Separating Truth From Lies Around the Kermit Gosnell Case


See all our coverage of the Kermit Gosnell case here.

Kermit Gosnell, the sadistic monster who exploited lack of access to safe abortion care among poor and immigrant women to both torture women and kill actual babies, is finally on trial and anti-choicers are having a feeding frenzy. Unable to muster actual compassion for Gosnell’s victims, anti-choicers got right to work seeking ways to exploit his crimes to further reduce access to safe, legal abortion—and to create more Gosnells in the future. In order to achieve the goal of driving more women to monsters like Gosnell and away from safe, legal clinics, anti-choicers are telling more lies than usual. (Which hardly seemed possible, but once you wind them up, they can really get going.)  I don’t usually feel comfortable speaking for pro-choicers as a whole, but in this case, I believe we’re all on the same page, so I thought I’d use this space to get the facts straight.

So here is a list of the facts about how pro-choicers are reacting to the Gosnell case. Anyone who denies these facts is lying, and you have to ask yourself why they feel the need to lie to make their case.

Pro-choicers condemn Kermit Gosnell and hope that he sees justice. When the story broke, there was a rush of feminist journalists who covered the case and the tone was universal condemnation and advice on how to prevent such crimes in the future. A quick search of RH Reality Check demonstrates that, and you can read other feminist takes around the internet. For people who aren’t trying to prop up lies to confuse the situation, this universal pro-choice condemnation of Gosnell was entirely predictable. Not only do we believe he is a murderer and likely a sadist, but we believe he exploited the desperation of low-income women who need abortions but struggle to afford quality care. We agree with the prosecutors who wrote that Gosnell “ran a criminal enterprise, motivated by greed.” As advocates of quality health care for women, we have tried, sadly in vain much of the time, to remind people who simple fixes, such as offering Medicaid coverage of abortion, could take the issue of cost off the table and make it easier for women not to resort to illegal operators who use unsanitary and sadistic methods, like Gosnell.

Pro-choicers are the ones trying to prevent future Gosnells. Gosnell made money exploiting desperate women, so the way to prevent future monsters like him is to make sure women aren’t desperate. Pro-choicers raise money for abortion funds, so more women can afford quality care. They set up volunteer-staffed help lines to get women through the process of seeing a reputable provider. They demand an end to the Hyde Amendment, so low-income women can use Medicaid to pay for quality providers. As pro-choice blogger PZ Myers wrote, Gosnell “could get by with criminally substandard treatment because our government has been actively destroying the ethical and competent competition.” We try to keep the ethical competition afloat to keep men like Gosnell from getting business. Which should not be conflated, as lying anti-choicers are doing, with trying to stop regulation.

Pro-choicers support holding abortion clinics—and all medical facilities of any type—to a high safety standard. Pro-choicers want women to receive safe, clean, ethical abortion care. We fully and completely support government regulations of all medical facilities aimed at making sure patients get this kind of care. We are so supportive of safe, clean abortion care that we have our own organization called the National Abortion Federation to certify quality clinics. (NAF unsurprisingly refused to certify Gosnell, even though he cleaned his clinic up and pretended to have medically trained staff in an effort to trick them.)  The key here is that we believe that abortion clinics should be subject to the regulations like other medical facilities, and that those regulations should be aimed at making sure women get quality care.

Regulations demanded by anti-choicers have nothing to do with securing quality care for women. Quite the opposite: The hope of the endless stream of unnecessary anti-choice regulations in states throughout the country is to shut down quality clinics so women have to go to monsters like Gosnell or resort to putting coat hangers in their uteruses at home. Waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, pointless requirements about door size or numbers of closets: All these are there to make it too expensive for lower-income women to get an abortion, so that they resort to desperate measures.

Pro-choicers are furious that Gosnell’s clinic wasn’t inspected for 17 years and complaints about him went ignored. To make it all the more upsetting, one reason inspections were stopped was that there was fear that inspectors couldn’t be trusted to put a priority on women’s health and safety, but instead would use inspections as a pretense to shut down quality clinics. Obviously, Governor Tom Ridge responded incorrectly to anti-choice harassment and abuse of regulatory systems, and pro-choicers condemn his thoughtless response to a delicate situation. But it’s worth pointing out that if regulation of abortion clinics hadn’t been politicized in the first place—if abortion clinics were treated like any other medical facility from the get-go—then none of this would have ever happened. I’m not saying that anti-choicers could have foreseen this particular consequence of their relentless abuse of regulatory systems, but it was one of the many ugly results of their careless disregard for the importance of de-politicizing medical regulations.

These are the facts of the situation. That anti-choicers are denying these facts and making wild claims otherwise can only say one of two things: They either love lying for the fun of it, or they are lying because they can’t make the case based on the facts. I’m guessing the latter. Make no mistake. Anti-choicers are exploiting the tortures and deaths of women and babies in order to justify policies that will lead to more suffering, more torture, and more death. Some of them may legitimately be too stupid to see that’s what they’re doing, but by and large, I reject the notion that most of them could possibly be that dumb. All the lies being thrown around are attempts to confuse the issue, but for the sake of women and their families, we should not let the issue be confused.

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

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

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • Patrick Carroll

    Had Gosnell’s clinic been inspected and threatened with closure, you’d have been the first to shriek out to keep it open.

    (“To Arms, to Arms! the fierce Virago cries,
    And swift as Lightning to the Combate flies.”

    I would commend “The Rape of the Lock” to your attention, but, yeah, “Rape”.)

    He got to operate as he did for 17 years because of hard-line harpies like you.

    You have blood on your hands.

    • Amanda Marcotte

      Lie.

      • http://twitter.com/CatherineWPhoto Catherine White

        Me thinks the lady doth screech too much.

        • Amanda Marcotte

          It’s true that lying does get under my skin. It’s just so dishonorable, you know? If you can’t make a case without lies, why bother? Why are you arguing a position that literally cannot be defended using facts?

          • Alexandra

            See above if you’d like some facts. You won’t like them though.

          • http://www.facebook.com/frank.cuffman Frank Cuffman

            All you’ve done is prove that you don’t like abortion.

            Want less abortions?

            Make birth control available to all women without it costing an arm and an leg if they’re poor or working-class and can’t afford it.

            Want more pregnancies brought to term?

            Subsidize pre-natal care so that a woman doesn’t have to choose between her food budget and extra vitamins to help in her fetus developing to term.

            Make parental leave and daycare available so a woman doesn’t have to choose between staying at home on welfare or working a job where a significant fraction of her income has to go to daycare.

            I don’t hear any of these proposals being made by your side, Alexandra.

            Why is that?

            Or does your concern for babies cease the moment they stop being feti and become babies?

            America wants to know!

          • Alexandra

            Birth-control is already ubiquitous and cheap. A 2010 CDC report said that among the sexually active contraceptive use was just about universal but 50% of pregnancies are still unplanned. Maybe we should try something different, hmm?

            And Pregnancy Resource Centers, like the ones I support provide FREE services to pregnant women in need, unlike your abortion clinics which will literally take an arm and a leg.

            And society being less than perfect right now for mothers? Not an excuse for continuing murder. No more than continued discrimination against blacks was a good excuse for continuing slavery.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            A fake clinic, otherwise known as a CPC (or PRC) might provide you (or make you take bible classes or somesuch nonsense) to earn a used car seat or stroller or a few baby clothes or diapers. They don’t provide quality medical prenatal care, which costs money because it involves actual real doctors–and if a pregnancy is difficult or complicated it costs more. I don’t know about you, Alexandra, but prenatal care is something that I would not mind subsidizing with my tax $$. It would be a hell of a lot more worthwhile than some of the other things my money subsidizes.

          • Alexandra

            I agree. Certainly more worthy than subsidizing child murder as we currently do.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Really. Generally it takes just one whiff of subsidized healthcare to make conservatives start screeching ‘socialism!’ at the top of their lungs. (even though 98% of them don’t actually know what socialism means) And medicare or medicaid is generally the first thing that they want to cut.

          • Alexandra

            Like I said, to Pam, you don’t know me or my politics. And I’d much rather take the half a BILLION dollars we give to Planned Parenthood and give it to real HEALTH care centers that will provide good pre-natal care for women than give to an organization that makes money off killing the pre-natal.

          • MaiaC

            So, we’re just ignoring the fact that the majority of what PP does is NOT abortion? Again, must be nice when you don’t have to worry about those pesky facts!

          • Alexandra

            So what?? Would you send your parent or grandparent to a chain of nursing homes that “only” intentionally killed their clients 10% of the time?

            The percentage is irrelevant. They make money off murder.

          • cjvg

            They don’t kill their clients, abortion is the safest medical procedure a woman can get.
            Much saver then pregnancy and/or birth

          • HeilMary1

            But you’re OK with Catholic schools raping 10% of their students and Catholic hospitals forcing death on “sinful” patients through deliberate cult malpractice.

          • defhigh

            more lies – federal funding for abortion has been illegal since 1976.
            but I don’t expect rightwing zealots to be up on current events of 30 years ago.

          • Ruth Rivera

            According to forced-birthers, anything that allows women to control their reproduction is “abortion.” These dipshits even protest women’s clinics that only offer contraception. Haven’t you seen those “The Pill Kills” signs?

            They really are that depraved and stupid.

          • HeilMary1

            And did you protest Bush 43’s bombing of Iraqi fetuses?

          • Ruth Rivera

            Of course not. War and gun proliferation are sacraments!

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Oh, yes, like IN IRAN AND AFGHANISTAN? Because REAL children die, there. And the wars THERE are illegal. So, murder. IF the courts deem it such, of course. Yet, funnily enough, most antis SUPPORT taxpayer funds going to support wars.

          • Tapetum

            How about starting with actual decent sex-ed in the schools, so teenagers don’t get pregnant from sheer ignorance?

            Actually, I’d like to have as few abortions in this country as possible. The science says that the best way to do this is to make it legal and accessible, and go to work on the reasons people choose abortion in the first place. There’s a reason why the abortion rates in Western Europe are the lowest in the world – and the death rates for pregnant women are also the lowest.

            I happen to think that having women not dying, and actual numbers of abortions low is a lot more important than taking a “principled” stand that say abortion is awful, terrible and no one should be allowed to have one ever.

          • Alexandra

            Why do you care what the abortion rate? What does it matter if it’s not killing?

            I happen to think that celebrating murder is never okay. And that we’re better off telling people there’s another way that just accepting murder as normal. People have been thieving, raping, assaulting, and conning for all time. Should we get rid of all laws and say let’s make it easier for people to do this so they don’t hurt themselves in the process?? Nonsense.

          • Ruth Rivera

            Abortion is not murder, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and screech, panty-sniffer.

            We want there to be fewer abortions for the same reason that we want there to be fewer open heart surgeries, for one. Either is mostly preventable with current technology and appropriate education and lifestyle choices.

          • HeilMary1

            By your logic, it’s sinful to remove killer tumors and tapeworms from their captive hosts, because “all life is precious”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Too bad, but YOU are the one actually advocating that thieving , raping assaulting and conning should have no laws against them. In all four examples, you’re saying the first party must be protected, meaning the ONE DOING THE VIOLATION, just like you are for abortion. Whoops.

          • MaiaC

            BC is neither ubiquitous nor cheap. That you would say that reflects the CONSIDERABLE amount of privilege you have clearly experienced. In addition, you ignore that while BC use among unplanned pregnancies is common, CORRECT & CONSISTENT BC use (which requires both education & resources) is not.

            And actually, most CPCs don’t provide BC or any service to women, other than trying to convince her not to have an abortion. So if you work a local lie center that does, you’re the exception, not the rule.

            Your analogy here at the end doesn’t make any sense; you’ll want to work on that.

          • Alexandra

            It is indeed ubiquitous, that’s what the CDC means when it says its use is nearly universal among the sexually active. And given all the clinics, high schools, and every body else handing out condoms? Not to mention that generic BC pills run as low as $9/month?? Yeah, they’re cheap. And if you think birth control is expensive, maybe you could try you know…abstinence, it’s 100% FREE!

            And it’s exactly the same thing. If we had waited for some utopia for black people to end slavery, some might argue that we’d still have slavery. If you’re waiting for some utopia for motherhood, we will always kill children.

          • Dezzydez

            Please do not talk about black people. I am a young black woman and “pro-lifers” like you like to use us as props to try to take away our reproductive rights. Just like in slavery, you want to control my body and force me to be cattle. We are not going back to those times.

          • http://www.facebook.com/amanda.kazarian Amanda Kazarian

            I shouldn’t have to practice abstinence because I am married. My husband and I chose not to have children. Sterilization is going to cost me 5,000 and its the only method that can keep me from getting pregnant 100%. IUDs run about $700 to $800 and birth control pills and condoms have a higher failure rate. I’m sorry other people have non-procreative sex bothers you so much.

          • MaiaC

            What the CDC means when is says BC use is nearly universal is that BC is SPORADICALLY available to most sexual active people, which is why most are trying to use it. However, it’s correct & consistent that matters.

            Privilege check! Costs of BC – Sure, if prescriptions were free, then BC pills might only cost $9/month. if we ignore that several hundred $ for the doctor’s visit to get the scrip and the fact that many women need brand-specific BC pills for a variety of reasons or the fact that BC pills don’t work for every woman…

            I don’t have the time or inclination to explain every other barrier to consistent BC access in this country. Suffice to say, you CLEARLY have no idea what it’s like to live in poverty. Or maybe you just don’t think poor people should get to have sex? I don’t know; either way – no worth the time.

            And your metaphor about black people still doesn’t make sense, and Dez is right that (even if it did) you’re just trying to use black communities (whom your movement has NEVER cared about before) as a prop for your own gain.

          • HeilMary1

            Most BC pills cost $50 per month and the child-raping RCC/GOP is working hard to keep “sinful” BC pills unavailable at pharmacies where fetal idolators work to impose their sexual aversions on all customers.

          • Ruth Rivera

            You, Alexandra, are a rotten, putrid asshole. When you have to choose between paying your rent or having even the most crappy food to eat, $9 might as well be $1 million. You show your stinking, hateful privilege when you cannot even grasp that basic concept. Let alone that there are various forms of contraceptives at various costs, because each body is different and will react differently to each formulation or type of contraceptive.

            Just shut the fuck up and go away, you disgusting excuse for a human being.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            And those women you just forced off of WIC and all other support for young, parenting teens, impoverished women, etc… have barely TWO CENTS to rub together, left over. Whoops.

            Abstinence is not 100% effective. It’s LESS effective than any other form of contraception. So, only poor women must engage in refraining from sex? Bigot.

        • goatini

          You? Yeah, definitely.

      • luckymama6

        Amanda, while I do not care for the sharpness of is tone, Patrick is not lying. Read the Grand Jury report (which you really should have done before writing this article). They very explicitly blame the pro-abortion Board of Health, local hospital, National Abortion Federation (inspector saw endangerment and didn’t report to authorities), etc. For Pete’s sake, the coroner reported Mongar’s death to the Board and they couldn’t even be bothered to do an inspection. The reason Gosnell stayed open, was because year after year they fined him but refused to jail him or shut him down. They knew!!!!

        • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

          And that tells us it was due to Pro-Choice policies that it was kept open, HOW????

    • The_Magic_M

      That’s about as sane and rational as me claiming that Gosnell was a pro-lifer and did all these horrible things with the purpose of discrediting the pro-choice movement. I mean, if he could operate for 17 years without pro-lifers doing anything, it must’ve been with their approval, right?
      See, I can play that crazy game, too!

    • MaiaC

      It’s nice when you don’t have to let facts get in the way of a “good story” huh?

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      Rape is a violation of bodily autonomy, just as what Gosnell did was a violation of bodily autonomy. SFS.

  • Palin4Pres2016

    Libtard dumbocRATS are CELEBRATING Gosnell. He’s your new hero. Own it! #babykillingneanderthals

    • Amanda Marcotte

      Lie, further proving that you cannot make a case without lying.

    • The_Magic_M

      Funny how you can give so many examples for “libtards celebrating”. No? Not one? Hmmm…

    • Staciehew

      I keep hearing about some liberals supposedly celebrating Gosnell but have not seen a single account of this actually happening. Please, show us so that we can disown this person who is clearly not a friend of our pro-choice movement.

    • ud106c

      Is this satire?

  • http://www.facebook.com/pamela.w.watters Pamela Willis Watters

    Comparing a monster like Kermit Gosnell to all abortion providers is like
    comparing pedophiles to all Catholic Priests.
    Countless dentists, doctors,
    clergymen, etc. have been convicted of horrendous crimes. No one is blaming all
    of these groups for the action of one.

    • http://twitter.com/Desertsunart Desert Sun Art

      But there is a difference, ALL abortion doctors kill unborn babies.

      • Amanda Marcotte

        If you can’t tell the difference between Gosnell and safe, ethical abortion providers, then that says a LOT more about your moral compass than that of abortion providers.

        • http://twitter.com/Desertsunart Desert Sun Art

          My moral compass is working just fine, thank you. Abortion is never the answer. I wonder about people like you who bring up morality-your mind is so darkened that you don’t even know what is moral anymore.

          • Amanda Marcotte

            I don’t know that you’re the judge of that, considering that you just conflated a murdering sadist with ordinary, ethical abortion providers.

          • http://twitter.com/Desertsunart Desert Sun Art

            I don’t think you can be the judge since you use ethical and abortion providers in the same sentence. Abortion is never ethical or moral, even though it’s legal.

          • cjvg

            “I don’t think you can be the judge”
            “Abortion is never ethical or moral”

            And you base that judgment on what exactly?
            Your opinion?
            Why is your opinion better then hers?

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Defending yourself from rape is never ethical or moral, then. Antis, please use logic, at least ONCE???

          • http://twitter.com/AlexCPhila Alex

            no you’re ridiculous. A fetus isnt a person it doesnt have a fully developed heart beat and cant breath on its own. You’re essentially killing a bacteria at that point.

          • Alexandra

            Are you kidding?? The heart is beating 3 weeks after conception. Early brainwaves measured at 6 weeks.

            You pro-aborts are anti-science.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            But cannot survive outside the womb. How many 3 week old fetuses have you met? Talk about needing a science lesson

          • Alexandra

            So what? How is that relevant? A newborn can’t survive without help either. The birth canal is not this magical land with fairy dust that turns blobs of cells into real human beings. Sorry to burst your bubble but human beings deserve human rights.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            My bubble? You live in the bubble where every child conceived is perfect. Nature itself aborts 30% of all pregnancies. In your bubble girls are never raped by their family members, women don’t have high risk pregnancies ( like mine) that threaten their lives. Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but women have rights to determine what is best for them and their families. Butt out.

          • Alexandra

            No, sorry try again. ALL humans die. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. Some of dies days after conception. Some moments after birth. Some at 100 years. Some in between. NONE of that gives you license to kill another human being even ONE MOMENT before they would have died naturally. That’s the difference between NATURAL DEATH and MURDER.

            How does abortion “un-rape” a girl?? How does it “fix” her? How does it make her better? It might however allow her attacker to continue on, undetected, all evidence of his crime vacuumed, scraped, and thrown away. Unknown, unreported. Abortion doesn’t solve anything, it just murders a child that had nothing to do with how he/she got here.

            I have the right to speak up for defenseless children, same as I can speak up for the victim of child abuse. Some choices are wrong. You don’t abuse children, you don’t murder them either. And neither will win applause or a blind eye from me.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            Are you saying women who become pregnant due to rape should have the baby so the rapist can be prosecuted? Thank goodness that most hospitals give rape victims the morning after pill. You people are so sick and twisted.

          • Alexandra

            I’m saying that abortion doesn’t “un-rape” you and that all it does for sure is kill the child. And yes, often, help an abuser continue to get away with his crime. Or don’t you care about that part?

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            I am a rape survivor, so please don’t speak to me to about what I care about. Rape is traumatic enough and to suggest that a woman who survives it should give birth to her rapists child is sadistic. As I said you people are sick and twisted. Your compassion begins and ends with conception and ends with birth. After that, you don’t give a crap about those babies or their mothers. Bet you just HATE single mom’s who collect food stamps and welfare right? Where were you the last 17 years while this monster was operating with impunity? Or didn’t you care because the women he tortured were poor and mostly minorities? Yeah, that’s what I thought

          • Alexandra

            Ad hominem attack. The last resort of the desperate. You know nothing about me, my politics, or my philosophy but you attack blindly.

            Amazing that the suggestion that children have a right to live no matter what makes people so irrationally angry.

            I don’t want children murdered, I also expect people to act responsibly. These are not mutually exclusive.

            And I was adopted, my birth mother 15. So don’t tell ME I don’t care about what happens to children after they’re born.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            I know everything your politics and your philosophy. Your ilk share them across the board. My anger is at people like you who feel they have the right to tell others how they should handle their private decisions that have nothing to do with you. That is not irrational at all. I really really hope you don’t believe I was raped because I didn’t act responsibly. Sick and twisted

          • Alexandra

            Murder is NOT a private decision any more than rape is. You think that man who attacked you had the right to do with his body whatever he pleased? No. Because he violated another body. Abortion does the same thing. It is a violent attack on another body.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            I will hand it to you. You have pretzel logic down to a science. Newsflash: I don’t believe that abortion is murder (it’s also legal remember), so please again, don’t tell me what is right for me and my family. The abortion I had 41 years ago had no impact on your life anymore than your birth mothers decision to give you up for adoption had on mine.

          • Alexandra

            You’re coming at me with “it’s legal”?? Yeah, guess what? So was slavery. So was Japanese Internment. So was Chinese exclusion.

            This country has a LONG history of doing evil “legally.”

          • HeilMary1

            Your Catholic death cult believes raping kids and deadly womb trafficking for pedophile priests is holy.

          • Alexandra

            You are an angry person without fact or reason. Sad.

          • goatini

            Pot, meet kettle.

          • cjvg

            But in those case there were real people who’s human rights were violated.
            Anti-choice policies also violate human rights, forced ownership of a woman’s body is illegal too.

            Your doctrine violates a human right, that of the woman, since she is the only person involved

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            That’s because they violated the EXACT SAME RIGHTS that making abortion ILLEGAL does. Aw, poor little anti doesn’t know what logic is.

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses maim and murder their hostage hosts.

          • Alexandra

            Yup all women die as a result of pregnancy. That’s why the human race has lasted so long.

          • HeilMary1

            Without modern obstetrics, 1 in 5 women die from pregnancy complications and the rest suffer appalling marriage-ruining injuries like incontinence.

          • cjvg

            A fetus before viability is not a person, no sentience or awareness is present or can be present since the brain structure that houses that is not in place.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            You certainly think the rapist had the right to do with his body whatever he please, not us. Except that that seems to be the point all antis avoid, because they’re aware how it would make them realize just what sickos they are? Sorry. Pregnancy is a violent attack on a woman’s body. Even in normal pregnancies. Abortion defends against it. Kthxbainow.

          • Ruth Rivera

            Wrong again, Alexandra. Abortion is no more violent than menstruation. I have had menstrual cramps that were way more painful than those I experienced during my suction abortion. And I have passed blood clots much bigger than the embryonic sac suctioned out of my uterus. Embryos do not have the capacity to feel pain.

            In any event, pregnancy and labor are violent to women’s bodies, but that is apparently okay to your ilk, because violence done against us just doesn’t matter to you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            You think that a rapist has the right to impregnate a woman, and you think it’s your right to demand that she carry that pregnancy to term. You and the rapist are fellow travelers, I’m afraid.

          • HeilMary1

            I wish my childbirth-ruined mom aborted me instead of disfiguring me as her abstinence excuse.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            No, you expect WOMEN to act ‘responsibly’. Men’s biology is inviolable. And asking them to act responsibly is blasphemy. Children aren’t being murdered, btw.

            Yeah, we get angry when you tell us that fetuses should have MORE rights than anyone born, especially women. Righteously so.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            I think the idea of forcing a rape victim to carry a pregnancy because it is evidence is more than a little sick.

          • Alexandra

            If your father is an evil man does that give someone the right to kill you? Our parents do not determine our worth.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            I’ve heard of women in other countries resorting to desperate means to end their pregnancies after rape when abortion is not allowed (often causing their deaths), and even resorting to suicide after being told they have to carry the pregnancy no matter what. I suppose that’s a-okay with you.

          • Alexandra

            Of course not, those women need help. They need support. And a lot of that is because of the stigma that rape carries in other countries. But abortion doesn’t fix the culture. It doesn’t teach men to respect women. It teaches us that we can kill to get our way. That murder is a solution. It further the lie that the CHILD is the villain not the assailant and that if the child goes away the rape goes away.
            It’s also true that women often experience abortion as an ADDED trauma to their initial assault. The child is not just their rapist’s it is THEIRS too.

          • cjvg

            I don.t need help or support, if I was forced to carry a pregnancy caused by rape to term I would most certainly kill my self.
            I will not, under no circumstance maintain a rape for 40 weeks!!!!!!!
            You are a murderer!

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Rape will always carry a stigma, especially for women, as long as it’s okay for women to have their bodies violated under one gender-specific circumstance. YOU are contributing to rape apology and stigma. How do you feel, now?

            So, letting people decide what organs to give up teaches us that those who are desperately in need of organs are at fault for the need, that we can kill to get our way, that their death (‘murder’)is a solution and that it does not lead us to respect them and their lives? Uh, NO.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            You don’t even think about the rape victim at all, do you? No, All of your empathy and feelings go towards the fetus.

          • Alexandra

            Why can’t it be both? Why must sympathy for the woman mean that I must allow her to kill the child? That’s a narrow way of approaching it.

            Say a married woman is raped. She gets pregnant, not knowing if the child is her husband’s or her attacker’s. She gives birth and upon seeing the newborn realizes they have the facial features of her attacker. Would it be alright for her and the doctor to conspire to kill the child at that point?? It’s no different than the child who was in the womb.

          • MaiaC

            Also, FYI, married women are most likely to be raped BY their husbands.

          • Tapetum

            Women have the ability to abort their pregnancies whether it’s legal or not. They will, when desperate enough, do it, legal or not. I happen to prefer to have legal abortion, done in hospitals, as early as possible (women do not choose to have third trimester abortions unless there is something desperately wrong). I prefer this over women dying in sepsis wards (which used to be a feature of nearly every American hospital), shooting themselves in the belly, throwing themselves down stairs, or abusing and neglecting the children they never wanted in the first place.

          • Alexandra

            Men have the ability to rape whether it’s legal or not. They will, when desperate enough do it, legal or not. I happen to prefer to have legal rape, done in nice hotels, checking for STDs. I prefer this to men drugging and nabbing women in back alleys or in dingy flats.

            Yeah…sure…as long as it’s legal it makes everything better.

            You can’t change the fact that abortion kills a child, but keep deflecting, I’m sure it makes you feel better.

          • Tapetum

            If making rape legal actually lowered rape rates by large, noticeable amounts, I would seriously consider making it legal. Except we’ve tried that, and it doesn’t. Having legal marital rape just enables marital rape. Not counting date rape as “real” rape, just makes date rape more ubiquitous. This is not true for abortion. Go look up abortion rates by country, and compare the rates where it is legal vs. the rates where it isn’t. All illegality does is cause more death.

          • Alexandra

            Yeah, and the abortion rate has gone up by leaps and bounds since abortion was made legal in this country, 1.21 MILLION a year is the current rate. 55 MILLION since 1973. Not rare in the slightest.

            And look at Chile if you want an example of maternal care going up after abortion was made illegal. Think we can’t do even better than Chile?

          • HeilMary1

            Abortion rates haven’t changed since Roe v. Wade — they’re just safer. Chile’s maternal mortality rates are soaring but aren’t being reported by pedophile priest-controlled hospitals.

          • Alexandra

            Uh-huh. Keep telling yourself that.
            Where’s Pamela Willis Watters to say that it’s unfair to lump all together?? Hmmm…where are the pro-choicers saying that your categorization is unfair and ridiculous?

            I guess they only get upset when it’s their sacred cows being toppled.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=3006209 Sharon Cutcher Sykes

            Can you please share your stats and the source? Thanks.

          • HeilMary1

            I have read that before Roe v. Wade, the illegal abortion rate rivaled today’s legal rate, because 1 in 3 women did, do and will probably always seek abortions if they aren’t provided affordable contraception and sterilization. US abortion rates are higher than Europe’s rates because our adulterous GOP prevents low-income women from accessing sex ed and family planning.

          • cjvg

            Total BS, the abortion rate has gone down in every country that has freely available contraception, and comprehensive sexual education for boys and girls.

            The Netherlands, France, Germany
            FactorUnited StatesFranceGermanyNetherlandsPregnancy79.820.2 25%16.1 20%8.7 11%Births48.710.0 21%12.5 26%4.5 9%Abortions27.510.2 37%5.6 20%4.2 15%

          • MaiaC

            Again, according to that pesky SCIENCE, abortion rates increased briefly after Roe, but have been steadily declining since 1980 (most of which has been explainable by decreased unintended pregnancy rates)

          • HeilMary1

            You can’t change the fact that fetuses main and murder mothers. ALL abortions are SELF-DEFENSE.

          • Alexandra

            Hahahaha, you sound as stupid as the guy using the phrase “Libtard.” Delusional and without a shred of evidence for your claim. Yup. Every pregnancy is fatal, that’s how the population got to be 6 Billion, because pregnant women ALWAYS die.

          • cjvg

            before birth control 1 in 100 woman died in child birth as reported by the CDC,

            More died from pregnancy related problems but these deaths were not routinely collected

          • HeilMary1

            Actually, 1 in 5 women still die from pregnancy problems in problem nations like Sierra Leon and Afghanistan.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Where did she say always? *Looks up, re-reads* Nope, still don’t see it. However, doesn’t mean that it’s not ALWAYS life-threatening. Kthx. Also, by YOUR logic, if no woman had an abortion, ever, we’d be WELL past the 6 billion mark, now, and most of your cohort would be unable to perpetuate the ‘Overpopulation myth’. Again, whoops?

          • HeilMary1

            Dummy, I didn’t say ALL pregnancies are fatal, but all do cause gross expensive injuries. Why do you think most “pro-life” GOP men cheat on and divorce their brood mares? What average woman can afford the $100,000 mummy tummy makeover anti-choice actress Patricia Heaton splurged on herself to keep her career and SECOND husband?

          • goatini

            Every pregnancy has the potential to be fatal. Pregnancy is a highly dangerous and risky health condition that at best, permanently damages the body and at worst, kills the woman.

          • cjvg

            Dishonest simplistic and illogical argument.
            A woman is a sentient aware being with human rights, a fetus is not until 26-30 weeks gestation which is well after viability (24 weeks) were no abortion can be legally obtained.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            And making rape legal is like making abortion ILLEGAL. Seriously, are you so clueless that you can’t put two and two together? The FACT that they both affect bodily integrity the same is why making rape legal and/or abortion legal are FALSE EQUIVALENCIES.

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            what the hell is wrong with you there is no parallel to rape and abortion they are two different things I think your education has been stunted and need to get some courses on these subjects…

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=3006209 Sharon Cutcher Sykes

            Let’s be honest. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was not high. Yes, some women did die from this, but most just continued their pregnancy… The pro-abortion crowd tries to make it seem like a bigger problem than it was in order to justify abortion as birth control.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            NO woman should die! When done properly and early, an abortion is extremely safe. Childbirth is far more dangerous. The anti-choice crowd tries to make it seem like abortion is dangerous, but then you say not that many died from illegal ones so what’s the big deal. Let’s be honest. You’re a hypocrite. All of you

          • Tapetum

            Yes, let’s be honest. They were so rare that every major hospital that dealt with women’s issues had a septic abortion ward. I’ll note that sepsis has about a 30% death rate now, with modern care and antibiotics. (See Savita Halappanavar). These days there isn’t a hospital in the whole country that has one.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Abortion is birth control whether it’s used once or multiple times. So sorry.

          • MaiaC

            Um, the causalities from illegal abortions were so high that in the late 19th century many urban hospitals had “abortion wards” filled with women suffering from botched operations and attempts at self-abortion (always the most dangerous method). In fact, that’s a major reason why states like New York made abortion legal pre-Roe; they simply couldn’t keep up with the costs to women’s health from the ban.

            Also, even today, approximately a 727 full of women die each day from botched illegal & self-induced abortion. (According to that crazy, left-wing, source of the World Health Organization…)

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            heck lets go a little further with this before there was sanitation Student Doctors would go from corpses to delivering babies and not change clothes they effectly caused sepsis in their patients after delivery which back then was almost always fatal thanks to handwashing and knowing about bacteria that is less of a cause of death among women whom give birth. After the birth of an infant if that infant was not wanted by anyone it was acceptable to kill it… Especially after the mother died because there wouldn’t be any food for said infant..

          • HeilMary1

            Let’s be honest: YOU also oppose contraception and sterilization and believe in outsourcing husbands to brothels when they don’t want any more rug rats from their Depends-wearing brood mares.

          • HeilMary1

            Dummy, the difference is that a born fetus is no longer a threat to the mother’s life. All fetuses, however cute to pedophile priests, are ticking time bombs of injuries and death to mothers.

          • cjvg

            Because you are forcing a 40 week rape on the woman and you could not care less.
            Forced pregnancy and birth is an atrocity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Because it means that you are denying her rights since you see her as nothing more than an incubator, and to be shamed for her biology, specifically, that a biological ACCIDENT makes a fetus dependent on her body and that a BIOLOGICAL ACCIDENT means that separation from the uterus makes a fetus incompatible with life. Blaming a woman for her biology, automatically EXEMPTS you from feeling sympathy for the woman. SFS. And, ffs, there IS something different between the two. If you don’t understand how a fetus affects a woman’s body during pregnancy, wtf are you claiming WE’RE anti-science?

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            You do realize that women who immediately report a rape are offered emergency contraception, don’t you? You’re not FORCED to take it, but most women do. Why would she wait around for a few weeks to find out if she’s pregnant? It’s no longer necessary to go through any of that, which is as it should be.

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses and pedophile priests don’t have the right to hijack women’s wombs for their pedophile cult.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            No, but YOU want strangers to determine that a fetus has MORE WORTH THAN ANYONE, especially women.

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            your psychosis will not make cells any more human please do some research about abortion how far along they can happen and how they happen you really need to open your eyes because your prejudice is going to hurt you and those around you…….

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=3006209 Sharon Cutcher Sykes

            I think to argue the case that is less than 1% of actual abortions as a justification for the other 99% is a little weak, no?

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            You tell me–late term abortions are also far less than 1 % and you guys use that too. And I’m gathering that you think a rape victim should be forced to carry a pregnancy as evidence? Is that what you’re telling me?

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            No

          • HeilMary1

            100% of abortions are for women’s health, whether they admit to it or not.

          • Ruth Rivera

            It’s pure fucking evil, is what it is.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Yes indeed. Very well put :)

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            It’s not about being ‘unraped’, or punishing the ‘baby’ or the rapist. It’s about whether or not a young girl or woman feels as if they can go through the trauma of a pregnancy that was forced upon them against their will. Some do choose to, and that’s fine, but some do not. It has to be their choice.

          • Alexandra

            Murder is NOT a choice. That’s what you forget. The abortion KILLS the child. You don’t call that punishment??

            But let’s get some perspective here, you don’t want pro-lifers comparing Gosnell to all abortionists? Why don’t you get real about the fact that only 1% of ALL abortions are done for reasons of rape?

            1%.

          • MaiaC

            Again, notice how when confronted with an argument she can’t refute (like that aborting a pregnancy as a result of rape prevents ADDITIONAL trauma), she just changes that subject….

          • HeilMary1

            ALL abortions are for women’s health. Google obstetric fistulas to get a clue why the RCC banned priest marriages to “piles of dung”. Suppose a pregnancy guaranteed your face would rot off with estrogen-sensitive skin cancer? — such a cancer gruesomely killed my best friend. She lost her nose, lips, palates, an eye, an ear, and finally her life.

          • Alexandra

            All 1.21 Million hmm?? That’s not what the women tell Planned Parenthood: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

            Delusional.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            No, YOU’RE delusional in thinking that she meant anything more than that all pregnancies are life-threatening, therefore every woman, no matter for what reason, is defending her health. Also, pregnancy is a medical condition. Getting medical treatment for a medical condition IS health care. Get over it.

          • goatini

            Personal well being IS health.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Then why don’t YOU get some perspective, and get real about the fact that only less than 1 percent of all abortions are done late term? Also, rape is HIGHLY underreported. ALSO, how something that can’t feel, is unthinking, unconscious, unaware, oblivious, can be punished is beyond me. Punishment is used to modify behaviour, btw. If a fetus dies, how can its behaviour be modified? Lastly, not donating organs is punishment by your logic. Better get right on that, and stop punishing those waiting for organ transplants.

          • MaiaC

            Actually, REAL RESEARCH shows that this claim about abortion hiding abuse is fundamentally flawed. Actually abusers (of both adult women & teen girls) generally really like for their victims to get pregnant, as this guarantees them a lifetime of access to their victim. While I am sure there are some few isolated cases of abusers using abortion to hide their crimes, abusers using pregnancy & children to manipulate and cement their abusive relationships is FAR more common. You know, according to that crazy science stuff!

          • HeilMary1

            Abortion prevents further deadly damage to women’s bodies and the Catholic Church is the biggest rape syndicate throughout history.

          • cjvg

            An abortion does not let a rapist get away, nowadays we have a thing called tissue sample.
            If you ask, you can have one taken!

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            No, what she’s really saying is that every woman who ever gets pregnant should have a baby just so SHE gets to feel good about being so self-righteous. At the heart of many anti-choicers is a heart and mind that’s every bit as self-involved as they accuse choicers of having.

          • MaiaC

            “How does abortion “un-rape” a girl?? How does it “fix” her? How does it make her better?”

            It doesn’t “un-rape” her, but it certainly prevents ADDITIONAL, unnecessary secondary trauma & risks.

          • Alexandra

            You think there’s no trauma or risk associated with abortion for the woman??

          • MaiaC

            The risk of trauma (both medical & psychological) of abortion is FAR lower than of pregnancy & birth. Again, basic, you know SCIENCE, confirms this.

          • MaiaC

            Also, YOU don’t get to decide what medical risks are acceptable for people; THEY do.
            FYI, statistically speaking – you’re more likely to be killed by a vending machine than by a legal abortion.

          • L-dan

            I think I’d like to let the victim assess the level of trauma and risk associated with her choices and make that decision rather than making it for her…you know, like her rapist did.

          • Alexandra

            There’s no undoing the abortion. NONE. The child will be dead.

          • L-dan

            Let’s see…the non-sentient ‘child’ that can’t think, feel, or suffer will be dead.

            Your solution is forcing the sentient victim to suffer through other people forcing more decisions upon her body? In order to force her to provide life to the aforementioned non-sentient, non-feeling, non-suffering embryo/fetus?

            Sorry, I’m on the side of the person that exists in this case vs. the one that’s only a potential, insofar as deciding whether or not the former’s body should be at the service of the latter.

          • Alexandra

            The newborn is no more “sentient” than the unborn. So women can kill their newborns if they’re in the way too??
            And as for “feeling” or “suffering” in case you were unaware, it is also illegal to kill people painlessly. Suffering is not a requisite for punishment.

          • L-dan

            Actually a newborn is far more sentient than the unborn. At the point most abortions occur there isn’t even the structure there for feeling, or thought. A newborn is processing an insane amount of data as soon as they’re born.

            However, again, you continue to ignore bodily autonomy. A newborn does not infringe on their parents’ bodily autonomy, a fetus does. It is sick to force a rape victim to give up control of their body to a fetus forced upon them; an absolutely disgusting worldview.

            It is also not legal to co-opt someone’s bodily autonomy. So…even if weighing killing vs. bodily autonomy here, you’d be talking about two illegal acts, or two immoral acts (just to be clear, I don’t believe abortion to be immoral or that it ought to be illegal in any way, but I’m following your line of logic here). In which case, yes, I’m going with the one that causes the least suffering.

            And finally switching back to my own views entirely, a fetus is not a person, so the whole “illegal to kill a person painlessly” thing doesn’t hold any water.

          • Alexandra

            The unborn are certainly processing loads of data as well. You can measure brainwaves as early as 6 weeks. And person merely means “human, individual” and the unborn are indeed human, and individual.

            Your description of pregnancy acts as if the unborn willingly and suddenly without warning impose themselves upon a woman. The womb is their NATURAL environment. That’s where they’re supposed to be, they’re not some foreign invader that just showed up demanding support. We have obligations to our children, period, no matter how much we dislike it, and if you don’t think a new parent’s “bodily autonomy” isn’t infringed by having a screaming newborn in the house, you’re kidding yourself.

          • L-dan

            I think you’ve decided on a new definition of bodily autonomy.

            The measurement of electrical activity from an embryo at that early age (not, by the way, something documented in peer reviewed scientific literature) does not indicate brain function, it just indicates electrical activity. This is much the same as ‘heartbeat’ claims that consider the beating of cells that will become a heart to be the same as the beating of an actual heart. I can get both electrical function from brain cells and beating heart cells in a petri dish.

            Nor are they processing loads of data until, possibly, quite far along. The structures for processing data simply don’t exist.

            Additionally, the best evidence available so far indicates that even once those structures exist, the fetus exists in something of a sedated state in utero. Can you imagine how horrible having the bones of their head squished would be during birth were this not the case? Talk about suffering.

            From the standpoint of someone with an unwanted pregnancy, the
            embryo/fetus *is* an unwanted invader. Just because the womb is where it
            naturally develops does not give it the right to remain there. My gut is the
            natural environment for a tapeworm too.

            ‘Natural’ does not equal beneficial, nor does it carry any moral
            weight. Hemlock is natural. But if you ingest some, you discover that this whole “inside the body, outside of the body, it’s just a location” thing is really stupid.

          • Alexandra

            “Just because the womb is where it naturally develops does not give it the right to remain there.”

            Actually, it does, because otherwise there would be no human beings. Human beings have human rights. Period. All the rest is fluff and self-rationalization of evil doing. Our *perception* of another human being does not change what they *ARE.*

            Just because the mother feels like the unborn is an unwanted invader and a “problem” doesn’t mean that’s what they ARE and it certainly doesn’t strip them our their rights to *bodily autonomy.* Any more than a mother of a screaming and recalcitrant 2 year old that feels that motherhood is an outrageous burden can up and kill her child because of her *perception.* Whites perceived blacks as inferior beings and pointed to all sorts of “proof” but that perception did not change what they WERE and ARE. Human beings, with all the rights thereunto.

            I also love how you talk about birth as if being torn apart must be just dandy for the unborn and as if all abortions are done in this nebulous early period. Late-term abortions are NOT rare, there are at least 16,000 a year. Gosnell if anything should be proof of how NOT rare late-term abortions are.

            The US Code says that murder is the killing of a HUMAN BEING, no caveats about personhood, sentience, self-awareness, etc. just one qualification and one only–human being and that’s ALL that matters. That’s it. Are the unborn human? Yes they are. Do humans have the right to live unmolested, unpoisoned, unvacuumed, unscraped, undismembered? Yup, end of story all the rest is misdirection.

          • L-dan

            Now you’re just getting incoherent.

            “Human beings have human rights, period”

            One: none of those rights allow a human being to require life support from another. The fact that we all start out in a womb doesn’t actually give us the right to commandeer it. Simply being somewhere doesn’t confer a right to be there.

            Two: We actually have very different rights as we move through our lives. Parents have incredibly powerful rights to dictate what happens to their children, what medical care they receive, etc. in ways that aren’t allowed once those children are adults. We apply different sets of rights to prisoners, to the insane, etc. based on how they interact with the greater social good and/or with other individual humans and their rights. So, in the case where the rights of a fetus/embryo and the rights of the person gestating it interact, you don’t get to unilaterally declare that the fetus/embryo’s rights get top billing just because you say so.

            You still have a very odd definition of bodily autonomy. It does not mean someone is annoying me or being inconvenient. It means someone is actually, in some way, affecting my physical body. Rape is an assault on my bodily autonomy…someone using my body in some way without my consent. I can’t be forced to donate an organ, give blood, or otherwise allow the use of my body for someone else’s purposes. Forcing me to gestate against my will is on the same continuum. Detaching a fetus/embryo is saying “no, you don’t get to use me for life support” that’s a far cry from stabbing a toddler. If you can’t see the distinction, I’m sorry that you’re that deluded.

            This whole ‘torn apart’ thing applies to a very small fraction of abortions. So yes, I talk about the trauma that birth would be if fetuses felt pain vs. the non-existent trauma to a fetus/embryo during an abortion to point out that pain/trauma to the fetus/embryo is sort of moot point.

            Again, most take place in a fashion and at a stage where the tiny embryo is very likely to leave intact, much like a miscarriage (87% before week 13). Late term abortions are, in fact, rare amid the total of abortions (1-3% depending on year and source of the stats). And, of those, the number that are not due to maternal or fetal health issues, or the result of people lacking access to earlier abortions, is vanishingly small. I’m not about to outlaw all abortions because you fell horrible about that handful of late-term ones. The fact that you want to outlaw all of them tells me that the ‘tearing apart’ isn’t really what you care about either. So why keep using it in arguments?

            Murder is the *unlawful* killing of a human being. Abortion is not unlawful and therefore not murder by the U.S. Code. Words have meanings. You can call it killing if you like, but it doesn’t meet the definition of murder. Otherwise the folks taking their loved ones off of life support when there is no hope of recovery is also murder. (as one of many examples of lawful killing).

            No human being has the right to commandeer my body for their own purposes. Various self defense laws allow me to defend myself against precisely that. The legality of abortion means I may defend myself against human non-persons as well.

          • cjvg

            SO human beings have human rights, except for woman, those you can force to donate their bodies for the benefit of a (as you claim) third party?!

            If that is OK with you, why stop there, why not force everyone to donate their body or body parts to save a third party?
            Why not mandate forced live organ donations of kidney’s , liver, skin, one cornea (you do not need 2 eyes), bone marrow etc.

            Why reserve that “benefit” only to fetus’s?, why not save some existing alive people?
            You first!!!!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Um, actually, yes, there would be. A right to remain there, after all, means that the fetus can remain there under ANY circumstance. It does NOT have that right, NO ONE does. Seeing that more women choose to continue their pregnancies, it would explain why there are so many people in this world, while not having the right to remain there. Whoops.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            **Just because the mother feels like the unborn is an unwanted invader and a “problem” doesn’t mean that’s what they ARE**

            Actually, that’s exactly what it means. How you feel about some other woman’s unwanted pregnancy is irrelevant.

          • Ruth Rivera

            You are dangerously stupid. Do you honestly believe that if women are given a free choice in reproduction that they will ALWAYS choose abortion? You do realize that many pro-choice women have children, right? That even many women who have had abortions or know that if they become pregnant (again) have children, right? My mom is pro-choice, and she had 4 children, and 1 elective abortion. I know many, many mothers who have had abortions. So there goes your facile theory, panty-sniffer.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Nope, fetuses are not individuals. If they were individuals, their component parts could not be divided further and have them remain a complete member of the human species. DERP.

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses, like alien monsters, cause multiple organ failures, autoimmune diseases and cancers in their captive hosts. If a pregnancy guaranteed your face and breasts rotting off, bladder and bowel incontinence, heart and kidney failure, sepsis limb amputations or paralysis, you’d be first in line for an abortion and you know it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            You can avoid having a screaming newborn in the house by having an abortion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            they don’t have a brain to have brain waves till almost the end of the 1st trimester most abortions happen before that….

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Actually, the fetus suppresses a woman’s immune system, so that the woman’s body doesn’t attack and kill it. Isn’t that the very description of an invader?

            It doesn’t matter if a fetus doesn’t willingly (although, to be clear, it is PRO-Choicers who say that a fetus lacks intent. By attempting to grant a fetus personhood, ANTI-choicers are imbuing them with intent. Whoops.) or suddenly without warning attach themselves to a woman’s uterus. A man who enters a fugue state after initiating consensual sex with a woman, does not willingly nor suddenly without warning have sex with a woman. However, once the woman revokes that consent, and he continues, it becomes rape. WHOOPS.

          • Piercey

            All this about rape victims actually matters little… If abortion was only legal for rape victims, all pro-choices would be rabid… And anti-abortion activists would see it as a huge victory, since, as Alexandra mentioned, abortions in the case of rape account for 1% of all abortions…. So very very few

          • L-dan

            Sure. We believe abortion should remain available for everyone. Rape
            cases are simply the edge cases that really focus certain arguments down to show the horrors of a world run by forced-childbearing advocates.

            Those who believe abortion is evil, except for rape cases, generally argue
            that this is because the pregnancy wasn’t the fault of the one carrying it. This argument is basically saying that it really isn’t the killing of the embryo
            that’s a problem, it’s the fact that doing so means that those who have sex can ‘get away’ with it. They treat pregnancy as a consequence and punishment that women who have sex willingly shouldn’t be able to escape. Since the vast majority of people don’t think sex is something that’s meant to be punished, it’s not an argument with a lot of traction.

            Those opposing abortion in all cases are at least consistent in their
            argument advocating against the killing of an embryo. They’re just monsters who think a potential person is far more important than the actual pain and suffering of the person carrying it. The fact that they feel it’s fine to make rape victims suffer is basically just a flag for the fact that they *really* don’t care about the circumstances *anyone* is in when they consider abortion. If they can’t even find the sanity to consider how ugly and immoral it is to violate the autonomy of a rape victim in this fashion, you can be sure they care even less about anyone else’s autonomy.

            This is using the edge cases to point out the underlying horror of the
            argument being made.

            As opposed to forced-birth advocates constantly bringing up late-term
            abortion disingenuously a proxy for banning all abortion, despite the fact that the vast majority of abortions do not resemble the ones they’re describing for maximum emotional impact.

          • cjvg

            You are so incredibility ignorant of any actual medical knowledge that it boggles the mind.
            I ‘am hard pressed to believe that this is not a deliberate means of obfuscating the truth.

            A newborn is most certainly sentient when born full-term or after 26-30 weeks gestation.
            At that point clinical brain activity in the cortex is bilateral and synchronous, just like any other sentient and aware human that is considered alive.

            And no, you do not lose sentience when you are asleep

          • HeilMary1

            There’s no undoing childbirth deaths and injuries to mothers.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            I think it’s important to let the rape victim choose what she wants to do with the pregnancy–only she should be the one to make that decision. Lord knows, she’s had enough choices taken from her already and now you want to take away more? Really? I think that forcing a pregnancy upon an unwilling person who didn’t even ask to be pregnant in the first place is akin to raping them a second time.

          • Alexandra

            That would make sense if abortion didn’t steal choice away from another human being. You keep losing sight of what abortion IS. It can’t be made morally neutral.

          • cjvg

            Clinically, scientifically and most important morally seen, there is no other human being but the woman involved!

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Defending yourself from rape steals a choice away from another human being. Don’t see you up in arms about that. Hypocrite.

          • Ruth Rivera

            And you can’t keep losing sight of what forced-gestation is. It can’t be made morally neutral.

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            “It’s actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other – and thus they don’t have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a “right to
            life” to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the
            mother’s right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

            After
            birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another’s right to control her body.

            […] After birth its independence begs that it be protected as if it were equal to a fully-conscience human being. But
            before birth its lack of personhood and its threat to the women in which it
            resides makes abortion a completely logical and moral choice. ”

            —”Why Abortion Is Moral,” a good explanation of why common
            ethical arguments against abortion are horseshit

            To
            summarize, if (1) you think zygotes/embryos/fetuses are people and that their
            rights to gestate trump the self-ownership rights of their mothers, then (2)
            you must concede that NO ONE has absolute rights to dispose of his/her
            own body as s/he wishes. That is, if you agree with the first point, then
            you’d also have to agree that someone without kidneys should be allowed to
            surgically attach themselves to someone with kidneys in order to live.

            But
            if you refuse to make this second step, then you’re stating that only pregnant
            women should be denied full control over their own bodies. Which means you are basically suggesting that pregnant women have no more rights than
            incubators or brood mares—hardly an acceptable moral or ethical position.”

            (via downlo)

          • MaiaC

            Well, everything in life has risk of trauma associated with it; even walking down the hallway. In that regard, sure, abortion has risks. But since a woman is more likely to be killed by a vending machine than an abortion, I’m going to call that generally not risky.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            There certainly might be. It’s not an insurmountable problem to deal with, much the same as you might deal with any trauma. Women who have ongoing feelings of guilt are pretty much choosing to prolong the trauma, though, and the viewpoint of someone making that choice should be taken with a grain of salt.

            Tl;dr — not every woman regrets abortion. In anti-choice circles is perfectly acceptable to have had an abortion, as long as you continually castigate yourself for the rest of your days.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            I have never regretted having an abortion 41 years ago. No one day, not one hour, not one minute. When anti-choice women have abortions it is because their situation is special and justified. The only “moral” abortion is theirs.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            Yes, and the engine of the anti-choice movement is fueled by somehow “selling” to you the notion that you’re actually very traumatized and damaged, even now, and you don’t even know it! Oh, and you probably need Jesus, too, though YMMV on that and no offense meant if you’re a christian.

          • goatini

            I heard one of these “counselor” nitwits on the Catholic radio station a few months ago, exhorting “post-abortive” women to contact her to take her “seminar”, stating “even if you DON’T feel bad about your abortion, call me, because you just don’t realize that you really DO feel bad about it.” What a sick vulture.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Christian, here, Ella, and I would be the first person to AGREE with you. It’s shameful how antis subvert Jesus actual cause.

          • Ruth Rivera

            Nor have I ever regretted mine, procured 28 years ago. I was extremely privileged to have my mother help me when the sperm donor absconded. She is a registered nurse (now retired) and it was performed by a doctor she knew. It was quite civilized – no having to navigate a gauntlet of bible-babbling, murderous lunatics, novocaine to my cervix. My mom held my hand through the entire procedure.

          • HeilMary1

            Abortions spare all women of grisly obstetric fistulas, multiple organ failures, face and breast cancers caused by female fetuses, and sepsis limb amputations.

          • Alexandra

            Um, actually your first full-term pregnancy protects you from breast cancer.

            Those conditions are only a maybe of pregnancy, not a guarantee, not even likely. You know what abortions always do? Kill an innocent child.

          • cjvg

            Um, no they do not, only in certain circumstances they do.
            Clinically seen a woman who has given birth has an elevated risk of cancer for 10 years.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            And, apropos to cjvg’s comments, actually, birth, miscarriage OR abortion, increases the risk of breast cancer. Whoops.

          • HeilMary1

            My friend who died of face cancer was warned by her oncologists to avoid pregnancy because the high estrogen (especially from female fetuses) would weaponize her estrogen-fed basal cell carcinoma. She ignored the warnings and her in-remission cancer returned with her new daughter. I know of countless more such examples of cancer hitting new mothers.

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            not always

          • canaduck

            “How does abortion ‘un-rape’ a girl?? How does it ‘fix’ her? How does it make her better? It might however allow her attacker to continue on, undetected, all evidence of his crime vacuumed, scraped, and thrown away.”

            In one sentence you announce that aborting her rapists baby will not “un-rape” or “fix” a woman, and in the next you refer to the fetus as “evidence of [the rapist’s] crime.” Do you seriously not understand what you’re saying here? Why in the world would a traumatized woman want that growing inside her body?

          • cjvg

            And how does your false and misplaced concern for a blob of cell matter be more important then the needs of a girl that is trying to heal from a grievous violation of herself?

            How can your wishes and needs be more important then the wishes and needs of the living breathing aware girl who owns that body and who was forced to undergo a violation of that body once already?

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Wrong. However, we explained the definition of murder to you, below. No children involved, unless you are talking about someone like Lina Medina. Fetuses aren’t defenseless. They suppress a woman’s immune system so it won’t attack the fetus. Sounds like the very DEFINITION of invader, btw. Whoops.

            Forcing another violation on women and their bodies won’t win applause or a blind eye from me. SO sorry.

          • http://www.facebook.com/peter.rauch.10 Peter Rauch

            Why even criminalize rape? It made innocent life! Innocent life that wouldn’t exist without rape.

            I swear to God, the nerve of these women. Last week I was feeling hungry, and it was kind of late. But there was this woman near the bus stop, so I tried to cut some meat from her. And she starts screaming, and then EVERYBODY’s screaming. Like *I’M* the asshole.

            (Yeah, I think I overdid it on that one too. It’s just hard to come up with sarcasm heavy enough to deal with people who support forcing women into labor when forced labor is, by definition, slavery.)

          • John H

            Fetuses can have all the same rights as you and I and they still won’t be able to take over and inhabit a woman’s body against her will. ‘Abortion doctors’ don’t kill fetuses, they end pregnancies. As fetuses generally need a uterine environment to survive (especially since ‘abortion’ is illegal after viability pretty much everywhere in USA), they die as a result. Until you and your compatriots stop putting all of your effort into shaming women and blocking abortion access and instead fund research for the in-tact removal and transplantation of six-week-old embryos, build a registry of willing surrogates to gestate them, and construct a network of clinics to perform the transplants, I’m going to go ahead and keep calling you a bunch of lying anti-sex moralizers. I agree entirely that birth is not magical, it’s simply a convenient biological cut-off that handily addresses the issue with bodily autonomy that is the entire crux of abortion rights by causing the fetus to no longer inhabit someone else’s body. “Life” is not relevant to the debate, as we don’t guarantee other people the right to life at the expense of anyone’s bodily autonomy except for pregnant women. Again, forced tissue and organ donation for everyone in the country would be one of the top goals of such a “pro-life” movement that actually cared about life more than anyone’s bodily autonomy; the fact that the issue is always and only pregnant women belies the underlying (perhaps subconscious for many self-identified “pro-life” advocates) ideology, a hatred of women who have sex.

          • Alexandra

            Having sex has consequences. One of those predictable consequences is pregnancy. It’s not a matter of “punishing” women who have sex, it’s that once you’re pregnant there’s no “undoing” that. The child is already there. And yes abortion definitely does kill the child. Or what would you call it when the child is suctioned out, pulling them into pieces and the remaining bits are scraped away?? Life is only question that matters because we don’t have the right to take away other’s lives for our own convenience.

            While in general, we don’t have legal obligations to care for other human beings, or to be cared for by them, there are exceptions, and the biggest exception of all is the parent/child relationship. While the law won’t come after you if you fail to provide food and shelter for the homeless man down the street, fail to do so for your child, and you’ll be charged with child neglect. See, we owe our child care far beyond what we owe others in the eyes of the law, even if we don’t feel like it. The government expects that any children that yours (or presumed to be yours) will be cared for by you in all basic necessities until such time as the state frees you from that obligation. That includes the fruits of your labor to provide food, shelter, and clothing. To get up at 3 am, no matter how tired you are, to feed, change, burp, and hold the them.

            For the first nine months of our lives, our basic and only necessity is to be left in peace in our mother’s womb. The child in the womb takes care of all the rest of it all on their own. Indeed, the child in the womb, requires less work and effort than the child out of it. Because of current technological limitations, we cannot remove the burden of caring for the child until after birth, but even that 9 month imposition on her, such as it were, that burden cannot justify murder. That technological limitation does not justify mass murder in the meantime.

            When rights are in competition, say for example, my right to drive down the public roads unimpeded, and your right to cross the street safely, the more fundamental right must always take precedence. As I cannot exercise my right without severely injuring or killing the pedestrian, and as the violation of my right is but temporary, I must give way and stop for them. Life is the most fundamental of all rights, and no other right, no matter how justly longed for, can justify the murder of an innocent child in pursuit of that right.

          • MaiaC

            Nice use of inflammatory rhetoric, but nothing you’ve said actually responds to the fundamental point about women’s right to bodily self-determination & integrity.

            “Having sex has consequences….”

            Notice how when confronted with the prima facie case for bodiy integrity, we suddenly start talking about the “need for consequences” (read: can’t let those sluts get away with sex!).

            “What would you call it when the child is suctioned out, pulling them into pieces and the remaining bits are scraped away??”

            Um, a not-even-remotely-medically-accurate description of abortion? (Particulary considering that 9 out of 10 abortions take place before 11 weeks.)

            “for our own convenience”

            Yes, becuase women have abortions just because it’s “convenient”. Let’s not trust women to be appropriate moral decision makers or anything.

            “While in general, we don’t have legal obligations to care for other human beings, or to be cared for by them, there are exceptions, and the biggest exception of all is the parent/child relationship. ”

            Sure, except that when it comes to your BODILY INTEGRITY, there’s no parental exception for that. For instance, parents can not and are not legally required to donate an organ or blood or any other part of their body, even if it’s to save their child’s life and even if they had previously agreed to it.

            All of the obligations that you have mentioned are A) actually voluntary (in most states, you can give up these obligations by signing away parental rights) and B) not contingent upon the use of your PHYSICAL BODY & thus have nothing to do with an infringement of basic rights.

            “When rights are in competition, say for example, my right to drive down the public roads unimpeded, and your right to cross the street safely, the more fundamental right must always take precedence.”

            Yeah, that’s not actually how rights work in the US legal system. For instance, our property laws make my right to my property supercede your right to life (if you are on MY property). How can bodily integrity be LESS important than propety rights?

          • Alexandra

            The most common method of abortion in the world is known as suction curettage or vacuum aspiration. These procedures are most commonly performed from 4-12 weeks into a pregnancy. The woman is sedated with either local or general anesthesia and her cervix dilated. An ultrasound is usually used to determine gestational age. Once a cervical opening of sufficient size is achieved, a rigid or plastic cannula is inserted. Generally speaking, the size of the cannula coincides with the gestational age of the embryo or fetus. After the cannula is inserted into the uterus, the other end is attached to the tubing of an aspirator. The aspirator provides the necessary suction to empty the uterus, pulling the developing human being to pieces in the process. The cannula is rotated side to side, from the back of the uterus to the front until the no more tissue is flowing through the hose. Afterward, the human tissue that has been extracted will be examined by the abortionist to ensure a complete removal. For later first trimester pregnancies, larger pieces of the body may need to be removed manually with forceps. About 50% of the time, the abortionist will follow up by scraping the woman’s uterus.

            You were saying?

          • MaiaC

            Congratulations, you can Google! You have clearly sourced a semi-accurate anti-choice website for your description. Check any medically accurate site & they will confirm that most aspiration abortions remove the developing embryo/fetus whole.
            The “remaining bits” scraped away are the uterine lining that has built up, not the embryo/fetus.

            Bonus points to you for effort though!!!

          • Alexandra

            Not entirely, the doctor has to be sure they got it all. Wouldn’t want any tiny body parts left behind causing infection. And my description is from Karen Meckstroth MD, MPH, and Maureen Paul MD, MPH, “First-Trimester Aspiration Abortion,” Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy. Ed. Paul, Lichtenberg, Borgatta, Grimes, Stubblefield and Creinin. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009)

          • MaiaC

            I don’t believe for a second that any peer-reviewed medical literature described abortion as “pulling the developing human being to pieces in the process”

          • HeilMary1

            Google symphisiotomies.

          • cjvg

            This is just inane and absolutely ridiculous!

            A fetus that age is no larger then a dime to at most a peanut at 12 weeks, no need to cut it up, it is quite possible to remove something that size without any “cutting”

          • Ruth Rivera

            Wrong, again, panty-sniffer. In suction abortion, the entire embryonic sac is typically removed. It’s how we know that the abortion was successful. If the entire sac is not seen, that may necessitate a D&C in order to remove all the products of conception and, hence, prevent sepsis.

            What’s ironic, is that thanks to you lying sacks of misogynist shit, the only late term abortion procedure that is legal does, in fact, require pulling the fetus out in pieces, rather than intact. So, dipshits, you get your sick fantasies fulfilled when USian women who cannot withstand a trial of labor are then forced to have that dearly wanted fetus pulled out in pieces, instead of intact, which would allow them to grieve and then bury the body. Nice going, assholes.

          • goatini

            Wow, looks like your Control, C and V keys work. Too bad your brain and your moral compass don’t.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            What’s your point?

          • Alexandra

            You forget that children have LEGAL and MORAL claims on their parents that don’t apply to strangers. It’s very simple. You owe things to your children whether you like it or not, feel like it or not, that you DON’T owe to other people.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            And those people are not necessarily the people you were born to. False equivalencies are hidden traps that you should watch out for, y’know.

          • MaiaC

            Um, can ya not read? Or is this just another case of “I have no response to that point, so I’ll just ignore that you’ve made it.”

            Because I addressed that pretty extensively in my last post, detailing how a) those obligations are ACTUALLY voluntary and b) don’t infringe on your actual physical body in any way…

          • Alexandra

            And also, if you kill someone for merely coming onto your property who posed no danger to your life? The law is actually not going to look all that kindly on you. Property rights do not de facto or de jure trump the right to life.

          • L-dan

            umm…but every pregnancy does have a reasonable possibility of being a danger to your life or health. If someone came onto your property ‘merely’ threatening to torture you for months with the unknown possibility that they might kill you in the process, the law is actually going to be on your side in most cases.

          • Alexandra

            Sorry, but that’s not how the law views the parent/child relationship. Some parents might claim that they were tortured by their children for 18+ years. Still got to feed them, clothe them, shelter them, educate them, take care of them, no matter how tired you are, no matter how much it drains away from your social life, your bank account, your career, your sleep, etc.

          • canaduck

            B-b-but I thought that laws don’t guarantee morality! Weren’t you the one who said that slavery used to be legal?

          • cjvg

            In order for you to be considered a parent, the law insists that you have a born child.
            The law does not recognize child support or property rights for fetus’s

          • MaiaC

            Again, NO PARENTS DON’T HAVE TO DO THAT. In almost every state, parents can legally abdicate their parental rights & responsibilities. Stop making stuff up!!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            Oh, no one is quibbling with the fact that you’re legally responsible for your kid for at least 18 years. You’re just not legally obliged to actually birth him in the first place. Despite all the wingnut attempts at legislation, I doubt that legal status will change anytime soon. Most women understand that a government that can ban abortion is a government that might eventually force abortion, as well. The law of unintended consequences being what it is, it’s safer for me to err on the side of staying in control of my reproductive rights, including abortion.

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses pose grisly dangers to women.

          • MaiaC

            Clearly not familiar with the law, you are!

            Actually, false. In most states, unless a burger is already fleeing (leaving) your home, you have every right to use deadly force, even if THERE IS NO THREAT TO ANOTHER’S LIFE. Just off hand, you can see this in Texas (reference Section 9.42 of the penal code) and Minnesota (reference Section 609.06 of the penal code)

          • cjvg

            Not familiar with the law, not familiar with science, not familiar with logic, not familiar with reason, not familiar with human decency, yeah that pretty much sums up every single talking point she brought forth.

            However she seems to be intimately familiar with a delusional concept of moral superiority

          • L-dan

            Aww…we’re back to the “keep your legs shut” argument.

            Sorry, no. One predictable consequence of getting in my car and driving down the street is that an accident might happen. If one does happen, I am not required to further risk my life or health by donating organs to anyone injured in that accident. Yes, I’m going to do what I can to mitigate the damage from the accident, particularly if it was my fault. But there is no requirement that I need to “pay” for my “mistake” with my body, nor should there be.

          • Alexandra

            Bad analogy. An accident is not a natural result of driving. A common one to be sure. But not the end to which it is directed. Sex is directed towards procreation. That’s what it’s designed for. Just as eating is directed toward providing nutrients and energy for your body. Not just a way to pass the time.

            Once you’re pregnant, you can’t “undo” that. The child is already there. No stopping it at that point. Your choices come before you’re pregnant, not after.

          • L-dan

            Eh, insert hunting accident then. Using an object that is designed to kill, during an activity in which killing is the purpose. Accidentally shooting my hunting buddy may make me legally liable, possibly even criminally (depending on laws in a given state, yadda, yadda)…but it does not require me to donate so much as blood.

            My choices as to what happens to my body happen continuously. The fact that, despite my desires (and best efforts), a zygote managed to attach to my uterus does no obligate me to letting it stay there. For some, in fact, certain health concerns mean that they really shouldn’t let it stay there.

          • MaiaC

            Yeah, unfortunately your metaphor is too apt. Once you construct an argument that she doesn’t have a talking point for, she’ll disappear :(

          • L-dan

            Or get banned as a troll. Though her last response was pretty much incoherent word salad, indicating frustration.

            On the plus side, this particular debate popped up at a point when I had some free time *and* some displaced aggression to vent. I suppose I could thank her for the opportunity.

          • HeilMary1

            A good example, especially for men, is fetus in fetu — men have had absorbed-in-utero-twin “tumors” removed to save their looks and health. Such removals of parasitic twins is the male equivalent of abortions for women. I’ve never heard of fetal idolators protesting such male “abortions” because male bodily integrity trumps pregnant female bodily integrity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            YES. FINALLY, someone brings that logic to the forefront. Watch antis heads go all splodey!

          • cjvg

            Human sex is not directed towards procreation alone, if it was we would have clear external markers that would advertise our fertile moments, just like animals.

            Human sex is for bonding and comfort also, not every sexual encounter leads to pregnancy, even during ovulation there is only a 25 % chance of pregnancy with one time unprotected sex.
            Just like driving it does not need to lead to an accident but it might

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            cjvg, we were just about to post the same thing! Great minds, eh?

          • cjvg

            Nice to see that there still are so many reasonable and coherent people out there.

            Sometimes you start to doubt it

          • HeilMary1

            Arrest yourself then, Dummy, because you’ve given yourself many abortions just by chugging abortifacient coffee, tea and holy wine after sex with your favorite priests.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            Sex CAN be directed towards procreation. The fact that it is no longer mandatory is the unfortunate sticking point for anti-choicers.

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            keep your legs shut then and stay out of my uterus…

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Then taking away people’s lives for the convenience of not donating organs should be a problem for you. But it’s not. Wonder why?

          • cjvg

            Strange how you never seem to get an answer from our moral authority here

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            Ah, this is where you antis completely lose the plot. Consequences, eh? As if you weren’t perfectly aware that children are indeed “burdens” that, admittedly, people willingly choose to take on with varying degrees of understanding of how it will change their lives. It’s no surprise that a woman would seek to avoid this burden. It’s also no surprise that there are many people who would insist that she not be able to “get out of it.” No matter how preciously you couch the terms, it’s absolutely punitive by nature.

            Look, everybody knows what you mean by consequences, and the fact that even you speak of children this way shows how ultimately cynical and hypocritical you really are. And remember, many of your anti-choice sisters have had abortions. Their situations are “special,” though. I have far more respect for someone who’s able to admit that yes, actually, it would be damned inconvenient to have a child.

          • goatini

            Yep, it’s an anti-sex freak, all right.

          • http://www.facebook.com/swgoerling Sean Goerling

            ” (especially since ‘abortion’ is illegal after viability pretty much everywhere in USA)”
            Not in Washington DC. Abortion is legal up up to the moment of birth.

          • goatini

            Pregnancy can kill the woman up to the moment of birth.

            Any questions?

          • MaiaC

            “without help” and “outside my body” are NOT even remotely the same. i hate how anti-choicers pretend that “inside my body” is “just a location”. how ridiculous!

          • Alexandra

            It is just a location, what else would it be. Our location does not determine our right to life. For the first 9 months, our natural location is in within the womb, that’s not strange or foreign at all.

          • MaiaC

            OK. So, following that logic, I have the right to “fist pump” (that stupid Jersey Shore dance move) in any “location” I want right?
            Georgia? The mall? An Arena?
            Would that include, say, you anus?
            Oh it wouldn’t, hmmm?
            Perhaps because one’s body is not “just another location”.
            Duh

          • Alexandra

            And the child’s body is NOT your body.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Um, yeah, that’s kinda the whole point. How is it antis can make all kinds of FALSE equivalencies, yet, at the same time ignore LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS??? Specifically, that if there was only one body involved, bodily autonomy DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY. You can’t rape YOURSELF, after all. And antis SHOULD know this.

          • MaiaC

            And all most abortions do is REMOVE the embryo/fetus from my body, where it has no particular right to be.

          • MaiaC

            Also, notice how you ONCE AGAIN didn’t answer the actual question I posed to you? Funny how that keeps happening every time someone has a point that “Anti-Choice Talking Points. Com” doesn’t cover…

          • HeilMary1

            But the fetus is killing the mother, and I’m sure you support shooting intruders as self-defense!

          • HeilMary1

            Yes, inside v. outside makes all the difference for tumors, bacteria, etc. as well.

          • Ruth Rivera

            Shut up with the science already! You’re confusing the pro-liars.

          • HeilMary1

            Women deserve not to be incubating cows for pedophile priests.

          • Amy Bean

            I would like to steal that quote “[t]he birth canal is not this magical land with fairy dust that turns blobs of cells into real human beings.” HAH! So true.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Neither is sperm and egg fertilization, yet for some reason, your ilk decides that that’s when human life magically turn into persons?

          • cjvg

            So nothing is relevant except your completely illogical, anti science rhetoric?!
            That cleanly sums you up, irrelevant and incapable of coherent thought.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth.

          • goatini

            “birth canal”

            Looks like we have an anti-sex Catholic here, since that’s the Catholic nomenclature for “vagina”. I learned this on a Catholic “sex ed” radio show I heard several months ago. Already knew that Catholics consider anything but unprotected PIV sex to be “sinful”, but the two nitwits on the radio show also instructed their nitwit followers that swallowing “causes cancer”. FFS SMH WTF

          • Tapetum

            I happen to be a fan of conscious thought, or at least the capacity for such before I start thinking of something as a functioning human being. That doesn’t happen until a lot later in a pregnancy.

            I also happen to love my mother – I would far rather have been aborted than to be born as a result of her forced pregnancy and labor. She feels the same way about her mother. The difference is, I was born post Roe-v-Wade, and I know I was wanted. My mother was born before legalized abortion, and her mother emphatically did NOT want her. Why are you assuming what the fetus’s choice would be, if they had the capacity to make one?

          • Alexandra

            Doesn’t matter. Our wantedness is not a requisite for life. Or would you be okay with a parent killing their 4 year old if the child expressed a desire for death?

            And “conscious thought”?? A newborn doesn’t have much “conscious though” either. In fact, really none. No questioning self. Can’t even recognize themselves in the mirror. Is killing newborns okay? How about coma patients? People under heavy anesthesia? They don’t have “conscious thought” either. Do they cease to be people when they’re not conscious??

          • Tapetum

            Did you miss the word “capacity”? A coma patient and a patient under anesthesia still have the capacity for conscious thought. If a coma patient lacks such, and will never regain it, then yes, that person is dead.

            Has it escaped you that historically, civilizations that had no means of abortion tended to commit infanticide? I happen to dislike that idea intensely, especially as no one can say for certain exactly when conscious thought begins. We know it isn’t happening in utero though.

            Five minutes after a child is born, the mother cannot be compelled to so much as donate blood against her will. Before then, she can, according to you, be compelled to risk her life, well-being, ability to earn a living, and any and all of the other things that can come along with pregnancy. Pregnant women have been arrested and forced into medical care they don’t want despite the fact that when not pregnant, you are allowed to refuse medical care, even the refusal will kill you. We don’t even allow organ donation from already dead people unless they or their next-of-kin allow it – even if there’s someone in the room next door who will die without the donation – even if it’s a newborn baby. Why does a dead person have more control over the body they will never need again than I have over mine if I’m pregnant?

          • Alexandra

            A mother is required to provide all necessary and basic care for her child, no matter the effort it takes her. Fail to provide food, shelter, and clothing for the homeless guy down the street. No legal repercussions. Fail to do it for your child? You get arrested. Basic care for the first 9 months means leaving the child in peace.

            And let’s not act as if most pregnancies require 9 months of bed-rest. The vast majority of the time the women can keep on doing what they were doing right up to delivery practically.

            So desperate not to be pregnant that you’d murder your own child? How about not getting pregnant in the first place??

          • MaiaC

            “And let’s not act as if most pregnancies require 9 months of bed-rest. The vast majority of the time the women can keep on doing what they were doing right up to delivery practically.”

            And many can’t. Are you going to make exceptions for them? And how much illness counts as “enough”? Do you not yet see how this is fundamentally all about you believing that you have more right to make other women’s moral choices than they do???

          • Alexandra

            This is about not murdering children who make our lives inconvenient as you keep ignoring that part. You act as if abortion is some benign “procedure” that magically “un-does” a pregnancy. Sorry. I won’t let you forget what the cost of that “procedure” is–a human life. Every. Single. Time.

          • MaiaC

            Did you notice that you completely didn’t address the point?
            How you just inserted some inflammatory rhetoric about “murdering children” and said nothing of substance???

          • Alexandra

            Murdering children IS the substance of abortion. That’s the whole point. Basically you keep saying, what if…xyz? Then she can…KILL THE CHILD. I’m pointing out that it doesn’t matter what XYZ are you CANNOT KILL THE CHILD.

          • MaiaC

            I meant the substance of the debate we we having (duh). You have changed the subject and (still) not addressed my substantive question (please see above)

          • Alexandra

            I believe that NO ONE has the right to choose to murder their own child. For any reason. Even if they’re inconvenient. Even if caring for the child is difficult. Unless you also think an exhausted and overwhelmed mother should have the right to kill her screaming 2-year-old because the child is making it difficult for them to take care of themselves and pursue their career as they please?

          • http://www.facebook.com/amanda.kazarian Amanda Kazarian

            I don’t think placing a child with an unloving parent is a good idea either. I have worked in the adoption industry, and I can say fairly surely that a lot of unwanted children get lost in the foster care system and end up in jail once the age out. They don’t receive proper education, stability, or hell even a drivers license. I hear all the time from the pro-life crowd that raped women should just put babies up for adoption because lots of couples want to adopt. This is true, however most of these couples won’t get babies because they are very unfit parents.

            The cost of raising a child from birth to 18 years of age is about $250,000 not including college education. You can go on and on about saving very zygote that is conceived until birth, but the fact is not many of you pro-life folks are opening up your wallets as well. That makes it hard for one to be swayed by your convictions.

            The best you can do to not contribute to the problem is to sterilize yourself or never copulate with the opposite sex unless you are planning to have a baby, That is about as much control as you have over the situation. It may be possible to remove services for abortions, but there is no way you can force someone to be a parent.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Pregnancy is not merely inconvenient. It IS, as I’ve fucking said, below, the second leading cause of death, WORLDWIDE. Also, labeling pregnancy as merely inconvenient, means you consider rape a walk in the park. You people ARE sick.

          • HeilMary1

            She has criminal Munchausen by Proxy psychosis.

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            “‎I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to
            abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases,
            your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
            child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think
            that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s
            not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on
            what the morality of pro-life is.”

            —Sister Joan Chittister, Catholic Nun

            Wanting all children to be born but not caring about their quality of life once born isn’t being prolife. Wanting children born into a life of abuse, or a life of poverty isn’t prolife at all. Forcing women to use their bodies as life support is a form of slavery. NO ONE (fetus-child-adult) has a right to use your body/blood/organs against your will. NO ONE.

          • MaiaC

            Once again, you have not answered my discussion. In case you’ve forgotten or been distracted by your inaccurate & inflammatory rhetoric, what I was ACTUALLY asking about was the REAL medical complications that often result from pregnancy. How sick does a woman have to be to “qualify” under your little system? What % risk of death or permanent injury is every woman required to take because… you say so? And will you personally be making women’s medical decisions for them, or do you envision some sort of chart (a la mandatory minimums)?

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            That’s not getting into mental health and how many antichoicers feel mental health isn’t reason enough to end a pregnancy. Going off drugs that may be keeping suicidal idetation at bay for 9 months on top of any physical problems on top of drug withdrawl is a big fucking deal.

          • MaiaC

            Yeah, though apparently I was TOO on-point, as our little buddy disappeared!

          • doubtthat

            Right, you’ve said that. It’s a dick-dumb argument, it doesn’t become any better when you just say it over and over.

            It’s not murder. Plain and simple.

          • goatini

            All children, ever, have already been born.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Nightsky.Sam Alisha Wolford

            How about this, get pregnant right now. Then you can spout your pro-life gibberish to your baby and leave other women alone. Hope you have baby sitters on hand, a steady job, and a loving partner. Good Luck! Hope you don’t have chronic vomiting and low blood pressure, blacking out after walking around for 10 minutes, man it is so much fun I gotta tell ya all about it!

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            NO, it is NOT. The point of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Seriously, stop building up strawmen.

          • HeilMary1

            But you’d let any rapist’s fetus maim and murder YOU? — You’d get an abortion under an assumed name, then deny it afterwards!

          • http://atrocityarts.com/ h

            so, basically, God made one embryo viable out of all the ones that spontaneously abort. so God is at a cellular level. and controls everything we do. including getting an abortion. so, how dare you go against the work of god. you are evil. and illogical.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            I won’t let YOU forget the cost of what not donating all the organs you possibly can WHILE ALIVE comes at the cost of. By your OWN logic, you are ANTI-LIFE and a murderer.

          • http://www.facebook.com/peter.rauch.10 Peter Rauch

            In the same way that a fertilized egg’s failure to attach is the destruction of a human life, yes. If you think that’s the same as killing a child, I’d hope you’re not allowed near children.

          • HeilMary1

            In a burning building, “pro-life” Alexandra would save petri dish “babies”, but leave behind all sinful post-birth infants, children, and elderly.

          • cjvg

            Well then if you are that concerned about any possible “children” being murdered, why are you and the rest of the anti-choice crowd not promoting mandatory vasectomies for each and every male upon reaching maturity?!

            A very simple uncomplicated at the maximum 10 minute surgery (only local anesthetics)and not a single unwanted pregnancy will ever occur again.
            Every young man must mandatory store sperm and receive his vasectomy.

            When he finds the woman of his dreams and they decided to become parents a quick trip to the spermatory will realize their dreams and each and every child will be wanted and chosen by their parents.

            The environment will also be better of as will women and men in general since there will be considerably less hormones in our water supply.
            Win, win and win!
            So why is this never promoted?!

          • HeilMary1

            Because she and her cultists really want to ban all safe sex, restrict it to procreation only, and inflict medical and financial calamities on any “sinful” recreational sex.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Nightsky.Sam Alisha Wolford

            If you have ever read The Handmaid’s Tale, I think that’s the direction anti-choicers want to go.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            Actually, it does undo a pregnancy. That’s exactly what you antis object to.

          • HeilMary1

            And I won’t let you forget that fetuses cause deadly damage to their captive hosts. You’d be the fastest one here to get an abortion just to avoid the slightest disfigurement, health risk or financial cost, then lie about it afterwards!

          • Hannah Mallery

            I’m with you Alexanda, but as someone who has seen her share of trolls on pro-life sites, I think it’s probably best to leave these people alone. It’s their blog, and they can write what they want. The only response you’re getting is name calling and unsubstantiated accusations, neither of which are characteristics of a civil or intelligent debate.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            When YOUR ilk can start respecting women, THEN we will stop treating YOU like the trolls you are. Kthxbainow.

          • Tapetum

            Have you been pregnant? I have. I’ve had two pregnancies as a healthy, young, low-risk woman. Pregnancies that were in the range considered “normal”, with little-to-no bedrest. I wouldn’t put my worst enemy through them. Nausea and digestive issues, pelvic disymphisis, which made every step I took hurt not only during the pregnancy, but for nearly five years afterward. Braxton-Hicks contractions which lasted more than six weeks (ponder contracting every twenty minutes, round the clock for six weeks).

            The labors, I will admit, were not normal. The first was lengthy, massively painful, and ended in an emergency C-section and a four day hospital stay. (We stopped counting the bills when they topped $40,000.) The second was much shorter. Surgery goes much quicker when you don’t stop to wait for the anesthesiologist. There were no indications during the pregnancies that labor would be anything but normal.

            They were tolerable, and I was able to deal with the events and their aftermath because my children were chosen and wanted. I can’t see putting someone through it against their will as anything but torture.

          • Alexandra

            No, I have not been pregnant yet, but I fully aware that a lot of pregnancy is not pleasant, it’s not fun, and it’s very painful. But when the other option is MURDER? Sorry, but I’m going to remain steadfastly anti-murdering children.

            So desperate not to be pregnant you think murder is the only option? How about not getting pregnant in the first place? Babies don’t just magically appear in your womb out of nowhere.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            I love how people who have never been pregnant can be so incredibly flippant about the dangers and risks involved.

          • doubtthat

            Not murder. Not even close. A bundle of cells is not a baby. Support health care for women everywhere and 99% of abortions would happen long before any troubling questions about fetal development even had to be considered.

          • goatini

            So, you’re actually an anti-sex freak. It may interest you to know that women in the United States are no longer chattel property breeders, and now enjoy personal bodily autonomy and self-determination.

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            I really hope your pregnancy is everything you hope for because you have a really bad view of the world… Unless you are sterile then I wont have to worry.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Please tell me where the LAW demands that she be the SOLE caregiver for a child??? Hmm…?

          • doubtthat

            So, would a mother be required to give up a kidney if the child needed it to survive? Bodily autonomy is a basic right. You can whine and piss and moan and wring your hands over the fate of the little, magical soul attached to the pre-sentient bundle of cells, but you cannot pass a law that makes someone’s body the property of the state to do with it what they please.

            Giving up one’s body for the sake of another is a much different thing that providing material needs.

          • http://www.facebook.com/amanda.kazarian Amanda Kazarian

            Actually, no I don’t have any obligation to take care of a child that I give birth to, I can just dump it in foster care. I have worked in the industry and I have seen a lot of women do just that. So yeah, lets make sure everyone is born so we can neglect, abuse and deprive them later. Seems legit.

          • Alexandra

            You didn’t address newborns in your “capacity for conscious thought” bit. Maybe that’s because newborns and the unborn at all stages have the same “capacity” one that is still in the future, given time and further development.

            Care to defend infanticide as morally valid?

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Way to totally twist the argument. Tapetum wasn’t arguing that. They were REFUTING your earlier claims that coma patients and patients under anaesthesia fall in the same category of fetuses.

            And, if you had READ the rest of their argument, you would know that defending infanticide is NOT morally valid for them. Reading comprehension, antis. What YOU advocate for is infanticide, by making abortion illegal, if you want me to extrapolate from the argument being made, falsely, as YOU do.

          • http://www.facebook.com/peter.rauch.10 Peter Rauch

            Abortion and contraception are the only things that have ever prevented widespread infanticide. I know you’re enthused about using them interchangeably, but they’re not.

          • doubtthat

            Brain activity that could roughly be described as “human” is established around the 26-27 week mark — both hemispheres of the brain functioning.

            If you stopped the religious bullshittery and supported access to medical treatment, the only abortions that would happen that late in a pregnancy would be emergencies.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Seeing as the child does not require the bodily resources of another to survive, killing them would be a violation of THEIR bodily autonomy, even if they wanted it. However, killing themselves would NOT be so designated. SO sorry.

          • HeilMary1

            My anti-abortion mom tried to kill me when I was in grade school. Wish she had aborted me instead of disfiguring me!

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            Really sorry that happened I hope that your life has been better and you find love and happiness …

          • Ruth Rivera

            Actually, love is a biological mammalian need. Children who are unloved face a deplorable host of attachment and emotional problems, if they even survive. Look up Romania under Ceausescu and the countless thousands of children that languished in horrific state care due to his forced-birth policies. Look up attachment disorder.

            You are simply wrong on each and every level. I know that you can’t let go of the humunculus theory pounded into you by misogynist superstition, which would make me pity you if you weren’t so hateful and willfully ignorant, but children are NOT created by men. Men’s single-cell contribution, while absolutely necessary to the process, is nothing compared to the very real, body-changing, life- and health-threatening work of pregnancy and labor. Children are created, molecule by molecule, cell by cell, by women. Stopping a process is NOT murder, just like removing someone from life support is NOT murder, though both kill marginally live organisms.

            I loathe the terminology “childbearing.” Women don’t “bear” children, like they are simply carrying a basket of fruit or something. Women create children, at extreme detriment to their physical selves, especially if they are not healthy enough or do not have access to adequate amounts of healthful food. Creating and rearing children can hardly be dismissed as merely “inconvenient.” Children turn one’s life upside down. They are an awesome and grave 24/7/365 responsibility. Children deserve to be anticipated with joy, loved, cherished, fed, clothed, and educated. If a woman doesn’t feel she is up to the task, for whatever reason, who are YOU to force them to do it?

            You pro-life-until-birth’ers screech on and on about the plight of mindless tissue clusters, potential children, whilst simultaneously cutting funding for education, contraception, health, and welfare benefits that would allow women to feed, clothe, educate, and care for themselves and those actual children you claim are so very precious. You disgust me. You would disgust Jesus, if he existed. Jesus was all about helping those who were on the margins of society, the poor and the outcast. He was all about throwing the money-changers out of the temple, unlike your filthy rich, rape-sanctioning, pedophile-enabling, blood-soaked church. He was all about reducing the amount of suffering in the world, not increasing it, like your ilk are want to do.

            You, Alexandra, are part of the problem. If the christian/catholic fantasy is true, then you will have hell to pay on your day of Judgment.

          • http://www.facebook.com/elizabeth.cassebennethum Elizabeth Casse Bennethum

            newborns are conscious of themselves they know when they are hungry, dirt etc. just because they are young doesn’t mean anything. a zygote on the other hand doesn’t have the brain cells to tell where they are… not to mention that are not viable until they are about 6 months along in their development. legal abortion if done correctly is usually done before the embryo is viable, not bigger than an 1inch-2inch long and there are no lungs… so no breath to take in… there are exceptions to the rule either the baby will never be viable because of a major defect such as no brain, or other organs and many other reasons I think this decision should always be between a patient and their doctor…. What this man did is illegal and I don’t condone it. If it was legal he wouldn’t be up on charges for killing babies…

          • HeilMary1

            You fetal idolators hate the mountains of science and grave yards proving pregnancy’s dangers.

          • Alexandra

            We’re not forcing anyone to GET pregnant. But once you’re pregnant, you’re…pregnant.

            No undoing it what’s been done. Murder is not a solution.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            So, killing my rapist while being raped is not a solution? After all, according to YOU, it’s murder. WHOOPS.

          • Ruth Rivera

            Not only can it be undone, it can also be prevented, which for insane reasons your side is against. Whatever. You forced-birthers are full of shit. We’re sick of your bloviating nonsense.

          • cjvg

            It is truly ironic to see someone as ignorant as you make an anti science claim.
            You are not even remotely aware what a “brainwave” is or how sentience and live would be established.
            Brain waves is not the same as sentience, people who are clinically brain dead have brainwaves, just not in the part of the brain that means that they are still alive.
            At this point doctors can start organ harvesting or turn off life support, no murder charges have ever, or will ever be been filed.

            A fetus younger then 26-30 weeks does not have all the brain structure (cortex) or the synapse, neurons etc in place to show more brain activity then a person who is clinically brain dead, as measured with the same machine (EEG)
            The heart might beat, but nobody is home.

            The woman however is a living breathing aware and sentient person, why should her needs, wants and feeling be subservient to a fetus that does not even have any on your say so?!

          • Ruth Rivera

            I once took care of a woman whose neo-cortex was obliterated due to hypoxemia after a myocardial infarction. Sleep and wake cycles and even chewing motions are governed by the brain stem, so the family was convinced that she was alive and would not let her go. They refused to believe that she was gone. Would scream at her to wake up, babble the bible at her, have hymns playing on CD. It was really sad.

            Around the same time, I also took care of a woman who was locked-in, which is my personal nightmare. Her eyes would track. She would fight me when I tried to give her oral care. She would cry when her family came to visit, which became less and less often until they stopped coming at all. I felt so, so sorry for her. That’s not living; that’s hell on earth.

          • cjvg

            Absolutely, I believe in dignity in dying and having the right to chose when life is not worth it any more.

          • doubtthat

            Congrats on repeating a classic, stupid anti-choice myth. That 6 week number is 100% made up bullshit.

            Setting aside the issue of whether the existence of a “brain wave” suddenly gives a fetus more rights than the mother, here is the actual truth about brain development:

            Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns…First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

          • http://atrocityarts.com/ h

            umm, where is your “science?” You have none at all. This is the stupidest post yet.

          • Expatmom

            So how many adopted & foster children has your moral compass directed you to have in your home?? If you’re not part of the answer, you’re part of the problem.

          • http://twitter.com/Desertsunart Desert Sun Art

            People need to take responsibility for their actions. I’m tired of men and women screwing around and then getting pregnant and killing their unborn children. How about learn some self-control and discipline. I did not get these people pregnant, they got themselves pregnant and the answer is not to abort them. How about, the first time someone has an unplanned pregnancy, make sure you start showing self-control so it doesn’t happen again. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sex. But oh, “that’s crazy isn’t it? It’s all about sex and my right to get pleasure whenever and wherever I want it, right? Don’t tell me I can’t have sex without consequences.” B.S. Society has totally lost it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/amanda.kazarian Amanda Kazarian

            People outside planned parenthood make me laugh when they are screaming at me not to kill my baby. I wasn’t pregnant and I was going in to get my tubes tied, since planned parenthood is the only place that is willing to do it. I will enjoy sex with my husband without having children. The most you can do is not have sex and exercise “self-control” if its important to YOU. I would rather have a happy marriage.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Men don’t get pregnant. Women aren’t killing anything. They’re terminating pregnancies. HUGE fucking failure, right there.

          • cjvg

            They are taking responsibility, they are having an abortion when they are not ready or willing to have a child because you do not like their solution that does not give you the right to dictate what solution would make you feel better.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            And, if they were to have a child when they weren’t ready or willing, the antis would label them ‘sluts’ and ‘welfare queens’. The hypocrisy. God, my God, hates hypocrites.

          • cjvg

            Of course, that is pretty much self explanatory.

            Nothing is more enjoyable then making yourself feel better by loudly and publically shaming and vilifying others who need help.
            It is always gratifying if you get to abuse a person who is in a tough spot and is dependent on help from you. *sarcasm*

          • Ruth Rivera

            That’s the “christian” way!

          • HeilMary1

            Exactly!

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Btw, men can and do have the right to get pleasure whenever and wherever they want to, legally and morally, even according to the antis. That’s called misogyny, btw.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            Children as “consequences” again. You antis really give quite a bit away when that’s the term you use, and you use it often.

          • HeilMary1

            The antis really hate children, and view the poor, disabled and non-white as target practice, sex slaves or medical lab rats like me.

          • bj_survivor

            If I haven’t already told you, I fucking love you, Mary!

          • HeilMary1

            Love you too!

          • HeilMary1

            So Desert has never heard of contraception and sterilization, and thinks married couples should have no sex if they don’t want kids?

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            In much the same way that anti’s abortions are the only moral ones, their sex is the only moral sex, too. If they embezzle money from their employers, that is also moral, you see.

          • Ruth Rivera

            Because that’s always been so effective, right?…If you look at it from the catholic/fundy perspective of “bitches ain’t shit” and “grow the flock” then Alexandra et al’s babblings make perfect, if depraved, sense.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            I would imagine that any anti-choicer’s reason for not adopting foster children is that it would be somehow . . . inconvenient. I can’t respect anyone who waffles and obfuscates about how much they loooove children but don’t adopt, but at least I’m honest enough to admit that I didn’t birth or adopt children because I just plain didn’t want to.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re so twisted with pedophile priest fetal idolatry, you ignore pregnancy’s thousands of years of deadly effects on women.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Says the person who thinks forced pregnancy is moral and/OR ethical. Oh, but violating woman’s bodies is always acceptable, moral and ethical, in antis worldview. I forgot.

          • Ruth Rivera

            It’s not like women are persons or anything. If they wanted to be persons, they should have been born with penises.

        • Alexandra

          Sounds like you need a remedial biology course ASAP.

          • MaiaC

            Sounds like YOU dp

          • Alexandra

            Please, explain what aspect of my description of the unborn is inaccurate, and be so kind as to cite something more than your opinion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            PLEASE tell me how pregnancy can be the second leading cause of death WORLDWIDE, now, yet not in history when we didn’t have NEARLY the advanced medical treatment today to mitigate the risks??? Are you seriously that stupid?

          • HeilMary1

            She really is that stupid!

          • MaiaC

            You haven’t cited anything (correctly – you did inaccurately quote one title), and I haven’t said anything that isn’t either 1) readily available on the CDC website or 2) logic. If there is some particular factual claim of mine that you dispute, please let me know.

          • http://twitter.com/law1204 Law

            “Please, explain what aspect of my description of the unborn is inaccurate”

            Please explain how any description of “the unborn” is RELEVANT.

            According to law, medicine, philosophy, and science, women are people, not incubation machines obligated to maim themselves and assume the risk of death against their will just because YOU say they should.

            Even granting your (irrelevant; wrong) argument that “fetuses are babies/people,” you’re basically insisting, in contradistinction to every human path of knowledge available to us thus far, that it should have MORE rights than someone who has already been born. It’s already been shown to you that adults do not have claim on anyone else’s physical bodily resources.

            To argue that a fetus should is patently absurd, and that is why the SCOTUS has ruled that abortions are a Constitutional right.

            The problem here is that you’re terribly upset, in your narcissism and grasping for control, that YOU do not have the final say in other people’s decision making processes, their moral judgments, or their medical care. Nor should you, although the fact that you think so only indicates a deep-seated sense of personal powerlessness in your own life.

            Please do what your savior told you to do and butt out of other people’s affairs lest you screw up their lives the same as you screw up your own.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

        No babies involved.

      • http://www.facebook.com/peter.rauch.10 Peter Rauch

        Not only that, but they kill unborn babies in a square circle!

    • http://www.facebook.com/swgoerling Sean Goerling

      There is a difference. Laws against child abuse help protect children. Laws allowing legal abortions were directly the cause of Gosnell being able to do what he did.

      • goatini

        Wrong.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

        Oh, then, there were no back-alley abortions before Roe vs Wade? Even if you disagree on the number, antis DO agree that it DID happen. Butchers just like Gosnell. So, tell me how that worked, again?

  • Alexandra

    You want more funding for abortion so MORE children can be slaughtered like the ones Gosnell butchered. Oh sure, you’re upset that the place was filthy and you’d like to see him pay for murdering the woman, but if he had killed those children IN the womb instead of moving them a few inches out and THEN killing them, you’d have no problem with it whatsoever. How do I know? Because you support late-term abortions. Because you call it “necessary” health-care. That was BUTCHERY. They were slaughtered. And guess what? They were just as alive in the womb.

    The only people lying and misdirecting, is you Ms. Marcotte. You don’t care about savagery against children as long as it happens out of sight, in utero, in clean pristine rooms with nice signs about “choice” and “reproductive freedom” never mind the tiny children who had neither as they were beheaded and torn limb from limb.

    • Tapetum

      And what happens to the women who need late-term abortions when no doctor or facility knows how to do them? There aren’t any? It’s never necessary? How weird. I could swear that I had a friend whose fetus died in utero, and who got to walk around as a living coffin for three weeks, at risk for sepsis the whole time because there was nobody in the entire state who could perform the procedure to remove the fetus. There were three clinics nationwide who could have helped her, and she was in no condition to fly.

      I’d be a lot more impressed with the anti-choicers commitment to women and children if they gave a crap about children once they’re born, or women getting good pre-natal care, or pretty much anything that might help children be better taken care of and live healthier, happier lives.

      • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

        I actually read a story on the web where ‘pro-lifers’ were patting themselves on the back for persuading a woman whose child had died in utero to not have the child removed but wait for it to be naturally expelled (for God’s sake, why?). I wonder if they would still be congratulating themselves if this woman had died of sepsis.

        • defhigh

          they don’t care about women, or “children” once they’re born either. they care only for their religious ideology. well fortunately for us, religious ideology is not yet law in this country

        • HeilMary1

          They should be arrested for Munchausen by Proxy abuse.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            I couldn’t agree more.

      • Alexandra

        If the child was dead, there was no need for an abortion. And I don’t know why any hospital couldn’t have induced or performed a c-section, I would think that would have been simple enough.

        And if you knew anything about Pregnancy Resource Centers you’d know how much they do to give pregnant women real help, including pre-natal care, not killing their children.

        • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

          Pregnancy Resource Centers lie to women. They put their ads in the “Abortion Services” listings for a reason. They are not a “pregnancy resource”, they are anti-abortion and should self identify that way.

          • Alexandra

            They are anti-abortion, but they’ll give you REAL care, not kill your child. Do you know how many adoption referrals compared to abortions Planned Parenthood did last year? How much pre-natal care compared to abortions? Planned Parenthood and the rest are an abortion business and they make good money doing it. Pregnancy Resource Centers provide FREE care for women including pre-natal, free legal consultations if they wish to place the child for adoption, even providing women with diapers and other essentials if they choose to keep the baby. Never heard of a Planned Parenthood doing all that.

          • goatini

            “Free” legal consultations for persons in unpaid indentured servitude to negotiate the uncompensated seizure of the fruits of their labor to sell to the highest bidder. Wow, how big of them, not.

          • HeilMary1

            Your bullying centers gave my friend no help when her husband starting beating her for being “fat” and when her pregnancy-weaponized face cancer returned. She got no help when her husband kidnapped their daughter and admitted molesting her. She got no help with her cancer and custody bills.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            No, Planned Parenthood provides real health care. How many breast exams, cancer screenings, pap tests, etc do CPCs do? None? Colour me shocked.

            Abortion business implies profit. Planned Parenthood is non-profit. It also implies marketing. Planned parenthood doesn’t market abortion (unlike CPCs who falsely market their services as abortion services) nor does it mandate abortion (unlike CPCs who mandate birth).

            Diapers and other essentials do not last the entire lifespan of the child. Moron.

            Y’know who WAS anti-abortion? Margaret Sanger. You people are not. You are anti-choice.

            Abortions are only three percent of their services, and some don’t even do abortions. Thanks for playing!

        • Amanda Marcotte

          Thanks for your diagnosis, doctor, but it’s clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Just because the fetus dies doesn’t mean it’s not still in there, meaning the pregnancy needs to be aborted.

          • Alexandra

            That’s not an “abortion” as anyone means it any more than the fact that a natural miscarriage also terminates a pregnancy makes it the same as a doctor going in and killing a living child.

          • MaiaC

            MEDICALLY, it is an abortion. Just because you’ve decided not to object to it doesn’t make it “not an abortion”. Words have meanings!

          • Alexandra

            True, but irrelevant to the point of making it illegal. No pro-lifer objects to appendectomies because appendices are not living human beings, removal a dead child is not what anyone is talking about when they talk about abortion and you know it.

          • MaiaC

            Oh… So when YOU don’t object to an abortion, then it magically becomes not an abortion? See, I didn’t get that!

          • HeilMary1

            Your pedophile priest cult is now denying women the right to remove already dead fetuses.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Actually, yeah, it is. You just want to avoid a logical point, as always.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            So, no intent to kill does not equal no intent to kill? See, I don’t get that, either. You’re just blaming a woman for her biology. So fucking sick. Miscarriages are spontaneous abortions. The intent of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy NOT to kill.

        • MaiaC

          “If the child was dead, there was no need for an abortion. ”

          You are SO woefully uneducated. Newsflash: Often a fetus or embyro dies, but is not expelled from the uterus. This requires an abortion (to, you know, prevent the women from dying of infection).

        • HeilMary1

          My best friend whose last daughter made her face rot off got very shabby “help” from one of your forced-birth bullying centers.

    • HeilMary1

      You deserve a symphisiotomy if you ever find a sucker to breed with. You should be sentenced to changing bed pans in a fistula hospital to get a clue about childbirth dangers and why the Vatican banned marriage to “piles of dung” mothers. Ever wonder why Depends are marketed to women only and why most GOP men trade their wives in?

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      Um, you recognize that there is a difference between late-term abortion and what Gosnell then equate the two. You are so stupid. Fetuses aren’t children. Saying that a fetus who violates my body should get a choice (even though they don’t have the capacity to make one) is like saying my rapist should get a choice (even moreso because he DOES have the capacity to do so). Whoops.

  • Alexandra

    Do you really think that what Leroy Carhart does in Maryland at his “late-term” facility is any different? Oh, his place is better-run, and I’m sure his staff is “qualified” but he still kills fully formed children for money. And it still leads to death for the women who go there. Or haven’t you heard?

    • Amanda Marcotte

      Offering clean, safe abortions to women who need them for medically indicated reasons? Yes, that is very different.

      • Alexandra

        Medically indicated reasons like “I no longer wish to be pregnant” or “My child isn’t the “perfect” baby I expected’?

        Guess what those pictures of the children that Gosnell butchered? They look like that in the womb too.

        • Alexandra

          Medically indicated like by the Doe v. Bolton standard?

          “Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, “an abortion is necessary” is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

          Yeah…I’m sure that’s very narrow and rare thing.

          It’s not like it amounts to at least 16,000 post-viability abortions a year or anything. Oh wait, it does.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Tell Andrea Yates or her children (oh, wait, you can’t) that her/their mother’s emotional, psychological and physical well-being were not life-threatening. Tell a woman who is impoverished that her pregnancy won’t affect her life and well-being, let ALONE those of the existing children she has, more than a wealthy woman’s pregnancy would affect her and her children. Tell a woman who is older that childbirth and pregnancy aren’t more dangerous for her than a younger woman. WHOOPS!

        • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

          Late term abortions are not done for the reasons you have twisted to suit your ideology. I had a very high risk pregnancy with my son. The only cure for per-eclampsia is delivery. Luckily I made to 38 weeks. He and I both were healthy. However had my BP gotten so high when I was in my 24-28 week range, he would have had to been delivered in order to save my life but may not have survived. Your ignorance on this topic is stunning

          • Alexandra

            Late-term delivery and late-term abortion are NOT the same thing. Yes, if you had delivered between 24-28 weeks he may not have survived. But there’s a BIG difference between a delivery followed by neo-natal NICU and tearing the child apart in pieces in utero on purpose. Or is that unclear to you? One gives them a shot at life, doing what is necessary to save TWO lives, the other is intentional and purposeful MURDER of the weaker.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            Take your smug, holider than thou,sanctimonious attitude and your complete lack of medical knowledge (it’s pre-term delivery Dr.) and go away. This is a pro-choice blog or is that unclear to you?

          • Alexandra

            Well, just trying to throw some facts amongst the euphemisms, the clichés, and the outright lies. Or do you prefer your ignorance? Must make sleeping at night easier.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            You wouldn’t know a fact if it jumped up and bit you. You have proven your ignorance over and over. We get it, you don’t like abortion. The beauty of Roe is that you don’t ever have to have one. You have a choice, just like I did 41 years ago. It was the right decision and I have never lost a wink of sleep over it. I know full well what happened when I had an abortion. I was young but not stupid.

          • Alexandra

            Where’s your proof that the child is not a person?? I’ve actually cited EVIDENCE to you, you have given me nothing but an opinion. No, the only fact-less one here is you. You are driven by emotion and faith that the pro-choice lies you’ve been sold are truths, you can’t point to anything objective and say “here is the proof.” I could cite far more embryology textbooks that explain the nature of the unborn but you don’t want to hear it because you’ll have to face the reality that every single abortion murders an innocent child.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            I faced my own reality a long time ago. I HAD an abortion. What lies have I been sold? I also HAD a child, saw the sonograms and heard heartbeats . The difference is two different realities at two separate times in my life. Being pro-choice does not mean ignoring that there is a potential life. There is. The fundamental issue here is whose decision it is to make the choice to terminate the pregnancy, adopt or keep the child. I worked in a clinic in ’73 right after Roe. If any woman said she really didn’t want the abortion and was being pressured, the Dr. would not do it. That is the true meaning of CHOICE. My body, my life, my decision. Not yours, not the Gov. of my state, MINE.

          • Alexandra

            The child was no different in any respect from the child you gave birth to. Same heartbeat, same tiny body. Where was their choice? Where was their rights? Screaming choice doesn’t make a darn bit of difference. That child was a HUMAN BEING. Murdered. For the sole crime of being conceived by the wrong person at the wrong time. Is that justice? Is that what we mean by human rights for all? You get them as long as you’re not in the way, inconvenient? You can live as long as you’re “wanted”?

          • HeilMary1

            I wish my disfiguring anti-choice mom aborted me instead of making my life hell after birth. You’d have an abortion to save your looks, life, marriage, job and already born kids too faster than anyone else here, you whining selfish hypocrite.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Where’s the RAAAAPPPIIIISSTTTS choice? Where was their rights? Yep, that’s EXACTLY what you’re fucking telling us.

            Pregnancy is not fucking inconvenient, moron. It’s DANGEROUS. FFS.

            No, you can live as long as the woman wants to be pregnant. Because that is her right to bodily autonomy, a right that EVERYONE ELSE HAS, but, by taking it AWAY, you’re saying that as long as you’re a woman and pregnant you do not have rights. You are not a PERSON.

          • Alexandra

            It was no “potential” life. It existed. It was THEIRS and NOT YOURS. There were other options. Murder was not the only way and it’s still not the only way. That child didn’t have to be scarified. None of them do.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            It’s MINE when it is in MY body. Get it?

          • Alexandra

            The child’s body is NOT your body. Get it? They have rights to bodily autonomy too.

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            I am done with this. I have a job which apparently you don’t, that I need to get back to. You proved nothing here other than you have a great deal of time on your hands. Have a nice day

          • Alexandra

            Ooh, burn, ouch. You really got me. Too bad I live in MA and it’s a holiday here today, otherwise you might have actually managed to say something factual.

          • goatini

            Violating Patriot Day by advocating for stripping female US citizens of their civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy and personal bodily autonomy – perfectly showcasing your un-American and un-Constitutional spam.

          • HeilMary1

            That fetus threatened HER life! Get it? Would you allow a fetus to rot off your face, shred your bladder and bowels, amputate your limbs or shut off your heart, lungs and kidneys??

          • goatini

            It’s potential life until it’s born.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            You mean your euphemisms to make misogyny sound better?

          • HeilMary1

            You ignore that Sister McBride and her St. Joseph’s Hospital were excommunicated by pedophile priest-protector Bishop Olmsted because she agreed to the same very early delivery of a non-viable fetus also to save the life of the dying mother. You fetal idolators keep moving the goal posts.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            So, back to blaming women for their BIOLOGY, you hypocritical misogynist?

      • Alexandra

        Certainly wasn’t “safe” for Jennifer Morbelli.

        • HeilMary1

          Pregnancy and childbirth weren’t safe for her, but you only care about dead and rotting and non-viable fetuses.

          • Hannah Mallery

            How do you know childbirth wasn’t safe for her?

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Because all pregnancy is dangerous and threatens a woman’s life. Haven’t you been reading? Oi.

          • Hannah Mallery

            Being alive is threatening to life. Everything is a risk, just ask The Lonely Island. ;-) I know you will probably never really change your minds, and I’m not going to bother you, as I really don’t have time for full time trollin’. I just came across the article anyway.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Then why did you feel the need to post? Trolling is just another word for bigot. Also, have you no reading comprehension, whatsoever? We were talking about childbirth, and I told you why it was dangerous. Something ELSE I mentioned, earlier. Just because life, itself, is dangerous, doesn’t make childbirth any LESS dangerous. SFS.

    • HeilMary1

      You ignore the THOUSANDS of women he saved from childbirth deaths and injuries and focus on ONE pregnancy-caused death that abortion couldn’t prevent?

  • Alexandra

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

    Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

    “The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops.”

    “The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”

    J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

    “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”

    E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

    “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”
    Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 2008), 85-86.

    So WHO exactly is Lying, Ms. Marcotte?? Who is spreading the untruth that the child in the womb isn’t a human person?? Do you have any evidence for that claim or do you only cling to it ON FAITH??

    • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

      Tell you what, get pregnant in Dec.and see if the IRS will let you use the “conception” date for the child deduction.

      • Alexandra

        Again, not relevant. What the IRS measures is not a standard for our right to live, any more than I could kill a foreign visitor in the US who also would not be measured by the IRS.

        • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

          If you want the Gov. to establish that life begins at conception in order to overturn Roe, it is relevant.

          • Alexandra

            Nope, not necessary at all. There was a time before Roe, where abortion was illegal and the government the IRS still didn’t measure the unborn. Birth may be a convenient time to measure many things, but it doesn’t turn us into human beings. Or are you still having trouble understanding that part?

          • noen

            Birth *does* turn you into a legal citizen however. Something a gamete is not.

          • Alexandra

            Citizenship is not equivalent to personhood. Non-citizens may also not be killed. Not that complicated.

          • noen

            True, the unborn fetus after 28 weeks is a person and not necessarily a citizen of the US. The original SCOTUS decision made the determining factor *viability*. I think that is correct.

            I would even extend personhood to some primates, cetaceans or any organism that has achieved enough complexity that it is a conscious, self aware moral agent i.e. a person. We should not mistreat chimps, porpoises or the unborn after 28 weeks for the same reason. They are aware, can feel pain and in the case of human fetuses are viable outside the womb.

            Prior to 28 weeks the fetus cannot feel pain and there is hardly a nervous system let alone a mind. It is not therefore a *person* and so it is not immoral to terminate a pregnancy then.

          • Alexandra

            Conscious, self awareness, NONE of that is a standard for personhood. A newborn is NOT self-aware. They can’t recognize themselves in a mirror. They can’t question their existence. People in a coma or under heavy anesthesia are also not self aware. Can I go into a hospital and kill all the coma patients because they no longer meet the “personhood” test?

            Ridiculous. And children have survived as young as 21 weeks, and I’m sure they can feel pain. Your science is out dated.

          • noen

            “A newborn is NOT self-aware.” … “People in a coma or under heavy anesthesia are also not self aware.”

            They are capable of being so or have been. Some people in comas are judged to be brain dead and it is not wrong to terminate their life because there is no one there. Some fetuses even after 28 weeks are so deformed that there is no chance for survival and so it is not wrong to terminate them either.

            We are allowed to use our judgment in making decisions. We do not have to follow absolute rules.

          • Alexandra

            The child in utero is also “capable” of being self-aware. All they need, same as as the new-born is time.

            At least Peter Singer, for as vile as I find him, is intellectually honest. He has no problem with “post-birth abortion” because he knows there’s no difference between the newborn and the child in the womb. NONE. He’s got no problem with it up to up to 2 years of age. Vile, but consistent. Your line is arbitrary and meaningless.

          • noen

            “The child in utero is also “capable” of being self-aware.” — Which is why terminating it after 28 weeks is not wrong.

            I don’t follow Singer and don’t agree with him on some things. I am not inconsistent and the line I draw is based in reality.

          • Alexandra

            What is “self-aware” to you? Define it.

          • noen

            Viability outside the womb is the test.

          • Alexandra

            How is a child outside the womb more “self-aware” than one in it?

            And you’ll have to ban abortions after 21 weeks at the least now since children have survived outside the womb from that point.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            No, Dr. Singer’s line is arbitrary and inconsistent, if he WERE saying what you THINK he is saying. DERP.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            If they can feel pain, birth would have been traumatic. So your point about feeling pain… is moot.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            There isn’t even a test which can tell when fertilization takes place. Pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, something that over half of the fertilized eggs fail to do.

          • Alexandra

            Again, not relevant. We ALL die, some days after conception, some a few months later, some moments after birth, some after 100 years, some in between. Our INEVITABLE death does not give any one else the right to kill us even ONE MOMENT before our time. It’s the difference between NATURAL DEATH and MURDER.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            How exactly would you go about establishing and enforcing a ‘life begins at conception’ when there isn’t even a way to measure or detect the moment that conception actually occurs? Just explain to me how that would work.

          • Alexandra

            Same as it did before Roe. You do remember that the world didn’t start in Jan. 1973 right?

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Actually for me the world did start in January of ’73 because that’s when I was born but I don’t think you’re quite getting my point. How would you go about protecting a life from conception when at the point of conception there’s no way to tell that a life even exists? It takes 7 to 10 days for a fertilized egg to implant, if it does, and before implantation there is no way to tell it’s there.

          • Alexandra

            No special action would be necessary in general. Of course we’ll have to bring an end to embryonic research and any form of IVF that requires intentionally killing embryos, but otherwise, no change in the law is necessary.

          • http://www.facebook.com/amy.pierce.566 Amy Pierce

            Good work Alexandra! You are holding your own on one of the most radical pro-abortion blogs there is, you may not be changing any minds, but their minds are not open to anything you say so it would have been a miracle!

          • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

            You say she is “holding her own” and then say she hasn’t changed any minds I call that an epic fail.

          • MaiaC

            She’s not really “holding her own” so much as she is repeating canned talking points & disappearing whenever someone makes a point she can’t address. Sadly, I am thinking that’s what impresses you – since she’s continuing to believe your rhetoric, in spite of logic, facts, & compassion provided to the contrary…

          • goatini

            Copypasta, misogynist rhetoric, and psuedo-“science” isn’t in any way “holding (ones) own”.

          • HeilMary1

            So you would criminalize all abortifacient coffee, tea, cola, holy wine and hundreds of other foods to prevent zygote flushing?

          • MaiaC

            Do you understand that abortion didn’t start in January 1973????

          • HeilMary1

            She’s really that stupid!

          • HeilMary1

            So you oppose all self-defense measures, including tumor removals?

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            There is no right to kill. Abortion isn’t killing and it isn’t mandated. The difference between natural death and murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought. Abortion doesn’t fulfill ANY of those requirements.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Then making abortion illegal does not make fetuses into persons, and making fetuses into persons does not mean they get more rights than anyone born, after all, if making one a person gave someone the right to live at all costs, making abortion illegal (giving them the right to live at all costs) would have made them persons. Clearly that is not why fetuses DON’T have the right to live at all costs.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

          What the IRS measures is not a standard for woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Meaning, if a foreigner was raping me, I could still use deadly force against them. So fucking WHOOPS????

    • noen

      The dispute on abortion is not over whether a fertilized ovum is human. No one disagrees that it is. It is over whether it should have the legal status of a person. I think they got it about right in Roe v Wade. At 28 weeks the fetus is viable and therefore should not have it’s life terminated. Prior to that it is not a person.

      • Alexandra

        What makes us a person noen?? What turns non-person into person?

        Children have survived as young as 21 weeks as science progresses, the line gets moved, so were 21 week old fetuses NOT persons in 1973 but they are in 2013? That’s ridiculous.

        Also, thanks to Doe v. Bolton, abortion is legal up to the moment of birth, the health “exception” being wide enough to drive a truck through.

        If you look the word “person” what do you find? “Human, Individual.” The last time this country decided a group of people were human but not-persons it was decided Dred Scott v. Sanford. That’s not exactly an argument you should want to be using.

        • noen

          “What makes us a person noen?”

          Self awareness. Consciousness. Agency. At a certain level of complexity life becomes self aware. Aware that it is a self experiencing the world. Chimps qualify in my book as persons and it is wrong to mistreat them for the same reason it is wrong to terminate a viable fetus.

          “abortion is legal up to the moment of birth”

          No it isn’t. Only under extreme circumstances. A fetus with it’s brain outside of it’s skull has no chance of living and it’s doubtful to me there is a person with a mind in such a highly deformed brain.

          Dred Scott is not a good analogy because African Americans were self aware, conscious agents before the SOCTUS recognized them as legal persons. Something that is not true of gametes. The belief that blacks were not persons was a legal fiction. The belief that gametes are not persons is not.

          • Alexandra

            Read Doe v. Bolton and read the health exception if you think it’s only available under extreme circumstances.

            The embryo has a startle reflex and hiccups at 7 weeks. They’re just as aware as a newborn, they move their hands and there are measurable brainwaves.

            And after conception they are NOT gametes. A sperm cell or an egg are gametes but not after fertilization. Read above.

          • noen

            Whatever. Fertilized ovum or whatever term you like.

            The dead can have reflexes. Frogs that have had their spine cut can climb. Autonomic responses are not a sign of consciousness.

          • Alexandra

            I replied to this but I suppose my links to real facts, got it moderated out of here. Wouldn’t want any of you pro-“choicers” to look “choice” in the face.

            By 6 weeks the cerebral hemispheres are growing disproportionately faster than other sections of the brain.The embryo begins to make spontaneous and reflexive movements. Such movement is necessary to promote normal neuromuscular development and brainwaves have been recorded as early as 6 weeks and 2 days.

            By 6 1/2 weeks, the elbows are distinct, the fingers are beginning to separate, and hand movement can be seen.

            But no, that’s just an undifferentiated blob of cells right?

          • noen

            Reflexes are not a sign there is a mind present. Neither are elbows.

          • Alexandra

            What about brainwaves??

            And you have yet to define “self-aware.”

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            This is off-topic, but any links get moderated out on this board. The reason for that is that we had a big issue with clothing spammers a while back. So if your links get removed or the comment doesn’t show up because you had links, don’t take it personally.

          • cjvg

            You might want to read a bit farther on brain development, and try to understand what you read.

          • goatini

            Yep, your keyboard works. Too bad your critical thinking skills don’t.

          • HeilMary1

            Someday when you are told that continuing a pregnancy will cause you bladder and bowel incontinence, your nose and lips to rot off, your limbs to die of gangrene, or your heart, lungs and kidneys to fail, you won’t be obsessing over what the blasted blastocyst “thinks”!

          • Alexandra

            I’m also waiting for you to explain to me how a 21 week old fetus was NOT a person in 1973 but magically becomes one in 2013.

          • Alexandra

            Re: Dred Scott.
            Whites in this country certainly didn’t think of blacks as “self-aware.” They didn’t think of them as autonomous agents.

            Careful now…you can’t prove the non-personhood of the unborn anymore than they could “prove” it of black people. It was an assertion made up of false standards that had no basis in anything but opinion and faith.

            All humans deserve human rights. That’s the only requirement….humanity.

          • cjvg

            Yes you can, and it has been done an EEG will do that just fine.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Yup, and since no one born has the right that you have described that fetuses should have, it has human rights. Whoops.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Were black people infringing on white people’s autonomy? I think not. So sorry, moron.

          • Hannah Mallery

            “Self awareness. Consciousness. Agency.” Now you’ve got me scared of forfeiting my personhood every night.

        • HeilMary1

          Clearly, you don’t consider women as human persons.

      • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

        Exactly.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      Yeah, we do. By the very quote you posted. Human being is being equated with HUMAN not person, moron.

  • http://twitter.com/gigiz gigiz

    Thank you, Amanda. Gosnell is truly a monster. His crimes, a distressing reminder of the pre-Roe days which I’m old enough to remember, emphasize the critical need for access to safe abortions for all women, irregardless of financial means.

    I’m frustrated and angry that women’s rights and freedom are subject to political debate. Roe v. Wade clearly isn’t enough. What must we do to secure lasting protection for this and future generations of women? Would that be achieved by finally passing the Equal Rights Amendment? Do we need a Reproductive Freedom Amendment to the Constitution? Anything?

  • lexcathedra

    How telling that you refer to Gosnell’s “other” victims as “actual babies,” as though this makes any difference whatsoever. THAT is your problem: recognition. Tell me, what makes YOU a person under the 14th Amendment, and WHY SHOULD THAT MATTER?

    • Dez

      I’m living on my own without depending directly on one person for my sustenance. That is what makes me a person. Actual babies were being killed because they were viable and live on their own without their mother. Your problem seems like you don’t know the difference between a person and a fetus.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=3006209 Sharon Cutcher Sykes

    I’m sad for this author. If there is all this outrage on the pro-choice side, why haven’t we heard any of it?

    And the assertion that any restriction of abortion at any moment in pregnancy creates Gosnell’s of the world, makes me wonder then when this author thinks killing an unborn child should ever be restricted? Sounds like she believes you should be able to abort until the child is actually born? Or maybe she is asserting even after you should be able to kill the child? Afterall, if a mother is desperate, why should we be able to tell her she has to raise a child she doesn’t want. She should be allowed to kill it. So why is she so opposed to Gosnell? I am guessing it’s not because of the babies that were murdered…

    And her assertion there aren’t doctors willing to perform late term abortions is only b/c of laws and the pro-life movement seems short-sighted. Does she really not think that most health care providers would find terminating late pregnancies unethical and immoral? Or does that not even occur as a thought to her?

    • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

      Where were you folks while this monster was torturing women for 17 years with impunity? You know why some Dr.’s won’t do late term abortions? Because your side MURDERS those who do! Pro-life my ass. RIP Dr. Tiller

      • luckymama6

        So, I am confused by the flip-flop in accusations. Did pro-lifers do too much, as Marcotte proposes, or too little? And what makes you think that they knew about the abuses anyway? The Grand Jury actually lays blame at the feet of the local pro-abortion Board of Health, hospitals, etc. But apparently you and Marcotte know better than the Grand Jury.

        • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

          Pro-abortion Board of Health? Apparently you just make stuff up. Why am I not surprised?

        • Dez

          “Pro-abortion”? That is enough to ignore your comment.

        • HeilMary1

          No, I blame you womb-pimping, pedophile priest-indulging fetal idolators.

          • Hannah Mallery

            Aw, you’re so sweet. People who hate being referred to in stereotypes and slurs are always the best at concocting them.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            We’re not Pro-Abortion. You are pimping wombs. CPCs as a matter of fact, which is supported by Pro-Lifers. Pedophile priests do abhor abortion, Pro-Lifers support them, as well. And you worship fetuses because you want to give them more rights than anyone born. Yes, you must hate being referred to in ‘stereotypes’ because you ARE really good at concocting them, Hannah.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

          Um, both, moron? Seeing as they did a LOT by restricting access and very little by PREVENTING IT. If they want to restrict access to abortions, they damn well BETTER make themselves aware of the effects that happen as a result. That they don’t is THEIR fault not ours. Ass handed to anti-choicer by Pro-Choicer.

    • Dez

      Abortions happen whether it’s illegal or not. Clinics like Dr. Gosnell will pop up more as long as women want abortions. Women will do anything to access an abortion even go to Dr. Gosnell’s clinic. By restricting access to abortion, you create more Dr. Gosnells and more dead women.

    • MaiaC

      Um, maybe you haven’t heard it because a) you don’t read feminist media and b) neither does the mainstream media???
      This site alone has been reporting on this case for two years, and many abortion rights groups were starting to report on this butcher before that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amberkitavi Amber Womack-Kitavi

    Here is something if you really loved women you would push for birth control to be OTC thus reducing the need for abortion!!

  • disqus_8ymXo6vAJ4

    The part that I find interesting about this article is where she is saying Gosnell killed *actual babies. So if as the baby’s head was crowning Gosnell had inserted a spike through its skull, made a opening large enough to fit a vacuum and sucked it’s brains out before it was fully out of the womb of its mother would that be murder? In the case of pro abortion activists generally they would say no. Especially if they were Canadian pro abortion activists as abortion is legal up to 40+ weeks. I just wonder where is the line to most pro abortionists? What makes a baby a baby to them?

    • lexcathedra

      It’s Marcotte’s “actual babies” dodge that is most telling, hearkening back to Roe v. Wade’s ACTUAL language about “potential” human life. Justice Blackmun, do you know any better, NOW THAT YOU’RE ACTUALLY DEAD?

      • Dez

        Actual babies are babies that are born. Pretty easy to comprehend.

    • lexcathedra

      Beware the “actual babies!” They grow up and MIGHT vote to restrict access to abortion at any time and for any reason!!!!

      • HeilMary1

        Or they might be pedophile priests like you who exempt themselves from the rules they impose on everyone else!

        • lexcathedra

          Were you raped by a priest or something similar?

    • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

      You’re a freaking idiot

    • HeilMary1

      Where is your outrage over forced abortions and infanticides by pedophile priests to hide their chastity vow and law breaking?

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      Yeah, and the rates of abortion are comparable to those in places where abortion is ILLEGAL, yet, fewer women die. Oh, forgot your ilk doesn’t care about women.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      Baby is a slang term for an infant, a stage of development outside of the uterus. It wouldn’t matter if it WAS a babby, however. Since a fetus does NOT get more rights than anyone born. And we’re Pro-CHOICE. We’re not anti-choice, like you.

  • Arachne646

    This doesn’t happen in Canada or in the countries in the European Union where abortion is paid for and regulated like any other medical procedure. In Canada, medical or surgical abortions are paid for by the Provincial Health Insurance Plan in the same way as other medical procedures, and women never pay at the time they visit the doctor or hospital. My late mother was a physician who attended women presenting with septic abortions as an intern in the 1950’s, and I hope that we never again have to face that.

    • http://twitter.com/pmason03 Pam Mason

      The clinic I worked at in Cols. OH was the first one to open in the state after Roe in 1973. One of our Dr.’s did his residency at Harlem Hospital for women. He told of attending to a woman whose uterus was so perforated her intestines were hanging out of her vagina. Other women came in near death from hemorrhaging, or raging infections. He vowed if he ever had the chance to provide safe abortions he would do whatever it took. I remember the first day we opened and we were in the lounge going over what a crazy day it was. I looked at him and he had his eyes closed and I could see tears. He was overwhelmed with emotion that every woman he treated walked out alive and healthy.

  • Ellie

    Dear Anti-choicers,

    You don’t want ANY women ANYWHERE to get abortions right so our moral compasses are properly attuned?
    Ok, this is what you do.

    Make sure every women in your community (and then later the world, think global act local) never needs one.

    1. Make sure they all have universal access to contraception that they want and that works for them for free. (NB. Martin Luther King saw contraception as a civil rights issue as during the 1950’s it was “the poorest women of colour” who were suffering from effectively breeding themselves into poverty because they didn’t have any other choice).

    2. Make sure every women is affluent and successful so she has the money and background to ensure she can successfully bring up a child. Wealthy women are more able to bring up and support a child which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars during the first 18 years of their lives. In this way increase welfare universally to every women on the planet to help them bring up their children.

    3. Ensure all sex is consensual sex. Rape is rape is rape, and regardless which 1940’s textbook you’re reading it can and it does lead to pregnancy. Get rid of rape and that’s one fewer group of women you need to worry about wanting abortions right? In addition get rid of domestic violence, sexual abuse, forced marriage and a whole host of other violence against women to make sure that when a women gets pregnant its because she wants to.

    4. Now all the women in the world are rich, successful, rape free, and able to raise children you now need to make sure those babies are healthy. To avoid foetuses being terminated make sure no women ever has an enviable pregnancy.

    5. While you’re at number 4 ensure that pregnancy care is free for every women in the world. Afterall, you don’t want money or medical reasons to be an excuse here.

    If you can’t make sure your mother, your sister, your aunt, your friend, your grandmother, your cousin and all women in your community will never ever NEED an abortion its because you CAN’T. Socio-economic, medical and familial factors all contribute to worldwide abortions. Removing sex-ed, teaching abstinence only, not covering costs of contraception in medical insurance, slut shaming – you think these things HELP? SERIOUSLY?

    You guys see a foetus being killed; I see a bigger picture. Without abortion I see a women without the means to raise a child. I see a women who would be sacrificing her financial situation in order to bring a child into the world that she didn’t want. I see foster centres filled with children (which happens already). I see kids who will never be adopted, and guess what, that already happens far too much, and not just in the USA or the UK but worldwide.

    And before you tell me your God/gods will smite me down, guess what? Democracies founded on the premise of separating church and state cannot institute discriminatory policy against a population, many of whom disagree. How is that any difference from Sharia Law? Imposing a religious viewpoint as law against a nation regardless of individuals wants, rights and freedoms, does THAT sound right to you? Your moral compass is FINE with THAT?

    You don’t have to like abortion, you don’t ever have to have one, but never ever deny another women that choice. Because when you do, guess what? People like Kermit Gosnell
    are the ONLY people who can or will help and everyone loses. That fall on everyone’s conscience.

  • crookcaptainhook

    I can’t help but think this misses the forest for the trees. Gosnell is reasonably believed to have “commited hundreds of acts of infanticide” (p. 247, Grand Jury Report). Not charged, since he also allegedly destroyed/altered the evidence, but just think of that for a second. If those numbers are true, that’s a higher kill count than that of Timothy McVeigh or any known American serial killer on record.

    His treatment of women was sick and appalling. No decent person would dispute that. He should pay for every last crime that can stick to him for the women he killed, damaged, and treated with such cruel indifference.

    That said, making safe care and affordability the primary, or only legitimate, lesson to draw from all this is a bit like pushing for responsive policy to Hitler’s treatment of the gypsies without bringing up the Jews.*

    Must it necessarily be hateful or agenda-driven if one’s overwhelming and enduring reaction to this story is, before anything else, the sheer magnitude of human loss? To think: “How could this happen? And is there any chance at all this is going on anywhere else?” Since they happened in an abortion clinic purportedly as abortion procedures, to at least want to inivite a measured and serious discussion from both sides about how different these practices were from other abortion procedures that take, before we can dutifully put that first question to rest?

    So far it sounds like the primary line of response is: standard abortions are much (much) cleaner, safer, more humane. Women are treated better (thank God) but that still does not touch on the original question. Is primary difference between the infanticides and the standard simply method? No real difference in subject or outcome? Is the in utero vs. out of it distinction for two fetuses/babies of the same level of development enough to justify our very different treatment — criminal charges for one, paid service for the other — and to satisfy our collective conscience that what happens regularly is truly *nothing* like what Gosnell did? The legal threshold (24 weeks in PA) may be a consideration of difference to raise, but a reflective person unsettled by Gosnell’s murders might still at least wonder how far *before* that line you can go and still find cases, even rare ones, where the outcome is not really materially different. At the very least it gives one enough material to meditate seriously on abortions in the late-term and whether our policy on them now is what it should be.

    No matter what side of these questions you come down on — perhaps you don’t find that any of them compel any change in your opinion on the issue in the slightest — is it charitable to assume that these very human responses are entirely driven by disingenuous motive, or that there’s not the slightest rational reflection by which one might by led by the disturbing details of this story to raise them as matters for open discussion?

    *Please don’t call Godwin’s Law on my or blow this out of proportion. It’s just an analogy about proportionality: cases where two truly horrific things should both be addressed, but heaping focus on the one smaller by orders of magnitude (by numbers — not necessarily less in cruelty or suffering) heavily skews the big picture.

    • Dez

      Dr. Gosnell performed illegal abortions. Late term abortions have restrictions on it already that Gosnell violated. If these women were able to get accessible and affordable abortions, then Gosnell may not be in business. The fact is no matter how you feel about abortion, women will always get abortions legal or not. The question is how many women are you willing to see dead to make abortion illegal.

      • crookcaptainhook

        Illegal indeed. But Gosnell isn’t making headlines because his acts were illegal, but because they were heinous. So the question becomes, a la Euthyphro: Were his abortions heinous *because* they were illegal? Or are they illegal because they are heinous?

        • Dez

          You are wrong. People didn’t notice because it was happening to poor women of color. The only ones saying anything were the pro-choice community. Anti-choicers didn’t notice or care until it was an incident they could use to push for more abortion restrictions. They were both heinous and illegal. Most pro-choicers agree with the late term restrictions because a fetus could be viable enough. We are also upset because this will happen more to poor women as abortion is restricted even more.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

            Actually, no. Abortion has nothing to do with the viability of the fetus. Otherwise, a rapist who would most certainly die from self-defense could not BE defended against.

        • HeilMary1

          If you don’t care about bombed Iraqi women and their fetuses (murdered for profit by the GOP-military-oil industrial complex), why would you whine about Gosnell’s victims (murdered by your opposition to contraception, sterilization and early abortions)? We could have avoided the senseless Iraqi invasion, and Gosnell’s patients deserved earlier, safer abortions, contraception, etc. back in their own states.

    • HeilMary1

      Where is your concern for the 600,000 women murdered annually by childbirth and the millions more grossly injured by childbirth? Where is your outrage for the thousands of forced abortions and stillbirths by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney when they bombed Iraq to fund their re-election through war contractor campaign kick-backs??

      • crookcaptainhook

        “Murdered” by childbirth? I’m sorry, but words actually mean things. Murder requires agency, by definition.

        Bush and Cheney? How on earth do you presume to know what I think about Iraq? This would be fallacious even if it were remotely relevant. As it is it’s simply a rather splendid non sequitur.

        • HeilMary1

          Priests, fetal idolators and adulterous husbands like Eric Prince of Blackwater who force predictably deadly pregnancies on women are guilty of murder.
          Most fetal idolators supported our latest genocide in Iraq for GOP profits and for punishing “anti-christian heretics”, even though many pregnant Iraqis were also murdered by our invasion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      IF abortion was illegal, then it would be harder to find the people, LIKE GOSNELL, who committed the crimes against BODILY AUTONOMY. That last is the reason why abortion should be a legal choice. If it does not protect a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, then it is just as anti-choice as Pro-‘Life’. Given that we are PRO-Choice it’s obvious where the line would be drawn. However, for Pro-‘Lifers’ the line for abortion would be drawn further and further back, driving these abortion clinics further underground, resulting in higher maternal mortality from back-alley abortions. Whoops.

      Also, this is why your comparison to Hitler is out of ALL sense of proportionality.

  • xhawk2

    Pro-abortion Nazis like Amanda Marcotte want more abortion clinics for more Kermit Gosnells.

    • HeilMary1

      Pro-dead mother Nazis like you want Americans to be as impoverished, sickly and sex-trafficked as in Catholic poverty pits like the Philippines where pedophile priests go on sex tour vacations with your fetal idolatry donations.

      • Hannah Mallery

        HeilMary1 apparently thinks that every person who stands up for unborn life is a Catholic pedophile. No judging there.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

          Nothing to say about xhawk2’s judgment, moron? Yeah, that wasn’t your problem, expectedly.

          By the way she wasn’t calling him a Catholic pedophile, she was calling him a Nazi. WHOOPS.

          And, yeah, you would hope there is some reason for people to be anti-women’s lives, if not, you just have to be evil, so we would prefer the former.

  • http://www.facebook.com/swgoerling Sean Goerling

    “if regulation of abortion clinics hadn’t been politicized in the first
    place—if abortion clinics were treated like any other medical facility
    from the get-go—then none of this would have ever happened.”

    Really? How many other medical facilities that perform life-threatening surgeries do you know that didn’t need to be inspected? And how many have had inspectors who were checking whether they had safe, clean care who saw that they didn’t and didn’t bother to report what was not just unsafe and unclean but ILLEGALLY SO care. And yes that inspector didn’t certify him. But for an organization that “believe[s] that abortion clinics should be subject to the regulations like other medical facilities, and that those regulations should be aimed at making sure women get quality care,” WHY DID HE STILL GET AWAY WITH THEM? If lack of the NAF’s certification didn’t even slow him down, what good does it do?

    • goatini

      The state medical board has the accountability. Any issues you have should be addressed to that body.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      You do know that pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion, right? And abortion is not life-threatening. There are many other practices that have popped up illegally and aren’t certified. Think: black market; which is exactly how Gosnell was operating. Yet no one seems to have complained about how they are investigated. Whoops?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1710836203 Kelly Anderson

    Why always the frenzied defense of abortion? Why the need for so many abortion procedures in a time when safe, effective contraception is so readily, and cheaply available? WHY?. because abortion is now a commonly used form of CONTRACEPTION!!!! No need to be accountable and responsible in those moments of passion. No need to attempt to prevent a pregnancy from starting when ending one is easily obtained, and loudly lauded as WOMEN’S RIGHT!!!. Almost held up as a seemingly badge of honor, or milestone to womanhood and enlightenment as a feminist. Women like myself, however, who CHOSE to be mothers, and devote our lives to family, who mistakenly thought that raising happy, healthy,daughters and sons is an honorable profession are derided for our choice? Mothers like me who heartily approve of abortion as a compassionate and necessary procedure in cases of rape and incest. Mothers like me who provided her children with contraception but also taught them that nothing is foolproof and that they better be sure the mantle of parenthood is something they are ready to wear for the life they may create!

    • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

      I’m sorry, but who’s deriding you? I’m certainly not. Choosing to be a mother is a good choice to make. However, it is not the only choice, nor is it the right choice for everyone. Everyone is different.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

      MOST women who had an abortion used some form of contraception. The lack of education is responsible for the incorrect usage of contraception. That’s something ANTI-choicers are attempting to block, NOT PRO-choicers. Do you think EVERYONE has parents willing or able to teach them about contraception? Even if that were the case, contraception is for CERTIFIED educators to educate not parents. After all, that’s why we have teachers for everything else. Derp!

      Contraception is not readily available nor is it cheap. With Pro-‘Lifers’ continued attempts to block access to contraception, that’s even MORE true, today. Poor women could never access it as easily as you think, especially since the place that affords them the CHEAPEST option (Planned Parenthood) is under constant attack by the antis. Because even 7-9 dollars for condoms, means these women will have to choose between putting food on the table or having sex. Contraception is NOT a one-size fits all. Some women are allergic to latex. Others have difficulty inserting IUDs. Yet MORE have adverse side effects when using hormonal birth control. Seriously, antis, at least get SOME kind of scientific facts before posting your women-hating

  • Stop this madness

    No matter if they are aborted at the first stages of development or 40 weeks their blood crys out to the Almighty God just as Abel’s did

    • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

      Which God would that be, then? You seem to forget that we aren’t living in a theocracy. And the word is ‘cries’ not ‘crys”.

      • Stop this madness

        Where did I say I forgot where I live? Sentences’ don’t begin with the word “and” since you want to become a grammar Nazi. I am referring to God the only God. The God you scoff at and mock who is still God whether we live in a theocracy, slavocracy, democracy, or bureaucracy.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Feral.9.Hex Carla Clark

          No, YOU scoff at and mock God, by supporting slavery. Slavery of women. I am Christian, and I do not believe I am entitled to be the only who believes in the one, true God, simply because I am Christian. Sorry, God has aborted many fetuses in the bible. It seems you don’t believe that women’s blood cries out to God, but men and fetuses do? Besides that passage was referring to JUST ONE MAN. Finally, Abel wasn’t dependent on someone else’ body. SFS.