NationStates Jolt Archive

It's only funny on Laugh-in. And that's been off-the-air in first-run for over 30 years.

so thechnicly thats an original idea. seeing as how i am not old enough to know about it and i have not seen it. meaning its funny for me and not an old fart like you.

so thechnicly thats an original idea.
No. It's been passed down in pop-culture.

No. It's been passed down in pop-culture.

i laugh at pop culture. it is nothing but idiots on tv.

I'm part of the Progressive party.

It's against abortion, but for killing babies.

i laugh at pop culture. it is nothing but idiots on tv.
Anyone else see some bit of irony?

A fetus is potential life until it makes the jump to outside the womb. You want an absolute? That's mine. And until it makes the jump, the woman carrying the little parasite has the right to do with it what she will, even if I think her decision is morally repugnant. People make decisions that I find morally repugnant every day--why should this one be any different?

So what you are saying, is that if the baby is ready to leave the womb, a woman can have an abortion? As long as the baby about to crawl outside, but is not yet outside the womb, (hypothetically) if a mother decided she didn't want it right then, we could kill it? That's why I agree with the limit of 24 weeks after conception. It makes sense.

Option C, thank you very much.

Is it a person? Perhaps, but I cannot tell you for certain. It certainly has the genetics of a human being, and in later stages, where it can survive outside of the womb, even with expensive medical support and such, it is a person, but when it's a blastocyst, or a very tiny embryo, I've got my doubts as to whether it should be considered a person or not.

Don't get me wrong, it's got far more chance of being a person than the colony of E. Coli bacteria we grew (and nearly weaponized, but that's a story for another time) in my high school biology class. But I don't know if it's appropriate to consider it a person or not, at the extremely early phases.

and i didn't even say sex is bad, people just should not have a 'get out of jail free' card.
Oh dear. For someone who so loves talking about the 'consequences' of sex, you don't... really know what a consequence is, do you?

con·se·quence
n.

1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The relation of a result to its cause.
3. A logical conclusion or inference.

If I have sex - I may get pregnent. Thus pregnency is a consequence of sex.
If I get pregnent - I may have an abortion. Thus abortion IS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEX.

So shut up about women 'avoiding the conseqeunces' just because the choose a consequence you don't approve of. This idiocy is like people complaining that abortion is 'unnatural', even though many animals in nature abort their young (yes, that's right - through the consumption of poisonous plants). Just because something isn't the way you like it, doesn't make it WRONG.

but i go to prison. i suffer. those who get abortions do not suffer. not one bit. and yes those fucked better stay fucked because those dead stay dead and those without arms continue to not have fully mobile arms. if you want me to seem extream ill seem extream:

Yes, because being CONSTANTLY villified by people like you - talked down to, insulted, demeaned and demonised - that is not suffering. Having people like you - privileged enough to NEVER have to have this worry, this problem - treat them like second class citizens because they had to make a choice - that is not suffering. Having to fear people like you - young and completely ill-disposed to have opinions on this matter - being put in a position to decide what they can do with their OWN BODIES - that is not suffering.

Having to go to a clinic which may well either be surrounded by frenzied protesters who spit on ANY woman who comes near the place (at least, that's what happened to me when I was going in to collect information for a school project), or else risk going to a lesser known clinic, with (most likely) worse facilities, worse hygein, and poorer quality of staff, to undergo MINOR SURGERY. That's not suffering.

Post-abortion (not sure if it's still 'post-partum... Bottle?) depression and psychosis. Nope. No suffering there. Nevermind that it might drive some to suicide or murder, or just endless years drowning in hormonal misery.

That's not suffering, is it? Maybe you should wait until you've finished your teens and done some research before deciding who and what is suffering, eh mate?

we should just kill anyone woh has pre marital sex. its the consequence of their actions. they don't have any rights after sex.

Hey yeah! And we can adopt that practice of stoning women to death if they get raped in the city, because they obviously enjoyed it or they would have screamed to attract help! Kitty Genovese (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/3.html)? Who's that mate?

Although, maybe I should be generous and ASSUME you meant we should kill the men as well. And maybe I should assume that you'd base your judgement on more than just 'she's pregnant and not married, kill her' (because of course, men don't get pregnent, and we have to be fair). Maybe you could just kill anyone who was accused by anyone of having sex with anyone. That way it would be fair between the genders! What a brilliant plan, sir!

is this what you want me to sound like: big bad christian wants people to live. even though others might suffer because of it. boo hoo.

I would rather you sound like Big Bad Christian who a) recognises that forcing moral opinions onto other people will only make them incredibly hostile to your religion and it's view, so that by taking the stance you do in this topic, you are yourself FORCING others away from salvation, and directly causing them to be streered towards eternal damnation (though - if you so badly want them all killed anyway, maybe you won't mind that so much) and b) understands science, and so recognises that there is a logical compromise to be made - from the point the child has a functioning brain, it is human, and has the right to not be killed. Before that point, it is not human (and also, scientifically, NOT alive).

Of course, regarding b), year 12 biology plus a bit of self-pursued research really helps. I can't flaw you for not being my age. But I CAN flaw you for ignoring these points when they are raised directly to you. Please do study embryology before your next abortion debate - if not because you want to see if I'm right, than at least so you can counter the biological points instead of dismissing them (and if you want to post references in future, remember to be picky about sources. These abortion debates often turn into "HA! Your souce is biased!" "Oh yeah? Well YOUR source has a link on it to a biased source! NYER!")

i want an abortian but Mr. jesus lover said i can't. it's not my fault i went and had sex. it's not my fault i got pregnant. because i didn't expect it to happen. i said to myself...

self, sex is fun and of course i won't get pregnant because i don't want to.

but myself didn't listen. and now im pregnant.

Go cry to someone else. you made your choice you didn't think out all the consequences and now your angry.

For reference, my personal thought process goes something more like this:

Self, I am in a long term relationshipo which, god willing, may become marriage. I want to make sure my partner and I are compatible (to avoid future sinful divorce) in every way, including sexually. Also, I am aware of the evidence that sex both cements bonds and promotes relationships to stay together due to hormonal effects. I know that many people are against pre-marital sex, but that is because they assign it with certain values that I don't - I don't believe that any God who would cast me into hell for this could ever be worth worshipping.

Because I understand the risks of sex, I will make sure we use condoms for the first few times - until I can a) get on birth control and b) we can both be checked for STDs.

If the birth control fails, I will need to weigh up various factors - for example, because birth control thickens the lining of the womb, the risk of miscarriage is greatly hightened. Also, birth control is retarding to any fertilised egg (due to hormonal effects on the body, and also the lowered nutrients from the thickened womb). Thus, depending on when I discover that the birth control has failed, I will have to consider that bearing the child would cause more suffering than not. Along this line, I also have to consider a) how able I would be to care for a disable child (not very) and b) what the odds would be of it being adoptable (nil).

I also need to consider the feelings of my partner - being tied to me legally and financially due to a child would possibly destroy our relationship. I want to stay with him, marry and have a large family and do the fairytale living happily ever after- is it worth giving that up for a child I could not keep? Even worth throwing away the children I want, who I could properly love and care for? Why?

Adoption is a very touchy issue, because my boyfriend was actually adopted. The whole topic is a quagmire of confusion and depression and I'm not sure I could ever suggest it as an option - nor am I confident that he could ever accept it as one. I know first hand that HE (not necessarily everyone, but certainly he) was crushed to find out he was abandoned, and still struggles with the abandonment issues. He worries that he killed his mother during childbirth, or that his father killed his mother upon finding out about him.

And he was put up for adoption in a bad area of the world, where almost no records are kept. The odds of him ever finding his real parents are, realistically, nil. To ask him to do that to his own child would be cruel beyond belief.

Self - abortions are unpleasant, but the risk of needing one is infintesimal. And furthmore, the actual operation, while unpleasant and worth avoiding, is not much more serious than having tonsils or an appendix removed. I'd be more likely to die or suffer physical damage from giving birth (note to readers: read up on the injuries sustainable from giving birth. It'll give you a new reason to respect your mothers, I promise you. My mother needed 30+ stiches, both inside and outside. I came out ear first, and was a forcept assisted birth. My mother was in labour for twelve hours).

Now self - the philosophical issue: due to what I know about embryology (gleaned from my semester in early childhood education, where we spent more time on fetuses than on actual toddlers for some reason...), I know that I could only be confortable aborting before the child could feel anything. Luckily for me, elective abortions are ONLY LEGAL during this period. So, for me, this issue is simple. As long as I can spot that I am pregnant before 14 weeks, I can get an abortion without literally hurting anything.

...

Notice how my thought process is just... a tad? Longer than yours was. That's because, unlike you, I am not trying to imagine what someone would think. I actually HAVE to think about this. I am the one who has to weigh things up, and consider the consequences. I am the one who has to go in for the painful surgery. I am the one who would have to try to hold my relationship together.

Not you.

Please, a little respect for women wouldn't go astray. We know the risks, and we know the consequences. And we know, in a way you will never, ever understand, what it means to actually have to CONSIDER them. Not just pontificate from a removed perspective.

My thought is that somewhere in your life a man hurt you emotionaly. and now you want to get back at them. thats why you asumed im a man.

Unfortunately, like I said before, we could all tell you were a man because you approach this topic from the removed. You clearly don't understand how women HAVE to think about sex and abortion. You don't understand that we DO know the consequences. At every turn, you have assigned women a 2-dimensional existence. We have sex, and then we have abortions. We must be stopped.

No woman could ever talk about women the way you have.

And... just a little food for thought. What if someone HAD hurt Bottle emotionally in the past. Do you really feel the bigger person now that you have belittled that? Does it make you feel big to know that, not only has she (supposedly) been hurt in the past by a man, but that now you can rub a little salt into the wound to 'win' a debate?

What if she was hurt physically? Would you be as excited to demean her had she said "I support abortion because I have been violently raped and then forced to carry the child"? If you caught a hint of sexual abuse in her words, would you so gleefully pounce on it and announce that, because she had been hurt before, her opinion was obviously irrational and biased?

I'd hope no one would like to think of themselves like this. If you're really any sort of 'man', you should apologise to Bottle. Taking pleasure in the idea of other people suffering, because it means you can ignore their opinions in a debate, is below anyone who could enter these debates.

And i will now say that yes i am a man. and yes i am a christian. and i don't hate woman. i hate people like you who want rights but only the positive. you want to work but if you get paid slightly less then men in the same postion you whine about it. even though there in a diferent company half way across the US.

As others have mentioned - there is no such thing as a negative right, only a positive. Removing the rights of a group, or wishing to see them have less rights than yourself, is akin to hating them. They are effected the EXACT same way, whether you 'hate' them or not.

And I truly hope you do not consider it a 'right' to work. The right that women wanted was to be independant, and to be able to earn a wage. If we are not earning the same wages, we have not got equality. And for reference, the majority of statistics about wage equality are NOT taken from different companies or different positions.

You're assuming that, again, because you want it to be true. It isn't.

I know you are only 15, but please - try an exercise in empathy. Imagine that it was men who earned less. Or, to make it more applicable to you, imagine you went to school and got lower grades.

Are you honestly saying you would not be pissed to see girls getting A+s when the same standard from you got a B+? Are you honestly saying you would not be ABSOLUTELY ENRAGED to see girls swanning off to the best universities because they got better grades for equal work? Can't you imagine that it must make one feel utterly hopeless to know that their best will NEVER be as good as the best of someone of another gender - not because of personal limitations, but of social ones?

you just don't get it. this is what im refuring to. you claim that your life will be ruined if you have a child. have you ever had a child?

Have you ever had someone crash into your car, injuring you and destroying your only means of transport? Have you ever had a child with a drug or gambling addiction bleed your family dry before disappearing? Have you ever had someone come into your house and rape you before stealing and leaving?

Do you need to, to know that these things would, and could only, effect your life in a negative way?

And if the argument is that 'children are wonderful', please remember that not everyone thinks so, and that the debate doesn't hinge on just children.

Maybe what she means is that GIVING BIRTH would ruin her life. Are you away of the childbirth death rates? Are you away of the lifelong effects birth can have on your body (complete loss of bladder control, permenant back damage, amongst many others). Are you aware that some women literally cannot give birth without bringing themselves to the brink of death? What about the issues like epidurals (painkillers injected directly into the spine) causing heart attacks? What if she is anemic? The blood loss alone would kill her.

Maybe you should consider all of this?

....

I know this is pretty tl;dr, so feel free not to reply to all of it. But please, at least READ it. It will help you in future debates, at the very least.

Very well thought out... almost intimidating.

If the baby is a threat to the mother's life or would have dire conquences on her, abortion should be allowed, preferably before the heart and brain are working.

If you want to be critical....a baby is not born unless is passes through the vagina and out of the body. So you can say that no human has a soul unless that painful and beautiful moment of mother and child takes place to bring it into the world.

Eraclea']If you want to be critical....a baby is not born unless is passes through the vagina and out of the body. So you can say that no human has a soul unless that painful and beautiful moment of mother and child takes place to bring it into the world.

To be critical...c sections?

To be critical...c sections?

To be critical.... ow.

Ok, so that's not critical. But I was raising the topic with my mother (I was saying I was considering getting planned c-sections rather than face the physical/painful realities of birth) and my mother pointed out that they basically have to hack through a bunch of layers of skin and fat and muscle, followed by weeks of you recovering and not being able to walk.

Fun stuff!

To be critical...c sections?

Yes. Caesarian Sections (C-section) is ripping the baby from the womb without birthing.

Eraclea']Yes. Caesarian Sections (C-section) is ripping the baby from the womb without birthing.

You said someone who is not born until the baby passes through the vagina. C section deliveries do not do so. Are those children not born? What happens when they're a year old, 10, 20, 30, 50, 70, are they still "not born yet"?

can I call you macduff?

You said someone who is not born until the baby passes through the vagina. C section deliveries do not do so. Are those children not born? What happens when they're a year old, 10, 20, 30, 50, 70, are they still "not born yet"?

can I call you macduff?

Good call. MacBeth was one of the best usages of what it is. Though in religious and by defination it was not born.

Birth
#

1. The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.
2. The act or process of bearing young; parturition: the mare's second birth.
3. The circumstances or conditions relating to this event, as its time or location: an incident that took place before my birth; a Bostonian by birth.


Bearing young.... not operation to remove like a tumor.

1. The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.


I think a C section would be a perfect example of that.

Kinda funny how much you can anger people by talking about a 2 inch long blob of pre-eminent organic matter.

I find it interesting that most of the people who make policy decisions on abortion are old, white men. Seems a little wrong, doesn't it?


Yeas old white men are always evil.

Probably that is why abortion is legal.

The Man is trying to fuck over non white women again.

So what you are saying, is that if the baby is ready to leave the womb, a woman can have an abortion? As long as the baby about to crawl outside, but is not yet outside the womb, (hypothetically) if a mother decided she didn't want it right then, we could kill it? That's why I agree with the limit of 24 weeks after conception. It makes sense.That's pretty much what I'm saying, because to me, the important thing is that the woman carrying the fetus have full self-determination over her body. The idea that a woman would abort a fetus for non-medical-emergency reasons the day before she would have gone into labor is monstrous to me, and were I able to give birth, I would never do it myself, but I'm not her, and I'm not willing to impose my personal feelings on her, not when there are a myriad of things that can and do go wrong in childbirth every single day.

Look, I know my view on this is extreme, and I don't expect anyone else to feel the same way, but that's where I am. Until that fetus makes the jump to the outside world, it is only potentially a life, and until it makes that jump, it's got to be up to the woman carrying it to make her choice about what she does with her body.

I think a C section would be a perfect example of that.

It never emerged. It was ripped out and then seperated.

Eraclea']It never emerged. It was ripped out and then seperated.

emerge
- issue: come out of

A baby delivered by C section did emerge from the mother. More specifically from a hole in her abdomen. But it certainly emerged from her.

Eraclea']It never emerged. It was ripped out and then seperated.
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but had to jump in here for a quick detail. In a C-section, the baby is not "ripped out." It is surgically extracted from the uterus. That is not "ripping" -- we hope. It is a scary, gory -- okay, rather nightmarish -- procedure, but it is precise and carefully controled; it is not "ripping." "Ripping" is what lions, wolves, etc, do. Not surgeons. Again, we hope.

Also, if it comes out of the woman's body then it emerges from the woman's body. So the baby born by C-section emerges from the uterus via the abdominal wall, not the vagina, but it emerges nonetheless.

And finally, about the "then separated" part, both C-section and vaginal births involve emergence and then separation, when the umbilical cord is cut. So you can say "and then separated" about all births.

I just like to keep things as clear as possible. Sorry, I'll go back to getting caught up now.

Yet another abortion thread. Fun, huh? In light of the other two I decided that yes, the whole abortion debate revolves around the question of whether a fetus is a human being or not.

So, without that discussion, I will add more questions. You have 3 ideals to choose from:

A) The fetus is not a living thing.
B) The fetus is a person.
C) The fetus has the potential to be a human being.

DO NOT DISCUSS THE IDEALS! You can go do that in the other thread. Choose the ideal that you agree with the most, and figure out what would happen if you or someone you knew was pregnant, and you/she was a teenager. You can include more details such as rape, social issues, and psychological consequences.

My conclusion: C. I would do it not only for social consequences, but for my future as well, regardless of whether I was raped or not. I would feel guilty, but I would give myself a chance and probably help the baby out in the sense that it wouldn't have a rough life in a troubled environment (not that I'm in one now, but what if I get pregnant?) If I was raped I wouldn't want the kid knowing about its father's mistakes, and dwelling on them.

You?
I can't choose any of these "ideals" because there is too big a leap between "not a living thing" and "person/potential person." There are plenty of living things that are not persons. Why leave out that form of existence?

My conclusion: Without reference to any of the offered "ideals" but allowing for all of them, including ones you left out, what the fetus is or isn't is irrelevant to the question of whether a woman -- teen or older -- should carry a pregnancy or not. Her body = her choice.

The fetus is a life that is human (check out its DNA), therefore any decision as to its well being and that of the mother must be weighed as such.

The fetus is a life that is human (check out its DNA), therefore any decision as to its well being and that of the mother must be weighed as such.
By whom?

By whom?

Why him of course, since he seems to believe he is better equipped to make other people's choices for them

By whom?

The law.

Why him of course, since he seems to believe he is better equipped to make other people's choices for them

Like not allowing murder. No you may not choose to murder.

may God bless America. Time for me to go.

may God bless America. Time for me to go.

Or smite it. Bout the same effect. Either's cool.

On this whole topic: a fetus is perhaps something different from "human life". You can't classify anything that can't reproduce by zoological species. Is it a part of the state, and therefore under the social contract? No. It's not a rational being, and it can't vote. Does it have moral value? I don't think moral value and human life really are as connected as people claim. In the end, sometimes you have to take a "life", whatever that means, to preserve a life, or to preserve quality of life. A life of neglect vs. death, I'd chose death. So would most rational beings.

Unfortunately, like I said before, we could all tell you were a man because you approach this topic from the removed.

Not to mention his casual attitude toward childbirth. It's much easier to generously propose that pregnancies and childbirth be endured for the good of society if you aren't one of the people who will ever have to endure them.


You clearly don't understand how women HAVE to think about sex and abortion. You don't understand that we DO know the consequences. At every turn, you have assigned women a 2-dimensional existence. We have sex, and then we have abortions. We must be stopped.

This is because of the theory that women aren't actual moral agents. If we allow women to make choices, they will make stupid, bad, sinful choices. Unlike men, who don't make bad choices, and governments, which never ever ever make bad choices.


No woman could ever talk about women the way you have.

Sadly, that's not quite true. There are women who have been so abused and conditioned that they will argue their own worthlessness to you. They will explain to you how they are helpless, weak creatures who need males to think for them. They will insist that all women are as weak and helpless as they are. They will cry about unborn babies and their tiny, tiny fingers, while sparing little thought for the women who just happen to be home to the uteruses in which the unborn babies are residing.

It's frightening to witness a female anti-feminist in action, but it happens.


And... just a little food for thought. What if someone HAD hurt Bottle emotionally in the past. Do you really feel the bigger person now that you have belittled that? Does it make you feel big to know that, not only has she (supposedly) been hurt in the past by a man, but that now you can rub a little salt into the wound to 'win' a debate?

What if she was hurt physically? Would you be as excited to demean her had she said "I support abortion because I have been violently raped and then forced to carry the child"? If you caught a hint of sexual abuse in her words, would you so gleefully pounce on it and announce that, because she had been hurt before, her opinion was obviously irrational and biased?

The funny thing is, I think my views are due in large part to the fact that the men in my life are great people.

I've grown up surrounded by intelligent, compassionate men who recognize that I am as full and autonomous a person as they are. I've been surrounded by men who know me and love me as an individual, not as an incubator with legs. I have been valued as a human, for my human self, not for my ability to pump out babies.

The men in my life view sex as a mutual experience that can be shared. It is not something that dirties women or lowers their value. I am not worthless or deserving of punishment simply because I enjoy having sex. I am not a bad person for believing that I have the right to make decisions about my body, including my sexual organs.

The men in my life do not want me to come to harm, just as I don't want them to come to harm. If I were to make a bad choice or a mistake, they would want to help me instead of hurting me further. If something bad were to happen to me, they would want to help me make the best possible choice for myself. They will offer me advice and support, and will try to warn me if they think I'm screwing something up, but they will always honor my wishes and my choices because they believe that I am a smart, capable person who can take care of herself.

The respect and love I get from the men in my life has been one of the most important factors in forming my pro-choice beliefs. They've helped me to trust myself and my judgment.


I'd hope no one would like to think of themselves like this. If you're really any sort of 'man', you should apologise to Bottle. Taking pleasure in the idea of other people suffering, because it means you can ignore their opinions in a debate, is below anyone who could enter these debates.

I appreciate you sticking up for me. I don't really need his apology, since watching him continue to embarass himself is more than enough for me, but I agree that it would probably be better if he learned to behave as a grown-up.

The fetus is a life that is human (check out its DNA), therefore any decision as to its well being and that of the mother must be weighed as such.

Yeah! Human rights for everything with human DNA! Cancers are people too! Free the feces! (yes - human DNA. Ask your friendly local scientist if you don't believe me)! Equal rights for organs!

The fetus isn't even scientifically life, dude. Just because you don't understand the science of it, doesn't mean that repeating it over and over again will make it true.

By the point the fetus HAS become human life, abortions are no longer elective. So stop bitching already - you already have what you want! Everyone should be happy! God!

Yeah! Human rights for everything with human DNA! Cancers are people too!

Protect the rights of carcinoma-Americans!


Free the feces! (yes - human DNA. Ask your friendly local scientist if you don't believe me)!

(It's true!)


Equal rights for organs!

A pancreas is a person too!

Hell, if we're going to grant personhood to everything that is alive and has human DNA, then why don't Mommy and Daddy take the placenta home with them in a second bassinet?

The funny thing is, I think my views are due in large part to the fact that the men in my life are great people.
<snipped, not for relevence, but just for length>

I hadn't pegged you as the type to react the way he's thinking 'women' do to abuse anyway - I just wanted to draw his attention to all the Schadenfreude he was spouting in the hopes that, faced with it, he'd be... encouraged to do a little growing-as-a-person. After all, no one wants to think that they're a cold hearted, mean spirited arse, and cognitive dissonance is a right bitch...

I appreciate you sticking up for me. I don't really need his apology, since watching him continue to embarass himself is more than enough for me, but I agree that it would probably be better if he learned to behave as a grown-up.

Again, I had a good hunch it wouldn't bother you, since you're... well you (compliment, I promise!). But it'd do him good to recognise that he has something to apologise for.

....

My problem is I've come to view these debates like gardens. Ones where the weeds and the plants look reeeeeally similar until the plants finally flower. You have to yank the weeds good and proper, and with the plants you need to prune them to within an inch of their lives.

I hadn't pegged you as the type to react the way he's thinking 'women' do to abuse anyway - I just wanted to draw his attention to all the Schadenfreude he was spouting in the hopes that, faced with it, he'd be... encouraged to do a little growing-as-a-person. After all, no one wants to think that they're a cold hearted, mean spirited arse, and cognitive dissonance is a right bitch...

Indeed. It's so funny to hear somebody claim that people who have been abused somehow lose their right to have an opinion, or to have that opinion respected.

What, so now rape victims aren't allowed to have an opinion about abortion? Women who have been beaten by their husbands lose the right to be heard when it comes to their own rights? That goes way, way beyond just blaming the victims. That's out-right stating that women who get themselves beaten up or raped should be IGNORED on the subject of women's rights to their own bodies. What. The. Fuck.


Again, I had a good hunch it wouldn't bother you, since you're... well you (compliment, I promise!). But it'd do him good to recognise that he has something to apologise for.

We can only hope.


My problem is I've come to view these debates like gardens. Ones where the weeds and the plants look reeeeeally similar until the plants finally flower. You have to yank the weeds good and proper, and with the plants you need to prune them to within an inch of their lives.
Yeah, and I tend to just dump a bunch of pesticide on the whole mess and stomp off in a funk. I need to work on that.

The fetus is a life that is human (check out its DNA), therefore any decision as to its well being and that of the mother must be weighed as such.
Rubbish. We've been through this before, and your ass has been kicked from here to Pluto and back.

may God bless America. Time for me to go.
It's always time for you to go when you make your usual unsupported assertions that get you in trouble.

Indeed. It's so funny to hear somebody claim that people who have been abused somehow lose their right to have an opinion, or to have that opinion respected.

What, so now rape victims aren't allowed to have an opinion about abortion? Women who have been beaten by their husbands lose the right to be heard when it comes to their own rights? That goes way, way beyond just blaming the victims. That's out-right stating that women who get themselves beaten up or raped should be IGNORED on the subject of women's rights to their own bodies. What. The. Fuck.

Yeah... I mean, I've seen the "Awww, poor wittle abused girlie, trying to rebel by fighting The Man on abortion" before, but never phrased so perfectly to highlight the sub-layers of complete and utter Whiskey Tango Foxtrottery.

We can only hope.
Well, and talk at great length about how good people recognise their flaws, and are not thought less of for apologising for their mistakes.

COUGH (sorry, this damn cold...)

Yeah, and I tend to just dump a bunch of pesticide on the whole mess and stomp off in a funk. I need to work on that.

Well, you only need to work on it if the result doesn't satisfy you. I'd suggest fire as a viable alternative though. Fire is pretty.