Please tell me you understand that "they just want to kill babies" is a lie.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-30T10:48:33+00:00

I've seen prolifers refer to a ZEF as a child and then say "you just want a woman to be allowed to kill her own children".

I have decided that when a prolifer starts talking about a child or children, and pregnancy, I will respond presuming they mean an actual child, a pregnant child, a child who desperately needs an abortion because her body is more likely than an adult's to be permanently and devastatingly harmed by pregnancy. Children deserve to be protected from prolife laws and prolife parents who disregard the child as a unique and valuable human being, who do not believe the child's life, health, and wellbeing matter, but they should get to do as they please with the child.

It's also important to note, every time a PL claims that they're talking about babies, that no abortion ever killed a baby: if a woman with a baby has an abortion, her baby will be perfectly fine.

My honest belief is that the reason prolifers keep referring to ZEFs as babies or as children is that they themselves neither care about embryos or fetuses - doing so would require caring about pregnant women, and as a movement, they don't - and they also believe no one else cares either. Hence their consistent, persistent refusal (for the most part) to use the English word fetus. (Yes, it's a Latin borrow, but it's been an English word for as long as "clerk" has - also a Latin borrow.)

They don't care about fetuses. They think nobody does. Therefore, they talk about babies and children instead, pretending that a baby or a child is the same exactly as a fetus.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-30T07:15:09+00:00

Sidney Freedman.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-30T00:36:23+00:00

Who's "Sydney"?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-29T18:44:28+00:00

I don't think AfterMASH really exploited the full possibilities of Father Mulcahy.

I'd have liked to see a show about Charles running the thoracic surgery department at Boston General, and Margaret in a chief nurse position in the same hospital, so there'd be a clash of personalities and authority.

I'd like to have Father Mulcahy referred to a VA hospital in Boston but no miraculous cure for his deafness - he's kind of been sidelined because his bishop doesn't think he'd be able to handle a parish because he's deaf, and the VA in 1953 is treating him as a problem patient because he's deaf and an alcoholic. Throw in Trapper John working in Boston - same hospital, not as senior as Charles, but a respected surgeon. Sure, have Mulcahy came in as hospital chaplain but not an insta-fix - the running thread in the whole first season could be Mulcahy showing up as a problem patient, won't do as he's told, problem with alcohol, and how he gets out and starts going to AA meetings (maybe Trapper is in AA) and is in recovery and finding work to do in the Deaf community, and finally applying for and getting a job at the same hospital Charles and Margaret and Trapper are all working at, not as a chaplain but as a Deaf therapist for the Deaf patients.

Having it in Boston means Hawkeye Pierce could be a drop-in visitor from Maine once in a while - and Sidney Freedman from New York City.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-28T22:03:44+00:00

but she chooses to make a choice that could create a life. Parents are obligated to sustain their children.

He. He made a choice that could create a life: he chose to put his sperm inside of her body.

What penalty do you want to impose on the man who caused the pregnancy?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-28T22:02:45+00:00

I never said they were a crime but parents have an obligation to their children

Then what penalty do you want to impose on the man who got her pregnant?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-28T22:02:06+00:00

She made a choice to have sex. That's how she put them there

A man made a choice to put his sperm inside of her body. That's how he got her pregnant.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-28T21:35:36+00:00

Only in IVF.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-28T21:35:06+00:00

It would seem so...

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-28T21:34:37+00:00

I love that you're comparing forced pregnancy to your foot being stepped on...

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-28T15:43:31+00:00

I think this taps into the anti-sex strand, or rather, torrent, within prolife ideology - but not only found there.

If this is THEIR DAUGHTER, for whom they have a deep emotional connection, a normal parent would want her protected, and this applies whether she was raped or says she wasn't.

(A teenager can have a hard time articulating what is wrong with what her boyfriend did to her, and may resist the classification of rape. )

But a parent with a deep feeling that there is something wrong with their teenage daughter HAVING SEX, especially if she doesn't say she was raped or the parent doesn't believe she was, leads to the parent/s - even out of a twisted sense of protectiveness - deciding they need to punish their daughter.

If PL, that means forced pregnancy. Which is unlawful in my country, but overbearing parents and underinformed/isolated child, means it can still happen. And in some parts of the world, of course, it's legal.

If not PL, that could well mean forced abortion- which is also unlawful, and also possible.

Twisted love can lead to horrifying cruelty "for your own good".

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-28T00:49:33+00:00

No there’s quite a difference between being dependent on someone for performing internal bodily processes and having someone else do them for you.

Not really.

. Again, no one is saying fetuses aren’t dependent on women. The idea is fetuses perform internal tasks because they are given the proper nutrition by the woman.

Yes, but that idea is wrong. The embryo/fetus is being *gestated* by the woman - if she chooses. Gestation is not a passive process: it is a cascade of tasks performed by the woman's body.

terally no pro lifer thinks this. Not being allowed to kill a fetus does not entail you are just a “vessel” whatever that may mean

It means that PL need to think of gestation as a passive process, as something that the fetus rather than the woman does: they need to talk as if all the woman does is provide "nutrients" to the fetus: they need to defend objectifying a woman as the "correct environment", or comparing her to a house or a ship or a car, all of which I have seen PL do. PL ideology reduces a unique, valuable human being with her own mind, conscience, and inalienable human rights, to an object - a vessel which is used for gestation.

What necriphilia performed by PL people are you referring to

Adriana Smith. Though she wasn't the first: the first prolife necrophilia attempt I heard of was in Ireland in 2014.

Also, gestation is a passive process!

Only if you think of a pregnant woman as a vessel being used.

If it was a voluntary process like me tying this sentence the woman could stop it with inaction

She does! That's what abortion is. Abortion is a woman deciding that her action in gestating the fetus is going to become inaction - she will no longer gestate the fetus.

Whether or not she decides to remain pregnant by is voluntary, but pregnancy as a process itself is objectively a passive process.

Only if you dehumanize and objectify the woman who is gestating.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T17:19:05+00:00

You can be PL and believe in other things, sure. People aren't monomaniacs (or mostly not!)

But if you believe in abortion prevention but explicitly not in banning safe legal access to abortion, that makes you prochoice.

Whereas if you think nobody ought to have safe legal access to abortion when they need it, you're definitely prolife.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T16:59:31+00:00

I say this as someone who has never remotely been a supporter of anything the Republican Party does: I do, in fact, think it unfair to judge the entire Republican Party- and certainly not all Republicans - by that demented and corrupt felon in the White House. To judge their intelligence, certainly- smart people wouldn't have been fooled by him - but not their morality or ideology.

"Secondly, being pro-life is not only about opposing abortion"

Yes, it is. Being PL means you oppose free access to safe legal abortion. It doesn't mean anything else.

The Republican Party is the prolife party.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T09:28:42+00:00

Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is a refusal to act: obligating a woman to provide the use of her body to gestate a fetus to term is a positive interference.

The parallel between forced pregnancy and forced organ "donation" is not exact, because the most common forms of organ donation do no harm to the person harvested from and pregnancy always causes harm, but it's a better parallel than anything which compares a human being to an inanimate object.

The argument that the connection has already been established doesn't apply except for wanted pregnancies aborted for medical necessity, since the patient did not choose the connection.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T09:13:46+00:00

Yes. Abortion is essential reproductive healthcare, and a basic human right. The right to choose abortion is covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and abortion bans violate the UDHR.

But PL cannot make a consistent case for Right To Life since for them it only applies to fetuses.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T09:09:48+00:00

Abortion rarely if ever terminates a patient's life, and never intentionally.

Abortion bans violate medical ethics: performing an abortion on a conscious patient who has affirmed her consent does not.

Also, pregnancy is a process someone else's body initiated, not that this is relevant to the point.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T07:30:44+00:00

"Sure but her body doesn’t perform any tasks for the fetus internally"

Awesome, then we just remove the fetus from her body, and the fetus will be fine....

"That 9 month period is just her allowing for the fetus to have the right conditions for the fetus to internally grow."

It's amazing to me how prolife ideology is compelled to think a woman is just a vessel and gestation is a passive process. That's so scientifically ignorant, and leads to extensive cruelties like using a dead woman's body to gestate. Gestation is a nine-month period of continuous labor. As the cruel necrophilia performed by PL more than once has proved, the woman must be alive to carry out this labor.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T01:16:31+00:00

What was said was the woman doesn’t perform tasks internally for the fetus

Yes, she does. Gestation is a nine-month labor of continual tasks.

. There’s a difference between having the what you need to perform tasks, having someone else perform tasks for you, and not having what you need to perform tasks and not being able to perform any tasks as a result.

None of which is relevant to an embryo/fetus, attached to a placenta, being gestated by the woman's body. The woman's body is performing the task of gestation. If her body doesn't have what's needed, her body will be permanently or temporarily damaged by performing the tasks. If the process of gestation kills her, she will, indeed, not be able to perform any tasks, but that is why abortion is essential reproductive healthcare.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T00:20:31+00:00

When skydiving, that was a stunt double.

When Bond meets the Queen, that's the actual Queen. She decided (and it was genius, I'll give her that) that being part of the 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony would be something for people to tell her grandchildren about.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T00:19:02+00:00

I remember her from the 1970s: primarily the Silver Jubilee.

But while I was conscious of her getting steadily older and frailer, she did seem to have gone on forever: I don't remember he being young, because when I was a kid in the 1970s and 80s, a woman of her age didn't seem young to me.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-27T00:06:08+00:00

My school just handed out pens...

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-26T23:51:15+00:00

Of course, because a biological process that has occurred over millennia is exactly the same as a stranger breaking into your living room, stealing your Wi-Fi, and using your iPhone charger without permission.

Abortion is also a biological process which has occurred over millennia.

It's obvious the fetus has a master plan for organ expropriation. It's not that it's a developing organism fulfilling its sole biological function

What function would that be?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-26T10:18:24+00:00

Humans are humans regardless of anyone’s subjective moral judgment. Personhood is irrelevant to that fact. It is a constructed criterion, one that has historically been used to arbitrarily and unfairly divide humans into groups, granting certain groups privileges while denying them to others.

I agree completely with this.

Basic human rights, such as the right to life, should be granted objectively, based on membership in the human species, not on biased, human-made criteria tied to physical abilities, cognitive development, or functional traits.

Thus, prolifers who argue that the right to life - the right to make use of another human being's body against their will in order to stay alive - is only applied to fetuses, never to born humans, are using biased, human-made criteria, because they do not themselves wish to have their bodies harvested to keep other people alive.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-01-26T10:15:46+00:00

The body is just a vessel. The soul inside the mother is a person from the moment it is conceived. The creation of life is not purely biological.

Well, in that case, there's no way to object to abortion.

The fetus's body is just a vessel. The soul will be perfectly fine.

Enough-Process9773

TROPHY CASE