On April 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pm, MissEm said:
So what? The fact that the child feeds off her nourishment does not necessitate that its right to live is subordinate to the woman’s right to not be pregnant. A nursing baby survives off its mother’s nourishment. If she doesn’t want to feed it, and doesn’t, she is guilty of a crime.

The difference here being that once the child is actually born, pretty much anyone can keep it alive. It doesn’t have to be the actual biological mother. When the child is still unborn, the prospective mother can’t hand the reins to someone else, which I feel necessitates her right to do whatever she wants up until the point where the child is born, after which certain laws and regulations apply if you want to get rid of the child.

Anyway, I think we disagree on a pretty fundamental level on this. I doubt I’ll manage to convince you to share my point of view (which I hope I’ve made clear enough over the course of these posts), or vice versa. So, uhm. Let’s call it a day?

On April 17th, 2008 at 10:38 pm, chapoutier said:

Oh god Lichthammer.

“git choppy”?

I know it is wrong but I cannot stop laughing.

8D

“git choppy”?

I know it is wrong but I cannot stop laughing.

Obama isn’t the only pro-choice candidate up for the presidency, and he hasn’t been any more effusive about his “love” for abortion than Hillary, frankly, so I don’t quite understand the focus on him here. These are incredibly hyperbolic statements:

Can’t handle the angle of the jape man? Some Ivy League skank who claims to induce abortions on herself for some macabre impressionism and a presidential candidate who feels comfortable with aborting a fetus even if it’s still squirming on the gurney seems like two heads of the same hydra. I don’t feel the connection is a tenuous thread.

On April 17th, 2008 at 8:33 pm, Lichthammer

I’m glad you’re consistent. Still wrong, I think, though.

I believe so, and so does society. Leaving them out in the forest for the wolves is a little out of style – having them sent off to be adopted and thus raised and cared for by someone else is not.

Leaving them in the forest for the wolves is not only passe, but is also illegal and would be considered criminally negligent homicide, if not murder, should the child die.

If he or she can muster the balls to bring out the hacksaw and git choppy, then by all means.

I don’t know if anything like this has been attempted or done, so I don’t really know if it would be considered murder. I suspect so, though, unless separation were required to save the twin’s life, in which case they could argue self-defense.

Because the child is living inside of her and feeding off her nourishment.

So what? The fact that the child feeds off her nourishment does not necessitate that its right to live is subordinate to the woman’s right to not be pregnant. A nursing baby survives off its mother’s nourishment. If she doesn’t want to feed it, and doesn’t, she is guilty of a crime. If the child dies as a result, she is guilty of murder. Do you think that a mother should have the legal right to allow her child to die? Given your responses to the above, perhaps you do. Not much I can say to that. Perhaps you feel that these laws, like those pesky drug laws and anti-suicide laws, criminalize things that should not be illegal. I can’t think of any country where that would be the case, buy maybe you could buy an island somewhere and create a semi-anarchist paradise or something.

On April 17th, 2008 at 8:15 pm, MissEm said
Do you also believe that parents have the right to abandon their infants?

I believe so, and so does society. Leaving them out in the forest for the wolves is a little out of style – having them sent off to be adopted and thus raised and cared for by someone else is not.

Do you also believe that a conjoined twin whose twin will die if they are separated has the right to unilaterally remove the other twin?

If he or she can muster the balls to bring out the hacksaw and git choppy, then by all means.

Why is a woman’s right to not be pregnant more respectable than a baby/fetus’s right to stay alive?

Because the child is living inside of her and feeding off her nourishment.

And seeing as it’s now 02:30 here, I’d be more than happy to continue this discourse after I’ve had some hours of sleep.

The thing is growing inside of your body because you want it to keep growing inside of your body. It lives purely off of your hospitality. If someone doesn’t want it there, I believe it’s their right to have it removed, human being or not.

Do you also believe that parents have the right to abandon their infants?

Do you also believe that a conjoined twin whose twin will die if they are separated has the right to unilaterally remove the other twin?

Why is a woman’s right to not be pregnant more respectable than a baby/fetus’s right to stay alive?

On April 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm, MissEm said:
That is nothing like a “lump of flesh”. It’s not just a part of someone else’s body. It’s its own body. Why is this so hard for pro-choicers to admit?

I’m perfectly aware that it’s a body in its own respect. It’s not that I refuse to acknowledge an unborn child as human, it’s more a fundamentally different take on who’s in charge. You provided the answer to the riddle yourself:

[...]what is growing inside your body means nothing if you don’t want it there.

This. The thing is growing inside of your body because you want it to keep growing inside of your body. It lives purely off of your hospitality. If someone doesn’t want it there, I believe it’s their right to have it removed, human being or not.

As for the pig thing, I was wrong. At 4 weeks it actually looks more like a very small Xenomorph.

Yale says it’s a “hoax,” and that her project is “a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body.”

I wonder if the reporter from the Yale Daily News knew that everything was just part of the “fictional narrative” of this project?

Obama isn’t the only pro-choice candidate up for the presidency, and he hasn’t been any more effusive about his “love” for abortion than Hillary, frankly, so I don’t quite understand the focus on him here. These are incredibly hyperbolic statements: I can’t imagine anyone truly believes Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) would condone or support this kind of thing.

1. There was this little matter about Obama’s position on babies who survived abortion…

2. He just contrasted Coburn with Ayers.

Sadly, my comment was only partly in jest.

nyk said:

I just wanted to point out that this is extreme by any measure.

Like Jeremiah Wright, clinging to religion out of bitterness, etc. At least, one would think these things are “extreme” by any measure, but apparently not. You see, Obama’s church isn’t “actually particularly controversial.” Uh huh.