Comments on: Abortion and Slavery http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:06:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-37601 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:59:57 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-37601 <i>And stop hurting women by feeding them these lies.</i> The "lie" is that making abortion illegal stops abortion. It does not; making abortion illegal just drives it underground, and women die or are mutilated as a result. I've written a number of posts on this point; <a href="http://www.mahablog.com/2006/04/08/brave-new-el-salvadore/">this is the most recent</a>. Follow the links and see what kind of atrocities your "moral" position leads to. And stop hurting women by feeding them these lies.

The “lie” is that making abortion illegal stops abortion. It does not; making abortion illegal just drives it underground, and women die or are mutilated as a result. I’ve written a number of posts on this point; this is the most recent. Follow the links and see what kind of atrocities your “moral” position leads to.

]]> by: pro-woman http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-37591 Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:34:18 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-37591 You're fluffing over the main point here (murdering a child within his or her mother's womb, which is by it's nature &#38; make-up supposed to be the safest place for this baby to grow). You really have to try hard to get in there to kill the baby; you have to go through the woman's body to do it. You make it sound like abortion is GOOD for women. Abortion hurts women phsysically, emotionally, spiritually; look at all the women coming forward after having an abortion and voicing that they really had NO choice, because they weren't given all of the facts and truths about abortion (it's harmful affects on her, let alone that it's really killing a living being not just getting rid of tissue). Look at all of the research coming in linking abortion to SUICIDE, DEPRESSION, BREAST CANCER, on and on. Look at the amount of MONEY coming into the abortion industry! Read the testimoinies from many of these women in the South Dakota Task Force Study on Abortion. Go to www.priestsforlife.com and SEE what abortion LOOKS like, then tell me you think it's good for women and for babies in the womb. You can twist words (like "person") to mean whatever you'd like, but the fact is: When a woman becomes pregnant, whether intentional or not, the life within her is a separate human being. Even abortion doctors know this, but they won't admit it to the women who walk into their abortion mills. The truth is, you're using clever language to desperately reach for a way to make abortion seem like a "right", like a "good" - no one has the right to kill another living human being, whether in the womb or in the grocery store. The pro-life activists who bombed abortion mills were wrong, and the pro-death abortion providers are wrong. We've been deceived by this lie that abortion is a "right". We have no right to kill, ever. And stop hurting women by feeding them these lies. You’re fluffing over the main point here (murdering a child within his or her mother’s womb, which is by it’s nature & make-up supposed to be the safest place for this baby to grow). You really have to try hard to get in there to kill the baby; you have to go through the woman’s body to do it. You make it sound like abortion is GOOD for women. Abortion hurts women phsysically, emotionally, spiritually; look at all the women coming forward after having an abortion and voicing that they really had NO choice, because they weren’t given all of the facts and truths about abortion (it’s harmful affects on her, let alone that it’s really killing a living being not just getting rid of tissue). Look at all of the research coming in linking abortion to SUICIDE, DEPRESSION, BREAST CANCER, on and on. Look at the amount of MONEY coming into the abortion industry! Read the testimoinies from many of these women in the South Dakota Task Force Study on Abortion. Go to www.priestsforlife.com and SEE what abortion LOOKS like, then tell me you think it’s good for women and for babies in the womb. You can twist words (like “person”) to mean whatever you’d like, but the fact is: When a woman becomes pregnant, whether intentional or not, the life within her is a separate human being. Even abortion doctors know this, but they won’t admit it to the women who walk into their abortion mills. The truth is, you’re using clever language to desperately reach for a way to make abortion seem like a “right”, like a “good” - no one has the right to kill another living human being, whether in the womb or in the grocery store. The pro-life activists who bombed abortion mills were wrong, and the pro-death abortion providers are wrong. We’ve been deceived by this lie that abortion is a “right”. We have no right to kill, ever. And stop hurting women by feeding them these lies.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-32151 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:33:50 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-32151 Blake -- Your arguments are utterly irrelevant, for reasons explained <a href="http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/25/chao-chous-dog-has-puppies/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Blake — Your arguments are utterly irrelevant, for reasons explained here.

]]> by: Blake Runnoe http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-32145 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:31:42 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-32145 you know, it helps to provide the correct link. oh well, i'll defend my side even though the offence has not prepared for battle. 1. life cannot come from non-life. this is a scientific law. if you dissagree with this, you might have a very large community to convince. 2. infants come from fetuses. this is not so much as a law as it is a fact. you will still have a large community to convince otherwise. 3. a fetus is either A. human, or B. something that is not human (and becomes so at birth). 4. there a total of 0 species known to change their species at birth, or for that matter, any time. no genetic change occurs after the birth. therefore, we must assume that it is human. and the endinding of any innocent human life is considered murder, no matter where they are a citizen of. you know, it helps to provide the correct link. oh well, i’ll defend my side even though the offence has not prepared for battle.
1. life cannot come from non-life. this is a scientific law. if you dissagree with this, you might have a very large community to convince.
2. infants come from fetuses. this is not so much as a law as it is a fact. you will still have a large community to convince otherwise.
3. a fetus is either A. human, or B. something that is not human (and becomes so at birth).
4. there a total of 0 species known to change their species at birth, or for that matter, any time. no genetic change occurs after the birth. therefore, we must assume that it is human. and the endinding of any innocent human life is considered murder, no matter where they are a citizen of.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-4057 Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:49:37 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-4057 <i>The point is, human life is protected by the Constitution,</i> The 14th Amendment says that citizenship is determined by BIRTH. And what the constitution protects relates to citizens. Nice try; no cigar. Regarding "human life," however, I addressed (an destroyed) your argument <a href="The point is, human life is protected by the Constitution," rel="nofollow">here</a>. The point is, human life is protected by the Constitution,

The 14th Amendment says that citizenship is determined by BIRTH. And what the constitution protects relates to citizens. Nice try; no cigar.

Regarding “human life,” however, I addressed (an destroyed) your argument here.

]]> by: Cliff http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-4044 Sun, 26 Feb 2006 04:39:01 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-4044 As a proud Fetus Person, I would like to reject your notion that the character of Fetus People is the point. The point is, human life is protected by the Constitution, and it doesn't matter what anyone's character is, or what their gender is. I think the character of the abortionist is evil also, as he cruelly dissects a living being and tosses the body parts in the garbage, but that is subject to opinion. What is not subject to opinion is that life continues at conception, it doesn't begin. You can't get life from dead people. No matter whether you define it as a human being or not, it's a living thing ,and it's definitely human. And that human life is something that no one should have the right to terminate just because they feel enslaved by the normal natural functioning of their own body. As a proud Fetus Person, I would like to reject your notion that the character of Fetus People is the point. The point is, human life is protected by the Constitution, and it doesn’t matter what anyone’s character is, or what their gender is. I think the character of the abortionist is evil also, as he cruelly dissects a living being and tosses the body parts in the garbage, but that is subject to opinion. What is not subject to opinion is that life continues at conception, it doesn’t begin. You can’t get life from dead people. No matter whether you define it as a human being or not, it’s a living thing ,and it’s definitely human. And that human life is something that no one should have the right to terminate just because they feel enslaved by the normal natural functioning of their own body.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-2588 Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:29:55 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-2588 <i>Your saying that the Right is hiding behind Roe v. Wade? I think you missed the part were the Supreme Courte ruled in favor of abortion.</i> Yes, dear, they did. That was Roe v. Wade. The overwhelming majority of people in America support Roe v. Wade. This enables Republicans to simultaneously tell the anti-privacy people that they will end abortion while winking at the majority that, of course, they can't do that because of Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Republicans wll have to put up or shut up. <i>And what’s with comparing it to slavery for pro-death.</i> To be against a right to abortion is to be pro-death; for an explanation of this, see this book review by <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18670" rel="nofollow">Gary Will</a>s. <i>Did you also miss the part were the overwhelming majority of people say slavery is wrong? And how is slavery different from abortion?</i> Forcing a woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth against her will is something like slavery, yes. <i>It is one person controling another, having absolute rule over whether that person lives or dies.</i> "Person" is a social construct' it's not something that can be scientifically quantified.. "Person" is not DNA; tissue samples in a petrie dish are not a "person," for example, even though it may have human DNA.. And of course the product of conception is living, but that doesn't equal personhood, either. It is insentient, for one thing. It is a metaphysical construct to consider whether it is a separate being from the mother. And this is all way over your head, isn't it? Bottom line, your arguments are all irrelevant. If you are interested in what else I have to say about abortion, keyboard "abortion" into the search box in the right column and read what I've written. I'm not going to write more just because you can't keep up. Your saying that the Right is hiding behind Roe v. Wade? I think you missed the part were the Supreme Courte ruled in favor of abortion.

Yes, dear, they did. That was Roe v. Wade. The overwhelming majority of people in America support Roe v. Wade. This enables Republicans to simultaneously tell the anti-privacy people that they will end abortion while winking at the majority that, of course, they can’t do that because of Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Republicans wll have to put up or shut up.

And what’s with comparing it to slavery for pro-death.

To be against a right to abortion is to be pro-death; for an explanation of this, see this book review by Gary Wills.

Did you also miss the part were the overwhelming majority of people say slavery is wrong? And how is slavery different from abortion?

Forcing a woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth against her will is something like slavery, yes.

It is one person controling another, having absolute rule over whether that person lives or dies.

“Person” is a social construct’ it’s not something that can be scientifically quantified.. “Person” is not DNA; tissue samples in a petrie dish are not a “person,” for example, even though it may have human DNA.. And of course the product of conception is living, but that doesn’t equal personhood, either. It is insentient, for one thing. It is a metaphysical construct to consider whether it is a separate being from the mother. And this is all way over your head, isn’t it?

Bottom line, your arguments are all irrelevant. If you are interested in what else I have to say about abortion, keyboard “abortion” into the search box in the right column and read what I’ve written. I’m not going to write more just because you can’t keep up.

]]> by: Blake Runnoe http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-2585 Thu, 02 Feb 2006 03:46:37 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-2585 I'm missing something here. Your saying that the Right is hiding behind Roe v. Wade? I think you missed the part were the Supreme Courte ruled in favor of abortion. And what's with comparing it to slavery for pro-death. Did you also miss the part were the overwhelming majority of people say slavery is wrong? And how is slavery different from abortion? It is one person controling another, having absolute rule over whether that person lives or dies. You can dispute that it is a person, but how. It has its own genetic signiture and opporates individually. At what point does the infant become human, if not a conception? At the point of visibility? So whether you are a person is then determined by wether or not people can see you? That means a blind person could kill anyone, you know. But what if you believe that it is a human after a certian amount of time, what has happened to change it in that time. If you don't dispute that it is living, than you simply believe that a mother can kill her child any time she wants before birth. What changes after birth? I'll also say that no state will pass a law saying that the baby is a person, but the mother can kill it at any time. When you say the baby is not human, you are simply wrong. It is a scientific fact that an unborn infant is alive (Life cannot come from nonlife). It is human, because what would be the offspring of two humans? If you can answer that, than I'll believe anything you say. Also, it is impossible for the offspring to "evolve" to be human because it is also a law of thermodynamics that information cannot be gained (the order to chaos one). Getting a little off topic, but you can tell I feel very attamatly about this(but not spelling). You have also stereotyped all pro-life people by saying two people account for the opinions of an entire community. Paul Hill and... the other guy reflect the views of only a handfull of sick individuals. The violence that they acted out will never stop the violence against the unborn. Another thing, men are not conrolling women through this any more than men. Abortion is murder, and men cannot commit murder, so why should women be able to. On a final note, pro-death people don't need to be active, because their will is already imposed on us. A 13 year old girl who falls on the sidewalk can't get a bandaid from school without parental permission, yet that same school will provide her with the opportunity to get an abotion without the parents even knowing. That is why we are so atamate, because the state takes the power away from the parent and gives it to the child, who is deemed unable to make decisions for themselves (medical care, ocupation, residence...) In responce to Steve Nichols, engaging in intercourse with an intoxicated partner is considered rape. I’m missing something here. Your saying that the Right is hiding behind Roe v. Wade? I think you missed the part were the Supreme Courte ruled in favor of abortion.
And what’s with comparing it to slavery for pro-death. Did you also miss the part were the overwhelming majority of people say slavery is wrong? And how is slavery different from abortion? It is one person controling another, having absolute rule over whether that person lives or dies. You can dispute that it is a person, but how. It has its own genetic signiture and opporates individually. At what point does the infant become human, if not a conception? At the point of visibility? So whether you are a person is then determined by wether or not people can see you? That means a blind person could kill anyone, you know. But what if you believe that it is a human after a certian amount of time, what has happened to change it in that time. If you don’t dispute that it is living, than you simply believe that a mother can kill her child any time she wants before birth. What changes after birth? I’ll also say that no state will pass a law saying that the baby is a person, but the mother can kill it at any time.
When you say the baby is not human, you are simply wrong. It is a scientific fact that an unborn infant is alive (Life cannot come from nonlife). It is human, because what would be the offspring of two humans? If you can answer that, than I’ll believe anything you say. Also, it is impossible for the offspring to “evolve” to be human because it is also a law of thermodynamics that information cannot be gained (the order to chaos one). Getting a little off topic, but you can tell I feel very attamatly about this(but not spelling).
You have also stereotyped all pro-life people by saying two people account for the opinions of an entire community. Paul Hill and… the other guy reflect the views of only a handfull of sick individuals. The violence that they acted out will never stop the violence against the unborn.
Another thing, men are not conrolling women through this any more than men. Abortion is murder, and men cannot commit murder, so why should women be able to.
On a final note, pro-death people don’t need to be active, because their will is already imposed on us. A 13 year old girl who falls on the sidewalk can’t get a bandaid from school without parental permission, yet that same school will provide her with the opportunity to get an abotion without the parents even knowing. That is why we are so atamate, because the state takes the power away from the parent and gives it to the child, who is deemed unable to make decisions for themselves (medical care, ocupation, residence…)
In responce to Steve Nichols, engaging in intercourse with an intoxicated partner is considered rape.

]]> by: Faux Real :: Le Sigh, Le Disappointment :: January :: 2006 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-2516 Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:21:48 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-2516 [...] Expect more of this now that Alito has been cleared and the pro-fetus folks feel vindicated. [...] […] Expect more of this now that Alito has been cleared and the pro-fetus folks feel vindicated. […]

]]> by: Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Eyal Press: “My Father’s Abortion War” http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-2379 Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:46:52 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/01/22/abortion-and-slavery/#comment-2379 [...] Interesting reactions to the article include: this post by Aspazia at Mad Melancholic Feminista;  this post by Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money;  this post by Barbara O&#8217;Brien at The Mahablog;  and this post by D. Colson at complete and Utter&#8230;Darcination. [...] […] Interesting reactions to the article include: this post by Aspazia at Mad Melancholic Feminista;  this post by Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money;  this post by Barbara O’Brien at The Mahablog;  and this post by D. Colson at complete and Utter…Darcination. […]

]]>