The Fallacy of Rape, Incest, and Life Endangerment Clauses


Earlier this year, North Dakota made headlines for passing the most restrictive abortion law in the country. The bill would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, even in cases of rape and incest, only granting an exception in cases in which a medical emergency threatens a woman’s life.

By refusing to allow a woman to have an abortion when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and by defining “life endangerment” so strictly, anti-choice legislators in North Dakota are actually being refreshingly honest about their goals. They don’t just want to ban abortion as early as possible in a pregnancy—they want to ensure that virtually no woman will be able to access safe abortion care.

In light of their honesty, I think it’s past time that the pro-choice movement accept a hard reality: that the rape/incest/life endangerment exemptions are nothing more than a feel-good smokescreen that never deserved to become the acceptable compromise that so many individuals on both sides of the reproductive rights divide seem to treat it as. Insisting that any or all of these exemptions be included in measures that seek to curtail reproductive rights is a waste of time and does a great disservice to all women who seek abortion care.

These exemptions create two huge problems. Practically speaking, they erect barriers to abortion access. And on the societal side, they further stigmatize abortion.

On the practical side, a “no abortion except in cases of rape” exception makes it harder for a rape victim to get an abortion than a pro-choice law would. We see this play out in the 32 states that allow rape and incest victims to seek Medicaid payment for abortions. (How these states define and fund their Medicaid exemptions is its own complex tangle.) In not one of these states does Medicaid take the patient at her word. Instead, 21 of these states require the doctor to submit a note stating that the woman was raped; the other 11 require a report from either the police or a social services agency. Considering that 54 percent of rape survivors do not report their assaults to the police, this means that many women who become pregnant as a result of rape and wish to terminate their pregnancies will lack the official documentation necessary to qualify for Medicaid coverage.

Even if a woman is able to obtain the necessary documentation, she still must find an accessible clinic that will accept Medicaid reimbursement. A study from Ibis Reproductive Health that examined Medicaid funding in 15 states found that “[i]n most states with restrictions on Medicaid funding, and in three without restrictions, very few of the abortions which the providers thought should be eligible were funded by Medicaid. Most providers had largely given up on working with Medicaid due to the excessive staff time spent trying to get reimbursement, bureaucratic claims procedures, and ill-informed Medicaid staff who hampered their efforts to seek coverage for this care.”

Obtaining an abortion in cases of life endangerment is equally difficult. First, there’s the question of how to define “life endangerment.” Since three states allow public funds to be used both in cases of life endangerment and to safeguard a woman’s physical health, there appears to be some confusion about where one ends and the other begins.

In addition, each state (plus Medicaid) can have their own definition not just of what counts as life endangerment, but how that determination must be made. A 2012 paper examines just how challenging it is to obtain Medicaid reimbursement for abortion procedures: “[I]t is unclear exactly what the documentation is required to prove life endangerment, and what criteria the reviewers at Medicaid are using to assess the condition.” These hazy definitions also extend to the rape exemption, with clinic staff reporting that Medicaid can use different definitions of “rape” than either providers or women.

Given all this, it’s hardly surprising that between 2009 and 2010 the federal Medicaid program contributed to the cost of 331 abortions in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. The 17 states that allow public funds to be used in most or all abortion procedures obtained by low-income women, on the other hand, assisted in the cost of 181,000 abortions.

While many of the logistical difficulties of obtaining an abortion in one of these three exemption cases can be traced directly to Medicaid, a number of these barriers also apply to women who are able to pay for abortion care out-of-pocket. Women who became pregnant through rape or incest, or whose lives are threatened by their pregnancy, and who live in states that ban abortion after a certain number of weeks may be particularly vulnerable to the vagaries and complications of obtaining abortion care in those cases.

Aside from the legion of logistical problems encountered by both women and abortion clinic staff, these three exemptions are troubling from a messaging standpoint. First, they help perpetuate the idea that if a woman becomes pregnant through consensual sex, she deserves whatever the consequences are, and that a woman could, or should, only want to terminate a pregnancy in the most exceptional of circumstances. The very existence of these clauses reinforces the stigma that still surrounds abortion, and gives weight to the anti-choice narrative that abortion is an exotic form of medical care that should only be attainable at certain times by certain women.

Speaking of anti-choice narratives, why hasn’t the pro-choice movement made a larger issue of the logical disconnect that the exception stance represents for the anti-choice movement? By deeming abortions allowable in some circumstances but not others, the movement is undercutting its very goal of outlawing abortion entirely. If an entire movement dedicated to repealing Roe v. Wade would allow for abortions under certain circumstances, aren’t they actually at least a little bit pro-choice?

Any law that allows abortion only in certain cases also helps create two classes of women: those who “deserve” abortions, and those who do not. This is a complete fallacy; all women deserve access to safe abortion care, along with the entire range of reproductive health care. Just as a woman’s ability to have an abortion shouldn’t depend on how much money is in her wallet, it also shouldn’t depend on the specific circumstances surrounding conception.

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

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1196615367 Tanya Nguyễn

    It is singularly offensivve to me, to say to a woman, “Your life is only as valuable as *I* claim it is”. This is probably more offensive than just out lawing abortions in the firstplace.

    To say to a woman, “in order to qualify as ‘life threatening’, your life must be threatened to an extent that the law accepts” is to say “your life has no value, other than teh value i give it”. So what is sufficiant risk to say “my life is at risk?” is it 10% risk? would one in ten chance be significant? What about a 1 in 100 risk? Some people will not fly, because it is “dangrous”. But you can tell a woman that 1 in 1000 risk (still amazingly risky) is “not sufficient enough to end the baby’s life”.

    And why must my LIFE be the only concern? What if i might lose a leg? No big deal in the face of a baby to some, but what if i’m a dancer, or an astronaut, or a runner? What if I am diagnosed with some problem with my cancer, or with diabetes, and not treating it (which will critically harm the child) could mean i could lose my sight, lose my speech? Why should my deep and clinical depression not be enough for me, my family, my doctors to say “ending this pregnancy will help stabolize your hormones”.

    IT IS MY F’ING LIFE. IT IS MY F’ING BODY. EVERY DAY I AND I ALONE LIVE WITH MY DECISIONS.

    To tell me I must wait until you think it’s “risky enough” is to say my life, my body, my choices, my job, my whatevers do not matter in this world. even though when push comes to shove, the single only thing that ever truly CAN matter to each of us, is our own life.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ingrid.heimark.5 Ingrid Heimark

      *******To say to a woman, “in order to qualify as ‘life threatening’, your life must be threatened to an extent that the law accepts” is to say “your life has no value, other than teh value i give it”. ***********
      No, it says you baby’s life is extremely valuable, but yours is even more valuable, so we as society are willing to loose that precious child so that you may live

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1196615367 Tanya Nguyễn

        So i may live. how frigging gracious of you, to grant me my own life.

        how bout, so i may be healthy?

        How bout, “so i may have control over my own body”.

        how bout “so i may be at peace”.

        thank you great ingred, for granting me my life.

        • Ingrid Heimark

          I was simply giving another way of understanding the issue than the one you already had. How it is seen from a pro-lifer, that’s all

          • perfect_storm

            But you aren’t a pro-lifer. It’s a proven fact that women abort unwanted pregnancies whether they are legal or not; they just die in far greater numbers when those abortions are illegal.

            So you are arguing for a change in the law that will kill people. Guaranteed. A LOT of people.

            That’s not a “pro-life” position.

            Nor have you answered my question: do you think there should be mandatory screening for all people so that they can be made to donate bone marrow or a kidney to someone, if that would save their life? Bear in mind that in that scenario, the saved person is almost certainly going to be conscious, aware, and with people who love them, so the social usefulness is undeniably far greater than with a blastocyst of say 5 weeks since the last period. So: are you in favour of a law to screen all adults for donor compatibility, and then enforced donation unless the procedure would kill them? Yes or no?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            No I am not, I believe it should be encouraged, not mandated. A lost kidney you loose for the rest of your life, having trouble should you once need it, allowing a natural prosess like pregnancy go to term is not a comparison. I believe pregnancy is vastly different from organ transplant,

          • perfect_storm

            Pregnancy is actually riskier in many cases than kidney donation. And almost always than bone marrow.

            Do you, then, believe that bone marrow donation should be mandatory? It’s painful, but a brief procedure with few risks. Infinitely lesser than carrying a pregnancy to term and then undergoing labour. So presumably you believe, in line with your opposition to abortion, that it should be mandatorily screened for and imposed as a necessary sacrifice unless it puts a life at risk?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            No I don’t, again I don’t think it can be compared, most unplanned pregnancies are completely avoidable, given the ressources being available to her. And also, mandatory screening would be extremely cost-prohibitable, and it would not cure the one getting it, bone marrow transplants can actually kill the recipient, and other transplants require life-long m,edication with considerable side-effects, given that the body not rejects the transplant entirely anyway

          • HeilMary1

            Pregnancy causes multiple organ failures, cancer, sepsis limb loss, strokes, autoimmune diseases, and marriage-ruining incontinence.

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

        Oh, society is willing to let me live, eh? Damn, that’s bloody generous of it. Let me just get cozy by the fire with a glass of pinot noir, and you can tell me more about what kind of life I can expect to have in your version of society. Whoopsie, though, better make sure I’m not pregnant first before I drink that wine! Society might not like that!

      • rebellious grrl

        Obviously you didn’t read the article. My life takes precedence over a fetus. Get the hell over it. Really.

      • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

        Please learn the difference between a born autonomous baby/child and a non sentient fetus early in development, a being that is basically a parasite inside another person’s body using up their body/blood/internal organs in order to survive and develop.

      • cjvg

        Why does society own that child?!
        Your reasoning smacks heavily of the biblical view that a woman and her fertility are owned by society and as such are a public good to be used and decided by the public!
        Very disturbing

        • Ingrid Heimark

          I support contraceptive use, so that is a lie! I do supåport societys interest in protecting life, also fetal life, whether or not this fetus are sentient or not, because it is a member of the human family

          • Arekushieru

            No, you don’t as evidenced by your opposition to mandatory organ donation. Besides that, a woman’s life is not nearly as valuable to you when you can risk her life to an extent that is not required of others with no real assurance that the woman’s life CAN be saved with medical intervention once it REACHES that point.

    • rebellious grrl

      Right on!

  • http://www.facebook.com/ingrid.heimark.5 Ingrid Heimark

    It is not about which women deserve abortion access, it is about which cases can we accept an unborn life is lost.

    • cjvg

      Because a born life that is lost is just not good enough if it is only a woman’s life!.

      How about a born life that loses her health or her sanity, that is just not as valuable as the loss of an as jet unrealized potential unborn life, when the born life is only a woman?!

      Who are you to make that determination, especially since you will NOT be the one forced to live or die with the consequences of YOUR choice!

      If you want to appropriate the right to dictate to me if I must carry a pregnancy to term, then I want the legal right to determine if you are allowed to become pregnant, how many kids I feel you are allowed to have, and if I want to force you to undergo a tubeligation because I determined that you were unfit to have kids!

      • http://www.facebook.com/ingrid.heimark.5 Ingrid Heimark

        I have repeatedly said I support abortion when a womans life is at risk, i don’t view that as the taking of life unneccessary.
        When it comes to the other things it amazes me that you simply cannot see that the only thing I oppose is abortion, not contraception, not other choices nothing else than abortion. Because the fetus is human life, not potential life. Whatever reason you could have for spaying me or something is not interesting, because my body is mine, as long as there is noone else depending on me, I can do exactly as I want, and so can you

        • colleen2

          We do not share your beliefs

          • http://www.facebook.com/ingrid.heimark.5 Ingrid Heimark

            I understand that, but what if I don’t believe blacks are humans, are you gonna force your beliefs upon me? If the right to life are dependant upon the beliefs of each individual, we would be in big trouble

          • colleen2

            I understand that, but what if I don’t believe blacks are humans, are you gonna force your beliefs upon me?

            are you insane?

            I can’t force my beliefs on you. What I can do is point out the flaws in your reasoning, the irreparable harm and suffering your beliefs will cause women and children and tell you what I think about your attempts to force your beliefs on the rest of us.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1196615367 Tanya Nguyễn

            and more importantly, i can force our views on the LAW, where it matters.

          • goatini

            You don’t believe that women are humans, and you are trying to force your misogynist beliefs upon us.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Yoy are right, I don’t believe women are humans, that is why every woman should be forced to give her life for any fetus, or man.

            Ironywarning

            It is actually like this: If you have a pregnancy that might kill you, now or by cancer in a year, you have every right to terminate that pregnancy, and frankly it would be stupid not to. Do you think I agree with anyone taking a human life in self-defense if I didn’t see the person in need of this defense as human?

            Or are you just gulping up stupid arguments that have no basis in what I write?

          • cjvg

            You have NOT answered my question!

            If you are not allowed take reproductive choice away from others, we are not giving you the freedom of choice you want?!
            We are NOT forcing you to have abortions you do not chose, why do you feel justified and even morally and ethically right to force others to undergo pregnancies and births they do not want?!
            You have no idea how hard it can be and how quickly a seemingly normal pregnancy can turn deadly in an instant.
            Pregnancy and birth alters your health and your body for ever!

          • goatini

            You were correct in your first paragraph. You do not think females are actually fully human, and you are trying to force your misogynist beliefs on us.

            ANY person who does not stand for the rights of females to voluntarily obtain safe, legal pregnancy terminations, for ANY reason, is a misogynist who does not think of females as fully human. End of story.

            What you support, is what the Roman Catholic Bishop, Olmstead of Phoeniz AZ supports: in theory, the Church allows termination if the woman’s life is endangered – but in real life, the way that people like Olmstead see it, is that there is NO level of “endangered” enough, regardless of professional medical opinions attesting to the dire risk, to warrant a lifesaving termination. THIS is the way it ALWAYS works out in “life of the woman” scenarios – see the woman who Olmstead almost was able to sentence to death; see Savita in Ireland who was sentenced to death; see women die all over the world where women’s rights to self-determination are slim to nonexistent, where “life of the woman” supposedly permits a legal termination.

            As for stupid arguments, here’s one of yours:

            “I do support societys interest in protecting life, also fetal life, whether or not this fetus are sentient or not, because it is a member of the human family”

            If you really believed this, you would have come to realize long ago that there are many, many sentient, born, living, breathing members of the human family who require, urgently, today, NOW, your, or anyone else’s for that matter, “interest in protecting life”. So very many, in fact, that if you really believed this, you would have absolutely NO time left over to concern yourself for a single solitary moment over the contents of any uterus, except your own.

            (That’s assuming I believe you’re a female, because that is in serious doubt, given your assertive and aggressive misogyny.)

          • Sally

            Any pregnancy can kill.

          • cjvg

            You are the one forcing your believes on others.
            Believes that have no justification in science or morality.
            I and others are advocating choice, as in it is the choice of the individual who has to carry the consequences of that choice!!!!

            You are turning this whole argument upside down by claiming that if you are not allowed take reproductive choice away from others, we are not giving you the freedom of choice?!
            Do you even understand how dishonest and delusional this makes you sound?!

            We are simply opposed to you trying to force your will upon others by means of unjust and indefensible laws.

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

            The right to life, i.e., to be born, is dependent upon the beliefs of each individual. Thus we have Roe v Wade and abortion is legal. You think that’s big trouble. Many others do not. The slave argument is weak and irrelevant, as always, in every practical way.

          • cjvg

            Exactly! the majority of the population has decided that they support human rights for women.

            That included the right to complete ownership of her body.
            The right to use and sanctity of her body, the right not to be used as a breeding station against her choice because society has an interest in her producing babies

            So since society has decided that abortion is legal and the woman should have that choice why are you still arguing to go back to slave ownership?

            Society has evolved, you do not have to believe in it but you can not force your will on others

          • Arekushieru

            There is no such thing as a right to life that compels others to share their organs against their will. It’s why organ donation is not mandatory.

            Fetuses and black people are both humans. NEITHER of them gets the right to life that you WANT a fetus to have. Simple enough for you?

        • HeilMary1

          You keep ignoring that already born people minding their own business don’t personally threaten women the way fetuses do.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            If a fetus threaten a woman she has the right to self-defense, I have never denied that, I have repeated it over and over

          • choiceone

            A blastocyst, embryo, or fetus to which a woman has not given and is not giving specific consent to be inside her body threatens her with rape, sexual assault, or death automatically. It does so because, unless it is aborted, it will eventually have to be removed some other way or its presence will kill her.

            The only two other ways it can be removed are vaginal delivery, in which case the fetus/child will penetrate her vagina, and caesarian section, in which case the doctor will cut into her uterus, a sex organ, with a knife, a deadly weapon. If she refuses consent to the vaginal delivery, such a delivery would meet the legal definition of rape. If she refuses consent to the caesarian, such a delivery would meet the legal definition of aggravated sexual assault.

            So when you ban legal abortion, you are demanding that the woman be raped by the fetus/child (forced vaginal penetration by the body parts of the fetus/child), sexually assaulted by the doctor, or killed by the non-removal of the fetus/child.

            Of course, neither the fetus/child nor the doctor will have the sexual intention necessary to these criminal charges, for they will merely be tools of the government that bans abortion. It is the government that bans abortion that has the requisite intention to rape or sexually assault, because such a government gets sexual satisfaction from getting a baby from the woman’s body.

            If you can’t understand this argument, you have the mentality of a rapist, and not the “innocent” mentality to which you pretend.

            Keep your paws and laws off of a woman’s body or face the millions who will call you sexual pervert.

          • CatBallou

            Really? Raped by the baby being born? So it’s consensual sex if you want the baby? That’s ludicrous. This kind of argument doesn’t do the pro-choice movement any good, and it makes you look insane.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, please go back and re-read what she said. She is saying that it fits the legal definition, which it does. That it is not considered actual rape is irrelevant.

            Why do women have to do the Pro-Choice movement any good? Aren’t we all individuals fighting for our rights? Isn’t THAT where the Pro-Choice movement arose from?

            Finally, forced birth is definitely equatable to forced sex. After all, BOTH violate a person’s bodily autonomy.

          • CatBallou

            Birth does not fit the legal definition of rape, and even making that argument is silly and pointless. No one can “refuse consent” to undergo labor and delivery, so that’s a stupid concept. It’s like saying you refuse to breathe. As a matter of fact, it’s the woman’s body that pushes the baby out, not the baby forcing its way down the birth canal. But again, the entire discussion is silly and pointless. It’s a waste of time. Stop trolling.

          • Arekushieru

            First off, if the argument is silly and pointless, then why not let the argument stand on its own merits? If it’s silly and pointless why respond to me? If it’s because the argument is triggering, then why not consider that an argument that opposes it might be triggering to someone who HAS experienced both?

            I have been on this board FAR longer than you have. Perhaps you should click on someone’s name and see what posts they’ve made before making false accusations, next time?

            Anyways, I am not trolling, I was simply trying to point out how you were creating a strawman, in that particular case, by attacking the wrong point. Sad that you have failed to acknowledge that.

            Btw, please define sexual relations, legally. Last I checked there are very few places where it is defined, at all, and even in those cases there is a broad variance.

            But, also, last I checked, the uterus was a sexual reproductive organ.

            The fact that abortion is available, c-sections are available, signifies to me that you CAN consent to labour and delivery. And, as a matter of fact, it IS the fetus that pushes its way down the birth canal. It IS the fetus that implants into the uterus, etc, etc…. There is evidence that the onset of birth AND pregnancy have a HUGE role played by the fetus, after all.

            Lastly, if a woman can’t consent to labour and delivery, then why are pregnancy and childbirth not a constant thing like breathing (the one UNcommon element you failed to recognize between the three)?

          • choiceone

            I realize this is hard for you to comprehend, which is why you think it’s ludicrous. But Arekushieru’s point below shows that some people can get it and it is not ludicrous.

            You have a choice. Either the embryo or fetus is a unique person with the rights of a person, or it is not a unique person and merely has the potential to develop into a unique person.

            In the latter case, the potential, it cannot have equal rights as a person that the government is obligated to protect, but the woman does. It is inside a person, so it is considered part of her body, and she has a right to do with her own body what she wants. In that case, an abortion is legally no different than the removal of a benign tumor. It’s not the government’s business.

            In the former, unique person case, if the woman has only consented to sex, she has only consented to a particular person’s putting a particular body part in a particular place in her body, e.g., one man’s putting his penis in her vagina, and only for a limited time period and if it does not injure her or cause her pain. That man’s born children have no right to do what he does, nor does even he have the right to put that or another body part in another part of her body. Consent to sex acts is very specific.

            Given that, how can consent to sex with one particular person be consent for a completely different person to have his/her body parts inside one’s body – especially when that different person did not even exist until after the sex act occurred?

            A woman usually does not become aware of her pregnancy until the embryo has an established biological attachment to her uterine wall. This does not mean the embryo has a right to be there. The situation is comparable to waking up and discovering that a man’s penis is in one’s vagina even though one did not give that particular man consent to putting that body part there. If the woman doesn’t mind, then her not minding at the moment she discovers it is happening is, in fact, her consent. But if she does mind and wants the body part removed, that is non-consent and it fits the definition of rape.

            However, many people find this strange, because the embryo has no mind or even capacity for consciousness until much later in a pregnancy. For them, the appropriate comparison, in the logic where the embryo is a person with rights, is with a legally insane rapist. The latter cannot be found guilty of raping you if he is known to have been legally insane while doing so, yet during the time his behavior constitutes a serious threat of rape or an act of rape, you have the right to use deadly force if necessary to prevent or stop the rape.

            Many people still find it strange to compare pregnancy to rape because the embryo is in the uterus, not the vagina, so the usual penetration of a bodily orifice which defines rape for them is not in the example. For these people, it is meaningful to point out that the usual course of an unaborted pregnancy is either natural miscarriage or vaginal delivery or caesarian delivery in childbirth, and if natural miscarriage does not occur, the woman has a legal choice between the fetus/child penetrating her vagina in vaginal delivery or a doctor cutting open her uterus, a sex organ, with a scalpel, in delivery, or abortion.

            As long as abortion remains legal, there is no problem. The woman chooses either childbirth or abortion. But when abortion is illegal, the state forces the woman to choose between the fetus/child penetrating her vagina or the doctor cutting open a sex organ with what is, after all, a deadly weapon. If she has not consented and does not consent to the presence of any body parts of the embryo/fetus inside her body, its presence constitutes a realistically perceived threat of vaginal penetration by the body someone to whom she has refused and refuses consent – a completely different person from the man to whom she gave consent to penetration of her vagina by his penis. Alternatively, its presence constitutes a realistically perceived threat of a doctor cutting open one of her sex organs with what is, after all, a deadly weapon even though she does not and will not consent to that. The law requires consent in both cases – penetration of the vagina and invasive surgery.

            In this situation of abortion not being a legal option, the law is effectively the agent behind the threat of rape or threat of what is reasonably considered aggravated sexual assault, but the fetus and doctor are essentially in the same position as a person who has been hypnotized by another into threatening forcible vaginal penetration in rape or aggravated sexual assault with a scalpel. A woman has the right to use deadly force if necessary against the threat, and this justifies aborting the pregnancy.

            I’m not a lawyer, but this sort of approach has been discussed seriously by lawyers for the pro-choice cause because a blanket anti-abortion law can be understood to violate other laws in the legal code, laws that we will never scrap because they are too important, simply by its existence, in every case of unwanted pregnancy.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1196615367 Tanya Nguyễn

          You believe that an unborn should have rights OVER MY BODY. an unborn that threatens me, or my health, or my sanity, or just my job is more valuable than I am.
          That is insane.

          no one ever is more valuable to me, than me. unless i choose that, of course.

          no other point in human life do we demand that you sacrifice your health, your sanity, your limbs, your heart strength for another human being. but you in your profound arrogance, assume you can grant me LIFE, rather than I CAN GRANT MYSELF LIFE.

          it is not your body, it is not your life. so stay the heck out of it.

        • cjvg

          Then what right do you have to appropriate my choice when I happen to become pregnant?!

          Abortion is only legal until 20-24 weeks, a fetus does not even have the brain structure in place to exhibit the activity that is commonly used to determine if a patient is alive!

          So at no point in a legally obtained abortion is any other person involved then the woman!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Not another person, but another human

          • cjvg

            So in your opinion (!) a dead person kept artificially alive by life support (clinically seen like a fetus is) should have more rights then a living breathing person?!
            So in your opinion the life of the living breathing person (woman) is subordinate to the dead person (fetus) on life support?!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            We ahve been over this repeatedly. The criteria of brain death is flat EEG, not just absence of cortex activity. That means the fetus may not be sentioent, but are by no means brain dead, as that requires a complete flatline

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

          Okay, you oppose it. I don’t, and I’m past that sort of issue now, but I would have aborted if it was in my best interest at the time. There’s a lot of static about science and theology and philosophy, but none of those things would have been on the table had I chosen abortion. They wouldn’t even have been in the room.

          There’s no argument compelling enough to obliterate my privacy. So, I get pregnant, I have to remain pregnant until delivery. Nine months of poking and prodding, doctor visits that I wouldn’t need otherwise, giving birth (something I never did and never intended to do), possibly a major surgery (c-section) if there are complications. Resentment at all of this intrusion the entire time. Doing all of the hard work that I never wanted to do in the first place, and then just handing off the product to a blissful, clueless couple who had the resources to buy a nice, fresh, healthy white newborn.

          Think this sounds cold and callous? Think it sounds harsh? You’re damn right it does, because it’s the truth when you rip off all the pretty little wrapping paper. It would never occur to you that your rhetoric sounds just as harsh, just as distasteful. A woman’s right to privacy does NOT end the moment she gets a plus sign on that stick.

          • goatini

            Thank you for that refreshing breeze of TRUTH. Had I ever experienced an unwanted pregnancy, there would not be a nanosecond of consideration of adoption, for all the excellent reasons you state, and also for the reason that I wouldn’t let some selfish barren vultures have a single particle of my DNA. Anyone who thinks that women with unwanted pregnancies are public baby ovens for their benefit is NOT getting my gene pool.

        • cjvg

          A fetus is not a human life, if that was the case it should not need the forced use of the woman’s body to eventually after a long and taxing 40 week (10 months) gestation become self sustaining.
          You stated that you are against forced organ donations, but apparently as long as the organ in question is a complete woman’s body you are just fine with it!

          • Arekushieru

            It is human, it is cellularly alive, therefore ‘human life’ in my estimation. What she fails to recognize is that NO OTHER HUMAN has the right that she claims to want for fetuses.

          • cjvg

            Oh I agree that it is human, I even agree it is alive of a sort.
            It is just as alive as my arm, my intestines, my ear etc, it is however not a human life yet.

            It is not a human life form until it hits a certain developmental milestone at which point it actually has awareness and sentience just like the woman.
            Until that time (after 26-29 weeks gestation , which is well beyond the point a legal abortion can ever be obtained) it can not claim human rights and is most certainly not even in the same league as the woman

          • Arekushieru

            But even human rights do not grant it the right to co-opt a woman’s organs against her wishes, you still agree, right?

    • HeilMary1

      So you are volunteering YOURSELF as the first fetal transplant surrogate?

      • http://www.facebook.com/ingrid.heimark.5 Ingrid Heimark

        I find your posts very non-serious, but on this, YES if I could, I would

        • HeilMary1

          I used to be anti-abortion when I was completely ignorant of the commonplace risks all pregnancies impose on women. Also, many unwanted children suffer lives far worse than the fate of being aborted. That includes me. If you were better educated on pregnancy risks and what born children suffer, you might understand that I’m very serious. Keep in mind that most anti-abortionists also oppose ALL contraception and sterilization, even to save mothers from certain death, and they justify bullying into suicide all born-intersexed gay children. Most anti-abortionists in the U.S. also oppose any government medical, housing, and educational aid for poor mothers and their forced-birth children. Forced birthers want us unwanted to suffer as much as possible because they hate us. I experienced this directly from my own anti-choice abusive family.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ingrid.heimark.5 Ingrid Heimark

            I was abused myself, and I really really condemn all families that abuse their children. I was very wanted though, but not as who I was, but who she wanted me to be. I am not most anti-abortionists, I support sex-ed, Contraception, EC, and child welfare systems that removes childfren from abusive homes.

            I am educated on pregnancy risks, and as such agrees with abortions that can save the mother’s life. I will admit I was very judgmental in relation to gays and such, until one of my best friends confided in me she was lesbian. I am not saying we christians and pro-lifers are perfect, then I guess I am not the usual pro-lifer

          • colleen2

            When it comes to the lives of other women your opinions are irrelevant

          • http://www.facebook.com/ingrid.heimark.5 Ingrid Heimark

            And when it comes to the fetus right to life, your unscientific view on fetal life is, or should be, irrelevant. It is not right to take a group of humans, say they don’t matter and then kill them.
            Since it seems you want to discuss on such a level

            It is intriguing how someone can say such things that you say, your opinion are irrelevant in how other women live. It’s like, ok you don’t believe in killing two-year-olds,. but your opinion is irrelevant to me with MY two-year-old. Or jews, or gypsies, or women in some societies.
            And you will say that we can’t comapre fetuses and born people, but then your opinion is irrelevant isn’t it?

          • colleen2

            You are entitled to freedom of conscience and so are we. Your attempt at a ‘conscience’ does not trump the right of adult women to bodily sovereignty and their own moral conclusions. The rest of your comment is simply too poorly reasoned to make any logical sense or respond to. I suggest you try to gain some emotional control before posting.

          • HeilMary1

            Google fetus in fetu cases that are the equivalent of male abortions, and such afflicted men are never called “sibling killers” when they have their absorbed twins removed for health and appearance reasons.

          • L-dan

            You’re going to have trouble arguing my view as unscientific, given my training. Just as a warning at the outset here. You’re actually here engaging without much of the usual hyperbolic shit-stirring we usually see from trolls; so I’m offering you the benefit of believing you’re actually looking to engage in dialogue instead of just telling us we’re murderers over and over, as if that will change any minds.

            This is not remotely analogous to looking at someone of a different
            race and saying they aren’t a person. There is a world of difference between an embryo and a person. The former really is potential, with a lot that can go sideways between point a and point b in ways that just don’t exist when talking about human development after birth, or even development from the third trimester onward. It is certainly vastly different from looking at the differences and similarities between two children of different colors and saying that color makes for personhood. The differences between an embryo and a newborn are far more vast despite the fact that they have the same DNA. Gene expression is more important than merely sharing a genome as far as making a person Homo sapiens vs Homo Erectus, etc. That you can look at an embryo and think that denying it personhood *is* analogous to the mindview during slavery which said slaves were not people says more about your emotional and non-scientific view than ours.

            First thought experiment: You may have heard this one before. The building you’re in is burning…on the way to one exit there’s a crying toddler you can save on the way out. On the way to a different exit is a petri dish of fertilized eggs merrily dividing in preparation for IVF, there’s a bunch of them in there to save on the way out that exit. “I would try to save both” is squirming out of a real answer. You have the certainty of saving one and then
            you can go try for the other, but which one do you save first and therefore definitely? If all of those are people, the ethical choice would be to save the petri dish…more people saved at the expense of the one toddler. Right? I certainly wouldn’t choose that way, because I don’t believe a potential person is the same as a person.

            Second thought experiment: And I know you’ve heard something like this one if you’ve been around these forums for any length of time. I drive out and get into an accident. It’s my fault, I let my attention wander a moment. Oops. Someone in the other car is badly hurt, but could be saved if he/she spend the next many months hooked into my bloodstream to survive (yes, I know that isn’t something that actually occurs. For the sake of the thought experiment, let’s go with it.) Am I really obligated to have the person hooked up to me, draining my own body’s resources to repair theirs, incurring the risks inherent with that strain on the body? Heck, am I even obligated to donate blood or a kidney
            if that could save them? The answer is no, because people do not have the right to impose that sort of burden upon the bodily autonomy of another. Thus, even if we were to agree that an embryo is a person, we would not agree that anyone is required to act as an incubator for them.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Actually, I haven’t called anyone murderers, in orderfor anything to be murder, you have to know the one you are killing is a full human being, and still do it. I have never accused anyobe here of that

          • L-dan

            Hence assuming you were arguing in good faith instead of calling folks murderers and expecting that to carry the argument, as several have done before. Pardon if my sentence structure makes that unclear.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I don’t understand it, but I have called noone here for murderer, I lokk upon abortion as the taking of life, but murder is something that is done purposely and KNOWINGLY. I don’t view post-abortive women as murderers no

          • L-dan

            Right…the point being that I said you weren’t doing that…unlike others who have come here to tell us we’re wrong to feel that women should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to continue their pregnancies.

            However, that really doesn’t address any of the rest of my post. If that’s the only point you want to discuss, there’s nothing substantive there to bother with.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            You are right, I just got so tired of everyone believing I mean things I have never said. Yes, I would have saved the toddler, given the fact that thje toddler is there and its life would be saved there and then, then again I have never been opposed to life-saving abortion, that being singletons or triplets.
            When it comes to the other issue, IF you have been irresponsible in traffic, and your blood could be used to save that innocent person you alm,ost killed, I do believe you should be mandated to at least donate blood, also to pay for treatment for the other person, and the hooked on the arm-thing is prette unrealistic, but were you really irresponsible it should be considered absolutely. After all, some months in a hospital would maybe even be better than years in jail for vehicular manslaughter and knowing you took a life.

          • L-dan

            The point isn’t that you believe in life saving abortion, but that choosing the toddler over the multiple embryos is indicative of a belief that the single toddler is, in some fashion, ‘more deserving’ of being saved. This is pretty logical to most, really. Because very few of us really believe that embryos are people.

            If they’re not people, just potential people, there is really no justification for restrictions on abortion.

            The second thought experiment makes the other case. Even if they *are* people, the law recognizes bodily autonomy and does not make a requirement that any other person allow their body to be used to save another. Organ donation is, rightly, a voluntary gift. You can’t be required to donate to accident victims. It might be a kind thing to do, assuming you’re even a compatible donor, but we don’t require people to give up their body that way. We do require them to pay monetary costs (in most states).

            In the example above, while you may feel that it’s better to give of your body rather than end up in jail for manslaughter, some would not. I can’t see that being something that could be mandated. I can’t see that mandating it would be moral in any case.

          • cjvg

            That makes no sense at all

            Abortion is done knowingly and willingly.
            Women are well aware what an abortion is and what a continued pregnancy leads to, we are not ignorant!

            If you truly believe that a fetus is a person then an abortion is willingly and knowingly causing the death of that person.
            You can not have it both ways, either abortion kills a person and it is done with premeditation and intent, that is called murder!
            Or a fetus is a potential and not a person

            You are trying to soft peddle your position, so it becomes more palatable but it is either one or the other

          • choiceone

            If you truly believe that the legally insane person who is in the act of raping or sexually assaulting you, or who is threatening such an act, is a person, should you really allow that person to rape you instead of defending yourself even if deadly force is necessary? If you believe that, fine, but the law does not require it.

            I’ve been raped. If that result can be avoided by putting the guy’s eyes out, mutilating him permanently, or just killing him, I would feel that anything the victim did was justified.

            I would certainly have committed suicide before continuing a pregnancy that occurred by that means. But that’s just one of my bottom lines. I would never agree to continue a pregnancy with a seriously deformed fetus, for example.

            All sorts of women have different bottom lines, lines that say, how dare life itself demand X of me! And I’ll defend their right to bodily autonomy to the death, because liberty is more important than mere biological life.

          • cjvg

            I absolutely do not believe that, it was a response to show the previous commenter how illogical and absurd her anti choice positions are.

            She claims person hood for the fetus, and fetal innocence and thus deserving of live, at all stages, but insists that abortion is acceptable when the innocent human fetus is conceived in rape.

            This position is illogical, either it is a person who’s rights supersede the woman’s at every stage (not my position).
            Or it is not a person until it has actual awareness and sentience like the woman and up until that point is reached, the woman’s wishes are paramount

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            I wish I could put a standing ovation/applause GIF here.

          • Ella Warnock

            If you want fetuses to have equal rights to the women who house them, then you’ve automatically created a second-class citizen. She’s bound by the needs of an entity she never planned on keeping in the first place. She’s a slave to the Powers That Be. She’ll take the first opportunity to rid herself of the interloper. I know I would.

            Listen, and listen good — I won’t be having a baby I don’t want, and I won’t be having one for a “good christian couple.” I know a little too much about those, and I wouldn’t trust them with my house plants or pets. I demand a higher standard of care, and they just don’t fucking measure up.

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            Even IF we would grant a fetus the same rights as adult born people (note adults because once born kids really don’t have many legal rights), a fetus still would not have the right to use another person’s internal organs/blood/etc for any period of time.

            “nowhere in that biological development do you have a right to life at the expense of another’s body.

            A fetus doesn’t any more than a fully grown woman does.”

          • pockysmama

            No, you are the usual forced birther.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Yes, I force people to get pregnant, you caught me

          • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

            Sounds like you would force them to REMAIN pregnant. And that is horrible and similar to torture in my mind. You are literally forcing a woman to use her body, her internal organs, as a type of life support against her will.

          • HeilMary1

            Wish I could find a picture of my dead best friend whose face was lethally rotted off by her last daughter. My friend resembled pre-op people who get face transplants. That ungrateful cancer-weaponizing daughter took 15 years to cause her mother’s death. Could you live with the center and lower half of your face missing?

          • perfect_storm

            Are you aware that all studies show that abortion rates do not differ between countries based on legality (all that changes is the rate of maternal death) but on access to cheap or free contraception?

            You can’t stop women aborting, or even reduce rates unless you provide financial support and free, effective contraception. Without those two factors, all you’re doing is condemning many more women to death, while not preventing abortion itself. How in the world is that pro-life?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I support the full range of contraceptives to all women who wants it free of cost, I have never claimed otherwise

          • perfect_storm

            That’s great. Now please answer this point: UN research confirms what all other reputable studies indicate, which is that abortion rates for unwanted pregnancies DO NOT DIFFER whether abortion is legal or criminal. The ONLY thing that changes is the number of women who die.

            That being so, why are you not supporting legal abortion, which is proven to save lives, as women abort safely when legal and dangerously when not? Surely reducing deaths is a pro-life standpoint?

            In addition, can I ask what activism you are involved in to help women such as myself, who lost babies in utero because the technology to support them is not yet advanced enough? If the priority is saving babies, why is all the focus on abortion and so little on in utero medical care? And why are people opposed to emergency contraception, given the old myth that it prevented implantation has not only been disproven, but reversed? Plan B does not make the uterus hostile to any fertilised ovum, in fact the reverse – it prevents fertilisation, but where that has already occurred, fewer fertilised eggs are lost after Plan B than ordinarily. (And why, given the pro-life movement’s own figures prove that, are they not campaigning to fund research into why that is, so as to help harness that science for women struggling to get past that point in pregnancy?)

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I don’t support legal abortion because the fact that abortion increased alot here after legalization, and that some pro-life countries actually have the lowest maternal death rates in the world. If anyone can prove to me in any country abortion rates have not increased after legalization, I WOULD be willing to change my mind. And just to say it, even in cases where abortion are done illegally, I never want the woman herself to be punished, as that willinctrease her risk after abortion, she needs to be able to access care in case of complication without fear of prosecution.I don’t want women dying from abortion.
            I wanted to work in fetal care but had mental issues due to abuse that didn’t allow me to finnish school, but I do believe fetal care is as important as an other, and pregnancy loss is tragic.
            When it comes to Plan B and the pro-life movement, the only answer is, they are hypocrites. It is not about saving fetal life, it is about premarital sex. That is why several pro-life groups are anti-gay. I do believe norwegian pro-lifers are far more pro-life than americans. Many of the pro-lifers in the US support action that INCREASES abortion rather than the opposite

          • HeilMary1

            Anti-abortion Ireland has been hiding its high maternal mortality rates, and conveniently excluding women who sensibly get abortions in England to save their lives. The U.S. and CDC don’t track maternal deaths, so the U.S. probably should rank 100 instead of 50 in maternal safety. Our anti-contraception GOP, run by adulterous wife-dumpers and pedophile priest-protecting bishops, has turned the U.S. into a third world country in reproductive health statistics.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Yes, it seems like Ireland are not even allowing a woman to save her life, and that is so tragic. I agree with you on the US thing, everyone knows that pregnancy, and also abortion and childbirth are far riskier than proper contraceptive care. It is hard to believe a country where the right to refuse contraceptive services even to rape victims and giving contraceptive coverage tax money to centers not providing care to unmarried women are actually worthy of any kind of world leadership

          • cjvg

            That is a dishonest and inane question.

            If abortion is illegal no one keeps records, you go to jail for that!
            The only illegal abortions you would know about are the ones that killed the woman or landed her in the hospital or both!

            So you are now demanding we proof what can not be proven, nice catch 22 you set up there!

            However you might want to check out the numbers of the Netherlands, france, Germany,
            Abortion has been legal and fully funded as well as non controversial there for decades.

            Sex education is comprehensive, mandatory and includes all contra captive methods as well as fetal development , sexual orientation, arousal, birth, respect and assault, reproductive choices etc.

            It is taught in biology and you are required to pass the test given on it just like every other chapter.
            Contraception is covered and freely available

            The abortions numbers are exceptionally low a result5-7.9% of all pregnancies, the difference comes in because most of the Netherlands is Lutheran and it is 5% there while in catholic limburg it is 7.9% since the church still rants and raves against birth control (see how well that works in preventing abortions, not)

          • goatini

            And after all that blather, you still do not see that you are as big a hypocrite as those you call names about.

            ALL forced-birthers are NOT about “saving fetal life” – they ALL are about controlling female sexuality and autonomy. There ARE no “good” forced-birthers.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I was able to read your comment although not posted. The article also states that to reduce abortion, contraception is needed. Are you sure these illegal abortions in those countries are not a result of lack of contraception? Most legal-abortion countries have available contraceptives, whereas 220 million women are assumed have unmet need for contraceptives. Probably in these countries.
            Also, abortion in Ireland are far safer than in E Europe, also according to Guttmacher. Illegal isn’t always unsafe, and legal isn’t always safe. But I do wish there were no abortions, legal or illegal

          • perfect_storm

            In some cases, yes of course. But contraception is not infallible and women will always seek to end pregnancies.

            Abortion doesn’t happen in Ireland because women get on planes to England. It’s simply out-sourced. That’s what is meant by illegal – private clinics in London, where they are legal. It’s not legal under Irish law but nor are we talking backstreet clinics (I am British and a friend works for Marie Stopes – they have the international dialling code for Ireland on the wall in the reception area for their Irish clients.) So arguing that illegal doesn’t mean dangerous and using that as an example is specious, because where Irish women actually abort, they are doing so in a country where abortion is legal and therefore safe.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I never think abortion should be encouraged by any society, I believe it is something everyone should work on reducing as much as possible. I have however considered changing my view to abortion decriminalization, so that women do not suffer unsafe abortion, and are not punished should problems arise

          • perfect_storm

            I don’t think anyone sane thinks abortions should be encouraged, because it’s not a pleasant, happy or desirable thing for anyone to have to do. It’s simply better for some women than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Nobody wants an abortion – they just don’t want to be pregnant. That’s the thing; people opposed frame it in terms of being pro-abortion. All anyone is in favour of is allowing women to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

            My feeling is that it’s none of my business what other women do with their uteruses. I think contraception should be free and kids should be taught effective use, as well as respect for one another and themselves (it should be boys, too, and a pill available for men to control their own fertility, so all the risk of unwanted pregnancy is divided and with luck, risks reduced further via two methods) but as a last resort, abortion needs to be legal and safe to protect the wellbeing of women seeking to access it. I don’t believe the state or anyone else should determine what happens to someone else’s body, essentially.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            The problem with abortion though, is that the fetus is also there, no matter how pro-choice, that is why prevention is sooo much better

          • choiceone

            No.

          • goatini

            No. And the vast majority of patients who have obtained safe, legal pregnancy terminations experience RELIEF.

          • goatini

            I think that misogyny and oppression of females should never be encouraged in any society. This means that women MUST have the essential autonomy and dignity to decide for themselves when, where, how, why, and with whom to start or grow a family. And THIS means that women MUST have the right to safe, legal pregnancy termination, for ANY reason, and which reasons are none of ANYBODY’S business.

          • goatini

            And if those contraceptives fail, which is possible for any form of contraception, you support sentencing the woman to gestational slavery. Hypocrite.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1196615367 Tanya Nguyễn

            Why only her life, though. that is endlslly the point.

            She is a living breathing dreaming thinking planning SUBJECT PERSON. she is not an object.

            you say you can decide what life she should have. you grant on her the right to “live”, but you take from her the right to choose her risks, the right to put her health first, the right to put her mental health first, even teh right to put her other children first, or her job first, or her lover first.

            you take from her the right to control her very body. and there is nothing more dehumanizing than being told you are not worth enough to have control of your body.

            in other aspects of life, we call that RAPE or Slavery.

        • perfect_storm

          Would you also be in favour of mandating bone marrow and kidney donation via universal testing, where it is proven that that would alone save a life? Or is the womb your only concern when it comes to forcing one human to sacrifice their own comfort, well being and bodily autonomy for another?

        • cjvg

          Wait, her opinions and post are not serious and because the are OTHER OPINIONS then yours you can make that judgment!
          Were you not the one who was decrying how other opinions like yours are just not respected?!
          So you can dish it but you can not take it, again!

      • goatini

        Even if it were possible, I’d NEVER let some radical theocratic forced-birther get a hold of one single particle of my DNA.

        • colleen2

          Giving a child up to a woman like this would be unbearably cruel. It would be a lifetime of tortured neurosis at best

          • Ingrid Heimark

            People with other opinions are just horrible, if they dare say them out loud. Funny though, I have never claimed any of you shouldn’t have children based solely on your views that I don’t like. But then again, I have never met more judgmental people than pro-choicers. Wouldn’t you love a China system, where everyone needed a card to allow birth?

          • HeilMary1

            You haven’t allowed yourself to notice the women around you completely ruined by unwanted pregnancies. But didn’t you say you’re living in Europe, which has better sex ed and pregnancy prevention programs? The U.S. and Catholic-ruined nations have much higher maternal mortality rates because they also deny women reliable and affordable access to contraception.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            The feedback system is not too well-functioning here……Actually, no I have never met a woman devastated by an unwanted pregnancyarried to term. c. I have met women being very unhappy with a pregnancy, but none of them carried to term.Abortion is usually sought swiftly, should any such pregnancy occur. Actually we have more problems with women being pressured to abort in our system. I know women being asked about abortion as soon as pregnancy is discovered. We are a very secular country. Actually midwifes went in the newspaper apologizing for abortion pressure. So we have kinda the opposite of what is in the US. But due to all abortions being covered by taxpayer money our first trimester abortion rate is 94%. Abortions are annually 15 000, births about 55 000. All related to pregnancy are free. So really you don’t see many women carrying very unwanted pregnancies to term here, our adoption numbers are lower than 10 each year.
            When it comes to contraception, I am not happy. i have myself asked my doc for BC for a minor, because most docs don’t prescribe it to minors. Women aged 16-20 have free contraception, a service not provided to younger girls. And our government conducted a study resulting in a 50% reduction in abortion when providing free Contraception to women aged 20-24, but refuses to pay for it anyway.
            And norwegian pro-lifera are pro-sosial services and pro-contraception

          • Arekushieru

            Adoption and abortion are not the same. Adoption deals with an unwanted child, abortion deals with an unwanted pregnancy. Your first trimester abortion is 94 % of what? And, many medical doctors may ask if you want to abort, that does not relate to pressure to abort.

          • hmontaigne

            If the government is the decider, no woman has a choice. The China situation is anti-choice.

          • cjvg

            What you just do not seem to understand is that it is not the other opinions that are so horrible.

            It is the fact that the anti-choice crowd will use any and all options they have to force those who have other opinions (!) to adhere to a choice they did not make and have another opinion about!

            It is just so ironic that you continue to defend a NO-choice position as open minded and non judgmental.

            People who are pro-choice could not care less about how you want to live your life according to your opinions, as long as you do not force others to live their life according to your opinion!
            I take that back, pro-choice people do care that you live your life according to your opinion, we care so much that we are ensuring that you have the CHOICE to do so!

          • goatini

            I didn’t say that you shouldn’t have children based on your views that I don’t like.

            I said that you, and those like you, couldn’t have MY putative children, based completely on your views that I find abhorrent.

          • Arekushieru

            Your views of women as live incubators is certainly enough to make anyone cringe over the placement of their child with you. If you don’t think that’s an abusive situation and wouldn’t care if a child WAS placed in such a situation, I pity any child who was abused under your watch. Pro-Choicers do care about abuse, which is why placing a child with one of us would not be such a concern. Thanks.

    • HeilMary1

      And how do you feel about LGBT rights? If you oppose them as “perversion”, do you also oppose childbirth for “perverted” intersex fetuses?

      • Ingrid Heimark

        I don’t oppose them

        • HeilMary1

          Glad to know you support LGBT rights.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I don’t believe anyones sexlife is my business, and I know, as our organisation in mental health are working with gay groups, that they are high-risk on suicide, and does not need further stigmatization. I also believe rhe church should focus on the sins of their congregations, not “the others”

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I don’t think anyones sexlife is my business, and I also know gy youths are high-risk regarding suicide, they don’t need further stigmatization, and also the church and mosques should focus on their own sins. How can I, as a christian expect people that don’t share my faith, to follow my sexual morals?

          • cjvg

            But you see no issue with that if a woman (as does medical science)does not consider a fetus a person!
            At that point you are willing to mandate your choice over hers

  • rebellious grrl

    Sarah – Excellent article.

    You are spot on
    “Any law that allows abortion only in certain cases also helps create two classes of women: those who “deserve” abortions, and those who do not. This is a complete fallacy; all women deserve access to safe abortion care, along with the entire
    range of reproductive health care. Just as a woman’s ability to have an
    abortion shouldn’t depend on how much money is in her wallet, it also shouldn’t
    depend on the specific circumstances surrounding conception.”

    The right keeps chipping away at the right to our bodily autonomy. We need to keep fighting this. Yes, ALL women deserve the right to access safe abortion care.

  • Kathleen B Beyers

    If police reports are needed to get an abortion, just watch the number of false rape allegations rise….

  • CatBallou

    Thanks for pointing out this dangerous distinction between “deserved” and “undeserved” abortions.
    It’s common when a completely restrictive law is being discussed for us pro-choicers to complain “They’re not even providing an exception for rape and incest!” To which I always (want to) reply: A rape exception says implicitly that pregnancy as a result of consensual sex is a fit punishment for a dirty dirty woman, but if she didn’t really want the sex, she is still pure and innocent at heart and can obtain an abortion.
    I’m not sure what the point of the incest exception is. Are they assuming the sex was nonconsensual, in which case it falls under the rape exception; or are they assuming that children born of an incestuous relationship are somehow morally tainted? Because they don’t allow an exception for OTHER fetuses that might have genetic defects!

  • colleen2

    Speaking of anti-choice narratives, why hasn’t the pro-choice movement
    made a larger issue of the logical disconnect that the exception stance
    represents for the anti-choice movement?

    Because those beliefs are shared by a small minority of dangerous fanatics. As it turns out only 15% of the population hates women that much or gets all excited at the thought of forcing a nine year old to gestate twins.