Doctor Who Performed Illegal Abortions Indicted for Murder


See all our coverage of the Kermit Gosnell case here.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia physician who performed late abortions mostly on poor and immigrant women, is facing eight counts of murder for his role in the deaths of a woman and seven babies.

According to the Associated Press:

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, made millions of dollars over 30 years, performing as many illegal, late-term abortions as he could, prosecutors said. State regulators ignored complaints about him and failed to inspect his clinic since 1993, but no charges were warranted against them given time limits and existing law, District Attorney Seth Williams said. Nine of Gosnell’s employees also were charged.

Gosnell’s employees included his wife and were not, notes the article, medically trained. According to the Grand Jury report, two called themselves doctors “but neither of them were licensed physicians.” One, a high school student, administered intravenous anesthesia to patients. However, none of the employees aside from Dr. Gosnell had any medical licensing or certification at all. Gosnell and four other employees are charged with third-degree murder, drug violations, drug-delivery resulting in death and the five other employees are charged with drug violations and conspiracy.

The woman at the center of this case, Karnamaya Mongar, suffered cardiac arrest after being given an overdose of a narcotic from one of Gosnell’s employees. The babies, born at term and healthy, in this case were brutally murdered and their deaths essentially covered up by a system which has failed a population of lower-income and immigrant women kept in the dark.

It’s a grisly and devastating story. Gosnell operated “The Women’s Medical Society” in West Philadelphia for over 30 years, providing illegal abortions to unsuspecting women who had nowhere else to turn. With a staff of untrained personnel, Gosnell not only performed abortions beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks, he did so in a “decrepit and unsanitary” clinic, essentially murdering the babies who were born, alive, in the process.

The Grand Jury report offers a stomach-churning description of Gosnell’s practice, difficult to read and near impossible to imagine:

The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.

Why, if over the years, many people came to know something was wrong, no one stopped it? The AP article notes,

Some women came from across the mid-Atlantic for the illegal late-term abortions, authorities said. White women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area because Gosnell believed they were more likely to file complaints, [District Attorney Seth] Williams said.

“People knew near and far that if you needed a late-term abortion you could go see Dr. Gosnell,” Williams said.

Point blank, the report notes why prosecutors think Dr. Gosnell’s clinic was able to operate for as long as it did, providing dangerous and deadly “care” in squalid surroundings: because the women were poor or were immigrants or both.

But the report notes much more. In fact, both the Department of Health and Pennsylvania Department of State allegedly received numerous complaints about the Women’s Medical Society and Dr. Gosnell. His clinic was reported on numerous occasions. The Philadelphia Department of Public Health (which does not oversee medical centers but is charged with protecting the public’s health) visited the clinic on numerous occasions – citing violations – but there was never any real follow-up to the visits.

The facts of the case will begin to unravel and hopefully revealed in the days and weeks to come. Whether all of the allegations will be substantiated by fact, the stories thus far are, notes the Abortion Care Network, “truly heinous.” But what does this reveal about abortion access and laws nationwide?

When abortion is stigmatized, and access to care blocked for many women in this country, women are forced to turn to “providers” like Dr. Gosnell and his employees. Dr. Gosnell and others like him are offered easy access, in essence, to desperate and vulnerable women simply seeking to end a pregnancy.

But when we stigmatize the decision to have an abortion and keep discussions of this safe, legal option closed, as well as keep abortion care out-of-reach financially or geographically, we are not only telling women not to speak of this issue. We are also telling women they don’t deserve access to safe, legal care and that they won’t get access to a safe, nurturing environment either. Charlotte Taft, the Director of the Abortion Care Network, writes:

We are deeply saddened that our society has created an environment where women must make decisions about their health care based on cost, not quality of care. Until all reproductive health care and abortion services are accessible to all who need them, women will continue to be vulnerable to exploitation and harm by those who offer substandard care. Every day our member clinics receive calls from thousands of women seeking financial help and referrals to safe, legal providers to obtain the abortion services they need.

Most of the women who visited Dr. Gosnell would not have chosen a center like his if they had other options, or if they knew they had other options, of course. It’s why making abortion care more difficult to access – through state laws which prohibit abortion coverage in the new state exchanges to laws which make abortion care illegal for any number of reasons – can be a deadly decision. Women do not stop needing or making the decision to have an abortion because we make abortion increasingly more difficult to access. They just end up at centers like the one run by Dr. Gosnell and his staff.

Vicki Saporta, President of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), understands this well. NAF, she says, “sets the standards for high-quality abortion care” in the United States. NAF provider members care for more than half of the women who access abortion each year and must meet strict guidelines both before they can apply and operate as an existing member. Gosnell had applied on behalf of his practice for membership in NAF and was rejected, “It was clear that the clinic didn’t meet our guidelines,” says Saporta.

Yet Saporta wants to be clear. Most abortion providers provide high-quality care to their patients – Dr. Gosnell’s center was “an outlier of the worst proportion.”

Taft says that restrictive laws surrounding abortion access do not keep women and girls safe but actually contribute to scenarios like this one,

“What this case shows us is that these very strict laws limiting women and girls’ safe access to essential health care did nothing to ensure the safety and health of the most needy of our community.”

Women deserve to receive the highest quality care when they chose to terminate a pregnancy, says Saporta. Of course that’s true – but deserving the care and actually receiving it are very different and sometimes oceans apart.

For Karnamaya Mongar, an immigrant woman who spent “many years as a refugee” in Bhutan, her death tells that story all too well. It’s a story of women who seek safe abortion care but who may not speak English or have access to information necessary to find the care they deserve. And, Vicki Saporta says, “If women come from countries where abortion is illegal, they may not know it’s legal here or expect a certain quality of care. Then they end up in places like Dr. Gosnell’s clinic; sub-standard providers who prey on disadvantaged communities.”

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

  • beenthere72

    I can only hope that politicians who would otherwise look to politicize this tragic event as reason to further restrict abortions realize that this is exactly the reason why we shouldn’t.  

     

    I look forward to your continued coverage on this, Amie.  

  • blacktie

    Is that all you have to say?

    Babies were killed outside the womb. But if Gosnell had snapped their necks inside the womb, that would have been okay with you.

    You would only care about the babies if their umbilical cord had been cut, but not before.

    And you’re surprised that abortion is stigmatized?

    It will never be de-stigmatized. It kills a human being. 

     

  • jivinj

    Amie,

    If you read the Grand Jury report – why don’t you note that it blames the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s lack of action on pro-choice politicians and government officials who didn’t want to inspect clinics because they thought it would put up barriers to abortion?

     

    Since you didn’t link to it (probably because it completely contradicts the spin you’re trying to put on it)  – here it is – http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf

     

    Or why didn’t you note the an National Abortion Federation representative failed to report Gosnell after inspecting his clinic and finding it to be the worst one she’d ever been to? 

  • churchmouse

    The fact is this goes on all around the country, this is just one doctor exposed. Amie really says…that late term abortion should be provided in a safe medical facility that women should not have to resort to clinics like these.

    The women that basically visited this facility wanted illegal late term abortions which he provided. His clinic shows that abortion clinics are not monitored and checked on by the medical community or the state to see if they are complying with medical standards and laws.

    This is not a rarity….it happens all the time….this guy just finally got caught.

    To read about what goes on around the country I would suggest reading LIME 5, by Mark Crutcher. He does a super job of exposing clinics like these.

    It is sad that we still have people who champion abortion even to the extremes of performing late term abortions. This article demonstrates that. 

  • beenthere72

    I, for one, do not see how inspecting clinics and expecting them to meet the standard of care expected of them as with any other medical clinic would create any barriers to abortion so I think that’s a bullshit excuse of these government officials when the real reasons are motivated by race and class.     I don’t think Amie failing to mention that is intentional.  

     

    It sickens me that nail salons are more regulated than abortion clinics.  

    Gosnell’s “medical practice” was not set up to treat or help patients. His aim was not to give women control over their bodies and their lives. He was not serving his community. Gosnell ran a criminal enterprise, motivated by greed.

     

  • amie-newman

    First of all the report does NOT say that “pro-choice politicians didn’t want to have clinics inspected” – wow, that’s just an amazingly wrong statement on every level. In fact, it’s the OPPOSITE of what the report clearly states:

    Some pro-choice and women’s health groups learned from Gosnell’s patients of their frightening experiences. Patients reported that they were put totally to sleep for long periods of time, that they were treated badly, and that the facility was dirty. The community groups tried to help women file complaints.

    They were unsuccessful, however, in part because the complaint form used by the
    Department of State – the same form that one would use to complain about a barber or a car salesman – is difficult to fill out, especially if the complainant is not well educated…

    In addition, from the report:

    Gosnell defrauded the Delaware Pro-Choice Medical Fund as well. This
    organization provides financial assistance to Delaware women seeking abortions…

    As well, this is exactly what I’m talking about. When we stigmatize abortion (90% of abortions are first trimester abortions, by the way – nothing remotely related to what Dr. Gosnell did), we force women into clinics and situations like this.

    The majority of abortion providers provide high quality care and are monitored by organizations like NAF.  When we are able to discuss abortion care and openly refer women to high quality care, they can find the highest quality providers through NAF’s hotline. As I wrote, why would a woman willingly choose to visit Dr. Gosnell’s clinic? She wouldn’t – unless: 1) she couldn’t talk about her decision to access this LEGAL choice 2) she didn’t have access to a physician or other health provider with whom she could discuss her choice either because she didn’t have health insurance, didn’t know how to access a physician (if English was not her first language or she couldn’t speak English at all) or 3) she feared that abortion was illegal in this country.

    Finally, it’s sad when those who are so firmly against legal abortion access for women in the United States become enraged over an awful story like this and seem to have absolutely no problem with the 70,000 women who die each year from illegal abortion, in regions of the world where abortion is illegal or criminalized to some extent.

    Dr. Gosnell’s clinic only makes stronger the need for safe, high quality abortion care, especially for women who need later term abortions or who needed early abortions and who could not access those abortions – either because they didn’t know they could, they didn’t have the funds, or they didn’t know how to find a provider.

    This is an awful case of a clinic which should have been shut down and wasn’t – for many reasons. This man was performing illegal abortions. The Grand Jury report very clearly indicts the Pennsylvania Department of State, the Pennsylvania Department of Health and other government officials who should have taken action and didn’t. The DOH has records as far back as the 1980s – this man is an absolute monster who has no place practicing any kind of medicine. Why was he allowed to? Because, in my opinion, his practice focused mostly on poor women and women who were deemed throw-aways by society.

    Ms. Mongar spoke NO English – not a word. This is a case of a sick man preying on women who are in desperate situations. The women who came to his clinic did not want to be pregnant and for many reasons could not or did not access abortion earlier in their pregnancies. Why? These are the questions that MUST be answered. To ignore the women and their decisions and to disregard their lives, their stories, their families will get us nowhere but back to another Dr. Gosnell.

    It’s an awful, horrendous situation and the report is clear that many along the way should have spoken up and didn’t. I have many questions still unanswered and, as I wrote, I refuse to speculate until the facts and information are clear.

    The truth is when we keep abortion safe, legal and accessible and stop stigmatizing the decision and women’s choices, women are safer. As I said the report CLEARLY indicts specific agencies. From the report:

    Many organizations that perform safe abortion procedures do their own
    monitoring and adhere to strict, self-imposed standards of quality. But the excellent
    safety records and the quality of care that these independently monitored clinics deliver to patients are no thanks to the Pennsylvania Department of Health. And not all women seeking abortion find their way to these high-quality facilities; some end up in a filthy, dangerous clinic such as Gosnell’s.

    Finally, in fact, the recommendations from the Grand Jury report include this:

    The Department of Health might draw additional standards for inspection from
    protocols published by the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and CHOICE, a Philadelphia non-profit that offers information, education, and referrals related to women’s and children’s health care. These groups conduct inspections of abortion facilities before approving them or referring women to them. Their standards are, in many ways, more stringent and more protective of women’s safety than are Pennsylvania’s abortion regulations.

  • beenthere72

    This doctor is not representative of those that ‘champion abortion’.    Hack doctors exist in all medical fields where they see a demand.    Greed like this exists in all professions. 

     

  • jenh

    He severed the babies’ spinal cords with scissors after they’d been delivered.  Beautiful little human beings and he executed them.  See, the thing is, they were beautiful little human beings 30 minutes prior when they were still in the womb.  Nothing about the babies changed at all — yet the depraved logic of abortion says that in the womb it’s “choice” and outside the womb it’s murder.  These women did not NEED a late-term abortion.  They could have given birth and walked away if they did not want the child.  Killing the baby is never necessary.  Your selective outrage over what this monster has done is self-serving and hollow.  All he did is what every abortionist does.  He “terminated a pregnancy.”  So what if he did it outside the womb?  The end result is the same.  Baby eliminated, problem solved. 

     

    Women deserve better, all right.  Women deserve much better than abortion.

  • prochoiceferret

    The fact is this goes on all around the country, this is just one doctor exposed.

     

    Isn’t it terrible that the stigma surrounding abortion makes it harder to weed out the bad apples?

     

    Amie really says…that late term abortion should be provided in a safe medical facility that women should not have to resort to clinics like these.

     

    You get a gold star in reading comprehension!

     

    His clinic shows that abortion clinics are not monitored and checked on by the medical community or the state to see if they are complying with medical standards and laws.

     

    The womens’ health community was certainly aware of the problem. The PA Department of Health dropped the ball on this big- time, however.

     

    This is not a rarity….it happens all the time….this guy just finally got caught.

     

    If you know of any instances where a doctor is running a medical facility like this, please inform the authorities. If you’re just saying it happens all the time just because you don’t like abortion, then, well… I can’t blame you, because the anti-choice argument doesn’t have much more to go on than lies and miogyny.

     

    To read about what goes on around the country I would suggest reading LIME 5, by Mark Crutcher. He does a super job of exposing clinics like these.

     

    I hope all clinics like this are shut down, so that the only abortion facilities that operate are the ones that are safe and adhere to medical guidelines. Of course, this Mark Crutcher-person would never go and say that a safe clinic is as bad as this one, would he?

     

    It is sad that we still have people who champion abortion even to the extremes of performing late term abortions. This article demonstrates that.

     

    No, actually, it is sad that there are still people out there who don’t understand why late-term abortions are performed. Your comment demonstrates that.

  • blacktie

    If Kermit Gosnell had had the proper credentials, used the correct equipment, kept proper records, used proper anesthesia, and used the correct procedure to kill the babies while they were at least partially in the womb, that would have made it all okay to you abortion supporters?

    Whether he snapped the baby’s neck inside the womb or outside the womb, he snapped a baby’s neck.

  • prochoiceferret

    Babies were killed outside the womb. But if Gosnell had snapped their necks inside the womb, that would have been okay with you.

     

    Is “snapping their necks inside the womb” a medically necessary step for the health and safety of the woman?

     

    You would only care about the babies if their umbilical cord had been cut, but not before.

     

    We don’t care about “babies” more than we do the welfare of the women whose bodies are taking on a severe physical strain building same. Which you don’t care about at all, before or after birth.

     

    And you’re surprised that abortion is stigmatized?

     

    No, it fits in with the whole misogyny of our culture in general.

     

    It will never be de-stigmatized. It kills a human being.

     

    I’m sorry, my memory is a little short today; were you talking about war, or guns, or capital punishment?

  • jivinj

    Amie,

    The report clearly notes that one of the main reasons the Pennsylvania Department of Health wasn’t inspecting abortion facilities is that pro-choice Governor Tom Ridge’s administration didn’t want them to.  The overview notes on page 9:

     

    “But at least the department had been doing something up to that point, however ineffectual. After 1993, even that pro forma effort came to an end. Not because of administrative ennui, although there had been plenty. Instead, the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.”

     

    The report says the community groups (not sure which ones) tried to help women file reports but then later it notes that not a single pro-choice organization or abortion clinic filed a complaint against Gosnell even though they were well aware of at least some of the horrors of his clinic.  On Page 197:

     

    We saw no record of a complaint from any women’s health organizations. Indeed, according to the department’s records, no one over two decades ever conveyed a complaint over the phone.

     

    Before you praise the NAF – you might want to read page 41 of the report.  It notes that Gosnell worked one day a week at a NAF certified clinic in Delaware – Atlantic Women’s Services. 

     

    Women would choose Gosnell because he was cheaper and he was willing to break the law and abort viable children. 

     

    The report also calls for abortion clinics to be treated as ambulatory clinics – which is regulation that most pro-choice organizations oppose. 

     

  • blacktie

    Is “snapping their necks inside the womb” a medically necessary step for the health and safety of the woman?

    No it’s not. Killing is not necessary.

    The vast majority of late-term abortions are done because the babies were diagnosed with a condition in utero, many of them non-lethal, such as Down’s Syndrome.

    So are you saying that it would have been okay for the baby to die that way if the woman or doctor had wanted it so? Yes or no.

    We don’t care about “babies” more than we do the welfare of the women whose bodies are taking on a severe physical strain building same. Which you don’t care about at all, before or after birth.

    Even if that were true, at least I’m not advocating for legalized killing of women. Women can help themselves. Babies can’t.

    So, would it have bothered you if the babies had had their necks snapped inside the womb if these had been elective abortions?

    No, it fits in with the whole misogyny of our culture in general

    I’m a woman. And I say that the feminist definition of “misogyny” is wrong. Feminists do not get to define misogyny for me or for most women.

    Standing up for the lives of the unborn is not misogyny. Caring about human life is not an either/or proposition. You can care about babies AND you can care about women. It’s wrong to kill EITHER babies or women, so the solution is to ban killing. Ban abortionists from killing babies or women.

    If women don’t want to die of an abortion, they shouldn’t have one. Babies do not have that power to fend for themselves.

     

  • prochoiceferret

    See, the thing is, they were beautiful little human beings 30 minutes prior when they were still in the womb.

     

    Yes, it’s not like the process of exiting the womb is a big deal or anything.

     

    Nothing about the babies changed at all — yet the depraved logic of abortion says that in the womb it’s “choice” and outside the womb it’s murder.

     

    Yes, the depraved logic that holds there is some sort of value in the vessel that contains the baby.

     

    These women did not NEED a late-term abortion.  They could have given birth and walked away if they did not want the child.

     

    Wow, you must be a very good doctor if you can diagnose patients in absencia!

     

    Killing the baby is never necessary.

     

    Extracting a fetus, however, is a different story.

     

    Your selective outrage over what this monster has done is self-serving and hollow.  All he did is what every abortionist does.

     

    No, actually, most abortion doctors do not subject women to needless risk, let alone unacceptable medical facilities and practices.

     

    He “terminated a pregnancy.”  So what if he did it outside the womb?  The end result is the same.  Baby eliminated, problem solved.

     

    Well, at least it’s obvious why you advocate against abortion. You have no understanding whatsoever why women choose to have one. Hint: It has nothing to do with infanticide.

     

    Women deserve better, all right.  Women deserve much better than abortion.

     

    According to you, women deserve to be forced to give birth, whether they want to or not. Only an anti-choicer would call that “better.”

  • crowepps

    It is really sad that hospitals and communities buckled under and stopped providing medically necessary abortions in hospitals because of the ‘controversy’, and because of their fear of ProLife extremists.  Once the provision of abortions is segregated and stigmatized, once clinics have to become fortresses to protect the patients and providers from terrorists, once pregnant women become suspects instead of people, this sort of thing is bound to happen.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks Amie for the article and post.

    As well, this is exactly what I’m talking about. When we stigmatize abortion (90% of abortions are first trimester abortions, by the way – nothing remotely related to what Dr. Gosnell did), we force women into clinics and situations like this.

    I don’t want the antis to use this to further stigmatize abortion and contraception. It’s already bad enough that they demonize women who have abortions every chance they can.

  • blacktie

    Yes, the depraved logic that holds there is some sort of value in the vessel that contains the baby.

    When you hold that all human beings are equal, the no, the mother is not less valuable.

     

    But because she is the mother, she has a responsibility towards her powerless unborn child.

     

    The birth process does not change who or what the baby is. That’s the point. Being attached to an umbilical cord and to a placenta that is attached to the mother’s body does not make the baby any less of a human being. If the baby is a human being upon birth, he is no less a human beings five minutes before, and playing the “mother is only a vessel” card is actually somewhat demeaning considering that women ARE capable of looking after these babies.

    Whether you a fetus in the womb or a baby outside, it’s the same human being who should not be killed for the mother’s sake or certainly because of the mother’s decision. Most late-term abortions are performed because of fetal anomaly, not because of the mother’s “health”.

  • saltyc

     All he did is what every abortionist does. 

    No, he violated his patient’s trust, he expolited them and put them in danger.

    But you can’t see that because all you care about is ALL ABORION IS MURDER, and this is the very mindset that makes this malpractice happen. We pro-choicers are the ones who are outraged by this, you anti’s can’t see a difference.

  • crowepps

    I’m a woman. And I say that the feminist definition of “misogyny” is wrong. Feminists do not get to define misogyny for me or for most women.

    The definition of misogyny, like the definitions of all the other words, is provided not by ‘feminists’ but instead by people expert in the meaning of words and accessible through dictionaries.

    Misogyny:  a hatred of women

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

    You may be absolutely correct that ‘misogyny’ isn’t the appropriate word to describe opposition to abortion.  The correct word instead may be:

    sex·ism

    1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
    2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Just want to share some quotes from a thoughtful commentary from blogger PZ Myers.

    Read the entire post at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/this_is_not_a_case_about_abort.php

    “He (Gosnell) was unqualified, uncertified in obstetrics and gynecology, and his facility was unmonitored and relatively uninspected. He gave untrained, inexperienced staff critical jobs in the surgery……
    Gosnell is precisely the kind of butcher the pro-choice movement opposes. No one endorses bad medicine and unrestricted, unregulated, cowboy surgery like Gosnell practiced — what he represents is the kind of back-alley deadly hackery that the anti-choice movement would have as the only possible recourse, if they had their way. If anything, the Gosnell case is an argument for legal abortion.
    ……………… Much noise is being made about the “horrific” killings, but late term abortions, even the ones done in clean, properly maintained facilities with well-trained personnel, are always necessarily bloody and unpleasant affairs, like most surgeries. The important word there is “necessary”. Late term abortions should be carried out when it is essential for the life and health of the woman, who is the most important participant in these circumstances, and opening the door to accusing doctors who perform necessary operations as murder is a dangerous precedent.
    Gosnell committed many crimes. He posed as a qualified practitioner of his art, when he wasn’t. He did not maintain a medical facility in an appropriate manner. He had even less qualified people do life-threatening work. He lied to women about their pregnancies. He mutilated and killed women. He did harm. That should be what generates public outrage, not the fact that he did abortions.

    (Bold is my emphasis.)

     

  • prochoiceferret

    No it’s not. Killing is not necessary.

     

    Sure, if you don’t mind the possibility of the woman dying in childbirth.

     

    The vast majority of late-term abortions are done because the babies were diagnosed with a condition in utero, many of them non-lethal, such as Down’s Syndrome.

     

    Oh, so you’ve been pregnant and faced with an in-utero diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome? Do tell us what that’s like!

     

    So are you saying that it would have been okay for the baby to die that way if the woman or doctor had wanted it so? Yes or no.

     

    If the woman wanted to abort that pregnancy, then yes. If she wanted to kill the born baby, then no.

     

    Even if that were true, at least I’m not advocating for legalized killing of women. Women can help themselves. Babies can’t.

     

    No, actually, you are advocating for the legalized killing of women—that is, those who have pregnancy complications.

     

    So, would it have bothered you if the babies had had their necks snapped inside the womb if these had been elective abortions?

     

    It would bother me if that step were not medically necessary to perform the abortion in as safe a manner as possible.

     

    I’m a woman. And I say that the feminist definition of “misogyny” is wrong. Feminists do not get to define misogyny for me or for most women.

     

    Apparently, however, you get to define misogyny as not including something that takes away women’s rights to their own bodies. I’m guessing you’re not a feminist.

     

    Standing up for the lives of the unborn is not misogyny. Caring about human life is not an either/or proposition. You can care about babies AND you can care about women. It’s wrong to kill EITHER babies or women, so the solution is to ban killing. Ban abortionists from killing babies or women.

     

    …and just let the women and babies die on their own!

     

    If women don’t want to die of an abortion, they shouldn’t have one. Babies do not have that power to fend for themselves.

     

    But they do, apparently, have the power to use a woman’s body against her will. Which, when a grown-up person does it, we usually call “rape.”

  • amie-newman

    In point of fact the reports is 100% clear that those community groups are women’s health groups – the ones that tried to file complaints. As well, your claim that no complaints were filed is in reference, in the report. to the failure of the Department of Health to record those complaints. You have clearly scanned the report and not read the information!

    Women who had undergone abortions were generally not willing to send all of
    this information to Harrisburg. When representatives of one of the organizations tried to file a complaint with the Board of Medicine on behalf of the women, they were allegedly told that they could not file a third-party complaint.
    Ruiz, the prosecuting attorney, told us that the Department of State has always
    accepted complaints from any source – third parties, local, state, and federal agencies, newspaper stories, basically anyone who wants to file a complaint. He further testified that the complaints can be conveyed by telephone and do not have to be made on the formal complaint form. He said that any complaint would be logged in and considered.
    Our review of records subpoenaed from the Department of State, however,
    reveals that the only complaints recorded or acted on – even if the action was only to
    close the file without investigation – were those where a formal, written complaint was sent to the department. We saw no record of a complaint from any women’s health organizations. Indeed, according to the department’s records, no one over two decades ever conveyed a complaint over the phone.

    There was no record of any complaints from women’s health organizations because the DOH didn’t do their job – not because the women’s health groups didn’t try.

    In terms of the beginning of the report, where it notes that the change in administration resulted in an attitude of fear surrounding inspections of clinics, I would say that there is never a reason not to ensure wholesale that women are treated with the highest quality care. The politics of abortion access is such that those who oppose legal abortion tend to go to any lengths to ensure that women do not have access to safe, high quality care. It’s not that those who oppose legal abortion access want safety restrictions – it’s that they want abortion to be completely illegal. However, those who support safe, legal abortion care must do all we can to ensure women and their families retain access – so that they are not forced into clnics like Dr. Gosnell’s. 

    The report is clear on its recommendations. And one of those is classifying abortion clinics in the state as ambulatory centers. In that argument, however, the Grand Jury specifically refers to the high standards of Planned Parenthood, NAF and other groups as MODELS for DOH standards:

    The Department of Health might draw additional standards for inspection from
    protocols published by the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and CHOICE, a Philadelphia non-profit that offers information, education, and referrals related to women’s and children’s health care. These groups conduct inspections of abortion facilities before approving them or referring women to them. Their standards are, in many ways, more stringent and more protective of women’s safety than are Pennsylvania’s abortion regulations.

    Those recommendations for womens’ health and safety are in direct opposition to what anti-legal/safe abortion advocates push for.

  • amie-newman

    This is a horrific situation that none of us want to see repeated and all of us want to ensure women and babies are protected against; just as we have fought long and hard to protect women from illegal, unsafe abortion around the world that takes the lives of 70,000 women each year. But, somehow, we don’t see quite the same level of uproar from those who are anti-legal abortion about those deaths.

    It’s bizarre to me that this woman died from an illegal abortion – precisely what women’s health advocates don’t want to see happen and for which we fight against – and yet those who are in support of illegal abortion don’t see that this is an example of that. 

  • amie-newman

    and wrote essentially the same thing (look above)!

    This is exactly right! This is what illegal abortion IS and when 70,000 women die each year from unsafe, illegal abortion we need to be working to ensure that it remains safe and legal. I’m not sure why those who oppose legal abortion are not making that connection but it’s what we discuss regularly. This woman did not have to die – if we ensured that abortion was accessible and legal and all women, regardless of languages spokenor socio-economic status, had safe access, these years of butchering would never have happened.

    It’s the push to criminalize abortion and keep it stigmatized and inaccessible through laws which prevent public funding  which allows for a Dr. Gosnell to continue preying on women and providing ILLEGAL abortions.

  • blacktie

    The definition of misogyny, like the definitions of all the other words, is provided not by ‘feminists’ but instead by people expert in the meaning of words and accessible through dictionaries.

     

    What feminists judge to be misogyny is wrong. I wasn’t talking about a definition in a dictionary sense. I was talking about what feminists condemn to be “misogyny”. I, as a woman, say they are wrong, and so do millions of other women.

     

    I am a woman and I say that opposition to abortion is NOT sexism. Feminists are also often wrong about they judge to be sexist.

     

    Upholding the right to life of another class of human beings is not sexist. It’s not anti-women to oppose the right to kill.

  • blacktie

    Or maybe they find the termination of human life to be controversial, to say the least.

     

  • plume-assassine

    Newsflash: It is anti-woman to force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy and give birth against their will.

  • jivinj

    However, those who support safe, legal abortion care must do all we can to ensure women and their families retain access – so that they are not forced into clnics like Dr. Gosnell’s.

    Does that mean that you support abortion clinics being treated like ambulatory surgical facilities? The problem is that worries about retaining “access” to abortion is what lead to Gosnell’s office never being inspected.  

     

    Wait, “forced” into clinics?  I thought women “chose” abortion.  Funny, how abortion advocates completely abandon “choice” language when it suits them. 

     

    Those recommendations for womens’ health and safety are in direct opposition to what anti-legal/safe abortion advocates push for.

     

    Ha! It was prolifers who pushed for abortion clinics in Missouri to meet the standards of other ambulatory facilities.  Pro-choicers opposed it because they didn’t want their abortion clinics to meet the same requirements.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14649323

     

    If the NAF is so great, why was Gosnell working at one of their certified clinics?

     

    Now that I read the section on reporting again – I’m not sure if the report argues that phone complaints were deleted by the DOS or never made.

  • blacktie

    Sure, if you don’t mind the possibility of the woman dying in childbirth.

    The chances of dying in childbirth are virtually nil in the Western world. Women don’t say “hey, I’d better have this abortion otherwise I might die in childbirth.” The reason women die in childbirth have to do with underlying conditions which are not common. If you’re pregnant in a Western country, you have a 99.99% chance of surviving delivery. Ireland has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world and abortion is banned. So the notion that abortion saves lives is ridiculous. Abortion is not undertaken to save the life of the mother. It’s rarely undertaken to preserve the health of the mother. The vast majority of late-term abortions are undertaken because the fetus has a diagnosis or sometimes due to socio-economic conditions.

     

     

    No, actually, you are advocating for the legalized killing of women—that is, those who have pregnancy complications.

    Ireland bans abortion and has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world. Poland also bans abortion and has a low maternal mortality rate.

    I am not advocating for it to be legal for doctors to directly cause a death to a woman. Whereas abortion advocates ARE advocating for it to be legal for a doctor to take an instrument and deprive a fetus of his life.

    When you advocate for the unborn, it’s not to advocate against women. It’s to advocate against the legalized killing of a group of human beings. I also oppose (virtual) legalized honour killings of women: I oppose the death penalty for women; I oppose all legalized forms of killing save in the face of an aggressor with the ability to actually cause death.

    So the idea that I support the legalized killing of women, that is, taking an instrument and causing their deaths is wrong. It’s a rhetorical sophistry on your part.

     

    Apparently, however, you get to define misogyny as not including something that takes away women’s rights to their own bodies. I’m guessing you’re not a feminist.

    There is no such thing as the right to kill another human being who is not an aggressor capable of causing death.

    The right to control one’s body is not a license to kill. Women have a right to control their bodies, but like many rights it is not absolute. The right to one’s body comes with responsibilities, and that includes that of not killing one’s offspring, to whom one has a responsibility.

    …and just let the women and babies die on their own!

    Again, if you are pregnant in the Western world, chances are you will survive pregnancy.

    If women don’t want to die of abortion, they should exercise their own discretion and not have one. 

    Unborn children have no power to protect themselves from abortion.

    You can save women without resorting to abortion. Ireland proves this.

  • blacktie

    But they do, apparently, have the power to use a woman’s body against her will. Which, when a grown-up person does it, we usually call “rape.”

     

    Again, a sophistry on your part.

    A rape is a sexual assault. It’s undressing a woman, then trying to get her to perform a sexual act against her will.

    A fetus doesn’t rape.

    A fetus doesn’t “do” anything. He was made by the woman’s choice in the vast majority of cases. As a human being, he is entitled to his mother’s care. He is entitled to be left alone to develop until birth so that his rights are not violated.

     

     

  • crowepps

    But because she is the mother, she has a responsibility towards her powerless unborn child.

    She is not a ‘mother’ to a fetus.  She is a pregnant woman.  Unless she is a ‘mother’ to already born children she will become a ‘mother’ only if there is a live birth.   She has no responsibility whatsoever to continue a pregnancy unless she CHOOSES to do so.

    The birth process does not change who or what the baby is. That’s the point.

    Well, actually, yeah, it changes what the baby is a LOT.  Before the birth it is a ‘fetus’ with its life dependent on the functioning of the mother’s body.  It can continue to function WITH that support despite problems like an inadequate heart, missing kidneys, a missing esophagus or while missing the majority of its brain.  Any of those problems would place it in the category of nonviable, or ‘pre-dead’, since it will die as soon as it is detached.  A fetus which successfully negotiates the birth process, takes its first breath and becomes independent, becomes a ‘baby’.  A fetus incapable of surviving birth is called a ‘stillbirth’.  In the United States 1 in 115 fetuses become stillbirths.

    Being attached to an umbilical cord and to a placenta that is attached to the mother’s body does not make the baby any less of a human being. If the baby is a human being upon birth, he is no less a human beings five minutes before, and

    Well, of course the fetus is human.  So is the woman.  If a newborn baby is missing his kidneys his mother and father have absolutely NO obligation to provide one of their own organs one minute after the birth.  Why then would the mother be obligated to provide the use of her ENTIRE BODY one minute before the birth?   Which is actually a pretty pointless discussion since “that never happens”.  In discussions of fetal anamoly what we’re actually talking about is requiring a woman to continue gestation another FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS to grow a larger stillbirth.

    playing the “mother is only a vessel” card is actually somewhat demeaning considering that women ARE capable of looking after these babies.

    Oh, for cripe’s sake.  Are you seriously saying that the pregnant women can’t be called “only a vessel” because she’ll still be handy afterwards to change diapers?  REALLY?  Oh, gosh, that’s not demeaning at ALL!  “Of course you have VALUE – ‘society’ NOW needs you to do all the scut work of raising the child until ‘society’ decides to enlist him in the army and get him killed.”

    Whether you a fetus in the womb or a baby outside, it’s the same human being who should not be killed for the mother’s sake or certainly because of the mother’s decision. Most late-term abortions are performed because of fetal anomaly, not because of the mother’s “health”.

    You might want to do a little reading up on what they actually mean by “fetal anomaly”.  I will warn you to avoid looking at any photographs if you’re sensitive.  I know they make me tear up.  Personally, I see no point in forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy when the neonate isn’t going to survive long after birth.  I see absolutely no advantage to society in requiring women whose pregnancies have gone tragically wrong to grow their stillbirths as large as possible or deliver the corpses intact unless that is what the women voluntarily CHOOSE to do for their own reasons.

     

    I find it incredibly insulting that you imply you would be okay with medically necessary abortions if it was the DOCTOR’S decision or the HUSBAND’S decision but, by golly, there’s certainly no way any WOMEN should be making important decisions about stuff like that.   Women are supposed to just do what they’re told.

  • blacktie

    The problem that you do not want to confront is that those babies were destined to die, but the fact that they died outside the womb horrifies you, but had they died inside the womb, you wouldn’t have cared.

     

    The unsafe legal abortion figure has been debunked many times. We know that UN officials take a sample from like 4 people from a whole country (the case of Uruguay comes to mind) and create a statistical extrapolation to say X number of women die from illegal abortion. The truth is, we don’t really know how many women die from illegal abortion, but the truth is, it’s probably a number far below 70 000. We know the abortion supporting people have inflated statistics in many cases in the past using estimates.

    If that many women died of illegal abortions, wouldn’t the women around them stop and think and say: gee, I’d better not undertake an illegal abortion or else I might die. Are women that dumb?  Not all the women who undertake abortions are desperate teenagers who fear getting a beating from their parents.

    It’s bizarre to me that this woman died from an illegal abortion

    The woman had every power to protect herself by not having an abortion.

    The babies had no such power. I note that you are not confronting the issue that a baby was born and had his neck snapped, but had the baby had his necked snapped in the womb, that wouldn’t have horrified you, even though it was exactly the same act producing the same suffering and result.

     

  • blacktie

    He snapped a baby’s neck.

     

    But had he snapped the baby’s neck while the baby was inside the uterus, that would have been okay in the eyes of abortion supporters.

    So yes, he did do what every abortionist does, except he did it while the baby was outside the womb.

    So why no outrage for when the baby is killed in the womb?

    We pro-choicers are the ones who are outraged by this, you anti’s can’t see a difference.

    Precisely, we don’t see a difference between snapping a baby’s head inside the womb or outside. You wouldn’t be mad had the baby’s neck been inside the womb. You only have sympathy for babies outside the womb. Somehow a uterus changes everything and justifies the baby’s killing.

  • blacktie

    Late term abortions should be carried out when it is essential for the life and health of the woman, who is the most important participant in these circumstances

     

    We know that “life and health of the mother” is a stepping stone to abortion on demand.

    Anyone who’s really pro-choice supports all women’s decisions to abort, no questions asked. Even late-term ones. That is what is meant by the slogan trust women.

     

  • crowepps

    The chances of dying in childbirth are virtually nil in the Western world.

    Approximately 600 women die of pregnancy complications in the United States every year.  I’m not sure exactly how much larger that number would become if it was no longer possible to use medically necessary abortions to save their lives, but I suppose we could speculate.

     

    In the United States there are 70,000 cases of ectopic pregnancy every year.  They may spontaneously resolve or be removed through medically necessary abortions; Methotrexate if identified early or tubal section/removal later on.  If there are no abortions whatsoever, then 50% of those women will die, all 35,000 women of them.

     

    The problem with asserting that ‘the chances of dying are virtually nil’ is that they are not ZERO.  And they are only ‘virtually nil’ when doctors ARE allowed to do medically necessary abortions.

    You can save women without resorting to abortion. Ireland proves this.

    Huh?  So you’re saying instead of abortion being legal we should have women go to Canada to get their abortions?  Well, that may make us feel all More Moral Than Thou but it isn’t going to actually save any babies, is it?

  • plume-assassine

    Actually, medical research shows that fetal life is very different from that of a neonate. A lot of developmental changes take place between those times. Not to mention that full consciousness doesn’t arise until after birth.

     

    Most late-term abortions are performed because of fetal anomaly, not because of the mother’s “health”.

    Are you telling me that if I was carrying a fetus with lethal abnormalities that I should be forced to give birth anyway? If so, the only one playing the “woman as vessel” card here is you.

  • crowepps

    Your incredible psychic mind-reading powers have failed you.  None of the assertions you have made about what I care about, think or am horrified by are correct.  Your total inability to comprehend what those women were thinking, why they made their decisions or why they were willing to risk death in order to NOT BE PREGNANT disqualifies you from commenting on what they were thinking or what any other woman is thinking.

    those babies were destined to die

    We’re ALL destined to die.  Deal with it.

  • jivinj

    Are you on drugs?  P.Z. thinks Gosnell shouldn’t be tried for murdering the 7 infants who survived abortions because that might “open the door to accusing doctors who perform necessary operations as murder” and that would be “a  dangerous precedent.”

     

    That’s insane.  Let’s not prosecute a man for murdering viable human infants because it might lead to prosecuting late-term abortionists?!?!  You have to be on the edge of mental insanity to think that’s thoughtful. 

  • amie-newman

    use opinion and propaganda to respond to facts or to attempt to debunk the facts. If you can cite peer-reviewed, official numbers please do. Otherwise, it’s not relevant. You seem to believe the millions of women who have abortions, 60% of whom are already mothers to children, 90% of whom have abortions in the first trimester are heartless, soul-less and have no understanding of what it means to be pregnant. You have a right to your opinion, of course. But it’s simply not true – women and girls are human beings who deserve the full specrum of human rights and bodily autonomy.

    You are also absolutely incorrect that 70,000 women do not die every year from unsafe and illegal abortion. It’s an official number reported by and disseminated by the World Health Organization, UN agencies, health official, providers and others;

    http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/ua_paper/en/index.html

    http://www.prb.org/Reports/2006/UnsafeAbortionFactsandFigures2006.aspx

    What “we” know is that almost 70,000 women die every year from complications arising from unsafe and illegal abortion, What “we” know is that, in fact, women do NOT have uniform access to safe and legal abortion not only globally but even in the United States which is precisely WHY women end up going to men like Dr. Gosnell. Are you seriously attempting to make an argument that the millions of women who access abortion every year are just heartless? Of course not – these are our sisters, daughters, MOTHERS (the majority of women who have abortions already have children in this country), aunts, friends, neighbors. They access abortion, almost entirely in the first trimester, when they are desperate not to continue the pregnancy – they end the potential life growing inside – and that is the individual women’s decision, with her family or her provider. Or they end the pregnancy because they are physically ill, or the fetus will not survive. The point is it’s not your decision. Not those who believe all women should be forced to birth. The Supreme Court has decided that society must weigh the well-being of the woman and the fetus; which is why abortions are not legal past the point of viability, except if the woman is going to die, essentially.

    This man performed illegal abortions on women who did not know they had other options. The babies who were born and killed and the women preyed upon and killed should NEVER have been victims of this man’s monstrosity.

  • arekushieru

    And what is a uterus but a sexual organ?  If it weren’t, there would be no such things as new human lives.  Or did you miss the whole section on sexual reproduction in Biology 101? 

    Using a person’s body against their will IS called rape, WHEN THEIR ADULTS, as PCF pointed out.  (It’s not surprising that you failed to comprehend the part of her reply that I capitalized.)  But, somehow, it’s different when a fetus is involved.  And, yet, if a fetus IS a person, you canNOT recuse them of intent.  I know you anti-choicers like to have it both ways, but it’s simply NOT possible.

    And, it’s the WOMan’s fault that intercourse, ejaculation, ovulation, fertilization and implanTAtion connect two otherwise comPLETEly separate organs?  Why are you and ForLife SO determined to blame the woman for something beyond her control, yet argue so VEhemently against ‘blaming’ the fetus for something beyond its control and thus proving where your priorities lay?  AS I told ForLife, you make it OBvious that it’s NOT the woman.  Misogyny.

    A fetus draws LIFE SUPPORT from the woman.  If it didn’t DO anything, NO woman would die from pregnancy.  HONestly, it’s NOT a difficult concept, Born, Bei, Panhandler, Brandon.  The woman is entitled to be left alone, PERiod.  And, yet, you wonder why we call you a misogynist, when you tell us different rules apply to the fetus than any BORN human, esPECially the woman?  As a human being he is entitled to whatever care the *woman* may decide to give, just as an organ recipient to whatever care an organ DONOR may decide to give.

     

  • arekushieru

    Then why don’t they organize protests outside organ donor clinics, calling anyone who passes them by, a ‘murderer’?  Oh, right, it’s not REALLY about life, after all.

  • crowepps

    If you’re going to use slippery slope arguments I’ll go do something else.

    We know that “saying hello” is the first step in feeling entitled to sex which results in rape which motivates abortions.  There should be laws preventing men from ever speaking to women because that’s a stepping stone to abortion. (Sarcasm)

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Once again crowepps you are the articulate voice of wisdom. Great post! Spot on!

  • beenthere72

    Where is Forcedbirthisrape when we need her?   Hope she’s OK. 

  • crowepps

    I disagree with PZ and think he’s using a slippery slope argument.

     

    I would be interested, though, in your opinion of whether PZ’s comment is any closer to the edge of mental insanity than this one

    We know that “life and health of the mother” is a stepping stone to abortion on demand.

    which sounds remarkably to me as though it is asserting that attempts to save women’s lives should be stamped out because they set a “dangerous precedent”.

  • amie-newman

    again, you are actually wrong. Because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it true.

    To add to what Crowepps wrote, in fact, women DO die if they do not receive an abortion sometimes. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese in Phoenix is one example of supporting the death of a wife and mother: when they told a Catholic hospital last year not to perform an emergency, life-saving abortion on a young mother of FOUR children, who was 11 weeks pregnant. Her life was threatened by pulmonary hypertension and she would have died, thereby, of course, ending the potential lfie of the fetus if the abortion was not performed. The hospital saved her life and they were punished by the Bishop – their “official” Catholic status was removed.

    As well, I’m not sure what part of dying you don’t understand when 70,000 women DIE every year from complications from unsafe, illegal abortion globally. Women die when abortion is criminalized. When a woman becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be, women decide to terminate however they can. When a woman is raped and does not want to continue growing the embryo or fetus inside her, it IS up to her to make that decision. You may not like it but you don’t get a chance to tell her that you own her body and that she must be forced to continue the pregnancy. To tell a 12 year old girl who gets pregnant from forces beyond her control, well, too bad – it’s up to me, not you – is cruel punishment and should not be legal in a just society.

     

  • saltyc

    Somehow a uterus changes everything

    The woman to whom the uterus belongs changes a lot, yes and the conditions in which a doctor practices changes a lot, and these things mean nothing to you.

    You really don’t see the difference of something being inside a person’s body and something being outside a person’s body? We should just drop the p[ro-life misnomer and call you guys pro-rape.

  • beenthere72

    Reading the report, I can only imagine how desperate these women must’ve been that went to Gosnell.    Any sane person with other options would’ve walked right out that door as soon as they took one wiff of the place.   

     

    It’s all so disturbing. 

     

    We were particularly appalled by the reference in the form to a decision being “forced” on a patient by a partner or parents. A legitimate practitioner would never perform forced abortions. Gosnell would and did. As long as he was paid, the patient’s wishes or circumstances were not his concern.

  • squirrely-girl

    The woman had every power to protect herself by not having an abortion.

    Wow… that didn’t come across like you think death is an appropriate consequence for a woman choosing an abortion at all. :/

     

    Do you extend this logic to all victims of malpractice or just those who seek services for which you morally disapprove? Who do you think should die? Please, own your hypocrisy and the moral righteousness you exact upon others… God loves that! ;)

  • crowepps

     It’s not anti-women to oppose the right to kill.

    It is, however, anti-women to insist that women with pregnancy complications have to die along with their fetus rather than having it removed to die alone.

     

    It is also anti-women to insist that women not be allowed sterilization on demand because women are supposed to have children.

     

    And of course it is comprehensively anti-women to buy into the anti-feminist rhetoric that demands that all women should be an interchangeable amorphous mass, each of whom is supposed to act, think, believe and behave in pretty much the same way, so that any one can easily be substituted for another.

     

    I do realize that if they actually were, then men wouldn’t have to put in that annoying unnecessary effort remembering the individual quirks and crochets of whichever one happens to be there doing the scut work he dislikes, and could just treat them all exactly the same and get away with calling them all ‘Honey’ or ‘Sweetie’.

  • squirrely-girl

    When you hold that all human beings are equal, the no, the mother is not less valuable.

     

    When you hold that all human beings are equal, then a fetus has no more rights to demand use of another person’s body than any other person. The fetus is no more special or valuable than any other person. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    Second that. I hope she is ok too! And if we don’t hear from her I will keep saying FORCED BIRTH IS RAPE!!!!!!!!!

  • goatini

    Actually, attempts to save women’s lives should be stamped out because it is Canon Law.  Attempts to save women’s lives are a mortal sin which carries with it excommunication for all participants.  Thus sayeth His Excellency of the Phoenix Diocese, 4 living children and husband at home be damned.  

     

    Bishop Olmstead has set the dangerous precedent, that attempts to save women’s lives should be stamped out.

     

  • prochoiceferret

    A fetus doesn’t “do” anything. He was made by the woman’s choice in the vast majority of cases.

     

    Oh, so you are okay with murdering little babies in the womb if they were created not by the woman’s choice?

     

    Why do you refer to the fetus as a “he,” anyway?

     

    As a human being, he is entitled to his mother’s care. He is entitled to be left alone to develop until birth so that his rights are not violated.

     

    Yes, yes, just like a husband is “entitled” to sex with his wife, a.k.a. marital rape.

  • rebellious-grrl

    You’re insulting me by accusing me of being on drugs or being insane! Did I insult you, no. But as long as you’ve opened the door, FU. I’m entitled to my opinion, so piss off. Go Away troll, go back to Stanek’s page and quit lifting your writing material from this site. I really don’t give a rat’s ass what you think.

    I fully support a woman’s right to bodily autonomy by choosing when and if to become pregnant. I support her decision to have an abortion in any trimester. The majority of women have an abortion in the first trimester. THE MAJORITY, THE NORM. If a woman seeks a late term abortion there is a valid reason. No woman just says at the five or six month point in her pregnancy, “Gee I think I don’t want to be pregnant anymore and will have an abortion.” It doesn’t work like that. Yes, I trust that women who seek an abortion later in their pregnancy have a valid and good reason. It’s stupid and insulting to women to think otherwise.

  • prochoiceferret

    I am not advocating for it to be legal for doctors to directly cause a death to a woman.

     

    No, you’re advocating for it to be legal for doctors to indirectly cause a death to a woman. Which, last I checked, leaves them just as dead.

     

    I oppose all legalized forms of killing save in the face of an aggressor with the ability to actually cause death.

     

    Like, say, a fetus?

     

    So the idea that I support the legalized killing of women, that is, taking an instrument and causing their deaths is wrong. It’s a rhetorical sophistry on your part.

     

    You seem to consider any notion of women having rights over their body and their reproductive processes to be rhetorical sophistry, so that’s not surprising.

     

    There is no such thing as the right to kill another human being who is not an aggressor capable of causing death.

     

    Neither is there a right for one human being to draw life support from another human being against their will. Though I’m sure that won’t stop you from wishing really hard for it.

     

    Again, if you are pregnant in the Western world, chances are you will survive pregnancy.

     

    Your chances of surviving a round of Russian Roulette are pretty good, too. So you wouldn’t mind if I decided that you should play one, would you?

     

    If women don’t want to die of abortion, they should exercise their own discretion and not have one.

     

    If they don’t want to remain pregnant, I think they would prefer to avoid the much greater risk of dying in late-term pregnancy and childbirth.

  • princess-rot

    Why does it have to be as extreme as life-or-death before antis take note? I’ll bet the perpetual poverty, long-term health problems, disfigurement, rape, depression, domestic abuse and suicide statistics caused or facilitated by unwanted pregnancy are far higher than the death-in-childbirth one, though that is heinous.

     

    Every anti who comes here proves that the pro-life rosy view of reproduction is childish, and that is probably the only thing child-related they really care about, because it’s validating for them.

  • princess-rot

    If you bothered to learn about anything outside of your comfortable existence, or indeed acknowledge anything other than what you read on anti-choice blogs, you’d have noticed that it doesn’t exactly make sense to say “just give birth”. Do you really think a woman who doesn’t speak English, quite likely has no support and little money, doesn’t have a great paying job, who may be homeless, who cannot understand the system, a woman who is desperate enough to risk death and maiming in the hands of a back-alley quack, do you think that woman is in any position to “just” give birth, let alone enter into adoption free of coercion? That you think relinquishing is a cakewalk is enough to illustrate your complete ignorance and stupid romanticisation of issues about which you understand nothing.

     

    What does birth cost, on average, in the US? Several thousand? What if there’s complications? Do you know state care homes are already overflowing with minority children? Do you know about the racist and classist history of the authorities taking children away from poor women and women of color because they were deemed lesser, an attitude that thrives today in the anti-choice romanticisation in major news outlets of poor women providing infants to their social “betters” (Ross Douthat)? What are your chances of entering into open adoption, uncoerced, when your immigration status is unverified and/or you don’t speak a word of English?

     

    More than likely they wouldn’t have needed an illegal, dangerous abortion by an unqualified hack if they actually had access to a legal, safe one. It was true in the recent past, and I’m not entirely surprised it’s happening now. This is what happens when abortion is impossible for fiscal, economic, cultural, language and immigration reasons. This is what happens when legal procedures are rapidly becoming available only to the well-heeled, because legitimate clinics and real doctors are drowning in a sea of red tape. Yet still anti-choicers will continue to cheerfully ignore all the poor and disadvantaged women they throw on the scrapheap as long as they get the political power that they want.

     

    Does it seem logical and humane to you, Jen?

  • crowepps

    Can’t find the cite right now, but when abortion was made legal, the suicide rate for women of reproductive age dropped by one-third.

  • prochoiceferret

    If Kermit Gosnell had had the proper credentials, used the correct equipment, kept proper records, used proper anesthesia, and used the correct procedure to kill the babies while they were at least partially in the womb, that would have made it all okay to you abortion supporters?

     

    Sorry, but there are no abortion supporters here, just us pro-choicers. You may want to talk with the people who oppose contraception and comprehensive sex ed.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I repeat, I fully support a woman’s right to bodily autonomy by choosing when and if to become pregnant. I support her decision to have an abortion in any trimester. The majority of women have an abortion in the first trimester. THE MAJORITY, THE NORM. If a woman seeks a late term abortion there is a valid reason. No woman just says at the five or six month point in her pregnancy, “Gee I think I don’t want to be pregnant anymore and will have an abortion.” It doesn’t work like that. Yes, I trust that women who seek an abortion later in their pregnancy have a valid and good reason. It’s stupid and insulting to women to think otherwise.

  • goatini

    If a victim has no remedy for the injurious results of a violent felonious assault, then THE CRIMINAL HAS WON.

     

    And I consider being sentenced by the act of a violent crime of assault to 9+ months of involuntary servitude, with medium to high risk of the additional health issues involved, when the victim is completely innocent of any act of consensual sexual activity, as “injury”. 

     

    Any person who does not see this as a grievous injury to the victim, who should have the opportunity to ameliorate it as quickly, kindly, and compassionately as possible – IS pro-r@pe.  If the r@pist gets to perpetuate his defective gene pool on the innocent victim, THE R@PIST HAS WON.

  • prochoiceferret

    When you hold that all human beings are equal, the no, the mother is not less valuable.

     

    Gosh, you sure could’ve fooled me.

     

    But because she is the mother, she has a responsibility towards her powerless unborn child.

     

    Yes, like having an abortion if she doesn’t want to go through with the pregnancy. That’s certainly more responsible than giving birth to a child you don’t want, don’t you think?

     

    The birth process does not change who or what the baby is. That’s the point. Being attached to an umbilical cord and to a placenta that is attached to the mother’s body does not make the baby any less of a human being. If the baby is a human being upon birth, he is no less a human beings five minutes before, and playing the “mother is only a vessel” card is actually somewhat demeaning considering that women ARE capable of looking after these babies.

     

    “What the baby is” is not relevant. It’s the woman’s body. She decides what will and what won’t be taking up residence inside her.

     

    Whether you a fetus in the womb or a baby outside, it’s the same human being who should not be killed for the mother’s sake or certainly because of the mother’s decision. Most late-term abortions are performed because of fetal anomaly, not because of the mother’s “health”.

     

    Sorry, still no relevance. The woman’s body belongs to her. I’m sorry that you have such a hard time understanding this.

  • crowepps

    Stumbling across this stat from Amnesty International:

     

    In the United States, more than two women die from pregnancy-related complications every day, according to an Amnesty International March report “Deadly Delivery.” In addition to rising maternal mortality rates, the occurrence of a ‘near-miss,’ a term used to describe severe complications that nearly take the life of a pregnant woman, rose by 25 percent from 1998 to 2005, to nearly 70,000 women, Amnesty reported.

     

    http://womensenews.org/story/reproductive-health/100416/nycs-rising-black-maternal-mortality-unexplained

  • jenh

    What does birth cost, on average, in the US? Several thousand?

     

    So Butcher Gosnell was doing his abortions for free?  Funny, I thought he was making millions.

     

    There are simply no circumstances under which it is humane, logical, compassionate or morally acceptable to rip the baby from the womb and kill it.  It solves nothing.  It leaves a child dead and a woman exploited and scarred.

    So heaven forbid a woman go through the stress of “relinquishing” as you put it… it’s so much better to murder the baby.

     

    By the way, it’s so interesting how the pro-life comments here are “hidden” except for their subject line and all the pro-abortion comments are displayed for all to see.  You just click and hide away all the words you don’t want to hear… get rid of it… kind of the same way you treat babies.  Just get rid of them.  Pretend they don’t really exist.

  • jenh

    “The woman’s body belongs to her.”

      THE BABY’S BODY BELONGS TO THE BABY! 

    You seriously believe that it is responsible for a woman to kill her baby?  You think that is showing motherly responsibility toward her child?  Have the baby killed because he’s “not wanted.”  The baby is wanted — if not by his mother then by others.  You are depraved.

  • rebellious-grrl

    “You are depraved”

    Such judgement calls by someone who would force a woman to give birth. Forced birth is RAPE!

  • ahunt

    JenH-

     

    Lose the idea that women with unwanted pregnancies are breeding stock for those who want to adopt. K?

  • ldan

    OK, to be precise, opposition to abortion is being complicit in nature’s sexism. Is that better?

     

    Opposition to abortion says that women, and only women, have no right to object to having their bodies used as life support.

     

    Opposition to abortion says that women, and only women, have no right to object that they don’t want to be forced to undergo the risks and health complications of pregnancy.

     

    Opposition to abortion says that women, and only women, cannot have sex unless they are willing to risk all of the above.

     

    Opposition to abortion says that women, and only women, must put the life of fetuses above their own health, mental and physical well-being, and pretty much anything else in their lives.

     

    So, how is that not sexist?

  • ldan

    I don’t really care if the risk is minimal. Why shouldn’t I have the right to decide if I’m going to take that risk?

     

    Should I be forced to ride my bike without a helmet because the actual risk of me getting hurt is pretty small (when you look at total number of riders, hours on a bike, etc. compared to my stats there). It’s a ludicrous argument.

     

    What’s the risk of ending up with long-term, detrimental health issues due to pregnancy and childbirth? Much higher. So, my fetus has the right to put me at risk for significant health problems and possibly death, but I don’t have the right to remove it from my body? And you don’t see how this gives a fetus greater rights than women?

     

     

  • arekushieru

    THE ORGAN RECIPIENT’S BODY BELONGS TO THE ORGAN RECIPIENT. 

    But that sure doesn’t change your views on organ donation as it stands, now, does it?  That an organ recipient should get a say in whose organs he/she can use  because the organ recipient’s body belongs to him/her.  But they DON’T.  Then why should it change in the case of the fetus?  Oh, that’s right, misogyny and hypocrisy.  Misogyny and hypocrisy evident when you say a woman ‘kills’ a fetus during abortion.  You are making her responsible for something she has NO control over, after all.   Meaning those actions, like intercourse, ejaculation, ovulation, fertilization and implantation that connect two otherwise COMPLETELY separate organs.  Oyyy.  Why don’t you guys just admit that your anti-choice logic is a complete and utter FAILURE?

  • goatini

    and as such has NO obligation to treat forced-birther propaganda and misinformation as opinion that requires equal time.

     

    This is NOT Yahoo, Huffington Post, CNN, or any other “news” website, where all posts are presented equally, unless they are abusive and against the site’s TOS, in which case they are removed.

     

    On RHRC, supporters of reproductive health care access, rights, and issues come to read and post about news and issues related to the support of access and rights  to reproductive health care.  

     

    There are any number of forced-birther websites that are run in a similar manner as RHRC – on those sites (which I will not name as I am sure you know what all of them are), the supporters of legislating as many barriers as possible, in order to prevent citizens from reproductive health care access and rights, read and post.  Forced-birthers go to those sites to read and post about news and issues related to the legislation of as many barriers as possible to prevent access and rights to reproductive health care services and options.    

     

    I don’t post on those sites.  Most of them immediately delete any posts from advocates of reproductive health care rights and access, anyway.  They just delete all the words they don’t want to hear… treat the posters as if they have no rights just because they are female… kind of the same way you treat pregnant women.  Just treat them as if they have no rights just because they are female.  Pretend that their rights and their very existence are eclipsed by a ZBEF, just because they are female.  

  • squirrely-girl

    After every poster here has stated unequivocally that the actions of this “doctor” are beyond reprehensible and in no way representative of the abortion provider or pro-choice communities you’re still using the most inflammatory terms you can find to hurl in any and every direction. 

     

    Why?

  • arekushieru

    Um, I can assure you, that someone like Gosnell would charge FAR more for his services, only that the fees would be hidden, than an ob/gyn that would regularly perform these abortions in a LEGAL, REGULATED setting.  Either way, pregnancy care and services would STILL be, at LEAST, triple the cost of providing abortion services.  Sorry to disillusion ya.

    There are simply no circumstances under which it is humane, logical, compassionate OR morally acceptable to force a woman to give birth and kill HER.  Yet, somehow, when YOUR logic is applied to indisputable, breathing, aware, conscious, sentient, non-obliviate human beings, your tune changes.  The only logical reason that presents itself is that you hate women.

    I REALLY suggest you Google Shakesville and search for a topic under depression after adoption.  And then Google any stats you can find on depression after adoption.  You’ll find that ANY depression after abortion is NEGLIGIBLE compared to that after adoption.  And THIS is what you ‘ProLifers’ call the compassionate option, the option that doesn’t scar the woman?  WOWWWW….

    There is NO murder/killing of a fetus involved in abortion.  Nor is there a *baby* involved.  SO sorry.

  • goatini

    Nor are they suppliers of inventory for the adoption mills.

     

    And this would be the time for you to put up or shut up.

     

    EITHER:

    call your dogs off on fighting (a) age-appropriate, factual, widely proven and accepted science-based sex ed for school children; (b) extremely easy and inexpensive access to extremely effective birth control; (c) patients’ rights to immediately have ANY prescription filled at ANY pharmacy by ANY pharmacist; (d) consumers’ rights to purchase legal OTC drugs from ANY pharmacy by ANY pharmacist at ANY time, and ensuring that legal OTC drugs are stocked and replenished based on supply and demand – and NOT based on a worker’s personal agenda to ignore supply and demand; (e) insurance coverage for legal reproductive health care drugs and procedures; (f) Medicare/Medicaid coverage for legal reproductive health care drugs and procedures; (g) late-term terminations due to pain and suffering of the woman and/or fetus (including diagnoses of fetal conditions incompatible with life); (g) to prevent health care practitioners and facilities from providing reproductive health care treatments and procedures on the basis of “religion”, (h) to enact into law proscriptions around birth control that are based only in religious “law” and not on the law of the land; (i) for civil laws that codify religious “laws” that violate the civil and Constitutional rights of living, breathing people (particularly women, and only because they ARE women), and (j) for the “right” to stalk, harass, threaten, and/or injure reproductive health care facilities, workers, and patients -

     

    ** – in other words, GET OUT OF THE WAY of every woman (and man), so that they realistically and very easily can get, obtain, and have every opportunity, device, drug, or procedure to NOT get pregnant in the first place if that is not what they want at that time – allow it to be (as it should be) as easy as buying asprin, or going to the doctor and getting a prescription for an antibiotic – **

     

    OR:

    Stop pretending that forced-birthers “care” in any way about living, breathing women and their dignity, humanity, health, relationships, families, achievements, potential, desires, wants, or rights.   

     

    Either support wholeheartedly the unencumbered access by ALL citizens to ALL the legal products, legal drugs, and legal services that would ensure that every child is a wanted child, and ensure that surgical intervention becomes a last resort in the most desperate, or desperately sad, situations -

     

    Or stop pretending that you have any other agenda other than to control women, to treat women like chattel and livestock, and to enact what amounts to your own kind of Sharia law.  

  • goatini

    on adoption related depression.  Women who have had abortions, and who also have given up infants from unwanted pregnancies for adoption, say that the pain and the depression from the forced birth and adoption are FAR greater than any negative emotion they may have (since many women feel nothing but an overwhelming sense of relief) from abortion.

     

    Breaking the Silence:  On Living Pro-Lifers’ Choice for Women

  • arekushieru

    Wait, “forced” into clinics?  I thought women “chose” abortion.  Funny, how abortion advocates completely abandon “choice” language when it suits them. 

    It’s funny how anti-choicers completely abandon the subtext of context when it suits them.  They were FORCED into Gosnell’s CLINIC, because they had NO OTHER OPTION.  So, OBviously, Amie wasn’t saying what you tried so hard to make it SEEM like what she was saying.

    Um, do you have no sense of logic, at all?  Liscensed and proper medical and ethical care by the DOCTOR, in a *medical clinic* setting, FULL STOP, must be ensured to retain access.  Medical faCILities being liscensed as ambulatory surgical centres would require the CLOSure of several clinics, the TRUE purpose of anti-choicers such as yourself. 

    Btw, it wasn’t retaining access that was a concern for Gosnell and his associates OR the patients.  It was fear of loss of business or criminal charges being laid.  Derrrrr….

  • prochoiceferret

    “The woman’s body belongs to her.”

      THE BABY’S BODY BELONGS TO THE BABY!

     

    And yet that doesn’t give it the right to use the woman’s body against her will. Isn’t that funny?

     

    You seriously believe that it is responsible for a woman to kill her baby?  You think that is showing motherly responsibility toward her child?  Have the baby killed because he’s “not wanted.”  The baby is wanted — if not by his mother then by others.  You are depraved.

     

    I’m sorry, but who here is advocating infanticide? Is there a poster I’m not seeing here?

     

    Aborting an unwanted pregnancy, however, can certainly be a responsible move by a woman, not least if she has children that she needs to take care of.

  • prochoiceferret

    There are simply no circumstances under which it is humane, logical, compassionate or morally acceptable to rip the baby from the womb and kill it.  It solves nothing.  It leaves a child dead and a woman exploited and scarred.

     

    Hmmm… that statement could be fixed up with a bit of work…

     

    There are simply no circumstances under which it is humane, logical, compassionate or morally acceptable to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.  It solves nothing.  It leaves an unwanted child and a woman exploited and scarred.

     

    Yeah, that sounds a lot more accurate.

     

    So heaven forbid a woman go through the stress of “relinquishing” as you put it… it’s so much better to murder the baby.

     

    “Murder?” Seriously? I suppose you like to describe colonoscopies as “sodomy,” too?

     

    By the way, it’s so interesting how the pro-life comments here are “hidden” except for their subject line and all the pro-abortion comments are displayed for all to see.  You just click and hide away all the words you don’t want to hear… get rid of it… kind of the same way you treat babies.  Just get rid of them.  Pretend they don’t really exist.

     

    Yeah, I guess your comments got aborted because they had rhetorical deformities incompatible with logic.

  • goatini

    Probably also thinks that death was an appropriate consequence for gay men, too, before the (still not enough yet) strides made more recently in medical science that extend the lives of AIDS and HIV patients for many years, with good quality of life.     

     

    I’m beginning to see that basically, to the forced-birthers and homophobes, life for everyone should be what amounts to the main plot of virtually every teen-market horror movie made in the last 30 years – if a character in the movie has unmarried sex, s/he will die a gruesome death before the closing credits.  Or as we used to put it more bluntly, “You F***, You Die”.

  • jenh

    A woman has no control over intercourse?  Seriously??

     

    When are you going to stop comparing a new human being to an organ?  An organ is a component of a person, not a person.  An embryo, a fetus is person unto herself with her own organs.  She is not an extension of the mother’s body, but has her own body that belongs to her.  She is not a parasite, but a child.  I get it, though.  The only way to justify abortion is to insist that the fetus is not a baby, not a person.  That’s the only way to live with the fact that abortion kills a baby.  So I understand why you cling to your fallacies. 

  • jenh

    I’ve never encountered more impoverished spirits than the ones here.  To you babies are a burden and a curse.  They are to be eliminated as quickly as possible without a second thought.  To you, motherhood is a yoke of slavery. Sex is god, and sex must not be limited in any way.  Life is all about ME, ME, ME.  You actually champion killing babies because you do not consider them babies.  They are formless blobs of nothing, without meaning or consequence.

     

    I pity all of you.  But I will not stop fighting for the RIGHT TO LIFE.  Every child is wanted, even if not by her mother.  Every child in the womb has the RIGHT TO LIVE.  That is the truth, and one day you will know it.

  • ldan

    In what way is a fetus not a parasite?

     

    In what way is it a person? I’ve yet to see a definition of person from anti-choice posters here that makes sense, applies equally to fetuses and the women carrying them, and excludes a variety of other medical conditions  that nobody has any problem ending/removing.

     

    And why do anti-choicers keep equating intercourse to pregnancy? You realize that by saying consent to sex = consent to pregnancy +  consent to pregnancy can never be revoked, you basically tell women (and only women) who know their health would be compromised by pregnancy that they should remain celibate for their entire lives. Does this sound reasonable? Poor women who don’t want another mouth to feed, don’t ever have sex. Women in abusive relationships, you’re completely SOL. Married women who simply don’t want children, SOL. Or are women who don’t want children not supposed to get married?

     

    The cascade of sexist crap that results from your position is the reason your position is de facto mysoginist, whether or not your intent it. Because how could someone who didn’t hate women tell them they have to live by the rules in my paragraph above?

  • churchmouse

    Black Tie can you believe the menality on this board. Almost all of them even condone abortion the entire nine months of pregnancy.

    Most these jokers are not even educated and still think the unborn is not even a human…let alone living in the womb.

    You are right…..abortion will NEVER EVER BE DESTIGMATIZED…because it is premeditated killing of a living human being.

    These people are dark………..

  • churchmouse

    Amie you said this was a case of an abortion clinic that should have been shut down. Do you think this would have made headlines had the woman not died?

    I am sure you know who Mark Crutcher is if you know anything about abortion. He has gone undercover at abortion clinics all over the country and exposed unsafe and unsanitary clinics. The pro-aborts do not want to know about these…because if the public knew what really goes on they could stand a chance of getting them closed down. Who cares what happens as long as there is a place where women can kill the life inside them.

    Do you think it should have been shut down for just doing late term abortions? You make it sound that the early you get one done, the more moral it is. I would think that you would also go to bat for clinics doing late term abortions. I am sure you would not want to enslave a woman at eight months who still wanted to abort.

    PP, NARAL probably are going nuts over this case because it does not pain a pretty picture that they say exists.

    Abortion will always be stigmatized..always, as long as there are people who know wrong from right, the truth from a lie and have consciences that guide their decisions. These are not pro-aborts. People in the medical field stigmatized it as well and fewer and fewer doctors perform them. It is more acceptable today to have a baby out of wedlock…and PP might just have to target some group other than blacks….like killing the handicapped or mentally disabled. They would make Maragaret so proud if they did. 

     

     

  • churchmouse

    Jen these people have no consciences…they do not know the difference between right and wrong, seriously.

    They champion abortion no matter what month it takes place in. They have no regard for the life in the womb and embrace abortion as token sacrifices to their personal gods. They know nothing about fetal develpment and don’t care. As long as the killing is an option that is all that matters.

    The pretend and they whine and cry and moan and blame….and when their backs are up against the wall…they start using profanity and namecalling. What else do they have….science is not a friend to them.

    See to you and me the thought of a child being slaughtered butchered…whatever you want to call it, makes our hearts ache. That someone whould be that cruel as to injure, hurt and kill a defensless human being is unbelievable…and all for choice.

    I moarn choice….and some choices are evil, this certainly is one of them.

    We do not even do this to animals.

    I think Mother Teresa said it best……….

    “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion”

    “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you live as you wish”

     Abortion is not love but then you know that.

  • churchmouse

    Jump around any term you want…it is what it is.

    If you are pro-choice, you condone abortion and you help stamp a bullseye over every unborn in the womb.

     

  • ahunt

    So did  this Crutcher report these clinics to the proper authorities?

     

    Oh, here we go: Mark Crutcher, in his own words:

     

    http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2009/6/4/The-Ghost-of-Reno-Rides-Again

     

    Enjoy the invalid comparisons.

     

    Here is some better reading:

     

    http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/YLJ2008_polityofprotection.pdf

  • churchmouse

    This gets better every second more that I read the pro-aborts posts on here.

    Not a mother until delivery eh?

    God help your children if you have any.

    You tear up?

    Now what on earth would make someone like you cry?                                           

    You seem like a tough broad….I cant picture you crying about anything because anyone who could champion dismembering unborns in the womb…is cold and hard.

    The way you talk about parental obligations……as I said before God help your children if you have any.  I pray you don’t. Not giving a child you carried something they need in order to live…..beyond unbelievable. You take the cake out of everyone on here. I thought I had heard it all.

    You will be in my prayers…I will praythat you never have the priveldge of carrying a child and being blessed by having one. 

  • ldan

    Most these jokers are not even educated and still think the unborn is not even a human…let alone living in the womb.

    I give up. Posters here have responded to you time and time again that of course fetuses are human, of course they are alive. That isn’t and never was the point. When you will not only run around in circles avoid following any logic we lay before you, but actively lie about what people have said, it just isn’t worth it to respond to your trolling anymore.

     

  • ahunt

    God help your children if you have any.

     

    Now this is funny: I was just thinking the same thing about you.

  • plume-assassine

    I certainly don’t speak for Crowepps, but I’m pretty sure that before she’s said that she is a grandmother.

     

    Apparently, you live in an ALTERNATE REALITY in which all pro-choicers are man-hating baby-killers. Hahaha, if that kind of twisted nonsense helps you sleep at night, knowing how badly you want to reduce women to objects, to incubators, and to watch us suffer….  But I guess you cannot comprehend that millions of American women and loving mothers have had abortions and don’t regret it. You can’t understand that because you’ve been brainwashed.

     

    You are really a sick person… “Praying” that people not be able to have children? Why not pray to your “God” that he grant you a brain, or compassion for women?

  • nonsense-nonsense

    In the same vein, I’ve noticed that trying to reduce the abortion debate to one of men vs. women and subjugation or whatever else helps many of the pro-choicers here sleep at night, even if it’s untrue.

  • goatini

    women who must be obligated to involuntary servitude against their will, and women who must be coerced into becoming inventory suppliers for human trafficking operations, pleases the forced-birthers’ “God”.  And it pleases all of the enablers of involuntary servitude and human trafficking, who earn obscene profits from human suffering.

     

    With chemical early stage abortion, we can help to cut off the blood money profit flow to these monsters.  The most important thing to the Roman Catholic Church, the RW fundamentalist Dominionist cultists, and the human trafficking that is the quasi-legal adoption industry, is MONEY.  Let’s do everything we can to put them out of business.  

  • nonsense-nonsense

    If my name ever did refer to a post, yours is it.

  • arekushieru

    Who ever said it was men v women?  It’s feminism v patriarchy.  Two VERY different things.  Although, I’m not surprised an anti-choicer such as yourself doesn’t get simple logic.  And what would you say denying a woman the same rights as everyone else simply because her body functions differently from others IS, then?  Simple misguidedness?  Not if you’ve been told this OVER AND OVER… which you HAVE.

  • goatini

    the concepts of women’s agency, autonomy, dignity, and full citizenship are “nonsense”.  We get it.  

     

    Thanks for publicly asserting that involuntary servitude and human trafficking are what you consider to be “sensible”.  Ceauşescu would have been proud of you.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    How can it be feminism vs. the patriarchy when women, at least in the U.S., are more like to label themselves as pro-life than pro-choice, and just as likely as men to label themselves pro-life? Why do you get to decide what the tenants of feminism are, and whether or not being pro-life/anti-abortion requires being involved with the patriarchy? It seems to me that what we have is a minority group claiming that they are not only grand arbitrators on all things regarding women and speak for all women, but are also fighting against an imagined, non-existent threat.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    You don’t seem to “get” much, judging from the contents of your post.

  • goatini

    “claiming that they are not only grand arbitrators on all things regarding women and speak for all women”.  

     

    Because the forced-birthers are the ones who want to remove ALL options  from ALL women.  

  • arekushieru

    It’s really too bad that your reading comprehension fails at every level, Ms H.  Unwanted pregnancy does NOT = wanted pregnancy, JUST like WANTED sex does NOT = UNwanted sex.  Neither does an untenable pregnancy = a tenable pregnancy.   ALL that we are asking for is the right to terminate organ/tissue/blood usage, at any time it is unwanted or untenable, even though the organ/tissue/blood usage will save someone else’s life, a right that EVeryone else has.  It’s REALLY that simple.  My mother is a PRIME example.  100% ProCHOICE, because she CHOSE to have me and my sibling.  

    We do NOT consider them babies, because they AREn’t babies.  BABY is a SLANG term for a stage of development outside of the uterus.  It would be like calling an adolescent an old fogie.  How many times have you done that?  Never?  Hypocrite. 

    One of the MAjor reasons that I consider pregnancy/childbirth/babies a curse, is because of people like you, esPECially after hearing you (general usage) refer to them as a punishment or consequence for a woman (and a woman alone) for having non-procreative sex.  I hope you’re proud of yourself. 

    A *fetus* has the SAME right to life that ALL other humans have with abortion legal.  With abortion ILlegal, the fetus would have a right to life that NO one else has.  The right to co-opt someone else organs against their wishes, in order to save their life.  I pity you, et al anti-choicers, for your continued failure to understand such a simple concept.

    I thought we abolished slavery a long time ago and that God frowned upon greed, but, here you are, advocating for someone else to force others to labour for them so that they can live the way they wish to live.  That is the truth, and one day you will know it.  Before Satan has deceived you too much for you to repent in front of God at the end of your days.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    There goes that euphemism again. Not all choices are created equal. In effect, any decision one can make is a choice. However, just because you can label something as a choice doesn’t mean it’s a choice that should be allowed.

  • goatini

    that any woman NOT under the ownership of a male, who wishes to exercise sexual agency, should be punished.  And now these days, nitwits like these forced-birthers say out of one side of the mouth the same old same old “pregnant sluts deserve punishment”, and out of the other side of the mouth scream “how DARE you consider unwanted pregnancy a PUNISHMENT??”

     

    The cognitive dissonance, it is to shake one’s head at…

  • arekushieru

    And here you go proving your name fits you SO very well.  I just SAID that feminism vs patriarchy was FAR different from men v women.  Derrrrr….  Women who support the forced-birth concept support the patriarchy.  SO simple.  Which is WHY it is NOT men v women.  Oy. 

    Feminism supports equal rights for women.  That is the defiNITion of feminism.  If a woman does NOT have the right to determine who uses ALL her organs in her body, on a NON-SEXIST BASIS (as IN, NOT determined by how the female body functions) HOW is that equal rights for women?  How is it not supportive of the patriarchy to DENY those rights to women?  HMMMM…?

  • arekushieru

    Do you NOT understand what the word choice means?  There is more than one OPTION in a CHOICE.  CHOICE, in this case, then, stands for the OPTIONS of terminating OR continuing a pregnancy.  If you take away one option, you PROVE you are a forced-birther.  Force is the OPposite of CHOICE, after all….

  • nonsense-nonsense

    I asked you a question and, unsurprisingly, you avoided it. If, as you claim,  by making abortion illegal women would be denied rights, in this case the right to an abortion, on the basis of their bodily functions, then the fact is that women would be denied rights on the basis of being women. However, this is analysis is incorrect, since women are not denied an abortion on the basis of being women, but on the basis that the unborn has a right to not be killed. For argument’s sake, though, we’ll go with what you typed out. For this to be sexism, as you claim, then men and women would need to be denied the same rights. However, as we all know, it’s impossible for men to get pregnant, and as it’s impossible for men to get pregnant, then denying a woman the ability to have an abortion cannot be inherently sexist, as you cannot look to a man and say, for example, “But he gets to have an abortion!”, as sexism requires discrimination, and discrimination requires a comparative situation. And if feminism supports equal rights for women yet there is nothing inherently sexist about disallowing a woman from having an abortion, then I ask you again how is it feminism vs. the patriarchy, and not a small minority of people who think they speak for all womankind vs. an imagined threat?

  • bj-survivor

    you are exceedingly ignorant, as well as misogynist. There is never any instance where a man loses his right to bodily integrity (though he can lose his right to life), as not even death row inmates can be compelled to donate tissues and bodily organs to preserve the lives of even those born, sentient, sapient, ACTUAL persons they have harmed.

     

    That you single out women and only women to be enslaved to a bodily function is, in fact, discrimination.

     

    Go away, troll, and stop wasting our time.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    I’ve looked long and hard, and I don’t see this right to bodily integrity mentioned anywhere in U.S. law. It’s not mentioned in Roe v. Wade, neither Doe v. Bolton nor an any requisite case regarding abortion. Pray, could you show me where you pulled this supposed right from? While you’re at it, I’d also like to know where you pulled your criteria for being a person from, because it most certainly doesn’t square with U.S. law.

  • bj-survivor

    Engaging with JivinJ is a complete waste of effort. I have been acquainted with this particular forced-gestation proponent for a number of years via the I’m Not Sorry.net blog. This is a “man” who considers female bodies to be equivalent to oxygen tanks. I’m sure that doesn’t surprise you.

  • arekushieru

    I’ve looked long and hard, and I don’t see these rights to not be killed or to be left alone mentioned anywhere in US law.

    I HAVE seen the right to bodily integrity mentioned.  It’s not surprising you didn’t see it, though.  You anti-choicers like to skip over anything that might prove you wrong, after all.  Schimpf Vs McPhail.

    The MINimum requirement for personhood: Human, individual.  The latter, RIGHT THERE, prevents the fetus from being a person.  After all, a fetus can be divided into its component parts even further and STILL retain its status as a member of the human species.

  • arekushieru

    A fetus has JUST as much ‘right to not be killed’ as ANY born human does, with abortion LEgal.  I’ve already SAID this.  So, I HAVE answered your question, NUmerous times, you’ve just deliberately avoided recognizing that fact. 

    There is NO such right as a right to abortion.  This is NOT what we are claiming, AS we have ALso said, OVER AND OVER.  We are saying that NO one can use another’s organs/tissue/blood against their wishes, not EVEN to save their lives.  A man is NOT obligated to give up a kidney to save his eXISting child’s life, not EVen if he caused the child’s need for that kidney and not EVEN if he is the only match and not EVEN if he originally consented.  WHY is a woman obligated to do so?  Because she has a uterus and can get pregnant, a part of nature’s sexism, something you support, thus why you are NOT supporting equal rights for women. 

    Of course, you’ll say, just as you did as Born/Bei/Panhandler (because, really, you’re using all the EXACT same talking points they did) that this is actually due to a right to be left alone, yet, for some reason you can’t apply that to the woman, that she has a right to be left alone rather than provide sustenance to the fetus.  Then, you’ll probably say, that she made her choice when she had sex.  Guess what, you just denied her rights based on the way her body functions.  After all, IF the vagina and uterus weren’t connected by intercourse, ejaculation, ovulation, fertilization and implantation, IF the uterus wasn’t present in a woman’s body, there wouldn’t be a problem.  But that is how the body works when you are FEMALE.  Now PROVE to me that this isn’t sexism.  Thought not. 

    But, this ‘right to be left alone’, doesn’t work so well in other areas, either, with the ‘right to not be killed’.  If abortion is killing, which is false logic, then any time one denies consent to the usage of another organ is also ‘killing’ someone else.  The organ donor has the ‘right to be left alone’, but the organ recipient has ‘the right to not be killed’.  Hmmm, your ‘logic’ doesn’t fare so well, now, does it, and, at the same time, is rather contradictory, isn’t it?

    Btw, if a fetus has a legal ‘right to not be killed’, then a pregnant woman has NO legal ‘right to not be killed’.  Or, at least, not a reciprocal ‘right to not be killed’. 

    I love it when you guys defeat your own arguments.

  • prochoiceferret

    I’ve looked long and hard, and I don’t see this right to bodily integrity mentioned anywhere in U.S. law.

     

    Oh dear. Well… I hope you haven’t grown too attached to that surplus kidney you have, because there is someone out there who needs it more than you do—and their right to life outweighs your non-existent right to deny the use of your body’s resources to someone else (a.k.a. bodily integrity).

     

    You might want to look through U.S. law a little longer and harder… and faster, ideally, before the non-voluntary organ-extraction agents knock on your door.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    It’s not surprising you didn’t see it, though.  You anti-choicers like to skip over anything that might prove you wrong, after all.  Schimpf Vs McPhail.

     

    Since I can’t find said case anywhere, how about providing a link?

     

    The MINimum requirement for personhood: Human, individual. 

     

    False. Corporations are persons under the law, which means that your criteria for personhood is incorrect and in direct contrast to the law, unless you’re willing to admit that you’re imposing your personal beliefs onto the law.

     

    The latter, RIGHT THERE, prevents the fetus from being a person.  After all, a fetus can be divided into its component parts even further and STILL retain its status as a member of the human species.

     

    If I were to cut off one of your fingers, would you still be an individual? How about your hand? Both hands? Your arm? Both arms? Both of your legs? If you answer yes then, by your logic, you are not an individual because you can cut off parts from you and still have you be you. That brings up the interesting question. How much of you I would have to cut away for you to still be you?

  • jrm83

    …and PP might just have to target some group other than blacks….

     

    I am getting really tired of this black genocide B.S.  Black people do not exist to serve as your talking point!

  • nonsense-nonsense

    So I take that this is an admission that you can’t find the right to bodily integrity anywhere in U.S. law, much less mentioned anywhere near the context of abortion? Apparently, I was under the mistaken impression that abortion was legalized under the assumption that women have an implicit right to privacy and that the state only has a compelling interest to regulate abortions for the mother’s health in the second trimester, and in the fetus’ interests barring some maternal health concern in the third. I didn’t know that abortion was legalized because mandatory organ donation was wrong, which would mean that abortion would be legal up until birth so long as the woman decides she no longer wishes to “donate” her organs to the unborn, which it isn’t, thus proving that the argument you’re giving is wrong on many accounts.

     

    I suppose I should find it telling that you’re not only trying to change the basis upon which abortion was legalized in the U.S., but trying to equate taking from one and giving to another to a situation in which the woman’s body willingly accommodates another after the woman (most often) willingly engages in the action which causes the entity to exist where it is, but when your argument is as flimsy as yours is, it’s not to be taken as a surprise.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    1.) The assertion that a fetus has just as much a right to not be killed as any born individual is a flat out lie, and I’m surprised you could actually type that out in any amount of serious. I cannot kill you just because I want to. A pregnant woman, on the other hand, can kill her unborn child for such a reason.

     

    2.) I’m glad you’ve agreed that there is no such thing as a right to an abortion, and disagree with all the articles on this site claiming there is such a thing. Moving on from that point, since we’re in agreement, I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to show me where this supposed right to bodily integrity is. Since you’ve already conceded that there is no such thing as a right to an abortion, then your argument hinges on the existence of said right to bodily integrity. So, please, show me where such a thing is enshrined into U.S. law. As it is, regarding your kidney example, just as a man isn’t required to give a kidney to save someone, neither is a woman. Requiring one but not the other would be, as you’d like to say, sexist. The only way for you to claim sexism would be if you’re equating a uterus in a female to a kidney in a male, but surely you wouldn’t do that, as that would be ridiculous.

     

    (And did you really just insinuate that women are inherently inferior to men?

     

    3.) Not this again. I saw you accuse some other guy earlier today of being the exact same people you’re accusing me of. Try an angle that doesn’t require you trying to discredit what other people type on account of them allegedly being someone else with whom you also disagree. Anyway, since when has engaging in sex become a bodily function? Bodily functions are, and I’m quoting the dictionary here, organic processes which occur within the body.

     

    4.) You can’t attack someone, or put someone in a situation in which their survival is at your beck and whim, and then claim that they can’t protect themselves or have someone else protect them against your advances because you have the right to be left alone. It doesn’t work that way.

     

    5.) What does medicine have to do with rights? And since when does the right to not be killed by one entail the right of the other to kill? If you, for example, have a right to not be killed by me, then what sense does it make to say that such a right must entail a right by me to be able to kill you? Not much when you think about it. I love it when people type out nonsense and then claim that someone else defeated their own argument.

  • arekushieru

    1.) The assertion that a fetus has just as much a right to not be killed as any born individual is a flat out lie, and I’m surprised you could actually type that out in any amount of serious. I cannot kill you just because I want to. A pregnant woman, on the other hand, can kill her unborn child for such a reason.

    And the FETUS is not being killed just for any reason.  Derrrr….

    2.) I’m glad you’ve agreed that there is no such thing as a right to an abortion, and disagree with all the articles on this site claiming there is such a thing. Moving on from that point, since we’re in agreement, I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to show me where this supposed right to bodily integrity is. Since you’ve already conceded that there is no such thing as a right to an abortion, then your argument hinges on the existence of said right to bodily integrity. So, please, show me where such a thing is enshrined into U.S. law. As it is, regarding your kidney example, just as a man isn’t required to give a kidney to save someone, neither is a woman. Requiring one but not the other would be, as you’d like to say, sexist. The only way for you to claim sexism would be if you’re equating a uterus in a female to a kidney in a male, but surely you wouldn’t do that, as that would be ridiculous.

    That’s exACTly what I am doing, because to NOT do so, would be sexist.  ALL organs are included in that right.  If you say one organ is NOT included, and that organ happens to be present in only ONE sex, then you ARE sexist.  Not surprising, though, that simple logic escapes yet another anti-choicer.

    And, wtf are you talking about?  Is this aNOTher tactic of anti-choicers, to claim something totally unrelated to what someone said, when they can’t prove their point in another manner.

    Try an angle that doesn’t require you trying to discredit what other people type on account of them allegedly being someone else with whom you also disagree.

    Um, what?  I was merely pointing out that your talking points were exactly the same as someone else’s, NOT using it as a method to discredit you.  If I were, I would have left it at that and not explained how you WERE wrong, OBviously.  Yet another method?  Claim someone is doing something they aren’t doing?  Oh… wait… it’s NOT ‘another’ method.  Because you guys do it all the time.

    Anyway, since when has engaging in sex become a bodily function? Bodily functions are, and I’m quoting the dictionary here, organic processes which occur within the body.

    Now, you’re focussing on something completely tangential to the issue, of course.  Besides which, I never knew that such intercourse wasn’t dictated by the presence of a vagina and penis. 

    4.) You can’t attack someone, or put someone in a situation in which their survival is at your beck and whim, and then claim that they can’t protect themselves or have someone else protect them against your advances because you have the right to be left alone. It doesn’t work that way.

    And, here we go, back to the old misogyny, again.  The fact that a woman has a vagina, the man ejaculates into her body, a woman ovulates, the man’s sperm fertilizes her egg and the fetal placenta implants into her uterus, the presence of ANY of which she has NO control over, is simply a convenient scapegoat for you.  Really, why is the obvious NOT so obvious to you anti-choicers?

    5.) What does medicine have to do with rights? The answer is nothing. And since when does the right to not be killed by one entail the right of the other to kill? If you, for example, have a right to not be killed by me, then what sense does it make to say that such a right must entail a right by me to be able to kill you? Not much when you think about it. I love it when people type out nonsense and then claim that someone else defeated their own argument.

     

    Never heard of the right to medical privacy, I see.  Have you been living in a cave? 

    There IS no right to kill, here.  There is simply the right to CHOOSE to terminate a pregnancy.  (PLEASE tell me that you know that a pregnancy is NOT a fetus?)  

    Going by YOUR logic, the right to not be killed does NOT entail an organ donor’s right to kill, though.  So, really, WHO was typing out nonsense?  Your name says it all.  You, Nonsense, ARE nonsense.  

  • arekushieru

    I didn’t know that abortion was legalized because mandatory organ donation was wrong, which would mean that abortion would be legal up until birth so long as the woman decides she no longer wishes to “donate” her organs to the unborn, which it isn’t, thus proving that the argument you’re giving is wrong on many accounts.

    Which are due to ANTI-CHOICE laws, OBviously.  And, please, if you don’t want people to think you are who they think you are, STOP using the same talking points.  Oy, it really IS that simple. 

    I suppose I should find it telling that you’re not only trying to change the basis upon which abortion was legalized in the U.S., but trying to equate taking from one and giving to another to a situation in which the woman’s body willingly accommodates another after the woman (most often) willingly engages in the action which causes the entity to exist where it is, but when your argument is as flimsy as yours is, it’s not to be taken as a surprise.

    Oh, God, the misogyny, please stop.  WHOSE argument is flimsy?  When YOU’RE the one who believes that the way a person’s body is developed determines the actions permissible for a person, but ONLY if it’s a woman?  You deny her the same sexual freedoms that a man can experience without fear of reprisal, because you will NEVER find a corollary that is as equally enforceable or determinable on men as pregnancy is on women, making it VERY unlikely that a man will ever BE denied those same sexual freedoms.  (Please, God, forgive these people for being deceived by Satan and their misogyny.)  

  • arekushieru

    False. Corporations are persons under the law, which means that your criteria for personhood is incorrect and in direct contrast to the law, unless you’re willing to admit that you’re imposing your personal beliefs onto the law.

    Which… proves nothing.    

    If I were to cut off one of your fingers, would you still be an individual? How about your hand? Both hands? Your arm? Both arms? Both of your legs? If you answer yes then, by your logic, you are not an individual because you can cut off parts from you and still have you be you. That brings up the interesting question. How much of you I would have to cut away for you to still be you?

    Well, either you just said tumours, parasitic twins, fetus in fetu, hydatid molar pregnancies, cells, etc… are persons OR you have NO understanding of what I’m talking about.   I think it’s the latter.  The fetal portion of the placenta is required for that specific stage of development, but is NOT retained afterwards.  And, yet, DURING that specific stage of development, it is an integral part of the fetus and, thus, without it, it dies.   

  • whiteroses

    Let’s get it out there.  While this man did perform abortions, he also killed babies.  When a baby is born alive and then has its neck sliced with scissors, we are no longer talking about abortion, that is flat out murder.  When you say that making abortion illegal or restricting access means women will turn to these places, I’d like to point out many women end up here because they can’t afford anywhere else.  They don’t have enough to get an early one, so they have to wait, what’s called “chasing the fee”, end up needing a late term abortion.  If your organization is willing to provide low cost and free birth control, why not low cost and free early terminations?  It seems to me the bottom line is money, and I would love an answer on that.  I’m not debating pro choice / anti choice, but I do think we can all agree that a baby born alive, at 8 months even, probably shouldn’t be stabbed with scissors.  If you have to kill it, I think we can all agree it’s definitely a baby and not just fetal tissue.

  • whiteroses

    “PLEASE tell me that you know that a pregnancy is NOT a fetus?”

    Would you please explain this further? 

  • ldan

    Considering that organizations like Planned Parenthood have to very carefully segregate funds so that the federal money they receive doesn’t touch abortions…where is the funding coming from for lower cost or free abortions? They’re already cheaper than most hospitals in this regard. They are already doing what they can with private donations and abortion funding organizations.

     

    I agree that the cost is definitely a factor driving women to such extremes. So why do we have legislature at both the federal and state levels working hard to make sure that even more women will be driven to such extremes as they work to remove abortion as something likely to be covered by insurance?

  • squirrely-girl

     

    …doesn’t mean it’s a choice that should be allowed.

    What is it with the need to impose one’s sense of morality onto the bodies of others?

     

    Since I don’t smoke or drink, should I be able to deny others those rights as well? If I believe in keeping the Sabbath holy should I be able to prevent others from working on that day?

     

    Where does the desire to control others end? Do you have a line?

  • prochoiceferret

    So I take that this is an admission that you can’t find the right to bodily integrity anywhere in U.S. law, much less mentioned anywhere near the context of abortion?

     

    Boy, is that something you’re not going to want to hear when you wake up in an ice-filled bathtub with a hangover and a freshly sutured incision down your right flank…

     

    “Whaddya mean there’s no law against this??”

  • princess-rot

    I am not interested in your dittohead talking points and tired attempts to shock. You obviously haven’t bothered to actually read anything I or anyone else has written, you refuse to acknowledge any sort of nuance and you are clearly incapable or unwilling to learn how race, class, politics and socioeconomic status influence everything, including the Gosnell case, which you wilfully misunderstand.

     

    You also take my comment out of context; that line was an example of a possible reason among many why a woman might seek an abortion, and also an illustration of the limitations poor women face when they don’t want to be pregnant. I did not say nor imply they went to Gosnell because it cheaper than giving birth and that Gosnell is some kind of compassionate do-gooder. Way to be obtuse. Are you actually capable of paying attention or do you just wilfully misconstrue anything that doesn’t agree with you?

     

    Do you think if enough gross images, sentimental language, legal roadblocks and scary violent looking films, billboards, etcetera, it will make women suddenly love being pregnant and having babies (and maybe occasionally giving them away) – and hate all evidence that this often isn’t the case? That all the above will make the realities of women’s lives go away and everything will be rainbows and puppies?

     

    That women can have lives that will go largely uncared for by anti-choicers, but they all must carve out a space in it for however many babies other people think they should have? Also, this will have no impact on what is done to the actual living, breathing babies who result from those pregnancies? Mommy will just get married and love them to pieces, or disappear like a good female should?

     

    Is that it?

     

    I am wasting my time with this romantic, sanitized and wholly childish view of reproduction.

  • princess-rot

    Ah, once again, ahunt steps in and saves the thread with her simple and cutting remark. I was going to write a long and verbose comment about classism and objectification, but I can see I’d wasting my time trying to get Jen to understand the concept of privilege through her fog of self-righteous and self-induced ignorance.

  • crowepps

    Corporations are persons under the law

    Actually, this comparison isn’t real helpful to your position, since corporations don’t have a ‘right to life’ at all but instead can be dissolved (killed) pretty easily, and in fact can be involuntarily dissolved (murdered? corporationslaughtered?) by a court or a creditor, and in fact are routinely ‘killed’ merely for overlooking their responsibility to send a check to the government on January 1st.

     

    http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=1541

  • princess-rot

    …consent, once given or merely implied (which just shows the level of control over ourselves antis would really like us to have), can never, ever be revoked unless there is a life-threatening circumstance. Even then, it’s up to your local community of helpful busybodies to decide whether you are worthy of saving.

  • arekushieru

    WAY to admit your comPLETE lack of reading comprehension.  I never SAID a woman has no control over intercourse.  I SAID that she has no control over the FACT that it CONNECTS two organs.  Derrrrr….

    Oh, and here’s number two, alREADy.  I WASn’t comparing a fetus to an ORGAN.  I was comparing an organ reCIPient to a fetus.  OBviously, since I never mentioned organs in the context in which YOU mentioned fetuses, but I DID mention organ recipients in that context.  Hmmmm….  One is beginning to think that you anti-choicers either lack ANY sense of logic OR you are deLIBerately misinterpreting this analogy, because you know you would have no argument if you addressed it correctly.    

    Okay, then, why don’t you admit that adolescents are just old fogies?  I get it, though.  The only way for you to justify that an adolescent doesn’t have the same rights as others is to insist that they are not old fogies.   See how ridiculous your logic is on TWO points, now?  Firstly, old fogie is a slang term for an adult stage of development JUST LIKE baby is a slang term for an infant stage of development, a stage of development outSIDE of the uterus.  SECondly, earlier stages of development DO have their rights limited more than later stages of development.  A fetus IS parasitic, NOT a parasite, NOT a child.  It fits ALL of the definition of the first but NOT ALL/NONE of the latter, respectively.

    Abortion doesn’t kill, because a fetus dies due to its incompatibility with life upon separation from its life support.  Because abortion terminates a PREGnancy, the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta into the uterus.  In order to say that abortion kills, you would have to change the definition of BOTH killing AND abortion, aLONG with legal/medical expert opinion on the matters. 

     

  • crowepps

    And yet, from a sociological standpoint, it is absolutely FASCINATING how closely all of the various subparts of the fantasy and the reasons for their enforcement of it line up absolutely seamlessly with the PREVIOUS fantasy (still lingering in places).

     

    ‘Society/we have a RESPONSIBILITY to capture, enslave, imprison, punish, flog, brand, shackle, pursue and kill the ‘bad darkies’ because society knows they are BETTER OFF once they ACCEPT THEIR DESTINY and so society is only doing this for their OWN GOOD .  Society knows it is right because obviously God CREATED them subservient and WANTS them to be subservient, and so it is HOLY work to brainwash and abuse and terrify them until they are ‘good darkies’ (who APPEAR to be happy).

     

    The use of the word ‘darkies’, by the way, is not meant to restrict this just to one particular race, but used as a way of indicating that since this meme cannot be justified when applied to real people, a word was chosen to represent the caricature which is all that is left when humanity is ignored.  The similarity of the meme is equally evident when you substitute ‘bastard children in orphanage’, ‘pagan inhabitants of new lands’, ‘the poor’, ‘the immoral’ or ‘the mad’.

     

    People have an absolutely incredible and apparently unlimited ability to fool themselves that their motives are pure and their actions are justified and that all the agony that they personally create and inflict on their fellows is the fault of the victims, who force them to inflict it by ‘not doing what they are told’.

  • crowepps

    Try an angle that doesn’t require you trying to discredit what other people type

    Don’t you understand the credibility conferred by the awesome fact that HIS FINGERS actually TYPED IT OUT??

     

    Me neither.

  • crowepps

    “Abortion should never be legal” – 10 to 15% of population.

     

    Sounds like a “minority group” to me, claiming they are the grand arbiters of all things regarding [fetuses] and speak[ing] for all [fetuses]

  • arekushieru

    We do not know the difference between right and wrong, when YOU are the ones who promote slavery and rape and think it is right to do so?  Wow, just wow….

    We champion CHOICE.  The CHOICE to terminate OR conTINue a pregnancy.  YOU have NO regard for the life of the woman.  YOU know nothing about fetal development, when you moan, whine and cry about calling them babies or persons, when they are NEITHER.  After all calling a fetus a baby is like calling an adolescent an old fogie.  Because both baby and old fogie…?  Are slang terms for different stages of development than the one you would use them for.  Derrr….  As long as CHOICE, y’know, the term that requires two options in order for it to BE present, is there, that is all that matters.

    Using profanity and name-calling?  Are you mistaking YOUR side for the Pro-Choicers?  Pffft!  Science is not a friend to YOU, AS proven above.

    PLEASE learn some definitions, or you just did what you accused US of doing.  That someone would be that cruel as to injure, hurt, maim and kill ACTual human beings, women, all for the sake of promoting pro-slavery and -rape rights, makes our hearts ache.  A fetus is NOT defenseless.  A fetus supPRESses a woman’s immune system so that her body will not react as if it were an invader.  And YOU are the one who is claiming that you know science?  DOUBLE ppfffffftt!

    Really, then DO tell the organ donor that when he/she decides NOT to donate an organ.  Oh, you won’t?  Then your heart really DOESn’t hurt that someone is injured, hurt or ‘killed’.

    We ARE animals.  Non-human animals can be euthanized without hearing any vitriol or screaming from people such as yourself.  If it’s done to humans, we hear all kinds of screeching from you people.  So, you’re right your movement DOESn’t treat humans NEARLY as compassionately as non-human animals.

    Forced pregnancy is not love but then you know that.  A single woman continuing an expensive pregnancy to term at the expense of her eXISting children’s lives and health is NOT love but then you know that, even though you ET AL anti-choicers had yet to answer that question.  A woman continuing her pregnancy to term because of a lack of timely access to abortion, then abusing that child they decided to raise instead (which happens MORE often because of the depression asSOCiated with relinquishment), due to a variety of reasons, is NOT love but then you know that.

    Btw, that second quote wasn’t referring to abortion.  Just thought you should know you fail in both science and theology.

  • arekushieru

    Pregnancy is the fetal portion of the placenta implanted into the uterus.  If it wasn’t, then a woman would be pregnant as soon as her ova was fertilized by a man’s sperm.  She’s not.

  • ahunt

    Indeed.  And when earnest, sincere pro-lifers deny that this dissonance is prevalent, I get to bring them right here to RH Reality Check, and ruin their day.

    So very grateful for the latest posters here, for adding to my collection of filthy slut/heartless woman quotes.

  • crowepps

    God help your children if you have any.

    Four pregnancies, two disastrous miscarriages followed by D&C abortions and two live children (now adults), two grandchildren.  Which proves what?  Aside from the fact that instead of answering any of the actual POINTS that I made you are going to use a ‘ooooooh, you’re icky’ response.

    You tear up?  Now what on earth would make someone like you cry?                                           

    You seem like a tough broad….I cant picture you crying about anything because anyone who could champion dismembering unborns in the womb…is cold and hard.

    You really are an idiot aren’t you.  You seem to be indicting us all for not being sufficiently SENTIMENTAL.

    “Oh, golly, if we all feel WEALLY WEALLY BAD and talk about how vewy, vewy, SAD we are, we can PWETEND we had no choice when we had our abortions and then nobody will get mad at wittle us.   Women who talk about medical realities like actual grownups aren’t REAL women.”

    You know, because REAL women don’t take responsibility for their actions but instead put on a drama queen emotional pity party so they can continue to be the center of attention.

    The way you talk about parental obligations……as I said before God help your children if you have any.  I pray you don’t. Not giving a child you carried something they need in order to live…..beyond unbelievable. You take the cake out of everyone on here. I thought I had heard it all.

    You must lead a very sheltered life that leaves you ignorant of the world.  Did you read “The Giving Tree” at an impressionable age?  Women who have abortions horrify me a lot less than those whose children have dozens of healed fractures or dozens of ‘accidental’ cigarette burns all over their backs.  Work around abused kids for a while, abortion will lose its terrors.

    You will be in my prayers…I will praythat you never have the priveldge of carrying a child and being blessed by having one. 

    If you spent even a second to check my profile, you would have figured it’s unlikely I will get pregnant again at 62.

    The whole giving speeches about ‘I just can’t STAND how icky people like you are’ thing is something most people abandon when they get out of junior high.  Since you sound like a narrow minded, nasty mouthed fool, why would I or anyone else care what your opinion is?  Do you expect us to dissolve in tears and run to the little girls’ room to sob?  Snerk.

  • ahunt

    Oooops. Double post.

  • therealistmom

    Who made you the arbiter of what is acceptable? What about a defect that causes someone to live in pain for their entire life? Or one where the body may be alive, but the consciousness never exists?

    Those posters who remember me here will know exactly why this made me so pissed just now. I have three beautiful children. One, however, has Down syndrome.

    But it’s not lethal! That makes it all ok! Never mind that 60% of infants born with trisomy 21 will have heart defects, a large percentage of which will need open-heart surgery to correct, if they can even be corrected. Up to 80% have significant hearing loss- a pretty considerable handicap for someone who will have some degree of mental retardation ranging from severe to moderate. People with DS do now have a considerably longer life expectancy than in the ‘old days’, where surgery might not have been made available and most lived their lives in mental institutions, not living to their full potential. It still however is shorter than the average, with the potential for Alzheimer’s starting in their late 30′s.  They also have an increased risk for celiac disease and other GI issues as well as bone and blood cancers.

    Oh, and because of the shortage of organs and the difficulties involved in post-transplant care, people with DS are denied organ transplants should they need them.

    My daughter is one of the lucky ones- thus far her health has been excellent and she is quite high-functioning. She just turned 15 and reads at about a second-grade level and can perform double-digit addition and subtraction. She should be able to, with assistence in life skills, be able to hold down a simple job and live in with a room-mate or in a group living center. She is a beautiful, loving person.

    Doesn’t mean it’s all cake.

    What happens when her dad decides to have a mid-life crisis and leave, while mom has been staying home to take care of her, and has no real job skills or education because of being a SAHM so long? Whoops, that already happened! What happens if she out-lives her parents, and there is nobody to help with her care?

    What if she gets raped by some asshole, or taken advantage of, and gets pregnant?

    How do you work with 15-year-old hormones and a 7-year-old brain?

    These are the things I have to think about EVERY SINGLE DAY.

    But hey, women are just fucking selfish to think they can’t or won’t be able to cope with these realities.

    To answer the question I know you’re thinking: yes. If I had known. Even 16 years ago prental testing was not nearly as accurate as it is now, and there was no reason to take the AFP test which had a terribly high false-positive rate, when I was 23 and already had one healthy child. I do think the OB at the military hospital suspected, since they had me return for ultrasounds to measure nuchal fold thickness, a finding I now know is related to Down syndrome. Of course, they didn’t tell me, or offer me further testing.

  • crowepps

    People who don’t smoke want to outlaw/highly tax smoking.

    People who don’t drink want to outlaw/highly tax drinking.

    People how believe the Sabbath Day should be holy want the stores and restaurants closed and a ban on sports that day.

    People who believe women should dress ‘modestly’ want to impose dress codes before public appearance and harass women who don’t conform.

    People who believe ‘graven images’ are forbidden want to ban movies and television and photographs on billboards and in advertising.

    People who believe dancing is ‘immoral’ want to ban dancing.

    People who believe popular music is ‘immoral’ want only religious songs sung.

    Check out the sites where fundamentalist Catholics obsess about how Everything Is Ruined because musical instruments are sometimes played in Church and it’s absolutely necessary to Purify The Ritual by returning to Gregorian Chant/Plainsong.

     

    There is a small percentage of the population who believe there is One Right Way to Live and who insist that Everybody Else Has To Do Everything The Way I Want.  Those people are, frankly, ill. Consider this:

     Common obsessive symptoms of OCD include fears of contamination, fears of self-harm or the harm of others, excessive religious thought, aggressive urges, sexual fears, and the need to have things in just the “right” place. Obsessions manifest as thoughts, images, or worries, and can occur at any time. They cause severe anxiety and discomfort, and will make you want to do anything to get rid of them.

    http://www.epigee.org/mental_health/ocd.html

    Ever read a better description of your average ProLife advocate?  It’s just textbook: “Dirty women…hurt the babies…God is angry…God commands I fix this…I will scream at them…I will attack them…they belong at home being nice mommies…the thought of women being OUT makes me so anxious I can’t STAND it…”

  • ldan

    Yes, parasitic, not parasite. Inaccurate word choice on my part there.

     

    Also, I’m really liking the adolescents/old fogies analogy here. I think I’m going to start referring to all antis as adolescents from now on to drive home the point.

  • arekushieru

    Not a problem!  :)  Parasitic and parasite have become so interchangeable, even though they’re not in meaning, that it becomes automatic to use the one over the other.  I believe it’s the reason why antis have so much trouble distinguishing the meaning of the two, leading to their accusations of someone calling a fetus a parasite when they actually called them parasitic.  Unlike them, though, you or I don’t seem to have any problem understanding context, either.

    I’m glad you like it, since I have a great amount of respect for you and your posts here.  ^___^  Many of your comments have helped to shape my own arguments, so I want to take this opportunity to thank you.  Sooo… THANK YOU!

  • ldan

    the woman’s body willingly accommodates another after the woman (most often) willingly engages in the action which causes the entity to exist where it is,

    Just eww. First, how does a body ‘willingly’ do anything? My heart does not willingly beat. It beats because that’s what it does, absent any thought or intent. We alter the way our body works all the time, via exercise of our personal will and whatever interventions we’re interested in at the time.  Seriously, anthropomorphizing the uterus like that is creepy.

     

    Next, the oh so novel “but she consented to sex (except when she didn’t)” argument. So you’re of the opinion that abortions are ok in cases of rape? In which case, your argument isn’t really about any right to life so much as coming back around to the idea that pregnancy and childbirth are simply what women get for having sex.

     

    But if you take the right to life argument out of it, there’s no rational reason not to modify how our wombs are working (via abortion) other than those mysoginistic beliefs about the role of women and whether or not they should have sexual agency. This argument says that pregnancy and children are punishments. I prefer not to think that I was a punishment for my mom. How about you?

     

    If it is solely a right to life issue, then what are you doing bringing the willingness of women to have sex into the debate?

  • crowepps

    Must say, the old fogies get REALLY UPSET if you reverse the pre-born meme and refer to them as pre-dead.  Visions of “death panels” arise in their heads.

  • ldan

    Heh..ditto. I’ve certainly found a lot from the many posters here to hone my own arguments, which comes in handy elsewhere. I appreciate all of the clear and clever thought people put into them, as well as the examples and analogies that stem from life experiences way outside of mine. So thank you in return, and the rest of the awesome posters here (pretty much the ones not in grey).

     

    Now, since I know the anti-choice crowd have their very own similar forums to hone their diatribe on, it’s rather telling how easily it falls apart. Not so much honed as formed into a mushy groupthink ball.

  • arekushieru

    …since I may be about to sound even more like your cheerleader and you may find that a little bit creepy….

    But your arguments that connect the removal/introduction of the right to life issue, explain it from a whole new, fresh perspective.  And I love how it stymies the anti-choicers, so well.

  • ldan

    OK, that deserves an LOL.

     

    By that logic, we’re all pre-dead; since I don’t really see that eternal life serum being developed any time soon. I’m betting even the non-old-fogies would dislike that term being applied to them.

     

    How about pre-old-fogie for the teenagers? Actually, I know at least one adult who fits that term. He’s an exceptionally early curmudgeon. I expect him to start shouting something about getting off his lawn any day now.

  • ldan

    Onlystymies them so much, given how many have turned into “no exceptions for rape or incest,” antis. Which *really* makes the ‘forced birth’ tag stick.

     

    It also makes them look extreme and creepy (they are, so yay), and brings the debate back around to why we think we need to police what happens to fetuses.

     

    The right to life argument fails against bodily autonomy, as you’ve pointed out clearly many, many times.

     

    But more, if you look at self-defense vs. rape, for example. That’s a clear autonomy vs. life issue and we allow a self-defense argument in that case. So obviously there are times when autonomy trumps right to life right in the legal system. There’s a lot of nuance in there, from the difficulty for rape victims in getting a fair shake in our legal system, to what constitutes ‘reasonable force’ to deter the crime, and so on, but it takes away the idea that there’s an absolute right to life that always trumps the right to bodily autonomy.

     

    The more I turn that argument around, the more parallels I find that make me find even more truth in the ‘forced birth is rape’ angle.

  • ldan

    1.) The assertion that a fetus has just as much a right to not be killed as any born individual is a flat out lie, and I’m surprised you could actually type that out in any amount of serious. I cannot kill you just because I want to. A pregnant woman, on the other hand, can kill her unborn child for such a reason.

    How about the other framework. I cannot leech sustinence from you just because I want to. A fetus on, on the other hand, can leech sustinence from a woman for such a reason.

     

    Unless you think there is somehow a right to take what you need to live from someone’s body, why should the fetus have that right? The fact that detaching it from such sustenance kills it is somewhat beside the point, as well as being the reason that the debate starts to shift into a different realm when talking about later term abortions. But for the vast majority of abortions, the principle above applies.

     

    2. Just because there isn’t a ‘right to bodily integrity’ dropped into the constitution (though I’d argue that it’s easily a part of the ‘liberty and pursuit of happiness’ of the Declaration of Independence phrase that gets pointed to most as indicating a right to life), doesn’t mean it is nonexsistent. I’m not a legal scholar, but I know full well that I would expect a long jail term for tying someone down to take blood from them, for example. At the very least, it’s considered an assault. How is the health and life-threatening nature of pregnancy not a similar assault when it is not consented to? (after all, I can totally tie someone down and take their blood if they consent to it.)

     

    4. So we’re back to blaming the women for having “put someone in a situation in which their survival is at your beck and whim.” I’m sorry, but if I accidentally poison my children because say, I didn’t realize that a bulgy can of tomatoes was probably spoiled, I’m still not required to give them my kidneys if that would save their lives. We’re back to the question of abortion being about women having sex. I’ve answered that above, did you have a new argument about this that’s actually consistent with the whole ‘right to life’ thing you’re arguing?

     

    5. Medicine, and knowledge of development has plenty to do with it. Do blastocysts have the right to not be killed? Do they have to right to implant in the uterus regardless of the wishes of woman? Why?

  • whiteroses

    I see what you’re saying.  That’s a good question.  I would have thought from the people who had to pay at the top of the sliding scale or those who had insurance.  Doesn’t mean there’s enough to cover it.  Thanks for the reply! 

  • whiteroses

    So, when is a fetus a fetus?  At what point in the pregnancy?

  • whiteroses

    You could have her sterilized if you’re concerned that she will get raped.  Also, people do want to adopt babies, even those with Down’s Syndrome.  I’m not saying you have to take those options, but if you want to run all the way down a what if road, you do have options.  You have the option to turn her over to foster care as well.  You should have been given all the information to make your choice, too, and that doctor was wrong. 

  • arekushieru

    Yet, since you found that one comment made by me in the same number of 90 some odd posts… I’d have to say that something seems pretty fishy, here. 

    As for your question, it’s pretty easy to look up and is basic biology.

  • arekushieru

    You could have her sterilized if you’re concerned that she will get raped.

    Do you not understand how eugenicist that sounds…?  And not on a non-discriminatory basis, either….

  • squirrely-girl

    You could have her sterilized if you’re concerned that she will get raped.  

     

    Those of us fighting for reproductive rights have very little tolerance for this type of attitude. The attitude that it’s acceptable to make decisions regarding sterilization for another person without their express desire.

     

    You don’t just “have somebody sterilized.” Would you appreciate somebody making that decision for you?! At least you’re upfront about how little you think of disabled individuals’ sexuality and reproductive rights. 

     

    At any rate, being sterilized doesn’t keep a person from being raped. 

  • crowepps

    Just how is sterlization going to prevent her daughter from being raped?  Google “nursing home” rape and see the long list of KNOWN incidents.

     

    She was generous enough to share some of the different worries felt by a parent who had a daughter in a situation that you were implying was simple.  The original post her real-life experience so that you could consider that there was more to it than you were taking into account.  And in response to that you come up with a few more ‘easy answers’ like ‘put her in foster care’.

     

    Nobody asked YOU to fix anything.  It’s too late for this to be ‘fixed’.  The idea that surrendering her daughter to foster care or putting her in a group home will make everything fine is particularly stupid.  Instead what you’re saying is ‘even though your situation is exactly what I want to inflict on lots of OTHER women I don’t want to hear what it’s REALLY like.  I prefer to focus on those Special Olympics moments.  La la la, I can’t HEAR you!’

  • whiteroses

    The high school biology book I looked at last week when tutoring refers to it as a fetus the second it (joined egg and sperm) implants.  This is why I am asking.  I scanned the comments, but no, I didn’t read every one of them.  Most people, when referring to a pregnancy, do mean “with child.”  You don’t have to be hostile.  I’m not asking you to defend anything.  I’m asking for clarification is all.

    Look, I think it’s a life at the point it implants.  But, why am I going to argue about that?  The truth is no one can know for 100% sure, and it doesn’t honestly matter anyway.  People who do believe it is a life still choose abortion, so clearly, whether it is or isn’t a life isn’t going to change the legality of abortion.  I personally am in favor of supporting women and helping them choose, but choose to keep or adopt.  Abortion will never be illegal, but hopefully one day people won’t feel that they need to have one.  So, if you’re worried I’m trying to trap you, I’m not.  I’m curious about what you’re saying as to when it’s a fetus. 

  • whiteroses

    I am extremely against her being sterilized.  I thought the author was concerned that she’d get pregnant from being raped.  Rape is bad enough without becoming pregnant.  But if she did become pregnant, I would want that woman to get to make the choice for herself, regardless of what her mother wants. 

  • whiteroses

    But it’s not when we’re talking about aborting it?  Why is that not eugenicist? 

  • whiteroses

    So it’s hard.  I get that.  And yet, she is doing it, and seems to be doing it well. 

  • whiteroses

    What I want to say is that you do have her.  She is loved.  It must be hard for you, and I don’t want to minimize that.  But when you talk about someone’s quality of life, she has a good quality of life, and she has you as a mother, who appears to love her and care deeply for her.  I bet if you asked her, she’s glad to be here, regardless of her differences.

  • arekushieru

    Because having the right to choose abortion is about balancing rights.  Forcibly sterilizing someone has nothing to do with choice or balancing rights.

  • goatini

    in either Kansas or Oklahoma, where they wanted to be able to legally allow doctors to not disclose to the woman ANY sonogram or amniocentesis results, if those results might fully warrant a possible decision to terminate.   

  • arekushieru

    Ummm, first off, I wasn’t being hostile.  Secondly, even if I were, it would be understandable since there was an unnecessary implication in the title of your original reply to me that I was being unfair to you.

    I really have no idea what you’re talking about, now.  And that’s simply the truth.  Since, I never disagreed with the position your biology book takes or medical expert opinion takes, nor did I make a comment that suggested I did.

    My hope is that one day women won’t have to experience unwanted or untenable pregnancies, so they won’t be forced into making a difficult decision on whether to terminate *or* continue a pregnancy.

  • crowepps

    Are you using your incredible psychic powers to figure out that she’s “glad to be here”?  Just how are you judging her “good quality of life”.  You don’t know either of these people and you have a minimal amount of information.

     

    YOUR OPINION AS A TOTAL STRANGER WITH NO FACTS AT YOUR COMMAND AND NO ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE PEOPLE IS TOTALLY WORTHLESS.

  • colleen

    I thought the author was concerned that she’d get pregnant from being raped.

    Suggesting that she have her child sterilized as a solution the very real concern that her Downs syndrome daughter might be raped is repulsive, twisted and indefensible. If you were a normal person you would understand this. If you were a decent person you would apologise .

    But if she did become pregnant, I would want that woman to get to make the choice for herself, regardless of what her mother wants.

    I know this probably breaks your heart but children and vulnerable adults cannot legally consent to sex. Any decent parent would make the choice that would be best for her child just as any decent society or religious institution would protect children and vulnerable adults from those who rape them.

  • crowepps

    Do you think your totally uninforming pontificating on here about what women in that situation SHOULD do made it easier or harder for her to continue?

  • crowepps

    After fertilization the embryogenesis starts. In humans, when embryogenesis finishes, by the end of the 10th week of gestational age, the precursors of all the major organs of the body have been created. Therefore, the following period, the fetal period, is described both topically on one hand, i.e. by organ, and strictly chronologically on the other, by a list of major occurrences by weeks of gestational age.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development

    If you really want to be knowledgeable about this, I would recommend that you look around on the internet for adult/college level references.  The kid stuff they get in high school is pretty superficial and provides only a few of the scientific terms used by those in the field.

  • crowepps

    I am extremely against her being sterilized.

    What possible business could that be of yours?  You’re not the one who would have to deal with the consequences of making either choice.  I wonder, have you ever heard of the “Ashley Treatment”?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment

    I thought the author was concerned that she’d get pregnant from being raped.  Rape is bad enough without becoming pregnant.  But if she did become pregnant, I would want that woman to get to make the choice for herself, regardless of what her mother wants. 

    You might want to go back and reread the original post.  Cognitive functioning of a 7-year old.  Again, you’re not the one who has to deal with the consequences.

  • arekushieru

    Well, I should say wasn’t disagreeing *or* agreeing with what a medical textbook/expert opinion said on the matter.  Since my comment was made  independent of when a bzef became a fetus.

    Although, I should probably assume some responsibility, here, since I mentioned basic biology in direct relation to her question.  And basic biology IS taught in high school textbooks….

  • ldan

    Because she’s coping, you feel that all women in a similar situation should be forced to do the same? And you feel justified in minimizing the very real worries that she’s living with?

     

    I’m sure that there are plenty of stories about the women who weren’t able to cope as well. Where do they fall in your narrative? And how about the children of those mothers who don’t cope as well?

     

    Or how about those, as you so glibly suggest, in foster care? Now there are some horror stories there. Foster care statistics only strengthen my pro-choice resolve, let me tell you.

  • crowepps

    Since “The high school biology book I looked at last week when tutoring” isn’t exactly a rigorous course of study, and of course I would guess that the biology book probably wasted a lot of space discussing other matters aside from human reproduction.  There is a huge amount of information on the internet for those who are willing to track it down and actually wade through it.  Certainly there is a lot of stuff on infertility sites that makes it clear just how complex the issue is.  And there are also a lot of sites for parents of disabled children that make it clear just how complex THOSE issues are.

     

    To me the posts are the equivalent of ‘I may not have ever studied the violin but I know all about it because I saw a program about Itzhak Perlman on PBS.’

  • ldan

    The supporting women to choose to keep or adopt kind of ignores the whole risking life, employment, and health through nine months of pregnancy part that women may wish to avoid altogethr. Support those who choose to carry to term all you want, but do the women who don’t want to be pregnant a favor and stay out of their way.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Which… proves nothing.    

     

    It proves that the criteria being thrown around for personhood is incorrect. If you consider that nothing, then that’s your problem.

     

    Well, either you just said tumours, parasitic twins, fetus in fetu, hydatid molar pregnancies, cells, etc… are persons OR you have NO understanding of what I’m talking about.   I think it’s the latter.  The fetal portion of the placenta is required for that specific stage of development, but is NOT retained afterwards.  And, yet, DURING that specific stage of development, it is an integral part of the fetus and, thus, without it, it dies.   

     

    This just shows that your scientific understanding is very limited, and that you’re unable to extrapolate any kind of truth from a scientific fact. In any event, I’m still waiting for you to show me what kind of cell the unborn are.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    You can be imprisoned and given the death penalty. Does that make you a non-person? If you read the 14th Amendment, you’d know that nowhere is it stated that a person can’t be deprived of their lives, or liberty or property, but that they can’t be deprived of their lives, liberty or property without due process of the law.

     

    Anyway, to get back on-topic, either the law is wrong in defining corporations are persons, or the people who are insisting that to be a person you need to be born, or sentient, or sapient, or any other such characteristic are wrong. It has to be one or the other.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Which are due to ANTI-CHOICE laws, OBviously.  And, please, if you don’t want people to think you are who they think you are, STOP using the same talking points.  Oy, it really IS that simple. 

     

    I’m positive the seven Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade weren’t what you’d call “anti-choice”.

     

    Oh, God, the misogyny, please stop.  WHOSE argument is flimsy?  When YOU’RE the one who believes that the way a person’s body is developed determines the actions permissible for a person, but ONLY if it’s a woman?  You deny her the same sexual freedoms that a man can experience without fear of reprisal, because you will NEVER find a corollary that is as equally enforceable or determinable on men as pregnancy is on women, making it VERY unlikely that a man will ever BE denied those same sexual freedoms.  (Please, God, forgive these people for being deceived by Satan and their misogyny.)  

     

    What are you talking about? I didn’t know that a woman would be disallowed from engaging in sex, which is the only way you can argue that she’s being denied the same sexual freedoms as a man. As I’ve pointed out thrice now, you cannot argue that denying a woman the ability to have an abortion is sexist. This is because if you can’t find a similar situation as abortion in regards to a man, then restricting abortion can’t be inherently sexist, as men are comparatively no better nor worse than women. While I realize that screaming misogyny and sexism is the old thing you can do, you’d do well to find a better angle that isn’t so ridiculous.

  • crowepps

    Anyway, to get back on-topic,

    Oh, bless your little pea-picking heart.  This string of posts is about an unqualified doctor who are arrested for running an illegal abortion clinic.  Just how do you figure your particular obsession with corporations being considedred ‘persons’ legally became “the topic”?

     either the law is wrong in defining corporations are persons, or the people who are insisting that to be a person you need to be born, or sentient, or sapient, or any other such characteristic are wrong. It has to be one or the other.

    Well, no, actually it does not have to be one or the other, because there are actually MORE THAN TWO CHOICES!!  Now I realize that makes it really hard for those of us who can’t keep track of more than two things so I’ll just put out one more additional option for you:

    Corporations are considered ‘persons’ in CONTRACT law or so far as POLITICS goes but don’t have the same rights as actual live individual persons.

    Examples:

    Corporations have ‘freedom of speech’ so far as political advocy is concerned but they cannot lie in their advertisements and while interacting with their customers so their freedom of speech is NOT absolute but instead restricted by a network of truth in lending and truth in advertising laws.

    Although corporations are allowed to make campaign contributions, they may not register to vote and they may not be elected to public office.

    Corporations may be assessed fines for wrongdoing, but it is impossible to arrest them or put them in jail.

    Corporations can commit suicide or be killed without any penalties whatsoever.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    And the FETUS is not being killed just for any reason.  Derrrr….

     

    There is no law which prevents a woman from having an abortion for any specific reason she can give. As an extreme example, a woman could walk into an abortion clinic and state that she’s having an abortion as an offerring to the great Dark Lord, and there is no law which will tell her no.

     

    That’s exACTly what I am doing, because to NOT do so, would be sexist.  ALL organs are included in that right.  If you say one organ is NOT included, and that organ happens to be present in only ONE sex, then you ARE sexist.  Not surprising, though, that simple logic escapes yet another anti-choicer.

     

    I’m still waiting for you to show me where the right to bodily integrity is enshrined into U.S. law. You mentioned some court case, yet when I asked you to provide a link to the case, you avoided doing so. 

     

    And, wtf are you talking about?  Is this aNOTher tactic of anti-choicers, to claim something totally unrelated to what someone said, when they can’t prove their point in another manner.

     

    I’m talking about what you typed out.

     

    Now, you’re focussing on something completely tangential to the issue, of course.  Besides which, I never knew that such intercourse wasn’t dictated by the presence of a vagina and penis. 

     

    You mentioned bodily functions. It’s not tangential to respond to something you typed out. As it is, sexual intercourse still isn’t a bodily function.

     

    And, here we go, back to the old misogyny, again.  The fact that a woman has a vagina, the man ejaculates into her body, a woman ovulates, the man’s sperm fertilizes her egg and the fetal placenta implants into her uterus, the presence of ANY of which she has NO control over, is simply a convenient scapegoat for you.  Really, why is the obvious NOT so obvious to you anti-choicers?

     

    Unless raped, the act of sex isn’t involuntary.

     

    Never heard of the right to medical privacy, I see.  Have you been living in a cave? 

     

    Yes, I have. I also know that those rights are not dictated by medicine. Do you?

     

    There IS no right to kill, here.  There is simply the right to CHOOSE to terminate a pregnancy.  (PLEASE tell me that you know that a pregnancy is NOT a fetus?) Going by YOUR logic, the right to not be killed does NOT entail an organ donor’s right to kill, though.

     

    Uhhhh, yeah. The right to not be killed doesn’t entail the right of another to kill, otherwise there would be many instances of what you perceive as murder. That’s basic common sense. Anyway, I see you’re back to relying on the choice mantra, which is a euphemism for murder. That right to choose, as you put it, involves choosing the end the life of another individual, sometimes by dismembering it or stabbing it in the head. In normal circumstances, if you were to learn that someone was dismembered and/or stabbed in the back of the head, you’d deem it murder. But when you find out said things were involved in an abortion, then you call label it as ‘choice’.

     

    So, really, WHO was typing out nonsense?  Your name says it all.  You, Nonsense, ARE nonsense.  

     

    At the risk of being juvenille, you are.

  • arekushieru

     

    Btw, I do wish you would address people’s comments, rather than addressing something totally tangential.  She wasn’t saying they wouldn’t be considered persons, she was saying they didn’t have the same right to life, thus they were a different KIND of ‘person’.  So, please try another, more RELevant argument, next time.

  • therealistmom

    The next time I hear some fundie tell me “god gave you this special child because you’re a special person” or some other line of bullshit I may very well go postal. Figuratively speaking, of course; I don’t believe in violence as an answer.

    I walk away from the board for a few hours and wow.

    I know it won’t make me popular among this crowd but I seriously HAVE considered sterilization. The thing is, I can’t wrap my mind around taking away her choice like that, even though logically I know my daughter will never have the cognitive ability to care for a child of her own. Add to that the fact that any child she bears would have a 50/50 chance of having Down syndrome, and it’s a frightening prospect. Nature played an awful little trick in that men with DS are sterile, but women are not. As her parent, knowing what is best for HER, I can see going through with it, just as I supported the parents of Ashley for doing what they felt is necessary. The slippery slope towards eugenics though… I don’t wish to go there.

    It doesn’t matter if this woman, working at Walmart and dealing with major depressive disorder, is coping. What DOES matter is that women should not be forced to do so. Or be forced into birth under ANY circumstance.

    I’ll likely address more of the points later; am dealing with the gifted ADHD poster child son of mine in my ear just now. ;)

  • arekushieru

    There is no law which prevents a woman from having an abortion for any specific reason she can give. As an extreme example, a woman could walk into an abortion clinic and state that she’s having an abortion as an offerring to the great Dark Lord, and there is no law which will tell her no

    Yeah?  Good thing these reasons weren’t what I was referring to.  Try again.

    I’m still waiting for you to show me where the right to bodily integrity is enshrined into U.S. law. You mentioned some court case, yet when I asked you to provide a link to the case, you avoided doing so

    There ya go with the assumptions, again.  ANOther similarity to several of the posters I mentioned in relation to yourself, previously.  I wasn’t avoiding it.  I simply wasn’t interested, especially since you seemed to have slipped beneath the radar, anyways.  Why post something when no one will read it, after all?  But, of course, your ASSumption, when there was no assumption precipitating it,  has annoyed me, so I’m beginning to doubt that you would even read it, now.  So, maybe I won’t post it, anyways.  Nice going.

    I’m talking about what you typed out

    Really?  DO tell me where I mentioned (or ‘implied’) that women were inferior to men.  Can’t find it?  Thought not. 

    You mentioned bodily functions. It’s not tangential to respond to something you typed out. As it is, sexual intercourse still isn’t a bodily function

    Uh, yeah, it IS when it isn’t related to the central issue of the paragraph this point was ‘attempting’ to address, which is what I WAS talking about.  Once more, try again.

    Unless raped, the act of sex isn’t involuntary

    I never said it was.  What I DID say was that intercourse, for the woman, as a CONNECTOR between the vaginal and uterine organs was involuntary.  You’re having the same problem interpreting this statement that JenH had.  But, don’t worry, I won’t accuse you of being her, since yours and her talking points are completely different, which kinda underlines the fact that we AREn’t, after all, making distinctly arbitrary comparisons between you and other posters, here.

    Yes, I have. I also know that those rights are not dictated by medicine. Do  you?

    Which wasn’t your original question.  I answered how it was related to medicine.  You’re welcome.

    Uhhhh, yeah. The right to not be killed doesn’t entail the right of another to kill, otherwise there would be many instances of what you perceive as murder. That’s basic common sense. Anyway, I see you’re back to relying on the choice mantra, which is a euphemism for murder. That right to choose, as you put it, involves choosing the end the life of another individual, sometimes by dismembering it or stabbing it in the head. In normal circumstances, if you were to learn that someone was dismembered and/or stabbed in the back of the head, you’d deem it murder. But when you find out said things were involved in an abortion, then you call label it as ‘choice’

    If abortion is killing, so is non-consent to organ donation.  If abortion is killing, then the fetus kills a pregnant woman when she dies from pregnancy complications, esPECially if you want to call a fetus a ‘person’.  If abortion is murder so is non-consent to organ donation.  NEITHER are murder since there are several factors in place in BOTH instances.  Choice is NOT a euphemism for murder, since abortion isn’t even killing let aLONE murder, since my ProChoice mother was exercising CHOICE when she conTINued her pregnancies with me and my sibling.

    Yeah, you risked being juvenile and got egg all over your face.

  • arekushieru

    I never said they were.  These anti-choice laws I refer to weren’t created by them, after all.  They interpreted the oRIGinal laws, from which these anti-choice laws WERE created.  Really, a CaNAdian has to tell you how the US law system works…?

    If she isn’t to be ‘disallowed’ from engaging in sex, then why even mention her ability to consent to sex in relation to pregnancy and terminating or continuing it?  Yay, more illogic from anti-choicers. 

    This is because if you can’t find a similar situation as abortion in regards to a man, then restricting abortion can’t be inherently sexist, as men are comparatively no better nor worse than wo

    Seriously, how idiotic can you get?  Right to bodily integrity is NOT based on what organs you have.  It’s based on the determination of who USES one’s body and when and HOW it is used.  And, seriously, did you just compare one of the largest physical burdens to the LACK of said burden?  Your arguments just keep deteriorating, don’t they? 

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Oh, bless your little pea-picking heart.  This string of posts is about an unqualified doctor who are arrested for running an illegal abortion clinic.  Just how do you figure your particular obsession with corporations being considedred ‘persons’ legally became “the topic”?

     

    Because the person whose name I’m not going to try to spell from memory tried to state that to be a person you needed to be a human and an individual at a minimum, which is a false statement.

     

    Well, no, actually it does not have to be one or the other, because there are actually MORE THAN TWO CHOICES!!  Now I realize that makes it really hard for those of us who can’t keep track of more than two things so I’ll just put out one more additional option for you:

     

    There really are only two choices. Either the law is wrong or the people claiming that something like sentience is a prerequisite for personhood are wrong.

     

    Corporations are considered ‘persons’ in CONTRACT law or so far as POLITICS goes but don’t have the same rights as actual live individual persons.

     

    Did you happen to miss the Citizen’s United case? I’m pretty sure that case dealt with the 1st Amendment, which has nothing to do with contract law.

     

    I’m not going to respond to the rest of that, because it has nothing to do with being a person, but rather the status of the individual or entity involved (i.e., tourists cannot vote but you wouldn’t claim they weren’t persons).

  • prochoiceferret

    There is no law which prevents a woman from having an abortion for any specific reason she can give. As an extreme example, a woman could walk into an abortion clinic and state that she’s having an abortion as an offerring to the great Dark Lord, and there is no law which will tell her no.

     

    Isn’t it funny how someone who dedicates their life to bad-mouthing abortion can know so little about how it is performed in real life? (Specifically, the involvement of counselors who discuss the procedure with the patient beforehand, and can put a halt to things if the patient is under duress or not of sound mind.)

  • ldan

    1. A fertilized egg (zygote) is a single cell. You lot want to call that a person. It is no different from any other diploid, undifferentiated cell (stem cell). In fact, each cell (or group of them) from those early divisions can be split off to eventually become a separate embryo. So..are identical twins a split person? If personhood is inherent from conception, how does personhood multiply? What about chimeras…are they actually two people since they are made up of a fusion of two separate zygotes? Personhood gets really murky if you try extending it all the way to conception.

     

    2. Are stem-cell cultures people? In theory, these could eventually be coaxed into following a full developmental path and making an embryo. No, we’re not there yet, but that’s a limit of current understanding that I have little reason to believe will not be solved in the future.

     

    You still haven’t answered what separates a normal fetus from a parasitic twin, fetus in fetu, etc. from the stanpoint of personhood either, just jumping onto the cell question and ignoring the rest. Please elaborate on how the science is flawed here.

  • ldan

    Honestly, I think that sterilization could be pragmatic when looked at from the standpoint of having to care for someone whose mind may (will?) never reach a point where they could deal with a child. I’m not going to be judgemental on that score. It’s not that far off of a mother deciding that their pregnant 10 year-old should have an abortion. It’s a momentous decision made for someone you’re responsible for, and done with their best interests in mind.

     

    I think that each individual situation being assessed and having those kinds of choices made is a far cry from the eugenic call to sterilize all the developmentally disabled, or someone else telling those ‘in the trenches’ what they ‘should’ do.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Of course I haven’t answered any questions regarding why the unborn are different personhoodwise than whatever entities you can think up. Why should I? The burden on proof is on you to explain to all of us “ignorant” pro-lifers why a fetus is no different than a parasitic twin or a fetu in fetu from the standpoint of personhood. Not only this, but you would then be burdened with explaining why your criteria, and subsequent beginning point for personhood, should be accepted by everyone. More specifically, you’ll have to explain why in the same vein you dismiss the contentions of us “ignorant” pro-lifers that personhood, whatever that entails, begins at conception, you would be willing to force someone else who believes that personhood begins after the point you believe to adhere to your point of view.

     

    Unfortunately, you can’t do it. If personhood, as you contend, is a matter of philosophy, then it means what the individual philosophizing wants it to mean. If personhood, as you contend, is a mattter of philosophy, then a celtic druid who doesn’t believe that a certain segment of the population are persons is perfectly justified in enslaving a few of thing, offering half of them as human sacrifices and eatinig the rest, for there is no basis upon which to argue him wrong. If personhood, as you contend, is a matter of philosophy, then he can’t be wrong, as whatever his philosophy so long as he can provide a justification as to why those he enslaved, killed and/or ate weren’t persons, you’d have to accept it. A simple truth is that the only reason personhood is brought up is because pro-choicers cannot refute the humanity of the unborn. Instead, they relegate the issue to one where it’s up to the individual who would act upon another to justify the morality of their actions based on their beliefs about the one who would be acted against’s personhood. Yet they tend to only apply this logic from the moment of conception to the end of pregnancy. Once pregnancy ends then they conveniently forget their own “Personhood is a matter of philosophy” argument and want to impose on everyone a strict set of rules and regulations upon which they have to follow. As it usually is, they state that personhood is a matter of philosophy unless said individual is using personhood to act against an entity they believe is a person. Then they either throw their argument out completely or try to convince others as to why their very own argument only has a selective application.

     

    That’s a game of moral gymnastics I’m not keen on playing. Personhood is either a matter of philosophy or science. If it’s a matter of philosophy, then everyone is entitled to their own beliefs regarding the personhood of another regardless of how you feel about it (and that just doesn’t stop at birth). You don’t get to state that your philosophy is right and that everyone else has to agree with you. It doesn’t work that way. If it’s a matter of science, then personhood is synonymous with being a human, as there is no single characteristic outside of genome sans genetic defects that all humans share, and the unborn at all gestational ages are given the same basic protections as every other human.

     

    (And in the interest of scientific accuracy, a zygote is a single cell for approximately 22 hours, after which it goes through its first cellular division.)

  • rebellious-grrl

    Oh please nonsense. You can’t debate her point so you throw out insults. It only makes you look stupid and foolish. From what I’ve witnessed you and churchmouse are intellectually outranked here.

  • ldan

    Given that the current legal definition of personhood does not include fetuses, why is the burden on us to prove it? You’re the one who wants to force everyone to change that definition and live with what you believe the consequences should be (although then we’re back to the fact that you want fetus-people to have more rights than born-people).

     

    The only difference between a parasitic twin and your standard fetus is that the parasitic twin is leeching off of its sibling to the detriment of that sibling. (the parallel here with the fact that all fetuses are parasitic entities with regard to the women carrying them should be rather obvious.) Given that your argument is based on a right to life that trumps rights to bodily autonomy, how is it that it’s ok to kill parasitic twins but not fetuses?

     

    Just because a fertilized egg is a single cell for about a day doesn’t invalidate the question above, which asks how your definition distinguishes between cells and fetuses. You’re the one who wanted to know what kind of cell the fetus was. You have your answer, do we get ours?

     

    Personhood is either a matter of philosophy or science. If it’s a matter of philosophy, then everyone is entitled to their own beliefs regarding the personhood of another regardless of how you feel about it (and that just doesn’t stop at birth).

    Let’s see…first, if it’s a matter for science, there’s obviously still a lot of argument over it. You don’t simply get to claim that because the dividing line between person and not-person is still under debate that you get to simply make everyone work with your definition. I don’t think science is likely to be the final arbiter of what ‘person’ means. I do think that it gives us the information to inform such a decision.

     

    If it’s philosophy, then I still don’t have to subscribe to the idea that everyone gets to do what they want. In fact, I’m pretty sure philosophy covers it nicely. Your druid in the woods has a society that tells him that his neighbors aren’t ‘people’ and so he can do as he likes. Now, if he lives in a city…his neighbors are rightly going to see that as a threat not only to themselves but their society. At some point, we came up with rules and laws to govern this whole ‘social animals living together’ thing and had to decide who we would count as people. this ends up meaning that he either gets to change his opinion on what counts as people (or what one is allowed to do to non-people), keep his opinion with the knowledge that acting on it will have consequences, or leave that city/society.

     

    Given that there are a fair number of people in the U.S. who still don’t seem to believe (insert group here) are people, or at least act as if that’s their belief, I’d say we’re pretty much acting as if personhood is a philosophical construct.

     

    Regardless, as noted above, we currently do not allow people to leech off of other people’s bodies, even to save their lives. Thus, the personhood of the fetus is a sideshow question. I understand that it seems like an important question when you want to be emotional about the ‘murder’ of ‘babies’. But it’s very difficult to take that argument seriously when you argue that sloughing off a blastocyst or zygote is just like murduring a toddler. Maybe it is in the world of philosophy, where a tossed stone will never reach its target because it always still has half of the distance to travel yet. But in the real world, things are messy and imperfect, and that tossed stone is going to actually hurt when it hits you. Argue philosophy all you want. If you’re more concerned with proving that blastocysts have rights, no matter what suffering or inequality those ‘rights’ are going to cause, I’m unlikely to change your mind.

     

     

  • ahunt

    If “personhood” is a matter of science…in your opinion…give us your reasoning. Try to keep it brief, or we’ll just scroll.

  • colleen

    From what I’ve witnessed you and churchmouse are intellectually outranked here.

    such an understatement

  • crowepps

    There are never, ever “only two choices” in any legal matter.

     

    In addition, the ruling in Citizens United was aimed at clearing up, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CASE AT HAND, whether  corporations as either representatives of “press” or as “associations of citizens” had rights to “speech” as vested in “persons” and focused pretty narrowly on the regulation by government bureacracies of  POLITICAL speech, which the government bureacracy and elected officials in the performance of their duties are supposed to avoid, just as they are supposed to avoid promoting or discouraging religion.

    “The majority opinion,[20] delivered by Justice Kennedy, found that 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)’s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary: The Movie. Kennedy wrote: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had previously held that a Michigan campaign finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Opinion_of_the_Court

    There are also links to the pleadings, the oral arguments and the decision here:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

  • crowepps

    Churchmouse isn’t here to debate on an intellectual level.  She’s here to clutch her pearls in horror and be a drama queen and feel all SPECIAL because she gets SO UPSET!