Nun excommunicated for saving a woman's life

LET THE ABORTION WANK COMMENCE.

Edit:

Harley wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I shat brix.

From WebMD:

Quote :

Week 11

Baby: Your fetus, about the size of a large lime, measures about 1.75 to 2.4 inches from crown to rump and weighs about three-tenths of an ounce. About now the rapid "swooshing" noises of the heartbeat can be heard through a Doppler sound-wave stethoscope. Fingernails and external genitalia are showing distinguishing characteristics, and the baby is swallowing and kicking, although you still won't feel it.

Also, it's lungs have only just begun to develop, and given it's tiny size, there is no way it could be viable if born.

1.75 to 2.4 inches, weighing three-tenths of an ounce. If the mother gives birth to it, doing so will kill her, and the child will die anyway. If they abort the child, the mother will survive. Given that the child has no chance of surviving at this point, I believe the doctors and the nun made the correct decision.

Malganis wrote:

To state that this fetus was a mere "clump of cells" is pretty erroneous (unless you want to go the route that we're all, technically speaking, just "clumps of cells"). Fetuses at this stage have heartbeats, and are developing fingernails and external genitals.

If you really, really want to have this wank it's pretty much fact that a fetus is not conscious until at least the 20th week (and thus cannot feel pain before them), and are incapable of homeostasis until the 24th week. Homeostasis is the ability to change yourself in response to your surroundings and is a function shared by all living beings; if you can't do it, you do not qualify as a living being. It literally is a clump of cells, regardless of what it could conceivably turn into. QED.

Quote :

About now the rapid "swooshing" noises of the heartbeat can be heard through a
Doppler sound-wave stethoscope. Fingernails and external genitalia are showing
distinguishing characteristics, and the baby is swallowing and kicking,
although you still won't feel it.

So? Still isn't capable of homeostasis, still a clump of cells no matter what kind of appeal to emotion you use.

Quote :

Wow. What about the mother's point of view, here?

She gave informed consent, as the article stated. No doubt it was a very difficult decision for her, mostly because anti-abortionists create an atmosphere where wanting or requiring an abortion means you will be reviled, pilloried, mocked, and abused. As long as one side has sidewalk counselors calling anyone who walks up to an abortion clinic an evil slut who will burn in hell, they don't get to use a woman's psychological state as an argument. You don't get to shoot someone in the face and then complain how they're bleeding all over the floor.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Whenever I feel depressed, I go here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

(Not reccomended for Americans)

You have such a retarded view of the world that it's no surprise that you can't even begin to fathom how the world economy works.

KelinciHutan wrote:

I really don't feel this decision is moral, ethical, or logical on the part of the Catholics.

This is the logical conclusion of your belief system, Little Miss "I'm referring to the child as 'she' because we all start out female" (which I question, since the XX or XY chromosomes are there once the sperm and ovum fuse to form a zygote). This is exactly what happens when outsiders are allowed to decide that a foetus has personhood and worth equal to that of a born human being.

An embryo or foetus only has value and worth to the person incubating it. Its value and worth and personhood hinge on whether the owner of the uterus wants to continue the pregnancy. Only that person should have a say over what happens to it - NOBODY ELSE (including the person who contributed the other half of said embryo's DNA). When you allow celibate old men to decide that all embryos and foetuses are full human beings then THIS IS WHAT YOU GET - the insistence that abortion is an excommunicable sin (raping little children is fine, however) even if it's done to save the life of the woman. Sure, they try to spackle it over by saying "oh if medical treatment indirectly kills the poor little child then that's okay", just so nobody thinks they're actively trying to deny pregnant women life-saving medical treatment, but the underlying belief is that women should die in childbirth rather than abort and save their own lives.

I agree mostly with Cyberwulf. In the end, the decision should be made by the woman. Oh yes, advise her, and the father should be well-informed and have some say, but in the end it's her body and her life.

Once you start saying that a woman can't abort a baby even to save her own life, just because the baby will die, you turn that woman into a baby-machine.

Of course, anybody remember the woman condemned to hell for having the baby - created by rape - of her nine year old daughter aborted? The church has no regard for living children's lives or the quality of them either.

They are increasingly turning the female body into a piece of meat for popping out babies. Good little Christian babies. All under the pretence of the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". THEY decided that aborting 11 week-old fetuses classes as murder. I don't recall God saying abortion was murder.

Have a song.

Baby machine, Baby machine,
Look at my baby machine,
Pop the cock in and get the baby out,
That's what being a woman, is all about,

If they both die, then that's God's will,
Don't let a girl take the pill,
Red white or blue, yellow or green,
She's just a baby machine,

Baby machine, Baby machine,
Look at my baby machine,
Pop the cock in and get the baby out,
That's what being a woman, is all about,

If she needs a hysterectomy,
That's murder too, as you can see,
Those precious eggs are no more use,
Cancer of the womb? That's no excuse,

Baby machine, Baby machine,
Look at my baby machine,
Pop the cock in and get the baby out,
That's what being a woman, is all about,

Don't you know, condoms are evil too,
Satan invented them, we know that it's true,
That precious sperm is going to waste,
No, it's not just a worthless paste,

Baby machine, Baby machine,
Look at my baby machine,
Pop the cock in and get the baby out,
That's what being a woman, is all about,

Here's an idea, put women in chains,
And fuck them over, and over again,
If she's not pregnant, or making your bed,
She might as well be dead,

Baby machine, Baby machine,
Look at my baby machine,
Pop the cock in and get the baby out,
That's what being a woman, is all about,

Have sex for fun, and hell's where you belong,
But only being a woman, makes it wrong,
No man is a slut, because it's all agreed,
They are being holy, by spreading the seed,

Baby machine, Baby machine,
Look at my baby machine,
Look at my... BABY MACHINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

the father should be well-informed and have some say

Is the man pregnant? No? Then he gets no say and has no right to be informed that a woman is getting an abortion. He may be informed in special circumstances as in this case, where the couple were preparing for the baby together and the abortion is necessary to save his partner's life, but generally he's not entitled to know.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

the father should be well-informed and have some say

Is the man pregnant? No? Then he gets no say and has no right to be informed that a woman is getting an abortion.

Excuse me?

He has no right to know? At all? Where the hell do you get off?

He doesn't have a right to veto it or override the woman's decision. But if the pregnancy was not the result of rape or incest, then damn straight he at least has the right to know.

Christ, that's basically reducing the male to nothing more than a sperm donor. And as much as you complain about women being marginalized by the patriarchy, you seem to have zero compunction when it comes to doing the reverse.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

the father should be well-informed and have some say

Is the man pregnant? No? Then he gets no say and has no right to be informed that a woman is getting an abortion.

Excuse me?

He has no right to know? At all? Where the hell do you get off?

Where the hell do you get off?!

Quote :

He doesn't have a right to veto it or override the woman's decision.

Then what's the point of him knowing? What value is there in him knowing, except to give him the opportunity to guilt, threaten or otherwise attempt to coerce the woman into changing her mind?

Quote :

But if the pregnancy was not the result of rape or incest, then damn straight he at least has the right to know.

So if he's a violent asshole he has the right to know? So if he sabotaged her birth control to tie her to him he has the right to know? So if he's a pro-life nut he has the right to know? So if he's thirteen he has the right to know? So if she can't remember his name or isn't sure who the father is, he has the right to know?

And how are you going to determine that the pregnancy was not the result of rape or incest? Are you going to demand a DNA test? A police report?

This fucking bullshit is what leads to laws that prevent women from seeking an abortion unless they produce the written consent of the man involved. This is what leads to laws that prevent women from seeking an abortion unless they provide proof that they reported a rape to the police.

Quote :

Christ, that's basically reducing the male to nothing more than a sperm donor.

Let me weep salty tears of bitterness for you. Unless the woman decides that a) she's proceeding with the pregnancy and keeping the baby, b) she's going to tell the guy, and c) he agrees that he will support the resulting child and be part of its life, THAT'S ALL HE IS. He no longer has any control over the situation because it now involves the woman's body. Too bad. The woman's right to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy, which is going to involve massive changes to her life (because it's much, much easier for a man to walk away once the child is born) free of pressure, violence and/or emotional blackmail outweighs his right to know that she is having or has had an abortion.

Quote :

And as much as you complain about women being marginalized by the patriarchy, you seem to have zero compunction when it comes to doing the reverse.

...ha. HA. HA HA HA HA HA.

The very fucking idea that you think that allowing women to decide whether or not to tell the father of the foetus that they are having an abortion, rather than compelling them to do so, equals MEN BEING MARGINALIZED BY THE MATRIARCHY would be hysterical, except that I just lost a lot of respect for you. You act like abortion takes place in some patriarchy-free bubble, when every day, right in your country, old white men pass law after law designed to restrict a woman's legal right to an abortion. And male progressives - including Barack Obama - don't do a goddamned thing to stop it.

So don't worry, Spotts. Your precious male privilege is in no danger from women daring to treat the contents of their wombs and the fate of said contents as if it's their own fucking business. Pretty soon Roe will just be a piece of paper anyway.

Cyberwulf wrote:

So don't worry, Spotts. Your precious male privilege is in no danger from women daring to treat the contents of their wombs and the fate of said contents as if it's their own fucking business. Pretty soon Roe will just be a piece of paper anyway.

How long have you known me? How many years? The fact that you even think for one iota of a second that I do not support a woman's right to choose, that I do not support equal rights, that I am some knuckle-dragging neanderthal that wants to shove women back into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant makes it very clear to me that you obviously know nothing.

I have defended you time and again from people who thought you were some malicious troll. I have looked the other way quite a few times when I could have dropped the hammer hard on you because while I sometimes disagree with you, I respect your right to your opinion.

However, you better come loaded with a lot more than baseless accusations about who I am and what I think about this subject. So let me make it abundantly clear: I have reached my limit with you and your attitude.

Fuck you.

And I swear if you retaliate in any way towards me, you will regret it. I will bury you.

Wank, wank wank! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ideally, the decision to continue the pregnancy or not would be between both parents, but life isn't always (or even often) ideal. Therefore, it should be the right of the pregnant woman (and her alone) to decide whether or not the pregnancy should be carried to term. The only exception I can think of is in the case of a living will, where the woman is no longer capable of making decisions about her body and the man is the one she placed in charge of making such life-and-death decisions.

Otherwise, it should not be up to a man whether a pregnancy is continued or not (unless for some reason he becomes a fanbrat's dream and actually becomes a victim of mpreg, in which case it would be his right to make the decision for himself--but no one else). Come to think of it, that would make one heck of an interesting fanfic.

As to people who are against birth control because they think it wastes the egg and sperm, they obviously have no clue how biology actually works. A female has her peak number of eggs before she's born (before she's even viable outside the womb, at that). By birth, the number is reduced by a lot, and even more by puberty. Most of the remaining eggs will never ripen enough to be fertilized, and of those that do, even if sperm is present they may or may not actually be fertilized, and may or may not survive to implant if they are fertilized. Fewer still will make it to birth. In short, a female has millions of eggs to start with, but no woman has ever borne more than 69 children (and she was unique). The average man will produce billions of sperm from puberty until he either dies or stops producing them, and he can produce a lot of children if he has sex with enough fertile women, but he cannot father billions of them. There are millions of sperm per ejaculation, and unless sex takes place during the woman's fertile period, none will find an egg to fertilize. Even when they do find a egg to fertilize, only one sperm out of millions will actually merge with the egg (if more than one does, there will be too many chromosomes and the egg will never implant). Therefore, no more than a few sperm will fertilize an egg after any ejaculation (usually not more than one, and very often none at all).

Spotts1701 wrote:

internet tough guy

I'm too lazy to read back through the thread, what'd I miss?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

the father should be well-informed and have some say

Is the man pregnant? No? Then he gets no say and has no right to be informed that a woman is getting an abortion. He may be informed in special circumstances as in this case, where the couple were preparing for the baby together and the abortion is necessary to save his partner's life, but generally he's not entitled to know.

The father of the baby may not be the carrier, but he's still the father. I was saying that the man should know he's a father, and whether or not the mom is keeping it - unless the woman wants him not to know, which in the case of rape she might not.

And he should get to discuss with the mom - if she wants his help deciding.

But when push comes to shove, I never said he had the right to veto a woman's decision on what to do with that baby. Unfortunately, some parents can be very persuasive too, in helping a woman make the choice - like her having the baby and them claiming it's her sibling, or giving it away, or aborting it, or just flat out keeping it. You gonna keep them out of it too?

Nobody should get to veto her decision for yes or no (although they do). But plenty of people, from father, to parents to doctors to the local clergy on their latest anti-choice crusade, get to influence it.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

The father of the baby may not be the carrier, but he's still the father. I was saying that the man should know he's a father, and whether or not the mom is keeping it - unless the woman wants him not to know

Exactly. He has no automatic right to know. If the woman chooses to tell him, that's up to her.

Quote :

Unfortunately, some parents can be very persuasive too, in helping a woman make the choice - like her having the baby and them claiming it's her sibling, or giving it away, or aborting it, or just flat out keeping it. You gonna keep them out of it too?

If the woman doesn't want to consult with them then they should stay out of it.

Quote :

But plenty of people, from father, to parents to doctors to the local clergy on their latest anti-choice crusade, get to influence it.

They may "get to". But they have no right to influence her or be informed. At the end of the day, it's her life that's going to be affected the most, whether she keeps the baby, gives it up for adoption, or has an abortion.

Spotts1701 wrote:

And I swear if you retaliate in any way towards me, you will regret it. I will bury you.

It's a historical inevitability.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

The father of the baby may not be the carrier, but he's still the father. I was saying that the man should know he's a father, and whether or not the mom is keeping it - unless the woman wants him not to know

Exactly. He has no automatic right to know. If the woman chooses to tell him, that's up to her.

So, let me get this straight.
A woman and a man get married, make the whole share everything commitment.
She gets pregnant and decides, instead of at least even mentioning to the husband that this is happening, just to get an abortion, kinda ignoring the share everything promise, and if later down the line he found out she had done this, he would be wrong to be upset that she kept this from him?

Lady Anne wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

And I swear if you retaliate in any way towards me, you will regret it. I will bury you.

It's a historical inevitability.

Too much Khrushchev?

One initial question: can we please try and keep the impression that not all men are unsympathetic assholes who run out on their spouses and drink heavily and all of that nasty, unwomanly stuff, guys? Guys?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

He doesn't have a right to veto it or override the woman's decision.

Then what's the point of him knowing?

So that when the foetus is aborted he won't suffer any emotional shock that might arise from not being in the know that his own potential child has just been killed [Yes, I am referring to an unborn foetus as a child. A potential child. You know, something that will be a child in a few months time?].

Let us strip away all of those little bits and pieces that make a woman a woman and a man a man, just for one moment. Let's look at this from an emotional point of view. You know, emotions? Things that all people from all walks of life and all physical arrangements feel? Telling the father that you plan on aborting will at least prepare him for it, and may even give the woman aborting the foetus a supporting partner in the event. Because as much as I am ignorant to the specific workings of an abortion surgery, I know that it is emotionally challenging to those involved in one way or another.

Quote :

What value is there in him knowing, except to give him the opportunity to guilt, threaten or otherwise attempt to coerce the woman into changing her mind?

Because every man is manipulative, selfish and evil, and they would so totally do that. Why, I plan on doing so! Who's with me, guys? Machiavelli books and wicked moustaches to twirl around index fingers for all!

Disclaimer: dongs required - NO GIRLS ALLOWED

Quote :

Quote :

But if the pregnancy was not the result of rape or incest, then damn straight he at least has the right to know.

So if he's a violent asshole he has the right to know? So if he sabotaged her birth control to tie her to him he has the right to know? So if he's a pro-life nut he has the right to know? So if he's thirteen he has the right to know? So if she can't remember his name or isn't sure who the father is, he has the right to know?

Oh, give me A FUCKING BREAK, here! You know that Spotts is referring to a male partner in a healthy relationship [those do exist, funnily enough]. Are you that fucking stubborn about this that you're going to put words in his mouth? So he didn't refer to every negligent personality of a man in existence, does he condone those specific people having the right to know? You didn't say 'homosexual who merely seeks a child to raise', are those allowed? That would be great for me, if I ever plan on having children. You also left out 'those who practice polygamy', and 'rock stars who will rarely be around to see their family' [that, too, would totally count for me because, uh, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I'm awesome]. Do those count? Please, tell me your stance on every man who is or is not worthy of being in the know of the ins and outs of the oh-so-precious uterus. That way, I'd know if I'm about to be fucked over by a significant other or not when it comes to trying to start a family, or to be a supporting figure through a difficult time.

Quote :

And how are you going to determine that the pregnancy was not the result of rape or incest? Are you going to demand a DNA test? A police report?

Speaking generally, here; why is it that people think it necessary to label any of these types of situations that obviously are going to cause trouble due to being highly problematic? Here's an idea; fucking approach each and every one of them separately, instead of with a fucking moral supermarket labelling gun.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Exactly. He has no automatic right to know. If the woman chooses to tell him, that's up to her.

Oh, actually, OK; you're absolutely correct in the same manner of a dad telling his child "I fucked your mum". You can't exactly refute the statement, but are you that inconsiderate of somebody else's emotions that you're going to use that point as an argument? REALLY? Come the fuck on; learn how human emotions work beyond 'anger' and 'contempt'. Also, please try and remember that not all of us are bad people! Well, except for the nice guys.

[P.S. Wulf, if you're merely disregarding those men in healthy relationships because you don't acknowledge them as part of the topic at hand then I apologise for being a complete prat, only I really am picking up a 100% OF MEN ARE BAD NO CONSIDERATION FOR YOU [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] vibe from your posting, which is not only unequal, but is just an incredibly unhealthy way of thinking, to say the least.]

[P.P.S My stance on abortion itself will be delivered to this thread along with pictures of the baby I will deliver out of my non-existent vagina, in case anybody gives enough of a shit to ask]

And I have made it happen. Go me.

And seriously, Cy, you're saying that there's absolutely no reason at all ever that the man you conceived with should know? Ever? Having some kind of consideration for the men in your life does not make you a betrayer of women everywhere. Women are not just their wombs and men are not just their sperm guns. There tend to be people attached; real living, breathing people with emotions and the capacity for love. Sure, in the end, it is the womans decision, but assuming there is some level of love, REAL LOVE, between them, the woman has no right just giving up the baby without him. Ignoring whether or not the fetus is a potential life, the mere experience of having a child is a whole new life for you AND the man. It's not fair to just rip it away from him when he gets no say.

And yes, I said not fair to HIM. What a terrible feminist I am, saying that something might be unfair to men and it's a bad thing. Let me renounce my badge in shame and motherfucking horror. "Why should he know?" Give me a motherfucking break. I respect you Cy, but part of respecting women is actually respecting humanity. Unfortunately, men do fall into that category.

I think you guys are missing Cyberwulf's point. From what I gather she is saying that a man does not have the right to know about anything to do with a pregnancy. It's not a case of women shouldn't mention pregnancies or all men are evil. Simply that there is no automatic right to that information.

I fail to see what's wrong with this statement.

ZoZo wrote:

I think you guys are missing Cyberwulf's point. From what I gather she is saying that a man does not have the right to know about anything to do with a pregnancy. It's not a case of women shouldn't mention pregnancies or all men are evil. Simply that there is no automatic right to that information.

I fail to see what's wrong with this statement.

I understood it, but I'm not understanding why the man doesn't have the right to know he had a baby on the way. And why the woman, if for no other reason, isn't morally obligated to tell him that she's considering terminating his child. I'll admit it sounds like a circular argument if you go the "baby isn't a human being yet/ yeah not yet but will be" argument, but either way, thats his DNA, a whole new chapter in HIS life as well as hers, and if nothing else, his potential (and potentially dead) child. As far as I'm concerned, he does have a right to the knowledge and at least a perceived inclusion into the decision making process. And I fail to understand why that is not the case regardless of whose body it's gestating in.

ZoZo wrote:

I think you guys are missing Cyberwulf's point. From what I gather she is saying that a man does not have the right to know about anything to do with a pregnancy. It's not a case of women shouldn't mention pregnancies or all men are evil. Simply that there is no automatic right to that information.

I fail to see what's wrong with this statement.

I think it more has to do with the fact that she has a way of saying things that make it sound like she's saying all men are sexist asshats, who would bully, coerce, beat, what have you, a woman into doing whatever it is they want. In this case, not having an abortion.

Not saying that's what she believes, obviously, but sometimes it sure sounds like it.

ZoZo wrote:

I think you guys are missing Cyberwulf's point. From what I gather she is saying that a man does not have the right to know about anything to do with a pregnancy. It's not a case of women shouldn't mention pregnancies or all men are evil. Simply that there is no automatic right to that information.

I fail to see what's wrong with this statement.

Yes, this. She actually repeatedly said "if a woman wants to tell the father, that's her business," so I don't know where the last couple of people got the "never, ever tell a man" argument. And @Somath, I don't think anyone said he wouldn't have the right to be upset, either.

The point I see glimmering in there under the brusqueness is that there are a LOT of potential situations where it might be dangerous or difficult for the woman to tell the father, and they're so varied and hard to prove that it would be impossible to account for all of them. Even in the case of rape... how do you prove it's rape? What if you're one of the many, many women who don't go to the police or aren't believed by the police? And abuse can be even harder to prove. And if the woman doesn't know how to contact the father, what does she do? Is she forced to carry to term because she can't find him?

It's not that these are the most likely scenarios (although more likely than is good for one's faith in humanity), but these are real potentialities that would need to be addressed, and honestly I wouldn't trust to be addressed without hurting a lot of women.

Miss Prince wrote:

The point I see glimmering in there under the brusqueness is that there are a LOT of potential situations where it might be dangerous or difficult for the woman to tell the father, and they're so varied and hard to prove that it would be impossible to account for all of them. Even in the case of rape... how do you prove it's rape? What if you're one of the many, many women who don't go to the police or aren't believed by the police? And abuse can be even harder to prove. And if the woman doesn't know how to contact the father, what does she do? Is she forced to carry to term because she can't find him?

No. You're mixing "right to know" with "right to veto". He has a right to know (morally, not legally), but he has to exercise that right. If he doesn't, she has no affirmative duty to tell him.

And even if he does exercise that right, he has no say in the outcome.

I think- and correct me if I'm wrong (what am I saying; as if you guys need an invitation)- that Cy is talking about men not legally being entitled to knowing what happens to their sperm after they drop it (a woman is not required to track down a one-night-stand to let him know), while Spotts is talking about the emotional right of a guy who is in some way involved with someone; while it is completely legal for a woman to have an abortion without letting her boyfriend know, I'm sure we can all agree that it would be a fucked up thing to do (excluding the usual abusive/dysfunctional/etc).

So, I agree with both of them on their respective points.



e: Dammit, Spotts won't even let me make his points for him.