Damn... I just had to steal your idea and run with it, Frank! Now I'll be receiving hatemail all week...

Blessed be!

> like being able to have sex without contraception and then not having to deal with a pregnancy is a fundamental right

You know mr brilliant, contraception is not 100% effective.

If you wan't drawing dirty pictures on your notebook during high (no... grade) school sex ed you'd know this.

And yes, some people believe in property rights... and some kooks even go so far as to believe that their body is their property. Imagine that.

Of course, a person's rights ends where another person's rights begin... but then we are back at the question of weather a fetus or even a cell in a petri dish is a person.

Funny how that keeps happening.

Misha,
Theft is the greatest form of flattery (I stole that phrase from an Onion article).

Ryan,
Hell, I'm Catholic; I shouldn't even have brought up contraception. Point still stands if you remove "without contraception" from the phrase. Actions have consequences, and, when you choose an action, you choose the consequences whether you want them or not. Unless someone was raped (or immaculately conceived, I guess) there already was a choice that led to the pregnancy.

And I'm really happy if the debate is about when life begins instead of it just having people bleating the word "choice" like a bunch of sheep. And I find the mention of "property rights" a bit eerie when it's in reference to human life.

Ryan,
Frank is right, actions have consequences. If you don't want to get pregnant, keep your dick in your pants or your knees together.

I'm against abortion but for the death penalty. Most liberals don't understand that. So I'll explain it this way. (I love this quote!) "I'll be all for abortion just as soon as you tell me what the fetus has been convicted of."

Well, your own example opens you up to counterfire.

> Frank is right, actions have consequences. If you don't want to get fat, keep your mouth shut or excercise.

Therefore, we should ban liposuction.

Actions have consequenses.

The debate HAS to revolve around the beginning and meaning of life. It HAS to.

Because if the fetus (or cll in a petri dish) is a person with rights, then no amount of 'choice' rhetoric is enough to make abortion right.

But if the fetus is not a person (yet), then outlawing abortion and ordering everyone involved to just 'put up with the consequenses' is every bit as foolish, invasive and nonsensibly tyrannical for the pure hell of it as a ban on liposuction because some people are morally opposed to it would be.

Your 'live with the consequenses' argument ONLY holds water if you assume that the fetus is a person.

Similarly, the 'choice' argument only holds water if the fetus is not a person.

Fair enough?

Ryan,
Exactly.

I found the card offensive simply because I don't care to see political agendas paraded around under the guise of holiday greetings. I'm pro-choice (with limits) and still think it was a dumb move on the part of Planned Parenthood - no different than if the Christian Coalition were to send me a card saying "'Tis the season for heterosexuality and creationism in the schools!"

I have to admit, I don't really like abortion, I would much prefer that we lived in a world where it wasn't necessary, but unfortunately, I think it is.
I do think it's funny that liberals are for killing babies and not killing criminals while conservatives are for killing criminals and not killing babies (I'm a conservative generally, I think it should be legal to do both in this world but not in a perfect world). As somebody said, they just want to throw them back until they're big enough. It seems the latter position is much more humane and compassionate, but then I'm a jack-booted thug who likes Bush and even, gasp, Ashcroft. And I would be the first to sacrifice at a Rumsfeld shrine.

> I found the card offensive simply because I don't care to see political agendas paraded around under the guise of holiday greetings.

I totally agree. You can always tell a fanatic because they have no sense of 'time or place'. The family thanksgiving meal is no place to discuss the devastating impact of seatbelt laws, for example.

But a fanatic thinks that EVERY time is the right time, and EVERY place is the right place to spread the message.

Damn those seatbelt laws! Every Thanksgiving Uncle ... uh ... Remus starts droning on and on about them until we suffocate him with cranberry sauce.

Oh, c'mon. Getting mad about some stupid x-mas card makes you all sound as whiny as the left.

Uhhh...I think some people don't quite "get" the style of Frank's site. Try a little humor, guys.

I like watching men debate pregnancy-related issues. Heh.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit; which comes first? Life...and more abundantly!

Rachel, I love Frank's site. It's actually the only website I've been paying any attention to for about two months. But that doesn't mean I won't contradict anything I disagree with. Note my comment was inspired mostly by the comments here, not the original post. ie ppl saying "I found the card offensive simply because I don't care to see political agendas paraded around under the guise of holiday greetings." and actually getting agreed with.

Of course the original post has problems too, because it touches on one of Frank's weakest spots: he can't conceive of right-wing, tradition-respecting, non-evil atheists. And hence is stuck doing things like trying to resolve an important issue (abortion) with recourse to a mythology he doesn't actually have to hold onto to remain a good person.

Also, we certainly do have a right to eat chocolate cake (that we pay for) and use various methods to not get fat (pills if you can find some that work, liposuction, whatever).

Rachel,
I was once a pregnancy, so I have every right to put in my two cents :)

Elliot,
Who mentioned atheists? The only part that mentioned religion was the joke in the second paragraph (this was all in relation to Christmas, anyway).

And yes, you can eat chocolate cake and take measures to keep from getting fat, but that doesn't make eating chocolate cake and not getting fat a fundamental right. To put it another way, someone has a fundamental right to not be pregnant (no one should force a pregnancy on someone by inseminating them or what not). You have a fundamental right not to have sex (no one should force anyone to have sex). But if someone who doesn't want to become pregnant chooses to have sex and becomes pregnant, no rights were violated because someone made their own choice (if your not atheist, I guess you could yell at God, though). Abortion is a convenience, not a fundamental right. Anything that's a fundamental right we've had since we've dwelled in caves.

Frank,

There isn't any *science* that say a fetus is a person, so presumably your reasons are religious.

Also you wrote "Hell, I'm Catholic; I shouldn't even have brought up contraception." which seems to mention religion.

We have a fundamental right to use the conveniences availible to us. Otherwise it would be acceptable (as far as violating rights) to ban microwaves b/c they start with the letter m and it isn't followed by 'qu'.

Elliot,
I have misplaced my *science* book, so please refresh my memory on what *science* says is a person. Make sure the test for personhood is repeatable, thus obeying the laws of *science*.

And, first you seem to say that I believe that atheists can't be moral, and then you tell that only the religious can consider someone a person before they can see him or her (or I missing some other magical... I mean *scientific*... change to the fetus/baby at birth?).

The thing about being a Catholic was a throw away joke that had no argument in itself. I really think irksome religious arguments you think you saw are but your own inventions.

We have a right to conveniences that don't harm another's rights, which brings us back to when is someone a person, as Ryan had said. But that's all beyond my point. I was simply saying I don't understand why some people act like abortion is some great fundamental right, when, if they were so desirous not to become pregnant, they had plenty of choices well before the pregnancy was caused.

I slept with this chick once who I didn't know very well. We were safe in every way as far as I was concerned. However, turns out she had a boyfriend who was none too happy when he found out about it. She was even living with the guy! Well, it was her house, so I guess it's the other way around.

So the guy moves out but has nowhere to go. He comes to me one day and tells me that since his moving out was the natural consequences of my actions, I had to let him move in with me!

He moves into my apartment and starts eating all of my food, wearing my clothes, changing the presets on my stereo, and generally being an inconsiderate jerk.

Finally, after about three weeks of this stress, I grabbed me a coat hanger and aborted that f**ker. Nobody ever blamed me. Been pro choice ever since.

Dear Frank

I am an intelligent extraterrestrial being from the planet Tharg. My species is capable of reproducing by fission -- rather like your earth-earthworms, only more so: any tiny fragment of our bodies containing even one cell, will, if it hits the soil or ocean, eventually grow into a Thargon baby. In our pre-civilised state, this was no problem because predators would follow us around, eating all unprotected embryos. However, you will be glad to hear that as soon as we attained a civilised state (which we deem to occur at the instant when a society develops automatic firearms) we immediately confined all animals on our planet to zoos.... but I digress.

We used to be a joyful and prosperous people, O Frank. We cherished our children and gave them the very best, happy in the knowledge that their lives would, by our efforts, be better than our own. Until, that is, we discovered -- *you*.

As soon as we connected to the Earth-internet, your blog became the very fount of our culture. (You may have been wondering why you suddenly started getting six trillion hits per day, well now you know.) And in particular, your views on abortion swept our society. Many of our jurisdictions have banned abortion, and even where it is not banned, it is now frowned upon just as severely on our planet as you have urged it should be on yours. Every decent Thargon is now conscientious about contraception: three times a day we paint ourselves from heads to foot in a special sealant. Recreational amputations, once common, are now absolutely out. Bathing and showering are now things that only the depraved outcasts of society would do. Barber shops have closed. But alas! we are only Thargon, and sometimes mistakes are made. Someone sneezes, or scratches a tentacle on a passing tree; a child grazes a knee ... and on every such occasion, thousands of embryos are instantly created.

True to your teachings, we neither murder them nor allow then to be sucked up by the reverse geysers that abound on Tharg, nor let them be crushed by the forceps-plants. Instead we protect them and nurture them for the entire day that it takes for them to grow into babies, and then we look after those babies with all the care and attention and love that we can muster.

Which is, unfortunately, not much. At the last count, this morning, each adult Thargon was looking after 2,800,000 children. The number is of course growing exponentially. As you can imagine, we are now far poorer even than we were in the Dark Ages (the Time of Democrats, a thousand of our years ago). Our beloved children are now miserable beyond our wildest nightmares and, if truth be told, they are not quite so beloved as they used to be. Our civilisation is breaking down.

Please advise us, O Frank, for if we carry on like this, we shall all be dead soon. We know that you are a wise and thargone human, and practical too (we implemented your moon-nuking idea, thus ending the last remaining wars on Tharg), so I know you will condone our killing *some* of those unwanted foetuses to relieve our desperate misery at this time of crisis. My question is, though, how many? Bear in mind, O Frank, that we are a proud and noble people: we do not – as I am sure you do not -- care to do anything even *slightly* reprehensible, even at the cost of our lives. That is why we need to work out, as a matter of urgency, just how much weight it is right (absolutely right -- no fudging, please) to give to our own comfort, convenience and financial well-being, and the welfare of our existing children, and how much to the lives of our foetuses.

Or, to put that another way: just how miserable do we have to be, before you will deign, in your smart-dumb arrogance, to approve of us?

Forwarded from Tharg by quantum computer via

-- David Deutsch

Tharg,
You lost me there, buddy. What's a foetus?

Thanks for initiating an interesting discussion. Let me point out, however, that the birth of Jesus wah indeed been planned by both of his parents. The Incarnation was not the result of a devine rape, as in some Greco-Roman myth, but took place only when consented to by the woman. I grew up in a house where the ringing of the Angelus could be heard, and after many year settled in another.

I guess Frank is too incredulous about the idea of Aliens choosing British spelling to respond. Now, I realise that America is the centre of the earth and is honoured with paediatricians who wear crap colours,

(hopefully he'll be so distracted he doesn't notice the the gaping non-sequiter i end with)

and so in conclusion, Frank is wrong about abortion.

You made a good point then followed it with a bad analogy.

(is being able to eat nothing but chocolate cake and not gain weight a fundamental right?).

No this is not a right; however, choosing to lose the weight afterward (the abortion) certainly is.

Using bad analogies is an easy way to dissuade any persuasions you may have made by the previous arguement.

Being a prick has that effect too.

Aye! Fer fooks sake, man! Losing weight doesn't hurt anyone!

I love how ignorant people simply come up with a "fact" such as...
>and so in conclusion, Frank is wrong about >abortion.
it humors me greatly. Oh and yes...America is the center of the universe.

I find this topic a bit eerie. My girlfriend and I were discussing this subject a few nights ago. I actually believe it's your duty to step forward and take care of the embryo/fetus/child if pregnancy occurs, but she on the other hand does not think so. And whether I agree or not, I do believe it is afforded to women the right to choose whether they will have a child or not. I don't believe it's a good thing, but how can you tell someone they can't have a form of surgery on themselves? That's like saying that women can't have breast implants, or people who suffer from anger can't have a lobotamy. It's ludicrous to tell someone what they can do and not do to their bodies. And yes, whether or not the child was born, the fetus is a part of the woman's body. I can't think of anything better to say on the subject, so if anyone really feels strongly enough to debate, send me an e-mail with the subject ::ABORTION:: and I'll make sure to respond as soon as possible. By the way, I find it somewhat cowardly when people do not use their given names and instead choose a pseudonym to post messages. If you don't want people attributing your words to you, or criticizing you, don't post.

Life? When does it begin? At coseption? At birth? Who are we to say when life begins? Is it amatter for the law to decide?No, I think it is a matter of one's morals and one's beliefs. The powers that be are always trying to seperate religion from government,but yet they want to dictate what our morals should be. Is this the land of the free?

Very interesting.

Well shoot. I know I'm coming in late and perhaps I'll be disregarded as a right wing religious kook, but I can't help throwing in my two cents.

Seems like the heart of the abortion issue lies in whether or not the fetus is human, right? Well let's establish a few points then...

1) A fetus is genetically human as well as different from it's mother, and is growing into a full-sized person.
2) It is therefore human, although not fully developed, and reliant on the mother.

Most arguments I've heard after I've presented *scientific* proof for the baby's humanity hinge on the fact that it is either underdeveloped or dependent on the mother.

Well if it's an issue of underdevelopment, then why is it illegal to kill retarded kids? Or newborn babies? Or anything that isn't fully-grown? Doesn't really make much sense...

And if it's an issue of dependency, then they're still dependent AFTER birth, so why stop the law when they come out of the womb? Let's make it legal to kill anyone under 18. And hey, let's go to those with pacemakers or diabetics who need insulin!

I've seen way too much proof that the fetus/baby is indeed human and absolutely none for the inhumanity of it, despite the inveterate whining of mostly liberals.

Happy new year.

6043 How can this all be right? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com