From Generation Roe to Generation Now


This article is first in a series published in conjunction with Choice USA in an effort to highlight the importance of inter-generational dialogue within the reproductive justice movement and to uncover ways to work together across generations in order to sustain and thrive.  It is also part of a larger series of articles published to commemorate the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which is on Saturday, January 22nd, 2011. 

When I arrived at college about three and a half years ago, I had no clue that abortion was a controversial or divisive issue. Then, my best friend faced an unintended and unwanted pregnancy. I began to truly understand the meaning of choice. When she came to me for support, I had to make my own choice. I could continue on as if I had no moral or ethical obligation to help my friend, or I could support her with love and compassion. I made the choice to stand with my friend that day, and I have been an advocate for reproductive justice ever since. 

My story is like that of so many other young people. These experiences move us to be at the forefront of the struggle for reproductive justice. They make us able to shape the movement with visionary creativity and groundbreaking innovative strategies.   

Yet, at times, our experience and efforts seem to be undervalued. An unfortunate theme creeps into the mainstream reproductive rights movement: Young people are apathetic about reproductive rights. As a campus organizer, I have found that young people are anything but apathetic. We are concerned about the issues that directly implicate our lives.  We’re ready to transgress the current political landscape on abortion. We are working to engage the reproductive justice movement in unique and cutting-edge ways, from online activism to good old campus organizing. For our visionary creativity to shine, we need to be educated. We need to be activated. We need to have a voice at the decision-making table. Our ideas need to be taken seriously.  

Our dedication to the reproductive justice movement is personal. The anti-choice movement has taken particular interest in denying young people the resources we need to make healthy and informed decisions about our bodies. Abstinence-only education.  Parental notification and consent initiatives.  Limited public funding for contraception for those under 20.  Through these initiatives, we are denied self-determination. However, the denial of self-determination doesn’t stop with our reproductive rights.

Young people understand the ways in which reproductive and sexual health and rights are connected to other social justice issues. This interconnectedness became all too apparent to me when I interned at Planned Parenthood. During my internship, I was given the task of reading through hundreds of stories from women, men and teens about their experiences with Planned Parenthood. Hearing the diversity of experiences among these stories changed my perspective and my sense of urgency for social, political and economic justice.

Now, I refuse to play by the rules of a single-narrative, single-issue movement, and I’ve noticed that most of my peers are doing the same. We know that in order to truly achieve reproductive justice, we must struggle to eliminate all forms of oppression. Without fighting for immigrant rights, LGBTQ equality, racial and economic justice, environmental sustainability and a variety of other issues directly impacting the lives of young people, we can never really win.

That’s the interesting thing about Roe. It’s revolutionary impact on the history of abortion politics in the United States just isn’t enough. If low-income women aren’t able to afford an abortion; if young people aren’t able to make autonomous choices about our health without the consent of a guardian; and if certain people aren’t afforded the right to have children; the rights achieved through Roe become meaningless for a large number of people.

We may not be Generation Roe, but we know the importance of Roe and we are celebrating it in a new way. We are taking the strategies of our pro-choice predecessors, and reinventing them to meet our needs. We understand that Roe is a call for transformation and a symbol of our continued commitment to reproductive justice.  We also understand that Roe provides the anti-choice movement with an opportunity to capitalize on young people.  We know that our participation in the reproductive justice movement is critical.  We are ready to fight. We are ready to win.

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

Follow Andrew Jenkins on twitter: @andrew_jenkins

  • churchmouse

    It is sad that some of the youth of our country celebrate the death of the unborn in the womb. They turn their backs on what science and the medical community says about life, they turn their backs on what the Constitution says about the right to life, liberty and happiness. They simply believe that women have the right to kill for whatever reason. 

    The thing is Andrew is that you do not consider the life already started in the womb. Do you know that the heart starts beating at around 22 days after conception. Now I don’t know what you are learing in school but when you terminate or kill something, in this case a living human being, without its permission what does society call it? 

    What about taking responsiblity for ones actions? What about adoption? 

    Just wondering if you have ever witnessed an abortion? Would love to know how you handled it…but I think I know already. :( 

     

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    Right on, Andrew!  I’m a campus organizer for a pro-choice campus group, and I’ve found that my demographic of graduate students is extremely interested in advocating for all human rights. 

    For me, anti-choice is about someone saying “Girl X, I know better than you.  I know how you should feel and what you should do.  If you don’t do what I think you should, you’re bad (wrong, immoral, evil, whatever).”   I don’t subscribe to that and never will, because it’s presumptuous and arrogant and ignores the rights of an autonomous human.

  • lorena-garcia

    “We know that our participation in the reproductive justice movement is critical.  We are ready to fight. We are ready to win.”

    Our participation is not the only thing that is needed, but its our leadership! keep leading the fight and we here in Colorado will lead this fight right along side with you. 

  • prochoiceferret

    It is sad that some of the youth of our country celebrate the death of the unborn in the womb.

     

    It’s a lot sadder that you advocate for women to be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

     

    They turn their backs on what science and the medical community says about life,

     

    I must have missed the part in the medical textbook that said that fetal life was worth more than the life of a woman.

     

    they turn their backs on what the Constitution says about the right to life, liberty and happiness.

     

    No, we like that part, actually. We like it so much that we feel it should apply to pregnant women, too.

     

    They simply believe that women have the right to kill for whatever reason.

     

    No, they don’t, actually. Although it would certainly be amusing to see you try to show otherwise.

     

    The thing is Andrew is that you do not consider the life already started in the womb. Do you know that the heart starts beating at around 22 days after conception.

     

    How very interesting! Can you tell us how big the fetus is at 22 days?

     

    Now I don’t know what you are learing in school but when you terminate or kill something, in this case a living human being, without its permission what does society call it?

     

    Sometimes, it’s called “self defense.”

     

    What about taking responsiblity for ones actions? What about adoption?

     

    With the number of minority babies waiting to be adopted in this country, you’re seriously arguing that adding to that number is responsible? What are you, a deadbeat dad?

     

    Just wondering if you have ever witnessed an abortion? Would love to know how you handled it…but I think I know already. :(

     

    I don’t know about Andrew, but Heather Corinna certainly has. And I think you would learn from reading her account.

  • shewho

    I’m happy you have conviction. But I’m a little disappointed in this as a description of the new generation of activists. What I have is kind of a cheery series of buzzwords, like some weird 21st century remake of “The Mod Squad.”

     

    We’re “at the forefront of the struggle.” We have “visionary creativity” and “groundbreaking innovative strategies.” We’re “struggling to eliminate all forms of oppression.”

     

    And I assume “if certain people aren’t afforded the right to have children” refers to lgbt struggles to adopt, rather than to the struggle women may have to raise the children they give birth to.

     

    At least we know the movement hasn’t changed much, since 1970. This might have been written then. Groovy. 

  • churchmouse

    It is also ridiculous that comments like mine in a country with free speech are hidden in the dark….that a site that might be pro-abortion, will even silence those they disagree with. It shows they can’t debate the issue and that they are afraid of the facts. 

  • churchmouse

    This comment….”Right on, Andrew!  I’m a campus organizer for a pro-choice campus group, and I’ve found that my demographic of graduate students is extremely interested in advocating for all human rights.”

    You meant to say SOME human rights didn’t you? You ignore the human life in the womb. You paint a bullseye over every unborn in the womb.

    You celebrate abortion as a human right. So I would suppose that you are also pro-abortion until natural delivery. I mean you wouldnt want to deny some woman her rights……  

  • beenthere72

    Your comment is still readable.  It didn’t disappear.

  • plume-assassine

    Get over yourself. Is it so hard to click on your comment to make it visisble again? NO. You are not here to debate or talk about facts… all you’re doing is spewing the same old emotionalism, based on religion, not science! That’s why your comment was rated 1 and collapsed.

  • ajjenkins

    But I don’t think the intention of the article was to map out a blueprint of what the next generation of activists looks like. The article is about a personal experience of coming to the pro-choice community and a call for the movement to value the contributions and experiences of young people. 

    I don’t think poking fun at someone is a productive way to have a dialogue about youth engagement. If you’re honestly interested in some of the tactics that young people are actually engaged in on their campuses and in their communities, and you want a more descriptive run down, then invite that conversation. However, belittling someone for not meeting your “21st century” standards isn’t constructive. 

  • crowepps

    I agree that it’s annoying when people comment not on the ideas but instead on the English/spelling/composition of the post.  Putting a post together and publishing it, taking the risk of putting it right out there for everybody to read and pick apart, is a really gutsy act.  It seems to me that ‘I disagree with your position and here’s why’ might lead to a valuable exchange of views.  ‘I think you use too many cliches’ or ‘why didn’t you write this the way I would have written it’, on the other hand, comes across as picky elitism.

     

    Perhaps the reason that the young people are making the same arguments all over again is that we are still having the SAME DISCUSSION for the SAME REASONS about the SAME RIGHTS which still are not secure.

  • invalid-0

    I must have missed the part in the medical textbook that said that fetal life was worth more than the life of a woman.

    I must have missed the part where it says it’s worth less.

  • ithiaca

    is that the pro-life crowd (or anti-choice) seems to think that once they have abortion made illegal that it will just go away and never be seen or heard of again. Now I may not be the smartest tack in the package, but all that will happen is that abortion will just go underground much like it was before the passing of Roe vs. Wade. What we have now an option that is checked and regulated, so that should this procedure go wrong. There is accountability involved so that the Doctor or Technician doing the procedure can be investigated and if found to have been negligent then they can prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws of their city, county, municpality, state and fed. Should Abortion be made illegal then we can see more of the same house of horrors in Philidelphia that we are now hearing in the news. Sorry Pro-Life crowd but your argument falls flat when your stance puts both the Mother and the Child at risk.

  • prochoiceferret

    I must have missed the part where it says it’s worth less.

     

    That would be because medical textbooks don’t discuss the relative worth of the mother versus the fetus. Fortunately, however, we can rely on the fact that no person has a right to use another person’s body against their will. So if you’re drawing life support from a woman’s body, and she wants to cut you off, then, well, it’s tough cookies for you.

  • crowepps

    I don’t think they do believe it will “just go away and never be seen or heard of again”.  I think instead they understand perfectly well that illegal abortions will skyrocket and women will be injured or die but they’re perfectly okay with that because

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

    and so since her injury or death is all her own fault, then why should they have any sympathy for her?  She killed her baby, didn’t she?  She DESERVES to die.  The whole POINT of the process isn’t to save ‘unborn life’ but instead to get the uppity women back under control and punish those nasty ones who’ve contaminated themselves by having sex.

     

    Not that they hate women, of course.  After all, they adore the Holy Mary, Virgin Mother of God.  And if any other women become mothers without ever having sex, they will probably adore them too.

     

    The actual real women in existence right now?  Ehhh, not so great.

     

  • catseye71352

    You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you on the arse.

  • invalid-0

    Fortunately, however, we can rely on the fact that no person has a right to use another person’s body against their will.

    Also fortunately, we live in America and there’s no such thing as a negative right. (i.e. “Nobody has this right to [blank].”)

  • rebellious-grrl

    I am inspired by young people who fight for reproductive freedom and social justice issues. You had the compassion, love, understanding, and courage to help your best friend. I think many of us who consider ourselves “reproductive freedom-fighters” had similar experiences that thrust us into doing more and becoming activists. I’m glad you had this awakening and shared your story with us. Keep up the great work!

  • ahunt

    You celebrate abortion as a human right. So I would suppose that you are also pro-abortion until natural delivery. I mean you wouldnt want to deny some woman her rights……  

     

    I just had to see this again.

     

    Get me from A)  the commitment to reproductive self- determination to….B) pro-abortion until natural delivery. Take me through the steps.

  • crowepps

    There aren’t any STEPS!  There is only Black or White.  Choose one!

  • ahunt

    Yah…this is what is so frustrating. There is no distortion of reality, or what a person says or believes that is off limits to the majority of pro-lifers who post here.  Makes it difficult to avoid bringing the snark.

     

    However, I remain interested in what ForLife thinks we ought to be doing about all those men insisting on abortion. What’s the plan.

  • shewho

    I’m expressing regret that I came looking for substance and got buzzwords.  And I can’t say “I disagree with his position” because no position more identifiable than “pro-choice, pro-rights” is expressed, and I don’t disagree with those, obviously. :D

     

     

  • ahunt

    Define “substance.” For example, were you looking for concrete examples of activism? Criticism is fine, but you should also put forth suggestions as to how you think  “activism” could be more effective.

  • arekushieru

    Unfortunately, you are incorrect.  Freedom to speech is a negative right.   Nobody having the right to use another person’s body against their will is a positive right, though.  If you don’t think so, try to take someone’s organ and see where it gets ya.  Hint:  It’ll probably be a nice, comfy place with a small window and iron grating, where you’ll spend an extended period of your life.

  • churchmouse

    I never brought up religion……can’t you read?

    I talked about medical science. You simply do not know about the facts. It is fact that human life starts at conception and medical books that doctors use back this up. It is fact that the heart of a fetus starts at around 22 days….not weeks, days. I am talking about facts, facts that you avoid because it makes you look bad. The reason my comment got a 1 is because I am in the minority and the group as a whole embrace abortion. It did not collapse…you did because you obviously can’t debate this issue based on science. You should step out of the box you are in and do some research.

     

  • arekushieru

    Really?  Then where are these facts?  If you show me them, I’ll show you PEER-REVIEWED, MEDICALLY ACCREDITED sites that prove you wrong. 

    Besides, AS we’ve ALso said OVER AND OVER, it doesn’t MATTER when human life begins.  No BORN human gets the right to use someone else’s body against their will, and they are indisPUTable human beings, so WHY should a fetus?  WHHOOOPPPSSS!

  • churchmouse

    Ithiaca….before Roe very few women died from self induced abortion. You do not know the facts either.

     “For decades prior to abortion being legalized in the United States around 85% of illegal abortions were done by reputable doctors in their local clinics.”

    Alfred Kinsey, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hayes Publishing  Co., 1988), 169.

    In 1960, Planned Parenthood stated that 90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians.”

    Mary Calderone, Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,” American Journal of Health 50 (July 1960): 949

    “Research confirms that the actual number of abortion deaths in the 25 year prior to 1973 averaged 250 a year, with a high of 388 in 1948.”

    In 1966 before the state legalized abortion, 120 mothers died from abortion.

    By 1972, abortion was still illegal in 80% of the country but the use of antibiotics had greatly reduced the risk. The number dropped to 39 maternal deaths from abortion that year.”

    U.S Bureau of Vital Statistics

    Should we legalize things because they happen anyway? Should we legalize all drug sales and consumption because people do it anyway?

    We have laws in this country that are there to protect us. Abortion was illegal before 1973 because it was considered murder. The unborn was protected.

    You said that the pro-life crowd falls flat when we put the mother at risk? At risk for what? If more women used better judgment about their actions we would have less abortions and generations of more children. Do you know that 99% of all abortions happen because of social reasons and not for rape, incest or the mothers health. What you say is not true.

  • prochoiceferret

    Ithiaca….before Roe very few women died from self induced abortion. You do not know the facts either.

     

    “Let’s make abortion illegal again! Not all that many pregnant women will die!”

     

    You said that the pro-life crowd falls flat when we put the mother at risk? At risk for what? If more women used better judgment about their actions we would have less abortions and generations of more children.

     

    Incidentally, you can say the same exact thing about men. Yet I don’t see you going out there to harangue them to keep their pants zipped up. I wonder why that is…

     

    Do you know that 99% of all abortions happen because of social reasons and not for rape, incest or the mothers health.

     

    Did you know that 99% of all anti-choice statistics are made up?

  • plume-assassine

    Don’t give me that bullshit. The anti-choice propaganda that you spew has everything to do with religion and you know it.

    You want to talk about facts? this coming from a person who fantasizes that an embryo has detectable brainwaves? this coming from a person who thinks that a fertilized egg = person? Your textbooks will tell you that it is human and it is living (and everyone here is aware of that), but NO legitimate medical or science textbook will tell you that a blastocyst/embryo/fetus is a person! None. Science has a lot to say about human biology, but nothing to say about the unscientific concept of personhood.

    You’re telling ME that I can’t debate this issue based on science when I am more than willing to do so and already proved that in another comment to you by providing a link with scientific research that debunks the fetal pain/consciousness myth? If anyone needs to get their facts straight, it’s you.

    By the way, the super-special 22 day embryo that you keep referencing is 1.5 – 3.0 mm (that is MILLIMETERS) looks like this:

     

    That is not a baby so don’t act like it is. Oh, and it does not have a fully-formed beating heart, either. It only just begins to form a “heart tube” at this stage of embryonic development.

  • arekushieru

    The ‘unborn’ were protected MORE than anyone born, when abortion was illegal.

    Abortion was ‘legal’ before it was ‘illegal’.

  • ahunt

    FERRET! I was responding, dammit. Now it is pointless to do so.

     

    So let us go here.

     

    Churchmouse…do you agree that married women have no conjugal obligations unless they are willing to get pregnant? Fair question, and you appear to be avoiding it.

  • plume-assassine

    WOW So you’re saying… it’s okay if women die from illegal abortion; as long as more sacred fetuses are saved from women who are forced to give birth anyway. And it’s okay if women die during illegal abortion, because they had immoral intentions to “murder” their “baby” and did not serve the correct role as “Incubator.”

     

    The truth is, we have access to some reported numbers on deaths from illegal abortions, but statisticians believe those numbers to be much higher because many doctors were very hesitant to report that women died from botched illegal abortions. I mean, the OB/GYN ward in hospitals used to be filled with women who were dying from sepsis as a result of back-alley abortions. It was very hush-hush due to stigma. We also don’t know how many women killed themselves as a result of unwanted pregnancy. I know that if abortion was illegal, we would see this happen again. You know, I’ve often heard women faced with unwanted pregnancy express that it feels like they are an animal caught in a trap. (Animals caught in a trap will do damage to themselves in order to escape, like gnawing off a limb.) That should illustrate to you the lengths that women will go to escape. But of course, you don’t care about them.

     

    You should also know that abortion was legal in the US (before the “quickening” or feeling movement from the fetus) prior to the 1820′s. So, you are WRONG that abortion was always illegal or considered “murder.”

  • shewho

    abortion was controversial. Is that typical of activists now? Or is it only typical of males with privilege? Because when I went to high school girls “in a family way” mostly disappeared into unwed mothers homes out of state to have their babies taken. When I went to college, choosing between dropping out of school to get married, having an abortion, or placing your child for adoption was a BIG issue for women with unintended pregnancies, and everyone knew a few of those. I would be surprised to hear that it wasn’t an issue for young women now, in fact. If Roe V Wade has created a generation of young women and men who haven’t heard abortion is controversial, that’s big news.

     

    And I am TOTALLY willing to talk with people of any age with “innovative strategies” for advancing reproductive rights. Bring them on. Here I’m told there ARE such strategies, and a certain amount of whining about not being appreciated, (anyone here who feels fully appreciated as a pro-choice activist please tell me THAT secret, too) but nothing about what they may be. That’s disappointing to me. That slows me up. That makes THIS day of reproductive rights activism a little less effective, if I’m missing something.

     

    I’d like to make a real connection here. I’d like to hear from activists whose era gives them different perspectives on how the overlap between AIDS education & reproductive choice issues informs their community. I’d like to hear what support (other than more leadership opportunities, which I hear) the older-than-college choice community could give them in peer outreach. I don’t know that, yet. Maybe my expectations were too influenced by the description, but that’s what I read expecting to find.

     

    And this if certain people aren’t afforded the right to have children; “ man, I would REALLY like to know what that refers to. As it stands, doesn’t feel right, to me. YMMV

     

     

  • churchmouse

    Now are you bringing religion into this because having sex with your husband has nothing to do with this. We are talking about medical facts as to when life begins.

    What I am saying is this…..if you spread your legs and allow a man to invade the space…whether you are married or not, you should take responsiblity for your actions. I doubt any woman today in this sexual society we live in does not know that having sex with or without birth control might result in a pregnancy. If you do not want a child then don’t have sex.

     

    I am curious as to how many of you proaborts…..believe abortion should be allowed until nine months. I cant wait for this………

  • arekushieru

    It’s quite funny that you’ve asked a question that’s already been answered.

    Having an abortion IS being responsible.  Or (and I have yet to hear an anti-choicer answer this question) do you think a single, impoverished woman who continues an expensive pregnancy to term at the expense of the health and lives of her exISting children is being responsible?

    By YOUR logic, getting into a car and driving, then causing an accident and seeking medical treatment to repair non-life-threatening injuries is irresponsible.

    And, yes, how DO you enforce that view on men?  Men cannot get pregnant.  Thus, AS WE HAVE BEEN SAYING OVER AND OVER, men are allowed the same sexual freedoms as always, because they do not have two comPLETEly separate organs that are connected, in such a manner, against their wishes as women’s are.  And enforcing nature’s sexism IS sexism no matter how much you antis would like to deny it.

  • plume-assassine

    Please take your misogynist garbage about women “keeping their legs closed” somehwere else. Why does it always have to be on the woman? Maybe the man could “keep his dick in his pants” or wear a condom?

    CONSENT TO SEX IS NOT CONSENT TO PREGNANCY! This is a simple concept that should not be difficult to grasp.

    I do not want to have children but that does not mean that I am going to stop having sex. I am going to use every available method to prevent pregnancy, which in the future will include sterilization.. but even THAT has a miniscule risk of failure. You do not get to control my or any woman’s sex life just because her BC might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into her uterine lining, or might need an abortion in the future. It’s none of your damn business.

  • churchmouse

    “The anti-choice propaganda that you spew has everything to do with religion and you know it.”

    I have not onced brought religion into this you have. Odd really. You obviously don’t just want to focus on what science has to say about life in the womb. Yea really odd.

    I don’t want to debate abortion based on religion…don’t have to really. Science says what and when life starts. To bad you don’t know much about science.

    It is fact that the heart starts beating around 22 days.

     

    22 days after conception (conception being when the sperm and egg meet). Which would actually make a woman slightly over one month pregnant because pregnancies are dated from the last monthly period.
    Anatomy and Physiology text: Tottoro and Grabowski
    “The human heart begins to beat and pump blood through the embryo around day 22 of gestation. The electric stimulus that triggers the muscular portion of the heart, known as the myocardium, to contract is myogenic. This means that the contractions arise spontaneously within the myocardium itself, and propagate from cell to cell. Input from the central nervous system can modify the heart rate (the frequency of heart beats), but it does not initiate beats.

    The ability of cardiac myocytes (the cells that comprise the myocardium) to beat is an intrinsic property of these cells. In fact, myocytes removed from the early heart and grown in culture will beat sporadically, and if they become connected to each other, will then begin to beat rhythmically, in unison. As a functional organ, the heart begins to beat very early, even before it has assumed its final form. Interestingly, the heart begins to beat even before structures such as valves and septa (singular: septum; the muscular walls that divide the chambers) have formed! The initial contractions are peristaltic–that is, they proceed in a wave-like fashion along the length of the heart. Later, once the heart has matured and the conduction system has developed, the contractions proceed in an orderly, timed sequence through the different chambers.”

    Fishman, M.C. and Chien, K.R. (1997) Fashioning the vertebrate heart: earliest embryonic decisions. Development 124:2099-2117.

    Mohun, T and Sparrow, D. (1997) Early steps in vertebrate cardiogenesis. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 7:628-633.

    Most women do not even know they are pregnant at this time.
    A tube? It’s way more than a tube.
  • ahunt

    So what?

  • ahunt

    Now are you bringing religion into this because having sex with your husband has nothing to do with this.

     

    Oh, I was under the impression that having sex is what causes pregnancy. Not the case?

     

    if you spread your legs and allow a man to invade the space…whether you are married or not, you should take responsiblity for your actions. I doubt any woman today in this sexual society we live in does not know that having sex with or without birth control might result in a pregnancy. If you do not want a child then don’t have sex.

     

    Women everywhere thank you. Now you need to take your message to the men. Let us know how that works out for you.

     

    But you will not dare to do so, will you, Churchmouse? You don’t have the moral consistency to demand of men what you demand of women.

     

    You are a sniveling hypocrite

     

     

     

  • plume-assassine

    Okay, great, I’m glad you don’t want to debate based on religion! We will keep religion out of this, CHURCHmouse. (Although, like I said, you and I both know where anti-choice philosophy comes from. The Catholic church being one of the worst offenders, and I see a lot of your talking points about women “keeping their legs closed” have a lot to do with a traditional religious view of women as vessels.)

     

    Anyway!

    Science says what and when life starts. To bad you don’t know much about science.

    Don’t be idiotic. Do you have any sort of reading comprehension at all? I have discussed this in a scientific manner time and again but apparently you are incapable of understanding any of it. I have also re-iterated time and again that this is not a question of human life (because 1. everyone with any science background already knows that ZBEF are “human life” and 2. non-sentient human life is NOT synonymous with protected personhood status.) I should also mention that I have a deep interest in biology and I have a gut feeling that I am not talking to a fellow science enthusiast/scientist here. I would venture a guess that your interest in science is limited to embryology, for political purposes only, and to further an anti-woman agenda.

     

    Most women do not even know they are pregnant at this time

     

    Yes, and most women have spontaneous abortions (have miscarriages) at this time.

    “About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.

    This doesn’t include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before a pregnancy becomes established. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.”

     babycenter.com

    Would you like us, as women, to hold a funeral for every time we have a suspiciously early period?

     

    A tube? It’s way more than a tube.

     

    As for the “heart tube,” at 22 days, that is exactly what it is. Too bad you don’t know much about science indeed.

    The heart tube takes on an S-shape establishing the asymetry of the heart. As the S-shape forms, cardiac muscle contraction begins…

     A primitive S-shaped tubal heart is beating and peristalsis, the rhythmic muscle contractions propelling fluids throughout the body, begins. However, this is not true circulation because blood vesel development is still incomplete.
    http://www.visembryo.com/baby/10.html

    http://www.visembryo.com/baby/11.html

  • prochoiceferret

    If you do not want a child then don’t have sex.

     

    Sorry, but we’re not going to make our sex lives as pathetic as yours just because we don’t want kids.

     

    I am curious as to how many of you proaborts…..believe abortion should be allowed until nine months. I cant wait for this………

     

    We believe abortion should be allowed until nine months the same way limb amputation should be allowed at any point of an adult’s life. Like in Canada, eh?

  • nonsense-nonsense

    The annual March for Life is coming up in a few days. If you happen to catch it in some way, shape or form, you will notice that there will be over 100K young people in attendance, which in itself is a conservative number. Pro-choice groups could only hope to draw in a tenth of that many young people to one event annually. If you were to attend most any pro-life event, you would notice that the majority of people in attendance are young and they number in the hundreds and thousands, whereas pro-choice events are dominated by older persons with a scattering of young people here and there. Don’t tell me this isn’t true, because there are many articles on the internet lamenting the lack of participation by the young in the abortion rights movement. If you couple this with the fact that younger people are more apt to believe that abortion is morally wrong than their elders while tending to be less approving of abortion than their elders, while also believing that abortion should always be illegal moreso than any other age group, the simple fact is that, as clichéd as it sounds, this is a pro-life generation and, yes, many of those individuals are involved at the grassroots level where I strongly believe pro-choice is vastly outnumbered. There are a few reasons for this.

     

    1.) Aborted children do not live to carry on their parent’s ideals. It’s not a stretch to assume that pro-choice women will obtain more abortions than will pro-life women. Simply looking at the demographics of women who obtain an abortion, you’d find that women who are statistically most likely to obtain an abortion are also the most likely to vote liberal/Democrat. In that way, they erode their base, making sure that there are less pro-choice advocates in the future than there otherwise would be.

     

    2.) Advances in science. It’s becoming harder and harder to deny the humanity of the unborn as science gives us a greater look into the womb. No longer can the unborn simply be shrugged off as being nothing more than tissue or masses of cells. Rather, they are seen for what they are– human beings. In this way, science changes the way more young people view abortion. Lines such as “My body, my choice!” and “Don’t force your religion on me!” don’t work because they don’t deal with the fact that in an abortion another human being loses his or her life, the latter especially since the youngest generation is less religious than their elders yet tilt more pro-life. It’s hard to convince someone that one human being should be disposed of just because.

     

    While older generations are content to relegate the abortion debate to one where the woman is able to act according to her own will– even to do wrong– at the expense of the unborn, younger generations don’t view abortion this way. They believe in personal responsibility (to echo churchmouse, “if you can’t afford to take care of a child, you can’t afford to have sex”) and that human life should be protected and everyone afforded the right to act so long as they do not impose on another, no matter how big or small. Both of these factors contribute to a less than disproving attitude concerning abortion. To restate something said in the OP, we will win. It’s only a matter of time. And by we, I mean pro-life.

     

    (I just wanted to add that I found it sickening that someone would state that minority babies should be aborted rather than put up for adoption.) 

  • goatini

    so I’ll start off the debunking with this one:

    Pro-choice groups could only hope to draw in a tenth of that many young people to one event annually. If you were to attend most any pro-life event, you would notice that the majority of people in attendance are young and they number in the hundreds and thousands, whereas pro-choice events are dominated by older persons with a scattering of young people here and there. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • goatini

    If you were to attend most any pro-life event, you would notice that the majority of people in attendance are young and they number in the hundreds and thousands

    O RLY?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    And for those who don’t get the obvious:

  • cc

    As Goatini said, there are so many refutable (and nonsensical) points here.

    1) “In that way, they erode their base, making sure that there are less pro-choice advocates in the future than there otherwise would be…”

    Ah, the women as political breeder argument which is a bit counterintuitive. If pro-choice women are aborting future Democratic voters, shouldn’t the anti-choicers be thrilled? Just saying…

    2) “Rather, they are seen for what they are– human beings.” Ah, the old fetuses are human beings argument which is true from the scientific standpoint but the anti-choicers here are referring to “personhood” at conception which is a theological view not held by all religions.

     3)”to echo churchmouse, “if you can’t afford to take care of a child, you can’t afford to have sex” Ah, the old sex is not for pleasure but for breeding (within hetero marriage, of course).

    4)  “we will win. It’s only a matter of time. And by we, I mean pro-life.” Obviously “nonsense” doesn’t understand the extent of the pro-choice movement. Obviously “nonsense” doesn’t understand that if Roe gets overturned (and even the GOP SCOTUS judges say it’s “Stare Decisis),” the liberal northeast and west coast will continue to maintain a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. Meanwhile in the Jesus states, women will be dying from self aborting or the old “back alley abortions” – but then the anti-choicers say good enough for those sinful sluts. They also argue that the figures about deaths from illegal abortions are a lie because anti-choice Dr. Nathanson said so

    It’s all such nonsense.

  • churchmouse

    ARe you speaking to the information I posted?

    Why don’t you address the facts I set forth?

  • rebellious-grrl

    Comments are voted on. It’s a democratic system. You are not being censored. RHRC owns the site, owns the mic, deal with it.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I celebrate CHOICE!

    I celebrate not living in some dictatorial regime that dictates and treats me like chattel (oh let’s say like the Philippines).

    Nope I’m not going to tell a woman what to do with her body. If she wants to have a child great, if not great too. It’s up to her.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Your right! Abortion was legal before it was illegal. Abortion has been around for thousands of years.

    http://4000yearsforchoice.com/4000/timeline/

  • churchmouse

    Although Catholics are the main Christian group that stands up for the unborn, other people of faith do as well. You want to debate religion and abortion I would be happy to do so…since YOU DID BRING IT UP. You must be wrestling with it. Science is on the side of life…and a fact is a fact. Any scientist will tell you that anything conceived in a human is a human. Anyone who says the fetus is not human has never taken a biology class. So that which is in the womb is human. And we would not need an abortionist if we did not want to end a life, stop it from being born, terminating its life. Another word for termination is kill.

    Women are biologically made to have children. We have something men do not have. It therefore is our responsiblity because as you probably would agree we own our bodies. Where does responsiblity end though? We have the ability to conceive a life should we then be allowed to kill? If you purchase a home…take out loans, etc….signs contracts move in…should you be able to just end it if you dont want the house anymore? If you buy a car and drive it off the lot……can you take it back the next day/month/year and demand money back? Who is responsible for our children?

     

    “I would venture a guess that your interest in science is limited to embryology, for political purposes only, and to further an anti-woman agenda.”

    And what if it is….so what? If you are here debating and you are a man….I could say the same about you, that you have no right debating a womans issue. The man is nothing in this debate to those who are pro-choice. They kick men to the curb…when it comes to the rights of the unborn. So if you are a man……..then why don’t you just leave the conversation? LOL

    I am anti-killing……you are pro-killing. Imagine ripping apart an unborn at seven + months. My neice was born at 23 weeks and just now graduated from high school…perfectly healthy. I became an advocate for the unborn after she was born and I studied about fetal developement.

    “Yes, and most women have spontaneous abortions (have miscarriages) at this time.”

    This is nature and happens because something is wrong. Abortion is premeditated killing of innocent living human beings who for the most part are healthy.

    “Would you like us, as women, to hold a funeral for every time we have a suspiciously early period?”

    This comment shows your true heart…or lack of one.

     

    As for the heart beating……I gave you credible sites to read for yourself. Some hearts are just hardened and never open up.

    The evidence I showed you says the heart…beats.    That means…and let me be specific here cause you just don’t seem to get it…..

    An abortionist MUST STOP THIS HEART. He has to stop it to cause it to DIE. When this happens the ABORTION IS SUCCESSFUL. The heart needs to stop.

    The fetus is killed when this happens.

    As a person of science………of course you must agree right? LOL

      

  • rebellious-grrl

    Huge bullpucky!

     

    Wealthy women or women who had resources yes could get a medical abortion from a doctor pre-Roe v. Wade. But if you were a poor woman you were screwed. You faced dying by self-inducing an abortion or other means of getting an abortion.

    I see the antis and uncaring mean-spirited sexist misogynists. Yes, that means you churchmouse.

  • churchmouse

    Obviously this is a pro-abortion site and the majority of people champion the right to kill living human beings.

    Men insisting on abortion. Why…..ahunt, you really imply here that women are weak…wow.

    If a woman gets an abortion she is not carried into the abortion mill….she walks in on her two feet…she signs the papers allowing the abortionist to kill her living unborn. She chooses….. You feminazis’ blame men for everything….and in this case getting them pregnant….so that they have to get abottions. Why should men even be discussed here?   

  • invalid-0

    You are a confused person.

    Arek, we have rights either granted to us or not granted to us by our State and Federal Constitutions.  That includes our freedom of speech, right to vote and equal protection of the law, among other things.

    Then we have LAWS, which exist in spite of those rights.  Are you suggesting that the unborn are in violation of the law?

    ——————

    In any event, why engage in the discussion?  Your argument that an unborn human being does not have certain rights presupposes that the unborn are persons capable of possessing rights at all.  In which case, they may not have their life taken from them without due process of law.

    So, let’s say an unborn child IS in fact violating a woman’s right to not have her body used against her will.  Who is violating that right?  The unborn child?  May she act as both judge and jury in the trial of her alleged aggressor, hiring an abortionist as executioner?

    I have rights, too.  But I can’t execute people that violate my rights.

    ———————

    You’ll have to try another argument.

  • purplemistydez

    Wow.  You are a trip.  A fetus is human.  Correct.  It is not a person.  It does not have birth certificate or a SSN.  It can not survive on it’s own.  Since you anti-choice people believe it is a person, no person is allowed to use another person’s organs without consent.  Your not going to get any converts here.  So why do not you leave and adopt some babies you badly want to save.

  • rebellious-grrl

    It’s none of your damn business “who I spread my legs for.” It’s sickening that you place all blame on women. Keep your politics, theology, morality, etc. out of my bedroom!!!!!

    How would men like it if women boycotted sex with anti-choice men. Before I was married I didn’t have sex with anti-choice men, and if all/most men were anti-choice I would have sex with women. Who needs men to have an orgasm or have sex?

    What I am saying is this…..if you spread your legs and allow a man to invade the space…whether you are married or not, you should take responsiblity for your actions. I doubt any woman today in this sexual society we live in does not know that having sex with or without birth control might result in a pregnancy. If you do not want a child then don’t have sex.

    I am curious as to how many of you proaborts…..believe abortion should be allowed until nine months. I cant wait for this………

    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.

  • churchmouse

    You know pro-choice women say this is a womans issue…that men should have no say, even though half of what the woman carries…has their DNA.

    So it is surprising that men are such a topic here.

    Unless it is rape….the WOMAN SAYS YES TO SEX and she invites the male into her space. She has to do the asking. The man then can say yes or not to her invite. How is the man to blame?

    Blamers……

    I took that statistic from Guttmaucher which is not a pro-life site.

    And ya know if you say those stats are wrong……then so are the ones you pro-aborts sit on that give the number of women who died by abortion before Roe.

    The fact is…most abortion stats that deal with death and abortion are not accurate for many reasons. First of all most all lawsuits that deal with injury or death from abortion are settled out of court….the doctor does not want to deal with negativity associated with his name or practice..and the womans  family does not want her name dragged through the mud. They do not want friends and family to know that said death or injury happened by abortion. Abortion still has a stigma even though it is the most commonly performed surgery in America. People know what it is and it is killing a baby…..whether you like it or not. Most people talk about the surgeries they have…not with abortion. No woman announces that she has had or will have one. And we all know why.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Abortion is not murder and women are not chattel. Forced birth is RAPE.

    Here’s a few more for you: “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries, U.S. out of my uterus, Abortion without apology and on demand, Keep your politics and theology off my body.”

  • beenthere72

    Why?  Because people like you slut-shame her.    Dirty, dirty girl had sex.     Do you announce every time you have sex?   No.  Sex is a private matter = abortion is a private matter. 

  • churchmouse

    Do you also believe that a woman has the right to kill up to natural delivery?

     

    You see your wording shows your heart really. Sacred fetus?

    You obviously are devoid of any moral conscience.

     

    We can not make something legal just on “what if’s.”

    If we did that then everything would be legal to do.

    What if she kills herself, hurts herself….Should never happen at the expense of some one else, in this case the living human in the womb.

     

     

     

  • churchmouse

    This comment has been removed.

     

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

     

    RH Reality Check staff

  • rebellious-grrl

    Hell no, churchmouse! No whining from me – just telling like it is. I don’t need to call you names, you’re making fool of yourself on your own.

    I’ll repeat my post to you one more time.
    It’s none of your damn business “who I spread my legs for.” It’s sickening that you place all blame on women. Keep your politics, theology, morality, etc. out of my bedroom!!!!!

    How would men like it if women boycotted sex with anti-choice men. Before I was married I didn’t have sex with anti-choice men, and if all/most men were anti-choice I would have sex with women. Who needs men to have an orgasm or have sex?

    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.

  • churchmouse

      We have more rights then men do. We can kill…we can kill their children and they can’t do one darn thing about it. That turns you on doesnt it? Just one more feminist advantage we have, right?

    We have control and power over men. We can flirt, tease and make sexual advances…then say no or yes as to whether sex will happen. BUT…..if we say yes, then WE KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN. We weigh the options and we think about the consequences…and know that if we get pregnant…abortion as far as birth control will be there. Most woman statistically do not care and they use abortion for birth control, killing multiple times is more a commonplace today as most women in a lifetime have two or three.

    Sexual freedom should include responsiblity and abortion is not responsible. That thinking is close to what Hitler and Sanger thought.  

    You make pregnancy seem like some dangerous, sick horrible disease.

    You mention here (embarrassing for you)…that there are two completely SEPARATE organs…well of course there are…THERE ARE TWO HUMAN BEINGS INVOLVED.

    You obviously are jealous of men for not being able to have babies. You think it is a curse on a womans life to be able to do it.

    You are the one who is sexist not me. I love men and I feel sorry for them especially if women aborted children that they wanted.

    Can you imagine that pain?………haha

    Stupid question, of course you can’t.    

     

     

  • progo35

    Honestly, I find it kind of shocking that you were unaware that abortion was a contentious issue until you went to college. Your friend’s situation was the first time that this ever occurred to you? Did you not watch the news for eighteen years? Not recieve some spiritual training that would either affirm or deny a specific right to abortion? Your parents never talked to you about it? My point in bringing this up is that while your experience does reflect an epiphany-like experience that many have after a personal event, there is a difference between having an epiphany about something and being aware of it as an issue. Most young people start thinking about abortion and their position on it before they have to apply those convictions, at least I think so.

  • purplemistydez

    There is only one human being involved.  We believe in choice whether it is abortion, adoption, or birth.  Apparently you are pro-slavery.  Making a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant or be a mother.  Forcing someone to use their body to do what you want is slavery.  You are no better that the plantation owners during slavery.  Stay out of my body.  It’s none of your damn business what I do with it.

  • churchmouse

    Nature states and gives women the ability to carry a child. Who are you trying to blame for that? And if you have a God belief then you should know that …that is how we were created. But then I doubt you are so I won’t go any further with that line of thinking.

    We hold the cards don’t we? We are the ones who should know our bodies and know what chances we will take with them. Women can say NO to sex by taking the responsibility for what might happen. Why? IT IS HER BODY THAT THE CHANGES WILL HAPPEN TO.  If a man does not bring protection….then she can say no. If she goes ahead anyway, she knows what can happen. Men can not be blamed whatsoever. Does that bother you….I mean not blaming someone for your screw ups? 

    Sniveling?……….How funny a pro-abort that champions unborns being burned and ripped apart in the womb…up until nine months…calls me sniveling.

    No morals here………

     

  • churchmouse

    Garbage? No honey, it is the truth. You just hate men and need someone to blame for bad decisions.

    Whether sex happens is the WOMANS CHOICE AND DECISION NOT THE MANS. She is the one who holds the cards…don’t cha just love it? Feminism at its best….

    How is it that its the mans fault if a woman gets pregnant?

    She invites him into her space and she takes the chance. ITS HER BODY REMEMBER. She determines what will happen to it. If she says no to sex, pregnancy will not happen. If she says yes, then she takes all risk….BECAUSE HER BODY IS THE ONE THAT WILL GET PREGNANT.

    With risk always comes consequence and for some responsiblity.

    Good choice about not having children….but you need to get sterilized if you don’t want to take a chance.

     You still know what can happen and it will be your responsiblity and not the man who impregnated you. It is your body…he just gave you a free gift of sperm. That sperm if implanted, is YOURS. THIS IS HOW PRO-ABORTS WANT IT. You want your cake and eat it to….You want to decide life or death without the man…but hold him accountable if you decide to have it. Then you will force him to the table, if he wants or does not want the child.

     

    It is my business as an American. I have a right to object and protest and try to persuade people about abortion. So deal with it. 

  • churchmouse

    Wow……Hitler and Sanger had those views too. LOL

  • churchmouse

    Placing blame………..come on honey, grow up and take responsiblity for YOUR OWN BODY. Thats the pro-aborts warcry………..”I OWN MY BODY, NO ONE WILL TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANT DO WITH IT.”

    Well if that is true………….then how could a man possibly be to blame? LOL

    You allowed him to enter you right?

    Now can he get pregnant…….or can you?

    Do you expect him to enter you and have no deposit of sperm? LOL Like that is biologically possible?

    I am just arguing here like the pro-abortive woman thinks.

    If i said what I really believed…you would say it is not credible and we would get no where. I debate abortion scientifically not religiously.

    Why do you even discuss late term abortion to point out that most abortions take place in the first trimester? Should that make a difference? Like you care? Shouldnt it be allowed up until nine months?

    You are scrambling. Why does any woman need an excuse for an abortion no matter when she gets it? Its her body…..right? 

    How barbaric thinking like that is. It is downright scary.

    You are one reason why I am working so hard in this to stop abortion.

     

     

  • churchmouse

    Your name fits you perfectly. Did they give it to you on the playground?

  • prochoiceferret

    If you don’t want to fall off the boat you stay away from the edge … You can’t win….and stand looking stupid.

     

    You know, sometimes I wonder… did the advocates of abolition, womens’ suffrage, and civil rights ever have to deal with this much inane yammering against the tide of history?

     

    Then I remember: Yeah. A lot.

     

    And still today, you have people who feel things were a lot more hunky-dory under slavery…

  • churchmouse

    Most young people think about abortion when they are affected by it. Kids have sex earlier than ever today…..they know their options and stats show that four in ten pregnancies end in abortion. While the majority of abortions are done to woman in their twenties…. 

    “Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15-17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18-19 obtain 11%, and teens under age 15 obtain 0.4%.”

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

    Kids know what abortion is.

     

    However….they do not know about fetal deveopment and what really is being killed. That is where we need education.

  • prochoiceferret

    Whether sex happens is the WOMANS CHOICE AND DECISION NOT THE MANS. She is the one who holds the cards…don’t cha just love it? Feminism at its best….

     

    Oh, so you’re saying that abortion is okay if it was not the woman’s decision to have sex, i.e. if she was raped?

     

    You want to decide life or death without the man…but hold him accountable if you decide to have it. Then you will force him to the table, if he wants or does not want the child.

     

    Ah yes, the Argument from Child Support. It seems like deep inside every male anti-choicer (and some females, even) is a little deadbeat dad, waiting for his opportunity to lash out. So sorry about your wages getting garnished and all….

     

    It is my business as an American. I have a right to object and protest and try to persuade people about abortion. So deal with it.

     

    We’re dealing with it a lot better than you seem to be dealing with us doing the same.

  • ahunt

    Godwin’s law.  Look it up.

  • ahunt

    And once again, Churchmouse makes women responsible for the sexual behavior of men. Why is that?

  • rebellious-grrl

    You argue from a point of view of a privileged brat that has benefitted by supporting the status quo of patriarchy. Someone who blames women, someone who despises women for having non-procreative sex.

    “Guess it’s ok for men to have as much sex as they want because they can’t get pregnant.” <sarcasm> (roll eyes)

    A woman doesn’t need an “excuse” to have an abortion. She has a constitutional right to have one. She doesn’t need to beg for your consent. 

  • cc

    Here’s the thing and I know it’s hard for you to understand. While the Catholic Church and conservative Protestants believe that a fetus is a “person,” not all churches and not all societies have that opinion. Science does not speak to the “personhood” of a fetus because personhood is a theological construct. A fetus is a developing “human” within the body of a woman. Hence – her property. The anti-choice movement has no more jurisdiction over women’s uteri than they do over  their gall bladders.   Abortion is surgical procedure and a decision made between a woman and her physician. If I want to “kill” my fetus it’s just as much my choice as if I want to “kill” any other organ. If “personhood” initiatives are successful, government (which the right wing hates) will be able to take custody of a pregnant woman’s fetus if the mother is seen smoking or drinking. Talk about government overreach not to mention the money it will take to beef up protective services. But it’s ironic that conservatives who support the notion of private property don’t support the reality that a woman’s body is her property

    And all the rhetoric about “killing” creates a climate of hate in which abortion providers are assassinated – events that are then marginalized by anti-choicers because the doctors “killed” “babies.” Some even call it “justifiable homicide.” It’s a short hop from talking about “killing” to killing those who are maligned as “killers.”

    Irony Alert – some of the “pro-lifers” are calling for the death penalty for the doctor who was recently arrested.

  • ahunt

    Men can not be blamed whatsoever.

     

    I’ll remember you said this. In fact, this post will become a point of reference anytime the forced birthers attempt to deny their hatred of women. Well done, Churchmouse.

  • ahunt

    Then you will force him to the table…

     

    Details, please.

  • invalid-0

    some of the “pro-lifers” are calling for the death penalty for the doctor who was recently arrested.

    I suppose they could just cut off his feet and put them in a jar.

    (Disclaimer: I’m against corporal/capital punishment and mutilation – just making a point.)

    Science does not speak to the “personhood” of a fetus because personhood is a theological construct.

    On what basis / under what authority do you categorize humans into persons and non-persons then?  You CANNOT get around having to draw a line between persons and non-persons, because of the fourteenth amendment.  

  • ahunt

    Well, under the 14th amendment….”persons” are usually born…if that’s helpful to you.

  • ahunt

    Again with the Godwin. Sheesh.

  • invalid-0

    No, you have to be born to be recognized as a citizen.  There is no language which defines what it means to be a person.

  • plume-assassine

     Anyone who says the fetus is not human has never taken a biology class.

     

    Your lack of reading comprehension is showing again. We already know that an embryo/fetus = human. That does not mean that it is a person. (It does not have the capacity for thought or the capacity to reflect on its own existence. It can only exist inside of a person’s body in an unconscious state.)  As an analogy, a tumor is biologically human with its own unique DNA, and is capable of growing hair and teeth. That does not make it a person.

     

    Another word for termination is kill.

    I believe that such “killing” is as innocuous as removing a weed from a  garden (since we are talking about something that is non-sentient, but living.) And in the strictest sense of the word, that doesn’t even qualify as killing, since you are essentially removing it from life support. (Killing vs. letting die.)

     

    Women are biologically made to have children. We have something men do not have. It therefore is our responsiblity because as you probably would agree we own our bodies

    No, women do NOT have a responsibility to have children! I know that as much as you would love to reduce all women (including yourself, if you really are female) to OBJECTS, but that is not happening. I am not an incubator! If I was merely put on this earth with a “responsibility” to pop out kids, then I wouldn’t have been given a forebrain.

     

     If you purchase a home…take out loans, etc….signs contracts move in…should you be able to just end it if you dont want the house anymore? If you buy a car and drive it off the lot……can you take it back the next day/month/year and demand money back?

    These ridiculous analogies are totally irrelevant because they involve OBJECTS. My body is not an object and I own whatever grows within it. Any ”responsibility” or “gift of procreation” that you think I have as a woman is mine to return to sender.

     

    And what if it is….so what?

    So, what? Because you’re going on and on accusing people of not using science and not being “good” at science, and here we discover the sad truth that your science is limited to a feverish misinterpretation of the field of embryology, for anti-woman political purposes. How unfortunate. (By the way, as a woman, it is entirely possible for you to be anti-woman and a misogynist. Just in case you didn’t already know this.)

     

    If you are here debating and you are a man….I could say the same about you, that you have no right debating a womans issue.

    Not that it matters, but I am a young woman who intends to go to grad school for neurobiology. So, I have every right to debate this issue.

     

    you are pro-killing. Imagine ripping apart an unborn at seven + months. My neice was born at 23 weeks and just now graduated from high school…perfectly healthy. I became an advocate for the unborn after she was born and I studied about fetal developement.

    No, I am not PRO-KILLING. Nor am I PRO-ABORTION. I am pro-choice, and if you can’t get it through your brain, that means pro-all-choices, including motherhood, abortion, adoption.

    Re: your anecdote about your niece. I have a family member who was born prematurely with CP who will be graduating from college in May.

     I am still an advocate for choice, knowing that when her mother was pregnant, that it was a WANTED pregnancy, that she CHOSE to have a child, and against all odds, she was able to survive. And I am still an advocate for choice, because I know that someday she may choose to have children (or may not), but I support her and respect her either way. Motherhood was not an obligation, it was a wonderful gift. 

    You, on the other hand, are pro-forced birth and do not respect a woman’s choices.

     

    As for the heart beating……I gave you credible sites to read for yourself.

    Is the heart the seat of consciousness? No. I’m sure you don’t need “credible websites” to tell you this.

  • plume-assassine

    I believe that a woman has a right to abortion through all trimesters because I trust her decision. and unlike you, I am aware that women don’t just go “oh I want to have a kid” and then say, “WHOOPSIE NEVERMIND!” around 8 months.

     

    Oh, yes, console yourself with the thought that I lack moral conscience — yes, all of the women who support choice and women who’ve had abortions (1 in 3 American women, most of them already Mothers) they’re all immoral, soulless, murderers. Riiiight. If anyone lacks moral conscience, it’s someone who thinks that forced birth and essentially slavery is a-okay.

     

    Should never happen at the expense of some one else, in this case the living human in the womb.

    This statement makes it abduntantly clear that you care more about non-sentient embryonic/fetal life than you care about people (namely women).

  • ahunt

    sigh

     

    I was being obnoxious, arex.  Here is the text.

     

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

     

    The point is that if you are going to argue that the BZEF is a person, and therefore a citizen entitled to equal protection of the laws, then that is ALL the BZEF is entitled to…no special rights to cannibalize another citizen.

  • plume-assassine

    LOL! Oh, You WISH that I hated men, because then I would fit in your cute little stereotype of a pro-choice woman, or “feminazi”! How sad.

    I’m in a long-term relationship with a man and I’ve never made a decision that I regret. Can you say the same about yourself? Funny thing, I’ve never had an abortion either, but I’m still 100% pro-choice.

     

    How is it that its the mans fault if a woman gets pregnant?

    Did I ever say that it was? There is equal responsibility in consensual sex, but you want to place all the burden on the woman. The truth is that it is unrealistic and tyrannical to expect women of child-bearing age to be celibate if they don’t want children. How Orwellian.. actually, how Margaret Atwood that would be. They don’t have to forego sex, but they shouldn’t have sex with anti-choice men.

     

    but you need to get sterilized if you don’t want to take a chance.

    You don’t get to tell me what I “NEED” to do with my body, you supercilious creep. How about, I hypothetically tell you that you “NEED” to go have 20 children and you need to do it now. Or how about I tell you that you NEED to get sterilized because you don’t “deserve” to have children.

     

    It doesn’t work that way.

     

    …but hold him accountable if you decide to have it. Then you will force him to the table, if he wants or does not want the child.

    Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term/being forced to give birth IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO being forced to provide monetary support for a born child. One involves the use of the physical body, and one involves the use of finances.

     

    It is my business as an American. I have a right to object and protest and try to persuade people about abortion. So deal with it. 

     

    No, it sure as hell is not your business as an American to tell me what to do with my sex life, my vagina, or my uterus. Americans have a right to privacy and liberty.

     If you really want to have it your way, then how about I tell you that as an American, it is my business to get you sterilized. Or, as an American, it is my business to force you to have at least 5 more kids. I have a right to object to what you do with your reproductive life. So deal with it.

     

    (IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.)

  • ldan

    WTH?

    You guys are whiners…blamers…you think the world owes you something because you have been wronged. Abortion is legal today…..YOU CAN KILL YOUR BABY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. What right do you want that you don;t have today? Oh…do you want to kill your children after your born? Is that what you want?

    You come here, to a reproductive justice website, to tell us all how we’re evil and immoral for believing women have the right to make choices you don’t agree with regarding their reproductive life….and you ask what *we’re* whining about?

     

    You’re no longer making even a modicum of sense and you think *we’re* the ones cornered with our backs against the wall?

     

    You get answers to your questions but continue to ignore the ones regarding the ramifications of this ‘keep your legs together’ crap. So I’ll repeat my earlier question to JenH for you.

     

    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 is. Because how could someone who didn’t hate women tell them they have to live by the rules in my paragraph above?

     

    Note, having an abortion is taking personal responsibility. Do you think we’re able to get a stand-in to have the abortion for us? Why is continuing a pregnancy the only responsible choice?

     

    And yes, I agree with the option to end a pregnancy at any point.

    1. I trust women to make decisions that make sense.

    2. I trust doctors (overall) to make decisions based on sound science.

     

    Women do not ‘frivolously’ decide to abort at 37 weeks. Doctors (at least those who aren’t butchers who should have been caught and shut down long ago) will no more perform such an abortion without good reason than they will amputate your arm without good reason. Hypothetical outliers are going to be so rare that I’m fine with their existence if it means that the vast majority of women get to live in a world without this ridiculous level of scrutiny of their private lives.

  • ldan

    *eyeroll* So we’re back to women being gatekeepers of all sex? And you don’t think that’s at all mysoginist? I mean…’free gift of sperm’? Wow…trollish true colors shining through.

     

    Keep shining you special snowflake, you.

     

    For the record, I don’t hate men.  I hate, and don’t involve myself with, mysoginist, anti-choice neanderthals who think that consent = ‘push until she says yes.’ Interestingly, I have never in my life had trouble finding the other sort.

     

    And again, having an abortion does equal taking responsibility. Seriously, I’d like to find out where you’re finding this screwed up definition of responsibility.

  • goatini

    They’re the VICTIMS, you see:

    (T)hose who are having the negative thoughts and who end up enforcing repression against others become the victims of their sordid little morality play. As victims, they assume the authority to take control and see to it that no more evil happens again — not by controlling themselves, but by controlling others. The point of this control is to limit the ability of women to dress how they please and express themselves how they please — limitations not placed similarly on men.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Great post goatini! Great photos!

  • crowepps

    Well, maybe because ‘rea’ men play sports, and sports are rough and tumble and cause injuries which result in things like Traumatic Brain Injury.

     

    The result of TBI may be personality changes that result in problem behaviors such as “aggression and violence, impulsivity, disinhibition, acting out, noncompliance, social inappropriateness, emotional outbursts, childish behavior, impaired self-control, impaired selfawareness, inability to take responsibility or accept criticism, egocentrism, inappropriate sexual activity, and alcohol or drug abuse/addiction.”

     http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/TBI

    So it’s at least possible that the overabundance of irresponsible idiots could be solved by making football, skateboarding and all the other stuff that rattles the brains of boys into adults-only games.

  • crowepps

    Is the foundation for your position so shallow that you are now reduced to ’nyah, nyah, nyah’?

  • crowepps

    How would men like it if women boycotted sex with anti-choice men.

    Don’t we already?  Most women don’t find sanctimonious judgmentalism particularly attractive.   Do you think those balding, potbellied bloviators would be down there marching around with their pathetic signs if there was any chance with the wife?  But, hey, when religion goes on and on and on telling good women ’sex is only for babies’ and ‘women don’t enjoy sex’ then when the family is complete, wham, just cut the old man right off.  So he’s got to scream about how unfair it is that some young stud might be getting a little without being ‘punished’ with a child.

     

    You gotta wonder about a religion that teaches a man to think his body is vile, his wife should be frigid and his children are a curse.  And God loves him.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Yes, really. Being able to cherry pick ten or so pictures, as well as trying to pass off a once a decade in the spring event as an annual event, doesn’t constitute a rebuttal, even moreso when you ignore the higher ups in the pro-choice movement who are not only astonished at the number of young people who come out to pro-life events, females especially, but wonder where similar young people are when it comes to pro-choice events. It’s just plain old dishonesty. Now, not to turn this into the proverbial pissing contest, but here are a few hundred pictures from various pro-life events for you to look at. Note the number of non-middle aged white guys in attendance. Walk for Life West Coast 2006 in San Francisco (On a side note, take a look at some of the lovely pro-choice signs and t-shirts. I particularly like the “Keep your laws of my body… And I’ll keep my hands off of your throat” sign, the “Kill your kids motherfuckers” sign and the “I <3 abortion” t-shirt, among others.)

     

    March for Life 2006

    March for Life 2007

    March for Life 2008

    March for Life 2009

     

    There are more pictures to be found on the internet, but I think the above provided should suffice. As you can see, the number of young people, females in particular, who come out every year to protest legalized abortion is nothing short of astonishing. Even Nancy Keenan had to admit that it was eye opening to see the number of youth participating in pro-life rallies. The truth of the matter is that there is a large generation gap between pro-life and pro-choice, with pro-life consisting of far more younger persons than pro-choice.

     

    If you can give me one single pro-choice event that draws in 100k+ young people per year (by young I mean under 30), then I’ll shut up. If you find that too hard, then how about 10K+ young people per year? Unless you can do either, then there’s no further discussion to be had here, because pro-lifers draw those numbers of young people per year to various events and rallies.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    For some reason I can’t edit my previous post. Anyway, I forgot the link for the Walk for Life 2006 in San Francisco.

     

    http://zombietime.com/walk_for_life/

  • arekushieru

    Um, you’re using the same talking points that a *ProChoicer* used, y’know.  The same talking points that have been debunked over and over, again…?  Since there are MANY other ways to be active in a movement other than demonstrations.  Tells you a lot, doesn’t it, when the only drawing factor for activism in younger Anti-Choicers is demonstrations.  They’re following the hive-mind.  They can’t think, individually.  Thanks for proving our point!

  • freetobe

    that since the beginning of time with the writings in the Bible  and history books women have been disrespected and teated as slaves to men? Did it ever occur to anyone who is a forced birther that you are going about this all the wrong way? NO you did not. It if was a snake it would have bitten you to death by now.

    RESPECT begets RESPECT

    What does this mean? I will tellyou my own story.

    Since I was a little girl I used to think that being a girl was a special role because we girls were the ones to bring the babies into the world. WOW was I shocked to discover that, that made absolutely no difference to any man  on earth! NO they  teach that the men are the special ones they are the ones that should get all the respect. It is obvious from societies response to eveything from pay to just taking a woman verses a man seriously and then there is the sex issues that women are viewed only worthwhile for their bodies if ripe like fruit. Why else would drooling men pay ridculous sums of money for a few minutes of pleasure they could get with their wife or hands.

    YOU see little girls grow up around inequality and insecurity because we are viewed as mere servants to men from the bible onwards. The Catholic church is a huge offender they do not even see a woman life as worth anything unless the woman is pregnant and carries to term!! That is not the God I believe in. The catholic faith is res[ponsible for my disrespect of human life in general! Yes it is true. Smother people with lies and disrespect long enough if comes back around to you.

    Respect fetuses? Why when we get none!!!!

    Try respecting women for a few decades maybe just maybe things would change however   it is probab ly too late and we will never see eye to eye on this issue and many others. Men don’t get it and the women that are forced birthers only care about their own selfish feelings and have not  looked into the depths of realities for many, many women.

     

  • nonsense-nonsense

    1.) It’s not an argument. It’s a simple observational fact that women who tend to vote liberal/Democrat obtain more abortions than those who vote conservative/Republican, and that for every one abortion there is at least one fewer child in the future than there otherwise would be. Furthermore, there’s nothing counterintuitive about it. Just because I’m likely to disagree with someone born today on some issue years down the road doesn’t mean I think killing them so they can’t be born in a good idea. Quite frankly, that’s the kind of thinking of a psychopath.

     

    2.) Again to echo something churchmouse said, the only one’s bringing up religion here are the pro-choice crowd. Because none of you can argue that the unborn aren’t human beings, which would otherwise end the debate right here and now, you instead decide that your beliefs dictate that the unborn aren’t ‘persons’ and that you are entitled to your own beliefs even if it involves harming someone else. Such a line of thinking truly is ridiculous.

     

    3.) It’s a shame you don’t seem to understand the concept of self-control and/or personal responsibility. Therefore, I’ll say it again and as many times as needed. If you can’t afford to take care of a child, you can’t afford to have sex. It really does amaze me just how much some few, not all, pro-choicers seem to think that abstaining from sex if you are unwilling to take care of a child is a radical notion. It isn’t.

     

    4.) No conservative justice has stated that they are required to uphold Roe v. Wade. In fact, just last year, I believe John Roberts emphatically stated that the court isn’t bound by stare decisis, and that no former ruling is safe from being overturned.

     

    5.) If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the first thing that would happen is that any trigger laws on the books would go into effect. I think about three or four states have trigger laws outright banning abortion, while a few have enshrined Roe v. Wade into their constitutions. I know New York and Nevada are examples of the latter. Most states, however, would adopt some sort of middle ground, imposing far more restrictions on abortion than there are currently. That would ultimately put pressure on the outlier states to adopt similar policies. All in all, in might take a few years, but you’d find a definitive shift to the right in abortion policy, even in the liberal northeast and west coast. And since you mentioned women dying from illegal abortions, here’s a little observation. Almost every time we get a story about an illegal abortionist stuffing fetuses in jars or stuffing them in a trash bag or stabbing them in the back of the head with scissors or killing women, they usually seem to be operating in the in the liberal northeast and west coast (or Florida). Why is that?

     

    5.) We know that the number of deaths resulting from illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade are a lie because we have documented figures (either compiled by independent resources, the NCHS or the CDC) which are absolutely nowhere near the mythical numbers of deaths that pro-choicers claim happened every year prior to Roe v. Wade. For example, in 1960, the then director of Planned Parenthood stated that in 1957 there were only 260 abortion related deaths and that the advances in medical technology were to credit for making abortions “safe”. Even assuming she was off by a factor of two, that is nowhere near the “hundreds of thousands” constantly claimed by pro-choicers. If we listen to Bernard Nathanson, it’s because his claims more closely match the evidence we have regarding the number of deaths via abortions prior to Roe v. Wade than do the claims of pro-choicers.

  • arekushieru

    …Than a FALSE comparison between Hitler and the ProChoice movement.  (I’ll get into the Sanger one, later.)  Because, actually, no, Hitler held similar views  to the *ProLifers*.  He was ProLife for German women AND he was ProAbortion (ACTual ProAbortion, which IS Pro-FORCED-Abortion) for Jewish women.  BOTH of which are ANTI-choice NOT PRO-Choice. 

    Gisella Perl was ProChoice.  She saved many women from certain death by aborting their pregnancies for them.  What do you think an Anti-choicer would have done in the same situation?  Would they have ensured that at least one life was saved, by terminating the pregnancies?  No.  Most likely they would have proselytized over the woman and considered her to have no more value than a fetus and sentenced her AND the fetus to certain death, JUST like Bishop Olmstead demonstrated, with his ‘oh-so-all-encompassing comPASsion’.

    Besides, Hitler liked to take rights away from a group of humans he considered inferior (Jews) and grant more rights to the group of humans he considered superior (German men).  JUST like Pro-’Lifers’ like to take away rights from a group of humans they consider inferior (women) and grant more rights to the group of humans they consider superior (feoti, male ones especially).

    Sanger was (now… wait for it…) ANTI-ABORTION.  She wanted to reDUCE the number of abortions by making birth control widely available.  Something most anti-choicers of today DON’T support, which is why I hate calling them anti-abortion, either.  Sanger also lived in a time when eugenics was a popular theory.  (Which means, going by that logic, you would DEFinitely have to call the US founders racist and eugenicist.)  And, yet, Sanger didn’t want to reduce the population of the infirm based on a theory that black people and other visible minorities constituted the infirm, but that those not mentally FIT to raise children constituted the infirm.

    And, yes, I also didn’t miss how you played the ‘gotcha’ card with that  question (although it didn’t turn out so well for you, now, did it…?).  It’s kind like those games that little children liked to play on others by asking them if they were PT?  If you answered yes, you were PregnanT.  If you answered no, you weren’t Potty Trained.  How very well done of you…. /end sarcasm

  • nonsense-nonsense

    So you’re saying that pro-choicers don’t need to get out and mobilize because they work behind the scenes, which is more or less better than mindlessly protesting? I don’t know about that. Seeing as how younger generations are more apt to believe that abortion is morally wrong than older generations and are more apt to believe that abortion should be completely illegal than older generations, then either one of two things have to be true concerning creating a sustained social movement:

    1.) Publicly mobilizing and protesting against abortion is more effective at swaying the young than is working behind the scenes, in which case pro-life is outperforming pro-choice. Or

    2.) Pro-life groups also work behind the scenes, as you assert pro-choice groups do, but are more effective at it than are pro-choice groups.

    Either way, that doesn’t bode well for the pro-choice position because it means that it’s being beaten either way.

  • squirrely-girl

     It’s a simple observational fact that women who tend to vote liberal/Democrat obtain more abortions than those who vote conservative/Republican

    Well that’s one of the bigger lines of bullshit I’ve read on here in awhile. Please take your made up ”facts” and go tell people who don’t question your “logic” and “authority.”  Nobody here has any respect for ignorant lies like this. 

  • ack

    What if she kills herself, hurts herself….Should never happen at the expense of some one else, in this case the living human in the womb.

     

    I don’t think that any woman should be placed in a position where killing or hurting herself is the only alternative, because safe abortion isn’t available.

     

    One of my profs in college interviewed a lot of women who attempted or succeeded at self-induced abortion before Roe. She told us of women who used the knitting needle, the wire hanger. She also told us of a common method known as the “gin bath,” where the pregnant woman drank a large amount of liquor, then got into a REALLY hot bath. The combination opens up your capillaries, and the woman hopes that the fetus dies before she does.

     

    But more than those, the method that has horrified me, haunted me, was this:

    Break the light in the shower, or remove the bulb and casing to expose wiring. Run about a 1/2 inch to an inch of water. Stand in the water and touch the exposed wires.

     

    She talked to real women. Real, desperate women.

     

    Pro-choice people push for alternatives to the methods that we KNOW women use when safe abortion isn’t available. Ever since females have started getting pregnant, they’ve found ways to abort those pregnancies when they couldn’t support them. Making abortion illegal doesn’t make it stop, it just makes it more dangerous.

     

    And for your question: Abortion after 24 weeks is highly controversial, and therefore highly regulated. But my heart hurts when I think about the situations that women are in that lead to that choice. And I will continue to fight for them.

  • ack

    What I am saying is this…..if you spread your legs and allow a man to invade the space…whether you are married or not

     

    “Invade the space”? Really?

  • squirrely-girl

    … like somebody who got screwed into bearing a few children into an unhappy relationship and now seethes becomes “teh womenz” don’t HAVE to be breeding stock and can live their lives as they see fit.

     

    Do you blame only yourself for your “lot” in life? Hating others because you don’t like how your life turned out is just sad. Let go of the bitterness, it’s poison to the soul. 

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Except it’s not bullshit. Blacks, Hispanics, single women, women living below the poverty line obtain and women living in the northeast and west coast obtain the majority of abortions. Every single one of those demographic groups tend to vote liberal/Democrat, especially Blacks, women living below the poverty line and women living in the northeast and west coast. Whites, married women and women living in the South and midwest obtain a minority of abortions. All three of those demographics also tend to vote conservative/Republican. There’s a bit of overlap between a few of the demographics, such as Black and Southern, but it doesn’t change the fact that liberals/Democrats obtain more abortions than do their conservative/Republican counterparts. You’d be wise not to call things bullshit or made up or ignorant just because you don’t like them.

  • rebellious-grrl

    She’s not writing a photo essay. For flips sake, one can only post so many photos. She is NOT “cherry picking.” I’ve been on the front lines of the pro-choice/reproductive rights movement for more than two decades and goatini is right on with her observations. Young women and men are out there fighting for a woman’s right to choose. A fight for CHOICE. People of all generations are in the fight for reproductive freedom.

  • rebellious-grrl

    A fetus is not a person.

  • rebellious-grrl

    So you acknowledge that sexism, classism, and racism, exist? What’s new? What’s your point? If your poor or oppressed you don’t have the right make decisions when it comes to reproduction?

     

    Why don’t you give up your elitist point of view.

  • goatini

    and their tax-exempt billionaire backers (aka the Roman Catholic Church and the fundamentalist Dominionist cults, once deadly enemies, now hypocritically united by their common goal to relegate women to the status of livestock), and the billionaires of the quasi-legal and immensely profitable human trafficking businesses (aka adoption mills), are able to fill buses with brainwashed and/or power-hungry cult members, easily influenced minor children, and busybody retirees, who have nothing better to do with their lives than to travel hundreds of miles for the express purpose of harassing, stalking and threatening people seeking legal medical care, and propagandizing superstition, lies, and psuedo-”science”.

     

     

    I don’t see those massive joyous crowds of students of Ivy League and Seven Sisters colleges.  

     

    But, in addition to the cult followers and their power-hungry manipulative leaders,  I do see lots and lots of bitter, nasty old men.

  • goatini

    where we had to live in fear of our own bodies and sexuality.  

     

    I remember my mother, in the days before Griswold v Connecticut, when she had to live in fear of her own body and sexuality.

     

    We will never forget, and we will never go back.  

  • nonsense-nonsense

    It is cherry-picking to find ten or so pictures, with a few of them being from a non-annual, once a decade event, and then claim to have refuted someone else’s claims, which happened to be that pro-life draws far more youth out annually than does pro-choice, and that pro-life events are generally dominated by the young whilst pro-choice groups the old.

     

    Anyway, just last year Newsweek created quite the stir (kind of) when they not only posted an article by Sarah Kliff who lamented the lack of visible young women standing up for pro-choice and one Nancy Keenan who was not only worried about the growing youth of the pro-life movement but the apathy and lack of visible youth in the pro-choice movement, but when they held a forum of sorts for pro-choice people to get together to talk about how they can get young people to come out for abortion rights. Yet here we have a completely different view point. Only one of those view points can be true. Personally, I’m far more inclined to believe that young people simply don’t care enough about abortion rights to go out and defend it, which would square with Keenan’s experiences as well as recent polls detailing the views of millennials when it comes to abortion. You could always argue that young pro-choicers are the silent majority, but that wouldn’t make much sense seeing as how younger generations tend to be more conservative in regards to abortion than their parents or grandparents.

     

    I never said that there weren’t any young men and women fighting for choice or whatever other euphemism for abortion you want to use. What I said, or at the very least insinuated, is that they are drastically outnumbered by the number of young men and women fighting for the rights of the unborn.

  • ahunt

    It’s a simple observational fact that women who tend to vote liberal/Democrat obtain more abortions than those who vote conservative/Republican, and that for every one abortion there is at least one fewer child in the future than there otherwise would be.

     

    Back this up with credible cites. While doing so, try to remember that it is unwise to put down to conservative moral beliefs what can be better explained by a lack of access.

  • arekushieru

    1.) It’s not an argument. It’s a simple observational fact that women who tend to vote liberal/Democrat obtain more abortions than those who vote conservative/Republican, and that for every one abortion there is at least one fewer child in the future than there otherwise would be. Furthermore, there’s nothing counterintuitive about it. Just because I’m likely to disagree with someone born today on some issue years down the road doesn’t mean I think killing them so they can’t be born in a good idea. Quite frankly, that’s the kind of thinking of a psychopath.

    Then it’s a good thing ProChoicers don’t follow that logic, eh?

    2.) Again to echo something churchmouse said, the only one’s bringing up religion here are the pro-choice crowd. Because none of you can argue that the unborn aren’t human beings, which would otherwise end the debate right here and now, you instead decide that your beliefs dictate that the unborn aren’t ‘persons’ and that you are entitled to your own beliefs even if it involves harming someone else. Such a line of thinking truly is ridiculous.

    Our ‘beliefs’ (if you want to call them such) are based on logic.  If a fetus is a person, then so is a tumour, a cell, a hydatid molar pregnancy, parasitic twin, fetus in fetu, etc… because there is NOThing that distinguishes the former from the latter.  None of you can adMIT that personhood is a PHILOSOPHICAL argument, let aLONE argue that a fetus is a human being (person). 

    We are not entitled to our ‘beliefs’ because we have come to the conclusion that a fetus is not a person.  We are entitled to our ‘beliefs’ because we have come to the conclusion that a fetus deserves no more rights than any other human whether or NOT they are persons.

    3.) It’s a shame you don’t seem to understand the concept of self-control and/or personal responsibility. Therefore, I’ll say it again and as many times as needed. If you can’t afford to take care of a child, you can’t afford to have sex. It really does amaze me just how much some few, not all, pro-choicers seem to think that abstaining from sex if you are unwilling to take care of a child is a radical notion. It isn’t.

    It’s a shame anti-choicers (such as yourself) don’t seem to understand the concept of the DISPROPORTIONATE share, if not the entire application, of self-control and/or personal responsibility they force on women without comPLETEly disregarding her feelings, emotions, agency, wants, desires, wishes, RIGHTS and FREEDOMS, even AFter we’ve told them OVER and OVER.  It isn’t a radical notion.  It’s just that we recognize it for the subtle and hidden victim-blaming it REALLY is.

    5.) If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the first thing that would happen is that any trigger laws on the books would go into effect. I think about three or four states have trigger laws outright banning abortion, while a few have enshrined Roe v. Wade into their constitutions. I know New York and Nevada are examples of the latter. Most states, however, would adopt some sort of middle ground, imposing far more restrictions on abortion than there are currently. That would ultimately put pressure on the outlier states to adopt similar policies. All in all, in might take a few years, but you’d find a definitive shift to the right in abortion policy, even in the liberal northeast and west coast. And since you mentioned women dying from illegal abortions, here’s a little observation. Almost every time we get a story about an illegal abortionist stuffing fetuses in jars or stuffing them in a trash bag or stabbing them in the back of the head with scissors or killing women, they usually seem to be operating in the in the liberal northeast and west coast (or Florida). Why is that?

    Idk.  But, maybe, you should ask yourself if it’s the laws that keep these illegal operations underground and hidden from the view of ‘regular’ people, such as yourself.

    5.) We know that the number of deaths resulting from illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade are a lie because we have documented figures (either compiled by independent resources, the NCHS or the CDC) which are absolutely nowhere near the mythical numbers of deaths that pro-choicers claim happened every year prior to Roe v. Wade. For example, in 1960, the then director of Planned Parenthood stated that in 1957 there were only 260 abortion related deaths and that the advances in medical technology were to credit for making abortions “safe”. Even assuming she was off by a factor of two, that is nowhere near the “hundreds of thousands” constantly claimed by pro-choicers. If we listen to Bernard Nathanson, it’s because his claims more closely match the evidence we have regarding the number of deaths via abortions prior to Roe v. Wade than do the claims of pro-choicers.

    Gee, going by that logic, there were no rapes ever reported because no rapist ever reported a rape.  Otherwise, it would be CLEAR that the illegality of an action might just have something to do with it.  But, I forgot, you people don’t live in reality.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    It’s sexist, classist and racist that liberals/Democrats willingly obtain more abortions than their conservative/Republican counterparts? That makes absolutely no sense nor does it attempt to make any sense.

  • arekushieru

    Tell me, first, how you get from ‘the only drawing factor’ to this ‘pro-choicers don’t need to get out and mobilize because they work behind the scenes’?  The former implicitly refers to more than one drawing factor when it is used to contrast the ProLife with the ProChoice side. 

    You have not been able to support your conclusions, btw.  The stats I’VE seen show that older generations are more apt to believe that abortion is morally wrong.  

    And, once again, you’ve failed to take into account the hive-mind effect, which actually is very effective at swaying but has little to do with personal beliefs, let aLONE logic.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    It’s not terribly difficult to understand nor do you need a peer reviewed article to know this to be true. All you have to do is take the data compiled by Guttmacher on the demographics of women who obtain abortions and cross compare it to something like a presidential exit poll. You can use any one for the last 30 or so years because the demographics will more or less be the same.

     

    Of course, you shouldn’t even have to do that much, as simply looking at race would tell you that liberals/Democrats obtain the majority of abortions. This is because minorities obtain a disproportionate amount of abortions while tending to vote liberal/Democrat in uneven numbers (Blacks at about a 9:1 advantage, Hispanics a 7:3 advantage, and others excluding Asians at about a 7:3 advantage).

  • freetobe

    and you think it is all because of abortion? OMG wow you are so disconnected to reality it is not funny. Have you walked in a poor womens or a single womans shoes ? Then by all means cast the first stone. Otherwise you are as blind as most.

    Democrats are the party of what they call “bleeding hearts” my repsonse “at least we have hearts to bleed” In otherwords consevatives give donations to get tax breaks and because they can afford them . Poor women and 1 in 7 of the poorest people in the world are women cannot afford to donate! Guess why? because the white man don’t play fair he wants it all to his  self and eat his cake too! Wake up your in dream land! How many men have walked out on a pregnant girlfriend or wife and left her holding ALL the responsibility ??? Anyone have any statistics it probably is earth shattering. Another reason  anti-choice men have NO RIGHT to put anything into this discussion about forced birth. You don’t have to pay with your lives over and over as women do!! And another thing guess what all those born children are living in poverty too! Tell me how much you care about HUMAN LIFE again?? MY ASS!! Liars !!

    The conservaqtives want to cut spending on head start for children they want to cut funding for SICK children to get the medical care they need to LIVE. The ffffing republicons DO NOT CARE ABOUT CHILDREN it is OBVIOUS you cannot fool everyone!!!

    The conservatives are bowing to the corporations and false golden gods.  Satan yes Satan has control of this world now and the repubs are leading the way to hell SEE YA!!!

  • arekushieru

    I see you’re still relying on false assumptions to draw a conclusion that fits with your ideology.  Older generations tend to be more conservative.

    Btw, that non-annual, once-a-decade event seems to have drawn more than ten times the crowd that your annual, non-once-a-decade event drew.  Does that mean it was more of a success than the ProLife events?  I mean you would have to agree with that, if we’re going by sheer numbers, as you would have us do.

    Anti-choice women and men are NOT fighting for the rights of the unborn.  They are fighting to grant the unborn MORE rights than anyone born, so they can take away the rights of women.

    Choice is NOT a euphemism for abortion, dumbass.  If it WERE, it would ALso have to be a euphemism for CTT/CHILDbirth.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    I’m 100% sure your post dealt with 0% of my post.

     

    However, I do want to respond to one thing. To sort of make use of a line someone said elsewhere; if we gave everything we had to people who were in need of it, then we’d all be needy. Programs get cut not because those cutting them are heartless, but because there’s no money to support said programs. What’s the use in giving food to the poor if it means you have to starve to death?

     

    (And for what it’s worth, Democrats have bleeding hearts because they’re spending someone else’s money.)

  • nonsense-nonsense

    You would do well to read what I type out and not your interpretation of what you think I typed out. I said that younger generations tend to be more conservative in regards to abortion than their parents on grandparents. This is true, as evidenced by both the fact that younger generations view abortion as morally wrong at a greater percent than do older generations and the fact that they believe that abortions should be flatly illegal at a greater percentage than do older generations.

    By the way, it’s only fair if we multiply the turnout for the March for Life annually times ten, since people are far more apt to miss a yearly gathering than they are to miss a decennial event. That or we find either two annual events to compare to one another or two decennial events to compare to one another. I know there are lots of pro-choice events that occur every year. Is the turnout anywhere near 200K or even 30K total? That’s a serious question, by the way.

    Regardless of what you want to assert, I don’t know any pro-lifer who is fighting to grant the unborn more rights than anyone born or trying to take away a woman’s rights.They fight to protect the right to life of the unborn. Perhaps there is a pro-lifer here who would like to prove me wrong.

    And, finally, yes ‘choice’ is a euphemism for abortion, as it’s always used in place of abortion to prevent the user from having to directly say abortion. Otherwise, people generally just say what they mean (i.e., childbirth or adoption).

  • freetobe

    Then why not cut the funding for those ridculous, needless wars? No they go right after the neediest people on earth the BORN CHILDREN it is true and you know it! 

    Maybe and according to the Bible we should give up all our wordly goods in order to truly follow Jesus. Are you going to argue with God? Probably.

    Those WARs the Repubs just love KILL INNOCENT BORN and UNBORN CHILDREN as well or are you just convienently forgetting about all those kids because they may not be Christains? Or because they have DARKER SKIN Oh God forbid that!

    They have NO RIGHT to cut funding for childen NONE. No right to cut funding for education. That is a crime against humanity and you wonder why abotion exists? Because evil men have put women between a boulder and hard place!! How are we supposed to survive and care for 10 children  in this day and age when noone is dying from natural causes and women are not treated fairly on pay, you tell me how?

    The repubs will pick and choose who they want to die.  They are suddenly and convienintly for survival of the fittest. Like that wicked woman in arizona who decided even thought the technology exists that those 96 donor recipeients should just die. Let the poor die so the rich can take over right?

    Only this does not work you can not play survival of the fittest when technology can save everyone now adays.   We ate from the tree of knowledge and like I said Satan is running this world now. Look it up in your Bible.

  • plume-assassine

    You would do well to read what I type out and not your interpretation of what you think I typed out

    BornIn1984/Panhandler… Why do you keep coming back here after being banned? This is a serious question, by the way.

  • freetobe

    I have been a Democrat for my entire life and I have NEVER taken a red cent from the GOVERNMENT!! If anything I have paid my fair share of taxes and I do not mind when it is for the greater good not the evil wars or the death penalty. I hope we get a tax law that says we do not have to pay for your wars and your death penalty- like Boehner came up with NO TAXES FOR ABORTION.  Soon noone will be paying taxes. Yippee!!

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Then it’s a good thing ProChoicers don’t follow that logic, eh?

     

    Can you show me where I said they did?

     

    Our ‘beliefs’ (if you want to call them such) are based on logic.  If a fetus is a person, then so is a tumour, a cell, a hydatid molar pregnancy, parasitic twin, fetus in fetu, etc… because there is NOThing that distinguishes the former from the latter. 

     

    Your beliefs are neither based on logic, let alone science, let alone any understanding of what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Anyway, I have a question for you. What kind of cell is the unborn?

    None of you can adMIT that personhood is a PHILOSOPHICAL argument, let aLONE argue that a fetus is a human being (person). 

     

    If, as you want me to believe, personhood is a philosophical concept, then an individual should be allowed to do to another based on his or her own personal beliefs about the other individual’s personhood. But we, as a society, don’t allow that, which means that personhood isn’t, nor can it be, a matter of philosophy.

     

    We are not entitled to our ‘beliefs’ because we have come to the conclusion that a fetus is not a person.  We are entitled to our ‘beliefs’ because we have come to the conclusion that a fetus deserves no more rights than any other human whether or NOT they are persons.

     

    I’m beginning to think that so long as you consider yourself pro-choice, your comment will be automatically rated a five no matter what you type. You say that you’re entitled to the belief that a fetus isn’t a person because you’ve come to the conclusion that the fetus isn’t a person because it deserves no more rights than any other human, which is a belief you’re entitled to? Aside from the fact that you’ve engaged in some kind of mammoth circular argument, denoting the fetus as a person under the law wouldn’t be granting it more rights than anyone else. The only way it could be granted more rights than anyone else if it the other individual was deemed a non-person, which is what you do to the fetus. It’s amazing how you decry treating one human as being worth more than another, yet turn around and claim just that. That’s irony for you.

     

    Gee, going by that logic, there were no rapes ever reported because no rapist ever reported a rape.  Otherwise, it would be CLEAR that the illegality of an action might just have something to do with it.  But, I forgot, you people don’t live in reality.

     

    Unless women were secretly killed via abortions and had their bodies hidden away, and no one wondered where the woman went, then you should rethink what you typed out, as a woman killed via an illegal abortion would have been sent to a coroner to identify the cause of death. You could argue, as I allowed, that the number of abortion related deaths were underreported by a factor of two, but that’s still nowhere near the mythical claim of pro-choicers and is still closer to the claims of Bernard Nathanson.

     

    Anyway, I have a question for you. If there were hundreds of thousands of unreported deaths due to illegal abortions per year prior to Roe v. Wade (which is a lie), how would we know seeing as how they weren’t reported?

  • arekushieru

    In regards to Hitler and Sanger, please read another post of mine on this very SAME subject. 

    You do NOT promote ProLife or AntiAbortion paradigms.  Merely ProSlavery and ProRape.  Merely Anti-Choice.

    I DO think pregnancy is a curse, because there are pathetic excuses for humanity, like yourself, that automatically ASSume that every woman must believe that pregnancy and childbirth are a gift.  I am an individual, a human being, and NEITHER an incubator, walking uterus OR a baby-making machine.  That you consider me one, merely because I happen to be the sex I am is the worst case of misogyny I’ve ever seen in my life. 

    A man has every right to deny a life-saving kidney to his existing child, even though he may be the only match, even though he may have caused the child’s condition, without fear of reprisal from those such as yourselves.  According to YOUR logic, the man has the ‘right to kill’, yet, it’s perfectly fine if HE has that right, and not the woman.  And you wonder why we call your movement misogynist.

    You OBviously can’t imagine the pain of a woman forced to give birth.  But, no, of course you can’t, otherwise you would be forced to admit that women are ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS.

    Umm, I was referring to the vagina and the uterus.  BOTH of which belong to the WOMAN…?  So, I have NO idea what your reference to the involvement of a human being and the *fetus* was all about.  Really, are you Grade 2…? 

    Giving life is more commonplace than ‘killing’, then, since women continue more pregnancies to TERM than terminate the pregnancy.  You just forgot to mention that, didn’t you?  It has nothing to do with your misogyny, right?

    Really?  Do cite those statistics that prove that the statistics concerning rape are wrong.  If you can’t, you just defeated your own argument.  Besides, anyone living in reality, KNOWS that rape ISn’t treated seriously and that the advantage falls on the male (I use this gender descriptor because males are usually the attackers) perpetrator’s, NOT the female (I use THIS gender descriptor, because females are usually the ones who are raped) victim’s, side.  Btw, rape can happen whether you are female OR male. 

    Abortion IS birth control.  No matter how many times it is used.  It controls when birth happens.  (I notice you still haven’t answered my question.  Typical avoidance tactic that you people like to falsely accuse US of doing.) 

    YOU want women to have NO rights, a man to have more rights, and a fetus to have even MORE.  That turns you on, doesn’t it?  Dehumanizing women, seeing them as nothing more than baby-making machines….

    Sexual freedom DOES include responsibility.  But you want to force the woman to take on a disproportionate share of what you deem responsibility.  It is really sad that you anti-choicers can’t see logic even when it’s placed right in front of you.

    You make pregnancy seem like some utopian, complication/risk-free, always joyful, never burdensome, happens in a vacuum activity.  So, yes, I guess  someone who sees it that way, might think that someone who sees it in a realistic sense, is describing some horrible kind of disease (although it is rather difficult to understand why you would think so, since you attempt to use the way their bodies function as punishment solely for women who have non-procreative sex).  Pregnancy IS the second-leading cause of death in women worldwide.  So sorry to disillusion ya.  

  • nonsense-nonsense

    You’re the second person to call me someone else. I don’t know who any of these people are, nor do I really care who you call me or what you want to say about me. If I have something to say, I’ll say it. If you’re upset because I point out that people are either rather blatantly ignoring what I take the time to type for whatever reason, or if that makes me someone else in your mind, so be it. That’s your problem and not mine.

  • arekushieru

    If it’s a euphemism for abortion, then why do I say my mom had a CHOICE when she continued her pregnancies with me and my brother?  WHOOOPS.

    Still no facts to back you up?  Typical.

    As it stands, NOW, the fetus has the SAME right to life that EVERYONE ELSE has.  If abortion becomes illegal, the fetus has a right that NO one else has, the right to use someone’s body against their wishes, even though it is to save their life.

  • prochoiceferret

    Regardless of what you want to assert, I don’t know any pro-lifer who is fighting to grant the unborn more rights than anyone born or trying to take away a woman’s rights.

     

    Oh, okay, so you’re not fighting to give the unborn the right to use a woman’s body against her will. Therefore, abortion is no longer an issue. So much for that controversy!

     

    And, finally, yes ‘choice’ is a euphemism for abortion, as it’s always used in place of abortion to prevent the user from having to directly say abortion. Otherwise, people generally just say what they mean (i.e., childbirth or adoption).

     

    Sorry, but there’s no pro-abortion folks here. You may want to try the anti-sex-ed and anti-contraception folks up the street.

  • rebellious-grrl

    That’s bull. Conservative/Republican women have abortions too. You don’t have any data to back up your claim.

  • rebellious-grrl

    (And for what it’s worth, Democrats have bleeding hearts because they’re spending someone else’s money.)

    Bullpucky again! The Republicans borrowed money to pay for their war machine. Bush didn’t raise taxes to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq he just borrowed more and more money from the Chinese. Our country is going bankrupt from years of war not because of social programs.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Excellent post Arekushieru!

  • invalid-0

    I’m not claiming that any such right (“to cannibalize”) exists.  You throw around the word “rights” as if it has no legal implications.  I’m not in the business of making up rights out of thin air, like some people.

    Nevertheless, as a born human being, there are laws that protect me from being pulled limb from limb, or having my spine cut with scissors, or having my brain sucked out the back of my head.  Such equal protection seems not yet afforded to an unborn human being.  On the contrary, the state seems to sanction and protect their systematic execution.

    In any event, if you intend to concede the “personhood” argument, you lose the benefit of Roe v. Wade, friend: 

    If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe's] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.

    - Justice Blackmun, Roe v. Wade (1973)

    So, as before… try again.

  • rebellious-grrl

    It sure does. I took the name as my homage to the riot grrl movement and I’ve always been a rebel living outside patriarchal norms.


    http://onewarart.org/riot_grrrl_manifesto.htm
    http://www.girlstothefront.com/

  • ahunt

    sigh

     

    Arex, I get your point. MY point is that the BZEF cannot be granted equal protection under the law w/o simultaneously stripping women of those same protections. 

  • cc

    “You CANNOT get around having to draw a line between persons and non-persons, because of the fourteenth amendment”

    The Constitution has never and still does not define personhood as beginning from the moment of conception. Blackmun’s statement is an opinion because the 14th amendment has never been tested vis-a-vis the fetus. While the fetus is “human” in the sense that it is the same biological classification as the woman who carries it, the notion of “personhood” (i.e. ensoulment) is theological and not universally agreed upon.

    “Such equal protection seems not yet afforded to an unborn human being.”

    Because a fetus is not considered, by the law, a “person” as you currently are. As such, abortions are considered to be surgical procedures. I don’t have the right to deny you elective or non-elective surgery.  Your body is your private property as are the bodies of American women. “Not the church, not the state, only I decide my fate.”

  • arekushieru

    A fetus IS granted equal protection under the law.  If it could survive and develop outside of the uterus there WOULD be no way someone could insert scissors into its spine or have its brain sucked out the back of its head, because it would NOT be infringing on someone else’s rights, the reason why (NOT lack of personhood) a fetus is not granted equal protection under the law, because NO one is when they infringe on someone else’s rights.  It’s just that you anti-choicers have placed yourself in the position of either blaming the fetus or blaming the woman for biological functions outside of their control.  Of course, as the misogynists you are, you’ve chosen the latter.

    If there isn’t such a thing as no right to cannibalize someone’s body, please do provide legal/medical precedent for such evidence, where someone was permitted to force someone to give up an organ so they could live.  If there isn’t such a thing as a right to bodily autonomy, please do provide legal precedent that rape is permissible.  If there is no such thing as a negative right then please do explain why we have the freedom TO speech.  Whoops.  Another anti-choicer bites the dust. 

  • ldan

    Nevertheless, as a born human being, there are laws that protect me from being pulled limb from limb, or having my spine cut with scissors, or having my brain sucked out the back of my head. 

    Actually, there are no laws that are that specific. There are laws protecting persons from assault, murder, etc. Being pulled limb from limb falls under one of those categories rather easily. Many other things fall into a category where they become crimes only if nonconsensual.

     

    Those same laws do, in fact, protect born people from having other people use their organs, blood, etc. to sustain themselves without express permission. Trying to do so would constitute assault (at minimum) in any case involving two born persons.

     

    If you afford fetuses the same rights as born people, they are also subject to this one. So even granting fetuses personhood, (something I don’t concede) does not give fetuses the right to force women to carry them to term. A woman may consent to such use of her body, but could not be forced to, any more than she can be forced to donate blood to her toddler.

     

    It doesn’t strike you as bizarre that we don’t force women to donate blood or organs to their born children, yet anti-choicers think it makes sense to force them to far more invasive use of their bodies?

     

    Even using the ‘but actively killing is so different from passively denying resources’ argument I hear so often, the majority of abortions occur in the timeframe where the process is basically one of cutting them off from the life support they’ve attached themselves to. This is exactly like refusing to donate blood to them (or at least the contents of your blood as transferred through the placenta).

     

    Should the Supreme Court eventually decide to grant fetuses the status of ‘person’ (unlikely, but for the sake of argument), expect to see the lawsuits working to force blood and organ donation shortly thereafter. Then watch that decision get reversed post-haste as men find people asking them to be burdened with the responsibility to give up their bodily autonomy for someone else’s existence.

  • goatini

    I knew you were a riot grrl… I was a bit long in the tooth to hook up with your movement, but I much admired its in-your-faceness. Being myself of the generation of Girls Like Us, we were still deep in the thrall of the patriarchal norm – more like chicks hatching peck by peck from the thick shell of the patriarchal norm.

    I just got Girls To The Front on Kindle after reading your post, and I am looking forward to reading it.

    I don’t think you need to do a quid pro quo and read Girls Like Us unless you really want to. It was all right, but even as someone who devoted years of my musical life to the oeuvre of Joni Mitchell, I gave it a 65 on the Dick Clark Rate-A-Record scale, and now I’m really dating myself.

    http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Like-Us-Simon-Generation/dp/0743491475

    http://everything2.com/title/Rate-A-Record

    As for the twitty taunter of your screen name, s/he is obviously one of those RW fundie bible-thumpers, for whom the phrase “rebellious woman” is a dog whistle that triggers a reflexive misogynistic reaction.

    http://www.biblejim.com/11_rebellious_women.html

  • goatini

    Every RHRC poster who remembers your previous incarnations here knows who you are. Sockpuppet Detection 101.

  • crowepps

    Nevertheless, as a born human being, there are laws that protect me from being pulled limb from limb, or having my spine cut with scissors, or having my brain sucked out the back of my head.  

    The is a common misconception about the law, but actually there are NOT any laws that protect you from being pulled limb from limb, or having your spine cut with scissors, or having your brain sucked out the back of your head.   Somebody could walk into your house tomorrow and do all three of them and there isn’t anything at all that the law could do to stop it.

     

    As a matter of fact, an ordinary middle-aged woman who is able to maintain a facade of normality and do a moderate amount of intelligent advance planning could probably travel the country hunting down annoying misogynists and rack up 20 or 40 or 60 kills before she made a mistake that resulted in her being caught and imprisoned.

     

    Aileen Wuornos was caught after only 8 or so murders, but her previous arrests had left her fingerprints on file so she was easy to identify.  Actually, considering that she did have an extensive record, and left her prints all over the vehicles of her victims, one would think she would have been stopped after the second or third victim.

     

    There are several societal institutions which ATTEMPT to provide some level of protection – laws that set punishment (a threat that hopefully inhibits people who WANT to hurt another) law enforcement (which attempts to catch people who have ALREADY done so); and the only one which is actually proactive and might possibly protect against an attack, the neglected institution of civility, whereby all people who wish to get along together agree to voluntarily refrain from being obnoxious and offensive and rude so that other people don’t have a MOTIVE for hurting them.

     

    ProLife protestors, religious proselytizers and people with mental illnesses (if those are actually three groups and not just different descriptions of the same group) seem to assume that they are exempt from acting in a civilized manner, seem to be unable to share the public space without violating the rights of others, don’t have or don’t bother to display basic manners, and claim that their emotional/spiritual mania make them more important than anyone else and entitle them to disrupt everyone else’s lives.

     

    Like other boors, when told people regard them with loathing and distaste they are offended and astonished, which would be comical if it wasn’t such blatant evidence that they are totally insensitive to the offensiveness of their self-centered behavior.

  • crowepps

    There have been a string of other posters here who share your bizarre theory that your taking “the time to type” or having “typed out” something confers some validity on the content or entitled you to demand that other people read it and respond to it.  You probably don’t know this, but every single post which appears on this site appears because somebody “takes the time to type it out”.  Some of it is truth, some of it is not, some of it is interesting, some of it is repetitive rubbish cut and pasted from other sites.  Each and every individual reader here is free to read/not read, respond to/ ignore, concur/laugh at each post as they choose.

     

    I suppose it’s possible this key phrase isn’t actually evidence that all those names belong to same person, although they all do seem to have the same views and snotty attitude.  Perhaps the repetition of the weird phrase “blatantly ignoring what I take the time to type” is part of the style manual given to members of the “Arrogant Overly Entitled Mansplaining Club”?

  • squirrely-girl

    You’d be wise not to call things bullshit or made up or ignorant just because you don’t like them.

     

    And you’d be wise to share the actual statistics and research on the things you say instead of expecting everybody to just take your word for it. Last time I checked nobody is collecting data during abortions where they ask women to tick the political orientation box. Specious claims based on the parts of the country where people live isn’t real research… it is bullshit any way you look at it. And just in case this isn’t clear, I’m telling you that you are making up data. And you’re looking like an ass while you do it. 

     

    P.S. I’ll start taking advice on “how to be wise” from random folks on the Internet when… oh wait, never mind, not gonna happen. 

  • squirrely-girl

    It’s not terribly difficult to understand nor do you need a peer reviewed article to know this to be true.

    Yes, you do need a peer reviewed article or actual research to “know this is true”, otherwise you’re just making it up. The “methodology” you suggest is the exact opposite of real research and exactly what non-scientists like to do and then claim “research.” 

     

    You are sincerely making yourself look like an uneducated fool, particularly to those of us who actually conduct real research and publish in peer-reviewed journals. 

  • squirrely-girl

    … wondered why this is? I mean, our country has existed for how long now and no mention? Hmmm…

    There is no language which defines what it means to be a person.

  • bj-survivor

    Women do not ‘frivolously’ decide to abort at 37 weeks.

     

    In any event, the abortion method at that time would be induction or C-section, as a 37-week fetus is considered full-term. Unless it were already dead, the infant would be born alive.

  • ldan

    True enough.

     

    The laws, police, punishment, etc. attempt to protect through deterence, but you’re correct that they won’t actually protect me (unless a cop is standing nearby at the time).

  • churchmouse

    You make one big mistake in your logic…..you think this is a religious issue…it is NOT. We live in a secular sexual society that embraces everything deviant about lifes dark side. There are people who do not believe in God and who only have faith in themselves…that respect what science says about life. They recognize life and when it starts. You think this is a religious issue…it is not. AND I HAVE NOT BROUGHT RELIGION UP ONCE ON PURPOSE. You are the one who has issues I can tell.

    Personhood is a biological fact and that is why PP and NARAL do not want pregnant women to see an ultrasound of their babies. They know that if the government ever gives personhood back to the unborn it will all be over. Science is on the pro-life side…not yours. Yours is failed logic and not based on fact…only on your sick opinion of the human life being taken from innocent victims that cant stand up for themselves. You crush them and love it. You celebrate death and mock science. You are wrong.

    A fetus is a human being. It might not be tall enough to drive a car, might not be able to read a book…but it is nevertheless human. It has DNA….enough so that any person of science can tell what it is and where it came from. Do you think someone in a coma or on life support is still a human?

    Louise Brown was concieved in a test tube…there started a human life….nothing potential about a life already started. And so the person in a coma is not less human than the person who has all his faculties.

    What you do not get is this…..Being inside something is NOT the same as being part of something. Louises life started in the test tube not in the mother that carried her. She was a separate human being. 

     

     

     

    Abortion kills another living being separate from the mother….a being who has its own DNA, organs, circulatory systems. A baby is NOT AN ORGAN OF THE WOMANS BODY. The baby has its own genetic code. This is not a woman who kills part of HER OWN BODY….it is about killing something that is not a part of her…that is a separate human being.

     

    The thing is here…is that you will never get that…and even if you do…you do not care. You dont know the laws and you dont get the issues.

    There are states already that prosecute women who are pregnant and do drugs. Scott Peterson was not just convicted of murdering Laci…but also his SON CONNOR. There are cases all over the country where violent acts have hurt pregnant woman and the unborns they carry.

    Now you tell me this…….if what these women were carrying was not a human being…and seen as a person….(you call them just potential) then why does the law hold those that hurt them accountable?

    Yea…seems funny by your logic.  

     You talk about killing…….

    More abortions happen in this country than any other surgery. There are abortion mills everywhere. But how many pro-life wackos as you call them…kill in the name of the unborn? These people you say who jump on vehicles going into PP clinics…..how many are injured or killed? This never happens in a country where the population is now 305,689,000. Although abortion has gone down in the country as a whole…PP continues to grow doing over 300,000 abortions a year.

     

    You talk about the death penalty…..fine.

    Lets compare the death penalty to an unborn who is killed. Did the unborn do anything to warrant, his/her life being taken? Did the criminal on death row do anything to warrant forfeiting his life and paying for the crime that was comitted?

    And I am not pro-death penalty….so lets clear that up right now. You are desparately searching for sometime you will never find.

    Did you know that a pregnant woman who is on death row can not be executed if she is at all pregnant?

    Why do you think that law is in existence in a country that does not give the unborn personhood as you say. Oh they give it personhood…but it does not show it written in any law.

     

  • churchmouse

    you are all for allowing women to kill the fetus even into the ninth month…right?

     

     

  • churchmouse

    So you are for abortion even in the ninth month…right?

  • arekushieru

    Personhood is a biological fact and that is why PP and NARAL do not want pregnant women to see an ultrasound of their babies. They know that if the government ever gives personhood back to the unborn it will all be over. Science is on the pro-life side…not yours. Yours is failed logic and not based on fact…only on your sick opinion of the human life being taken from innocent victims that cant stand up for themselves. You crush them and love it. You celebrate death and mock science. You are wrong.

    Really?  PLEASE show me, as I have asked, repeatedly, where it says that they are equating human being with personhood, NOT merely human life.  And show me the DIRECT quote.  No, they do not want pregnant women to see an ultrasound of their *fetuses* because they understand that women are intelligent enough to know that they are not aborting a pig or calf fetus and that women’s minds won’t be changed by simply viewing an ultrasound.  In fact, I remember an account of one woman who cried in relief when she saw the picture of her ultrasound, because she realized what she was about to abort did NOT look like a ‘baby’, as the ProLifers had led her to believe.  We believe a woman should be given the CHOICE to view an ultrasound, not forced to.  Nope, it will NOT be over, because no PERson has the right that YOU would grant to feoti.  Science is on the ProCHOICE side, AS you just demonstrated, here.  If taking the life from an innocent victim is sick, then why do you take the life of an innocent organ recipient victim in organ donation?  You sick, sick person.  We celebrate ALL forms of life.  You celebrate existence AND death, at the same time.  YOU mock science.

    ONCE again, we are NOT saying that a fetus ISn’t human life.  We are saying that it is NOT a person.  DUH.  Someone who is brain dead is not a person.  They ARE still human, however.  I have NEVER said that a fetus is less human than a woman.  I have ALWAYS said that a fetus is not MORE human than a woman, as ProLifers would like to have you believe.

    I have NO idea what you are talking about when you said the fetus is not a part of the woman.  Neither I, nor anyone else, has ever said it was.  We have ALways contended that the fetus resided inside of the woman.  If we didn’t, we would lack even MORE knowledge of pregnancy than you do, as demonstrated below, after all. 

    Abortion does NOT kill.  It terminates a pregnancy.  A pregnancy, which IS the implantation of the fetal placenta into the uterus.  A fetus is NOT the fetal placenta.  Oyyyy….  If a fetus were separate from the *woman*, the fetus would be able to survive on its own outside of the uterus, at ANY stage of development.  A fetus is NOT a person, it IS, however, human life.  Personhood is NOT synonymous with human life.  Tumours, cells, parasitic twins, fetus in fetu, hydatid molar pregnancies also have their own DNA, organs, circulatory systems, etc….  Never said the fetus was the same as an organ of one’s body.  The fetus is the same as an organ reCIPient, though.  (If that was the misinterpretation you made, why is it that you anti-choicers can’t get simple logic?)  Again, NOT a baby, unless you are willing to call an adolescent an old fogie?  NOT killing, not a human being (person).

    And I disagree with laws that prosecute women who are pregnant that do drugs.  These are antichoice, not prochoice, laws.  And, you still don’t get the point of what being ProChoice is, if you can’t understand why someone has committed a more serious crime if they kill a pregnant woman, than, say, a man or teenager.  The choice about how to control their bodies has been taken from them more completely than either of the others, WHETHER OR NOT the woman was one step away from entering an abortion clinic.  And, pregnant women are more vulnerable to harm and injury when attacked.  The state of pregnancy makes them that way.  It is AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.

    I’ve explained this in the above paragraph.

    Nope, seems absolutely supportive of the ProChoice view and VERY funny by YOUR logic.  Since you equate a fetus with vulnerability yet NOT a pregnant woman and STILL say that you know more about science than prochoicers? 

    More PREGNANCIES happen than abortions in any country.  If it’s numbers that scare you, why aren’t you denouncing the number of pregnancies?  More ProLifers kill in the name of the unborn than are killed.  And if they wouldn’t jump on cars, they wouldn’t be injured.  Never happens?  Proof, please.  Because I have stats that say otherwise.  If PP does 300,000 abortions, it assists with 32 times the number of pregnancies.

    I am anti-death penalty partly because I am ProChoice.  When a criminal dies by lethal injection the crime (infringment) HAS ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED, not in the PROCESS of being committed, not even ABOUT to be committed.  Self-defense laws state that the crime (infringment) must be in the PROCESS of being committed, before one can use reasonable/deadly force.  Therefore, the US justice system falls outSIDE the jurisdiction of self-defense.  Btw, have you never heard of The Innocence Project?  I would suggest that you should look it up.

    No, but most anti-choicers ARE pro-death-penalty.  No right to life for criminals?  Then the right to life is NOT inalienable.

    Proof, please. 

    And, please, just because such a law IS in place, doesn’t mean that we agree with it OR that they read the Consitution properly. 

  • arekushieru

    And, here we go, again, with the misogyny.  WHY do you THINK a woman would have to hire someone to facilitate a method that would remove consent to usage of her organs?  Perhaps because her body WAS DEVELOPED THAT WAY, something she had NO control over…?   Supporting nature’s sexism is STILL sexism, and misogyny, if this is the ONLY case you support it (which it IS).  Really, it isn’t THAT difficult of a concept.

    If we are granted rights, and since freedom to speech (the other side of freedom from speech) is a negative right, then we ARE granted negative rights.  Hmm, how nicely you defeated your own argument.  Although, I would have thought that would have clearly delineated who the confused person was.  Hint: it’s not me.

    Rights are a product of law.  Rights are protections granted under law.  There are no such things as ‘natural’ rights or laws.

    Actually, if you’re argument were to hold, then an organ recipient’s life could not be taken (if you disagree with the term used, here, simply because it isn’t active, take it up with nature or God, because the only differences to be found are in the way the female sex’s body is developed, biological functions, something laws are NOT based upon, and shouldn’t be, even though you antis like to try to do it with women) without due process of law.  However, no organ donor is subpoenaed to court in order to force them to grant a kidney (or any other organ), or even blood, to an organ recipient.   And they are persons.  Seems like another argument of yours failed.

     

    You’ll have to try another argument.

  • rebellious-grrl

    goatini, you are sweet.

    Thanks for the post and the heads up on the book. I’m a fan of Joni Mitchell, Carly Simon, Joan Baez, and Janis Joplin. They cracked the “class ceiling” of the male dominated music world. I will for sure check out the book. I should also pay props to Joan Jett and ani difranco too. They were huge influences in my life.

    Checked out that last link. Wow, I couldn’t stop laughing. Is this “bibleJim guy serious?” Thanks again goatini, you are awesome!!!!!!!!

  • colleen

    AND I HAVE NOT BROUGHT RELIGION UP ONCE ON PURPOSE.

    You call yourself ‘churchmouse’ and spew the worse sort of conservative Christian/Republican dogma.

     

  • churchmouse

    And they all ran…….

  • ahunt

    Well Churchmouse….oblivious bores do tend to clear a room.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    Just so you know, the “Republicans” didn’t go to war by themselves. I staunchly remember there being bilateral support for both wars. Anyway, it’s not bullplucky. Both as a percentage of their income and in absolute numbers, Republicans pay more in taxes than do Democrats.

  • prochoiceferret

    And they all ran…….

     

    That’s what happens when you feed your mind the intellectual equivalent of Taco Bell Bean Burrito Supremes.

  • nonsense-nonsense

    They’re not specious claims in the slightest, and continuing to label them as much doesn’t really bother me. As I pointed out before, you can look at data compiled by Guttmacher on the women who have abortions via a number of factors (such as race, age, income, location, marital status, etc.) and then look at presidential exit polls to see who those women were likely to vote for. If you did, you’d notice that the women most likely to vote liberal/Democrat are also the women most likely to obtain an abortion.

     

    For example, Blacks, Hispanics and Whites obtain the majority of abortions. 30% of women who obtain abortions are Black and in any given presidential election over the last 30 years, Blacks have voted liberal/Democrat at about a 90% rate; 25% of women are Hispanic and Hispanics vote liberal/Democrat at about 60% rate; and Whites obtain 36% of abortions while voting for liberals/Democrats at about a 45% rate. Ignoring all other factors and assuming an even distribution (which would understate the number of abortions obtained by liberals/Democrats since abortions aren’t evenly distributed throughout the country, but are rather concentrated in “blue” states), that works out to about 61.8% of all abortions being done on women who would typically vote liberal/Democrat, and 35.2% on women who would typically vote liberal/Democrat. If we added in the fact that the majority of women who obtain abortions make less than $50,000 a year and that liberal/Democrats do better amongst people who make less than $50,000 a year, or we added in the fact that individuals under 30 obtain the majority of abortions and tend to vote liberal/Democrat, or we added in the fact that a disproportionate number of abortions occur in states such as NY, NJ, MD, DE, MA and CA, among others, all of which vote liberal/Democrat by wide margins, you’d find that the disparity would grow.

     

    But continue to deny the obvious and think that liberals/Democrats don’t obtain abortions at a greater rate than their counterparts. It’s your problem, not mine.

  • ahunt

    You may have a point. CATHOLIC women, for example. are known to vote democratic.

     

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_catholic_women_get_abortions_more_frequently.html

     

     

    The institute found that more Protestant women obtained abortions than Catholics: Forty-three percent of women over age 17 in the 2000-2001 survey said they were Protestant, while 27 percent said they were Catholic. But Catholics were more likely to get an abortion: The abortion rate for Catholic women was 22 per 1,000 women; the rate for Protestants was 18 per 1,000 women,

  • katwa

    Whether sex happens is the WOMANS CHOICE AND DECISION NOT THE MANS

    This is the most absurd thing I’ve read in awhile! So all sex everywhere is women raping men? Men have NO CHOICE? They can’t say no? What if they do? We just rape them?

    hahaha

     

    Man you must have some sick relationships. Just because you are a rapist does NOT mean all women are. Wow.

  • colleen

    How is it that its the mans fault if a woman gets pregnant?

    The really sad thing is that this is the way you folks raise your sons .

  • crowepps

    He’s saying that men “cain’t say no”.

     

    While men might have some minimal will power and a soupcon of ability to make intelligent decisions, their reflexive response to any women indicating in any way whatsoever that she might possibly be unable to escape them triggers their predation instinct, and the man is REQUIRED to persuade/coerce/force a sex act.  This also provides the important secondary benefit of proving to his homosocial circle that he’s not gay.