Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woman Live-Tweets Her Abortion

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the making-mom-proud dept.

Medicine 160

27-year-old Angie Jackson has decided that it isn't inappropriate or in any way distasteful to live-tweet about her experience taking RU-486, also known as the abortion pill. According to Jackson nothing is off-limits on Twitter. "I don't feel like I'm doing anything different from what I do every day," said Jackson. "But now I have people calling me a killer; it's surreal."

cancel ×

160 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

every day? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31289094)

She has abortions every day? Wow, someone needs to teach that girl how to close her legs....or swallow.

Re:every day? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31318204)

The most efficient contraception is this: an aspirin.

the trick is to use it this way:
place between the knees
press very hard

Re:every day? (1)

plastbox (1577037) | more than 4 years ago | (#31343262)

My grandfather uses this joke but with a game piece (Ludo) in place of the aspirin. And honestly, I'd expect even my somewhat religious and rather proper grandfather to understand that keeping your knees together in no way stops you from having sexual intercourse..

RU-486 (4, Funny)

ichthus (72442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31292014)

Ask your doctor if RU-486 is right for you.*

*Side effects may include freaky, hoochy mamma eyelid discoloration.

Re:RU-486 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31293074)

I'm waiting for RU-586 to come out. It will apparently work twice as fast, but every once in a while there will be a rounding error: 5% of the brain will be left and your baby will come out as a teabagger.

Re:RU-486 (1)

skelly33 (891182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31363628)

The fact that RU-586 works with dual pipes more than makes up for the 95% effectiveness rate.

Re:RU-486 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31295138)

she needs to abort those moles on her face too..

Re:RU-486 abort those moles on her face, too (1)

raymondcarver (1171791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31315462)

Buck Russell: "Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face! Good day to you, madam. "

Re:RU-486 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31301672)

Have a great and God-LESS day.

Everyday? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31292940)

"I don't feel like I'm doing anything different from what I do every day,"

You take RU-486 every day?

Re:Everyday? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31296866)

You are being sarcastic and you know it. She tweets every day. And she is not going to stop tweeting because of the abortion. Or hide it.

Re:Everyday? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#31311890)

How do you know? Maybe she does take RU486 everyday. I mean if you're favorite form of birth control is retroactive then that's the best bet in town. Beats hell out of having a DNC every day.

Re:Everyday? (1)

skelly33 (891182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31363678)

"... the abortion pill is comparable to the cost [lmgtfy.com] of surgical abortion procedures at $300 to $500..."

Still think reaction "beats the hell out of" prevention?

Re:Everyday? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31297542)

Her clientele isn't into using condoms.

Great! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31294774)

Now when some religious fundamentalist kills her she can claim a Darwin Award!
(I think she is eligible because you can't really hold the individual nutjob responsible when she publishes her name and details on the Internets)

Damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31296336)

Someone hit that?!?!

Re:Damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31296714)

Someone hit that?!?!

Obviously someone hit that, look at her eyes.

Re:Damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31311960)

I hate to say it but it looks like the baby is better off not being born if he's going to have that to deal with as mom.

More power to her. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31297008)

Any stance on abortion is irrelevant here. This is about tweeting it. She kept tweeting (which is something she does every day) through something controversial, instead of self-censoring, so more power to her!.

Re:More power to her. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#31311900)

I know her parents are surely proud.

That's a man, baby! a man! (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31304524)

As Austin Powers, international man of mystery would say.

What a moron. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31307060)

I wonder if she also tweets about all the meth she does. Ugh, her scary eyes and terrible skin and hair are proof enough.

what next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31308646)

What next?
Live webcam showing someone switching sex. All sexes are equal, so hey ...

Not quite an abortion (2, Insightful)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31309468)

While RU-486 terminates a pregnancy, it only does so during the early weeks, before the embryo becomes implanted in the uterus. At that time of gestation, the spontaneous abortion rate (i.e. miscarriage) is 33% to 50% -- we don't really know the number exactly because that early in a pregnancy many women don't realize they are pregnant.

Re:Not quite an abortion (0, Offtopic)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353944)

While RU-486 terminates a pregnancy, it only does so during the early weeks, before the embryo becomes implanted in the uterus. At that time of gestation, the spontaneous abortion rate (i.e. miscarriage) is 33% to 50% -- we don't really know the number exactly because that early in a pregnancy many women don't realize they are pregnant.

I think you're missing the point.
If I juggle chainsaws, and one day I mess up and die--that's an accident.
If someone comes over to my house and chops me into bits with a chainsaw, that's murder. Same method of death (chainsaw), different motive.

Re:Not quite an abortion (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31371226)

lol, and did you have a point

My Live Tweet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31312120)

"Swallowed Pill"

"Starting to feel cramps"

"A bit of blood on the pad"

"OMG my entire world has changed, I now know that everything I used believe is a lie. There is no god. There is only free will and it's my choice to have this abortion."

"Eww I've got a stain on my pants, I knew I should have used the extra flow pads. :( "

Moral of the story is: lots of women have abortions everyday, it's not a big deal. Abortions are here to stay, publicity is the only reason from bringing them up. Use extra flow pads cause it tends to be a bit messy.

Re:My Live Tweet (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31312926)

If those jackass Women's Libbers had just sat on their hands, the political process would have worked though, a consensus would have been reached, and the Republicans wouldn't have had such an effective wedge issue for 20 years.

Same with Gay Marriage. By forcing the issue via the courts, idiot activists created a rallying cry against "activist judges" and The Gay Agenda, 30 states wouldn't have passed anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments.

Re:My Live Tweet (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31315794)

Do you think that "colored folk" (to use a term from that era) shouldn't have used the courts to fight against "separate but equal" and equal rights in general? Perhaps they should have just sat quietly and waiting patiently for white men to decide that it should be changed.

When you see something you perceive as unjust, you shouldn't just sit back and wait for it to correct itself. You take action to get it corrected. And if correcting it generates push back from groups that what to perpetuate the injustice, well those groups would have likely prevented "spontaneous injustice correction" anyway.

Re:My Live Tweet (2, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31319720)

Perhaps they should have just sat quietly and waiting patiently for white men to decide that it should be changed.

Excellent rhetoric, but invalid logic. Negros (to use another term of the era), had no political power whatsoever, and so needed a suit like Brown to kick-start things. The forced-bussing lawsuit, though, was just a B-A-D idea.

By 1973, though, women were gaining more rights through the legislative process, as were gays before Goodridge in 2004.

When you see something you perceive as unjust, you shouldn't just sit back and wait for it to correct itself. You take action to get it corrected.

This is a republican democracy. You change policy through the legislative process. It's long and messy and imperfect and no one gets everything they want when they want it, if ever, but it's an agreed-upon consensus.

The alternative is the extremely divided country that we live in now.

Sit back and wait... (1)

lemur666 (313121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31340360)

"Power concedes nothing without demand" - Frederick Douglass

Re:Sit back and wait... (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31341450)

"Power concedes nothing without demand" - Frederick Douglass

Nothing in my previous post contradicts Douglass' assertion. The difference is the time-line, branch of government and unintended consequences.

Re:My Live Tweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31320042)

Yes, because things magically workout for the best when you just sit down and shut up. Maybe someone should have told Mrs. Parks that.

Sick (1)

AbbeyRoad (198852) | more than 4 years ago | (#31313518)

sick

A question about abortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31315150)

If having an abortion isn't killing anything to any greater degree than pulling out a fingernail, and so the major arguments should be about convenience (is this a convenient time for me - do I have other things to do in my life), then why aren't fetuses with genetic illnesses and deformities aborted by default? After all, they would be inconvenient for the mother.

her abortion? (4, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31315152)

If she really tweeted her abortion I would be very impressed, but I suspect that she really tweeted her child's abortion.

Re:her abortion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31318900)

"Tyler, I want to have your abortion - and live-tweet it."

Re:her abortion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31325686)

If you're going to be pedantic, then I think you meant her _fetus' abortion_.

Re:her abortion? (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336264)

If you're going to be pedantic, then I think you meant zygote, or possibly embryo, since it isn't a fetus until well after the time RU-486 is useful.

Re:her abortion? (3, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#31337926)

Actually, you are comparing the two words as though they were both equivalent in terms of being scientific terms for the stages of human gestation. "Child" is not a member of the development sequence that would go something like zygote to embryo to fetus. It is a term that designates a relationship to the mother. In that sense, a child could be considered a child of someone from the day it is conceived to the day it dies.

You could argue the point where the relationship begins from (ie. not real until it is born), but there is nothing in the definition that implies that this must be the case. Therefore, you can't improve on his pedantry with your statement because your assertion is debatable.

It's also wrong, because it's not a fetus at that stage, but that's not as much fun to type.

Re:her abortion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31347226)

Hurr, I'm smart cuz I know that fetuses ain't children

Re:her abortion? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31361822)

If she really tweeted her child's abortion I would be very impressed, but I suspect that you are using the word abortion in a manner inconsistent with its definition.

Emaotional kiddy roller coaster! (1)

revdrmr (1525775) | more than 4 years ago | (#31315202)

When I think of all the emotional, religious and social responses that run through me when I watched that was, LOL!

That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (-1, Flamebait)

raymondcarver (1171791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31315366)

She didn't have to say, "Have a Godless day." What a piece of detritus she is for including that little "gem." Tsk Tsk. I hope for the sake of her son that she finds some compassion and spiritual enlightenment. God knows she needs it.

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (0, Troll)

bmecoli (963615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31316740)

Personally, I find her a hero for doing that. We need more people like her in our society, and less people believing in imaginary friends.

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (2, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31319558)

She didn't have to say, "Have a Godless day."

Nor do people have to say "Have a blessed day". Same thing.

What a piece of detritus she is for including that little "gem."

Thank you for proving the point that religious people aren't as peaceful as they claim to be.

God knows she needs it.

If God doesn't exist, how can it know what she needs?

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (3, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347336)

Nor do people have to say "Have a blessed day". Same thing.

Nowhere close. You can bless others by your conduct or you can be an ass. Nothing in the word “blessed” demands that you believe in God.

The opposite of saying “have a blessed day” is saying “here’s hoping life treats you like shit today”.

Similarly, when I say “merry Christmas”, I’m not ordering you to be happy because Jesus was born on this day (he wasn’t, as I’m sure we’re all aware). I’m wishing you to be happy, because the alternative is to be an angry, irritable, insensitive clod, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. You can, of course, feel free to be that as long as you aren’t doing it on my lawn.

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31350226)

what lawn?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/03/0018217/Officials-Sue-Couple-Who-Removed-Their-Lawn

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31353936)

So why not simply say what you mean without attaching religious connotations (and, sorry, blessing implies approval from an authority figure; in such a context, it is meant to be from a deity)?

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31319818)

If you have the right to say "God bless you" then I have the right to say "have a Godless day" thumper-man!

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31333736)

She didn't have to say, "Have a Godless day."

Exactly. From there it stopped being about "well, it's my life and my choice" to "LOL I TROLL U MORALFAGS."

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31347364)

She didn't have to say, "Have a Godless day."

What a piece of detritus she is for including that little "gem." Tsk Tsk.

I hope for the sake of her son that she finds some compassion and spiritual enlightenment. God knows she needs it.

We're expected to believe this kind of nonsense? Come on, I'm like her ex-foetus: I wasn't born yesterday.

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (2, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31352054)

"I hope for the sake of her son that she finds some compassion and spiritual enlightenment. "

Her poor son! Someday he's going to ask "Hey mommy what are you famous for?" What's she going to answer? "Well son, I was the first** (that we know of) to have an abortion on youtube!"

**she's not really having an abortion on youtube, she's just taking a pill, and since we can't verify her taking the pill we really don't even know if she's done that.

This is all one big publicity stunt. She has a book coming out and she's trying to be famous.

Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31363524)

Not everyone needs spiritual enlightenment so tsk tsk yourself for saying god knows she needs it

Fantastic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31317536)

Another worthless person decides that they want their 15 minutes of fame so they pull this with a little extra shock value for the religious crowd.

We've already gone from Balloon Boy to this in about 6 months? What's next?

Just imagine... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31319408)

once she starts having kids, and one of her kids looks up his/her mommie's old tweet threads.

"So you're saying I could have had an older brother??"

Re:Just imagine... (0)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31323980)

And she can reply about how it's irresponsible to try to raise a child (or even go through a pregnancy) when you are not prepared for it.

Re:Just imagine... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31324208)

RTFA. She already HAS a kid, almost died delivering him, was told another pregnancy would kill her, and had an IUD, which failed, resulting in the pregnancy she just terminated.

Re:Just imagine... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336298)

If the consequences of her giving birth are that serious, it makes me wonder why she didn't elect to have a tubal ligation, instead of relying on a less perfect form of birth control.

Re:Just imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31338490)

$ $

Re:Just imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31340412)

Because she might actually want to get kids, but not yet at this part of her life?

Re:Just imagine... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31361968)

Just to recap, in case you hadn't read it earlier: She has one child already, and childbirth nearly killed her. Another pregnancy will probably be the last thing she does. Literally. So, you think she might want to die in childbirth later in life, just not now?

Re:Just imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31365036)

Why's it so important that she survives? She is already past her expected lifetime for a woman with childbirth complications.

Reproduce and leave your place to your likely better adapted child. If the kid was going to die too then it is different. It would be an evolutionary disadvantage for the other kid not to have his/her mom.

But two kids beat one kid and a weak and barren mother any day in the Game of Evolution(tm, patent pending).

Re:Just imagine... (1)

McBeer (714119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31350878)

If the consequences of her giving birth are that serious, it makes me wonder why she didn't elect to have a tubal ligation, instead of relying on a less perfect form of birth control.

The Marina IUD is actually 0.3% more effective then a tubal ligation, the Paraguard on the other hand is 0.1% less. Really about the same though.

As fun as it is to blame women for getting pregnant, the fact is there are always going to be a non-trivial number of women who get pregnant through no fault of their own. Even if every woman in the country got a tubal ligation and didn't have willingly have sex, we'd still see about 450 pregnancies from the 92,000 rapes that happen each year combined with the 0.5% failure rate of tubal ligations within the first year.

Re:Just imagine... (1)

McBeer (714119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31350966)

It ocurrs to me that the numbers I gave in that post are misleading. The failure rate is for an average woman in the first year. I suspect the average woman has a lot more sex then just once... All the same, my point about many women getting pregnant through no real fault of their own remains valid.

Re:Just imagine... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31361994)

Understood. I assumed the success rate for tubal ligation was higher than an IUD, but apparently I should have googled it. Plus, I figured that tubal ligation would offer a permanent solution.

Re:Just imagine... (1)

Xamusk (702162) | more than 4 years ago | (#31325060)

She clearly stated that she aborted her late pregnancy because it was dangerous to her, and that she already has a boy. This means she won't have any more.

So, the only thing that could happen is him asking her if he could have had a younger brother.

Anyway, he probably won't be as bitchy about abortion as some other people around these days.

Re:Just imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31326700)

Her early pregnancy, actually. She was only at 3 weeks.

The pill only works for early pregnancies. If you don't catch it quickly, you need a surgical abortion.

Re:Just imagine... (1)

Black Gold Alchemist (1747136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31326120)

Actually the christ-heads would have to explain to her current kid that his mother died because of them. Feel the love of the Christian faith!

Re:Just imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31350064)

"So you're saying I could have had an older brother??"

The answer to this question is *always* "yes." Nobody has their first child the moment they are capable of having a first child, and every moment that a woman is not pregnant is a moment that she could have been pregnant.

Every time a woman menstruates, a potential older sibling is lost.

Every time a man jerks off, millions of potential older siblings are lost.

So what's the difference?

An embryo is not a person. An embryo could potentially become a person someday...just like a sperm cell...but isn't yet a person...just like an egg.

To draw the line so early in pregnancy is ludicrous.

WOW , DIE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31323790)

I want my 5 mins of my life back.

Re:WOW , DIE (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336308)

Then, er, don't hang out on "Idle".

Murderer (0, Flamebait)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31332794)

What is surreal is that she's able to do this in this day and age.
There should be laws against abortion, and those pills should be illegal.

Re:Murderer (0, Flamebait)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31334260)

So what about when an embryo naturally fails to implant? Is that murder too? The outcome is the same.

What about all those un-fertilized eggs that are flushed out as part of the menstrual cycle?

Re:Murderer (2, Insightful)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31334590)

Really, you can do way better than that.
Try again; if you think of a real argument, I'll address it with an actual answer.

Re:Murderer (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335420)

I'm really curious as to what logic allows for one type of abortion to be murder while another isn't.

Re:Murderer (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31346250)

No logic. All (intentional) abortions are killing innocent life. You still lack arguments.

Re:Murderer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31370762)

No logic. All (intentional) abortions are killing innocent life. You still lack arguments.

What's wrong with killing a little bit of innocent potential life if the greater good of society is met? Deleting a few cells here or there can prevent a potential person from becoming an actual person.

Or, a converse argument... If all life is sacred, why should we as a society allow people to slowly kill themselves? You shouldn't have the freedom to consume things which are not healthy, because... lets face it. Obesity is a long-term death sentence. Stats don't lie.

Do you bleed for this potential person simply because it died in an acute manner? Where are your tears for your brothers who are putting themselves into the grave, one french fry at a time?

Re:Murderer (4, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336354)

Not defending the GP, just pointing out a logical fallacy: "Failing to implant" is more analogous to "spontaneously dying from a brain hemorrhage" than murder. Murder involves intent and action, as does abortion. Failing to implant does not.

Re:Murderer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31338460)

I bet you're one of those people with a Confederate flag hanging in his window complaining about "all that nigger music they play on the radio these days.

And I bet you'll die as miserably as you lived.

Re:Murderer (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347376)

So what about when you naturally fall off a cliff? Is that murder too? The outcome is the same as if I had pushed you.

Re:Murderer (0)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347646)

Did it have a name? Date of birth? Did it even have eyes, or a brain to feel with?

If you want to be anti-choice, that's fine. But until cells start to differentiate, it's not a human, not a baby, not even a fetus; it's a parasite that feeds off of its host. For all we know it might not even be viable.

Re:Murderer (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348808)

Wrong. From the first cell it's a new being with distinct DNA which determines all of its characteristics visible after birth. It's obviously alive and human. So abortion is killing human life. It doesn't mean if human can experience it being robbed of life.
To call a baby a parasite is sick ugly idea that bunch of murderous women gathered with the same unholy goal thought of.

Re:Murderer (0, Troll)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349000)

Some humans have multiple distinct DNA types in their body. Ever heard of a chimera [wikipedia.org] ? If someone kills a chimera, can they be charged with two counts of murder?

As far as I'm concerned, if it can't exist outside of the womb, it's a parasite that requires a host body to survive. I don't care if the negative connotation of parasite insults your senses, because it doesn't change the fact that the cellular mass is incapable of surviving without the host from which it obtains nourishment. Once it can survive on its own, even if it is in an incubator requiring artificial machines, then you can call it a human being and killing it would be murder.

Re:Murderer (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31350500)

Is the elimination of chimera result in the being being killed? Because a murder of a first cell will. And your comparison is as empty as your "machines" argument. See human kids are notorious for not being able to function on their own for several months *after* they are born. That, or being unconscious (comma, sleeping) makes a person no less human. Parasite by definition or not, calling a baby that is being disgusting and inappropriate. You're a parasite on the world's resources, and I'm not voting to remove you from the face of the Earth on those grounds.

Re:Murderer (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31350784)

Is the elimination of chimera result in the being being killed?

I don't get how this is relevant. There are human beings with two distinct sets of DNA. If your qualification for "human being" is "distinct set of DNA", then chimeras are two people, and killing a chimera (or a mosaic) would result in two charges of murder.

You chose "distinct DNA" in an attempt to justify your position, without having carefully thought it out. That's not my fault. Come up with a better way of defining how a pack of undifferentiated cells is a human.

Because a murder of a first cell will.

You love this word, murder. Not all embryos survive to become a fetus, so if a non-viable embryo was aborted, would you still be screaming murder? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aborted embryo was in fact a viable embryo that would have grown into a human being?

See human kids are notorious for not being able to function on their own for several months *after* they are born.

This is such a horrendous distortion of my position that this blank stare is the only response it deserves. o.o

calling a baby that is being disgusting and inappropriate.

It wasn't a baby. It wasn't even a fetus. The woman aborted an embryo because the pregnancy would have probably killed her.

You're a parasite on the world's resources

You know nothing about me and what I do. If it makes you feel better to demonize me, go ahead. I have enough faith in my position that I don't need to call you names...I'm sorry that you lack such faith of your own.

Re:Murderer (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31351230)

>then chimeras are two people

I insist the comparison is flawed because removing chimera is not killing a whole being, whereas killing a zygote clearly is.

>Come up with a better way of defining how a pack of undifferentiated cells is a human.

No, I don't. Why would I want to argue an obvious thing like that? That's as preposterous as if I asked you to prove that removing cells from your body is murder. You don't need a cell here or there, but eventually you'll die regardless.

>Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aborted embryo was in fact a viable embryo that would have grown into a human being?

Huh? I don't need to. Zygote alone is a human being, I don't need it to grow into an embryo to establish that.

>This is such a horrendous distortion of my position

Right, you were saying that a human being is human since the moment it can survive with non-natural help. That's much more rational (I bet you thought of this on your own).

>The woman aborted an embryo because the pregnancy would have probably killed her.

I'm sorry, I missed any woman we were talking about. Would the "parasite" consume her? Also "probably" is very nice. Killer non-babies. As long as we keep in mind who's the victim here, right?

>You know nothing about me and what I do.

You think I'd care? You're still a "parasite". See in a world of relative morality, we don't think that even feeding the third world is deserving of being fed. In fact, you're wasting even more resources on other "parasites".

>If it makes you feel better to demonize me, go ahead.

Your words demonize you just fine. However, I fear readers here might not see through the mask of rationality you put on. Who was it - Hitler? - that said people are more willing to believe a complex lie than a simpler truth. You can rationalize everything, but I'm still going to call it what it is.

>I have enough faith in my position that I don't need to call you names...I'm sorry that you lack such faith of your own.

Don't mistake my being angry about your willful ignorance for being wrong.

Re:Murderer (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31351614)

I insist the comparison is flawed because removing chimera is not killing a whole being, whereas killing a zygote clearly is.

Careful about your terms. A pack of cells is only a zygote for the first few days. Then it's a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus, then finally a baby.

You don't know that removing the chimera/mosaic nature of a being wouldn't kill it. The heart could be all descended from one cell line and the brain from another. You were the one who suggested the "distinct DNA" criteria, not me, so it is your burden to show that "distinct DNA" is a valid way of counting humans.

Zygote alone is a human being, I don't need it to grow into an embryo to establish that.

Chromosomal abnormalities regularly render human embryos incapable of growing into a viable fetus. These pregnancies are typically terminated by miscarriages. A woman could have an embryo with a chromosomal abnormality that would prevent it from ever becoming a human, and she could abort it before the miscarriage occurred. If the embryo never stood a chance of surviving, but was aborted anyway, would you still call it murder? That is why I said, "can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the embryo could become a viable fetus." How can you murder something that could never have become a human being?

I'm sorry, I missed any woman we were talking about.

That's weird, because I could have swore we were talking about 27-year-old Angie Jackson. You know, the woman in the video at the top of the page.

You think I'd care? You're still a "parasite".

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If I am a parasite, what organism is my host?

we don't think that even feeding the third world is deserving of being fed

You say this as if you know whether or not I donate any money to charities which feed the poor and/or third world countries.

Don't mistake my being angry about your willful ignorance for being wrong.

See, the funny thing is, if you actually had a logical and rational argument that was supported with scientific facts, I would believe it in a heartbeat. Instead, you have nothing but your anger.

Re:Murderer (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31351862)

>How can you murder something that could never have become a human being?

If the DNA isn't human, it's not a human. If it is, it is. There's developing stages, but it's all human. Reaching a stage or not is irrelevant for that fact.

>If I am a parasite, what organism is my host?

Farmers. *shrugs*

>See, the funny thing is, if you actually had a logical and rational argument that was supported with scientific facts, I would believe it in a heartbeat. Instead, you have nothing but your anger.

Yeah, hilarious. Interesting how you can define a human being as other than a live organism with human DNA. And then expect me to disprove you without opposing your anti-definition. Had it not been for your presumption of what a human being is, you'd admit alive zygote with human DNA qualifies.

Re:Murderer (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31352142)

If the DNA isn't human, it's not a human. If it is, it is. There's developing stages, but it's all human. Reaching a stage or not is irrelevant for that fact.

I'm talking about the ability to reach a stage, not whether it actually reaches that stage or not. I find it hard to believe that an embryo with massive chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with human life could still be considered "human".

Farmers. *shrugs*

It's obvious your line of reasoning is absurd, or you wouldn't have shrugged, or ignored the other half of my post.

Interesting how you can define a human being as other than a live organism with human DNA

Yes, it's such a travesty to suggest that perhaps it's not a human being until it can survive without a placenta. Interesting how you can define a clump of undifferentiated cells a human being just because of the DNA it contains, without regard to whether that DNA is a blueprint for a viable human. It has no mind with which to think. No heart with which to pump blood. No lungs with which to breathe. It cannot feel, see, or hear. Humans have more in common with my pet cat than a blastocyst.

Why don't you just admit that you have a preconceived notion - abortion is wrong - and you are going to repeatedly grab at any straw you can in an attempt to support your preconceived notion regardless of what the facts are?

Re:Murderer (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356160)

>it's not a human being until it can survive without a placenta. Humans have more in common with my pet cat than a blastocyst.

I give up. There's no helping you.

Re:Murderer (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31357740)

No helping me? You would put someone away for "murdering" a clump of cells which lacks even the potential to become a human being. You're willing to ruin people's lives because you've formed an immutable opinion before fully considering the complexity of the situations that can occur. You'd also end up banning in-vitro fertilization, because they do throw away lots of embryos.

You're the fundamentalist idealogue with his fingers in his ears screaming wrong at me while I take your definitions and show you how short-sighted they are. Distinct DNA led to chimeras, human DNA led to chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with human life.

Fortunately, society is mostly populated with people that are more reasonable than you, which is why it has generally adopted the view of "abortion is bad, but...alright...we'll try to change your mind, but definitely not into the third term"

Re:Murderer (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31360356)

>You'd also end up banning in-vitro fertilization, because they do throw away lots of embryos.

Of course I would. It should be banned.

>You're the fundamentalist idealogue with his fingers in his ears screaming wrong at me while I take your definitions and show you how short-sighted they are.

You take stuff from me. Then you take stuff from thin air, add some of your own dirt and mix it all together. Few presumptions and you're ready to fire. I feel proven wrong already.

EVERYONE defines zygote as human life but you. The fact that dispite this fact they still see it undeserving of life because it doesn't resemble them is stupidity. You think you proved something, but indeed you didn't prove anything except that you can't differentiate human life from unfertilized eggs, and that you like your cat more than people.

The thing is, I'm refusing to stoop to your level of reasoning, and view things mechanically, simplified - broken down to elements. I'm not going to try to convince you using your logic. Even if I did that, you'd create new bubbles to hide in (been there). So I won't. Human life begins with conception. No if's or but's. Killing it is murder.

You call me whatever you want. But I'm not a murderer and will never allow for it. And I'm proud that I let emotions into what I say. At least I have them.

Re:Murderer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31371318)

Lol, la la la I can't hear you

You moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31363894)

Every sperm cell has human DNA. Every skin cell you shed has human DNA. But these cells are not themselves human, and terminating them is not murder.

If an embryo has no neurons, then it cannot think, cannot feel, and has no sense of self (any more than a tissue sample from your gall bladder can think, feel, or have a sense of self).

It is true that the embryo might become a human someday (the same is true of every sperm cell that dies every day). However, that doesn't make it a human today (any more than a sperm cell is a human), and since it doesn't think, feel, or have a sense of self, preventing it from becomming human is not the same thing as murdering someone that already is a human (any more than stopping a sperm cell from making it to an egg is murder).

Abortion, this early, is not murder by any reasonable measure (which yours is not).

Re:Murderer (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31361182)

Maybe, but conception is a fairly instantaneous, well-defined event (nth countable cell division might suffice, too). If you can't define a clear, definable and measurable event, then you're relying on "statistical personhood" which means that wherever you draw the line there is a chance that what you terminate isn't not-a-person. That chance goes up when you're performing the procedure a lot of times, until it's almost certain that you'll have murdered at least one person.

A case where the very life of the mother is in danger though is a grey area. Self-defense principles come into play and complicate things, but it wouldn't mean that you're not talking about a person, only that killing a person in self defense of mortal danger is not a murder.

Re:Murderer (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31361508)

Birth is also a fairly clear, definable, and measurable event. Arguably more definable than conception, since it is what goes on the legal certificates.

When dealing with the legal system, we must remember that criminal convictions require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. First-trimester abortions would have quite a lot of reasonable doubt as to whether it could constitute a human (and, indeed, if you wish to try those folks for murder, you should add every IVF doctor and/or patient to your indictment as well). Second-trimester is where it gets far more gray, but by the third it's pretty much viable on its own and so it becomes much less gray.

That said, when Dr. Tiller was murdered, I remember reading about a few of his patients. As terrible as late-term abortion is, I can't help but think that in some instances, he had the moral high ground.

Re:Murderer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31350172)

This pregnancy in all likely hood would have killed her, leaving her current special needs son without it's biological parent. She used a contraceptive that failed.

Basically you are saying it's ok to have two motherless children (assuming the second one survives as well), one who has special needs, than to have one child that gets to keep his mommy, who he needs even more than the average child. If that's your opinion sure you are entitled to it, but I damn well do not agree with it. This in my opinion is a perfect example of why abortion needs to be legal.

SHE WOULD HAVE DIED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31364466)

those pills should be illegal

Her doctor told her that having another child could kill her. That would leave her present child without a mother.

This medicine terminated the pregnancy before cell differentiation took place (no brain = no feelings = not a person). This was the most humane thing she could have done in the circumstances.

I, for one, am very glad this medicine is available, as it just made sure that one already-living child still has a mother.

What is surreal is that she's able to do this in this day and age.

What is surreal is that people as incompassionate and ignorant as you seem to think you are champions of moral virtue, with no concept of the harm you actually cause, in this day and age.

Truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31368052)

In fact, everyone, you should do a bit of research in to her.

She is in fact, a mother already, and after extreme amounts of complications in the birth of her first child, she decided to abort this one after talking to her partner.

Seriously, I though SlashDot had people who were intelligent.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>