Thursday, June 18, 2009

1972: A flukey thing? Malpractice? We don't know.

"Sara" underwent a second trimester abortion in New York City in May of 1972. She was 18 weeks pregnant.

She had problems with retained tissue, so three weeks after the abortion she had a D&C to remove the tissue.

Sara had developed infection from the retained tissue, and on June 18, 1972, the infection took her life. She left one child motherless.

For the benefit of those readers who happen to be Tlaloc, note that I am not asserting that Sara's doctor did anything that constituted malpractice or lawbreaking. If we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he really did think a dead baby is a good thing, we don't have enough information to say he went about killing Sara's baby in a particularly inexcusable way. We don't even know which technique he used to pass judgment on that decision. We don't know why he didn't get all of the tissue out of Sara's uterus. We don't know why he didn't notice that he hadn't removed the entire fetus and all of the placenta. We don't know why it took three weeks for anybody to notice the retained tissue. We don't know why the attempts to correct the problem were ineffectual. And, Tlaloc, you will note that in all the years that I've blogged Sara's death on the anniversary of that sad event, I've not called her doctor a quack or a butcher, I've not demanded that his license be yanked, I've not said he belongs in jail.

Evidently, Tlaloc, I'm capable of giving even an abortionist the benefit of the doubt if I don't have evidence that he did anything wrong other than make the perfectly legal judgment that a dead baby is a good thing. And I've conceded that there are no doubt some doctors that really do agree with you that dead babies are just as good as live ones, and often far superior.

For more abortion deaths, visit the Cemetery of Choice:



To email this post to a friend, use the icon below.

32 comments:

Tlaloc said...

"Evidently, Tlaloc, I'm capable of giving even an abortionist the benefit of the doubt if I don't have evidence that he did anything wrong other than make the perfectly legal judgment that a dead baby is a good thing."

Capable but not consistent. You don't have any proof against Tiller, but you imagine you do and so supposition substitutes for proof and gives you ironclad certainty regardless of all the pesky little facts that get in te way.

This is one of those echo chamber effects where you spend so much time deeply enmeshed with prolife causes that your take on bad assumptions of the group, assumptions that are pretty obviously false but uncontested among the sources you trust.

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc: "...uncontested among the sources you trust."

You've been guilty of the same thing, my friend.

In response to Kathy referring you to a host of physicians who state that late-term abortions are never necessary to save the life of the mother you had this to say: "...but other doctors disagree, and those doctors are clearly in the majority." This shows alliance to your own sources.

Furthermore, you didn't provide the proof and/or resources that showed that the majority of doctors disagree. Rather, you made a blanket statement and expected us to trust you.

You did the same thing in regards to when the human becomes an organism. The Purple Envelope responded with source after source defining when the human becomes an organism (at conception); you then changed the subject of organism and started to argue about "development." When you actually mentioned the organism debate, all you did was simply attack the author without addressing the point given.

You have your "convenient" sources too, don't you? Further, you ignore plenty of sources that state the contrary in same way that you blame us for doing. I here a Bible quote coming on... O_O!!!

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3

We both may be at fault; however, we need to be honest about ourselves first.

SegaMon said...

Here = hear (obvious typo) lol

Tlaloc said...

"In response to Kathy referring you to a host of physicians who state that late-term abortions are never necessary to save the life of the mother you had this to say: "...but other doctors disagree, and those doctors are clearly in the majority." This shows alliance to your own sources."

No it doesn't. What it shows is "alliance" to the concept of consensus. In the situation in which you have disagreeing experts and not enough personal knowledge to be competent to make a judgment, then the default assumption should be that the position with the widest support is most likely correct. This is a basic concept underlying science in specific and the rational interpretation of conflicting data in general.



"Furthermore, you didn't provide the proof and/or resources that showed that the majority of doctors disagree. Rather, you made a blanket statement and expected us to trust you."

No, I expected you to have enough long term memory to remember that Tiler's practices were taken before a panel of doctors and they found no fault with them. I've mentioned it enough times I figured you guys would recall the incident.




"You did the same thing in regards to when the human becomes an organism. The Purple Envelope responded with source after source defining when the human becomes an organism (at conception); you then changed the subject of organism and started to argue about "development.""

That wasn't a change of subject at all, it was an explanation of why she was misinterpreting the passage. The term "development" has meaning, one of the meanings is that the thing in question is not yet the thing it is developing into. In this case the fact that a fetus is in the process of becoming an organism logically precludes it from being an organism.



"You have your "convenient" sources too, don't you?"

Do I? Why don't you name them? Seems to me about the only sources I've used are results of the grand jury, the jury, and the review board. I suppose those are rather convenient for me, seeing as how they are authoritative and entirely in support of my argument.



"We both may be at fault; however, we need to be honest about ourselves first."

If I may be a bit forthcoming- honest appraisal of yourselves doesn't seem to be a strong point with you guys. You consistently ignore just how incredibly biased you are in these matters.

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc: "I expected you to have enough long term memory to remember..."

I did remember. However, you have not provided actual statements from credible sources that support your arguments. You know, a source that says something like "it's a medical necessity to abort a 32 week fetus under x, y, and z circumstances to save the mothers life." Haven't seen it. Please help me.

Tlaloc: "That wasn't a change of subject at all, it was an explanation of why she was misinterpreting the passage."

Then you were flat out wrong.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission: "Embryo: the developing organism" suggests a current state of an organism developing from an earlier stage to a later stage. "...the organism becomes known as a fetus," notice how both before AND after becoming a fetus the embryo is referred to as an organism.

The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary: "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development..." This shows that it is indeed an organism during the embryonic stage.

You stated that it was "developing" into an organism. This is CLEARLY not the intent of these statements.

Maybe your primary language is not English? Throw me a bone here.

Tlaloc: "Seems to me about the only sources I've used are results of the grand jury, the jury, and the review board."

Then why don't we hear and debate what they had to say? Maybe they were right; maybe they were wrong. It would be nice to know. A question: are these your only sources?

Tlaloc: "You consistently ignore just how incredibly biased you are in these matters."

I am very much biased. I am because it is my duty to speak up against the slaughter of the innocent.

I need an honest answer to this question, Tlaloc: how biased are you regarding this matter?

Tlaloc said...

"However, you have not provided actual statements from credible sources that support your arguments. You know, a source that says something like "it's a medical necessity to abort a 32 week fetus under x, y, and z circumstances to save the mothers life." Haven't seen it. Please help me."

I haven't, you're right. Nor do I feel any need to. Instead what i have done is shown that there has not been any sanction of a doctor who was ostensibly doing abortions for medical necessity in that time frame. The implicit assumption is that if they were truly not necessary at least one authority would recognize this and would have censured the man. Since I am willing to leave medical decisions to doctors I really don't feel any need to go beyond that.



"National Bioethics Advisory Commission: "Embryo: the developing organism" suggests a current state of an organism developing from an earlier stage to a later stage. "...the organism becomes known as a fetus," notice how both before AND after becoming a fetus the embryo is referred to as an organism."

Then they obviously need the same crash course in the definition of "developing" that you did. It is worth pointing out that the NBAC was entirely a product of the Bush Whitehouse, an administration with no regard for science at all.



"The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary: "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development..." This shows that it is indeed an organism during the embryonic stage."

No it really doesn't. If I say "Outline: an essay in the earliest stage of development..." that does NOT mean an outline is an essay.

I can't understand why the word "developing" is giving you so much trouble. Developing means it is not the thing it is developing to yet.



"Maybe your primary language is not English? Throw me a bone here."

Irony is anther word you apparently have trouble with. Look I honestly don't believe that you are so incapable of understanding the word "developing" and so I have to assume you are being deliberately dense in this matter. I really don;t understand what you hope to gain by such a transparent inability to parse a sentence.

Tlaloc said...

"Then why don't we hear and debate what they had to say? Maybe they were right; maybe they were wrong. It would be nice to know."

Feel free to look them up.



"A question: are these your only sources?"

I suppose that depends on which arguments you want to include. Those are the sources with regards to Tiller. Obvious if the question is with regards to the definition of "organism" or "developing" then they aren't.



"I am very much biased. I am because it is my duty to speak up against the slaughter of the innocent."

And that's fine, it really is fine for you to be biased. It doesn't make you a bad person or anything. But what it does mean is you need to understand that you are fundamentally incapable of weighing evidence in the matter in any kind of fair way. That being the case you really should be much more willing to accept such weighings from impartial sources.




"I need an honest answer to this question, Tlaloc: how biased are you regarding this matter?"

Mildly. Yeah I know you don't believe it. How could someone not adamantly pro-choice possibly disagree with your well thought out argument?

I am pro-choice because I think it's more rational, and because I don't accept the principally religious arguments that a fertilized egg is a human being. That said I do believe the fetus becomes a human being in utero somewhere around weeks 30-35. I'm against abortion after this point for non-medical reasons. Prior to that point I think a woman can have an abortion for any reason or no reason, because the fetus is merely another of her tissues and if she doesn't want it its no different than me getting a mole removed.

That said I very much would like abortion to be rare. Why? Because its expensive, because its surgery and has risks to the mother, because it often carries with it an emotional impact. All of which can be greatly mitigated through better sex ed and contraceptive use. The problem is the prolife movement is so reactionary and so willing to lie and cheat and so on that they make any kind of real discussion of abortion impossible. You can't have a meaningful debate if the other side simply says "it's evil, period."

All your fervor only helps to solidify the status quo. You guys ruin any chance to make headway because you are too busy being self righteous. And so you end up supporting a situation in which abortion is available and very plentiful.

But to get back to the point. I blogged for a long time on GNN. By the time I left I had 652 blog entries. A whopping 16 of them even have the word abortion in them (and many of those its just a side tangent). If you want to see them they are here:

http://tlaloc.gnn.tv/users/blogs.php

That's all of them, just search for abortion to see the 16. GNN was a political website and the vast majority of my posts there were about politics and yet abortion posts were just 2.5% of the total. I think that indicates that abortion is far from a central issue for me (I do not have some other abortion focused blog thus artificially lowering my GNN numbers).

SegaMon said...

Tlaloc, thank you for your response.

I want to directly address only one thing in your post.

Tlaloc: " You can't have a meaningful debate if the other side simply says 'it's evil, period.'"

Yes, to me, abortion is an evil that must be dealt with. However, there are many, many intelligent arguments that are against abortion. The arguments are strong enough to change the mind of an atheist and avid abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson. There are numerous biologists, pharmacists, nurses, and doctors that are pro-life and hold their position primarily on scientific grounds. The argument against abortion is not just "oh, it's eeeeevil!" Nor is it centered on "sluts must keep the legs closed!" It's not even centered on God or religion. It is centered on respect for the human being and the proof (that pro-lifers see) that the unborn are indeed human beings.

Pro-lifers don't like taking chances on life like you do: "Oh... well... somewhere between 30-35 weeks it's a human being." Your timeline would certainly count out my own niece who was born at 28 weeks gestation and who is now 10 years old.

Little arguments of the negligence of certain abortion providers aside, my concern is with human beings. My career is nursing; my job is to help be a part of keeping people alive. I would like to also be a part of keeping the smallest and youngest of our population alive and safe from therapeutic abortions.

That's my bias. This particular bias has a bit more at stake than yours. Your bias is "I want women to not have the burden of raising a child they don't want." My bias is "I don't want 1 million human beings to be murdered every year in our country." The pro-life's stake is a bit higher.

Tlaloc said...

"The argument against abortion is not just "oh, it's eeeeevil!" Nor is it centered on "sluts must keep the legs closed!" It's not even centered on God or religion. It is centered on respect for the human being and the proof (that pro-lifers see) that the unborn are indeed human beings."

Lets just say I have trouble seeing "respect for human beings" in the actions of the prolife movement. You have the various assaults, the threats the bomsb the murders, and on another plane you have the pervasive lying and demonizing of human beings.

That really doesn't sound like it comes from respect. It sounds a lot more like it comes from fanaticism. It is the kind of "end justifies the means" action you get from people who believe they have divine providence on their side.

The prolife movement is overwhelmingly religious with the atheist members being a tiny tiny minority. This isn't automatically a bad thing but you need to recognize that your movement is far more based on dogma than reason, and consequently has all of the usual flaws of such a movement (including the ends and means reasoning I mention above).

But leaving aside the issue of the source the fact is the prolife argument as a whole does in fact come down to "it's evil. period." They don't want to meet us half way. They don't want to talk about sensible limits to abortion. All they want is to try and force a complete ban. Hell even the idea of a rape and incest exception is a hard sell to the prolifers!

I'd be very happy to work with people who don;t like abortion if I had any reason at all to believe they were working in good faith, but I have reams of evidence to the contrary!

Prolifers have tried everything they can to make abortion illegal, and when that fails they attack the doctors and try to make it inaccessable. Such people are tyrants. They are fanatics. They have chosen to remove themselves from any reasonable dialogue.

And at the same time so long as they exist people like me are afraid to give any ground because we know it's just a cynical ploy by them to push their extremism an inch closer.

Which means they only make abortion more deeply seated into the national character.

Prolifers would accomplish much more if they tried being less righteous and more reasonable.



"My bias is "I don't want 1 million human beings to be murdered every year in our country." The pro-life's stake is a bit higher."

And yet you'd rather enjoy the feeling of being holier than thou instead of making headway in your cause. Think about that- you;re enjoyment at self righteousness outweighs the supposed million murders a day.

SegaMon said...

Although your thoughts of the pro-life movement are wrong, my last post was not about that. You changed the subject once again.

I was talking about why I am pro-life. I was talking about the reasons why I, personally, feel the way that I do about the topic. I was talking about why I defend the unborn.

I'm not here to defend other pro-lifers. I'm sure there are plenty of crazy pro-life nut-jobs (though I do not know of any personally). Throughout my life I have experienced much hate from pro-choicers when I express my opinion. For peacefully expressing my views in public I have been told to go to hell, had objects thrown at me from cars moving at 55 mph, been yelled and cursed at (and practically spit upon) by a pro-choicer, and one person started marching toward me in anger threatening to beat me up.

I'm sure that there are many pro-lifers that have done similar things. Evil things can be done from people on both sides of the debate. Humans are humans, Tlaloc.

My views are not based on movements or which group of people I like more. Nor should this be what you base your opinions on, either, Tlaloc.

Being Catholic has certainly helped me to develop a pro-life position. However, it was not being Catholic that made me pro-life. I looked at the issue from both sides and at all of the facts. I have rethought these things through in my mind many times.

Heck, going through nursing school has cemented my pro-life beliefs too. In an obstetrics lecture the instructor passed around life-size models showing varying degrees of fetal development. I could hold these models in the palm of my hand. This experience continued to solidify my belief in the complete humanity of the unborn.

Tlaloc, I fully believe that human beings begin life at conception. I live my life with that reality stuck firmly in my mind. As a nurse, human, Christian, and *maybe* an intellectual, it is my duty to protect my fellow man. Today I floated to the postpartum department at work. I was asked to give Depo-Provera. This medication can prevent the implantation of an embryo (and thus kill the unborn child). I did not give this medication to the patient due to my belief (although another nurse did give it).

I do what I can to love, care for, and help others. I cannot speak for other pro-lifers. My post had nothing to do with others but with my own convictions and my reasons for them. Maybe you can respond to my own reasons for being pro-life rather than attack all pro-lifers collectively as a group. We are individuals with separate minds, Tlaloc.

Tlaloc said...

"I was talking about why I am pro-life. I was talking about the reasons why I, personally, feel the way that I do about the topic. I was talking about why I defend the unborn."

That's fine, but assuming you want to convince people then you need to understand how your perception varies from those of others.



"My views are not based on movements or which group of people I like more. Nor should this be what you base your opinions on, either, Tlaloc."

I don't see why you say this. Why shouldn't I judge the prolife movement by the movement?



"Tlaloc, I fully believe that human beings begin life at conception."

I believe you do.



"I do what I can to love, care for, and help others. I cannot speak for other pro-lifers. My post had nothing to do with others but with my own convictions and my reasons for them."

Let me ask you a question... do you contribute time or money to any prolife groups? See, cause if you do then I think that they're methods do in fact come into the matter.

Furthermore even with regards to you as an individual, you don't seem any less willing to demonize an innocent doctor than your fellow travelers.

SegaMon said...

I asked regarding the obvious use of the word "develop" to you: "throw me a bone here."

A sentence applying "develop" in the same way that you define it: "A sperm developing into an embryo." A sperm doesn't develop into an embryo; a sperm joins with an oocyte to create an embryo.

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development..." (suggests present tense)

To make the sentence above to mean what you want it to mean you must reword it entirely:

"Embryo: A collection of living tissue that will eventually develop into an organism..." (suggests what will happen in the future)

Any suggestions? Maybe we speak different languages? Like I said, throw me a bone here.

BTW, I'm not purposely ignoring what the sentence means. I'm sincerely tying to see where you're coming from.

Tlaloc said...

"To make the sentence above to mean what you want it to mean you must reword it entirely:"

Again- no you really don't.

If I say "Outline: an outline in the earliest stage of development" does that mean an outline is an essay?

The correct answer is "no, it doesn't." It doesn't even remotely mean that. In fact it directly means the opposite: that an outline is not an essay but a stage of essay development.

I don't know how I can make this more explicit. Development means something is becoming something else. A thing cannot develop into itself because development involves change. In this case the change from embryo (or blstocyst, or egg) into an organism. One thing becoming something else.

A child is a stage of development of an adult, it is not a stage of development of an organism, because it is already an organism.

Tlaloc said...

shoot, that should say "Outline: an essay in the earliest stage of development"

Kathy said...

Just a quick response to the outline/essay/organism/development thing -- I don't think it is correct to say that an outline is an essay in the earliest stage of development. I would say "Outline: the first stage of development of an essay," because an outline is not an essay. But, Tlaloc, perhaps you can find a grammar expert who says your analogy is correct.

SegaMon said...

"Outline: an outline in the earliest stage of development." Notice that the word "outline" is stated twice.

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development." Notice that the word "embryo" is stated once and is not repeated. Rather, "organism" is stated.

Your comparison is incorrect.

I would like to hear a response to my post about my personal reasons for being pro-life. You don't have to if you don't want to. Thank you! :)

SegaMon said...

This thread has become confusing. I have missed a few of Tlaloc's posts for some reason. I just read them right now. I see that Tlaloc did make a correction and did address (somewhat) my own personal beliefs.

Sorry for missing those things, Tlaloc.

So, let's see if I can reconstruct what I was trying to say.

Tlaloc: "Outline: an essay in the earliest stage of development"

The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary: "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development"

Does an outline ever become an essay? Your example is faulty due to the comparing the wrong two things. A proper match to your example would be as follows:

Tlaloc: "Outline: an essay in the earliest stage of development"

Closest Match: "DNA: An organism in the earliest stage of development"

For you see, DNA can never become an organism (it is the blueprint for an embryo/organism). This is also true for an outline (since it is the blueprint for an essay). You are comparing apples to oranges.

Furthermore, I found some sources regarding embryos being organisms in ways that may be more clear to you:

NPR: "...the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism..." npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703

New World Encyclopedia: "In a broad sense of the term, an organism is an embryo between the time of fertilization and the time that it is anatomically and physiologically complete..." newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Embryo

Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary: "Embryo: a new organism in the earliest stage of development." medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/embryo (I know it's from a veterinary dictionary, lol. The other entries on the page are phrased similarly to the sentence that we are in debate over)

Science Daily: "...the first quantum dots applied to a living organism, a frog embryo." (Here referring to a frog embryo as an organism)

Human Development and Anatomy Center: "In a continuous sequence of structural alterations such as occurs in the development of an embryo, any subdivision into stages must necessarily be arbitrary, and the number of possible stages becomes infinite. ... one must not fail to take into consideration the
individual parts of the organism, since these do not develop at an equal rate..." biology-online.org/biology-forum/about8521.html?hilit=Subdivision

For Women in Science: "Fertilization produces a new and complete, though immature, human organism." agora.forwomeninscience.com/bioethics/2006/09/the_moral_status_of_the_human.php

Am I wasting too much time? Anyways... I'm sorry that I missed a few of your posts, Tlaloc. I want to respond to them a bit more in detail later. Thanks for debating with me.

Tlaloc said...

"I would say "Outline: the first stage of development of an essay," because an outline is not an essay."

Precisely, and now substitute in fetus and organism and you have it exactly right. A fetus is not an organism, but is a stage of development.

Tlaloc said...

"Sorry for missing those things, Tlaloc."

Not a problem, obviously the mix up wouldn't have happened if I'd written it right the first time instead of having to correct.


"Does an outline ever become an essay?"

Sure it does. You start with the outline and then flesh it out into the essay, the same way that you start with a fertilized egg with then is fleshed out over the course of the pregnancy until it finally becomes an independent organism.



"NPR: "...the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism...""

Obviously that statement is false. An embryo is nowhere near complete. That's simply factually wrong. The very term "embryo" refers to the fact that it is incomplete/immature.

I'm sure you can find references to people using the term organism incorrectly (indeed you have). Just as surely I can find references to people using any term wrong, even those who really should know better. What makes more sense is to talk about the definition, rather than usage.

An organism is the basic unit of a species, it is capable of carrying on all the life processes as the species does, subdivisions of an organism may be alive but are not themselves members of the species. In other words, your hand is made of living human cellular material, but your hand is not a human being. There's a very easy way to make this distinction- your hand carries on the various life processes (it eats, it breathes, it excretes wastes, etc) but it does not do these as a human being does them (it breathes by absorbing oxygen from the blood not by using lungs, and so on).

This gives you a very simple and easy definition of an organism, and how to tell the difference between the organism and the living material from which it is made.

SegaMon said...

So... respected scientific journals and medical dictionaries have misused the word "organism?" That's a hard pill for me to swallow.

An outline is separate than an essay. When the essay is done, the outline is still available. This is how I have been taught to do it, anyways. First, one writes out the outline. Then, on a separate sheet of paper, one writes out the essay based upon the blueprint of the outline.

This use of an outline has changed a little since the advent of word processing on computers, however. An outline to you is most likely the same computer document for some writers. Most would agree that it would be best to have a separate computer file to store an outline (so it can be saved for further reference).

biology-online.org: "Organism: An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal."

Is there a more complex definition than this?

I have found it common to get into word games with pro-choicers. I wonder why?

Tlaloc said...

"An outline is separate than an essay. When the essay is done, the outline is still available."

Obviously any analogy can be taken to a point where it breaks down.



"This is how I have been taught to do it, anyways. First, one writes out the outline. Then, on a separate sheet of paper, one writes out the essay based upon the blueprint of the outline."

You can also use the outline directly to write the essay, building it up around the skeleton of the outline.



" biology-online.org: "Organism: An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal." Is there a more complex definition than this?"

Certainly, that definition doesn't clearly differentiate between a cell that is part of an organism and the entire organism. The term "individual is rather nebulous as evinced by the fact that you consider a fetus to be an individual while I don't.

Furthermore viruses aren't usually considered organisms since they are incapable of reproduction without using the cellular organelles of a host.



"I have found it common to get into word games with pro-choicers. I wonder why?"

We wouldn't have to except pro-lifers are trying to claim a mantle of science that isn't theirs.

Kathy said...

The term "individual is rather nebulous as evinced by the fact that you consider a fetus to be an individual while I don't.

This is the crux of the whole problem -- you are insisting upon a definition based on your belief system, all the while refusing a definition based on our belief system. You refuse to believe a fetus is an individual; we refuse to believe otherwise. Why should your belief system be better than our belief system?

Kathy said...

Also, an "individual living thing" differentiates between a part of an organism and the entire organism. I am an "individual living thing" and am composed of living cells which are not "individual" since they are a part of me. Fetal cells are not a part of the mother.

OperationCounterstrike said...

Kathy, you're absolutely right. The fetus is not part of the mother.

But the fetus is LOCATED INSIDE the mother.

All by itself that fact gives her the right to have it killed.

If you were located inside me I'd be entitled to have YOU killed! And, vice-versa.

In fact if all the people in the whole wide world were assembled somewhere inside my body (total immersion, like when Zeus seduced that girl in the form of a snake), then I'd be entitled to holocaust 'em. Or just kill some of them. Right-to-lifers who think abortion rights still depend on the outmoded non-personhood argument go first.

That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body".

Check out my new abortion blog, which is unlike any other.

GrannyGrump said...

Kathy, you said, "This is the crux of the whole problem -- you are insisting upon a definition based on your belief system, all the while refusing a definition based on our belief system."

Actually, the problem isn't refusing to use a definition based on our belief system. The problem is refusing to use a definition that's based in reality. The fetus is a distinct, unique organism. When we call it a baby and they quibble, we can go back to the fact that regardless of our belief in its value, it's still an organism. An organism of our species. That's not our opinion, that's not our belief system, that's simply reality.

And that's where we run into a lot of trouble trying to talk to abortion supporters. They've bought into the idea that their personal belief system trumps all else. And you can't counter that. It's like trying to convince a schizophrenic that space aliens have not taken over the Department of Motor Vehicles, or whatever.

GrannyGrump said...

OC, the fetus is inside the mother because she did something to cause the fetus to be there. She is punishing the fetus for something SHE did.

What makes her so special that she's allowed to not just punish, but outright KILL, somebody else for something SHE DID?

You have to be a profound enemy of personal responsibility to be for abortion.

Kathy said...

I think OC is actually SoMG. Sounds exactly like him, anyway.

Kathy said...

OC,

It would still be murder to kill a person inside your body.

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kathy said...

SoMG is the name a previous regular commenter used, and you sound just like him. Or her. Pro-abortion talking points. Sounds kinda like "blah, blah, blah" to me.

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kathy said...

I get that you value your opinion very highly. But it doesn't mean that your opinion is correct nor more valuable than my opinion. So, basically, yeah, I'm still just hearing "blah, blah, blah," because you're just recycling the same old lame pro-abortion talking points.