Texas Congressman: Masturbating Fetuses Prove Need for Abortion Ban


VIDEO: Texas Congressman: Masturbating Fetuses Prove Need for Abortion Ban

Representative Michael Burgess (R-TX), a former OB/GYN, said on 06/17/2013 that he opposes the abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy because male fetuses masturbate at that time. Read more about his statements and the junk science behind fetal pain. Then tell your rep to say NO to unconstitutional abortion bans: http://bit.ly/NoAbortionBan.

As the House of Representatives gears up for Tuesday’s debate on HR 1797, a bill that would outlaw virtually all abortions 20 weeks post fertilization, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) argued in favor of banning abortions even earlier in pregnancy because, he said, male fetuses that age were already, shall we say, spanking the monkey.

“Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” said Burgess, a former OB/GYN. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”

That observation led Burgess to say he had argued for the abortion ban to start at a much earlier stage of gestation, 15 or 16 weeks. (This is less than halfway through a pregnancy.) He appeared to liken Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, to the 1893 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that formally legalized racial segregation, and was not fully reversed until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The rationale for the Republican bill, which advanced through the House Judiciary last week on a near-total party-line vote, is one scientifically disputed study, touted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) in his opening remarks at today’s Rules Committee hearing, that asserts fetuses can feel pain as early as 20 weeks after sperm meets egg.

“Well, I think all the members are cognizant of the fact that this is not a Congress that cares much about science,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Rules Committee’s ranking member, in her questioning of Goodlatte, who refuted that claim by saying that since 1973, the year when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, much more had been learned about fetal development.

Major medical bodies in the United States and the United Kingdom have refuted the claim of fetal pain before the third trimester.

The 20-week abortion ban, if passed into law, would set up a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion up to the point of fetal viability outside the womb, and mandates exceptions for abortions in the case of pregnancies that threaten the life or health of the woman.

When first drafted, the 20-week ban was meant to apply only to the District of Columbia, over which Congress has a great deal of control. But with the arrest and murder conviction of Kermit Gosnell, who ran an illegal abortion clinic in Philadelphia, right-wing forces have sought to use justifiable public revulsion at Gosnell’s actions to further restrict women’s rights—and in contradiction to the common right-wing assertion of state sovereignty.

Former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, speaking before a right-wing gathering in Washington, DC, last week, put it this way: “This is a time for the pro-life movement like we have not had in decades. We must seize the moment.”

Goodlatte, in his opening statement, framed the ban as a measure to prevent practices such as Gosnell’s, a conflation that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) termed “a red herring” which, he said, had nothing to do with the way abortion is practiced in legal clinics.

Rebutting Goodlatte’s pronouncements on the stage of development at which fetuses feel pain, Nadler (D-NY) noted doubts that the study’s own author, Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, MD, had about its assertions, having stated in 2005 testimony that evidence of fetal pain in the second trimester of pregnancy “was uncertain.”

Nadler also took issue with the tepid exception to the ban for women who were pregnant through rape or incest—a measure added last minute after Rep. Trent Franks, the bill’s sponsor, said at last week’s Judiciary Committee hearing that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low. With the 2014 midterm elections looming, GOP leaders scrambled to avoid the kind of fallout encountered in 2012 when Republican senatorial candidates Todd Akin (MO) and Richard Mourdock (IN) saw their campaigns tank after making comments about rape, pregnancy, and abortion.

The exception applies only to women who “first reported the rape or the incest to the authorities,” Nadler said, and, in the case of incest, the exception applied only to minors, even if an adult woman had been abused by the relative who had impregnated her since she was a child.

“It would be great if every rape or assault would be reported,” Nadler said, but the Republicans’ last-minute amendment—made after Republicans in the Judiciary Committee rejected a rape-and-incest exception offered by the Democrats—made no allowance for the toll often taken on rape victims in the judicial system, he said, including sometimes facing death threats from the friends and neighbors of the perpetrator.

“So, the authors of this bill apparently believe that women are too dishonest to be believed when they say they were raped or the victims of incest,” Nadler said. “It is Congress siding with her abuser…”.

There is also no protection for the health of the woman in the bill, nor an exception allowing for saving the life of the woman, except in terms defined so narrowly, Nadler continued, as to be virtually useless.

Democrats have been quick to note, as Slaughter did in the Rules Committee hearing, that the Republicans who voted the bill to the floor in the House Judiciary Committee were all men, due to the fact that the GOP hasn’t appointed a single woman to one of Congress’ most important committees.

So, when the 20-week abortion ban bill—deceptively titled the “Pain-Capable Infant Protection Act” —comes to the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, you won’t find Trent Franks managing the floor debate. Instead, GOP leaders have tapped the ardently anti-choice Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to lead that charge.

Update: See video of Burgess’ comments above, at right. (H/T to AmericaBlog for earlier version of video.)

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

Follow Adele M. Stan on twitter: @addiestan

  • bumfug

    Maybe their hand is between their legs because their itty-bitty finger is stuck in their teeny little bunghole.

  • Jake

    The babies aren’t so innocent after all!

    • melloe

      With all due respect, that is NOT funny.

      • Jake

        You should loosen up. Maybe have a cocktail or a Xanax or something.

      • Raya

        With all due respect, yes it is. I guarantee that the same people who think fetal “masturbation” is sacred think that all other masturbation is the devil’s work.

        • melloe

          I agree with what you said, I did not agree with the statement of Jake.

          Hard to see sarcasm in the printed word, and I saw that as creedence of the rights stupid “masturbate” thing

    • Mandy

      Waiting for someone to waste some money and sue this guy or the person running the sonagram for having/distributing child pornography. Wasteful, but potentially hilarious.

  • damspam

    I can honestly say I know of no group of people more warped and twisted that the Republican Party. Double that for Repugs from Texas.

    • http://www.townandcountrygirlsrealestate.com/ Paula Denmon

      This Texan agrees with you and I an so ready to shut down these idiots in Texas.

    • mstockinger

      Oh I don’t know. I read just one sentence from you and find that you practically define warped and twisted. You are literally marinating in hatred. I moved to a red state from eastern Canada and found my neighbors (virtually all of them Republicans…) some of the nicest, most generous and caring people I’ve ever met. On the other hand, all the abortion militants I’ve ever met in my life are intensely disagreeable people. I don’t know if that’s a coincidence or a correlation, but alas–it is my consistent experience.

      As for abortion–I agree that it should be legal–up to a point, and that is what the issue at hand. If you are arguing for an unlimited right to abortion, then frankly, your disappointed mother could end you right now and call it a post-natal abortion and be absolved from legal responsibility.

      What I find so amusing about Americans is how they can be so indignant when their favorite ‘right’ is under perceived threat, but insist that other people are being unreasonable when their preferred constitutional right is being curtailed by ‘right-thinking’ people. When I read blogs like this, I’m sure that this is a nation of ass-holes, but when I meet people in person, they don’t seem so bad.

      • SRNCOIC

        Kudos to you for an epic dressing down of a petulant idiot.

      • Rachel

        Well let’s see, your experience with ‘abortion militants’ is likely in the context of debates like here in this thread and your experience with your neighbors is well, in your neighborhood where I would certainly hope your neighbors are nice to you. Look at the context of your interactions – does your experience really surprise you? I’m sure your liberal neighbors in Canada were mighty nice people as well, eh?

        And really? Mom murdering born child does not equal abortion. Not ever. Do you really think many women remain pregnant for a few months just because they can’t be bothered to have an abortion right away? Maybe there will be a big sale next month and we’ll do it then? Wait til the weather gets nicer? Wait til we’ve gained a bunch of weight and look fatter in that bathing suit? Yeah, can’t be bothered with ending this damn pregnancy right now. I’ll wait until Thanksgiving when it’s more convenient.

        Dumb.

        • mstockinger

          Unsurprisingly, you make arrogant assumptions about the quality of my experience, and then invent an entire a priori rationale for why someone might want a late term abortion.

          The facts don’t support your cavalier bias.

          Late term abortions represent 1.2% of all abortions, and while it was predicted that advances in medical technology would render these obsolete, they have been stubbornly consistent as a proportion of the total since the seventies.

          Moreover, the overwhelming majority of late term abortions are not for fatal birth defects, as abortion cheerleaders contest, but involved healthy mothers with healthy babies. (“Nightline”, Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director, National Coalition of Abortion Providers). Three-quarters of late term abortions involved adolescents who were in denial about their pregnancies. It seems that there are better ways to deal with teen pregnancy that killing a viable infant.

          • Rachel

            You accuse someone of ‘marinating with hatred’ based on one sentence, accuse all ‘abortion militants’ of being ‘disagreeable people’ (duh moment: isn’t that because you disagree with them?), exclaim your Republican neighbors are so generous and caring and yet you sound appalled that I would make assumptions about your experience? You’re the one that put it on the table.

            How have I invented a ‘priori rationale’ for why someone would have a late term abortion? 88% of abortions are performed within the first 16 weeks. 70% of those in the first 9 weeks. I stand by what I said because, contrary to anti-choice implications, most women aren’t so nonchalant about when they have abortions. And for those that don’t realize they’re pregnant, or in denial, can you think of the reasons why these are? Lack of education? Lack of healthcare, access or finances? Maybe conservative families (full of shame)? Instead of creating needless legislation that only stands to make important healthcare decisions more impossible for those that really need to make them, address these other issues? I would suggest appealing to doctors to encourage birth, but I trust doctors to make decisions on a case by case basis, between themselves and their patients, that do not violate Hippocratic oath. Gosnell has been convicted based on existing laws. Others like him will be convicted. I do not see why new laws need to be created. What would a new ban possible change for the likes of Gosnell?

          • bj_survivor

            A fetus is not an infant. Idiot.

          • Nor

            “In denial about their pregnancies.” If true, would the solution to this not be better sex ed? Starting in elementary school? And easy, shame free access to all forms of birth control, preferably in school and free, as well as abortion so that even young teens can access it without parental notification? Providing housing for them if their families abuse or disown them? Maybe support these kids instead of condemn them to a future they clearly cannot cope with and don’t want? Also, perhaps, might it be that a lot of these kids were raped? Most likely by family members? Is forcing 13 year old girls to have babies really the foundation of your moral crusade?

      • laura

        This is a refreshingly articulate raising of good points. I happen to be pro-choice and pro-science. I also recognize that life is not so black and white as any on any side with a ’cause’ tends to fall into making it…then into fueling that respective position into dogma with vitriol. No one gains from this tendency. We’d all do well to actually listen to people with a differing view with a motive to understand, rather than to ‘win’ over or ‘win’ against. I hold a generally liberal perspective on life. I have also learned to much from respecting the existence and good intentions of my Republican friends…EVEN if I am not convinced of their perspective, I can recognize and appreciate they are good people, I try to listen and understand when we can address an issue. If it’s too polarized, we agree to disagree and leave it a wider berth. I also try to learn from them and respect the benefit of having that differing viewpoint available to deepen my own process of greater wisdom – whether that means adjusting my viewpoint, or improving my articulation of it.

        My opinion of this article is that it attempts to refute a dishonest tactic to sway opinion towards their anti-abortion position by distorting scientific information regarding experience of pain. However, the irony is that the writer himself applies a dishonest tactic with the headline and content, twisting the anti-abortion guy’s meaning to insinuate a comical perverse obsession with sex. In both cases, the proponents of their positions lose my respect. Not particularly helpful.

        • canaduck

          FWIW, the author is female.

    • SRNCOIC

      Really? More twisted than islamists who stone and behead women raped are adulterous?

      Your priorities are outta wack.

      • Dez

        Fortunately we have secular laws that keep Christians and Muslims fundies from forcing their outdated religion on the rest of us.

        • SRNCOIC

          You need to catch up to current events. Sharia law in the US is starting to gain a foothold.

          • Dez

            No it hasn’t. We have Christian sharia law here to deal with.

          • fiona64

            That’s right; Phony-Sarge here only approves of Sharia if it’s his particular brand. Can’t have any other brand …

            You’re such a dimwit; for someone who swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution, you don’t seem to understand it very well.

          • Dez

            LOL. You do know that anyone can use their religious beliefs for private matters and contracts as long as it does not violate the law. As long as their beliefs do not violate the law they are within their rights. The concern should be Christians forcing their religion into schools thru creationism, and making women and gays second class citizens. Muslims in this country have not done this.

          • HeilMary1

            You mean you Teabangenital terrorists want to exploit fetuses to maim and murder all sexually active women. You want the U.S. to be as poor, overpopulated and chaotic as the pedophile priest-run and -ruined Philippines.

  • Moribund Cadaver

    The worst/best part about Republicans going on (for women) about abortion is that one of the primary reasons they’re so concerned isn’t because of morality. These are some of the most callous, immoral, even sociopathic, men alive today.

    The real reason they care is because women having the right to manage their own bodies upsets male social order and the ability for a man to control a woman by impregnating her. It always comes back down to this. There’s a reason why Republicans suddenly care about unborn fetuses but don’t give a swat about you once you’re out of the womb.

    • Raymond Soto

      What about those who oppose abortion who do not identify with the Republican Party?

      • Jen L

        Many of them also fear and want to control women. The church leaders who instruct them that life begins at conception certainly fear and want to control women. Some people are merely gullible enough to not see through their rhetoric.

      • Nâthån Cöttrèll

        Raymond: If you’re opposed to abortion, then don’t get an abortion.

        • Raymond Soto

          That doesn’t address my objection at all.

          • colleen2

            Perhaps we don’t understand your question? What about them? Are they suggesting that men who object to abortion stop having sex with women who don’t want to be pregnant or something radical like that?

          • PlacidAir

            I’m suggesting exactly that. I suggest Raymond buy a case of kleenex and one of hand cream from Costco and stay away from women.

          • purusha

            Oh, so you mean: what about those who would like to criminalize a medical procedure but who do not identify with the Republican Party?

          • Will Mette

            If it is circumcision, that would be a Democrat. Pursha you are starting to sound like a Libertarian.

          • purusha

            Democrats want to criminalize circumcision? Do tell.

          • PlacidAir

            Don’t like abortion? Don’t have unprotected sex with anyone who might choose to have one…. keep your sperm to yourself and you have no problem.

          • Ella Warnock

            Exactly. The time to find out whether or not a woman would be willing to bear your child should be decided LONG BEFORE you’re unhooking her bra strap. You, in particular, Raymond, should be VERY MINDFUL of whom you sex with. That, my friend, is entirely YOUR responsibility. Make sure she’s as pro-life as you are, just so there are no misunderstandings. If she’s pro-choice, or simply not even sure she would carry a pregnancy to term, then you need to be a real man and walk away from a potentially, for you, very painful situation. Adhere to your own principles, the ones that you urge everyone else to follow. THAT is how you stay out of trouble.

          • JGlackin

            Then you have no grounds to object what personal decisions are made by another.

        • JennySE

          If you’re opposed to slavery, don’t own a slave.

          If you’re opposed to murder, don’t kill anyone.

          • Rachel

            If you’re opposed to someone else’s personal, legal healthcare choices, mind your own business.

          • chilifries

            What a simplistic, idiotic response.

            The foundation of our society is twofold: individual freedom, and the obligation to follow a set of societal norms established outside of, and without regard to, religion.

            Slavery was and is wrong because being enslaved impinges on an individual’s fundamental right to freedom and self-determination. Murder is wrong because we cannot exist as a peaceful, cohesive society if we all run around murdering each other. (Although there are exceptions to murder, such as self-defense, defense of others, etc.)

            The right of self-determination over her body – including with regard to pregnancy and childbirth – is the right of every woman. No other individual has a right to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body, even if said other individuals don’t agree with her choices. And it is in society’s best interest that every child be wanted, and that its parents are prepared for and can provide for him/her.

            What someone else does with their body is no business of yours.

          • JennySE

            It may be simple, but it remains no less true.

            Like an antebellum slaveholder, the abortion defender extends her right of self determination to encompass the life and death of another human being … then salves her conscience by denying the humanity of the person they’re killing.

            It may be legal for decades, centuries, or all human time to come. Slavery existed in one form or another for thousands of years, and adultery will exist as long as marriage.

            But legal or not, killing one’s own young will never be anything but a great moral evil. And our descendants will be sickened anyone ever defended it.

          • Richard Thompson

            Not in the mood to have a separation of church and state argument, but your slaveholder analogy is flawed. The fetus you are calling a person exist completely inside the body of the woman, and cannot survive without the mother. The slave is a separate entity that already exist on it’s own, and if freed from slavery is capable of living on it’s own. You are basically comparing an organ in a woman’s body to a piece of farm equipment. One is property, the other is not.

          • JennySE

            So by your logic… a newborn girl can be left outside to die of exposure, just like the Greeks used to do? She can’t live on her own. Without someone to take care of her, she’ll die. She’s utterly dependent.

            When does it stop being okay to kill her?

            The slave and the unborn child are both uniquely formed living beings.

            The slave and the unborn child are both dehumanized to make the unconscionable emotionally bearable.

            Finally, you’re the one to drag church and state into the argument, not me. If no church had ever existed, the unborn child would still be exactly who she is.

          • Richard Thompson

            Invalid logic, and you completely ignored the part about the fetus existing completely within the woman, and have moved on to a natural born person. It’s never okay to kill a person, a fetus is not a person though.
            And even using your flawed logic, the infant can survive. Your bible tells the story of a baby boy put into a basket on the Nile river and floated away, and he survived. (Moses)
            The unborn child, or more accurately the fetus, is not a person yet, the slave is.

          • JennySE

            “The unborn child, or more accurately the fetus, is not a person yet, the slave is.”

            I believe you’ve made my point – that “the slave and the unborn child are both dehumanized to make the unconscionable emotionally bearable” – quite well. Thank you.

            You doesn’t need a holy book to see a developing baby in her mother’s womb. You just need to honestly look at her.

          • Richard Thompson

            There are many thing in the world that look like one thing to the untrained and/or uneducated eye, but are actually something else. The sky is blue because it reflects all colors other than blue, so that is what we see. A developing fetus may look like a person, but scientifically it’s not a person. Before that, it’s just a collection of cells with the potential to become a human.

          • JennySE

            “There are many thing in the world that look like one thing to the untrained and/or uneducated eye, but are actually something else.”

            So what is your training/education that lets you see things an OB/GYN or midwife guiding an expecting mother on her pregnancy can’t? When mom-to-be says “my baby kicked” – what training or education are you relying on to tell her she’s wrong?

            “The sky is blue because it reflects all colors other than blue, so that is what we see.”

            Non sequitur.

            “A developing fetus may look like a person, but scientifically it’s not a person. Before that, it’s just a collection of cells with the potential to become a human.”

            You’re a collection of cells. I’m a collection of cells. Every single human being on this earth is a collection of cells. Being the one does not exclude being the other.

            Scientifically. ;)

          • colleen2

            I see you were home schooled.

          • JennySE

            If only I were so lucky. Most of the homeschool kids I’ve had the pleasure to meet have been amazing, and years ahead of their public school peers.

            But nope, for me it was the honors track public school, top of the class, followed by private college – also honors the whole way through. Nice attempt at ad hominem though. Better luck next time.

          • colleen2

            How unfortunate that the public schools you attended had such low standards.

          • JennySE

            Whatever soft lie gets you through the night colleen.

          • colleen2

            You’re projecting again, little doormat..

          • Jitterbits

            Lucky you. I was sent to militant christian “schools” where indoctrination was placed over education, and everything that I learned about science and actual American and church history was done on my own, after I graduated.

            Of course, it’s quite likely you would have appreciated the indoctrination since you revel so in it currently.
            Bottom line: You have NO right to tell any other person what they must do with their body. A fetus is a parasite, the pregnant woman its host. If the pregnant woman chooses to recognize the parasitic entity as her baby, that is a personal decision, not one that should be made for her by others.
            And I say this as a mother of three (one who, in her final pregnancy, had an abortion). It is not my place nor your place nor the government or church’s place to dictate someone endure a pregnancy just to salve my or their own conscience. It is not my body nor is it my decision, therefore it is not my conscience that should be tended to.

          • Nor

            Why do you think women have abortions?

          • Leslie Alexander

            I think they have them because they think they have no alternative–they are without resources, without support, without help.

          • Richard Thompson

            K, I have to work now, I’ll let someone else play with you for a while. You want a fetus to be legally a person, to justify turning a woman into a living incubator for almost a full year backed by the full force of the federal government if she happens to get pregnant.
            I on the other hand believe a woman’s body belongs to herself, and any choices she makes that involve it are hers and hers alone.
            Have a nice day.

          • Leslie Alexander

            You really are sad, you know? “Turning a woman into a living incubator…”? No one turned her into anything. Chill out and stop being so melodramatic. She became pregnant through a natural process. it is not a disease to be pregnant, or a pathology or an unnatural state. Geez.

          • HeilMary1

            Pregnancy is a zillion disfiguring, deadly and bankrupting diseases, you pedophile priest enabler.

          • cjvg

            It is also not a disease or an unnatural process to terminate a pregnancy, nature does it all the time!
            Obviously nature has no problem with it

            Forcing a woman to stay pregnant and give birth against her will is an abomination.
            You are like the rape apologists; “well it is only sex, it is a natural process, she was made for it”

          • Valde

            Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

            And ‘natural’ does not mean ‘healthy’

          • fiona64

            When mom-to-be says “my baby kicked” – what training or education are you relying on to tell her she’s wrong?

            She is wrong; it’s a fetus. She’s projecting her own wishes onto the fetus at that point. If you looked at her medical record, I guarantee it would say something about fetal movement, not “babies kicking.”

          • Nor

            It’s usually gas.

          • Leslie Alexander

            “my fetus kicked”–that’s funny. Not “baby.” I think I overheard a wman the other day saying “My puppy kicked!”

          • fiona64

            I am guessing that reading for comprehension is not one of your strongest points. I don’t care if she calls the fetus as German shepherd; it’s still a fetus. And, romanticized terminology/projection of “my baby” not withstanding, medical records refer to fetal movement because ::gasp:: until it’s born, it’s a fetus.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            Perhaps it is not so odd… that you, JennySE, use the term “antebellum slaveholder” … because basically that seems to be exactly what you ‘hope for’… for all women… and you are declaring a new ‘Mason Dixon Line’….

            Drawn at THRESHOLD of VAGINAS…. (Not to be confused with that geographical location designated as Freehold Close, Virginia.)

            Yep… you are somewhat smugly advocating the RETURN OF SLAVERY… but… ONLY FOR CHILDBEARING AGED WOMEN….

            AND dare to presume it is ‘okay and even righteous to do so’ because you do it for the sake of ‘Carpet-baggers and Scalawags’… protected by SLAVERS such as yourself…. whom YOU insist must be permitted to TAKE UP QUARTERS… and to remain in residence for as long as they choose… as ‘fetal humans’… (developing organisms designed to become humans, if left ‘unchallenged’ )… on the INTERNAL SIDE of Threshold Vaginas… WITHIN THE BODIES OF UNWILLING WOMEN.

            But of course… such residency is not ‘permanent’ and when the carpetbaggers and scalawags have taken ALL THAT THEY CAN TAKE… from their host… they will be ready and permitted to ‘move on’ and to emerge as ‘successful CHILDREN’ who are ULTIMATELY FORCED TO BE BORN… and consequentially and unfortunately… to wind up on the EXTERNAL SIDE OF THRESHOLD VAGINAS!!!!

            AND WHAT A GLORIOUS FAVOR YOU HAVE DONE FOR THEM.

            NOW… their rights and freedoms are no longer protected or respected… expressly if BORN FEMALE… because NOW they TOO WILL SUFFER PROSPECT OF BEING DEHUMANIZED AND ENSLAVED AS FORCED INCUBATORS… SHOULD OPPORTUNITY ARISE TO DO SO.

          • PlacidAir

            No “dehumanized” means putting that status on someone who is, in fact, fully human. It does not apply to a zygote, embryo or early fetus that is not fully-developed and therefore fully human…. whether you like that, or not. That you can’t tell the difference between a fully-formed, living, breathing, and sentient human BEING and something that may BECOME a human being, is your own failing. You don’t get to foist that lack of logic on the rest of us, no matter how fervently you may wish to.

          • fiona64

            What *you* apparently need is a few more days of high school biology class …

            We dismissed the homunculus theory of human development a long time ago.

          • Leslie Alexander

            Yes, a fetus is a person–albeit small, dependent, and defenseless. Why don’t you pick on someone your own size?

          • HeilMary1

            Because fetuses cause lethal cancer, autoimmune diseases and shred women’s lady parts upon exiting.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            THE KEY PHRASE HERE IS ‘BORN’…

            A CHILD BORN male or female… should be cared for…

            A CHILD BORN FEMALE should be respected when she grows up and NOT BE FORCED TO BEAR CHILDREN SHE DOES NOT WANT TO.

          • HeilMary1

            Google fetus in fetu male abortions and notice how men are never condemned for removing their parasitic twins.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A slave is an autonomous person who, if freed, is capable of life on their own. And any other person can take care of a newborn if the mother does not wish to. But a pregnancy can only be experienced and carried by the woman who is actually pregnant. The uterus inside which the fetus resides is more than ‘just a location’–it’s actually inside of a woman’s body and affecting her life and her health in a myriad of ways. To say that she has to keep it inside her against her will, is actually giving the fetus more rights than the woman.

          • xtisrisen

            Jenny, you have missed every occasion of pregnancy in which the outcome will not be a healthy baby. Many – thank goodness rare – fetal anomalies and deadly problems are only diagnosable well into the pregnancy. No woman should be forced to carry an anencephalic fetus, a fetus marred with a trisomy chromosomal issue, a Lesch-Nyhan or other similar fetal issue to term, only to watch as that fetus dies because it does not have the necessary qualities to sustain life. True it is that these are not everyday problems, but laws are written in part to address relatively unusual issues. Some pregnant women will also come to experience toxic pregnancies which, if carried to term may well kill the mother; some experience ectopic pregnancies which cannot have a deliverable child but if continued will kill the mother. These are only samples of moral reasons for abortion to be legally available; and no one but the mother, physician, family members, spiritual counsel should have any say whatever in making such a choice.

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses grossly maim and murder their captive hosts like tumors and viruses. ALL abortions are self-defense.

          • JennySE

            HM – I’m truly sorry you experienced such a tragic upbringing. I do hope you’ve found comfort and respite now.

          • HeilMary1

            I will always wish I had been aborted, the rage will never go away, but I will find some justice in helping to bring down the mother-killing Vatican and its political enablers.

          • Leslie Alexander

            you are sick.

          • consciencenotreligion

            Most likely doesn’t have much of anything of importance to offer, so this ind chooses to use hateful and pretty ridiculous rhetoric to pump up the masses here. That’s what many pro choicers do,,, not all are so hateful, I think some truly believe in their causes like we do, and are willing to have reasonable debates without name calling and swearing, but others are just plain ignorant. Alas, that also goes for prolifers.

          • HeilMary1

            I just bring up the dirty deadly details on why most anti-choice men cheat on their ruined brood mares and why priests prefer sex with kids.

          • chilifries

            It’s true for you, JennySE. The simple fact that we are having this debate means that it is not true for others. And you do not have the right to impose your truth on anyone else.

          • Gretchen

            It’s frequent in nature, in much more violent ways than humans and no one does anything to stop them. Why should humans, who are nothing more than evolved primates be any different in the situation is deserving and proper and or, why should it be your right to tell another person what they can and cannot do? Remember that we do not charge people who miscarry or have a still born with accidental homicide. I am pro choice and not pro-abortion for every case but I am certainly not for pushing suffering on another person and child simply because opinions differ!

          • fiona64

            A fetus is not a human being, it’s a *potential* human being.

          • Nor

            No, a women chooses to not allow the fetus to continue to use her body. It is illegal to take organs from a corpse, for example, even if it will save many lives. By granting the fetus more rights than the mother, you make the mother have fewer rights than a dead body does in this country. How is that good?

            And you are perfectly allowed to murder someone who is threatening your life, so how do you feel about it when a mother’s life is in danger?

            P.S. Abortion has been a human right throughout history. It is only recently that anyone’s gotten upset about it.

          • http://littlemisshaldol.tumblr.com/ LittleMissMellaril

            Slaves did not exist INSIDE of their owner’s!!!

          • JennySE

            “… it is in society’s best interest that every child be wanted,….”

            …. so let’s kill the ones that aren’t?

          • Colleen Cahoon

            No JennySE… no one wants to kill children…

            Many women want it recognized that THEY are EXISTING human beings… not ‘potential human beings’ … and certainly not merely incubators of other POTENTIAL human life… WHETHER SHE WANTS TO SERVE THAT PURPOSE OR NOT.

            A ‘CHILD’ is a human being… that has been BORN…. INTO THE WORLD… key phrase that… ‘born into the world’… which is not the same as being an ‘UNBORN’…. or having the ‘potential to be born’.

            All egg and sperm are elements of the POTENTIAL for human life.

            Funerals are not conducted for menstrual flows and sperm ejaculations even though they are both ‘failed potentials of human life… the first is a matter of system operations… and the latter is a natural response to systematic urges.’

            INTERRUPTING FETAL DEVELOPMENT OF AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY is exactly that… an interruption of development… the END OF A POTENTIAL… a call made by THE HOST of that fetus or embryo … who for whatever reasons, is not willing or able to make a COMMITMENT AS A MOTHER… to that ‘arrested development’.

            SO YES… CHILDREN that ARE BORN INTO THIS WORLD… with design to be counted as a member of our human society… ARE CHILDREN THAT WERE WANTED… born, nurtured, nourished, and protected as a viable human being… by the same HOST that incubated them… who takes LOVING personal and ongoing responsibility for HER CHILD… willingly… NOT BY MANDATE OF LEGISLATION and certainly not by others who presume to have authority over her reproductivity.

            Reptiles and insects may naturally drop off ‘their newborns’ and walk away… but HUMANS do not NORMALLY DO THAT…

            FORCING WOMEN TO INCUBATE all potential life within herself… against her WILL… under the premise that she can just ‘give it away… if she doesn’t really want it’… makes her and her offspring nothing more than SLAVES AT BEST and ‘creatures of the field’… at the very least …

            Neither EVER granted by society any TRUE respect as a human being… especially if those being forced to be born are female… so… what ‘higher’ purpose is truly being ‘served’?

          • JennySE

            Of course we’re human beings.

            And as human beings, we have moral agency. With moral agency comes responsibility for our actions.

            Talking about menstrual flows and sperm ejaculations is a misdirection at best, and you know it.

            Pulling a developing child out of the womb ends a unique human life. That “clump of cells” would not have become a rat, or a bird, or a dog. That clinical “biological process” was a developing little boy or girl, who would have become a grown man or woman. Just like us.

            You can scream and yell and pass any law you want. You can tell whatever story you like to whoever will listen. You can downvote any comment that stings too close to home.

            But the truth remains.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            “Just because something CAN BE doesn’t always mean it SHOULD BE.”

            We have enough ‘unwanted children’ forced into Foster Care because BIRTHERS DO NOT WANT THEM EITHER.

            SO… until YOU personally … adopt or arrange for the adoption… of every single child… no matter of age or issue… that was ‘forced to be born’… and CURRENTLY spends their existence of ‘preciousness’ being tossed from one foster care setting after another…

            THEN YOU have EVEN LESS ‘moral agency’ than the women who simply want the right to NOT BE FORCED to bring UNWANTED children into the world, in the first place!

          • xtisrisen

            Well spoken!

          • fiona64

            One does wonder how many unwanted children this Jenny person has adopted … although one suspects that she doesn’t give a shit about them once they’re actually born, so long as the woman is forced to remain pregnant.

          • canaduck

            “You can downvote any comment that stings too close to home.”

            What if we just disagree with a comment and think it’s stupid?

          • chilifries

            YOUR truth. You don’t get to decide what the truth is for others.

          • HeilMary1

            If you believed your own crap, you’d be attending yukky “baby” tampon funerals 24/7.

          • Arekushieru

            Abortion IS being responsible. So? Or, are you one of those who thinks that an impoverished woman bringing an expensive pregnancy to term regardless of her OWN wishes but putting her EXISTING children’s life and health at risk is being responsible? Most likely, and you would be WRONG. The fetus is human. Yes. So, now, tell me why you want to grant it MORE rights than any other human that is BORN???? And, tell me, why you are advocating that humans do exactly what reptiles and insects do, if it is so much better to be human than a rat, bird or dog? In point of fact, you want to make women LESS than ALL other animals. You can scream and yell and pass any law you want (which is actually what ANTI-choicers want to do, not PRO-Choicers), you can downvote any comment that stings too close to home. But the truth remains.

          • Ella Warnock

            “You can downvote any comment that stings too close to home.”

            Oh, I have your permission? Thanks!

            Or I could just downvote ALL of your comments because you’re wrong.

          • Maurice

            The problem seems to be simple….Most of the protesting comes from the religious right, who do NOT have the right to dictate to the majority. They are not the ONLY religion practiced in this country and no-one is TELLING them to go have an abortion, if they don’t want it, or agree with it, no-one is twisting their arm! Also, many elected officials push their own PERSONAL views, or the views of thie “friends” with the deep pockets and not those of their constituents who may, or may nor have elected them. How many times do they go home and consult with the people, of ALL backgrounds to get the wishes of the majority and truly represent them?? This is mostly political.

          • fiona64

            It may shock you to learn this, but for some women terminating a pregnancy *is* the responsible thing to do. You don’t know any other woman’s situation but your own, so you don’t get to make that call.

          • Nor

            As you represent the self-appointed moral high ground, how many children have you adopted? Especially interested in the number of special needs kids, kids born with HIV, crack addiction, etc. Just curious.

          • Nor

            I have a serious question: Why aren’t the pro-lifers out there advocating for anal sex? If it’s taught starting in, say, 5th grade, I think you’d really limit the cases of unwanted pregnancy we’re seeing. It’s weird it’s not on their agenda. Why this big blind spot?

          • consciencenotreligion

            LMAO that’s ridiculous. When there’s an reasonable debate going on, something so stupid like your comment has no place and just removes any credibility you may have had. Come on, please say you were being facetious, at least you can say you were trying to lighten up the mood here!

          • colleen2

            nobody is advocating killing children. Women like you and the religious right are, however, advocating killing women whose bodies cannot sustain their pregnancy.

          • JennySE

            First – fallacy of the excluded middle. Even if I were advocating a law (which I’m not) – no law would pass that would fail to make exceptions for the real health of the mother. So that’s not what this is about, and we both know it.

            Second – find one place in this thread where I’ve advocated a single law. One.

            You won’t – because I’m not calling my Congressional representatives or otherwise advocating at all for any law respecting your ability to kill your child.

            Instead, I’m saying directly to you that killing a child in the womb is wrong.

            There’s a difference.

            No matter how nicely you dress it up, no matter how clinical the language or how many self-martyred ALLCAPS screeds…. that “blob of flesh” or “biological process” was still a living, unique human being.

            And now he or she is dead.

          • chilifries

            There is no such thing as a child in the womb. There is an embryo, which may or may not develop into a fetus, which when birthed is a baby. An embryo is not a living, unique human being, It is a parasitic organism with the potential to become a living unique human being.

            And if aborted, whether naturally or by other means, it is not dead because it was never alive. It was never anything more than potential. If YOU want to anthropomorphize a clump of cells, knock yourself out. But you must understand and respect that not everyone feels the same way, and you don’t get to make other people’s reproductive choices for them.

          • HeilMary1

            Your Fetal Idolatry Derangement Syndrome won’t make pedophile priests suddenly unattracted to children or make repulsed adulterous GOP husbands return to their childbirth-disfigured first wives.

          • colleen2

            I beg your pardon? You appear to be speaking to hallucinations in your head. You certainly aren’t quoting or replying to anything I said. Likewise you appear to be confusing your personal experience with abortion with something I experienced. Perhaps you need to have your meds adjusted.

          • xtisrisen

            O sorry, you are wrong in your claim that ‘no law would pass that would fail to make exceptions for the real health of the mother.’ Many proposed – not passed – bills for laws repealing abortion do exactly that. The proponents of such sweeping legislation have made the absurd claims that a woman does not get pregnant from rape; that a male (not a female?) fetus can masturbate and therefore is feeling human pleasure so should not be aborted, et cetera.
            None of those proponents are doing anything at all toward creating a positive social care atmosphere so that all, ALL, infants and children in the United States are guaranteed clean shelter, adequate and nutritious food, excellent education and freedom from abuse so that they can grow into their full potential.
            Few of those proponents are adopting teenage single moms or adopting and fostering special needs, premature, and unwanted infants, children and teenagers.
            When such proponents have proposed legislation that will care well for infants and children through their growing into full maturity, then and only then will their supposed ban on abortion sound at all like a valid option.

          • fiona64

            I’ve figured out the short translation of your rants: “all of those sluts should have kept their legs closed if they didn’t want a baby.”

            Yep. Just more of the same old bullshit.

          • Nor

            You are allowed to believe that, and act accordingly in your own life. The problem is where you and others like you legislate to take away the freedom of fellow women. Abortions will not drop in number because laws are enacted – the rate of abortions is the same regardless of access or belief (just as many occur in deeply conservative states). Advocating for these laws merely makes them illegal – which means women will seek illegal abortions. Things that do lower the abortion rate: free access to all forms of birth control and comprehensive sex education starting from an early age. Increasing the wealth of women would help too as the decision is primarily economic. Significant financial support and free health care for pregnant mothers and children through the age of 18. Low income housing, job training, free college education. Maybe someday equal pay for equal work. Actual enforced pursuit of deadbeat dads. And domestic violence protections that actually work. Things like that. These laws they are pushing now will result in only one change – more women will die, as they died in our grandmother’s time. Go to your local nursing home and ask around. They will tell you. Ask an older ER doc. They will tell you. Your moral ground argument is fine for you, but you cannot dictate other people’s morality to them no matter how much you may wish to. As you can see here, your efforts won’t convince anyone who isn’t already on your side. Wasted words and wasted breath if you are trying to convince anyone, worthwhile if standing in your high horse is all you want to do. It’s also beside the point. We are talking about laws, because laws can be enforced, unlike morals. And these laws will not save the lives of the unborn that you are concerned about. They will kill women though, for sure.

          • Nor

            What about mental health?

          • SKMIND

            No, let’s save them. Oh wait, food stamp programs, healthcare, education etc. cost.

            So yes, let’s do what the Republicans do instead.

          • PlacidAir

            No one is advocating killing ACTUAL CHILDREN. If you aren’t prepared to care for them properly — don’t have them in the first place.

          • HeilMary1

            My anti-abortion mom tried to kill me several times AFTER I was born. I wish she had aborted me instead.

          • JennySE

            I wish you had had a healthy mother who treated you with love and welcome. I am truly sorry that you didn’t.

          • Ella Warnock

            I think the point HeilMary is trying to make is that many children are born to women who are not emotionally healthy and will mistreat them as she was mistreated. She feels that it might have been better to not suffer that upbringing.

            If you feel that women are killing their children, sometimes more than one instance of abortion, I do have to wonder if you think that if only they’d have a baby, they would come to embrace and enjoy motherhood. Sadly, that’s far from true. I’d rather a child not suffer as Mary has. You clearly feel that no matter the hardship on child and mother, it’s all worth it. I don’t know that it is, and I’m certainly inclined to trust Mary’s judgement of the situation over yours.

          • HeilMary1

            Thank you! If Jenny had her way, billions more women would suffer divorce-causing obstetric incontinence and their forced-birth kids would be either raped by priests or trafficked for medical experiments like me, depending on their looks and gender.

          • Ella Warnock

            You’re welcome, Mary. I really don’t know why these simple truths are so difficult for anti-choicers to understand.

          • HeilMary1

            Nah! — you wish BILLIONS more women and children would suffer patriarchal abuse, starvation, untreated diseases, wars, homelessness and sex trafficking by priests just to avoid the “greater sin” of non-procreative sex that so offends these spoiled pedophile priests!

          • Ella Warnock

            Are you willing to take on the ones who aren’t wanted? The Duggars manage a large family quite well. There’s no practical reason that you couldn’t do the same with a large family of adopted children, is there?

          • mstockinger

            Responding with boilerplate is well, idiotic. If you have nothing original to add to the conversation, why bother? The matter is hardly resolved. As the aphorism goes, your rights end at the tip of my nose, and in the case of pregnancy, there are two entities involved. The ‘right’ of a mother to abort terminates the rights of fetus, and is thus the subject of legitimate discussion–particular when it concerns late term abortions and the high probability that the unborn child could survive independently from it’s mother. The medical profession defines the age of survivability as 24 weeks.

            Considering that over 90% of abortions are life-style choices, it’s objectively true that women who get abortions are in fact “killers”.

          • HeilMary1

            ALL abortions are medical self-defense and marital sex with one’s spouse is hardly a self-indulgent life style. No man, except a closet gay or desperate illegal alien, would willingly marry to practice 99.9% abstinence only.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            And yet… mstockinger…

            WHY IS IT THAT….those who build Personal Empires and manipulate Nations as ARMS manufacturers…

            by inciting wars and supplying warmongers…for the MONETARY profit… yielded in selling devices designed specifically to KILL… or ABORT LIFE…

            and the Generals of War… who issue orders to KILL or ABORT LIFE…

            and the Military Personnel … who carry out the orders to KILL or ABORT LIFE…

            THOSE ‘people’ … those ‘human beings’… are hailed as HEROES… PATRIOTS…. DEFENDERS OF LIBERTY?

            WHY? WHY IS THAT?

            DON’T THEY KILL UNDER the ‘pretext’ of ‘PRESERVING LIFESTYLES OF FREE AMERICANS’…

            SO WHY is it considered ‘so moral’… or ‘even okay’…to attempt to demonize a woman… who is simply being honest… and refuses to bring an unwanted child into the world… (when we have thousands upon thousands already who are never adopted)… ?

            WHAT LIBERTY IS PRESERVED by the “HEROES/KILLERS”… if a woman is denied the right to choose WHEN or IF she will be a Mother?

            WHAT LIBERTY IS PRESERVED by the “HEROES/KILLERS”… if a woman is forced to bring unwanted children into the world, whether she wants to be a mother or not… as a mandated forced incubator?

          • canaduck

            “Considering that over 90% of abortions are life-style choices…”

            Yeah, stupid, selfish lifestyle choices like being able to finish her high school or college education or keep a job or afford food and shelter either for herself or for the children she already has. I don’t know where you’re getting your 90% statistic from, but that’s why the majority of women have abortions. And of course it’s a lifestyle choice. Everything we DO is a lifestyle choice.

            “…it’s objectively true that women who get abortions are in fact ‘killers’.”

            This means literally nothing. Of course they’re killers. We’re ALL killers to some degree, even the most pacifistic vegan. If you make the “life-style choice” of eating a delicious peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you’ve killed wheat and peanuts and fruit. If you make the “life-style choice” of staving off infection with antibiotics, you’re killing bacteria. If you make the “life-style choice” of driving a car, there’s a pretty good chance that you’ll eventually, at some point, hit and kill an animal. So yes, a woman who terminates a pregnancy is, in fact, killing a fetus. Big deal.

          • PlacidAir

            Yeah, “life style” — being able to afford food, shelter, medical care…. that’s all just a “life style choice”…. bullshit.

          • chilifries

            Responding with rhetoric is even more idiotic. In the case of pregnancy, there are in fact two entities involved – biologically speaking, they are host and parasite, the host being paramount of the two as the host is already a self-sustaining, fully functioning biologic entity and the parasite may or may not reach that state even if birthed (there are birth defects, accidents, illnesses, etc. that prevent young biologic entities from reaching adulthood across the spectrum of species). You are anthropomorphizing a basic biologic relationship. Which you are entitled to do for yourself, but which you are not entitled to do for any other person, man or woman alike.

            And I don’t know where on earth you get “90% of abortions are lifestyle choices”. That may be your opinion, but it’s not a statistic, it’s not a statistically supported fact, and certainly not a statistically supported or scientifically observed truth.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, first off, provide a cite for that “over 90%” claim.

            Yes, having an unwanted child would have negatively affected my lifestyle. And?

          • Jennifer Starr

            The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, because strangely enough, when you don’t want to be pregnant, you tend to want it taken care of quite quickly.And as for the reasons why those are done, well that’s really none of your concern. Whether they are so-called life-style reasons, or health reasons, or rape and incest, it’s not your business, nor is it mine. The woman is the one who is actually pregnant and the choice should be hers and hers alone. And you know that late term abortions are generally wanted pregnancies gone terribly wrong or to preserve the mother’s life or health.

            And here’s the thing.If you throw in more roadblocks and you make abortions harder to get or use TRAP laws to force more clinic closures, if you make abortions nearly impossible to get while still being technically legal, you’re not suddenly going to have a bunch of women excited to be ‘mommies’ because they have no other choice. That’s the same kind of magical thinking that led to prohibition, that banning alcohol would suddenly make all these drunks dry up and go back home to their families. No, what you’re going to see are more women who have later abortions because of the waiting periods and red tape and more women who are desperate enough to seek out someone like Gosnell or take matters into their own hands. And all this will lead to more dead women and in most cases the fetus won’t survive either. So who’s a murderer again?

          • fiona64

            And you mock *others* for responding with boilerplate? How ridiculous.

            “Lifestyle choices” like not bringing a non-viable pregnancy to term? “Lifestyle choices” like being able to continue chemotherapy or life-saving medication that can cause fetal harm? “Lifestyle choices” like getting away from a violently abusive spouse?

            I know, right? How horrific. /sarcasm

          • Leslie Alexander

            it is not just HER body. It is the baby’s body, too.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            It is illegal to enslave and to kill. To suggest women kill the unborn is as silly as saying that the unborn are enslaving their potential mothers. Attempts to “Criminalize” the desire and safe practice of interrupting an unwanted biological process… essentially enslaves an entire gender… the female gender… and makes women purely ‘beasts of burden’… who are left to ‘carry the weight’… of WHATEVER others are able to force upon them… and that is wrong on so many levels. If you are opposed to the rights of existing human beings, then you can not suppose to possess respect for ‘potential human beings’.

          • JennySE

            Congratulations Colleen if you’re using a euphemism like “unwanted biological process,” they already know the truth – you’re just hiding from it.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            I am not hiding JennySE… ALL LIFE IS A BIOLOGICAL PROCESS… cells split, they develop, an emergence occurs either from womb, hard or membrane shell, larvae, or crust of earth; cells continue to form and die, eventually all biological matter decomposes. Embryos are exactly what? The ongoing result of an egg split by a sperm… the latter of which is for many women, at times, ‘an unwanted biological process’.

          • JennySE

            “all life is a biological process” – true and immaterial. Every single one of us is “the ongoing result of an egg [fertilized] by a sperm.”

            Try to obfuscate it in clinical terms all you want – one can only hide from the self awareness of killing another living being for so long.

            And for what it’s worth, I used to believe exactly as you do.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            JennySE, your prior beliefs are irrelevant… it is your current beliefs that pose a threat to the Constitutional Rights and Liberty of the female Citizens of our so-called Free Nation.

            I am not ‘obfuscating’ anything… I am stating facts.

            How is this for a fact… you are advocating that WOMEN SHOULD BE MADE SLAVE TO BIOLOGY AND THE INTRODUCTION OF A SINGLE LUCKY SPERM INTO HER REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM…

            whether she wants to be a Mother or not…

            whether she wants to be even just an incubator or not…

            whether the Sperm Donor was ‘nice’ or ‘a rapist’…

            whether she was even ‘conscious’ at the time of the sperm introduction into her system…

            and whether she is prepared to ‘serve as the enslaved incubator of progeny’ or not….

            Here is another fact… IF YOU DO NOT RESPECT THE LIFE OF THE HOST… as a ‘LIVING BEING’… then how can you possibly suggest that you abound with respect for an UNDEVELOPED POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING?

            And how about this one… pro-birthers will never be deemed ‘sincere’ about ‘caring’ about ‘the unwanted children forced to be born into this world’…

            AND WILL NOT BE… IN MY MIND… UNTIL NOT A SINGLE “CHILD” EVER WINDS UP IN THE ABUSIVE ENVIRONMENT OF OUR AMERICAN MONEY MAKING FOSTER CARE SYSTEMS…

            PRO-BIRTHERS should be STANDING IN LINE at ADOPTION CENTERS… TO ADOPT THE ALREADY FORCED TO BE BORN… rather than at abortion clinics… to demand that EVEN MORE should be born… unwanted… and tossed into the Foster Care System.

            BUT THEY DO NOT…. ADOPT THEM ALL…. WHY NOT?

            ODDLY THEY HAVE “EXCUSES” AS TO WHY THEY CAN NOT ADOPT THEM ALL…

            THE CLASSIC ONE IS… “HEY I DID ADOPT ONE.”….

            FINE, THAT IS WONDERFUL… BUT GUESS WHAT… SOME OF THESE WOMEN WHO WANT ABORTIONS ALREADY GAVE BIRTH “ONCE” … some even more than once… AND KNOW … better than anyone… WHAT IT TAKES TO RAISE A CHILD… AND THAT THEY CAN NOT AFFORD TO GIVE BIRTH TO ANOTHER…

            SO WHY DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO HAVE TO GIVE BIRTH… TO EVERY ‘LUCKY SPERM ENCOUNTER WITH ONE OF HER EGGS’… WHEN NO “HAS TO” ADOPT THEM?

            IN FACT… CHANCES ARE THAT ALL THE ‘EXCUSES TO AVOID ADOPTION’ ARE LIKELY THE VERY SAME “REASONS” THAT WOMEN DO NOT WANT TO BRING AN UNWANTED CHILD INTO THE WORLD, IN THE FIRST PLACE….

          • chilifries

            I’m not sure that that is an argument in your favor – the reproductive rights of others are subject to the whim and fancy of someone who keeps changing their mind? YOUR beliefs are irrelevant to MY reproductive rights, just as MINE are irrelevant to YOURS.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And I used to believe exactly as you do, Jenny, when I was a lot younger. And then a lot of things changed and so did my beliefs. But the fact that you used to be pro-choice doesn’t give your opinions any more weight, any more than it does for me. It’s still just your opinion.

          • Ella Warnock

            It isn’t worth much, that’s for sure.

          • Nor

            There’s a birth control method, reversible vasectomy (via an injectible gel), that is widely used in India. It’s cheap and highly effective. So far this legislation has not touched on men’s role in this problem. Would you agree that mandatory temporary sterilization of all boys past the age of 10 would be justifiable? Abortions would end overnight. All children would be wanted. Thoughts?

          • Nor

            I’ve killed at least a couple of hundred living beings today alone, not to mention some of them were forced to live in hellish torment for the few brief months of their lives, all so I could save a few cents. And all I had to eat so far was some eggs for breakfast, a slice of toast, some butter, orange juice, and a salad with half a ham sandwich. I know the pigs are pretty self aware, smarter than dogs, and the battery hens have individual personalities and are actually rather endearing, the eggs were organic from a farm with a rooster and so were living fetuses, as you would say, and it is certain many creatures, rabbits and mice to insects, died from tractors, etc. to get me that salad and bread and juice. Not to mention collateral damage from pesticides and environmental pollution, very definitely including pesticides that are playing a significant role in reducing the future sperm count of human baby boys and mildly “feminizing” their genitalia. I do this sort of thing every day. Why is this loss of life acceptable to you, as you are pro-life, but a zygote the size of a worm is sacred?

          • HeilMary1

            Google obstetric fistulas to get a clue why the pedophile-serving Vatican banned marriage to “piles of dung” MOTHERS.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Not a euphemism. Pregnancy is a biological process.

          • Ella Warnock

            What is incorrect about an unwanted biological process? Is pregnancy a biological process? Yes, or no? Is it many times unwanted? Yes, or no? Anti-choicers seem to be hiding from the reality that women aren’t automatically going to be stellar mothers just because they’ve got the right plumbing. And they’re not going to go along with completing a pregnancy only to hand a kid over to a lovely little christian couple who were able to afford the purchase of a fresh, new, white infant. It’s no woman’s job to provide children for those who can’t grow their own.

          • Nor

            Would you be ok with the baby drop boxes they’ve put up in Romania? That’s an option we are not utilizing in this country and it does seem in line with your moral viewpoint. Of course, we have a shortage of adoptive parents now, and our foster care system is fairly questionable. Are state-run orphanages, like in Romania, our best option?

          • Dan Bigg

            You are correct in your logic JennySE. The crazy comments made in this article are all missing the point: Abortion is both a tragedy and a much needed choice.

          • fiona64

            Those two things are crimes against persons — which a fetus, notably, is not.

            What a simplistic, absurd response.

          • Nor

            Slavery is when you get to dictate what another person can and can’t do with their body, right? Hm….

          • Leslie Alexander

            Exactly.

        • Will Mette

          If you are opposed to murder, don’t murder and leave the rest of us alone.

          I do not feel that abortion is murder, but many do.

        • consciencenotreligion

          You didn’t answer the question. ???

      • PlacidAir

        Since your name is “Raymond”, I’m guessing you’re at 0 risk of ever becoming pregnant yourself — so shut the fuck up…. those of us who actually have a uterus don’t give a rat’s ass what you think.

        • Raymond Soto

          All I did was ask a question, and all you’ve done in response is assail me with hate. You hate me, and you’ve never even met me! If you think you’re simply going to intimidate me into adhering to a philosophy I disagree with, you are wrong. You’re not being reasonable; you’re being a bully.

          • sophie

            Nice try. This issue is NOT about you, or who you believe “hates” you.
            It is about the FACT that the majority of Repugs have been attempting to ELIMINATE the reproductive rights of women, introducing hundreds of anti-choice bills, since 2010, and that does not include the damage that was done while Bush was masquerading as a president. This current legislation promoting a 20 week abortion ban is flatly unconstitutional, with a similar ban in Arizona being overturned very recently.
            This is about misogyny, and the hatred and BULLYING of women by men who could care less about their health and well being. And, after they have succeeded in forcing women to have children they cannot care for financially, etc., they want to eliminate social programs which actually might help them.
            Religious extremists are a huge part of this hatred of women–they will not rest until women have no reproductive rights of any kind.
            And, if you are one of them, STFU.

          • Raymond Soto

            I understand that, but I do not understand why I was immediately lumped in with a political party that, if you had ever asked me, you would find I don’t agree with on this issue.

          • canaduck

            I have to agree that you received quite a bit of vitriol for your comment and that it was probably a little excessive. THAt said, however, the people here are angry–and very justifiably so–and your comment isn’t really all that relevant.

            Regardless of whether you’re part of the Republican party, being against abortion means that you think you should have control over women’s bodies. The majority of anti-choice people are Republicans, but it’s a toxic and dangerous mindset regardless of who you vote for. I’m not sure what kind of answer you expected to get–but please tell me. (I’m not being sarcastic here.) The only thing I can imagine is that you wanted to point out that it’s not only Republicans who are against abortion, which is something everybody is already well aware of.

          • Raymond Soto

            I couldn’t care less about controlling women’s bodies. In fact, if anything, I’d be in favor of helping women gain more control. However, I care more about otherwise healthy human life being destroyed before it’s had a chance to thrive. I think the best compromise, for now, is to ensure that contraception is universally available and used by everyone.

            I was hoping that maybe we could have a conversation about that and compare ideas in a relatively mature way, but nobody here wants to hear it. Like the conservative Republicans they so despise, I don’t think any of the regulars here care to have their world perspectives challenged.

          • JGlackin

            A fetus is not “life”, any more than a sperm cell. It is the potential for life. Viability (the ability to sustain life independent of the womb) is considered to be reached around 25/26 weeks.
            Abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Abortions occurred before Roe v Wade, and will if Roe is reversed.
            Pres. Clinton said abortion should be legal, safe and rare. All the anti-choice movement will do is make it illegal and unsafe.
            Don’t like abortion? Support Planned Parenthood’s efforts to expand reproductive education. Support birth control.
            No legislation will stop sexual activity. No legislation will stop abortion
            And government has no place in the bedroom or the doctor’s office.

          • Raymond Soto

            I do support and like what Planned Parenthood does. I don’t believe I ever implied otherwise.

          • JGlackin

            Then, please, allow others the same right of choice you would claim is your right.
            Can government tell you to have a vasectomy if you have children by many women?
            You are imposing your theocratic beliefs upon others, and that is not acceptable in this nation.

          • Raymond Soto

            I am not a Christian. I’m not even a monotheist. I have no theocratic beliefs that are not also humanist beliefs.

            I think that government needs to make certain preparations before abortion can be restricted. If abortion were banned cold turkey, many innocent women with nowhere else to turn would be made criminals. We need universally available contraception (including Plan B!), comprehensive sex education, and a reformed child welfare program before we can even think of restricting abortion. We also need a safe and effective male birth control pill that will level the playing field as far as contraceptive responsibility. And then we need to push to make all of these things mainstream ideas instead of taboos.

          • Rachel

            But why restrict abortion, even with all these other safety measures in place?

          • Raymond Soto

            Allowing indiscriminate abortion indefinitely implies that embryos are worthless, subhuman property that can be disposed of, when the reality is that the majority would grow to be children if left to nature. I don’t think our culture is quite that devoid of compassion.

            To get conservatives on board with this? First we need to tone down the rhetoric. All it’s doing is fueling mutual misunderstandings and hatred. After that, it’s just a matter of exchanging ideas over time. Could take decades. Abortion should continue to be legal in the meantime.

          • LaylaBug

            Actually, no. Even if a fetus is “just as much a person” as the person who’s uterus it’s using, that still does not mean that the person it’s growing inside should be obligated to allow it to use hir body.

            No one is ever required to donate an organ. No one is required by law to allow someone else to use hir body in any other situation except for pregnancy.

            Saying that we cannot allow abortion except in cases of rape or health complications implies that you view the people carrying the fetuses as less human than the fetuses they are carrying. Which, in layman’s terms is called misogyny, because the vast majority of people who get pregnant are women and you are reducing women to the fetuses they can produce.

            This isn’t hard. No else one has a right to my body. PERIOD.

          • Rachel

            So we classify embryos as sacred, protected property and now all women will be under the microscope considering that as long as they are fertile they are potentially pregnant. If for some reason a woman’s pregnancy suddenly ends, who is to say it ended naturally? Should miscarriages be investigated? What is the punishment for a woman that seeks to end her pregnancy? You do realize that women have been seeking the means to end pregnancies for as long as we could get pregnant, right?

            Women have wanted pregnancies, women have unwanted pregnancies. Women sometimes have to end very wanted pregnancies, some continue very unwanted pregnancies. Many, many, many pregnancies choose to end all on their own. It is up to US to determine what is allowed to hijack our bodies. You can attempt to add value to embryos all you want, but you cannot legislate YOUR belief.

          • Raymond Soto

            >and now all women will be under the microscope considering that as long as they are fertile they are potentially pregnant.

            No. Constant surveillance is an invasion of privacy regardless of who it is, especially where we are all innocent until proven guilty.

            >If for some reason a woman’s pregnancy suddenly ends, who is to say it ended naturally? Should miscarriages be investigated?

            Don’t doctors already do this? The doctor can attempt to ascertain the cause of the miscarriage when they treat the patient, right?

            >What is the punishment for a woman that seeks to end her pregnancy?

            I can honestly say that I don’t have an answer to that question. Some people think that the surgeon or clinician should be held more accountable. I don’t know yet.

            >You do realize that women have been seeking the means to end pregnancies for as long as we could get pregnant, right?

            That’s a moot point. Human beings been doing a lot of things since the dawn of time, like fighting, killing, stealing, raping, lying, etc. That doesn’t mean that enlightened society should approve of those activities.

            >but you cannot legislate YOUR belief.

            But we do all the time. That’s why we have legislation outlawing murder. We believe murder is wrong.

          • Rachel

            Where is a woman’s right to privacy of her own pregnancy/the contents of her uterus?

            When I was a senior in high school, I got pregnant. I had an abortion scheduled, but the day after a very rigorous workout, I had a miscarriage. It was in the middle of history class, I was in a lot of pain, there was a lot of blood. My ob/gyn looks: yep, miscarriage, and sends me home with some pain meds. Under the scenario of illegal abortion, I suspect I’d be picked up by fetus-investigators, questioned at length as to why I would choose to work out so rigorously when I knew I was pregnant. It’s true that I didn’t want the pregnancy. It’s true that I worked out the way I did hoping that it would have some effect on it. It could be determined that I contributed to its death. I should be punished accordingly under your scenario? How would making abortion illegal NOT cause investigations of all miscarriages such as that? How would women suddenly not be the protected public property – after all, business owners may become liable in case a woman miscarries. If they’re investigated, we’ll need names and numbers, we’ll need to know everywhere you went, everything you did.

            If someone crawls up inside you and starts hijacking use of your organs, YOU can murder them. Go right ahead, it’s self defense. Enlightened society is OK with that, I swear. Enlightened society is OK with not making incubators out of women. Enlightened society is totally OK with women choosing for themselves if, when and how many children they wish to give birth to. Enlightened society is totally OK with women having control over their own body. If you want to create a virtual womb that allows women to remove embryos from their uteri and place them somewhere else to grow, we might have something to talk about, but until then, we decide. Not you, not legislators, not clergy.

          • bj_survivor

            We cannot even take tissues and organs from corpses without express permission from the formerly living individual or hir family, but it it perfectly okay to force women to remain pregnant, at great physiologic and social cost, as well as pain, because YOU think abortion is icky? Same holds true of death row inmates…So women, in your mind, are a class of human being somewhere below death row inmates and corpses?

            And you can’t fathom why we might just be a little bit offended by that notion?

          • HeilMary1

            ALL abortions are self-defense. Do you oppose men removing fetus in fetu parasitic twins?

          • Ella Warnock

            Nobody is approving of those activities. The point you are, willfully I think, missing is that women will obtain abortions whether it’s legal or not. For example, wealthy women, women with resources, will obtain private, safe abortions even if it’s made illegal. They’ll just travel to where it is legal. THAT is what has been going on since time immemorial. It goes on right now with women traveling from Ireland to the UK, from Poland to the UK. It will always go on because money makes the world go round. You sound a bit young and naive about some of the harsher realities of life.

          • Raymond Soto

            Actually, you’re the first person here to state it that way. I think you make a good point about women traveling to other countries for the procedure. People already travel to Latin America for other surgeries because they’re cheaper there.

          • Ella Warnock

            Of course I am, darling. On a Saturday morning I’m planning the tactical logistics of the chores and errands of the day while my brilliant, sweet husband is wandering around the house scratching his ass. I appreciate the lovely, lovely men in my life and the uniquely male differences they bring to the table. My men, however, have always understood that the care and maintenance of the female reproductive system is a giant, aching pain in the ass (or twat?) and something that’s way, way above their pay grade.

          • Nor

            You can go to jail for miscarrying in Utah.

            Putting pregnant women in jail or mental hospitals with 24-7 suicide watch to force them to continue their pregnancies is the measure you are looking to take to achieve your goal.

            We have too many unadopted kids now. How about we fix that problem first too?

            Murder is wrong because it violates the rights of the victim. In the same way, I can’t force you to give me your lung if I get lung cancer, even if you are dead. A fetus can’t force a women to give it her uterus. It is called bodily autonomy. It’s why rape is illegal too. Now if you fund your scientists and medical researchers with enough money I guarantee you they can build a synthetic womb, or figure out a way to have animals, like pigs or monkeys, bear human babies. Then your problem would be solved. How about funding that? Also, the uteruses of older women are perfectly usable, well into one’s 60’s. Uteri don’t age much. If you recruited older women to bear the unwanted zygotes of currently pregnant women, you could solve the problem that way. Again, fund the science, solve your problem.

          • Nor

            And we don’t believe murder is wrong, our government funds it under plenty of situations.
            Also, best science solve would be to move the fetus into men, but try and get that funded in this country!

          • GRL

            The phrase “indiscriminate abortion” makes it sound like the women involved will be indiscriminate in their choices without outside measures in place. It feels like that choice of words belies a lack of trust in a woman’s ability to make an informed, moral decision about whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy.

          • PlacidAir

            But embryos ARE “subhuman property that can be disposed of” — NATURE itself demonstrates that over and over and over again. Most sperm meets egg combos (zygotes) don’t even implant, of those that do, many are sloughed off with the next period and never develop beyond the early embryo stage, of those that remain approximately 1/3 will be miscarried within the first trimester. There is a far less than 50% chance that ANY zygote will actually develop into a human being and be born. NATURE decrees that phase of development “disposable”. You don’t have to like that, but it is so. Sperm meeting egg does NOT magically, instantaneously and automatically confer human BEING status.

          • colleen2

            Allowing indiscriminate abortion indefinitely implies that embryos are
            worthless, subhuman property that can be disposed of, when the reality
            is that the majority would grow to be children if left to nature. I
            don’t think our culture is quite that devoid of compassion.

            I think that’s pretentious claptrap. First, there is no ‘we’ involved. You will never be pregnant, you will never gestate and you will never give birth. Your ‘compassion’ is to insist that women suffer and die for what you believe.
            Why not demonstrate your ‘compassion’ and make a difference with an organ donation, Raymond. It’s just as safe as gestation and childbirth and it hurts a great deal less. And just think, you could demonstrate some of that ‘compassion’ you insist is part of our cultural heritage.

            I think y’all would have better luck with the genuinely stupid women on Jill Stanek’s blog. Those are women so stupid they vote for David Vitter or Mark Sandford because they’re ‘pro-life’.

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh lawdy, Stanek’s site. A veritable smorgasboard of dizzying mental illness.

          • Rachel

            And how do you plan on convincing the Cons of your plan?

          • chilifries

            Safe and effective male birth control exists – it’s called a condom. The problem is, men don’t like to use them. It doesn’t “feel natural”.

          • Raymond Soto

            That’s debatable. I’ve worn condoms, and the difference is negligible. As far as condoms are concerned, it’s either an education issue or a pride issue stemming from some confused, warped perspective on masculinity.

            But I really think a mainstream male pill would send a good shock to the status quo on contraceptives.

          • chilifries

            It’s not debatable. The condom has a 90%+ effective rate, with the added bonus of reducing STD transmission. And men don’t like to use them.

            But I see now your primary problem. All of your analyses are centered around “I” – your own personal experiences. Which are then followed by a flip summary of the problem (which again is founded in your personal experiences), and a “solution” that is basically some pie-in-the-sky utopian idea. “I’ve used condoms… the difference is negligible… if only we educated people better, or assured them that their masculinity wouldn’t be affected…”

            Eye. Roll.

            You don’t even see your own egoism. The best thing you could do for yourself is to climb off of your comfy sofa and immerse yourself in a different environment for awhile. Try to learn how the real world works for the majority of women in this country. Spend some time in a poverty stricken area and see all those “thriving” children. The key will be to keep your eyes open and your mouth shut, except to ask questions.

            (And WTF does “a good shock to the status quo on contraceptives” even mean? Do you think women are hoarding all the contraceptive options for themselves? Male contraceptives don’t exist because men don’t bear the result of accidental pregnancy, except perhaps in the pocketbook and even that’s illusive.)

          • Raymond Soto

            You misunderstood me entirely. What’s debatable is that condoms feel any different. They don’t, or if they do it’s barely noticeable. I think men who use the “unnatural feeling” defense are exaggerating.

            The status quo on contraceptives is that a lot of men don’t like to use them. I dislike that. I want to change it. A male pill with the same availability as the female pill would upset that status quo because suddenly men would be held to the same responsibility.

            But that’s cool, keep turning these stances on their heads so we can continue to be adversaries. My opinions on this issue have been strawmanned and misrepresented since I came in here. I can’t say anything without somebody else reading it to mean something else entirely. Of course I’m defensive; I’m frustrated because what you’re doing is exactly the same as how hardcore pro-lifers argue.

          • chilifries

            I did misunderstand you and I apologize.

            But dude, you are reinforcing what I said.

            “What’s debatable is that condoms feel any different. They don’t, or if they do it’s barely noticeable. I think men who use the “unnatural feeling” defense are exaggerating.”

            I don’t really want this to turn into an argument against condoms. but what you’ve stated is YOUR experience. Other men have different experiences. I had a boyfriend once who literally went soft at the very idea of putting on a condom. He wasn’t circumcised, so maybe that had something to do with it. We figured out a workaround and had no accidental pregnancies.

            But that’s neither here nor there – the point is that you are being completely dismissive of other people’s experiences.

            How are we supposed to find real solutions – to birth control, to abortion, to anything – when you consistently and completely dismiss experiences outside of what you have personally seen, felt, tasted, heard and smelled?

            You seem a reasonably intelligent person. If you would expand your word view to include others, and used your gifts to champion those whose experiences have been less favorable and less fortunate, you would be a force to be reckoned with.

          • Raymond Soto

            ” the point is that you are being completely dismissive of other people’s experiences.”

            Point taken. You may be correct, and I apologize.

          • Nor

            We have one. It got pulled because men complained of moodiness, weight gain and lowered sex drive. The same side effects women experience. They made it into a visible sub-skin pellet that lasted for years, because it turns out women didn’t feel they could trust men to take a pill at the same time every day just to protect them. The marketing conclusion was there just is insufficient demand.

            There’s also the reversible non-surgical vasectomy as practiced in other countries like India. They’ve been using it there for years to great success but of course it is not legal here. They don’t feel there is sufficient demand, especially since you couldn’t be sure men actually had had the procedure rather than just say they’d had it. So go get one if you want it, it’d be cheaper than having anything similar done here for sure. Of course, every man who is done having children should get a vasectomy. But most don’t. Wonder why?

          • Nor

            I’ve found it very odd that ella, which is a significant improvement over Plan B (it is equally effective over five days whereas Plan B is really only good for three and at a rapidly declining rate) is impossible to obtain locally. No pharmacies carry it, Planned Parenthood doesn’t have it, hospitals don’t, and I don’t understand why. This is a question I would like answered. It should be free in schools, along with all other forms of birth control.

          • PlacidAir

            This is the sanest thing you’ve posted yet Raymond. I don’t know a single pro-choice person who wouldn’t agree with this statement. But the bottom line here is also that EVERY FORM of birth control has a failure rate. Even a 99% efficacy rate means that for every 100 women who uses that method conscientiously for a year — 1 of them will still get pregnant. And that 1 should still have right of control over her own body…. whether someone else likes what she may do with that control, or not.

          • Rachel

            “However, I care more about otherwise healthy human life being destroyed before it’s had a chance to thrive.”

            So you care more about potential life than existing life? How do we know potential life will be healthy life? How do we know it will even be a healthy pregnancy? How long must a woman be required to remain pregnant in order to prove – to you – that she is not destroying potentially perfectly healthy new life?

          • Raymond Soto

            Until a doctor says the embryo/fetus is not healthy enough to warrant birthing or that the pregnancy will harm or kill the woman. That’s how it is now, isn’t it, save for the open option to abort?

          • chilifries

            You are imposing a perfect world scenario on pregnancy – each pregnancy will be wanted, each child will be loved, adequately fed, properly cared for and raised, and develop into fully functioning, productive members of society.

            And yet, regularly that ideal is not reached. The incidence of child poverty and child abuse is significant. Furthermore, the number of fathers who dodge child support is staggering. More unwanted, unsupported children will not make this better.

          • Nor

            You’ll have to keep us all in pregnancy jail for this to really lower the abortion rate, you know.

          • Ella Warnock

            Of course we don’t want to”hear it.” I’m a middle-aged woman with a lot of life experience under my belt; and believe me when I say I have literally heard it all before.

            Either a woman is free agent, or she isn’t. If the rights of a fetus must be “equal” to the rights of the woman carrying it, then her body is no longer under her control. Not one anti-choicer has ever been able to tell me when the EXACT POINT is that she becomes someone else’s property. They can’t even tell me EXACTLY WHOSE authority she should be under. Do we create a larger government to police and legislate a woman’s rights?

            Do we create an all-new, far reaching infrastructure to make sure women get back to the business of birthing babies, with many less opportunities to outright reject that role? How expensive do you think that kind of undertaking would be, and would you be willing to pay MUCH more in taxes to support these things?

            The idea that I would ever get pregnant or give birth was always simply unthinkable to me. Many people on your side of the fence are completely and utterly paranoid and scandalized by a woman like me, who forged her OWN IDENTITY and charted her own course in life. Men DO NOT like that. True story. Hang out on conservative forums and witness the derisiveness and utter and ugly bile that many of those men spew about women. The hate and disrespect is aggressive and harsh. THOSE attitudes are the reason women MUST continue to hold fast to their rights and bodily autonomy. As you are someone who will never be faced with society treating your body as public property, I think you’re quite naive about the uglier truths of life. Even BORN people don’t get any guarantees in this life. Why should a fetus? Fair is just another four-letter word that starts with F.

          • Raymond Soto

            I haven’t been received much differently here than I would be on a conservative forum. Everyone in either extreme uncompromising, anyone who does compromise is ostracized as both a fascist woman-hater and a pro-death libtard. This fight will continue indefinitely.

            By the way,

            >As you are someone who will never be faced with society treating your body as public property

            I registered for the draft when I turned 18, as was required by law. Congress can legally seize my body for war any day it chooses.

          • canaduck

            Uh, you know that the draft ended 40 years ago, right? You act as if the military could literally, any day, restart an incredibly controversial and arduous process that would require entirely new legislation from Congress and the President–and that would be for both men and women. The military has been all-volunteer for decades and even after all these years of war in the Middle East, they have never called for a draft because they don’t NEED to.

            What’s more, if you aren’t between the age of 18 to 26, then you don’t need to worry about it. You won’t be drafted. Ever. I find it obscene that you would compare the daily and very real assault on the bodies of women to such an absurdly hypothetical and limited situation.

          • Ella Warnock

            Don’t think I didn’t notice that the only point of mine you addressed was the bodily autonomy one. You mistakenly believe, or pretend to believe, that you will be conscripted against your will. You won’t, and the comparison to MY body being anti-choicers’ public property is weak and ill-thought out, at best.

            As I said, you will not ever face an unwanted and unwelcome pregnancy. Birth control worked well for me, but I never would have carried an accidental pregnancy to term. That’s the reality; many women are simply not interested. Forcing them to birth won’t make them any more agreeable to the idea, and they’ll never become the kind of women (sweet little mommies) you think they “ought” to be.

          • Rachel

            I don’t understand this concept of ‘compromise’ in this debate. If Cons agree to free birth control, women will agree to give up their right to bodily autonomy ‘just a little bit’?

          • bj_survivor

            And the last time the draft was enacted was over 40 years ago. Nice try, asshole. Women are conscripted to forced pregnancy and labor each and every fucking day in this world.

          • PlacidAir

            Can they do it from inside your own body? And the US gave up the draft decades ago.

          • HeilMary1

            And are you trying to end the unfair military draft for all men while you are also demanding all women be forced breeders for spoiled pedophile priests?

          • LaylaBug

            Now why would he do that? He’s too busy making sure that other people’s autonomy is not respected. He hasn’t got time to try to end the mandatory submission of one’s name for a draft that’s been abandoned for a long time. There are women’s bodies that need controlling damnit!

            Also, Ray, calling people “libtards” shows your card a bit too clearly I’m afraid. You have no intention of engaging in good faith within a discussion about abortion. You simply want to play the part of the “rational” dude who gets to say oh so clever things about something he will never have to experience and then whimpers that the hysterical wimminz just don’t want to compromise and gee why oh why do they get so upset when you merely suggest they give up the rights that make them human?

            Being anti-choice doesn’t make you “edgy” even if you’ve paired that belief with all the other possible liberal beliefs in the world. Because ultimately, saying you believe a woman has no right to deny another party the use of her own body reduces her to a status of less than human. And THAT sir, isn’t edgy, it’s a sexism nearly as old as dirt.

          • HeilMary1

            Exactly!

          • Ella Warnock

            Yeah, libtard is a dead giveaway. He tries to come off as such an enlightened soul, as if our fluffy little ladybrainz wouldn’t notice his unfortunate lapses in logic and reason.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Son, the draft ended forty years ago, back when I was a baby. I don’t think you have to worry about it any time soon. But pregnancy and the prospect of pregnancy, has been, is now, and will always be the concern of every woman.

          • Nor

            You can protest, perhaps on moral grounds. If you refuse to fight, they can’t really do much with you.

          • Nor

            Shouldn’t that apply to women too?

            Besides, only poor men couldn’t get out of the draft. Just like only poor women will be affected by abortion bans. So… fair, right?

            And only fair if 1/3 of men got drafted. Which they don’t. Because society wouldn’t stand for it.

          • canaduck

            “In fact, if anything, I’d be in favor of helping women gain more control. However, I care more about otherwise healthy human life being destroyed before it’s had a chance to thrive.”

            Do you seriously not realize what you’re saying? Unwanted pregnancies DO destroy otherwise healthy human lives–those of the women carrying them.

          • chilifries

            You have no concept of what “a chance to thrive” means. A thriving child is one who is wanted, loved, adequately fed and clothed, properly educated, and raised to become a productive member of society may (it’s not a guarantee) thrive. This is a long process – 18+ years. Things can go wrong every step of the way, most related to the parents. If the parents don’t want to be parents (and it’s the dads who walk away in much higher incidence than the moms), or can’t adequately provide for their kids, or don’t know how to parent (most likely because they weren’t well parented themselves), the child will not thrive. They will exist, but they will not thrive.

            You have a view of how children become adults that is in no way connected to reality.

            You can’t MAKE a woman be happy about being pregnant. You can’t MAKE her be a good mother. You can’t MAKE a father stick around. You can’t MAKE him pay child support. You can’t MAKE a child thrive.

            A thriving child is a result of a confluence of a myriad of circumstances, the LEAST of which being that the mother is ready, willing and able to parent.

            You are not god. You do not have all the answers. Stop trying to impose your utopia on the rest of us, who live in the real world.

          • xtisrisen

            Raymond,
            1. Not all fetuses are ‘healthy’ or will result in births of healthy infants.
            2. Not all impregnations are done where contraception, even if available, is chosen by the male to be used. For instance, rapists and incestuous abusers seldom take the time and care to use contraception, or care if their victims are using contraception.
            3. Among teenagers, the lack of contraceptive use is very high. It is more difficult for teenagers to purchase contraceptives than for adults to do so; plus, teenagers are more impulsive and less likely to plan ahead; plus many teenagers rationalize that if they don’t plan ahead that having sex is less a moral issue; plus, in date rape, see above in #2.
            4. Some pregnancies become toxic to the mother, and no planned use of contraceptives changes that, or the need to intervene with abortion if other medical procedures do not change that toxicity — unless, of course, you are among the minority who believe that it’s ok to kill the mother in order to get the baby.
            5. Some pregnancies happen in spite of contraceptives: sometimes the potential parents are not capable of caring for an additional infant, sometimes the potential parents are not capable of caring for even one child.

            6.None of the social assistance services and programs in the United States yet adequately addresses infant and child nurture, shelter, clothing, education and food. It is cruel to insist that a pregnancy go to term, an infant be born, and then the parent be expected to be the sole caregiver to that infant and castigated if the care is inadequate and the children do not thrive. Yet that is exactly the situation for many people, and it is the children in that situation who pay the very high price for the hypocrisy of insistence on their being born only to be neglected.

            Yup, let’s have conversation all right. But let’s look at ALL the complexities of the issues about pregnancy and childbearing, not just the simplistic solipsisms thrown from behind barriers of wilful ignorance and prejudice.

            By the way: I am pro-choice, and yes, I have borne and love my children and have also sheltered teenage foster children abandoned by their parents and by every social agency out there. When anti-abortion folks can make those same statements, then they will have the same experience from which to speak and the same experiential authority to do so. Until that parity is reached, it’s just not going to matter that some guy wants to make his beliefs and wishes count as much as women who do 100% of childbearing and 90% of the childcare in the world.

          • LaylaBug

            Oh hey, it’s another tone argument. I’m sure no one’s ever heard before that if women just told people they wanted to control what happened inside their own bodies more “nicely”, they’d totally get their own way.

            For the record, I don’t hate you, I just think you’re obtuse and self-important. Nobody really cares how YOU personally feel about abortion. No one has a right to use anyone else’s body against hir will. No one, not even a fetus.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            Precisely, LaylaBug…. I am so glad you ‘clarified that for Raymond’… :)

            Indeed that is the crux of it… first and foremost… that ‘no’ means ‘no’… and if saying it politely is ignored… then yes, one might ought to be prepared to expect to hear it screamed.

            The right to be a ‘mother’ is something precious… when elected… it should NEVER BE A MANDATE…

            Women are not incubators, nor livestock … to be ‘managed’ … by anyone other than themselves… and especially not by Government Legislation… which makes the Uterus a franchise… for everyone except the owner!!!

            A ‘potential life’ does NOT trump, OWN… NOR take precedent over… A PREEXISTING ONE… just because it is biologically developing within that ‘preexisting life’…

            ONLY THE HOST… the owner of the uterus… has authority to choose to ‘welcome the presence of a potential new life’… OR…
            to declare… NO… this uterus is not available for use at this time…

            And saying NO should not be demonized. Her body… her egg… her decision.

            In simple terms… that perhaps as a Democratic man, Raymond might feel more ‘comfortable’ with… and possibly even grasp and understand… is the observation that ‘just because an automobile is capable of being driven at 160mph… does not mean that one should do so… AND DEFINITELY… NO DRIVER… should EVER BE FORCED TO DRIVE THAT FAST… just because it is a functionality of the vehicle.

          • colleen2

            Oh stop whining. You didn’t make an objection, you asked a poorly phrased question and then ignored the requests for clarification. Nobody cares about your hurt feelings. Now fuck off.

          • Colleen Cahoon

            I tell you what, Raymond… I totally agree with your Edit…

            Rhetoric can sting with out blatant crudeness… but… it is also fair to point out … that sometimes ‘crude but effective’ … serves to vent the ‘measure’ of one’s commitment, frustration, and ultimate realization of the futility …. of arguing points with someone… who is not made ‘subject’ to the ‘unfair’ legislation.

            Realistically… we are all responsible for our own bodies and actions.

            We are capable of ‘learning from our mistakes’… hopefully.

            Denying a woman the right… to intercept and negate what to her would be resolution to an assault or error of judgement… is wrong…

            I totally agree with your right… regardless of politics… to ‘feel that abortion’ is wrong…. but fairly… that ‘feeling’ is your responsibility… where you are concerned… not where others are concerned… because… they have ‘feelings too’…. and they ‘feel’ that their body is their body…

            And just as your body is your body… and therefore the Government should never FORCE you to give away a kidney because it ‘might save a life’…. then women’s bodies are their bodies and they too have the right to decide what shall and shall not be ‘shared’ with respect to that body.

          • PlacidAir

            And you really don’t see how your baseline notion that your beliefs and agenda have any relevance when it comes to controlling the lives and bodies of others could be perceived as offensive and detrimental to the most basic right to SELF of women? Seriously Raymond? How about we women start a campaign to legislate the content of men’s bodies — force you all to get reversible vasectomies in order to prevent accidental pregnancies — and only allow them to be reversed if you pass a test to qualify as a mature and responsible man who’ll step up for his children and help raise them… would that work for you? It wouldn’t be any less invasive and controlling of your right to SELF than this is.

          • Ella Warnock

            You know, I can see a whole new underground industry happening with this. Men who illicitly obtain reversals when they aren’t approved to do so by a bunch of women who don’t know him or his life circumstances! Debates referring to his testicles as public property, only vaguely connected to an actual living human being. Long, boring theological discussions about what should be done with wasted seed that was not used for procreative purposes. Now that would really be something.

      • JimNauseam

        Fine. Tea Party, then.

        • Raymond Soto

          Nope. Voted Democrat in the last election, Independent before that.

          • Rachel

            A Democrat that believes in taking away women’s choice? Believes women should be forced to endure pregnancies no matter the circumstances or threat to health? How do you identify as a Democrat?

          • Raymond Soto

            I do not believe in taking away women’s right to choose. I only oppose the act of abortion where it is not medically necessary.

            And yes, I believe that instances of rape count as a medical necessity.

          • chilifries

            You speak in hyperbole. You can believe whatever you like for yourself, but if you truly believe in a woman’s right to choose, put your money where your mouth is and support Roe v. Wade (even though certain of the guidelines may be distasteful to you personally).

          • Jen L

            “I do not believe in taking away women’s right to choose. I only oppose the act of abortion where it is not medically necessary.”

            That’s taking away the right to choose. A woman who has a medical necessity is not making a choice.

          • Ella Warnock

            Whose definition of “medically necessary” are we going to use? You do realize that that concept will differ WILDLY from physician to physician, patient to patient. Actually, kind of like it does right now. Genie is out of the bottle, I’m afraid.

            I’m sure my ob/gyn could have come up with any number of reasons why I shouldn’t carry a pregnancy to term. She would have supported whatever choice I made, period. The fact that you can fire someone for not supporting you is, of course, a fundamental right. The free market assures that I would have little trouble finding someone who would.

          • Rachel

            I believe in Jewish tradition, we also count mental health and well-being as medically necessary as well.

          • Mason McDaniel

            Why would rape be a medical necessity? What if the fetus is healthy?

          • LaylaBug

            I don’t really care what you want to call it in order to make yourself feel better about not trusting women to make their own choices and not feeling like women are worth as much as a fetus. Taking away a woman’s right to choose (except in cases of rape or health emergencies) is taking away a woman’s right to choose. There’s no way around it. I’m sorry if that compromises your delicate sensibilities. Too bad, so sad.

            I hope at least, for consistency’s sake, you believe everyone should be mandated to donate organs or blood whenever necessary. Because if not? Guess what? That makes you a raging, hypocritical misogynist. It doesn’t matter if your discomfort over women being allowed to choose a (for now) perfectly legal medical procedure stems from concern over the BAYBEEEEES. You still are saying that someone else has a right to use a woman’s body against her will. That is barbaric. There’s no way around that.

          • Ella Warnock

            It’s almost disappointing how easily they fold when presented with evidence of their extreme cognitive dissonance. It’s a shame we can’t continue to, cat-like, play with the little mousie.

          • Raymond Soto

            Actually, I stopped because I was tired of sociopathic, passive-aggressive responses like yours. What are you suggesting with your cat and mouse analogy? Are you saying that this entire argument about abortion is all about power and winning to you? Am I no longer your opinionated neighbor, but now an enemy combatant? You dehumanize your opponents the same way you dehumanize the subject of this debate.

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh dear, Raymond, I’m not passive/aggressive. I’m just plain aggressive. Don’t think I didn’t noticed you skated on the very edge of claiming that I dehumanize fetuses. You are, ever so, entitled to make that claim. Your version of this story just isn’t the same one mine is. Tsk, tsk, now let’s not get touchy. You do realize, don’t you, that much of what goes on in forums all over the internet is indeed a game. Power and winning — that’s the name of the game of life, my dear.

          • colleen2

            There will always be better mice.

          • Nor

            Rape would be a mental health exception then? So why not depression or anxiety?

          • LaylaBug

            It’s not that hard to believe. A lot of Democrats have allowed the namby pamby “well if she was raped” mumbo jumbo to invade the discussion. Apparently not realizing that this is quite damning rhetoric. While it might sound nice in theory, it’s impractical. In part because the amount of paper pushing to “prove” a victim was raped may make the time for abortion run out. But it’s particularly odious because in essence, you are saying “I support a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, but only AFTER someone else has violated her right to bodily autonomy”.

          • Nor

            So have a lot of Republicans. Many of them do allow exceptions for rape and incest. You are correct that this is illogical and shows that they actually aren’t morally consistent, indicating they don’t believe their own moral argument. Which should shock approximately no one, but is indeed a major weakness in their plan. If they are truly anti-choice, they should be so all the way. They should force women to have the rape babies of their fathers as 13 year olds if they truly believe abortion is murder. Clearly they do not believe it then. It’s a pity because I think most women would not vote for someone who thinks you should be forced to carry your father’s rape baby. Guess they figure that too, and act accordingly.

      • Colleen Cahoon

        Regardless of party, do you Raymond Soto consider it “patriotic” to plan for and engage in war… for any reason… and expressly to defend one’s own liberty? Or do you actively protest against all wars… because they abort existing lives…. of the ‘already born’ …. who happen to be not only sons and daughters, but lovers, spouses, siblings, friends, cousins, neighbors and parents… rather than ‘potential people’?

    • sez-who

      You cannot read hearts. You’ve no business pretending you know what motivates another.

      • Jennifer Starr

        We’re talking about conservative Republicans, not people with hearts.

        • cubanbob

          Opposing infanticide is heartless. Keep digging.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t believe that infanticide is what we were talking about. Nice misdirection, though.

          • cubanbob

            So when is the magic moment a cellular blob becomes human?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Nice straw man. I never said that a zygote, embryo or fetus wasn’t human.

          • JimNauseam

            According to Scripture, at the first breath. Or maybe you didn’t know that?

          • chilifries

            Except we live in America, where the scripture has *zero* to do with laws imposed by the government. Or are you unfamiliar with the constitution?

          • Kretek

            That’s cute you think that.

          • B.W. MaGurk

            Are you kidding? You’re talking to an evangelical and they only know what the preacher told them.

          • B.W. MaGurk

            When it’s boots are on the ground.

          • colleen2

            we are not discussing infanticide, little hysteric.

          • PlacidAir

            Infants have been born. Zygotes are not infants any more than a blueprint is a finished house. Embryos are not infants any more than a poured foundation is a finished house. Early fetuses are not infants any more than a frame is a finished house.

          • JimNauseam

            Infanticide? Hyperbole much?

          • Candice Kamencik

            That word doesn’t mean what you think it does. Dictionaries are your friend.

          • bj_survivor

            An embryo or fetus is not an infant. Idiot.

          • HeilMary1

            You support using fetuses to maim and murder women.

        • cubanbob

          As opposed to discussing Liberal Democrats that are both heartless and brainless.

          • HeilMary1

            Conservative Rethugs are all cheating wife dumpers and closet gay bashers.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Because I mean, seriously. Most of these ‘pro-life’ Republican politicians tend to be older males (note that I didn’t say all, so you don’t have to bring up examples of females and younger men-I do know they exist) But you can’t tell me with a straight face that these old guys are losing sleep at night because they’re so concerned about the ‘dear little baybees’, while at the same time they’re trying to cut education, school lunch programs, child welfare and health insurance programs that might actually help these ‘baybees’ once they’re born. No. It just doesn’t fly. What they want, and what they have wanted for decades now, is to ‘put women back in their place’.

        • cubanbob

          So you want the right to chose or not chose to get prgenant, stay pregnant but insist that others be compelled to subsidize your choice.
          Choices for you but obligations for me.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So do you call yourself ‘pro-life’ or do you go by the more honest term of ‘pro-forced birth-but-once-it’s-born-it’s-on-its-own’ ?

          • sharculese

            Weird, it’s almost as if bodily health and autonomy is not a thing a sane person would compare to whether you have enough money for a new Xbox.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, of course, wealthy women and women with resources will easily be able to obtain safe abortions and pay for them with their OWN money, no obligation on you at all. That’s the way it’s always been. Believe me, the care and control of my reproductive system has never been dependent on you picking up the tab for any of it. So, yes, choice for me. “I” paid for it.

        • JimNauseam

          They’re just pandering to the Christian Right, an important voting block for them. Never mind that Jesus never mentioned abortion, the OT seems to approve of it and and anyway we don’t legislate according to Bible teachings — that would be unconstitutional. The GOP knows all this, but they also know their supporters don’t.

    • cubanbob

      So you are in favor of making child support voluntary for men. Afterall staying pregnant is entirely her choice.

      • Jennie K. Diller-Daniels

        It seems it is already voluntary in the way that A LOT of deadbeat parents haven’t paid, some for years.

      • Erin Higgins

        and not taking measures to prevent the pregnancy to begin with was his choice! Why is the woman the one left with the responsibility of preventing pregnancies?! Or ending one?! If he don’t wanna pay, then he don’t need to play!!

        • jenn

          AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

        • cubanbob

          Because men don’t get pregnant so the imperative to avoid pregnancy absent rape is entirely on the one who can get pregnant. The woman always has the right to say no, find a man who is infertile, use multiple forms of birth control or find a guy who is willing and able to be dad. And she still has the right to an abortion without his consent.

          • Rachel

            So you think men should be able to easily opt-out of child support but should never be responsible for keeping his swimmers from swimmin’? If you don’t want to pay child support, YOU use multiple forms of birth control. Men lie about being infertile, they don’t get tested unless there is reason to, even vasectomies aren’t 100% effective. And let’s not forget about STDs. Wrap that shit up, cubanbob.

          • laura

            Wouldn’t it be nice if life were so simplistic and ‘black and white’ the way you paint it? …uhhh…no.

          • PlacidAir

            Bullshit. Sperm is required to start a pregnancy — if you GIVE SOMEONE that sperm willingly — you’re responsible for the end result. You have no right of control within someone else’s body (you had full control within your own), but once there is no longer that issue (after she’s given birth), you’re fully capable of being responsible, and therefore should be. If you don’t want to have to worry about that, don’t have unprotected sex.

          • Joanna

            Don’t like abortion? Don’t get women pregnant.

          • canaduck

            I love it–your theory is that simply as a result of having been born female, the woman holds all the responsibility for creating life, growing and nourishing that life at the cost of her own bodily integrity, and in the majority of cases, raising that life to adulthood. Playing no part in the process of impregnation whatsoever, the man’s duty is to occasionally interrupt his freewheeling sexcapades to ensure that not only is the woman the only one who faces any consequences, but that she has no choice in the matter.

            Would that you and all of your ilk were so honest all the time.

          • Ella Warnock

            The man also has the right to say no, as well. If you’re not absolutely sure she’s willing to have your children, then you shouldn’t be screwing her. It’s YOUR sole responsibility to stay away from pro-choice women. Go find a nice little christian girl who wants nothing more to be a sweet little mommy to all your spawn.

          • colleen2

            One can always tell a conservative ‘man’. At no point in the narrative do they admit any responsibility for their part in human reproduction or for the incredible harm their gender does to both women and children and their utter failure to accept responsibility for their collective lack of self control. I swear, the GOP has the emotional age of a poorly raised 13 year old boy. You think like rapists, not like men anyone could have respect for.

          • Nor

            On the bright side rapist often get visiting rights to the kids. God bless this country!

      • Jennifer Starr

        Don’t even go there. Unless you’re in the military, it’s extremely easy to avoid child-support payments. Politicos pay lip-service to tracking down ‘deadbeat dads’, but actual enforcement is a joke.

        • cubanbob

          Why should dad or the taxpayers pay at all? It’s her choice absent rape to get pregnant and her choice to stay pregnant so it’s her responsibility to support the kid she chose to birth. Or are you arguing you have rights but don’t have any responsibilities or obligations for the results of your excersizing your rights?

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you’re basically arguing against fathers, period. Am I reading that right? Or is this the beginning of some extended MRA whine about how much your mean old girlfriend or ex is making you pay?

          • Mr_DJ

            Don’t entertain the moron.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, you’re right. Talking to this guy is basically the equivalent of banging my head against the wall. Thick as a brick.

          • Jen L

            It’s the new MRA “gotcha.” The problem with it is that they are equating a fetus with a baby, an entity separate from a woman, so the choice is that the man can force a woman to get an abortion against her will or he can disavow all responsibilities for the future child.

            It’s just another mechanism of gaining control over women.

          • colleen2

            It’s just another mechanism of gaining control over women.

            Sad little creatures. they’ve so obviously failed at any sort of intimate relationship beyond the bro-mance offered by the MRM. The reasons for that failure become obvious rather quickly when they post and yet they still blame women for everything.

          • Rachel

            Why don’t you argue with the forced-birthers about this shit?

          • Jen L

            Because he and the forced birthers are both about controlling women. They are trying to force women into a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario, wherein the decision is wholly on the man.

          • laura

            last I checked, it takes two to create a pregnancy.

          • PlacidAir

            And YOU chose to put your sperm into someone else’s body — knowing full well that once you do so, you no longer control it. Where is YOUR “responsibility” for making that choice? That’s right, your 2 minutes of getting off could lock you in for 18 years of responsibility — think of that next time you decide that having unprotected sex is a good idea.

          • Ella Warnock

            Make sure the woman you’re screwing is as “prolife” as you are. Find out what her opinions are vis-a-vis abortion, pregnancy, birth BEFORE you have sex with her, sex that will potentially result in a pregnancy. If she’s not on the same page with you, be a man and walk away from a potentially, for you, painful situation. You’re the only one with absolute control of your sexuality. If you think it’s some sort of sacred, holy thing, then by all means, adhere to your principles. Avoid pro-choice women at all cost.

          • Nor

            Because for some reason people don’t seem cool with letting little kids starve to death in the richest country on earth. Dunno why.

      • PlacidAir

        You also had a choice when you CHOSE to hand your sperm over to someone else. You have no right of control within someone else’s body — you HAD right of control over your sperm before you handed it over. Don’t want them to have control of your sperm?… don’t give it to them. Use a condom, or just don’t have sex — after all, isn’t that what the control freaks say to women all the time? … don’t want a baby, don’t have sex… why is that only a one-way statement?

      • Raymond Soto

        Men should be able to legally sign away their right to parenthood if they so wish.

        However, I also agree with Erin that contraception is everyone’s responsibility. Right now, men with money to spare ought to be throwing that money at research on the male pill.

        • Rachel

          “Men should be able to legally sign away their right to parenthood if they so wish.”

          And men have. I know men that have. Women have too – adoption is also a choice.

        • colleen2

          Men should be able to legally sign away their right to parenthood if they so wish.

          Sure. That’s what happens when a man signs a consent form for a vasectomy.

        • Nor

          Then so should women. State orphanages ala Romania anyone! Who cares about the kids well-being! The male pill exists, as does permanent and temporary non-surgical vasectomy. You see anyone using it?

    • sophie

      Great comment–hope you don’t mind if I share!

    • B.W. MaGurk

      In my circle, it is 6 to 1 against the Republicans in Congress and all seven are adult females.
      I’m an adult male. I do not believe in abortion but that belief is trumped by my gender and by the fact that I want to control no one.
      The decision to abort a fetus is between the woman and her god, and I am no god.
      It’s none of my business, and being none of my business it damned sure isn’t any of Congresses business either.

      • Rocky

        How about if it were a 2 month premature baby born alive and the birth mother wanted it killed. Would you still say that it is between a mother and her god? How about her God? What a silly and cowardly argument, not very well thought out. You say you are against abortion. When would you EVER be against it in the real world? A man who won’t stand up for his beliefs is either a windbag or a coward. You folks are hung up on this right of women to their own bodies. That’s not the issue. There is another human body involved – the baby, which is being destroyed under the guise of women’s rights. Just admit it, all of you liberals – you want your preferences, your convenience, and your economic goals to be unrestricted by the Sanctity of Life. That is your real argument. Will that argument hold up at The Judgement? Ha!

        • HeilMary1

          Mother-killing fetal idolater, you keep ignoring the crucial difference between born and unborn fetuses: unborn fetuses, being still inside their captive hosts, still have the deadly capacity to maim and murder their hosts. Born fetuses are no longer medical threats to their now separate mothers, and laws and medical ethics require that medical personal treat the fetuses reasonably according to their viability. No unborn fetus, no matter how “hot looking” it is to the sick imaginations of pedophile priests, has the right to shred its mother’s bladder, bowels, and birth canal, or poison its mother with sepsis, deadly autoimmune diseases, or cancers. Now get over your sick fetal idolatry!

          • consciencenotreligion

            “No unborn fetus, no matter how “hot looking” it is to the sick imaginations of pedophile priests…..”

            Makes you sound stupid. Seriously stupid. lol Keeping your comments lucid and with less hateful rhetoric might give you a little credibility. Or not.

          • HeilMary1

            Keep your mother-killing stupidity to yourself.

        • fiona64

          Thanks for demonstrating that you think a fetus has more value than a born, sapient, sentient woman.

          It’s awfully easy to be an anti-choice male. After all, it’s never your life or health being endangered by gestation.

          • Leslie Alexander

            It is not more than or less than. They both have value and both lives are sacred. An unborn child is human and has value and should not be killed.

          • fiona64

            When you assign imaginary rights to a fetus, you abrogate the rights of the born, sapient, sentient pregnant woman. One of your fellow travelers, in another thread, actually said a woman’s right to medical autonomy was “mitigated” by her pregnancy … which is patently absurd.

            If you are not the pregnant woman, you don’t get to decide what happens to the fetus (and no, I don’t use hyper-romanticized language like “unborn child” or “baby” to refer to a fetus. We have developmental terms for a reason).

        • Dez

          Wow you’re a moron. A 2 month premature baby is born!! There is laws already preventing people from killing born persons. The problem you have is that you want to force your opinion onto women’s bodies that do not agree with your views. You may see it as a baby, but I do not. Why does your opinion trump my right to make a decision with my doctor to terminate a pregnancy? Are you a god? No then stay the fuck out of women’s lives.

        • Rowdy Wilson

          David Mellor, the founding director of the Animal Welfare
          Science and Bioethics Center at Massey University in New Zealand A fetus,” Mellor says, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.”

        • wopodsy

          So Rocky, do you practice birth control in any fashion? do you throw away all those little swimmers? You People say a zygote is a baby so, why not consider all those little swimmers babies too? So in my world you Mr. Rocky are killing babies also.

        • Nor

          How many children have you adopted?

        • Nor

          And given the recent NYT article on how birth in the US is more expensive than in any other country on the planet, how many women have you funded in order for them to give birth? The article specifies it usually costs between $4,000 and $45,000 for the uninsured, if there are no problems. Love to hear back from you!

        • Nor

          Well, you can just leave your baby at the hospital, so it’s not like this is even remotely an issue. In Nevada, you can leave your kid of any age there (or at the fire dept, police station, etc.).

          If the woman and the fetus are equals, the fetus has no right to use the woman’s body without her permission. Just like you can’t force someone to donate organs, even if they are dead. Your body is your own, by law. Except some people don’t consider women full equal human beings under the law. You don’t. Why is that?

    • Colleen Cahoon

      I agree Moribund!!!!

      And I might add that the desire to control women also reflects the desire to control other men… as this latest ‘war on women’ began when the ‘stats’ revealed that WHITE MEN were no longer in the majority, primarily because when given the right to choose… white women actually did begin to choose… and chose not to have so many babies, as they previously had been forced to do…

      In fact, the ratio is something like 8 to 1 white women aborting, compared to non-whites…. some because:

      1. They were too young to be mothers.

      2. They were raped.

      3. They were incestuously raped.

      4. They were already struggling to feed existing families and needed to be able to obtain jobs to help support the household.

      5. They did not want to forfeit or interrupt their academic pursuits.

      6. Their careers that supported an existing family would be lost or ultimately constrained and devalued if time was taken off for pregnancy.

      7. Some folks actually do not WANT to bring children into a world as messed up as ours!!!

      What ever the reasons that women even consider in having an abortion, are personal… just like her reproductive system is personal… and should be respected in a free Nation, unlike Communist China that dictates how many children can be born… but at least their rationale is founded upon the reality of over population.

      America is not the host for an endangered species called man… but…
      it does not take a rocket scientist to see that old white men will argue against that… because they do not recognize all humans as equals.

      In order to ‘regain’ what those white control freaks have ‘lost’… in loosing their ‘racial majority’ they know they must force more white babies to be born…

      They love to talk about ‘gay agendas’… ‘feminist agendas’… ‘and other’s agenda’… but want to demonize women for choosing WHEN they will or will not ELECT to be mothers… JUST SO THEY CAN FORCE THE NUMBERS BACK INTO THEIR FAVOR….

      And Moribund is correct… they honestly do not care what becomes of those ‘forced to be birthed’…. just so long as their ‘race is noted and counted’!

      If they did care… then they would recognize a woman’s right to choose to be a mother, rather than treat her like biological incubators for their ‘numbers racket’.

      If they did care… then to avoid any unwanted pregnancy… then all they ever had to do was to pass a law… that mandated that any male who was capable of an erection… with or without ‘meds’… should have their tubes tied… which DOES NOT IMPEDE THEIR FUN in any way…. and WHEN or IF THEY DECIDE to be fathers and prove to be able to provide for offspring… then they can apply for a license to temporarily undo the procedure if they have a willing female who plans to join him in the commitment to love and care for a new life that they jointly desire to bring into the world. And if women feel that is unfair… and they can prove to support a new life on their own… then they should be allowed to make arrangements for that purpose… with a willing a male… or via a sperm bank… hopefully stocked with the sperm of INTELLIGENT and HEALTHY men… not just some creepy old want to be god guy who thinks he is Johnny Appleseed.

      THAT would be safer for women… and all of her future offspring… because she would no longer have to rely on Chemicals in her body… and eliminate unwanted pregnancy… even if it would not stop rapists per say… but at least they would not be forced to deal with the consequence of bearing that ‘bad seed’…

      But of course… that is too logical… and it would cut into the profits that birth control industry currently enjoys at the physical and financial expense of women.

      Perhaps even more so… so logic would never be addressed and applied because it actually makes those control freaks actually responsible for a change, instead of demonizing women for even wanting to halt an unwanted biological process taking place within her own body!!!!!!

    • HeilMary1

      Burgess’s claims also give new sinister meaning to why the Teabangenitals are really forcing ultrasounds on women: so fetal idolaters can get off on watching fetuses masturbate. They’re Peeping TeaToms! Who knew ultrasounds were the latest high tech craze in pedophile porn?

  • flame821

    Sadly, when I saw this linked to on Pharyngula, I actually thought it might be an Onion-type piece. I am completely gobsmacked by the idiocy in Congress. Every time I think they can’t get any worse or do anything more stupid and ignorant, they prove me wrong.

    • http://www.townandcountrygirlsrealestate.com/ Paula Denmon

      So true. Can they be any more unscientific and illegal.

      • Raymond Soto

        Seeing a fetus on ultrasound masturbating in the womb IS a scientific observation.

        • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

          Or would be if it were true.

          It takes a lot of imagination to see the twitches of developing muscles even before there’s a central nervous system to connect to as purposeful behaviour.

          God only knows what they make of galvanic contractions in dead frogs legs.

          • Raymond Soto

            Inconceivable that a developing fetus would have the basic infrastructure for touch sensation! Sure, they can move; they can suck their thumbs, grab their feet, and interact with twins, but [someone] forbid they experience pleasure on a fundamental neurological level in the course of their development.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s ascribing something purposeful to something that’s probably very random. Projection, perhaps? You see a fetus moving and you imagine that’s what they might be doing.

          • Nor

            Their nerves aren’t connected/firing yet. So, no. Babies have an instinctive grip thing. Perhaps you are mistaking it for that, oh fetal development scientist?

          • cubanbob

            God only knows that Democrats have mastered the Galvanic effect of getting dead people in Chicago to twitch for the Democratic candidate on election days.

            I know science is tough but at twenty weeks there actually is a nervous system.

        • Jen L

          And since that is not a thing that has actually happened in reality….

          At least this explains to some degree why some of them claim that gay marriage is a slippery slope to child marriage and soon we’ll be giving RU486 to “infants.”

          • cubanbob

            Hey if fourteen year olds are mature enough to make reproductive choices then they are mature enough to get jobs and support themselves if the parents no longer chose to do so. Emancipate the minors now! Or are you arguing for contextual, situational maturity and adulthood?

          • Jen L

            Did you have a question that was relevant to anything that I’ve said?

        • Jennifer Starr

          About as scientific as claiming that the fetus is ‘waving’ to you. Which isn’t scientific at all.

        • colleen2

          Oh, fuck a duck. We’ve found a believer! These have the be the most credulous people on the face of the planet. Next some asshole is going to tell us about his memories of masturbating in the womb.

        • Richard Thompson

          Seeing a fetus with it’s hands between it’s legs and assuming it’s masturbating is the exact opposite of science. Masturbation implies an awareness that if you reproduce an action, it will bring pleasure. So now you guys are saying not only does life begin when two cells intermingle, but the baby is aware enough to not only feel pleasure and pain, but actively pursue one or the other. How many weeks before they get into S&M?

        • PlacidAir

          Seeing a fetus with it’s hand near it’s crotch is not the same thing as seeing one masturbating…. seeing the hand there and immediately jumping to masturbation in your mind is a sign of a seriously twisted personality. I wonder what other fantasies this sick bastard has. How much you want to bet that somewhere down the road someone finds kiddy-porn on his computer — because, you know, they’re already “sexual” in the womb…..

  • Margaret Whitestone

    Just when you think you’ve heard it all. Masturbating fetuses. I’m going to go pound my head on a wall now.

    • HeilMary1

      This also refutes religious claims of fetal “innocence”. No wonder pedophile priests can’t wait to put their grubby hands on these unborn altar boys!

      • PlacidAir

        Um…. sorry, there’s no religious claim of “fetal innocence” — the term “original sin” ring a bell? The religious fanatics all believe we are born “sinners” and need to be “bathed in the blood of Christ” to be saved…. the notion that God sent his only son and because we tortured and slaughtered him we’re now “in good with the big man” strikes me as absurd (what father would love someone MORE for doing that to their child?), but HEY…. the basis of religion seems to me to be the more absurdity they can stick you with early, the easier it will be to manipulate you later…. get you to buy into something that irrational and you’ll buy into anything. NOT buying into it scares the crap out of the, because they know it won’t be as easy to control you as it is if you buy into that.

        • Joanna

          I think that’s just Catholicism though…

    • cubanbob

      Are you arguing that if a kid can feel pleasure he nevertheless can’t feel pain?

      • Richard Thompson

        No, he’s arguing it’s just plain stupid to say a fetus can feel pleasure, never mind be cognizant enough to figure out how to masturbate.

        • cubanbob

          He has a medical degree. Do you? Perhaps his is the better qualified opinion than yours.

          • Richard Thompson

            Fortunately, not being a bagger, I don’t have to be a Dr personally. I can rely on the decades of science that has already been done and form my opinion from that.

          • cubanbob

            Better to be a bagger than a bagee ( not that there is anything wrong with that) but actual, real science doesn’t support what you think.

          • Richard Thompson

            Not that a teabagger who thinks creationism qualifies as science knows what real science is, but the very article you are commenting on makes a couple of references to the real science, and if you can learn to master “the google”, you can find more.

          • laura

            Not all who possess a medical degree are specialists in all fields of medicine. Nor are they all aware of their own blind spots with regard to mixing their medical expertise with their political biases.

          • cubanbob

            And you have no blind spots? At least he has a medical degree which qualifies him more in general to render a fact based opinion than you. In addition being a trained OB-GYN adds to that.

          • sharculese

            Doctors aren’t scientists. They’re trained to keep the human body working, not ask how it works. The idea that knowing something about birthing some babies automatically qualifies you to extemporize on matters of fetal development is transparently silly, and you should feel silly for suggesting it.

          • CBFontaine

            The most alarming part of this story is that this ignoramus has a medical degree, not to mention is an OB/GYN.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, because being a doctor instantly gives you a telepathic link to fetuses so you can determine what they’re thinking, feeling and doing.

          • canaduck

            But the majority of doctors disagree with him. Does that mean all opinions held by doctors are equally right? If so, we’ve hit a bit of a logical puzzle here.

          • Nor

            Do you have any idea how many incompetent doctors are out there? Google Terry Schiavo. There were doctors in Congress testifying that she was aware when her cortex was entirely liquid. Righteo.

            And the fetal development/pain issue is not the provenance of medical doctors. Dev bio and neuro researchers would know that.

  • http://www.townandcountrygirlsrealestate.com/ Paula Denmon

    How can the women of the United States let these men know how disgusting they are to us? We tell them when we vote, and some lose, but they come back with more stupidity. Stay away from our legal rights.

    • cubanbob

      Then don’t insist on child support and welfare for single mothers.

      • bj_survivor

        Yeah, it’s just so much better to let women and children starve. That’ll show ‘em!

  • christianh

    I’d like to take Malkin’s advice and repeatedly punch them all in the face… Every day…

  • ghhshirley

    Some things never change. Republican men obsessed with their penises and using it to control women.

  • S1AMER

    Some times I think the typical fetus has more brain power than the typical Republican member of Congress.

    • cubanbob

      A fetus certainly has more brain power than the collective intelligence of every elected Democrat.

      • Rachel

        I see, so this is why you are proposing they get to work to feed themselves as soon as they stop masturbating. Apparently they are now qualified for manual labor?

        • cubanbob

          Thanks for making the case to end welfare!

  • http://www.minecraftgames.co/ Minecraft Games

    I agree with this bill. Prohibit abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. 20 week pregnancy was 5 months, I think that is dangerous. If people do not want to keep your child can proceed to break down sooner.

    • Lynnsey

      Aside form the fact that what “you think” is irrelevant to the medial care of others, there are many fetal conditions that are not able to be determined until approximately 20 weeks. I have had fetal echocardiograms done in both of my pregnancies at 20 weeks to determine if the fetus I was was carrying had enough of its heart to survive. Carrying such a non-viable pregnancy wouldn’t be any riskier (physically) to me, so I wouldn’t qualify for the exemption, but would put a huge strain on my ability to care for my family and my emotional health. Why should anyone else get to determine what should be a private decision between my family and our doctors?

      • cubanbob

        Medical care for whom? Certainly not for the kid. By the way when did the magic moment occur that transformed a blob of cells in to the person you gave birth to?

        • Lynnsey

          Did you even read the post you replied to? Women should carry non-viable pregnancies to term so you can feel better that they didn’t have an abortion? Self-important much?

          • colleen2

            Cubanbob gets off on chastising and demeaning women he does not know. That’s why he’s here. How cruel of you to interfere with his pleasures.

          • cubanbob

            No. I just don’t see where it’s my obligation to pay other people’s child support. Like I said before absent rape getting pregnant is entirely a voluntary act on the part of the woman. The results of her choices are entirely her obligation. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

          • Rachel

            Unless she inseminated herself artificially, there was a willing contribution made by a male party. If the male party does not want to be a responsible party to the resulting pregnancy, he should put a hood on it. Why is THAT so difficult to understand?

          • bj_survivor

            Especially since this dipshit (cubanbob) wants to make it unnecessarily difficult and dangerous for women to actually get an abortion…Why hasn’t this putrid pile of shit been banned already? Why must we be subjected to it’s misogynistic, religiotarded wankings?

          • bj_survivor

            So, you want children (and women, natch) to starve because you don’t want your wallet inconvenienced…But we’re supposed to take on faith that you care so much for insensate clusters of barely differentiated tissue? Sorry, I’m just not that credulous.

          • Nor

            Well, you can choose not to. By moving to sub Saharan Africa or somewhere else that doesn’t/can’t feed it’s own starving children. Or you could go out and track down deadbeat dads personally. I’m sure a lot of kids would love to eat something other than government cheese.

          • cubanbob

            Did she claim for a fact that the kid or fetus if you will was unviable? Did she offer any other corroboration to that effect.

          • Lynnsey

            Who’s she? The cat’s mother? I can only guess that you’re referring to my original post that you have completely missed the point of multiple times now.

            The overwhelming majority of women having abortions after 20 weeks gestation are terminating wanted pregnancies due to either threat to the life/health of the woman or some catastrophic fetal abnormality (most often completely incompatible with life). Having been faced with this situation, I can tell you it’s no picnic and doesn’t need to be made more difficult by politicians completely unfamiliar with any given circumstance.

            I was fortunate to learn that in both cases there were no glaring issues with the heart, but had it been something severe (and, thus, rendering the fetus non-viable) the decision of what to do should rest with my family and my medical advisers and NOT my Congressman.

        • Nor

          Well, according to the state, generally when it commits a crime or starts paying taxes.

    • jenn

      Abortions past 20 weeks are almost always due to medical necessity — i.e., mother will die, fetus is already dead, fetus is completely non-viable (no brain developed), etc. While there may be a few women who require abortions past 20 weeks for non-medical reasons, the number would have to be very very low. This bill will only make it more difficult for women who WANT to have a baby but have to terminate the pregnancy due to medical necessity. It’s already an emotional and often dangerous situation — why should some group of politicians use made up “science” and religious zeal to make it even worse for those women?

      • jenn

        And even if there’s an exemption for medical necessity, it still adds additional red tape and (most likely) cost that the mother would have to deal with, despite being in an already terrible situation.

      • cubanbob

        You have the stats to back your assertion about late term abortion because Gosnell is going to prison in part for killing viable late term fetuses.

        • Dez

          He is going to jail for performing illegal abortions in addition to killing born babies. Gosnell was not performing legal abortions. People like you will cause more Gosnell clinics to pop up as women are desperate to find any clinic to help them. Reduce the amount of safe legal clinics and the raise of illegal clinics will continue climbing.

        • Nor

          Gosnell is the future, if anti-abortion laws are passed. He is exactly the opposite of the example you want to hold up. What you want to prove is that legal abortions are more harmful than illegal ones. Try concentrating on that argument.

  • HeilMary1

    And will fetal idolater Burgess sponsor a bill teaching abstinence-only / masturbation-is-a-sin to FETUSES??

  • Jezzer

    Man, God help you if the Republicans find out you masturbate outside the womb, but they’ll let a fetus get away with anything. Republicans are anti-adult. >:(

    • cubanbob

      Adults can fend for themselves. Kids not so much.

      • canaduck

        Fortunately, we aren’t talking about kids.

      • colleen2

        ….says the irresponsible coward insisting on an end to child support upthread. Because Republicans never hold straight males responsible for anything.

      • Jezzer

        Did you hear the one about how they don’t understand how humor works?

  • Linda Myers

    They are very concerned that a tiny fetus might feel pain, yet repeatedly vote to cut off nutritional aid for infants……………..do they believe that hunger is painless?

    • cubanbob

      Yes let’s perform a mercy killing instead. It’s too much to expect that a mother feed her kids

      • colleen2

        we sure can’t count on Republican ‘fathers’ to behave responsibility. For conservatives, motherhood is a duty and all women should be legally obligated to sacrifice our lives for that duty. Fatherhood, OTOH, is a sentimentalized right. I suppose that’s part of the reason why Republicans need to have brothels of trafficked women if they want to have sex.

        • cubanbob

          Yeah, yeah. Typical lefty crony capitalism type. Privatize the gain for you and socialize the risk for me. You want the right to chose but don’t want the responsibility of a choice only you can make.

          • Rachel

            Once a baby is born, we can dump it on your doorstep as well. All yours, sir. Have fun.

          • 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

          • HeilMary1

            You want to socialize childbirth bankruptcies, injuries, deaths and divorces on all non-GOP mistresses and privatize non-procreative safe sex for all GOP wife dumpers like Newt Gingrich and Bangkok child brothel john Neil Bush.

          • Nor

            Abortion is cheaper than a baby. For the mom and the state.

      • Rachel

        So if a woman can’t afford to feed her child, what DO you propose, sir cubanbob-know-it-all?

      • Nor

        If she’s too poor to go out of state for an abortion, yes it is.

    • SRNCOIC

      Republicans also want to actually push the elderly in wheelchairs off a cliff. They want to add poison to the water supply. They want to pour trash all over our National Parks.

      Leave anything off the list?

      • Jennifer Starr

        They opposed the Americans with Disabilities act, claiming that it would be too costly and hard for businesses to install wheelchair ramps and accessible bathrooms.

        • cubanbob

          What you have a problem with eminent domain? That pesky argument that a private party shouldn’t be forced to bear the cost of a public good? Those bussineses should get a tax credit for retrofitting their establishments that were code compliant prior to the ADA.

          • Jennifer Starr

            They actually do get a tax credit, dimwit.

            As per the IRS fact sheet :
            Two tax incentives are available to businesses
            to help cover the cost of making access improvements. The first is a tax credit that can be
            used for architectural adaptations, equipment
            acquisitions, and services such as sign language
            interpreters. The second is a tax deduction that
            can be used for architectural or transportation
            adaptations.

          • cubanbob

            Ever actually try to get such a credit?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Have you?

        • Guest

          Meaning they want the private sector to be responsible for handicap access, not the public sector.

      • Richard Thompson

        She didn’t say anything about what the want, she said how they vote. The votes speak for themselves.

      • cubanbob

        Just because you drink the Kool Aid doesn’t make it so. And speaking of throwing the old folks off the cliff who is that fellow in DC that created the panel that decides when the old folks get the blue pill?

        • cubanbob

          Sorry. Misdirected. Didn’t notice the sarcasm.

        • Nor

          You know that shit was made up, right?

      • colleen2

        No, they just want to kill disabled people through neglect and indifference.Good lord, man up and accept some responsibility for the policies of the sociopaths you vote for.

        • cubanbob

          They aren’t viable so lets abort them. In the meantime put your money where your mouth is and write the check.

        • SRNCOIC

          Put your big girl panties on and accept that your hyperbole is a desperate attempt to prove your patently false assertion.

          • canaduck

            …how is it hyperbole to point out the fact that Republicans HAVE repeatedly voted to cut off nutritional aid to infants and have cut other similar benefits that would help poverty-stricken families? It’s only hyperbole if it isn’t true.

          • colleen2

            These are Republican ‘men’. They are devoid of any sense of basic decency and fair play.

          • fiona64

            You first.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Note how it’s only the male fetus. He’d probably have the vapors at the thought of a female. masturbating.

  • sez-who

    It is not unreasonable to assume that one who can feel pleasure can also ,feel pain. Burgess raises a valid point. It *is* unreasonable to say that an ob/gyn is averse to science. Slaughter responds to a legitimate concern with an illogical insult. We are discussing the lives of (what may be) babies. Best to discuss it as rational adults, not unruly airheads.

    • Jennifer Starr

      It’s not a valid point. There’s no proof that fetuses are masturbating or feeling pleasure or pain inside the womb.

      • cubanbob

        Where is the proof they don’t?

        • Jennifer Starr

          You’re reading purposeful movements into something that’s probably completely random. You’re free to imagine and make believe that the fetus is enjoying it’s first ever wanking session, but that doesn’t make it so.

          • cubanbob

            Right because at twenty weeks there is no nervous system or any neo-cortical matter. You no doubt have emperical proof of this.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And you think it can be scientifically determined that little junior is wanking off instead of scratching an itch or measuring his new appendage to see how it will size up later or simply putting his hand somewhere before moving it somewhere else while thinking about how he’d really like to have a slice of pizza after he’s born? No, sorry. What this guy is doing is looking at a fetus, projecting and imagining things.

          • bj_survivor

            Tell me, cubanbob, how many people do you know that remember their time in the womb? Or even their birth (a traumatic and painful, bloody, event for both mother and child)? Do you?

          • Nor

            The argument is that there is no self at that point, because the brain lacks a cortex. It’s not aware, not awake, not a self, whatever you’d like to call it. Maybe roughly kinda sorta about where a lobster is? A bug of some kind? In terms of nervous system development at least. If you as an adult had that nervous system, you’d be a comatose vegetable. If someone did something that under normal circumstances would hurt you, like saw off your leg with no anesthetic, you would not know or care. You wouldn’t react, there would be no change in your brain activity (there would be no brain activity to speak of), and you wouldn’t exist in the sense that we would consider you alive. You’d be brain dead which is what the fetus is at this point, and we could legally kill you, in some places via medication, in most by withdrawal of food and liquids. The fetus can’t feel. There is plenty of empirical proof of this.

        • colleen2

          See, this is why we don’t take conservatives seriously when they make up ‘science’.

          • cubanbob

            Your comment is proof why conservatives never take liberal ‘ science’ seriously.

      • crankyotter

        Jennifer, you’re not helping the cause. Fetuses DO masturbate. Read Mary Roach. Watch some TED talks. *That’s* *not* *the* *point*

        The point is that a fetus is INSIDE another human dependent utterly on her for survival. The baby, feeling pain, responding to sound, enjoying a good wank, whathaveyou, is a risk to the mother’s life. The mother is the only one who can determine whether or not it’s worth the risk to her life to usher in a new one.

        Similarly, kids with bone cancer feel pain. They laugh, they cry, they talk, they calculate, read, hug, etc.. They’re still likely to die without a bone marrow transplant. I don’t see these guys mandating bone marrow donations because a kid can masturbate and feel pain, just the babies who still live inside mothers. Sometimes people die or even get killed because someone else isn’t willing to sacrifice their own health. And that’s ok. It’s especially ok for pregnant women.

    • colleen2

      Rational adults prefer to discuss issues that have some basis in reality. The religious right abrogated both reason and integrity a long time ago. There is no point in discussing the absurd spin of a political movement based in ‘faith’ and incapable of honesty or any sort of intellectual integrity. Our time is better spent discussing how to defeat this legislation and laughing at the absurdity of your beliefs

      • cubanbob

        Projection indeed.

    • fiona64

      A fetus at 15 weeks’ gestation cannot feel *anything.* The myelin sheath is not yet complete. If you want to discuss it as rational adults, starting with an understanding of human development would be good.

  • h4x354x0r

    The first thing this guy perceives from an ultrasound is a masturbating fetus? No question where this guy’s mind always is. Then, we give these sex-obsessed control freaks the time of day, even positions of power… WHY, again?!?

    Maybe that fetus is clutching his penis in fear because he’s heard about circumcision. Of course the same people crying about 15 week old fetuses feeling pain, will be perfectly willing to argue a newborn boy *doesn’t* feel that.

    Sex-obsessed control freak jerks. That’s all they are. How much more obvious must it get?

    • cubanbob

      Yes that surely compares to the pain of being dismembered ( pun intended).

      • MillRun

        your posts alternate between dishonest, ignorant, and unintentionally hilarious. good job!

        • cubanbob

          That’s pretty rich coming from you. So tell me with your best persuasive liberal brilliance where I am wrong and ignorant. Enlighten me ease.

          • MillRun

            i’ll let your dog explain it, he or she is surely smarter than you, dummy.

          • bj_survivor

            TMI, but I’ve thrown thousands of blood clots during my typical menstruations that are bigger than the embryonic sac I had suctioned from me during my surgical abortion.

      • h4x354x0r

        Making a joke about it seriously undermines the credibility of any concern you might have prior to birth. Just sayin’…

      • bj_survivor

        FFS, you forced-birther trolls are ignorant. In the vast majority of abortions, which occur during the first trimester, the entire embryonic sac is removed in one piece. Furthermore, there are no “limbs” to dismember, only limb buds.

    • bo ure

      The first thing that you perceive from this article is the guy perceiving first a fetus masturbating? Really? That is the thing that stuck out in your mind as being first and foremost but it is not the “the first thing this guy perceives.” You have a problem with perception. The point of the “the guy’s” position is “meaningful movements” He IS a doctor. That has meaning to him as a person. Your little cartoon strawman goes poof, you’d do better to address “purposeful movement” and not “the first thing this guy perceived.” You have a problem with cognition, actually.

      • Jennifer Starr

        The fact that he has a medical degree does not give him added insight or expertise to be able to look at an ultrasound and determine whether a fetus is angry, sad, happy, lonely, bored or giving themselves an orgasm. It does not make him telepathic. What this is called is projection, and it says a lot more about Burgess than it does about the fetus he’s perceiving. .

        • cubanbob

          Ask the former Democrat candidate John Edwards who made a fortune in med malpractice with convincing a jury of that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I was thinking more of the Republican who thought that he could diagnose Terri Schiavo just by watching a few minutes of video.

      • h4x354x0r

        The guy is clearly projecting his own thoughts & mentality onto a 15-week old fetus. It’s obvious, and it’s absurd. Masturbating fetuses… you seriously buy into that?!?

        Whether or not it was the first, or the last, thing he noticed, the fact that he noticed it at all, and not only noticed it but made a deal – a public statement – out of it, pretty much proves he’s a mentally ill pervert.

      • colleen2

        You have a problem with cognition, actually.

        Honey, you’re defending a guy who believes that 20 week male fetuses masturbate. Outside of the alternate reality of right wing spin (which is where most of us live) your judgements about the ‘cognition’ of others had best be kept to yourself.

    • Nor

      I guess it’s still ok to abort female fetuses since he hasn’t personally caught them masturbating (of course I’m sure he’s just assuming women don’t do that, and it hasn’t yet occurred to him to look)?

  • Bob Fishell

    This will die in the Senate providing reason prevails in the House (doubtful), but it’s what’s in store for us if the GOP ever have full control of the government again.

  • SRNCOIC

    The hyperbole about the GOP on this forum is amusing—it’s like watching petulant teens trying to shock their parents.

    But the callousness for unborn children is chilling. How you progdolytes can square saving a mass murderer from the death sentence but murder unborn children defies logic.

    • Jennifer Starr

      If you’re naive enough to believe it is hyperbole, you’re woefully misinformed. The GOP has moved so very far to the right that Republicans from 20+ years ago wouldn’t even recognize their own party. And Reagan would probably be considered a RINO.

      • SRNCOIC

        The naiveté is on grand display here on this forum.

        • Rachel

          Yawn.

          • SRNCOIC

            Pfffttt!

    • h4x354x0r

      Do you know anything about the process of biological reproduction? Roughly 70% of all conceptions fail, naturally, without any human intervention. If you believe in an omniscient God, please know that your omniscient God kills over 7 Million unborn babies a year.

      Chilling callousness? You bet! As such, there’s simply no moral authority there to tell anyone else, “Don’t do that.”

      Fact is, nobody’s God cares one bit about the unborn. Everyone else needs to MYOB, too.

      • SRNCOIC

        Hey Rube, I’m an atheist so your talking point==>EPIC FAIL

        Did you know that millions of people die every year from natural causes but no one is using that information to justify murdering the elderly and infirm.

        You’re in over your head.

        • h4x354x0r

          So, what makes you think, as an atheist, you have any right to control another person’s body?

        • h4x354x0r

          I’d really like to hear an explanation from an atheist perspective. I’d really like to hear clear, understandable logic explaining why an unviable fetus automatically becomes more important than it’s host, and I’d especially like to hear the logic of how and why the same level of concern for safety and comfort withers away once the child is born.

        • Rachel

          They’re also not using it to justify mandatory organ donation.

          • colleen2

            If they did that someone with a penis might be inconvenienced. Saving lives is women’s work. Men are there to tell us what to do, how to think and what to believe.

        • h4x354x0r

          The atheist military anti-abortion guy has obviously abandoned the thread. Too bad, most people I talk to *do* use religion as a basis for their ‘OMG its MURRRDERRR!” approach to abortion.

          I even scanned SRNCOIC’s Disqus posts back a few months looking for information, but what I found was very heavy on the snarky troll, and nonexistent on information and discussion. Zero advocacy for access to education and contraception either. That’s a dead giveaway you’re really more interested in the people having sex part, than the reducing abortions part.

          I’m still curious how an atheist approaches the de-facto control issue. Until the point of viability, the woman has total, unitary control. Like it or not, It’s an immutable fact that cannot be changed with any amount of moral outrage, or law. How do you convince yourself you can force a positive outcome under these circumstances?

    • crankyotter

      It’s the callousness for the lives of extant women that’s shocking.

      • colleen2

        These horrible little men think their callousness is manly and morally laudable. That’s how fucked up they are.

    • fiona64

      The inability to understand the difference between a crime and a medical procedure defies logic …

      • SRNCOIC

        A lethal injection to kill a mass murderer is also a medical procedure, Sweetie.

        • HeilMary1

          Fetuses, like intruders, tumors and viruses, don’t have the right to maim and murder their captive hosts.

          • SRNCOIC

            You’re a real peach. Think your mother will attend your lethal injection medical procedure?

          • HeilMary1

            My cheated-on childbirth bladder and bowel incontinent mom burned all my skin off when I was in first grade as her holy permanent abstinence excuse to avoid another killer pregnancy guaranteed by the UNnatural Family UNplanning scam pushed by spoiled pedophile priests. I wish she had aborted me instead and the cruelest insults about my scars always come from you Catholic pedophiles with Fetal Idolatry Derangement Syndrome.

          • SRNCOIC

            You’re lying simply for the shock factor. Doesn’t faze me in the least.

            Incidentally, I’m areligious.

          • HeilMary1

            I used to be anti-abortion before I knew of the frequent grisly disfigurements and bankrupting disabilities caused by all childbirths. I finally understand that divorce-causing obstetric incontinence drove my Catholic Munchausen by Proxy mom to disfigure me as her permanent abstinence excuse. Use your looksist playboy brain to connect the dots between male repugnance for stinky obstetric fistulas and the pedophile Vatican’s nearly 2,000 year ban on precious priests’ marriages to “piles of dung” BROOD MARES. That is the real shocking truth, you pompous mother killer.

          • SRNCOIC

            Sounds like you’re looking forward to your own cremation.

          • fiona64

            And you’re fapping with delight at the idea …

          • SRNCOIC

            Projecting is common when you’re losing.

          • fiona64

            The only loser I see here is the anti-choice twit who has to pretend he had a military career in order to feel like a man.

            What a pitiful creature.

          • SRNCOIC

            You keep guessing wrong, honey.

          • HeilMary1

            All fetal idolaters are liars.

          • colleen2

            you would know about that.

          • HeilMary1

            I’m looking forward to YOURS, mother-killer.

        • fiona64

          So, you don’t know the difference between a legal medical procedure ad a crime. Just as I thought.

          Dimwit.

          • SRNCOIC

            Sure I do, Sweetie. But I have a soul and a heart. You’re a selfish, immoral empty shell.

          • HeilMary1

            Nah! You’re a mother-killing pedophile.

          • SRNCOIC

            Nope. You’re lying again and the worst kind of troll.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the lying creep who supports forcing childbirth bladder and bowel incontinence, female fetus-caused cancers, fetal microchimerism-caused autoimmune diseases, multiple organ failures, strokes, and limb amputation sepsis from dead rotting fetuses on all sexually women.

          • SRNCOIC

            Can’t get anyone to touch you, huh? LOL!

          • fiona64

            Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

          • SRNCOIC

            LOL! I’m living rent-free in that huge void between your ears.

          • fiona64

            Dream on, loser. I hate to disappoint you, but you see, I’m only attracted to men.

          • SRNCOIC

            Next time you’re in the shower thinking of me, just say no to the shower head.

          • fiona64

            ::yawn:: I’m sorry, little boy. Were you speaking? Why don’t you run along and color while the adults talk?

          • SRNCOIC

            It’s no wonder you had yourself spayed. You hate children.

          • fiona64

            Yep, that’s right. I must hate children since I don’t want to bring them into the world with medical problems. Yep.

            Imbecile.

          • HeilMary1

            He just wants to shoot or rape them. How is that “pro-life”?

          • HeilMary1

            YOU hate children and exploit them in third world military bases as prostitutes for yourself and your soldiers. Your own children are ashamed of you!

          • HeilMary1

            Creeps like you are why early Christian women invented convents.

          • HeilMary1

            What a waste of our tax money on women-beating thugs like you!

          • HeilMary1

            He just got booted out of a Bangkok child brothel for beating up the little girls and not paying!

          • HeilMary1

            You just made my case why abortion should be safe and legal, PEDOPHILE.

          • fiona64

            Poor widdle boy. Are you angwy that the big gwown-up wady pointed out that you aren’t very smart?

          • SRNCOIC

            LOL! An old sow like you doesn’t understand that despite legalities, we humans have a moral obligation to protect the innocent who can’t make their own choices. You’re just about spreading your legs willy nilly for gratuitous pleasure without considering the consequences. It’s subhuman behavior you’re advocating.

          • fiona64

            I’m sure my husband will be fascinated by your analysis.

            I am 100 percent certain I understand why you’re single, though, what with the delightful misogynistic hate speech you’ve employed … and for which, BTW, you have been reported as in violation of TOS.

            Always nice to see what a representative of our armed services has to say about women. Anyone who wonders whether the sexual harassment and sexual assault statistics in the military are an invention need only look to the behavior of SRNCOIC here to see that they’re 100 percent real.

            What a pitiful excuse for a human being you are.

          • SRNCOIC

            Wrong again, Tattletale. Happily married for over 27 years with three beautiful children and three adorable grandchildren.

            I served for over thirty years, retiring in 2010 with a spotless record and an honorable discharge. The last three years of my service, I chaired a panel that investigated sexual harassment charges and found that it was common for women to file false charges because they were disciplined by their supervisors for dereliction of duty. Common tactic.

            Must have struck a nerve with my last comment because now you are, typically, playing the poor widdle victim card. Listen, witch, if you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. Don’t verbally assault me and expect me to just lie down. You may have your husband snapping to, but to me, you’re just another gutless liberal who advocates the murder of innocents.

            Think I give a rat’s A$$ about you “reporting me?” Another typical libiot tactic to try to shut down opposing views.

          • fiona64

            Of course you did, sweetie.

            And I’m an astronaut.

            If you’re going to accuse me of infanticide, I suggest you come up with some proof. In fact, if you’re going to presume that I’ve terminated a pregnancy, I suggest you come up with proof.

            Until then, STFU.

          • SRNCOIC

            Look up the word “advocate”, honey.

            Fortunately, you had yourself surgically incapable of procreating. The fewer strands of your DNA in the gene pool, the better.

          • HeilMary1

            Too bad you looksist rape-defenders weren’t aborted by your own mothers. No wonder our military has a criminal reputation!

          • HeilMary1

            I promise you that he has forced secret surgical abortions on his own rape victims to hide his crimes and adultery. Moreover, if he has served abortifacient coffee, tea and holy wine to any female guests and family members, he has also committed chemical abortions.

          • HeilMary1

            You are a looksist pedophile adulterer who brazenly cheated on his aging brood mare to punish her for getting wrinkles. Clearly, you criminally cover up for sexual predators like your pompous traitorous misogynist self. What a disgrace you are to our nation with your Nazi misogyny and fetal idolatry. You belong in jail, you lying adulterous mother killer!

          • HeilMary1

            Sadly, our military are encourage to sign up for third world duty tours where pedophile priest-imposed overpopulation guarantees soldiers plenty of under-aged starving hookers. I call it our military industrial-third-world child hooker complex.

          • HeilMary1

            YOU are an ageist, looksist mother-killing pedophile! Your looksism and ageism justify women getting abortions to spare their looks and health. YOU keep your pants zipped, pig.

  • Omar

    A newborn is viable at slightly more than 20 weeks. They can feel and experience the world around them. Pegging the limit at 20 weeks is not an extreme position. It’s certainly more rational than the abortion/infanticide on demand that currently exists. Sorry, but the Liberal paradigm here is simply indefensible.

    • Jennifer Starr

      A newborn is maybe viable around 23-24 weeks and even that’s touch and go. And below that mark the survival rate is extremely low to almost nil–most are not viable and do not survive.

      • Omar

        That’s why I said “. . . slightly more than 20 weeks.”

        • Jennifer Starr

          Well that’s why most states already have laws regarding abortions after 24 weeks. Because that is viability.

          • Lynnsey

            But every one of these nutters has a friend whose cousin’s sister had a baby at 20 weeks and is just PERFECT! now, right? Interesting, that…

          • bj_survivor

            Yes, it is interesting, since there are absolutely NO peer-reviewed journals that describe a perfectly functioning human being that is born prior to 24 weeks.

          • Nor

            Well, now that they made that glue they shoot into the kids lungs so they don’t adhere, there’s a minuscule survival rate at 22 weeks. 20 is… well, unlikely. And the complications are horrendous.

            Weirdly these women they all seem to know who have had babies super early are never the ones out there telling other women they can’t abort. I guess they must know you can’t make those kinds of decisions for other people, having lived through that hell themselves, and seen so many babies die around them in the NICU. Or perhaps they are imaginary? Like Plumber Joe? Or the pro-gun Sandy Hook Elementary parent?

          • Lynnsey

            The worst part for me is the argument that fetuses are generally “viable” at 22 weeks based on the outlier (which for the US, at least, was actually closer to 23 weeks). I think these people have never met anyone who was born so early. I have and I’d question the use of the word viable. I guess if your only concern is that they “survive” then it’s all good…

          • Nor

            These guys do need to spend some time in the NICU, that’s for sure.

    • Richard Thompson

      Guess you didn’t read the part about how many people have debunked what you said so many times. It’s called science.

    • Lynnsey

      There are also fetal conditions incompatible with life that are not easily determined prior to 20 weeks gestation. This bill provides no exemption for those situations. These politicians need to stop playing doctor.

    • fiona64

      A fetus is NOT viable at 20 weeks. Newborns are ::wait for it:: already viable.

      Or are you saying that you don’t know the difference between a fetus and an infant?

  • jp

    i live near philly and heard about kermit gosnell on the news. that only make me want abortions to be MORE available, so that women get PROPER medical care.

    • cubanbob

      And one wonders why that town is known as Killadelphia.

      • HeilMary1

        You mean the city where all the priests are pedophiles?

      • Rachel

        It has nothing to do with abortion.

      • colleen2

        Philly is Catholicism at it’s best. Even after 2 very public inquiries and trials they do not appear able top prevent pedophile priests from raping children. The Church acts as if the rape of small children is a employment perk for Priests and I must say that, historically speaking, they are correct.

        • canaduck

          So maybe it should be called Pedophiladelphia instead?

  • Mr_DJ

    Add another one to the FBI watch list.

  • Mr_DJ

    Unless you’re a doctor, you have fuckall to say about abortions. End of story.

    • cubanbob

      The Congressman is a doctor so take your own advice.

      • Nor

        Is he an abortion doctor?

  • PlacidAir

    So this asshat thinks an earlier ban would have prevented the heinous actions of Gosnell? How’s that work for him when what the man did was ALREADY ILLEGAL?

    I’m betting he thinks purchase restrictions on guns won’t prevent murder by gun… right? Good grief.

    • cubanbob

      Law abiding criminals! What a concept! What passes for liberal logic. Too funny.

      • Alexandria

        um… last I checked, republicans were not liberal. They’re conservative… just saying.

  • KateP

    Adele: 20 weeks post fertilization doesn’t not equal 20 weeks gestation. Generally it means 22 weeks post fertilization but not exactly.

    • crankyotter

      No, it means 18 weeks gestation.

      • KateP

        20 weeks gestation = about 22 weeks post ovulation. 18 weeks gestation = about 20 weeks post ovulation. And then fertilization would be less than ovulation.

  • mucholderguy

    People have been killing unborn children since the dawn of time. Even today, there are “elders” in the modern equivalent of “the village” who know how to do it without doctors or clinics. There are many ways to eliminate a fetus. Two recent films: “Vera Drake” (UK, 2004) and “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” (Rumania, 2007) depicted very different procedures for performing an illegal abortion while giving enough detail for anyone to follow. My point is that “pro-life” people are willfully naive if they believe that laws and all this righteous carrying on will stop abortions. Maybe they don’t care as long as they don’t have to know about what goes on in the real world. But it’s obvious that they couldn’t care less about real, living children — let the holy free market take care of them! Give ‘em a voucher or something. Unwanted children are a sort of punishment for having sex, and what the pro-life movement is really about is tormenting desperate, mostly poor women. The politicians who represent for it are among the most cynical people on Earth — but what the hey: American Idiots keep electing them.

    • h4x354x0r

      Prohibition doesn’t work. It didn’t work for alcohol, it isn’t working for pot, it won’t work for guns, and it didn’t, and won’t, work for abortion. That is abundantly clear.

      The people who believe in diametrically opposed outcomes (i.e. abortion prohibition will work, firearms prohibition won’t work), are idiots.

      Also, thank you for making the point that the realreason for this is the desire to punish other people for having sex; and that the desire to punish definitely does transfer to the child, once it’s born. Truth.

    • bj_survivor

      Forced-birthers actually do know this, but refuse to acknowledge this, because they don’t actually care about those “sacred, innocent, unborn babies.” They hate women and want to see them suffer for having sex they don’t approve of or getting themselves born with a vagina.

  • frumpus

    Hope this scumbag loses. If anything we need MORE Kermit Gosnells. Abortion needs to become mandatory for all underage and low income mothers.

    • Rachel

      Ooooh, the elusive, *actual* pro-abortion person.

      We support choice here, frumpus. Mandatory nothing.

    • bj_survivor

      Fuck off, dickbag. I wouldn’t wish Kermit Gosnell on ANYONE. Not even Phyllis Schlafly or Anne Coulter, much as I despise their works. Of course, Phyllis and Anne, being upper class, would have be able to go to their GP or Gyn and get a D&C for “menstruation issues” regardless of whatever draconian, misogynistic laws they and their ilk were able to force upon those not of their class and privilege.

    • colleen2

      Hi frumpus, take your sick fascist Republican agenda elsewhere.

    • Dez

      Let guess the type of women you are thinking of. They probably share my complexion.

      • fiona64

        Of course! Everyone knows that only people of color are under-privileged. (I am being sarcastic, obviously …)

    • Nor

      That’s a nice thought. Thanks for playing. Did you know you can get an abortion at any point during a pregnancy at all in Canada? Paid for by the state? They also give you two years paid time off work and a cash bonus for each baby if you have one, plus tax breaks, plus free health care for all. I can’t believe they trust their women like that! And help their babies like that! Monsters!

  • Luscious868

    The nutters on the right crack me up. I can’t wait until these lunatic boomers die off.

  • JimNauseam

    Masturbating fetuses … amazing where the minds of these ugly GOTP d-bags go.

  • dolgre

    At age 18 I found out that I was pregnant with my high school sweetheart. We knew all too well that even though we loved one another, we were no were near ready to have children–I was about to enter college in the fall on a scholarship and he the US Navy for six years. So we had a legal and medically safe abortion at approximately 10 weeks, and while it was a stressful and sad choice, was a real choice available to us. Flash forward 35 years later and am the mom of four nearly adult kids, all thriving and making their way in the world. I was blessed to have healthy, children with a loving father (same young man from high school), and a solid middle class income that allowed me to give these kids the basics they deserved. I enjoyed my pregnancies, the connection I felt to these little souls before they were born, and I truly felt that motherhood was the most important thing I have done as a human being on this planet. I only regret that I was too young to have had that first baby, but I do not regret the choice I had, nor the fact it meant that I later could be the parent I was.

    Which is exactly why I am pro-choice, and is exactly why I’d like to line up of these right wing jerks and kick them all in the balls 15 times over. They are despicable, lying crusaders for men’s control over women’s destinies. THEY are the ones who vote for suffering by cutting programs in education, health, and social services that truly support the lives of children who are born. THEY are the ones that would apply the death penalty to a 12 year old or a retarded person. THEY are the ones that would force me to the brink of death just so I could birth a baby with no brain.

    And I am sure, with all I know , that they will spend an eternity in in hell for their hypocrisy. But for now, they need to be stopped from ruining people’s lives.

  • Kenna Tyrrell

    It just doesn’t make sense to me, honestly, if congress gets to control a woman’s uterus, why aren’t they making laws to control prostates or testicles?

    • Nor

      Several bills have been put forward, including one to require a cardiac stress test and prostate exam in order to obtain Viagra, and the “Every Sperm is Sacred” bill to require all semen be deposited inside a woman’s vagina and nowhere else. Unfortunately the male members of our fine gov’t took issue with these progressive and promising pieces of legislation, as they did not think it was fair for there to be laws that told them what to do with their bodies or medical care. Weirdly, our government is almost entirely male, so we won’t have fun laws like these to look forward to for another century at least, I’m guessing.

  • dslaby

    Masterbating Christian congressmen are reason for regime change in Texas and Congress.

  • Alexandria

    This is ridiculous… Women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies and it is no place for a man to dictate what she can or can’t do.

    When abortions were illegal, women would go to crack-pot hacks or use wire coat hangers on themselves. Tightening the time-frame for when an abortion is an option is not going to prevent illegal practices, it will only encourage it. Think about other times we (the USA) have illegalized other things. Take the prohibition, it didn’t stop the flow of alcohol. People just got creative and made their own moonshine and opened Speak Easy clubs and the amount of alcohol abuse was in much higher numbers than when alcohol was legal.

    Abortion was the same. Women found ways to miscarry and end their unwanted pregnancies. As I said above, back-alley hacks who either didn’t finish medical school or doctors who had their license revoked due to malpractice or they did it to themselves with a wire coat hanger. Both options much more deadly and dangerous to the woman. The back-alley hacks were not exactly known for keeping to hospital standards of sterile operating rooms. As for the wire coat hanger, let’s face it, it really is not that great of an option. The woman would unbend the coat hanger then jab it up into her uterus until she bled and was certain she terminated the pregnancy. However the medical complications from doing so were numerous. Infection, puncturing something inside the vagina or uterus, destroying any chance at future pregnancies.

    The other thing that is ridiculous is the lack of exceptions for victims of rape and incest. If these republicans are being completely honest with themselves, looking at the cold hard facts, rape is one of THE MOST under reported crime in America. Incest/Molestation is even more under reported because it is between a family member and a child, usually a parent is the culprit (or an uncle, grandfather, etc) and the child is scared that they will be the one to get in trouble because they don’t understand that the adult is the one who is in the wrong.

    A man will NEVER fully understand the horror, humiliation, and fear a woman experiences when she is raped. I thank God I do not speak from experience, however as a woman I can think of nothing more terrifying than being raped. I like think that I’m a strong, smart, independent, confident young woman and God forbid if that ever happens to me, I would hope that I would have the courage and strength to go straight to the nearest hospital and demand a Rape Kit and the Police to be notified. But you never know how you will react in a situation like that. Most women know their rapists, which makes it all the more humiliating that she couldn’t see it coming, that she didn’t know she was friends with somebody who could take advantage of her like that.

    Now, I know that there are boys out there who are raped and molested as well, which is just as horrifying and humiliating, and their rapists deserve to go to jail just as much as somebody who rapes women, however boys don’t have to worry about getting pregnant with their rapist’s baby. Women do have that concern. There are things women will tell their doctor because of Doctor/Patient confidentiality that they won’t tell anybody else.

    There are also certain health risks that prevent a woman from carrying a child to term. I had a friend who had some serious health problems who became pregnant unexpectedly (she was married but just starting the divorce process) and if she didn’t terminate the pregnancy, she could have died. And when it comes to the health of the woman, it takes precedence over the health of the fetus.

    Now, all this being said, personally I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control. If you willingly have sex without any sort of protection, then I say have the child and give it up for adoption if you don’t want it. However if you are a victim of rape or incest, or there is a medical reason why you cannot go thru with the pregnancy, then abortion should be a legal choice. But that’s just my personal belief and I’m not about to force my belief onto others. If a teen mom wants to have an abortion instead of having the baby, then that’s her choice. Simple as that.

    • Sequiturial

      Psychologists say that rape is not about the sex, it is about the power derived. If that is true, the Republicans are trying to, metaphorically, rape every American woman. I know that there are more strong, independent, thinking women out there than there are submissive simpletons that buy into that right wing hysteria. With thinking people like you, the Party of Progress will ultimately prevail over the Party of Hate.

      • colleen2

        not EVERY woman, just the ones who want to have an abortion. What Republican ‘men’ want is the legal right to rape every women.

  • Gabriel Villegas

    Who can be so stupid and ignorant to say that? Hmmm… Let me guess… Republican teabagger from Texas?? Am I right?

    • HeilMary1

      Burgess is a Peeping TeaTom with a sonogram instead of binoculars.

  • Eldergothfather

    Is there some particular focus group that the GOP belong to that they seem to be so obsessed with everyone else’s sexuality? Santorum worries that people of the same sex are having sex, Bachmann worries that gays are actually slaves, Palin…well, Palin is simply stupid, the GOP men want to regulate a woman’s vagina but now this guy wants to sit around and watch sonograms and determine that fetuses are masterbating! WTF!?!?!?!

    • canaduck

      If you check the Amazon reviews for the BBC Planet Earth series, there are handful of wingnuts going crazy with rage because apparently there are too many scenes of animal reproduction. And I paraphrase, “There’s already enough of that filthy sexual trash in mainstream movies.”

      That’s basically what this makes me think of.

  • Jim Kautz

    thank God females don’t masturbate ’cause then all fetuses would have their hands between their legs.

  • h4x354x0r

    Copied from this nutter’s congressional website:

    “I follow a strict adherence to the Constitution, and oppose unnecessary expansion of the federal government’s control over Americans’ personal freedoms. Instead, I believe in giving people more control over their lives and their money.”

    Yet, what he’s calling for is expanding government’s control over American’s personal freedoms, and taking away control of their lives.

    And get this… he justifies this encroachment on civil liberties by ascribing sexual awareness and pleasure onto an unviable, 15-week old fetus.

    Nutters.

    • Cthulhu0818

      You have to remember, Republicans don’t consider women to be people.

      • h4x354x0r

        In a nutshell, yes. You’ve identified the problem.

    • fiona64

      Translation: “The government should be small enough to fit into every woman’s uterus.”

  • h4x354x0r

    It’s almost impossible to force a positive outcome.

  • h4x354x0r

    The pound of cure becomes a real and tangible liability if the ounce of prevention is not given, no matter how righteous you feel about it.

    This is exactly where the entire anti-abortion movement is stuck: Resolutely refusing to offer the ounce of prevention (robust education and access to contraception), then complaining bitterly about the pound of cure (abortions and poverty).

  • Nick D Waters

    No wonder god let’s babies die. They have sinned even before they’ve seen the light of day.

  • Stuart McDonald

    I finally figured out why Republican men like forcing pregnant women to have ultrasounds. It’s so that they can masturbate to the ultrasound video showing the fetus’s genitals and fantasizing about sexually stimulating them — again and again and again…

  • Will Mette

    Where did the congressman say masturbate?

    • canaduck

      “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure…”

      (The wimmenz don’t like sex, you see.)

  • Robert Weissman

    This forces GOP reps to go on record with an abortion ban, the war on women continues -good luck in the bext election

  • Colleen Cahoon

    First of all… what an idiotic reason to ban anything… because it is male and MIGHT be jacking off??? When was the last time that guy was stuck in a womb environment? Is there room for jumping jacks as well as jacking off? Grow up… hands on the genitals might be the only place they can be, at certain times, and there darn sure is not room to stretch out with legs crossed at the ankles and hands behind their head… to bask in the afterglow of what he is suggesting!

  • John Williams

    Wow, for an article (and commenters) who seem so wrapped in science, there sure isn’t much here. Just a bunch of innuendo, snarky ridicule, and supposition. Typical liberal characteristics when confronted with a serious subject that challenges their political indoctrination.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Yes, masturbating fetuses are a very serious and weighty subject. Really, what on earth were we thinking?

    • colleen2

      When it comes to the crap Republicans serve up as ‘science’ and particularly any Republican ‘science’ having to do with human reproduction, snarky ridicule and endless contempt are the appropriate responses.

      • John Williams

        Really? Perhaps you can tell me exactly when life begins? Because nobody on either side of the debate has been able to definitively state that point in time–which means that you may be murderer and I am certainly not.

        • fiona64

          As Indiana Jones said, if you want philosophy, go down the hall. A fetus at 15 weeks’ gestation (as cited in the article as an example) is not a person … nor is it capable of experiencing pain (as alleged), since the myelin sheath is not yet developed.

          It’s no one’s fault but yours that you cannot differentiate between a crime and a legal medical procedure …

        • colleen2

          I am most certainly a murderer by the definition of the sick freaks of the religious right. I’ve menstruated away many fertilized ova and so has every other fertile women. Your own mother is responsible for the deaths of countless innocent siblings. Take it up with her, asshole.

          • John Williams

            Typical lefty response–moving away from any attempt to argue rationally and scream about the inhumanity of your challenger. Perhaps you’d feel better if you were a little more sure of your humanity. I have no problem arguing that not knowing when life begins necessitates my position against abortion. Yet you grasp at the most ridiculous straws of comparing menstruation with pregnancy. And I’m the one who rejects science? Perhaps you should re-examine supporting a relic from the 60’s counterculture that is based in feminism and not medicine.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She’s referring to the fact that well over half of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus and are simply expelled when you menstruate. That is actual fact, you know.

          • HeilMary1

            You do know that as women age, 100% of their pregnancies abort as “periods”. This means Catholic fetal idolaters should stage “baby” tampon baptisms, last rites and funerals every month for every icky tampon.

          • colleen2

            And I’m the one who rejects science?

            Yes.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Well, when you get pregnant, John, we’ll let you decide what you want to do with your pregnancy. But you don’t get to make that decision for others.

          • John Williams

            And what choice does the baby get?

          • Jennifer Starr

            You could always try asking it.

          • John Williams

            I don’t think there’s any doubt that all life wishes, desperately, to survive, no matter how little you think of it, Jennifer.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well when you get pregnant we’ll talk about it then.

          • HeilMary1

            Wish my disfiguring mom aborted me instead.

          • John Williams

            I have no doubt–and I pray you can find some peace.

          • Nor

            No it doesn’t. Ask a NICU nurse. Or a shrink.

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses, like viruses, tumors and Hannibal Lector, do not have the right to destroy their captive hosts.

          • John Williams

            Typical lefty idiocy–a baby is the same as a virus or tumor. Nice rationalization for a far left loon.

          • fiona64

            A fetus is not a baby, John. Or did you miss that day in high school biology class?

            Technically speaking, a fetus has a parasitical relationship with the pregnant woman.

          • John Williams

            And a conservative is not a person. I know, I know. You narcissists dehumanize anything you find inconvenient. Tell me–when does a fetus become a baby, fiona? Yes, you’re brilliant.

          • fiona64

            An infant is a born entity, John. Are you really that ignorant of human development?

            We have names for developmental stages for a reason, John. I’m reasonably sure conservatives are people; I just find it unfortunate that they think women *aren’t.*

          • John Williams

            I find it unfortunate that women have not found the self-restraint and maturity to handle their own sexuality instead of requiring post-lust cures for their irresponsibility. As for human development, some of your allies aren’t really that sure that an infant is due any consideration as a person, either. And any ideology that leaves room for that kind of rationalization has to be questioned seriously.

          • fiona64

            I find it unfortunate that men seem to believe that women are impregnated in a vacuum … and that they don’t seem to comprehend that all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilization, have known failure rates.

            Where’s your condemnation for the *men,* John? Or is it easier for you to just blame the “sluts”? (Thanks for proving my point so well; it’s quite clear that you don’t think women are people.)

          • John Williams

            If a man forces a woman to get an abortion, he’s no less guilty of taking a life than she. But as women have made clear–it’s their–and their childrens’ bodies–we’re talking about here.

          • fiona64

            Wow. Did you totally miss the point? You treat pregnancy as a punishment for a woman having sex, but you don’t care about the fact that a man got her pregnant.

            So, where’s your condemnation for the impregnator, John? Or is it all good, seeing as you’re a man and all? It’s just sluts who get pregnant … by magic, right? No men involved.

          • John Williams

            I’m not the one releasing a man from his responsibility–you are. As I said–the couple is equally responsible as far as I’m concerned–it’s you’re Roe v. Wade that makes the woman solely responsible for the abortion.

          • fiona64

            “You’re Roe vs. Wade …” How am I Roe v. Wade. Perhaps you meant “your”? Well, considering that it was passed when I was 8, I don’t see how I had any impact on the SCOTUS decision, but okay.

            You’re the one acting as though women should be punished for having sex by being forced to gestate … while men go scot-free. Typical.

          • John Williams

            Again–you’re the one allowing the men to go scot-free. Not me.

          • fiona64

            Deliberately obtuse. How unfortunate.

          • Nor

            How’s the deadbeat dad roundup going? It must be hard to be a one-man crusader for justice, especially since law enforcement won’t help you. And some of those men are lethal.

          • Nor

            No, men can always get vasectomies when they hit puberty. Spank it, bank it, snip it. Cheap, fast, every child you make is a deliberate decision involving your personal doctor and a consenting woman. You mean you haven’t done this yet? How irresponsible!

          • Nor

            And yet the man isn’t legally responsible. 90% of teen dads leave. So… where are the laws making men pay for 1/2 of the costs? ‘Cause if those were enforced, you’d see a lot more women having babies.

          • Dez

            You are incorrect. There is only one person involved. A fetus is not a person and must use my body for sustenance. No person I know has to be physically attached to anyone else for sustenance or else will die. I am the priority and the final authority on whether I chose to use my bodily resources to sustain a pregnancy. The fetus has no say in it all.

          • John Williams

            Unbelievable the kind of rationalization and word games you use to excuse ending a human life. Say what you want–zygote, fetus, baby–it’s a human life.

          • Dez

            You are the only one using word games. Yes it is human life, but it is not a person. You are too stupid to know the difference, yet still have the audacity to try to force your opinion on women.

          • John Williams

            So now we’re going to argue whether a human life is worthy of personhood? I’d say that’s a matter of opinion. I know of no scientific study that defines “personhood” or can definitely state when a baby achieves self-awareness. Theories and supposition about personhood are a poor substitute for the absolute knowledge that it IS a human life.

          • Nor

            Plenty of “live” humans have no legal “personhood”. People in comas, the insane, children, more or less. If you can’t breathe on their own, feed yourself, pump your own blood, communicate in any way, demonstrate any kind of consciousness, or have your own blood supply, your continued existence on this planet is at the largess of your closest relatives. It’s pretty well legally defined. It is not theory to the law.

          • Dez

            Human life does not make a person. It is a matter of opinion and as such my personal opinion applies to me only and no one else. All scientific evidence shows it that it is human life and nothing else. People put their own personal feelings onto fetuses.

          • fiona64

            There’s no need to argue about it: rights accrue with birth. The irrational position that feti have rights is laughable, because assigning rights to feti abrogates the rights of pregnant women.

            Not that you care, of course …

          • John Williams

            So you would presume to tell us who has rights and who doesn’t based on your definitions of when life begins? Scary.

          • fiona64

            No, dear. The law does that.

            Not that you care, of course.

          • Valde

            John Williams would presume to tell us who has rights and who doesn’t based on anatomy. Scary.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Someone sounds bitter. The idea that women have control over what stays inside their bodies really bugs you, doesn’t it?

          • John Williams

            The bitterness is here–it seethes with each post in response. I’ve just said that abortion destroys human life. That’s the truth and nothing you can argue changes that fact and your frustration in justifying that destruction through your wordsmithing and hair splitting is what causes your hatred and bitterness.

          • fiona64

            abortion destroys human life

            So does using a loofah.

          • Nor

            I hear having sex is a great cure for seething bitterness. Sorry you can’t have it until you want to have children. Life sucks sometimes, amiright!?!

          • John Williams

            The seething bitterness here is from the pro-abortion side, as is amply demonstrated by your post. Not me.

          • Nor

            I’m not bitter. I live in a state, and have health insurance, where I can get a free abortion anytime I need it, where we don’t have protestors because no one here is that awful of a human being (sometimes they get shipped in from other states, and are either ignored or laughed at, in an “isn’t that just adorable” sort of way), where my birth control is free, of any kind I choose, and I can get free condoms, gyno consults, and STD testing anytime. I also get to have great sex with my boyfriend of 8 years, while working hard on my career so that one day I’ll have enough money, a house, etc. to have kids, and send them to private schools and expensive upper tier private colleges. Got no reason to be bitter. Got reason to wonder why you are.

          • John Williams

            I’m extremely happy with my life. As are most conservatives I know. It’s actually peaceful not having to rationalize taking human life and other “progressive” myths that have a difficult time standing up to logic and reason.

          • fiona64

            … said the guy who dismisses all post-abortive women as stupid whores who want “post-lust cures for their laziness.”

          • Valde

            I agree John.

            Women really need to be NICER to people who view them as livestock.

          • Nor

            No one is pro-abortion (unless the mother would die). The correct term is pro-choice, or pro-abortion-rights. Pro-life is also a misnomer. The correct term is anti-choice, or anti-abortion-rights.

          • HeilMary1

            You mother killers also oppose contraception and sterilization to avoid deadly pregnancies in unhealthy women and you oppose sex WITHIN MARRIAGES of the poor while you make us tax payers pay for your adulterous GOP Viagra sprees in Bangkok brothels. Just ask child brothel patron Neil Bush!

          • John Williams

            Tell me–how many of the poor are “within marriages” and how many of them get abortions? And who exactly opposes contraception? As for sterilization–yes, I know you eugenics fans prefer that method, but I thought we’d grown past that as a civilization. I guess you’re a big Margaret Sanger fan. Unfortunate.

          • HeilMary1

            So you’re a big DEAD mothers and DIVORCED obstetric fistula-ruined mothers fan. How unfortunate. And you also cheered Sanger’s mother being murdered by SEVENTEEN pregnancies. How disgusting that you lump maternal self-defense in with Nazi eugenics. You looksist playboy fetal idolaters never stay faithful to your brood mares disfigured and disabled by gruesome childbirth complications. Time for you mother killers to start going to jail.

          • John Williams

            Spoken like a true fascist. Congrats. Perhaps you can support your opinion that Margaret Sanger wasn’t a eugenicist with some of her quotes extolling the black family?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m against forced sterilization, but if someone chooses to be sterilized, if a couple prefers to stop having children or not to have children at all, I don’t see why it would bother you, John. Do you really have a need to control others lives that much?

          • John Williams

            My aim is not to control other peoples’ lives, but to protect the innocent.

          • fiona64

            A fetus is not innocent, nor is it guilty; it has no capacity to be either. It has no conscious, and thus has no conscience.

            You aren’t “protecting the innocent”; you’re just trying to come up with a way to pretend that it’s not about controlling women.

          • John Williams

            Can you be any more obtuse, fiona? The death penalty has absolutely nothing to do with moral guilt or innocence. It has to do with CRIMINAL guilt or innocence. Pretending those are anything but remotely related is absurd. Criminals have been found guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Equating their death to that of an unborn child is dishonest in the extreme.

          • fiona64

            So, since you think that abortion should be illegal, how should women be punished for what you perceive as a crime?

          • John Williams

            Two red herrings here–I’ve never said it should be illegal nor that I perceive it as a crime–I don’t think it should be an acceptable form of birth control. It should be used when there are extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the mother. When we allow the taking of human life because it’s inconvenient, it leads to the dehumanization and devaluing of all our lives. You see it in all aspects of our current society. We now sit in judgement of whose life is worth living based on what we want and what’s convenient for us. Whether they’ve done anything wrong is not a discussion–we just decide that we want to be free of that incumberance so death is the penalty they pay. From the old and infirm to babies in the womb, if they don’t have a physical voice (and sometimes, even if they do), they’re at our mercy.

          • fiona64

            Well, since it’s not used as a “form of birth control” outside of the fevered imaginings of the anti-choice, we seem to be in agreement that it should not be a crime nor should it be illegal. Plenty of your fellow travelers think that both of those things should be the case; in fact, I was duly informed yesterday, in response to my question, that any woman who terminated a pregnancy should face capital punishment. Real “pro-life” attitude, eh? But I digress.

            Where we do differ is the word that gets up my nose the most in these discussions: “convenience.” It is far more convenient to gestate, to be honest. But let me tell you why it really bugs the hell out of me when people use that word: you don’t know what the circumstances were that led to the decision, so it’s awfully easy to dismiss it as mere “convenience.” You do not know what is going on in that woman’s home. Maybe she’s trying to escape an abuser who would be tied to her forever if she gestated and gave birth to his child. Maybe there is a seriously ill child at home already, her birth control failed, and the family simply cannot afford to have another member and care for it adequately. Maybe she’s just been diagnosed with breast cancer and cannot take the lifesaving medications for herself and remain pregnant. Those three reasons I just cited happened in my circle of friends alone.

            There are a myriad of reasons that you will never know because, frankly, they’re none of your business. However, because you just see that a woman has chosen to terminate a pregnancy, you dismiss it as being for mere convenience.

            You talk about devaluing human life? Well, you are kind of devaluing the lives of women when you presume them to be stupid and thoughtless. And yet, you would want those same stupid and thoughtless women to be forced to remain pregnant without knowing the first thing about their circumstances. I, frankly, find that position rather mind-boggling.

          • John Williams

            I can’t speak for the fringes. While I’ll admit I have some friends who think abortion should be illegal in any circumstance, they’re fully aware of the law and far less intransigent than those I’ve talked to who think abortion should be available at any pharmacy (still have trouble wrapping my head around this disdain for human life). As for your friend who had to make the decision to save her own life, I have nothing but sympathy for her tragic situation. The others–there have been women in the same or far worse situations who decided to keep their children, so yes–I would consider theirs “acts of convenience.” That may seem callous to you, but I don’t say it lightly or cavalierly. The fact that many of these circumstances can’t be known does not make them any less wrong.

          • fiona64

            there have been women in the same or far worse situations who decided to
            keep their children, so yes–I would consider theirs “acts of
            convenience.”

            Those women got to make their choice. Other women need not make the same one.

            You are indeed being very cavalier with other people’s lives when you dismiss real issues as mere “matters of convenience.” And it’s particularly easy for you, a man, who will never be physically affected, to just wave your hand in the air and say, for example: “Oh, you have a seriously ill child at home and can’t afford another one? No biggy. I’m sure you’ll manage somehow. Oh, actually help you? No, I’m sorry. You consented to sex, so you’ve consented to pregnancy. Oh, your birth control failed? No biggy. I’m sure you’ll manage somehow. I have to go.”

            Because that, in effect, is what you are doing. You are deciding for someone else how much risk they should assume … which is really easy when you can just walk away and mutter about “convenience.” After all, you won’t be affected in the slightest by someone being forced to gestate a pregnancy that they can’t afford … any more than you would be affected in the slightest if that same woman chose to terminate (whether or not you approve of the reasons).

          • Jennifer Starr

            Very easy to be dismissive of situations that you know you’ll never face yourself.

          • Nor

            So you are for free universal health care?

          • John Williams

            No–I think there’s room for providing basic services for everyone, but I also think that people should have the right to purchase private insurance if they can.

          • fiona64

            That’s a pretty big “if,” there … especially if you are one of the working poor.

          • Nor

            …by controlling other people’s lives. Where do you draw the line? How much control is too much? If no sex before marriage, would female genital mutilation serve? Or chastity belts? Most women needing abortions are married. That won’t help unless they wear them lifelong. What is your solution?

          • Nor

            Most women who have abortions are married with kids. Why should that matter to you anyway? You said it wasn’t about the women, it was about the sacred life of the unborn. Which means you also must, absolutely must, require women to carry rape babies to term. Even if the woman in question is 12 and the father of the baby is her own father. If not, you are a hypocrite.

          • John Williams

            No–an absolutist argument is absurd in such a situation. As is the absolutist position that all wishes of women should be honored no matter how grotesque or murderous. But I assume from your post that you’re OK with anything up to and including infanticide?

          • Nor

            What would you tell that 13 year old?

          • fiona64

            Oh, look! A straw man logical fallacy. Who saw *that* coming? /sarcasm

            After all, you are the fellow who generously opined that my friend who had to choose between pregnancy and life-saving cancer treatment was “in the right,” but my friend who was murdered by her abuser whom she was trying to escape? “Well, other women have gone through worse and kept their children.”

            You’re pretty disgusting.

          • Rachel

            “I find it unfortunate that women have not found the self-restraint and
            maturity to handle their own sexuality instead of requiring post-lust
            cures for their irresponsibility.” Stop. Rewind. (re)Play. What??? OOOOH, so THAT’s why you target little boys instead. Now I get it.

          • John Williams

            What a typical libby–resort to homophobic (and other irrelevant slurs) to try to squash debate. Hypocrite much?

          • Rachel

            Homophobic libby? Has the world turned upside down?

          • John Williams

            Yes it has–and the left has adopted the tactics of the extreme right. In libby land, it’s fine to call a black person the n-word. It’s fine to call someone a fag. It’s perfectly acceptable to call someone a spic or a beaner. Just as long as those people are conservatives.

          • Rachel

            And yet you think it’s ok to call women immature, stupid, irresponsible whores – in the ‘nicest’ way possible?

          • John Williams

            What would you call someone who has to resort to taking human life in order to cover their mistakes? What would you call someone who takes a human life for the sake of convenience? Perhaps immature, stupid and irresponsible isn’t strong enough?

          • Rachel

            I call it: NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. No woman has to justify to the likes of you why she chooses to continue a pregnancy or not. It’s NOT your business the circumstances in which that pregnancy was conceived. YOU are not judge and jury. YOU are not G-d. YOU can’t begin to know every individual woman’s situation and if continuing a pregnancy and bringing a child into the world is the best choice for woman AND child. Covering HER “mistakes”? What if she took every precaution possible? What if the conception was within the confines of a loving marriage but because of circumstances – that are NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS – they are not ready to have children? There is nothing “convenient” about pregnancy and parenthood. What if your mother, your sister, your best friend were pregnant by violent rape? Would you accuse them of being immature, stupid and irreponsible whores if they chose to NOT have their rapist’s baby? You are a vile man, John Williams, for lumping all women, of all ages, of all circumstances, into one broad category of being stupid, immature and irresponsible. A man that will NEVER have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy, nevery have to endure childbirth.
            I got pregnant by rape as a young woman. I didn’t report it to anybody because I blamed myself for being in the situation. I’m sure YOU would find a way to blame me as well and take ALL responsibility off the man – MEN – who chose to take advantage of my incapacity. I can guarantee you that these types of rapes are GREATLY under-reported. Maybe instead of attacking women for having to make such choices they didn’t ask for, you convince young men to have more respect for women. But then that would mean you’d have to start respecting them as well, and it’s obvious you don’t. And before you tell me that you respect women that choose life, realize that you may not truly know the company you keep. But again, it’s NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

          • John Williams

            I have no problem with abortion where the circumstances were totally out of the control of the woman. It’s a tragic situation when a pregnancy results from rape, but again, that number is miniscule in comparison to the 1.6 million abortions each year. And I think your response shows your frustration with the depravity, bitterness and moral bankruptcy of your arguments. I’m sorry for your suffering. I pray you find some peace in your life. But I fear making the slaughter of innocents your advocacy is a poor choice and won’t lead to that peace.

          • Rachel

            So then if you’re going to be honest about it, and inconsistent in your so-called pro-life views, it’s not that you really are defending the ‘unborn’, it’s that you think women who engage in sexual behavior that doesn’t meet *your* approval should be punished with pregnancy, no matter the risk or hardship to them. You either have to be consistent in your views or else you need to take a big step back and say: who am I to judge? Just because on paper the numbers from rape are small, doesn’t mean they’re accurate. But what do you expect? To march each pregnant woman before a jury of judgemental assholes like yourself so they can determine whether SHE is worthy of terminating her pregnancy or not? Can anything be anymore invasive? What if it was your daughter, your mother, your sister, your wife? If you’re going to put a different value on different conceptions, and different women, who is to judge and how?
            It’s a rhetorical question. No one but a woman, her doctor, her G-d, and her trusting loved ones, should be involved with that decision. I’m done engaging with you.

          • fiona64

            Shorter John Williams: if you sluts don’t want babies, keep your legs closed.

            So, I ask again, John, where is your approbation for the *men*? Or do you envision that women get *themselves* pregnant?

          • Nor

            It’s at least 60,000/year. Only 10% are reported. So 600,000/year? That’s about a third of abortions. As many in conservative areas as liberal. The number of which will not go down if made illegal.

          • Nor

            Most rapists are repeat offenders. In the interest of making men responsible, should we castrate them? Wondering what your opinion is.

          • Nor

            You are just making stuff up now, c’mon man, really?

          • fiona64

            He’s a dimwit, Rachel.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Having an abortion, ending a pregnancy, is responsible and it is taking responsibility. It may not be something that you approve of, but that’s irrelevant. ..

          • Nor

            My go to post lust cure is immediate castration of the guy involved. Sure, it’s messy, and they are always big giant whiners about it, but I can’t express how much it’s improved my peace of mind and enhanced my personal responsibility re: my sexuality!

          • Nor

            What about treatment for technology failures? What about help after rape? What about medical treatment if their life is in danger?

            No one is denying babies are people. Love some citations on that imaginary bit of news.

          • HeilMary1

            You adulterous looksist wife dumpers dehumanize all women as throw-away incubators for pedophile priests.

          • HeilMary1

            You are a typical flat-earth mother killer. Google obstetric fistulas and molar pregnancies to get a small clue about pregnancy dangers.

        • HeilMary1

          You are definitely a murderer when your forced birther policies result in maternal deaths.

          • John Williams

            There were, perhaps, dozens of deaths from illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade. There have been over 43,000,000 deaths since.

          • HeilMary1

            The U.S. has vastly under-reported childbirth deaths due to pedophile priest pressure to protect negligent Catholic hospitals from class action law suits and anti-tort GOP politicians funded by these holy mother killers. Even so, the U.S. officially ranks 50th in maternal safety because of GOP-forced birth injuries like obstetric incontinence, female fetus-caused breast cancers, and fetal microchimerism-caused autoimmune diseases like lupus and diabetes.

          • John Williams

            Now I’m laughing-“GOP-forced birth injuries”-yeah, you’re a real rational individual. I guess you think Nancy Pelosi really “saved the planet from the GOP agenda,” too? Sad, so sad.

          • HeilMary1

            If you mother killers had your way, the U.S. would be like chaotic third world Manila, and you’d be picking through garbage mountains to find scraps to feed your twenty kids that the pedophile priests forced your sickly brood mare to die giving birth to. Pelosi has helped prevent the U.S. from going over that overpopulation poverty cliff.

          • John Williams

            Unhinged much?

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the unhinged loony with Fetal Idolatry Derangement Syndrome.

          • fiona64

            Citation needed for your assertion that there were only “dozens of deaths” from illegal abortions. Thanks in advance.

            Oh, wait … you aren’t talking about actual women here, are you? I keep forgetting that born, sapient, sentient women don’t count to the anti-choice.

          • John Williams

            The year before Roe v. Wade, there were 39 deaths from illegal abortions which is fewer than we have now from legal abortions. In 1957 there were 260 deaths from all abortions which included complications not specifically related to abortion such as infections. That’s not to say that medically necessary abortions shouldn’t be performed–but that would be less than .5% of the 1,000,000+ abortions currently being performed in this country annually. Oh–and these are figures from that bastion of conservative propaganda, Wikipedia.

          • pockysmama

            It is well documented that the year before Roe v. Wade nearly every hospital in the country had a Septic Ward for women who had had or attempted an abortion and then developed septicimia afterwards, you know, the same infection that killed Savita Halappanavar. The year after Roe V. Wade was decided, EVERY hospital in the country had closed its Septic Ward due to lack of patients.

            Your numbers are skewed, there were way more deaths and thousands of cases of infertility due to unsafe abortion procedures and resultant infections. Some Doctors and hospitals were kind and listed deaths from infections/botched abortions as related to other causes to help women and their families avoid prosecution.

          • Nor

            You are citing Wikipedia? You know you can’t do that after elementary school, right? Because, for example, I’m allowed to edit it?

            And 39 is a very suspiciously low number. Ask your grandma if she knew someone who had an illegal abortion. Ask how it went, how it was for her in that time, and for her friends. Try listening.

    • ChesterCheetah

      Indoctrination! And they are so blind they cannot see it as anything other than the “truth.” And they hate on religion for ‘brainwashing” people. Cults brainwash people. Reading the Gospels will challenge your mind, but instead you prefer to strengthen your indoctrination.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Wait a minute–John Williams? Chester Cheetah? You actually reply to yourself?

        • ChesterCheetah

          No I am not posting as John Williams. I am not fond of calling out “typical liberal” characteristics because I do not get involved in “picking a side” as I prefer to think for myself. I’m not a conservative, right-winger, Republican or anything like that. I simply know how to think for myself.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, I know that you’re not John Williams. I was being deliberately facetious because you appeared to be implying that those who disagree with you were posting as multiple people. It should be quite obvious that we are not, as our writing styles and subject matter are quite different.

          • ChesterCheetah

            I am not implying that people are cross-posting under different usernames. it seems awfully strange to me that writers for this website are so active in the comments.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Understood and acknowleged. I’m not actually a writer for this website, but I can say that the people who write here are very passionate about the subject matter, which probably leads to frequent comments, even for their own articles.

      • John Williams

        I have no problem with medically necessary abortions. But they are a handful compared to wanton slaughter currently going on and to use it as an excuse is just more pathetic rationalization by someone who wants to justify their destruction of human life.

        • Nor

          Perhaps if you went to an abortion clinic, and stood outside offering to adopt the baby of women going in, you’d save a life (still a jerk move, there are kinder better ways). Or signed up with foster care as willing to take the kids no one wants. Provide housing, a job, healthcare to the mom. Or offer to pay for the mother’s pregnancy healthcare, childbirth, and the first 18 years of the kids life. Or at the very least vote for politicians who are trying to do this (hint – they are all Democrats). But you aren’t doing this. So it’s really hard to take anything you say seriously, since while you are willing to condemn half the population of the planet as irresponsible trollops, you are completely unwilling to take any sort of action that might actually achieve your goal.

          • John Williams

            Wow–you seem to know an amazing amount about me! Nothing, actually. I have 4 adopted children (would take more if I could afford to). So I have, in essence, taken the responsibility to provide for the mothers’ pregnancies, childbirths, and first 18 years of their childrens’ lives. And the the assertion that the women choosing abortion are incapable of understanding or using birth control is pure bunk. They choose abortion because they refused to choose birth control in the first place. Not judgement that should be rewarded by providing her the right to take a human life.

          • Nor

            Well, it’s nice that you think your children’s moms were are totally irresponsible idiots. So odd you didn’t bring up your four adopted kids up earlier. So far it’s the only thing that offers any argument you’ve made even a hint of legitimacy. I assume none of them were healthy white infants when you adopted them? Those puppies cost mega bucks, and are in such high demand it’s not really helping anyone to adopt them. Are their moms still involved in their lives? I hope if any of them are girls you are cool with raising their teen babies, as it seems they’ll have no choice except to bear them, and you don’t seem the type to get them on birth control the instant they are fertile. I assure you that with your attitude about women’s health, they will not tell you when they start having sex, and are far less likely to get appropriate information and medical care than they would if they had a father that supported their well-being and healthy sexuality. I’d also really love to hear your wife’s perspective on all this, can you get her to post?

          • John Williams

            As a matter of fact, two are white, two are Hispanic. It’s strange how you rank adoptability on race? And no, I was adopted myself and I don’t believe in co-parenting. The arrogance of those who think that a system evolved “just because” is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Open adoptions were very common until the 30’s. Then they were outlawed in many states because of all the problems they caused. I was adopted in a closed adoption and wanted the same for my kids. And do I have a low opinion of my birth mother? Absolutely not. She chose to have me and give me up to someone who could provide a better life for me than she could. She accepted responsibility for her mistake and did the right thing. And no–I will not provide my daughters birth control “the moment they are fertile.” My high school junior has rationalized that the chances of meeting anyone of substance this early in her life is almost nil, so she has abstained. And I know it’s true because she offered these sentiments without prompting or solicitation of any kind from her mother and me at the dinner table a month ago. Yes, I do worry about my middle schooler because she seems very susceptible to peer pressure and is “boy crazy” at this stage. I hope her older sister can instill the same kind of forward thinking she’s expressed in her little sister before she leaves for college. The other two are elementary age boys and I do my best to demonstrate every day that a wife/girlfriend is due the utmost respect and deference and is a person–not an object–whose value lies in her sense of humor, intellect, and ability to communicate. It may be wishful thinking here, but I think if you can teach kids to think before they act–to use logic and reasoning about what they’re doing and consider the possible consequences of imprudent actions–then we have a good chance to avoid heartbreak on either side of a young love. All that said–my kids’ lives are their lives–I have no more control over them than they allow me. But I don’t worry about letting them know if I think they’ve behaved foolishly or rashly and I try to make them aware of the possible consequences of such imprudent actions. And as for not adopting more kids–there certainly is no way to absorb all the children who are aborted into loving families–but that’s a fault of our society that has chosen to shame those who choose to criticize the decision making of these single mothers instead of focusing on the single mothers’ decision-making. It’s time for these women to accept responsibility for their actions and for the life their imprudent actions created. Because as I said earlier, the only result of this “accepted irresponsibility” by endorsing irresponsible actions to mitigate irresponsible actions has devalued human life in general in our society.

          • fiona64

            As a matter of fact, two are white, two are Hispanic. It’s strange how you rank adoptability on race?

            AFCARS data indicates that the children most likely to age out of the adoption system without ever having permanent homes are children of color. It’s a statistical reality.

          • Nor

            It’s actually really hard to know, without an open adoption, if the mother did give the kids up willingly. That’s why a lot of other countries have stopped allowing adoptions out of the country. Sometimes it’s money, most often it’s pressure/fear of being kicked out of their house, etc. but you can’t really know what was going through the mind of your mother, or your kids mothers, unless you’ve met them, which it doesn’t sound like you have.
            As you must know from talking to your wife, girls hit puberty earlier and have just as high as sex drive as boys do, so maybe getting your younger daughter (and older daughter too) some gift certificates to sex toy stores like Good Vibes or Babeland is a nice idea, especially if you are trying to sell them on the virgin thing. Half of high school students graduate without the PIV (with a six month delay (but higher pregnancy and STD rate) for the abstinence only kids), so your odds are good, though your high school junior daughter is probably old enough and reliable enough to have sex safely. I hope if she chooses that route you let her boyfriend stay over at your house though, it’s just kind and demonstrates faith in her ability to make decisions for herself. She should have an OBGYN she uses by now of course too, right? She can bring the younger daughter in to an appt sometime, though I’ve found for teens Planned Parenthood is far and away the best source of info, they’ve got a lot more practice at educating kids than regular OB’s do, as they are largely in the baby business which is hopefully not where you want them to be at this point. If you’ve got a gyno that doesn’t do obstetric work, that might be a good option too.
            Good luck with the boys. It’s pure terror with them. If they knock someone up you have absolutely no control, and it’s 18 years of torment if they pick the wrong girl. So much more nerve-wracking than with girls.

            Lots of people worldwide consider abortion a more responsible choice than adoption. I know it worked out well for you, but tell that to the 100,000+ kids in the foster system and state orphanages, or all the kids out there with abusive parents. They may disagree.

          • fiona64

            They choose abortion because they refused to choose birth control in the first place.

            All forms of contraception, including surgical sterilization, have known failure rates. Per Guttmacher Institute stats, 75 percent of women who sought abortions were using contraception when they got pregnant.

            So, this makes you a big, fat, judgmental liar.

          • Nor

            It makes him ignorant and judgmental. He’s not lying, he’s just wrong.

          • fiona64

            Actually, I think he’s all three: ignorant, judgmental and a liar. His statement is not one that allows for a margin of error: he asserts his (incorrect) opinion as though it is a fact. It is not. Ergo, I judge him a liar.

  • Sequiturial

    For his ridiculous statement that aborting fetuses before the fifteenth week should be illegal because fifteen week old male fetuses masturbate, Rep Michael Burgess is the latest gop simpleton to be inducted into the GOP Ninnies Club. The club includes such unsavory characters as Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachman, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and others. The GOP Ninnies Club is an unofficial subsidiary of the DNC. It’s members are
    oblivious to its existence, just like they are oblivious to the inanities and
    asininities that spew from their vacuous brain cavities.

  • Sequiturial

    Psychologists say that rape is not about the sex, it is about the power derived. If that is true, the Republicans are trying to, metaphorically, rape every American woman. I know that there are more strong, independent, thinking women out there than there are submissive simpletons that buy into that right wing hysteria. With their help, the Party of Progress will prevail over the Party of Hate.

  • KaintGetRight

    Michael Burgess looks like a chomo.

  • William Barnes

    Would everyone who is in favor of abortion please get yourselves aborted in your next reincarnation so the rest of us can have some peace around here for a while?

    • Jennifer Starr

      Or alternatively, you could leave, as this is a pro-choice site and you’re clearly trolling.

    • Colleen Cahoon

      How about everyone who is AGAINST PRO-CHOICE IN PARENTING move to Communist China?

    • Colleen Cahoon

      And William Barnes… do you have any idea how ridiculous your statement is… truly? If you believe in reincarnation… then a life NOT forced to be born NOW might just actually prefer to BE BORN INTO A LOVING SITUATION THAT DESIRED THEM TO BE PRESENT.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Because really, Mr. Barnes, if your delicate nerves are simply unable to cope with the presence of those who disagree with you, perhaps you need to take a little lie down and a break? Maybe you can go to anti-choice site and moan and whine about how mean we were to you.

    • Rachel

      Well, if we want more intelligent future generations, Darwinism will eliminate your genes from the gene-pool.

    • Ella Warnock

      Oh, no, William — I’m kind of embarrassed for you here, dude. The commenting bar around here is a little higher than this. I’m cringing and laughing at the same time!

      No posting history, either. Hmmm . . .

    • Lyra Belaqua

      You’re so cute when you try.

  • h4x354x0r

    The lack of “companion” advocacy for robust access to education and contraception by abortion foes is a dead giveaway they are actually fixated on the issue of people having sex, and don’t really care about reducing abortions.

    The fact that abortion foes are so sex-obsessed that they project sexuality onto 15-week old fetuses really drives home that point.

  • Zooterpust

    It’s a shame that this is what the Republican party has come to. The lowest common denominator of the voting public has coalesced through contemporary technologies and are now electing members from their own class to Congress. These are people who don’t understand the differences between “theory” as a term of art in the field of science and a “theory” as it is used by someone who thinks it is merely an untested notion formulated on the spot. Thus, they don’t believe greenhouse gasses cause global warming despite the fact that 98% of climate scientists do believe so. To them, their uninformed and uneducated elected official is more credible. They think the earth is 10,000 or even 6,000 years old and that is was created magically in the time span of six days because, in their way of looking at the world, the Bible is inerrant.

    We are on the verge of being controlled by crusading ignoramuses. Brace yourselves for the onslaught.

  • Common Sense

    Has anyone here ever been around a newborn? Newborn babies have no control over their flailing arms & legs. The ability to extend a hand and touch what they’re aiming for doesn’t happen until the baby is a few weeks old. The ultrasound can’t show masturbation because the fetus’s central nervous system isn’t developed enough for that kind of control.

    • ChesterCheetah

      I love how when it comes out, its a baby. Before that, at any point… fetus. Just interesting to me, how we are brainwashed into using certain terms to justify the things we do.

      • HeilMary1

        I love how women stop existing as human beings whenever they are pregnant with killer fetuses whom pedophile priests want to molest or GOP war profiteers need as cannon fodder.

        • ChesterCheetah

          I would love to know if you are a woman or a man. I am just saying that abortion is a sad thing, I am neither arguing for or against its legalization. I also find it to be in extremely poor taste. If a woman decides to do so, that is her decision.

          If it were illegal, many would turn to illegal methods. If the woman was in danger, it makes sense to terminate the pregnancy. But if not, then what is the point of abortion?

          Also, what is the meaning and purpose of sexual intercourse, to you?

          • HeilMary1

            I’m female and for me the purpose of human sexuality is community validation, meaning the participants are valued as good enough for each other, not as throw-away breeders for spoiled pedophile priests.

          • ChesterCheetah

            That’s nice. Enjoy living without love, I’m sure you have a very happy life ahead of you.

          • ChesterCheetah

            She sounds lousy in bed! “Community Validation”! HAHAHA!

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s conservative men for you. Minds in the gutter. Family values in action.

          • ChesterCheetah

            I am not a conservative. I am just not a close-minded, brainwashed liberal. You don’t HAVE to pick a side you know, you could just be yourself.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re a close-minded misogynist bigot.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I am myself and I still disagree with you.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re a looksist playboy pedophile who insults all adult women and disabled people as a sport. You have no idea of the loneliness that forced-birth unwanted people suffer.

          • ChesterCheetah

            How am I a pedophile? You’re a whacko name-caller. Looksist? I am not insulting disabled people at all, and if saying that you are lousy in bed (which is no doubt true) insults all women, then so be it.

          • HeilMary1

            I wish my disfiguring childbirth-ruined mom aborted me instead.

          • Nor

            What is the meaning of sex to you? Considering how many times people generally have sex in a lifetime vs. how many times they produce a child, I’m pretty sure the primary purpose is not reproduction.

      • Dez

        No. That is the fact of biology your type refuses to accept. Until a fetus can survive by itself without medical intervention or is born, it is not a person. I am a person. I do not have to physically live off another person to live. A fetus can not. The only ones brainwashed are those like you that give an emotional term to a fetus and expect the rest of us to go along with it.

        • ChesterCheetah

          LOL! Stop it! You’re kidding? Calling me brainwashed? Too funny. What do you say then about people who need dialysis? Notice, I linked to a source for some information. As far arguing the term, when a pregnant woman’s pregnancy does not live until birth, does the mother say she “lost the fetus” or did she “lose the baby”?

          It’s not a matter of science, it is a matter of love. The sooner you realize that, the better.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Fetus is the correct scientific term, also zygote, embryo, etc. Your heart can call it what it likes, doesn’t bother me or anyone else, but that is the term that science uses.

          • ChesterCheetah

            Wait a minute… Jennifer Starr… Debe Lange… Deb…. HeilMary1…. you crazy people just troll your own threads?!? What integrity you must have!

          • Jennifer Starr

            What are you blathering on about now?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Clear difference in writing styles and subject matter between those people, bright boy. And I’m not the one who’s trolling. In case you didn’t realize or were unable to read, this is a pro-choice board.

          • maiathebeegrrl

            OK, so now “trolling” = “responding to comments on a column you or your co-worker wrote”? You really don’t get that words have actual meanings….

          • Dez

            You didn’t link to anything. A woman can call her fetus whatever name she wants to give. It still does not make a person. A fetus is still a fetus. A woman calling a fetus a baby does not magically grant it personhood. It is a matter of science. Your opinion is irrelevant to women’s reproductive rights. The sooner you realize your personal opinion means shit to women, the better for you.

          • fiona64

            You didn’t link anything.

            Most women say they had a miscarriage.

          • http://littlemisshaldol.tumblr.com/ LittleMissMellaril

            People who need dialysis need a machine, not another person to be attached to!

      • maiathebeegrrl

        So, that language = words have specific meanings = brainwashing?
        Wow, that’s quite a stretch. You really don’t believe that words have meanings, huh? Just wow.

    • Nor

      Also, babies instinctively grip onto anything, right? Fetuses certainly do masturbate when older in the womb, but again, instinct vs. deliberate action?

  • LILLIAN PORTER

    It does matter about why women seek abortion. Alan Guttmacher Institute, long time research arm of Planned Parenthood, reports that under 1% of abortions are for rape and incest. Incest victims are generally coerced into abortion by the men who have already violated their person. The Finnish ‘STAKES’ study, using record review, found that post-abortive women commit suicide, or have accidents, at a rate four times the incidence in the general population. Several subsequent studies have concurred with the Finns. The legalization of abortion, has led to violence against pregnant women being the leading cause of maternal death.
    The unnatural dilation of the os (opening of the cervix) has led to a dearth of severely premature babies, who may suffer their entire lives. Women who abort prior to a full term pregnancy and lactation, women who are under 18 or over 30, women who have multiple abortions, are at especially high risk for breast cancer. The Roe-Wade generation of women, who are in their fifties and sixties, have much more incidences of breast cancer than do their older sisters. Estrogenic birth control exacerbates the risk. It is life-time exposure to estrogen that causes the problem. The WHO ranks estrogen, with nicotine and asbestos, as a Class 1 carcinogenic.
    If the media, the scientific community and the education establishment were truly liberal and truly believed in women making choices for themselves, women would be better equipped to make informed choices.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Wow–just wow. It looks like you stuck just about every possible myth and lie in there. Sorry, but I believe in making informed choices with real actual facts, not anti-choice scare tactics. Women can make up their own minds, and they don’t need you judging the decisions they make.

      • Rachel

        While I agree with you that it’s likely just a copy/paste wall of text, it said ‘dearth’, which still doesn’t make sense since dearth defines as “A scarcity or lack of something: “there is a dearth of evidence”.” which pretty much defines the evidence that supports everything she just said.

        This is a new one to me…

        “…found that post-abortive women … have accidents, at a rate four
        times the incidence in the general population.”

        WTF? So this is the reason I tend to trip a lot? Because I had an abortion? Well by-golly-gee!

        • Jennifer Starr

          Yeah, it doesn’t make a lot of sense–a lot of it seems very contradictory and illogical. And the accident thing is just pure nonsense–I think someone took a correlation and tried to prove causation. You could find a correlation between something like IQ and shoe size, but it still doesn’t prove that the two or related or that one causes the other. Lies, damned lies and statistics, as they say.

    • HeilMary1

      Female fetuses are the number one cause of breast and face cancers in women. Even anti-choice bully Dr. Hanna Klaus admitted this to the Washington Post. I collect obits of women who die young from childbearing, and if they had breast cancer, they just had daughters. Childbirth disfigurements and bankruptcies are the number one causes of male abuse, divorce and murder. Quit parroting pedophile priest lies.

      • Nor

        Pregnancy hormones do send already extant cancers into overdrive, generally. Maybe that’s why?

    • fiona64

      Another study found that there is a correlation between ice cream sales and drownings.

      No woman is required to report the reason that she seeks to terminate a pregnancy. But you know that don’t you?

      And there is no link between abortion and breast cancer, either … which you also know.

      Lies, every bit of your post.

    • Nor

      If your daddy raped you, at 13, and you got pregnant, might you lie?
      If you were raped, would you go around telling everyone, even if no one needed to know?
      Did you know women actually experience no increase in depression, and actually generally have better psychological outcomes, than women who end up having to keep the baby (generally due to being a week too late to obtain an abortion, usually because they weren’t able to come up with the money in time and lived in a conservative state?).

      Did you know that many women need abortions in order to not have themselves or their unborn child become trapped by a violent spouse, abusive spouses having a tendency to either tamper with or refuse to allow their wives access to birth control in order to better control them through the children?
      Did you know large numbers of women have D+C’s on a monthly basis for very common problems like endometriosis? To no harm?
      Did you know that as long as the abortion is performed before 22 weeks, there is no way for that fetus to survive?
      Did you know that the increase in breast cancer is experienced by all women who are not continuously pregnant? The fewer pregnancies you have, the more likely you are to get breast cancer, as shown by comparison of women in modern countries vs. stone age tribes people. Of course, each pregnancy does shorten your life span, but who cares, it slightly lowers your cancer risk! Estrogen is carcinogenic, as are many substances your body naturally produces, including all steroids. You would not believe how high those levels go during and after pregnancy! Breast feeding too, man, it’s bad. Testosterone is carcinogenic too. That’s why immediate removal of the ovaries and testicles at birth is the only safe way to go.
      I really wish the GOP did more health education work. They always manage to get things about women’s health so incredibly unbiased. Maybe they think women can’t read. Or maybe they think that women in their states, especially the poor ones that can’t afford health care (unlike in blue states where it’s free to poor women), can’t doubt them because they don’t have the money to talk to an actual doctor for real facts about their bodies and options, or if they keep shutting down women’s health clinics and offering inadequate and misleading “sex ed”, women just won’t ever even be able to see a medical professional at all. It’s like they believe science and the internet never existed! That women can’t Google, or they can but their public school education was so poor they don’t know how to properly obtain verifiable information from reputable sources! That the internet is a series of tubes! God bless ‘em. Such a strong women led party I have never seen in all my days!

  • Dan Bigg

    Big irony here is that the Congressional moralists are lauding the fetus for masturbating but condemned Joycelyn Elders as Surgeon General for mentioning masturbation in public.

    • HeilMary1

      Ding! Ding! Ding! Best comment on the whole thread! You should turn this into a fund-raising T-shirt for the Dems and for reproductive safety!

  • CaptainCatholic_ProLifeMale

    Burgess’ comments are disturbing on a lot of levels. The disturbing aspect that an anti-choice advocate such as myself focuses on is this: Once you get into an argument about when a fetus can feel pain (or pleasure) or when a fetus has the cognitive capacity to make sense of what pain or pleasure means (there’s evidence that this may not happen until some time AFTER you’re born) you surrender your rationale for protecting people who haven’t yet developed the capacity to feel.

    Surely a zygote can feel no pain. Arguing about when we reach the point of development when we can feel serves no purpose. No matter what developmental point you settle on, you still have respect-worthy life BEFORE that particular point. Those of us who insist on respecting a person’s humanity from the point of conception onward have got to go the extra mile and assert that the right to respect doesn’t come with prerequisites — certainly not with the prerequisite of a fully developed sensory apparatus.

    Gerard

    • Dez

      You can believe what you want based on your religious beliefs. Don’t try to force your beliefs onto my life since I am an atheist. I disagree with your views of a fetus and as such will make my medical decisions based on those views on the research I have done. A fetus has human dna but it is not a baby. A baby is a born person capable of surviving outside a woman’s body. A fetus does not fit that description.

    • Nor

      Thank you for a rational sounding pro-life post! Are you also anti-birth control because of the point of conception thing?

  • brucegarner

    All I can say is that these fools make me ashamed to be male (and white since most of them are that as well).
    Where are their mamma’s when they need a good swat up side the head???!!!

  • Rowdy Wilson

    I am a Republican and I am tired of Republican legislators who listen only to a handful of anti-science, anti-choice, anti-medicine Bible-thumpers.

    A quote from David Mellor, the founding director of the Animal Welfare
    Science and Bioethics Center at Massey University in New Zealand A fetus,” Mellor says, “is not a baby who just hasn’t been born yet.” Support Wendy Davis