Slashdot Mirror
Woman Live-Tweets Her Abortion
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."
She has abortions every day? Wow, someone needs to teach that girl how to close her legs....or swallow.
Ask your doctor if RU-486 is right for you.*
*Side effects may include freaky, hoochy mamma eyelid discoloration.
sig: sauer
You take RU-486 every day?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
As Austin Powers, international man of mystery would say.
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.
I know her parents are surely proud.
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
sick
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.
When I think of all the emotional, religious and social responses that run through me when I watched that was, LOL!
Buck Russell: "Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face! Good day to you, madam. "
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.
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??"
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
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
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.
I'm really curious as to what logic allows for one type of abortion to be murder while another isn't.
Then, er, don't hang out on "Idle".
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
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.
"Power concedes nothing without demand" - Frederick Douglass
Corollary to Hanlon's razor: Any significantly advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
No logic. All (intentional) abortions are killing innocent life. You still lack arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
:(){
>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.
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.
:(){
>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.
"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
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?
:(){
>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.
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"
:(){
>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.
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?!
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.
:(){
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
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.
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").
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
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).
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.
It's still faulty logic. Stage of human development has nothing to do with it.
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.
See now? That's why I said eugenics.
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.
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/
the new, improved RU-Pentium
It may not be eugenics per se, but it's still wrong. You look at children at developing countries as mere resource wasters.
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.
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.
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!
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
Most are. It is called a Miscarriage.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
......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.
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.
>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.
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
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.
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.
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.