Skip

Bratty two year old?
April 25, 2003 3:22 PM   Subscribe

Sometimes a mother gives birth only to discover—sometimes immediately, sometimes much later—that she has made a mistake. A post-natal abortion is simply the clean, efficient disposal of that "mistake". We at the Sweetwater Post-Natal Abortion Clinic believe this is a deeply personal choice that every mother has the right to make.
posted by Yelling At Nothing (101 comments total)

 
Melissa's mom botched hers and so years later Melissa became a tortured artist. Her snarky political flowering arrived in the yearly years of the 21st century to much snickering from the academy.
posted by filchyboy at 3:25 PM on April 25, 2003


Well, sure. The rational answer to "when does a fetus become a human being?" is "never."
posted by jfuller at 3:33 PM on April 25, 2003


At about four thirty this morning, I would have said "Sign me up!"

She's teething, you see.
posted by padraigin at 3:35 PM on April 25, 2003


So this is a straw man sponsored by pro-lifers? Pretty boring.

The irony: pro-lifers murder abortion doctors... so maybe they're serious! I mean a fetus hasn't done anything wrong, but once it's out it might start misbehaving. Who knows, your baby's first words might be "women have rights." THEN it's time to pull out the trusty handgun.

After all, how could you possibly be pro-life without a pistol handy?
posted by zekinskia at 3:48 PM on April 25, 2003


P.S. Was there some point to this post? If so, please explain...
posted by zekinskia at 3:54 PM on April 25, 2003


damn, pro-life idiots suck at satire and suck at photoshop
posted by Peter H at 3:58 PM on April 25, 2003


I dunno, I'm pro-choice but think the satire is fairly well-observed. This "post-natal option" even made me laugh. But I guess I'm gruesome like that.
posted by mediareport at 4:08 PM on April 25, 2003


This site intrigued me so I did a little checking.

The creator of this site is just a student at a Maryland university majoring in Design.

The whole Sweetwater thing was apparently an assignment, and you can see some of her other works (drawings and stuff) in her portfolio -- which is currently very much under contstruction.

A little bit more interesting is her livejournal, and her commentary about this website she created: "Ok. So vishass and I are in an Art on the Internet class together. We decided to collaborate on this project: Make a fake website that makes an artistic commentary on something...

So she's a blogger, and a witty one at that, apparently not some crazy pro-lifer.
posted by ruwan at 4:11 PM on April 25, 2003


[sarcasm mode=dripping]
That was satire?? And here I was all ready to applaud the people over at Sweetwater, but then I'm very Scroogey when it comes to children's rights and believe in order to decrease the surplus population we should make abortions voluntarily retroactive to about one year after I was born. AND mandatory for anyone who annoys the crap out of me, including pro-lifers that kill doctors.
[/sarcasm]
posted by ZachsMind at 4:11 PM on April 25, 2003


OK, I'll say it:

AbortionFilter.
posted by dhoyt at 4:12 PM on April 25, 2003


inarticulate political speech is worse than no speech at all.
posted by luriete at 4:16 PM on April 25, 2003


Reminds me a lot of the post-mortem diet.
posted by newlydead at 4:17 PM on April 25, 2003


So the accusation of the site being a straw man turns out to be... a straw man! Ironic, innit? (with grins and no offense meant, zekinskia - this just struck me as really funny.)
posted by John Smallberries at 4:17 PM on April 25, 2003


Well, I haven't seen a whole lot of anti-abortion sites or protests, but this one seems at least somewhat more sophisticated than most I have.

The idea seems pretty sound as a way of expounding their argument that a living child out of the womb, is not so different to a living "child" in the womb.

Some of the other respondents seem to have a quite vehement anti-anti-abortion stance, but speaking from a point of view that says, "how come women have a right to an abortion because it's 'their body' but the father has no rights, and, indeed, only responsibilities to go along with whatever the mother decides," I can't jump down these people's throats quite so readily.
posted by Blue Stone at 4:18 PM on April 25, 2003


You know, I'm pretty sure the site's just humor.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 4:25 PM on April 25, 2003


It's a lame attempt at debate because it's a one-trick pony. We've all heard about it, thought about it, and it never gets any more interesting (it being infanticide.)
posted by Wood at 4:28 PM on April 25, 2003


oh man, i'm getting one of those patented FF machines (could come in handy when my kitties talk back) :)
posted by poopy at 4:29 PM on April 25, 2003


Let me expand upon that. Personally, I don't like the argument comparing infanticide to abortion. However, regardless of your opinion about the argument, the comparison does not lend itself to elaboration. Once you've said, "Why is killing a 1-day-year-old different than aborting/killing a fetus?" you have presented the question in its full glory.
posted by Wood at 4:31 PM on April 25, 2003


A friend of mine regularly reminds his teenager that the fetus isn't considered viable until the 55th trimester...
posted by GriffX at 4:37 PM on April 25, 2003


I'm just sick of the rhetoric, sorry if I was reactionary.

I am pro life. I am anti abortion. I am ALSO pro choice.

Also, anti-choice doctor-murderers already circulated their "partial birth" rhetoric, which makes as much sense medically as "post natal abortion."

But yes, sorry for being flamey, I'm just annoyed that when someone brings up abortion once it seems to come back again and again until we get links like this, which really belong here in my opinion.
posted by zekinskia at 4:37 PM on April 25, 2003


It's good satire, I think.

Obligatory link to meme origin.
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:47 PM on April 25, 2003


Well, they do say life begins at 40.
posted by troybob at 5:17 PM on April 25, 2003


I want to abort my instructors at college sometimes.
posted by angry modem at 5:26 PM on April 25, 2003


It never occurred to me that this was anything but a joke.
posted by padraigin at 5:30 PM on April 25, 2003


What does God say?
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:00 PM on April 25, 2003


Well, according to Mr. Bush, He says it's okay to off 'em as long as they're foreigners (of any age) and unable to defend themselves.

Of course, the foreigners have a somewhat different take on it...something about "infidels" and "rewards of virgins in heaven."

Either way, though, it seems pretty clear He's pro-killing.
posted by rushmc at 6:17 PM on April 25, 2003


Melissa's partner's webpage
posted by LimePi at 7:19 PM on April 25, 2003


Well that site is so inane as to be plain stupid.
posted by MrLint at 7:22 PM on April 25, 2003


Philip K. Dick The Pre-Persons came to mind. From the link:

The Pre-Persons is yet another story which questions how we should define humanity. In the story it is believed that "when you're past twelve you have a soul." The possession of a soul is thought to be the definition of humanity, so children under the age of twelve are not classed as fully human and can legally be "aborted".

In the story, however, it has been decided that the soul enters the body at such a time when the individual is old enough to understand algebra, which is, on average, around age twelve. The issue is confused when a mature adult claims not to understand higher maths. When he is asked why he is pretending that he doesn't comprehend algebra, he replies "I want to show that either they ought to kill all of us or none of us. But not divide along these bureaucratic arbitrary lines."

He is demonstrating the point that this definition of humanity is really just an excuse for getting rid of unwanted children. The definition is based on intellect alone, so does this mean that people who are not very clever are not human?

The society does not believe so, so the definition means nothing. Children, although not fully developed intellectually still have the capacity to feel. The point is being made that humanity should not be defined by how much we know, but by how we respond emotionally to the world around us and to other people. This backs up the point made previously, that logic does not equal humanity. The children in the story, although they cannot do algebra, do have an awareness of literature.

Literature and art are seen by Dick as important in qualifying the nature of humanity. One boy says to himself "I am invisible." It is "a line he had learned at the fifth-grade play of Midsummer Night's Dream." The adults, who can do maths but do not necessarily know about art and literature, act inhumanly, by murdering children.

The children, meanwhile, who are familiar with Shakespeare, appear to have far more humanity. They care about what happens to one another, and try to help each other avoid being aborted. They empathise with one another, and their knowledge of literature helps them to do this, as it has educated them emotionally if not intellectually.


I am troubled by any sweeping definition--like life begins at conception, ovulation or ejaculation. Or the ignored practice of post partum abortion by looking away from the passive denial to children of food, shelter or health. I am troubled by abortion as is, even more troubled by the fact that those are against it are against the teaching of contraception, the use of condoms and such--because they aren't, say, 100% effective--especially if one is not trained in their use--standards not applied to bike helmets, seatbelts or fire proofing. There is no middle ground. So, I am with the majority--I don't like it but think it should remain legal and available to all, regardless of income.
posted by y2karl at 7:49 PM on April 25, 2003


The guys who shot abortion docs are just nutcases.

I was one of the folks who used to picket abortion clinics in Pensacola. (I was pregnant at the time.) Later on one of the clinics was the site of one of the doc murders.

The clinic bombings and the shootings actually hurt the prolife movement down there as decent folks didn't want to be associated with that kind of thing-even though they held prolife beliefs.

I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't regretted her abortion-and I know lots who have terminated a pregnancy. What seems a good idea at the time is not necessarily a decision one can comfortably live with in the long run.
posted by konolia at 8:01 PM on April 25, 2003


If our folks ever find out about this, they'll kill us...or worse.
posted by LinusMines at 8:20 PM on April 25, 2003


I think that's hilarious. Post-natal abortion (new!)

zekinskia, would you mind going over your rules for posting a link to humorous sites one more time, i've misplaced my copy again...
posted by David Dark at 8:37 PM on April 25, 2003


I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't regretted her abortion

that's unfortunate, but you clearly have a limited circle. I only know two people who have had abortions, but they're secure in the choices they made. People probably find it easier to regret "what might have been", so unhappy women who had abortions in the past may conclude with no basis that if only they'd had those kids, things would've been better.

Once you've said, "Why is killing a 1-day-year-old different than aborting/killing a fetus?" you have presented the question in its full glory.

But it's easily answered: once the child is born, it is no longer necessarily infringing on the rights of the woman - it can be given up for adoption. Also the woman had nine months to make a choice - you can't turn back time and every day the decision isn't made, the more things shift toward the fetus and away from the woman. At some point it is no longer her choice; the obvious dividing line is once the new being separates physically from her and can theoretically survive without ever being in touch with her again.
posted by mdn at 8:44 PM on April 25, 2003


The whole womens' rights, "It's my body, my choice" is perfectly valid, but only in making abortion legal. The argument speaks nothing to whether or not it is ethical/moral/etc, whether you believe in a god or not. EXTREME CASES ASIDE, OF COURSE (rape, etc), it's all about having a good time betwixt yer legs without being responsible about it.

The gal should always assume she's going to get pregnant. The guy should always assume she's going to want to keep it.
posted by paddy at 9:21 PM on April 25, 2003


Sometimes Things Fall Apart.
posted by mischief at 9:24 PM on April 25, 2003


Irony: Kids today have got it down to a science.
posted by hairyeyeball at 9:32 PM on April 25, 2003


I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't regretted her abortion-and I know lots who have terminated a pregnancy.

Maybe someone yelled at them outside the clinic.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:33 PM on April 25, 2003


I thought the site was hilarious - I took it as humor.

As for the pro-life/pro-choice argument, I look at it this way. Pro-choice folks aren't forcing you to do anything. Pro-lifers believe they know better than you, and so want to force their beliefs on you. I like doing what I want, and I assume that others do as well. As long as it doesn't harm the herd, do what you want.

I don't know any clearer way of expressing it, and to those who think I oversimplify the issue, simply shave it with Occam's Razor and see what you come up with as a result.

The morality issue is not really the point - morality fluctuates with society. Arguing it is like arguing the height of hemlines - it'll change soon enough, so why bother?
posted by FormlessOne at 9:36 PM on April 25, 2003


I agree, Formlessone. Personally, I think that abortion (except in some cases, of course) isn't a good decision. But I also don't think that it's my decision -- or a legislature's -- to make. It's ultimately none of my business. That belongs to the parents, or barring that, the mother alone.
posted by Vidiot at 10:23 PM on April 25, 2003


So am I the only one who called the 800 number listed on the locations/facilities page?
posted by RJ Reynolds at 10:36 PM on April 25, 2003


I didn't call it, but I'm wondering if it goes anywhere.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:02 PM on April 25, 2003


I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't regretted her abortion-and I know lots who have terminated a pregnancy.

Hi Konolia, my name is Zarah and I live regret free. Pleased to meet you.
posted by zarah at 12:34 AM on April 26, 2003


I thought the site was really clever. Funny comment from the site's messageboard:

[Lou A.]: This is hysterical. Can I avail myself of your services for someone else's mistake?

Hee hee.

I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't regretted her abortion-and I know lots who have terminated a pregnancy. What seems a good idea at the time is not necessarily a decision one can comfortably live with in the long run.

Wish you could have met my grandmother, who had an abortion in the mid 1930s, between my mom and my aunt (who were 14 years apart), and who was terribly grateful that this option was available to her given the Depression going on, the third shift she was working wrapping chocolate bars at the Mars factory, my aunt already being cared for by another family, etc. (From what she told me, she just walked right into Cook County Hospital in Chicago and had it done -- I've always wanted to research what the laws were like back then, but I've never gotten around to it. Anyone know?)
posted by boredomjockey at 1:48 AM on April 26, 2003


P.S.: What y2karl said. (Well put.)
posted by boredomjockey at 1:50 AM on April 26, 2003


it's all about having a good time betwixt yer legs without being responsible about it.

Puritan.

:::shudders:::
posted by rushmc at 7:37 AM on April 26, 2003


To be or not to born, that's the question.
posted by Sijeka at 8:32 AM on April 26, 2003


I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't regretted her abortion-and I know lots who have terminated a pregnancy.

Possibly something to do with the prevailing mores of your locale--and perhaps, the knowledge that you're a recovering picketer?

Regret-free here as well. Now I'm a mother, and even more secure in my choice and vehement that choice be available to others.
posted by padraigin at 9:42 AM on April 26, 2003


Two persons very very close to me have no regrets...one in fact was married at the time and it was a decision she made with her husband. Both of these women did not want to make thier already born children also suffer the financial crisis this would have caused at the time.
posted by SweetIceT at 9:53 AM on April 26, 2003


I was one of the folks who used to picket abortion clinics in Pensacola. (I was pregnant at the time.)

We'll try to forgive your abusive behaviour by taking your pregnant state into account. You probably just weren't rational at the time.

I'm Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion. And I think a lot more of us should be making that claim. It's not an either-or situation. The middle path is the best path: women must be allowed to choose to have safe abortions, if only because they will always have access to unsafe abortion procedures. At the same time, they should be supported in finding acceptable alternative solutions.

Picketing isn't supportive, nor does it offer a solution. It's just arrogant and crass.

By the way, Konolia, what's your contraceptive method of choice?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:02 AM on April 26, 2003


By the way, Konolia, what's your contraceptive method of choice?

I can't imagine how that is relevant to anything.
posted by padraigin at 11:08 AM on April 26, 2003


> I have yet to meet a woman who hasn't regretted her abortion-and I know lots who have terminated a pregnancy.
>> Hi Konolia, my name is Zarah and I live regret free. Pleased to meet you.
>>> Regret-free here as well.

i also live regret free; after 20 years i'm rock solid regarding my decision.
posted by t r a c y at 11:20 AM on April 26, 2003


it's all about having a good time betwixt yer legs without being responsible about it.

Puritan.


Why? I fully condone having as much sex as possible, but there are certain consequences (STD's, pregnancy) that is possible as a result of your actions no matter how careful you are. If you can't handle that fact, you should think twice about having sex.

I'm not trying to say that if you have sex w/o thinking through the consequences, that you should somehow be punished for it. I just think it's awfully selfish for someone to engage in sex and then when they or their partner gets pregnant, decide to take the "easy" way out (I acknowledge that deciding to get an abortion is rarely an easy decision). I think that as long as scientists cannot determine when "life" begins, shouldn't we error on the side of caution and not let them be aborted if it is not certain whether they are a "life" or not?
posted by gyc at 11:59 AM on April 26, 2003


I can't imagine how that is relevant to anything.

Let me assist your limited imagination, then, padraigin: if Konolia uses The Pill and has anything resembling a normal sex life, then she is guilty herself of having abortions. The Pill acts in part as an abortificaent

The Pill operates primarily by preventing ovulation.

Unfortunately, it is not flawless: ovulation can and does occur.

Fortunately, The Pill also affects the quality of the cervical mucous, making it more difficult for spermatozoa to penetrate to the uterus and fallopian tubes.

Unfortunately, it is not flawless: sperm can and do reach the occasional ovum.

Fortunately, The Pill also affects the uterine lining, making it difficult for ova to implant. The zygote dies and is reabsorbed by the body.

Unfortunately, it is not flawless: some zygotes do manage to implant.

Fortunately, The Pill's final action is to force menustration through the sudden transition from high hormone levels to low hormone levels. The uterine wall breaks down and, with it, the zygote is purged from the body.

Except, of course, that it's unfortunately not flawless, and sometimes the body does not menustrate. Which is why some women get pregnant even though they are on The Pill.

I daresay that in light of this information, we can all declare truthfully that we know many women who have had abortions and are perfectly happy with their decision.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:37 PM on April 26, 2003


I think that as long as scientists cannot determine when "life" begins, shouldn't we error on the side of caution and not let them be aborted if it is not certain whether they are a "life" or not?

Why? We don't seem to show a lot of respect for life in most other areas of our lives, from our tolerance of drunk drivers to Texan executions to war in other countries. Why should incomplete humans-to-be warrant special consideration?
posted by five fresh fish at 12:38 PM on April 26, 2003


Bluestone: "Well, I haven't seen a whole lot of anti-abortion sites or protests, but this one seems at least somewhat more sophisticated than most I have."

*Zach's impressive Worf impersonation*
"Captain! They've adapted!"

Hey. It was funny fifty posts ago, but loses something over the Web, I think.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:49 PM on April 26, 2003


Let me assist your limited imagination, then, padraigin

Wow. You're a jerk.
posted by padraigin at 1:26 PM on April 26, 2003


Why? I fully condone having as much sex as possible, but there are certain consequences (STD's, pregnancy) that is possible as a result of your actions no matter how careful you are. ... I just think it's awfully selfish for someone to engage in sex and then when they or their partner gets pregnant, decide to take the "easy" way out

would choosing to get treatment for the STDs also be taking the "easy" way out?

(I acknowledge that deciding to get an abortion is rarely an easy decision).

so are you then negating your own comment?

I think that as long as scientists cannot determine when "life" begins, shouldn't we error on the side of caution and not let them be aborted if it is not certain whether they are a "life" or not?

if we're going to err on the side of caution, mustn't we end up in monty python territory? Are you a jain?

scientists can't determine when life begins, most importantly because that isn't really the question - bacteria are alive too, you know. If the question is consciousness, then human fetuses are definitely not conscious, but human babies are probably not conscious for a good few months at least, while their input mechanisms adapt to the overwhelming influx of data and try to organize it. Self-awareness or higher consciousness probably doesn't come around until the kid's about two. Many animals have as much intelligence as one or two year old children, but it isn't against the law to kill animals. In other words, we already err on the side of caution when it comes to humans, simply because they're humans, because of their potentiality. To take it all the way back to the "every sperm is sacred" starting point is really overdoing it.
posted by mdn at 2:33 PM on April 26, 2003


Wow. You're a jerk.

I don't recall asking you about your contraceptive use, but you decided to pass comment on my enquiry anyway. Terribly sorry you don't like my response, but, hey. Whatever.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:06 PM on April 26, 2003


If you can't handle that fact, you should think twice about having sex.

Thousands of people die every year in traffic accidents. If you can't handle that fact, you should think twice about getting in (or anywhere near) a car.

Most accidents happen in the home. If you can't handle that fact, you should not go home.

Most one-on-one violence is perpetrated among people who know one another. If you can't handle that fact, you shouldn't interact with any other human beings.

There are risks to most things in life. You do your best to minimize them, and when negative results occur, you deal with them in a reasonable manner, doing your best to direct the event to the outcome you prefer.

Also, what mdn said.
posted by rushmc at 6:30 PM on April 26, 2003


Picketing isn't supportive, nor does it offer a solution. It's just arrogant and crass.

That's what I tried to tell the war protesters, but you weren't listening then, five fresh fish. You were too busy yelling about freedom of speech or something.
posted by David Dark at 12:43 AM on April 27, 2003


Why should incomplete humans-to-be warrant special consideration?

First of all, they're not incomplete. It's not like they're missing parts to be added later. At conception, every particle needed to become a human is in place. Let me assist your limited vocabulary, five fresh fish... the word you're looking for is undeveloped.

I don't recall asking you about your contraceptive use, but you decided to pass comment on my enquiry anyway.

I don't recall Konalia asking you about your opinion on her comment, either. But you chose to insult her anyway. Then you insulted paraigin, as well. Are you having fun handing out your beat downs? You really are a jerk. "Hey, whatever" is just about par for the course, too. But don't worry five fresh fish, you silly little bitch, we'll try to forgive your abusive behaviour by taking your pregnant state into account. You probably just weren't rational at the time.
posted by David Dark at 1:46 AM on April 27, 2003


By the way, Konolia, what's your contraceptive method of choice?

Vasectomy. (Not mine-my husband's, natch.)

Actually Fish is right about the Pill. With today's Pill formulas (If I recall correctly they are lower dosage estrogen than they were twenty years ago) that definitely does affect implantation rates.

And for the rest of you, I did not in the least feel insulted by the question. It's relevant, particularly if one claims (as I do) to hold the prolife position.

Oh, and for those that care I would guess that at least half of my women friends have had the procedure (and I have a fairly broad social circle) and none of them are glad they did it-some are still actually grieving over it even tho it was years later. I'm aware that some people feel differently, but I'm just pointing out that many people feel they made a terrible mistake.
posted by konolia at 2:18 AM on April 27, 2003


Picketing isn't supportive, nor does it offer a solution. It's just arrogant and crass.

That's what I tried to tell the war protesters, but you weren't listening then, five fresh fish. You were too busy yelling about freedom of speech or something.


David Dark, there's a world of difference between protesting the actions of your government and yelling at a woman for making a personal medical decision. The goal of the latter is pure and simple intimidation--if people think abortion should be illegal, protest the government that makes the laws, not the women who have made a legal decision.
posted by turaho at 5:59 AM on April 27, 2003


First of all, they're not incomplete. It's not like they're missing parts to be added later. At conception, every particle needed to become a human is in place.

One philosophical argument against this is that after conception there is a chance that twinning will take place and, until that possibility is resolved, we cannot say that the fertilized cell corresponds to a single individual.
posted by jamespake at 7:04 AM on April 27, 2003


but I'm just pointing out that many people feel they made a terrible mistake.

that's how choices are, though - people make mistakes all the time, but that isn't a valid argument for people not having the right to make a choice to begin with. Your argument seems to be that because some people you know had indefinite or non-existent philosophical positions and hence made choices that later they concluded were wrong, no one should be trusted to make their own decisions. Also, perhaps some of your friends had very mixed feelings and only did what they did out of desperation or necessity: like having a dog euthanized because you can't afford the treatment, it may be the only option, but it doesn't generally feel good. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, or that people should be made to feel guilty for having done it.

This really is a women's issue in a very immediate way, and in my opinion all women who have heterosexual sex should be very clear with themselves about their beliefs, even while taking precaution. I have thought about this both politically and personally (when those two friends were deciding what to do) and though perhaps I'd have to rethink everything if actually faced with such a decision, it still wouldn't be new territory. Women who go through regret probably avoided the issue altogether or pushed aside their honest feelings. I agree that is unhealthy.

I would guess that at least half of my women friends have had the procedure (and I have a fairly broad social circle) and none of them are glad they did it

It seems very likely that people who had abortions they were at peace with wouldn't be the sort to be among your circle, considering you have picketed against such women. I'm surprised that 50% of your women friends have had abortions, though. I have a generally liberal pro-choice circle but have only knowledge of a few abortions (I thought of another, a person I don't know as well as the other two - but the third is now a happily married mother of two without regret, either). Perhaps because contraception is more fully supported in my circle? So perhaps that would be the best way for you to achieve your goal: promote contraception.
posted by mdn at 8:52 AM on April 27, 2003


First of all, they're not incomplete. It's not like they're missing parts to be added later.

Really? The blastocyst is a complete human? I guess it should be able to live outside the womb, then!

At conception, every particle needed to become a human is in place.

Really? I guess congenital abnormalities are a myth. That, or you can be a human without a brain or heart!

But you chose to insult her anyway.

Only after she heartlessly abused dozens of women who had made one of the most difficult and personal decisions that can be made. My little bit of harshing has not been nearly as cruel as what she did and not nearly as nasty as I think abortion protestors really deserve.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:28 AM on April 27, 2003


Konolia: Please answer a few more questions.

1) Do you support the teaching of contraceptive use in school? Which contraceptives?

2) If not, then how do you personally support those uninformed teens who become pregnant?

3) Please explain how miscarriages and abortions are different. Is a deliberate miscarriage any different than abortion? At what point is a woman not responsible for a miscarriage due to diet, stress, or physical activity?

I think it is difficult to impossible to hold an anti-abortion stance and a coherent set of behaviours and attitudes regarding contraceptive use and pre-natal care.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:36 AM on April 27, 2003


Really? The blastocyst is a complete human? I guess it should be able to live outside the womb, then! I guess congenital abnormalities are a myth. That, or you can be a human without a brain or heart!

Ah yes, the viability argument. We'll get to that in a second. First, yes, the blastocyst is a complete but undeveloped human, meaning that it has a human genetic code and the fully realized potential of a human. The entity is only a blastocyst for < two weeks, after which it becomes an embryo and yes, develops the primitive brain and spinal cord, along with the beginnings of the heart, muscles, backbone, ribs, and digestive tract. This occurs before the woman even realizes that she is pregnant, or before modern pregnancy tests can give a definitive answer to a question of pregnancy. There is nothing incomplete about it, and at any rate, blastocysts are not what gets aborted, my friend.

As to your question of viability, i.e. whether or not the aborted child can live outside the womb, your imposing an extrinsic factor on an intrinsic question, one that is dependent on medical technology. Fully developed babies sometimes need medical treatment at the moment of birth. This, of course, does not negate their viability. Basically what you're saying is that if a fetus can be resuscitated when it is removed from the womb, it shouldn't be removed from the womb. So obviously, as medical technology increases, the "moment of viability" will be pushed earlier and earlier along the developmental process. Therefore, the argument of whether or not the organism can "survive outside the womb" is not a coherent definition of a human being, as the probability of viability fluxuates in direct relation to the development of modern medical technology.

Please explain how miscarriages and abortions are different.

The answer is as clear as the difference between death by natural causes and death by severe trauma to vital organs by a sharp knife or bullet.

Five fresh fish, please answer a few of my questions:

1) Since you seem to be an authority in your own mind on the subject, when is a human a human?

2) Why is the point when a fetus can live independently of the womb the point when it becomes illegal for a woman to force that fetus to live independently of the womb?

3) They say God loves fools and children. Does he love you in both capacities?
posted by David Dark at 1:35 PM on April 27, 2003


Konalia, forgive me, I did not mean to speak for you. However, I wasn't referring to the question he posed, I was referring to his calling you arrogant and crass, while also reducing your decision to picket to an illogical and abusive behavior which he attributed not to your personal beliefs, but to your fluctuating hormones during pregnancy.

My girlfriend would have ripped his nuts off for that.
posted by David Dark at 1:42 PM on April 27, 2003


Whoa, folks!

I did my picketing in Florida (the son I was pregnant with is now a senior in high school) and I don't generally mention it. (And I never yelled at anyone -I think what I mostly did is carry a sign and pray-and that on a public sidewalk. Our protests were pretty quiet compared to many I have seen on the news since.)

As far as my social circle is concerned, none of them that I know of ever had any qualms against birth control. (If they did, I seriously doubt they'd have been aborting, but that's another topic.)

And as for Mr Fish's questions:

1. I think parents should be the ones to discuss sex and contraception with their teens. I have three teens, one boy and two girls, and we have always discussed these matters.

2. Pregnant teens need counseling, financial help, and an opportunity to consider adoption. If they choose to keep their infant, they will need continuing help and support-and the male who got them pregnant should bear his share of the responsibility that comes with helping to bring a new life into the world.

3. Actually the medical terminology can be confusing, An abortion is any pregnancy loss, while a "therapeutic" abortion is the kind one goes to a clinic to obtain. I'm not sure what you are asking.

And for David and the others-I'm not too worried about Fish's tone. I'm used to it, as my position seems to be a lightning rod in these circles. I happened to be pro-abortion until about 1980 so I do understand the mindset.

One more thing before someone brings up the coathanger thing-if people do something selfdestructive to their own body (and here to another being as well) -I can feel bad for them, be horrified at the resulting injuries and death-but I don't think my being against legalised murder makes me liable for what happened to them. No one held a gun to their head and handed them a coathanger.
posted by konolia at 2:16 PM on April 27, 2003


at any rate, blastocysts are not what gets abortedwhat you're saying is that if a fetus can be resuscitated when it is removed from the womb, it shouldn't be removed from the womb...

No, I am not. I was merely demonstrating your assertion that humans are "complete" at conception and have "every particle needed" is wrong.

I've no care to answer any questions you have, as I don't care what your opinions are, nor for your concerns for mine.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:39 PM on April 27, 2003


I was merely demonstrating your assertion that humans are "complete" at conception and have "every particle needed" is wrong.

I'm sorry, where was this demonstration? Spell it out for me, champ, I'm waiting.

I've no care to answer any questions you have, as I don't care what your opinions are, nor for your concerns for mine.

Typical. Get back on that porch, little dog!
posted by David Dark at 2:54 PM on April 27, 2003


On the other hand, Konolia, I honestly do care to play with you. Your responses to my questions intrigue me. I'm also relieved to hear you weren't directly in the face of any unlucky abortion-seeker. Not that I think what you did is even remotely acceptable.

You gave the uninteresting answer for Q1. Naturally those kids who have good support from their parents are going to do okay without school teaching.

Do you support our schools teaching about contraceptives as a means to support those children who are not so fortunate to such parents? You didn't actually answer the original question.

You also dodged question number two. Sure, it's great if our society were to give real support to pregnant teens. Unfortunately, it doesn't go nearly far enough. So given that you don't want to let any girl get an abortion (and, I suspect, don't want to let them have access to contraceptives), what are you doing to help them?

Surely you are aware that about twenty percent of (1 in 5) pregnancies are spontaneously aborted. These are typically called miscarriages. Most occur in the first trimester. They occur not only due to genetic abnormality, but due to poor health, stress, diet, or for no discernable reason at all.

So what's the difference between a miscarriage caused by nature, and a miscarriage caused deliberately? In moral terms, of course.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:57 PM on April 27, 2003


c/"as a means...such parents/as a way of supporting those children who are not so fortunate as to have such (supportive) parents./
posted by five fresh fish at 2:58 PM on April 27, 2003


Wow. You have the nerve to talk about dodging questions? She owes you no more of a detailed response than that which you are willing to offer yourself, which is none. Pathetic little worm.

So what's the difference between a miscarriage caused by nature, and a miscarriage caused deliberately? In moral terms, of course.

What's the difference between waiting for old people to die of natural causes or just shooting them in the fucking head? In moral terms, of course.
posted by David Dark at 3:05 PM on April 27, 2003


Let's try this one.

Given that you want to let any pregnant girl get an abortion, and given that there's a significant probability that she's going to have major issues afterward, what the fuck are you doing to personally support these women?
posted by David Dark at 3:33 PM on April 27, 2003


It'll probably just add more fuel on the fire, but here's an article on K5 about the paradox of killing someone else's fetus and killing your own.

As for my views. I'm pro-life when it comes to myself. I'm pro-choice when it comes to society for reasons previously mentioned by others: 1) I'd rather professional abortions were available because they really would just happen anyway, 2) I'm in no position to help out anyone either financially or otherwise (though I do plan on adopting once I start a family), and 3) I really don't have the energy.

I guess that last one makes me pretty much worse than anyone in here who are at least standing up for what they believe. There are people starving to death in my own country and I'm not lifting a finger. I guess I just don't place that high a value on the lives of people I don't know. That sounds really uncaring, I know, but I'm trying to be honest. I just don't have the energy to care for all these people.

One scenario that I'm scared of wrt abortion is if a woman gets pregnant with my child and wants to abort it. I realize that men had control over women's reproductive rights for a long while and it's good that women are finally getting some sovereignty in this domain, but I really would like to have some sort of say. It seems odd that a man has no legal voice in this issue even though he is most likely going to be profoundly affected either way. The best solution, as always, is not to get yourself into this position, and I'm fairly certain I won't be, but it's still a scary situation.
posted by ODiV at 4:27 PM on April 27, 2003


Note that I'm even not sure if men should have a legal say, because of the possible repercussions on the woman and her loss of rights. It's just sort of troublesome that we do not. I suspect that there is no middle ground where both the rights of the father and the rights of the mother are concerned.
posted by ODiV at 4:30 PM on April 27, 2003


David Dark: the name calling isn't adding anything to your argument, nor is it adding anything to the thread. It's over the line, in my opinion.

This is a topic people have strong feelings about, nobody is going to change anyone's mind about it here. I can see both sides, myself, I can see how belief that abortion is murder can make people want to take any steps possible to stop it (the fact that many pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty is another discussion), but ultimately I fail to see how someone's beliefs about something we have no truly reliable evidence for should be forced on everyone else. I've known more than one woman who's had an abortion, and none regret it (note that this doesn't mean they treated it lightly, just that they don't have any "major issues" about it now - it was the right decision for them). Ultimately, any erring should occur on the side of personal freedom, not on the side of forcing women to go through the permanent physical changes and life-threatening process of pregnancy and childbirth if they do not wish to. The decision to risk her life and health is the ultimate responsibility of the woman in question alone.
posted by biscotti at 4:52 PM on April 27, 2003


She owes you no more of a detailed response than that which you are willing to offer yourself

I'm quite sure that Konolia is well aware of that fact, and that she is capable of responding or ignoring me as is her will.

You seem terribly upset. Have you been out screaming at abortion-seeking women? I wonder if that kind of stress would cause them to miscarry.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:22 PM on April 27, 2003


david might also want to cite some statistics from non-biased sources, as well. linking to "afterabortion.org" (a site run by the same people behind the "pregnancy care centers" that lure in unsuspecting women and make them watch movies of babies in dumpsters) to back up his views is like posting statistics from the nra to back up anti-gun control laws.

please don't make me link to the picture of geraldine santoro. that would be bad.
posted by pxe2000 at 5:30 PM on April 27, 2003


biscotti: the name calling isn't there to add anything to my argument or the thread, it's only there for five fresh fish to know how I feel about him ducking my inquiries while continuing to hound konolia about her personal involvement in helping every pregnant girl in the world, an unfair expectation, especially coming from such a hypocrite.

I'm actually pro-choice as far as the law is concerned, pro-life for my personal feelings and beliefs, as are many others here. I do believe that life begins before viability and that abortion is a direct extinguishing of, at the very least, potential human life, and I don't believe in sugarcoating that fact for those who like to hide behind words like blastocyst and miscarriage so that the idea is more palatable.

the fact that many pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty is another discussion

...as is the fact that many pro-choicers are also anti-death penalty.

five fresh fish, you seem terribly pithy. I accept your near-silence coupled with bad jokes as concession, and wish you well.

pxe2000, i linked to that site because the sources are documented in the footnotes, that particular essay having 23 footnotes with multiple sources, including The American Journal of Public Health, published by The American Public Health Association. Would you like to take issue with their credibility, as well? Feel free to use the footnotes to find the original source of the facts and draw your own conclusions... that's what they're there for, darling.
posted by David Dark at 6:13 PM on April 27, 2003


MetaTalk, boys and girls.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:26 PM on April 27, 2003


it's only there for five fresh fish to know how I feel about him ducking my inquiries

Oh, boo-hoo.

I'll wish you well, too, though.

Pithy: Having richness of meaning, of significant quality.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:36 PM on April 27, 2003


david there's just as much evidence pointing to abortion not having long term ill effects on a woman, especially in comparison to the possible life-long ill effects giving a child up for adoption can cause. a well researched study by c. everett koop found just that to be true. as i recall he lost/left his job because he wouldn't fudge his findings upon mr. reagan's insistence he do so. mr. koop was against abortion, and also an honest man.

I accept your near-silence coupled with bad jokes as concession, and wish you well.

i would be more inclined to accept his near silence as his having better things to do for a greater portion of the weekend than to keep checking on this or any other thread.

it doesn't matter why you're calling names, it's annoying and clouds the issue. many people have a hard time reading thru a post and accepting the intelligent parts when it's prefaced or postmarked with a slag off. we learn more from the people we disagree with if it's kept civil.
posted by t r a c y at 8:01 PM on April 27, 2003


Wish you could have met my grandmother, who had an abortion in the mid 1930s, between my mom and my aunt (who were 14 years apart), and who was terribly grateful that this option was available to her given the Depression going on...

My grandma too, but she did it in a doctor's office...apparently it was very common, but not always safe...i've never heard of a hospital doing it on the up and up back then.
posted by amberglow at 8:45 PM on April 27, 2003


Just for kicks, I'll post a MetaTalk entry here, too:

Between 1977 to 2001, anti-abortionists committed:
  • 7 murders
  • 17 attempted murders
  • 41 bombings
  • 165 arsons
  • 82 additional failed bombing and arson attempts
  • 370 physical invasions of clinics and homes
  • 942 acts of vandalism
  • 100 butyric acid attacks
  • 207 anthrax threats
  • 122 assaults
  • 340 death threats
  • 3 kidnappings.

    Women who have to push through an angry, abusive mob of protestors are undoubtedly traumatized by the experience. From the Texas case of Operation Rescue v. Planned Parenthood:

    "In many cases, sidewalk counseling clearly has a detrimental effect on the health of women entering abortion clinics. The combination of violent acts and health risks has justifiably sparked opposition to this method of protest."

    "...the encounters often grew confrontational, requiring clinic workers to shield the patients from aggressive protesters. Ultimately, many of these situations became chaotic shouting matches, esulting in patients being pushed and prodded by protesters."

    "... coming within inches of patients' faces and shouting at them."

    "Patients who enter the clinics are often 'visibly shaken, crying, and nervous.'"

    "...patients were physically affected by the demonstrations. Patients exhibited nervousness, accelerated heart rates, and increased blood pressure and often required a sedative to treat these symptoms."

  • posted by five fresh fish at 10:57 PM on April 27, 2003


    What is a butyric acid attack?
    posted by homunculus at 11:18 PM on April 27, 2003


    "My girlfriend would have ripped his nuts off for that."
    posted by David Dark at 1:42 PM PST on April 27


    That explains a lot about you, David.
    posted by Zulujines at 3:31 AM on April 28, 2003


    "You know what bugs me about them? If you're so pro-life, do me a favour -- don't lock arms, and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries... I want to see pro-lifers at funerals opening caskets and shouting, 'Get out!' "
    Bill Hicks

    also:

    *wildly cheers Zulujines' comment*
    posted by matteo at 6:53 AM on April 28, 2003


    It'll probably just add more fuel on the fire, but here's an article on K5 about the paradox of killing someone else's fetus and killing your own.

    although I agree calling it homicide is going a bit far, there is a difference between choosing something and having something forced upon you. If people are happily pregnant and looking forward to the birth of a child, having a miscarriage can be very upsetting; it's all about the desired future, and whether that's taken from you or given to you by the change.

    I'm actually pro-choice as far as the law is concerned, pro-life for my personal feelings and beliefs, as are many others here. I do believe that life begins before viability and that abortion is a direct extinguishing of, at the very least, potential human life,

    who disagrees that a fetus is "potential human life"? But that's just the point: if nurtured into being, it will become human. But by ending it you are not ending a human life; there is no consciousness in there wondering if it'll get to live or not. I think on sort of basic symbolic levels (not to mention cost, recovery, etc), everyone would prefer prevention to abortion, but still: potentialities don't have rights! (Most certainly not rights that infringe on those of actual human beings.)

    and I don't believe in sugarcoating that fact for those who like to hide behind words like blastocyst and miscarriage so that the idea is more palatable.

    words always belie bias. You can call it sugarcoating to speak of blastocyst, and I'll call it emotional manipulation to call it a baby. This says that the medical community goes with zygote until 8 days, embryo until 8 weeks, and then fetus from this time (when it's about the size of a lima bean) until birth. (That site argues that an additional term should be added for the third trimester because of the "phenomenal changes [that] occur within the womb as the embryo grows to 1000 times its size." So if you use a morning after pill, it's a zygote, and if you have an abortion within the first two months, it's an embryo. All the people I know had their abortions within this time frame (one morning-after, and two people who had to wait a week or so until the embryo was big enough to be seen without a microscope). Maybe that's the source of some of the people who feel regret or psychological pain - that they waited until they were well past the lima bean stage?
    posted by mdn at 7:21 AM on April 28, 2003


    Well, a lot of us who are pro-lifers believe that from conception each of us has a spirit and a soul, even if the brain isn't developed yet. This is yet another reason that che chasm between viewpoints isn't getting any narrower. One's opinion on abortion is so interrelated with one's world view...
    posted by konolia at 7:47 AM on April 28, 2003


    Why is it okay for a woman to spontaneously miscarry (when the body rejects a genetically deformed embryo)? I'm assuming here that you're okay with "natural processes".

    What about women who miscarry because they drink coffee, or played a vigorous game of tennis, or were in a car accident? These are all life-style choices: if the woman truly wanted to ensure the embryo's survival, she wouldn't choose activities that put it at risk.

    Is it okay if she miscarries because she drank "abortion tea"? I'm assuming that you're not okay with it, because she has then made the active choice to get rid of the embryo.

    But, then, these abortion-inducing herbs are a natural product of god's design, and every culture throughout human history seems to have known about them. Perhaps god offers them as a choice?

    Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that god is not guiding those women who choose to force a miscarriage by drinking "abortion tea"? After all, god's plans and methods are ineffable.

    And, indeed, it seems truly outrageous to presume that god would prefer that a woman be traumatized through forced pregnancy-to-term.

    In the end, the issue never resolves to simple black and white.
    posted by five fresh fish at 8:30 AM on April 28, 2003


    By the way, Konolia, everyone's a pro-lifer. No one wants women to have an abortion.
    posted by five fresh fish at 8:31 AM on April 28, 2003


    f3: i wouldn't go so far as to say that "everyone's a pro-lifer". nobody is happy that women occasionally have to terminate a pregnancy, but some of us are pragmatic and realise that women are occasionally put in the position where they see abortion as the only way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. in those situations, it's better that abortion exists than causing two deaths with a coathanger.

    wait. maybe i am saying that everyone is pro-life. :)

    i am disappointed that the anti-abortion voices in here are resorting to smear tactics, name-calling, and generally fighting dirty. never thought i'd live to see the day i'd say this, but i suddenly miss shepd.
    posted by pxe2000 at 9:33 AM on April 28, 2003


    Why is it okay for a woman to spontaneously miscarry (when the body rejects a genetically deformed embryo)? I'm assuming here that you're okay with "natural processes".

    They're not okay. They're terrible tragedies, the extinguishing of an entire internal universe before it even gets started. When an embryo fails its checksums, that's a good reason to get up and yell and scream at El Queso Grande in whatever flavor your favor, or at random chance, if that's your thing. Who knows, maybe god or the gods condemn all women who undergo a spontaneous abortion and consign them to hell or forbid them to enter valhalla or whatever. If they do, they do, and you're powerless to do much about it.

    What about women who miscarry because they drink coffee, or played a vigorous game of tennis, or were in a car accident? These are all life-style choices: if the woman truly wanted to ensure the embryo's survival, she wouldn't choose activities that put it at risk.

    What about women who are at home sitting in bed and are struck by very small meteors and so miscarry? That's a life-style choice, and if the woman truly wanted to ensure the embryo's survival, she'd be deep in Cheyenne Mountain in an armored vault at positive pressure to keep germs and chemicals out (among other multiply-redundant safety systems), never moving, getting medical checks several times a day and ensuring that only hypercompetent medical workers who never make mistakes and who are hypnotically conditioned against violence of any nature get close enough to possibly cause damage to her precious, precious baby.

    But, then, these abortion-inducing herbs are a natural product of god's design, and every culture throughout human history seems to have known about them. Perhaps god offers them as a choice?

    You could just as easily say that abortion-inducing herbs are temptations placed by Satan, or just broken reflections of the broken world, if you're going to take a religious view.

    Classically, Christianity doesn't uphold "naturalness" as anything laudatory. The world is twisted and broken, and saying that something is "natural" is, in many Christian sects, equivalent to saying that is it perverted, not that it is good.

    Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that god is not guiding those women who choose to force a miscarriage by drinking "abortion tea"? After all, god's plans and methods are ineffable.

    No, not at all. Depends on your faith to some extent. If your faith tells you that the way to learn what god wants is to eat or smoke something and have an inspired vision, and you do so and god tells you that abortion is (im)permissible, then god's plans are effable after all. Ditto if your faith tells you that the way to learn god's will is to examine a holy text that's clear on the subject, or if your faith tells you that that guy in the funny clothes has a direct line to El Queso Grande so you should listen to him. God or the gods aren't always ineffable, sometimes effing them is easy as pie.

    And, indeed, it seems truly outrageous to presume that god would prefer that a woman be traumatized through forced pregnancy-to-term.

    Why? Whatever god or gods there are, if any, are just there, whether you like them or not. I certainly hope that we don't live in an Aztex cosmology, because those gods seem really nasty, but if we were to, then we would, and it would be the case that the gods really did demand frequent and copious human sacrifice. It wouldn't be outrageous or normal, it would just be true. Maybe god or the gods does prefer that women be traumatized through forced pregnancy and delivery than that they abort, maybe not. It's not in any way an ethical question, it's purely empirical -- what god(s), if any, exist? And what do they, in fact, want and demand?

    There are lots of reasons to think that abortion should be permissible. Personally, I think pregnancy and childbirth are so unbearably dangerous that people should never be forced by the law to continue to term any more than they'd be forced by the law to enter their burning homes to rescue their children. But you're not offering any good reasons, and you don't seem to be treating people's religious convictions as anything that they actually take seriously or believe to be true.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:20 AM on April 28, 2003


    I certainly hope that we don't live in an Aztex cosmology

    Aztec that is.

    At least I didn't spell it AzTeX.
    posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:21 AM on April 28, 2003


    What is a butyric acid attack?

    this
    posted by bargle at 8:40 PM on April 28, 2003


    i would be more inclined to accept his near silence as his having better things to do for a greater portion of the weekend than to keep checking on this or any other thread.

    posted by five fresh fish at 11:02 AM PST on April 26
    posted by five fresh fish at 12:37 PM PST on April 26
    posted by five fresh fish at 12:38 PM PST on April 26
    posted by five fresh fish at 5:06 PM PST on April 26
    posted by five fresh fish at 10:28 AM PST on April 27
    posted by five fresh fish at 10:36 AM PST on April 27
    posted by five fresh fish at 2:39 PM PST on April 27
    posted by five fresh fish at 2:57 PM PST on April 27
    posted by five fresh fish at 2:58 PM PST on April 27
    posted by five fresh fish at 5:22 PM PST on April 27
    posted by five fresh fish at 6:36 PM PST on April 27
    posted by five fresh fish at 10:57 PM PST on April 27
    posted by five fresh fish at 8:30 AM PST on April 28
    posted by five fresh fish at 8:31 AM PST on April 28


    As opposed to

    posted by David Dark at 12:43 AM PST on April 27
    posted by David Dark at 1:46 AM PST on April 27
    posted by David Dark at 1:35 PM PST on April 27
    posted by David Dark at 1:42 PM PST on April 27
    posted by David Dark at 2:54 PM PST on April 27
    posted by David Dark at 3:05 PM PST on April 27
    posted by David Dark at 3:33 PM PST on April 27
    posted by David Dark at 6:13 PM PST on April 27


    Your ability to ignore evidence right in front of your eyes is astounding. You should look into making a career of it.

    i am disappointed that the anti-abortion voices in here are resorting to smear tactics, name-calling, and generally fighting dirty.

    Consider:

    Melissa's mom botched hers and so years later Melissa became a tortured artist... pro-lifers murder abortion doctors... Who knows, your baby's first words might be "women have rights."... damn, pro-life idiots suck at satire and suck at photoshop... anti-choice doctor-murderers already circulated their "partial birth" rhetoric... Well, according to Mr. Bush, He says it's okay to off 'em as long as they're foreigners (of any age) and unable to defend themselves. Either way, though, it seems pretty clear He's pro-killing... that site is so inane as to be plain stupid... Maybe someone yelled at them outside the clinic... Puritan. :::shudders::: you're a recovering picketer?... We'll try to forgive your abusive behaviour by taking your pregnant state into account. You probably just weren't rational at the time... It's just arrogant and crass... Let me assist your limited imagination, then... We don't seem to show a lot of respect for life in most other areas of our lives, from our tolerance of drunk drivers to Texan executions to war in other countries. Why should incomplete humans-to-be warrant special consideration?

    All of this before I even entered the discussion. There's enough smear tactics, name calling, and fighting dirty in there to last a week. Yet, you glide right past all of this and focus on those who disagree with your viewpoint, accusing them alone of fighting dirty. Disappointed, aren't we all.

    You and t r a c y should start a self-help program, you could call it You Too Can Live In Your Own Little World, a two-step program to learn how to always be right and keep it that way. Step 1: Declare yourself to be right. Step 2: Ignore all evidence to the contrary. Congratulations! Here's your certificate.
    posted by David Dark at 10:52 AM on April 29, 2003


    Your ability to ignore evidence right in front of your eyes is astounding. You should look into making a career of it.

    i was ignoring nothing of the sort. we all play for a while in a thread but eventually we go off and do other real-life things so your assumption that fff had made some sort of concession prompted me to point out that may not be the case. the fact remains you're being a lot meaner than you need to be and that's disappointing since i'd prefer to listen to your opinions. can't do that when you're being unpleasant.
    posted by t r a c y at 11:23 AM on April 29, 2003


    i hear you, of course we all eventually go off and do other real-life things, but the tenacity of fff throughout the weekend indicated to me that he didn't have anything better to do. It seemed to me like he just didn't want to play with me anymore, but that he was quite happy to keep playing with others. Not that it's all that important, either way.
    posted by David Dark at 11:37 AM on April 29, 2003


    « Older -   |   SARS much more deadly than first estimated. Newer »


    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



    Post