Marriage of course is pooh poohed. So is motherhood. Sex is reduced to pure egocentric enjoyment, and there’s this undercurrent of rage at men, rage at your own fertility, rage at the differences of gender.

The irony and the sadness of this statement is that no one hates men worse than right wing women. Not the most ardent man hating radical separatist feminist hates men the way the sweet little stay-at-home Christian (or Jewish or Islamic), loyal virgin, homemaking wifey does. Because feminists may see men as potential slavemasters and hate or fear them for that–though most feminists eventually get over it and come to see men as individuals, with morality ranging from Hitler to Gandhi. But the little wifey experiences it. She may have “chosen” her lot, but she is not in control anymore and she will, inevitably, hate the person who is controlling her life. Because you can’t help but hate the master, even if you chose slavery yourself. So my advice to John, if he wants happiness later in life, is to drop the pro-life anti-woman nonsense, raise his consiousness a bit, and find a woman (or man) he considers his equal to be his partner in life. Or live alone. Marrying someone you consider your inferior inevitably leads to misery.)

What a sad sight of ignorance and hate this site is!

Run this through the whackjob translator and it says: you’re doing everything right. Please continue!

yes. A real, living, existing woman is more important. By light years.

Most of us would conclude that the infant would because a) those IVF tubes are kept in a fireproof steel chamber filled with liquid nitrogen (an inert, nonflammable gas) and b) even supposing I had the equipment to draw them out they’d still require much higher care than simply grabbing the infant and running.

Nice try. Better than most I’ve seen. But not entirely correct, either. The liquid nitrogen wouldn’t survive a substantial fire. If the fire is small enough that the freezer protects the embryos don’t grab either the baby or the embryos–grab the fire extinguisher and put the thing out. Any fire too large for that technique is probably too large for the embryos to survive. Remember, they’ll lose viability if they warm up to -60C. As for point b, I suppose if you’re at an IVF clinic in rural Arizona where the nearest hospital is 500 miles away, that might be a problem, but at any IVF clinic reasonably close to civilization there’ll be people ready to put the embryos in their own -80C freezers pretty quickly. (I’m assuming here that the choice is really between grabbing the baby and grabbing a canister full of liquid nitrogen stored embryos, maybe one being prepared for shipping to the clinic where implantation will be attempted. Because, of course, if you’re envisioning grabbing a couple of vials out of the freezer…don’t do it. They’ll die and you’ll have a serious case of frostbite. As in, a hand endangering case of frostbite.)

But to give a different scenario, suppose you knew of an embryo that was about to be discarded because it was no longer needed. Would you offer yourself as a subject for an experiment in which, instead of being discarded, the embryo was implanted on your intestinal lining? Because if men can gestate embryos then that doubles the number of potential volunteers to carry IVF embryos that would otherwise be discarded to term. Of course, this is riskier than a typical pregnancy, but you’d have excellent monitoring and quick intervention if something went wrong. I suppose I ought to ask up front though: Suppose something went drastically wrong with you during the gestation. For example, suppose that men’s hearts simply can’t deal with the increased blood volume and you were at serious risk from congestive heart failure. Would you want an abortion or to continue the pregnancy to ensure the best possible chance of getting the fetus to an age at which it could survive with NICU care? And you were planning to raise the kid, right? Not that I’d deny you the option of adoption, of course.

Finally, if there was a fire and I had a chance to save either a born infant or a handful of IVF tubes I’d make the same moral decision a triage nurse makes in an Emergency room: which person stands the better chance of survival in this specific situation? It’s not a matter of deciding who is human and who isn’t or who is “better” than the other.

Most of us would conclude that the infant would because a) those IVF tubes are kept in a fireproof steel chamber filled with liquid nitrogen (an inert, nonflammable gas) and b) even supposing I had the equipment to draw them out they’d still require much higher care than simply grabbing the infant and running. No moral value judgement as to who deserves respect more is needed – the question isn’t “who is more human” but “who is most at risk/who is more savable?

So with the embryos and baby being equally human and worthy of life you choose to save the born ONE child because it is MORE CONVENIENT and EASIER for you in the long run.

Uh-huh…now what was that tirade you were on about the convenience of abortion and such? Love how it is more convenient of you to “save” one instead of many when INNOCENT LIVES are at stake. Kinda shoots your points to shit.

Hellooooooo, Mr. Godwin…

Marriage of course is pooh poohed. So is motherhood. Sex is reduced to pure egocentric enjoyment, and there’s this undercurrent of rage at men, rage at your own fertility, rage at the differences of gender.

Ahh, this one again. Don’t you guys ever get any new lines? I’d be in a constant rage if you were right, seeing as how everyone in the house but me is male – my husband, my sons, the dog, even the betta fish. Yet, somehow I’m about 20x more pro-choice now than I ever was as a young, childless single. I don’t ever want my children thinking they’re here because Mommy had no choice but to have them.

Marriage of course is pooh poohed. So is motherhood. Sex is reduced to pure egocentric enjoyment, and there’s this undercurrent of rage at men, rage at your own fertility, rage at the differences of gender.

Go tell that to all the happily married, heterosexual, pro-choice feminists who have kids.

Like my mom! wwwooohh. :)

So what – besides giving contraception – that does not work, obviously – does Planned Parenthood do to prevent abortion?

Well, I’ve been going to PP for contraception for a few years now, and with all the sex I’ve had, I’m happily still not pregnant.

Contraceptive failure is generally a stupid human error — not taking the pills/shot on the right day, using a condom wrong, and so on. And I’m willing to bet some of the people who “claim” they were using contraceptives when they got knocked up … weren’t. Who wants to admit a stupid human error?

Also, PP promotes comprehensive sex education. I think that helps to reduce the abortion rate, don’t you?