Restraint of the Heartless

Goodbye

2009-12-31T09:05:00.000-08:00

I'm closing Restraint of the Heartless now.

I think now you deserve to know the meaning of "Nulono".

In Esperanto:

"nul" is the word for zero.
"-on-" is the suffix for creating a fraction ("kvar", meaning four, plus "-on", plus "-o", makes "kvarono", a fourth or a quarter)
"-o" is the standard grammatical ending for nouns

Thus a "nulono" would be a "zero-th", or one divided by zero.

Now, division by zero is impossible (as far as we know in 02009), and would have some very serious implications if it was possible. Consider the expression a=b, where a and b can be any numbers. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that a=2 and b=3002.

0*2 = 0
0*3002 = 0

By the reflexive property, 0=0.

Because 0*2 and 0*3002 are both equal to zero, we can substitute them in as such:

0*2 = 0*3002

So, by the multiplicative property of equality, if divide both sides by zero (multiply them by one "nulono"), we will arrive at an equation that still holds true.

Thus:

(0*2)*(1/0) = (0*3002)*(1/0)

(0*2)/0 = (0*3002)/0

Simplifying, we get:

2 = 3002

This exact same procedure works with any two numbers. Thus, the existence of 1/0 would make any number equal to every other number. Numbers, thus, would be completely meaningless, and the entire field of mathematics would come crumbling down.

What does this have to do with me, you ask?

Yes, I am an atheist (in fact, I am an antitheist). I am also a liberal (in fact, I'm a communist). I am also a feminist (In fact, I support the Equal Rights Amendment*). I am also pro-gay. I am also in favor of helping those in need. I am also pro-science.

Yet I am also pro-life.

I make many people's stereotyping world-views crumble to the ground, just like 1/0 would do to mathematics. I chose "Nulono" because I pretty quickly decided "Cde. Oxymoron" was setting me up for trouble.

*, though equal protection is already in Amendment XIV, so it's technically redundant.

Call to Action

2009-12-30T06:36:00.000-08:00

As we approach the year two thousand and ten, we approach the year of the Personhood Amendment. With activity in 32 states, at least one is likely to pass, but fight vigorously anyway to make sure.

But don't let this very important issue mak e you loose track of the bigger picture. Fight for the unborn, yes, but also fight for the poor, the young, the old, the gay, women, et cetera. Fight for free speech, freedom of religion, for the separation of church and state, for school reform, for a more reasonable language (Esperanto), for a more reasonable numeral system (dozenal), and for logical arguments.

Fight against euphemisms, restrictions on freedom, and unequal treatment.

Lighting a fire under the anti-abortion movement

2009-12-29T06:11:00.000-08:00

I've always been opposed to abortion intellectually, but things like the Grantham Collection and Justice [f]or All exhibit have really got me invested emotionally.

WARNING: Graphic images. But remember that this is common, completely legal, and defended vigorously by many well-meaning people.

Plan C

2009-12-28T05:21:00.000-08:00

After my earlier post on the issue of positive versus negative rights, you may wonder whether or not I support rape victims taking pills that may or may not inhibit implantation, suck as .

Well, I believe in erring on the side of not taking lives until it is conclusively shown one way or another.

So, let's talk about a hypothetical drug that we know prevents implantation, and thus causes the death of the pre-embryo. We'll call it Plan C.

Should a rape victim be allowed to take Plan C? After all, the embryo has no positive right to life*.

It should be taken into consideration that, like unplugging the violinist, taking Plan C is not an act of inaction. Nobody would object to having the pre-embryo removed, frozen, and implanted in another woman. Because the taking of Plan C causes the death of the pre-embryo, it violates his or her negative right to live.

Imagine you are out on a cruise and there is a sleeping man in a life raft drifting towards you. You can either do nothing, in which case the man will dock and be saved. Or you can grease the dock, thus causing his death. Because the man is innocent and greasing the dock is not an act of inaction, doing so would be an act of manslaughter.

*Where the pregnancy has resulted from consensual sex, the embryo does have the positive right to life, because his or her mother has placed the pre-embryo in jeopardy, and, thus, has a responsibility towards him or her to protect the pre-embryo from harm.

Alert: Stupak Condemns Amendment

2009-12-27T13:35:00.000-08:00

Join Bart Stupak in Condemning Pro-Abortion Language

Dear _____,

Today, the Senate approved an end to the debate on the Manager's Amendment that finalizes abortion funding in theSenate Health Care Reform Bill. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) praised the Senate bill, describing it as having "abortion language that is completely different from the House -- thank God."

One thing is clear to me. Nancy Pelosi sees the chance to replace the pro-life Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the House with the pro-abortion Manager's Amendment.

Tell your Senators and Representative to oppose any bill that includes this pro-abortion Manager's Amendment.

Bart Stupak (D-MI) called the Manager's Amendment "unacceptable" and said, "We are going to hold firm and make sure that the Stupak-Pitts language stays when this amendment is brought back to us. We will not vote for the bill if that language is not there."

If Nancy Pelosi strips the Stupak Amendment out of the HouseHealth Care Reform Bill and dares Bart Stupak to defeat the bill on the final vote, we need him to know that we have been with him every step of the way.

Go here to tell your elected Members of Congress that anything less than the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is unacceptable.

For Life,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org

P.S. Tell Congress to reject the Manager's Amendment that forces taxpayers to fund health care plans that cover elective abortions.

This sort of crap makes me sick.

2009-12-26T04:45:00.000-08:00

Look, debate the effectiveness of a vaccine all you want, but...

Well, just read this.

Merry Christmenos!

2009-12-25T04:33:00.000-08:00

Broken spacebar

2009-12-24T17:56:00.000-08:00

My spacebar is sticking, so forgive the lack of original content.

Happy HumanLight!

2009-12-23T05:18:00.000-08:00

The Violinist

2009-12-22T11:24:00.000-08:00

The violinist argument fails for several reasons, mainly the fact that the intent of an abortion is to kill the fetus, not to terminate the pregnancy. However, it also fails because it assumes that it is morally permissible to unplug the violinist.

First of all, in this analogy you in no way caused the violinist to hook up to you. This attachment occurred against your will and "the society of music lovers" has in this case severely violated your rights. I would like to demonstrate in this post, however, how the common moral intuition in this case fails when scrutinized logically.

As I see it, the main reasons many people see unplugging the violinist as acceptable are twofold.

Firstly, being attached to the violinist is a huge pain in the neck. You need to stay in bed until the violinist recovers. I doubt many people would have the same sense of outrage if you could more or less go about your business. However, as I demonstrated yesterday, the right to life supersedes the right to liberty. Just like the intention of act of causing the avalanche, the intention of act of unplugging yourself is to regain your liberty and to "undo" the situation you have been unjustly placed in to.

The objection based on positive and negative rights will be addressed in the next section.

Secondly, the situation they are placed in is incredibly unjust, and unplugging is seen as merely returning to the situation prior your kidnapping in which the violinist was dieing of natural causes and you had no greater moral obligation towards him than towards a man on the other side of the planet. However, regardless of how this situation came to pass, we need to consider the present situation.

I will grant that the violinist lacks the positive right to life: the right to use your body; if you could unplug yourself without killing the violinist, I doubt anyone would object. Also, if the violinist were to approach you and demand your assistance, I would be the first to say that you have no obligation to come to his aid; this represents a situation in which you are passively letting the violinist die.

However, in the present situation, you are already hooked up to the violinist. As such, you cannot disconnect yourself because the violinist's death would be a direct result of your action; this is a situation in which you are actively killing the violinist. Because of this fact, the violinist's negative right to life comes into play, just as in the avalanche scenario. Regardless of how this situation came to pass, even though the violinist has no right to your body, your moral obligation to not kill (cause the death of) him takes over.

I may seem like I'm repeating myself, but I want to make sure I have made my point in a way everyone can understand. It may seem counterintuitive that the society of music lovers could impart upon you an obligation that you didn't previously have, or impart upon the violinist a positive right he never had, but the point I'm trying to make is that the application of negative rights is more than adequate to show why unplugging yourself is wrong. Positive rights apply to inaction while negative rights apply to action. Many see the act of unplugging as merely choosing not to allow the violinist usage of your body, but that choice has already been made (I'm sure we can all agree that the society of music lovers have violated your rights).

Because unplugging the violinist is not an act of inaction, the violinist's negative right to live comes into play, and as such, it is immoral to unplug yourself.

However, because your intent was not to cause the violinist's death, in the current legal system of the United States would most likely charge you with manslaughter and not murder. In addition, if the violinist chose to be plugged in, unplugging would be justified as self-defense.

To sum up, while you have no moral obligation to remain plugged in, you do have an obligation not to act in such a way that said action leads to the death of an innocent human being.

Life > Liberty > Pursuit of happiness

2009-12-21T15:26:00.000-08:00

It can easily be demonstrated that the right to liberty supersedes the right to pursue happiness.

Proving that life outweighs liberty is more complicated, but this quote from Libertarians for Life does a great job.

...[Y]ou are on a mountain, and I attack you and throw you into a place filled with rocks that will tumble down below if given a push. The only way you can leave that spot is by causing a landslide. On a perch below is someone else I also forced there. If there's a landslide, their perch will be destroyed and they'll fall to their death. There is no way for your calls for help to be heard; you have to wait until you are discovered missing and a rescue party is sent. Let's assume that you are in no danger; one of your hobbies is to be a survivalist; you know how to attract game birds. You are able to live off them until found, but that will take nine months. The other person is also able to survive because your efforts to attract birds will inevitably attract birds to their perch, too.

Does your right to liberty include a right to push the rocks out of the way and cause the death of the other person?

The law of transitivity can show that life supersedes the right to pursue happiness, or you can consider that every single murder has had a motive.

It is also important to point out each right is predicated upon the previous one(s). You can't pursue happiness if you aren't free and you can't be free if you're not alive and you cannot pursue happiness if you'ren't alive.

"Clean Feed"

2009-12-20T12:34:00.000-08:00

Okay, by now everyone knows that the Senate health care bill funds abortions but has otherwise been pussified to the point of being a giant handout to insurance corporations* (still a mandate to buy but no public option and not even the Medicare buy-in for those 55-64).

Maybe you haven't heard that Australia is considering across-the-board censorship on anything deemed "inappropriate".

*...and yet Republicans STILL are fighting against it!

Holy ****!

2009-12-19T05:41:00.000-08:00

A loophole in state law is preventing Campbell County investigators from charging a woman they say killed her newborn baby.

Deputies were called to a home in the 1200 block of Lone Jack Road in Rustburg around 11:00a.m. Friday. The caller said a woman in her early 20s was in labor. When deputies arrived, they discovered the baby had actually been born around 1:00a.m., about ten hours earlier. Investigators say the baby was already dead when deputies got there.

Investigators tell WSLS the baby's airway was still blocked. They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother. Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life. Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.

"In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it.", says Investigator Tracy Emerson. "She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it's still
attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it's no crime in the state of Virginia."

The Campbell County Sheriff's Office and Commonwealth's Attorney's office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

Emerson tells us there's a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.

The baby's grandmother was home and was the one who called 911. Police say she will not be charged because the baby was born in the middle of the night and the grandmother did not know until late morning. Investigators tell us the baby's father was upset when he showed up at the home after deputies.

"He was very upset. I think the grandparents were upset. I believe everyone was upset, except for the person who should have been upset, the mother.", says Emerson.

Emerson tells us the woman knew she was pregnant and had received prenatal care. He says the baby was full-term, due Tuesday. The medical examiner says the baby was born healthy. An autopsy is being performed. The baby's body will then be released to the family.

Link

Volition

2009-12-18T07:26:00.000-08:00

I'd embed it here, but it's too wide, so here's the link.

Socialist Stupidity? Say it ain't so!

2009-12-17T15:54:00.000-08:00

Zygotes are not eggs, and I clarified this in my first post, but this is the first time I have ever seen an embryo or fetus called an "egg".

They then go on to commit the sperm fallacy and quote a stupid argument debunked a thousand times.

Seriously, I think that five halves of my braincells died wen me reed funee articpdsalkfcdkddfffffffvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv...

Amendment XXVIII

2009-12-16T17:58:00.000-08:00

This was pretty verbose, so I give you...

1. Within the United States, and any place subject to their jurisdiction, membership in the human species shall be deemed a necessary and sufficient qualification for the status of personhood.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": prenaticide

2009-12-15T14:23:00.000-08:00

I've explained why abortion is not a reproductive right, why it's not a privacy right, why "the right to choose" is meaningless, what abortion actually is, and why prenatal rights do not mean female slavery. I have dissected the "tubesock holocaust" absurdity. I have explained how the unborn cannot be blamed. I have answered rhetorical questions. I have debunked Roebotic propaganda.

Abortion is not a medical procedure because medicine is the art and science of healing, and thus abortion is antithetical to health care.

I've grappled with the dumbest. I've debunked numerous fallacious arguments. I've gotten very mad. I've called upon you.

Now, as we reach the end of this experiment and into the year two thousand and ten, I hope I've changed at least one person's mind, or inspired one person to action. Because if this blog saves a single life and spares a single set of parents from grief, it was all worth it.

Abortion coverage could be MANDATED!

2009-12-14T12:03:00.000-08:00

Americans United for Life: Senate passes the pro-abortion Mikulski Amendment under the guise of preventive care

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today the Senate accepted the Mikulski (D-MD) amendment to the Senate health care bill by a vote of 61-39. The amendment does not explicitly require abortion coverage, but it also fails to explicitly exclude it. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) could categorize abortion as “preventive care,” and would therefore recommend coverage for abortion by all private plans. The recommendation would force private plans to offer abortion coverage, furthering the abortion lobby's agenda of mainstreaming abortion as health care.

Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest stated, “Abortion is not ‘preventive care.’ In this amendment, Sen. Mikulski apparently intends to expand abortion services under the guise of mandated preventive care. This deceptive tactic underscores the need for an amendment that explicitly prohibits the government from mandating that private insurance companies cover abortion under the guise of "preventive care.”

Senator Murkowski’s amendment would have ensured that abortion is not classified by the government as “preventive care” or as a “preventive service.” The Murkowski proposal was defeated 41 to 59.

Dr. Yoest added, “The Senate failed the first test to stop mandatory abortion coverage by voting against the Murkowski proposal. Senator Murkowski’s amendment would have prevented abortion from being categorized as ‘preventive care.’ It is critical that such language be added to the Senate health care reform bill. Otherwise, for the first time in history, the federal government could mandate that private insurance companies cover abortion."

To go to AUL’s analysis of the Mikulski v. Murkowski Amendment, click here.

AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest and Staff Counsel Mary Harnedare available to provide further comment and analysis on the Mikulski Amendment and other women’s health issues in the health care bill. To arrange an interview, contact Heather Smith 202-270-9962 orHeather.Smith@aul.org.

About Americans United for Life

Americans United for Life (AUL) is the first national pro-life organization in America. In 1980, AUL successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae.

Opposition to justice for Baby Velez

2009-12-13T08:52:00.000-08:00

This kind of thing makes me struggle to not call the pro-abortion camp "anti-life". When they fight tooth-and-nail against things like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or expanding health care to the unborn or even allowing pregnant mothers to use deadly force in defense of their unborn children, they loose a lot of credibility.

Take action! Save lives!

2009-12-12T07:23:00.000-08:00

EDIT: It passed. ☹

Dear _____,

Remember the old phrase, When it rains, it pours?

Well, in the midst of this huge health care battle, Congress is attempting to sneak abortion funding into the District of Columbia through the 2010federal budget appropriations bill, an action that we know will lead to the loss of an additional 1,000 innocent unborn boys and girls every year.

Tell your elected representatives to reject this pro-abortion legislation.

We fought to shut down this bill all summer and now, with pro-lifers heavily engaged in the fight over the health care bill, Nancy Pelosi andHarry Reid are trying to sneak this legislation in right before the end of the year.

Pro-abortion leaders hope to break the longstanding policy of preventing federal funding of abortions without anyone noticing. The policies that the federal government adopts in our nation's capital often foreshadow policies they intend to adopt across the nation. I have news for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid: we did not fight against this legislation all summer just to give up when unborn babies and their mothers need us the most.

Tell your representatives that they need to oppose this drastic departure from the current federal policy of banning taxpayers from funding elective abortions.

Already, half of all pregnancies in the District of Columbia end in abortion. According to recent estimates, this legislation will result in 1,000 more abortions every year -- funded by you and me.

Tell your representatives to draw a line in the sand and oppose this deadly legislation.

For Life,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org

P.S. As 2009 comes to an end, many pro-abortion politicians are attempting to rush through unpopular legislation. Any contribution that you can afford will be put to use shutting down these pro-abortion legislative initiatives.

The "Kill the Gays" Bill

2009-12-11T12:23:00.000-08:00

Okay, Uganda is now considering the death penalty for homosexuality. Now, I think that Uganda is in Africa (I'm too lazy to look it up).

Regardless, this is just freaking stupid.

Why abortion is NOT a privacy right

2009-12-10T14:09:00.000-08:00

In addition to the doctrine of reproductive rights, the pro-abortion crowd often cites the right to privacy as a justification of abortion. This clearly is not the case, as the same argument could be applied to child abuse or spousal rape.

Abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being, and, as such, the government has a legitimate interest in preventing it (in fact, the protection of natural rights is the main purpose of government).

And the Court has gone as far as to admit* that, if the unborn are persons, abortion is illegal.

*This admission is known as the "Blackmun Hole" and is the reason for the Personhood Movement.

Correction

2009-12-09T09:40:00.000-08:00

The Personhood Movement is active in 32 states, not 37. Sorry.

Why abortion is NOT a reproductive right

2009-12-08T13:05:00.000-08:00

In order to justify the defense of the wholesale slaughter of millions upon millions of innocent preborn human beings as a stance in keeping with human rights, people will invoke the doctrine of reproductive rights.

Reproductive rights are the rights of others to make informed choices about their reproduction; it is often described as the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children.[1] This differs from (yet overlaps with) sexual rights.

Now, there are two parts to this. First is the right to be informed, which consists of comprehensive sex ed as early and as often as possible.

The next is the implementation of the informed choice, consisting of such things as sexual privacy, the right to contraception, and the right to say no.

A clarification of what reproductive rights do NOT include:

Abortion is not and can never be a reproductive right because it kills an offspring that has already been produced. Humans are a sexually reproducing species, and, like all such species, reproduce through a couple steps.[2] Meiosis produces gametes and the gametes. The second stage, the fusion of an egg and a sperm to create an offspring (fertilization) is where the sexual reproduction takes place.

Abortion takes place after reproduction has occurred, and, as such, cannot be classified as a reproductive right. Even if humans reproduced asexually with a new organism produced at birth, Hyde-esque amendments would not violate reproductive rights for the same reason the Second Amendment doesn't give us taxpayer-funded firearms.

Abortion is not "forced motherhood"; it is the criminalization of prolicide.

As Personhood.net said, "The fundamental human right is the right to life itself. This is true of life from its earliest stage of development until natural death. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right—it is the very opposite.".

URGENT!: Nelson-Hatch Amendment

2009-12-07T08:11:00.000-08:00

This post was going to be "Why Abortion is NOT a Reproductive Right", but I have URGENT news.

Contact your Senators and tell them to vote YES on the Nelson-Hatch Amendment (the Senate's Pitts-Stupak).

China bans physical punishment for internet addicts

2009-12-06T15:17:00.000-08:00

I... guess this is good news?

True and sad.

2009-12-05T18:12:00.001-08:00

I may have posted this before, but...

2009-12-04T16:25:00.000-08:00

Morally equivalent does mean politically equivalent.

I am very, very, very offended by the assertion that I am "anti-choice". You claim I want others to follow my beliefs and that everyone should be allowed to follow their own conscience. This is the relativist fallacy. This is clearly not true; if the unborn have rights, it is the duty of every human being to respect those rights.

Some people think lynching is okay.

Some people thought slavery was okay.

Some people believe it is okay to fly planes into buildings to kill the infidel.

Clearly, this is not an issue of being "anti-choice". I take it that you do not oppose those laws criminalizing rape, or assault, or arson? Does that make YOU anti-choice? After all, that IS forcing others to follow your morality.

The claim that I am a terrorist is simply absurd. I have never attempted to make a government surrender by force. I am a pacifist.

My desire to have everybody respect the natural rights of every other human being does not make me a terrorist.

It makes me a humanist.

EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that the author adds the caveat "as long as they don't hurt other people." Well, then. I guess he refuted his own argument.

Baby Velez

2009-12-03T13:43:00.000-08:00

Read this article then come back.

Now, instead of addressing the humanity of the unborn, the author tries to go on a red herring tangent and address the logistical problems of listing an unborn child in a list of victims. Because the sex of the child is unknown, and the child lacks a name, Malusinka argues, he or she is not a person.

Anybody with half a brain can see why that doesn't make sense, but I know that an entire half brain is too much to expect from some people, so I will go into detail.

First of all, parents are typically given a number of days after birth to decide on a name for their baby. Does an unnamed newborn not have any rights? Of course (s)he does.

We know nothing about many casualties of war. Were those incinerated by atomic bombs never persons because we don't know their sexes? Does the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier house the remains of non-persons? Were their deaths meaningless? Of course not.

Now, on to the issue of the deaths of people not counted in the population. Again, registration of infants doesn't always happen at the instant of birth. And what about someone the census didn't count for some other reason, whether they be homeless or immigrants or visitors? Historically, was the death of a slave only three fifths of a tragedy?

...or, you could just list the names of the victims and add "and Velez's unborn child".

EDIT: The victim of the Virginia infanticide case had no name and was not yet registered. Does that mean it was okay?

Strategic Pro-Life Update

2009-12-02T16:02:00.000-08:00

Senate Health Care Reform Bill Update

Dear [name],

I want to share with you some details about the reality of this health care reform bill.
The abortion issue is the Achilles heel of this terrible legislation.

That's why we need you to tell your Senator to block this pro-abortion bill.

The passage of the pro-life amendment championed by Bart Stupak (D-MI) in the House has thrown the pro-abortion Democrats into disarray. Diana DeGette (D-CO), the co-chair of the pro-choice caucus, has warned Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that pro-abortion Representatives would rather defeat thehealth care bill than allow the Stupak Amendment to pass.

In other words, pro-abortion Democrats would rather risk the wholesale defeat of health care reform than allow a ban on abortion funding.

This will give a golden opportunity for a coalition of Republicans and pro-life Democrats to defeat the bill on final passage in the House of Representatives.

This is the reason that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are so focused on attempting to include abortion funding in the Senate bill. From their perspective, the Stupak Amendment is a poison pill that must be removed in the Senate for health care reform to have any hope of passing in the House.

However, Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said he is drafting language like the Stupak Amendment on the floor of the Senate and is threatening to block the bill as long as it includes abortion funding.
Tell your Senators to stand with Ben Nelson on his decision to stop this legislation.
For Life,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List
www.sba-list.org
P.S. Donate today to help us continue our battle to defend life in Congress.

Copyright 2007 Susan B. Anthony List

information@sba-list.org

1800 North Kent Street, Suite 1070, Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 875-3370

Post-viability

2009-12-01T12:26:00.000-08:00

Some people believe abortion should be allowed until the moment of birth. I would like a justification, in the comments section, of why a 35-week fetus in the womb has less rights than a 30-week premature baby.

EDIT: Having chatted with some people, I have gotten an answer. They say it's so she doesn't have to give birth.

The problem with this is (unless she's gonna stay pregnant forever) that the only thing left to decide is if the baby will be born dead or alive.

Essentially, the baby can be killed to make birth easier.

:facepalm:

Fluffy Language

2009-11-30T15:01:00.000-08:00

Any position can be made to sound good by dressing it up and dancing around the issue and insulting the opposition.

Those against gay rights speak of "defending marriage" and "protecting children" and "supporting traditional marriage".

Those against youth rights speak of "for their own good" and "parental rights" and "protecting children".

Those against prenatal rights speak of "women's reproductive rights" and "no forced parenthood" and "every child a wanted child" and "deciding whether and when to reproduce" and "Get your laws off my body!" and "Against abortion? Don't have one!".

Those in favor of slavery spoke of "property rights" and "privacy" and "constitutional protections" and "legislating morality".

Those in favor of rape speak of "men's sexual rights" and "no forced celibacy" and "opposing rape is telling those conceived of rape they should not exist" and "the right to one's own penis" and "Get your laws off my body!" and "Do not force your morality upon others!" and "If you are against rape, you are free not to rape anyone.".

Okay, I made that last one up but you get the point. I believe that the personhood movement will ultimately succeed because it forces people to look at the essential issue: Do all human beings deserve human rights?

WTF

2009-11-29T15:21:00.000-08:00

OH EM GEE.

I smell a Colbert Report segment...

Broodmares of the state?

2009-11-28T10:08:00.000-08:00

No, not the 1937 Soviet porno flick of the same name.

I'm referring to the "argument" that pro-lifers just want to force women to pop out babies. This is absurd. I would be okay if nobody reproduced ever.

The definition of reproduction indicates that at least one additional organism is produced. The law of biogenesis states that organisms reproduce after their own kind: dogs make dogs (puppies), cats make cats (kittens), cows make cows (calves), wolves make wolves (pups), and humans make humans (babies).

Therefore, once reproduction occurs, another human being is brought into existence. And along with this human being comes human rights. One of the human rights is the right to live.

Amnesty International

2009-11-27T09:02:00.000-08:00

In September, the Dominican Republic just enshrined the right to life in its constitution.

Wanna know how "human rights group" Amnesty International responded?

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC DELIVERS "HUGE BLOW" TO WOMEN'S RIGHT TO LIFE

Yes, they said that it violated itself.

I'm thankful for...

2009-11-26T10:43:00.000-08:00

Today's issue on NationStates.

Nulono Decides:

Much Ado About Abortion

The Issue

A monstrous debate between pro-life and pro-choice groups has erupted after a high-profile case of a pregnant woman aborting her foetus because she 'didn't feel like it' hit the tabloids.

The Debate

Johann Mombota, lawyer for the woman known only as Miss X, says, "It is Miss X's right to choose! It's her body; she can do whatever she wants with it. In the interest of women's rights, abortion MUST be legal throughout the country!"
"I most vehemently disagree," says Miranda Shiomi, a pro-life activist. "I'm all for women's rights in general, but what about the child? Does it have no rights either? Abortion is totally immoral and I insist that it be outlawed except in cases of rape, or when the mother's life is in danger."
"You're not going far enough! Abortion is murder!" shouts Reverend Zeke Wall, waving a placard with a picture of a foetus on it. "God decides which babies live and which will die, not us! The government must maintain a stern anti-abortion stance to preserve the morality of Nulono!"

This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
"Abortion has to be legal if we're going to last as a nation," says Fleur Broadside, President of the Society of Bitter Old People. "Have you ever thought that with Nulono's growing population of 563 million, we soon aren't going to be able to squeeze any more people within our borders? If we use abortion to control the population, we'll make great savings and can spend the money elsewhere. One child per family should just about do it I think. Extraneous ones can be sold to other countries."

The Government Position

The government has indicated its intention to follow the recommendations of Option 3.

If you wish, you may:

Military tribunals?

2009-11-25T13:27:00.000-08:00

Some people are saying 9/11 was an act of war. This is what the terrorists want: they want to be soldiers.

Calling it an act of war dehumanizes the victims into mere "collateral damage", and justified the further loss of lives in retaliation.

Also, how is bringing them to New York dangerous? KSM doesn't have superpowers, and he'd better hope he's not released onto the streets of NYC.

Personhood Movement

2009-11-24T15:26:00.000-08:00

Go here to find out how to protect human rights in your state. PersonhoodUSA may be a Christian organization, but personhood is a secular cause. Dr. King was a reverend. The abolitionists used religion in their arguments.

YES

2009-11-23T14:48:00.000-08:00

This man has the right idea.

[/plaintext]

2009-11-22T06:50:00.000-08:00

The glitch is fixed, so back to Arial we go!

No Texan Marriage?

2009-11-21T10:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5700676.shtml

I LOL'd.

Hypocrisy

2009-11-20T08:21:00.000-08:00

This isn't a substantial argument, and it's sort of overused, but it's something that's been bothering me.

In a normal pregnancy, you hear things like "How's the baby?", "The baby's due on July 8th.", "She's kicking!", or "He's very healthy.". If someone kills a "wanted" prenate, you hear "He killed the baby!". (Though some people in the hardcore pro-abortion camp won't do this).

But if we're pondering prenaticide, there's a huge switch to the abstract. There's talk about "terminating the pregnancy", or "removing the products of conception", or, in the case of multiples, "reducing the fetuses".

There's a huge attempt to dance around the issue. There's references to "choice", and "reproductive rights", and "controlling one's fertility".

Just sayin'.

LifeReport

2009-11-19T08:07:00.000-08:00

Go to http://blog.prolifepodcast.net and listen. It's great.

Plaintext

2009-11-18T08:39:00.000-08:00

I'm having technical difficulties, so I can't add any images or change from the default font or have the tags fill in automatically*.

*So forgive me if some tags stray by a letter or two.

Rights of Citizens

2009-11-17T09:08:00.000-08:00

There's lots of talk about whether terrorists "deserve" the "rights of American citizens".

The Framers didn't implement those rights as a reward to people for being born here. They implemented them because they saw them as basic human rights. To ask if someone "deserves" their rights is unAmerican in the truest sense of the word.

All men are created equal, not just all Americans.

A Little Perspective

2009-11-16T08:02:00.000-08:00

☹=15000 deaths per year

Lack of health insurance:
☹☹☹

Abortion:
☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹☹

Twitter

2009-11-15T09:07:00.000-08:00

PersonhoodUSA is going beyond its mission on Twitter and has become the illegitimate child of ALL and the Libertarian Party. I'll be giving them a talking to.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": 0.9999...

2009-11-14T08:34:00.000-08:00

Fascist?

2009-11-13T05:50:00.000-08:00

This word is thrown around a lot. You need to know what it means.

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] with a corporatisteconomic system,^[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.^{[dubious – discuss]}^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.^[11]

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.^[12] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.^[13] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.^[14]

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.^[15]^[16] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").^[17]^[18] No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.^[19]

Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the publicity surrounding the atrocities committed during the period of fascist governments, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word.^[20]

Natural Law Party

2009-11-12T18:38:00.000-08:00

This is an argument I see all to much.

I agree that education and resources are needed to prevent abortions.

However, natural law does not dictate that the mother should be responsible to no one for the death of her unborn child. It is not the person most affected that should decide if one option is the death of an innocent human being. This is not a private issue that only affects her; it is the destruction of a human life. However, it is also true that the person affected most is the child, who is killed. Because the child cannot speak for him-/herself; this is the government's job.

In any other situation in which one human being decides to kill another human being (we call this "homicide"), the government steps in. This is, in fact, what natural law dictates: that the government should protect human beings from each other.

As for "legislating morality", this is almost the definition of legislation. The reason we have laws against assault, murder, and rape are because these actions are immoral and violate the rights of other human beings. An action that inflicts violence upon another human being is never a private issue, and if it were the entire concept of natural rights would fall apart.

The analogy to prohibition is invalid because the consumption of alcohol does not violate anyone else's rights. The notion that a mother may harm herself in the process of killing her unborn child does not mean that the unborn child should not be given the full protection of the law demanded by basic human rights.

Okay, wait a second.

2009-11-11T07:09:00.000-08:00

After actually reading the Stupak amendment, I'm going to have to come out against it. It's just as I feared: the Stupak amendment doesn't just restrict abortion to medically necessary cases (you know, health care?). Instead, it forces me to pay for abortions in the cases of incest (why does incest get a separate exception?) and rape. Because if you're the victim of a violent act (rape, assuming the incest was unconsensual, in which case a separate exception is unneeded and dangerous), I'm apparently expected to pay for you to inflict graver violence (homicide) upon an innocent third party!

That's not compassion.

Those devious prenates!

2009-11-10T08:51:00.000-08:00

Before they are even created, they force their parents to have sex. They then create themselves and begin sucking nutrients from the mother*. And they make themselves delicate and unviable so that they cannot be removed. What a cunning plan!

Wait, what's that? The offspring has no say in the matter? A prenate's existence, location, and dependency are thrust upon him or her? Wait, by who? By the parents?

Try telling that to the Roebots who compare an unwanted child to a rapist.

If you want intelligent debate on prenatal rights, don't go to NationStates.

*The mother's body delivers nutrients to the baby and the nutrients are passed from one circulatory system to another by diffusion.

Morons (or is it Moroens?)

2009-11-09T15:29:00.000-08:00

Even beyond Roebots are the pro-abortion folks who are ignorant of basic facts like the following:

The difference between natural death and homicide*

That prenatal development is controlled by the fetus's DNA

That your kidney is not a human being

That hamburgers are neither human nor alive

That Jello™ cannot be fertilized by human sperm

All those were on the NationStates forum. Why do certain forums attract morons?

*If Old Man Jenkins down the road dies because I shot him, I go to jail. If he's hit by an asteroid, I don't? Why? One scenario has me choosing his death and one doesn't. ZOMG teh murder lawz r antichoice!!!1one

GREAT NEWS

2009-11-08T09:16:00.000-08:00

The House passed the health care bill AND the Pitts-Stupak amendment. I don't remember if the House bill had the public option, but this is GREAT!

Now on to the Senate. Remember, we aren't out of the woods yet. The pro-abortion lobby is not going to give up. We cannot let this victory make us complacent until the Stupak Amendment is signed into law! And even then we must remain ever vigilant lest the unborn suffer the wrath of fuzzy language.

BREAKING NEWS! Calls needed NOW!

2009-11-07T08:41:00.000-08:00

Moments ago, Planned Parenthood sent out a mass
e-mail blast to abortion supporters calling it an
EMERGENCY ...

... Here's what they're terrified of:

Late last night, the House leadership -- realizing
their health care reform bill didn't have the needed
votes while containing an abortion mandate -- agreed
to allow a vote today on the bi-partisan pro-life
amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak and Rep. Joe
Pitts that explicitly excludes government funding of
abortion in health care reform.

Your calls and e-mails made the difference to allow
for this amendment which could help to save millions
of lives from abortion -- and prevent Planned
Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry from
receiving a massive government funded bailout!

Now, everything comes down to what's happening on the
House floor right now.

Planned Parenthood is begging abortion advocates to
call Congress now and "reject this attack..." by
demanding opposition to the Stupak/Pitts amendment.

If they succeed and the abortion mandate is not
removed from health care reform, Planned Parenthood
will be sending out a victory e-mail tomorrow -- and
preparing to ramp up its operations to handle the
largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Even if you have called before, it is critical that
you pick up the phone RIGHT NOW and tell your U.S.
Representative: "Remove abortion funding and mandates
from health care reform!"

If you know your Representative's name, call him or
her through the House switchboard at:

(202) 224-3121

If you need to look up your Representative's
information, go to:

http://tinyurl.com/yg6jot5

You've already demonstrated that the pro-life voice
can make a powerful impact.

Now, everything depends on today.

PLEASE CALL NOW!

For Life,

Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition
http://www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com

P.S.- For more information and the latest updates,
visit http://www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com or read
the breaking news story from the New York Times at:

http://tinyurl.com/ybzv34g

Thanks, ALL!

2009-11-06T09:55:00.000-08:00

I've always seen the American Life League as the PETA of the anti-abortion movement, with their anti-sex agenda, but they actually saved me some trouble by fisking a video I'd been meaning to get to.

Prenaticide is REAL

2009-11-05T08:17:00.000-08:00

This is a short article, but really worth reading. Abortion is not some abstract concept, some simple "unplugging" or even choosing to not get pregnant. It is not destroying a potential life. It is the very real killing of an extant human being.

Religious Power

2009-11-04T09:41:00.000-08:00

The things often cited as religious freedom fall under liberty in general. Your brain is your own.

There is no right, however, to coerce because of one's religious beliefs. One may not, for example, perform human sacrifices or lynch people or kill your unborn offspring because of your beliefs. You may also not force your beliefs directly upon others, even your children.

This demonstrates that there is no such thing as religious freedom.

Slaves to biology?

2009-11-03T09:16:00.001-08:00

One thing I'm tired of hearing is how affirming prenatal rights would make women "slaves to their biology". This is absurd. Even abortion is only possible because biology allows it. Biology is the study of life. It says what is, not what ought to be, and you can't be a slave to an entity (though biology isn't even a entity) that has no free will of its own.

It's like... it's like...

RotH Updates

2009-11-02T09:11:00.001-08:00

Notice anything different? Restraint of the Heartless is now a Blue Ribbon Site. In addition, the momentum of the personhood movement has led me to reopen the poll on personhood amendments.

Gulag Schools

2009-11-01T08:39:00.000-08:00

I probably should've told you about them. They are despicable and really need no debate; sunshine is the best disinfectant.

"Gag Rule"?

2009-10-31T15:26:00.000-07:00

Lemme make something perfectly clear. The Mexico City Policy does not violate free speech. It does not punish foreign institutions, but merely prevents taxpayers from being forced to support the promotion of the violence of abortion.

Gang Rape

2009-10-30T09:25:00.000-07:00

A 15-year-old girl was gang raped. The rapists are being prosecuted. Everything's fine and dandy, right?

Right?

Apparently not. There were bystanders that failed to report the crime. Some want them held accountable.

Such a law would be unenforceable. If one person reports it, do the rest of the people still get prosecuted? What if there's a shooting, does everyone in the neighborhood get arrested?

And some people, horror of horrors, took pictures of it. And people are trying to arrest them for it! What's next, the school is arrested for activity on their surveillance tapes? If this happens, these bystanders will find it almost impossible to find a job or a house due to sex offender laws. This is just more of the government legislating data. Of course, someone cited the sexting cases to justify this. PROTIP: Don't cite stupid laws.

Then there's the issue of the underage rapists being tried as adults. Many of the rapists I assume were also under the age of consent; so, technically, they were also raped. But this stupid technicality aside, it is absurd to treat youth as inferior until it comes time to punish them. These criminals had no say in electing the judges, will not get a jury of their peers, and are being seen as too irresponsible to drink or vote or drive but responsible enough to be tried as adults.

FINALLY

2009-10-29T13:57:00.000-07:00

WHY AM I TYPING SO LOUD, YOU ASK? THIS IS WHY.

SERIOUSLY, I PRETTY MUCH STOPPED WATCHING TELEVISION BECAUSE OF ADS IN GENERAL (THOUGH I STILL WATCH C-SPAN).

Reproductive Power

2009-10-28T08:51:00.000-07:00

In its simplest sense, freedom is liberty. Liberty is the right of A to control A. A has every right to control A, B has every right to control B, ad infinitum.

The problem comes when we introduce coercion. Power is the ability of A to control B, of B to control A, of C to control G, ad infinitum. C only has the right to control A in order to stop A from coercing C.

The a problem arises when the concept of freedom is expanded beyond liberty and into power. Many seek to extend A's freedom into power over B.

We see this taking place in the Net Neutrality argument, with many arguing A should be allowed to censor the content that B, S, Q, F, and L are exposed to. It also takes place when the concept of "reproductive freedom" is extended to the right of M to avoid the consequences of her mistakes by inflicting violence upon D.

Personhood picks up strength!

2009-10-27T11:41:00.000-07:00

I probably should've told you about these but there were just so many. Michigan, Colorado, Maryland, Georgia, Mississippi, and others are current in progress.

Namecalling

2009-10-26T15:40:00.000-07:00

Look: anti-abortion-ers, the pro-abortion are not "anti-life", "pro-death", or such.

Pro-abortion-ers, the anti-abortion are not "anti-choice", "forced-birthers", "sexist", "fascist", or "reactionary".

We just hold different beliefs and this isn't getting us anywhere.

Democrats against democracy?

2009-10-25T15:49:00.000-07:00

This disgusts me. Most Americans are against coverage of abortion in health care.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": Pirates versus Ninjas

2009-10-24T12:14:00.000-07:00

On the series of tubes, there's a common question posed: who would win in a fight: pirates or ninjas?

Seriously?

The pirates wouldn't know what hit 'em.

Another Blog

2009-10-23T08:43:00.000-07:00

Write.

Fuzzy Language

2009-10-22T13:12:00.000-07:00

2010

2009-10-21T13:44:00.000-07:00

There's just a tiny issue I'd like to comment on.

It's "two-thousand and ten", not "twenty-ten".

That is all.

Dismiss

2009-10-20T09:12:00.000-07:00

Another NationStates reminder for myself: don't be afraid to dismiss issues. For example, a recent issue gave me the choice of either allowing the death penalty or banning fringe groups.

Fringe groups are like the junk under your keys. The system typically runs fine regardless, and you're likely to screw something up trying to get rid of them.

Cognitive dissonance

2009-10-19T05:36:00.000-07:00

This is just sick.

I'm not talking about abortions while pregnant. I'm talking about recognizing the humanity of the unborn and still killing them.

Invalid birthday?

2009-10-18T13:44:00.001-07:00

I've noticed a non-COPPA form of ageism on the 'nat against the unborn and supercentenarians.

Basically, anyone older than 100 or younger than 0 has to lie.

Doe, oh dear.

2009-10-17T10:11:00.000-07:00

I've discussed Doe v. Bolton before, so I'll just do a brief overview.

Basically, Roe v. Wade presented what seemed to be a reasonable compromise, and many people still see it as one. However, it demanded that abortions be allowed until birth for "health", which they Doe (decided the same day as Roe) defined so broadly as to cover emotional concerns, familial concerns, the mother's age, et cetera.

In the same thread I mentioned yesterday, someone claimed that this means no elective abortions can be performed after viability. In his/her opinion, a woman could be carrying a postterm baby, the doctors could be about to induce labor, and the mother could decide at the last minute that she wants an abortion. Because she wants it, not getting it would logically have a negative emotional effect. By this poster's logic, killing a 42-week fetus would count as "therapeutic".

Why do people laugh at Roebots?

Only Roebots don't understand why.

Baby = cat?

2009-10-16T12:39:00.000-07:00

It's a well-known fact that humans are a highly altricial species. We have some of the least developed newborns.

In order to deny the rights of the unborn, many people base personhood on properties such as self-awareness. The problem is that nothing happens developmentally at birth; neonates are practically identical to prenates. Self-awareness takes place 12-15 months after birth.

Some Roebots bite the bullet. One even told me killing an infant is no worse than killing a cat.

Why do people laugh at Roebots?

Only Roebots don't understand why.

Articles

2009-10-15T10:25:00.000-07:00

There were a few W T F news stories, but there's one I want to call your attention to.

If any of my international readers live in Venezuela, here's your time to shine.

Oh, yeah...

2009-10-14T12:26:00.000-07:00

I forgot ESCR was illegal.

Insanity

2009-10-13T09:41:00.000-07:00

This article made me so angry.

The school board president's email is here. Do with it as you please.

Prenatal Right[s]s[/s]

2009-10-12T10:32:00.000-07:00

I've noticed that many personhood bills grant only the right to life to the unborn, and not full personhood. Why is this?

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?

2009-10-11T12:27:00.000-07:00

Did he do anything to deserve it? He's promised lots, but what has he actually done? Not really much. At least he wasn't given the prize for promoting the barbaric practice of prenaticide overseas, as least not according to the Nobel committee.

H.R. 227

2009-10-10T16:26:00.000-07:00

A child dies from abortion 20 times more often than someone dies from lack of health care. More unborn children die every day than were killed on 9/11. 9/11 was a one-time occurrence, yet the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians were considered a fair trade for bringing the terrorists to justice. There's currently a lot of people working on health insurance reform. But the plight of the unborn is not even noticed!

Yet the Sanctity of Human Life Act has gone mostly unnoticed. We seriously need to get our priorities together before we try to democratize other nations.

How is babby formed?

2009-10-09T08:46:00.000-07:00

Again, I'm not important enough to hack. But Roebots seem to be clueless as to how girl get pragnent.

When I point out that banning aborion doesn't give the unborn more rights than the born, they say [crap] like "give me your kidneys then". They seem to be under the impression that fetuses just walk around the streets looking for women to "glom onto", and that having an abortion is just refusing permission.

But I hope anyone arguing on the internet knows where babies come from, so I'll spare you another Post 239.

The offspring in no way chooses his position; it is forced upon him by the mother. And abortion occurs after implantation, and is performed by actively killing the prenate, not merely "unplugging". To have an abortion is therefore analogous to bringing someone onto a cruise in their sleep and dropping them in the middle of the ocean. After all, who are we to force you to carry him on your ship to Bermuda.

But I guess this is all irrelevant since granting the unborn their human rights and insisting women take responsibility for your actions is just a punishment for sexuality.

For more, see Libertarians for Life's article "Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy, Comments on why the prenatal child has the right under individual liberty to be in the mother's womb".

NationStates

2009-10-08T04:59:00.000-07:00

Mostly as a reminder to myself to address new issues that come up, I'm announcing here I have founded a country on NationStates.net.

Censor Youtube (BOO!) ...for the children! (YAY!)

2009-10-07T05:26:00.000-07:00

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

~Adolph Hitler

How the Internet has hurt politics

2009-10-06T11:42:00.000-07:00

This country has been shaped throughout its history by influential writings. From John Locke to Thomas Paine to Harriet Beecher Stowe to John L. O'Sullivan to modern-day bloggers. The problem today, with the advent of the Information Age is that we have too many. While the notion that everyone can be a pamphleteer certainly is a positive one, it also results in a retardation of the change of public opinion. With a vast number of sources readily available, people are free to simply read, watch, or listen to arguments that simply reaffirm what we already believe, regardless of how wrong we are.

An extension of this principle of ideological isolationism is the politicization of science. As the saying goes, you're entitled to you own opinions, but not your own facts. However, today that doesn't practically apply. If you want to believe that the universe is 6000 years old, or that Global Warming is a myth, or that abortion causes breast cancer, or that the unborn child is somehow part of the mother's body, you can find a city on the planet of Internetopia where you will never be corrected because everyone is just as crazy as you are.

This is even more extreme on forums where dissent results in banning, causing forum's ideological spectrum to shrink further, narrowing the acceptable viewpoints further. This eventually snowballs into situations like you see on RevLeft or Democratic Underground, where anyone (even a die-hard liberal) is accused of being "misogynistic", "reactionary", or "anti-choice".

42 mHz

2009-10-05T06:31:00.000-07:00

Every 24 seconds, another American child is brutally murdered in the sanctity of his mother's womb. In this country of ours that declares all men are created equal, we still deny the most basic inalienable rights to the weakest among us.

It is still considered a perfectly legitimate practice in America (even one taxpayers are expected to subsidize!) to slaughter unborn babies for money. These prenatal hit men are allowed to roam free, killing over a million innocents every year.

Ever since this country was founded eleven score and thirteen years ago, we have seen a slow but steady progression towards equality of all our human family. It is for this reason that I hold that we will eventually reach this goal, and there are even advances being made today.

I know it's cliché, but I'd like to end with a quote.

"I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."

~William Lloyd Garrison

I'm 12 years old and what is this?

2009-10-04T09:49:00.000-07:00

No, I haven't been hacked by /b/tards.

I've got an experiment for you. Go to Omegle or any anonymous chatting service and pretend to be completely clueless about abortion. Get someone to mention abortion* and ask what it is.

Almost invariably, they will admit it kill a baby. This isn't an argument; it's just interesting how many people will say it kills babies and still defend it.

*How? Say you're pregnant or something; just do it!

Convo

2009-10-03T14:47:00.001-07:00

Connecting to server...

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You: hi

Stranger: hey :)

You: wanna have a pointless political debate?

Stranger: sure!

You: gay marriage: for or against?

Stranger: for

You: me too

Stranger: good :)

You: im an atheist

You: u?

Stranger: i'm catholic...sorta. My family's catholic.

You: okay

You: why are you catholic?

Stranger: because... my family is?

You: but do you have any logical reasons to believe in the existence of a supreme deity?

You: any empirical evidence?

Stranger: nope. just makes you feel better to think that there's something helpin you along.

You: that doesnt make it true

You: a man may be happy at the thought that there's a diamond the size of a refrigerator in hi backyard

You: but hes still crazy

Stranger: no it doesn't. who says i say it's true? reincarnation'd be pretty sweet too. anything that means there's more to life than just this one.

You: but a notion that makes you happy isnt necessarily true

You: so thats no reason to believe

You: assuming u care about the truth

Stranger: like a said before, it doesn't have to be true. if there really is no life after this, i'd rather be happy now then spending my life dreading the end

You: but if you recognize that this is the only life you;ve got, you'll more likely live it to the fullest

You: instead of counting on a pipe dream

Stranger: but if you recognize that this is the only life, that's on your mind and you realize you can't do much with yourself, because you're not going to live to see the results.

You: its not about living to see the results

You: its about making life better 4 every1

Stranger: by preaching that there is no hope?

You: no by preaching that this is your only life, so live it to the fullest

You: by fighting for equality, social and economic

You: by fighting to give food to the starving

You: by fighting to embetter medicine to make our lives longer

You: by fighting violence in all its forms

Stranger: you can do that and be religious. Mother Theresa? Ghandi?

Stranger: Martin Luther King Jr?

You: by fighing bronze-aged superstitions that cause attrocities like the holocaust, the inquisition, the mistreatment of women, 9/11

You: but anyway, a comforting belief can be wrong

You: you're commiting the fallacy of wishful thinking

You: an argumentum at consequentiam

Stranger: you can't prove that things like love and happiness exist, so they could be untrue. Those emotions still make us happy, don't they?

You: no we actually can prove that love and happiness exist

You: weve studied the brain and know exactly what chemicals signal and cause them

You: the difference is that emotions THEMSELVES make us happy

Stranger: you can prove that there are hormones in the brain. but there are hormone imbalances that exist. the people and brains that have been tested could have had imbalences

You: not the CONCEPT of emotuon

Stranger: and who is to say that it isn't god HIMSELF making us happy when we feel joy?

You: we already know what causes joy

You: enorphins for one

You: thats why drugs are pleasurable

Stranger: endorphins? cause the feeling of joy, not actual joy.

You: joy is a feeling

You: you're now commiting the no true costman fallacy

You: ^scotsman

Stranger: no, it causes the guise of joy. Drugs don't acutally make you happy, they convince you that you're happy by causing imbalances in your brain.

You: happiness IS an imbalance in the brain

You: if it werent for those chemicals that your brain releases and the firing of neurons, happiness would not exist

Stranger: why not "fire off those neurons" by believing that there is a better life out there, rather than killing yourself and ruining the one you have with drugs?

You: so you think we should believe anything that makes us happy, regardless of its veracity?

Stranger: why not?

Stranger: i'd rather be happy than wallow in self pity

You: if believing there's an invisible pink unicorn in my shoe that wil give me a cake after i die for every woman i rape, thats okay/

You: ?

Stranger: that's the dumbest shit i've ever heard, that's not even a legitimate argument. THAT would be what we call the crazies and it would be time to lock you away

Stranger: time out. Obama or McCain?

You: but an invisible sky daddy that controls everything and will let you live forever and torture ppl 4ever but loves everyone is sane?

You: i dont like either

You: but obama is better i guess

Stranger: good man! :)

You: i dont like his position on prenatal rights

Stranger: you don't like abortion?

You: no i dont

You: y?

Stranger: just makin sure. that's one issue i don't really like to get into ever.

You: oh

You: y not?

Stranger: Because of my religion and my family, basically.

You: explain?

Stranger: Catholicism (and living in super conservative and religious Kansas) has pretty much ruined my points of view on most of the major issues. I can't really lean either way for fear of being rejected.

Stranger: the only issue i'm sure and certain on is that I support gay marriage wholeheartedly.

You: oh okay

You: thats another benefit of atheism

You: freethought

Stranger: true. i don't entirely believe in god. I'm more of a deist (i think that's how you spell it)

Stranger: so that's why i'm only sort of catholic

You: oh ok

You: deism says nothing about an afterlife

You: I'm a humanist, so I oppose abortion on the grounds that human life has value.

Stranger: yeah, that's the reason why i'm sort of catholic too? i dunno what i am really.

You: maybe unitarian?

Stranger: whas that?

You: not sure

Stranger: lol

You: more liberal christian denomination

Stranger: cool? haha, i don't really know how that'd go :P

You: id have 2 look it up

You: but may you find the denomination that fits you

You: :)

Stranger: yeah. well, i have a choir concert to go to! peace, mann! had fun talkin to you :)

You: ok

You: :)

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

or save this log or send us feedback.

GET TO IT PRO-LIFERS

2009-10-02T09:04:00.000-07:00

I look on Youtube and search for atheist videos. What do I find? A bunch of logically sound arguments in against the existence of a supreme deity. Sometimes dissecting, line-by-line, another video.

I search for pro-life videos what do I see? A bunch of videos with slow zooms and pans on pictures of babies overlaid with sappy music and titles like "Abortion? No; life is precious". Videos that just scream "Oh, look at me. I figured out how to use Windows Movie Maker!" Nobody cares you figured out the star wipe transition.

THEY'RE ALL PRACTICALLY THE SAME FREAKING VIDEO.

Pro-lifers, I know you're capable of it. Post more than touching slideshows and "from the heart" commentary.

SHOW NO MERCY!

Interesting conversation

2009-10-01T11:15:00.000-07:00

I'm okay with ZJemptv on most things, but we're having an interesting conversation at this video's comments.

He seems to think that customers have a right to force their morality upon business owners and that not wanting to kill another human being is a "completely arbitrary and unnecessary basis" upon which to decide how to excercize your liberty.

Let's say there's a restaurant that refuses to serve veal for ethical reasons. What do you do if you want veal? Don't eat there! You have no right to force anyone to sell a product that they do not want to sell, regardless of the reason they refuse to sell it. You have no right to force them to comply to your morals.

Them not selling BC is no more forcing their morality on you than a store closing on Sunday forces their religion on you.

If I run any sort of business, I have the right to choose what products to sell. I could open a candy shop and refuse to sell Jujubees because I think they're part of an evil plot to turn toddlers into smores. You still have no right to tell me what products to carry. If I'm looking for jujubees, I loose you as a customer.

I could sell clothes and arbitrarily not carry blue socks.

I could close on Sunday even if "cultural homogeneity" means every other business in town is closed on Sunday too.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": medical marijuana

2009-09-30T14:54:00.000-07:00

Seriously? Why?

If there's a naturally abundant plant that's very safe and very affective at treating ailments, why ban it?

Typically, drugs are approved by the FDA based on safety and effectiveness.

Even with cures that aren't FDA-approved, it's the doctor that gets in trouble, not the patient that's jailed.

Now, I understand that normal citizens aren't allowed to smoke it (they should be, but that's another issue), but the same is true of all prescribed medications.

Just... just explain this debate to me, will ya?

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": circumcision

2009-09-29T14:56:00.000-07:00

This is probably one of the only places where a debate is entirely unnecessary. Whether or not there are certain advantages and drawbacks is certainly important, but the decision must ultimately be left up to the person who's penis would be affected. It doesn't matter if your religion mandates it for the same reason we disallow human sacrifice and stoning; you have no right to force your religion upon others.

To end on a lighter note (and pad this post's length), I'd like to end with a joke.

~~~

Two 10-year-old boys are using consecutive urinals - one looks over at the penis of the other and says, "Oh no! What's wrong with your penis?"

The little boy replies, "I've been circumcised.".

His friend says, "You poor guy - when did that happen?".

"When I was born", came the reply.

"Yuck, it looks aweful - what did they do to it?" askes the first boy.

"They cut off my foreskin.".

The first little boy was shuddering as he imagined the pain his freind must have gone through. "I bet it hurt?", he said.

"HURT!!", exclaimed the boy, "Hurt - I couldn't walk for a year!"

I'm all for embettering humanity, but remember that thing called "liberty"?

2009-09-28T08:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME4p0sKvl54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJvryLhfQzE

1: No STD short of zombism will lead to the "downfall of society".
2: This is creepy, but not in a "that's not natural" way; it's creepy in a "Big Brother can now genetically brainwash your children and literally manufacture consent of the governed" kind of way.
3: Anyone who wants to change the human race has the sticky problem of free will; you may see childbirth as "violent", but that characterization would offend a lot of people.
4: These all seem like radical solutions for minor problems (STDs solved with banning sex and encroaching on personal liberty, gender inequality solved by forcing androgyny upon our offspring, etc.).
5: You already have the right to refuse to have sex until your partner gets tested.
6: Did I mention it's creepy?

Sue America

2009-09-27T11:04:00.000-07:00

All of these anti-youth laws violate equal protection. Anyone interested in taking it to the SCotUSA?

Censorship 4/2

2009-09-26T10:01:00.000-07:00

So, I was watching an add for Dish TV the other day, touting its parental censorshi- er, "control" technology.

Even the language they used ("control what your kids watch", "decide what material is right for your family", "you can block programs based on ______ or even entire channels") makes it sound creepily Orwellian.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": flag burning

2009-09-25T09:29:00.000-07:00

Really? As long as the flag is your own and the fumes don't, like, poison people somehow, is this really something some people oppose? Who's rights are being violated?

The flag is just a symbol; what's really important are the ideas America was founded on. Ones like freedom of expression.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": gay rights

2009-09-24T10:30:00.000-07:00

Really? There are some people who honestly think sexual orientation is a qualifier for rights? Some people think that there should be "separate but equal" marriage laws depending on your gender?

How exactly are anybody's rights threatened by gays? At all?

Hero(es)

2009-09-23T14:06:00.000-07:00

I just watched the Season 4 premier of MSNBC's Heroes.

So, do I have a point to this?

Of course I do; this is a political blog!

Peter saves the wife of a pregnant woman and her twin girls. She gives birth after arrival at the hospital and it is pointed out that he "single-handedly saved three lives".

So what about this situation makes me angry, you ask? Nothing.

Except they were born right after the accident. Had Peter done the exact same thing a few months ago, the lives of the twins wouldn't've counted. The exact same people, all three slightly younger, and suddenly only one life is seen as being saved. What's more, somebody could've been paid to kill the twins, and face no punishment whatsoever.

But maybe I'm reading too far into it.