Mea culpa!

Allow me to elaborate a bit more on the argument of 'prejudice against white males', which you appear to be making.

I'll get my quibble with your first point out of the way; Breast-feeding isn't a health hazard, it's sustaining another human being, and it doesn't come from the gonads (showing your breasts isn't exhibitonism, or shouldn't be!).

I'm not sure what your point is; The writer of this article isn't belittling men, she's making fun of the assumption that the movement for equal rights for women belittles men. It's like if I posted an article about how women should be made to wear burkas, because otherwise they can use psychological warfare to win…

She's being sarcastic, bro.

We need sarcasm tags up in this thing, evidently.

Go back to Reddit.

Thank -you-. I'm not a woman myself, and have never had an abortion (per the aforesaid). But I'm informed enough about reproductive biology to know that anti-abortionists are so full of shit as to cry brown tears.

You're making no sense. How am I reducing a woman to an incubator by saying she has a right to control her body; that she is more than the fetus inside of her, that she has more of a right over her body than the embryo? When did I -ever- equate a woman to an incubator during pregnancy? Incubators can't make decisions.…

Classy guy. Wonder how cold -he'd- be if this article was about his wife?

It would be civil of them to keep their ill-informed, objective opinions to themselves - and not to call women who get abortions 'sluts', as they did.

- 'Fetuses have brains before birth?' Yes and no. The fetus only has what we might call the beginning of a brain composite at the end of the first trimester (during which the majority of non-emergency abortions occur). Before that, it has a protobrain, a neural tube which has not so much as formed complete connections…

A bioethical one, to be precise. The most common definition of a person in philosopho/scientific circles is an individual that can maintain a self-aware, personal identity. An embryo, not being independant, much less thinking (as I am at pains to point out), cannot do so. Neither can an animal (by virtue of the fact…

It can be argued that the right to a good life supercedes the right to a life, period. But I'm not going to argue that, because in any case, the embryo has no life (it cannot live seperate of the mother, it's not an independant life, etc), so the point is moot.

'Human life' isn't an objective measure here. How I outlined it IS how 'we' (the law as it stands, science, etc) qualify it. You can't squawk down science. For that reason, too, 'potential' is not a rabbit trail. It's exactly on topic - it has been scientifically demonstrated that an embryo is a -potential- person,…

Counterpoint 1: A gestating child is not a human life as we qualify it. Up until around the ~23rd week or later, it cannot live independantly of the mother, even WITH medical intervention. It cannot think, or feel pain, it can only reflexively move (Reflexive movement is something even sponges can do. Please also note…

And you don't consider devaluing the life of a full, total person over that of a hypothetical person immoral? You're a hypocrite.

Pregnancy does deny a woman personhood, underneath your perspective. You're reducing her to be worth less than the hypothetical life inside of her - she becomes an incubator, instead of a person. I suggest you read the study again, and maybe a little about fetal development, before you equate an embryo to a thinking,…

There's always one dildo on the comments section of an election post. (It's you!)

99 problems but Mitt ain't one.