Right to Life Ethical Considerations

I can't believe this thread is still going. I think Taters has the right idea here, Crash. Your view seems a bit militant, and frankly, its scary what you will resort to in order to further your view. I mean, we've been over this. I just really don't understand how you can arrive at such a low estimation for life. That's patently false. At the 12th week of pregnancy, nothing new develops on a fetus, he/she just grows stronger and bigger. At five weeks the baby is replete with genetic information, as if the lack of such would somehow justify the action of termination.

quote:

---

At what point does the unborn child cease to "be" or "become" a human? At what point does a human have the right of protection under law?

---

The nano-second of conception, when the sperm infuses the egg. If that were true then partial birth abortions would not be illegal. The truth is that the law is still very enigmatic on the whole issue of when a person gets to have the rights of personhood. Every American recognizes the rights of women. What you are doing is pretending that women have the right to kill their children in utero, when they don't have the right to murder. So, what's the difference? Really. What is the difference? Some people say that on birth you gain your rights, others say that when one is self-aware, they gain their rights. You can't just use abortion as some back-up plan to cover up no plan to be begin with. The shining moment of choice has long since passed in a rush of emotion. Choice doesn't factor into it anymore than it would if I suddenly decided to negate the life of people EvC. If I killed every member on here it would be my choice, but would my choice be justifiable because I felt like it? Because I have my own personal rights? Because if I'm here by accident, I can remove people by incident? Where are the guidelines?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

For pete sake crashy. Can't you answer the quesion for yourself. I did not ask you what was legal. I asked you how you define these things. Where do you draw the line.I have made my view clear. Very clear and willingly. Why the song and dance? So you are going to stick to the story that the issue is that simple?
That sight indicates nothing of the sort. The reasons people agree to abortion vary greatly. That may be a larger deciding factor in the 26% that believe in no restrictions on abortion but not in the majority of the people in the poll. The fact that there is mention of a gray area concerning the 2nd trimester illustrates reservations. It is a recognition of how complicated the issue truly is.
The opinion that pregnancy represents a hostage situation is your view. One that you have projected onto this poll. Show me on this sight where it promotes the right to choose. This sight does not promote either side. that is the whole point of the sight. I have never expressed such a view. As you have declared yourself a superiorly intelligent person I am surprised you continue to project your issue upon me. I ask you to demonstrate via my own words how I reflect the attitude you accuse me of.

According to the law. What part of that was hard to understand? The law governs my civil behavior. So on the civil question of when I'm going to act like a given organism is something with rights I should protect, I'm going to look to the law.I don't hold myself above the law, I guess. Apparently you think differently. So, you think that the majority of Americans think abortion is murder, but they support legal murder in exactly... what circumstances, exactly? There, in the poll. That's a majority of Americans supporting the right of women to choose to have abortions. Look, it wasn't a poll about forcing women to have abortions, was it? The pro-choice position isn't a side. It's not the other extreme of a continuum. That's a distortion by abortion foes.The pro-choice position is a compromise - between those who want abortions, and those who don't. The compromise is this - people who want abortions get them, and people who don't want them, don't.Which means that the debate is between those who compromise and those who are unwilling to compromise, ever. Which side are you on, exactly?

Really? Do you always look to others to do your thinking for you? I clearly asked you personal questions about your personal opinion. I asked them based upon comments which reflect your personal bias and asked you to clarify your thoughts concerning your personal position in this area. You opened your mouth and shared some very interesting views.:::::::::::::::
From post 220
Or, if you don't believe that the extinguishing of a living thing with no mind whatsoever isn't such a bad thing. So is this living thing human or not? Is it the intentional ending of a human or not and if not please make it clear where you draw the line and why. At what point does the unborn child cease to "be" or "become" a human? At what point should a human have the right of protection under law? At what point does it become a "bad thing"...a crime? Is what the rest of society considers an unborn child simply an infestation to you? You have not made this clear yet.
::::::::::::Please address this.^
In addition please clarify where on thier pie chart you fall and why. It is a poll indicating that the majority of people will agree to a womans right to choose under certain circumstances. This also means that this same majority agrees that under certain circumstances the woman no longer has the right to choose and is obligated to carry to term.
Did you actually read the entire sight? Shall I post the words for you? Do you really want to go down this road? I am giving you the opportunity to re examine what you said.
You need to go back and read the link:
To the 26%, our friends on the Left. Read your own suggested sight.
They provide links:
To the 26%, our friends on the LeftTo the 18%, our friends on the RightThis shows clearly defined sides as does the pie chart. Again. Read the sight you yourself provided. Again. Read and comprehend what this sight has to say.You are correct in this much. This sight is a compromise between those who are unwilling to compromise. Between those who want no ban on abortion EVER and those that want All abortion banned. This is stated very clearly. I am acutely aware of the extreme complications that would arise from a complete ban on abortion. Though on the one hand I do not accept abortion I am inclined to accept it under the conditions outlined in the sight you have provided. It is a compromise. Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

I absolutely agree, in fact I'll up that to: with very very few exceptions nobody has the right to demand anything of anyone. I never said, and certainly never meant, otherwise. I'm not sure if you are on something, or its your tearstained eyes, but you aren't able to see my arguments very clearly. It seems I can say "hello" and you'll turn it into "go to hell you're so low". Maybe you need to take a break.In the following, I break down the issue into offtopic and ontopic components. You don't have to answer any of it, and I am forced to assume you hold none of those positions so you can't answer them anyway. But I leave them for you and others to peruse regarding the connection between the two topics... Minors can be charged with rape of other minors, regardless of consent. It may not be a federal law, but it certainly holds true in certain states. In any case it is the causative agent which demands a law that we need to look at, if sex itself is the cause of harm, why would it be any different if it is between an adult and minor or just two minors?Reflected on topic issue: If the mechanics of sex itself is the cause, then how can abortion NOT cause the same problem?On the flipside, if sex itself is not the cause of harm what is the difference if it is between an adult and a minor or just two minors? Previously, people here have argued that the issue is that of "informed consent" not bare consent. Indeed some people claimed that minors are incapable of true consent because they wholly lack capablity for informed consent. How does that change when the sex is between two minors?Reflected on topic issue: how can minors give informed consent to an abortion, if they can't for sex?Still further, some have claimed that it is important to restrict sex involving minors because it would be incapable of knowing if a minor gave consent or not. How does that change if they are two minors?Reflected on topic issue: If we can't know when minors give consent for sex, how can we know that for abortion? I said something about prostitution. I brought up a few issues which involve legal proscriptions that restrict a majority in order to protect a minority. Apparently you have latched on to the subject of children like a drooling letch who won't let go, even when pointed to the original topic.The TOPIC is protection of a minority at the sake of a majority, especially based on evidence of harm. In this case it is about abortion. I mentioned other cases which reflect upon this one. As it stands, with schraf I have already left the other cases behind, regardless of their merit, so that abortion and evidence of harm can be concentrated on.Time to let go of the children. Seem fixated on that imagery. You want me to make some pictures for you or something? Apologize for what? You have approached me in more than one thread where I wasn't even talking to you, and then (to my mind, anyone else can make up their own) invented charges against me. That's not to mention the amount of direct personal insult I never gave to you, even if your other charges had been true.I have continually bent over backward to restrict debate totally on topic... just evidence... with no mention of personal position or issues, and you have refused.But you know what, at this point I do owe an apology to somebody. Sorry people at EvC for letting this drag out over several posts, over several threads. If I ever reply directly to crash it will be restricted to evidence and logical points alone, treating the rest as perhaps a lamentable case of Tourette's syndrome.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Somebody said the following, and here would be my reply to what I understand that position to be... In the past US law has stated that Blacks and to some extent women, did not have rights. Were those who stood up to change that holding themselves above the law? Should those who maintained that system, be thought of us good law abiding citizens? Would the author of the above have looked to the law to determine their position?It seems that appeals to law to determine a position is a bit of a circular process, and one that either suggests no laws should ever be made in the first place (because no one would have a starting position on whatlaws there should be), or no change in laws once they are posted. Some, though I am sure not this author, argue that execution is murder that most Americans find acceptable. Some others also claim this about war. I would agree with the sentiment but it is not taking into account what their view is of the issue. People could have been for allowing those who wanted to slave to continue slaving, and those who didn't want to didn't have to... thus pro-choice. Abolitionists wanted to remove that choice, that ability to compromise.It seems a tad askew to view the abolitionists as some sort of noncompromisers.Given their view of the fetus it makes sense that Anti-Abortionists fill the role of Abolitionists. I personally think there is more to the question than this semantic debate, but it does show an increased complexity of the issue.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I have been witness and subject to the likes of crashes behavior but I am amazed that coments such asTHIS: Are tolerated. I believe some sort of repromand is in order.

quote:

---

Even if I use the example of 1% that is roughly 13,000 people per year over the last 30 years. 390,000 women. It does not account for any men.
This is for people with long lasting severe emotional problems.

---

So, that is a significant number to you?One percent?You condemn a safe and legal medical procedure that no woman in the US is forced to undergo, when the best predictor of a woman's mental health after an abortion is her mental health before the abortion?Well, I disagree that one percent is a "significant number" of people.I'm not saying that their situation isn't pitiable, but that's the thing about life and the choices one has to make.If those women felt that abortion was a horrible thing, they shouldn't have had one. And, the people at those right-wing religious websites that have made up phony medical-sounding terminology for a syndrome that no legitimate major mental health body recognizes are immoral. They lie.Remember, the research shows that the major emotion felt by the vast majority of women who have abortions is relief. In the studies done which have followed a representative sample (as opposed to your highly biased sample) of women for several years after their procedure, the vast majority of women were still feeling positive about their decision and were suffering no ill-effects related to the abortion.This is in direct opposition to your claim about women who have had abortions, which was:

quote:

---

Follow these same people as time goes by and see how many come to feel a sense of loss and suffer depression.

---

Well, we have done those studies where we have taken a random, representative sample of women who have had abortions and followed them for several years.And very, very few of these women suffer depression. Furthermore, the ones who do have problems are likely to have not been emotionally stable before they chose to have the procedure.Also, in searching back through this thread to find your exact quote, I happen to notice that you have left quite a few of my questions unanswered, so I thought I'd revive a couple of them.Regarding your notion that life begins at conception:

quote:

---

There are even those who will continue with this.

---

quote:

---

At what point does the unborn child cease to "be" or "become" a human? At what point does a human have the right of protection under law?

---

quote:

---

The nano-second of conception, when the sperm infuses the egg.

---

So, do you suggest we start searching the menstrual fluid of all women who might possibly be expelling a fertilized egg from their bodies, since most fertilized eggs never implant? After all, those fertilized eggs are human life, according to you, with all the rights that you or I have, right?Also, do you suggest that girls and women who are impregnated by their rapists be forced to carry their pregnancies to term? After all, that fertilized egg is entitled to human rights the same as yours or mine, right?And if that fertilized egg has the same rights as you or I implants itself inside a woman's fallopian tube, what then?

quote:

---

If that were true then partial birth abortions would not be illegal.

---

There's no such thing as "partial birth abortion".That is a non-medical, inflamatory term invented by radical anti-choice political activists.

quote:

---

Every American recognizes the rights of women. What you are doing is pretending that women have the right to kill their children in utero, when they don't have the right to murder. So, what's the difference? Really. What is the difference?

---

A fetus is not a child.That's the difference.And, if you respected the rights of women, you wouldn't be assuming some right to meddle in our personal medical or reproductive business.

quote:

---

You can't just use abortion as some back-up plan to cover up no plan to be begin with.

---

You do know that most people who get abortions were using contraception that failed, don't you?And by the way, how much have you pushed your local schools to teach all children accurate and comprehensive reproductive health from an early age, and pushed to make contraception free and available to all who want it? That would go a long way toward reducing unwanted pregnancy.

quote:

---

The shining moment of choice has long since passed in a rush of emotion. Choice doesn't factor into it anymore than it would if I suddenly decided to negate the life of people EvC. If I killed every member on here it would be my choice, but would my choice be justifiable because I felt like it? Because I have my own personal rights? Because if I'm here by accident, I can remove people by incident? Where are the guidelines?

---

Do you really, honestly, rationally expect me to accept that a several week-old fetus is the same as a walking-talking independent adult?

Its simple, most women aren't aware that they are pregnant well into the first month and often into the second. Virtually any pregnancy test will tell you if you are pregnant by that point. But as a rule of thumb, I would say that so long as foreign objects don't penetrate the cervix there is no risk of terminating a pregnancy on accident. Yes, of course they have rights as well. Afterall, its not the babies fault, its the rapist sperm donar's fault. There is no sense in turning one bad situation into another bad situation. Of course, I would understand if the woman could not bear the thought of rearing her rapists child. Any adoption agency would be more than happy to rectify that for the mother. That's a great question. You're the only person ever to ask me that. An ectopic pregnancy is the one instance where I personally believe that abortion is acceptable. The reason being, so far there is no way to reverse an ectopic pregnancy once the fertilized egg begins to develop. As well, there is no concievable way that the mother would survive this as the baby was growing larger. The baby could not live outside of the womb in their own despite any neo-natal care. There is no way to save them both, which in this case, you have to be primarily concerned for the mothers health. Is that so? Then what is thisprocedure called? Are you suggesting that a law was passed against fictitious medical procedures? Even supposing that it was wholly invented to illicit sympathy, what about this procedure? Is D&E or D&C invented too? If that is invented, describe in detail what an abortion actually entails so that we too can be educated about the truth. Then perhaps you can set the record straight for when a person gets to become a full-fledged person. Because as of now there appears to be no clear distinction. Saving a life, any life, is my buisness. That's like saying the police don't have the right to meddle in your affairs because you are exercising your right to murder your husband. It doesn't fly. But I do respect the rights of women. I'm also quite fond of choosing between things. I like to choose between vanilla and chocolate. I like to choose between baseball and basketball. I like to choose between tv or reading. I like choices. But calling abortion a choice is about as sane as calling a homicide a choice. Well, of course its a choice. But its also squalid too. Imagine a defendant when asked why he killed the man. "Well, its my choice isn't it?" Yes, I do know that. But is that supposed to make the act all peachy? No, talking about abstinence til marriage and then turning around by saying, "but in the event you dismiss everything I just told you, here are some 'rough riders,' 'trojans,' these here glow in the dark, this one is supposed to be good for anal sex, and this one tastes like cinnamin. But hey, I was being serious about that abstinence thing." It kind of sends the wrong message. Aside from which, how young should we be discussing "reproductive freedom?" Do you really, honestly, rationally expect me to accept that the endangered North African Blueworm is a priority over human life? I've seen people in tears over a stillborn seal but remain untouched by a stillborn human. To answer your question better, yes I would expect that. Does walking and talking and independance mean more? Most people are particularly horrified when children die. That's why Al-Jazeera is sure to post pictures of babies that became collateral damage. There's something about it that really allows for us to empathize with their innocence. Do you feel no remorse for children that die, or if even if you do, is it worse or easier to stomach when an adult dies in front of you? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to addEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add url tagsEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : more typos

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

Significant for what? It may very well be significant for considering an outcome to be connected to an activity. That is there could be criticism for not mentioning that as a possible effect, when they are considering that choice. Then what is a significant number of people? How is that calculated? Why can another person not reasonably believe 1% is significant?I have already given you the Gulf War Syndrome example, but we can discuss other issues as well. If only 1% of the population want to have a gay marriage and will be upset if they do not, yet the vast majority do not want it and will feel better if it does not exist, does that make the gays "pitiable but insignificant"? If not why not?But lets get to one of the MOST CRITICAL POINTS here... The 1% figure is coming from your references that refer to other, generally older, studies. And another study has already been provided to you which seems to come to a very different conclusion. Yet you do not address that study, perhaps it is too small scale?Okay, here is a brand new study, which takes a fresh and larger look at the issue. Offline it may be found at...Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. Abortion in young women and subsequent
mental health. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 2006; 47(1): 16-24.Following excerpts are of note... Uh-oh... They agree that evidence has been weak, but due to conflicting evidence not absence, and flaws within the methodology... The paper goes on to list that study's limitations, but it certainly can't be good if that is the result of the most comprehensive one made... There goes the neighborhood!Okay, now you have something to firmly sink your teeth into. This is a published study, which not only presents its own data and arguments, but explains the flaws within older studies which your references have refered to... not to mention it introduces other studies which avoid getting mentioned in polite company such as the APA (whose motto is that science must mirror norms).This is something you are going to have to deal with, and the credibility of your claim that trauma is made up by Xian zealots, based on the refusal of APA (et al) to acknowledge a problem is seriously called into question. At least enough that you will need to start showing your own studies to back up your claims.Final Note: I am in favor of legalized abortion. I don't think that the above argues for laws against it. But I have very specific views and arguments about what necessitates legal action to protect people from harm.Your apparent argument (feel free to correct) has been that essentially no evidence of harm exists, and if it did that it is so small that the benefits of others outweigh that risk. Clarification is needed on what numbers you do find significant, as well as what evidence you have to support your claim about the numbers which exist.Edited by holmes, : quote corrections

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

As a rule, you'd be wrong. The majority of pregnancies end this way, in fact - naturally aborted by the woman's body. And if she can't bear the thought of gestating it? She's just screwed?Do you think you could try to get over, just for a minute, your deep hatred of women who have sex? Your posts are dripping with it, with your desperate need to slut-shame any woman who fails your astounding high and arrogant standards. It's really an obstacle to discussing this issue honestly. Really? I found the distinction to be quite clear, both in practice and under the law - birth. I doubt it. You know, one of the things that a reader becomes totally convinced of from reading your posts is that you don't know anything about the physiology of pregnancy. When you really study the issue, you see that it's a lot less about the woman's body nurturing and protecting the vulnerable, and a lot more about an antagonistic physical relationship where the fetus greedily assaults the mother's immune system, penetrating its defenses for every last scrap of nourishment it can steal, regardless of what it actually needs, and the mother's body scrambling to erect a defense in a delicate balancing act between starving the fetus and being devoured by it from within.Maybe these terms shock you. If they don't make sense to you it's because you haven't studied the physiology of pregnancy short of Osborn books on where babies come from.

Lets examine your above statement.
You are making the assertion that abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure. For who?
If you believe this, then you do not recognise an unborn child. It is nothing more than a meaningless lump of flesh to be thrown in the trash. A growth to be removed by a safe painless medical proceedure. The result will be a very positive experience. You have assured us all. As does planned parenthood.
Come on now...say it.
Reapeat after me: I do not recognise an unborn child as such. It equates to a meaningless lump of flesh that I give no regard as demonstrated by my above statement. The concerns of the human mother are all there is to consider.
When you can say this to me I will regard you as an honest person. Until then you remain disingenuous to me and I cannot take you seriously.Follow me now. I condemn the act of killing an innocent human being for convenience. A human being that began by the iresponsible act of another who willingly chose a path that brought it about.One they have the choice to avoid. A choice that was made without regard for the consequences. I am striving to get people to understand the aspects of a complicated situation they choose to ignore. I am a male and the choice has affected me. I will carry the full understanding of the implications of my choice for the rest of my life. I do this because I am intelignent enough not to sweepingly disregard the value of my humanity.Now for the next part of your statement. Let us examine the women.
Guttmacher Institute | Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research
WHO HAS ABORTIONSFifty-two percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19%.[6]
Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women.[9]This is the young irresponsible group I speak of. That portion that has the most to learn about themselves and life. If you will not be honest with yourself how can we expect this group as a whole to make a truly informed choice in this situation and be honest with themselves? A choice they may regret for the rest of thier lives. And those disengenuous people such as youself preach to them. You are an echo of the mantra of planned parenthood. A mantra that does not recognise the life of an unborn child and considers it nothing more than a meaningless piece of flesh to be discarded. If this is not true of you and what you represent.....show me otherwise. Honesty is all I ask.And finally Exactly what do you think this statement means?
Let us take a person who loses a family member as a direct result of thier actions. Are they affected by the loss? Are they prone to depression along with a host of other conflicting emotions? Can it affect them for the rest of thier life? Of course we can disregard the death as causing any of these symptoms becasue the best indicator of the responsible parties mental health after is thier mental health before the event.
Yes...yes...quite a sound concept. lol Remind me again what an unborn child is.
When you are honest we will discuss how hard it is to be honest. We will discuss how hard it is for the majority of people who have abortions to make a truly informed decission. One thing about studies is they only show what the creator of the study intends. The results of this study indicate nothing of value.Let us ask these women questions such as this:Do you recomend abortion as a method of contraception?
Why or Why not?
Do you recognise an unborn child as a life?
If yes, How have you reconciled this in your mind.
Would you do it again?
Why or why not?There are a host of other questions that need to be asked to get a clear picture of how this affects people. Anything short of that is not thorough and the generic and emotionally detached mantra at planned parenthood is irresponsible. The issue is more complicated. I do know that once implanted in the uterus that pregnancy is what I recognise. From this point on there is a conection to the mother. A dependancy of one human on another. Prior to this I am not sure. No one can be. It is an open and unsettled question in my mind. I do know as in my view on abortion that there is a limit to the actions that can practically be taken. Firstly let us compare a choice between lives and a choice of convenience. Secondly I hope for your sake that it is a position you never find yourself in. I mean that with great conviction. I never said I believed my decission was right. I am reminded every day when I hear the laughter of children.....the amazing look in an infants eyes as they inhale the world around them... watching parents play with and enjoy thier young ones. My awareness of the child that should be.
It is the reason why P.A.S.S exists. The situation is far more complicated than you will entertain as you will only acknowledge half the equation.

Women miscarry, yes, sticking foreign objects in your body isn't miscarrying. That's not a spontaneous abortion, that's just plain 'ole abortion. Well, she didn't want to be raped either... Can she undue that? Can she unrape herself? Yes, she should carry the child. But lets not decieve oursleves. 1% of all cases of abortion deal with the conglomerate of rape and incest. That means 99% are out of convenience. I hate women because I think killing babies is wrong, babies that statistically speaking would be 52.5% female??? Sorry, but I doubt that your invectives will make anyone think as such about me. I mean, honestly, that would require me to hate my own wife who before we met had a child out of wedlock. She could have aborted, but she didn't. In my pagan days I was always seeking some kind of sexual gratification. I didn't get anyone pregnant, but even still, in retrospect I wish I could have done things differently. So, the whole thing that I hate women is just tired, old, and an utter lie. Stop trying to turn this around on me making the erroneous claim that I'm against women when in reality I'm simply against the murder of children. Then you can abort 30 seconds prior to delivery? I hardly see how 30 seconds has the ability to determine whether or not they are a blob of well-formed molecules or they are a human being with unalienable rights. Golly-gosh, I always saw it as a symbiotic relationship between a mother and a child developed by an absolute natural occurance. Yeah, I mean now I see that you and I were once just an invading rebel force bent on destroying the one thing that provided you life-- our own mothers. I see how 'it' just saps the mother of nutrients and robs her of her reproductive, sexual destiny. What was I thinking. Maybe we should kill all fetus from now on for all species. That way we could all go extinct and nobody would ever have to face the agonizing ordeal of 'pregnancy.' *echo's word, vocals drops two octaves* I'm only trained as lowly EMT. I know nothing of pregnancy, especially nothing about the delivery. Thank's for the gynecology lesson.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

quote:

---

"I affirm my belief that women who have sex are all sluts, unless they're having it with me. Even the married ones are slutty, just a little bit.

​

"I affirm my belief that these women need to be punished for being sluts, and the best way to do that is to inflict a dangerous medical condition on them, a condition that is the leading cause of death for young women worldwide, and make sure they have no medical recourse to recitfy the situation. Of course, we're gonna take the baby away when it's over; why should a slut get to raise a child?"

---

quote:

---

"I affirm how angry I am that, once, I gifted a woman with my seed and in spite of this amazing gift, she threw it back in my face by getting an abortion. I affirm how angry I am that a woman would dare to determine, for herself, what other human beings were allowed to reside in her uterus. I affirm that once a man pokes it, he owns it. I affirm that I will devote my life to making sure than women do not dare to determine for themselves who is allowed to take up residence in her body and leach nutrients and resources from it."

---

It's pretty obvious what's going on with you, 2B.