Pages

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Anti-Choice Ideology in the Confectionery Aisle

Perhaps I'm just picking a fight over nothing, but I couldn't help notice the name of one particular product in the supermarket today. It was a particular brand of Jelly Babies.

So you may be wondering what the brand name was, and you may be shocked to find out they were called "Pro-life Jelly Babies". There was one other product there from this brand, which were also jelly confectionery, "Pro-life Jelly Snakes", but I suspect they may have been making the snakes just to cover their asses. Please keep your religious ideology out of my fricken candy!

71 comments:

  1. It doesn't even make any fucking sense. Would the anti-choice people eat babies? Why make candy simulating the eating of babies? Also, a baby isn't a foetus and a foetus isn't a baby. Who knows, maybe they'll be producing candy packets with pictures of aborted foetuses on the front and call the candy "JELLY ABORTED BABIES" or something. Stupid shit-for-brains religious nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Haha, this is one of the times I literally laugh out loud at the absurdity of Christian marketing. And I think they were more making the "Pro-life Jelly Snakes" to cover God's ass.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't back you up on this one, as I'm on the pro-life side of the fence (and living proof you DON'T need religion to take that side of the debate)...

    However, I still have to fucking ROFL at the "pro-life snakes" cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Make a jumbo bag and call them 'Pro-life jelly babies, overpopulation size!'. May contain traces of food shortages and gross pollution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is literally ZERO neurological activity before 24 weeks of pregnancy, and in most cases it's only detectable much later. Not Guilty would be able to back me up on this, but something like 97% of abortions happen before the 12th week of pregnancy. Not to mention rape victims, cases where the foetus is quite deformed and will never live a normal life, and cases where the life of the mother is at risk if she carries the foetus to full-term. I think the case for pro-choice is rather solid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Doesn't change that there IS a living organism, with a unique and full set of human DNA, that will indeed develop such activity. Yes, in the case of deformities, or risk to the mother's life, there's an argument. Rape victims... well, they should've thought about that before they stopped to ask me for directions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually a foetus is not living at all until much later in development. Lets look at a basic definition of life.
    Life:Biology
    1. Homeostasis (regulation of internal environment), foetuses do not perform this function.
    2. Organization (made up of 1 or more cells), Yes foetuses are.
    3. Metabolism, foetuses only meet half the requirements for this.
    4. Growth, Yes foetuses grow.
    5. Adaptation, hazy.. But I would say that a foetus doesn't really meet this requirement.
    6. Response to stimuli, Nope, not before 24 weeks, and often much later.
    7. Reproduction, Hazy... a foetus can not reproduce, but then again, children can't either till the reach puberty.

    So it would be rather dishonest to classify a foetus as 'living' on the same level as a developed human. By definition, 'life' starts at birth. Yes, it has a full set of human DNA, so what? It hasn't grown to the point where it is a complete being yet. A fertilised egg has a full set of human DNA too, does that mean that taking a morning-after pill is killing a human life too? so surely a full set of DNA isn't the definitive factor in this.
    As I said before, there is no neurological activity at all before 24 weeks, that means it doesn't have a functioning brain or nervous system. Perhaps it is that it bears a resemblance to the human form, because I can not think of anything else that could possibly used as an argument against abortion (especially before 24 weeks).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hm. You say life starts at birth? How can birth magically change whether or not something is alive?

    Prematurely born babies can often live a full life, depending on *how* prematurely. Are you suggesting that, up to the second before they were born, they're not alive? Does something magically happen upon birth that makes them alive, and they can't be before that? I may simply have different thoughts here than you, but without some religious side to it - which I think we both know would be bullshit - I can't see any way that you could argue the birth is the point at which things change. I can see arguments for earlier points in the development being the changing point, but not birth.

    (Sorry. I'm almost half asleep here, so I probably didn't make my points that clear. Let me know if you didn't get what I mean.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Once a baby is born, it has its own metabolism, regulates its own internal environment, starts breathing, and is a distinct individual. A premature birth is still a birth, but as you said, it depends on how premature. Babies born extremely prematurely can sometimes survive, but only if they are hooked up to a life support system until they finish developing. The problem with assigning an arbitrary point at some mid-way point in the development is two-fold.
    1) All parts of development are gradual and form by adding cell by cell onto the structures.
    2) If you designate a specific point in the pregnancy as *this is where life begins and it is now a baby and an individual human being*, is that you would be unable to have an abortion even if it were completely necessary to save the mothers life, as it would legally be infanticide then.

    ReplyDelete
  10. By 1, you could argue that even at birth, they're not yet a living being as they still continue to develop in that way.

    On the other side, by 2, you're basically basing your view on what's convenient, not what's correct. (Besides, from what I can tell, at any point *you* would define it at, they have at least some chance of survival if premature birth is induced as opposed to aborting it, making that point pretty much irrelevant.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. By the one thing, one thing I simply have to find fucking amusing - they're promoting the saving of human life, using a product made from gelatine which comes from killed animals. Now THAT'S fucking genius... not.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Namida since you seem willing to rape women who ask you for directions, I suggest you turn yourself into the police. You are a danger to all women.

    Nobody would expect you to attach yourself to another human being to keep them alive for 9 months, so why should a woman be required to do it for a fetus?

    What "magically" happens upon birth the the fetus becomes an independent being, no longer dependent on the woman. That is what makes it a life. With technology today we can clone, a human from a single cell so if you think abortion is murder, then scratching your nose is genocide - you are destroying millions of cells that could be new life.

    I really could go on, but your comment about rape tells me you are unstable.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You were missing the point Namida... KJ was attempting to get across that specifying an arbitrary point for when it is 'alive' is pointless, since from day to day it is constantly changing. This is the same as in evolution... There is no point when one species stopped being one and started being another... its a gradual change over time.

    So the important part is that picking an arbitrary point during a pregnancy where you say "This child is now an individual", is just plain silly.

    The only point that would make any sense to me (from this aspect) is the absolute earliest point that a fetus can survive if it was to be born right then. Up till that point in time, it is a symbiote - requiring its parent to survive at all. Any fetus from the first half of a pregnancy will not survive outside the womb, because it has not developed into a fully functional organism. Of course it is 'alive', its a living creature... but... it is nowhere nearly the same as a human child that has been born.

    Aborting a partially developed fetus is not as cruel as pro-lifer's would have you believe. If the fetus isn't aware, and can't feel pain... then what is the big deal? The problem is people have some sort of sacred concept surrounding a fertilised offspring of two humans. There is a lot of us on this planet already...

    Ultimately, I think forcing a mother to support a child they didn't want in the first place is not the ideal course of action. For all intents and purposes, that child is a part of the mothers body until she gives birth, so I'm more than happy for a mother to have the right to do with it as she pleases. If both parents are happy with the decision, it shouldn't be anyone else's concern.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Namida: "Hm. You say life starts at birth? How can birth magically change whether or not something is alive?"

    Hmm. You say life starts at conception? How can conception magically change whether or not something is alive?

    The egg was alive before it joined with the sperm. The sperm was alive before it joined with the egg. What "magical" thing happened at conception?

    Or did it happen at implantation? What "magical" thing happened at implantation?

    Life is a continuum; it's a cycle. It began way back when, with the first amoeba. It doesn't "begin" or "end."

    For those of us who are religious and believe in a deity and believe in a soul or "essence" that gives humans the characteristics they do not share with animals (personality, self-awareness, whatever...), then I could see that you'd think the soul "arrives" and "leaves" the body at a certain point, which for some people translates as "beginning" and "ending" of "life." But if you're not talking about a soul, then what are you talking about? A full set of DNA? My hair has a full set of human DNA. Do I "end" a "life" every time I get a haircut? Is my hairdresser a murderer??

    As others have pointed out, at birth, the fetus becomes a baby because it is capable of sustaining its own life. It can breathe on its own. It can eat its own food. It no longer must be tethered to the mother for survival.

    That's the "magical" thing that happens: it stops being a parasite, and becomes an independent being.

    Every fetus is different. Some are ready to come out at 38 weeks, others at 39, others at 40, others at 41 or 42 weeks. My husband wasn't ready until 43 weeks. Some are able to be born at 35 weeks. Some can be born at 26 weeks, and with lots of help, can survive, but the odds are not good.

    I'm assuming you're a cis male, since you made your oh so funny "joke" about raping and impregnating women. So, the good news for you is, YOU will never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. So you can politely back your cis male ass out of this debate, since it will never apply to you.

    Have a nice day!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ryan 'The Mentalist' LolJuly 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

    This will always be a grey area in my opinion. Neither Pro-Lifers or Pro-Choicers are 100% correct. Both have good points.

    But, the 'good points' aside...

    I think both teams true thoughts that they keep to themselves for fear of their blatant human selfishness undermining their 'good points' (and thus their entire argument) are:

    Pro-Life: "Screw you bastards, you can't have your cake and eat it too"
    Pro-Choice: "Screw you bastards, I can have my cake and eat it too if I want"

    Having your cake being sex and eating it being abortion for those who struggle to make the connection

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  16. I guess my biggest point here is that, unlike with religion which anyone with half a brain cell can tell you is bullshit - you can't just say "this is right", as whether your reasons are based on religion or not, there's valid points for both viewpoints - I simply choose to support a different viewpoint to you, and I have the reasons I said for doing so.

    So to those of you who acknowledge that it has survival potential before the point at which it's actually born - what do you think about abortions happening after this point, where were the baby to be prematurely born instead of aborted, it would survive (or at least have a chance at doing so)?

    I don't agree that the mother should be forced to look after a child they can't (or even, don't want to), by any means. But then, there's plenty of alternatives, adoption being the most obvious one.

    And, I can't believe you guys took that rape comment seriously. >_> It was very clearly a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rape is "very clearly" not something to joke about. Period. Ever.

    Learn this, for your own sake.

    @Ryan: Cis het males have "cake" all the time, and will never be pregnant. What's good for the goose is a crime for the gander?

    And thanks for completely not getting it.

    Abortion isn't about skanky girls wanting to have unprotected sex and then throwing their babies in Dumpsters because they feel like it.

    Abortion is a medical necessity. Pregnancy is the biggest health risk a person can undertake (I've gone to the doctor more times in the last seven months because of this pregnancy than in my previous 32 years of existence). Sometimes it goes very, very wrong -- even with very, very wanted pregnancies of very chaste, married, monogamous women. Even when the mother's life is not in immediate danger, pregnancy affects your body, mind, emotional state. Your life is no longer your own.

    There are ways to avoid pregnancy, but A) not everyone has access to them or information about them (thanks, abstinence-only programs!) and B) sometimes they fail. (And, again, even when you were purposefully trying to get pregnant an very much wanted to be pregnant and have and keep the baby, things can go wrong.)

    In case you're confused about what the pro-choice side fights for (which, er, you clearly are, if you think it's about "cake"):
    -nobody has a right to tell a person what to do with her body.
    -every person has a right to have clear, complete, accurate information about how her body works.
    -every person needs to have access to birth control (meaning, it must be available and affordable)

    The pro-choice side isn't about "killing babiez", it's about women deciding for themselves what CHOICE to make regarding their bodies and their pregnancies. We don't care if that's keeping the baby, giving it up for adoption, or aborting. As long as SHE is making that decision and not being coerced into it.

    @Namida: Educate yourself. It helps, really.

    "So to those of you who acknowledge that it has survival potential before the point at which it's actually born - what do you think about abortions happening after this point..."

    You mean after 24 weeks? How many elective abortions happen at that point, pray tell?

    You are aware third-trimester abortions are A) very rare (thanks to anti-choicers bombing clinics and murdering doctors), and B) ONLY performed in cases where the mother's life is in danger, since a third-trimester abortion is dangerous to the mother and is only performed when the risks of carrying the pregnancy to term are worse than the thrid-trimester abortion. Oh, they're also done in cases when the fetus is already dead, and must be removed from the mother's body so she does not contract an infection and DIE.

    It would also help you to inform yourself about adoption. Hint: it's not duct tape -- it doesn't fix everything. First of all, it's an alternative to parenting, NOT an alternative to being pregnant. There are plenty of unwanted children in the world as it is, so why you would want to add to that suffering is beyond me. And, if we pretended (just for a sec) to care about the woman in question, who would still have to undergo pregnancy, there are really no support services for mothers who give a child up for adoption. Adoption is much more traumatic for women than abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's always funny when these people come into these conversations without a shred of actual knowledge or evidence. Namida/Ryan please do reply... the ensuing trashing of your comments will no doubt be entertaining!

    Well played Criss ;)

    ReplyDelete
  19. "-nobody has a right to tell a person what to do with her body."
    Pretty much. Likewise, the mother and the doctor, in my opinion, have no right to tell the baby it can't have it's body (or life).


    "-every person has a right to have clear, complete, accurate information about how her body works."
    Agreed.

    "-every person needs to have access to birth control (meaning, it must be available and affordable)"
    Agreed again.


    I never claimed adoption does fix everything. However, you say it's more traumatic because of a lack of support for them? That doesn't make abortion the right answer, as I'm sure that were the level of support equal, the option that DOESN'T result in a death would be the one that's less traumatic. That's like saying tobacco is good and caffeine is bad, because there's more support for tobacco users, no one ever makes quit-caffiene patches.

    But there again, you guys seem to want to take the anti-life argument to an almost religious level, so what point is there in me stating my view?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anti-life? What are you smoking bro?

    The argument has never been anti-life, it has been pro-choice. People like you obviously attach much more meaning to an unborn human life than someone like me does. And by this I mean, why is a human child any more important than anything else living that is killed by each and everyone of us every day. Life is life dude, and objectively humans aren't anymore important than anything else. We object to one of us being killed though of course, but the double standards employed here annoy me somewhat.

    I would definitely agree with an unborn child not being harmed if the mother didn't want that. But the thing is, it is, and always should be the parents decision as to what happens with the pregnancy. The real thing you should be asking is... why does it concern you so much?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Namida:
    "the mother and the doctor, in my opinion, have no right to tell the baby it can't have it's body (or life)."

    It's not a baby until it comes out of the uterus. Inside the uterus, it's a fetus.

    A fetus is a parasite. It does not exist without or outside the mother. If it were removed from the mother in the first trimester (when 90% of abortions take place; the rest of elective abortions take place in the first week or so of the second trimester and generally were scheduled or the mother tried to get the abortion in the first trimester but was delayed for financial reasons or mandatory wait periods, consent laws, and other anti-choice tactics), tne fetus would not survive, period.

    The fetus is the one forcing the woman to do something with her body she does not want to do. The fetus is hijacking the woman's body. Some women are willing to go through with this because they want the hopefully resulting baby, but if a woman does not want to agree to this use of her body, why should she?

    Your argument is as ridiculous as saying a woman doesn't have the right to tell the rapist she doesn't want to have sex, because the rapist has a right to use his body how he wants (forcefully raping the woman).

    The fetus has no cognitive ability, no feeling; it doesn't even have a full body. Why are you giving it rights above and beyond those of the undeniable sentient human, the mother?

    "the option that DOESN'T result in a death would be the one that's less traumatic."

    The fetus is not "alive", so it doesn't "die." It stops developing into a potential life.

    The woman, however, IS undeniably alive.

    Women die from pregnancy every day. Women die in labor every day (the US has a ridiculously high maternal mortality rate -- and it's gone UP in the last decade. Look it up). Abortion saves lives.

    "you guys seem to want to take the anti-life argument to an almost religious level..."

    Could you please possibly attempt to explain the complete nonsense that is this statement???

    You're the one attributing "life" to an undeveloped mass of cells. The only people who do that are those who believe in souls that magically appear at conception (despite the Bible saying otherwise... but I digress).

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Anti-life? What are you smoking bro?"

    Religious-style hypocrisy at it's finest. Nothing's wrong with calling pro-life "anti-choice", yet when I call pro-choice "anti-life"...

    "The real thing you should be asking is... why does it concern you so much?"

    I have my reasons.

    "Your argument is as ridiculous as saying a woman doesn't have the right to tell the rapist she doesn't want to have sex, because the rapist has a right to use his body how he wants (forcefully raping the woman)."

    That comparison is a joke. Denying someone sex is completely different from denying them life.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Religious-style hypocrisy at it's finest. Nothing's wrong with calling pro-life "anti-choice", yet when I call pro-choice "anti-life"..."

    That's because the "pro-life" movement is not about "life," it's about controlling women. It's pro-fetus, but it's not "pro-life." If it were, it would take the woman's life into consideration.

    It IS anti-choice, because it refuses to allow the owner of the body to decide what happens to it.

    "Anti-life" is a stupid phrase. People who are anti-life commit suicide.

    (And, again, can you PLEASE explain what about accurate statements is "religious hypocrisy"??)

    "That comparison is a joke. Denying someone sex is completely different from denying them life."

    Your argument is the joke. The reasoning for both scenarios was the same. See how ridiculous it sounds in scenario #2? It's because your reasoning is ridiculous, no matter what scenario you put it into.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't see how it's about controlling. They're free to do what they want, as long as it's not harming anyone else.

    It's hypocrisy because, when I do something, such as describing your side as anti-life instead of pro-choice, it's apparently wrong and I'm "smoking something", yet when you describe my side as anti-choice instead of pro-life, it's perfectly fine. The same way that, for example, beleiving in God is completely sane and rational, yet you must be insane if you believe in Allah. Or anything like that.

    "Your argument is the joke. The reasoning for both scenarios was the same. See how ridiculous it sounds in scenario #2? It's because your reasoning is ridiculous, no matter what scenario you put it into. "

    Then your reasoning is also ridiculous, as you're denying the baby to do what it wants with its body.

    ----

    So for those of you who say it's part of the woman's body and she can do what she likes. I remembered today reading about a case where the woman decided to go back on it part way through, at which point the "doctor" had removed one arm but nothing else yet. That baby was indeed born, but obviously without the arm.

    Should it, if it's a part of the woman's body she has the right to do what she likes with, be legal for women to intentionally do stuff like that (yes, I realise in the case I mentioned, it was a result of changing her mind and not a case of the woman being a bitch, this question is about a hypothetical case where she does do something like that just to be a bitch)? If it shouldn't be legal, what makes this different from having a complete abortion (which you feel should be legal) - she's still modifying her own body, by your logic?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh gosh. Passionate posting ftw.

    For Criss L. Cox - My apologies, my comment was not intended to be a constructive argument, but purely:
    1. a piss take on The Mentalist
    2. a gross generalisation based on girls and guys I know and have known, in order to throw something a little lighter into the mix of thoughts on the post. The skanks must be accounted for! :D

    Throughout high school the topic of contraception would come up in conversation occasionally (don't ask me how) to which many people of both genders held the opinion "Fuck contraception. It takes away from the pleasure of sex and/or has shitty side effects. We'll just get an abortion."

    Now while I have no qualms with "pro-choice" (I hang off the fence in the pro-choice yard you might say), my first thoughts to those responses - "Why wouldn't you at least try earlier baby preventing methods first? How irresponsible". Granted, many high schoolers are very ignorant about the complexities of pregnancy and abortion, etc.

    But my point here is that (in this case at least) it was all about the "cake". For both male and female I might add.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm now going to take the liberty to address a few of your comments:

    "Pregnancy is the biggest health risk a person can undertake (I've gone to the doctor more times in the last seven months because of this pregnancy than in my previous 32 years of existence)"

    A) - I didn't know people were in the business of deliberately "undertaking" health risks
    B) - being pregnant is not the biggest health risk at all. While you yourself may be frequently seeing a doctor regarding your pregnancy, your own personal anecdote holds as much weight in a "pick a side" argument as my high school "survey" results. If you're looking for big health risks. Think cancer. Think obesity. Think binge drinking. Think excessive smoking.

    "Adoption is much more traumatic for women than abortion."

    *cringe* ummm... maybe ease off on those big calls. Everyone's at a slightly different spot on that sliding scale I think.

    "A fetus is a parasite."

    Ahhh...no it isn't. It is a developing human being. A mother and her fetus are of the same species.

    "The fetus is the one forcing the woman to do something with her body she does not want to do. The fetus is hijacking the woman's body."

    Forcing? Hijacking? Really? Rather strong verbs to be attributing to something that isn't yet "alive".

    "Women die from pregnancy every day. Women die in labor every day (the US has a ridiculously high maternal mortality rate -- and it's gone UP in the last decade. Look it up). Abortion saves lives."

    Lol, nice tagline *cough*.
    Ridiculously high? No.
    17 in 100,000 is not "ridiculously" high. 1 in 100 a few centuries ago? That's a pretty flipping high MMR. You seem like a girl passionate about every woman having the right to a healthy abortion, Criss, if you haven't already, maybe you should take a trip to Africa and lend a helping hand with countries that have anywhere from 1000-2000 maternal mortalities per 100,000. I'm sure that'd be a more constructive use of time. Ranting at a couple of axe-grinding bloggers - not so much.

    "You're the one attributing "life" to an undeveloped mass of cells. The only people who do that are those who believe in souls that magically appear at conception (despite the Bible saying otherwise... but I digress)."

    What does the Bible say? Let's see:

    "You made my whole being;
    you formed me in my mother's body." - Psalm 139:13

    There you have it. Is that God's "word" though? I don't know, but that's an entirely different discussion for an entirely different blog post.

    "It IS anti-choice, because it refuses to allow the owner of the body to decide what happens to it.

    "Anti-life" is a stupid phrase. People who are anti-life commit suicide."


    You could just as easily (and just as foolishly) say "Anti-choice" is a stupid phrase. People who are anti-choice don't make choices.

    Don't get too hung up on loaded political terms designed to make one group of activists look correct and the other group - retarded. You'll just run in semantic circles.

    They should really just be calling them the Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion squads.

    Thanks for reading :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. For MisterBlag - Your wanky condescension is always appreciated. Thanks.

    But on a positive note, I loved your comment:

    "But the thing is, it is, and always should be the parents decision as to what happens with the pregnancy. The real thing you should be asking is... why does it concern you so much?

    I agree entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  28. For Namida - How's Countdown? :P

    ReplyDelete
  29. Last time I was in Aucks, it was pretty much the same old place, just with a new look.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "They should really just be calling them the Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion squads."

    I actually quite like this idea. Partly because "pro-life" also implies other things - such as a dislike of the death penalty (I say, if it's applied with care, for very major offences - go for it), or the right to voluntary euthanasia/suicide (to me, while it's something I'd discourage in most cases, I think that at the end of the day it should be allowed, as it's an informed person making a decision on *THEIR OWN* life). And partly because your terms simply state exactly what the issue is, instead of cloaking it behind other terms.

    ReplyDelete
  31. My pleasure Ryan, any time... Your haughty aloofness is also a constant delight to behold.


    You made many interesting points, but the reality of the matter didn't change. No matter what you call it, Pro-choice or anti-life... anyone who interferes with parents choices regarding their pregnancy is being a colossal douche.

    The parents are the ones who will be most closely affected by their decision, so whatever it is, let them live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Whoo-hoo!!! Blogger just ate my comment. SO EXCITED!!!

    Take 2...

    @Ryan:
    Wanna know who you have to thank for this: "Throughout high school the topic of contraception would come up in conversation occasionally (don't ask me how) to which many people of both genders held the opinion "Fuck contraception. It takes away from the pleasure of sex and/or has shitty side effects. We'll just get an abortion.""?

    Thank your "pro-life" politicians, who push for abstinence-only programs that LIE to teens and tell them condoms don't even work, so why bother using them? Who fear-monger about the "horrible" effects of contraception and all the "horrible" side effects, instead of educating teens on the MANY forms of BC available (newsflash: it's not just the pill anymore!) and how if you have those "shitty side effects" on one form, you can TRY ANOTHER ONE.

    PS: you know what doesn't feel good and has "shitty side effects"? A $350 surgery. Compare that to a 25-cent condom... HMMM.

    "But my point here is that (in this case at least) it was all about the "cake". For both male and female I might add."

    Funny how only one of those has to deal with the consequences of "cake." Nice try.

    And to both you and Namida, re: pro-abortion and anti-abortion:
    (First of all, thanks for completely ignoring the main point, that the life of the mother is completely irrelevant to the "pro-life" movement... and so is the life of the born child. Fetushood is the only valuable state to them.)

    "Partly because "pro-life" also implies other things - such as a dislike of the death penalty"

    Really? Are you serious??

    You are aware that the same "pro-life" politicians are the ones who vehemently support the death penalty, right?

    Are you at all familiar with the "pro-life" movement?

    These are the people sending US troops to war. How "pro-life" is that?

    These are the people murdering doctors. How "pro-life" is that?

    "And partly because your terms simply state exactly what the issue is, instead of cloaking it behind other terms."

    Again, educate yourself. It's about reproductive rights, ALL OF THEM. It's about comprehensive sex ed, which your "pro-life" peeps abhor and block at every chance. It's about education about and access to birth control, which your "pro-life" peeps abhor and block and every chance.

    It's about educating ignorant cis het males like yourself.

    Nobody is FOR abortion. But we recognize that we live in the real world, and sometimes things happen (birth control fails, severe complications in pregnancy, stillbirths) and abortion is necessary. We want to keep that option legal.

    We also want to reduce the need for it, by educating, advocating for birth control, etc.

    We also want to make pregnancy safer, by ensuring ALL women have access to proper medical care during pregnacy, childbirth, and after.

    We also want women to be healthier, by ensuring they have proper medical care even when they're not pregnant.

    Maybe what you hear about the most is abortion, because the "pro-lifers" like to make lots of noise about it. But we're doing much more work than that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Now, to re-write the rest...

    @Ryan:
    "While you yourself may be frequently seeing a doctor regarding your pregnancy,"

    Again, it would really behoove you to educate yourself before you start spouting off on things you clearly know nothing about.

    I have gone to the doctor exactly as many times as any other pregnant woman: every 4 weeks starting at week 8, every 2 weeks starting at week 28, and every week starting at week 32. This is what is called "routine prenatal care."

    Hardly "my own personal, unique, speshul anecdote."

    Re: the emotional effects of adoption v. abortion: no "big statements." Just stating facts gathered from numerous studies done on the subject. Educate yourself, look it up.

    "Lol, nice tagline *cough*.
    Ridiculously high? No."

    It's not a tagline, it's a statement of fact. (Again, a little reading wouldn't hurt you. Try it.)

    The fact that the US has the highest mortality rate of any developed country IS ridiculous. The fact that this rate has gone UP in the last decade is beyond ridiculous -- third-world countries have found a way to reduce their maternal mortality rates, but "the leader of the free world" found a way to make it WORSE?? How can you possibly explain that?

    Nice derailing attempt there, by the way. Yes, there are much bigger problems in the world than Pro-Life Gummi Babies. No matter how bad it is for one person, there will always be someone else who has it worse.

    This is not an argument, it's a pathetic attempt to change the subject because you don't have anything valid to say.

    "What does the Bible say? Let's see:"

    Feel free to see this: http://blog.crisswrites.com/2009/02/beginning-of-life-what-it-is-not-part-1.html

    And this: http://blog.crisswrites.com/2009/02/beginning-of-life-what-it-is-not-part-2.html

    (That's the best you could come up with, really? I'm disappointed. In my experience, atheists usually know the Bible much better than Christians do... but that? That was just SAD.)

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Namida:
    "I don't see how it's about controlling."

    Um... you're telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body. You're forcing her to do something she does not want to do.

    What does "controlling" mean to you??

    "It's hypocrisy because... yet when you describe my side as anti-choice instead of pro-life, it's perfectly fine."

    I explained why we use the term anti-choice, and why "pro-life" is not an accurate description of the anti-choice movement. Perhaps you should do a little research on the "pro-life" movement and see if you still want to be aligned with them.

    "The same way that, for example, beleiving in God is completely sane and rational, yet you must be insane if you believe in Allah. Or anything like that."

    YES!!! And, like, when people draw and apple, they color it RED, but some apples are GREEN!!!!

    How is this relevant to this conversation, again?

    Just because you don't like religion doesn't mean every thing you disagree with is about religion.

    "as you're denying the baby to do what it wants with its body."

    Really? You asked my fetus what it wanted to do?

    How do you know what the fetus wants?

    In John Irvin's THE CIDER HOUSE RULES Toby McGuire's character asks the abortion doctor, "Who are you to play God and decide who lives or dies?"

    The doctor responds with, "Who are you to decide everybody lives?"

    Let's agree to neither one of us play God. Okay?

    As to your armless-body story... SAY WHAT??

    Are you trying to say that in the middle of her D&E she told the doctor to stop the abortion?? Can you provide some background for this? Any sort of citing that would validate this account? I don't even see how one arm could have been so neatly removed while the rest of the body remained intact, and how the fetus would have survived the pregnancy after dilating the cervix and breaking the amniotic sac to extract this magical arm.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dear Criss :)

    First of all... FFS I'm a pro-choice supporter!

    And secondly, I'd like to make you aware that my high school friends and I reside in New Zealand along with shreddakj and Namida. I can't speak for them but I personally have never been to the USA myself (though I would very much like to one day) so don't know how bad the abortion debate is over there but it sounds like it's a lot more intense in your country than ours.

    "Wanna know who you have to thank for this: "Throughout high school the topic of contraception would come up in conversation occasionally (don't ask me how) to which many people of both genders held the opinion "Fuck contraception. It takes away from the pleasure of sex and/or has shitty side effects. We'll just get an abortion.""?

    Thank your "pro-life" politicians, who push for abstinence-only programs that LIE to teens and tell them condoms don't even work, so why bother using them?"


    With my above comment in mind my response to you is umm, no. I actually know these people and they only have their selfish sex-driven lifestyles to thank for their choices - no political influence there whatsoever. They prefer to "have their cake and eat it too". Full. Stop. (NZ for "period"). You might like to know that I found our health class at high school to be very good at avoiding the strict religious abstinence approach and they recommended a wide variety of contraceptive methods and much information was supplied, including abortion rights, etc. And this particular high school targets a mid-low socio economic range of students.

    What did you think of your health class KJ? (same high school)

    PS: you know what doesn't feel good and has "shitty side effects"? A $350 surgery. Compare that to a 25-cent condom... HMMM.

    Uhh, the condoms were what was apparently "taking away from the pleasure". Unless you're allergic to latex, I can't think of another side effect for that method myself.

    Funny how only one of those has to deal with the consequences of "cake." Nice try.

    Nice try at what? Defending the males on earth that actually possess the responsibility to acknowledge the consequences of unprotected sex and play their paternal role to the best of their ability? I apologise deeply on behalf of all these good men for not being able to carry your fetus for you as well as help raise it. Consequences don't end at childbirth, Criss.

    thanks for completely ignoring the main point, that the life of the mother is completely irrelevant to the "pro-life" movement... and so is the life of the born child. Fetushood is the only valuable state to them.

    This is what I'm talking about when I say 'semantic circles'. Anything you say aggressively about "pro-life" can simply be flipped on itself to make "pro-choice" look just as terrible, e.g.

    "thanks for completely ignoring the main point, that the choice of the fetus is completely irrelevant to the "pro-choice" movement..."

    It's just a complete waste of time (particularly given fetuses don't make choices).

    Maybe even better titles would be
    -The Abortion Rights Group
    -Anti Abortion Group

    ...because like you say - no one is pro-abortion or FOR abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  36. But we recognize that we live in the real world, and sometimes things happen (birth control fails, severe complications in pregnancy, stillbirths) and abortion is necessary. We want to keep that option legal.

    We also want to reduce the need for it, by educating, advocating for birth control, etc.

    We also want to make pregnancy safer, by ensuring ALL women have access to proper medical care during pregnacy, childbirth, and after.

    We also want women to be healthier, by ensuring they have proper medical care even when they're not pregnant.

    Maybe what you hear about the most is abortion, because the "pro-lifers" like to make lots of noise about it. But we're doing much more work than that.


    Love it. Agree with it. But you say "we" a lot. Are "you" actually doing anything? I hope so.

    I have gone to the doctor exactly as many times as any other pregnant woman: every 4 weeks starting at week 8, every 2 weeks starting at week 28, and every week starting at week 32. This is what is called "routine prenatal care."

    Hardly "my own personal, unique, speshul anecdote."


    Again I am sorry I cannot empathize. However you were labelling this routine prenatal care the "biggest health risk someone can undertake" - a weird (not to mention false) statement. Your misleading hyperboles are unnecessary.

    Adoption vs. abortion. My comment saying "to ease off" was not at all based on stats I had read anywhere. It is based on all girls I have had this conversation with (granted not many, realistically half a dozen) - each one has vouched for adoption over abortion. Sorry if this doesn't line up with your studies. I wasn't and am not proposing the opposite, just highlighting that your "one size fits all" statement is not correct. Kinda like my The Mentalist comment! :D

    Derailing haha......well, call "my attempt to think outside the USA for a second" what you will.

    P.S. I think Psalm 139 is pretty straight forward. If you believe it - you're destroying God's knitting. If you think it's a bunch of Bronze Age ignorance - then who cares what the Bible says!

    Anyway, I'm off to go watch 30 Seconds To Mars.

    Thanks for reading again :D

    ReplyDelete
  37. Criss, every comment you make just makes me think more and more that you're attacking the point for no reason.

    You accuse me of being aligned to the "pro-life" movement and that I should rethink whether I want to be or not - right after I explained I don't like using that term because, aside from abortion, I don't mostly agree with their views. I challenge you to find ONE place I argued against contraception - to the contrary, I think I mentioned multiple times that I fully support it - my logic being that in this case, you're not destroying an existing life, merely not allowing a new one to be created - the same as you'd be doing through abstinence, just with a lower success rate (how much lower, of course, depends on the method and how well it's used).

    Should I give any one reference on the story, you'll most likely dismiss it as bullshit, so google "Ana Rosa Rodriguez". And sorry, I do seem to have remembered wrong on the exact details of it, but the main point is still there - not to mention, you completely ignored my point and chose to focus on attacking the story, not attacking the question of if the mother should have a right to intentionally do something like that, since it's apparently "just part of her body"?

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Ryan,
    "First of all... FFS I'm a pro-choice supporter!"

    Then why do you keep arguing the opposite viewpoint?

    I live in Texas, the state with the highest teen pregnancy rate in the US, and the state with the most money going to abstinence-only programs. You can understand my bitterness.

    Re: cake: When two heterosexual people have sex, only one is capable of getting pregnant. Therefore, only one of them has to deal with the consequences. The other can CHOOSE to HELP with the consequences, but only one of them will end up pregnant.

    It's really nice and all that guys choose to stick around and perform their paternal duties if the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term and keep the child, but you're forgetting all the stuff that happens between conception and delivery, and the choices the woman must make that the guy will never have to deal with.

    ""thanks for completely ignoring the main point, that the choice of the fetus is completely irrelevant to the "pro-choice" movement...""

    Are you quoting me here? I never said this -- A) as you said, fetuses don't make choices, and B) even if they did, it still wouldn't give them a right to take over a woman's body just because.

    It's not about abortion rights, it's about reproductive rights. The problem is people keep getting stuck on the abortion issue because it's the most polarizing, and our society likes to slut-shame and demonize women. We're an easy target.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Ryan,
    "But you say "we" a lot. Are "you" actually doing anything? I hope so."

    Wow. Nice condescension there. Thanks.

    I can't even... Just, wow.

    "However you were labelling this routine prenatal care the "biggest health risk someone can undertake" - a weird (not to mention false) statement. "

    I labeled pregnancy as the biggest health risk someone can undertake. This is evidenced by the amount of doctor's visits for routine prenatal care. Oh, and, like, tons of studies and facts and stuff.

    Just because you haven't heard about it before doesn't mean it's false.

    (See, those of us who "do" stuff to fight for our reproductive rights actually know stuff about what pregnancy entails and how it can kill you and stuff. You know.)

    "My comment saying "to ease off" was not at all based on stats I had read anywhere. It is based on all girls I have had this conversation with (granted not many, realistically half a dozen) - each one has vouched for adoption over abortion."

    See, MY comments WERE based on stats I've read in several places, not just six girls I've talked to. How many of them were facing an unwanted pregnancy when you asked them?

    Do you know how many "pro-life" women say they'd never have an abortion, then choose that option when faced with an unwanted pregnancy?

    Though I've always been pro-choice, I used to say (when I was young and naive in high school) that I myself would never choose abortion. Guess what! Then I got pregnant.

    I've talked to many more than six girls who had similar experiences, and I've read about tons more.

    "I think Psalm 139 is pretty straight forward."

    Did you bother to look at the links? Lemme guess...

    You take ONE line from an entire book and that's it? You're done? You're right, and everyone else is wrong because you say so?

    Are you aware of how many times the Bible contradicts itself?

    Are you aware of how many translations it has gone through? How much language, connotations, and nuances have changed from when one piece was written to when it was translated (by a select group of monks) into another language?

    How one word, translated one way or another, can completely change the meaning of a passage?

    If you really want to have this conversation, go to the links I gave you. This blog's comment thread is probably not the place to have this conversation, but feel free to email me -- IF you're interested in learning something and having a conversation where you read and listen,instead of just mansplain.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Namida:
    "You accuse me of being aligned to the "pro-life" movement"

    Pardon my confusion. I thought you were saying abortion was selfish murder, and that women should not be allowed to choose that option.

    I also must have misread when you defended the use of the term "pro-life" and got your panties all in a bunch when you were told the term "anti-life" was stupid.

    Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

    "I challenge you to find ONE place I argued against contraception"

    I challenge you to find where I said YOU were against it. I said the "pro-life" movement is against it, and warned that you may not want to align yourself with the movement -- pardon me, vehemently defend their views and terminology -- if you don't agree with them (since you seemed quite ignorant of their positions).

    PS: you might want to do some research on contraception, too -- if you believe "life" "begins" at conception, some methods of contraception prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, which would -- if you believe that unformed mass of cells is a "person" -- essentially be "ending" that "life."

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Namida,

    "not to mention, you completely ignored my point and chose to focus on attacking the story,"

    What WAS your point?? You were asking for my opinion on the story, and the story made no sense. You can't ask me what I think about a woman going through "half an abortion" and changing her mind, and then carrying in the fetus to term when that's a medical impossibility (at least, from what I understand, the way you described it).

    Since you couldn't provide a specific link to a valid source, I Googled.

    The first sites that came up are all homemade anti-choice sites, so their credibility is shaky.

    One story said she went in for an abortion at 32 weeks, the doctor started it, took off the arm, she changed her mind, he sedated her and then told her to come back the next day.

    Another story (http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/archives/anarosa.htm) said she was 12-16 weeks, and the first day all he did was dilate her cervix. She came back the next day, she said she'd changed her mind -- which makes one wonder why she'd gone back to the doctor if she did not want his services -- but she did what he told her, he sedated her, then told her to come back the next day. She FINALLY decided to go to the hospital, where she gave birth.

    The second story sounds a little more plausible (maybe because they left out the questionable details). My first reaction was questioning how she could be in her third trimester and think she was barely in her first, but I know denial is a powerful force and that these things happen.

    The second story makes it clear that the "doctor" she went to was a back-alley butcher. (A real doctor would never perform an elective abortion on a woman at 32 weeks; the risks to the mother are too high; also, real doctors have real clinics, not hidden lairs.) These people exists and can prey on innocent women because of the "pro-life" movement (here in the US, which is where this story allegedly took place).

    Lack of accurate information, the taboo that surrounds abortion (which keeps women from talking openly about it), protesters at clinics intimidating women seeking counseling or information, etc.

    If you want to keep stories like that from happening, keep abortion legal. Give women real choices, give women information, give women support -- then they won't be going to back-alley butchers.

    Now, your question seems to be "if the mother should have a right to intentionally do something like that". Did this mother INTENTIONALLY "do something like that"?

    Did she go to the doctor's office with the intentional plan of taking an arm off her fetus then giving birth to it?

    (Assuming the story is true,) she went in with the intention of terminating her pregnancy. Since she was not at a legal abortion clinic, she never received any counseling or support. She was lied to about how far along she was in her pregnancy, and given a procedure that put her at great risk (even if it had been performed at valid medical facility by an accredited doctor).

    The woman in this story is a victim, not an evil hag who wanted to maim her child for fun.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I believe I acknowledged in the first mention of it that that was not her intention.

    My question was, if you believe that the full abortion should be allowed as it's "part of her body", should intentionally doing something like that also be allowed? Or rather - since I'm almost certain your answer is "it shouldn't be" - if not, why should a full abortion be?

    Stop avoiding it and answer that.

    ReplyDelete
  43. So you're asking a completely irrational and unrealistic question -- you want my opinion on an hypothetical impossibility?

    You provide an example of the situation you're asking about but state the example is not the situation you're asking about? (And you wonder why I'm confused??)

    Why should a "full" abortion be legal: Because the woman does not want to be pregnant. She has a right to make her body un-pregnant. That is the purpose of an abortion -- it's not about the fetus, it's about the woman. The full, born, undeniable human being.

    Apparently the question you're asking is should a woman be allowed to maim her fetus in utero, with the intention of birthing the maimed child -- is that it?

    The purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. The woman is taking control of her body, and removing the element harming her (the parasite, or fetus).

    If a woman commits to carrying the pregnancy to term, she has a responsibility to care for the parasite/fetus, because she has accepted the responsibility of birthing a child. IF she agrees to allow the fetus to develop in her body, she's agreeing to care for it, and do all that entails -- diet, lifestyle changes, etc. for the 38-40 weeks it takes to grow a fetus.

    The same principle that applies to parents and children once everyone is OUT of the uterus applies to the child inside the uterus when the mother commits to birthing the child: when I agree to be a parent to a child, I agree to care for that child and provide what that child needs for a full and healthy life.

    If the parent does not hold up hir end of the bargain, it's child abuse. That's illegal.

    If it were possible to "cut off" part of the fetus in utero (and have the fetus, and mother, survive), I bet you'd have a heck of a time finding a doctor that would perform that kind of "operation." Probably for some of the same reasons why we don't allow fully-born humans to walk into a hospital and ask a doctor to cut off their perfectly good arm (or other body part) for absolutely no reason at all.

    But IF you were able to find someone, then I would have to say that procedure should not be legal (kind of like I'm pretty sure it's not legal for me to amputate any of my body parts for no reason at all) -- there is no purpose for it, as the mother's situation does not change at all (she's still pregnant, and in fact she puts herself in great risk), and it harms the potential child which the mother has agreed to birth.

    Now, if you want to as a useful and realistic question, perhaps you should ask if parents have a right to circumcise their male babies.

    In that procedure, a perfectly healthy baby's perfectly healthy body part is cut off for absolutely no reason; there is no medical "benefit" to circumcision, while there IS an increased chance of infection and other complications, as well as other side effects he will experience later on in life.

    But THAT is still done to almost half of the boys born in the US (I don't know stats for New Zealand, sorry).

    ReplyDelete
  44. At what point did I argue the opposite viewpoint? I made it clear from the start (disregarding The Mentalist comment) where I currently stand.

    Ryan = Pro-choice (I feel the need to define this) - I think it is important for abortion to be legally optional and education on the topic/process to be easily accessible BUT I think it should be the last line of defence so to speak. None of this, "not using doms/pills/cides, just go for the abortion" business. I think that is ridiculous.

    Ahhh yes, after reading you're from Abstinence, Texas I can definitely understand your bitterness.

    Therefore, only one of them has to deal with the consequences. The other can CHOOSE to HELP with the consequences, but only one of them will end up pregnant.

    but you're forgetting all the stuff that happens between conception and delivery, and the choices the woman must make that the guy will never have to deal with.

    I'm what? Forgetting? Excuse me, but I apologised for not being capable of particular female faculties (thus clearly acknowledging the "stuff" between conception and delivery) in the very comment of mine that you're addressing here.

    And how would you define "deal with" differently to "help" in this instance? I feel, I can only reiterate the point I made in my previous comment. Sorry that men can't carry the developing fetus or take away the dangers, the sickness or the pain of pregnancy. And I'll reiterate that the consequences of pregnancy don't end at childbirth. I've even heard mothers say they'd rather go through the stresses of pregnancy and give birth again than parent their stressful teenagers. Just a little food for thought there. Again, NOT statistical evidence.

    No I wasn't directly quoting you. I was flipping a quote of yours onto the other side to show how much of a pointless statement it is for either Pro-team to make.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sorry to seem condescending, Criss, I'm just a bit skeptical when pronouns like "we" ("they" is the worst) get flippantly thrown around.

    I labeled pregnancy as the biggest health risk someone can undertake. This is evidenced by the amount of doctor's visits for routine prenatal care. Oh, and, like, tons of studies and facts and stuff.

    Just because you haven't heard about it before doesn't mean it's false.


    Tons of studies and facts and stuff? What is that, your evidence? I have heard of the dangers of pregnancy before and yes the danger is evidenced by numerous required visits to the doctor, but think of all the people that "undertake" excessive smoking and binge drinking. Two far greater health risks, with more consistently negative consequences. Pregnancy can, in many cases, end well. Substance abuse? Not so much. Your statement remains false I'm afraid. I'm not saying pregnancy isn't a big health risk at all - it's just definitely not the biggest.

    Only one of those girls was facing unwanted pregnancy. My point was not to say "I'm right, you and your stats can go jump off a cliff". My point was to highlight that like your hyperboles, your superlatives and absolute statements are highly misleading and in most cases they falsify many of the points you make.

    No I didn't read your blog because I'm not interested in Criss' Definitive Commentary on the Bible unfortunately, and I don't really want an in depth conversation about Psalm 139 or abortion in scripture because:
    a) while there's plenty on spontaneous abortions/miscarriages, there's nothing on elective abortions in the Bible
    b) I'll say it again - Psalm 139 is not "in depth", it is straight forward. Apparently, God is at work throughout the "womb" stage. So if you are a Psalm 139-believing Christian and you electively abort your fetus/unborn baby - you are destroying your god's work. Simple as that. Clear as crystal.

    You take ONE line from an entire book and that's it? You're done? You're right, and everyone else is wrong because you say so?

    Where did I say this.... hmmmm....

    Yes I am aware of many "contradictions". I use speech marks as few of these are relatively legitimate contradictions in my opinion. Many can be "reconciled" (I use speech marks here as you're not really reconciling if something's not really a contradiction in the first place) with a better, deeper, less-fundamental-20th-century understanding of scripture.

    Yes I am aware of how many different language translations the Bible has been through. Another contributor to some "contradictions" no doubt. The last thing I think I'll say on this matter is that Psalm 139:13 is very "Hebrew accurate" if that is what concerns you. No massive meaning change in this passage. Whether you read it as being "knitted" or "covered", both those words have a caring aspect about them, revealing that God is apparently concerned and involved with prenatal development. You can believe this is literally true or poetically beautiful. But remember the original point was "This is what the Bible says".

    Haha, "mansplain" - very nice. I like it. A very feminist word ;D

    ReplyDelete
  46. And would it kill you to stop referring to a fetus as a parasite? Not only is it a scientifically incorrect statement, it's also abhorrent rhetoric that does a wonderful job at framing all your comments with the bitterness you claim to possess.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm pretty sure Criss simply has the (most likely incorrect) idea that pro-life is about controlling women stuck so far up her ass, she'll oppose it as strongly as possible no matter what. Unfortunately, you get some girls who think everyone's just out to control them. (Heck, there's plenty of guys who think the same thing in reverse too, and IMO they're just as fucking stupid.)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Who gives a shit about me =(August 7, 2010 at 10:46 AM

    I'm a stupid parasite. I was aborted at 35 weeks. Shame on me for being here =(

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Ryan,
    "there's nothing on elective abortions in the Bible"

    Yes, there is. Check out Numbers.

    Oh, wait... you're right, that wasn't an elective abortion. That passage describes a law that forces women to abort; the abortion is administered by a priest. It's a really interesting passage, check it out.

    Oh, wait... never mind. You won't, because it's much easier to argue your point when you refuse to listen to any other viewpoints. Sorry, I forgot how this game was played.

    And because it is still not sinking in...

    You cannot say the man takes on the same responsibility/work as the woman in a pregnancy. It's not about "fault" or "desire", it's a mere fact (I know these things confuse you). The guy can walk away at any point, because he is not the one who's pregnant. Even if he stays, he's not the one going through the pregnancy.

    Even if he would very much LIKE to be the one going through the pregnancy (which seems to be your argument?) HE IS NOT. She is. She is the one living it -- she is the one living the consequences of "cake", even if he has a front-row seat to the show.

    Any rational person can see that the non-pregnant partner cannot "share equally" in the burden of unwanted pregnancy. This is not his "fault," this is a fact; so please don't insult women by pretending the guy goes through the same consequences the woman does.

    @Namida: "pro-life" is about making women's choices for them, either by making certain choices illegal or by withholding vital information from them and outright lying to them.

    Again, what does "control" mean to you?

    ReplyDelete
  50. What passage in Numbers. Be specific.

    You cannot say the man takes on the same responsibility/work as the woman in a pregnancy

    Any rational person can see that the non-pregnant partner cannot "share equally" in the burden of unwanted pregnancy.

    Sigh. When did I say that it was same/equal responsibility? What I said is that parental responsibilities and consequences as a whole don't end at childbirth. I recall using the term "paternal role" up the page and have acknowledged several times that as men (who choose not to walk away) we can only do our part, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  51. So then, are the laws against murder also about controlling women (and men) by making the choice of killing other people illegal?

    I'm pretty damn sure that, were men also able to get pregnant, the pro-life cause would equally oppose them getting abortions. It's not about controlling women. Get the fuck over yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  52. hey criss is your middle name Loves?

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Ryan:

    Oh, because you're going to read THAT, though you haven't bothered to read anything else?

    *sigh*

    Numbers 5:11-31. If the man suspects his wife has cheated on him (when he didn't see anything, but suspects because of some magical reason... perhaps symptoms of pregnancy? Huh, YA THINK?), he takes his wife to the priest, who makes her drink the "bitter water" which will deliver "the curse."
    Different translations use different words, most of them say the "bitter water" will cause her "thigh to rot." Bible scholars agree this means it will cause a miscarriage -- essentially, it's a medical abortion.
    Other translations talk about her womb shriveling up and the woman being barren from then on. Again, the "curse" curses her uterus, which was carrying a fetus until the priest made her drink the "bitter water." (If the woman did not cheat on her husband, she won't suffer anything. Kind of like when you're not pregnant and therefore DON'T miscarry, so your womb doesn't suffer as it expels the stillborn fetus.)

    "Sigh. When did I say that it was same/equal responsibility?"

    When you said it was about having cake and eating it too. I pointed out only one party has to deal with the consequences of the cake-eating. You said I was wrong.

    Consequences of cake-eating: unwanted pregnancy; either carrying to term or getting an abortion. The man doesn't do either of these.

    In the case of "carrying the pregnancy to term and KEEPING the child," yes, the man takes part in the second half of that equation, IF he decides to stick around.

    To continue with your (very poor) cake analogy, that's like eating a wedding cake vs. licking your finger after you stuck it in the frosting.

    @Namida:
    "So then, are the laws against murder also about controlling women (and men) by making the choice of killing other people illegal?"

    You see, for comparisons like that to work, you have to make them make sense. There has to be something IN COMMON between situation A and situation B -- and not just the fact that you said one after the other.

    Please explain to me how your bodily functions are impeded or affected by NOT killing other people.

    "I'm pretty damn sure that, were men also able to get pregnant, the pro-life cause would equally oppose them getting abortions."

    I'm pretty damn sure you're wrong. How about you try getting over yourself and your male privilege?

    ReplyDelete
  54. If by "anything else" you mean solely your Biblical commentary? Then yes. I didn't bother to read that.

    *sigh*

    Ahh yes I have read that passage before. Quite a creepy one. But like we both said - clearly couldn't be called elective abortion - anymore than rape could be called elective sex.

    When you said it was about having cake and eating it too.

    Non sequitur alert.

    Stating that the Pro-Choice movement is all about having raw, enjoyable, unprotected sex whilst being able to get away with it by electively aborting DOES NOT at all imply that both male and female parties share evenly in the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. They're two completely different statements. The former - A JOKE, the latter - I never said or implied in any of my comments.

    I pointed out only one party has to deal with the consequences of the cake-eating. You said I was wrong.

    Consequences of cake-eating: unwanted pregnancy; either carrying to term or getting an abortion. The man doesn't do either of these.

    In the case of "carrying the pregnancy to term and KEEPING the child," yes, the man takes part in the second half of that equation, IF he decides to stick around.


    You were wrong in saying that. You say "IF" like the men who hang around to raise their child are hard to come by. They're not. Consequences don't end at pregnancy. And consequences also don't rest solely upon the female at all. I feel like we're going in circles. This is the point I have been trying to get across the whole time. I've never tried to say a man knows and experiences the pain of abortion or anything. What a ridiculous thing to say.

    Second half of the equation? What, 9 months of pregnancy vs. 15 odd years (give or take) of raising a child? Hmmm. I wonder which half of the equation requires the most effort?

    Criss, what exactly is the point you're trying to make in all this? What is it exactly that you want me to change about my outlook on the whole abortion issue?

    From my point of view - your comments appear to carry a general vibe of "ALL MEN ARE DICKS, WOMEN HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THEIR CRAP" - so all I want is for you to realise that I (like many other guys) do not fall into the "dick" category of jerk-offs who are just in it for the sex and bolt at the first sight of her pregnancy.

    Time to let go of "cake" analogy please. It was a joke - not meant to be taken seriously or repetitively referred to.

    ReplyDelete
  55. People who believe their gender is discriminated against will never give up on the idea, no matter how plainly obvious it is that they're wrong - and this goes for men with that idea too. >_>

    I think we just have to accept that Criss is a fucking retard, and ignore her.


    Anyway, on a lighter (but still serious) note... I did a bit of research of my own into this product... and it appears "Prolife Foods" have been around since 1984, and originally started with nuts. Laugh at the funny side of that, first. Now that that's done, they own, presumably among others, Mother Earth, Alison's Pantry, and Value Pack brands - which means they make a lot of confectionary products, not just jelly babies (and snakes to cover their asses). Based on the time the brand started, and the general nature of *most* of their products (confectionary excluded), I would think their name was meant more to refer to health than any side of the abortion debate.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @Ryan,
    If you don't want to hear my Biblical commentary, then don't bring yours in to the conversation.

    "clearly couldn't be called elective abortion"

    It was not the woman's choice. It was the husband's elective abortion. The passage addresses aborting a fetus, "God's creation" based on your Psalm verse. Obviously priests didn't thing it was such a sin to "kill" God's creation in the womb -- as long as the woman's husband had a good reason.

    "Stating that the Pro-Choice movement is all about having raw, enjoyable, unprotected sex whilst being able to get away with it by electively aborting" IS A COMPLETELY IGNORANT AND INCORRECT STATEMENT but you insist on repeating it.

    "Criss, what exactly is the point you're trying to make in all this?"

    THAT YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT IS IGNORANT AND INCORRECT.

    "You say "IF" like the men who hang around to raise their child are hard to come by. They're not."

    Is this another "fact" based on your informal poll of "half a dozen" high school girls?

    Perhaps New Zealand has better laws, or better systems to enforce this, than the US. Over here, single moms left to raise the kids all be themselves and deadbeat dads are all too common.

    Yes, there are single dads who bear the burden of childrearing by themselves because of a deadbeat mom (my stepdad was one of them), but the opposite is much more common. If that's not the case in New Zealand, maybe I'll move there; will make life less depressing for me.

    " your comments appear to carry a general vibe of "ALL MEN ARE DICKS, WOMEN HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THEIR CRAP""

    Close. The vibe is actually, "guys who like to preach about how women who have abortions are sluts are d!cks" and "guys who talk about pregnancy and abortion as if they knew anything about it are ignorant d!cks."

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Namida:

    "People who believe their gender is discriminated against will never give up on the idea, no matter how plainly obvious it is that they're wrong "

    Totally! OMG, you are so RIGHT!

    Like, black people who think their race is discriminated against will never give up on the idea, no matter how plainly obvious it is that they're wrong!

    I mean, how can anybody be racist anymore, when the US has a black president? Like, AS IF! Right?

    Minorities are so stupid, aren't they?

    PS: "retard"... Nice ableist language. Goes well with the rest of your privilege; thanks for proving the point for me.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Still not elective abortion though. If the husband is electing for anything at all he's electing for a "test" to see if his wife has been faithful. Elective abortion = "I know I am pregnant, and I would like to extract the fetus please". This is not in the Bible at all.

    "Stating that the Pro-Choice movement is all about having raw, enjoyable, unprotected sex whilst being able to get away with it by electively aborting" IS A COMPLETELY IGNORANT AND INCORRECT STATEMENT but you insist on repeating it.

    "Criss, what exactly is the point you're trying to make in all this?"

    THAT YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT IS IGNORANT AND INCORRECT.


    Read more carefully - this is what I wrote:

    Stating that the Pro-Choice movement is all about having raw, enjoyable, unprotected sex whilst being able to get away with it by electively aborting DOES NOT at all imply that both male and female parties share evenly in the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. They're two completely different statements. The former - A JOKE, the latter - I never said or implied in any of my comments.

    Note the second lot of bolded text, please. The only thing I have found the need to "insist on repeating" throughout this thread is that my first comment on this post was a joke. It was not at all meant to accurately describe the Pro-Choice movement. It was tongue and cheek. Yes I do regret posting it if you're wondering. Would have saved a lot of miscommunication it seems.

    Is this another "fact" based on your informal poll of "half a dozen" high school girls?

    It's based on guys I know who have impregnated women. They either wanted a child or have reacted favorably to the unintended pregnancy.

    I don't know about better laws, but NZ has half the teenage birth rate that the US does. So either, Kiwis abort more than the Yanks or the Yanks have more unprotected sex than Kiwis.

    Wow I was close. Nice to know I don't fall into either category of d!ck then.

    ReplyDelete
  59. After a bit more reading it's definitely the latter - Yanks have more unprotected sex than Kiwis. Cos y'all have a higher abortion rate than NZ over there too.

    Oh and before I "Post Comment" it's important to note that these rates are for teenage pregnancies.

    ReplyDelete
  60. You just proved MY point even further. Nowhere did I say you're not discriminated against; I simply said that you're not always being discriminated against, and you proved your idioticy in this point by disagreeing that pro-lifers would also want men to be unable to get abortions, were they able to get pregnant. Just because women are the only ones affected by a prohibition on it doesn't mean it's discriminatory against them - when it's about something that, you know, doesn't affect men. Would you say that a law banning circumcision (yes, I know there's no reason for there to be one, it's simply the best example I could think of) was discriminatory against men?

    And yeah, nice. You have to resort to attacking my choice of words to back up your point. You fail so hard.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Without scrolling up and reading every comment again, did we come to a conclusion on the fact that there is no neurological activity or functional brain before 24 weeks? Are you against elective abortions before 24 weeks?

    ReplyDelete
  62. There's no definitive conclusions. But the majority of research scientists hold that view on neonatal perception.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Ryan,
    Though I have no studies, I will agree that it's highly likely Yankee teens have more unprotected sex than NZ teens. Again, I thank the (US) "pro-life" movement and their abstinence-only programs, that tell teens contraception doesn't work.

    If we 1) educated teens with FACTS and 2) made birth control available (which also means affordable), then I bet we'd have teens making smarter choices.

    Elective abortion means it's not a spontaneous abortion, commonly referred to as a miscarriage, and it's not a medically-necessary abortion, performed to save the mother's life or when the fetus has little to no chance of survival anyway.

    In the Bible story, the husband wants to extract the fetus from his wife's womb if she has one in there. It does not happen naturally, because the "bitter water" causes it, and there is no medical reason for it. It falls under the category of "elective abortion." (I was using sarcasm, saying it was not "elective" because SHE did not elect it, to highlight the fact that the woman is forced into the procedure.)

    I'm not going to go back and search through all the comments, but you have stated more than once that abortion is used by women/girls who don't want to use birth control. You have called these girls irresponsible for not using proper birth control.

    The reality is many women seeking an abortion were ON some method of birth control, but it failed. Because that happens, too.

    Women also terminate pregnancies because of medical reasons.

    Then, of course, there's the women who seek an abortion as a result of being raped, and/or being victims of domestic violence.

    I don't have numbers on percentages of abortions for which reason, but I believe all these women have a right to bodily autonomy, safe medical treatment, and legal protection.

    "Pro-choice" is about supporting a woman's right to choose, without judging or qualifying or excusing. Or making "jokes" in poor taste, either about rape (can't remember if that was you or Namida who came up with that jewel) or general slut-shaming.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Namida,
    "Would you say that a law banning circumcision (yes, I know there's no reason for there to be one, it's simply the best example I could think of) was discriminatory against men?"

    A law banning male genital mutilation at birth (commonly referred to as circumcision) would PROTECT infant men. I don't see how protecting their bodily autonomy would be "discriminating against" them.

    ReplyDelete
  65. An abortion is referred to as elective when it is performed at the request of the woman "for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease."
    -Encyclopedia Britannica (2007), Vol 26, p. 674

    Read it for yourself if you wish. You certainly can't apply that definition to the priestly procedure in Numbers.

    I'm not going to go back and search through all the comments, but you have stated more than once that abortion is used by women/girls who don't want to use birth control. You have called these girls irresponsible for not using proper birth control.

    I haven't stated that at all but I did mention girls (and boys) I have talked to about their takes on contraception and I do still regard them as irresponsible for refusing to use/try other methods before abortion, purely for "pleasure's sake". But we were referring to my joke generalizing the whole Pro-Choice movement. No where have I attempted to "slut-shame" women at all. I find that disgusting.

    The reality is many women seeking an abortion were ON some method of birth control, but it failed. Because that happens, too.

    Women also terminate pregnancies because of medical reasons.

    Then, of course, there's the women who seek an abortion as a result of being raped, and/or being victims of domestic violence.

    I don't have numbers on percentages of abortions for which reason, but I believe all these women have a right to bodily autonomy, safe medical treatment, and legal protection.


    All these things I am aware of and I agree with your viewpoints.

    Yes, you can thank Namida for the rape joke. I semi-know the guy, his sense of humor is indeed quite dark.

    ReplyDelete