Anyway, thanks again.

Um…keep in mind that I have to read and analyze pretty much every sentence on this thread, since it’s basically me vs. everybody else, and I’m trying to do other things. I’m sorry if I don’t get to a particular sentence in your particular comment.

Well, funny thing, Robert, it was the main point in my comments, and you decided to not address it in favor of going ‘BUT OMG I’M NOT A MISOGYNIST!!!!!!’

We’re quite happy to argue with people who disagree with us here, but their arguments have to be honest and at least marginally well-informed. And yours just aren’t. Moreover, you’ve shown an incredible capacity to ignore facts. Some classics:

And I have never used “slut-shaming” as an anti-choice argument. The “legs closed” statement is not slut-shaming.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not, and all of my comments back this up. You can say, “You said she should have kept her legs shut!” all you want but that doesn’t make me a misogynist. Given the outcome, she should have, and the man as well.

And my favorite,

Once a woman is impregnated no other medical procedure is required until the child is born

I’m sure you’ll respond to being banned by huffing about free speech and censorship and insisting that we just can’t handle the truth. So be it.

Buh-bye.

Once a woman is impregnated no other medical procedure is required until the child is born

Um…err…and you have how many children? Have you blocked the memory of the pregnancies? The once a month then once a week visits to the OB? The monthly then weekly urine and BP monitoring? The glucose tolerance tests? The prenatal vitamins? I’m assuming that nothing went wrong and therefore you didn’t get to see interventions like 4x a day insulin injection and 7x a day glucose monitoring, bed rest, IV fluids, parenteral nutrition…And, of course, a fair number of births require intervention of some sort: pain control, forceps/vacuum assistance, c-section, oxytocin, etc. You could argue that these things are unnecessary because women gave birth for hundreds of thousands of years without them and it’d be true. But without them a large percentage of women die in childbirth sooner or later and so do a large percentage of their offspring. Even now completing a pregnancy is not simple or safe.

To all questions: I don’t know. Perhaps because none of those means of human death involve human decision.

Neither does SIDS, cancer, heart disease, birth defects, diabetes, stroke, neurodegenerative disorders, etc, etc. Yet there are huge institutions, public and private, dedicated to finding the causes and eliminating these and other diseases which do not involve any human decision and, if every fertilized egg is a person, each kills far fewer people than any of the above. Or all of the above combined, since the vast majority of people die pre-implantation. Again, if you really believe that fertilized eggs are babies and you want to save babies, you are concentrating on the wrong issue: ignoring a pandemic because a few murders occur here and there.

If a one-day-old baby requires a bone marrow transplant to survive and a match refuses to donate, that one-day-old baby is going to die.

Sorry, let me rephrase that to be in keeping with your new nomenclature. The one-day-old baby is going to cease to exist and develop.

Do we not give children more protections under the law than adults? Why not extend this to unborn children?

Fetuses already have exactly the same “protections” as children do when it comes to sustaining their life via the use of another person’s body – None. Happy?

Because of the mother’s womb rights? These are trumped by the fetuses right to exist and develop.

You keep saying that as if repeating it over and over again makes it true. But it’s not. Your rights to exist and develop are trumped by my rights to refuse to use my body to sustain my life. No one’s rights to exist and develop are greater than someone else’s rights to refuse to use their body for the first person’s existence and development. This is a long-standing and widely-accepted principle. Except when it comes to pregnancy, when suddenly a lot of people are invested in giving a fetus greater rights than they have.

BTW, you keep changing your words when backed into a corner. I’m not sure where “protections” came from, since we’re discussing rights. Protections are something you’re given if your rights are more easily violated than someone else’s. You first have to have a right in order to have it protected. No one has a right to use someone else’s body against their will, hence it’s not something to be protected under any circumstance.

Further, now the fetus no longer has a right to life, but a right to exist and develop, as if somehow there’s a meaningful distinction. At this point, you seem to have decided that the physical act of touching earth is the really important right. So women have to be forced to relinquish their rights so that a fetus can “look forward to” one day being born and touching the earth. After that, of course, all bets are off. If a one-day-old baby requires a bone marrow transplant to survive and a match refuses to donate, that one-day-old baby is going to die.

All of these inconveniences are trumped by a human being’s right to exist.

Robert, this has to be the most ignorant statement I’ve seen on this blog today. I guess pregnancy and raising a child is just a cakewalk for most women, right?

What about the woman’s right to exist? She automatically has to give up all her rights when she gets pregnant? You do know that pregnancy is much more dangerous than abortion, right? Just think of women in poor countries who have no access to birth control and medical help. I’m sure watching 10 of your 13 children die is just SO wonderful!

Fact: 0.6 out of 100,000 abortions result in death while 13 out of 100,000 live births result in death.
(link)

Please explain to me how a potential life can have the full rights of a grown woman. A fetus cannot survive outside a woman. Until it can, it is a part of the woman’s body. Therefore, she has the right to decide what will become of the potential life. A fetus has NO right to be inside a woman – it is the woman who gives that right to the fetus, because it is HER body. A fetus doesn’t have a “natural” right to live inside a woman against her decision. It is morally wrong to tell a woman she must be forced to carry a fetus she does not want to carry to term. Bringing a child into a world that cannot support it either emotionally or economically is morally wrong. We all pay the price for unwanted individuals. Society is much better off with legal abortion.

I have a friend who got pregnant. She was in a failing relationship also. She decided to have an abortion. She spent hours waiting for her appointment to terminate her pregnancy. She spend hours listening to “pro-lifers” telling her she would burn in Hell for her decision. Funny, none of these “pro-lifers” had any arguments based in reality. Most of the time was spend spitting out religious dogma.

Long story short – She is now married and a proud mother. She was able to bring a child into a loving, supportive relationship. She doesn’t mourn about the choice she made because that choice gave her the opportunity of a better future.

Seriously, it’s quite pathetic that people actually sit around and mope about non-persons while ACTUAL people are suffering all around us.

Maybe “pro-lifers” should spend more time helping actual living people who need assistant. There are plenty of unwanted children waiting to be adopted – many end up staying in the foster care system. Wow, what a life. I’m sure the kids who end up getting abused sure are glad that mom gave them life!

Why is it quite the claim to make? The earth has yet to be over populated, so the burden of proof lies on you. You tell me why the earth is over populated/over populating.

Funny, it’s perfectly OK for you to make a claim without evidence.

Practices change; rights, as in fundamental truths, don’t.

Um, a “fundamental truth?” Certainly, you have some evidence to back up that statement? “Truth” usually has substance to it.

“Fundamental truth” will differ greatly among people, by the way. Some of us prefer rational decisions based on evidence. Some of us prefer fundamentalist dogma or fanatical ideology.