January 13, 2012
Abortion.com – Find a Provider for Abortion Care
Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Methotrexate | Tags: Abortion, Abortion Pill, Late Abortion, Medical Abortion |[2,050] Comments
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
June 12, 2010 at 6:09 pm
dunkle,
You sound like a fool.
You are not understandable.
The vast majority of people on this site have stated so.
You still cannot answer a simple question , just like all the other anti abortion people.
LikeLike
June 12, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Can’t you dopes learn? You have a wonderful speaker here, Pat Richards. Just read, admire, and learn. Shut up until you do.
LikeLike
June 12, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Elena, if you understood aborticentrism, you’d understand where he’s coming from: His answers make perfect sense if you understand the context; it’s just that although they do not answer someone’s question, they do explain his position! They are not meant to answer the question as YOU asked it, but that’s not really his fault.
I once had a relative who burned down a church.
Since he was a minor at the time, counseling was prescribed. His mother was very distressed at the whacko answers he gave to the counselor in a joint session. The counselor later explained to her that while he appeared to be a complete loony, he was living in a world of allegory. If the mother wanted to understand his answers, she had to understand his world. He kept in counseling, and he didn’t either go to jail or burn down another church. The last time I met him, it appeared that he was still lacking effective counseling on personal hygiene, but . . .
When you understand aborticentrism, you will see why Mr. Dunkle’s answers reflect the allegory his struggle is about. To give you the barest bones of the behavior:
1. The aborticentric, like all of us, understands the finality of and fears the inevitability of Death.
2. While most people develop a defense mechanism internally (religion, philosophy, despair), the fear is so overpowering for the aborticentric that he needs constant external validation that he can overcome Death
3. He seeks this validation by attaining the title of “hero.”
4. Society defines a hero as a person who pays its price.
5. Since he lacks the psychological strength to meet society’s price, the aborticentric tries to sell society on his heroism as a “pro-lifer.” This involves inventing the fetus as a worthy object of rescue, as well as other stuff, like abstinence and virginity.
6. If he can’t make the sale, he is LOST!
7. Therefore, he cannot afford to back down on any of the conditions he proposes for heroism– “unborn humanity,” the evil of contraception, etc. He would risk losing!
8. Therefore, when he gives an answer that does not meet your question, you need to understand that his answer is meant to protect some aspect of his constructed allegorical struggle.
Now, as one who has also been accused of “not answering the question,” I do have sympathy for him. You would do well to heed his advice to read and learn. “Admire” bespeaks an uncriticality which I cannot support.
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 8:38 am
I agree with Elena, John, that sometimes you do not answer direct questions. On the other hand, I know many pro-choicers who do not answer the direct questions either.
I totally disagree with you, John, on just about everything but I appreciate your hanging in there after you get slapped around day after day.
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 9:30 am
If those are slaps, they’re very light ones and I don’t see them coming so I don’t even have to duck. You, on the other hand, throw hay-makers. If I don’t duck, I’m out. I wish you were not the only challenge, but, so far, I haven’t found another.
However, what’s this about not answering a direct question! That’s my forte (pronounced fort, not for-tay). Pat, you’re not falling into the same trap you noticed other setting — peppering me with questions and then, while my head is spinning, accusing me of not answering #7 or #21, are you? Ask me a direct question, you, or another reader here, and I will answer it.
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 10:58 am
John you are an abortion joke. You tell Elena to
shut up? That we are dopes? You don’t know my positions on the complicated topic of abortion, how could you know IM a dope.
Why not just answer a question? Because you do not have answers.
You have no wit.
You can’t answer a question.
That’s why you claim no challenge?
This is not about challenge –
from my perspective about trying to talk and understand, create solutions.
I had a belly laugh on that one – a challenge.
You are just another typical anti abortion person.
Question are not traps of wit.
It’s not a game , the ones I have seen are trying to understand what you say.
Anyone can speak on riddles or tell people to shut up. But to intelligently answer a question with a follow up is just learning eachother’s position, so abortion can be talked about.
How does one talk about abortion with you if they don’t even know if you consider one cell, a merged sperm an egg cell a baby?
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 11:39 am
Not suggesting anything, John. What I am saying is that I do not appreciate name calling, etc. I would like this blog to be very civil and constructive and I think when people start calling others names it takes away the value of this blog. On the other hand, I think if someone says something they should back it up with facts. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. And that goes for everyone on this list.
Frankly, I would like to see more pro-lifers on this but if I were them and I saw some of the harsh tones coming out of some pro-choicers, I wouldn’t want to participate either.
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The harsh Abortion tones of prolifers, yes I am sure there are some, but, almost all the nasty evil misogynistic diction, come from people like John above.
John is not even as bad as most of them.
Although he still cannot answer the simplest of abortion questions.
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 2:32 pm
talk, talk, talk, What is the question?
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 10:27 pm
It’s been asked over and over again to you, in this very thread, let’s try again.
When a sperm cell’s membrane fuses with the Egg cell’s membrane, creating one cell, is that a baby in your mind?
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 4:10 am
Yes.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 9:08 am
When they meet and their membranes become fused DNA is no where near eachother yet from sperm and egg.
Babies have full sets of DNA, how clould this cell with still a haploid set of DNA be a baby?
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 4:15 am
To the aborticenric, Elena, it can’t be anything less.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 9:14 am
CG
Given the above, how could it be a baby?
I get the abortocentric mind dissonance thing ( I think).
So is the basis of trying to communicate with these people just idiotic?
Given the opportunity cost of time, perhaps we should just focus on good abortion legislation? Why bother with these people, it is sad, but we have no other remedies of
control then except legislation.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Elena, it is only a baby because THE MOTHER says it is.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, humanity is not guaranteed biologically. We tend to grant humanity on the basis of biology– “It looks like a human female, therefore she is one”– but we withdraw it as we see fit– we kill the enemy soldier, we imprison or execute the serial killer, we bomb the civilian target and so forth.
We accept as real humans without reservation those whose behaviors meet our definition, and those behaviors come from cultural conditioning which developed over 1.5 million years, approximately 4 to 2.5 million years ago. It was a result of the random success of a complex feedback loop involving a not-too-low-and-not-too-high rate of reproduction, a sufficiently long (but not too long, which is dooming the gorillas) of nurturing, play, socialization, sexual availability, bipedalism and a couple of other things which I forget—check them out in Maitland and Edey’s book, “Lucy.”
The whole basis for this inculcation of human values and human behaviors stems, then, from the decision of a PRIMARY CARETAKER that a humanoid fetus is a baby. The Elephant Man is the quintessential proof of this statement: He was born a monster in an era when the reeking masses—uneducated, disease-ridden, lumpish, and brute—liked nothing better than to see a chained bear kill dogs before the rest of the pack disemboweled it. He by the laws of probability ought to have ended tortured to death by a mob, but his mother treated him like any mother would treat her beloved child, even though he was hardly recognizable as a human being, with pachydermatous skin, a skeleton hardly evolved from a fetal position, a face all but unrecognizable. What saved him was the self-worth he learned from her acceptance of him and the human behaviors that he learned from her. I won’t go into the rest of his story.
When the primary caretaker DOES NOT believe that a fetal life is human, or does not act as though it is, NOBODY ELSE can say otherwise unless he becomes the primary caretaker. Ted
Bundy’s mother certainly would say he was human, but there were conditions that prevented her from acting as though he really was—and Ted grew up to become a monster.
So, it doesn’t’ matter whether it’s an egg, a sperm, a cystoblast, an embryo or a fetus; it doesn’t matter whether it’s anencephalic, trisomy-21, trisomy-13, IUGR, spina bifida or syphilitic—if the pregnant woman believes it’s a baby, then it is. And if she doesn’t. it isn’t. We have to respect her decision, even if it means the born baby will require us to care for it its entire life. If she decides it isn’t and we force her to act otherwise, we are sowing a wind which we will reap as a whirlwind. Read Robert Ressler’s “Whoever Fights Monsters.”
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 4:58 pm
PS to my post below, Elena: The best way to deal in the short-term with so-called “pro-lifers” is to do what I did and videotape demonstrators. Ask them what they do to care for human life as: Big Brothers or Sisters, adoptive parents, foster parents, public school classroom volunteers, Guardians ad Litem in family court (where kids are involved), donors of 8% of their gross income and 600 hours a year of their unpaid time. And broadcast the results. Don’t let them off the hook by allowing them to claim Sunday school, child care for their social class, their neighbors or their relatives. Make them show that they are caring for children they never wanted to see born. And you can also ask them when they’re going to have their next child.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 9:44 am
I think Elena is coming at this from a purely scientific/biological point of view as she tries to define “baby.” I think John is a little less scientific in that he thinks the minute this “life” is conceived, it’s a “baby.” Correct me if I’m wrong, John.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 10:10 am
Yup, that’s it.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 10:32 am
Isn’t that the whole point, to converse we need to use the same words with same definitions, otherwise it is a tower of Babel.
How do people discuss abortion if they cannot agree what a word means? First a word must represent something, then the discussion cannot be made on whether it is right or wrong based on logical merit.
Does anyone disagree?
As a default, standard, well entrenched,definitions seem to apply, no?
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 10:33 am
John, If you want to discuss, don’t you think you should have some facts down about abortion and biology before you make large broad statements about abortion?
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 10:45 am
A lot of intelligent comments here about the way to discuss.
I would suggest
“talk, talk, talk, What is the question?”
Dodging questions,
Calling people dopes and stupid,
Telling me to
“shut up”
Using violent words, behaving violently toward others, will not endear you to anyone who wants to hear real other perspectives.
How does one discuss an important topic without nomenclature and facts in your view?
So start over, forget the above.
—–
Just trying to understand your perspective, not games of wit, insult, etc. Trying to accomplish good work here.
The cell, that does not even have a full set of attached diploid DNA, that all humans have, that you call a baby.
I do not think I could find another person on the planet, although they must be out there that would agree with you.
Do you believe if that cell was caused to die, would you call that an abortion, murder, both, what (?) etc. what do you call that?
So we can work of the same definitions.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 11:45 am
Shelly, here are the facts: a single sperm cell and a single egg cell united into a single cell, and there you were. In a few hours you had grown to more than a dozen cells and today to millions.
Elena, you do have a question buried in that diatribe, but I don’t understand it. Could you rephrase it, and omit the fluff.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 2:26 pm
So, basically, John believes that life begins at conception, right? If so, he is joined by millions of others in thinking the same.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 2:29 pm
And, Elena, I’m not sure if it is possible for all of us to agree on definitions of all of these words. Your quest may be Quixotic. After all, do all pro-choicers have one definition for “late term abortion”? I think not…
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 4:53 pm
It would be a lot simpler if we argued the nature and existence of aborticentrism rather than continued to try to win over the so-called “pro-lifers” by haggling over the state of the egg….
LikeLike