I normally do not read “Time” magazine, but I was recently sitting in a physician’s office waiting to talk to him about a silly bump on my leg when I noticed that he actually had THIS WEEK’S “Time” so I couldn’t resist. Thumbing through it, I saw a big, bold typed “35” and the caption underneath said: “Age, in weeks after conception, at which premature infants first distinguished pain from general sensations of touch.” For some reason, there was no reference to where they got that number.
Hmmmmm, I thought to myself, as I kept rubbing the bump on my leg. Could this be fodder for another award-winning blog?
As loyal readers know, in the past we’ve had innumerable heated discussions about when the fetus is formed, when it has a heartbeat, when it can tell the difference between Yo Yo Ma and The Ramones and, yes, when it feels pain. All of these arguments are designed to determine when/if the fetus becomes/is a “human being.” Around and around we go, with no end in sight. Hell, there are 50 years olds who still don’t know the difference between Yo Yo Ma and The Ramones, but that’s beside the point.
So, what does this statement in “Time” mean? Here’s my thought:
The way I interpret this is that the (and for purposes of consistency I will use the pro-choice word) fetus is floating around in there, not really knowing what is going on. Nuclear war could have erupted outside for all it knows and it is just chilling. Absent any action from the outside, it will keep growing and growing.
But let’s say the fetus is now 8 weeks old and, unbeknownst to him/her/it, its host has decided that she does not want that fetus to grow anymore, she has decided she cannot give birth. The woman makes an appointment with the local abortion clinic a few days hence. She goes to the clinic, the fetus not realizing what’s going on or what’s going to happen (and, please pro-lifers, if you really believe the fetus can actually suspect something, prove it). The woman goes through the preliminary steps, makes it to the surgical table and the doctor begins the process.
The vacuum apparatus is inserted into the woman and the fetus is still floating around, unaware of what is coming next. Now, let’s make the incredibly ridiculous assumption that the fetus at that point can “feel” something, that it is aware that something is touching it. So, here comes this plastic tubing, the open end facing the fetus. Then the machine is turned on.
According to “Time” magazine, the fetus hasn’t the foggiest idea of what is going on, whether this foreign item is a “friend” or “foe.” Indeed, if the fetus was 22 or more and the forceps or a needle made contact with it, the fetus still does not know that whatever is touching it is a good thing or a bad thing.
I am firmly pro-choice but have always said that procuring an abortion can be a sad event. One reason is that I’m sure many women do wonder what, if anything, the fetus feels during an abortion. If they read this little blurb in “Time,” I wonder if they would feel somewhat comforted?
Related articles
- Thirty Five Weeks (abortion.ws)
- Toss Out the Bumper Stickers for a Moment! (abortion.ws)
- This One Goes Over the Line (abortion.ws)
- South Dakota Allowed To Make Doctors Discuss ‘Existing Relationship’ With Fetus [Roe V World] (jezebel.com)
- The Price of Admission to a CPC? Your First Born. (goldencoathanger.com)
- What are the arguments for partial birth abortions (wiki.answers.com)
- It Sounds a Little Hypocritical to Me… (abortion.ws)


September 26, 2011 at 8:58 am
I have to tell you Pat, the fetus MAYBE not being able to feel pain is a pretty lame argument for abortion. I say MAYBE because as you know that “fact” is very controversial and some experts believe that they can feel pain relatively early in the pregnancy. The argument of aborting them not being so bad because they are unaware is equally lame.
Those are lame arguments because there are several categories of people that cannot feel pain and/or are not aware of their surroundings:
The comatose patient
The drugged patient
The unconscious victim in a car accident, soldier on the battlefield, etc.
The sleeping child or adult.
A newborn baby
Those under anesthesia
The severely mentally disabled
The elderly dementia patient
You if you were drunk.
So is it ok to kill these, violently I might add, because they either cannot feel pain or unaware of the impending danger?
A person would get arrested for animal cruelty if they did to a dog what they do to the unborn. They aren’t aware either.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 2:10 pm
The way I read your comments you are missing the point of the post.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 2:17 pm
He has to, Evan; it is necessary for voice to ignore what happens to real human beings. Otherwise, he knows he would have an obligation to care for them as they grow up.
It’s the power of aborticentrism, the focus on abortion so great that it precludes care for human life.
The big question is, why does she HAVE to focus on death when the demands of living are so great?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Voice has missed the point. I’m not saying that because they can or cannot feel stuff is an argument for abortion. I’m just saying that it is a very, very difficult and complicated decision and women often ask if the fetus will feel pain or something. And maybe the woman might feel some “consolation” that it does not distinguish between pain and a “friendly” touch…..
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:05 pm
But that consolation MAY be false according to some studies. That is my point….and I didn’t miss the point, just making my own.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:40 pm
It’s not difficult or complicated. It’s “yucky.”
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:45 am
Voice:
Are you going to provide your credentials or not?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Common Sense
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 11:41 am
Elena – Voice wants to be an expert, but refuses to reveal her credentials to evaluate literature like the ones she quotes.
Voice’s common sense is hardly a worthwhile credential given what I have read in her/his writings.
My guess is she has no real credentials of value. Otherwise she would just say what they are.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm
No I wouldn’t
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Please Note:
I have been advised by tech support that the idiotic copying and pasting of another’s comment, simply for the sake of copying it harms the flow of the site’s thread.
It wastes tremendous vertical space as well as doubling download times and using up bandwidth.
It is better to respond with your own original thoughts.
Snippets of text are fine to copy to make your own point.
Comments of no value, that are copied and pasted will be deleted.
If the perpetrator continues to do so they will be kicked off the blog.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Are you referring to the quotes that Chuck and Kate and Bonzo said that we have been reposting? What exactly are you referring to? Can you please clarify so that we understand what you are requesting?
Also, why is WordPress technical support complaining about bandwith, virtual space and download times? Is WordPress running low on bandwith? That doesn’t make any sense. Please explain.
“Comments of no value, that are copied and pasted will be deleted.
If the perpetrator continues to do so they will be kicked off the blog.”
Please give an example. Thanks
Oh Yeah, since you are here can you answer a question for me?
Why do my comments that contain hyperlinks stay in limbo land and never come out of moderation? I have posted two this week that have yet to come out.
Thanks
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 1:18 am
Since I am the one who keeps re-posting what Bonzo said and Kate’s endorsement of it, I assume I too am a “perp.” Just to correct your wild and rash assumptions, I did NOT do it “simply for the sake of doing it.” Had you read any of it, and I’m sure you did, you would know that there is a very valid reason I did it, and it is of much VALUE to ME. Everyone on this blog knows I was not doing it to “spam” the blog and tie it up. You all know full well why I was doing it. But I’ll be glad to stop pasting it and just bring it up and discuss it in each and every comment. WIll that be okay, or will that get me booted? Do you boot everyone who refuses to let your people crap on us without calling them on it? It’s okay though, Kate/Bonzo is staying away until it all dies down, so it’s a nice break. It is refreshing dealing with her minions for a change. BTW…I’ll be watching to see if you are consistent with your censureship, as Kate is notorious for copying and pasting also. I seem to remember a looooong thread with MANY copied and pasted posts by her. I remember, because Pat and others complimented her on always bringing such good information to them. I guess hers don’t use any bandwidth.
If you didn’t mean me, then let me know and I’ll continue copying and pasting the totally inappropriate comments about infant skull crunching that you guys keep ignoring in order to whine about us calling you on it.
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 6:21 am
Nunya,
Your comments were not noted for the post on SPAM.
Please know that we get rid of SPAM fairly 24/7/365.
Please also note that this server is attacked by > 50,000 Pro Life SPAMs, threats of violence, repeated messages by zombie computers, etc. And a few Pro Choice SPAMs and other types of Denial of Service attacks daily. Most you never see or would be agreeable to as you would never be able to have any discussio
Regards,
TS
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 7:22 am
So were the things that I posted that you then deleted any of the above? No! They were not! They were statements I was making to get a point across and you judged them and zapped them because you didn’t like the way i wrote them.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Voice,
Please note the comment below on copying and pasting for no other reason than to disrupt the site.
SPAM will not be tolerated.
Feel free to comment in a manner that does not harm the site for others.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 1:21 pm
What spam? I don’t get it? Please explain.
“Feel free to comment in a manner that does not harm the site for others.”
And this?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Ok I get it now since you deleted some of my posts. Let me just say that although I will do as you requested I am astounded by the hypocrisy. Pro-choicers come on here and call pro-lifers every derogatory name there is and try to play” ask as many stupid questions as you can to try and wear out the pro-lifers” then when we COPY and paste what they said in order to reply (yes, with me sarcastically, to get my point across without typing reams) we get threatened with being booted and the comments get deleted. So much for free speech Pat! It seems that you and Ms. Moderator have two different mindsets. It isn’t surprising that this happens since some of my comments never make it out of moderator limbo land.
It makes me wonder why some of the pro-choice comments aren’t moderated. Who gets to be judge and jury deciding which comments are worthy to be posted and which ones are simply “spam” because you don’t agree with the way they were written? These were written sarcastically but they WERE getting a point across. My point! Sorry pro-lifers, it looks as if free speech is a thing of the past unless you are pro-choice!
Just know that from now on what I post may or may not be what I really want to say since my speech is being legislated I have to be careful what I say.
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” ~Noam Chomsky
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 5:59 am
Voice…you just go on…on…and on…to the point that you make NO sense!! You just picked up where another “prolific lifer was writing” but then when things got “hot” opps….She went back to school and therefore had to stop writing her hours and hours and hours of “stuff” that she wrote everyday!!! Just make your points….without writing so much “stuff” that you loose the readers!!!
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 7:26 am
Did I write hours and hours and hours of stuff? Um NO! Show me one thing that I wrote that makes no sense. Just one! I write no more than anyone else. Nunya writes reams, much more than I do. makes a person wonder why all of a sudden you guys are whining and complaining all of a sudden. Don’t like what you are reading? Here’s a simple solution for you. DON”T READ IT!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 9:03 am
Who are “The Ramones”?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:12 pm
C’mon, John. Surely, you were a fan of The Ramones!!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:55 pm
nope, never heard of them
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 9:11 am
Here is a study from THE LANCET that states that a fetus probably does feel pain early in the second trimester..
Fetal plasma cortisol and beta-endorphin response to intrauterine needling.
Giannakoulopoulos X, Sepulveda W, Kourtis P, Glover V, Fisk NM.
Source
Department of Chemical Pathology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the fetus mounts a hormonal stress response to a potentially painful procedure, intrauterine needling. Cortisol and beta-endorphin concentrations in fetal plasma obtained during uncomplicated fetal blood sampling or intrauterine transfusions by needling the fetal intra-abdominal portion of the umbilical vein (intrahepatic vein) were compared to hormone concentrations in fetal plasma obtained by the conventional technique of needling the placental cord insertion, which is not innervated. Cortisol and beta-endorphin concentrations did not increase within 10 minutes of fetal abdominal needling (n = 15). However, more prolonged needling during transfusion at the intrahepatic vein was associated with an increase in fetal plasma cortisol (median increase 48 nmol/L; 95% Cl, 23-86) and beta-endorphin (207 pg/mL; 113-307) concentrations compared to transfusion at the placental cord insertion (p < 0.005 for both hormones). The magnitude of rise in hormone increased linearly with the duration of needling (cortisol, r = 0.80; beta-endorphin, r = 0.88, p < 0.05 for both). These data suggest that the fetus mounts a hormonal stress response to invasive procedures. They raise the possibility that the human fetus feels pain in utero, and may benefit from anaesthesia or analgesia for invasive procedures.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 9:14 am
this one too:
A more recent study examined cells from the cerebral cortices of 20- to 21-week-old fetuses, finding functional glutamate or GABA ionotropic receptors are expressed on human subplate (SP) neurons.5 Those cells exhibited bursts of electrical activity interspersed with periods of quiet, similar to that seen in adult cortical brain cells. Although the article seemed intent on answering the question of how brains go wrong during development, the results might have a much larger impact on the abortion question.
The Journal of Neuroscience, 16 February 2011, 31(7): 2391-2398; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3886-10.201
Our knowledge about the developing human cerebral cortex is based on the analysis of fixed postmortem material. Here we use electrical recordings from unfixed human postmortem tissue to characterize the synaptic physiology and spontaneous network activity of pioneer cortical neurons (“subplate neurons”). Our electrophysiological experiments show that functional glutamate or GABA ionotropic receptors are expressed on human subplate (SP) neurons as early as 20 gestational weeks. Extracellular (synaptic) stimulations evoked postsynaptic potentials in a very small fraction of SP neurons, suggesting that functional synaptic contacts are rare at midgestation. Although synaptic inputs were scarce, we regularly observed spontaneous (unprovoked) electrical activity among human SP neurons, comprised of sustained plateau depolarizations and bursts of action potential firing, which resembled cortical UP and DOWN states in the adult neocortex. Plateau depolarizations and bursts of action potential firing are thought to depend on the mature morphology and physiology of adult cortical network. However, our current data reveal that similar cortical rhythm is generated by a very immature ensemble of human fetal neurons. In the relative absence of sensory inputs, as in development in utero, or in slow-wave sleep (i.e., throughout the entire lifespan), the spontaneous slow oscillatory pattern (UP and DOWN states) is a fundamental aspect of human cortical physiology.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Clearl, you don’t get it.
When one site’s good peer reviewed literature they need to be able to understand it.
You don’t.
The Neural correlates that you mention (I read the article) do not deal with the Cognition of Pain. Just because there are neural transmitters or pain receptors in No Way infer that the “Wiring” is in place, like the PreFrontal Neocortex, the first 7 cell layers, to process pain as we are ga oar with the concept of pain.
Pick up Kandel’s book on NeuroScience ( or any of the major texts and read them) so you can write a coherent discussion to support your position.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Actually they do deal with the cognition of pain. Some experts say THIS study proves they can feel pain, others still argue about it. I’m not going to pretend as if I understand it all but I believe that they do based on common sense. If a baby born is born pre-maturely at 22 weeks it feels pain when they put in a IV or it has surgery. It doesn’t magically get pain receptors just because it was born. (yes there was one born in Miami at 22 weeks that survived).
There are numerous studies to prove they do feel pain. Here is another from The New England Journal Of Medicine. Here is a portion of the article.
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE. Vol. 317 No 21 (19 Nov. 1987): Pages 1321-1329.
PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS
K.J.S. ANAND, M.B.B.S., D.PHIL., AND P.R. HICKEY, M.D
The neural pathways for pain may be traced from sensory receptors in the skin to sensory areas in the cerebral cortex of newborn infants. The density of nociceptive nerve endings in the skin of newborns is similar to or greater than that in adult skin.24 Cutaneous sensory receptors appear in the perioral area of the human fetus in the 7th week of gestation; they spread to the rest of the face, the palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet by the 11th week, to the trunk and proximal parts of the arms and legs by the 15th week, and to all cutaneous and mucous surfaces by the 20th week.25,26 The spread of cutaneous receptors is preceded by the developement of synapses between sensory fibers and interneurons in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, which first appear during the sixth week of gestation.27,28 Recent studies using electron microscopy and immunocytochemical methods show that the developement of various types of cells in the dorsal horn (along with their laminar arrangement, synaptic interconnections, and specific neurotransmitter vesicles) begins before 13 to 14 weeks of gestation and is completed by 30 weeks.29
Lack of myelination has been proposed as an index of the lack of maturity in the neonatal nervous system30 and is used frequently to support the argument that premature or full-term neonates are not capable of pain perception.9-19 However, even in the peripheral nerves of adults, nociceptive impulses are carried through unmyelinate (C-polymodal) and thinly myelinated (A-delta) fibers.31 Incomplete myelination merely implies a slower conduction velocity in the nerves or central nerve tracts of neonates, which is offset completely by the shorter interneuron and neuromuscular distances traveled by the impulse.32 Moreover, quantitative neuroanatomical data have shown that nociceptive nerve tracts in the spinal cord and central nervous system undergo complete myelination during the second and third trimesters of gestation. Pain pathways to the brain stem and thalamus are completely myelinated by 30 weeks; whereas the thalamocortical pain fibers in the posterior limb of the internal capsule and corona radiata are myelinated by 37 weeks…..
None of the data cited herein tell us whether neonatal nociceptive activity and associated responses are experienced subjectively by the neonate as pain similar to that experienced by older children and adults. However, the evidence does show that marked nociceptive activity clearly constitutes a physiologic and perhaps even a psychological form of stress in premature or full-term neonates. Attenuation of the deleterious effects of pathologic neonatal stress responses by the use of various anesthetic techniques has now been demonstrated. Recent editorials addressing these issues have promulgated a wide range of opinions, without reviewing all the available evidence.197-201 The evidence summarized in this paper provides a physiologic rationale for evaluating the risks of sedation, analgesia, local anesthesia, or general anesthesia during invasive procedures in neonates and young infants. Like persons caring for patients of other ages, those caring for neonates must evaluate the risks and benefits of using analgesic and anesthetic techniques in individual patients. However, in decisions about the use of these techniques, current knowledge suggests that humane considerations should apply as forcefully to the care of neonates and young, nonverbal infants as they do to children and adults in similar painful and stressful situations.
DID YOU GET THIS PART: “The evidence summarized in this paper provides a physiologic rationale for evaluating the risks of sedation, analgesia, local anesthesia, or general anesthesia during invasive procedures in neonates and young infants”
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Using pain as an argument against abortion is on the same level as using pain as an argument against putting an earthworm on a hook. What makes it an effective argument is getting the hearer to imagine that he feels pain the way an earthworm or a fetus does. The problem is, the qualia is different.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:43 pm
“You NEED to have an abortion because if you don’t your sorry ass is going to raise a drug addict or a serial killer because that’s what poor people do.”
Charles (Abortion advocate).
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:50 pm
How would anyone know, especially you voice, that that baby was exactly 22 weeks?
I guarantee you have no way of knowing that fact.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Actually there was. It was an in vitro fertilization baby so they knew the exact day of fertilization.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Voice,
Could you please cite the journal and other info so I may read about the 22 weeker?
Thanks!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Sure.I don’t want to post the link because is will stay in moderation limbo land for days or possibly never come out. So if you type these words into google You can find the article easily:
“World’s Youngest Baby Born In Miami
Amillia Taylor Born After 21 Weeks, 6 Days”
It was a local Miami TV station report. The station is called Local10. You could probably type that in as well.
The journal study is cited above with dates.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Voice,
Anyway, if they are basing the age on IVF-ART, then they are using conception age plus some. This is on average at least two extra weeks making the baby > 24 weeks my menstrual dating criterion. A criterion that is the standard in these types of conversations.
So even without reading the article I am guessing that baby was a solid 24+ weeks by the standard definition of gestational age.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Voice,
I Just read the story you offered.
My intuition was accurate from the first sentence.
By the standard of dating criteria, this was a case of a 24+ week gestation.
There has never been published, with good dating criterion, a 22 week gestation that has survived.
Misrepresenting fact is not a good way to support your position.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Sorry Leah, you just gave yourself away. You never read it. The ARTICLE is about the 22 week baby. Not the study. The study was about fetal pain. Your feeble attempt to discredit me is just that…feeble!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Wow, Voice you are extraordinarily clueless.
It’s not worth responding to a person that doesn’t know their facts and their ego is too big.
I did read what you sent me, and again, in the very first line it says exactly what my intuition told me.
Were you joking when you said you are a licensed Child Psychologist?
If not,
1) it was Doctoral Level, correct?
2) Did you have to get extra training to get the licensure for the subset expertise for Children?
3) There is a Board Certification for that degree of expertise. You did not mention that you board certified. If you are please confirm. If you are not, I am curious why you would not be.
At this point I am very skeptical that you could possibly have the credentials you represent, but I am happy to be proven wrong.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:59 pm
“It was months later when doctors verified Amillia’s true age through her parent’s fertility specialist and discovered the perfectly healthy baby was born at exactly 21 weeks and six days — a world record.”
“Born EXACTLY at 21 weeks and six days”.
Hey Leah, i think the fertility specialist knows more about this than you do don’t you think?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:11 am
It is very obvious here that voice doesn’t comprehend the difference in menstrual vs conception age, and why that makes her continued attempts to support misinformation ridiculous.
Did Voice ever provide credentials?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:56 am
Sherry and Leah,
Since this case was famous because it was a 22 WEEK surviving baby that broke a world record I am 100% sure that the fertility doctor took the menstrual date into account unless he was a complete idiot which I sincerely doubt seeing that the whole world would then know he was a complete idiot. You gotta think a little deeper girl!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:59 am
You do not mention the objective statement of how you are 100% sure.
Please provide it, or admit you are not 100% sure.
As a Board Certified Reproductive Endocrinologist, in our literature we often do post by conception age. Although the regular public rarely speaks of it or understands the difference.
So if they used conceptual age they would not be a complete idiot. Our journals (as many other professions) are meant for experts in our field to read, not the uniformed public.
And why do you keep dodging the credentials question?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:31 am
I’m bored with your game. Look it up yourself. The link is above.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:33 am
“And why do you keep dodging the credentials question?”
Because Dear one, it’s none of your business!
By the way, How is work today? Killed a lot of babies at the clinic?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Voice, what are you trying to say in your last paragraph?
Neonates have been born,
Infants, as well have been born.
They are not 18 week fetuses.
Please explain.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:08 pm
If you read the study it makes sense. The argument is that newborns and fetus don’t feel pain or feel it less than adults. This study suggests otherwise and they state that because of this anesthesia (or at least looking into anesthesia for these would be an appropriate humane response.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Leah, how can you stand this!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 6:57 pm
John,
It is incredible.
The amount of ignorance that people have on issues yet they opine as if they are experts, when they do not even have rudimentary knowledge.
I’m not going to have discussions any more like that.
It is a waste of time.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Bye Leah! See ya!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 4:13 am
Leah will return, in one form or another.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 11:44 am
It appears voice completely ignored the question regarding the pre frontal Neo cortex.
Why?
Voice probably is quoting literature she does not know how to interpret.
That’s just plain foolish.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Ok Renee, you’re so smart you explain it in your own words for all to see.
Teach us!
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Bye Renee! See ya!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Ah, but Voice, this is from another study: “The undisputed discovery that the neonate and fetus launch a hormonal and neural response to invasive practice cannot be considered proof there is an experience of pain. An experience implies sensations have been interpreted in a conscious manner.”
But, oh, we can play dueling studies all night long. And you will take the studies that conclude what you want and say they are the reputable one and I could do the same.
but, I also wonder: if there was undisputable evidence that a fetus can experience pain even at 7 weeks, would there be less abortions?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“Dueling studies.” This is another reason why it would be better to hold self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” to an objective, measurable standard, such as how much they sacrifice to care for human life.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Did they let you out of your cage again? Break time in the dayroom ?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Voice,
What does your comment mean?
I have no idea what you are saying.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:15 pm
It’s about Chuck/Charles/Aborticentrisism. They let him out of his cage on occasion (actually too often) to come here and aggravate us. Today must be our lucky day.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:29 pm
You mean your comment was just meant as a wasteful disparagement of another?
That’s not very nice.
And it wastes time, why would YOU want anyone want to waste their time reading your insults to other people in a civil forum?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Civil? Bahahaha! That’s cute! Listen you are obviously new here. Chuck and I go way back. He chants at me. I dis him. Then we start all over again. It’s ok. He’s a big boy. He can take it.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Here’s your “civil forum” Leah…
Bonzo Says:
September 22, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“It gets rid of the surplus population. Feel better now?”
And…
Bonzo Says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm
“Personally, it’s probably better to atomize them with suction. It’s quick and painless for all concerned. And at this early gestational timeframe, there’s no crunchy skull crushing. It’s all together so easy. And, yes, thank you, I do feel bettter. Cheers!
The only response to that comment besides the outrage of pro-lifers was this:
Kate Says:
September 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“Atomize? Yuck.”
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 10:10 am
Leah, when they descend to the ad hominem level, I know I’ve scored deeply. In many ways, dealilng with a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” is like dealing with a patient resistant to therapy. When they can’t deflect a probing question or observation with a distraction (such as questioning your mental stability), they in effect run away, declaring that they’ve had enough of your silliness and are not going to address the issue you have raised.
At the same time, they have to keep promoting their self-proclaimed “pro-life” values, so they stay on the site. Running away isn’t an option. They are like missionaries who depend on converting people to convince themselves their religion is the true one.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 10:41 am
Chuck, I really do think you are mentally unstable. LEAH is the one who “ran away” and refused to talk anymore. Everything you just stated here TO Leah is ABOUT Leah. Ya don’t need Netflix when ya got Chuck!
“You NEED to have an abortion because if you don’t your sorry ass is going to raise a drug addict or a serial killer because that’s what poor people do.”
Charles (Abortion advocate)
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 12:23 pm
“Leah, when they descend to the ad hominem level, I know I’ve scored deeply. In many ways, dealilng with a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” is like dealing with a patient resistant to therapy. When they can’t deflect a probing question or observation with a distraction (such as questioning your mental stability), they in effect run away, declaring that they’ve had enough of your silliness and are not going to address the issue you have raised. At the same time, they have to keep promoting their self-proclaimed “pro-life” values, so they stay on the site. Running away isn’t an option. They are like missionaries who depend on converting people to convince themselves their religion is the true one.”
Chuck, first of all, you reveal your true motives with the word “score.”
Secondly, hang on a second while I spew coffee out of my mouth when you mentioned “ad hominem”. Pro-lifers do it but you guys invented it. In lieu of going through this entire blog and pulling out incidents proving my point, let’s just take the one thread where Sherry, Tisha and Leah focused on Voice’s credentials rather than disproving her points, if they could.
There are good people on this planet Chuck, and there are bad people. Some are highly educated, some are not, most fall somewhere in the middle. Some are mean spirited and hit below the belt, some do not. Of all these people, some are pro-life, and some are pro-choice. Why does the pro-choice crowd continually try to disparage the pro-life crowd? I have seen bad behavior from both sides and I admit it. Everyone I know sees the same thing and will admit it. Are you guys so insecure in your own collective pro-choice skin that you need to do this to validate your own beliefs? Does it make it okay to end developing human life in your eyes if you can prove to yourselves that we pro-lifers are backwoods, uneducated buffoons needing God as a crutch? Does it not strike you as illogical to pretend that your “side” does nothing wrong and is made up of perfect people?
As for Voice’s credentials, she has the right to form an opinion based on information she has from reliable sources which she provided here, without needing to be a professional in the field. Researchers are not in agreement themselves on the issue of fetal pain, so to focus on her “credentials” when she expresses her opinion is ridiculous and low class, and belies the insecurities of Sherry, Leah and Tisha. Ad hominem Chuck? Seriously? Everything you have stated in your comment is true of your “side,” yet you are too insecure to admit it, even when we copy and paste endless comments of choicers to prove it.
I can say this for you choicers though, you certainly are gullible. Do any of you really think anyone has the kind of time needed to do all the things on Voice’s list? Especially if he/she really was a child psychologist to boot? Voice has proven time and again his prowess with sarcasm. Voice didn’t have that dog and cat, and I bet that list was to shut you up too Chuck. I can’t believe you keep falling into Voice’s trap. It’s always in response to your pushing of your aborticentrism agenda, yet you never get it. Hilarious. No one else does either. Equally hilarious.
Is it all true Voice?
Finally, as far as your last sentence in the comment above, substitute “Chuck is” for “they are” and you’ll have the truth.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Look I admit it. I was given an extra sarcasm gene. It’s a gift.
Some of it is true, some not. Not gonna tell which is which because it is irrelevant.
and yes…it was to shut Chuck’s chanting up for a little while.
Sort of like throwing a plastic bone to distract a barking beagle. Ruff ruff ruff ruff ruff ruff ruff ruff. Here Fido…have a snack then go chase your tail.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Nunya, that’s “scored” as in “cut,” not “made a point.” Truth can wound, you know.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Oh, NOW I get it Chuck, thanks for clarifying. You meant wound deeply rather than win a point.
And yes, truth can wound. You must look like a walking add for Band Aid’s by now Chuck.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 8:44 pm
ad
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I don’t know Pat but I would certainly hope that women wouldn’t kill a baby that they knew could feel being torn apart. But who knows there are some pretty cold people in this world.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:16 am
Would you allow a women to kill a baby in her fallopian tube?
and
Did you post any credentials?
By my reading you really are missing the point in most these threads.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:59 am
Sherry,
Please try to not ask questions that have been asked and answered so many times that even the pr-choice regulars on here get sick of seeing them. Asked and answered! Not playing the game!
About my credentials. Now why would I answer that question?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:03 am
I did not see anywhere where you answered if you were doctoral level or board certified.
Please point me there if it exists.
If it doesn’t, why NOT just answer a simple little question?
I’m guessing your credentials are going to be a lot less impressive then you represented them to be. That is why you won’t answer.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:20 am
I didn’t answer for two reasons.
1) It’s none of your business
2) I just don’t want to.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 11:50 am
Voice did you answer the ectopic pregnancy question?
or are you dodging and evading again when you don’t have the knowledge to answer?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Not dodging, Just refusing to answer because It’s a pro-choice game that I refuse to play.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 4:27 pm
“but, I also wonder: if there was undisputable evidence that a fetus can experience pain even at 7 weeks, would there be less abortions?”
If so, would you stlll be pro-choice Pat?
And I have read none of these studies, but based on the one you quoted here, it seems to me that scientific evidence has proven, using it’s own standards of testing, “The undisputed discovery that the neonate and fetus launch a hormonal and neural response to invasive practice,” yet they and you won’t come to a conclusion about what that proves regarding fetal pain. Am I right so far? A response at all is enough for me, I don’t care if it is perceiving it as pain or pleasure, the point is that it IS PERCEIVING something.
You really should go read about baby Amillia Taylor, and look at her pictures. I know you guys dismissed the fact that she set a world record, but maybe your eyes will accept the truth if your brain cannot.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:04 pm
It is a big leap from a biochemical response to Perception.
To say that any response is good enough for you is academically ignorant.
Where were you educated to interpret peer reviewed literature Nunya?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:18 pm
So Renee what are your credentials? Abortionist? Receptionist? Lab worker? Nurse that pieces the baby back together? What exactly do you do down at the clinic?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 2:57 pm
“It is a big leap from a biochemical response to Perception.”
Not that big, R. Your responses are biochemical, mine perceptive.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Renee’, I absolutely promise to answer that question, just as soon as you answer mine first:
Why are you choicers all of a sudden so focused on credentials? Are you all sitting in your paneled smoking rooms swirling a brandy while snickering at all the uneducated fools who dare to have a thought process without your approval?
Food for thought, since you, Leah, Elena, Trisha, Sherry, and Evan seem to be starving, but many very successful, lofty thinkers never attended college, or dropped out without ever attaining “credentials.” A few:
John Glen
Ted Turner
Michael Dell
Henry Ford
Bill Gates
Andrew Jackson
John D Rockefeller Sr.
Steven Spielberg
Paul Allen
Hans Christian Andersen
Einstein
Jimmy Santiago Baca (This one’s for Chuck)
Jane Austen
Joseph Brodsky
Robert Byrd
Philip Emeagwali
Jaron Lanier
James Francis Byrnes
Bucky Fuller, second President of Mensa, kicked out of Harvard twice, didn’t receive his “credentials” until later in life.
Also 10 U.S. Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln. I suppose Renee, that no one should have listened to Lincoln’s thoughts about slavery since he could produce no “credentials.”
You, know, I’ve changed my mind. Hell will freeze over and satan will convert to Christianity before I present my credentials, or lack thereof, to people who couldn’t see them anyway, what with your noses so high in the air and all, although it has been very high minded of you all to tolerate the uneducated boobs on this blog.
“Education is one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought.” Bertrand A. Russell
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 3:40 am
Until that, I’ve never had much use for Bertrand.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 9:51 am
While this “may” comfort her, I sincerely doubt anyone at an abortion clinic will bring the subject up to a woman about to undergo an abortion. Talk about pain might just humanize the child, and they can’t have that, because they are about getting that fee, not educating the woman so that she can make a true, informed “choice”. If anyone doubts how the pro-choice side really feels about the woman’s feelings and/or the baby’s pain, here are comments made on this very blog that every pro-choice person on it ignored, not a single pro-choice person, including the author of this blog who was there after the comments were made, called them on these comments, so I have to assume by their silence that they are in agreement.
Bonzo Says:
September 22, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“It gets rid of the surplus population. Feel better now?”
And…
Bonzo Says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm
“Personally, it’s probably better to atomize them with suction. It’s quick and painless for all concerned. And at this early gestational timeframe, there’s no crunchy skull crushing. It’s all together so easy. And, yes, thank you, I do feel bettter. Cheers!
The only response to that comment besides the outrage of pro-lifers was this:
Kate Says:
September 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“Atomize? Yuck.”
Further down she says “me likes” to another of his comments, ensuring that there is no mistake that she agrees with his disgusting feelings and joking attitude, minimizing the one person’s pain that isn’t in question during an abortion, and that’s the woman going through it. Kate is a college professor and a prominent figure at an abortion clinic, even escorting women into the clinic. These women would be very surprised to see how the “compassionate” escorts feel who are “saving” them from the horrible pro-life protestors.
Obviously, not only does the pro-choice crowd get desensitized to the fact that abortion is ending a developing human life, pain or not, but they also become quite hard hearted as well.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 11:28 am
Yes, according to Kate, the woman with the “TRUST WOMEN” mantra, abortions are “yucky” and to atomize the baby is a joking matter. Then there is Bonzo with his “reducing the population line” and Chuck with his all women who have abortions are trash because if they don’t have the abortion they are bound to either beat the kid, not feed it, get on drugs, raise it to be a serial killer, and basically all around be sorry.
Yep, you guys sure know how to “Trust Women”.
I agree with Nunya. Somebody should put some of Kate’s quotes on a billboard near the clinic. And Bonzo’s too since Bonzo IS Kate. Let those women know what their escorts and advocates REALLY think about them.
“”When they atomize your baby it will be yucky”
Kate ( AWC escort)
“There will be no crunchy skull crunching if you come for an early abortion”
Bonzo (abortion advocate)
“You NEED to have an abortion because if you don’t your sorry ass is going to raise a drug addict or a serial killer because that’s what poor people do.”
Charles (Abortion advocate)
“Don’t worry about killing the fetus. It’s sad but if it makes you feel any better, the fetus MAY not feel any pain or won’t be aware when the suction hose gets close and it’s sucked out of your womb”
Pat (Abortion advocate)
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Nunya, if I dont comment it does not necessarily mean I agree with everything that is said. That’s a rather silly thing to say, isn’t it?
And believe me, women ask the clinics often if the fetus will feel pain. And every clinic has their repsonse which basically is that it has not been proven to a certainty – which it has not, despite Voice’s citations.
Finally, if they were “doing it for the money” the price would be much, much higher. If inflation were taken into account, the average cost of an abortion probably would be around $1,000. As it is, it’s about $350 or so.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:09 pm
No, it’s not in the least silly in this circumstance Pat, given the subject matter. Stand around and watch a crime being committed without doing something and see if the police think it’s silly. Stay quiet while someone at the party makes racial slurs and see if it’s silly. But thank you for calling me out on being silly. You people pretend that this is about the rights of the women, and bitch continually about the pro-lifers outside “terrorizing” women, yet this is what really goes on in your heads? I literally couldn’t say out loud what Bonzo/Kate wrote. This isn’t some game to me of “catch the choicer.” I have a real problem with the betrayal going on behind the scenes. These women think they are being “helped” by “caring” people! Why would you NOT speak up Pat?
And what IS silly, is your last paragraph. Are you trying to say that the doctors are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? That they are barely eking by? That abortion ISN’T a multi-billion dollar business???
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:27 am
Whether you like it or not, abortion is a legal medical procedure sought out by about one million women a year. It costs money to offer this service. Rent, equipment, salaries, malpractice insurance, etc., etc. And, dare I suggest it? The doctor should be paid as well. Would you feel better if abortions were for free? Come to think of it, do priests get paid?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 1:57 pm
We pay priests and you pay abortionists because they are your priests, the mills are your church, the stripped woman is your virgin, and the body and blood of the child is your Eucharist.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Pat, we weren’t discussing the cost of abortion, we were discussing the fact that no one on your “side” spoke up about the comment Bonzo made and Kate endorsed with her approval.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 11:48 am
We used to say, “tweet tweet.” My sons and I would argue and if one of us scored big, that’s what he’d say — meaning it’s so quiet here that you can hear the birds.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Catholicism is a multi billion dollar pedophilia and cover up of pedophilia business.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Abortion is a multi billion dollar abortion and cover up sex trafficking business.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Perry is into the five dollar pedophilia and cover up of pedophilia business.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Better be careful there John, while you were gone the baby killing blog-pro-choice- anti-freedom of speech- Ms. moderator person came on and said she would kick me off the blog if I copied and posted what someone else wrote in order to mock them. She called it “spam” and said we had to come up with our own thoughts or something like that. Then she went and deleted several of my comments. Scroll up to the bottom of thread number 1 to read all about it. She will be after you next……
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 3:46 am
Oops! And I haven’t yet found a better way to get someone who says something stupid to realize what he’s said. How do I know he realizes that? Because he shuts right up and stays away for weeks at a time.
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 7:32 am
Yeah, I know. It is the most effective tool to shut up stupidity but now the blog police have deemed it against blog law. Your punishment: Everlasting banishment!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Abortion provider Dr. Don Sloan also discussed how much money he made when he first began doing abortions.
“It was a cash business. The price was right for the service provided…But we had volume. The receptionists at the desk collected the fees, and when the cash boxes overflowed, as they did nearly every day, they filled the drawers…counting it was time consuming; sometimes it didn’t get done right away. When the banks weren’t open, we just closed off a room and put the none-too-neat piles of money in it. By the end of the weekend, you’d open a door and walk into a sea of money.”
Don Sloan, M.D. and Paula Hartz. Choice: A Doctor’s Experience with the Abortion Dilemma. New York: International Publishers 2002 p 44
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:40 pm
“Everyone knows this clinic is profitable. We have made money. It would be foolish of me to say that this clinic isn’t profitable.”
Marilynn Buckham, director of GYN Womenservices, the Buffalo area’s biggest abortion business, quoted in “For Some, Abortion is a Business … and Business is Good.” Buffalo News, November 24, 2002,
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:28 am
So, Voice, should every clinic be a non profit clinic? Would that make you feel better?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:03 am
No, The point is that these doctors are in it for the money. Not because they care about the poor suffering woman. If abortions were free do you think they would still do them? Of course not. You don’t see any free abortion clinics for a reason. Dr. Boyd and Carhart will get their $7000 for a late term abortion or they won’t do it.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:09 am
Voice
You really have no clue.
Almost every OBGyn in training and on call for the ER (something that is mandatory when you are in private practice) has done abortions for free (and a lot more for free).
I personally know a doctor in her private practice that does about 20% for free.
Your sweeping generalizations are a model for the entire ProLife misinformation industry.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Bill, all industries have good people in them who perform a tiny percentage of their services pro bono, even, gasp, lawyers.This in no way disproves the FACT that abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry, and most practitioners are in it because it is a lucrative business for them. The people you mentioned are not abortionists in abortion clinics. I wonder how many abortions are done pro-bono in the average abortion clinic? And I’m not saying it’s wrong to go into a field where you can make the most money possible. That’s the American dream. I’m just saying it is what it is, and why deny it and try to pretend they are all there for the public good? Here are the thought processes of just a few of the prominent, educated choicers on this site alone. I believe it represents your side adequately, since no one on this blog called them on it except outraged pro-lifers:
Bonzo Says:
September 22, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“It gets rid of the surplus population. Feel better now?”
And…
Bonzo Says:
September 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm
“Personally, it’s probably better to atomize them with suction. It’s quick and painless for all concerned. And at this early gestational timeframe, there’s no crunchy skull crushing. It’s all together so easy. And, yes, thank you, I do feel bettter. Cheers!
The only response to that comment besides the outrage of pro-lifers was this:
Kate Says:
September 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“Atomize? Yuck.”
Further down she says “me likes” to another of his comments, ensuring that there is no mistake that she agrees with his disgusting feelings and joking attitude, minimizing the one person’s pain that isn’t in question during an abortion, and that’s the woman going through it. Kate is a college professor and a prominent figure at an abortion clinic, even escorting women into the clinic. These women would be very surprised to see how the “compassionate” escorts feel who are “saving” them from the horrible pro-life protestors.
Finally, a compilation of thoughts from Chuck:
“You NEED to have an abortion because if you don’t your sorry ass is going to raise a drug addict or a serial killer because that’s what poor people do.”
What about you Bill, are YOU in agreement with the inappropriate, jovial attitude of these people who constantly chant, “TRUST WOMEN!” and “RESPECT WOMEN!” Is this respectful to you Bill? Am i making too much of the fact that these very people escort these unsuspecting, trusting women into the clinics? But I digress. Sorry. I can’t let it go. I have a REAL problem with hypocrites who use other people to push their own agendas.
I better shut up now or I’ll get called out for being long winded, having a lack of credentials, being silly, a God lover, refusing to adopt, or something else inane, while these horrendously disrespectful, inappropriate (to say the least) comments continue to be ignored.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Bill, if you’re normal, you’ll slink away.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:46 pm
“You would go home with a g*damn barrel of money.”
William Rashbaum
abortionist, NY city
The Boston Phoenix: Cruel to be kind, In the twilight of his career, a late-term-abortion doctor tells all , Issue Date: December 5 – 11, 2003
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:48 pm
“When we attempted to find out what got people into the abortion industry, they said it was the power and the money that attracted them. The power was power over life and death.”
From The Washington Times “Former Abortion Provider’s Seek Peace After Quitting” February 23, 2001
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Yep! It’s the money!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 4:21 am
I like that though — “power over life and death.” It helps to explain Kate, Pat, Elena, Rog, as a matter of fact all the non-AIs here, and especially Chuck. It explains Chuck’s obsession with the idea.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Why don’t the clinics say this:
“There is undisputed discovery that the neonate and fetus launch a hormonal and neural response to invasive practice,” and then try to explain that away to her.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Because they don’t want her to know.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 10:43 am
Of course, it’s important for the self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” in discussing pain not to mention the lifetime of pain the fetus is going to face when nobody decides it is human enough to care for.
Mother Teresa on abortion: “If abortion is safe, legal and accessible, I’ll be out of a job!”
bot message #3198-BWY
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 11:14 am
That same ridiculous argument could be used for euthanasia for the elderly in nursing homes. Nobody cares or comes to see them so just kill them. Better be careful Chuck. Your’e getting on up there yourself. Strokes, accidents, heart attacks…all those things could put you in a nursing home early. I guess it’s ok to slice you up and crush your skull at that point. Right? And not only you but your roommates as well.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 1:01 pm
You never served in the military, have you? You would have learned how much your life is worth.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Change the subject as always Chuckie!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 2:35 pm
No, you are really wrong again.
The best discussion about euthanasia involves the intricasies of Euthanasia. Using Abortion, is a very poor proxy.
You again make it clear that you probably do not have any substantial knowledge of Euthanasia. Supporting your opinions from your personal incredulity makes one not want to read your comments.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I have enough common sense to know that euthanasia kills people.
Abortion is not a poor proxy given that in both situations someone is killed to satisfy the selfishness of someone else.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:01 pm
From my reading I agree with Evan.
Voice, it seems you like to write about things you have no experience or expertise.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Well of course you agree with him. You both want to justify killing babies. Why wouldn’t you agree with him with your agenda?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Pat – This is the dumbest bunch of ProLifers yet. It is not worth responding to them.
Only an idiot would believe that euthanasia is a good metaphor for the discussion of abortion.
The best way to discuss euthanasia is to discuss euthanasia, the topics are very, very different, unless you have a mind that is set on discussing a single dimension of a topic that deserves hundreds of dimensions.
You pro lifers just keep revealing how little you know, and how much you just regurgitate the nonsense that you hear from your crazy preachers.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Perry, you shouldn’t make assumptions about subjects you know nothing about. I am one of those “dumb pro-lifers,” and I’ve actually NEVER heard a sermon on Euthanasia or abortion in church. I come to my conclusions about taking life into my own hands on my own. I don’t believe in suicide, assisted suicide, or killing the unborn. What’s dumb about that?Don’t bother to answer, as I can’t see you having a rational discussion about any subject when you lead with name calling. Most of us left grade school years ago.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Then shield your eyes Evan.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:24 pm
When someone is euthanized, they crush their skulls? And they are euthanizing people because no one visits them? Where is this happening, Voice? Aren’t you taking this to a slight extreme?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:27 pm
No, I am talking about the slippery slope. If it’s good for one people group then why not the next. First it’s the fetus, then the elderly, then the disabled, then the mentally ill (uh oh there goes Chuckie!).
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:33 pm
“The slippery slope” is a lot easier to fight against than it is to fight for the hard cllimb to truly care for a human life. Another reason why so-called “pro-lifers” are so closely focused on abortion.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Ok hows this?
I have adopted 16 children, I run a girls home, am a licensed child psychologist, work as a volunteer for Big Brothers Big Sisters and Feed the Children. I began an organization to help inner city children secure funds for College and I travel extensively as a volunteer with Doctors without Borders. I work Saturday mornings at my local homeless shelter as a food server. Not to mention that I am a licensed foster Parent and have had around 42 kids living with me. I am also a volunteer with PETA, Save the Animals and Save The Whales. Sundays are filled with me reading to the elderly in our local nursing home. I regularly go down to the railroad tracks under the bridge and hand out cans of Tuna and blankets to the addicts. I organize walks for the American Cancer Society and I travel with the American Red Cross Disaster relief. On Saturday afternoons I go to the library and volunteer to read to the children. On school day afternoons I volunteer at the Y teaching swimming lessons to inner city kids. I also babysit at the health clinic so that single mothers can see the doctor. I am a volunteer at the hospital where I sit with the sick patients and I foster dogs from the humane society. I have 12 right now. I don’t take cats though. I am allergic. I have participated in search missions for missing children and I take a stand against abortion.
Any more questions?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Voice,
Again, the slippery slope argument is a well known fallacy of logic and debate.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Not if you have common sense.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Voice,
So now you consider yourself so intelligent that your belief system is superior to thousands of years (and modern) of study of logic, and debate?
Again, it’s impossible to take you seriously when you reveal your complete lack of knowledge, and high ego that is undeserved.
You disagree with all the scholars of logic and debate for millennia.
Don’t delude yourself, it is better to be a little more introspective and reveal that you are mistaken, than let your ego control your discussion as it’s makes you a commenter that has lost all value.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 5:45 pm
“So now you consider yourself so intelligent that your belief system is superior to thousands of years (and modern) of study of logic, and debate?”
Yes I do
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:24 am
Interesting,
Voice’s reply reveals what kind of person you are trying to discuss something with. People like Voice are just a waste of time if they believe their knowledge is superioir to thousands of years of accumulated knowledge.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:06 am
“thousands of years of accumulated knowledge”
Meaning “it’s ok to kill a baby.”
Yeah, I’m smarter than that !
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:12 am
Voice you are so disingenuous.
That is not what the thread was about. It was about the fallacy of the slippery slope logic.
Can you stick to a thread of thought?
The way you write, I am certain your credentials are not as good as you represent above.
What defect do you have that does not allow you to understand the simplest of statements?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:24 am
“Can you stick to a thread of thought?”
No
“The way you write, I am certain your credentials are not as good as you represent above.”
You got me. I’m really in second grade.
“What defect do you have that does not allow you to understand the simplest of statements?”
Mental retardation.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:00 pm
“Leah Says: Voice, So now you consider yourself so intelligent that your belief system is superior to thousands of years (and modern) of study of logic, and debate? Again, it’s impossible to take you seriously when you reveal your complete lack of knowledge, and high ego that is undeserved.”
Seriously Leah? You got THAT from her answer of “common sense?” So are you saying common sense isn’t valid, or that anyone who practices it is purporting themselves to be all knowing above all of historical knowledge? Or did you just make that jump for the same reason the other choicers on this blog seem too: to put words into the mouths of lifers in order to make us “say” what YOU want us to be saying? Which is it Leah?
It’s impossible to take you seriously Leah, when you reveal your agenda so blatantly. At least be wise enough to conceal it behind something rational, then you may actually fool a few people.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Bill said: “That is not what the thread was about. It was about the fallacy of the slippery slope logic. Can you stick to a thread of thought?”
Why should she Bill? Why shouldn’t she answer sarcastically when her thoughts are ignored in order to challenge her right to HAVE thoughts unless she has “credentials?” When she gives her opinion that common sense leads her to believe in the slippery slope theory, and she is then TOLD that she is saying she believes she is far superior to all of historical thought? Seriously? Do YOU, or Sherry, or any choicer here REALLY want true discussion? I think not. You just want to bully and pull hair on your own special playground. Your comments (read attacks) belie your true motivations.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Pat – These Pro Lifers should have to take some kind of simple test of logic before they can post their idiotic statements
*******
“So now you consider yourself so intelligent that your belief system is superior to thousands of years (and modern) of study of logic, and debate?”
Yes I do
************
What a moron that prolifer is.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Pat – Perry should have to take some kind of simple test of logic before he can post his idiotic statements.
What a moron that killers’ helper is.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 11:43 pm
You know Perry, what is dishonest and hypocritical is Leah putting words into Voice’s mouth. Voice said she applies common sense when coming to conclusions, (which is apparently a cardinal sin) and Leah then stated that that meant Voice was saying she believed she was more intelligent that all the accumulated knowledge of history. Really? I have seen this happen over and over, as has Voice, so she/he has chosen to respond with sarcasm when this happens. Then you call Voice on being sarcastic, but not your “side” for her rash, ridiculous, dishonest attempt to discredit Voice by putting her own words into Voice’s mouth. I find honesty a scarce commodity among choicers on this blog. As far as the ignorance displayed here, there is a great Michael Jackson song that applies.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:20 pm
“You NEED to have an abortion because if you don’t your sorry ass is going to raise a drug addict or a serial killer because that’s what poor people do.”
Charles (Abortion advocate)
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 1:48 pm
the self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” dare not think about the whole fabric of life, what it takes to make it human, what dangers, reefs and shoals there are to diminish it, stultify it and impose upon it suffering which anyone would find unbearable. Not for them the commitment to the one they wanted born which will see the child safely equipped with the talents and knowledge to make reasonably good choices.
For them it is only sufficient to earn the satisfaction of seeing somebody listened to them, somebody passed their bill, somebody blocked the choices of a pregnant woman.
“I have caused the birth of a child. I feel really good.”
bot reply WDF34GH$5
gotcha twice, voice!!!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 8:45 pm
“You NEED to have an abortion because if you don’t your sorry ass is going to raise a drug addict or a serial killer because that’s what poor people do.”
Charles (Abortion advocate)..
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:42 am
… “and the woman who rejoiced that you now have a baby you can’t care for is not going to be there at any of the crucial moments in your attempts to nurture it.”
Of course, NunYa, I realize that you WILL be there for all the babies you personally know whose birth you are resonsible for; it’s just the other 1.199999 million that I wish you’d worry about as well.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:07 am
“You NEED to have an abortion because if you don’t your sorry ass is going to raise a drug addict or a serial killer because that’s what poor people do.”
Chuck/Charles/Aborticentrisism (Abortion advocate)..
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Pat,
Thanks for the Time article reference.
It is clear that the “Fetal Pain” being brought into legislation is just another tangential attempt to block women from accessing their right to get an abortion if they choose.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:25 pm
You’re totally right, Evan.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm
No he’s not!
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE. Vol. 317 No 21 (19 Nov. 1987): Pages 1321-1329.
PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS
K.J.S. ANAND, M.B.B.S., D.PHIL., AND P.R. HICKEY, M.D
“The evidence summarized in this paper provides a physiologic rationale for evaluating the risks of sedation, analgesia, local anesthesia, or general anesthesia during invasive procedures in neonates and young infants”
It’s because they CAN feel pain!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:33 am
Yes, Evan is correct.
Why else would they be introducing this legislation?
The legislation is to stop Abortions not to increase them.
How could Evan’s statement be wrong?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:09 am
Fetal pain legislation is because some people on this planet feel sorry for the baby’s being ripped apart and don’t want that to happy anymore especially after it is proven that the baby can feel being ripped apart. It’s called compassion!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:11 am
Fetal pain bills are because there are some people on this planet that feel sorry for the baby being ripped apart and they don’t want that to happen anymore especially since it has been proven that they can feel being ripped apart. It’s called compassion!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:24 am
Weird! I posted that once and it didn’t post so I posted it a second time and now it’s here twice for your viewing pleasure. Must be fate!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Shoulda been ten.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:16 am
OK.
So the legislation IS being introduced to stop abortions.
Why is that so hard to admit?
Why are you resistant to admitting that?
It’s the most obvious thing in the world.
AND, you agree that is what it is for as you just said.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 10:26 am
“Why is that so hard to admit?”
I’m stubborn.
“Why are you resistant to admitting that?”
I’m stubborn
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Why behave like that Voice?
You only harm the cause you are trying to further by appearing really dumb.
Being stubborn and wrong is transparent to everyone who reads your statements. Better not to be the way you are, if you care about your cause.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:46 pm
“Why behave like that Voice?”
Because I can.
“You only harm the cause you are trying to further by appearing really dumb.”
I don’t care.
“Being stubborn and wrong is transparent to everyone who reads your statements. Better not to be the way you are, if you care about your cause”
A dead baby is a dead baby is a dead baby.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams
A dead baby is a dead baby is a dead baby.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Perry, Let me ask you something honestly, since you have appeared on the playground and started name calling. You say Voice hurts her cause. Don’t you think you hurt your cause, not to mention your credibility, when you ignore the REASON Voice is being sarcastic in her comments? Did you READ the conclusions jumped to about Voice when she would comment normally? Choicers ask her questions or present theories, and when she comments, they then question her intelligence, start to demand her credentials, and put words into her mouth. Why do you ignore that? It’s not my opinion, it’s right here in black and white, and is undeniable.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:22 pm
“Bill Says: So the legislation IS being introduced to stop abortions.
Why is that so hard to admit?
Why are you resistant to admitting that?”
Actually Bill, that is what I was scrolling to the reply button TO say when I saw your comment above. I DO admit it. I don’t know why Pat even brought it up. Of COURSE, everything pro-lifers do is to stop, hinder, slow, impede, and otherwise frustrate the killing machine in any way we can. I admit it whole-heartedly, If they want to admit legislation to require all abortion personal to wear blue because it’s a calming color, I’m for it.
But we really do care about the pain issue, and I would venture to say so do you all. Honestly, I hope they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fetus CAN’T feel pain. I hope to God they do. If you actually thought the fetus could feel what was happening to it, I think you would want it anesthetized before the procedure, wouldn’t you, because you surely wouldn’t let that stop you from being pro-choice? The fact that a fetus could feel pain? Oh…wait…I feel an imaginary slippery slope argument coming on…
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:26 pm
*personnel
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Then why did Voice deny that was the purpose of the legislation (?),
makes Voice appear completely unbelievable in future comments.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“Then why did Voice deny that was the purpose of the legislation (?),
makes Voice appear completely unbelievable in future comments.”
Because I’m stubborn.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:15 pm
You forgot to add “and because you’re stupid.”
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 12:03 am
I have no idea why Voice says or does anything. Neither do you. I at least have the decency, maturity and common sense not to make rash assumptions, judgments or to put words into her mouth.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Who are these new jackasses on here, Leah and Evan. I thought we got rid of all the AIs!
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 6:23 pm
The Al’s float by every once in a while to show us that they still can’t form a reasonable argument for abortion, lest we forget.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:29 pm
This comment is not okay because it reinforces the choicer’s arguments that we behave this way. I understand your feelings John, your frustration, really I do. But lifers need to start handling this a better way, because as it stands now, we are just spitting in the wind, and we are the ones who end up covered in spittle. They hang themselves quite nicely without us resorting to their tactics, don’t you think?
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Btw…when you repeat back to them what they have just said, inserting their own names, I feel that is a reasonable way to handle it when THEY resort to name calling. You are hilarious then, and I usually make sure I’m not taking a bite of food or sipping a coke when I read those!
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Yeah, drop jackasses.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Nunya,
you are talking to
Dunkle – A guy that thinks it is OK to burn an American Flag to Martyr a convicted murderer.
Voice- A purpose that admits they are too stubborn to tell the truth.
Hardly upstanding voices of reason and debate.
Those two hang themselves every day I read this blog. I would reconsider your thought process.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Dunkle – A funny guy that keeps us entertained and makes good anti- baby killing points.
Voice- A purpose that admits they are too stubborn to play pro-choice 50 questions games.
Very upstanding voices of reason and debate.
“Those two hang themselves every day I read this blog. I would reconsider your thought process.”
Can’t reconsider……If I did I might get swept up into pro-choice stupidity and wake up to find that I am chasing my tail around playing the 5o questions game…… Nope, Gonna stay stubborn!
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm
“Nunya, you are talking to Dunkle – A guy that thinks it is OK to burn an American Flag to Martyr a convicted murderer.”
I’ll rewrite this for you, P, but not for free. Send me ten bucks.
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 12:13 am
Perry, I’m sorry, but you have lost all credibility with me for your childish name calling, JUST LIKE DUNKLE did, who at least admitted he did it and shouldn’t, and your obvious avoidance of the truth of what really goes on here. You (collective) don’t want discussion, you want to promote your agenda, even if it means sacrificing your character in the process. This includes, Kate, Elena, Sherry, Leah, Renee, and Evan. I don’t include Chuck in this list because I haven’t seen him do this, at least not blatantly. He’s just monumentally annoying with his incessant pushing of his own private agenda. At least he’s honest about it. And now we’ve been censured because of bandwidth? Can you BE any more obvious?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 6:23 pm
As Dr. Bernard Nathanson (former pro-abort hero) narrates The Silent Scream, it is apparent that the baby/fetus recoils from the instruments and tries to ‘save’ itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THS2zZ4m260
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Part TWO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T33BpDzkDOs&NR=1
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Part THREE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvshMADC7s0&feature=related
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:37 am
So Bernie went from making money performing abortions to making money working for the pro-life side. Why dont pro-lifers criticize him for “making money?”
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:31 am
It didn’t take with the critical thinkers in the American public because it takes a suspension of rationality to imagine that what they’re seeing is: 1)identifiably human; 2) a cognizant being; and 3) visibly reacting to anything other than an external stimulus.
You have to want to be against abortion in order to be influenced by it. If you don’t have much self-esteem, you can be overpowered by the self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” who are arguing for you to believe.
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 4:06 am
“. . . it takes a suspension of rationality to imagine that what they’re seeing is: 1)identifiably human; 2) a cognizant being; and 3) visibly reacting to anything other than an external stimulus.”
That’s what Chuck has to say about somebody young. But doesn’t it describe Chuckles himself? I can vouch for 2 and 3, and a buddy traveling in the New England hinterlands says 1 is on the money too!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:37 am
An interesting aspect of his autobiography is toward the end when he alludes to having been such a poor parent that he destroyed whatever chance he had for a relationship with his son.
His conversion to being a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” was, I think, based on his own egotism– flaunting authority by providing abortion services and an assembly-line scale and then, like “christian counselor” Carol Everett overcoming what he perceived as an embarrassment to his persona, going overboard in the other direction.
His personality comes across as the type who would pick up a trophy wife.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:41 am
“. . . he alludes to having been such a poor parent that he destroyed whatever chance he had for a relationship with his son.” You can relate to this, right Chuck?
You got the second paragraph wrong but the third right.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:13 am
Actually he gave up a lucrative career and lost a lot. He made nowhere near the money after stopping than he did before.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 3:21 pm
ah, yes! the REAL measure of a man’s life….
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Again Chuck, this is why your “ad hominem” comment made me ROFL.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Sorry to regress but this needed to be submitted re: the last article. Bonzo (Bozo/Kate) Jennifer Boulanger herself has given # of abortions performed at her mill on radio interviews. Perhaps you were not aware of her many radio interviews but I highly doubt that. She is the poster CHILD for abortion services!!! LOL
As memory recalls – I believe the #’s Miss Boulanger confessed (oops – reported) are consistent with the #’s on the former blog (3,000). What you failed to discuss was the # of chemical abortion$ they perform. Let$ not forget tho$e. I would imagine these #’s would (or SHOULD) have to be reported to a state agency. $$$ Can anyone say CHA CHING$$$??? Abortion is a VERY LUCRATIVE industry. After all fancy clothes, dye jobs, and hybrids don’t come cheap.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 4:29 am
“dye jobs” — ouch!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 6:15 am
Money! Greed! Screaming fetuses! Slippery slopes! Rampant self-indulgence! The end of America as we know it! Murderesses! Forheaven’s sakes, don’t let people focus on your avoidance of the need to raise well the children you wanted born!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:34 am
You forgot the worst charge, Charles – DYE JOBS!
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Being who you are Pat, I am amazed at the comments you DO decide to comment on. But it’s a free world.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:15 am
“You NEED to have an abortion because if you don’t your sorry ass is going to raise a drug addict or a serial killer because that’s what poor people do.”
Charles/Aborticentrisism (Abortion advocate)..
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:42 am
Handmaiden is right. The bottom line at the end of the day is “how much money did I make.”
Although I DO think that there are some in the industry like Abbey Johnson that were in it because they mistakenly thought they were helping women. They believed the propaganda. Those are the ones that eventually listen to their conscience and leave. Like Bernard Nathanson, Carol Everett, Jewels Green, and Abbey Johnson. With more on their way out. But as far as the INDUSTRY goes, the clinic owners and the docs it’s a money deal mostly. Too many of them who have come out have told the truth so now we know! Plus some of the docs are too sleazy to work in a non killing position. Being an abortionist is the only job they can get because no real hospital will hire them.
Abortionist Bruce Steir, according to the Associated Press, “with a history of disciplinary actions, was charged with murder after state regulators determined that he punctured a woman’s uterus during an abortion.” Deputy District Attorney Kennis Clark told Riverside County Judge Dennis McConaghy that Sharon Hampton bled to death after Steir ignored a danger he knew he had created.
Abortionist Tati Okereke was arrested after a Christmas Eve party in the Buffalo Hyatt Regency and charged with second-degree assault, first degree sexual abuse, first degree unlawful imprisonment, possession of illegal drugs and hypodermics, resisting arrest, and obstruction of governmental administration. The abortionist’s former girlfriend was found handcuffed to a bed, with drugs and needles scattered on the floor nearby
Abortionist P. Scott Ricke managed to get himself into virtually all the kinds of trouble doctors get themselves into — facing allegations of abortion malpractice, sexual misconduct, substance abuse, sloppy record-keeping, letting unlicensed staff practice medicine, improper disposal of fetuses, and even obstetric malpractice.
Abortionist Harold Hoke was investigated for dumping fetuses and medical waste at Colwick Towers dumpster summer of 1992. Hoke claimed that his Hallmark Clinic sent such material out through a disposal firm, but the firm’s records showed no materials received from Hoke for 2 months.
When called before the medical board in 1986, Dr. Judith Comeau-Samuel admitted to practices endangering the health of patients at her abortion clinics, but claimed that she had only done so because she was dominated by her husband and manipulated by him via voodoo.
Abortionist Dr. Gerald Zupnick was sued multiple times for abortions he botched while working for National Abortion Federation member Bill Baird. He practices in Massachusetts and New York. Along with Baird, Zupnick challenged the Massachusetts parental involvement law so that he could perform abortions on underage girls without informing or involving their parents.
I have many more of these plus documentation of these if anyone wants them. The point is that there are sleeze balls masquerading as doctors out there, lots of them. Don’t forget Brigham and Gosnell!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 2:10 pm
If rationality were king, v, you would end legal baby killing by yourself.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm
You know Chuck, I’m going to give credit where credit is due. You admit to having no credentials other than your own beliefs concerning your made up aborticentrism. You admit to being a bad parent. You admit to not wanting poor women to have babies because they will at the least abuse the unwanted child, at worst make a serial killer of it. You admit to not wanting to live yourself, for much of your life. You admit to not feeling ANY responsibility toward all the needs of living children out there because you didn’t want them born in the first place. You blatantly promote your theory even in the face of all evidence to the contrary presented to you, and even though your own “side” disagrees with you about it.
Kudo’s for your lack of hypocrisy Chuck.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Yup, that’s why I love the guy.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 6:10 am
Response to voice, above, describing all her good works:
So, which of those activities is easier than being a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer?”
And why would I ask that question?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
What are you talking about?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Chuckles would not answer that question even if he knew!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I ask you: Which. of. those. activities. is. easier. than. being. a. self-proclaimed. “pro-lifer?”.
Would using shorter, simpler words help?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 6:03 pm
he dough know
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Listen Chuckler, maybe I should let you in on a little secret. I WAS BEING SARCASTIC! I know nothing about PETA…or whales 🙂
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:50 pm
She doesn’t have that dog or cat either Chuck. Surely one day you will be able to recognize Voice’s sarcasm all by yourself.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I do have a dog. Chuck wants him but he can’t have him.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 7:35 am
Re the Silent Scream: I remember when it came out and everyone was saying it would change the nature of the entire abortion debate. Women would be horrified to “learn” what was happening, no one would ever want an abortion again.
But nothing changed. To my pro-life friends – why did this not have an impact?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:37 am
Because nothing will have an effect except to oppose violence forcefully, and I am not willing to do that.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:31 pm
You guys tried force for many years with the murders, bombings, etc. And it did not have much of an impact…
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 4:23 am
Oh that!
We’re still doing that, and that will never end. Someone like Shelley Shannon will come along about once ever five years and she will incur the wrath of prolifers (“Our rosaries would have stopped child killing if only she hadn’t interfered”) as well as pro-deathers.
No, I’m talking about the kind of force Operation Rescue used to employ where hundreds of rational people gather together to break the laws that enable the killing businesses to thrive.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 9:21 am
Because the pro-choice propaganda machine went into high gear and told everyone that Dr.Nathanson was a fraud and that the movie was staged. They had to squash it before it did any damage to their agenda.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:33 pm
And now suddenly we are such an almighty powerful force that we could squash something like this? Gimme a break. It failed because the general public didn’t buy it, i.e., when he said that the fetus was engaging in a “silent scream,” that’s where he lost his credibility. Indeed, the movie became almost funny at that point….
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 8:55 am
It looked like a scream to me. Maybe it was one of those things that “can’t happen” but DID happen to show you guys what you were doing. Sort of like the burning bush or the talking donkey in the Bible. You just never know do you?
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Of course, if you are pro-life you are going to say it was a “scream.” We are all trained that – to take everything our side does at face value, to not question it. Indeed, I’ve written about how advocates on boths sides are just like lemmings to the sea. Meanwhile, however, I must have missed that talking donkey during my cathecism classes when I was growing up…..
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:32 pm
It’s a hilarious story Numbers 22:23-30. I am a visual person so I can picture Balaam’s (The guy in the story) face. Makes me laugh.
About the scream: Not saying for sure that I buy it. I did when I first saw it but the thing I don’t get is why he would put his professional reputation on the line to produce a lie knowing that people would know that it was fake. This makes me tend to believe it was real. Maybe there is more to the unborn than science has shown…just maybe. Science doesn’t know everything a small example is that just a few years ago they practically flipped the food pyramid upside down admitting they had been wrong all those years. They have been wrong about various things that they later admitted. Maybe Bernard was on to something that the others just haven’t realized yet. I did hear of another abortion worker who left the industry who insists she left because she was helping with an ultrasound guided abortion and saw the baby pull away. She said she ran from the room and almost vomited. Maybe they just saw things that others haven’t seen yet. It is a possibility.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm
I agree with you on this Pat, so why do you continually ignore the impropriety by choicers on this site? At least since I’ve been here…
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 2:56 pm
The smartest person I ever met was my father, a chemist/physicist. When I read that science had found out that eggplant had no food value, he said, “I like eggplant. They’ll probably find some.” And they did.”
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 3:24 pm
About ten years ago, the Freakanomics authors did a study in which they found out that the decrease in the crime rate in the US in the late eighties and early nineties was due to Roe v. Wade. You might want to research that for a piece, Pat.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Hey! Chuck finally said something true: “If you kill lots of people,fewer crimes will be committed”! I wonder why he couldn’t have figured that out for himself. “Freaknomics”?
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Geez, John, do a little research before you speak. I seem to recall they suggested that unwanted children were more likely to have issue/problems when they grew up. But I’ll look into it…
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 4:44 am
But Pat, that’s also obvious. Why research the obvious? Just look at Chuck and his son! Neither was wanted. I don’t know about his son but Chuck certainly has “issue/problems.” Does that mean somebody should have killed him?
Even for our blog here, suppose somebody had killed Chuck. Who else could have argued for the legitimacy of legal child killing so literately — and absurdly. No one. I believe that when legal child killing ends, Chuckles will have contributed to its demise.
And you both think that when someone realized that little Chuck was going to grow up to be, you know, kinda “far out,” he shoulda been offed? Come on.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 6:20 am
It’r really interesting that Mr. Dunkle will try to get a rise out of me by imputing my attitude toward abortion allegedly stems from mental and emotional problems, but he will not consider how best to prevent any child whom he insisted be born from being exposed to the same traumas he would like to pin on me.
In short, he uses the possibility of human tragedy as a debate tool, not as an incentive to nurture properly even just one of those whom he insists be born.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 7:00 am
I don’t know if this is absurd because it’s unintelligible. I forgot that Chuck has two literate responses: the absurd and the unintelligible.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Chuck said: “In short, he uses the possibility of human tragedy as a debate tool”
There goes Chuck, proving my points about him again.
John said: “Who else could have argued for the legitimacy of legal child killing so literately — and absurdly”
This puts into words succinctly what I feel when dealing with pro-choicers here, especially Chuck. If their arguments made sense, someone might be persuaded, but as it stands, they rarely argue their point, they just make absurd statements or pull our pigtails. Nothing of substance is ever put forth for debate. Actually, let me amend that; topics of substance will be put forth, then the absurdity begins.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Good thought, Charles! Will do…
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 6:11 am
Voice, I knew you were being sarcastic, but I expected you would switch it off to consider how little effort it takes to be a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” as compared to being a true pro-lifer.
And you couldn’t bring yourself to address it. Why not?
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 7:12 am
Chuck, if I get my wish and you become poster boy for the killers and their helpers, people will begin to see the profound absurdity and incoherence of legal baby killing. If things turn out that way (one chance in a thousand), you, truly, in spite of your intention, will have become an effective pro-life tool.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 9:00 am
Because I don’t want to. The perpetual conversation is boring me.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 11:37 am
NunYa, Leah “ran away” because voice stonewalled her long enough that she gave up waiting for an answer. That’s different from telling voice that she is not going to answer voice’s questions.
I’m sorry that you end your notes to me with a mischaracterization about my stand on abortion. Unless you can prove that there is anywhere where I have stated people should get abortions, please understand that my position has always been that if you want to prevent fetuses from turning into monsters, you’d better be prepared to care for them for the next eighteeen years. If you want to continue to lie about my stand regarding caring for children, it would be nice to know why you have to.
Whiile that means that someone might on the basis of that information choose to have an abortion, I do not and never have discussed options with a woman. I have always supported their decision, no matter how stupid, pig-headed and short-sighted I personally might have thought it to be.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 12:06 pm
“NunYa, Leah “ran away” because voice stonewalled her long enough that she gave up waiting for an answer. That’s different from telling voice that she is not going to answer voice’s questions.”
I did stonewall her because her questions were part of the pro-choice Al’s game. They come asking the same asinine questions over and over not really caring two cents for the answer, just trying to keep me in a never ending dialogue about nothing. My sarcastic “credentials” mean nothing to her nor does the true age of the fetus. All she wanted to do was have me chase my tail around in circles (sort of like you with your aborticentrisism questions) and I’m simply not interested in the game. So once again Chuckie your assumption is wrong.
As far as your stand about abortion goes, you have repeatedly said that poor people produce drug addicts and serial killers therefore abortion does society a favor. Just like your recent statement about crime rates going down because of abortion. Divide it up Chuck…….children born to poor people in the ghetto=drug abuse=crime. You say abortion prevents that. “If pro-lifers don’t take care of the children they wanted born they will grow up to be ghetto dwelling drug abusing criminals and maybe serial killers.” The flip side of that is if you kill the babies that the pro-lifers won’t take care of then you will prevent ghetto dwelling drug abusing criminal serial killers because all babies who would have been aborted turn out to be ghetto dwelling drug abusing criminal serial killers because their parents are sorry and will not raise them correctly because they never wanted them in the first place. They only kept them because the pro-lifers forced them or coerced them into it. We simply paraphrased it for you but it IS what you have been saying all along.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Exactly. I have not “lied” about you Chuck. I have a problem with liars, to the point that I told my children from the beginning that Santa was daddy. They loved Christmas just as much, without that letdown we all know when we find out Santa isn’t real. Know your adversary Chuck, before you start accusing them of actions or attitudes you know nothing about.
Is anything Voice stated above NOT what you have been saying all along, in a myriad of ways? If so, I’ll be glad to stand corrected, but beware, I WILL call you on your wording if you have misled us all about what you believe, and for not correcting us sooner. WAY sooner.
That blurb I’ve been pasting over and over to you was done by Voice, and I agree with it totally, BASED ON how you have represented YOURSELF. As I’ve stated, I’m up in arms about the statements made by Bonzo/Kate, and endorsed by Kate with her approval, and by all of you by your silence.
At least you finally acknowledged some part of it, albeit only MY being on your case, true to the Lemming nature of pro-choicers on this site.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Nunyah says, “Chuck…….children born to poor people in the ghetto=drug abuse=crime. You say abortion prevents that.”
No, I don’t say that; you INFER it. What I have stated repeatedly is that the child YOU want born will likely avoid fates like that when YOU pledge to nurture it. If a woman is pregnant for a child I don’t want to raise, I am not going to try to persuade her to either abort the fetus or carry it to term. I
Again, NunYa: “If pro-lifers don’t take care of the children they wanted born they will grow up to be ghetto dwelling drug abusing. . .” Much closer to the mark: I don’t say they WILL, but I do say they RISK having a lot of bad things take them down, often down for good. And as the Abortion Store/ Baby Store comparison shows, there are a lot of reasons why self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” want to make fun of this claim.
criminals and maybe serial killers.”
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm
1. All that was said by Voice, I just repeated it because I agree with it, because it’s what YOU have said.
2. So are you saying you are ambivalent about abortion?
3. If so, why aren’t you out there advocating for programs to help “born children” rather than wasting our time here?
4. If so, why did you write aborticentrism, and why are you so focused on abortion and pro-lifers?
5. And let’s clear this one up for sure: what, if any, responsibility do you believe you have toward the unwanted, suffering children of the world. Careful Chuck, I am a copy/paste fiend.
6. Do you think poor women will abuse and or create serial killers of their unwanted children, rather than rise to the occasion?
7. Assuming the answer to #6 is yes, what does this say about your view of the very women you claim to trust and respect?
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm
NunYa says:
“1. All that was said by Voice, I just repeated it because I agree with it, because it’s what YOU have said.”
–It’s not what I said, but a perversion of what I say.
“2. So are you saying you are ambivalent about abortion?”
–I will probably be ambivalent about abortion when I am pregnant. I am ambivalent about some women’s perception of their abilities to care or not care for a baby, but I’m not in their shoes.
“3. If so, why aren’t you out there advocating for programs to help “born children” rather than wasting our time here?”
–For a quarter of a century I got paid to do just that. I was wasting YOUR United Way dollars!
“4. If so, why did you write aborticentrism, and why are you so focused on abortion and pro-lifers?”
Because I’ve always been fascinated by motive, and I got started by wondering why women who’d been coached by Christian counselors to regret their abortion didn’t have a make-up baby. After that, I started looking at the motivations of the people who would have wanted me, a single parent, to take on another child rather than take it on for me.
“5. And let’s clear this one up for sure: what, if any, responsibility do you believe you have toward the unwanted, suffering children of the world. Careful Chuck, I am a copy/paste fiend.”
–I have the responsibility to see that you materially show through sacrifice of your money and time that you care for them as children as much as you cared for them when they were fetuses.
“6. Do you think poor women will abuse and or create serial killers of their unwanted children, rather than rise to the occasion?”
— See the next big block down. This is a complex situation.
7. Assuming the answer to #6 is yes, what does this say about your view of the very women you claim to trust and respect?
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 5:28 pm
NunYa asked:
“6. Do you think poor women will abuse and or create serial killers of their unwanted children, rather than rise to the occasion?”
Because of our upbringings, we all have different ideas of “normal.” In Polynesia it used to be normal for every menarchic child to be deflowered by her father. In 14th-century Germany, it was normal for a swaddled infant to be tossed around the room from adult to adult. In 19th-century America, it was normal to have 12-year-olds work sixty-hour weeks. And in my town today it is normal for lower-class women to accept that sex is part of the date if the guy paid for the meal and movie tickets.
It is not the condition of poverty that causes adults to create Jeffery Dahmers and Ted Bundys; it is that their perception of “normal” often happens to be unwittingly harmful to themselves. Jeffery Dahmer’s mother was the middle-class wife of a scientist who didn’t know that her familial baggage– issues with her father– were going to cause her to unload on him so badly that he would turn into a ghoul passing as a nerd. As a security service professional said of David Kasczinski, “His parents were active Democrats, but he lived in a ditch when he was sixteen– and he was the normal one.” His brother was the Unabomber.
A good child protective services worker can spend ten minutes chatting at the kitchen table and without asking a single question can pick up cues as to what ought to be looked at more closely. You can make a grid with types of abuse and neglect across the top and family behaviors and conditions down the side, and you can determine the nature of a suspected problem by the number of check marks in each column. But all these families are in their own eyes “normal.” When the principal calls to say that little Eddie’s being held after school because he pounded a kindergartner, it might be “normal” for his dad to contact a lawyer. When Serena wraps her third car around a phone pole, it might be “normal” for her mom to buy her the fourth. In both of these situations, the parents feel they are rising to the occasion– and they might be, or they might not, according to the circumstances.
No parent realizes the child is going wrong until it’s quite late. By then, “rising to the circumstances” often means calling the cops and pressing charges. What kids need to do better is needed from the moment of birth 24/7 in a setting that calls for no heroics and offers no tangible rewards. And that doesn’t work for aborticentrics.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 9:02 pm
My God Chuck. I thought I was a pretty okay person intellectually until I “met” you. None if this makes sense, or has anything to do with reality. I mean it, I can make no correlation between the issue of abortion and what you just said. It was your usual ramblings that make no logical sense.
Your answer to #5 is ridiculous, and I’m wondering how many of your friends here agree with it.
Your answer to #6 is has little to do with the subject. You did follow your pattern of proving my points about you though. This has nothing to do with abortion, and none of those parents mentioned were talked out of an abortion and therefore raised unwanted serial killers. They obviously wanted their children, but were screwed up. Again, it has NOTHING to do with the issue of abortion. I worked in the system too, and I understand the cycle of abuse and the warning signs. Oddly, abortion never came up during my time working in the system, because it has NOTHING to do with it. Out of all the screwed up, less that stellar parents out there, VERY FEW of their children turn out to be serial killers. Most of them were in fact wanted children of middle class families. Oh, and just for dessert, NONE of them raised feral children.
You conveniently didn’t answer #7.
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Oh, and #2 made so little sense that I read it several times, thinking I was missing something. Did anyone get it or is it just me?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 7:49 am
I got it!
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 8:38 am
Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual grasp, Pat.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 9:42 am
Okay, so I did get it when I read it again this morning after a cup of coffee. It’s just strange to me that you would say you would be ambivalent about abortion if you were the one facing it, yet you seem to push it completely here on this blog, and bash pro-lifers as being mentally unstable. YET you would be ambivalent were you the one facing it. You guys are just way smarter and quicker on the uptake than me. That or you blew my mind. I am amazed at your answer.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:25 am
Hey, NunYa, maybe I’d WANT to raise a child in my golden years, now that I’ve been around the block and don’t have to prove myself in the marketplace or the cockpit. Kick back on the testosterone, take the developing kid at his pace and his needs, take the time to measure his/her changes over the months and years,and prove to myself that I can get it right even with my own kid.
Or maybe I’d rather do that world cruise, buy the condo unit on the edge of the golf course/airstrip, vacation on the Intercoastal Waterway with twin 750’s pushing my Bayliner, with that hot babe tanning in the altogether on the foredeck.
As I say, I’d be ambivalent….
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:33 pm
“Hey, NunYa, maybe I’d WANT to raise a child in my golden years, now that I’ve been around the block and don’t have to prove myself in the marketplace or the cockpit.
You’re such a big mouth, Chuck, that you’ve already told us that you failed “in the marketplace or the cockpit.” Now, in your golden years, do you want to rectify your failure/?
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 7:57 am
I mean “repeat your failure?”
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 9:18 pm
True…most serial killers are “normal” office worker types that fit very well into society and come from upper middle class families. They say they are the “guy next door”. Chuck you need to watch CSI on occasion.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 5:57 am
Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual grasp, NunYa. I overlooked #7, my fault, but the answer is implied in #2–even though i might have grave doubts about her grasp of reality, I have to set them aside in deference to her right to pursue the life she wants to live, even if that means picking up the pieces afterward. That is where my ambivalence operates.
Since men can be pregnant, it is possible I could be ambivalent about having an abortion myself. However, like the self-proclaimed “pro-lifer’s” daydream of being a hero in an allegorical struggle, it’s just a pi9pe dream.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 6:53 am
Since when can men be pregnant? have you done lost your mind boy?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:07 am
Like I said above Chuck, I understood the string of words put together in a sentence, I just didn’t “get” it and it made no “sense” to me. This is because of your strong stand against pro-lifers and for abortion, as evidenced by your every comment on this site, as well as your aborticentrism theory, that you obviously spent countless minutes on.
To then come back and say YOU would be AMBIVALENT if you were the one facing it, sheesh, that’s just so amazing to me that I can’t even come up with anything to say. Pat makes it clear that he is ambivalent in many ways concerning abortion, but you have been a pit bull about it, and now we find you actually have mixed feelings?
To be ambivalent means by default that there IS another side that is valid, since you would be caught between those to sides. So why then do you try so hard to invalidate all those who oppose one side of that issue?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:08 am
*two
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 7:05 am
NOWISALIE asks, “Since when can men become pregnant?”
Since at least 1988, when Omni magazine reported the results of studies done by an Australian immunologist who implanted male frogs with eggs to study the immune system response. He found then in frogs and later in mice (mammals, by the way, like us), the invading host behaved like a parasite, suppressing the normal production of hormones produced by males and increasing the production of those provided during pregnancy.
One of the results was that there arose a ripple of interest among gay men in becoming pregnant; at the time there was no medical professional willing to risk hes/her livelihood by accommodating such a request.
Another result is that the so-called “pro-life” movement has been trying to ignore the fact that it labors in behalf of a parasite.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 7:51 am
Okay, this is getting weird. We now talking about men getting pregnant??? And, Voice, I love CSI!!!
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 8:43 am
“If men became pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” I believe it was Germaine Greer who said that. I am VERY much in favor of men getting pregnant, especially against their will.
Mississippi is pushing a fetal personhood bill which would would compel a woman to carry her sister to term.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 8:48 am
Ok Chuck, now you are really stretching things. Men becoming pregnant? That experiment was just that…an experiment…by a bunch of freaky scientists in Frankenstein’s lab. You aren’t seriously thinking YOU can get pregnant? Here’s something to think about..getting pregnant requires a WOMB. You got one of those Chuck?
BTW, that “parasite” line should be offensive to anyone with a brain. Babies are not parasites. They are human beings. Also, it is NOT scientifically correct. A parasite is a DIFFERENT species that attaches itself to a host to take sustenance from that host. We have had this science lesson before Chuckie. You got an F last time too. Let’s repeat it again, A PARASITE IS A DIFFERENT SPECIES! Now go write it 10 times because you’re going to have a test.
From the science dictionary:
“parasite
An organism that lives on or in a different kind of organism (the host) from which it gets some or all of its nourishment.”
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:17 am
Fetuses are not human beings; they are humanoid, displaying anatomical features at various stages of development; they legally become human beings when they are born.
Thereafter, the social codes establish what is due them as human beings. They might be brain-dead, vegetative, terminally senile, or criminally autistic (????), but society says, “This is what is due this person.” Some societies differ, such as Eskimo societies putting their terminally infirm out on the ice for polar bears to eat, so “sanctity of human life” can be pretty flexible and still quite acceptable.
(Which is why I say self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” should establish a social norm of raising to adulthood every “unborn human” they want “rescued.” It would clear up the whole controversy quite nicely.)
Before they are born, the only effective determination of their humanity comes from the pregnant woman. If she will not grant them humanity, they’re S.O.L.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:25 am
There is only one humanoid around here and I think we all know who it is.
“If she will not grant them humanity, they’re S.O.L.”
Wrong again, her granting wishes have nothing to do with it unless she is Glenda the good witch from the west off the Wizard of Oz. They have humanity because…lets see…….um……oh I go it……..THEY ARE HUMAN!
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:30 am
If a woman will not declare for herself that her fetus is huamn, it’s SOL, period. How are you going to protect it from her boozing (spina bifida at 14 days as the neural tube fails to close), drugging (brain development due to starvation), smoking?
You can’t.
It is SOL, period. Sorry.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:48 am
It may be SOL in the sense that she can hurt it or even kill it but she cannot take away it’s humanity. A hurt or dead human is still a human.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 2:11 pm
That’s indeed what I meant with SOL. And a hurt or dead humanoid is still a humanoid, not a human. The woman is the only one with the power to deem her fetus a human. Until then, it’s just humanoid, because there is no guarantee it will ever be nurtured to become human. Ask Dunkle about feral children. Ask NunYa.
And by the way, why won’t you let me have your bichon?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“And a hurt or dead humanoid is still a humanoid, not a human”
Biology experts disagree with you. Are you saying that you know more than them?.
“The woman is the only one with the power to deem her fetus a human”
No, It is a human by virtue of the fact that it is a human. Why can’t you understand that? What she thinks of it has nothing to do with it.
“And by the way, why won’t you let me have your bichon?”
You might slice him up seeing as how you think it’s ok to do that to humans.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:35 pm
oof!
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 4:36 pm
So, voice, why won’t you let me have your dog while at the same time you would force me to have a baby? How much do you really care for fetuses with that sort of attitude?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 5:55 pm
If it were up to me I would take the baby from you upon birth and place it with a family that didn’t think the man could get pregnant. But I wouldn’t let you kill it in the womb.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:09 am
“a bunch of freaky scientists in a lab…” Interesting that you would characterize serious (and productrive) immunological research that way; I think it shows how emotionally based, rather than fact-based, your approach to fetal life is.
It’s not a particularly far stretch to envision the fetus as a parasite, in that women, not men, are meant to be the host. To settle the dispute it is only necessary to plant a human embryo in a, say, mouse. I am willing to bet $500 that it would successfully parasitize the mouse, simply because both would be of the same genus– or is it family?.
As far as me or any man becoming pregnant: labor and delivery would be fatal, since as Wikipedia states, the placenta is not detachable from the abdominal wall. It would have to be c-section and some pretty careful surgery to deal with detaching the placenta.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:22 am
“a bunch of freaky scientists in a lab…” Interesting that you would characterize serious (and productrive) immunological research that way; I think it shows how emotionally based, rather than fact-based, your approach to fetal life is.”
That’s where you are wrong Chuck. It’s not emotional based as much as it is common sense based. Common sense says if you don’t have a womb you can’t carry a baby. If you don’t have boobs that produce milk you can’t feed the baby. If you don’t have the proper hormones the baby won’t stay in the womb AND if you don’t have a vagina to push the baby out of well, then your in a world of mess if you do get pregnant. I guess men could always resort to a C section because most of them are such weenies that they couldn’t/wouldn’t/would pass out at the thought of pushing a 9 lb baby out there imaginary vagina anyway. But then they would have the same response to a C section. You really are are a mess Chuck!
“It’s not a particularly far stretch to envision the fetus as a parasite, in that women, not men, are meant to be the host. ”
Once again you fail 3rd grade science. An embryo IS not a parasite unless it is planted into that mouse which again is very Frankensteinish and only freaky scientists would ever do such a weird experiment.
“As far as me or any man becoming pregnant: labor and delivery would be fatal, ”
Uh Hu! Yeah, because the womb and the V is missing. Get it?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 2:07 pm
You are right, voice: “common sense” tells you those things. However, common sense is wrong. What the scientists found out is that the fetus re-programmed the male host to provide the hormones present in a woman’s body in pregnancy, even including the ones that enlarge the breasts. so, your common sense has just been enhanced at no extra cost! You’re more than welcome.
And, given the state of genetic engineering, if it hasn’t already happened, I feel it woon will that some non-Frankensteinish scientist will, in the interests of DNA research, implant an embryo of one mammalian species into the body of another– and what results might well be valid across all mammalian species.
You sound like you’ve read the same comics I did when I was a kid, by the way.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 2:20 pm
As I said before, freaky scientist doing freaky experiments trying to figure out a way around nature. It doesn’t matter really if they made the man a fake vagina, gave him fake boobs and hormones. He will still never be able to carry a baby to term. It’s stupid.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 2:43 pm
You’re right, it IS stupid, but we are humans, therefore insatiably curious and equipped with the intelligence to try everything at least once. Somewhere out there is a gay man just waiting for his chance to prove you’re wrong by carrying a baby to term. You heard it here first.
By the way, have you ever considered that the outcome of this whole contest will be that the “pro-choicers” will breed themselves out of existence by losing the birth rate race? that also would be a result of being human.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Yes, I have considered that possibility. They are killing themselves off. It’s sad that they cannot see what they are doing.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm
No it’s not, it’s refreshing.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 4:38 pm
But they’re having more education, more income and more fun on the way out! Don’t you find that rather galling?
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 6:06 pm
I don’t think anybody has more fun than I.
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 12:49 am
“What the scientists found out is that the fetus re-programmed the male host to provide the hormones present in a woman’s body in pregnancy, even including the ones that enlarge the breasts”
Does this make you stop and think AT ALL Chuck?
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 6:07 am
Yes, it makes me contemplate the biochemical processes that an organism employs to survive, even at the expense of a host. It does not make me attribute it to “intelligent design” or the personal intervention of a deity, but of the millions of unsuccessful evolutions which failed to produce the needed results before the right combination of cellular and sub-cellular processes succeeded.
And until YOU decide that it is your baby, that’s all it is.
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 7:12 am
it comes down to the mere fact that if you believe the kid is yours or not it makes the difference between consciousness and irrationality. like how chuck said.
The kid is obviously yours if it resides in your womb, but try not to think of the baby as a surely life force, but more of a choice in which someone continues to live their life or they are forced to take care of something in which they cannot afford.
sorry i have taken a bit to reply pat, only if you knew the hell storm that came my way!
good article keep it up you’ll be in the new- yorker soon enough!
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 8:02 am
Fix your brakes, a, watch tv. but here, just read, don’t talk.
LikeLike