Guns, Abortion, And What Motivates The Tea Party


Guns and abortion: the yin and yang, the angel and devil, the Goofus and Gallant of right wing culture warriors.  The mantra has often been that movement conservatives are moved by “God, gays, and guns”, which sounds nice and alliterative, but I’d say that the expression of “God” in the equation is most likely to come out opposition to abortion rights.  And, of course, opposition to gay rights is closely linked to the same sexual anxieties that create opposition to abortion rights.

I wrote a piece for the Guardian’s Comment Is Free America about how much opposition to feminism is not just a motivator  for the conservative movement, but it reliably turns out much more and much more frantic opposition than the vague policy proposals Tea Party leaders put out as their motivations.  In doing some research on it, though, I found that hysteria over gun rights appears to be more and more tightly aligned with opposition to abortion rights.  This contradiction not only proves that all claims to “libertarianism” are dime store rationalizations about what are fundamentally reactionary identity politics from the right.  In the article, I made the controversial but somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the twin issues of guns and abortion are a form of phallic worship as politics: “Toting guns and making sure women who get pregnant stay pregnant – the twin favourite issues of the anxious masculinity set.”

As if to prove my assertion, Rachel Maddow actually went out and interviewed hard core Joe Miller supporters, who are as pure a set as you’re going to get in terms of Tea Partier sentiment, since more mainstream Republicans are largely voting for the independent Lisa Murkowski this election.  And, barring a woman who was obsessed with the idea that there is a large, organized group called “The New Black Panthers”  that is going to effectively stop white people from voting, it was abortion and guns all the way for Miller’s supporters.  The connection is irrational, but highly emotional, and yes, it’s all bound up in hostile feelings towards feminism and women’s growing power, and anxieties about masculinity and power.

In his book “The Wimp Factor”, Stephen Ducat argues that strong feelings about a mythical phallus are, in fact, highly motivating to a lot of men (and apparently women who identify with and support male dominance).  He describes how phallic imagery appeals to men who wish to feel tough and powerful, which they associate with masculinity:

[The phallus is] the mythical, permanently erect archetypal monolith of masculine omnipotence (Amanda’s note: Thus the “God” in the “God, gays, and guns” equation) that signifies untrammeled growth, invulnerability, and freedom from all dependency…. The penis, on the other hand, even when tumescent is vulnerable.

A lot of anxious masculinity, he argues, centers around distracting from the real life, vulnerable reality of the penis and using phallic imagery and tough guy acts to feel strong and invulnerable.

Sounds like a pitch perfect description of gun nuts to me.  Of course, the problem that arises when you obsess over appearing like an invulnerable tough guy is there’s always a fear that your phallic power is going to be rendered as vulnerable as the actual, real life penis is.  The result is paranoia.  Though there’s no real world reason to believe Obama and Eric Holder are out to symbolically castrate gun nut America by taking away their phalluses/guns, the Miller supporters Maddow interviews nonetheless believe it with all their heart and soul. It’s hard not to suggest they feel like losing an election has made them feel like they’re not omnipotent, and they can’t help but believe that a more literal taking away of their phallic totems is next.

Penises may go soft and be vulnerable, but they do have one power that links them to the mythical phallus—the power to render women pregnant, whether willing or not.  If emasculation fears are driving conservatives to be gun nuts, it’s little surprise that the same people really resent legal abortion, which can also symbolize emasculation, a rejection by women of men’s power to impregnate, and therefore a rejection of men’s dominance.  That actual real world feminists who actually do reject male dominance were the ones who got abortion legalized just cinches it.

Obviously, there are other ways to imagine pregnancy than framing it as male conquest of the female body, a display of male virility, and something to which women should submit as a symbol of their overall submission to the patriarchy.  You could take a wholly rational view, where it’s simply the beginning of a new life and the scientific realities are the most interesting part.  You could take a sentimental view, that it’s about beginnings and family and people coming together to make more people.  Or you could be somewhere in between—but these alternate views share in common a groundwork that allows women to say “not right now” or even “never” without it being a big deal that threatens the fabric of society.

But for movement conservatism, this kind of rationality is an anathema.  The beauty of provoking anxieties about sex and gender is that it’s a shortcut to shutting down all rational thought and allowing a bunch of impulses and fears to fill the void.  A steady drumbeat of fears about emasculation can quickly be aimed towards creating fears about Muslims (to justify imperialist wars), to creating fears about racial minorities (to create the ground work for voter suppression and a rollback of the social safety net), and general anti-intellectualism to keep the fear party going.

So, in this sense, it’s not surprising to find that Tea Partiers are all about sex and gender (and race) when you actually interview them on the ground, and not about abstract policy issues they rarely understand anyway.  It’s hard to get people to hit the streets to protest policy, like health care reform, that will save tax dollars while making sure most people get basic health care.  But if you put an emasculation spin on it—by falsely claiming it funds abortion—then turning out emotionally overwrought supporters who don’t care about facts is a piece of cake.     

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • dhough1976

    With each passing day, each passing campaign event, each passing debate, each passing revelation about Tea Party candidates, the prospect of the Tea Party being placed ina position of power goes from frightening, to terrifying, to outright dangerous to our Democracy. Like sheep in wolves clothing, the Tea Party represents the most dangerous terrorist threat this country faces, all wrapped in the false veneer of being patriots. They are anything but as shown here – http://wp.­me/pNmlT-v­w

  • lonnapea

    The connections made above cannot be denied, and it’s a very interesting study of the values of this group.

     

    However, I want to be clear that although it may be common, not all people who support gun rights are anti-choice (or anti-feminist). Additionally, not all people who have a certain interpretation of the 2nd amendment are gun nuts.

     

    I just had to comment because it’s hard to be lumped in with tea partiers because of one issue. As someone who works very hard to ensure access to safe abortion care, it’s especially difficult. I don’t think the author is necessarily suggesting this, but just because tea partiers have similar beliefs on these two issues, doesn’t mean we all do.

     

  • amanda-marcotte

    But sadly, most are. Obviously, on the margins you pick up people who are relatively level-headed but get squirrelly about certain things, and guns are right up there. A lot of smart people I know get defensive about guns. Their allure is very real, and no human being in just a pillar of rationality. I fully admit I get a kick out of shooting guns. I’m not immune to the emotional impact of symbolic phallic power.

  • paul-bradford

    I want to be clear that although it may be common, not all people who support gun rights are anti-choice (or anti-feminist)

     

    …and, conversely, not everyone who is concerned about the vulnerability of people to abortion is unconcerned about the vulnerability of people to firearms.

     

    Eradicating abortion and eradicating gun violence are equally valid Pro-Life concerns.  The NRA and NARAL are doing the same thing — promoting an ideal of freedom which leaves people “free” to disregard other people’s lives.

  • arekushieru

    Once again, Paul, it is not about ‘diregarding’ lives.  I am against ‘gun rights’, the death penalty, etc. for the same reason I am ProChoice.  Self-defense.  Gun rights usually end up with the death of the person who was defending themselves during the commission of usage of said gun and/or are used to initiate an action in cases of domestic violence.  Neither of those fits the bill of self-defence but escalation.

  • saltyc

    Eradicating abortion and eradicating gun violence are equally valid Pro-Life concerns.

     

    You keep forgetting to add eradicating stem-cell research and eradicating IVF treatment and eradicate non-implantation, oh yeah I know why… because you don’t really believe zygotes are people. You just call them people to make women who are pregnant against their will even more miserable.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~NARAL is making sure women, little girls, and pregnant rape victims have ownership of their own bodies, lives, and genitals. No ones right to life gives them the rights to USE or cause women, little girls, or pregnant rape victims extreme vaginal pain against her will, or terrorize her with anticipation of future vaginal pain against her will. If it was not for NARAL American women, little girls, and pregnant rape victims would not own their own genitals, the child raping catholics, the wife beating baptist, and the pro rape republicans would. As some one who was sexually abused as a child I am grateful to NARAL, because there is nothing worse then not owning your own body, having to wait, worry, dread, and anticipate future unwanted genital pain, having something in your body you do not want in your body. Being harassed by sadomasochistic perverts worse of all “MEN” who want your body to be used, your genitals to be hurt against your will is one of the most disgusting odious feelings a girl can have. ~

     

    ~ Every one here on this new post needs to know Paul Bradford is pro raped ten-year-old-little-girls giving birth, it is one of his favorite topics. But then the pro life movement is really a “Pro-RAPE” movement and we all know catholics “LOVE” child rape. ~

  • panhandler

    It slightly amazes me that I could conceivably go on a murderous rampage, killing hundreds if not thousands of people, yet you’d argue that I have more of a right to live than does the unborn, who’s only “crime” is existing. It really does boggle the mind.

     

    And, to make use of a common cliche, guns don’t kill people. People kill people. 

  • mcdoogan

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • forced-birth-rape

    “I am a liberal progressive Democrat with a lisence to carry a concealed weapon to protect me from conservatives and Christians.”

    ~ Thank you McDoogan, I have a gun too. If some one breaks into my house and trys to gang-rape me or any children in my care, I am going to shoot the rapist before they can. Most of the girls and women I know have been raped, they have guns too were no one can come rape them or their children, nieces, and nephews. I would rather be killed then raped. ~

  • beenthere72

    If all those people are living inside your body and do not have the ability to live on their own without the use of YOUR body, then go right ahead.    It’s YOUR body.    

     

    Pregnancy is not as simple as something ‘existing’.     

     

     

  • paul-bradford

    Penises may go soft and be vulnerable, but they do have one power that links them to the mythical phallus—the power to render women pregnant, whether willing or not. If emasculation fears are driving conservatives to be gun nuts, it’s little surprise that the same people really resent legal abortion, which can also symbolize emasculation, a rejection by women of men’s power to impregnate, and therefore a rejection of men’s dominance.

     

    I made this point earlier today on another thread, but the man who impregnates a woman against her will is disrespecting life as truly as the woman who accesses an abortion.

     

    If you think that abortion is a sin you’re right; but if you think that the mother procuring the abortion is 100% to blame for the sin, you’re dead wrong.  It’s positively crazy to expect pregnant women to respect life when they’re surrounded by people (as in MEN) who disrespect life.  Eradicating abortion is within human control; but it’s not simply a matter of controlling fertile women.  The entire society has to get behind the idea of respecting unborn life.

  • paul-bradford

    Salty,

     

    I did forget to mention that embryonic stem cell research and IVF treatment disrespect life.  Thank you for reminding me.

     

    Did you read my last response to you?  I am hopeful that, sometime in this century, women will know that they have conceived even before implantation.  I expect that, by knowing this, the women of the future will be able to take precautions and modify lifestyle decisions for the short period of time between conception and implantation.  More awareness means less loss of life.  I truly believe that we can improve on the blastocyst survival rate and, of course, improving blastocyst survival is the same as improving human survival.  Other medical advances besides early detection might also save lives.

     

    You’re convinced that I am either lying or fooling myself when I declare that zygotes are people.  Could you help me understand why you came to that conviction?

  • paul-bradford

    FBIR,

     

    I keep posting this to you and you keep neglecting to respond to me:

     

    If a woman disrespects unborn life and wishes to get an abortion I strongly deny that the “solution” to this unhappy state of affairs is to force her to give birth against her will.  The solution is to help her come to respect unborn life.  Generally speaking, though, if a woman disrespects unborn life when she gets pregnant she’s unlikely to alter her beliefs during the short time that she has to make an abortion decision.  The time to talk to women (and MEN!) about respect for unborn life is BEFORE they have an unborn person in their care.

     

    As I remember, you have never been pregnant.  Even if you never become pregnant in the future, your thoughts and attitudes have an effect on the well being of other women’s unborn children.  We all have a role to play in protecting ZBEF’s because we all influence the respect/disrespect we collectively have for fetal life in the society.

     

    Everyone here on this post is more than welcome to know that pregnant ten year old girls are going to have their own ideas about whether or not to respect the life developing in their wombs.  I’m convinced that the lives of children conceived in rape are as valuable as anyone else’s life, and I’m pleased that the little Mexican girl who recently gave birth shares my conviction.  It is not one of my “favorite topics” and it is a topic you’ve asked me to stop discussing.  Whenever SOMEBODY ELSE brings the topic up I try to be quick to own up to my beliefs on the matter.

     

    Abortion is an evil that I refuse to tolerate.  I don’t even tolerate tolerance to abortion and NARAL promotes tolerance of abortion.  I’m well aware of the fact that NARAL doesn’t promote abortion itself and I’m not accusing them of that.  I do accuse them, and the folks who run this ‘site, of promoting tolerance of abortion.

     

    I find it very frustrating, FBIR, that you keep accusing me of favoring forced birth.  I do not favor forced birth.  I believe that mothers themselves are the only ones who can decide whether or not to complete their pregnancies.  I’ve always believed that and I’ve always said that.  You and I AGREE on the question of who should make pregnancy decisions but you keep arguing with me anyway.  The thing we DISAGREE about is the thing you don’t seem to want to discuss, which is your opinion on whether unborn life is as valuable and respectable as born life.  Do you believe that you’re a more valuable person now than you were when you were developing in your mother’s womb?  I think I know your answer, but I’d love it if you’d say it and explain your reasoning.

     

  • paul-bradford

    I’m not sure whether you intended this for me, but my belief is that your ‘murderous rampage’ would leave you with a life that was EQUALLY valuable to the life of an unborn person — not more of a right.

     

    It’s as wrong to take the life of a criminal as it is wrong to take the life of a fetus.

     

    Surely you’re right, people kill people.  Now we have to ask ourselves, “Do gun laws PROTECT people from people who kill?”  They absolutely do, that’s why I favor gun control legislation as opposed to bumper stickers.

     

  • arekushieru

    I believe Panhandler was talking to me, which is why his reply was indented further than, and just below, mine.

    It’s wrong to believe that criminals and people who perpetuate domestic violence are just as valuable as those not engaged in criminal activity.  To believe so allows criminals and abusive partners to victimize their targets even further, with impunity and, especially in the case of long-range weapons such as guns, gives them more tools to do so.

    Similar to how it would be in the case of a fetus and a woman.

  • arekushieru

    What she said.

    Actually, as it stands, now, with abortion legal, you have less a right to live, as a criminal, than a fetus does.  If abortion becomes illegal, and the death penalty remains in the US, the fetus has more of a right to live than anyone not JUST criminals. 

  • panhandler

    I’ve noticed how the pro-choice caveat to every argument, no matter what, is, “But it’s different if said person lives in your body”. Ummm, no, it isn’t, not to mention you’re just ultimately begging the question and any intelligible person is going to ask you why certain arguments only apply in certain instances (to which you will probably reply because the unborn lives inside of the body of the woman).

     

    Any way, yes, it really is a simple matter of existing. The unborn have to do nothing but exist for some pro-choicers to claim that they can be killed. This is a fact. Everyone who has even a small inkling of knowledge regarding the abortion debate knows this.

  • panhandler

    It wasn’t directed at you, but towards Arekushieru, who somehow believes that the person who goes on a murderous rampage has more of a right to live than the unborn. I think we can both agree that such a position makes little sense.

  • arekushieru

    Really do wish you would read before posting, every time.  Ah, well, perhaps you’ll learn to do so, some day…?  Anyways, as it stands, now, fetuses have MORE of a right to live than criminals do in the US.  Maybe you should read up on your laws, too, while you’re at it…?

  • arekushieru

    Oh, really?  Then you should be able to PROVE that isn’t the case AND that we’re begging the question…. Simply by refuting the closest analogy (that we have handed to you on a silver platter, over and OVER) at hand.  That of the organ donation scenario.  But, as a typical anti-choicer, you cannot.  So, we must believe that we are correct and you are just too desperate to admit to it.

    Any way, yes, it really is a simple matter of existing. The unborn have to do nothing but exist for some pro-choicers to claim that they can be killed. This is a fact. Everyone who has even a small inkling of knowledge regarding the abortion debate knows this

    And you use the argument that it is simply because a uterus ‘exISTS’ inside a woman, that she has no right to bodily autonomy.

    You say the fetus exists, thus it has a right to not be ‘killed’ (which you have not proven, btw, because I realized, even WITH your poor attempt at distraction, that you are confusing a negative right with the inaction on the part of ‘B’, and NOT equating it with ‘A”s part, where it should corRECTly lie).  The only reason you can give us for that, is that a fetus must infringe (forgetting the fact, as is usual with anti-choicers, that we are not talking about abortion in the case of infringment but the LACK thereof of certain rights in the presence of this infringment and abortion in the case of vioLATion of one’s rights) on one’s rights in order to live.  Why is that, do you think…?  Because the uterus is required for implantation of the fetal placenta of, and passage of vital nutrients to, the developing zbef and resides in the woman’s body (no matter what her preference would have been).  

    Yet, we say that reGARDless of developmental age and what organs one has that are necessary for survival (their own or others), one NEVER has the right to life in the presence of infringment on other’s rights.  YOU say that, it absolutely dePENDS on both.  ComPLETEly ignoring the FACT that that is discriminatory by granting more rights based on developmental age, and only on fetal developmental ages, at that, and denying rights based on the organic functions present in one’s body (so, ageist and sexist; esPECially when you can’t justify them and, thus, only continue to beg the question… by your own logic, of course) and doesn’t take into account a woman’s lack of CHOICE in what organs are developed in her body.  Ugh.  SICKening and NAUSeating. 

  • mechashiva

    Ummm, no, it isn’t…

    That’s it? That’s the best you’ve got? The crux of your argument against the principle of bodily autonomy is, “Nuh-uh?” For shame.

     

    Congratulations, though. You got me to reminisce about arguments over whether a person was out in kickball, back in elementary school.

  • arekushieru

    For all your comparisons of organ donation and pregnancy, I have yet to hear the refusal to consent to the first to be deemed a sin by you.

    I absolutely respect fetal life (AS I’ve tried to tell you, over and over).  I would STILL have an abortion.  The fetus doesn’t have anything else that I can value or respect.  Why should its existence be respected so much that it negates any *other* value that I may have to others…?   

  • panhandler

    Oh, really?  Then you should be able to PROVE that isn’t the case AND that we’re begging the question…. Simply by refuting the closest analogy (that we have handed to you on a silver platter, over and OVER) at hand.  That of the organ donation scenario.  But, as a typical anti-choicer, you cannot.  So, we must believe that we are correct and you are just too desperate to admit to it.

     

    See, that’s not the way things work. The onus is on you to defend your assertion; not on me to disprove it. You don’t get away with begging the question and then tell someone else to prove that your argument isn’t right.

     

    And you use the argument that it is simply because a uterus ‘exISTS’ inside a woman, that she has no right to bodily autonomy.

     

    If this were true, then the fact would be that no woman would have the right to not be acted against for as long as they have a uterus. Of course, we all know this is not true, so you might want to rethink what you are painting someone else’s argument as because your straw man is fairly absurd. The argument, as you probably realize, is that no one has the right to kill someone else just because they feel like it.

     

    You say the fetus exists, thus it has a right to not be ‘killed’ (which you have not proven, btw, because I realized, even WITH your poor attempt at distraction, that you are confusing a negative right with the inaction on the part of ‘B’, and NOT equating it with ‘A”s part, where it should corRECTly lie). 

     

    I see you’re back with this again. I went over this once before, only to have you slink off without responding to it, so I will just copy and paste what I said then, now.

     

    I suppose this is to be expected when your knowledge of what you’re trying to argue is limited to what you read on Wikipedia. Now, since you want to run to Wikipedia, then I’ll point out to you the part you blatantly ignored and utterly misconstrued for your purpose. Like the following, which was part of the quote you cut off–

     

    For example, if ‘A’ has a negative right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from killing ‘A'; while if ‘A’ has a positive right to life against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of ‘A’.

     

    Notice how when ‘A’ has a negative right against ‘B’, then ‘B’ is required to refrain from acting against ‘A’, whereas if ‘A’ has a positive right against ‘B’, that ‘B’ is required to do for ‘A’? Notice how when ‘A’ has a negative right against ‘B’, that ‘A’ doesn’t act, but rather ‘B’ doesn’t act against ‘A’? Notice how you went and changed the condition from not be acted against to the right to act, which makes the issue not of negative rights, but of positive rights? Of course you don’t, because you don’t understand what you’re trying to argue. You really have no Earthly idea what you’re rambling about. It’s nothing short of maddening.

     

    Honestly. I can do nothing but laugh at the fact that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. It’s even funnier when you consider the fact that you brought it up as a means to tell someone else they don’t know the difference between positive and negative rights when you, yourself, don’t know the difference between positive and negative rights (or what constitutes a right).

     

    The only reason you can give us for that, is that a fetus must infringe (forgetting the fact, as is usual with anti-choicers, that we are not talking about abortion in the case of infringment but the LACK thereof of certain rights in the presence of this infringment and abortion in the case of vioLATion of one’s rights) on one’s rights in order to live.  Why is that, do you think…?  Because the uterus is required for implantation of the fetal placenta of, and passage of vital nutrients to, the developing zbef and resides in the woman’s body (no matter what her preference would have been).  

     

    At least, to your credit, you have backed away from trying to assert that the right to liberty trumps the right to life. Of course, your new argument isn’t any better, because it somehow implicitly assumes that the majority of abortions are done because the unborn is infringing upon the life of the mother. But we all know they aren’t. The majority of abortions, as I’ve said countless times now, are done for no other reason than the woman is able to have them. But this begs the question; do you believe that one’s liberty trumps the life of another? And if so, then why isn’t murder legal for the same reason?

     

    Yet, we say that reGARDless of developmental age and what organs one has that are necessary for survival (their own or others), one NEVER has the right to life in the presence of infringment on other’s rights. YOU say that, it absolutely dePENDS on both.

     

    I have never typed that out. What’s with the deliberate straw men?

     

    ComPLETEly ignoring the FACT that that is discriminatory by granting more rights based on developmental age, and only on fetal developmental ages, at that, and denying rights based on the organic functions present in one’s body (so, ageist and sexist;

     

    Number one, last I checked, everyone– save the unborn– has the right to life. It’s pretty absurd that you think that granting the unborn the same rights as everyone else to be granting them greater rights than anyone else. Number two, do you realize how ridiculous your “denying rights based on the organic functions present in one’s body” sounds? I mean, do you really? It’s akin to arguing that denying some White guy the ability to own slaves is sexist, classist, racist and even ageist. There can be no right to liberty which comes at the expense of someone else’s liberty, much less their life. Do you really not understand this, or is this just one thing among many that you don’t seem to get?

     

    esPECially when you can’t justify them and, thus, only continue to beg the question… by your own logic, of course) and doesn’t take into account a woman’s lack of CHOICE in what organs are developed in her body.  Ugh.  SICKening and NAUSeating. 

     

    Much like you don’t know what positive or negative rights are, or why there is no right to kill, you most certainly don’t know what begging the question is. And you most certainly don’t seem to understand anything I type out, because you either ignore last swathes of what I type out, or engaging in some overly ridiculous straw man. This leads to a rather interesting question; since you don’t seem to understand my argument and you don’t seem to understand the very things you type out, what do you understand?

  • panhandler

    It’s even more shameful when you only seem to be able to quote four words and ignore the rest.

  • panhandler

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Criminals get due process. The unborn don’t.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Panhandler, a girl I knew when I was in junior high died at eighteen of an ectopic pregnancy, she did not know when she woke up that morning she was going to be dead before dark that evening. Her grandmother had to take out a mortgage on her house to pay for the girls funeral, it traumatized all the girls in my town. I know a women who had such a chaotic birth they had to cut her vagina with out any pain killers to get the baby out, I know a women who had to have sergery on her vagina years after giving birth. My cousins wife went into labor so fast after arriving at the hospital she did not have epidural, my cousin said he will never get the loud sound she made while giving birth out of his mind, she had a nine pound baby. You are not a woman, you do not know what it is like being a woman. You told me, some one who was sexually abused who told you most of my family has been sexually abused, that you wished my mother had been raped, and then you mocked me about it. I would rather be aborted then have “you” for a father, or brother. You are sick and evil, you just like all other pro life men come on here to hurt women as much as you can. No ones right to life gives them the right to cause me genital pain against my will, or terrorize me for nine moths with worry of future vaginal agony against my will. I learned this from experience, there is nothing worse for a women or girl then not being able to say “NO” this will not happen to my body, this will not be in my body. Having some one else tell you what your body is going to do against your will, is “HELL.” You are just extremely hateful born panhandler. ~

  • saltyc

    Born panhandler is the one who thinks women should not have sex unless they want to be responsible for creating a new person, and yet he would still gladly have sex with such a woman, so in a way he wants her having sex and in another way he doesn’t. Both ways gratify him to different needs. He has his cake and lambastes it too.

    He doesn’t understand, that if embryos were truly considered human, then sex would be the same as Russian roulette, by proxy.

  • saltyc

    Because you don’t really believe in the totally absurd proposition, that embryos are people.

    Is your last response to me where you posted this fail:?

    I’ve posted many, many, many times my belief that the fact that zygotes and blastocysts have a high failure rate is no reason to respect their lives any less.

    That was not the point of the paper. It wasn’t that so many embryos die therefore they’re not people. Reading comprehension? It was that no one really believes they’re people or there would be a proportionate societal reaction to the knowledge of so many “people” dying. There isn’t, (except for induced abortion, which causes a minority of embryonic failure) therefore no one really thinks they’re people. Get it now?

    You might object that, you’re only focused on one aspect of embryonic failure or, as you would put it, “the tragic ending of lives”, that of pregnancy termination through a woman’s will, and it’s not your fault that no one has taken up other causes of embrionic failure, but if there were 20 of you, the others might focus on other aspects of the same drive to save “millions of lives.” But I for one, would predict that all twenty of you would focus on a woman’s will as their choice conquest.

    Show me I’m wrong. Direct me to the place where you or anyone of like mind stands for the poor frozen “people” locked in fertility lab refrigerators, in great mortal danger of being sent to a lab. Show me the forum where you throw guilt and vile DISRESPECT toward women having fertility treatment or scientists doing research. Show me where you spend one tenth of the time & effort trying to end other causes of embryonic failure not tied to a woman’s will. You’re a liar, whether or not you admit it.

    And another thing you LIE about is saying that you stand for women making their own choices to terminate, then turning around and saying it’s wrong to tolerate abortion.

    OK, guess what, for women to be able to make pregnancy decisions means -pay attention now- actively helping them to get them the money to do so. Because just standing by and SAYING you “support their right even though you think it’s evil” means women being FORCED TO GIVE BIRTH AGAINST THEIR WILL because insurance won’t pay for it and they DONT HAVE THE MONEY, HONEY.

    You can’t just be “neutral” on reproductive rights, either you’re helping women or you’re letting their lives be derailed by Henry Hyde.

    And another revolting thing about your argument, that women getting abortions must have been disrespected by a man, that’s just trying to pry women and men apart, using sexual politics, and it’s very manipulative” hey! you woman don’t have to carry this heavy guilt burden I’m foisting on you alone, blame your man too! He has a penis, after all.

    Guess what, there are women getting abortions, with supportive, loving MALE partners who would never let them down. Yeah, secure, successful women, who -are you sitting down?- have the financial means to raise a child, but know they can’t do it.

  • purplemistydez

    I read alot of your posts.  You speak from personal experience and emotion with strong conviction.  This post really struck me especially the last few sentences.  I wish you peace for all the trauma and suffering you have gone through.

  • mechashiva

    When the rest of your comment is just you stating opinions like they are facts, I don’t need to quote more.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I’ve been thinking about this and listened to an interview with Michael Moore on the Rachel Maddow (Oct. 28). He talked about the mainstreaming of violence of U.S. I agree, the U.S. is a violent country. Moore talked about the mainstreaming of violence in the last nine years, i.e. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The Tea Party has upped the ante on violence so I wasn’t surprised that they would throw Lauren Valle on the ground and stomp on her. I think we need to look at why they chose her? There were many other people counter-protesting Rand Paul but she was an easy target for three large men to attack. It’s an awful video to watch seeing her get dragged to the ground. I hope they prosecute her attackers to the fullest extent of the law.

     

    Michael Moore on Rachel Maddow
    http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-in-the-news/michael-moore-rachel-maddow-show-102910

  • rebellious-grrl

    Paul, you are not entitled to a response to your posts. Taking away abortion as a legal medical procedure is equal to domestic violence. And you bringing up all of this BS about “we need to respect the ZBEF” crap is nauseating.  Saying “The time to talk to women (and MEN!) about respect for unborn life is BEFORE they have an unborn person in their care.” it’s a not so veiled attempt at controlling women.

    As for the ten-year old girl who you keep referring to, I would say making/forcing a ten-year old girl to give birth is rape. It’s sick and sadistic. No ten-year old should have a child at that age. And anyone who would want her to is sick in the head.

    BTW, Self-righteous misogynistic men that try to outlaw are an evil I REFUSE to tolerate. I find the things you say VERY offensive.
    NO a ZBEF is NOT equal to a born life.

  • ldan

    Isn’t it disingenuous to say that you refuse to tolerate abortion, that even tolerating abortion is wrong and evil…but you don’t believe in forcing women to give birth against their will? What do you think will be the result of convincing the majority of society that even tolerating abortion is evil?

     

    Somehow, magically, all women will want their unintended pregnancies? There will never be horribly malformed fetuses that a woman doesn’t want to carry around and give birth to only to watch them suffer and die hours later?

     

    I mean, a society that believes tolerating abortions is evil pretty much has to force women to give birth. Otherwise they’re tolerating evil right?

     

    And, while I realize your last question was directed at FBIR, I’m kind of tired of that question being floated around. And hey, I haven’t answered it anywhere publicly, so thanks for the chance. I am definitely a more valuable person now than before I was born…because I wasn’t a person before I was born. I still can’t understand how anyone believes a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a person by the standard understanding of the word ‘person’. Redefining it to mean ‘half-formed human being’ doesn’t mean I’m going to go along with the redefinition.

  • squirrely-girl

    Criminals are living, breathing, sentient beings capable of deliberate thought and action… ZBEFs are not

     

    Not only are ZBEF NOT afforded due process… but they’re not afforded ANY of the rights outlined in our Constitution nor are they issued social security numbers.

     

    Maybe that’s because they’re not persons… hmmmmmmmmmm…

  • mechashiva

    Actually, since abortion is legal and bodily autonomy is currently accepted as a right (within the right to liberty), you are the one suggesting a change. The person suggesting a change is the one who has to put forth a convincing argument that their way is more beneficial to society. So, the onus is on you.

     

    I’m going to outline a moderate stance here by defining a fetus as a person. In the case of pregnancy, you have two people. One person is living inside the other person’s body. There is a conflict of rights, because one person’s right to life infringes upon another person’s right to bodily integrity and visa versa. A person’s rights end where another person’s body begins, yet that still doesn’t clear things up because of the nature of pregnancy and abortion. So how to solve the problem?

     

    A) Make everything equal. Allow abortion to be legal and accessible for the first 4.5 months of gestation (that’s 18 weeks LMP, as opposed to the current 24 week cut-off). Restrict abortion in the second half of pregnancy to cases of rape/incest and threat to the mother’s health/life beyond what is normal for pregnancy.

     

    B) Assign higher priority to one right than the other.

     

    C) Come up with some solution that is not based on either of these rights at all.

     

    D) Argue that there is no conflict of rights by rejecting the premise that women and fetuses are equally valuable. For pro-choicers, this is the argument against fetal personhood. I’d suggest that the pro-life version is the argument that abortion should be illegal based on the spiritual innocence of the fetus, as it implies fetuses are “better” people than the rest of us.

     

    I have not seen a convincing argument for B, on either side, though it is favored by pro-lifers. My understanding is that rights are like needs. Prioritizing “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is like trying to prioritize “food, water, and shelter.” That’s why pro-choicers tend to go for C, basing arguments on more practical concerns like viability, who is best equiped to make such a decision, how involved the government should be in our private lives, etc. Of course, D is generally the ultimate point for activist pro-choicers and religious pro-lifers.

     

    However, I hypothesize that most Americans would prefer the simplicity of A. If it would get everyone to just shut-up about abortion once and for all, even I would support it.

  • squirrely-girl

    … they have a personal experience that’s an “exception” to the rule. :/ I have a cousin who was ardently pro-life until she experienced a stillbirth (no brain or heart activity) at 22 weeks and was faced with carrying to term. It’s amazing how pro-choice she is now. 

     

    However, I hypothesize that most Americans would prefer the simplicity of A.

  • beenthere72

    I’m truly sorry that there are no circumstances in which anything will ever live inside your body that equates with a pregnancy.    You will never have to be faced with that major life changing event in a way a woman does, nor will you have the opposite sex harrassing you about what they think you should do with YOUR body.     You see the situation of pregnancy in such a black and white abstract form much the way you probably stare at a set of tits while not acknowledging the fact that there’s a face and a brain above them.    Hello!  Eyes up here, buddy!    I exist.   

     

    If a fetus could be removed from my uterus and somebody else was willing and able to carry it to term and birth it, then there would be less need or desire to abort it.   But the medical science needed to accomplish that does not yet exist.    

     

    You’re so hell bent on forcing women to birth babies, never considering the circumstances of the possible pregnancy, the circumstances the possible baby will be born into, the circumstances of the life that possible child might live.     It doesn’t simply exist.     I can’t wriggle my nose, and poof there’s a baby.   And poof, there’s a safe, secure, paid-for home in which it will live a healthy wonderful life.  And poof, there are those willing and able to raise it, not abuse it, not neglect it, not desert it.    And poof, there’s nobody to judge you for giving birth so young, or for being a single parent, or for  dropping out of school.    Poof, every pregnant teen has a happy, loving, supportive family that will welcome the *poof* suddenly existing baby.    

     

    Oh wait, can’t forget the sperm donor.    Oh look, *poof* he’s gone. 

     

    The unborn have to do nothing but exist for some pro-choicers to claim that they can be killed. This is a fact. Everyone who has even a small inkling of knowledge regarding the abortion debate knows this.

     

    To you this is just a debate.    To you, pregnancies are just the existance of an immediate new person with the same rights to life that you have at this moment.   To me, this is my life and this is my body, and that clump of cells dividing inside me does not carry the same rights that you and I do at this moment.   I don’t just debate abortion, I’ve had an abortion.      In fact, in the past 22 years, I have had 1 miscarriage and 2 abortions.     I don’t believe that anything that is unable to sustain itself outside my womb without medical intervention – is ‘being killed’ when it’s being aborted.     I don’t believe that I should have to be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that was the result of someone forcing themself on me.   I don’t believe that I should be punished with parenthood just because I had some hot, sweaty sex with someone and neglected to use a condom the 3rd go-around.     And I really don’t believe that a bunch of self-righteous a-holes have the right to make the rules about what I should or should not do with the contents of my uterus.    There was a time when I’d rather die than give birth – do you want that kind of blood on your hands?

     

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Girl, 10 Gives Birth in Spain

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/02/girl-10-gives-birth-in-sp_n_777673.html

     

    Medical experts warn that because young girls are still growing, they are at higher risk during pregnancy. Studies have shown that teenage girls are more likely to give birth to premature babies and their infants have a higher chance of dying by age one.

     

    I don’t think any child should have to be forced to give birth. Making a 10 year old go through pregnancy and birth is sick.

     

     

     

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, or the pro-life woman who sought an abortion for her mentally disabled daughter, who had been raped by a family “friend.” The young woman did not have the capacity to understand what had happened or that she was pregnant, and she is basically not able to communicate. So, no one found out until her belly seemed too oddly shaped to be simple weight gain and they took her to the doctor. She was 28 weeks along, so we referred her to Dr Tiller’s clinic. Cases like that and the one that you described, though, would be one of those exceptions, just like current law.

     

    But yeah, I’m not a moderate who would passionately defend option A. I think it could be a decent compromise, not that it would be the best solution. And sometimes, I really wish abortion were out of the picture entirely in politics. I wish it enough to make that compromise so that there would be more focus on other things during elections.

  • crowepps

    That simply is never, ever going to happen.  It is impossible for you or anybody else to construct ANY compromise which would be acceptable to ProLife fanatics.  Their position in the rare instances of anencephalic pregnancy and other fatal malformities, that “just because the fetus is going to die before or soon after birth isn’t an acceptable reason to end the pregnancy early”,  a position that the average person finds not just stupid but really VILE, with no recognition whatsoever of the woman’s ‘distress’ OR THE POINTLESSNESS OF MAKING HER ENDURE IT, makes it clear that they will never, EVER shut up.

     

    The combination of disrespect for actual women and fetal idolotry and the concomittant reflex of voting Republican because the Republicans are willing to string them along is way too USEFUL to the Republicans for them ever to either actually ban abortion or to be truthful about how constitutionally and medically there is no way it will ever actually disappear.  How would they get “the base” to continue to show up at the polls to vote against their own interest and make the rich richer?

  • ruth-m

    Thank you for your perspective. Perhaps the over-identification of some to men’s part in a woman becoming pregnant is due to an error in the understanding of the exact process. Men don’t “impregnate” women, they launch millions of sperm a nd fertilization occurs or it doesn’t. Here’s a good prose poem which reminds us that it takes two to tango.

     

    Semen is Latin

    for a dormant, fertilized

    plant ovum –

    a seed. 

    Men’s ejaculate

    is chemically more akin

    to plant pollen.

    See,

    it is really

    more accurate

    to call it

    mammal pollen.

     

    To call it

    semen

    is to thrust

    an insanity

    deep inside our culture:

    that men plow women

    and plant their seed

    when, in fact,

    what they are doing

    is pollinating

    flowers.

     

    Now.

    Doesn’t that change everything between us?

     

    Stephen Harrod Buhner

    The Secret Teachings of Plants

  • mechashiva

    Precisely why I’m not a moderate and vote according to my convictions rather than what I think would be popular.

  • colleen

    And sometimes, I really wish abortion were out of the picture entirely in politics. I wish it enough to make that compromise so that there would be more focus on other things during elections.

    It’s precisely because social conservatives don’t want there to be a focus on anything else that abortion, the sexuality of everyone but nominally straight white males and ‘the contraceptive mentality’ will continue to be political hot button issues while, for instance, providing affordable medical care, shelter, food and a reasonable standard of care to millions of poor children is not (and is dismissed as “socialism”.) Scalia and his pals could overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow and the religious right’s hatred would only intensify and their ‘solutions’ become more extreme.

    We aren’t going to find ‘common ground’ because, for the right, abortion has never been about abortion, it’s about control and power.

     

  • crowepps

    We aren’t going to find ‘common ground’ because, for the right, abortion has never been about abortion, it’s about control and power.

    Very true, and the aim of that control and power is to ensure that there is only one way to live and that is Just Like Me.  Anybody who looks different than Me, thinks differently than Me, dares to act in ways Me would not choose must be PUNISHED!  Xenophobia as political platform.  Mussolini would be PROUD!

  • panhandler

    Actually, since abortion is legal and bodily autonomy is currently accepted as a right (within the right to liberty), you are the one suggesting a change.

     

    How can you possibly argue something when you make such an absurd and incorrect claim as the above? Forget the fact that liberty encompasses the ability to act according to one’s will, while the right to bodily autonomy encompasses the right to not be done to (you will be the third person who somehow doesn’t know this), people cannot even do what they want and claim they have a right to act in such a manner.

     

    The person suggesting a change is the one who has to put forth a convincing argument that their way is more beneficial to society. So, the onus is on you.

     

    The people who make all sorts of fanciful claims and arguments are the one who are burdened with defending them. I realize that, while it’s easier to claim X and Y and then try to shift the burden on proof on the guy who calls someone on those claims, that’s not the way things work in the real world. And you can’t change what isn’t true to begin with.

     

    I’m going to outline a moderate stance here by defining a fetus as a person. In the case of pregnancy, you have two people. One person is living inside the other person’s body. There is a conflict of rights, because one person’s right to life infringes upon another person’s right to bodily integrity and visa versa. A person’s rights end where another person’s body begins, yet that still doesn’t clear things up because of the nature of pregnancy and abortion. So how to solve the problem?

     

    There is no problem. You perceive there to be a problem because you don’t really understand the concept of rights, and as a result you’ve constructed what can only be described as a false conflict. Your position somehow assumes that people have the right to act in a manner, put someone in a situation in which they have no control over, and then claim that you have a right to not be “infringed” upon by that person, thus allowing you to kill them. It’s illogical, and if it were applied anywhere else, you would instantly cry foul. 

     

    I have not seen a convincing argument for B, on either side, though it is favored by pro-lifers.

     

    If you haven’t seen a convincing argument regarding that from pro-lifers, it’s because no pro-lifer makes that assertion. Pro-choicers do, though. It’s funny that you, the person who screamed straw feminist, would continue to engage in a blatant straw man which I’ve seen at least three different pro-lifers tell you– not you specifically– is a straw man.

     

    My understanding is that rights are like needs.

     

    And you would be incorrect. 

     

    Prioritizing “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is like trying to prioritize “food, water, and shelter.”

     

    Not in the slightest. It’s life, liberty and property in that order. Abortion is the only instance in where liberty can trump life, or property can trump liberty. Outside of abortion, there isn’t a single case where this isn’t true, and you are more than welcome to try to prove me wrong. If what you said was true, then I should be able to kill you even though it violates your right to life, as you cannot violate my right to liberty and restrict me from acting in a way I see fit. If what you said was true, then I should be able to enslave you because my right to own property is greater than your right to live free from enslavement. But who would agree with that? Well, pro-choicers do, at least when it comes to abortion.

     

    That’s why pro-choicers tend to go for C, basing arguments on more practical concerns like viability, who is best equiped to make such a decision, how involved the government should be in our private lives, etc. Of course, D is generally the ultimate point for activist pro-choicers and religious pro-lifers.

     

    It’s not practical in the slightest. It’s a failed 150’ish year old argument where people are allowed to do as they wish based on their own moral and religious views. Don’t believe me? Take the following quote, spoken by a guy who was “personally” opposed to slavery– 

     

    I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves, that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves, within their own limits. 

     

    It’s the exact same justification used by pro-choicers to rationalize abortion today, i.e., “It’s a personal decision!”/”Don’t force your religious views on others!”/etc. If it didn’t work then, it doesn’t work now. Of course, you’ll inevitably respond with something about the unborn living in the body of the women, which just goes right back to the point that you’re begging the question.

     

    And, for what it’s worth, a straw man is a straw man no matter how many times you use it. So quit it.

     

    However, I hypothesize that most Americans would prefer the simplicity of A. If it would get everyone to just shut-up about abortion once and for all, even I would support it.  

     

    You hypothesize wrong. Everyone– and I do mean everyone– knows for a fact that the majority of Americans would allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects while disallowing abortions in cases where the woman doesn’t want a child, or she’s having relationship problems, or because she wants to go to school or have a career, etc., which is the position that most pro-life groups agree with and the position that most, if not all pro-choice groups, disagree with. It ain’t pro-lifers fighting against compromise. It’s the pro-choice contingent, which is what makes all this talk about there can be no compromise because pro-lifers don’t want compromise kind of laughable. 

  • colleen

    Very true, and the aim of that control and power is to ensure that there is only one way to live and that is Just Like Me.

    I think it’s more that women (and members of the GLBT community) should live as they say, not as they do, in fact, live.

    Almost everyone has lived a more decent life than the Bernard Lay and the majority of US Bishops who enabled and protected child rapists. Most men have been better husbands than Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, John Ensign and the guys at the ‘C’ street house. I’m appalled at the low standards of the ‘pro-life’ movement.

  • panhandler

    I’m truly sorry that there are no circumstances in which anything will ever live inside your body that equates with a pregnancy. You will never have to be faced with that major life changing event in a way a woman does, nor will you have the opposite sex harrassing you about what they think you should do with YOUR body. You see the situation of pregnancy in such a black and white abstract form much the way you probably stare at a set of tits while not acknowledging the fact that there’s a face and a brain above them.  Hello!  Eyes up here, buddy!  I exist. 

     

    Well, this is probably the biggest straw man, not to mention overly sexist, comment I’ve had the displeasure of reading. Way to go there. I’m curious, what charge would you levy against me if I were a woman? 

     

    You’re so hell bent on forcing women to birth babies, never considering the circumstances of the possible pregnancy, the circumstances the possible baby will be born into, the circumstances of the life that possible child might live. It doesn’t simply exist.

     

    Untrue. I’m perfectly willing to allow an abortion if the mother’s life is as stake. The rest of that? Not so much because it really doesn’t matter (explained below).

     

    I can’t wriggle my nose, and poof there’s a baby. And poof, there’s a safe, secure, paid-for home in which it will live a healthy wonderful life.  And poof, there are those willing and able to raise it, not abuse it, not neglect it, not desert it. And poof, there’s nobody to judge you for giving birth so young, or for being a single parent, or for  dropping out of school.    Poof, every pregnant teen has a happy, loving, supportive family that will welcome the *poof* suddenly existing baby.

     

    None of that has anything to do with whether or not one is allowed to live. Are you telling me that if a woman has a child that she can’t care for, and she doesn’t want to give it to someone else, that she can kill it and have her actions be justified? I ask, because that’s essentially your argument.

     

     

    But keep making the above arguments. As it is, a minority of people believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any of the above reasons, and focusing your argument as to why abortion should be legal on the above reasons just helps us pro-lifers out in the long-run. So I really can’t complain.

     

     

    To you this is just a debate. To you, pregnancies are just the existance of an immediate new person with the same rights to life that you have at this moment. To me, this is my life and this is my body, and that clump of cells dividing inside me does not carry the same rights that you and I do at this moment.

     

    Why not? See, this is where your argument crumbles. It’s based on what you believe, yet you can offer no justification as to why one should accept your personal beliefs, or why you should be able to hide behind your personal beliefs while doing to another as you please. 

     

    I don’t just debate abortion, I’ve had an abortion. In fact, in the past 22 years, I have had 1 miscarriage and 2 abortions.

     

    That’s great and all, but no one asked.

     

    I don’t believe that anything that is unable to sustain itself outside my womb without medical intervention – is ‘being killed’ when it’s being aborted.    

     

    And you’d be wrong.

     

    I don’t believe that I should have to be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that was the result of someone forcing themself on me.   

     

    Which constitutes something like less than 0.5% of all abortions. But still, I’m perfectly willing to allow an abortion in those cases.

     

    I don’t believe that I should be punished with parenthood just because I had some hot, sweaty sex with someone and neglected to use a condom the 3rd go-around.

     

    Could you imagine the outcry from feminists everywhere if a man made the above comment?

     

    And I really don’t believe that a bunch of self-righteous a-holes have the right to make the rules about what I should or should not do with the contents of my uterus.

     

    Do you live in a country devoid of any laws? Because unless you do, then I have no idea what you’re on about. There are plenty of things you can’t do with your body because of the effect it has on another. Laws exist to prevent one segment of the population from infringing upon the lives of another. You can’t exactly call someone a “self-right a-hole” for not wanting to allow one segment of the population to do carte blanche to another as they want.

     

    There was a time when I’d rather die than give birth – do you want that kind of blood on your hands?

     

    It’s pretty hard to guilt someone into feeling bad for someone else’s personal decisions. 

  • squirrely-girl

    So I made it through your whole post and continually got hung up on one concept, namely, your use of the phrasing, “I‘m perfectly willing to allow an abortion if…”

     

    Guess what?! Nobody cares what you’re perfectly willing to “allow.” Seriously. Unless your wasting time avoiding your other job of supreme dictator of some small island nation, what you deign as worthy of abortion is of no consequence to me or any other woman contemplating said abortion.

     

    However, feel as welcomed by the pro-choice crowd as possible. We’re pretty big fans of allowing people to develop their own PERSONAL beliefs about abortion as well as choosing to NOT have an abortion if they so desire. So please feel free to continue making moral judgments about other people’s bodies as long as you realize you only get to make decisions about yours.

  • arekushieru

    No ones right to life gives them the right to cause me genital pain against my will, or terrorize me for nine moths with worry of future vaginal agony against my will. I learned this from experience, there is nothing worse for a women or girl then not being able to say “NO” this will not happen to my body, this will not be in my body.

    And this is why I believe MechaShiva’s option B is the more appropriate route, considering that no one’s right to bodily autonomy is compromised or argued to BE compromised in any other scenario.  Considering that no one’s right to bodily autonomy is trumped by any other right or that it disappears when another right is present, anywhere else.

  • panhandler

    You just proved my point as why there can’t be any sort of compromise on abortion. One side doesn’t want to compromise (pro-choice), even if there’s a consensus as to what situations under which to allow abortion, and they readily ignore the fact that much like they’d eschew the notion that people should be able to decide for themselves whether it’s morally or ethically right to enslave someone else based on their own moral and religious views, people would eschew abortion on the same principles. Playing the “personal belief” card doesn’t really work. It’s nothing more than a quick way to admitting that your position is indefensible, so you need to rely on the notion that an action is justified so long as the individual engaging in it thinks it is justified.

     

    Most people very well realize what’s wrong with said justification and is why they tend to fall moreso towards the pro-life end of the spectrum when it comes to the situations in which they’ll allow abortion and when they won’t, though many of the pro-choicers here not only don’t seem to know this, but fall well to the left of public sentiment. It makes you wonder just who is really the “extremist” and who is not.

  • mechashiva

     Forget the fact that liberty encompasses the ability to act according to one’s will, while the right to bodily autonomy encompasses the right to not be done to

    Riddle me this: How can a person have the right to “act according to [their] will” if they don’t have the right to control how their body is used?

     

    people have the right to act in a manner, put someone in a situation in which they have no control over, and then claim that you have a right to not be “infringed” upon by that person, thus allowing you to kill them.

    Yeah, that’s the problem with the moderate abortion position. Good thing that doesn’t apply to me, since I don’t think embryos are people (at least not until they develop certain perceptive capacities) and therefore am not a moderate.

     

    If you haven’t seen a convincing argument regarding that from pro-lifers, it’s because no pro-lifer makes that assertion

    Actually, I’ve seen a lot of pro-lifers argue that the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy. I’ve seen it online, and I have had to deal with it in-person as well. You don’t get to tell me what kinds of arguments I have and haven’t encountered.

     

    It’s life, liberty and property in that order.

    Got any evidence that Locke or Jefferson intended to prioritize those rights? Also, do you have any evidence that Jefferson intended “pursuit of happiness” to be synonymous with “property?” Because there’s currently a good deal of debate over why he changed the wording and what he meant by “happiness.”

     

    It’s the exact same justification used by pro-choicers to rationalize abortion today, i.e., “It’s a personal decision!”/”Don’t force your religious views on others!”/etc. If it didn’t work then, it doesn’t work now. Of course, you’ll inevitably respond with something about the unborn living in the body of the women, which just goes right back to the point that you’re begging the question.

     

    I’m glad that you recognize that the reason abortion is a personal decision and slavery isn’t is because abortion involves the woman’s body. This isn’t “begging the question,” it’s the main point of the pro-choice position… bodily autonomy is a right. If you feel the urge to beg the question, “Why is bodily integrity a right,” just come out and do it. Better yet, show an argument that it isn’t a right. You’ve needled about this several times, but you have yet to actually say something substantive about it.

     

    while disallowing abortions in cases where the woman doesn’t want a child, or she’s having relationship problems, or because she wants to go to school or have a career, etc.

    I actually think most people would agree that it is understandable to want to have an abortion for all of those reasons, and when put in that situation themselves they’d want a choice, whether or not abortion would be what they choose. That’s the most common moderate-to-conservative position I run into on this issue. Unlike you, I don’t assume everyone else thinks the way I do. Clearly, the above position is just what you think, not your understanding of the moderate position.

     

    It ain’t pro-lifers fighting against compromise.

    Ha ha ha, and HA some more! That must be why they push so hard for abstinence-only sex education. That must be why they work so hard to “cut taxes” for programs that actually help financially disadvantaged parents (particularly young single mothers). That must be why they try and pass personhood amendments that would make most abortions illegal and make it impossible to access emergency contraception and other forms of contraception. It’s because pro-lifers, as a movement, are just so moderate and seeking compromise.

     

    You are so full of crap, Panhandler.

  • arekushieru

    To Panhandler.  I confused the right to not be killed with the right to not kill.  However, the rest of my points DO stand.

    Well, this is probably the biggest straw man, not to mention overly sexist, comment I’ve had the displeasure of reading. Way to go there. I’m curious, what charge would you levy against me if I were a woman?

    You would figure it out if you actually *read*.  Arguing that these women abort their OWN unwanted pregnancies?  Check.  Arguing that these women don’t seem willing to have their own bodies violated in such a manner in any OTHer way, either?  Check.  Arguing that these women are merely collaborating with the patriarchy because ‘they don’t know any better’?  Check.  So, creating a strawman and committing sexism of your own, while falsely accusing others of doing so and of sexism?  Check.

    Untrue. I’m perfectly willing to allow an abortion if the mother’s life is as stake.

    Then you do NOT believe the fetus has a right to life.  So, please, do continue to prove that this is ONLY about punishing women.   Oh, wait, you already went ahead and DID it:

     

    The rest of that? Not so much because it really doesn’t matter (explained below).

    Oh, really?  Existence is all that matters, eh?  Then why are you even on here trying to impose your own morals upon others?  They don’t matter, if existence is all that matters.  Would you like to continue defeating your own arguments…?

    None of that has anything to do with whether or not one is allowed to live. Are you telling me that if a woman has a child that she can’t care for, and she doesn’t want to give it to someone else, that she can kill it and have her actions be justified? I ask, because that’s essentially your argument.

    Actually, no, it’s not. 

    Life is presupposed by bodily integrity.  Or, didn’t you know that people can die of starvation, sickness, isolation, PREGnancy (this rather amazingly making your idiocy apparent, since you have been TOLD this, OVER and OVER) etc…?  Making bodily integrity the central issue, which autoMATically eliminates *your* scenario.  WHOOOPS…?

    Why not? See, this is where your argument crumbles. It’s based on what you believe, yet you can offer no justification as to why one should accept your personal beliefs, or why you should be able to hide behind your personal beliefs while doing to another as you please.

    Gee, because personal beliefs mean eXACtly that…?  PERsonal…?  PERsonal which is being applied PERsonally?  While YOU are imposing your personal beliefs ON others (beSIDES yourself).  Hmm, what was I saying earlier about ratioNALity?  It must not play a big part part in your life since you already forgot about it, even so far as to not recall the difference between a fetus and a woman, that one has beliefs, the other doesn’t (I’ll leave you to guess which is which, since that SHOULD be easy enough for you).

    That’s great and all, but no one asked.

    Really?  You didn’t?  Do you not even remember what you, yourself, wrote?  That’s… really amazing….  But let me put it back out there for your edification: You wondered what ‘charges’ we would levy against a woman who was ProLife.  I, then, went on to remind you what we had stated numerous times, earlier.  If you don’t want to know something about people whose positions are more applicable to the discussion than your own, then don’t ask about them, in the first place.  Otherwise, nice double standard, AS usual.

    And you’d be wrong.

    Oh, so you DO think the removal of artificial life support kills brain dead persons.  Except that medical diagnoses disagree with you.  If you don’t, then, no, SG would be RIGHT. 

    Could you imagine the outcry from feminists everywhere if a man made the above comment?

    A woman shouldn’t be punished with parenthood, neither should a man.  Feminists WOULD agree.  It’s just that financial support does NOT equal parental support NOR does it equal the right to determine WHO uses one’s body and when and how it is used.  But YOU like to equate the two, so when SG FInally talks down to your level, you twist it around so that she is caught in a Catch-22.  Typical Anti-Choicer tactic.  The STUPID, it HURTS.

    Do you live in a country devoid of any laws? Because unless you do, then I have no idea what you’re on about. There are plenty of things you can’t do with your body because of the effect it has on another. Laws exist to prevent one segment of the population from infringing upon the lives of another. You can’t exactly call someone a “self-right a-hole” for not wanting to allow one segment of the population to do carte blanche to another as they want.

    Umm, are you an idiot or just being deliberately obtuse (sorry, but those ARE your only choices)?  You have yet to prove this.  WHERE else is one conSIStently not permitted to do what they want with their body, other than pregnancy (I repeated what I was saying with this but only because I know you’d miss it if I didn’t)?  A fetus infringes upon a woman’s life, quantity AND bodily autonomy wise.  You can exactly call someone a “self-right a-hole” for wanting to allow one segment of the population (fetuses) to do carte blanche to another (women) as they want.   There, fixed that for you.

    It’s pretty hard to guilt someone into feeling bad for someone else’s personal decisions. 

    Then why do you try to do it ALL THE TIME????  YOU attempt to make others feel guilty so you CAN impose your ‘personal decisions’ on them. 

    Once again, thanks for proving your misogyny.  You are either about ALL lives or none and really just about punishment.  It’s so sad to see you provide another point in our favour and continuing to defeat your own argument, at the same time….  

  • arekushieru

    No, ProLifers only want to compromise women’s rights away while making no compromises for similar scenarios, because of course *they* would be affected.  BOOHOO.

    Nope, YOU want to decide whether it’s morally ethical to enslave someone or not.  YOU, like slave-owners, want to decide whether to grant MORE rights to a certain class of humans because you believe they are superior (fetuses, in this case) while denying rights to another class of humans because you believe they are inferior (women, in this case).  While WE want to grant ALL humans the SAME rights that everyone else has, no MATTER their status. 

    Yeah, we realize what’s wrong with it, too bad you don’t.  Guess you’re just not ‘most people’, eh?  After all, it’s about the impoSITion of said beliefs.  Which YOU want to do, NOT us.

    Extremism is the opposite ends of the pole.  Too bad you didn’t know that.  The only way ProChoicers are opposite you is if we call you anti-choice (which, for the most part, you are).   We are also only opposite the other end in the same manner.  (The other end being those who want to force women to have abortions.)  ProChoicers, however, want women to be able to make their OWN decisions in that matter.  Which is WHY my mother is PROChoice, not ANTI-choice.  And which is why you can’t call ProChoicers extreme, since one group allowing for two choices has NEVer been called the extreme ones over the group who only allows for one, in ANY other case.

  • arekushieru

    And what that has to do with the right to life, I would REALLY like to know.  But, maybe, next time, before you accuse someone else of not knowing what they are talking about, you should figure out what YOU are talking about. 

    If you get your way, they WOULD get due process.  Which means you will have fetuses convicted of killing their host, because they cannot prove they didn’t have intent to do so by implanting.  Hmm, seems like a really good idea right about now to keep fetuses from being deemed persons merely because they don’t have sentience, now DOESn’t it?  Or you could have tumours and all other forms of human life not arbitrarily (like you anti-choicers would like) excluded and thus given due process in the SAME way. 

    HMMMMM….  

  • squirrely-girl

    It’s nothing more than a quick way to admitting that your position is indefensible, so you need to rely on the notion that an action is justified so long as the individual engaging in it thinks it is justified.

    Or… maybe its a quick way to suggest that any position on this topic is forever clouded by personal human experience/belief and therefore fallible. No objective “truth” exists for this dilemma. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it still make a sound?

     

    Perhaps a more appropriate question would be, “If only one person believes in God (or even if no person on earth believed in God), does God still exist?I would argue some things continue to exist or are justified in their experience because individuals think it’s justified. 

     

    Removing the individual perception and experience from any moral equation is an intellectually, ethically, and morally inferior practice. 

  • scarlet

    “Removing the individual perception and experience from any moral equation is an intellectually, ethically, and morally inferior practice.”

    This a thousand times, this is in part why the common ground measures such as the “Open Hearts, Open Minds” conference are such failures, they fail to include people who have lived through the actual experiances.

  • panhandler

    Riddle me this: How can a person have the right to “act according to [their] will” if they don’t have the right to control how their body is used?

     

    Because you don’t need to have the right to act to have the right to not be acted against. Seriously. It’s not that hard of a concept. It’s like saying you don’t have the right to not be beaten up unless you have the right to beat someone else up. It’s nothing short of nonsensical.

     

    Yeah, that’s the problem with the moderate abortion position. Good thing that doesn’t apply to me, since I don’t think embryos are people (at least not until they develop certain perceptive capacities) and therefore am not a moderate.

     

    Skipping ahead of myself just a wee bit, it’s not only clear that you don’t understand what the “moderate” abortion position is, but you don’t even seemingly understand your own position. Anyway, are you now saying that you’re extreme in your views? If so, then explain to me why anyone should give credence to them– especially since this site seems to eschew “extremist” views (which I think it really a buzzword for views they don’t agree with).

     

    Got any evidence that Locke or Jefferson intended to prioritize those rights?

     

    Ummm, yeah. It’s called reading what Locke wrote. I really cannot believe you would even attempt to try to dispute this.

     

    Sec. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. 

     

    http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm

     

    Or, simplified, even though man is endowed with liberty, no man has the liberty to kill another, unless that killing is justified (whereas it’s justifiable to protect your life, in war to defend yourself, or in war as the victor against the aggressor, but that’s not explained above but in all his writings). 

     

    Also, do you have any evidence that Jefferson intended “pursuit of happiness” to be synonymous with “property?” Because there’s currently a good deal of debate over why he changed the wording and what he meant by “happiness.”

     

    Trying to sound all intellectual-like with your constant “Got any evidence of that?” questions are moderately cute, but fairly annoying. The Declaration of Independence has no weight as law. Only the Constitution does, and the 14th Amendment mentions life, liberty and property, not happiness. So your point about what’s meant by happiness is completely moot. 

     

    I’m glad that you recognize that the reason abortion is a personal decision and slavery isn’t is because abortion involves the woman’s body.

     

    This is wrong on many levels, but I’ll explain it a bit below. 

     

    This isn’t “begging the question,” it’s the main point of the pro-choice position… bodily autonomy is a right.

     

    No, it’s called begging the question because I’ll ask you why it’s a right, and you’ll inevitably respond with something along the lines of, “Because people have the right to control their body”. Of course, such a position would invariably burden you with explaining why the unborn has no such right, but to that you’d point out that it’s not a person, and it’s not a person because it’s not sentient or whatever. If I were to ask you why sentience is important, you’d ultimately tell me that it’s important because it keeps the unborn from being considered persons or infringing upon the woman’s rights, but this, in itself, would ignore the fact that the woman would have no “right” to an abortion if the unborn was a person, meaning you’re just using sentience or whatever as a means to define the unborn out of rights to meet a stated end (legalized abortion). Now, if you want, we can most certainly go through the process.

     

    If you feel the urge to beg the question, “Why is bodily integrity a right,” just come out and do it.

     

    You really don’t know what begging the question is. Begging the question would be something like–

     

    “The unborn aren’t persons because they’re not sentient, and sentience is important because it keeps us from defining the unborn as persons.”

     

    or

     

    “Bodily autonomy is a right because people have the right to decide what happens to their bodies.”

     

    Both of which have been made by your fellow pro-choicers. Asking one to defend their claims in a non-fallacious way isn’t begging the question in the slightest. It’s trying to get you to stop doing so. Unfortunately, I fear that this, too, will be lost in the dreaded black hole of logic that seems to encompass those who consider themselves pro-choice.

     

    Better yet, show an argument that it isn’t a right. You’ve needled about this several times, but you have yet to actually say something substantive about it.

     

    Or even better yet, how about putting for an argument which actually, you know, defends the position you postulate? That’s the way debates work. You don’t get to make some kind of ridiculously absurd claim, and then when someone calls you on it turn around and claim for me to prove it false. That’s like me telling someone God exists, and when they say he doesn’t, telling them to prove he doesn’t. It’s a fallacy, and it will forever be a fallacy.

     

    I actually think most people would agree that it is understandable to want to have an abortion for all of those reasons, and when put in that situation themselves they’d want a choice, whether or not abortion would be what they choose. That’s the most common moderate-to-conservative position I run into on this issue. Unlike you, I don’t assume everyone else thinks the way I do. Clearly, the above position is just what you think, not your understanding of the moderate position.

     

    It’s evident from the things you type out that you simply do not, nor have you ever, bothered to even research what people think when it comes to abortion and when it should and shouldn’t be allowed. You seem to be falling into the “Everyone I know thinks this way, so it must be true for everyone else!” trap, whereas you translate personal experiences into being indicative of the whole. I really don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but it’s wrong. What you deem the “moderate” position, isn’t. It is a well-known fact that abortion support is limited to a few instances, not the broad based support that pro-choicers generally insist abortion enjoys.

     

    Average rate of support for legal abortion across multiple survey organizations since 1996

     

    Life of the woman: 84%

    Physical health of the woman: 83%

    Rape or incest: 79%

    Mental health of the woman: 64%

    Baby would be mentally impaired: 53%

    Baby would be physically impaired: 51%

    Would force teenager to drop out of school: 42%

    Woman/family can’t afford the baby: 39%

    Woman/family want no more children: 39%

    Couple does not want to marry: 35%

    Fertility selection: 29%

    Would interfere with woman’s career: 25%

     

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#5

     

    American Views on Abortion (Should be legal/Should be illegal)

     

    All or Most Cases: 57/42

    To Save Woman’s Life: 88/10

    To Save Woman’s Health: 82/14

    In Cases of Rape/Incest: 81/17

    Physically Impaired Baby: 54/40

    To End Unwanted Pregnancy: 42/57

    D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions: 23/69

    Pregnancy is 6 Months+: 11/86

     

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/abortion_poll030122.html

     

    FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     

    “Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations… (Legal/Illegal)”

     

    If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest: 70/9

    If the pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk: 73/15

    If the pregnancy puts the mother’s mental health at risk: 56/28

    If the baby has a fatal birth defect: 53/30

    If the pregnancy is unwanted: 39/50

     

    ———————————————————————————

     

     

    CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    “Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about [see below] (Legal/Illegal)…”

    When the woman’s life is endangered: 85/11

    When the woman’s physical health is endangered: 77/17

    When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest: 76/19

    When the woman’s mental health is endangered: 63/32

    When there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired: 56/37

    When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired: 55/39

    When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child: 35/61

     

     

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm

     

    Of course, feel free to tell me what the “moderate” position really is. It just goes to show that pro-choicers really have no idea what other’s views of abortion really are yet feel compelled to mock someone else who does know what other’s views of abortions are. It’s even funnier when they call someone an “extremist” without realizing that they, themselves, are the extremists. 

     

    Ha ha ha, and HA some more! That must be why they push so hard for abstinence-only sex education.

     

    I’ll admit that some of the pro-life aversion to comprehensive sex-ed is a bit mind-boggling, but understandable when you view it from the position that school’s really shouldn’t be teaching it.

     

    That must be why they work so hard to “cut taxes” for programs that actually help financially disadvantaged parents (particularly young single mothers).

     

    Unlike California, most states would rather not go broke trying to sustain social programs they can’t afford.

     

    That must be why they try and pass personhood amendments that would make most abortions illegal and make it impossible to access emergency contraception and other forms of contraception.

     

    Did you know that most pro-life organizations oppose the Personhood Amendments?

     

    It’s because pro-lifers, as a movement, are just so moderate and seeking compromise.

     

    They do. I’ve asked this question once before and I’ll ask it again: if we were to take the two sides, pro-life and pro-choice, sit them in a room and state that abortion would be made illegal except for a few instances, but that contraception would be free and sex ed made mandatory, which side do you think would oppose this? You’ll get a few groups on the pro-life side who oppose it, but you’ll see most of them readily accept a compromise. On the other side, I’d be shocked to see any pro-choice group accept such a compromise. You see, pro-lifers will, and often do, make concessions in regards to when abortion is permissible and even contraception. The pro-choice side, on the other hand, does not. I mean, even the RCC doesn’t take an “no abortion, never” stance, yet groups such as NARAL, PPFA and Emily’s List take the “abortion, on demand, without apology” stance. How does that work? You can laugh all you want, but the answer is that it doesn’t work.

     

    You are so full of crap, Panhandler.

     

    You might want to look in a mirror.

  • panhandler

    No, ProLifers only want to compromise women’s rights away while making no compromises for similar scenarios, because of course *they* would be affected.  BOOHOO.

     

    Yes, because there isn’t a single pro-life female anywhere.

     

    Nope, YOU want to decide whether it’s morally ethical to enslave someone or not.  YOU, like slave-owners, want to decide whether to grant MORE rights to a certain class of humans because you believe they are superior (fetuses, in this case) while denying rights to another class of humans because you believe they are inferior (women, in this case).  While WE want to grant ALL humans the SAME rights that everyone else has, no MATTER their status. 

     

    Not only is this still a straw man, but if you were granting the same rights to everyone else, then you would not argue that a woman can kill her unborn child solely because she wants to. Can I kill you just because I want to? Can you kill your next door neighbor just because you want to? Those are rhetorical question, by the way. There’s a reason why pro-life is progressive and pro-choice is not, because one requires arguing that one portion of the human population can be treated as inferior to another.

     

    Yeah, we realize what’s wrong with it, too bad you don’t.  Guess you’re just not ‘most people’, eh?  After all, it’s about the impoSITion of said beliefs.  Which YOU want to do, NOT us.

     

    I’m fairly sure my views on abortion more closely reflect public sentiment than do yours, or most people here. I suppose it really is possible to be so extreme in your views that you don’t actually realize that you are extreme. I guess that would also explain the propensity to claim everyone else who doesn’t agree with you to be extreme (projection). Anyway, I’ve asked this numerous times with no answer, when is it okay to impose one’s beliefs on others and when is it not okay? Obviously, you don’t believe it’s unilaterally not okay to impose one’s beliefs on another, so when is it permissible?

     

    Extremism is the opposite ends of the pole.  Too bad you didn’t know that.  The only way ProChoicers are opposite you is if we call you anti-choice (which, for the most part, you are).   We are also only opposite the other end in the same manner.  (The other end being those who want to force women to have abortions.)  ProChoicers, however, want women to be able to make their OWN decisions in that matter.  Which is WHY my mother is PROChoice, not ANTI-choice.  And which is why you can’t call ProChoicers extreme, since one group allowing for two choices has NEVer been called the extreme ones over the group who only allows for one, in ANY other case.  

     

    If you hold a view which is outside of mainstream opinion, then you’re “extreme” by the definition of the word. Even within Canada, abortion-on-demand-at-any-time is far outside of mainstream opinion.

  • saltyc

    6

  • saltyc

     defining a fetus as a person.

    Why in the hell would you do THAT? You can count me out of this shitty compromise. Why start by declaring defeat? And why put insanity on an equal footing with sanity, look where treating a ZBEF as a person has gotten yopu with the likes of Panhandler, it’s pure kindling to his fire.

    Now talking about abortion as it relates to sex, he doesn’t want to talk about that.

     Let’s talk about sex, you know, we all like having sex, don’t we kids? Let’s have a show of hands: who likes sex here? I see….

    So, since we’ve decided as a society, that we’re gonna have sex, and of course practice effective  contraception that works, how can we turn our backs on the women who are left holding the bag when something goes wrong? We’re all enjoying the grand buffet of life, and then walking away and leaving her with the check. Classy. How can we turn away just because we don’t want to look at her eyes? It’s pure hypocrisey. So they deserve our help and encouragement because they are suffering our hypocrisey.

    And quit arguing with pro-lifers ON THEIR TERMS (eg the fetus is a person)YOU WON’T WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And anyway, most people DON’T truly act and believe that every embryo is a person, or they wouldn’t fund stem cell research in the same South American countries that prohibit abortion. They don’t, unless they’re bring lead on a pro-life leash. And if you think that Americans, this rape culture, is going to get a concept like women’s bodily autonomy, you haven’t looked at a lot of porn have you? Our bodies are commodities in this culture. Which is not right of course, and it’s also an important battle, but why ground one contested issue on another one, when at the present fetuses aren’t legally people. (yes that is slipping away too unfortunately but not nearly lost yet.) Only one person is involved in an abortion: the pregnant woman, and that is God’s honest truth.

    Or we could go ahead and give away Poland, they’ll stop.

  • beenthere72

    His response to my post only proves that he doesn’t give a flying f*ck about women.   And I’m really not even sure he gives a shit about living, breathing babies either.     He’s all about winning an argument, and that’s it.    Must’ve been captain of the high school debate team and he misses the competition. 

  • colleen

    He does not care about women and clearly despises women.  What he cares about is his (nonexistent) authority. and being seen as right. This he cares about obsessively. I don’t understand why anyone reads his boring posts or bothers to respond to him at all. There is no point. He’s not trying to communicate, he’s posting here to demean and degrade.

  • truthseeker

    How can pro-choicers justify abortion to be non-violent, loving, respecting, attributing value and dignity to the unborn, while at the same time claiming to be anti-war and anti-capital punishment?  Those who are pro-choice find it convoluted that some pro-lifers might not be anti-war and anti-capital punishment.  Following this logic, I ask you, why are those who are anti-war and anti-capital punishment not also against abortion?

  • saltyc

    Being against capital punishment is perfectly in line with being against state violence forcing punitive damage on individuals’ bodies. Captial punishment is punitive and retributary, so is barring women from opting out of pregnancy. Anti-abortion is saying you don’t care about the women whose lives you ruin. War is saying you don’t care about he lives of people you are bombing.

    War, Capital punishment and anti-choice all come from an authoritarian model: We are so sure we’re right, we’ll bomb, maim and otherwise use strong-arm tactics to serve our interest. Also the embryo is not a person and it has no interest to be thwarted. “pro-life” is racist and classist when it compares the alleged interest of an embryo with those of genuine oppressed groups which struggle for rights.

    Pro-choice is about letting people drive their own cars: it may look like the motorist is making free choices, even frivilous ones, but really he is steering the correct path for him. To take away choice is to tie up his hands because you know better.

    But yeah, I’m against killing people, and embryos aren’t people, end of story.

    I think I answered your question pretty well.

  • prochoiceferret

    How can pro-choicers justify abortion to be non-violent, loving, respecting, attributing value and dignity to the unborn, while at the same time claiming to be anti-war and anti-capital punishment?

     

    Knowing the stories of real women who have had abortions helps with this.

     

    Those who are pro-choice find it convoluted that some pro-lifers might not be anti-war and anti-capital punishment.

     

    Yes, you’d think “pro-life” actually means pro-life, wouldn’t you?

     

    Following this logic, I ask you, why are those who are anti-war and anti-capital punishment not also against abortion?

     

    Because they are anti-forcing-women-to-carry-pregnancies-to-term-against-their-will-which-is-pretty-horrible-when-you-think-about-it. Aren’t you?

  • truthseeker

    It’s more humane for a woman to kill her own flesh and blood than it is to kill an enemy to life and liberty?

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    It’s more humane for a woman to kill her own flesh and blood than it is to kill an enemy to life and liberty?

     

    It’s certainly no less humane, given that an unwanted pregnancy is an enemy to her own life and liberty.

  • saltyc

     

     

    It’s more humane for a woman to kill her own flesh and blood than it is to kill an enemy to life and liberty?

     

    I have no idea where you got that question from, but I’d say no, that is not humane at all.

    If, somehow, you meant that as characterizations of abortion and war, I would reject both characterizations as patently absurd.

  • colleen

    He’s been trolling here for some time under different handles and is, as they all are, a waste of time to try to communicate with. He starts out his posts by saying “let me see if I have this right” followed by something stupid and insulting. 

  • mechashiva

    You know, I don’t appreciate you telling me what I should argue, how I should argue it, what I do/don’t understand, and how much experience I must have with porn (which is really just a veiled way of telling me that I am inexperienced/not knowledgeable about our culture’s treatment of sex). You’re not much better than Panhandler, in this regard.

     

    I argue the way I do because it pleases me (also because showing the hypocrisy of the moderate position helps to illustrate why a more liberal pro-choice position is stronger), so fuck off.

  • arekushieru

    SaltyC, it looks more like you are arguing against anyone who would assume that position, than MechaShiva, herself.  You definitely, at least, make it sound like it all becomes ideology in the end, anyways.  

  • truthseeker

    if it’s not, as pro-choicers claim it’s not, a baby growing in the womb, then the woman is not pregnant!  If she’s not pregnant, why would there be the need for an abortion!  I would suggest looking up the definitions of pregnant and abortion in the dictionary.

    Am I wrong to assume that I hear you saying that it’s more evil to kill someone like………Hitler than it is to kill one’s own flesh and blood, developing within one’s body?

    Why is there so much anger and so much name-calling on this site?  Dook, really?  Why are my messages hidden if secular progressive feminists indeed are as tolerant as they purport to be?  Of what are they so afraid in allowing my messages to be seen as openly as theirs?  Why are feminists so militant?  Why is their language so vulgar, and their comportment so unladylike?  

    Ahmadinejad had this to say in September at the United Nations, “Woman is a reflection of God’s beauty and is the source of love and caring.  She is the guardian of purity and exquisiteness of the society. The tendency to toughen the souls and behaviors of women deprives them from their very basic right of being a loving mother and a caring wife. It would result in a more violent society with irreversible defects.”

     

  • mechashiva

    No one is arguing about the physical process of pregnancy. What people disagree about are the rights given to the involved bodies.

     

    What people are saying is that, if you accept our premise that an embryo isn’t deserving of personhood rights (or that their rights are superceded by the mother’s), then killing a born person (no matter their moral qualities) is more ethically questionable than having an abortion.

     

    There’s less anger and name-calling on this site than on most sites that deal with abortion. There is always going to be hostility because of the nature of the debate, and because this is the internet. Your comments are “hidden” based on the votes of users on the site. If you have a problem with your ratings, encourage the pro-life commenters to vote to raise your numbers. Any comment rated 2 or lower is greyed out, but it can be made visible by clicking on it. This is not censorship, it is a way of tidying up the page by clearing away troll comments… like yours.

     

    Quoting Ahmadinejad is not going to win you points with feminists. We’re not particularly fond of being told that “women are this way” and acting however we please “isn’t natural” or “goes against God’s plan,” not matter what flowery language you dress it up in.

  • mechashiva

    Because you don’t need to have the right to act to have the right to not be acted against.

    You know, I generally want to be agreeable (to a fault), but I think you do need to have the right not to be acted against in order to have the right to act freely. If you don’t have the right to not be acted against, then the other party is free to coerce you, making your actions not truly free. This is why I like some of Kant’s ethical philosophies, because it creates three categories, “moral,” “amoral,” and, “immoral.” I think because of the conflict of rights, the physical dangers of pregnancy, and the socioeconomic impact of pregnancy that abortion fits into the “amoral” category: outside the realm of moral consideration, and depending entirely on the context of the situation, because women are often not truly “free” to make whatever choice they think is morally correct (instead they make choices dependent on survival in our society).

     

    Or, simplified, even though man is endowed with liberty, no man has the liberty to kill another, unless that killing is justified (whereas it’s justifiable to protect your life, in war to defend yourself, or in war as the victor against the aggressor, but that’s not explained above but in all his writings).

    In my reading, he did not clearly state that life is more important than liberty or property, just that you can’t take life unless it is “justified.” His examples of “justification” for killing are meant to support his main point of arguing against monarchy. Pregnancy was likely not on his mind at all in these considerations, leaving it up to us today to decide whether or not abortion is “justified” in any particular circumstance. Our Supreme Court has already done this with regard to abortion.

     

    No, it’s called begging the question because I’ll ask you why it’s a right, and…

    I get what you’re saying, it hints at the next point, leaving things unresolved if you don’t answer back. However, your strawman is not representative of my arguments (of course).  I don’t usually base my arguments on rights or personhood, but instead on more practical measures like public health and the socioeconomic impact of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. I generally argue from the position of the “greatest good”/least amount of suffering. However, I won’t fall for the trick of jumping at a fallacy to correct every damn thing about it, since I am genuinely disinterested in more ridiculously long, off-topic arguments.

     

    I’m just your run of the mill liberal. Left of center, but not “extremist.” It’s true I base my understanding of the moderate-conservative position on personal experience more than polls. While I do look at polls (contrary to your insulting claim that I “obviously” don’t do research), I recognize that they display quantitative data, not qualitative data. It disturbs me that so many people think that women should be forced to bear children into poverty or be pressured by poverty to give children up for adoption (that this somehow causes less suffering than abortion), however my experience tells me that this is not the message of moderate abortion positions and that the polls reflect that our country is made up primarily of conservatives rather than moderates. 

    Unlike California, most states would rather not go broke trying to sustain social programs they can’t afford.

    California probably wouldn’t be in a deficit if it weren’t for the energy crisis and the way Texas oil companies (and the Bush administration) treated the state during that time. California would also likely not be in a deficit if it didn’t use that damned ballot initiative system that allows lobbyists (from out-of-state religious groups for social issues and out-of-state corporations for economic issues) to spend huge amounts of money (now anonymously, thanks to the Supreme Court) campaigning for causes that benefit those special interests. California’s economy is huge, and these special interests want a peice of that pie because even when California is weak, it is still one of the top 10 strongest economies in the world (that one state rivals whole countries). So fuck you and your California-hating, sir.

     

    Did you know that most pro-life organizations oppose the Personhood Amendments?

    The pro-life organizations inside the states with personhood measures supported those policies. It just shows that the extreme right-wing is more accepted in some states’ politics than others. Most pro-life groups do define personhood as beginning at conception, however, whether or not they can get away with supporting such legislation without damaging their political power.

     

    abortion would be made illegal except for a few instances, but that contraception would be free and sex ed made mandatory

    You know why pro-choicers reject that? Because contraception and sex education are not “compromises” when it comes to abortion. Those are measures that it is utterly ridiculous to be against, particularly if you are anti-abortion (since they decrease the need for abortion), and they shouldn’t even be used as barganing chips. So, in this instance, the pro-life side sacrifices nothing to the pro-choice side. When making compromise about abortion, stick to abortion rather than all the tangential sexual issues. If pro-lifers came forward with option A from earlier, they’d likely get more support. However, as others have pointed out, 50/50 is never going to be good enough for the pro-life contingent. They’ll keep pushing in hopes that the country will eventually be conservative enough to pass personhood ammendments.

     

  • prochoiceferret

    if it’s not, as pro-choicers claim it’s not, a baby growing in the womb, then the woman is not pregnant!  If she’s not pregnant, why would there be the need for an abortion!  I would suggest looking up the definitions of pregnant and abortion in the dictionary.

     

    Okay, so the woman is not pregnant. But she does have this odd tumor-like thing growing inside her uterus. So I’m sure you won’t mind if that growth is removed.

     

    Am I wrong to assume that I hear you saying that it’s more evil to kill someone like………Hitler than it is to kill one’s own flesh and blood, developing within one’s body?

     

    If it’s the woman’s flesh and blood that is within her own body, then what business is it of yours?

     

    Besides, you know what they say about people who ass-ume.

     

    Why is there so much anger and so much name-calling on this site?

     

    Oh, you’ll have to excuse the wingnuts. They’re drawn here like ants to a pro-choice picnic.

     

    Dook, really?

     

    Yes. And if you continue spouting anti-choice claptrap, I’ll dook at you another time.

     

    Why are my messages hidden if secular progressive feminists indeed are as tolerant as they purport to be?

     

    Because feminism does not include tolerance for trolls. You’ll have to start your own movement to address that.

     

    Why are feminists so militant?  Why is their language so vulgar, and their comportment so unladylike?

     

    Because when being “ladylike” is being pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, with no rights or agency of one’s own, it’s not the feminists who are the problem.

     

    Ahmadinejad had this to say in September at the United Nations, “Woman is a reflection of God’s beauty and is the source of love and caring.  She is the guardian of purity and exquisiteness of the society. The tendency to toughen the souls and behaviors of women deprives them from their very basic right of being a loving mother and a caring wife. It would result in a more violent society with irreversible defects.”

     

    Oh, so that’s why he wants to stone some of them to death.

  • beenthere72

    Ahmadinejad comment translates to:

     

    ‘women, you are here to reproduce, be obedient and submissive to your husbands, don’t get fat, and keep your mouths shut.’

  • rebellious-grrl

    The combination of disrespect for actual women and fetal idolotry and the concomittant reflex of voting Republican because the Republicans are willing to string them along is way too USEFUL to the Republicans for them ever to either actually ban abortion or to be truthful about how constitutionally and medically there is no way it will ever actually disappear.  How would they get “the base” to continue to show up at the polls to vote against their own interest and make the rich richer?

     

     

    Exactly crowepps!

  • truthseeker

    has nothing to do with reproductive rights.

     

    No, I’m not the one who’s making an ass of you.

     

    I’m scratching my head over the feminists at Bitch Magazine being in agreement with the mosque being built at Ground Zero.

     

    Ladylike has to do with traits such as their choice of language, nurturing abilities, refinement, graciousness, hospitality, gentleness, peacefulness, kindness, love, joyfulness, patience, goodness, self-control, compassion and servanthood.

     

    We do not live as islands in our society.  What one does affects all others, whether for edification or destruction.

  • prochoiceferret

    [Tumor removal] has nothing to do with reproductive rights.

     

    Well, like you said, the woman’s not pregnant! So removing the “tumor” isn’t very reproductive at all.

     

    Oh, and by the way, tumor removal can indeed have a lot to do with reproductive rights, if those tumors are uterine fibroids.

     

    No, I’m not the one who’s making an ass of you.

     

    My bad! I didn’t think you were actually ass-me-ing. After all, for you, it’s kind of redundant…

     

    I’m scratching my head over the feminists at Bitch Magazine being in agreement with the mosque being built at Ground Zero.

     

    Maybe you should have read the rest of that article, then, or at least the part that explains why they feel the way they do. (Though I can understand if you don’t want your anti-choice buddies to catch you reading Bitch.)

     

    Ladylike has to do with traits such as their choice of language, nurturing abilities, refinement, graciousness, hospitality, gentleness, peacefulness, kindness, love, joyfulness, patience, goodness, self-control, compassion and servanthood.

     

    So anyone who doesn’t want to be your servant is “unladylike.” Yeah, I don’t think it’s the feminists who have the problem here.

     

    We do not live as islands in our society.  What one does affects all others, whether for edification or destruction.

     

    Maybe one day, you’ll stop attempting to destroy women’s equality long enough to understand that.

  • truthseeker

    feminists will not declare that it’s a baby developing in the womb.   Instead, they claim it’s a blob of tissue, embryo, fetus, whateva suits them, growing in the womb.  That makes it easier to slaughter one’s own developing child.  What do embryo and fetus mean?  Look them up in the dictionary!  Peter Singer has gone so far as to say a person is not a person until age 2!  What an idiot!  In actuality, abortion stops a beating heart!

  • truthseeker

    one’s ability to conceive or carry a baby to term, but as I said already, they have nothing to do with reproductive rights.  You are so predictable.

    Who cares what they, whoever they are, say about the word assume?  Who are they anyway?

    And you’re the one mentioning inequality?  Ha!  Funny.

    Everyone is called to servanthood, not just ladies.  When my sons were young boys, they began referring to some adult females as women, while others they referred to as ladies.  Even as young boys, they discerned the callousness and crassness (prickles) in the demeanor of some females, while they discerned other females to be more soft, warm, personable and giving.  Whether or not feminists believe it, men and women are physiologically different in myriad significant ways. 

  • beenthere72

    How does my abortion affect you?

  • crowepps

    I’m scratching my head over the feminists at Bitch Magazine being in agreement with the mosque being built at Ground Zero.

    Personally, I’m a lot more offended by the porn shops that are a lot closer to Ground Zero than the proposed community center.

     

    If you think it would be appropriate to clear ALL of the religious buildings away from the site, then we’d have to move Episcopal Trinity Wall Street and St. Paul’s Cathedral.  If you are instead arguing that only mosques shouldn’t be allowed because the highjackers were Muslim, that’s pretty disrespectful towards the couple of dozen innocent Muslims who were
    ALSO killed by the terrorists, who died both in the buildings and on the planes, including Rahma Salie who happened to be 7 months pregnant.

     

    See, that’s the pesky thing about Freedom of Religion, it includes ALL of the religions. 

  • saltyc

    A woman carrying a pregnancy she does not want, in most cases, doesn’t visualize a pregnancy as her child; it’s just a pregnancy. A woman with a wanted pregnancy does envision a baby. It’s a non-sequiter to say that that makes it easier to slaughter one’s child because it’s in fact not one’s child. You want to make it harder for women to have abortions, therefore you embue personhood on to the embryo. Science doesn’t determine whether it’s a person; society does. And it’s been shown again and again, that people don’t regard every embryo as a person, or society would be very very different. For instance, sex would be far far more repressed than it is now, if embryos were truly people, we wouldn’t allow IVF or stem cell research. As it is, the only place where an embryo is considered a person, is in the mind of some pro-lifers but they are not consistent with it, they just offer empty evidence (a clam has a beating heart; A heart cell on a petri dish beats, an ovarian tumor has unique DNA, etc.) which does not decide the matter nor do they generally alter their lives in a way as one would if actual children were involved. There have been many example, for instance most people wouldn’t have sex with a child in the room but they’ll have sex while pregnant. On and on, so no, it;s not a person or a child, but many women do consider them such when they are expecting.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Just sayin’ truthseeker….

    Trusting a woman to her bodily autonomy IS non-violent, loving, and respectful. A fetus/embro is NOT (I repeat NOT) a person. I have respect for a women to make the right choice for her whatever that is.

    How is it that anti-choice Republicans are mostly in favor of the war in Iraq where thousands of actual innocent born babies were murdered by the U.S. military? They have no problems with killing babies in other counties and neglecting babies in this country. Republicans and especially those who are affiliated with the tea party are extremely hypocritical.

    As an active member of the anti-war movement I have yet to meet an anti-choice/anti-war person.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Being humane is not forcing a woman to give birth.
    Being humane is trusting a woman to her bodily autonomy.
    Being humane is not legislating that all pregnancies end in a live birth.

    Since abortion is NOT murder she is not killing her “flesh and blood.” My government does not determine who my enemies are. Fighting for reproductive rights is fighting for life and liberty. My liberty and all of my fellow female comrades.

     

  • crowepps

    How is it that anti-choice Republicans are mostly in favor of the war in Iraq

    But THEIR mothers weren’t LADIES!

  • plume-assassine

    The way you go on and on about being “ladylike” and quoting the violent misogynist AHMADINEJAD is nauseating. Do you know how womens’ rights are trampled on every day and how they are DEPERSONALIZED and violated by the likes of Islamic and Christian extremists? (We are talking about extremists here, not peaceful Muslims who want to exercise their constitutional religious freedom by building a freakin’ innocuous community center.) 

     

    And who are you to tell ME how to behave as a woman? You do not get to say what makes someone a “lady” or not. The fact that you think all females must behave in a certain way is just a sick misogynistic excuse for you to treat women differently from others, especially if they don’t fit your imaginary bill as a soft, warm, nurturing lil lady. Why are men “allowed” to be callous and crass and non-nurturing and hard but women are not? Did you ever think that these qualities are trained and cultivated? The differences that you and your sons perceive in the genders are sociological instillation; not inborn biological traits!

  • rebellious-grrl

    truthseeker, trust me you are the one who is making an ass out of yourself.

     

    Ladylike has to do with traits such as their choice of language, nurturing abilities, refinement, graciousness, hospitality, gentleness, peacefulness, kindness, love, joyfulness, patience, goodness, self-control, compassion and servanthood.

    I think as a society we would all be better off if everyone (including men) were more peaceful, gracious, gentle, kind, loving, etc. These are not traits that only women have. Confining women to rigid gender norms doesn’t do anyone any good. Personally, I won’t conform to gender norms of “ladylikeness.”I’m very proud to be a tomboy ecofeminst anarchist.

  • paul-bradford

    McDoogan,

     

    To me, it boils down to this — do we trust our communities to keep us safe?  The more mistrustful the populace is, and the more people take safety into their own hands, the harder it is for the government to police the community.  It’s a vicious cycle, and it’s a cycle of fear and mistrust.  Do we trust each other or not?

     

    I’d be much more comfortable, and a whole lot safer, living in a community where nobody had guns than in a community where everybody did.

  • plume-assassine

    I would actually like to see at least one anti-choicer respond directly point-by-point to Amanda Marcotte’s article, especially about the phallic obsession with guns/abortion and the interplay of anxious masculinity…

    … instead of trying to derail the entire discussion with totally unrelated comments!

  • paul-bradford

    For all your comparisons of organ donation and pregnancy, I have yet to hear the refusal to consent to the first to be deemed a sin by you.

     

    Arekushieru,

     

    Ask and you shall receive! It’s always a sin for a person to die needlessly. That’s why hunger is such a grave evil. Who’s responsible for the sin of hunger? You are, and so am I!

     

    I simply do not sit comfortably with needless death.  It doesn’t matter whether it’s a death due to domestic violence, or war, or drug abuse, or abortion, or highway accident, or hunger, or gun violence.  To tolerate evil is a form of evil in and of itself.  We have each other’s lives in our hands and we should never forget that fact.

  • paul-bradford

    Those who are pro-choice find it convoluted that some pro-lifers might not be anti-war and anti-capital punishment.

     

    Truthseeker,

     

    It’s not just Pro-Choicers who find it convoluted! If you aren’t willing to oppose war and capital punishment you’re Pro-Death, regardless of how you stand on the abortion question.

     

    Just because somebody identifies her/himself with the Pro-Life label doesn’t mean s/he deserves it.  To respect life is to respect ALL life.  Why go in it halfway?

  • ahunt

    Well shit, Truthseeker, are you telling us that women who are good, kind, loving, hospitable, compassionate, gracious and joyous are not ladylike if they are also assertive, rough and tumble horsewomen who occasionally lack patience, have been known to lose their temper, and who take the lead in arenas of personal expertise, etc?

     

    Well FUCK ME…lemme just go clue the hubster of 30+ years that he didn’t marry a lady.

  • ahunt

    do we trust our communities to keep us safe?

     

    No.

     

    I’d be much more comfortable, and a whole lot safer, living in a community where nobody had guns than in a community where everybody did.

     

    And I get to tell the remorseless predator who has broken into my unarmed household what…exactly?

     

    Sorry Paul…but you’ll get my Ladysmith CC .38 when my carpal tunnel no longer allows me to practice down at our target berm.

  • paul-bradford

    It’s certainly no less humane, given that an unwanted pregnancy is an enemy to her own life and liberty.

     

    ProChoiceFerret,

     

    I wonder if you realize that there’s room to oppose unwanted pregnancy without going to the extreme of opposing unborn persons.  

     

    A woman is a zillion times happier if she has reproductive choice.  The society is a zillion times happier if women have reproductive choice.  I’m a zillion times happier when women have reproductive choice.  What I realize, though, and what a lot of you seem to be in denial about, is that once a woman has, in fact, actually reproduced the opportunity for choice has ended.

     

    I’ve made this point many times before but it seems to pass people by — it’s not up to me, or the pope, or the government to decide for a woman whether or not to complete her pregnancy.  What I intend to do, though, is propose a thought question.  Is it possible for a woman who has choice to claim that she respects unborn life if she exercises her choice to get an abortion?  I’m not talking about the laws in the criminal code.  I’m talking about the laws of logic.

     

    An unwanted pregnancy can, as you point out, deny a woman her liberty and, possibly, even her life.  Even knowing that, though, I wonder if a choice for abortion is compatible with her respecting unborn life.  I don’t see how you can respect somebody and deliberately end her/his life.  I suspect that practically every woman who chooses abortion embraces the discriminatory belief that unborn persons are less valuable than born persons.  This has the short term effect of preserving ‘life and liberty’ but the long range effect is that she’s got a skewed idea of what it is to be human.

  • paul-bradford

    My government does not determine who my enemies are. Fighting for reproductive rights is fighting for life and liberty. My liberty and all of my fellow female comrades.

     

    rebelllious grrl,

     

    My proposal is that we end the war.  Instead of pitting a band of valiant female comrades against the male dominated culture in a fight for life and liberty, why not work together to look for ways to protect unborn life that don’t involve coercion?

     

    I got a thrill reading your post.  Female solidarity — what a concept!  It really is stirring, just as all calls to war are stirring.  But everyone loses when there’s a war — even when bombs aren’t involved.  Why not challenge our imaginations to see what a world would look like if women were respected AND the unborn were respected?

     

    Are you viewing things from a scarcity paradigm?  That there’s only so much respect to go around, so more respect for the unborn means less respect for women?  I look at it differently.  I believe that showing respect for the unborn IS showing respect for women.  We don’t have to live like beasts.  Why settle for an arrangement where you have to destroy life in order to preserve it?

  • saltyc

    I argue the way I do because it pleases me (also because showing the hypocrisy of the moderate position helps to illustrate why a more liberal pro-choice position is stronger), so fuck off.

    Well I did not get the drift that you were pointing out the hypocrisey of the personhood position when at the end you said you would agree with one of the positions. The outline of positions did not come across as satire to me.

    I won’t stop trying to get across, that we will lose this battle if we keep talking about fetuses as people, because it’s not working. If that’s telling you what to argue, OK, I see you’re point. I’ll phrase it differently next time. Sorry.

    I certainly don’t have any clue as to your experience with sex, I was saying that women’s bodily autonomy is not a concept that Americans get, as a reminder look at porn. I said you haven’t looked at a lot of porn as an ironic rhetorical flourish. As in I expect that you have seen enough of it to know. I do get out there sometimes, why I call myself salty. Please don’t take it personally.

    But Arekesheiru is right, my reaction to your proposal was a jumping-off point and not all relating to you, sorry.

  • colleen

     

    Why not challenge our imaginations to see what a world would look like if women were respected AND the unborn were respected?

    and nothing you have ever said or done here leads me to believe that  you respect women. On the contrary.

     

  • paul-bradford

    Science doesn’t determine whether it’s a person; society does. And it’s been shown again and again, that people don’t regard every embryo as a person, or society would be very very different. For instance, sex would be far far more repressed than it is now, if embryos were truly people, we wouldn’t allow IVF or stem cell research.

     

    Salty,

     

    This is completely solid thinking.  Both sides toss around “scientific facts” as if biology were going to settle the argument.  We, as a society, are going to decide how far we’re going to go in respecting life.  (Steven Pinker also made this argument in The Blank Slate.)  The society will reach it’s decision in response to public discussion — which we’re involved in here.  The more respectful and productive the discussion, the more likely we are to come to a resolution.  What WON’T work is a strategy of demeaning and belittling the opposition.

     

    We’ve got to imagine what a society would be like if everyone respected unborn life and contrast it to a society where nobody did.  As you correctly point out, sexual restraint would follow naturally from fetal respect.  Couples would realize that, unless they were both ready, willing and able to do a good job of raising a child, they ought not have sex.  In a society where nobody respected unborn life, sex would be as unrestrained as it is now — without the distraction of noisome Pro-Lifers spotlighting the fact that this liberty comes at the cost of human life.

     

    Respecting fetal life, to those who actually think it through, logically means that IVF and stem cell research would have to be curtailed.  Neither is compatible with a respect for the unborn.

     

    Thank you for articulating the issue in this way.

  • paul-bradford

    Ladylike has to do with traits such as their choice of language, nurturing abilities, refinement, graciousness, hospitality, gentleness, peacefulness, kindness, love, joyfulness, patience, goodness, self-control, compassion and servanthood.

     

    Truthseeker, 

     

    You preach to women about “servanthood” and I’m the one who catches hell!   I, for one, am interested in protecting the unborn; if you spend a whole lot of time trying to define womanhood you’ll make everyone suspicious of what Pro-Lifers “really” have in mind.

  • truthseeker

    I’m exceedingly offended by porn served up in any package, whether it be online, in television programming, in movies, in lyrics, in printed literature, in so-called gentlemen’s clubs, on billboards, in so-called adult stores or any other place it is available!

     

    Radical jihadist extremist Muslims were the perpetrators of the atrocities that occurred in our country on 9/11.  That’s a fact, whether it’s politically, culturally, or religiously correct to say so or not.  Facts are facts, and this is one.  They have no scruples about killing their own people.  They kill their own family members without batting an eye, but so do we.  It’s no wonder they refer to us as the great satan!  For your information, our Founding Fathers, instrumental in establishing the foundation of our government, had no reason to consider the Islamic worldview.  Whether you like it or not, our country’s firm foundation was established on the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus Christ!  That is also a fact.

  • paul-bradford

    It was that no one really believes they’re people or there would be a proportionate societal reaction to the knowledge of so many “people” dying.

     

    Salty,

     

    “Societal Reaction” isn’t always a perfect indicator of the actual threat to human health and safety or to the degree of injustice.

     

    If I believed that spontaneous abortion were nothing to get worked up about, I would believe that procured abortion were nothing to get worked up about as well.  In actual fact, I get worked up about both.  I consider one a health threat and the other a safety threat.  We ought to be concerned about both kinds of threats even though the response has to be different.

     

    Now, as to your other comment.  I dispute your assertion that procured abortion is a response to “a woman’s will”.  It’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that.  It’s closer to reality to say that we as a society cause 1.2 million preventable deaths due to procured abortion because we as a society devalue unborn life.  We could eradicate procured abortion entirely without ever having to resort to thwarting a woman’s will; but first we’ve got to value fetal life.

     

    I don’t expect that there will be much of a push to improve blastocyst survival until we come up with a method to detect blastocysts before they implant.  Until specific women know, at specific times, that they’re losing a child the concept will be too fuzzy for people to deal with.

  • colleen

    “Societal Reaction” isn’t always a perfect indicator of the actual threat to human health and safety or to the degree of injustice.

    Neither is rewarmed Catholic dogma

     

    I don’t expect that there will be much of a push to improve blastocyst survival until we come up with a method to detect blastocysts before they implant.  Until specific women know, at specific times, that they’re losing a child the concept will be too fuzzy for people to deal with.

    You are out of your mind

     

  • paul-bradford

    Taking away abortion as a legal medical procedure is equal to domestic violence.

     

    rebellious grrl,

     

    Why do you insist on arguing about something we agree about? We both know that denying a woman the means to terminate a pregnancy she wants to terminate is abusive — just as domestic violence is.   I don’t want to talk about taking abortion rights away, I want to discuss your comment, “”NO a ZBEF is NOT equal to a born life”. It’s up to each of us individually to decide whether to believe that ZBEF’s are equal to born people or to embrace the discriminatory belief that the unborn are subhuman. It ought to be a topic people can discuss with each other.  Is it possible that you’re so concerned that I’m going to rip away your rights that you aren’t even willing to discuss the question of what’s the best way for people to exercise their rights?  Believe me, I don’t have that power nor do I want it.  I’d like to discuss the matter sensibly.  You’re either going to accept the unborn as sisters and brothers in the human family or you’re not.  Telling me that I’m a misogynist is not the same as considering the question thoughtfully.

     

     

    Self-righteous misogynistic men that try to outlaw are an evil I REFUSE to tolerate.

     

    Again I wonder, “What do I have to do to break through the misunderstanding?”  I think that trying to outlaw abortion is unfeasible, I think it’s inappropriate, and I think it would be ineffective anyway.  I don’t want to control women.  I want to protect people from unnecessary death.

     

     

    I would say making/forcing a ten-year old girl to give birth is rape. It’s sick and sadistic.

     

    I agree with you! I’ve always agreed with you! I’ve always SAID I agree with you! Do I have to draw pictures???  No woman, certainly not a ten year old, should be forced to give birth under any circumstances and I accept your characterization of such a thing as “rape”.  What I’ve contended is that a raped ten year old girl who understands the value of unborn life would also understand that her endurance of a pregnancy would be a life saving effort.  Is it so hard for you to believe that somebody would do something difficult to save another human being?  Can you imagine someone CHOOSING to do something good instead of being FORCED to do something good?

     

    Please, please, please, please draw a deep breath and, for once, look at it from my perspective.  I’m getting ripped apart by you and by others for opinions I don’t actually hold.  You’re free to uphold or deny fetal personhood.  I’m free to uphold or deny fetal personhood.  Why can’t we calmly discuss our reasons for believing what we believe?  I’m of the opinion that that’s the way folks can learn from each other.

  • colleen

     Couples would realize that, unless they were both ready, willing and able to do a good job of raising a child, they ought not have sex.

    Paul, the ‘pro-life’ movement cannot even manage to stop your clergy from raping children as a perk of their employment.

  • julie-watkins

     I’m getting ripped apart by you and by others for opinions I don’t actually hold.

    You continually write contradictory things. Your velvet-glove social coercion (backed by millenia of sexual and class oppression) *is* “forcing” — in a water-torture way — even though you lie to yourself that you aren’t sexist and aren’t doing the work of the oppressors.

     

    It’s the same reason why it’s the fault of bullies in the schoolyard or teachers who don’t intervene that are to blame for gay teen suicides, even if the proximate cause was the victim’s own hand. It’s the same way that it’s not the fault of the person in jail (“if you don’t want to get arrested, don’t break the law”) if the governments make rules to make being poor illegal.

     

    Grump. I wish you’d go away.

  • colleen

    What I’ve contended is that a raped ten year old girl who understands the value of unborn life would also understand that her endurance of a pregnancy would be a life saving effort.

    You keep repeating this and variations on this as if you think we don’t understand your position, as if your position is reasonable and moral and just. It is not. Your position is disgusting and cruel. Your pathetic attempt at spin is a lie. 10 year olds aren’t old enough to consent to sex and they’re not old enough to consent to make their own medical decisions.

     

    Please, please, please, please draw a deep breath and, for once, look at it from my perspective.

    Perhaps you’re projecting. It’s you who sounds hysterical.

     I’m getting ripped apart by you and by others for opinions I don’t actually hold.

    bullshit

  • rebellious-grrl

    Paul – I stand by my original statement.

    “Taking away abortion as a legal medical procedure is equal to domestic violence.” – rebellious grrl.

    We don’t agree. You are talking in circles. Why do you insist on posting here when most of us don’t agree with you? I think we have discussed all we can with you. Doing anymore would meet the definition of insanity.

    People should be able to discuss issues together. To do so means that we must meet on equal footing with a mutual respect. I don’t get that from you.

     

    You’re either going to accept the unborn as sisters and brothers in the human family or you’re not.  

    Is that an ultimatum?

    Not trusting women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health = misogyny. I stand with FBIR.

    From what I understand from you is that — you are manipulative, self-rightious, and annoying. I really think I’ve heard all I need to hear from you.

    Yeah, deep breaths; it’s called yoga. Give me a break. Come on throw another insult. I’ve heard it all.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Seriously, can I rate this a 10?

  • ahunt

    You are out of your mind

     

    Deep breaths, colleen, deep breaths. I’ve been where you are…possibly you may recall.

     

    Until specific women know, at specific times, that they’re losing a child the concept will be too fuzzy for people to deal with.

     

    One more time, Paul…why is it that you want women to know about a failed implantation? Be specific. 

  • mechashiva

    Panhandler is a pro-lifer. He thinks the pro-life position is “moderate.” Outlining what a moderate position is is a good way of showing him that he’s wrong. It is also a great opportunity for pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike to poke holes in the moderate position in an attempt to prove why one side or the other is better. I use the moderate position as a neutral starting point for debate. Perhaps not the most effective strategy, since the outcome is just further polarization and I think that would be the case no matter where you start. And perhaps it would be better to just skip all that and get right to the point, for the purposes of avoiding TL/DR syndrome.

     

    I accept your apology, and I do understand that your complaints with my debate style were a jumping-off point for very valid arguments against even entertaining moderate positions in the first place. So, we’re cool.

  • plume-assassine

    Radical jihadist extremist Muslims were the perpetrators of the atrocities that occurred in our country on 9/11.  That’s a fact, whether it’s politically, culturally, or religiously correct to say so or not.  Facts are facts, and this is one.  They have no scruples about killing their own people.  They kill their own family members without batting an eye, but so do we.

    Not all Muslims are radicals, extremists, or terrorists. Do you even know any Muslims in real life? I know plenty of normal, moderate Muslims and Christians. The FACT is that there are extremists in every religion. Just because violence has been caused by a radical fringe of a religion does not mean we should take away rights from the peaceful moderates. You remind me of this http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

     

    For your information, our Founding Fathers, instrumental in establishing the foundation of our government, had no reason to consider the Islamic worldview.

    For your information, our Founding Fathers had no reason to consider any religious worldview in the construction of our government.

     

     Whether you like it or not, our country’s firm foundation was established on the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus Christ!  That is also a fact.

    You are wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that democracy was inspired by Christianity. Democracy has been around thousands of years before Christ. There is no evidence to suggest that the United States government was based on Abrahamic religion. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary– that the Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with any sort of religious-based government. Why don’t you start reading the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli, etc.

     

    And come back when you can stop spewing racial hatred against Muslims, stop trying to define womanhood on your own terms, and stop foaming about your theocratic beliefs in regards to the US.

     

    Or you could start by actually responding to the points in Marcotte’s article.

  • saltyc

     Whether you like it or not, our country’s firm foundation was established on the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus Christ!  That is also a fact.

     Also want to add that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and Allah is another name for Yahweh.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Look Paul, I didn’t start this war and I reject your proposal.

    No, the scarcity paradigm does not apply here.

     

    Respect for women is trusting their decisions on when and if to reproduce. She has authority over her body and any embryo/fetus.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Me too!

  • paul-bradford

    What do you think will be the result of convincing the majority of society that even tolerating abortion is evil?

     

    L-dan,

     

    I imagine that “convincing a majority” would mean that a majority of heterosexually active fertile females are also convinced.  One result is that there’d be a lot fewer unintended pregnancies because couples would be a lot more careful to avoid them.

     

    Do you realize that the abortion rate in this country went up steadily and dramatically every year from 1965 to 1981?  Why do you think that was?  Do you think that it was legalization?  My opinion is that that would explain the rise from 1972 to 1973, but what about all those other years?  The law changed all at once (except for NY and CA), but abortion tolerance was an ongoing phenomenon.  In 1965 I think that a majority of society, and a majority of women actually WERE convinced that tolerating abortion was evil.  By 1981, the situation had changed dramatically.  Attitudes about abortion, and about premarital sex, had changed radically.

     

    Interestingly, the abortion rate has been gradually going down since 1981.  Polls show that young women today are more opposed to abortion than women of their mother’s generation were when they were young.  Attitudes are starting to shift.

     

    I don’t think that Roe v Wade caused abortions.  I think that an attitude that is expressed as you did when you said, “I am definitely a more valuable person now than before I was born…because I wasn’t a person before I was born. I still can’t understand how anyone believes a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a person by the standard understanding of the word ‘person’. Redefining it to mean ‘half-formed human being’ doesn’t mean I’m going to go along with the redefinition.” is what causes abortion.  Your statement is discriminatory and discrimination causes abortion.

     

    You say that you can’t understand how somebody could think that a fetus is a person.  You do understand, don’t you, that some of us DO think that a fetus is a person.  That’s why there’s been a debate about abortion.  The reason I post here is to engage people in the kind of conversations that will help us all understand that kind of thinking.  Threatening to toss women in jail for accessing medical care is going to make conversation impossible.  That’s why I’m opposed to criminalization.  You say I’m being disingenuous.  I see it differently.

     

     

     

     

  • katwa

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • beenthere72

    You are a creepy manipulator, Paul.   You’re not here to engage in conversation about why you think a fetus = person and we don’t.   You’re here to guilt us for our beliefs as if they’re not as respected and moral as yours.  

     

    This is not engaging in conversation:

     

    Your statement is discriminatory and discrimination causes abortion.

     

    That is guilt-inducing.

     

    You live in a fantasy world where you think there’s possibility for everybody to love and respect each other, for every pregnancy to be planned or wanted, for us all to ‘just get along’.    Sure, that would be wonderful, but it’s not realistic.     I would love a world where I wouldn’t have to worry that someone is going to make a left hand turn in my path of travel when I’m riding my motorcycle.    Since this ultra-safe world will never exist, I’m selling my motorcycle.   I’m just too fearful of an accident.   

     

    This is not the same scenario when it comes to sex.   We are sexual beings.   We desire to copulate whether we wish to conceive or not.     We can take every precaution, protection available but accidents will and do happen.    Guilting men and women into ‘respecting the unborn’  puts them, and the potential baby, in perilous situations.   

     

    The world you want us to imagine if we all ‘respected the unborn’ to me looks like one giant episode of the Maury Povich show.    Not a pretty site.  

  • cc

    “Everyone is called to servanthood”

     

    If that doesn’t sum up the misogynistic patriarchy that is at the core of the anti-choice movement, I don’t know what does. The notion of “servanthood” is part and parcel of a church (and society) that, since time immemorial, sought to make women the sweet and accepting “handmaidens” of the not so holy fathers be they religious or political.  A subservient child bearing “handmaiden,” who knew her place in god’s kingdom (god being the ultimate big, pimping daddy), was not a threat to the patriarchy. It’s no coincidence that the fight against birth control and abortion became open warfare back in the late 60’s, when women, who were able to access safe and legal contraception and abortion, were throwing off the shackles of the patriarchy and entering a job market formerly monopolized by men. The social order was changing and the forces of regression fought it – and they’re still trying to get back to “the good old days” when women “knew their place.” And what better way to put a woman in her place, but to control her access to her body and make her an incubator whose rights are subservient to her fetus. As the anti-choicers say, if a woman doesn’t want the baby, all she has to do is give birth and then give the child away to a nice, deserving couple. The world of “The Handmaidens Tale,” where unmarried women were required to give birth, is fictional; but considering the twisted world view of the forced birth crowd, it could happen here.

    And as far as controlling women – what better weapons than the gun and the penis. As always, great article, Amanda.

     

  • julie-watkins

    But somehow women and poor people are called (are expected) to “give” more than men and the rich. The way the expectation is hammered and hammered there’s little “choice” or “gift” to it. Everyone has to pay “taxes” (except the rich of course, who can keep their loses in the USA and put their profits into an foreign tax haven).

     

    This is something I never can get Paul or any of the others who demand sevanthood of women & poor: why is it justice for women and poor people to be expected to pay a higher tax rate?

  • julie-watkins

    [happy dance]

    Thanks so much. ♥

  • ack

    To bring it back to the actual article, I’ve always been morbidly interested in the intersection between guns, domestic violence, and views on abortion. Some of the most rabidly anti-choice people are certainly as rabidly pro-gun rights, as Amanda illustrated. However, in my experience, those same people who are so concerned with protecting the “innocent” are also against domestic violence laws that classify abusers as prohibited possessors.

     

    Considering that the mere presence of a gun in an abusive household increases the risk of homicide by 6, and that being threatened with a weapon increases the risk of homicide by 20, you would think that the same people who are so concerned about abortion would be equally concerned about women in high risk relationships. But they’re not.

     

    I think that the disconnect between those concepts furthers Amanda’s point. A man’s right to bear arms is more important than a woman’s right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, and a fetus’ “right to life” is more important than a woman’s right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. It really is incredibly patriarchial when you break it down like this.

  • princess-rot

    What he’s neatly encapsulated for you, KatWA, is the patriarchy’s firm belief that all women are solely vessels and vassals for males.

     

    Oh, don’t think they are anti-women-having-sex. They’re not. They want you to have sex, as long as “sex” means “when you’re heterosexually hitched to someone your male guardian deems suitable to have custody of your vagina and you will no birth control under any circumstances, and you breed at any cost.”  All this obsessing about what you do with your body is borne out of concern that you aren’t doing as you are told. You’re a woman, therefore you’re a means to an end: the creation of males and the service of males. If you die or are hurt or miserable… suck it up, it’s what you’re here for. At the moment they can’t force you, so they’ll settle for shaming.

  • crowepps

    Radical jihadist extremist Muslims were the perpetrators of the atrocities that occurred in our country on 9/11.

    I don’t think anybody’s arguing that isn’t true.  Your further leap, however, to the conclusion that ALL Muslims are radical jihadist extremists is ridiculous.

     

    It is the equivalent of saying that since radical extremist Christian militia member Timothy McVeigh had no scruples about killing “his own people”, including children, by bombing the Murrah Building, that all Christians and all militia members are radical extremists.

     

    As to the United States being “a Christian nation”, do a little reading up on the Hundred Years War and you’ll see why the founding fathers were so careful to set up a Constitution that would keep religion OUT of government.

     

    Article XI, paragraph 3:  The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

     

     

  • princess-rot

    Ahmadinejad had this to say in September at the United Nations, “Woman is a reflection of God’s beauty and is the source of love and caring.  She is the guardian of purity and exquisiteness of the society. The tendency to toughen the souls and behaviors of women deprives them from their very basic right of being a loving mother and a caring wife. It would result in a more violent society with irreversible defects.

    That is a naked threat to women as a class.

  • crowepps

    FU?  Well, that would be safe, since Paul’s had a vasectomy.  Even though doing so is directly contrary to the Catholic teachings that he thinks would be SO valuable to the rest of us.

  • colleen

    That is a naked threat to women as a class.

    It’s odd how Ahmadinejad sounds so much like the Pope(s) and the ‘pro-life’ men who post here..They all speak as if there was some bright, shiny pre-feminist era when men controlled themselves and promise a return to this mythical era if women would just accept our god-given role as masturbatory aids, breeding livestock and a source of cheap or free labor.

  • arekushieru

    You’re right, rg!  There is no scarcity paradigm.  Just because someone shows full-on respect for a woman, doesn’t mean that we ‘lack respect’ for a fetus.  We only ‘lack’ it, if we believe that fetuses have social, moral, physical, emotional, mental and intellectual agency and deny them that ‘respect’.  They don’t have it, thus we *can’t* ‘disrespect’ the fetus that way.

  • arekushieru

    It certainly is more evil to kill Hitler, if your only rationalization for making abortion illegal is to deny women the same rights as anyone else.  Let me put out in the open there for you, about what I believe:  Slavery is worse than death.  Since you and your fellow anti-choicers are simply enslaving women to their own bodies and black people have fought and DIED for their freedoms (because, if they did not believe that slavery was worse than death, slavery would most likely still be legal), women would be coerced into making similar decisions (see: pre-Roe vs Wade).   I find that horrifying and appalling.  But VERY telling.  You don’t care about life.  You only care about punishing women for not making the reproductive decisions YOU want them to make.

    Abortion is not killing.  I believe a fetus is human life.  (TruthSeeker: Huh?)  Tell me, where else does anyone say that removal of life support is killing, especially under the most relevant definitions (meaning, medical, of course)?  That’s right, nowhere.

    A fetus is not a baby.  Which is why there is no pregnancy if there is no baby, no fetus or there IS a baby.  There is only a pregnancy if a *fetus* is present.  Thanks. 

  • catseye71352

    that he’s had a vasectomy. Self-centered horndogs have lied to women about that since the operation was developed.

  • saltyc

    If you really visualize what happens to a woman’s body, as she enters the third trimester, and those of us who’ve done it know, is your body inflates like a parade balloon. Your breasts get humongous and heavy, the pressure in your vulva is constant and powerful, and the sensations of a fetus moving around, milk filling up your boobs, contractions in your sex organs, this is not something a little child should be required to endure, and to think that adults responsible for caring for a 10-year-old could do this to her -it’s criminal. FBIR is so right, it is a sexual thrill men get from controlling a girl’s body this way. And just the same as child sex abuse, saying that she wanted to go along with it (Paul’s central argument) is no excuse. She couldn’t possibly know.

  • saltyc

    In actual fact, I get worked up about both.

    Show the evidence of your getting worked up about blastocyst death, link to the relevant forum where you are insisting that researchers do their part,

    link to the forum on fertility where you try to talk women out of IVF treatment because I don’t believe you think a ZBEF is a person.

     

    We could eradicate procured abortion entirely without ever having to resort to thwarting a woman’s will

    even if everyone believed the fiction that ZBEF’s are people women would still need abortion. Even if we had 1/10th of the sex we have now, even if BC worked 100%, (Which IMHO will never happen because as was said in Jurassic Park, life finds a way.) I can think of several scenarios which would result in women seeking abortions. So long as you cling to this faith taht a fetus is a person (which Jesus never said) you won’t help women or reduce abortion in a positive way. I believe there are positive ways to reduce abortions but not while insisting that fetuses are people.

  • saltyc

    You do understand, don’t you, that some of us DO think that a fetus is a person.  That’s why there’s been a debate about abortion.

    I have repeatedly offered evidence and argument that you don’t truly believe that a fetus is a person, and you have never answered with any supporting evidence but merely repeated you assertion that you actually do. You don’t believe a fetus is a person. Here’s another argument I haven’t offered before for you to ignore: If the fetus is a person and you refute the organ donation analogy then a woman who had an abortion is a murderer and of course she would have to go to jail. You don’t think she should go to jail, therefore you don’t think a fetus is a person.

    What you really want is for people to be more uptight about sex, even more uptight and anxious than we already are. That’s why there’s a debate about abortion. And the decline in abortions has happened at the same time as an increase in women unable to obtain abortion and having children they don’t want, a rise in child abuse, child poverty and a rise in maternal mortality, so I’m not throwing a a party and if you are I’m not coming.

  • prochoiceferret

    If you really visualize what happens to a woman’s body … is your body inflates like a parade balloon. Your breasts get humongous and heavy, the pressure in your vulva is constant and powerful … milk filling up your boobs, contractions in your sex organs,

     

    this is not something a little child should be required to endure

     

    Agreed. Fantasizing about it is one thing; being forced into actually going through with it, not least at that age, is quite another.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ I read a story by an abused christian woman, she said she told her preacher her husband was abusing her and asked what was the christian woman thing to do, he told her the only reason for divorce in the bible is adultery, and if her husband killed her it would be to the glory of god. A lot of ex christian woman who have been abused and quit christianity have said, they were never pro my life. American christians know the submission teaching gets women physically abused, but it gives them so much sadomasochistic pleaser, and the emasculated little tyrant christian men will not do with out it, so as always women are to suffer. ~

  • paul-bradford

    One more time, Paul…why is it that you want women to know about a failed implantation? Be specific

     

    Hello ahunt,

     

    It seems to me that we haven’t spoken for a while.  Nice to hear from you.

     

    My hope isn’t so much that women (and their partners) will know about failed implantation, my hope is that women will know about successful fertilization as soon as it occurs.  Obviously, successful fertilizations can lead to failed implantation and if a woman knows she has conceived but gets her period anyway she will know that implantation didn’t occur.

     

    Zygotes are people too, so are blastocysts.  Surely you’ve heard me make this point before.  Why shouldn’t a couple know they have a child as soon as they have one?  Would you agree with me that a woman who KNOWS she’s conceived might stand a better chance of seeing successful implantation than the woman who is unaware?  After all, you were the one who kept reminding me that a woman’s behavior has an effect on the likelihood of implantation success.  I’m inclined to agree with you although, until we have some experience of actually improving successful outcomes, that assumption remains a speculation.

     

    Knowledge about fertilization promises to save lives.  Knowledge of ‘failed implantation’ is simply a necessary “side effect” of having this knowledge.

     

    You don’t believe that blastocysts are people.  I realize that.  Will you at least IMAGINE that they’re people long enough to notice that, from my perspective, early detection = lives saved.

     

    This ‘site is dedicated to reproductive health.  Do you disagree with me when I suggest that more knowledge means more health?  A woman who is using birth control might learn that her birth control method had failed her if she conceived and (to use your expression) flushed her blastocyst out.  If she never knew that she conceived, she might never know how effective (or ineffective) her birth control was.  If she switched to a more effective form of birth control that would serve the interests of reproductive choice AND protecting the unborn.  Win/win, wouldn’t you agree?

  • paul-bradford

    I believe there are positive ways to reduce abortions but not while insisting that fetuses are people.

     

    Salty,

     

    I’ve made these suggestions dozens of times but I’ve come to learn the need to keep repeating myself.

     

    There are four good ways to start reducing abortions now: 1) improve the distribution of birth control and birth control information  2) Assure adequate health care, including prenatal and pediatric care, to all women 3) Provide adequate assistance to poor and single mothers and 4) Insist on paternal support.  Women shouldn’t have to wait for the fathers of their children to come through with support.  If needed, the government should supply the money and then go after the deadbeat dad and get him to repay.  Failing child support should get a guy into as much trouble as failing to pay taxes. 

     

    The fifth way, which I’m sure you know, is for more people to value unborn life.  Those of us who value unborn life consider that the unneccesary loss of 1.2 million young people every year in the USA is a heartbreaking tragedy that cries out for an urgent response.  Those who do not value unborn life consider abortion, at worst, a minor inconvenience — I’ve even heard it suggested at this ‘site that there ought to be MORE abortions.  How that for disrespecting unborn life?

     

    Tell me what your thoughts, and feelings, and beliefs are about the number of abortions we have.  I can’t imagine that reducing abortion is as pressing an issue to you as it is to me.  Once you start valuing unborn life, you will start working harder to reduce abortion.

     

     

    So long as you cling to this faith that a fetus is a person (which Jesus never said) you won’t help women or reduce abortion in a positive way.

     

    You’re completely right when you point out that Jesus never said a fetus is a person. There are a great number of things that inform my understanding of life that aren’t spelled out explicitly in the Bible.

     

    I’m sure you and I agree that Jesus wanted us to be peacemakers.  I seek to oppose anything that promotes violence or creates an obstacle to peace.  Abortion is a disordered act that springs from bad thinking.  The foundation of this bad thinking is false beliefs.  The false belief that causes abortion and, indeed, every form of violence is that other people don’t matter.  People tolerate abortion because they believe that ZBEF’s don’t matter as much as born people.

     

    Were you the one who called fetuses ‘sock puppets’?  I know that the body I have now was, at an earlier stage in development, a fetus.  Same body, same person.  When you call fetuses ‘sock puppets’ you call me a sock puppet too and I can assure you that’s plenty disrespectful.

  • saltyc

    A Hunt, he’s playing this ridiculous charade because I challenged him as to whether he really believes that embryos are people. He’s trying to walk the walk, I know it’s painful to watch.

  • saltyc

    Were you the one who called fetuses ‘sock puppets’?  I know that the body I have now was, at an earlier stage in development, a fetus.  Same body, same person.  When you call fetuses ‘sock puppets’ you call me a sock puppet too and I can assure you that’s plenty disrespectful.

    Calling you a sock puppet is disrespectful? How about calling you a pompous self- righteous asshole?

    I never called fetuses sock puppets. I was making an analogy ad absurdum pointing out that the arguments you were making for the fetus as a person – that actual groups of people who are oppressed were once not considered people that therefore makes fetuses people because they’re also not considered people -equally applied to sock puppets.

    Now yes, I agree that the body I have came from the fetus I was. There’s a physical continuity in the succession of the life that I am. That does not mean that therefore ‘I’ was a person then, people come from something living that’s not a person. An egg and sperm for instance. Or the embryo that two twins come from. A zygote is not a person. It’s a process of becoming that makes a person. Then we can argue about when persohnood begins.

     

    Abortion is a disordered act that springs from bad thinking.  The foundation of this bad thinking is false beliefs.  The false belief that causes abortion and, indeed, every form of violence is that other people don’t matter.

    This is just beyond false and into slander. I just helped a woman who was pregnant because she was trying to conceive with her husband, was given bed rest so lost her job as the sole provider for him and their daughter, lost her apartment, moved in with her elderly parents, then finds out that her future baby has a heart with a single chamber, complicated by down’s syndrome, and won’t live. Because she is 22 weeks, the procedure costs $2700, and they don’t do it in her state so she has to travel 440 miles to get one. All I could do was give her $200. (Actually I think I will donate some of my own money to help.)

     

    Now Paul, where’s the disordered thinking in her part, or her husband’s part, or anyone around her? Hmm? I’ll tell you. The disordered thinking is in the fact that she has to suffer so much, because of this vicious, chaotic, hateful, uncompassionate and narrow-minded “movement that calls itself “pro-life.” which you brand yourself with. And the false belief you have is that we need to flagellate ourselves over the act of penis entering vagina again and again and again.

     

    And you can go please yourself and say I don’t value unborn life, I do value gestating life. I just don’t think an embryo is a person. I can value life that is not a person. Maybe that’s the disconnect. I’m sure you’re a meat-eater. Because you see people as so different from other life that you couldn’t possibly accept that someone could value life that is not a person. Of course, I value people over other life, if there’s a cat in the fire or a baby, I’ll save the baby every time. You are so clueless you once asked me which I would save a genius child or a child with down’s syndrome in a fire and the answer of course is that is not enough information to make a decision. But you never answered whether you would save a sleeping child or a freezer full of embryos. And you still haven’t shown evidence that you really belief embryos are people from medical research and IVF discussion forums.

    Tell me what your thoughts, and feelings, and beliefs are about the number of abortions we have.  I can’t imagine that reducing abortion is as pressing an issue to you as it is to me.  Once you start valuing unborn life, you will start working harder to reduce abortion.

    You use valuing unborn life interchangeably with ascribing personhood to embryos, which is disordered right there. I say there are positive ways to reduce abortion without saying embryos are people. That includes valuing embryos, and that will affect other ways embryos are used too. But when you say they’re people and that she has a duty to rescue you will do bad things. I agree that if you do assert that that embryos are people you will go farther to reduce abortion than you will if you trust women. Because you will insist, against her best judgment, that a woman should not get an abortion. And that’s when it’s not positive anymore. It gets worse from there.  

  • truthseeker

    According to govt. data, the top 1 percent of income-earners in the country pays about 40 percent of all the income tax revenues.  The next 9 percent of income earners pays another 30 percent.  So the top 10 percent of income-earners pays more than 70 percent of all the taxes.  AS for the bottom 40 percent of income earners, they pay nothing.  In a democratic society, it is good for citizens to have at least some stake in the system.  We can all agree that the rich should pay more, but they should pay proportionately more, correct?

  • truthseeker

    The tea party grass roots movement is NOT about race.  It is not against any group of people.  Not homosexuals.  Not blacks.  Not Muslims.  Not even elitist idiots with an entitlement complex!  ‘The tea party is for people.  It is pro-America, pro-family and pro-community.  The intelligent people who comprise the tea party are thoughtful and compassionate, not hateful or vengeful as secular progressives want to believe.  Sadly, people will believe what they want to believe, no matter what the truth presents.  Feminists delight in asking me whether or not I am personally acquainted with homosexuals or Muslims.  I am not a hate-monger.  Venom does not ooze from my every pore, as it does from the feminists I know.  I would like to ask you tough, coarse, crude feminists I’ve come into contact with here if you have availed yourselves of the opportunity to befriend members of the tea party?  Take a dose of your own medicine!   

  • ahunt

    Actually Salty…Paul really does believe that a nicked ovum is a person.

     

    There is history.

  • ahunt

    Truthseeker….it is posts like yours that bring out worst in me, and I am determined to do better here. But this…

     

    I would like to ask you tough, coarse, crude feminists I’ve come into contact with here if you have availed yourselves of the opportunity to befriend members of the tea party?…

     

    …is inexcusable. So in the interests of doing better, I just want to be very sure you want this fight before engaging. Do you?

     

     

  • ahunt

    My hope isn’t so much that women (and their partners) will know about failed implantation, my hope is that women will know about successful fertilization as soon as it occurs.

    Disingenuous, as it is, in your hopes, impossible to have one without the other. 

    Obviously, successful fertilizations can lead to failed implantation and if a woman knows she has conceived but gets her period anyway she will know that implantation didn’t occur.

     

    And absent the desire to be pregnant, this information is important…why…?

     

    Would you agree with me that a woman who KNOWS she’s conceived might stand a better chance of seeing successful implantation than the woman who is unaware?

     

    Wrap your brain around the reality that roughly, at least 1.3 million US women annually are not remotely desirous of implantatation. But let us follow through…yet again…on your line of reasonimg.

     

    You are suggesting that actively contracepting couples have some sort of moral obligation to ascertain within…say three/five post-coital days…whether a an ova has been nicked. Logistics alone appear not to trouble you, Paul, so I will not let them trouble me.

     

    Instead, and assuming such technology existed…please explain to us, whyany rational contracepting couple would avail themselves of it?

  • bj-survivor

    Even raped 9-year-olds carrying twins should gestate or die trying in Paul’s twisted view. Of course, rape is no excuse for abortion, either. Paul regards fertile females (not just fertile women) as breeding livestock. But this is not misogyny. Oh, no.

     

    I am so sick of his woman-disappearing, rape- and pedophilia-apologizing, zygote-anthropomorphizing rants. If I never see one again it will be too soon. Why hasn’t he been banned yet?

  • mechashiva

    1. The Tea Party is not a grassroots movement. It is funded and guided by the Koch brothers and Dick Armey. Tea Partiers are just a tool of big corporations that want less government regulation of their unethical practices so they can become even more disgustingly rich than they already are.

     

    2. I, for one, actually do have a friend who supports the Tea Party. She’s being played for a fool, because she believes the Tea Party has the best interests of poor people and small business owners at heart. She is pro-choice, and ignores everything I tell her about Tea Party candidates’ positions on abortion (and other social issues, because she is a liberal). In fact, she has ostrich-syndrome with pretty much every criticism I have about the Tea Party. She can’t disprove me (because I’m right), but she’s bought into the lies of the conservative media machine. I think she only supports them because she is desperate and disenchanted… and desperate, disenchanted, middle-aged white folks are the Tea Party’s target demographic.

     

    Oh, and by the way… she cusses as much as I do.

  • paul-bradford

    Redefining [person] to mean ‘half-formed human being’ doesn’t mean I’m going to go along with the redefinition.

     

    L-dan,

     

    I’m eager to find out what people have in mind when they think of the term, “fully formed human”.  Is an infant fully formed?  What about a pre-teen, or a young adult, or an elderly person?  Which one is ‘fully formed’?  The answer I come up with — and I’d love to hear your thoughts — is that all four are fully formed, but at different stages of physical development.  I imagine that physical development allows us to change from one way of being fully formed to a different way of being fully formed.

     

    I think a fetus is fully formed, as long as it’s developing normally.  A fetus looks and acts as s/he SHOULD look at her/his age; just as an infant looks and acts as s/he should for her/his age.

     

    I invite people to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, to accept them as sisters and brothers in the human family.  Doesn’t it seem fair that, if lots of different born people can be described as ‘fully formed’, lots of different unborn people can also be fully formed?

  • paul-bradford

    I don’t think any child should have to be forced to give birth.

     

    rebellious grrl,

     

    Neither do I.  I also don’t think any ADULT should have to be forced to give birth.

  • paul-bradford

    Why hasn’t he been banned yet?


    BJ,

     

    I am perfectly happy to discuss any topic upon which we disagree, but it is enormously frustrating to have you distort what I say.

     

    When I learn of a pregnant rape victim I am concerned about her well being as well as the well being of her child.  I want, and a great number of compassionate individuals also want, for everything to be done to protect the health and safety of both mother and child.  It is a good thing when a mother’s respect for unborn life leads her to do what she can to give her child the best possible chance for life.

     

    If a mother, no matter what her age is, is not able (for any reason) to recognize the human dignity of her unborn child, there is no reason to try and force her to do anything.  I have repeated and repeated and repeated my complete rejection of any strategy to coerce women or any suggestion that she substitute her best judgment for someone else’s (as in mine, or as in some other man’s).  A woman who respects unborn life doesn’t need me, or the Church, or the government to give her instruction as to whether or not she ought to try and complete her pregnancy.

     

    It really hurts to have people like you call my view “twisted” when they don’t even understand what my view is.

     

    We don’t disagree on the question of whether or not it should be the woman herself who decides about abortion, and we don’t disagree about the fact that coercing women to do ANYTHING is rape.  I can’t understand why you refuse to listen to my beliefs on this and insist on reacting with outrage to things I didn’t say and don’t believe.

     

    I want to talk to you about whether or not you believe that unborn people matter as much as born people do.  I expect we disagree, but we never even discuss the matter because you’re too busy being righteous.

     

    I say that a pregnant woman who respects unborn life is not looking for “excuses” to get an abortion even if her pregnancy is not at all what she wanted.  Maybe you disagree.  Maybe you think that a woman might believe that her unborn child’s well being is every bit as important as her own and STILL decide to abort.  That would seem incredible to me but if you’d like to express your view on how respect for unborn life can coexist with abortion I’d be glad to hear you out.  I’d like to learn your thoughts, but I’d like you to ditch your attitude about me.

     

    The accusation that I regard fertile females as ‘breeding livestock’ is as hurtful as it is false.  My belief is that women ought to have reproductive choice and reproductive control.  I believe, and I’ve said many times, that every zygote should be a wanted zygote.  The only women who should ‘breed’ are women who are ready, willing and able to do a good job of raising a child.  The suggestion that I believe that the only, or the best, or the most important role for a woman is motherhood is as off the mark as it can be.  There are an awful lot of women who are making major contributions to the world that have nothing to do with motherhood.  I wouldn’t want motherhood to distract a woman from her chosen vocation unless motherhood were something she wants.  Quite frankly, I’m aware of many women who made the MISTAKE of having a child when they ought to have continued the work they were involved with.

     

    You’re wrong about me.  You’re dead wrong about me and I’m not going to pretend it doesn’t hurt because it DOES hurt.  Women who actually KNOW me know that I’m very respectful and supportive of women.

     

    You are being nothing less than cruel when you accuse me of apologizing for rape or pedophilia.  Both are ghastly examples of a disrespect for life.  When a raped woman aborts, the rapist is responsible for the wrong of abortion.  Just the same, though, when I hear about a pregnant woman who’s been disrespected in this way I still hold out the hope that something can be done to preserve the life of her child.

     

    If you treat a human being as a human being is that ‘anthropomorphizing’?  Zygotes are human beings.  Both you and I started our lives as zygotes.  You ridicule the idea of respecting the human dignity of zygotes, but I think it’s ridiculous to think that a human being could ever have been something OTHER than a human being.

     

    I maintain the hope that you and I can have a respectful and productive conversation, but in order to do this you’ll have to respond to the beliefs and opinions I actually have.

  • paul-bradford

    It’s wrong to believe that criminals and people who perpetuate domestic violence are just as valuable as those not engaged in criminal activity. To believe so allows criminals and abusive partners to victimize their targets even further.

     

    Arekushieru,

     

    I believe the opposite. I believe that to value the life of any kind of wrongdoer is to enable him/her to change his/her ways. A person who really, really, really understands how valuable his/her life is will value other people’s lives as well. If you value other people’s lives you won’t do wrong.

     

    Do you believe it’s possible for people to change?  Do you think it’s a good thing to visit prisoners? 

  • paul-bradford

    ahunt,

     

    What if the remorseless predator is faster on the trigger than you are?  Then, instead of losing grandma’s silverware, you lose your life.  A society where everybody looks out for number one isn’t really a society, it’s a return to primitive life.  

     

    I’ll repeat my observation that NARAL and the NRA are two peas in a pod.  Both can view the human carnage all around them and, in defiance of all sense and decency, promote an ideal of freedom that’s so extreme as to be entirely dangerous.

     

    Promoting gun rights and promoting abortion rights go hand-in-hand.

  • paul-bradford

    She has authority over her body and any embryo/fetus.

     

    rebellious grrl,

     

    You’re statement isn’t the conclusion of the discussion, it’s the STARTING POINT.  Of COURSE a woman has authority over the fetus in her uterus.  This particular observation is simply one of a million that demonstrate how one person’s life can be in the hand’s of another.  We are at each other’s mercy.

     

    A woman has the lawful right to abort.  George Bush had the lawful right to end the lives of 100,000 Iraqi civilians.  People have power, and that’s not ever going to change.  My hope is that we’d be more circumspect about using the power that’s in our hands.

     

    It’s pointless to bemoan the fact that pregnant women, and presidents have power.  I’m not for taking their power away, I’m for encouraging them to use their power in ways that respect the lives of those who are under their authority.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “I’ll repeat my observation that NARAL and the NRA are two peas in a pod.”

    “Promoting gun rights and promoting abortion rights go hand-in-hand.”

     

    Why do you say you do not want to force women, little girls, or pregnant rape victims to give birth, but then you condemn the organization that makes sure they have the right to choose?!

     

    My gun protects me from getting raped, how can I, a tiny little woman keep three men from gang raping me? I would rather be killed! NARAL protects me from getting raped, by forced birth. If I was a pervert man like you, I guess I would not have to worry about it.

     

    You do not know what it is like being a little girl, a woman, a raped woman, a raped little girl, a pregnant raped little girl, a pregnant raped woman, a pregnant married woman, a mother, or scared of being raped as a woman, or little girl.

    You dont know so much Paul Bradford.

     

    NARAL is protecting women, little girls, and pregnant rape victims!

     

    You need to get over your self! Pregnancy is nothing your life, body, or genitals will ever have to feel or worry about, you are just a vile know it all creep!

    A society that thinks rape is no big deal, is not a society worth “living” in.

     

  • julie-watkins

    The 40% number you referred to is a fraction of all the tax moneys collected. I’m comparing the tax rate of an individuals. I believe an average waitperson, for instance, pays a higher proportion of her/his total meger salary than the average top 1%-er. That’s not “proportional”, I don’t think.

     In addition, the top 1% of big business has money enough to buy legislation that allows those businesses to make more profit and stifles competition. Also, rich people and big business profit much more from government programs than poor people: Corporate Welfare cheats, etc. I don’t think that’s proportional.

    When Big Business has control of legislators, the major business of government increasingly becomes to protect property, transfer income upward, and keep the workers scared.   

  • invisiblepinkunicorn

    Paul, you spend a lot of time saying what you wouldn’t do regarding abortion–you wouldn’t make it illegal, you wouldn’t force anybody to do anything, etc… so, what, exactly, would you do to reach these poor souls who don’t ‘respect unborn life’ to your or your church’s satisfaction?  Imagine you have a blank check from a random anonymous rich dude.  What do you do with it?  Go into schools and teach your philosophy?  Lobby to put pamphlets about ‘respecting the very young’ in every pack of condoms, bc pills, and tampons?  Fund research into why so many blastocysts fail to implant?  Maybe if people knew more about what you really wanted to do you wouldn’t have to keep fighting a reargaurd action about what you don’t want to do.

     

    … It really hurts your feelings when people point out how pro-life philosophy always damages or destroys the economic, mental, and physical health of women and children.  You self-identify as pro-life, correct?   You are familiar with the real world effects of pro-life legislation and beliefs, right?  But you expect people to buy that Paul’s new and improved pro-life bear-trap, made of the finest philosophical platinum, isn’t really a bear trap, even when you only describe it by what it doesn’t do, and even then only as a hypothetical?  I have nothing to say to that, except may the great old ones eat you before you ever dip a toe in a Pharyngula abortion thread:  trust me, Cthulhu is the merciful option there.

     

    The lurking lurker, recloaking.

  • saltyc

    He says he does but I don’t think he really does. 

  • saltyc

     I think it’s ridiculous to think that a human being could ever have been something OTHER than a human being.

    See, you keep painting yourself into rhetorical corners when you insist that you truly believe that zygotes are people. If a human being could not have come from something that’s not a human being, then either you believe that an unfertilized ovum is a human being ,,,, or what? Face it, your faith just doesn’t hold water.

  • ldan

    I imagine that “convincing a majority” would mean that a majority of heterosexually active fertile females are also convinced.  One result is that there’d be a lot fewer unintended pregnancies because couples would be a lot more careful to avoid them.

    And here is one reason it’s not going to happen…unless we want to continue instituting nature’s sexism. Women are disproportionately stuck with the biological bill when it comes to perpetuating the species. We already have a culture of sucktastic attitudes toward women because of this. Sorry, I’m not interested going back to pre-birth control, pre-abortion days with their onus on women holding the bag for human sexual desire and with far greater limits on women reaching their potential. I find the idea of born people having the tools and freedom to try reaching their greatest potential to be much more valuable for the human race as a whole than worrying that every potential person will actually making it to personhood.

     

     Do you realize that the abortion rate in this country went up steadily and dramatically every year from 1965 to 1981?  Why do you think that was?  Do you think that it was legalization?  My opinion is that that would explain the rise from 1972 to 1973, but what about all those other years?  The law changed all at once (except for NY and CA), but abortion tolerance was an ongoing phenomenon.  In 1965 I think that a majority of society, and a majority of women actually WERE convinced that tolerating abortion was evil.  By 1981, the situation had changed dramatically.  Attitudes about abortion, and about premarital sex, had changed radically.

    I am not the statistical guru on these forums. My understanding has been that desire for abortion remains remarkably steady across time and culture boundaries for which we have data. That societal pressure forces more women to bear children that they would prefer not to have had is hardly an argument in favor of pressing for stricter societal pressure in that regard. I saw the familial shrapnel created from the fact that my great-grandmother never actually wanted children, but had little choice in the matter in that era. My grandmother didn’t want children as soon into her marriage as she had them…again, no real choices existed and societal pressure meant abortion wasn’t even thought of. Her resentment and unhappiness has affected another couple of generations. Between the two…that’s a couple dozen actual people affected negatively by these attitudes you’d like to make a majority. Again, no thanks.

     Interestingly, the abortion rate has been gradually going down since 1981.  Polls show that young women today are more opposed to abortion than women of their mother’s generation were when they were young.  Attitudes are starting to shift.

    This one I will leave to the statistically minded, since I’ve seen a variety of arguments on this site already around the idea of a societal shift against abortion.

     

    I don’t think that Roe v Wade caused abortions.  I think that an attitude that is expressed as you did when you said, “I am definitely a more valuable person now than before I was born…because I wasn’t a person before I was born. I still can’t understand how anyone believes a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a person by the standard understanding of the word ‘person’. Redefining it to mean ‘half-formed human being’ doesn’t mean I’m going to go along with the redefinition.” is what causes abortion.  Your statement is discriminatory and discrimination causes abortion.

    Um no, women not wanting to be pregnant causes abortion. Are you going to try convincing me of the “abortion is totes like slavery,” argument that also keeps popping up over and over? Because the enslavement of ones body to a ZBEF strikes me as far more analogous to slavery than chosing to withhold ones body and resources from said ZBEF does.

    You say that you can’t understand how somebody could think that a fetus is a person.  You do understand, don’t you, that some of us DO think that a fetus is a person.  That’s why there’s been a debate about abortion.  The reason I post here is to engage people in the kind of conversations that will help us all understand that kind of thinking.  Threatening to toss women in jail for accessing medical care is going to make conversation impossible.  That’s why I’m opposed to criminalization.  You say I’m being disingenuous.  I see it differently.

    If you want a society that considers abortion evil, I don’t see how you can believe that a just and moral society would not criminalize what it considers evil. Thus the disingenuous accusation. It’s not unlike saying that you want society to move to a place where they believe sex outside of marriage is evil and wrong, but don’t want society to put penalties in place for those who do have sex without a ring or to demonize homosexuals (nevermind that they’re stuck being either evil or celibate forever). I mean, these are both situations where we have actually history to look at. And your world of gentle persuasion doesn’t appear to be how it works….so perhaps you’re naive instead of disingenuous?

     

    I’m fine with some people believing that a fetus is a person. The philosophical debate on when personhood begins is one that’s never going to end, any more than ‘what is the meaning of life,’ which, come to think of it, is rather related. The problem is, that this is a belief that it’s rather hard not to act strongly on. I mean…people being killed! Emergency! This pretty much guarantees the demonization of those on the other side of the debate, doesn’t it?

     

     

     

     

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ BJ is “NOT” distorting what you say, every woman on this site has said you say this hateful, demeaning, catholic-benefiting, female-exploiting for reproduction stuff. ~

    ~ More quotes from Paul Bradford. ~

    Paul Bradford says, “I have, however, been critical of certain Pro-Choice and women’s groups as well as many posters on this ‘site who were outraged that childbirth was even considered for this girl.”

    Paul Bradford says, “What I know, and what you resist, is the fact that abortion is not a women’s issue. It’s a fetus’ issue.”

    ~ How can a man be so embarrassing as to say this to women? ~

    Paul Bradford says, “I’m pleased that the little Mexican girl who recently gave birth shares my conviction.”

    ~ Paul Bradford is happy a raped ten year old gave birth because it pleases him, we know it pleases you Paul. ~

    ~ I promise you this Paul Bradford, You do not know what she thinks. No one does! They may never know, how convenient for you and your pro-rape catholic church. You “use” her, the catholic church “used her”, you both use her in the same way the child rapist used her. It is extremely sad and gross. ~

    ~ Just imagine going to school the tenth year of your life pregnant, or staying home from school because you are pregnant, going to your little friends birthday party pregnant. ~

    Paul Bradford says, “When I learn of a pregnant rape victim I am concerned about her well being as well as the well being of her child.

    ~ Well it is odd that I was a rape victim as a child and you remind me very much of the rapist. ~

    Paul Bradford says, “I want, and a great number of compassionate individuals also want, for everything to be done to protect the health and safety of both mother and child.”

    ~ NO, these perverts do not give a damn about the pregnant raped female, they are thrilled she is pregnant, they are not conpassionate. They capitalize on pregnancy from rape to satisfy their closet pornographic pregnancy birth fetish. ~

    ~ You do not give a damn about rape Paul Bradford. ~

    ~ BJ did a fabulous job editing what is true about you, and when looked at, it looks awful, because it is. So you quickly come on here and try to pretend BJ is wrong about you when she is absolutely right! As we women, little girls, and pregnant rape victims are the recipient of your vile, self-serving post, thoughts, and opinions. You are no better then the perverts I knew when I was little, they tried to pretend they were good moral people and I, the recipient of their perversion was wrong, when infact they were perverts, who wanted to be respected and get their way. ~

  • ldan

    A human that requires another human as biological life-support is not fully-formed. Furthermore, a ZBEF is leading a parasitic existence that, frankly, even those humans who are undeniably people (i.e. born) don’t have the right to. Thus, even if I granted that it were a person (which I don’t), I wouldn’t grant that it has a right to biological life-support from another, unwilling, person.

     

    Do you look at an apple and consider it to be full of trees? The seeds within that apple are as much a fully-formed apple tree as a blastocyst is a fully-formed person. Both are potential. Both require convoluted logic in order to be considered equal to their fully-formed potential end-states. Both would create equally convoluted and ridiculous situations in the real world we have to live in when the discussions of philosophy are done (as people have mentioned elsewhere…counting pregnant women as two people for carpooling, or getting into venues with tickets, or charging them for abuse for having sex while pregnant…etc.)

     

    I think a fetus is fully formed, as long as it’s developing normally.  A fetus looks and acts as s/he SHOULD look at her/his age; just as an infant looks and acts as s/he should for her/his age.

    A fetus doesn’t have the capacity to act in any meaningful fashion, thus ‘should’ is a meaningless concept.  It has cells turning into tissues, those tissues eventually start to work in various ways in response to chemical triggers at points during development. This is not much different than those sad people who are brain dead but have enough brain stem left to keep their heart pumping and lungs breathing.

     

    Mind you, we find argument there as well, as to whether it’s ok to cut off life support (artificial in this case). I haven’t made a study of the laws from state to state, but have seen enough cases pop up to know that there are plenty of cases where it is agreed that life support can be ended. Now the philosophical underpinning of that choice is seldom laid out in the articles I’ve seen…but anecdotally, the conversations and comments that surround them indicate that a large number of people consider those hanging on solely due to the endless action of their brain stems are no longer really ‘there’, are no longer ‘people’ in the sense that most of us define the word.

     

    Now I realize that Catholic dogma disagrees with that kind of withdrawal of life support as well as abortion , so I don’t really expect that argument to change your mind. However, I expect it to point out that in a secular society, we overwhelmingly want those decisions to be left to the families affected and feel a great deal of anger when non-involved people want to impose their beliefs on painful and personal family decisions. I don’t really care about changing your mind (nor the other solidly anti-choice frequent posters here). It’s a losing game that I don’t have time for (and I really wonder why you and said other frequent anti-choicers keep at it here…it’s the same losing game).

     

    You’ve already stated that I’m horribly discriminatory for believing the unborn are not people. I’m fine with you believing that. I believe that you’re horribly dismissive of the realities of women who have to physically support developing humans. So we’re prefectly in accord as far as disliking each other…or at least each other’s positions.

     

  • ahunt

    Chuckling a bit here, Paul. The NRA has yet to support  pro-choice candidate outside of its narrow agenda.

    I’ve been registered for 31 years. I’ve been handling firearms for much longer…a product of military brathood, rural existance and a hunting and fishing lifestyle…and am entirely comfortable with my skills and judgement..but thanks for worrying.

     

    Promoting gun rights and promoting abortion rights go hand-in-hand.

    I can live with that.

  • arekushieru

    A society where everybody looks out for number one isn’t really a society, it’s a return to primitive life.    

    You really ARE unable to see that you, too, are looking out for number one, yourself, aren’t you?  Except that it is the *fetus* that is considered number one in your books, not yourself.

    Both can view the human carnage all around them and, in defiance of all sense and decency, promote an ideal of freedom that’s so extreme as to be entirely dangerous.

    And *I’ll* repeat.  You, et al ProLifers, can view the human carnage (meaning loss of respect for and the dehumanization and demeaning of women) all around them and, in defiance of all sense and decency, promote an ideal of freedom for the fetus, alone, from all societal regulations that’s so extreme as to be entirely dangerous. 

    Promoting gun rights and promoting abortion rights go hand-in-hand.

    Unfortunately, I’ll probably put myself in the minority column with this, but I absolutely believe that promoting gun *and* abortion rights canNOT go hand-in-hand, but neither can anti-abortion and the right to bear arms forces.   Promoting gun rights means exactly that, promoting the right to bear arms.  It is NOT specifically about the right to self-defense (especially since bearing arms usually means exacerbating a situation beyond the original intent to defend oneself).  Which is enTIREly what abortion rights are about.  Much like the death penalty is not about the right to self-defense but about the right to kill.  (Something Panhandler was unable to reason out, logically.  Since he is the one who likes to say there is a… or there is no… right if the law is… or isn’t… applied in such a manner.)  It is applied retroactively, meaning it doesn’t fulfill the reQUIREments for self-defense to be used. 

  • arekushieru

    VALue isn’t what gets criminals to change their ways.  Rehabilitation does.  And rehabilitation is just good policy.  Nice try, Paul.

  • arekushieru

    We already have a culture of sucktastic attitudes toward women because of this.

    And, you’re right, that history supports this.  Just the idea that heterosexually active females have more to avoid in order to minimize the risk of creating a situation where one has to choose ‘the path of respect or disrespect’, puts a disproportionate onus on them, especially if you’re not going to implement polices that reduce that risk, which, though, still don’t fully address the unequal responsibility. 

    It’s not unlike saying that you want society to move to a place where they believe sex outside of marriage is evil and wrong, but don’t want society to put penalties in place for those who do have sex without a ring or to demonize homosexuals (nevermind that they’re stuck being either evil or celibate forever).   

    And still, even if those penalties aren’t put in place, facing demonization or remaining celibate, forever, anyways.  Demonization of what one considers evil is not dependant upon whether or not there are penalties put in place, after all.  (And, again, we agree that history supports this.)  But that shouldn’t be an option, either.  Since that is a form of oppression, narrowing or limiting the choices of one group of humans more than any other group, something we can see  occuring in a similar case of the above matter.   

  • arekushieru

    When I learn of a pregnant rape victim I am concerned about her well being as well as the well being of her child.  I want, and a great number of compassionate individuals also want, for everything to be done to protect the health and safety of both mother and child.  It is a good thing when a mother’s respect for unborn life leads her to do what she can to give her child the best possible chance for life.

    Your inability to see that conflation of respect for the unborn with respect for those born, means that someone has to come out the loser, inevitably the woman in this case, disgusts and appalls me.

    If a mother, no matter what her age is, is not able (for any reason) to recognize the human dignity of her unborn child, there is no reason to try and force her to do anything.  I have repeated and repeated and repeated my complete rejection of any strategy to coerce women or any suggestion that she substitute her best judgment for someone else’s (as in mine, or as in some other man’s).  A woman who respects unborn life doesn’t need me, or the Church, or the government to give her instruction as to whether or not she ought to try and complete her pregnancy.

    And, thus, your inability to see, after rePEATed attempts to make you do so, that respect is not simply defined by whether one is allowed to live or not, rather frustrates and annoys me.  Because you ignore ALL the other things that require respect JUST by doing so, as we have ALso told you over and over.

    Addendum to both of the above:  You are also unable to see that conflating respect with allowing one to live and exist also puts the woman on the losing end, since she is required to put her life and health at risk, all throughout the pregnancy.  That a woman, just through the luck of the draw (or lack thereof) has to put her own health and life at risk, to satisfy ProLifer’s beliefs that she does show ‘respect’ for the unborn and/or through that same luck, survives a highly risky pregnancy and birth, is sexism at its finest.  Conflating respect with allowing one to live, and ignoring all other points (as one HAS to do in that case) also means that rape isn’t a heinous crime.    

    It really hurts to have people like you call my view “twisted” when they don’t even understand what my view is.

    The problem Paul ISn’t that we don’t understand what your view is.  The problem is that we DO understand it and you just don’t want to admit it.  As, I think, a couple of other commenters have already stated.

    I want to talk to you about whether or not you believe that unborn people matter as much as born people do.  I expect we disagree, but we never even discuss the matter because you’re too busy being righteous.

     

    So says the man who takes self-righteousness to a whole new level.  I don’t agree simply because no one has been able to come up with a conSIStent theory as to WHY fetuses should be people.  NOT because I don’t ‘respect’ them.

    I say that a pregnant woman who respects unborn life is not looking for “excuses” to get an abortion even if her pregnancy is not at all what she wanted.  Maybe you disagree.  Maybe you think that a woman might believe that her unborn child’s well being is every bit as important as her own and STILL decide to abort.  That would seem incredible to me but if you’d like to express your view on how respect for unborn life can coexist with abortion I’d be glad to hear you out.  I’d like to learn your thoughts, but I’d like you to ditch your attitude about me.

    We wouldn’t HAVE an attitude if you actually LIStened to what we WERE telling you uPON your request.  We have told you repeatedly why abortion CAN coexist with such respect.  I just outlined it for you, above, again.  

    You are being nothing less than cruel when you accuse me of apologizing for rape or pedophilia.  Both are ghastly examples of a disrespect for life.  When a raped woman aborts, the rapist is responsible for the wrong of abortion.  Just the same, though, when I hear about a pregnant woman who’s been disrespected in this way I still hold out the hope that something can be done to preserve the life of her child.

    If rape and pedophilia are ghastly examples of disrespect, then abortion AND respect for the unborn CAN coexist.  Because rape and paedophilia aren’t considered appalling because they end life, they are considered appalling SOLEly because they violate someone’s physical, social and emotional agency.  Which means that even if rape did take someone’s life that WOULDn’t be the reason someone found it appalling and ‘disrespectful’.

    So, there are NO two ways about it, OBviously.

    You ridicule the idea of respecting the human dignity of zygotes, but I think it’s ridiculous to think that a human being could ever have been something OTHER than a human being.

    First you ask her to explain how respect and abortion can coexist, then you accuse her of ridiculing the idea of respecting the human dignity of zygotes.  Then you pose an argument that is completely unrelated to that argument.  Sometimes I wonder why you can’t understand why we don’t take you seriously, all the time.

    All the rest has been addressed by previous parts of my post or other’s posts. 

  • saltyc

     I’ll probably put myself in the minority column with this, but I absolutely believe that promoting gun *and* abortion rights canNOT go hand-in-hand,

    I don’t think you’re in the minority, . I didn’t want to get in that fray, and I applaud sisters who train themselves in firearms, but I don’t think women will ever love guns as much as men do.

    The human carnage all around us of abortion is in Paul’s head. An 8-week abortion does not look anything like human carnage, just a really heavy period with a little capsule in it. But I suspect that Paul sees periods as carnage too. Heck he claims to think a failed implantation is carnage. I don’t believe he’s ever seen first hand what actual human carnage looks like, as in a war or disaster such as Katrina. If he did he’d quit calling it that.

  • princess-rot

    It reads like: “Be nice to us and submit to our every whim regardless of the cost to yourselves or we’ll turn the world into hell and act like the monsters you always feared we really were.” Not a flattering picture of men. It’s pretty much demanding fealty twice over with the only exchange being fear and violence.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Paul you said,

    What I’ve contended is that a raped ten year old girl who understands the value of unborn life would also understand that her endurance of a pregnancy would be a life saving effort.

    You don’t want a 10 year-old to have an abortion. You want her to “value life” at the risk of her own life and have the pregnancy end in a live birth.

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks for the refresher on some of Paul’s comments. How soon I’ve forgotten the offensive crap he’s said.

  • squirrely-girl

    What I’ve contended is that a raped ten year old girl who understands the value of unborn life would also understand that her endurance of a pregnancy would be a life saving effort.

    (emphasis mine)

    Yah know… unless of course it kills her. :(

     

    What about the 10-year-olds who understand the value of already born life?

     

    By the way, coming from a developmental psychology background where I teach courses on child and adolescent development, I’d suggest that very rarely would ANY 10-year-old have an “understanding” of the complex moral issues surrounding abortion, let alone abortion following years of sexual victimization. Whether some people choose to acknowledge it or not, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of children this age lack the cognitive abilities to make ANY reasonably informed judgments or decisions in this area… because they are CHILDREN. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    You’re statement isn’t the conclusion of the discussion, it’s the STARTING POINT.

    Because you say so? You are annoying and offensive!!!!!!!!

    A woman has the lawful right to abort.  

    Yes, she does.

    George Bush had the lawful right to end the lives of 100,000 Iraqi civilians.  

    No, he didn’t have the lawful right.

    As someone who has been protesting the war in Iraq (since before the war started) I am highly offended by your comparison of me and George Bush. Bush didn’t have the lawful right to declare war on Iraq. He lied to congress, the U.N., and the American people. The U.S. invaded a sovereign nation with no legal authority to do so other that lies and deception.

    George Bush is a war criminal and should be tried in the Hague. In the Iraq war actual babies and children were killed in the name of George Bush and the U.S., 46 percent of victims of U.S. air-strikes whose gender could be determined were female and 39 per cent were children.

    When a woman has an abortion NO ONE DIES!

    But logic on this doesn’t matter to you. Women are just livestock and chattel to you. I honestly don’t want to talk to you again. You are really really offensive.

    Number of women and children killed in Iraq air raids ‘disproportionately high’
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/5161326/Number-of-women-and-children-killed-in-Iraq-air-raids-disproportionately-high.html

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • plume-assassine

    Gee, I guess the NAACP is totally wrong about the racist fear-mongering within the Tea Party? Familiarize yourself with Tea Party Tracker and the NAACP’s ~90 page report on tea party extremism and racism at Tea Party Nationalism

     

    Ah, but I guess you don’t think there’s any racism until the “unbiased” white folks say there is.

     

    You should also familiarize yourself with Glenn Beck’s racist heros, Ezra Taft Benson and Cleon Skousen.

     

    And yes, I DO have friends (and family members!) who support the Tea Party. We are always engaged in debate. You claim that you are not a hate-monger, but I have yet to see ANY evidence to the contrary in your comments. Anyone who is an anti-feminist (and repeatedly insists that women must conform to certain narrow, sexist adjectives in order to be respected as ladies), and anyone who is openly Islamaphobic is a hate monger in my book.

     

    Also, why are you totally incapable of directly responding to any of my comments to you?

  • colleen

    I’d suggest that very rarely would ANY 10-year-old have an “understanding” of the complex moral issues surrounding abortion, let alone abortion following years of sexual victimization.

     

    That’s because you think that ‘understanding’ in this context means the ability to understand something. It does not. ‘Understanding’ in this context means “agrees with Paul and the Catholic hierarchy”. The pregnant child’s mother did NOT ‘understand’ and wanted her daughter to have an abortion (as any decent parent would). The Church, in it’s infinite compassion, took the child from her mother and forced her to carry her pregnancy to term . That’s why Paul and the now 10 or 11 year old mother are on a first name basis.

  • arekushieru

    Tieing everything into the most fundamental issue that women face is very courageous and feminist of her, isn’t it?  I guess we know what you aren’t now, eh?

  • crowepps

    I believe that to value the life of any kind of wrongdoer is to enable him/her to change his/her ways.

    Any psychologist who suggested this as a care plan would be disbarred.

    A person who really, really, really understands how valuable his/her life is will value other people’s lives as well.

    The psychology of the average human predator, who has a VERY high opinion of his/her own value, refutes this.

    If you value other people’s lives you won’t do wrong.

     Oh, PLEASE!  This is just a STUPID statement. 

    Do you believe it’s possible for people to change?

    With focused professional help putting into place a care plan that includes both education and clear consequences.

     Do you think it’s a good thing to visit prisoners? 

    Is it a good thing for the average amateur theologian to go out to the prison full of sloppy sentimentality and allow him or herself to be manipulated by people who know exactly how to con them?  Nope, I don’t think it is.  Although their bleating about how the prisoners are just misunderstood and need to have someone vakue them is amusing for the guards.

     

    Tell you what, let’s lock up ALL the DV perpetrators, and then you all can visit them and CARE about them and believe that they’ve CHANGED, and then we’ll let them marry YOUR sisters and daughters.

  • jacqueline

    Amanda is Amazing!

    She seems to be able to mix abortion with any topic and write a whole piece on it.

    Abortion and guns,

    Abortion and the Tea Party,

    Abortion and conservatives as an entire population,

    Abortion and mythology,

    Abortion and “tumescent” penises,

    Abortion and flaccid penises,

    Abortion and terrorists,

    Abortion and christians,

    Abortion and violence against women,

    etc., etc.

    This has little to do with reproductive health and a lot to do with someone’s personal politics.

     

    Tieing everything into the most fundamental issue that women face is very courageous and feminist of her, isn’t it?  I guess we know what you aren’t now, eh?

     

    Not really! It sounds like someone who is -

    a one-trick pony,

    obsessional,

    doctrinaire,

    rigid,

    naive,

    inflexible,

    egocentric,

    a broken record, and

    stuck in the sixties.

     

  • ack

    “I also don’t think any ADULT should have to be forced to give birth.”

    >>>>>>

     

    Ahhh. Shouldn’t “have to be forced.” Every once in awhile, you just come out and say how you feel, despite efforts at inocuousness. We shouldn’t “have to be forced” because we should recognize that YOUR moral compass is pointed in the right direction, while ours just needs to be corrected or ignored. Then it’s not force, right? But if we don’t accept your version of morality, the insinuation is that we have somehow failed.

  • ack

    Anti-choicers have neglected to respond or acknowledge any posts that actually discuss the article. I’ve seen maybe two that addressed the Tea Party, but neither addressed the linkages mentioned. Granted, it’s hard not to feed them; this election, though, I really hoped for more indepth POLITICAL discussion.  But once again, they apparently would rather instigate the same arguments played out countless times on this site. I’m bored with this:

    ZBEF ARE PEOPLE!11!

    FETUSES ARE BABIES AND THEY’RE PEOPLE!11!

    YOU’RE PREGNANT, SO YOUR BODY ISN’T YOURS ANYMORE!11!

    YOU OWE THIS TO US!!!!1111!!!!!!

    YOU LADIES AREN’T LADIES!!!!!eleventy!!!111

    YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE HAD SEX!!!!111!!!!

    YOU JUST NEED TO REALIZE I’M RIGHT!!!!1111111!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!11111

    /headdesk

  • goatini

    Forced birthers ARE:

    * a one-trick pony – They want to outlaw ALL reproductive health care options and freedoms.    

    * obsessional – Obsessed with women’s private parts, obsessed with ZBEFs.  Men’s private parts, and living children who are living in poverty, not so much.  

    * doctrinaire – Want to legislate based on their radical extremist cult’s “laws”, and not the laws of the United States of America.  

    * rigid – See “doctrinaire”

    * naive – Thinks all females are the same (livestock).  

    * inflexible – See “doctrinaire”

    * egocentric – And delusional; thinks their radical extremist cult’s “imaginary friend” speaks to them personally.

    * a broken record – Forces American female citizens to continue to fight for Constitutional right to privacy determined decades ago.  

    * stuck in the sixties – the 1860s.  

  • ack

    1. Can you refute her argument?

    2. See #1

    3. See #1

    4. What?*

    5. I think this relates to the rest of your post, but I’m not sure if you realize it’s not a separate point…

    6. See #5

    7. What?*

    8. Pretty clear connection.

    9. Check out any of the work being done by the Family Violence Prevention Fund to explore the link between intimate partner violence and reproductive health.

    *I may have missed a few posts, so direct me to them and I’ll continue asking whether you’re actually refuting anything or just wringing your pearls.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ goatini, Thank you sweet girl!!! ~

  • jacqueline

    Now, what exactly do these tacky rejoinders have to do with my original observation? So you agree with Amanda’s personal politics. Wonderful! I don’t.

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I too thank you for copying the format of my post.

     

     

  • colleen

    The problem Paul ISn’t that we don’t understand what your view is.  The problem is that we DO understand it and you just don’t want to admit it.

    Insisting that we’re too stupid and/or lacking in insight to understand Paul and the Catholic heirarchy certainly gives Paul the opportunity continue to babble the same nonsense day after week after week. He’s been saying the same things and making the same arguments for over two years now.He’s mentioned several times that he does not talk about abortion or ‘life’ issues with the women  he works and socializes with (which is what I assume he means by his “set”): the fact that he’s self aware enough to recognise that any women with a shred of self respect and decency would reject his ‘ideas’ and probably him  indicates to me that he’s also aware that we understand what he’s saying. Paul’s passive-aggressive and likes to play the victim and misunderstood martyr.

    The thing that bothers me most about Paul is the thought he might come in contact with rape and DV victims. Judging by his performance here this isn’t a man who should have access to vulnerable women.

  • ldan

    I think we’re in agreement here. My arguments are mainly aimed at Paul being disingenuous with his claims that he simultaneously wants to create a culture that views certain things as evil…yet somehow doesn’t reinforce that view with coersion or other negative outcomes for the people already living and walking around. My last (somewhat strained) analogy was aiming for something at least vaguely equivalent to the shift in attitude he desires regarding abortion in that it likewise deals with issues of sexuality and autonomy along with oppression and freedom.

     

    As you point out, non-state-sanctioned oppression is still oppression and not a desirable outcome. It’s what we’re stuck with at the moment as we work to shift the tide of opinion. Arguably, that’s what Paul seems to be working toward as well–a shifting of opinion. The difference is in the real results of the mindsets we each argue for. His create oppression for people walking the world; mine apparently discriminate against the unborn. Sorry, I’m willing to ‘oppress’ the unborn all day long if it keeps people with the actual ability to be aware of their oppression and to suffer from it from being actually oppressed.

     

    I can respect the life of the fetus and still hold that opinion.

  • bj-survivor

    Like all “pro-lifers.” I have pressed him time and again as to whether he held funerals for his wife’s tampons/maxi pads prior to getting his vasectomy. You know, because we generally hold funerals/bury persons, including indigents, and other loved ones and anyone who is sexually active, even if using contraception, cannot be sure that there  isn’t  a “very young human” expelled during menstruation. In typical Paul fashion, he just ignores whatever he can’t fit into his preposterous dogma.

     

    I’d LOL at the inane crap he spews, but I’m tired of being subjected to it. It’s like reasoning with a toddler.

  • beenthere72

    But I want us to be able to have this conversation, BJ.  Can we have this conversation, BJ?  Can we find something to agree on, BJ?   We do agree on some things, don’t we, BJ?    Can we talk about the things we agree on, BJ?   After I’ve worked you into a corner with the things we agree on, I’ll spring our disagreement on you in a way that will make you feel dirty and shamed and guilty and wrong for believing those things we don’t agree on, BJ.   That’s really not my intention, BJ, to make you feel that way (really, it is).   Really, it’s not (yes, it is).   I just want peace, and unicorns, and fairies, and pixie dust, and babies.  Lots of babies.   Don’t you think we can work towards that together, BJ?  

     

    CREEEEEEEEEPY.

     

    And this just made me think of creepy unicorns – seems wicked appropriate here…

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus

  • jacqueline

    My original point was that Amanda Marcotte seems able to tie the topic of abortion to everything from interior decoration to exploring the polar ice caps.

    When I was given a wiseacre answer about how feminist she is when compared to me, I pointed out the features of her writings that give the appearance of zealotry or fanaticism; since I am not in competition with anyone as to who is the best or most authentic feminist on this site.

     

    I really am not impelled to have to refute the chain of egregious exaggerations and epithets that ensued. Too many arguments presented here are based on premises that are unexamined and biased. That is my opinion, not the incorrect answer to another person’s pop quiz.

  • jacqueline

    You post BJ gives credence to that sexist claim. Take it down a notch or too. Your post comes across like a crazed rant.

    Does this fellow Paul actually exist? I simply cannot fathom anyone who would voluntarily seek out and accept such querulous invective as I regularly see here.

     

  • jacqueline

    “If some one breaks into my house and trys to gang-rape me …”

     

     

    With all due respect, how does one person gang-rape another?

     

    [She asks herself, "Will this too be camouflaged from view?"]

  • arekushieru

    With a question that is mired in mere details such as that one is, I would be surprised if it WASn’t.  Oy….

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, so you’re accusing BJ of something that you go on to say you have no evidence of to supply your ‘rationale’ to her, otherwise what was this all about: I simply cannot fathom anyone who would voluntarily seek out and accept such querulous invective as I regularly see here; that goes on to completely ignore Paul’s OWN querulous invective.  I think THAT defines emotional and irrational to. a. TEE. 

    If you’d actually read what he is SAYing you would realize that he often attempts to inject passive-aggressively, invective at the ProChoice movement.  Invective that attempts to impose his own morality on others by guilting us into doing it.  Which, I’m sure you would virulently oppose if he attempted to tell YOU, in the same manner, that you don’t respect human life if you use self-defence to defend your body from being used in a sexual manner that you don’t like.  Which is exACTly what he’s doing, but he won’t admit it.  And which is exactly what you would do, but you won’t admit it.  Either way, you have both demonstrated typical anti-choice hypocrisy.  But, of course, I forgot, this is more anti-choice do what I say not what I do philosophy.    

  • forced-birth-rape

    Sorry Jacqueline, if three men breaks into my house and tries to gang-rape me. And if you had respect about rape you would not be making a heartless smart aleck out of your self about such a miserable possibility.

  • saltyc

    I just want peace, and unicorns, and fairies, and pixie dust, and babies.  Lots of babies.   Don’t you think we can work towards that together, BJ?  

    ahahaha Awwwww- sehm!!!!

    I totally empathize with Charlie the unicorn.

  • colleen

    I really am not impelled to have to refute the chain of egregious exaggerations and epithets that ensued.

    God save us from home schooled conservatives armed with a thesaurus.

  • bj-survivor

    But creepy unicorns are still exponentially more palatable than panty-sniffing rape-/pedophilia-/terror-apologizing “pro-lifers.”

     

    Since we’re on the subject of fantasy, in my perfect world no woman would ever have to avail herself of induced abortion, because she would never be pregnant when she didn’t want to be, would never experience the tragedy of a pregnancy gone horribly wrong, would not have health conditions incompatible with pregnancy, wouldn’t even know what rape was (because it wouldn’t exist), would never have to choose between being stuck in an abusive relationship and creating (then raising) a child. While in Fantasy Land (where pro-liars spend all their time), I would that women were able to resorb untenable pregnancies, like many other animals do, and never have to experience spontaneous abortion of a very much wanted pregnancy.

  • bj-survivor

    An 8-week abortion does not look anything like human carnage, just a really heavy period with a little capsule in it.

     

    True, that. I have passed blood clots bigger than the embryonic sac sucked out during my abortion, countless times actually. If abortion is violence, then so is menstruation.

  • ack

    I don’t think that anyone can honestly deny the connection between abortion and any of the issues you listed. The penis connection could be debatable, since it’s more theoretical; the rest of the issues are directly linked in one way or another. Now, if Amanda actually attempted to link abortion to interior decorating, you’d have a point about looking for connections that aren’t there. The rest is pretty well established.

  • jacqueline

    You are in such a hurry to cut off dialogue, via acerbic and facetious demonstrations of your own solipsism, you totally missed the fact that I was referring to the content of her post, which is defacto my “evidence”. Hence your initial premise misses the mark and throws off the rest of your thinly-disguised querulous invective, thus rendering it vapid.

     

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you for your attempt to adequately use my choice of vocabulary. Practice , practice, practice!

  • jacqueline

    I merely pointed out one detail that was self-contradictory and possibly embarrassing to its author. Mire? Pourquoi?

     

    I notice all of my posts, as well as those of Paul, are barely discernable and therefore easily missed.

     

    [Paranoia reigns supreme here, doesn't it?]

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • colleen

    I notice all of my posts, as well as those of Paul, are barely discernable and therefore easily missed.

    Well, yes, unpleasant behavior has consequences.

  • jacqueline

    It might interest you to know that several of my sisters and friends are following this site privately, as I write this.

    Are you sure you want to lump me in with Paul and the others?

    First I’m not a feminist;

    Then I’m a glowing example of anti-choice hypocrisy;

    Oh, and I need evidence to express an opinion;

    Now, my posts are considered “unpleasant behavior”, punishable by being hidden.

    [Paranoia will destroy ya, for sure.]

     

  • bj-survivor

    I despise females-as-breeding-livestock ideology regardless of whether the one spewing the misogynist rhetoric has a penis or a vagina.

     

    I’m sure it will blow your puny mind, but not all feminists have vaginas. Yes, some feminists have penises. Conversely, not all misogynists/sexists have penises.

     

    Truth be told, I cannot fathom why Paul continues to spew his inane, repetitive, rape-/pedophile-apology and women-as-breeding-livestock screed here, either.

  • bj-survivor

    Paul’s bringing up Iraq as legal and justified just goes to show how out of touch with reality he is.

  • prochoiceferret

    I notice all of my posts, as well as those of Paul, are barely discernable and therefore easily missed.

     

    Yes, troll comments do kind of look all the same to us too! It’s rather rare that a troll notices that, however.

  • jacqueline

    God save me from clinically-inflated solipsists armed with an opinion.

    [Self-defense is innately "unpleasant behavior", isn't it?]

  • plume-assassine

    Ummm… you seem to be the paranoid one, actually. Why is your entire post in bold? People are rating your posts as “1 – Spam/Troll” because they think you came here not to have a discussion, but to derail the thread into endless bullshit. Comments that have been rated 1 or 2 by readers more than once are hidden because it is understood that they don’t really add to the discussion. Granted, I don’t like to rate any comment a 1 unless they are obviously trollish, offensive/derogatory, stupid, or pointless. It looks like your comments are starting to veer into the stupid and pointless categories; but if you want to have a real discussion, then go ahead and get started.

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m sure it will blow your puny mind, but not all feminists have vaginas. Yes, some feminists have penises.

     

    Wait till she finds out that many of those feminist vaginas actually like having feminist penises inside them! Studies prove that penises with a feminist attached to them are a lot more prone to causing orgasms and post-orgasmic cuddling.

     

    Conversely, not all misogynists/sexists have penises.

     

    Though you’d think they believe that if they hate on women hard enough, they’ll magically grow one of their own.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Jacqueline I went to home school, and I have dyslexia. You making sure people take notice that my post is contradictory, was not for my benefit, but for you to please your vain hateful self at my expense. Not all of us are Oxford English wizards, but I am sure Oxford has a few who does not go out of their way to mock those who are less educated.

    You are just a mean troll, who has came here to hurt and upset women who fear forced birth.

  • jacqueline

    A troll here appears to be anyone who disagrees with the majority or stands up to supercilious carping. I’ve watched you do this for over a year now. I’m not going to disparage this guy Paul Bradford just for the sake of keeping any of you off my back.

  • jacqueline

    Your post stated that you were going to shoot any individual that gang-rapes you. You’ve since corrected it.

  • goatini

    over posts using a LIST FORMAT.

     

    Not everything is all about you.  

  • goatini

    And you’re a troll.  

     

    You get extra troll points for lurking for 1+ years, before you disrupted poorly.

  • jacqueline

    Goatini’s Law:

    LIST FORMAT = everything

    LIST FORMAT/everything = tired cliche

  • colleen

    FBiR,

    I do apologise for my crack about home schooling. It was rude of me and unworthy and you are the last person I would ever want to insult.

     

  • goatini

    That person is just some wound up forced-birther twit with a thesaurus, attempting disruption and distraction.  

  • goatini

    against all Power Point users for usurping your patented “List Format”.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Oh Sweetie you are very right in regards to my family, my grandfather the southren baptist preacher did not want me going to school with black people.

    My family tried very hard to isolate me and my sister were we would be stupid, submissive, female republican voting rubes, but I got sick of hearing in polished words that I was just a cunt.

    I actually loved it and rated it a 5.

     

     

  • jacqueline

    Goatini’s Second Law:

    Imitation = usurpation

    Imitation/usurpation = patent infringement lawsuit + lame comeback

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, another one who needs to look up definitions.  I can be mired in one area of quicksand, it doesn’t HAVE to be several.  Although, you are rather proving that you are getting mired in the details, by your OWN definition.

    I don’t mark anyone’s posts with a 1 or 2 unless I think they merit it.  That includes some ProChoicers and some Anti-Choicers.  And I agree with the rating yours was given, simply because it is mere whining and complaining.

     Now, contribute or prove our point that you are just a troll (like most anti-choicers, here) and that your posts should, thus, be justifiably hidden.  Thanks.

  • arekushieru

    Yes, good thing she was just making a sarcastic comment.  You are the one who should apologize, but, using typical anti-choice logic, you probably think making jokes about rape is not worthy of being labelled a troll.  How sad.

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, no apologies for your own presumptions.  Again, this deserves a 1.

  • jacqueline

    I would actually like to see at least one anti-choicer respond directly point-by-point to Amanda Marcotte’s article, especially about the phallic obsession with guns/abortion and the interplay of anxious masculinity…

    Amanda’s arguments presume to know what it is like to be someone with a real penis. They are baseless projections of what angry and resentful women believe to be male experience. If you know your Freud, they correspond with penis envy in every sense of the term. In any event, I looked into her background and found an individual extremely unworthy of the adulation and worship her followers here give her. This was my original opinion expressed in my first post.

  • jacqueline

    Back at ya!

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • jacqueline

    “Ummm… you seem to be the paranoid one, actually. Why is your entire post in bold? People are rating your posts as “1 – Spam/Troll” because they think you came here not to have a discussion, but to derail the thread into endless bullshit.”

     

    My entire post was put in bold because of my anger at such a shoddy manipulation of the board. Hiding my post while leaving the answers to it visible is deliberate deception, oh self-righteous ones.

     

    Thanks ever so much for the explanation. I know the proverbial fix is in; and I know that any critiques you receive for undeserved nastiness or lack of critical thinking always result in attempts to drive your critics out of the clique altogether.

     

     “It looks like your comments are starting to veer into the stupid and pointless categories; but if you want to have a real discussion, then go ahead and get started.”

     

     

    Admittedly, I have to veer into the aforementioned categories, due to someone’s “stupid and pointless” effort to turn what I wrote around and use it on me; despite the fact that they can choose to ignore it or resort to a refutation that is more relevant and dispassionate. I completely understand the use of a “Full Touche” reply, but it seems to be an utter reflex on this board with many of you.

     

    I am also forced to veer in cases where I’ve been presumptively labeled. This is a sure-fire discussion destroyer and has to stop, if your invitation is sincerely meant.

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • arekushieru

    I know I am doing these out of order, so?

    I really am not impelled to have to refute the chain of egregious exaggerations and epithets that ensued. Too many arguments presented here are based on premises that are unexamined and biased. That is my opinion, not the incorrect answer to another person’s pop quiz.

    When one presents an opinion, normally one has them backed up.  Otherwise, we can’t take it as read that they are simply opinions rather than personal attacks or morality imposed as facts.  Most people would recognize that.  After all, if one DOES hold a belief or opinion dearly, they aren’t afraid to share the reasoning behind it.  Or they provide context in order to prevent their views from being thinly separated from a passive-aggressive attempt at morally imposing facts.  You have yet to do either. 

    When I was given a wiseacre answer about how feminist she is when compared to me, I pointed out the features of her writings that give the appearance of zealotry or fanaticism; since I am not in competition with anyone as to who is the best or most authentic feminist on this site.

    Wow, you really do have a huge sense of entitlement, don’t you?  If you feel it necessary to give your unsolicited opinion then don’t blame others when they give you their solicited opinion.  Just by posting on here, you solicit them… or… didn’t you know that?  Weird.

    Zealotry and fanaticism?  When abortion is the most fundamental issue at the core of the patriarchy and the most effective way the patriarchy controls women, of COURSE everything else that comes under the heading of the patriarchy is going to be related to abortion and feminism.  Anyone logical would know that, y’know…?  Of course, what can I expect, when someone doesn’t even know that reproductive rights and feminism are synonymous…? 

    My original point was that Amanda Marcotte seems able to tie the topic of abortion to everything from interior decoration to exploring the polar ice caps.

    Proof please.  And don’t go off and complain that you are just providing an opinion: 1) Go back to the top and re-read; 2) We have every right to ask you for proof about your opinion.

     

  • arekushieru

    Usurping one’s patented information = plagiarism.  Usurping someone’s words = regurgitation.  Please, if you need to use terms, use the correct ones, otherwise, it’s rather disingenuous of you to accuse others of improper word usage.  (sarcasm/) Sorry (/sarcasm), since that just *might* be why you responded to FBIR as if she was apologizing .

  • plume-assassine

    Amanda’s arguments presume to know what it is like to be someone with a real penis.

    Amanda’s arguments are also based on research and statements from actual men, specifically a masculinity expert.

    If you know your Freud, they correspond with penis envy in every sense of the term.

    In contemporary psychology, “penis envy” has been proven to be a crock o’ shit. Freud was right about a lot of things, but hilariously wrong on others.

     

    Amanda uses some Freudian theory in her article, in discussing the symbolic phallus of the gun. The role of anxious masculinity (or a symbolic “castration fear”) also comes into play with the anti-choice obsession of preventing abortion. Her article is interesting because many people have noticed a strong correlation between pseudo-libertarians who are gun-obsessed and also rabidly anti-choice. It seeks to explain why this is so often the case. If you have a better explanation for this phenomenon which is so prevalent among male Tea Partiers, then feel free to let me know.

     

    As for your INTERNET DETECTIVE® work, I am curious to know what you found in her “”background”” that makes her seem an “unworthy,” angry, or resentful individual. Also, where is this “worship and adulation” you refer to?

     

    I should also mention that you really ought to stop referring to commenters on this site as members of a “clique.” This isn’t high school. This is an unapologetically pro-choice blog. If people seem to be in agreeance with each other and annoyed with troll commenters who post opinions as “facts,” it’s because 1) they are annoyed, and 2) because this isn’t an open platform for those who self-describe as “pro-life.” If you are not pro-choice and you are looking for comradery and a platform for your views, then there’s always places like Lifesite or hundreds of MRA web sites you can join. If you have dissenting opinions and still want to join in the discussion without acting pretentious and facetious, you are also welcome to do so.

  • jacqueline

    Hmm, another one who needs to look up definitions.  I can be mired in one area of quicksand, it doesn’t HAVE to be several.  Although, you are rather proving that you are getting mired in the details, by your OWN definition.”

     

     

     

    Speak for yourself sissy! The context here has nothing to do with quicksand. Isn’t this about Reality Checking? I strongly suggest you start doing it. Are you able to answer anything I write without foolishly trying to turn it back on me?

     

    [She thinks to herself, "Oh dear, there I've gone and exhibited another unpleasant behavior."]

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • arekushieru

    Okay, do you even KNOW what you’re saying, now? 

    First, you accuse us of being emotional then you accuse us of being clinical.  Second, if it’s not a good thing to have an opinion, then why are you stating your OWN ‘opinions’?  Third, the only solipsists I’ve ever seen, including up until now, are anti-choicers, NOT ProChoicers.  Fourthly, the ONLY way self-defense could be innately unpleasant is if you are referring to the unpleasant circumstances they are defending themselves FROM (otherwise, I can’t see how cancelling out unpleasant circumstances COULD be ‘unpleasant’).  Finally, I’ve seen another anti-choicer use the term ‘solipsism’ in the exact same manner, meaning they falsely accused others of being what they ACTually were. 

    BUHbye.  You are now officially on my personal ignore list, after having confirmed yourself being the troll we all believed you to be. 

      

  • jacqueline

    “Usurping one’s patented information = plagiarism.  Usurping someone’s words = regurgitation.  Please, if you need to use terms, use the correct ones, otherwise, it’s rather disingenuous of you to accuse others of improper word usage.  (sarcasm/) Sorry (/sarcasm), since that just *might* be why you responded to FBIR as if she was apologizing .”

    Ursurpation of any patent is patent infringement. I strongly suggest you start Reality Checking with a patent attorney. Patents are a serious legal matter. More so than copyright and much more so than a term paper.

     

    [Arekushieru must be Hindi for "Big Bluffer"] 

  • bj-survivor

    say whatever you want, troll. It’s not my side bombing clinics and assassinating doctors. It’s also not my side cutting the social safety net and doing its damnedest to get the government to ban contraception by claiming that contraception is “abortifacient.” You’re damned straight I’m angry and I’m not going to stand meekly and politely by while you assholes take us back to the Dark Ages.

  • arekushieru

    Ignore her, goatini.  She has no idea what she’s talking about, as I pointed out in my latest (and last) comment to her.  She accuses us of very contradictory things, has no idea what an an. al. o. gy is, doesn’t know the difference between actually using something and regurgitation and, apparently, can’t understand that accusing us of being a ‘clique’ IS very presumptuous on her part, because IF she actually HAS been lurking for 1+ years she would have noticed that we are very different from any ‘clique’.  We disagree with each other and often.  Cliques don’t do that.  (Oh!  And she also can’t distinguish between languages that should be so simple to do, for one as ‘learned’ as she.)

    Report her as I’m doing.

  • bj-survivor

    I second this comment.

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • jacqueline

    I can see clearly why this is a females-only forum and why you try so desperately to keep it that way. I’m going to ask a few of my colleagues to come here nevertheless, just to get their opinions about it. Reality Check is a misnomer for sure.

     

  • plume-assassine

     fantasizing yourself as a visiting lecturer at Oxford

    Projection, anyone? After all, you have already shown a tendency to be verbose.

    You don’t know my position on abortion, forced birthing, guns, God or ANYTHING to which Amanda referred in her article

    Yawn. Feel free to elucidate (and prove us wrong) at any time now.

     

    Are we done here?

  • jacqueline

    As Freud himself purportedly put it, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!”

    A “masculinity” expert. Does the term Appeal to Authority strike a familiar note?

    I am painfully aware of the theoretical aspect of Amanda’s work; which is why I raised the issue of her stretching a point too far. For this, I got the typical response here:  Reframing my statements with an addition or deletion and then proceeding to refute the faulty premises; trying to deflate me with the “pot calling the kettle black”argument; claiming instantaneous and automatic victimization by me for fighting back and a smattering of assorted putdowns and rankouts. Most importantly though, this hiding of my posts, while simultaneously leaving the snarky responses on display, was the most blatantly deceitful thing I’ve ever witnessed on any forum to date.

     

    Internet Detective? And I’m the one being told not to be pretentious or facetious!!! I just Googled Amanda Marcotte, silly goose! After the sources I read concerning her firing as the blog master for John Edward’s campaign site, it was more than apparent that she did something either compulsively self-destructive or calculatingly premeditated.

     

    Jesus, Mary and Joseph, you think after about 13 months of viewing this site, I don’t know what it’s about? OK, maybe clique was a harsh term, but the presumptive labeling and the group grousing that went on here today was mind-boggling. I took a shot at participating, that’s all. I’m not making fun of rape or anyone with less education than me; I’m not using a Thesaurus and digging up synonymns to impress anybody; I am not a “forced birther”; and I resent being accused of it.

     

    Please stop the presumptive labeling, the cherry-picking, and the denial about your own group snarkiness, and we’ll have a chance at real dialogue here.

  • jacqueline

    All you seem to want to do is lash out at me. Ignore me and I’ll have a chance at meaningful dialogue with people less bigoted, snotty and frenzied than you.

  • jacqueline

    Kudos Assassin Pen! You are certainly well named.

    Yes, well answering posts from about a dozen or so members here can give the appearance of verbosity, to the untrained eye that is.

    So after being diagnosed by your supreme royal highness, I get to further indulge my verbosity in one grand, sweeping, imperious gesture. That’s certainly big of you!

    Specifically, I get to summarize my background in an effort to prove you wrong. Sorry, but you’re going to gave to work for it.

    Nighty-night!

     

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Jacqueline you sound reminiscent of the MRA guys who used to post here before they got banned. Could you be from SYG? Hmm.

     

    Either way you’re a troll.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Who’s paranoid now? Feminist code? What? You have no audacity and kahunas.  

  • rebellious-grrl

    He/she is a troll that is here just to piss people off, derail the conversation, and in general be a complete a-hole. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    So nit-picky and whinny. Are you perfect Jacqueline?

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    And again with the personal insults. Spouting insults and your “men’s rights” bullshit. I highly doubt you are a “newcomer” to this site.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I can see clearly why this is a females-only forum and why you try so desperately to keep it that way.

    It’s not a females-only forum. Acknowledging that statement is true, that men and women post on this site (and have conversations without insulting each other) doesn’t help your anti-feminist/anti-misandry fight. Does it? Go ahead keep believing things that are pure fiction. I really don’t care if you are delusional.

    “Your colleagues” Sure send them here. A lot has changed since the last onslaught of “men’s rights” guys posted here. The comment policy has changed and trolls trying to derail conversations won’t last long. 

     

     

  • jacqueline

    At the risk of being self-righteously chided for engaging in unpleasant behavior, I must point out that I’ve never been to Hawaii, nor do I practice the indigenous religion there, nor have I been initiated as a holy man in that religion.

     

    As for having no audacity, I wish you would convince your fellow crackerjack troll-hunters of that fact. They still have their invisible protective antennae out.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Jacqueline, is that MRA speak for little man with a female screen name that is really an advocate of “men’s rights?” Like someone who might post at SYG or the like?

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • rebellious-grrl

    Kahunas

    American slang: literally balls, testicles; figuratively a man who has big kahunas has a lot of nerve, is brave, a risk taker, has a lot of testosterone.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kahunas

  • jacqueline

    Whinny?

    To neigh, as a horse, especially in a gentle tone. v. tr.

  • forced-birth-rape

    How I learned what a feminist was, in my southern baptist republican family.

    I do not like those gross preachers staring at me, it is gross, I am only thirteen. Quit acting like a feminist!
    Don’t you feel sorry for Bernadette that she was raped? Quit acting like a feminist!
    I feel sorry for Granny that she was beat by Grandpa all those years. Quit acting like a feminist!
    I do not want to get married. Quit acting like a feminist!
    I hate for men to touch me, and say gross things to me. Quit acting like a feminist!

    I learned feminist were against rape, and wife beating. My family thought women who had the nerve to complain about rape or wife beating, were much worse then the rapist or wife beater. The worst thing a woman can do is complain about her body and life being used and abused, this makes her to be a feminist.

  • jacqueline

    Also neighbors, family and close friends.

    Say, uh, how delusional is it of you to assume anyone else but these?

    ["Ooops! There I go again giving opinions without sufficient footnotes and annotated bibliography." She thinks to herself.] 

  • jacqueline

    Do you think I don’t know this site is filled with abuse surviviors and those that sympathize with them (including me)?

  • rebellious-grrl

    whiney

     

    Happy now, oh “QUEEN” of prissiness?  

  • ahunt

    Now now, Jacqueline…if at any time, you’ve read a post of mine written with the clear intent of driving someone off these boards…do produce it. Please? Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

     

    As it happens…echo chambers bore me.

     

    And permit me to call your attention to the fact that it is YOU dominating these boards of late, and being just as snarky and confrontational as anyone here. You cannot expect to waltz in dripping attitude, and then subsequently whine because you get attitude backatcha.

     

    So…we clear?

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    ahunt, Don’t ya think Jaqueline sounds a lot like those MRA windbags, the devotees of Glenn Sacks, that posted on Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, and Family Violence: A Dangerous Intersection?

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/03/17/reproductive-rights-parental-rights-family-violencedangerous-intersection?page=3

  • mechashiva

    So, if you’ve been lurking for 13 months, you must be aware of why and how the site implemented the rating system, right?

     

    The comment-rating system was recently put in place because over the last several months the site has been flooded with trolls who derail conversations. The comment sections became inordinately cluttered, and we wanted a way to tidy things up a bit. So, users (pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike) can vote on the quality of comments. Those with an average rating of 2 or less are greyed out, but they can be read by clicking on them. I realize this is an exhausting task that surely must skirt the lines of pure Fascist censorship, but do try to make the best of it.

     

    As for the article, I think that the Freud-esque linking of gun-rights and abortion-rights misses the mark. I think that gun-ownership has more to do with a fear-based perspective on life than anything else, and it isn’t the shape of a gun that people find comforting.

  • jrm83

    I think you mean Roget’s Thesaurus.

  • plume-assassine

    That’s translated as Killer Quill actually.

     

    It’s not how many posts you’ve answered, but that you have “an expressive style that uses excessive or empty words.”

     

    Supreme royal highness? Stop over-reacting. I was giving you a chance to have a real conversation by summarizing your views, instead of continuing this endless bullshittery and tit-for-tat nonsense. Do you want to talk about these subjects at all… or do you want to continue to complain about imaginary cliques, and correct others’ spelling/grammatical errors in an effort to make yourself appear superior?

  • arekushieru

    Hopefully, this abusive, rape-apologist woman is gone.  She thinks everyone should ‘know’ that she’s against rape and sympathizes with those who have been, when she makes JOKES about it, then doesn’t apologize for it and engages in abusive behaviour, herSELF but expects everyone ELSE to apologize to her for not immediately reading her mind.   Wow, can we say sense of entitlement…?  Typical anti-choice logic.  (I bet she thinks that means I’m calling her anti-choice, but she’s already proven her reading comprehension isn’t the greatest, so I can understand why she *would* think that.  But I’ll explain, only because the rest may have misunderstood, as well.  I’m accusing her of using anti-choice logic.  Which is not the same as accusing someone of being that thing.  Otherwise, there couldn’t be such a thing as devil’s advocates.  I bet, even with something so simple, she’s probably going: *Whine*Huh?  I don’t get it….*Whine*) 

    Yeah, she just loves proving what a hypocrite she is.  She whines that we weren’t leaving her in peace when SHE was the one who was disturbing  others peace in the first place.  ‘If you can’t handle the heat then step away from the fire’ (I wonder if she was just too ignorant to get that…?).  It’s funny that it was one of the members of the ‘clique’ that stepped away, first.  And she probably had to be banned for her to do so.  Wow, sounds more and more like she *was* using anti-choice logic, doesn’t it?  FALSEly accusing others of doing the exACT same thing she was ACTually doing, meaning being part of a clique. 

    On top of that, I’ve seen several people’s posts go from a five to a 3.7 in fairly short order.  The only way they could do that is if someone marked them as a 5, 4 and 2 respectively (with only 3 votes cast, of course).  I think she must have missed that part that indicates the number of votes given… with her usual obtuseness.   So why didn’t she come out and say she was doing it, and for that reason, if she IS such a ‘brave soul’ who merely wants to point out the ‘cliquey’ and emotionalist and clinical (yes, it IS a contradiction but she’s the one who is unable to see the obvious…) behaviour of the ProChoicers on here?  Oh, that’s right, that’s because it’s just a contrast.  She wasn’t here to be brave, she was here to underline how much of a coward she was with her irrational, abusive, defensive manner of self-entitlement and her hidden markings of people’s posts. 

    Plus, another reason I don’t think she’s been here for 1 year+, is because she WOULD have noticed that not all of our posts were marked as 4 or 5, beSIDES the fact that some of us have already STATED that we don’t like to do that, automatically, and the FACT that she would have seen our disagreements, even between myself and Amanda and other friends of hers and herself, if she HAD been here that long.

    Her inability to understand what the term ‘projection’ means is also laughable.  When someone points out her obvious lack of understanding of words, she thinks it’s ‘projection’ when it’s pret-ty hard to ‘project’ something that’s already being ‘projected’.  Her whining that the incorrect usage of words is something that she should never be called on while everyone else SHOULD be, IS exACTly that, after all… along with a ‘HEALthy’ dose of self-entitlement.  Cases in point of incorrect usages of words, occured when the lack of ability to make a distinction between the usage of the term colleagues when it WAS referring only to co-workers on the job and when it *WASn’t* and a distinction between the usage of the terms imitation/usurpation when they were used to refer to plagiarism and when they *WEREn’t*, but instead *used to refer to simply ‘copying’ something*. 

    (/end rant) 

    Sorry guys!  I felt I had to get that off my chest.  From now on, I will post as if she isn’t here, too, rather than just not responding to her.  But, please delete, if necessary.  THANKS!  :)

      

  • bj-survivor

    Jaqueline is a carbon copy of those pseudo-literate wankers.

  • ahunt

    I had not made the connection, largely because I wasn’t paying much attention to her? posts.

     

    Perked up with the snotty charge of bullying.

     

    S’pose I should review, but frankly, if Jacqueline has departed…no point. She? didn’t interest me while she was here…and I just don’t have the energy.

  • colleen

    His/her unique and unintentionally hilarious writing style made me recall one of those MRA guys in particular. He started out calling himself Irving (something, perhaps Stavos) PhD.

     

     

  • ack

    I’m actually interested in your perspectives; you may have offered them before, but weeding through the trolls and tired arguments gets… well, tired. What is it about the OP that you want to challenge?

     

    And please don’t use “autistic savant” as a thinly veiled insult.

     

    As a general note: I’ve noticed a lot of ableist language used in this comment thread. Can we all try to eliminate that, please?

  • jacqueline

    “Now now, Jacqueline…if at any time, you’ve read a post of mine written with the clear intent of driving someone off these boards…do produce it. Please? Otherwise, shut the fuck up.”

     

    LET’S START WITH THIS ONE, HONEY CHILD! THE DENIAL HERE IS THICKER THAN YOUR ANKLES.

     

    “As it happens…echo chambers bore me.”

    I’VE SEEN DANGLING PARTICIPLES, BUT THIS IS A METAPHOR LEFT TO DANGLE.

     

    “And permit me to call your attention to the fact that it is YOU dominating these boards of late, and being just as snarky and confrontational as anyone here. You cannot expect to waltz in dripping attitude, and then subsequently whine because you get attitude backatcha.”

     

    YOU DO NOT HAVE AND WILL NOT EVER RECEIVE MY PERMISSION TO REVERSE THE PROPER CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT HAVE TRANSPIRED HERE, NOR TO PLAY TO THE CROWD WHEN YOU THINK MY BACK IS TURNED.  

     

    So…we clear?

    ABOUT WHAT? THE FACT THAT YOU ARE OBNOXIOUSLY OBTUSE?

  • ack

    Now, it’s clear that the thread hit home for me, but this guy’s refusal to acknowledge ANY criticism of the CTS showed me how detached from reality the gender symmetry crowd is.

     

    I would encourage anyone and everyone to read “Coercive Control” by Evan Stark. Terrifying stuff, but it really contextualizes the definition of domestic violence as we understand it today.

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • ahunt

    Awww…diddums Snookums get oos fat widdle hand caught in the cookie jar?

     

    The issue remains…unless you can produce a post where I have bullied anyone, or called for the removal of any poster…you are just a lying sack of of fecal matter laboring under the delusion that I need your permission to post…anything.

     

    But thanks for playing….Snookums.

  • ack

    …stop with the autistic savant shit. STOP. And incest? Really? Not a joke on this site or any other that deals with sexual coercion or violence.

  • jacqueline

    I couldn’t help but notice that you emerged with these vague insinuations at the time I wrote that I was signing off. You assumed I wasn’t returning. Why must you go skulking around behind my back?

     

     It appears to be standard operating procedure here.

     

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

     

  • ack

    STOP THIS SHIT. I was willing to explore your opinions; I said so earlier.

    But this. This progression is inexcusable.

    You do not get to make ableist jokes about people with autism. You do not get to make jokes about incest. You do not get to make heterosexist jokes about those who identify as LGBTQ.

     

    STOP THIS SHIT. I have and will continue to report you. You are free to share your opinions on the topic, but YOU ARE NOT FREE TO CONTINUE THE USE OF THIS TYPE OF OPPRESSIVE LANGUAGE.

     

  • jacqueline

    What a profound putdown! Oh how will I ever recover from such an ingenious excoriation? Seriously.

    [Taking a pee break, due to intense laughter.]

  • ahunt

    Oh this is too good. By all means, find any post of mine that even remotely resembles “Now I’m dealing with lesbian inbred autistic savants, that think they are “philadelphia lawyers”

     

    There is a search function. Use it.

     

    You have pissed me off, Jacqueline…you’ve lied about me. I have never initiated name calling…bullied anyone…or called for anyone’s removal from the boards. Back up your shit…or shut the fuck up.

  • jacqueline

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • plume-assassine

    .

  • plume-assassine

    A vindictive, crude, angry child throwing a temper tantrum on the internet. You know, like ack said, I was genuinely interested in having a real debate with you at first and letting you share your views. But you are now BEYOND reason. You obviously cannot engage in intellectual conversation because you repeatedly stoop to low-brow insults as you have demonstrated above. Really, what is your problem?

    I have not at any time made “presumptive remarks” about you or lobbed insults at you, but now you are guilty of doing both. I see you as a raging homophobe and someone who thinks that incest/rape is hilarious. And you have shown how inflated your ego is by laughing at your own “jokes.” What a wonderful person you are! 

     

    You could not prove to anyone that you were not here to be a troll. I gave you a fair chance. Say goodnight, Gracie.

  • ack

    A sliver of oppression education would show you how the language you CHOSE to use is detrimental to people with disabilites, LGBTQ folks, and survivors of violence. You attempted to insult people on this board by comparing them with PEOPLE who are LBGTQ, PEOPLE who have autism, or PEOPLE who have been victims of incest, and therefore insinuated that all of those things are somehow deserving of insult.

    What you said is the equivalent of people using “gay” as a random derogatory term.

    To people who have autism, survivors of incest, and people who identify as LGBTQ, your conflation of those descriptions with insults is absolutely an issue. I was interested in your opinions on the article. I don’t care how many responses you felt you had to write, you do NOT get to use the type of oppressive language you resorted to. And I will continue to report each and every response that equates being autistic, having a disability, identifying as LGBTQ, or being a survivor of violence with something negative.

  • ahunt

     

  • ahunt

    “Laughter at being called “Snookums” by another woman?”

     

    My Bad…I didn’t know “Snookums” had gender conotations. “Hunty Baby,” of course…is equally non-gender specific.

  • goatini

    What’s next, “nattering nabobs of negativism”?

     

    If you’re attempting to aspire to the heights of Safire and Buchanan, I’m sorry to say that you’re not even a low-rent Noonan.

  • goatini

    Excellent book from a feminist man who gets it.  

  • rebellious-grrl

    ack, thanks for the heads up on the book. I’ll check it out.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Yep. It seams like the standard operating procedures of the MRA folks who posted here a few months before.

    They pick one post to disrupt and derail. They particularly seam to dislike Amanda Marcotte’s posts. They will post from about 11 p.m. to the early hours of the morning (or very late night). They will start with some small insults, berate feminism etc. They will tear apart people’s grammar and spelling mistakes to feel like they are gaining some intellectual superiority, which they’re not. They will up the insults and blame it on the regular posters here saying we bullied them. For example, “You assumed I wasn’t returning. Why must you go skulking around behind my back?” Yeah, kind of creepy. They will go so far as to post asinine pictures with titles like “FAIL” on them and other very juvenile photos etc.

    The MRA folks are complete losers who have nothing more to do in life than harass and bully. They get off on picking fights with the regulars here an want us to respond.

    They have no place posting here and I hope Jacqueline will get banned soon.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Oh sure cuz your that important. Only in your world.

  • paul-bradford

    ahunt,

     

    First of all, thanks for backing me up with the verification that I actually have been long consistent in asserting that zygotes are real boys and girls like you and me.

     

    Disingenuous, as it is, in your hopes, impossible to have [knowledge of successful fertilization] without [awareness of failed implantation].

     

    I wish you wouldn’t toss the word ‘disingenuous’ at me.  My point was simply that medical information of any sort can supply people with information that will allow them to improve the chances for a good outcome.  The SIDE EFFECT is that more information sometimes means you’re aware of bad news that you would otherwise be ignorant of.  There’s nothing disingenuous about my desire to equip mothers with all the support they can get in their efforts to keep their children safe.

     

    [P]lease explain to us, why any rational contracepting couple would avail themselves of [the technology to ascertain fertilization before implantation]?


    I really think, ahunt, that you would be able to answer some of these questions yourself if you spent more time imagining the way people who respect the dignity of unborn persons view things.  I’ve said this before: it isn’t enough to care about the well being of your children before they’re born.  You should care about their well being before they’re conceived.

     

    Care for the child I might possibly father leads me to be circumspect about my sexual behavior.  To respect life, I have to realize that to offer to partner in sex with a woman is to be willing to partner as a parent with her in the support and nurturance of her child.  You exercise reproductive choice by exercising choice about your sexual behavior.  It’s all well and good to take steps to avoid conception, but as long as there’s even a slight chance that a child could be brought into the world, it’s necessary to be prepared for that eventuality.  When I back up my car, I look behind me to see if there’s anyone there.  After I’ve had sex, I take an interest in knowing “if there’s anyone there” as well.  In both cases I’m trying to prevent a tragedy.

  • colleen

    Do you think I don’t know this site is filled with abuse surviviors

    I think that’s why you’re posting here.

     

  • paul-bradford

    He says he does but I don’t think he really does.


    Salty,

     

    Imagine how hard it will be for us to communicate with each other if I can’t get you to believe that I mean the things I say.  I’d like you to give me the same benefit of the doubt that I give you.  I’d like each of us to assume that the other is doing her/his best to pursue the truth and to make this a better world.  There’s only one reason that I advocate for the very young and that is because I want to increase the storehouse of joy that exists in the human race.

     

    You ridicule my belief that we were persons from the very beginnings of our lives.  I think it’s ridiculous to believe otherwise.  You’re a person now; if you started off as a ‘non-person’ there must have been a point where you made the transition from non-person to person.  I call the belief that non-persons can become persons ‘Blue Fairy thinking’.  Pinnochio was just a block of wood until the Blue Fairy waved her magic wand and turned him into a real live boy.  I believe that such transformations only take place in Fairy Tales.  The only persons that there can ever be have always been persons.

  • saltyc

    And if persons can’t come from non-persons then is an unfertilized ovum a person? I already asked you. People do come fom things that are not people. Ever heard of Australopithecine? She’s not a Disney character.

    there must have been a point where you made the transition from

    non-person to person.

    It wasn’t a point, it was a process, just like the day doesn’t start at a single moment, but gradually becomes illuminated by the sun’s light. There are various definitions of when the day starts: Midnight, civil, nautical and astronomical measures of sunrise.

     

    You have to admit that you’re in over your head here.

  • ahunt

    it’s necessary to be prepared for that eventuality

     

    Actually Paul, I’m still unclear as to why actively contracepting couples would avail themselves of the technology…and if they did,  why you would think it is more likely that these couples would immediately begin prepping for parenthood as opposed to busting a move down at the local Planned Parenthood…

  • bj-survivor

    You have never shown respect for women or fertile females in any way, shape, or form. I and others have gone round and round with you, answering your questions, explaining why it is we disagree with your conclusions, and still you persist in repeatedly asking the same questions and spewing the same stupidity with which we disagree. Those links in my above post are just a few of the places in which we’re gone round and round with your asinine females-as-breeding-livestock crap.

     

    Fuck off and just go away, you vile piece of misogynist shit.

  • arekushieru

    To respect life means you have to fear every eventuality that may lead to fertilization and pregnancy, especially if you don’t want to be pregnant under ANY circumstance what. so. ever (such as myself; to repeat ad nauseam.  Yes, I am non-sexual but that doesn’t mean I won’t change my mind about sex, later or that there aren’t others who don’t want to be pregnant for any reason what. so. ever who ARE sexually active) but only if you’re female (because the male doesn’t EVER have to worry about being pregnant)?  It means that people (women) can only ever have sex for reasons of procreation.  Trying to prevent procreation (which doesn’t necessarily include contraception, because women take it for other reasons than merely preventing pregnancy) is just as procreation-focussed as trying *to* procreate, after all…. 

    You can’t truly be a ‘partner’ in supporting a woman beFORE there is a child since you don’t invest the same resources in pregnancy that a woman does.  To say you can and do, is to disrespect women and prove our point all the more about you. 

    What makes you think she doesn’t ‘respect’ the unborn?  AS we’ve told you respect and abortion can OBviously walk hand in hand. 

    Your analogy fails.  You are comparing two VERY disparate circumstances.   Seeing whether there is anyone there, implies NOThing about the measures taken once you’ve ascertained someone IS there.  AS ahunt has been trying to tell you.

    And you aren’t talking about support, you’re talking about guilting them into a decision that doesn’t reflect their real-world realities, as usual, unTIL you can actually identify what ‘supports’ you are talking about.  

    To go back to my scale analogy which you absolutely could NOT grasp, here’s another scenario; on one side is the woman’s arm, along which hang a number of bowls.  On the other side is the fetus’ arm along which hangs one similar-sized bowl.  In order to balance the scale you have to fill all the bowls on the woman’s side and the bowl on the fetal side.  Now, how full are the bowls on the woman’s side compared to the bowl on the fetus’ side?  Relatively darn scarce, right?  That’s what YOU want to do to women.  Repugnant.

  • arekushieru

    Wish we could delete our messages, ahunt, especially since it now seems we get points of 1 for accidental double-posts, now….

  • ahunt

    Heh…that’ll larn us….

     

    I’m not concerned…people who manage websites tend to be bright folks.

  • squirrely-girl

    While I certainly appreciate the grammar and vernacular of our latest visitor/troll, the arguments are essentially just one of the usual games played here. I’m not really impressed and quite frankly the aggressiveness and immaturity only seeks to degrade the quality of discourse.

     

    Some of the sophomoric snarkiness and (attempts at) bullying in this thread is just sad.   :(

  • faultroy

    This comment has been removed.

     

    RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice.  We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals.  We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate.  We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article.  We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.

     

    RH Reality Check staff