MTV’s Truths Vs. Anti-Choice Lies


In all the years I’ve worked as a pro-choice writer and social media activist, one thing I’ve really learned about the anti-choice movement is its relationship to truth is like a vampire’s to sunlight. And I don’t mean the Mormon sparkly Twilight vampires.  I mean old-fashioned vampires who screech and burn up when exposed to sunlight.  Anti-choicers exhibit as much dread around the truth as the sewer-dwelling minions on Buffy the Vampire Slayer displayed towards the sun.

A recent example involves the MTV special No Easy Decision. The special was remarkably free of ideological concerns over abortion, and they seemed to take all their cues from the pro-voice organization Exhale, which partnered with MTV on the special.  The show simply chronicled the experience of one young mother who has an abortion, and then supplemented that coverage with Dr. Drew Pinsky interviewing that woman, Markai, and two others, Natalia and Katie, about their experiences.  Of course, it’s always been my opinion that non-ideological approaches to abortion—including pro-voice approaches that value the individual experiences of women—are automatically pro-choice, since pro-choice is about letting individual women decide, instead of forcing a decision on them. If you have all the access to the facts and a completely free choice, that’s all pro-choicers want, and all anyone who positions themselves as anti-ideological should want.

And this special took that non-ideological, experience-and-science-based approach.  The women were allowed to talk about the good and the bad of abortion, and their differing feelings.  No one was “right” or “wrong” in how they felt.  “What if” feelings were expressed beside relief. Dr. Drew’s statements were scrupulously fact-based.  He noted that the taboo against speaking about abortion didn’t do much to slow down the abortion rate.  He barely talked about the politics of it at all.  If you object to the legality of abortion or the morality of it, but are otherwise pro-facts and pro-science, you shouldn’t have objected.  A worldview should be able to withstand basic logic and facts.

But anti-choice activists knew their worldview cannot withstand basic reality.   Before the special even aired, Jill Stanek protested it, making sure to note that one of her main objections was that MTV works with sex education and pro-contraception groups.  (I know I sound like a broken record on this, but it’s important never to forget that anti-abortion activists also object to the means to prevent unintended pregnancy, and hence the need for abortion, and are better understood as forced-pregnancy activists than anti-abortion in any meaningful sense.)   Clearly, the mere threat that the program would have real information in it created a vampire-like recoil in Stanek.

Stanek also threw a fit because MTV didn’t include an anti-choice opinion.  Of course, they didn’t include a pro-choice one, either.  There was no real discussion of abortion rights as an ideological matter at all, just as a personal experience and a real world fact.  Injecting two minutes of some activist who denies the science and doesn’t know the women involved would have not only been pandering to misogynists, it would have really stuck out as strange and silly. It would be like putting together a show about how the Earth rotates, and then having two minutes from someone who denies the Earth is round for “balance.”

After the special aired, and those dangerous facts and realities were just out there in the world, there was only one thing for anti-choicers do: Demand we ignore what we saw and heard, and listen instead to their lies.

My favorite had to be the conspiracy theory paranoia that cropped up immediately.  Jill Stanek and Bryan Kemper immediately decided that MTV had to have had covert funding from the “abortion industry” (which of course they claim is what Planned Parenthood and companies that make contraception devices are), because certainly a popular for-profit network that easily makes millions of dollars a year needs that sweet, sweet cash from non-profits that channel 100 percent of the money they make into providing education and services.  The “evidence” for this claim of covert funding was that Dr. Drew talks up using contraception. Reality-based folks might point out that contraception actually reduces the need for abortion—and Dr. Drew talked up contraception precisely for this reason.  But, obviously, anti-abortion forces are only using opposition to abortion as cover for their real agenda, which is hostility to sexuality and women’s health care, and if you look at it from that perspective, this weird conspiracy theory makes more sense.

But the main strategy of anti-choicers trying to suppress facts and information was to diagnose the women on the show from afar as suffering from some kind of “post-abortion syndrome,” something anti-choicers made up, and which has been repeatedly shown not to exist.

But anti-choicers never let a little truth get in the way of a good story! Anti-choicers flooded the comments at MTV to claim the women would pay for their abortions with their mental health, which sounded more like a threat than the concern it was disguised as. Bryan Kemper accused MTV of only showing a little of the sadness and struggle that accompanied the decision, sure to his bones that the women walked off camera and probably had to be put on suicide watch. Too bad for him the internet allows women to talk back, as one of the women who described feelings of sadness denies strongly that she has a mental illness or regrets her decision. Natalia is also fighting back against anti-choice lies about her.

It’s interesting that anti-choicers insist that every time a woman who has abortion asks “what if?” or sheds a couple of tears, that must mean that she should have been forced to have a baby.  Are they willing to stand by this notion that any ambivalence or sadness after a choice means that your absolutely made the wrong one?  Does that mean a woman who cries after ending an abusive relationship was wrong? Dolly Parton wrote the song “I Will Always Love You” to express her sadness at leaving her singing partnership with Porter Wagoner; do they believe that means Parton regrets moving on to become one of the most successful country musicians of all time?  Some times people get two great job offers and can only pick one.  Do their moments of wondering, “Would I be happier with the other job?” mean they shouldn’t have been allowed a choice?

The show that this documentary spins off of is called 16 and Pregnant, and it features many tears and recriminations, indicating that women who choose to have babies also have their moments of doubt and regret. Will anti-choicers suggest this means they’re suffering post-non-abortive syndrome?

In fact, the vast majority of us have had the experience of coming to a fork in the road, and choosing one path over another, only to occasionally wonder what life would have been like if we’d gone the other way.  Are anti-choicers suggesting that 99 percent of Americans are suffering from untreated trauma because we occasionally ask, “What if?” before reminding ourselves that we made the best decision we could?  If the trauma of “what if” is so great, perhaps people should be denied the right to make any choices at all, never mind just choices about reproduction.

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

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • sayna

    …to claim the women would pay for their abortions with their mental health, which sounded more like a threat than the concern it was disguised as.

    That’s exactly what it is. When women tell them that they’re fine after having an abortion, they get angry. The only time that they listen to women is when they regret it. They think that women regretting their choices justifies them taking away their right to make them.

  • matarij

    Good post – however I do not agree with your comment about ‘post-abortion syndrome,” something anti-choicers made up, and which has been repeatedly shown not to exist.’ I had an abortion 20 years ago and suffered terribly; ironically it was only when I went to ‘Life’ – the anti-abortion organisation in England – for counselling that I got over it.   Several years later I had another abortion, but this time I explored every option I had  – financial: could I work; location: where would we live; existing child: how would I cope and would he lose out. I also went for some counselling before I made the final decision.  Sadly, I could not go through with the pregnancy, but although I still regret the decision I had to make, because I explored all the options, I did not suffer anywhere near the distress after my first abortion. So I suppose I am arguing that post-abortion syndrome can and does exist for women who have to rush into the decision and don’t have the time to really explore all the options, thus making an informed choice.  Unfortuntately, unless things have changed greatly, the pre-abortion counselling offered by the relevant agencies in the UK focuses on filling in a tick-box form: it would be better if the counselling were phased over several sessions before the final decision is reached. 

  • amanda-marcotte

    I highly recommend that if you’re suffering after an abortion, please get some therapy to work through your issues. However, the literature is not refuted through anecdote. Post-abortion depression is linked not with the abortion but whether or not someone suffered depression beforehand. That abortions can exacerbate women’s already-existing mental health problems has less to do with abortion than it does our culture’s shaming of female sexuality and female autonomy, and how a depressed person can react to that shame.

    Unlike abortion, however, childbirth does often create a serious decline in mental health in a percentage of women. It’s called “post-partum depression” or “post-partum psychosis” in the most severe cases. Unlike “post-abortion syndrome”, the research does indicate that post-partum depression is real, and its own phenomenon and not simply a regular case of depression that is being blamed on a single incident, which is what “post-abortion syndrome” is. The existenc of a real disease is not used to suggest that women shouldn’t have the choice to have children, subsequently there is no reason that a made-up disease should be used to force women to give birth against their wills.

  • matarij

    ‘However, the literature is not refuted through anecdote. Post-abortion depression is linked not with the abortion but whether or not someone suffered depression beforehand.’

     

    Please don’t patronise me – literature is not everything.  Out of my circle of friends, the majority of which have had abortions, a high incidence of post-abortion distress was and is reported.  We all know how we felt/feel and it has very little to do with existing depression and everything to do with the trauma of making such an awful choice.  You either have not had an abortion yourself, or you are one of the lucky few that suffered no after effects.  I dislike your patronising and lecturing tone and obvious refusal to recognise the reality of the experience for the majority of women. 

  • jodi-jacobson

    Thank you for sharing your experience.  What I believe Amanda was pointing out, and what stands true, is that there is no statistically valid research showing a link between having an abortion and any sort of “post-abortion” syndrome.  In fact, quite the opposite as we have documented here in reporting on the research that exists on these issues.

    That does not mean that there are no individual women who experience regret, sorrow, or other forms of sadness or even depression after undergoing an abortion.  It does mean, however, that across the population these two are not linked for the vast majority of people.  Your personal story is as valid for you personally as any other.  But your personally story is relevant to you, as mine is to me.  For me to claim that because I had no regrets or sorrow after undergoing an abortion that everyone else should feel the way i did would be just as outlandish as someone claiming a syndrome exists as a complication of a procedure when the literature shows it does not.  What data shows us is what happens as a verifiable outcome.  It does not suggest that there are no such outcomes.

    And indeed I am sorry about your experience. Women do indeed experience a range of responses and emotions regarding abortion which is what I believe Amanda was trying to point out in her piece, and what organizations like Planned Parenthood, and others like Exhale try to recognize and offer women counseling to address.

    However, putting up more and more barriers to women’s access to abortion as you suggest is neither warranted by the research, nor is it respectful of women’s decision-making as autonomous human beings.

    With best wishes,

     

    Jodi

  • amanda-marcotte

    I’m just noting that anecdote is not data. No one is discounting individual experiences when gathering data. On the contrary, they’re counting them up. Barring some kind of conspiracy or prejudice that would incline researchers not to see depression rates spike after abortion, I think the evidence is pretty solid. And there’s no reason to think researchers are interested in concealing these realities. On the contrary, there’s probably more money in finding depression rates rise in women after abortion than not.

  • amanda-marcotte

    That’s exactly what I wanted to say.

    Mental health results aren’t tied so much to abortion as they are to autonomy, from the research I’ve read. Women who abort that didn’t want to are more likely to be stressed, but that’s even more true of women who give birth if they don’t want to. Instead of looking at it as a link between abortion and depression, the framework is a link between lack of choices and depression. Which is also true generally of people, not just women with regards to reproduction. Feeling trapped or coerced is what causes sadness.

  • jfwlucy

    I had an abortion at 17 and I never regretted it for a day, nor did I feel traumatized afterward — just relief.  I went on to college, advanced graduate work, a successful career and a happy family — at the time that was right for ME. I’ll tell the world!!

  • crowepps

    Are they willing to stand by this notion that any ambivalence or sadness after a choice means that your absolutely made the wrong one? 

    I seem to recollect, although I can’t google it up right now, a famous poll done by Ann Landers which resulted in the majority of people responding declaring they regretted having children.  Which, by anti-choicers’ logic, would mean that we should all do everything possible to persuade people not to have children.

  • crowepps

    The literature which reports well constructed scientific studies done among the general population is more likely to be accurate than the agreement of a self-selected and self-reinforcing ‘circle of friends’.  For one thing, it’s possible that circle exists in an evangelical or ProLife bubble where the culture declares that ‘good’ women are all ProLife but (nudge-nudge/wink-wink) ignores their repeated abortions so long as they ‘pay the price’ by being  publicly regretful and very VERY sad about what a terrible tragedy the whole thing was.  Both times.  However many times.  Because it isn’t what you DO at all but instead the pretense that you ‘respect’ the cultural myth even while you violate it.

     

    This cultural meme lingers in the subculture which also has other public ‘morality plays’ of discovery, confession, regret and forgiveness (i.e.: serial adulterers — spouse batterers — religious leaders ripping off their followers — gay men whose closet door gaps).  The rest of the country abandoned the revival catharsis of ‘confession/forgiveness’ a long time ago.

  • squirrely-girl

    …it would be better if the counselling were phased over several sessions before the final decision is reached.

    This takes time… which is often of the essence when trying to obtain a first trimester procedure. It can also cause a serious hardship for women located in places without a provider nearby, forcing them to make multiple visits potentially piling on greater costs. Plenty of anti-choice legislatures as well as crisis pregnancy centers use these multi-session models to discourage women and put up roadblocks to abortion.

     

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about thoughtful consideration before making big decisions, but I think it’s a bit paternalistic to think women aren’t already thinking on this more than once/over time before a final decision is reached. We need to TRUST WOMEN.

  • amanda-marcotte

    That if we object to patronizing women—which I do, since it’s sexist—then asking over and over again, “Are you sure you’re sure?” is going to feel patronizing and sexist to the majority of women who are pretty sure, having spent plenty of time already thinking about it before they picked up the phone. Gynecologists are gynecologists, not psychologists. They can use counseling to screen out women who really don’t want abortions, but they aren’t the people you go to in order to work out deep-set issues that require months or years of therapy. Most women who get abortions don’t need that kind of intense mental health work, and so treating all like they do would simply add to the expense and make the majority of women who need little to no mental health intervention feel patronized.

    This isn’t just an issue with abortion, either. Doctors of all stripes have to strike a balance between screening for mental health problems and not treating everyone who comes into their office in a way that will seem hostile, invasive, and patronizing to the majority who don’t have mental health requirements.

  • genevieve-dusquesne

    Agreed.  I work at a clinic and part of my job is counseling/education sessions with patients.  I’ll listen to anything they want to say, but the sessions are supposed to be brief, intended to figure out if patients are being coerced or not, not intended to address everyone’s underlying mental health issues–we aren’t lisenced therapists.  The only times I ask patients multiple times if they’re sure about their decision is if they’re obviously in a lot of emotional distress (ie, they’re crying), and even then, it’s generally a case of them knowing what they want, but being afraid of the surgery itself. 

  • crowepps

    Doctors of all stripes have to strike a balance between screening for mental health problems and not treating everyone who comes into their office in a way that will seem hostile, invasive, and patronizing to the majority who don’t have mental health requirements.

    There isn’t anything unique about an abortion decision that requires all that doublechecking, except that our culture would prefer to frame the issue as what the woman “wants” instead of what her circumstances and situation make it necessary for her to do.  There isn’t anything about repeating the counselling sessions that is going to provide a job, increase her wages, improve her relationship, swell her bank account or provide health insurance.

  • purplemistydez

    I regret not watching this program.  From what I have read it was very powerful and informative.

  • sophist

    I regret not watching this program.

     

    Then you shouldn’t have had a choice about whether to watch it in the first place.

  • beenthere72

    LOL!  I wanted to make a similar joke. 

     

    But seriously – purplemistydez can catch the episode and extras here:

     

    http://www.mtv.com/videos/no-easy-decision-special/1654990/playlist.jhtml

  • arion

    Emotional difficulties after abortion are significnatly less common than those following full term delivery. beyond post partum depression (Often FAR more severe than post abortion regrets) there is post partum psychosis and post partum infanticide.  All of these far outweigh mental health problems following abortion

  • bj-survivor

    Here’s the link to the full episode: http://www.mtv.com/videos/no-easy-decision-special/1654990/playlist.jhtml. It really is very powerful, very well done.

  • bj-survivor

    and 25 years later have absolutely no regrets, feel nothing but gratitude that I was able to avail myself of a safe, legal abortion.

     

    I didn’t need counseling at all and I would still feel insulted and infuriated were I made to attend multiple, unnecessary counseling sessions. I knew before I even became pregnant that I would have an abortion if my contraception failed, as I was in no way ready to be a parent. I was privileged enough that I did not obtain my abortion at a clinic, but instead a private gynecologist’s office. It was quite civilized.

  • catseye71352

    I have a concern that this poor woman is being coerced and exploited by the anti-abortionists. If she does seek professional counseling, it is to be hoped that she will go to someone who is ethical and responsible and not some anti-abortion quack who will re-traumatize her.

  • purplemistydez

    Thank you for the link.

  • aligatorhardt

    These counceling sessions spread out over time do seem like a backhanded attempt to run out the clock on a woman’s ability to get an abortion.

  • crowepps

    As well as an expression of incredulity at her stupidity — “You STILL want an abortion?  Obviously you haven’t CAREFULLY considered the issue.  Lets go over again how SELFISH you’re being and how adoption is a better choice!”

     

    Certainly it seems if this sort of interference is going to be standard when women are considering abortion, equal time ought to be devoted to checking up on to women who are choosing to remain pregnant.  I’m sure they would be much more likely to make WISE decisions after repeated sessions with a ‘counselor’ who helped them understand just how SELFISH they are for continuing a pregnancy!  <sarcasm>

  • jill-stanek

    I’ve watched the MTV abortion special 4x now and am increasingly curious what there was for abortion proponents to like about it. Aside from Dr. Drew’s advocacy and the obviously staged clinic call, the show did not bode at all well for your cause.

     

    The reality displayed was that abortion is a decision made in desperation. As Markai said, though tears, “We ain’t got no other way.” Abortion is the only so-called “right” Americans do not herald; rather, they prefer to avoid it. As Markai also said – again through tears, “I wouldn’t choose abortion as the first option for anybody. It’s the toughest decision ever to make in your life.” Markai’s support system clearly failed her, most critically her boyfriend, who steadfastly pushed for abortion. Had Markai received support from James, her mother, or even the friend whose counsel she sought, she would not have aborted. As she also said, “I’m in love with this baby already and this baby’s not doing nothing but making me sick.” This is not something a focused abortion-minded mother says.

     

    The reality displayed was that the 50-year free love experiment/wanton contraceptive mentality is a failure. The three post-abortive mothers interviewed demonstrated that the contraception/abortion industry fails to adequately teach about contraception, and young teens are too immature and irresponsible to handle it properly anyway. As even Dr. Drew pointed out, one in four teen moms experience a repeat pregnancy. This is not the failure of abstinence education, to be sure. It is the failure of the comprehensive sex ed mentality.

     

    The reality displayed was that the abortion industry lies about fetal development, utterly failing to provide informed consent. Markai’s abortion counselor told her, “Don’t think of it as 10 fingers and 10 toes and a forehead and all that, because if you think of it like that you’ll get depressed. Think of it as what it is, a little ball of cells.” This was utterly false information. At six weeks gestation, the age of Markai’s baby when she killed him or her, the heart has already been beating for three weeks, and its output is already 20% that of an adult’s. The baby has detectable brain waves. Only ½ inch long, her little arms and legs are developing, and 40 sets of muscles are beginning to move.

     

    The reality displayed was that abortion leaves an aftermath. Another of the post-abortive mothers interviewed, Katie, said – through tears – that while she “didn’t have a lot of regret or negative feelings” when she aborted, she to this day has trouble being around her two-year-old nephew who was born at the same time she aborted. Markai had somewhat of a meltdown when boyfriend James called their aborted baby a “thing.”

     

    This is the show that “thrilled” abortion proponents, as the blog Jezebel exclaimed?

     

    That MTV aired “No Easy Decision” as a 30 minute show on a Tuesday night at 11:30 p.m. says how much MTV really wanted to do this.

     

    That abortion ideologues were thrilled with this tiny bone MTV threw to get you to back away from its highly lucrative life-affirming show shows how little you’ve come to expect as America increasingly rejects abortion.

     

    It seems to me the pro-abort crowd is at this time in the history of legalized abortion merely happy with crumbs, for the simple display of abortion, even with all its catastrophic negatives.

  • goatini

    of unwanted pregnancy and forced birth, and all of the catastrophic negative impacts that this kind of involuntary servitude would have on a woman, were hammered into my head in the 50s by religion and culture.  

     

    They are the reason why I am a reproductive freedom fighter.

  • dan

    The same old lie, told over and over again at abortion mills – “It’s a blob.” 

     

    If the abortion industry is so concerned about telling it like it really is, then why would they need to tell someone to “think of it as a clump of cells.”  They are purposefully dehumanizing the baby by doing this, just as all of humanity dehumanizes anyone they want to kill.  It makes it easier to kill if you think it’s not really human.  Just like slaves were once thought of as sub-human, so too do proponents of abortion dehumanize the pre-born baby making it easier to sell an abortion.  You will rarely hear a abortion counselor say the word “baby.”  It literally isn’t in their vocabulary, as if it is the proverbial “four-letter word.”

     

    I agree with Jill Stanek on her summary of the show and look forward to the day in our nation when life is protected from it’s very beginning (fertilization) to it’s natural end.  Pre-born babies deserve to be protected from being de-limbed and their skull being crushed.  We wouldn’t do that to anyone outside of the womb because it is absolutely barbaric.  It’s time we extend that inalienable right to life to all humans, born and pre-born.

  • bookworm1800

    The advances in science — mainly the advent of the ultra-sound and inter-uterine cameras as well as an increased awareness of genetics — have long ago exiled pro-choicers from the realm of medical fact. Now, they rely on pseudo-science and outright lies to further their position.

     

    This program, this article, and the subsequent commentary on this page reaffirm this reality. Truly, after subjecting myself to the nonsense being touted here, I do believe I’m in need of a long shower.

  • formerppgal

    I am so surprised to see this discussion.  Did you guys actually watch the show???  These girls are hurting!  They are having to find all different types of excuses to try to justify why having an abortion was a good choice. 

    I used to work for Planned Parenthood.  I was also a counselor.  But I AM a licensed counselor.  They do not give “counseling.”  They push papers.  They do not go over the risks and the actual procedure with these women.  We were never told to tell women that if they actually had regretful feelings to call us.  Oh no!  Because then we would be admitting that women may actually regret their abortions! 

    I have had 2 abortions.  One at Planned Parenthood, one at another clinic.  I can tell you that as a client of Planned Parenthood, I didn’t receive any informed consent about the procedure I signed up for.  Their “counseling” is a joke!  Did you hear what that counselor told that girl???  “Don’t think about it as having 10 fingers and 10 toes and a forehead.  Just think about it as a blob of cells.”  Really?  That is how we help women cope with their abortions?  That is not healthy!  I came to realize that Planned Parenthood was not looking out for these women who needed abortions.  They are only looking out for their bottom line.  They treat these women as a number, not a person.  They give these women “talking points” to help them cope with their abortions…not to help them actually heal from it.  It is shameful how these women are treated.  That is one of the reasons that I am not longer there.  I just couldn’t take it anymore. 

    I just can’t believe how all of you are glorifying that show.  It didn’t do anything postive for the pro-choice movement.  Those girls couldn’t stop crying about their abortions.  Dr. Drew obviously had all of the Planned Parenthood talking points memorized, but the girls couldn’t go along with them without crying their eyes out.  Now, they have been exploited by MTV and this stupid show.  They need healing, not a special on TV. 

    That one girl talked about how she felt like her body had “failed” her when she got pregnant.  Oh my gosh.  That made me want to cry!  Dr. Drew should have been offering less pro-choice rhetoric and more offers for private counseling.  Those girls have some serious issues from their abortions. 

    I’m not saying everyone does.  There are many women who have abortions and live a very successful, productive life with no regrets.  But, these girls weren’t doing that.  It is shameful for MTV to do that show and then for all of you to be on here talk about them as if they are solid rocks for you to stand on.  They are not.  They need help.  I hope that someone will reach out to them and help them after seeing how obviously desperate they all are. 

  • shellshell

    First I’d like to say : There is no such thing as a safe abortion. Now that abortion is legal ,women die from legal ones. Legal and safe are not interchangeable words. Legal abortions do not protect women. Legal abortions protect abortionists from serving jail time. Abortion hurts women .And  If a post-abortive woman claims  abortion has served no issue for her..she is either lying or a sociopath.  However,most women do admit it has caused them depression. Sometimes the root of  depression is unrecognized,till they decide to face their abortion head-on…and tackle the emotions that come with it. Post-abortive women are 6 times more likely to commit suicide,and pro-abortion people don’t like to face this because it may mean we’d have to question abortion…and how dare we question it!

  • shellshell

    There is nothing civilized about a mother choosing to end the life of her own child. Life begins at conception. That is not my opinion. It is biology.A human being is a human being at fertilization. 3 weeks after conception there is a beating heart pumping it’s own blood [Not the mother's blood]. At 6 week and 2 days..detectable brainwaves. May I suggest looking up EHD by National Geographic? They have up close and personal videos of in-utero humans,even at early stages of pregnancy.

  • arekushieru

    Uh, if there is no such thing as a safe abortion, there is DEFinitely no such thing as a safe pregnancy.  Pregnancy is the SECond leading cause of death in women, worldwide. 

    Legal abortions protect a woman’s right to determine WHO uses her body and when and how it is used, via ongoing, informed and exPLICit consent, even when another’s life depends upon it, JUST like anyone else may do. 

    Legal abortions ALso protect everyone else from being granted fewer rights than a fetus, i.e. letting the fetus be the only one to have the right to use another’s body against their will, even though it does save their life.  No one else has that right, after all.

    My mother had an abortion, and, like MOST women, after she had a child already.  And just before she had another, meaning she wouldn’t have had  her current second if she hadn’t had the abortion.  So, essentially, you’re saying that my mother is lying or a sociopath if she DOESn’t regret having another child, either.  Whoops.  Looks like you might wanna rethink that.  Can’t have it both ways, after all, like you anti-choicers try to do all the time.

    Also, anyone who says that they can sacrifice the health and lives of their eXISting children for the sake of the fetus, is either lying or a sociopath.  That they care more for a clump of tissue/cells than they do for walking, breathing, sapient, sentient, thinking, feeling human beings says more about their sociopathic tendencies than anything else, after all.

    No, most women do NOT admit it causes them depression.  Regret does NOT equal depression.  If it did, we should ban pregnancy before abortion because more women regret continuing their pregnancies than they do having an abortion.

    See 45millionvoices, imnotsorry.net and Exhale to see how wrong you are.

    The root of depression has already been discussed… at LENGTH, esPECially as it concerns abortion.  You merely have to go back over some of the comments in this thread to see that in order for abortion to be diagnosed as the cause of depression, there has to be a definitive medical cause linking the abortion to depression.  Since MOST women report *pre-existing* circumstances (as in circumstances that exist beFORE the abortion, making it quite difficult for the root cause to BE abortion), stigma (such as calling women sociopaths if they don’t feel regret), ambivalent feelings about their choice (meaning they really want a child but they don’t have the resources to provide a secure, loving environment for a[nother] child, which says nothing about abortion, and everything about the unplanned part of a pregnancy), relief, etc… and there is no hormonal shift medically reported as a direct link to the termination of a pregnancy, it’s pretty safe to say that abortion does NOT cause depression.  Or are you going to say you’re a psychologist/psychiatrist, now and say you know when someone is expressing depression over relief and vice versa, even though the established, accredited and peer-reviewed APA/CPA comPLETEly disagrees with you?  Thought not.

    But, even the way it is now, more women suffer depression from pregnancy than they do abortion.  You anti-choicers just don’t like to admit it because it may mean we’d have to question the views they have of women as baby-making machines, walking wombs, incubators, etc…and how dare we question it!

  • arekushieru

    Proof, please?  I believe a fetus is human life, that’s WHY I’m ProChoice.  I don’t believe a fetus should be given more rights than anyone born.  It’s human like everyone else, after all. So, it should NOT get the right to use someone else’s organ against their ongoing, explicit and inFORmed consent, not EVen to save their life.  No one else does, after all.

    Abortion mills?  Please.  PP’s abortion services are only THREE percent of their entire business.  Going by YOUR logic it’s a PREGnancy mill, like your CPC’s.  Good thing, we don’t hold that against PP’s, though, because they’re seeking to make sure that unplanned pregnancies are rare, while CPC’s try to make sure they continue so that they can force women into servitude as slaves.

    No, YOU are the ones who think slavery should be brought back.   YOU are the ones who would grant a certain class of humans (women) fewer rights because you believe they are inferior, while granting another class of humans (feoti) more rights because you believe they are superior.  No black person infringed on another’s rights in order to be denied a certain right (such as freedom) but a fetus does (using ones body against their wishes) in order to be denied the right to live, LIKE ALL OTHER HUMANS that infringe on that right.

    Baby is a SLANG term for a development stage outSIDE of the uterus.  If anti-choicers would see their hypocrisy and rectify it (very few do, though, Jill Stanek least of all), they would start calling adolescents, adults, because that is exACTly what you are doing when you call a fetus a baby.

    So, because a woman has to opt-OUT of organ usage, because a fetus has to be reMOVED, because a fetus has to be dismembered in order for a woman to reTAIN her right to bodily autonomy and right to medical privacy, you would reFUSE her those rights?  Wow.  What’s that word, again?  Y’know, the one that starts with m?  Oh, that’s right…. M.i.s.o.g.y.n.y.  Just because a woman has a uterus, just because ovulation, ejaculation, fertilization, implantation, gestation and childbirth all take place with/within her body withOUT her direct control, you would deny her her rights.  Denying her her rights based on nature’s sexism, when NO ONE ELSE IS DENIED THEM, for those reasons, IS misogyny.

    The right to life is NOT inalienable.  I canNOT force you to give me your kidney, not Even to save my life and if you were the only one who was a match.

    It’s ridiculous how ignorant you anti-choicers are.  Seriously. 

     

  • arekushieru

    Really?  Proof, please.  And, if you’re referring to something like Silent Scream, you’ve just confirmed my view of anti-choicers.  They are so ignorant that it is impossible to get them to separate fact from fiction.  Silent Scream was disproven, L.O.N.G. ago, by PEER-REVIEWED, ACCREDITED medical proFESSionals.  If that isn’t medical fact to them, then all that is left IS fiction.

  • arekushieru

    Um, did you actually read the comment thread? OR the article?  My guess would be… no.  Since the reasons these girls were hurting were the very reasons we stated, RIGHT HERE.  The unplanned pregnancies and the circumstances surrounding them.

    Really?  Personal anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal evidence, y’know….  We need proof.  Because all the current proof I’ve seen, says that most PP’s DO provide counselling, other than merely ‘pushing papers’.  Much more than any CPC does, anyways.

    Hmm, this is beginning to sound totally surreal and false.  Because, here we are, discussing how women can and DO feel regret, and here YOU are telling us that we don’t believe women can and do feel regret (otherwise, why bring up PP without bringing up how long it has been since you’ve worked at PP or why not bring up the show 16 and Pregnant, here?  The latter IS  relevant, after all).  Maybe it’s our facts?  That regret does NOT equal depression, that women regret continuing their pregnancies more often than they regret having an abortion (certainly making it curious as to why none of you commenting are trying to link regret with depression after pregnancy, certainly leading me to believe that abortion is the only scenario that you consider ‘special’) and these facts just so contradict the fiction you believe, that you can’t wrap your heads around it?

    We ARE all basically ‘a blob of cells’.  But, you people have so shamed, stigmatized and demeaned a woman’s choice to have an abortion, that women find it stressful enough withOUT being convinced (by you people, again) that she is killing, *murdering* her ‘baby’.

    And why do you automatically ASSume that these girls are crying about their abortions, when it could be any other number of factors, that have been pointed out, once again, RIGHT HERE.

    Your quotes around ‘failed’, lead me to believe that you think pregnancy is something that must be rejoiced in, celebrated no matter how it came about, just because one is a woman and she has a uterus.  UGH.  I find that SICKening, disgusting and appalling.  I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but that is one of the MAjor reasons why I have chosen to never have kids and abort if I do end up pregnant.  I am MORE than my womb, after all.  Sorry that you don’t seem to see yourself, and others, that way.

    How do you know they AREn’t getting counselling?  And, like I said above, did you ask the same thing about the show 16 and pregnant?  Also, this was not a counselling show, perse.  It was a program to expose the myths and fiction surrounding abortion, just like 16 and Pregnant is a show to expose the myths and fiction surrounding teen pregnancy. 

  • arekushieru

    Look, I can do it, too: There is nothing civilized about a mother choosing not to donate an organ to her own, *existing*, child.  Or: There is nothing civilized about a woman being enslaved to her own bodily functions.  Either way, your hypocrisy and misogyny is exposed.  You anti-choicers wouldn’t DREAM of condemning someone for not choosing to donate an organ to an indisPUTable human being, in the same manner you would a woman who chose abortion, after all, so, it really isn’t about life, at all.  Neither is it about civility or dehumanization.  Since you strive to make a woman a non-person, just because of the way her body functions, yet call for a fetus to be a person, at the same time.

    Human does not equal ‘a’ human/human being/person.

    Your ‘science’ has been medically disproven long ago, too.  Just like Dan’s.   The earliest brain waves to be detected are at *18* weeks.  Yes, it does pump the mother’s blood, otherwise the fetus wouldn’t be alive.  Where do you think it gets its nutrients from, after all?  It is really too bad that you anti-choicers are so unable to discern fact from obvious fiction and that you don’t actually research the topic you are discussing before doing so.

    And what would looking up EHD by NG, prove?  I’ve seen those pictures, before.  In actual medical and biology textbooks.  Sorry.  

  • sophist

    First I’d like to say : There is no such thing as a safe abortion. Now that abortion is legal ,women die from legal ones.

     

    Trust me, you don’t want to play this game. It is a medical fact that it is more dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term than it is to get an abortion. Undisputable. Looked at purely in terms of health consequences to the mother, all pregnancies should be aborted.

     

    So you should maybe try a different tack, hmmm?

  • juliasmart

         I am appalled that our culture is so pro-death.  With as much as we know about these little babies. And the abundant availability of loving, decent adoptive homes longing to embrace a precious, sweet baby.  Why, WHY, WHY would any young women desire to destroy the little one in her womb?   

        Seriously, are we really so callous and selfish?  I am ashamed. 

         Adrion, the extreme post traumatic stress these sweet, yet misled women will face is astronomical~!  Think about it. The whole out of control sexual  behavior and need for lowing our selves to killing the innocent is totally the wrong CHOICE!  Think about your choice before you let some insincere male shove his penis in you.  No one who misuses you and strips you of your dignity is worthy of being called a “man”.  There is no compassion or true, lasting, encouraging, giving, self-LESS love in that kind of relationship It is merely lust~ (meeting animalistic hungers, not intimate & the powerful ability to serve one another, with humility and generosity.)  We are teaching our young teens to be sex craved and not reserving the beauty of a one man/one woman relationship (MATROMONY) which has much higher contentment, joy and HAPPINESS (read FUN~!) sex life!  Find the love of your life and be free to enjoy one another for life~ THAT, is romance and worthy of celebrating.  

  • mona-rose

    The truth is that there is something living in your womb when you are pregnant and it is either a baby or it isn’t. It can’t be something to some people and another thing to other people. And this is really the bottom line. What is it that is living in your womb when you are pregnant? When we want a baby and we are pregnant we are happy and we are excited about that little person growing inside us. We read all the books about how it is developing and we are totally thrilled about this little person inside us. We are already picking out names for that life inside us. We know it is a person and we can’t wait to meet him/her outside the womb..

    There is something we kill (after all it is something that is living) when we have abortions the question is what is it?

  • julie-watkins

    It’s been my position that such an expectation that a pregnant woman is obligated to attempt to give birth is treating women and poor people  as second class. Society (the ruling class) think it’s OK, in essense, for women and poor to have a higher tax burden.

    Everyone is expected to pay taxes (except the rich find loop holes). An unexpected pregnancy impacts women and poor families more than men and families with more resources, but you’re apparently OK with them having that higher burden.

    I don’t think society & the law should treat women and poor people as 2nd class. Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation, if a society is attempting to be pro-equity.

  • julie-watkins

    Women and poor families should be obligated to pay a higher tax burden (see my reply above to JuliaSmart)?

  • purplemistydez

    Yeah marriage might work for you but do not shove that on other people.  Comprehensive sex education would have helped these teens on making better sexual desicions.  Marriage is not a gurantee of a happy life.

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    Well, it’s NOT a baby, now is it?  It’s a fetus.  And the question is not whether it is living.  It is.  The question is who has the rights to my uterus?  The answer:  ME.  Not YOU.  ME.  I repeat:  I have the rights to my uterus.  You have the rights to yours.  I’ll go ahead and stay out of your uterus and everyone else’s and let women make their own decisions, including you.  Mmmmkay?

    By the way, have you, JuliaSmart or you, Monarose, adopted any unwanted babies yet?  Oh. 

     

  • bookworm1800

    I don’t know why I am back here, trying to explain science and morality to you people — indeed, I believe explaining existentialist philosophy to a group of toddlers would be far more productive — but, nevertheless, I feel the need to cite a few authoritative sources for you to clarify when life (as defined by the medical community) begins. 

     

    “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual [...] A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

    –Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

     

    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

    –Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2. 

     

    “Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother’s egg [...] It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father’s sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin.”

    –Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.

     

    Medical testimony:

    In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

    “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive [...] It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

    Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
    Harvard University Medical School

     

    “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

    Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
    Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

     

    I could go on (and on and on) citing one source after another to show you how the question of when life begins is no longer a question, but I assume (perhaps erroneously) that you all have access to libraries or, at least, to the internet, where you can look up these sources yourself. (By the way: do yourself a favor and find information from credible sites, where serious research is done — not sites like this one, where scientific fact is manipulated in such a way to serve political and social agendas.)Truly, given the almost unlimited access we all have to authoritative information, your ignorance is borderline criminal.

     

    As to someone’s comment about the unborn human being not being a “baby” but a “fetus” … I have no words. All I can say is that you desperately need to educate yourself. “Fetus” is merely one way to describe a stage of development: just as “teenager” or “adolescent” or “middle-aged” are ways to describe stages of human development. It makes as much sense to say “it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus” as it does to say “it’s not an adult, it’s an old man.” 

     

    The more you learn about science, the more you realize the biological fact that the unborn human being is a genetically distinct person. 


  • julie-watkins

    to put a higher “tax” burden on women and poor people (see my reply above to JuliaSmart)?

    I have yet to get any anti-abortion forced-birther person who posts on this website to respond to my observations of how much classism in inherant in their  pro-oligarchy, “pregnant women are obligated” statements.

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    OK, well, what about Bishop Olmstead referring to an 11-week old FETUS as an 11-week old BABY?  Are those the same thing to you?  If so, I think you desperately need to educate yourself. 

  • ldan

    I am neither a liar nor a sociopath thank you. If you want to continue to call me one, you’ll be reported for the continued personal attacks. Make no mistake that calling all post-abortive women names is a personal attack against many of the women reading this site.

     

    You, however, are a liar for claiming that legal abortions do not protect women. Ask those who served in ERs back before Roe vs. Wade about what legal abortions protect them from. Ask the women who never, ever want to carry a pregnancy what legal abortions protect them from. Ask the women who had their babies stolen from them at those homes for unwed mothers what legal abortion could have protected them from.

     

    For all the statistics about depression and suicide, you (nor any of the rest of the anti-choice crowd) have responded to the fact that carrying to term carries a far larger (and well-documented) risk of mental health issues. Despite that, nobody claims that we should regulate or ban carrying to term or maybe work harder on something like artifical womb research to spare mothers those mental health risks and all the other health risks associated with pregnancy. Instead, it’s the far less dangerous option of abortion that gets all of the attention and demonization.

     

    Nobody is saying that women who have abortion never feel sad or regretful about the decision. We’re saying that they have a range of emotions, positive and negative, about the decision…just as they have about the decision to bear a child, or get married, or picking a career or a major in college. Laws are not there to protect us from ever feeling bad about the decisions we make. That’s part of being an adult.

     

    We protect children from making choices that will hurt them. Women are not children and do not need to be treated like children.

  • bookworm1800

    I cannot speak for anyone else, but perhaps no one is addressing your specific objections because they are what logicians call a “red herring”; essentially, you are introducing irrelevant points into this discussion. In a debate (though, I would hardly call what happens here a logical debate), logical fallacies like red herrings are distractive and unhelpful to the issue at hand.

    Case in point: my comments have focused only on the medical understanding of when life begins. I have provided authoritative sources to support my position. Rather than dealing with the particulars of my comments, you are avoiding the issue by introducing objections that have absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve been saying. 

    Red herrings are popular amongst the pro-abortion crowd, as are “ad hominem” attacks (“how many unwanted babies have you adopted?”), because you simply cannot logically or ethically justify the killing of innocent, helpless, human beings. 

    As such, I have no response to your specific queries since they do not pertain to the essential issues at stake in the particular argument.

  • bookworm1800

    My previous comment was obviously to Julie Watkins.

    To you, Reproductivefreedomfighter: Are you f-ing serious? Do I need to get into a semantics lesson with you now? 

    You see, this is why these conversations are so unproductive. So much time is spent dealing with beetle-headed objections like yours. 

    You know, I’ve provided the facts and I’ve cited a few sources. There’s little more I can do here. You can continue defending your position with nonsensical validations and ridiculous accusations — you’ve obviously found a nice support base for both on this website. Just realize that you (meaning the pro-abortion — or pro-choice, whatever term you like best — crowd) are the ones who have embraced ignorance. 

  • ldan

    It’s a zygote/embryo/fetus, depending on what point it is in development. Calling it a baby is imprecise, but understandable.

     

    I have no problem with people calling their wanted fetus a baby–they’re already planning out the future. They’re looking forward to learning what sort of person it will be. But it’s not some kind of miniature version of a full term baby in there until well into the pregnancy. It’s not a person yet, merely potential. Even in the case of miscarriage, the grief is for the potential person that parents never got to meet, not an actual person they did meet and know.

     

    It’s alive. It’s human. That doesn’t mean it should expect to remain attached to my body, drawing nutrients off of me for months, unless I choose to allow it to.

  • princess-rot

    Your quotes around ‘failed’, lead me to believe that you think pregnancy is something that must be rejoiced in, celebrated no matter how it came about, just because one is a woman and she has a uterus.  UGH.  I find that SICKening, disgusting and appalling.  I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but that is one of the MAjor reasons why I have chosen to never have kids and abort if I do end up pregnant.  I am MORE than my womb, after all.  Sorry that you don’t seem to see yourself, and others, that way.

     

    I do not like or want to be around children, I never have and never will, and for complex reasons I do not wish to get into, the thought of pregnancy and motherhood is abhorrent to me. In the unfortunate event I ever got pregnant I have kept back a fund in case I need to travel abroad to abort. I realise that this is not an option for everyone, particularly those in poverty, and that makes me angry. Nobody should have to keep an emergency fund incase someone decides for you that you’d better give birth, but cannot afford general healthcare because those same “pro-life” politicians have decided that peasants don’t get to be healthy after they’re born.

     

    I’m not sorry that anti-choicers don’t like it, their oh-so heartfelt opinions are irrelevant, because I know they are only concerned about “babies” as far as it makes them feel righteous and gets them what they want. Other than that, they don’t care about individuals they don’t really think of as human, just as a means to an end. They are quick to shit on any woman who doesn’t fit their ideal of what a woman “should” be – look at the outcry over Nadya Suleman. Tellingly, not a peep to be heard against the FLDS and other cults who use female learned compliance, sex, and pregnancy as tools of subordination even more overtly than the mainstream culture.

     

    I do not date men, I do not hook up. I do not want a relationship, I realised this at the end of my first and only one. Nobody mentions that the woman is still expected to do everything in heterosexual couples, especially the emotional heavy-lifting. You’re not supposed to mention that if you have a child with a man, you’ll likely end up waiting hand-and-foot on both, for little thanks and/or fulfillment, even if you can find good in the relationship in other ways.

     

    It’s not mentioned because to mention it is, so I’m told, “man hating”. This was from a female friend who was complaining just two minutes before that she struggles to remain positive in her (I’d say) emotionally abusive relationship – she tries in vain to manage and love away a man’s depression and take full responsibility for his happiness because her mother did the same. She’s living proof  that the servitude is not only an expectation but a practical reality.

  • julie-watkins

    It will take you to a new screen.

    I don’t consider my “red herring” response any more “red herring” than anti-abortion people who write that a pregnant woman is obligated because she is obligated, and won’t answer or minimize the explainations of how this is too much to demand, and gives the fetus more rights than a born person.

    I keep asking about “tax burdens” not because I like red herrings, but to point out women and poor people shouldn’t be treated 2nd class.

  • ldan

    You wouldn’t call a teenager an adult though, would you? Or a child a teenager? “old man’ is not a develomental stage so much as a description of part of the ‘adult’ stage.

     

    Regardless. Nobody denies that it’s alive and human. But so are sperm and eggs and tumors, and a few oddball medical conditions. The question is whether that human has a right to use another human’s body, even when that threatens her rights. We treat humans differently at different developmental stages. Teenagers have a different set of rights than adults. Why is it so hard to grasp that Fetuses would therefore be treated differently than any other developmental stage? Particularly when, unlike any other stage, fetuses are completely dependent upon the body of another human.

     

    Then we get into the fact that the only non-fetal humans affected by this utter dependency are women, and that this dependency exacts a large toll physically, mentally, and economically. This toll is even larger for women who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged.

     

    So forcing birth means telling women that humans in the fetal development stage have more rights than they do. Why?

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    Yep, I’m effing serious, and nope, I’m well-versed in semantics, I don’t need any kind of “lesson” from you.  And you’re right, it IS unproductive.  The anti-choice, or anti-woman, faction, believes the fetus is more important than the woman and that a woman should be forced to give birth or die trying.  The pro-choice crowd gives more autonomy to a woman, and believes that using forced birth as punishment for sex is despicable. 

     

    Once again, no one is denying a fetus has human DNA and is alive.   There goes your ignorance theory. 

  • princess-rot

    The thing I do not understand about this uproar is that the likelyhood of survival for the fetus was very low. This only proves to me that anti-choicers do not understand that pregnancy is a process, a process that takes an increasingly higher tax (and therefore higher risk) from its host as it progresses.

     

    The woman’s health condition meant she would have likely died before viability was reached: so two dead, a family bereaved, and existing children left without a mother is better than one death of a fetus who hadn’t got any of that and would never have been sentient to know it? It’s better to neglect a woman to death because death is better than her knowing that she had a failed pregnancy?

     

    That’s not alleviating suffering: that’s killing by proxy because you don’t think women own their own lives and minds. That to kill by neglect is better because women are silly children who cannot deal with adult subjects like life, death, pain and grief, as if our lives and reproduction is not brimming with those things, as if we are not even human!

  • ahunt

    Case in point: my comments have focused only on the medical understanding of when life begins. I have provided authoritative sources to support my position.

     

    So what?

  • julie-watkins

    So what?

    Yeah, really.  As if “when life begins” isn’t a red herring itself. The real question is if a woman owns her uterus & it’s contents, or is it owned by society? If the latter then, yes, women & poor people are being treated as 2nd class.

    And if a pregnant woman is owned by society, then it’s a small step that your whole person (female or male) is owned by society (ie, the ruling class) for the benefit of those on the top.

  • colleen

    the likelyhood of survival for the fetus was very low.

    The likelihood of survival for that particular embryo was zero and if she had not had an abortion the likelihood of the pregnant woman’s survival was also zero

     

    This only proves to me that anti-choicers do not understand that pregnancy is a process, a process that takes an increasingly higher tax (and therefore higher risk) from its host as it progresses.

     

    They understand this quite well. They do not care. The USCCB believes that women whose bodies are unable to sustain a pregnancy should die along with their embryos and fetuses.

    Nothing says ‘ moral authority’ so much as socially condoned human sacrifice. They WANT a certain number of women to die for the glory of their dogma and to prop up the crumbling authority of their ‘faith’.

  • colleen

    this is why these conversations are so unproductive

    These conversations are unproductive because we don’t share your beliefs (thank God) and, as far as I can tell, you’re anxious to dismiss any consideration, objection or belief that differs from the dogma you worship with personal attacks, shallow observations and childish tantrums. 

     

  • crowepps

    Refusing to respond to other people’s points because you label them a “red herring”, insisting things are “irrelevant” because they focus on realities instead of “the issue at hand” and insisting that the discussion must be restricted to “a logical debate” are all part of an argument based in fantasy.

    First, there is no consensus “medical understanding of when life begins” since life began millions of years ago and has never stopped.  Second, if what you are referring to as “life” is a unique set of DNA, there is no philosophical consensus about what special value is imbued in a NEW unique set of DNA as opposed to the value of the unique DNA of the woman in which it was created.

    We are talking past each other because you are entirely focused on how horrible you think it is that all those “innocent, helpless, human beings” do not survive pregnancy to be born alive and you simply cannot accept that your view of reproduction is a Disneyfied fantasy of the real process — it is a fact that the natural and expected fate of the MAJORITY of conceptions is to fail to make it successfullly through the process, without any intervention at all.

    Meanwhile, while you agonize over one ounce, inch long biological squiggles, some of us are worried about the increasing push to refuse medical care to women because they’re pregnant, to criminalize natural miscarriage, to  criminalize being female altogether, because we’ve BEEN THERE, women REMEMBER what it was like when they were slaves, and it was a disaster not just for women but for their children as well.

     

    You want to restrict discussion to a philosophy and logic debate?  Oh, golly, feel free to proclaim that there are ‘universal truths’ and moan about how people should follow them and how nobody meets your high standards and how things will improve all around if the ‘wise elite in whose ears God whispers’ just arranges for ordinary humans to be PUNISHED ENOUGH. Totalitarianism has always been very popular with those who have huge issues around gender, sex, reproduction and death.  You’re upholding a fine old tradition in which no matter what the problem is the solution is “BLAME THE WOMEN FOR NOT BEING PURE ENOUGH”.

     

    Your concern is ‘logically establishing when life begins’ without any consideration of the consequences, since YOU’RE not going to have to pay them.

    My concern is keeping you from killing women.

  • arekushieru

    Well, since I have so many little cousins, I really can’t not like being around them.  It would just get in the way of my life, if that were the case.  But, believe me, I can somewhat empathize with your sentiments.  I just don’t want any of my own.  I’m not sure, but, sometimes, it almost seems as if that’s a HUGE no-no.  Liking children, but not wanting any of your own?  *Gasp*  How dare I?

     Pregnancy and motherhood are abhorrent to me.  Pregnancy, partly because, if it were another species or even another form of human life, we would be appalled if someone wanted to let it reside in their body.  Motherhood, partly because of similar reasons you’ve outlined above.

    When I was saying sorry, though, I was being sarcastic.  Eep!  Sorry, for not making that clearer! /not sarcasm.  :)

  • crowepps

    The anti-abortion forced-birther persons don’t respond to your posts about the classism/sexism (or the beliefs about women’s inferiority on which they are predicated) because they know it exists and they APPROVE of it.   You’re probably not going to ever get anyone to respond and claim their views are NOT classist, sexist, demand a disproportionate amount of subjugation and sacrifice from women as compared to men.  They know those things are true, and they might even admit that what they’re doing is unfair (life isn’t fair is the excuse of those most benefitting from the unfairness) — but they think with enough misogynist propaganda, shaming and victim blaming they can GET AWAY WITH IT.  On the evidence of our popular culture at this time, they’re absolutely right.

  • crowepps

    Kindergarteners will fall for the ‘it’s either one thing or the other’ argument, but it’s hard to believe you would expect adults to take it seriously.  Women who WANT to be pregnant do get all happy and excited and visualize the teeny squiggy thing in there as a perfect little person, even though it looks grotesque at present.  People are capable of sentimentalizing just about anything and entertaining all kinds of fantasies.  But that sea of ‘pink think’ isn’t an actual REASON to control the decisions of other women who aren’t immersed in the fantasy and who do not want to be pregnant.

     

    The question is not “what is it” but rather “on what basis do you feel entitled to force your sentimental beliefs on other women whose life circumstances force them to be practical?”

  • julie-watkins

    than “Think of the Landlord”, or “Uncle Sam needs canon fodder.” Which is why they don’t do it. There’s a lot of people who come here to post about “culture of death” but I don’t remember any lectures about not showing proper deference to one’s betters. Even if that’s what they consciously or unconsciously think, they aren’t ready to defend it.

    It would be hard for someone to try to insist the rich don’t take advantage of the poor when it’s so obvious that they do. I happen to think the misogyny is just as blatant, but it’s so ingrained it’s harder to get past.

  • beenthere72

    Maybe I should start an ‘It gets better’ project for suicidal, post-abortive women/girls?    I hear about so many in the news and all.   (not)   

     

    At first I’d think that was a pro-lifers wet dream, but then I realize that’s not what you want at all.   You don’t want us who have had abortions to feel better (which by the way, my sister and I who have both had abortions have never been suicidal – at least not AFTER an abortion, and I know no one who has).  You want us to feel worse.   If that’s your goal, then who really is the sociopath here?

     

     

     

     

  • freetobe

    First of all I think I know what you don’t want to hear but I am going to admit it. I do NOT think that ALL human life is sacred ok? My feelings only and why do I feel this way? What I see around me everyday what I have lived everyday. The lies from so called christians who know nothing or understand nothing of religion or God, spewing forced opinions and laws in my face!

    Jesus gave ALL humans a CHOICE to follow Him or not. You people obviously don’t understand your religion. If you think I am just running my mouth go read your Bibles like I have been doing. Yes I am a pro-choice woman always will be because JESUS IS!!!

    No one has the right to tell or FORCE another person to do someting against their will. Only God judges us all, not you mere mortals   Go ahead tell me otherwise!!!!

  • freetobe

    I am a pro-choice woman because I believe that we all have a choice to do either right or wrong. To follow Jesus or not follow. That is what Jesus says in the Bible. We ALL have a CHOICE according to God Himself. Now tell me whoever is God here please show yourself.  NOT!!!

     

    To the one woman here who thinks that marriage is so wonderful and lovely well I am happy you have a good one because you sound like I used to sound in my early 20’s. That some great guy would come along and sweep me off my feet and life is grand…until the guy i married bashed my head open on the washing machine over a stinking car!!

    I grew up fast. I fell into the real world when he left me for another woman and I was alone to take care of my young daughter by myself (not that he ever did a damn thing before)  I take care of myself have been for over 20 years. Do not tell me that life is fair to women because REALITY- it is NOT!! Grow up and look outside your bubbles for goodness sake.

    I was raped by my husband too -lucky for me no pregnancy (thank God for small favors.) that many women don’t get!!

    After I had my daughter I went into sever post partum depression. Back then no one was even talking about it. I tryed to commite suicide but failed. I had noone to talk to other than my abusive husband and my aging father whom just lost his wife my mother. It is just lucky for my daughter that I had the sense to stay away from her when I went nuts a few times. Why- because I put her above me by CHOICE I wanted her to have a good full capacity mother not a lunatic nut crazy woman that I thought I had become over night.

    I won’t say anymore it is too painful and there is soooo much more. You  forced birhters  need to wake up and get with reality. Life sucks for many of us!

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks for the link! :)

    I don’t have cable. :(

  • prochoicekatie

    “They do not give “counseling.”  They push papers.  They do not go over the risks and the actual procedure with these women.  We were never told to tell women that if they actually had regretful feelings to call us.”

    You do not work for PP anymore, and you have NO IDEA what their procedures are, so you shouldn’t talk in the present tense. It’s defamatory.

    Furthermore, PP does goes over risks and the procedure. It’s required by law of all medical professionals to go over medications and medical procedures with patients and PP follows the law. Comments like yours are libel.

    Lastly, some PP affiliates do provide counseling, and all PPs provides resources for post-abortion counseling if they do provide that service at a given clinic or affiliate. It is far better to refer someone to a licensed professional than to pretend they are equipped to treat mental health problems. That’s something the anti-choice screamers outside most clinics should consider.

  • prochoicekatie

    People are horribly uncomfortable admitting that person is a socially loaded term, and has NO SCIENTIFIC meaning.

    “It’s a baby or it’s not.”

    Baby is another one of those words you won’t hear from medical professionals when talking scientifically. It’s a zygote/ embryo/ fetus/ infant/ toddler/ adolescent/ adult, but’s it not a baby, or a kiddo, or a geezer. Those are social terms.

    And it can have different meanings for different people. I know that makes everyone uncomfortable, but that’s the cornerstone of the pro-choice movement. You might feel differently about an 9 week fetus growing in your womb than I do about one growing in mine. And since it’s your uterus, your opinion gets more weight for yours, and my opinion gets more weight for my uterus.

    Second, not one anti-choicer has been able to respond to the argument about organ/ blood/ bone marrow donation. It’s like not talking about that little issue where EVEN BORN PEOPLE can’t demand biological support from others means it won’t be a huge philosophical, legal, and medical HOLE in their arguments.

    Oh well.

  • prochoicekatie

    Ahaha, I was just thinking the same thing.

    We don’t care when life “begins” because that was in fact irrelevant to the rest of the discussion we were having before you got here.

    About living, sentient people not having the right to demand biological support from other living, sentient people.

    About demands for reproduction unfairly burdening the poor and women.

    Those were the discussions, and your comment came after them, and it was about a logically irrelevant topic.

    So whose having herring for dinner now?

  • crowepps

    I think ‘I used to do a crappy job when I worked at a PP’ is a pretty weak argument.  Because, assuming the poster is actually telling the truth, she doesn’t have any way of knowing whether her experience was representative of other PP facilities.  Certainly there have been statements from a great many clients reporting they did indeed get appropriate counseling and don’t feel guilty, etc. (all of which are rejected by the ‘I Know You Better Than You Do’ brigade as being rooted in ‘denial’).

  • prochoicekatie

    The problem – LOGICALLY – with his discussion is that he takes one point – life begins at conception and then throws a whole messload of other assumptions on to that.

    He assumes if you agree that life begins at conception you will accept all his other assumptions (fetal life = born life, all life is sacred, life trumps bodily autonomy, abortion is wrong, women are sinners, pancakes are the best breakfast, etc…) and that if you argue with one of his other assumptions in particular, you are also denying that life begins at conception.

    Logically, when he talks about semantics and logic I want to pull my hair out, because he seems to have grafted 1/2 concepts regarding the logic of arguments onto a limited understanding of the complexity of pregnancy, human existence, and the law.

    But he did say one correct thing: These conversations are so unproductive.

  • therealistmom

    They would not even give me the names of any abortion providers (the clinic I went to didn’t have abortion as one of their services) until after the councilor went over all of the options with my then-boyfriend and I and made sure I was aware of resources for continuing the pregnancy or adoption, and was very sure that I desired an abortion. THEN she gave me the names of providers, went over the surgical procedure and risks, and suggested which of the doctors/ clinics might work best for me. (This was in the 80’s, at the height of the anti-choice violence and protests). She also highly encouraged me to go to my parents if it was safe for me to do so, as I was only 15.

    Yep, definitely a cold, uncaring abortion mill pushing papers at me.

  • squirrely-girl

    … that all of your snappy quotes there used the word “beginning” when describing life, right? Beginning implies an incomplete developmental process. For example; a bowl of eggs, flour, sugar, and yeast is the beginning of a cake but you wouldn’t call it a cake yet and you probably wouldn’t serve the raw batter. Or would you? 

     

    Ultimately, plenty of things have a “beginning.” But a “beginning” is in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, a guarantee of outcome. For example, just because a person starts medical school, doesn’t mean they finish. Or do you call first year medical  students, “doctors” and trust them the same as seasoned professionals? 

     

    If “unborn human beings” were completely formed there would be no need for a nine to tenth month pregnancy and we’d just squat them out like eggs. And if all of those “unborn human beings” were guaranteed survival outcomes there would be NO SUCH THINGS AS SPONTANEOUS ABORTION AND FETAL ANOMALIES. 

     

    Truly, given the almost unlimited access we all have to authoritative information, your refusal to make distinctions is fundamentalist and willfully ignorant.

  • ack

    You appear to be operating under the faulty assumption that married women don’t obtain abortions. Wedding rings aren’t protective against unwanted pregnancy.

     

    You’re also insinuating that sex outside of marriage somehow sullies women. This a tired old trope that is refuted each and every time an unmarried woman enjoys sex with a partner. Which happens millions, if not billions, of times every single day. There’s nothing undignified about wanting sex. There’s nothing undignified about having sex when you’re not married.

  • michele-0

    You may want to look up the definition of “fetus”. It is actually Latin for “baby” or “little one”. So when you say “It is not a baby, it is a fetus” you are actually making no logical sense at all. What you are actually saying is “It is not a baby, it is a little one.” Just in a different language. The pro abort crowd, and medical community who has made money from this slaughter has used a latin term to dehumanize the unborn child. Talk about lies, it starts with the term used. Much like the slaughter of the Jews in Germany when they were called non persons, and I am sure anyone stating that they had rights were called liars as well.

    It is just the same as if you spoke in Spanish and said “It is not a house, it is a casa.” You would be saying, “It is not a house, it is a house”.

    One day, I predict very soon the way we are going the elderly and handicapped will gain a new term to make them non people too. Be careful, someday it may just be YOU.

  • ahunt

    See, it is comments like this that bring out the worst in me, but I would like the folks here to note that I’m NOT taking the killshot.

     

    Instead…. Michele, please elaborate on how we “pro-aborts” will go about dehumanizing our parents and grandparents. What is the plan?

  • goatini

    one of the persistent and deceptive memes of forced-birthers:  that facilities and physicians that provide reproductive health care for women, up to and including legal termination, are “in it for the money”.

     

    Considering that the Vatican, the fundamentalist Dominionist religious cults, and the billion-dollar adoption industry all have massive financial coffers vaster by far than any reproductive health care facility, or any organization supporting access to reproductive health care, it’s obvious to me that the perpetration of this deceptive meme is rooted in (a) projection and (b) distraction.

  • shellshell

    I am not sure I am  even getting you. What is the question?  How is killing a human life even compared to this? organ donation is through someone who was killed [though there is some controversy there.] blood comes from someone…but we’re not taking ALL of someone’s blood supply so another person can live. They are donating a replaceable portion. Bone marrow can be equated to that of ADULT STEM CELLS [which is the ethical form of stem cell experiements]. Fetal stem cells are not controllable  and can easily turn to cancer.  However, i still fail to recognize your question.  Are you comparing cells within a body to a whole entity? A fertilized ovum is a new living organism. Life begins at fertilization. That is not a question.That is a fact.It’s biology. You’re talking about a woman’s rights..Since when is one person’s rights to oppress another’s? *Women can not climb to equality or social empowerment over mounds of dead fetuses.* You are pitting women against children the same way slavery pitted the whiteman against the black man. Your womb is supposed to be a sanctuary. The fetus aka unborn child has EVERY right to be in the mother’s womb. It is both parent’s jobs to p[rotect and nurture that child. Not kill it.Abortion is not a right. IT IS A WRONG. It is savagery.Anyone who disagrees has their conscience sealed shut. Case closed.

  • goatini

    I have deep concerns about the conscience of a person that finds a blastocyst to have “rights” far greater than the living, breathing woman, up to and including the death of the living, breathing woman in favor of the blastocyst.  

     

    But I would certainly not accuse such persons that their consciences are “sealed shut”, because such persons may one day be faced with a dear one’s possible demise from a complication of pregnancy that could be averted through termination of the pregnancy.  Such persons may need to find the courage to say “Please, whatever it takes, save my dear one’s life” to the attending physicians.  

     

    In such a situation, I would say that the person who has their conscience “sealed shut” would be the one who would say, “Please, whatever it takes, even if my dear one dies in the attempt, try to save the pregnancy, even if that itself is a futile cause”.

     

    I would say that an example of a person who has his conscience sealed shut is Bishop Thomas Olmstead.   

  • shellshell

    This blog is obviously run mainly by pro-aborts. It’s like swimming into shark infested waters and not expecting to get ripped apart. It’s ashame there are people like this in the world that want to fade out the truth [[*That abortion kills a human being*]]… because the truth disagrees with what they *THINK*. Very shameful how people disregard human life.

  • shellshell

    A cake is barely a life now ,is it? comparing baking to fertilization is ridiculous. A complete human is when we are fertilized…. the blueprints are there..EVERYHING is there..just needs time to grow… so by your statement..can I assume that a teenager is not a complete human being…since they are not done growing? By your theory then  we are not completely human till we are on our death bed. Next time think before you type.

  • carolyninthecity

    the blog is called RH -Reproductive Health- reality check. What exactly were you expecting when you came here? 

     

    and you’re getting ripped apart by all the “pro-aborts” because they actually know what they’re talking about. 

     

    Interesting what you say is exactly how I’d describe the entire anti-choice movement- 

     

    It’s ashame there are people like this in the world that want to fade out the truth because the truth disagrees with what they *THINK*. Very shameful how people disregard human life.


  • ahunt

    Um…I’d just like to say that personally, I’ve  been very restrained, and that I’m a huge fan of the truth.

     

    And I absolutely agree that it is shameful how people disregard human life.

  • ahunt

    A complete human is when we are fertilized…. the blueprints are there..EVERYHING is there..just needs time to grow..

     

    I just had to see this again.

     

    I didn’t know that blueprints are magic.

  • ahunt

    Okay…done making nice.

     

    Incoherent drivel…from a brain that can only regurgitate boilerplate talking points.

  • arekushieru

    Of course, WE’re the ones who fade out the truth, when YOU’re the ones who call us “Pro-Aborts”.  IF we were Pro-Aborts, we’d want EVery pregnancy to be aborted.  We don’t.  My MOM is a GREAT example of that.  She CHOSE to have my brother and I.  So much for your ‘truth’, eh? 

    Abortion does NOT kill a human being.  Medical science does NOT agree that a fetus is a human being.  At the very LEAST, a human being is human AND individual.  Since fetal component parts can be broken down further and still have the fetus remain part of the human species, it is NOT individual, THUS, our ‘truth’ is fact, and yours is nothing more than *fiction*.  Abortion doesn’t kill, as medical science does NOT agree with you, either.  Killing = cause of death.  If someone is taken off of artificial life support, the cause of death is listed AS lack of brain function.  In abortion, itself (NOT the procedures that faCILitate it), a fetus is taken off of its biological life support (the placenta).  Thus, withOUT being inconsistent and hypocritical, one HAS to list the cause of death of a fetus during abortion as lack of brain function (or, incompatibility with life upon separation from its life support). 

    Yes, too bad the truth disagrees with what you *THINK*.  Also, it really is shameful how you disregard a woman’s life in ‘favor’ of fetal life.  

  • ldan

    Medical and scientific terminology doesn’t work that way. Just because dinosaur comes from the Latin for ‘fearfully great lizard’ does not mean that the two are interchangeable. So just because fetus meant something in Latin doesn’t mean that it means the same thing in medical terminology now.

     

    Fetuses are human. I have no reason to dehumanize them in that sense.

     

    But they are not persons. At what point in development does a human become a person? We can argue that one for a hundred years and still not have agreement. Nothing about a blastocyst strikes me as being a person, but a baby certainly is.

     

    Mind you, even if we decide to skip that argument, persons don’t have a right to live off of my body. I’d detach an elderly or handicapped person who’d become biologically attached to me without a second thought.

     

     

  • arekushieru

    *Sigh*  You just don’t get it, do you?  You just described the beGINning of adulthood and compared it to the beGINning of a human being.  We’re not comparing the outcomes, we’re comparing the PROcess.  Get a clue.  Which means, btw, that the cake analogy still stands.

  • ldan

    Um, who gave that fetus the right to be in its mother’s womb? Who gave it a right to suck nutrients from her whether she likes it or not?

     

    If I claimed a similar right to take blood from you because I needed it, whether you liked it or not, regardless of the fact that ‘hey, it’s not like I’m taking all of it,’ that would not be recognized as a right that I have. Fetuses don’t have that right either.

     

    Biology pits fetuses against women without any help from us. Even a smooth pregnancy takes a lot of physical and emotional resources from the woman. That’s a cost not everyone wants to bear. Then add in a society that makes some of those costs even more costly (low-end jobs seldom have sick leave, and may very well fire a pregnant woman who misses too much time, for example).

     

    Savagery is forcing women to endure pregnancy when they don’t wish to.

  • ldan

    A huge majority of fertilized eggs fail to grow, implant, etc. Flawed blueprints? Were those not human lives tragically lost? Why is there no outcry?!

     

    Nobody is claiming that a fetus isn’t human. It isn’t a person. A blastocyst? Not a person. Teenager? Person! (though some parents may disagree, claiming that they become aliens at this point of development…most eventually become indisputible people again eventually).

     

    And again and again it’s been pointed out that even in some strange reality where those are considered people, people don’t have the right to leech off of other people’s bodies for sustenance.

  • arekushieru

    *Deep breath*  Nope, that didn’t work. 

    Okay, so I’m just gonna say it out loud: How is ‘killing’ a human life comparable to ‘killing’ a human life?  Gee, now, let me think….  For one thing, NEITHER is killing (the reason the word was in quotes, BOTH times).  For another, I can CHOOSE to give up my blood, bone marrow, eye, liver, kidney, etc. *as a living organ donor* to save another’s life just as I can CHOOSE to give up my uterus *as a living organ donor* to save another’s life.  Or vice versa, whereby someone’s life ends because they are *incompatible with life upon separation from their life support*.  Also, BOTH types of donations involve parts of someone’s body.  See how simple that was, now?

    We’re comparing, OBviously, a fetus to an organ reCIPient. 

    And your argument is disingenuous and begging the question.  You say that life begins at fertilization because life cannot start out of nothing.  Yet, if life can’t start out of nothing then sperm and ova must be life, as well, or life DOES start out of nothing… and… you’ve just defeated your own argument.

    You are oppressing a WOman’s rights, when you say the ONLY time that the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy is during pregnancy, because NOwhere else does the right to life trump the right to bodily autonomy, OBviously.

    Of course, misrepresenting our WHOLE position, once aGAIN and expecting it to go completely unnoticed so that you can pat yourself on the back for making a point.  Women can not climb to equality or social empowerment over mounds of dead fetuses OR mounds of live fetuses.   They CAN, however, climb to equality or social empowerment over the right to determine WHO uses their body and when and HOW it is used, via onGOING, informed and explicit consent, even though another’s life is dependent upon that usage, because everyone else…?  …*Has that right*.

    No, YOU are ‘pitting’ women ‘against’ *fetuses* (in asterisks since there are NO children involved) and claiming that fetuses should come out the victors.   Meaning, YOU are pitting women’s rights against fetal rights and claiming that fetal rights should come out the victors, without showing any precedence for us to do so.  Women CAN’T be pitted against fetuses, directly, unless you admit that you force fetuses to be born just as much as those who choose abortion force the fetus to be aborted, and, thus, that you pit women against fetuses in much the same manner you accuse US of doing.  Why?  Because fetuses don’t consent to ANYthing.

    Do you even HEAR yourself?  Women must celebrate something even though they had no choice in being given what they are celebrating?  As far as I’m concerned having a uterus is a death sentence and pure bad luck.  It seems to give other people the right to dictate who I, as a woman, can share my body with and that I should be happy for it, even though no other class of human is dictated to, in such a manner, after all. 

     The fetus aka unborn child has EVERY right to be in the mother’s womb.  

    Proof, please.  Opinion, as you’ve written, here, is irrelevant.

    It is SO sad that even a woman, such as yourself, can’t seem to recognize the incredible physical burden that pregnancy is.  Have fun dealing with your fantasies.  I just hope that reality doesn’t come up and slap you in your face one of these days.

    Slavery is not a right.  IT IS A WRONG.  It is savagery.  It is sad that you don’t realize that, but, unlike you, I won’t say your conscience is sealed shut.  For now, it just seems very ignorant.

  • arekushieru

    I am apPALled that our culture is so pro-slavery (as people like yourself keep proving over and over again).  Really?  If there are so many homes available to adopt a baby, then why are there STILL so many children that remain, as yet, unadopted, especially the children who are older, from a visible minority, with behavioural difficulties and disabled?  Why don’t these decent, loving homes adopt THOSE children, rather than proving how greedy they are and force another to labour for them so that they can live the way they WISH to live?

    Seriously, are we really so callous and greedy?  I AM ashamed.

    Proof, please (but I won’t hold my breath).  ALL the medical data shows that women suffer MORE stress from unwanted pregnancies and relinquishing a child for adoption, after all. 

    Out of control sexual behaviour?  Opinions are irrelevant, y’know.  And, before you accuse me of out of control sexual behaviour and, thus, in a state of denial, I have NEVER had sex and I have NO desire to. 

    No ‘innocents’ are involved.  Unless you are going to call your table innocent?

    Reducing the sexual act to nothing more than a procreative process and its consequences is repugnant, especially when the woman is the ONLY one that bears the burden. 

    There is no such thing as altruism.

    When you say ‘serve’ with ‘humility’ and ‘generosity’, guess who ends up serving up the biggest dose of humility and generosity?  It’s not the man.

    Sex craved?  Again… opinion.  …And irrelevant.

    Someone is living in a fantasy world or a place where they have no newspapers.  How else could you have never heard of the divorce rate?

  • goatini

    being “sex crazed” and seeking out as much non-procreative sex as possible.

    For me, it was always about 2 things: if my birth control failed, or if I were raped. I have always practiced responsible birth control, and I firmly believe that if a woman is denied the opportunity to terminate a rape pregnancy, then the rapist has won.

    These 2 events have nothing to do with being “sex crazed”.

  • shellshell

    I know someone who committed suicide after abortion. Yes, she was on the news because she stood in front of a train. Do you think the news reported that it was because of her abortion? Pro-aborts aren’t necessarily the wisest people on this planet are they?

     

  • shellshell

     You think this is all about your uterus. it’s not. An unnborn child is part of the human race;Abortion is nothing more than Big People Killing Little people. I bet you’re against domestic violence though. A man is bigger than a woman…can beat her,but he goes to jail. A mother can kill her child and have no legal ramifications? Not right. Your rights should end where another’s begins. That being the right to life for the unborn.

  • princess-rot

    I fear, colleen, that you are probably right. Maybe my sentence should have read: “This only proves to me that anti-choicers wilfully ignore that pregnancy is a process, a process that takes an increasingly higher tax (and therefore higher risk) from its host as it progresses.”

     

    “Socially condoned human sacrafice” is spot-on. It also sends a message to all other women and girls. How many times do you see the paper articles about desperately ill pregnant women in medically-induced comas and all the hair-tearing that goes on about the “decision” to save either her or the pregnancy, as if it’s debatable!

     

    To those of us who aren’t blinkered, we realise that if attempting to save both fails, then it is better to terminate, unless the woman has previously expressed otherwise, because of her own beliefs and values. We know that it is, inarguably, her body even if we disagree.

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    And you think this is all about you–what YOU want a woman to do with her body, right?  Because it’s what YOU think that counts, not the actual woman.  Worry about your own abortion or the abortion of someone you love, instead. 

  • ldan

    And how about the right to bodily autonomy? Why do I have the right to *not* donate my live-saving blood, marrow, and organs except when a fetus is involved? Why do my rights end at the fetuses body, but apparently its rights can go right on invading mine?

     

    That’s not even touching on the fact that the woman is risking her health and her life to bring a pregnancy to term.  Nobody else’s right to life requires me to risk my life or health for them. I can chose to do so, but I can’t be required to. Again, why do fetuses have such extra strong rights as to force actions that born people can’t?

     

    You’ve been ignoring multiple posts pointing this out now.

     

    A fetus is not a child. A child is not an adult. Adults have different rights and responsibilities than children. Why is it a stretch to imagine fetuses have different ‘rights’ and responsibilities than children?

  • princess-rot

    Second, if what you are referring to as “life” is a unique set of DNA, there is no philosophical consensus about what special value is imbued in a NEW unique set of DNA as opposed to the value of the unique DNA of the woman in which it was created.

     

    Aye, and I’ve noticed that although pro-lifers scream about teh yoonique dee-en-ay of baybeez giving said baybeez a right to exist at someone else’s cost, when push comes to shove and it’s a decision of life and death for fetus and host, unique DNA is not enough to save the woman. Adult female DNA is probably not unique enough, or something. It’s led me to believe that anti-choicers only support something when it’s someone they don’t consider important paying the price.

  • shellshell

    You are not helping women one single bit. You are part of the death culture. How does that make you feel? I hope you soon feel the shame you should feel so you can escape it ,and redeem yourself for participating in the death of children. Have a nice day. :)

  • ldan

    That is tragic, as is any suicide, and I’m terribly sorry that your friend felt that sad and desperate.

     

    I’m not sure what it has to do with whether or not abortion should be legal, however.

     

    Women commit suicide due to post-partum depression as well. This doesn’t mean that we, as a society, advocate against having children.

     

    People commit suicide in the wake of love gone awry in some fashion. We don’t advocate the end of love.

  • shellshell

    Your medical facts  may come from the CDC[much evidence the CDC has ties to the abortion industry]. Let’s look at WHO , in Poland abortion was outlawed for all but extreme cases. Overall since abortion has been outlawed the maternal death rate dropped tremendously. Coincidence? I think not. Any country where abortion has been banned, the maternal death rate overall has dropped. My point to mentioning no such thing as a SAFE abortion is that pro-aborts like to advertise *safe and legal*. Why do you feel the need to advertise safe and legal? Safe and surgery should not be in the same sentence,as there is always risks. With abortion one of the most common risks are infection, blood clots,and perforated uterus. Doesn’t sound too *SAFE* to me. Do dentists advertise *safe* tooth pulling? Even that has it’s risks.

  • shellshell

    In 2005 they didn’t acknowledge fetal pain before 29 weeks. Now late terms clinics are closing down because they’re not allowed to do abortions past 20 weeks..because of fetal pain laws. However  some scientists acknowledge the fetus /unborn child can feel pain way before that. But hurting a child doesn’t matter to pro-aborts. You wonder why I use the term sociopaths. Sociopaths do not feel empathy nor sympathy for another. Abortion is a HATE CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN.

  • purplemistydez

    Your logic is seriously flawed.  There are lots of surgeries that are considered safe but of course there is some danger.  Should we call all surgeries dangerous and life threatening?  Even in tooth pulling people can die from an allergy from anesthesia.

  • goatini

    the so-called “abortion industry”.

    Repoductive health care is no more an “industry” than any other kind of health care. I would say that it is far less of an industry than any other kind of healthcare, as (1) most insurance policies won’t cover it, and (2) Medicaid, the VA, and most state insurance programs won’t cover it. Reproductive health care exists these days through the hard work and courage of its supporters, not through any kind of institutionalized health care / insurance scheme, and that is as far from an “industry” as any health care specialization could possibly be.

    And let me reiterate that the massive industries and coffers of the Vatican, the fundamentalist Dominionist religious cults, and the billion-dollar adoption business are the true “industries” here, and that this poster is again just trying to catapult dishonest propaganda into the conversation. Projection and distraction.

  • purplemistydez

    What about my pain?  Apparently that doesn’t matter to you pro-slavers.  Also fetuses aren’t living, breathing children.  Get a dose of reality.

  • goatini

    who the Bishop wished death upon, really, really hated her four children at home so much, just because SHE wanted to live for them and to not die from an unviable pregnancy.

    Hyperbole does not help you prove your point.

  • purplemistydez

    The was such a disgusting moment for the catholic church and anti-choicers.  Screw the 4 kids at home who needed their mother.  The fetus that was going to die for sure should be able to kill the woman too according to them.  Anti-choicers insist women die because they were unlucky enough to be born with an uterus.

  • shellshell

     The ability to take air into your lungs doesn’t define life..By older standards a beating heart defined legal life which the unborn has a beating heart 3 weeks after conception… With it’s own blood type.Now by law in the US, brainwaves are the criteria used to determine whether or not someone is alive. 6 weeks and 2 days after conception there ARE detectable brainwaves. [ google :EHD by National Geographic]. Being pro-life has nothing to do with slavery… I respect human life at all stages. You do not. The slave owners often didn’t respect their slaves as human beings. That’s where people who share your views  have a common denominator with  slavery. Reality?… you think Reality TV is reality.

  • purplemistydez

    Stop comparing it with slavery.  My family comes from slaves and that is very offensive.  Their experiences are concrete and valid unlike a fetus that may or may not made it to actual birth.  I value people that actually are living then something that has the potential.  Fetuses are not given birth certificates or social securties numbers because they are not people.  Until they can live on their own without support from another living being they are just a parasite.  You confuse fetuses with actual babies.  Reality is what these girls went through which you dismiss so casually.

  • cc

    Denying women the right to a safe, legal abortion is a “hate crime” against women. Oh, right. Who cares about the woman – she’s only an incubator whose needs are secondary to the fetus.

    Speaking of Stanik’s blog – You wouldn’t (actually you would) believe the anti-Semitism on the part of these anti-choicers. There was a recent thread about how Jose Ruba (?) has countered arguments that comparing the holocaust to abortion is not valid. I posted the ADL’s comment regarding how offensive and inaccurate this comparison is. I also posted an excerpt from a Jewish website that summarized the Jewish pro-choice position. The comments that followed were full of bigotry and the anti-choice certitude that their Christianity is really the only true belief system. Here’s Joe’s response to my comments:

    “There is nothing in Jewish or Christian moral teaching to support unlimited killing of every member of the human race through prenatal homicide”

    “You cannot be a Christian or a Jew if you would support or allow unlimited killing of us human beings in the first nine months of our lives and would allow us to be deprived of our entire human lifespans”

    To another poster’s comment that if he is neither Jewish nor a rabbi he shouldn’t be arguing Judaism:

    “I am not a rabbi, nor am I even Jewish.  That gives me something in common with “pro-choice” “rabbis” who are themselves neither rabbis nor Jewish”

    Another comment from “Mother in Texas”

    “The Holocaust is not just Jewish “property”. Lots of people lost their lives that weren’t Jews”

    From Mary Rose:

    “And CC, you have been around these blogs long enough to know the reality of abortion. Are you really going to say that ripping infants limb from limb is more humane than gassing them?”

    Wow – and these are mild compared to some of the other anti-Semitic comments that I have seen especially one that said that Reform Judaism wasn’t Judaism and that pro-choice Jews are “blasphemers.” Rather than admit that most Jews are pro-choice and be done with it, these folks just attack pro-choice Jews.

    At any rate, sorry for the digression; but Stanek’s blog is just so full of this crap that I had to mention it. We could have a whole blog dedicated to the hate, misinformation, and stupidity on her site!

    As usual, great article Amanda.

    P.S. Bill O’Reilly will be talking about the MTV special tonight. As he was, in my opinion, partially responsible for the death of Dr. Tiller in his constant attacks on “Dr. Tiller, the baby killer” (and he won a “courage award” from the hate group, Family Research Council for it), I will be curious to see his take.

     

  • ldan

    You respect life at all stages…unless that life is a pregnant woman.

     

    Leaving aside the offensiveness of the slavery comparison since someone with far more right than I to be outraged has already taken that up, we’re still left with the fact that you’re willing to allow the rights of fetuses to be held up as greater than the rights of any born person, and particularly as greater than those of the women carrying them. How is it respectful to tell someone that they have rights to their own body…up until a fetus attaches to their uterus (and even before that if the fertilized-eggs-are-people crowd has their way).

     

    Honestly, the way you bounce around this thread, shifting from one talking point to another without bothering to answer the arguments tearing said talking points apart, it’s pretty obvious you’re a troll. But hey, thanks for the oppotunity to sharpen some arguments.

  • beenthere72

    What the hell are you doing to help women?  You’re completely ignoring them!  

  • crowepps

    Actually, I’m not sure they really understand what DNA is or that EVERY living thing has unique DNA or that severe fetal malformations of nonviable fetuses can be a RESULT of that unique DNA, but suspect that instead they just grabbed ahold of a term that sounded vaguely sciency and authoritative.

     

    Certainly the repeated references to “scientists admit” are weird, since real scientists tend to refer to themselves by their specialty instead of the generic term, and who cares what icthyologists or physicists or palentologists or geologists or astronomers “admit” about fetal development?  These guys don’t even grasp that National Geographic is NOT a “peer reviewed journal” reporting research results but instead a magazine for the general public (focused on geography actually).

  • shellshell

    Pro-life organizations will help women ..if they choose to keep the baby..or help place the child up for adoption if she so wishes. They even offer counseling for post-abortive women. ..since PP does little for that…and other places often do not acknowledge post abortion syndrome.

  • beenthere72

    It’s no wonder this person you know committed suicide.   You labelled her a sociopath.   Did you look her in the eye and call her a sociopath?  A murderer?    Do you wonder WHY she committed suicide now?   WHO IS THE REAL SOCIOPATH!?!?  YOU ARE!   

    You don’t give a shit about women.  

  • shellshell

    Abortion should not be called safe ever. it is a surgery and all surgeries have riskes including heart attack stroke and death.

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, if they were so concerned about fetal pain, why wouldn’t they be so concerned about the fetus’ pain DURING birth, or, for that matter, the WOMAN’s pain (y’know, the only one who actually DOES feel pain)?

    AfaIk, Jews don’t consider that there is a person until first breath, which means after birth.  They also believe that abortion is permissible until quickening.  I think it’s stated right in the Bible and the Torah (?), if these morons wanted to take a look.

    Also, if the woman didn’t have a uterus that functions in such a manner that it forces her to opt-out of the organ usage and that it has so many variable risk factors when opting to remove consent that her right to medical privacy ensures that the fetus is destroyed in the process, they wouldn’t have a problem!  Which means (guess what), that these anti-choicers really ARE blaming a woman for having a uterus.

  • beenthere72

    Thank you for this, CC.  That last one from Mary Rose especially pisses me off.    These people are willfully ignorant of the reality of the Holocaust.    

  • ldan

    Childbirth also has risks, significant ones, including surgery given the rates of C-sections in this country. So…have you told anyone pregnancy is safe?

     

    How about driving? Walking down the street? I mean all of those have risks and are not 100% safe.

     

    Or maybe women are adults who can assess those risks and decide what level of risk they want to deal with? Given that abortion is far less risky than childbirth overall, I’m not really sure how this argument is an objection to abortion.

  • princess-rot

    Pregnancy, partly because, if it were another species or even another form of human life, we would be appalled if someone wanted to let it reside in their body. 

    Yeah, the alien parasite thing gets to me too, but that is a small, slightly silly reason among many other, more practical ones for not wanting children. One other is societal expectation that will get you lumbered with almost all the hard work – a common sentiment heard among my female relatives is that they are still playing cook/nurse/maid/nanny/cleaner/secretary/reflecting pool to husbands and adult children. Women who are otherwise independent, with successful jobs and such. I see it among my own peer group, as with the friend I mentioned, and saw it in my own last relationship, where I wondered “What the hell am I doing?” and emscrayed. The conditioning runs deep.

  • crowepps

    If everything that has risks can’t be called safe, then it’s obvious pregnancy should not be called safe either.  Even with medical care available, pregnancy complications kill women.

    The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks—and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks. [Added by poster - 90 per million]  Bartlett LA et al., Risk factors for legal induced abortion-related mortality in the United States, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2004, 103(4):729–737.

     

    In 2003, the maternal mortality rate was 12.1 deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03_033.pdf

    [121 deaths per million]

    Abortion complications can kill and abortion is not 100% ‘safe'; it is just a lot safer than pregnancy.

  • crowepps

    If Pro-life organizations REALLY want to help women, why don’t they acknowledge that women need to be “audited” and then trained to “clear” so that they can reach “Operating Thetan”.  Cripes –

  • crowepps

    Lumbered with doing all the hard work FOR FREE, since if you want compensation for your time or expenses then obviously you don’t LOVE your family enough –

  • beenthere72

    “Counseling for post-abortive women”.   Yeah, calling them sociopaths and liars if they’re not considering suicide over their abortion is real effective counseling.  

  • ahunt

    You think this is all about your uterus.

     

    Absolutely! Everyone knows there is no person surrounding the uterus, after all.

  • prochoicekatie

    I am not comparing giving an organ (for your information, many living people donate kidneys… and continue living) or giving blood to having an abortion. I am comparing the option to NOT give blood to the option to NOT give uterine space and nine months of biological support via an umbilical cord. When people refuse to give blood, donate a kidney, or donate bone marrow, people die. Maybe you’re okay with this because it seems more passive but the result is the same. Go to the national kidney donation website and you can find stats on how many people have died waiting for all the anti-choicers to give one of their kindeys for ‘the life of another.’

    “…blood comes from someone…but we’re not taking ALL of someone’s blood supply so another person can live.”

    It doesn’t matter if it’s all of your blood or some of your blood. It doesn’t matter if it’s all of my bodily nutrients or some of them. It doesn’t matter if you take up the whole uterus or share it with a twin. The right to bodily autonomy – you can’t take my biological material without my permission, even if you will die – has a significant legal, moral, and medical precedent over the right to life. You may be uncomfortable with that but I don’t see you advocating for forced blood donation even though people are dying without transfusions.

    To be clear, in pregnancy, you seem to have confused whether the fetus is the donor or the recipient. Blood donation: person dying = recipient, person giving blood = donor. Pregnancy: person giving uterine space and nutrients = donor, fetus = recipient.

    You can choose not to donate blood and I can choose not to donate uterine space.

    If a baby dies because I don’t want to give it uterine space and nutrients, that is the same to me as a living breathing person dying because you won’t give them blood.

    You’re right, you don’t understand my argument. But thanks for incorrectly explaining organ donation. Your scientific understanding and understanding of semantics are ‘impressive.’

  • ack

    The right to bodily autonomy – you can’t take my biological material without my permission, even if you will die – has a significant legal, moral, and medical precedent over the right to life.

     

    Very well phrased.

  • arekushieru

    Like *1000* times over!

  • ack

    You do realize that unwanted pregnancy is essentially a fetus infringing on a woman’s rights, right? The crux of the debate is whether that fetus has more rights than the woman it’s residing inside.

     

    And your domestic violence comparison is deplorable. Just deplorable. You’re comparing sentient women being emotionally, physically, and sexually tortured to nonsentient embryos and fetuses, which is more than insulting to domestic violence victims. On behalf of all of the victims who have told their stories, whether directly, through indirect personal narratives, or through their murders: you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • ack

    Teenagers still can’t demand the use of their parents’ organs against that parents’ wishes. Even though they’re people.

     

    Anti-choicers should really read “My Sister’s Keeper,” by Jodi Piccoult. It gives a really interesting perspective on bodily autonomy.

  • ack

    Wow. I can understand that anti-choicers need to use extreme comparisons to make their case, because they don’t really have a legal, moral, or medical one when you break it down. But wow.

     

    I’ve come to the conclusion that bringing up the Holocaust in ANY argument is not only patently offensive, it’s a sure way to lose. If any of those commenters have looked at photos of concentration camps, read the tales of hunting and persecution of not only Jews, but of gay men, Romas, people with disabilities, and others, I just don’t see how they could hold onto that comparison without a complete lack of perspective.

  • arekushieru

    ProLife has EVerything to do with slavery.  If it didn’t, they wouldn’t deny a certain class of humans, and ONLY a certain class (women), access to the exACT same rights that every other class of humans has and grant another class (feoti) more rights than anyone born.

    Here, let me reiterate my post to Paul Bradford, a regular commenter on this site until recently (so glad he’s gone):

    There is a scale with two arms of unequal length.  The longer arm represents the woman.  The shorter arm represents the fetus.  The longer arm has a higher number of bowls while the shorter arm has only one.  The longer arm’s bowls may either be smaller or the same size as the bowl on the other arm. These bowls are labelled Respect/Value.  You fill up the one bowl on the shorter side to the brim.  Now, you fill up the smaller/same-sized bowls to balance out the scale.  Either the bowls are filled to the brim because they are a smaller size or they are the same size and they are only filled part of the way (meaning the measure of respect you have for each aspect a woman holds is smaller than for that which a fetus holds, either way).

    I’ve never watched Reality Tv.  But, if my reality and Reality Tv’s reality are the same, maybe I should start….

  • arekushieru

    Was that a reference to Dr. Seuss’ book, Horton Hears a Who, that I just read…?  ….  Dr. Seuss’ estate, at the VERY least, exPLICitly condemned any usage of his material in anti-choice propaganda, tyvm.

  • goatini

    …That being the right to life for the unborn.”

     

    Well, reproductive freedom fighters, there you have it.  For all the forced-birther blathering about the living woman and the fetus being entitled to “equal dignity”, and considered as “equally important”, you knew it and I knew it too all along:  in the nanosecond of fertilization, the forced birthers say that THE WOMAN’S RIGHTS VANISH.

     

    We need a kind of Personhood Amendment FOR (living, born, breathing) WOMEN, that asserts that a woman’s rights as a US citizen, especially from onset of menses to menopause, cannot be violated in ANY way for ANY reason.  And, that any religion, creed or cult that would demand such an violation is breaking the law and must discontinue such practices in the US.  It works for FGM.  It works (kind of, except for parts of Utah, Texas, and Idaho) for polygamy.  

     

    If the forced birthers are now so willing to so boldly say that once fertilization happens, the living, breathing pregnant woman has NO RIGHTS, I think we are on to something here.  

  • arekushieru

    Yes, that’s one of the reasons why I am REALLY uncomfortable with that book.  Another reason is the parents’ seeming lack of spontaneous affection shown to their youngest child.

  • crowepps

    Since he just declared that women aren’t included in all that “rights” stuff in the Constitution.  His reasoned legal argument is:

     

    “Those men back then were misogynists who considered women the equivalent of talking poodles — it would never have occurred to THEM that women should be treated like equal citizens, so misogynist legislatures now are free to pass laws condemning women to the equivalent of slavery.”

     

    Then, of course, as women slip quietly away from the Hate States, they’ll have to pass “Fugitive Woman Acts” to try to stamp out the Underground Railroads facilitating escapes and send out ‘Catchers’ to try to bring back fleeing wives.  If women aren’t safe in the Free States there is a Canada to which women will be able to escape.  We not only never learn from history, most people are totally unaware that we’ve ALREADY DONE THIS and it was a disaster.

  • arekushieru

    That was something once proposed, here, in Canada, too, by Joyce Arthur.  Just because Canada has no law restricting abortion doesn’t mean we don’t have a fight on our hands preventing restriction of access, either, after all. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help the women who would attempt to escape such Hate States, as crowepps stated, as much as I would like, either.  :(

  • goatini

    to the effect of “since he thinks we have no rights, we need to get the ERA passed too”, but took it out for the sake of brevity.

     

     

    “To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo'” –  Antonin Scalia, 3/26/06

     

    Classy, Tony, classy.  Almost as classy as your pal Long D0ng Thomas.  Makes you wonder what REALLY goes on in those Opus Dei meetings.  

  • crowepps

    We’d never get the ERA passed now that Sarah Palin is considered a ‘feminist’.

  • goatini

    You mean her proposal about coerced childbirth?

     

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2010/04/19/canada-lets-coerced-childbirth

     

    Excellent idea.  

  • goatini

    I think 2011 is the year that progressives are standing up.  I’ve heard and seen a difference in the tactics, framing and words that progressive journalists are starting to use since the beginning of the year.  

     

  • crowepps

    Am very pleased to have been referred and to have found her website –

     

    http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/writing.html#abortion

     

    And her blog:

     

    http://choice-joyce.blogspot.com/2007/02/misogyny.html

  • ahunt

    We’d never get the ERA passed now that Sarah Palin is considered a ‘feminist’.

     

    Snerk. Tough being an Alaska resident, huh?

     

    I’m not worried. No sane politician will dispute the SC’s finding the women are protected under the 14th amendment. But I almost wish Scalia’s outlier interpretation WOULD impact on a SCOTUS decision. The mass defection of old school female republicans would be a sight to behold. They are fed up as it is.

     

    Full disclosure…I was raised in Oregon…and remember a much different GOP.

  • crowepps

    I was a Goldwater Republican myself, in my youth.  They lost me after he lost the presidential nomination to Nixon, who went all out with the Southern Strategy of wooing the ‘ignurt bigot’ base.  They’ve been all downhill ever since.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if their next platform has a ‘burn the witches’ plank.

  • ahunt

    Yah…

     

    Let us hear it for Tom McCall, Bill Milliken, Mark Hatfield, Jacob Javitts, Margaret Chase Smith,  Pete McCloskey, Wayne Morse, Nelson Rockefeller…

     

    My Mom lusted after Pete McCloskey. Years later, I get why.

  • arekushieru

    And this:

    http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Johnstone.pdf

    Specifically (although not stated as such), her call to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution, the right to medical privacy and bodily autonomy such that it makes clear the right to life is not inalienable, does not make forfeit one’s right to either of the former two autonomous decisions.

    :)

     

  • arekushieru

    You’re welcome!  She’s a personal favorite of mine.  :)

    I don’t know if you remember a commenter on this site by the name of bobolink, but I replied to said poster with a couple of corrections to his/her defense of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  Joyce mentions a couple more bills that have been passed since his election as PM.  Those are the last two that can be found at the bottom of this link: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/anti-bills.html

    Also, another interesting read by her (and, one that’s a little bit more on-topic): http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/press/repeal.pdf

    There are a couple of other links related to the last one that can be found in your first link.  If you can’t find them, for one reason or another, just let me know and I can link to them, for you.

  • shellshell

    Obviously the women who are in denial about their post-abortive feeling will not be seeking help. So, the ones who do seek counseling are NOT lying,and they DO feel remorse…therefore not sociopathic. 

  • beenthere72

    So help me understand this:  If a woman feels no remorse after her abortion, she’s a lying sociopath.   If a woman does feel remorse and seeks help, that help should make her feel better about herself and her situation after an abortion.    But YOU don’t want her to feel better – you want her to be sad and remorseful or else be labelled a lying sociopath.   It’s a lose-lose situation.   At what point can she be OK with her abortion and not be a lying sociopath?  How the hell do you help someone if you want them to be remorseful for the rest of their lives for what YOU consider murder?

     

    I bet you’d forgive someone that abuses animals before you forgive a woman that’s had an abortion.   Not that we need your forgiveness or anything.    But animal abusers often move on to abusing people.  Women that have had abortions do no such thing. 

  • shellshell

    http://www.ehd.org/resources_bpd_illustrated.php?page=8

    Scroll down to chapter 23. National Geographic is a very liberal source,and as far as EHD. They say they do not take sides in this issue. They just report biological facts. I guess you do not like facts unless it’s the *Facts* you want to hear. There are brain waves 6 weeks AND 2 days after conception. THIS has already been proven,but you do not want to acknowledge it ,because you’d rather live in ignorance.

    You accuse me of being a mysogynist because I don’t think the human fetus should be de-humanzed. No matter how you at it..the human fetus is ALive…a human *Being*…pssst…being human… And a child. But I suppose it’s easier to kill someone if you take away their humanity first. The pro-life side cares about women AND children[in and out of the womb]. Your side offers death and wounded women.

  • shellshell

    Every one on that panel were tied in with Planned Parenthood..and they are so trustworthy ,right? no. They are desperate to discredit the silent scream anyway they could cause it was probably ruining their business.

    I Even saw a video of students [mis]educated by PP and they sounded so ignorant..declaring *war on science*.hahaha.  For God sake, the one kid said an XY was female? really?

     It seems planned parenthood goes out of their way to misinform people whenever they get the chance. IGNORANCE IS BLISS!

  • ahunt

    Ya just keep moving them goalposts, Shell.

     

    Interesting that you appear to believe that roughly 35 million American women are “sociopaths.”

  • shellshell

    fORMERppgla quit in the latter part of 2009,when she took her pro-life stance. Are you saying here and now in EARLY 2011..that Planned Parentooh has changed that much? I think you’re not telling the truth.

  • purplemistydez

    Oh your talking about the anti-choicers.  Fetuses are not babies.  First step to intelligence for you .

  • ldan

    Just the reviews of that one creeped me out enough that I haven’t added it yet to the ever-growing ‘to-be-read’ pile.

  • ack

    The pro-life side cares about women AND children[in and out of the womb].

     

    I probably sound like a broken record on this, but until the policy makers who fight abortion rights also start supporting health care, education, and social services, I just won’t buy it. If you disagree with them on those issues, maybe you should start looking for legislators who reflect your view.

  • meghan

    I spent eight years, off and on, working in abortion clinics. I’m more proud of that work than any other I’ve done since. We supported women.  We listened to them.  We helped them access a legal, safe procedure.  We let them, not the state, not the church, not their boyfriend or their parents or their friends or faceless politicians, determine the course of their lives. What’s not to be proud of?

     

    I’m a midwife, a Catholic, the mother of two beautiful children and I’ve had two abortions. I’ve helped many hundreds of women access both prenatal and abortion care, and it’s all part of the same work. I trust my patients, and I believe that parenthood should never be the punishment the right would like it to be.

  • prochoiceferret

    You accuse me of being a mysogynist because I don’t think the human fetus should be de-humanzed.

     

    No, we think you’re a misogynist because you want to force women to carry pregnancies to term against their will. You know, kind of like how rapists force women to have sex against their will. (We think rapists are pretty misogynist too!)

     

    Are you a rapist, by the way? You don’t seem to have a problem with the whole using-women’s-bodies-whether-they-want-to-let-you-or-not thing, so it seems quite likely.

  • meghan

    Risks of pregnancy carried to term:

     

    30% chance of cesarean, i.e., major abdominal surgery

    2% chance of major obstetrical hemorrhage requiring transfusion

    50% chance of genital trauma (i.e., laceration or episiotomy)

    3-8% chance of pre-eclampsia (multiorgan system disease than can result in stroke, kidney failure, liver failure, DIC and death)

    3% risk of gestational diabetes

    20% chance of post-partum depression

     

    Shall I go on? 

  • ldan

    I’m supposed to roll over and say “oh you’re totally right!” over “primitive brainwaves”? I have news for you, my cat has a more developed brain and more complicated thoughts and feelings than a 6 week old fetus. Brain waves in and of themselves are not terribly exciting.

     

    They’re also beside the point. Once again, human beings do not have the right to use the body, nutrients, etc. of other human beings. How is this dehumanizing anyone? If I sound like a broken record, it’s because you continually sidestep this core issue.

     

    You’re mysoginist because you believe women should be dehumanized into forced incubators. You have yet to offer a compelling argument as to why this sort of torture should be allowed.

     

    As for how the pro-life side cares for women and children out of the womb, the voting record of those you elect says everything I need to know about that. They vote against equal pay for women, against policies that help women and children in poverty, against laws that benefit the working class (which, of course, benefits the children in working class families), and against comprehensive sex ed. Exactly how are they helping women and children?

  • ldan

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/us/08sisters.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

     

    Except now someone actually is managing to make a legal requirement of organ donation. Admittedly, it’s apparently the women’s own idea to do so and an unusual case, but making it a requirement for freedom? How is that not under duress?

     

    Which doesn’t even touch on my disgust at life sentences for the crime committed, the lifetime suspended sentences instead of pardons, and not having any idea where the funding is coming from for the transplant.

  • ldan

    This sounds a lot like that old test for witches: Toss her in water, if she’s a witch, she’ll survive…so you can execute her. If she drowns, she wasn’t a witch.

     

    Guess what? I’m not in denial, nor lying, nor a sociopath. Sooo, what does this do to your theory?

     

    Sure, that’s anecdata, but since you don’t have anything better to back up *your* point, I’ll stick with it for now.

  • rebellious-grrl

    “Post-abortive syndrome” DOES NOT EXIST! It’s a complete fabrication made up by the forced-bithers like you to shame and guilt women. It’s a very sad attempt by forced-birthers to demonize women.

    You should read, Study Debunks Theory of “Post-Abortion Syndrome

  • rebellious-grrl

    So true.

    This sounds a lot like that old test for witches: Toss her in water, if she’s a witch, she’ll survive…so you can execute her. If she drowns, she wasn’t a witch.

  • rebellious-grrl

    And forcing women to give birth is “so great for them.”

     

    You have no facts to back up what you’re saying. It’s complete bull.

  • crowepps

    Honey, really, you need to understand that there is a big difference between research published in a peer reviewed journal for professionals and an organization founded by amateur geologists to distribute maps and fund photographic essays.  I think the DVD that National Geo put together about ‘how life begins’ is absolutely charming and have showed it to my grandchildren.  I have NOT shared with my grandchildren the depressing information that most zygotes don’t make it to birth or photos of the grotesqueries created by genetic errors because nobody but a medical professional needs to remember the image of a ‘fetus’ that looks like a pile of organs randomly thrown into a sack.

     

    There are lots of instances in which really horrible things happen to perfectly nice people and there are no good choices to be made.  Pretending that never happens and insisting instead on promoting sentimental fantasies about 100% guaranteed easy and effortless reproduction is clinging to a child’s understanding of how life works.  When talking about laws that will restrict other people’s medical options, it’s a requirement to do so as a grownup, and grownups recognize reality.  Abortions are sometimes medically necessary.  Continuing pregnancies and growing a grotesquerie larger before it’s born is sometimes futile, often inhumane to the woman hosting it, and may literally kill her.

     

    You cannot solve the problem of ‘dehumanizing the unborn’ by instead ‘dehumanizing the women’ which is precisely what you do when labeling all women sociopaths because they haven’t reacted to their situations with sufficient hysteria to satisfy your ‘broke my heart’ scale.

     

    Some women feel it is incredibly VULGAR to whine publicly, to sob and moan and writhe around on the floor boo-hooing, to host pity parties and beg others to excuse their mistakes.  Some women are REPELLED by the idea that everybody in town feels free to discuss their private decisions.  Some women would be HORRIFIED by any expectation that they put on the drama queen crown and emote hysterically, about their sex lives no less, in front of a bunch of judgmental ‘church ladies’.

     

    So far as I’m aware, there sure isn’t any scientifically based system of counseling that says it’s healthy for the counselor to INSIST the patient has to satisfy the COUNSELOR’S emotional needs in order to be judged ‘healthy’.  It sounds more to me like some amateurs have self-appointed themselves counselors and are running 12-step programs even though there’s actually no evidence at all that such programs ever allow people to actually ‘get over’ their problems.

  • arekushieru

    *PROOF*, please.  Also, these are peer-reviewed, acCREDited medical professionals, unLIKE the one who first brought the Silent Scream to mainstream attention.  I also notice that you refuse to condemn the latter doctor for his OWN affiliations?  Hypocrisy… thy name is anti-choice…?

    Btw, where do you think intersex comes from?  And phenotype and genotype?  You can be phenotypically female, yet genotypically male.  There is a gene on the chromosomes that, if missing, can cause this condition.  So, thanks for proving your laughable ignorance, once again.

    ‘War on science’?  No, that’s what anti-choicers like to do.

    Here, let me reiterate, 3% of PP’s business are abortion services, which means that if they wanted to discredit the silent scream for that reason, they would be ruining 97% of their business, by YOUR logic.

    There can BE no detectable brain waves until the CNS has connected with the brain, which has been PROVen not to occur until, at least, the 18th week.

    And, agreed with the other reply, you are, once again, referring to anti-choicers, as well. 

  • arekushieru

    While I disagree and am disgusted with the sentence, my disgust for it is not as great as it is for some of the anti-choicers on this board who are a lot more hypocritical about the entire situation.

  • cc

    Check out the absolute misogyny of Bill O’Reilly’s take on the MTV special:

  • squirrely-girl

    … tells me that anecdote is not research or science. 

     

     

  • ldan

    I’m just finding myself immensely disturbed by the ramifications of such a legal violation of bodily autonomy. The entire story highlights one angle of mysogyny after another.

     

    It’s off topic as well, for which I apologize. I just saw it today and brought it over to highlight how much of an uphill battle it continues to be for women to own their own bodies unless they’re one of the priviliged class.

  • arekushieru

    On that we can agree.  I couldn’t help but notice, after all, that the very first freedom sentencing, of its kind, targeted two black women.  And the one who targeted them was a republican male judge.

    Side note: I would be just as disgusted and appalled by a ProChoicer who supported something like this, as I am with anti-choicers who don’t support this kind of thing.

    And… no worries, from me, anyways.  I go off-topic, quite a bit, and haven’t seen a comment of mine deleted, though.

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Uh, what?  How do you go from unsure when someone quit their job because it may have been too far back to be of any relevance, to sure that someone quit their job just last year and still possibly thinking that it is irrelevant?  Hmmm…?  Anti-choice logic fail.

  • goatini

    Again:  another attempt at distraction from the FACTS about the actual businesses that profit enormously from interfering with US citizens’ Constitutional right to privacy in health care decisions:   the Vatican, the fundamentalist Dominionist religious cults, and the billion-dollar adoption industry all have massive financial coffers vaster by far than any reproductive health care facility, or any organization supporting access to reproductive health care.

  • shellshell

    We do live in the death culture…where people like you seem to think killing in normal and acceptable ,as long as it’s life in the womb that was destroyed.

     Don’t feel so bad. you’re a victim of your environment. The cannibal tribes of New guinea,also think it’s normal to eat another human being [as long as it's from an enemy tribe].

  • saltyc

    Hey Shell-shell, with all the guilt and blood libel you put on women who have abortions, it’s not surprising at all that women in your mindset would experience catastrophic depression. 

    Hey if you cared so much about women who suffered after abortion, you’d lighten up on the whole cannibal and murder thing.

    I wonder what the impact would be on postpartum depression of everyone around the new mother telling her how WRONG WRONG WRONG she is. I suspect it would be exacerbated, even to the point of suicide.

    One sign of a death culture is how often you keep saying death destroy kill murder death and death. Hell exists on Earth, my friend. Get out.

  • ahunt

    Snerk…given that it is the BZEF cannibalizing the woman’s body, Shell…you may want to rethink your comparison.

  • prochoiceferret

    We do live in the death culture…where people like you seem to think killing in normal and acceptable ,as long as it’s life in the womb that was destroyed.

     

    No, I think the U.S.’s propensity to fight wars, and continued support of capital punishment, is better evidence of the fact that we live in a “death culture.” Women having abortions is more of a “females-have-the-right-to-control-their-own-bodies-and-destiny culture” thing.

  • saltyc

    You can tell  who’s living in a death culture. Most women have one or two abortions, but they have millions of abortions a year because every abortion is their abortion. They wallow in it, with totally sacrificial imagery. What woman who had an abortion would defile the remains pornographically the way these sickos do?

  • arekushieru

    I wonder what the impact would be on postpartum depression of everyone around the new mother telling her how WRONG WRONG WRONG she is. I suspect it would be exacerbated, even to the point of suicide.

    This is the other scenario that happened to one of two cousins that I mentioned in the Home Birth Common Ground? thread.

    Just before Christmas, I guess, my cousin tried to commit suicide.  It was cold, snowy, just plain wintry, outside.  Someone found her sitting in the snow with only her pyjamas on.  She also has two daughters.  One about four and another only 9 months.  She is now a patient at one of the hospitals, here, for three weeks.  It is believed to be PPD.  However, I think our family has been fairly supportive.  So, if she can attempt suicide even within an environment such as that, I can only imagine that the situation would be exacerbated in the absence of it, 100 times or more.

    Believe me, I am planning to share this only once and if any of you are skeptical of the veracity of either of the scenarios I mentioned, I can completely understand such skepticism.

  • arekushieru

    We do live in the death culture…where people like you seem to think killing in normal and acceptable ,as long as it’s not life in the womb that was destroyed. There, fixed that for you.  How many organ, tissue, blood donation clinics have you protested outside of, demanding that all who do not enter are killers/murderers, after all?  You haven’t?  Then, guess, what you think killing/murdering is normal and acceptable if it’s an indisputable human being, because they are EXACTLY the same scenario.

    As ahunt said, the fetus cannibalizes the woman, and she’s not even from an enemy ‘tribe’.  Whooops.

  • ack

    And immediately thought of this thread. I think this case sets a very dangerous precedent. I can’t imagine that anyone would be ok with demanding organ donation to a stranger in exchange for release. “So, we’ve got this guy on Medicare who’s costing us a fortune in dialysis. You’re a match. Give us your kidney, and we’ll let you go.”

     

    And I agree that there are a host of other issues. What a freakin mess.

  • ldan

    That reminds me very much of the Buddhist (I believe) tale of a pair of monks, one older and one younger. They came to a stream that they needed to cross, and the elder helped a woman across by carrying her on his shoulders.

     

    The rest of the day goes along, and they settle down for the evening. The elder says to the younger, “Something’s been bothering you all day, what is it?”

     

    They’re of an order that swears strict vows of celibacy, etc. So it isn’t that surprising when the younger replies with something to the effect that he can’t believe that his mentor went and actually touched a woman. How could he do that? And on and on about how shocking and impure…

     

    The elder shakes his head. “I set her down at the edge of the stream. Now I see you’ve been carrying her all day.”

  • crowepps

    The Judge was asked to zero out the rest of her sentence and release her so that she could become an organ donor as she had volunteered to do.  Once he does commute the sentence, that’s the end of his control over the situation.  At that point, she could have said, ‘thanks, sucker, changed my mind now that I’m free and am on my way to Vegas.’  In order to preclude that, he made the release conditional on her going through with the donation.

     

    Realizing the political reality that the ‘punish them, punish them’ contingent would have been after the Judge with blood in its eye if she had backed out of the deal, I think he put together the best order that he could.

  • arekushieru

    Actually, disagree.  It’s much like the woman who agrees not to ctt/have an abortion but then decides to do the opposite of what she said.  Are we still going to deny her the choice?

  • genevieve-dusquesne

    I find it kind of hilarious that you think you’re saying anything that I haven’t heard a thousand times already.  Only thing is, I heard it all those other times in person.  You’re just a fake name behind a computer, do you really think you’re going to bring me to some kind of epiphany?

    …and I think I’ll let the women speak for themselves when it comes to whether I (and my co-workers) are helping or not, okay?  Considering the number of thank-yous I’ve heard directed to either myself, the doctor, or everyone collectively, I’ll assume we were being quite helpful.