why not ask woman who had abortions past 3 months gestation what they think

Yeah, and some of those body parts were sold to Dr. Mengele, oh--I mean Ben Carson for his 'research', and since he was a neurosurgeon, you can bet it was the babies brain he bought.

 

Oh, they just discovered it did they?

 

I do NOT have to assume anything about Anti-Choicers, they put their hate right out there.....I go by what they say and they say they do NOT care about women's rights.


There is a LOT of real pain involved in taking away women's human rights to their own bodies but somehow Anti-Choicers don't really care about THAT pain.

Anti-Choicers could prove that isn't true by minding their own business....

 

Strawman. My comments do show that I have objections to abortion.

 

Considering the hearing faculty appears at about 16 weeks, calling this a fact not in evidence is charitable.

Alas, your ilk will never impart to them any such understanding.

 

I invite you to substantiate the claim that Carson, or someone acting on his behalf with his foreknowledge, personally received those.

 

I did some more research, and I was wrong for the most part. MOST of the tissue he used came from miscarriages or spontaneous abortions. So he says. I concede.

 

That's still pretty creepy, if not ethically problematic. How would you like to saw open the cranium of a miscarried little baby?

 

It's not a matter of like.....human tissue is used, and has been used for hundreds of years, for research.......and is off topic.....

BTW, researchers and doctors see all kinds of "icky" stuff as they are operating on human bodies.....didn't you know that??

Does it scare you?

 

Good, then you shouldn't have a problem with women being required to SEE their fetus after it is removed, yes?

I bet that would cut down on the number of abortions... probably turn many women over to the pro-life cause as well, after they realize what they've done.

 

'Anti-choicers', as you are want to call them, do not 'put their hate right out there'. You don't like that political stance, and how a subset are expressing that stance. You responded here by labeling the whole lot of them as haters for your own purposes and agenda. If a specific 'anti-choicer' was anything like me, he or she would not so much as raise an eyebrow to disprove an assertion made by you. Your venom expressed here already suggests that it isn't worth the caloric expense required to raise one.

I suggest you reread the post I made above, slowly and carefully. There is a profound difference between assuming or judging a woman's pain or guilt, and validating their own expressions of pain or guilt. My only assumption is that those expressions are formed by their experience and when presented to me, from whatever cause, are real and worthy of empathy. You got that?

Once more with feeling. I tend to believe women when they say, that they feel or felt pain or regret from decisions that they made with respect to having an abortion, not having had an abortion, choosing to be sterilized, choosing to bare a child, or giving one up for adoption. I will not minimize or marginalize what I hear from them, because it does or does not validate my own politics on reproductive and parenting rights.

If it pisses you off, because I included women who have said that they regret or feel guilty that they had an abortion on a video, that is just going to have to be your problem. I assume they are being truthful and that is the only assumption that I make about them. I judge that empathy is the right response when faced with expressions of pain or guilt. None of this precludes feeling empathy for women denied a right or choice to have an abortion. I was focusing on women who suffer and express guilt or loss or pain because of difficult decisions THEY MADE whatever the category of choice might have been because that was consistent with the framework in the video. I just broadened my interest well past just women who regret having an abortion to all sorts of others who made life-changing reproductive or parenting decisions.

Jeeze.

 

Sorry, expressing sympathy or trying to express empathy for women decisions doesn't mean that attempting to take away their rights is all good or OK.

You haven't changed :
"""There is a LOT of real pain involved in taking away women's human rights to their own bodies but somehow Anti-Choicers don't really care about THAT pain."""

 

Oh, look! A hateflled post by an Anti-Choicer right above yours! Read through the threads in this forum and then come back and tell me how the Anti-Choicers are all about love and sympathy.....

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you want women shown the results of THEIR legal medical procedure? Do you want EVERYONE to be forced to see the results of their legal medical procedures or just women???

 

If Anti-choicers represents a mathematical set of a population and anti-choisers who post on this forum represents part of the anti-choisers population, we call that a subset of the set. A subset of cannot be equal to the set from which it is drawn. In this case, 'Anti-choicers are not the same as Anti-choice haters in the forum, or this thread. Hoveland cannot represent the entire set, if he does not even represent the entire subset. You are stereotyping and labeling an entire political demographic based on specific behavior in a subset, you deem consistent with an attribute.

I do agree that Hoveland's idea is cruel, immoral, counter-productive, and hate-filled.

 

Math has nothing to do with it...I realize that reading back in the threads in this forum is rather a chore but it would prove that EVERY Anti-Choicer, no matter how reasonable they start out, ALWAYS end up sinking to the basic "I hate women and wish to control them" in one form or another. Their arguments are ground to dust, they get frustrated and their real motive emerges. Their "argument" dissolves into, " those slu!s should just keep their legs together" , "they're murdering babies!" , not one penny of my taxes should pay for abortions!"

And, even IF they shouldn't descend to such depths just advocating taking away women's right to their own bodies may as well be hate because what could be worse than losing the right to your own body....????

 

There was no claim made that expressing sympathy or trying to express empathy for women decisions means that attempting to take away their rights is all good or OK. I did not characterize the political aspirations of anti-choicers at all in this thread.

 

hmmm, let's see... ................. maybe losing your body permanently??


Again, pro-choicers make the fetus out to be chopped liver.

 

No, Pro-Choicers don't have a single opinion on what the fetus is......ALL Pro-Choice means is preserving the human right of women to their own body....I have NEVER seen one refer to a fetus as chopped liver....and neither have you...


DO tell WHY you think a fetus should have super rights over women??

 

Consciousness is not implied by the mere connection between a sensory neuron and the brain. Consciousness requires thalamocortical connections, and without consciousness the completion of the pathway for hearing is irrelevant. Consciousness of a sensory input will require not only the connection you referred to, but also processing of it.

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...man_Consciousness_From_Fetal_to_Neonatal_Life

 

To be sure; but of course the presence of the hearing faculty implies quite a bit more than mere neural connections.

Actually there isn't a scientist on the face of the Earth who knows whether consciousness requires any neural connections at all.