Timing the Abortion Discussion

man-woman-yellingThe more time I spend in an abortion forum, the more I’m reminded why I don’t spend much time in abortion forums.  The place is just horrifically stupid and the people are just screaming at each other. Case in point, there are a bunch of fundamentalist Christian guys in the forum complaining that their wives just might decide to abort their unborn children and they can’t do a damn thing about it.  Well guess what, brain-trust, are you telling me that you’ve gone through this entire relationship, gotten married and never once had a discussion what would happen in this particular situation?  Really?

See, my wife and I had this discussion long before we got married, long before we were ever sexually active.  We decided that, even though we’re both adamantly pro-choice in our viewpoints, if an unwanted pregnancy ever occurred, we’d take responsibility for our actions and have the baby anyhow. Then, we were very careful because we knew that the decision had already been made, the discussion had already been held and we knew the expectations long before we might have had to deal with them.  Luckily for us, we never had an unwanted pregnancy, both of our kids were planned and wanted at the time we had them.

So what is wrong with these people that they never bother to have that talk?  Oh, we all know that these evangelical Christian men think their wives are slaves who will do whatever they want because they’re the man, yadda yadda yadda. These people are totally out of touch with the modern world, but if you want to know who is responsible for these little miscommunications, they need to look in the mirror, it’s almost always their own fault.  Granted, it is unlikely that these women, who are probably just as religious as their husband, would ever disrespect his wishes because they’ve been indoctrinated that way and these men are just trying to use this trumped up excuse as a ridiculous talking point against abortion, just like they say “my wife just might decide to be a lesbian, therefore homosexuality is wrong!”  They don’t get how this works.

Again, I’m left shaking my head at the utter stupidity of the anti-abortion side.  True, most on the pro-choice side are just as ridiculous but at least most of them don’t believe they have an imaginary friend in the sky telling them what to do and think and believe.  Their insanity is more politically based, not religiously based. It doesn’t make the arguments any better, just more grounded in reality.

And so, back to watching the insanity and the screaming and the ridiculous claims that anyone with half a clue could see right through.  Why don’t these people?  Oh yeah… half a clue… got it.

38 thoughts on “Timing the Abortion Discussion

  1. "True, most on the pro-choice side are just as ridiculous…"

    How so? What arguments favoring abortion from the pro-choice side have you heard that strike you as ridiculous? You say you are pro-choice. Why? What is the argument for the pro-choice position that persuades you to side with the pro-choice position? What blog or site are you visiting where you are experiencing the arguments you are talking about in this post?

    1. They pretend that the baby isn't deserving of life as long as it's killed before it takes it's first breath, and then if it survives, Obama voted for legislation that it can be set aside and allowed to die of neglect.

      If you hate life that much, perhaps it makes sense. I would think that's ridiculous.

      1. My, my you sure seem a bit honoree tonight Roger. Once again your a big man when it comes to picking on the women folk. Talk your shit to me big man! Whisper your sweet nothings to me like you do with other men!

        1. Do you realize your friends are all banned here?
          He likes debate, not spamming and not trolling.

          Unless you have something to actually add, it may not work out well for you here.

          1. Roger, I have known Cephus longer than you we commented many times over at Vjacks site a man who banned you because you are a douche spamming troll! Cephus keeps you around as a court Jester. Dance reply MONKEY DANCE!

          2. Yet here I am making a valid comment about abortion and the mind set that devalues the humanity of infants.

            And you, are all alone because trolls are banned.

          3. Roger, if trolls were banned here you would not be allowed to comment here just like you have been banned on nearly every site you have commented on in the last 5 years! You are nothing but a spamming TROLL, and a gay stalker of the real men you wish you were. Peace Out Pumpkin Butt!

          4. Once more you have nothing of the story or topic in your comment and still call me a troll?

            Does abortion, the termination of all these children mean nothing to you?

          5. I see opportunities in each child.
            When you cull the herd how do you know if you are eliminating the next Einstein? The next Bill Gates? The next Beethoven?

            All were failures on some societal setting.

            Do we need to be responsible for our reproductive actions? Of course. But there are more affordable, more safe and less damaging ways to have birth control than abortion.
            http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/19/73-studies-hav

            Clearly if the mothers life is in danger medical intervention is and should be considered.

            But to pretend abortion doesn't have it's downsides is irresponsible.

          6. To take your argument further one could be eliminating the next Hitler, Stalin, or Roger Russell. So abortion by your logic is a good deal for everyone.

          7. We could do both by self emulation of all human life.

            And to ignore the health complications left by abortion is still irresponsible when other less risky means of birth control is readily available.

          8. Especially when you consider that many Christians, Catholics especially, think that original sin doesn't occur until birth. Thus, anyone that is never born goes straight to heaven, do not pass go, do not collecto $200. You'd think they'd be in favor of abortion in that case, it guarantees nobody is ever damned. Of course, that's not really why they oppose abortion, it's because they want more butts in pews and more money in their coffers.

          9. They may not share their opinions, it's not your call to say they're wrong.

            It is you place to say you disagree.
            If you are correct and life has no value, why not act like other atheists like Lenin and pol pot?

      2. The developing fetus does not have a claim on the right to life in my view until sometime after the 21st week. Until then the woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps any consideration one might give to the developing fetus. After the 21st week of gestation, then the rights of the developing fetus should be considered against the bodily autonomy right of the woman.

        What legislation are you talking about? Provide a link. Substantiate this claim. I am not going to take your word for it.

          1. Not necessarily. You are going to have to offer your definition of partial-birth abortion, since this term is not actually a medical term. It is a political term coined by the National Right to Life organization. Even as a political term it has fuzzy meaning. I suggest you read this article about the term: http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-bir

            Give me a specific definition of what you mean by partial-birth abortion and I will tell you if I oppose or support it. Keep in mind that I support a woman's right without reservation or qualification to have an abortion anytime up to and including the 21st week. After that it is on a case-by-case basis.

          2. The definition is rather standard, even if you don't care for the source of the term.

            Partially born infants at full term who are aborted by inserting scissors into their brain and scrambling it.

          3. By partially born do you mean a fetus that has exited the womb and whose head is now exposed outside the labia and vulva, the entrance into the vagina?

          4. That's not how D&X abortions are done, they deflate the head inside the womb so it can pass through a partially dilated cervix. If they could get the head out that far, they'd just deliver normally. It's all political and religious nonsense.

          5. Deflate? That sounds so clinical. I'm sure the people who perform those procedures don't think much of the life they are taking. And since it's delivered feet first the cervix is more than just 'partially' dilated.

          6. And my comment was clinical. The cervix is dialated enough for the entire body to be delivered, all but the head which is stopped and stabbed with scissors at the base of the skill to kill the child.

            But don't pretend that the cervix hasn't dilated. When murdered, the baby is delivered the rest of the way.

          7. I knew this already about the procedure which is medically called intact dilation and extraction. I was attempting to get Roger to commit to a definition not filled with the ambiguity and confusion in the one he offered. One of his tactics, as you know, is to provide fuzzy meanings in an attempt to play the "i gotcha" game. I agree that what Roger is offering is political and religious nonsense. It is sad that his mind is so filled with nonsense that he is no longer capable of recognizing nonsense, assuming of course he was ever able to recognize it at all at some point in the past.

          8. What part of my definition was confusing?

            I used simple terms in a clear way.

            You of course reject them, but they were what they were.

          9. I explained what I meant.

            And you haven't explained why a child that close to birth, which is that viable that it's brains must be stabbed and scrambled to kill it, why it's not deserving of a more humane treatment.

          10. My answer to your original question, Roger, then must be no. I do not oppose partial-birth abortions, at least as you have defined them. Since you won't answer my question and more fully clarify what you meant by "Partially born" I am forced to reject your definition.

          11. Part out of the mother, part still inside the mother would be pretty clear, don't you? Born feet first would indicate the last part not born would be the other end, the head.

            It's not confusing.

            But I'm so glad you finally admit you want to kill babies at any stage of development.
            Why are you against post birth abortions?

          12. But that is so exceedingly rare that it's not worth basing a position on. There's only four doctors in the entire country who even do third trimester abortions at all, maybe 100 per year in total. That's less than 0.1% of all abortions. Partial birth abortions in the third trimester are virtually non-existent, only a handful every year. Hence, arguing against abortion on the basis of a minuscule number of controversial abortions is a bit silly, don't you think?

          13. Third trimester abortions are the only type of partial birth abortions done, its' much easier to do a d&c on fetuses until they reach a certain state of development.

          14. Actually, no they're not, the majority of D&X's are done in the second trimester. There are very, very few abortions of *ANY* kind done in the third trimester. Why are you making such a big deal about it?

          15. This is why. I have read material that it's not in the second trimester. And this is a first hand account of one procedure.
            http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/partial-b

            According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist “delivered the baby’s body and arms – everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.”

      3. Nobody is deserving of life. Life is just something that happens. Nobody is owed the chance to be alive. The overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs are flushed from the body and die, apparently your ridiculous God is fine with that.

        1. I suppose I can mostly agree with you on the first few sentences.

          I consider life a gift, but that each gift carries responsibilities.
          (how those responsibilities are laid out defines each society, a topic in itself)

          As a Christian I can rest that responsibility of life and death on a higher power.

          1. Life isn't a gift, life is a biological process. Just because you're religiously delusional doesn't mean anyone ought to take your silly beliefs seriously.

          2. It must be a chore to face life that biological process daily.

            Some, they show it's more than a process, it's an art. It's a leap into the unknown. It's a gift for those that embrace it. At least for me, and those Christians I know. Perhaps your lack of faith limits you.

Leave a Reply to Roger Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)