · 2010-03-11 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  ......Except late second trimester has a survival probability, thanks to modern advances.
  I do not understand why anyone needs more that a month or 2 , tops, to decide something like this. You find out, and that is up to 1 month passed. You give it thought. A few days later, if you haven't decided, you might wanna go on and abort. IIRC, a pregnancy term is actually 10 total months, 40 weeks, from conception. It is actually 0 to 4 months total for first trimester, I believe. This would give more time to consider.
  While this is an emotionally, religiously, and politically charged subject, it all ends up the same. The mother either wants and can try to support the potential child, or she can't meet the criteria. I submit that if the mother doesn't want the child after 4 months in, she's stuck with her decision. Many people pay for their decisions all the time. My opinion is that only in the U.S. do we consider not making people responsible for their actions and decisions as a good thing. Lack of consequences is fairly rewarding careless and reckless actions. This is possibly just a perception based on my limited knowledge of other countries. I'd like to see this aspect of our nation change.
50. Re:Murderer by pandaman9000 · 2010-03-11 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is a pretty inclusive and reasonable point of view. In the interest of societal benefit, I will concede that killing before the first trimester is ended seems reasonable as a solution that gives a level of resolution to both sides of the debate.
51. Re:Murderer by pandaman9000 · 2010-03-11 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  >It may not be eugenics per se, but it's still wrong. You look at children at developing countries as mere resource wasters.
  Actually, I'll go ahead and say the entire Middle East is a huge resource waster. The world would be better off without Muslims who breed at the rate of insects. I think even someone like you would agree with me on this point, though perhaps for different reasons.
  I don't understand what religion has to do with any of that. That being said, the populations of areas that have infertile land like deserts, for example, would do well to move or limit their family size. Given the correct perspective, arctic and desert dwellers both would be resource drains, if they attempted to live beyond a pretty meager existence, I believe. Pregnancy prevention is a useful tool to prevent -any- society from overusing resources. mid and late abortions are more convenience-driven, and do not contribute usefully, in my opinion.
52. Re:Murderer by Gastrobot · 2010-03-12 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  The question at hand cannot be "how do we compromise in such a way that everyone is satisfied". If there are such a things as "right" and "wrong" and if they are immutable and not decided by the current whims of society then killing in the first trimester is either wrong or it is not. I say that it is because I believe that a viable zygote is a being with a soul from the point of conception.
  
  I suppose I'll flirt with Godwin's law and make a skirting comparison to Nazis: What if we could have satisfied Hitler by killing one Jewish man and by doing so have saved millions? For the sake of argument we'll say that this man is very much opposed to the idea - he's not as willing to lay his life down to save many as Jesus (John 10:18). Would it be right to do? Do the ends justify the means? I could not kill the man because even though the benefit to society would be enormous his life is not mine to take. Likewise I can't relegate that which I believe to be murder to those within the first trimester.
Sit back and wait... by lemur666 · 2010-03-02 16:18 · Score: 1

"Power concedes nothing without demand" - Frederick Douglass

--
Corollary to Hanlon's razor: Any significantly advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
1. Re:Sit back and wait... by Nutria · 2010-03-02 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  "Power concedes nothing without demand" - Frederick Douglass
  Nothing in my previous post contradicts Douglass' assertion. The difference is the time-line, branch of government and unintended consequences.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You moron by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-04 10:36 · Score: 0

Every sperm cell has human DNA. Every skin cell you shed has human DNA. But these cells are not themselves human, and terminating them is not murder.
If an embryo has no neurons, then it cannot think, cannot feel, and has no sense of self (any more than a tissue sample from your gall bladder can think, feel, or have a sense of self).
It is true that the embryo might become a human someday (the same is true of every sperm cell that dies every day). However, that doesn't make it a human today (any more than a sperm cell is a human), and since it doesn't think, feel, or have a sense of self, preventing it from becomming human is not the same thing as murdering someone that already is a human (any more than stopping a sperm cell from making it to an egg is murder).
Abortion, this early, is not murder by any reasonable measure (which yours is not).
SHE WOULD HAVE DIED by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-04 11:16 · Score: 0

those pills should be illegal
Her doctor told her that having another child could kill her. That would leave her present child without a mother.
This medicine terminated the pregnancy before cell differentiation took place (no brain = no feelings = not a person). This was the most humane thing she could have done in the circumstances.
I, for one, am very glad this medicine is available, as it just made sure that one already-living child still has a mother.
What is surreal is that she's able to do this in this day and age.
What is surreal is that people as incompassionate and ignorant as you seem to think you are champions of moral virtue, with no concept of the harm you actually cause, in this day and age.
Truth by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-04 18:48 · Score: 0

In fact, everyone, you should do a bit of research in to her.
She is in fact, a mother already, and after extreme amounts of complications in the birth of her first child, she decided to abort this one after talking to her partner.
Seriously, I though SlashDot had people who were intelligent.
Not how, when by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-07 03:03 · Score: 0

For most people, it isn't "murder" if the embryo doesn't qualify as a person yet.
A clump of undifferentiated cells does not have a heart or a brain, does not think or feel, and hence does not qualify as a person.
Yes, the cells have human DNA, just like the sperm cells that never make it to an egg (and 'killing' them is not considered murder by anyone). Also, your skin cells have human DNA, and you kill plenty of those every day. Are you murdering humans? Obviously not.
Yes, a human embryo might become a person if left alone, but until it does so it is not a person, and so stopping it from becoming one is not the same thing as killing someone who has already become a person.
This really shouldn't be too hard to understand.
1. Re:Not how, when by pandaman9000 · 2010-03-11 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Being so assertive, yet posting anon would indicate that you don't actually want to stand up for your statements. I can see why. Your position, if followed to conclusion, would include any child not yet born. The difficulty in this assertion (albeit, asserted via slippery slope argument) is that many babies are -removed- from the mother surgically, and are allowed to live. Many other babies are brutally killed with medical instruments or toxins also. Killed is exactly what is done, lest there be a potential for a viable, breathing, baby to be removed surgically, -then- killed.
  I won't post anonymously, because I don't mind people knowing that mid and late term abortion is unequivocal murder. If the "mother" is fine with a 3+ month old "fetus" being murdered, and the law backs her up, then I will chalk it up to intentional Darwinism. If the "mother" or the system in place tries to redefine the murder as equivalent to a cyst removal, I take issue with that.
  People kill people. I'm ok with that. Let's not rename it to "people assist population reduction", okay?
  I apologize for not being totally specific to her case. Specific to her case, a condom would be a better choice. That or other surgical process. I am not an expert on best known practices for that, although a full hysterectomy would work, abiding the hormonal changes being corrected.
Coming Soon by Olipro · 2010-03-07 13:41 · Score: 1

the new, improved RU-Pentium
1. Re:Coming Soon by EkriirkE · 2010-03-11 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if that'd be a step up; the Pentium has problems properly creating floaters...
  
  --
  from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
Re:Virgin by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-08 00:16 · Score: 0

What is it about conception that is so special to you?
He's posting on slashdot ... work it out.
New Book for Women by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-08 02:56 · Score: 0

It's called "Your Mouth Can't Get Pregnant"
makes no sense: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-08 03:04 · Score: 0

"I want to live longer, that's why I am getting an abortion." - crazy makeup lady
I feel sorry for that kid.
which version? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-10 14:44 · Score: 0

is this the RU-486 SX or the RU-486 DX?
So how about... by viraltus · 2010-03-11 00:51 · Score: 1

when the baby is just born but still not breathing? Doctors usualy spank them to make their lungs work but, following your logic (not sure if twisted) it would not be murder to slam the baby against the floor as long as he didn't breath once? May I ask you how did you came about this conclusion?

--
Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!