Why a 20-Week Abortion Ban Is Unthinkable: One Woman’s Near-Death Experience


If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it.”—Martin Luther.

When Martin Luther penned his now infamous words—”let her … die”—he was no doubt intimately familiar with death from pregnancy. In our ancestral environment, the average woman experienced ten to 15 pregnancies. Without modern antibiotics, cesarean sections, and drugs to stop hemorrhage, approximately one in ten women died of pregnancy, just as they do today in, for example, tribal Afghanistan.

When we think about side effects of pregnancy in the United States, we usually picture awkward inconveniences like gas, itching, swelling, or constipation—or sucky-but-transient symptoms like morning sickness, cramps, and backaches. Cheerful pregnancy websites provide reassurance about less familiar symptoms like vaginal discharge and hemorrhoids, and mommy blogs offer encouragement to post-partum women struggling to feel beautiful despite newly saggy breasts, lumpy butts, and lingering tummies. In fact, a whole website, The Shape of a Mother, provides a place for post-pregnancy women to share photos of their bodies and to support each other through the potential self-esteem hit.

For a woman who wants a baby, such inconveniences, miseries, and even permanent changes may feel like a modest price to pay, while for a teen or woman with an unwanted pregnancy, even temporary or cosmetic changes may be a daily reminder that her life has spun out of control in other, more serious, ways.

But even from the standpoint of physical health, transient or cosmetic changes are just the surface. For many women, whether their pregnancy is wanted or unwanted, planned or unplanned, the price of motherhood is far from temporary or superficial.

The religious right trumpets every abortion tragedy, and personal injury attorneys turn contraception-related harm into class-action suits, but the hard reality faced by reproductive-age women is that both abortion and contraception are vastly safer than full-term pregnancy. Childbearing is inherently dangerous, and it is time that the risks of pregnancy became a part of our national conversation about contraception and abortion.

The United Nations reports that on a global scale pregnancy is the most common cause of death for women age 15 to 19. In the United States, each year over 500 women die from complications of pregnancy, either before, during, or immediately after giving birth.

Former Microsoft manager and congressional candidate Darcy Burner could have been one of those women. Here is her story:

I have been pregnant twice. Both times were very much wanted and both times I nearly died. I spent eight days hospitalized the first time, and two weeks the second time. That was after ending the pregnancy and with the doctors trying to keep me alive.

In my first pregnancy was I got to 22 weeks and my cervix dilated and I developed a uterine strep infection. The body has no way to combat that, because the immune system doesn’t work in the uterus. There was nothing they could do but end the pregnancy and do IV antibiotics.

With my son Henry I had the incompetent cervix again. I had to go in every two weeks, and I was on strict bed rest for 20 of the 34 weeks as in I wasn’t allowed to sit up. They had done a cervical cerclage, but if there is too much pressure the tissue simply will tear.

Then, it was like everything that could go wrong did. I lost a bunch of weight. I had blood sugar regulation issues. Henry was originally a twin, but I lost the twin part way through the pregnancy. I would go in for my appointments, and at every appointment my obstetrician would say to me, Here’s what’s going on. It’s a risk to your life. Do you want to continue this or not risk your life further?

Ironically all the things we knew were going on were not the things that made me have to deliver him early. I managed to get to 34 weeks and then I developed severe preeclampsia. In two days I went from no signs—perfectly normal blood pressure—to having a very few hours to live unless we ended the pregnancy and probable long term consequences even if we did. My pregnancy had a happy ending because both Henry and I are here, but those were my decisions to make.

Burner’s experience made her a passionate believer that a woman’s pregnancy decisions should involve her family and her doctor. Period.

We knew in that first pregnancy that when we delivered at 22 weeks my developing baby wasn’t going to survive. But it was that or risk having me die. Terminating that pregnancy could be illegal under the bill recently introduced in the House of Representatives, which sets a gestational limit of 20 weeks—forcing law enforcement to second guess whether the danger to a woman’s life was acute enough to warrant the abortion. Mine was a wanted pregnancy that went catastrophically wrong. The idea that a politician would interfere in a crisis like that is absurd.

Burner is open about her story because so many women face hard decisions like hers.

My sister Tammy, when she was pregnant with her youngest started having internal bleeding because she had placenta previa. She had ongoing internal bleeding through the rest of the pregnancy. She spent most of the pregnancy literally looking gray. This was a wanted pregnancy, and she did everything she could to not have to end it. But as she was making that decision—she had two other kids. Why would some politician get to make that decision instead of her and her doctor?

My friend Amy got pregnant and developed severe preeclampsia at 22-23 weeks. If she hadn’t ended the pregnancy, she too would have died. Amy’s kind of preeclampsia developed slower than mine. Her OB told her that whatever happened she shouldn’t go to a Catholic hospital because a Catholic hospital could let her die rather than save her if she hadn’t reached term yet.

Preeclampsia is a common reason to need to end a pregnancy but not the only one. I personally know stories of ectopic pregnancies. I knew someone who developed leukemia part way through a pregnancy. The doctor said you can wait to start chemo, but there’s a much higher risk that you will die from leukemia. I cannot conceive of the idea that some man in Washington DC should get to make that decision for her.

There is this myth that the maternal mortality rate is zero. That isn’t true at all. Even with the best medical care it is thousands of women each year and without that care it is hundreds of thousands. The Right Wing has done this masterful job of portraying pregnancy termination as irresponsible women not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. That is a gross misrepresentation. There are lots and lots of reasons that women end pregnancies. To be blunt I would guess that very few are ended without some real thought. But at the end of the day those are medical decisions.

They are medical decisions, deeply emotional, and, as Burner’s story illustrates, deeply personal. The list of possible complications that can maim or kill goes on and on: anemia, arrhythmia, brainstem infarction, broken tailbone or ribs, cardiopulmonary arrest, diastasis recti, eclampsia, embolism, exacerbation of epilepsy, immunosuppression, infection, gestational diabetes, gestational trophoblastic disease, hemorrhage, hypoxemia, increased intracranial pressure, mitral valve stenosis, obstetric fistula, placental abruption, postpartum depression, prolapsed uterus, severe scarring, increased spousal abuse, third or fourth degree laceration,  thrombocytopenic purpura, peripartum cardiomyopathy, and more.

Don’t have a clue what many of those words mean? I can guarantee most members of the U.S. Congress don’t either. That is why a woman’s pregnancy needs to be managed by people who do.

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

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

  • h4x354x0r

    Completely unthinkable too, simply because there are significant numbers of natural failures. Criminalizing what happens often enough in nature, when no amount of law, technology, or moral fortitude can change the outcome, is very, very, VERY wrong.

    It’s virtually impossible to force a positive outcome.

  • Skulander

    “Her OB told her that whatever happened she shouldn’t go to a Catholic hospital because a Catholic hospital could let her die rather than save her if she hadn’t reached term yet.”

    EVERY woman in the U.S. needs to be aware of this. DON’T go to a Catholic hospital if you’re pregnant. They make decisions based on ideology. Not on saving your life.

    • Judy Jackson

      Back in the 1960’s when I was a girl, my friend’s mom, a good Catholic, had several difficult pregnancies. When she was pregnant with her last child, she had issues during the entire pregnancy. In our small town, the only hospital was Catholic hospital. The doctor told them that if it came to a choice, he would save the baby, let this lady die & leave 5 other children without their mother. Luckily, both made it through the delivery. This same hospital refused to do a tubal ligation or vasectomy, despite this being a married couple with SIX children. I later found out that when my friend’s dad went out of town on “business”, he actually went to a neighboring city & got a vasectomy.
      Even in this age of modern medical science, 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. The types of legislation being introduced & passed could deny a woman a D&C that could possibly be life saving. It could force a woman to carry a dead fetus until it is “born”. I had a miscarriage with my first pregnancy. A good doctor, a timely D&C & I was able to have a beautiful baby boy a few years later. The maternal mortality rate in the USA is rising. That is a disgrace.

      • Tabitha Raimer Orr

        The maternal mortality rate is not rising because of lack of abortion, it is on the rise due to mishandling by doctors. Infections, death from c-sections which are at an all time high, and other iatrogenic causes. I do agree though that a woman’s choice to have an abortion is hers alone.

        • Arekushieru

          Death from C-sections? I wonder how those compare to deaths from vaginal childbirth. Infections develop as a result of both, so, saying infections lead to higher rates of maternal mortality IS like saying pregnancy and childbirth, vaginal and c-sectional, lead to the higher rates. Also, please post the sources that tell us that maternal mortality rates are not rising because of lack of access to abortion, for many women.

          Finally, I don’t know why you decided to post this in response to Judy’s comment, since Judy was talking about a D&C after miscarriage, to remove all the fetal parts so they did NOT cause infection?

      • Mr_Cris

        What’s wrong wtih six children? Do you hate children so much?

        • goatini

          The size of anyone’s family is none of your damn business.

          • Mr_Cris

            Well I wasn’t the one making a problem out of it. Read the comment I responded to. And watch your words please.

          • goatini

            “watch your words”

            I hate to make you clutch your pearls there, Sir, but I do believe that my mild epithet made it through the motion picture censor board in 1939 as uttered by Clark Gable.

          • Arekushieru

            Uh, actually, you were. I read the comment, the woman had no problem, YOU did. So, watch your words, please, especially if you want everyone else BUT yourself to be literal.

          • ephena

            That would be exactly the point here – the decision about the size of your family, or whether now is the time to have a family is your business, and maybe that of your partner, it sure as hell isn’t the business of some goat posting on the internet, and it isn’t the business of a legislator who wants to put their ideology into your uterus.

          • fiona64

            it isn’t the business of a legislator who wants to put their ideology into your uterus.

            You mean, like the anti-choice legislators try to do every day?

        • fiona64

          The point, Captain Dumbass, is that a physician refused surgical sterilization to a woman who had already had six children, on the apparent grounds that she might “change her mind.” As if a woman with six children couldn’t say “You know, I think that just might be enough kids for us.”

        • Corviddreams

          What’s wrong with six children? Nothing if you have the time, money, energy, and desire to raise six children. I barely survived raising the two I wanted and had with my sanity intact. Additionally, I developed health issues that made raising them such a challenge that I could not have managed one more.

        • Nor

          At a certain point you can’t afford to feed the ones you’ve got. Do you hate children so much?

          • Mr_Cris

            That is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard.
            In developed countries there is no hunger.
            In fact people in poverty are more likely to be obese.
            If you can’t take care of your children you work harder to support for your family, ask others for help or both.

          • Fiona1933

            Don’t be absurd. What if you have no others to ask? what if they exhausted raising their own? It is dreadfully hard work trying to keep small children under your eye all day: I teach a 2 year old in the morning and today I turned my head to throw a tissue in the bin and in that split second she had somehow scrambled up to the window ledge and was right on the edge of leaping onto the hard coffee table. You can’t make a house completely soft and you cant keep your eye on them every second and they move so fast. After one hour with this kid I feel worn out. Lucky for her mum it is Hong Kong: everyone has domestic help. This saves every mother’s sanity and countless marriages, as wives are more relaxed, fulfilled with their own careers if they want them, keep looking good, all the things husbands like, so it is a pleasure to be at an HK dinner table. Six kids is unthinkable nowadays. It was one thing when kids ran about all day, wore hand-me-downs and were happy with an ice cream from the van and really did make their own entertainment: now, first, kid must be kept pristine, God help you if even a bruise appears. Can’t let Dad help with the bathing: nosy neighbours will call it inappropriate. God, we used to run naked on the beach. And food isnt the issue: its all the other things they need, the electronics, the clothes, if you don’t get them, here comes the bullying, because life is harsher and more materialistic now. Cant have hand-me-downs anymore, now kids have fashion.
            and school: they expect that after working 3 jobs to get all these things, parents will then be involved in making projects or baking for “ethnic Day” or some such. It never ends. It used to be easy: you gave birth and put them in the playpen and when they were big enough, you turned them out to play and said “Get out in the sunshine and dont come back til six. Here’s 50p for the matinee.” The rest of child-rearing consisted of “be quiet I’m watching the cricket”. Now, you have to be INVOLVED and God help you if you don’t because the school psychologist will get you. Are you feeding them organic food? they may want a word about little Kim’s diet. Is little Jason playing appropriately with the other kids? If he’s found playing doctors and nurses, here comes a round of counselling. where do you find the time for one kid, if you are working 60 or 70 hours a week, or even if you aren’t?

          • Valde

            Whenever I argue with forced birthers about how having endless #s of children is a bad idea they love to remind me of alllllllllllll the old folks they know who were raised in 12, 15 family homes in the 1920s, and hey, they turned out just fine and were NEVER hungry!

            First off, I call bullshit on that. It may have been true for some – those living on a farm – but sure as shit wasn’t true for everyone.

            And I would imagine that supporting such a large family back then, especially if you had a farm, was a LOT easier than it would be for 1) an urban family and 2) a modern family.

          • Mr_Cris

            “its all the other things they need, the electronics, the clothes, if you don’t get them, here comes the bullying, because life is harsher and more materialistic now”
            It is that attitude of yours that is the cause of the problem. You choose to give in. I survived perfectly fine without ipads and so will my kids.

          • fiona64

            In developed countries there is no hunger.
            In fact people in poverty are more likely to be obese.

            Boy are *you* ever stupid. Food insecurity is at its highest rate in the USA since the Great Depression. http://feedingamerica dot org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger.aspx would be a good place for you to start.

            Food insecurity is about lack of access to variation in foods as well. If you have $10 for a week to spend on groceries (and this is not an exaggeration, in many cases), you re going to try to get the best “bang for the buck.” The least expensive foods with the longest shelf life are things like rice and pasta. The people whom you are claiming must not be hungry because they are heavy? Are heavy because they are eating too many simple carbs whilst staving off starvation.

            Oh, and Mister “Pro-Life”? The majority of those facing food insecurity are *children.* Oftentimes, the only meals they get are free or reduced-price lunches at school. And people like you, who say they want small government (unless, of course, the government would be snooping into women’s uteruses) are constantly trying to cut those programs.

            You are a moron. The hardest working people in this country are the working poor, often working two or three jobs to try to make ends meet. Many of them live in single-room occupancy hotels because they don’t make enough to rent an apartment — and many of those SRO hotels do not have cooking facilities.

            Your post smacks of both ignorance and privilege.

          • http://atrocityarts.com/ h

            Excuse me, but you are patently and offensively stupid if you believe that there is no hunger in developed countries. Also, the maternal death rate in the US is not the lowest in the world. Please, do some basic research before stating such stupid statements.

          • Mr_Cris

            Why do you choose to feel offended?

            “there is no hunger in developed countries”

            What people call poverty these days is not poverty. And in developed countries there is soup kitchens, generous neighbors, churches, charities, food stamps, welfare etc. If you have to kill an unborn child because the ones you have are starving. Then those children should be taken away from you by child services and you should be locked up for child abuse.

            ” Also, the maternal death rate in the US is not the lowest in the world”

            I never claimed that it was.

          • http://atrocityarts.com/ h

            I am offended by your miserable summation of what you think poverty is. It is ignorant. And, your summation of church help and friendly neighbors is totally not true in most regions where hunger is the worst. And I know this because I work in this field. It is your ignorance and nonchalance that is offensive and wrong and harmful. It is a lot like “are there no poor houses!” from Dickens. And, your stance is one of pervasively silly morality. It is not a child until it is viable. Until then, it is a foetus. And we can dicker that point until the moon blows up, but the only way you can legislate behaviours surrounding pregnancy is to let individuals decide what is best for them. Otherwise, you are just a meddlesome asshole.

          • Mr_Cris

            “I am offended by your miserable summation of what you think poverty is”

            Then you should not choose to be offended because it obviously is not intended as an offence. You simply disagree but you give an emotional response, not a rational one.

            “miserable summation of what you think poverty is”

            Poverty is when people can no longer afford basic necessities. Like food, water, shelter, warmth. You can add things like education as
            well.

            “And I know this because I work in this field”

            The very fact that you work in the field proves my point.

            “It is not a child until it is viable”

            Why? Because the strong deserve to live but the weak don’t deserve to live? Because that is the only difference between viable and non-viable.

            “but the only way you can legislate behaviours surrounding pregnancy is to let individuals decide what is best for them.”

            Humans are not basically good. You cannot assume that every personal decision is a moral decision. What if a woman decides it is best to mutilate the genitals of her unborn child? Or if the woman decides to drink alcohol during pregnancy? She does both things to what you don’t consider a human yet. And you think she should make that decision herself.

          • Arekushieru

            It’s her fucking body, moron. If she were to mutilate the genitals of the fetus, it would be THEIR body she was affecting. Seriously, how do such SIMPLE concepts escape people like you?

            And, it is to fucking LAUGH when you complain how we ‘apparently’ believe that the strong should live but the weak yet you OBVIOUSLY think that someone who is poor is weak and DOESN’T deserve to live. After all, they don’t deserve the same things as the rich white man does, in your little narrow, evil world. Oh, no, they should have to exist on the favours or generosity of others, never mind that this is NOT expected or required of any other human class, and if they don’t get it, they don’t deserve to live. Also, starving children of impoverished families is just FINE for you. They don’t deserve to live, either. Hmm, sounds more like strong live, weak die is more YOUR style. WHOOPS.

            Yes, humans are NOT basically good. Thank you for demonstrating how evil YOU are. But I wouldn’t dream of legislating against your behaviour. Hmm, guess that’s the difference between you and I. I actually think you deserve rights, while you think everyone but the poor and women deserve them.

            Finally, yes, most of the people you are talking about CAN’T afford these basic necessities. Because it means they CAN’T BUY THEM. Which they aren’t. Aw, sad little hypocrite got proven WRONG, again.

          • Mr_Cris

            ” yet you OBVIOUSLY think that someone who is poor is weak and DOESN’T deserve to live.”
            All your words are the exact opposite of the truth.

          • Allison Craig

            Are you living in a dream world? “Poverty is when people can no longer afford basic necessities. Like food, water, shelter, warmth. You can add things like education as well.” That perfectly describes what millions of Americans are living with today. And most of those are working two jobs, and still can’t afford the basic necessities. Your position that Americans can just go out and get what they need from charities and neighbors is ignoring the fact that obviously those resources aren’t helping, because there are millions that are still hungry, homeless, and still in need. And why is that happening? Because the gap between the very rich and the very poor is widening, and the safety nets that had been in place are being cut by those in Congress.

          • Arekushieru

            “And in developed countries there is soup kitchens, generous neighbors,
            churches, charities, food stamps, welfare etc. If you have to kill an
            unborn child because the ones you have are starving. Then those children
            should be taken away from you by child services and you should be
            locked up for child abuse.”

            Actually, no they should be taken away from people like YOU who would OBVIOUSLY, DELIBERATELY starve them. Guess what, starving a child IS fucking abuse.

            Yes, soup kitchens when it is your ilk that likes to stigmatize and shame people for being poor, Yes, soup kitchens when it is your ilk that CREATES these problems in the first place. Yes, soup kitchens when it is YOUR ilk that like to cut programs that would help feed children like this. Yes, soup kitchens when it is YOUR ilk that protests equal rights, but REFUSES to grant them to the poor and women. Funny, we’re the ones who make LESS noise about it, but actually WORK for it. Sad, SAD, little hypocrites.

          • Mr_Cris

            “people like YOU who would OBVIOUSLY, DELIBERATELY starve them.”
            Funny how your eyes see words and your brain explains it as the exact opposite.
            “Guess what, starving a child IS f*****g abuse.”

            That’s my whole point! Can’t you read? I wrote that if parents let their child starve in a developed country they are unfit for parenting. Because they have enough opportunities to earn money to afford the food for their children. If they can’t afford it they can ask for help.

          • Allison Craig

            “In developed countries there is no hunger. In fact people in poverty are more likely to be obese.”

            Are you completely delusional? In the U.S., 50.1 million people live in households that are “food insecure” meaning that it’s occupants live with hunger or lack access to food. Households with children report a significantly higher rate of food insecurity than household without children. People in poverty who are obese experience that because of the lack of healthy food, and can be malnourished and still be considered “living in hunger.” And you are brilliant! People who are poor should just work harder or ask their families!! Why didn’t anyone ever think of that! Oh, right, reality. You are just showing your ignorance and lack of compassion.

          • Mr_Cris

            You can buy healthy breakfast for your kid for less than a dollar. A baby costs less than a cup of coffee a day. Homeless people are not homeless due to the lack of resources but because of drug addiction or mental illness. The gap between rich and poor is a lie. You know how many people commit fraud with food stamps?

  • ladymiseryali

    And yet the anti-choice ignore this reality. They seem to think women with healthy pregnancies wake up at 20 weeks and decide to skip merrily to the nearest clinic. I wanted to tear my hair out as I saw the anti-choice on twitter throwing tantrums and accusing pro-choicers of “wanting to murder babies”. If their mothers/sisters/wives or, themselves if they’re ladies, needed a medically necessary abortion, would they deny that choice? Would they condemn themselves or their loved ones to death? Probably not. But yet they want to condemn other women to death because of their utter ignorance and refusal to face the grim reality of why late term abortions occur.

    Pitiful and sad.

    • fiona64

      Of course they wouldn’t! But it’s always different when the anti-choice choose. “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” is a collection of anecdotes from abortion providers. URL is altered due to moderation: http://mypage dot direct dot ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

      • Jennifer PM

        what an incredible read. thank you for sharing!

      • Judy Jackson

        I have read this collection & it is illuminating. I have friends who have done escort service at PP clinics & every one of them has recognized women making appointments for themselves or their daughters AFTER picketing in front of the clinic.

        • HeilMary1

          Maybe such hypocrites should be publicly shamed and denied services at the PP clinics they harass?

        • Navy5717th

          Judy: I don’t even know how I found this blog or its follow up postings, but the say-so of your friends, especially “every one of them” stretches credulity to the breaking point.

          • fiona64

            Judy didn’t say “every one of her friends”; she said every one of her friends who had been a clinic escort. I have many friends who volunteer as clinic escorts, and some who are former staff. And yes, they have *all* recognized protestors amongst their patients.

            Anecdotal evidence? Sure. But it’s kind of crazy to dismiss it.

          • Navy5717th

            Fiona: That depends on what the meaning of is,is. Seriously, you’re nitpicking because you knew exactly to whom “every one of them” referred.

            Anecdotal evidence? Nope — it’s an allegation based on hearsay. It’s not crazy to dismiss it because it lacks anything resembling factual proof — but it IS something that many of the commentators here would like to believe.

            I have a rule of thumb about such things. If something reads or sounds like it’s too good to be true, in all probability, it isn’t.

          • fiona64

            ::shrug:: Honestly, you can believe anything you so desire. After all, apparently you believe that a zygote is the same as an infant (I could be wrong, but that seems to be the case), and I’m free to dismiss that as absurd based on science.

            Oh, and yes: there’s also this. It’s a collection of information from abortion providers in which they talk about seeing the same protestors from the sidewalks in their own clinics. It’s entitled “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose.” URL is deliberately altered due to moderation, but I’m sure you’ll be able to figure out how to get there: http://mypage dot direct dot ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

            My personal favorite is this one:

            “My first encounter with this phenomenon came when I was doing a
            2-week follow-up at a family planning clinic. The woman’s anti-choice
            values spoke indirectly through her expression and body language. She
            told me that she had been offended by the other women in the abortion
            clinic waiting room because they were using abortion as a form of birth
            control, but her condom had broken so she had no choice! I had real
            difficulty not pointing out that she did have a choice, and she
            had made it! Just like the other women in the waiting room.”

          • Nor

            Why would this surprise you when abortion rates in conservative “pro-life” areas are the same as those in liberal pro-choice areas?

            Turns out your opinion on something might change when you find yourself in that exact situation. At least for as long as it takes you to get out of that situation.

          • Navy5717th

            Nor: Could you please provide some verifiable statistical evidence of that?

            I hope you understand what “rate” means. It’s important to making sense of your assertion.

            “rate 1 |rāt| noun1 a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against someother quantity or measure: *the crime rate rose by 26 percent*.”

            I’m the proud father of four adult children. Obviously, we wanted them, so abortion was never even considered. My children are the respective parents of my delightful harem of seven granddaughters. In any event, none of the women in our family has had or even thought about having an abortion, so your speculation about changing my opinion is purely hypothetical.

            Isn’t the monster in Cleveland, OH, the one who imprisoned three young women for 10 years being charged with murder because he’d terminated the pregnancies of one of them by repeatedly punching her in the stomach until she’d auto-aborted, thereby illegally taking the lives of the fetuses?

            We’ll never know how far along in her pregnancies she was — unless she wants to tell us. — but if murder is being charged, as I believe it to be, it appears that Ohio law considers a fetus to a human being no matter how long it’s been developing. I’ll check into this and get back to you whether I’m correct or not.

          • cjvg

            None of the women in your family would tell you if they had one,
            You have been very forthcoming about your disregard for the life, health or emotional needs of any female!

            So your delightful harem of grand daughters and their parents are very aware that their daughters would be required to carry to term any pregnancy that ensued even if they were 11 years old and it would endanger their life, or if it was from a rape!

            You would never be informed if any of your (grand) daughters would have needed an abortion just so you could not traumatize and brutalize the girl!

            I have some “delightful” self righteous men like you in my own extended family who claim the exact same thing while I know for a fact that they are wrong!

          • Navy5717th

            You, whoever you are, don’t have a clue about the women in my family, but you’ve given us a good glimpse into your twisted mind with this insulting and ignorant posting.

            Who said that my granddaughters would have to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of the circumstances. Not me. YOU did and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t try to put *your* words and thoughts into someone else’s mind.

            Look in a mirror if you want to see “Wrong” and, come to think of it, “self righteous”! You might add “smug” to those endearing qualities.

            You typify the rage of the harridans who represent the “Pro-Choice” movement’s leadership.

            Pitiful.

          • ephena

            Sir, you are putting words in the mouths of the women in your family when you say none of them have ever considered an abortion. You would probably not know if they had, and I think that was the point the person responding to you was making. You are speaking for all the women you are related to, and there is a lot we don’t know about the people we love. If some sister, or aunt, or cousin, had secretly considered ending a pregnancy, chances are they wouldn’t bring it up at the thanksgiving table. You just don’t know for sure what is in the minds of autonomous human beings, and it is unfair for you to think you can. I’m glad that your granddaughters would not be subjected to the horror that this kind of legislation pretty much ensures, but the choice should always be theirs – to carry a fetus to term or not. That’s the whole point of choice. You should be able to choose to endanger your life for your fetus if you want, but no one should be able to force you to do that.

          • Navy5717th

            Ephena, Read what I said in my previous response to cvjg. I know ALL of them — very well. I also know my sons a better than you could hope to.

            I shouldn’t tell you this but I’m going to.

            My daughter presented us with my first granddaughter. She and her husband tried and tried but couldn’t have another child. My sons, in order of age, all became fathers — because they wanted to and their wives wanted to become mothers. The eldest and his wife had two girls. They decided that was all they wanted and he had a vasectomy. The youngest of the three and his wife have had three beautiful girls, but before they could do so he had to have an operation to correct something in his internal reproductive organs. They’ve decided that three is enough.

            My son could’ve been of great assistance to one of the Pro-Choice movement’s most celebrated heroines, the pitiful, unturthful, Sandra Fluke. He knows exactly what birth control pills cost and where to get ‘me. He buys hers at CVS. (There’s one near Sandra.)

            My second son and his wife desperately wanted to become parents, but she had had ovarian cance rin the past and had lost an ovary in the process. They tried all sorts of things, but she just couldn’t get pregnant. Finally,through a wonderful program called Snow Flakes, they adopted ten frozen embryos. Their OB/GYN implanted the one that he believed had the best chance of ‘taking” … and it did.The result was our seventh granddaughter – born prematurely at the beginning of her 26th week. She’s two now and having more fun that a baby should have.

            With that information I think that you and the others who insist that I don’t “really know” the women in my family and whether they’ve had an abortion, or even considered having one, are DEAD WRONG.

            You’ll probably sneer at this but they’re all devout, practicing Christians. They’re all college graduate, two with Masters degrees.

            Btw, the latest Pro-Choice “bright light” in Texas claimed on a Sunday TV program that there are some women who reach their twentieth week without knowing their pregnant. Is that possible? Yes but it’s highly unlikely, but any woman who makes this claim is totally unrepresentative of any of the many women I’ve known in my life.

          • cjvg

            Ah name calling, always the first resort of those who do not like having the reality of their own words pointed out to them!
            What a wonderfully eloquent argument your name calling makes, in rebuttal of the realities created by your self-righteous and ignorant assumptions about the females in your family.

            Yes, you changed my mind, you must know everything about the private lives of all the females in your family if you can call me a smug self-righteous harridan for taking your own statements at face value!

            However, I beg to differ you most certainly did say so yourself: “none of the women in our family has had or even thought about having an abortion, so your speculation about changing my opinion is purely hypothetical”

            You are extremely clear about the fact that you would never change your mind and that no female in your family will ever have an abortion so you did not need to change your mind!!

            I know it is not pleasant to have your nose pressed hard against your own inhumane and ignorant demands of the females in your family. Without a doubt the females in your family are also very aware of how low you rate the importance of their health, life and emotional wellbeing when it would involve the need of an abortion for them!

            Do not blame me for your attitude and what that really means for the females in your family, that is all you!
            Own it, after all you have been bragging about it, and judging others for their need of an abortion, the whole time until I pointed out that you are absolutely clueless and will remain so.

            Every female in your life who has, or will ever find herself in this position, will avoid confiding in you like the plague!

          • Navy5717th

            ^^^^^^^ The angry rage of a one-note harridan: Q.E.D.

            Talk about name calling, you ought to check your mirror before you go accusing others of it.

            How do you know that I have any of the attitudes you’ve incorrectly ascribed to me? The answer is YOU DON’T.

            Let me put it to you this way:

            NONE of the females in my life has ever had an abortion. That is a FACT!!

            Nobody can predict the future, but I can make a pretty educated guess that knowing my granddaughters as well as I do, it’s highly probable that none of them will ever have one.

            Who have I judged about having an abortion? Don’t bother to answer ’cause I won’t read it.

            Enough of this … You can rant and rave all you like. I won’t be reading it.

            Ah, permit me a PS: Remember the monster up in Ohio who’d imprisoned the three girls for 10 years and repeatedly raped them and got one pregnant six times? He’s been charged with MURDER for beating and starving her so that she aborted a dead fetus. In your world, he could only be charged with aggravated assault and battery, but not murder, because the fetus isn’t a life.

          • cjvg

            Hey, I did not start it, but if you wish to dish it out you better be able to take it without your whinny disingenuous indignation at being treated like you treat others!

            I do not need to use name calling to make a point as my previous post from before you started your little rant clearly shows!
            However I have no objections to returning your rude behavior back to you.

            It does clearly show that you have no arguments other then immediate use of name calling and accusations of “anger” on my part although I am clearly not the one who can not control themselves!

            You have judged everyone who defended the right of women to have a choice as demanding a right that they do not need because “none of the women in my family have had an abortion”

          • cjvg

            He aborted fetus’s after the point of viability were a legal abortion is no longer available.

            I have always maintained that no abortion should be available at that point unless the mothers live is in danger

            But hey, do not let reality get in the way of your “righteous” indignation and your believes that you are making an “honest” argument

      • http://www.awaypoint.wordpress.com Valerie Tarico

        Great resource. Thank you for sharing!

        • fiona64

          My pleasure.

      • jennyschecter

        This needs to be shared more and across more sites. They need to recognize their own hypocrisy and why, as a result, there is so little credibility in the things they claim

    • Mel

      Exactly! That’s such a common argument (“uh, well, if she wanted to abort, she shoulda done it ‘fore now.”) This mindset completely ignores the very real and tragic reality of fetal anomalies and dying women.

    • Debbie Peters

      My mom is super anti-abortion. My sister in law got in a car accident and found out she was 5 weeks pregnant. Due to injuries from the accident her doctor told her that there was a 90% chance she and the baby would die if she did not have an abortion. Well, she had a 6 year old at home and her and her husband decided to have the abortion and get her tubes tied. My mother thinks that my sister in law should have taken the risk of having the baby, with a 90% chance of fetal and maternal dealth. My sister in law is not welcome at any family gatherings any longer. My mother then went and told my other niece and nefews how my sister in law thinks that it is okay to kill people and will start lecturing these children about all of her evil ways.
      So, point, no these people dont always want their family to have an abortion.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1257141251 Amanda Hearn

        That is profoundly terrible. I am so sorry for your sister-in-law.

      • sweetreat

        How very judgmental of your mother. So sad that she took a personal problem and told others a private painful choice that they made. Not her story to tell.

        I would disown her and make sure your brother had not one thing to do with her. But that is just me.

        • Mr_Cris

          They murdered her grandchild.

          • Nagaina

            Her son saved the life of his wife and the mother of their six year old.

          • sweetreat

            They saved the life of a woman who would have died without it and her living child needed her more. It was a no brainer.

          • Mr_Cris

            You’ll never kwow if she would have died. That’s mere speculation.

          • sweetreat

            Because I trust that doctors understand the fragility of the body and the limits that she could go through, not some judgmental male who has not a chance of getting preggers.

          • goatini

            Let’s see, who do I trust? A board-certified physician, or an imaginary friend who you think performs magic tricks?

          • Devi

            I’d rather not take the risk nor would I ever deny a woman her opportunity to dodge a potential fatal bullet, thank you very much. Plus there’s kind of a range of post-pregnancy outcomes from “perfectly healthy” to “dead as a doorknob” and I certainly would never want to wind up on one of the lower rungs if I didn’t have to.

          • InspiredSmiles

            Savita Halappanavar died because she was not given an abortion. Oh yeah, her fetus died too. Two deaths when one of them could have been prevented.

          • Nor

            You’ll never know if the fetus wouldn’t have spontaneously miscarried at any point during the pregnancy. It’s mere speculation there even would have been a baby.

            And it’s fun that you think the best way to find out if someone is going to die of injuries from a terrible car accident is to just wait and see/go against all medical advice.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You’ll never know if the fetus wouldn’t have spontaneously miscarried at any point during the pregnancy.”

            I agree. And if the life of the mother is at risk and the unborn child will not survive then it is justified.

            “It’s mere speculation there even would have been a baby.”

            A fetus *is* a baby.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I suppose she would’ve rather had a dead daughter? And the fetus would’ve died as well because it would’ve been non-viable. Is two deaths really pro-life?

          • Mr_Cris

            There are always two sides of every story.
            Abortion never saves the life of the mother. This is a well known scientific fact. If it would save her and the child could not be saved then it would be justified. But I don’t believer this was the case. Her doctor was lying to her.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, it is not a well-known scientific fact–simply stating your opinion as fact does not make it so. And what possible motive would the doctor have for lying to her? This pregnancy was only five weeks along and non-viable. Your position makes absolutely no sense.

          • Mr_Cris

            I admit it is not well-know. Because the pro-abortion people distort the facts. But it is a fact. Delibirate ending of the life of a pre-born child is never neccessary to save the life of the mother. Name one example.

          • BlueTigress

            See above stories and the article.

          • fiona64

            Done already. But, hey … that would require you to be smart enough to understand the words.

          • fiona64

            Then why did you say it was a “well-known scientific fact”?

            Oh, wait! You said that because you’re a big fat liar!

          • Mr_Cris

            It is well-known by rational people. Not by foolish feminists.

          • fiona64

            No, sweetie. You said it was a “well-known scientific fact,” which would mean that everyone would know it. The only people who seem to know your “well-known scientific facts” are dumb-assed anti-choice science deniers.

            Sort of like the guy you see in your mirror each morning.

          • Mr_Cris

            I was wrong you were right. Sorry.

          • Valde

            Yet you can’t prove it.

          • Nor

            Citations please.

          • fiona64

            Abortion never saves the life of the mother. This is a well known scientific fact.

            It is no such thing. “Because I say so” is not a source. In fact, so far as I can tell, your source is your backside, or the National Enquirer.

            http://www.usatoday dot com/story/news/nation/2012/10/19/abortion-mother-life-walsh/1644839/

            Quote:

            The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement saying: “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.”

            Conditions that might lead to ending a pregnancy to save a woman’s life include severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia, a condition in which a woman develops very high blood pressure and is at risk for stroke, says Erika Levi, a obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

            But, hey, Mr. Cris — don’t let medical reality get in the way of your woman-hating.

          • goatini

            “Abortion never saves the life of the mother. This is a well known scientific fact.” Well, NO, it most emphatically is NOT anything of the kind. And those who attempt to catapult this lying propaganda are usually fundamentalist Roman Catholics. Like Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix, and his lying sycophants.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re a mother-killing lying pedophile!

          • Mr_Cris

            Why should being pro-life make me a pedophile?
            And you call yourself HeilMary? You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • Nor

            Were you there?

          • HeilMary1

            Not to mention the bankrupting hospital, disability and funeral bills!

          • Nor

            They saved the life of her daughter.

  • Lynnsey

    These are the bills that gall me the most on a personal level. I’ve never had an abortion, but what I have had is a fetal echocardiogram in each of my pregnancies to rule out the very small possibility that the fetus I was carrying was missing too much of its heart to survive. They were both done at 20 weeks as the window for determining this is quite small (fetus is small enough, heart is large enough). As my (physical) health wouldn’t be in any more danger than with a normal pregnancy, these laws would force me to carry to term a pregnancy that would never result in a living baby to the detriment of my mental health and my ability to care for my family. These are decisions that my family and my doctor should be making, not my Congressman.

    • fiona64

      And that is why I say that these politicians are practicing medicine without a license.

    • jp

      Would your mental and emotional health really be all that better off losing your baby at 20 weeks vs full term? I have a friend who was told that their baby had a serious heart defect and most likely wouldn’t survive. They chose to hold out and have the baby anyway. Their son was born completely healthy. If they had aborted they would have missed out on their beautiful little boy. Doctors make mistakes. And God still performs miracles. We shouldn’t be playing God and making his decisions for Him

      • Lynnsey

        I know people who decided to carry to term a pregnancies they knew were not viable. I have nothing but respect for their choice, but that’s what it was…a choice. One that should be between a woman and her family and her medical advisers. If they believe in God, then they can even include Him, I suppose. I, on the other hand, don’t need your imaginary friend involved in my medical decisions.

        In our case, there’s a big difference between a severe heart defect (which a member of our family actually has) and the defect we could potentially find in a fetus which is always incompatible with life. You, like so many others, casually dismiss a reality that we have actually faced because your friend’s completely different situation turned out positively. Perhaps you should reflect on that prior to doing it to others. It’s incredibly presumptuous to read someone’s personal story and then insist that they’re wrong because God! or ‘your friend’ some such nonsense.

        To answer your question then, yes. Yes, it would be worse to spend 15 to 20 weeks being congratulated by unwitting and well-meaning strangers and acquaintances on my pregnancy knowing that it would never result in an actual baby (a baby I would want, by the way) than it would to just terminate an non-viable pregnancy By far. People who know me would not consider me to be an overly emotional person, but the thought of that is terrifying and I have no desire to risk my health (mental or physical) and my ability to care for my actual children because some people are ignorant and self-righteous about abortion.

  • xyzlo

    The life of the living is equally, if not more important than the un-born. I believe it to be a doctor-patient issue and not the government. I think, if it requires law (which I oppose) it should be voted on by only women, I also believe the father of the fetus should have an equal say, if he so desires. Except when the life of the mother is at stake. Then, hers alone.

    • steph

      He gets an equal say when they can pull the fetus out of my body and let him carry it around. Until then, I’m the one risking my life.

    • sandra

      It would break my heart if my son were to get his girlfriwnd pregnant and her family gives him no say. it takes a man and a woman to create life and to pretend the father has no opinion and deserves no say is equally discriminating against fathers as discrimination women fought against.

      • BlueTigress

        Ideally, your son and his lady would discuss how to proceed should she become pregnant. I agree that men should have a say, but not all men are good people and ultimately it is the woman who has to deal with the pregnancy, so her word should be final.

        • sandra

          Yeah, and I would maybe feel that way if it were one of my daughters, especially if the guy had no future and no interest. But my son? He’s a stand up guy. Young. Not ready to be that responsible, but if he were involved in the act and not using protection, he’s just as responsible, and if he wanted us to help him raise the baby, I think he should have something to say about it. You know? I get that it’s her body. It’s definitely an emotional issue. There are good points on every side. I don’t think I’m going to change anyone’s mind, and that’s ok with me. I know women who have been 20+ weeks along and found out the baby was not going to survive, and they had heart wrenching choices to make. I can’t judge that. I won’t. I was lucky enough to have had four healthy pregnancies and raised four kids who are contributing members of society (the son is still in college, but he’s a good kid.) So I have compassion and empathy for those women. I do not know what I would do if that had been my situation. You don’t know what you don’t know.

          • Valde

            Perhaps your son should only sleep with women who have pro-life views instead of finding out AFTER he has impregnated someone.

          • sandra

            Perhaps.

    • Mr_Cris

      You you think men don’t have the right to vote on abortion laws?
      You are denying mens rights. You are a men-hating femenist.

      • BlueTigress

        Given that pretty much ALL abortion laws are not put on the ballot for the public to vote on and the state legislatures are male-dominated, what are you complaining about?

        • fiona64

          I think he’s pissed that women are allowed to have *shoes,* let alone contraception …

      • fiona64

        In which of your medical decisions should I be allowed to interfere? You are a misogynistic asshole.

        See? i can do it, too.

        • Valde

          I love it when guys who can’t even spell tell women what to do with their bodies.

        • Mr_Cris

          In all involving killing a preborn child. Name-calling makes you weak.

          • fiona64

            First of all, outside your fevered imaginings, there is no such thing as a “pre-born child.” Secondly, it’s kind of a laugh for you to chastise me or anyone else after calling a poster a “man-hating femenist [sic].”

            Now, answer the question: in which of your medical decisions should I be allowed to interfere.

          • Mr_Cris

            Calling a men-hating feminist a men-hating feminist is not name-calling.

          • Ella Warnock

            Sure it is.

          • fiona64

            Well, then, neither is calling a misogynistic asshole a misogynistic asshole.

            And you still haven’t answered the question: in which of your medical decisions should I be allowed to interfere?

          • goatini

            I don’t see any men-hating feminists here.

            I do see at least one man hating feminists here.

          • goatini

            No such thing as a “preborn child”.

          • Mr_Cris

            What do you call a human right before they are born?

          • fiona64

            A fetus.

          • Ella Warnock

            Name calling, huh? Oh, like when you called someone a men hating “femenist.” I don’t know if a femenist is anything like a feminist, though.

          • Mr_Cris

            Well you are the one who is denying men equal rights.

          • Ella Warnock

            Men have plenty of rights that they can exercise before they create children. They can make sure that they marry or sleep with only pro-life women, for example. Pro-life men need to take responsibility for their own reproduction and sexuality.

            If he’s never had that conversation with a woman, then when she’s knocked up and not thrilled about it it’s far too late to make demands based on things he never bothered to learn about her in the first place.

          • Mr_Cris

            I agree. The same holds true for women. Women who don’t want children shouldn’t have sex. That would make the demand for abortion drop. The world would be a better place.

          • Ella Warnock

            I haven’t ever said I didn’t want men voting on abortion laws.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m sorry. I was stupid and confused you with someone else.
            I take back my accusation.

          • fiona64

            We’re sorry you were stupid, too.

          • fiona64

            Women who don’t want children shouldn’t have sex.

            Well, congratulations. You finally came out and said what you actually meant. It really is all about controlling women’s sexuality. Why, how *dare* some woman want to have sex without simultaneously wanting to breed?

          • Mr_Cris

            Funny how you feminists always play the victim card.
            I never claimed to want to control womens sexuality. I just want neither women nor men choosing to have sex when they don’t want children. That’s equal treatment. But you don’t want equal treatment. You want women to be served as gods. So only women can decide who lives and who dies. Your child-sacrificing religion called feminism is evil.

          • Valde

            Of course, it’s only the woman who ‘pay the price’ for having sex.

            IN your world, sex is a crime for which only women are punished.

            That much is clear.

          • Mr_Cris

            I never said that men shouldn’t take responsibility.
            And who is talking about punishment? Or is having a child a punishment according to you?
            Stop putting words in my mouth.

          • Valde

            Men can’t die from pregnancy as a result of sex.

            Men’s lives are not disrupted if they have a pregnancy, as a result of sex.

            You want to use forced pregnancy as a punishment for women daring to have the same sexual freedom as men. Women should not be able to just walk away after having sex – they should be forced to remain pregnant so they can learn a lesson!

            The lesson being that women are not equals, and that female sexuality is evil.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Men can’t die from pregnancy as a result of sex.”

            Yes they can and have died from pregnancy. If a man gets the wrong girl pregnant he can get into jail or get lynched.

            “Men’s lives are not disrupted if they have a pregnancy, as a result of sex.”

            Men’s lives are effected tremendously by pregnancy. There lives change. Their body change because of hormones. You read that right. Men’s bodies change as a result of pregnancy. Pregnant women release pheromones that trigger hormones that lower testosterone of their spouses by 30%.

            “You want to use forced pregnancy”

            There is no such thing. Unless you mean rape.

            “daring to have the same sexual freedom as men”

            Men shouldn’t have that same freedom either. Women should not use bad men as an example.

            “they should be forced to remain pregnant ”

            You can’t force a woman to remain pregnant. That happens naturally. No forcing. Abortion is forcing, not birth.

            “The lesson being that women are not equals, and that female sexuality is evil.”

            Female sexuality is not evil. Abortion is evil. And that evil is committed by both men and women.

          • Valde

            “Yes they can and have died from pregnancy. If a man gets the wrong girl pregnant he can get into jail or get lynched.”

            citation needed

            “Men’s lives are effected tremendously by pregnancy.”

            citation needed

            “There is no such thing. Unless you mean rape.”

            forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is forced pregnancy

            “Men shouldn’t have that same freedom either. Women should not use bad men as an example”

            A man can walk away from sex, so no, men have all the freedom in the world when abortion is banned.

            “Female sexuality is not evil.”

            You are the one who thinks female sexuality should be punished with forced pregnancy.

          • Mr_Cris

            “citation needed”

            Ask any father.

            “forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is forced pregnancy”

            No it isn’t. We obviously have a different definition of force.
            It is like calling not strangling a person is forcing them to breathe.

            “men have all the freedom in the world when abortion is banned.”

            Just because some men behave like scumbags doesn’t mean every woman should be allowed to do the same. Neither should abandon their responsibilities.

            “You are the one who thinks female sexuality should be punished with forced pregnancy.”

            No do not think that. Stop twisting my words.

          • Valde

            “Ask any father”

            Even the ones who knock the woman up then leave? They can be affected from living thousands of miles away? lulz

            Besides, that is a relativley minor effect and can’t kill or maim the guy. sorry. You lose.

            Forcing a woman to remain pregnant is indeed…forcing them to do something against their will.

            “Just because some men behave like scumbags doesn’t mean every woman
            should be allowed to do the same. Neither should abandon their
            responsibilities.”

            Doesn’t change the reality that women get stuck with something that can maim and kill them, while the man gets to walk away. Your perfect world where men ‘should’ not abandon their ‘responsiblities’ doesn’t exist. Also, even if the man does stick around, it’s not is health and life on the line.

            “No do not think that. Stop twisting my words.”

            No one is twisting your words. You believe that sex without the intent to procreate is some sort of crime, a crime for which ONLy women must be punished.

            You know as well as anyone here that men can walk away from sex while a woman cannot, because of pregnancy. And that women’s liberation and contraception + abortion give women the same rights as men in regards to sex – and you can’t handle that.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You believe that sex without the intent to procreate is some sort of crime”
            I never said it was a crime. Nor that it is immoral. Though it can be immoral in some circumstances. But that is besides the point. I just don’t want tax money to be spend on recreation.

          • Valde

            Well if you are Dutch as you claim , your tax money is already spent on *extensive* sex ed, contraception and even abortions…in your country.

            So, as a dutch man living in the Netherlands, why are you s so concerned about how American tax dollars are spent?

          • Mr_Cris

            Why do you think I want to leave my country? Because the Netherlands has legalized abortion, euthanasia, drugs, prostitution, homosexual marriage, etc.

          • Valde

            uh huh

          • fiona64

            You suddenly became “Dutch” after the Lifesitenews article on euthanasia. As you are perfectly aware, we have legalized abortion, prostitution (in certain locations) and gay marriage here, too.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Those things have been legal for quite some time now–probably before you were born. You’re only just noticing this? Or perhaps you just recently read it in an article about the Netherlands. You’re terrible at pretending to be Dutch, Cris.

          • fiona64

            A Dutch man who uses words like “scumbag.”

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • Jennifer Starr

            I can’t think of any incident in my lifetime where a man has ever been lynched or put in jail for getting ‘the wrong girl pregnant’, and I’m fairly sure I’m older than you. A man can get up and walk away from a pregnancy any time he wishes. A woman can’t do the same.

          • Mr_Cris

            “A woman can’t do the same.”
            Unfortunately both can.

          • Valde

            No, both can’t

            The woman still has to get the abortion.

            And pregnancy IS a medical condition, whether you admit it or not.

          • Mr_Cris

            Abortion is walking away from it.
            It is a medical condition, but not a decease.

          • Ella Warnock

            Decease? That’s a Freudian slip . . .

          • Mr_Cris

            No it isn’t.

          • Ella Warnock

            So you meant it doesn’t cause one to be deceased? Or that it isn’t a disease.

            At any rate, it’s not the fondest wish of every woman. Some of us are massively disinterested. That’s what tubal ligations are for.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, actually, it was. Women do indeed become deceased every day, all over the world, due to pregnancy.

            Homophone problems, buddy?

          • Jennifer Starr

            That is a classic Freudian slip. And that’s what you and other so-called ‘pro-lifers’ want. Deceased women.

          • fiona64

            How is “no sex unless you want children” anything but trying to control people’s (there, are you satisfied now?) sexuality?

            Just one more choice you don’t get to make for me.

          • Mr_Cris

            Because control requires force. I simply share my opinion. Not forcing women not to have sex.
            So it is quite clear I really didn’t mean to control women’s sexuality.
            Just one more word you cannot put in my mouth.

          • fiona64

            I’ll take “Mr. Cris is deliberately obtuse” for $2000, Alex …

          • Valde

            I think he’s trolling.

            I’ve met a few pro-life trolls – they think they are doing ‘the lords work’ by being stupid in front of pro-choicers.

          • fiona64

            The thought has crossed my mind. However, as people often read without posting, I am more than willing to counter his (or anyone else’s ::coughcoughcalvincoughcough::) bullshit with facts for the edification of those folks.

            Until, of course, I start to feeling like a predator playing with its food. It does become a little wearisome after a while to see the same old crap trotted out time after time.

            This one is at least honest enough to say that he believes women should be executed if they have abortions: he exposes the true underbelly of the anti-choice movement with every word.

          • Valde

            “Because control requires force. I simply share my opinion. Not forcing women not to have sex.”

            However, you believe that rapists have the right to force sex and pregnancy onto little girls, even if it kills and maims them.

            In fact, you think such little girls are BETTER OFF for having been impregnated by the rapist.

          • Mr_Cris

            “you believe that rapists have the right to force sex”
            No I don’t.

            “In fact, you think such little girls are BETTER OFF for having been impregnated by the rapist.”

            No I don’t. In fact I think it is worse. But the unborn child is not the problem. You make the unborn child the scape goat. Abortion doesn’t prevent rape. It doesn’t prevent pregnancy. In fact it probably causes more abuse and pregnancies.

          • Valde

            Backpedaling again.

            You said the little girl should be happy to be pregnant.

            And you also think the little girl should just suck it up and deal with any disaiblity as a result of the pregnancy – because in your mind, rapist sperm has more right to the little kid’s body than she does.

          • Mr_Cris

            Could you quote me please? I never said she should “just suck it”.
            If I said she should be happy to be pregnant I take back those words.
            I don’t remember writing that. I meant to say she should be happy to have a child.

          • Valde

            Yes, and therefore, she should be happy to be pregnant, and happy to have been raped, and happy to even go blind or become disabled as a result of the pregnancy.

            Because in your mind, the rapist has done her a favour.

            Because in your fevered imagination, pregnancy and having a baby are ALWAYS GOOD.

            Like I said, you should rape some little girls Mr_Cris, just think of how much JOY you can bring them when they find out they are pregnant.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Yes, and therefore, she should be happy to be pregnant, and happy to have been raped, and happy to even go blind or become disabled as a result of the pregnancy”
            No that doesn’t make any sense.
            If someone kills a million innocent people and one of those million would have killed a close friend of yours, then you should be happy your friend is alive but not happy that those million died.
            If you are happy about a result it doesn’t mean you are happy about the cause.

          • Valde

            “If you are happy about a result it doesn’t mean you are happy about the cause.”

            No, happy about the result means you are happy about the cause BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE SHE IS NOW BETTER OFF AFTER HAVING BEEN RAPED AND IMPREGNATED.

          • Mr_Cris

            Well that is not logical.
            Lets say I shoot you in the leg. You stumble. And a result you don’t get hit by a car that would have hit you otherwise. You are happy about the result, because you are alive. But you are not happy about the cause. I could have yelled at you or have pushed you.
            I never claimed she was better of.

          • Valde

            Well, you don’t seeem to care if she ends up disabled – you think the forced pregnancy is worth it because she will get a baby that she will probably have to give up for adoption because she’s only 11.

            However, you still think she should be very pleased to be a ‘mother’, as you put it.

            And as you said ‘rape can lead to good things’.

            And no, your analogy is grossly imperfect considering the fact that the rape and the pregnancy are not saving her life – it is terrorizing her and causing her to be disabled and quite possibly DEAD.

          • fiona64

            Let’s say you present an actual argument instead of another stupid straw man …

          • Valde

            Perhaps Mr_Cris is advocating that people be routinely shot in the leg to lower the # of car accidents?

          • L-dan

            Why should she be happy to have a child she didn’t want?

            Even leaving aside how gross it is to require someone violated by rape to undergo the continuing violation of their bodily autonomy that an unwanted pregnancy entails, why should she be remotely happy to have a child that she didn’t want?

            Assuming she survives, her health will be damaged, that’s pretty much certain. You can’t take all those nutrients from a growing child’s body without paying a price. You can’t make it bear the weight and strain of a pregnancy without price. Why would anyone find it moral to force her to bear those phyisical and mental costs after already bearing the violation of rape? Because the rights of a barely formed potential person are considered greater than hers?

            Bullshit.

          • fiona64

            He finds it moral because he (and I quote) believes that the uterus belongs to the fetus, not the female person around it. “What do you think it is, a landing pad for a space ship?” quoth he.

          • L-dan

            Ugh. Right. Because the vagina, being made to accommodate penises, means that I should be fine with any Peter, Dick, or Tallywhacker that slips in there. Am I right? /sarcasm

            Just because parts of the body are ‘made for’ interacting with other
            bodies, does not negate the rights of a person to decide how and when that interaction happens, yeesh. I still don’t get how this is remotely difficult to understand. Even for someone of his apparently tender age.

          • Valde

            Mr_Cris doesn’t care if the girl ends up permanently disabled as a result of the pregnancy.

            As long as she doesn’t outright die, any sacrifice is acceptable, in his opinion.

            Little kids who become pregnant as a result of rape should be quite pleased to have a brave hero such as Mr_Cris on their side, defending their rights!

          • fiona64

            If I said she should be happy to be pregnant I take back those words. I don’t remember writing that. I meant to say she should be happy to have a child.

            She’s a child herself, you sick jerk. She was raped. She doesn’t have to be “happy” about anything that happened because of that.

            Your “shoulds” are disgusting.

          • Valde

            If she is happy to have a child, then by extension she is happy to be pregnant, and happy to have been raped.

            Because bad things can have good outcomes

            Therefore, the pregnancy and the rape are gifts, gifts that keep on giving in fact.

            And even if the girl becomes permanently disabled as a result of the pregnancy, well that’s fine too, because it’s part of the ‘gift’ of the pregnancy and birth.

          • Mr_Cris

            I want all children to be loved, wanted and cherished. I don’t think that is disgusting at all.

          • fiona64

            And, since this little girl is pregnant, you think she should love, want or cherish the fetus that is likely to kill her. The fetus that is there because she was *raped.*

            And that, little rape apologist boy, is why your ridiculous “she should be happy to have a chlid [sic]“ is so very disgusting.

          • Mr_Cris

            “she should love, want or cherish the fetus that is likely to kill her.”

            Again. If her life is at risk I believe abortion is justified.

          • fiona64

            As the fact that her life is endangered has been explained to you repeatedly, why do you keep clinging to your nonsensical assertions like “a rape can bring good things” or “she should be happy to have a child” or “having an abortion after rape just covers up the evidence”?

          • Mr_Cris

            Why is it nonsensical to acknowledge tragedies can lead to good things?

          • fiona64

            This little girl was raped. Her life is in danger because of the resulting pregnancy. None of this is a good thing — as has been explained to you repeatedly. And yet you say “she should be happy to have a child.”

            Only undereducated children need to have the same information explained to them repeatedly.

          • Mr_Cris

            You didn’t answer my question.

          • Valde

            If it isn’t good for the girl (and it isn’t), then it is not a good thing.

          • Mr_Cris

            Tragedies lead to multiple things. Some of those things can be good. Those good things neither negate the tragedy nor justify it.
            Rape is a is a bad thing. Pregnancy after rape is a bad thing. Injury after pregnancy is a bad thing. But a newborn child is a good thing.

          • Valde

            Not if it’s unwanted.

            Not if it’s going to suffer.

            And not at the expense of a little girl who is most likely to die or become seriously injured as a result of what you want to force on her.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Not if it’s unwanted.”

            Every child is wanted.

            “Not if it’s going to suffer.”

            Agreed.

            “then ‘too bad’.”

            I never wrote that.

            “Clearly, you do not believe harm is a bad thing if the victim is a pregnant 11 year old victim of rape.”

            I believe everything should be done to ensure that the mother and the child get the best care available. If the mothers life is at risk I believe abortion is justified. But if the health of the mother is at risk I don’t believe abortion is justified.

          • Valde

            You have 0 compassion for the girl, and to you she is nothing more than an incubator.

            You could care less if she goes blind, develops diabetes, or is stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.

            The only thing you have compassion for is the fetus – to you the fetus is a person, and the little girl is nothing more than an object to be used.

            You are a rape apologist, whether you admit it or not. And you do not regard women as fully human, if you did, you would have some shred of compassion for this little girl – and you do not.

          • Mr_Cris

            If men could get pregnant I would still be pro-life.

          • Valde

            But they can’t so your point is moot.

            And even if you were telling the truth, that would still mean you support slavery.

          • Valde

            “If men could get pregnant I would still be pro-life”

            Can’t help but notice that you tried to delete that comment.

            Pray tell why sweetie?

          • fiona64

            Every child is wanted.

            Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of kids who “age out” of the foster care system every year without ever having been adopted.

            But if the health of the mother is at risk I don’t believe abortion is justified.

            More practicing medicine without a license …

          • Valde

            Rape can bring good things – Mr_Cris said

            She should be happy to be having child – Mr_Cris said

            She is an incubator – Mr_Cris said

          • Valde

            You are not cherishing this little girl by treating her like an incubator.

            You are not loving or cherishing this little girl by stating that you don’t give a shit if the pregnancy injures her severely.

          • Mr_Cris

            “by treating her like an incubator.”
            She is.

          • Valde

            Yes, females are nothing more than incubators in Mr_Cris mind.

            Not even deserving of human rights – they are just containers.

            Hey, didn’t you say earlier that you were not treating her like a container, but we were?

            lulz

          • Mr_Cris

            “Yes, females are nothing more than incubators ”
            I never wrote that.

            You are denying the fact that she is the mother of a unborn child.

          • Valde

            You are denying the fact that she is a person.

          • Mr_Cris

            She is a person.

          • Valde

            No, she is an incubator.

            Your words.

          • Mr_Cris

            She is both.

          • Valde

            Kind of like a slave is a person and a slave at the same time?

            Logic fail sweetie.

          • Mr_Cris

            A slave indeed is a person. Or are you not only denying the humanity of unborn children but the humanity of slaves as well?

          • Valde

            You have stated that the girl is an incubator.

            You are denying her humanity and treating her as if she were a slave.

            In your mind, she is not a person, merely a container for the fetus – which is a person.

          • Mr_Cris

            Slavery isn’t always a bad thing.

          • Valde

            Right.

            So rape and slavery aren’t always bad things.

            And little girls are incubators not people.

            Thanks for confirming your despicable beliefs.

          • Mr_Cris

            Rape is always a bad thing.
            There are different types of slavery. Some are moral. Some are immoral.
            Women are incubators and men are inseminators. We are objects. We are a bunch of cells. But we are also men and women created in the image of God.

          • Valde

            Forcing a little girl to undergo a pregnancy that could kill and maim her = moral slavery in your view.

            You are so fucked up it isn’t even funny.

          • Valde

            OH, I forgot to add, you also think that animal torture is not always immoral.

          • Mr_Cris

            In a nonsensical though experiment it can sometimes be seen as a lesser of two evils. I never said it was not immoral.

          • goatini

            When he can gestate for at least half of the nine months, let me know.

      • Ella Warnock

        Oh lawd, not that old straw man. Jebus, Cris, come up with something original.

        • Mr_Cris

          Why should I care about the originality of my comment?

          • Ella Warnock

            I’m assuming you want to be taken seriously. But then again, given your worn-out rhetoric, perhaps you don’t.

          • Mr_Cris

            But I’m right that’s what matters.

          • Ella Warnock

            If you say so.

          • fiona64

            You keep telling yourself that, sweetie. ;;pats head:: Now, why don’t you go color while the grown-ups talk?

          • fiona64

            On the other hand, you haven’t said anything original yet. it’s just the same old crap that amounts to “if you don’t want a baby, keep your legs shut.”

          • Mr_Cris

            Why is that ‘crap’? It makes perfect sense to me.
            Science has shown that sex outside marriage permanently rewires the brain.

          • Valde

            Actually, it’s been shown, evolutionarily, that ‘sleeping around’ is completely natural, and in many ways good for the species.

            And that women, especially, are not ‘naturally’ monogamous – women have the capacity – given to them by evolution – to be just as sexually liberated as men. In other words – it serves an evolutionary purpose, and would not be there if it did not.

          • Mr_Cris

            Men and women are designed to be monogamous.
            We devolved from that original design. Some people use pseudo-science as an excuse for their perverted sex acts and embrace their flaws instead of fighting it.
            Their is no such thing as being “sexually liberated”. Being “sexually liberated” means being enslaved to your perverted desires.
            So what you just wrote is the exact opposite of the truth.

          • Valde

            Wrong.

            Throughout most of history people have been polyamorous.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are correct. But I never claimed that people weren’t.
            Our designs our corrupted. Some people choose to do the things we are designed for. Others choose to embrace their brokenness and follow the evil desires of their heart.

          • Valde

            wrong again

            evolutionarily, humans evolved to be polyamorous

          • fiona64

            You are full of more shit than a French goose. Science has shown nothing of the sort.

          • Mr_Cris

            Well it did. Thousands of years of accumulated wisdom, and common sense is confirmed by modern science. But liberals live in a bubble and only hear the science that supports what they believe in.

            It is caused by the release of oxytocin and vasopressin. Look it up.

          • fiona64

            I have news for you, sweetie. Oxytocin and vasopressin don’t know whether or not you’re married when you have sex.

            They’re just neuropeptides. The main function of oxytocin is to regulate uterine contractions during labor and to mediate lactation. Vasopressin’s main function is to help the body retain water and constrict blood vessels (i.e., homeostasis).

            They have nothing whatsoever to do with “Rewiring your brain” if you have sex outside of marriage, or within marriage, or any time at all. Nothing.

            You would think, by now, that you would stop challenging me to “look it up.” It never goes well for you.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Oxytocin and vasopressin don’t know whether or not you’re married when you have sex.”
            That’s the whole point! Because our bodies don’t automatically know when something is immoral we have to rely on our brains.

          • fiona64

            Sex is neither moral nor immoral; it’s just a biological act.

          • Mr_Cris

            So rape is not immoral?

          • Valde

            According to you, forcing a little kid to remain pregnant even if it horribly disables her is humane and loving.

          • Mr_Cris

            I never used those words. Though I believe it is the right thing to do.

          • Valde

            Yes, you believe that forcing a little girl to remain pregnant even if it horrifically disables her for life = the right thing to do.

          • Mr_Cris

            Indeed. That’s what I believe.

          • Valde

            Thanks for admitting that you view females as nothing more than livestock.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m not the one who supports putting them down for any reason.

          • Valde

            You support a rapist’s right to impregnate a girl, and you support a fetus’ right to disable that girl.

            And you don’t believe she should have a say in the matter.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You support a rapist’s right to impregnate a girl”

            No I never said that. Abortion doesn’t undo impregnation. So opposing abortion doesn’t lead to impregnation.

            “and you support a fetus’ right to disable that girl.”

            No. I support the unborn child’s right to life.

            “you don’t believe she should have a say in the matter.”

            I believe she can’t, because she is too young to understand the consequences of that decision.

          • Valde

            “I believe she can’t, because she is too young to understand the consequences of that decision.”

            Yes, and if you cut her arm off, you can’t sew it back on, because she is too young to consent to that as well.

          • L-dan

            “”and you support a fetus’ right to disable that girl.”

            No. I support the unborn child’s right to life.”

            Sorry, nobody’s right to life gives them the right to live at the cost of disabling others. I don’t get to live by commandeering needed organs from compatible donors, for example.

          • Valde

            I am sure Mr_Cris wouldn’t complain if he was kidnapped and had a kidney taken? Perhaps some bone marrow?

            And what if he needs that kidney, and is permanently disabled as a result?

            Well, he should just suck it up, like a man, because the kidanppers RIGHT TO LIFE outweighs Mr_Cris right to his own health and body.

          • Valde

            You support torturing little girls so they can give birth to rapist offspring.

          • fiona64

            Once again, we have laws not because of morality, but because of the rights of a victim to be safe and secure in their person. We have laws against rape because (just like your anti-choice stupidity) it violates the *rights of the woman.* And yes, I am fully aware that men are raped, but since we are talking about women’s health here I’m using that pronoun.

            And rape is not about sex: it is about *power and control.* Sex is merely the mechanism for said power and control.

            Stop with the stupid fucking straw men.

          • Valde

            He is awfully concerned about the rights of the fetus being violated!

            He also says that since the girl couldn’t consent to pregnancy, then she shouldn’t be able to consent to abortion either.

            Yeah, by that logic, if a little girl can’t consent to getting her arm cut off, then she can’t consent to getting it sewn back on either.

            /rolls eyes

          • Mr_Cris

            Laws are there to protect rights, because violating rights is immoral.
            Not all laws are based on moral rules. Like on which side of the road you drive.

          • fiona64

            No, dumbfuck. Laws are not about morality, no matter how many desperate stretches you make.

            You are too stupid for me to bother with any further.

          • Valde

            Part of me still thinks he is trolling.

            He said to me, earlier on that “you must be a pro-life person pretending to be pro-choice to test my debating skills.”

            That’s the kind of thing a troll would say. Often trolls will accuse you of doing exactly what they are up to.

            The thing is, and what makes this so ‘funny’, in a way, is that even if he IS trolling, the stupid shit that anti-choicers say in complete seriousness means that Mr_Cris’ statements are completely plausible.

            You think to yourself ‘no one could be this stupid’ and then you hear Todd “Legit Rape” Akin, Richard “Rape is a gift” Mourdock. Burgess of fetus masturbation fame, and Paul ‘rape is just another method of conception’ Ryan.

          • fiona64

            He tried that stupid gambit with me as well: “You agree with me, but won’t say so because you want to falsely accuse me.” And then, when I told him off, it was all about “watch your words.”

            Troll or not, he’s a dumbass.

          • Valde

            Yep, dumbass for sure.

  • SB123

    What will be the next legal ramifications to hit pregnant women? Charges that a natural termination (miscarriage) was the result of maternal negligence. Just wait, it will happen.

    • stash

      Already has. North Dakota and Mississippi have already charged women with manslaughter after stillbirths/miscarriages.

  • Babel

    A wise and sober article. That quote from Martin Luther is deeply disturbing. Where is it from? I would like a reference or source to be able to use it in my own arguments. Thanks.

    • Mel

      It’s from The Estate of Marriage (1522.) There is some scholarly argument that the quote has been taken dramatically out of context and/or not translated correctly from the original German.

      • Babel

        Thanks, Mel. I’ve found an English translation that reads thus:” If this natural function [ie, sexual desire] is
        forcibly restrained it necessarily strikes into the flesh and blood and
        becomes a poison, whence the body becomes unhealthy, enervated, sweaty,
        and foul-smelling. That which should have issued in fruitfulness and
        propagation
        has to be absorbed within the body itself. Unless there is terrific
        hunger
        or immense labour or the supreme grace, the body cannot take it; it
        necessarily
        becomes unhealthy and sickly. Hence, we see how weak and sickly barren
        women are. Those who are fruitful, however, are healthier, cleanlier,
        and
        happier. And even if they bear themselves weary, or ultimately bear
        themselves
        out that does not hurt. Let them bear themselves out. This is the
        purpose
        for which they exist. It is better to have a brief life with good
        health
        than a long life in ill health.” All in all, I read this (can’t read the original German) as essentially saying women are brood mares and if they die of pregnancy, childbirth, that’s just the natural course of events. I wonder if he had such a cavalier attitude towards other health issues which affected men, rejecting any medical intervention.

  • Third_stone

    Life begins at birth. This remains a truth regardless of what extremists claim. One cannot kill one who has not been born. One can. however, kill actual live humans in war. How can one reconcile a position anti abortion and pro war? They are opposed.

    • Diana C Tyler Workman

      “One cannot kill one who has not been born”
      …Wow. Sorry, but it is statements like this that SO put pro choice people in a bad, and ignorant light. Of course you can kill what hasnt been born. The whole point of an abortion is to kill the fetus.

      • Ella Warnock

        This statement puts pro-choice people in a truthful light. The whole point of an abortion is to end an unwanted pregnancy. I’m not overly concerned if that puts me in a “bad” light with anti-choicers, to be sure.

        • Third_stone

          So nobody responds to the point about war. Many people die. So do many of the other creatures. It is unfortunate but it will not end. War is the biggest loss of life we are able to address. Traffic deaths are one we are working on and have made progress. If you really want to do something useful, support sex education, which has been proven to reduce abortion. Raising the wages of labor could mean a lot too. Maybe we can succeed as we have against homeless ness of those already born, in which we simply make it illegal to be homeless?

          • fiona64

            Because pro-choice people must not be doing any of those things, right?

            If you’re honest, you’ll have to admit that your fellow “pro-life” travelers are most frequently anti-contraception, pro-war, pro-death penalty and “anti-big government” (unless, of course, it means snooping into some stranger’s medical decisions), which means no safety net.

        • Mr_Cris

          unwanted pregnancy is a choice.

          • Ella Warnock

            So is abortion.

          • Mr_Cris

            Both are wrong choices.

          • Ella Warnock

            According to you. I don’t think they’re wrong at all.

          • fiona64

            According to some asshole on the internet who think that women should be executed if they have abortions and tries to pretend he’s still “pro-life” …

          • fiona64

            Wrong fucking answer.

          • Mr_Cris

            What was the question? And watch your words.

          • fiona64

            My choice of words is just one more decision you don’t get to make for me.

            You do not get to decide whose medical decisions are “right” or “wrong,” any more than you get to decide what words are “right” or “wrong.”

          • Mr_Cris

            Unlike you I don’t believe in moral relativism.

          • fiona64

            No, you advocate for animal cruelty and execution of women who have abortions. Very “moral” of you.

          • Mr_Cris

            No I didn’t. I did the exact opposite.

          • Valde

            Liar.

          • Mr_Cris

            Could you quote me?

          • Valde

            In fact, unwanted pregnancy is a great thing, in Mr_Cris mind, if you are an 11 year old girl facing death and permanent injury.

          • Mr_Cris

            First of all I never claimed that unwanted pregancy is a great thing.
            Second I do support abortion in the case of life of the mother.

          • Valde

            Actually, you said that the 11 year old should be very happy to be pregnant and to be having a healthy child.

            You also said that if she ends up blind or disabled from the pregnancy – too bad – disability and blindness are nothing, in your opinion.

            You care more about the rapist fetus than about the suffering this little girl is going through.

            That much is obvious.

          • Mr_Cris

            Actually I didn’t wrote any of the thing you claim I wrote. Quote me.

          • Valde

            Yes, as usual, you deny that you said the awful things you said.

            But it’s quite clear to everyone here that you are pro-rape and pro-pregnancy for little girls.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are a resilient troll. Are you perhaps pro-life and pretending to be pro-choice to test my debating skills?

          • Valde

            RAPE APOLOGIST

        • Nor

          Most pro-choice people are anti-abortion. Wrap your head around that one.

      • Third_stone

        That statement is fact. Life beginning before birth is a religious concept which you are welcome to but it cannot be the law of the land. We do not live by Sharia, religious law.
        You do not address the second point. You are anti abortion, are you anti war?

    • sandra

      That’s simply not true. when a pregnant woman is murdered, the person is charged, as in the case of Scott Peterson, convicted, of TWO counts of murder. life begins at conception.

      • Ella Warnock

        And a woman who chooses abortion is not charged with murder as she’s . . . not committing murder. That woman’s situation has absolutely nothing to do with the Peterson case.

      • thewired1

        Laci Peterson’s pregnancy was in the late 30’s weeks (I want to say 38 weeks but don’t remember for sure) and viable outside the womb. This is why he was charged with Connor’s murder.

      • tigerrr

        Yes, Scott Peterson was convicted of two counts of murder, but that’s a separate issue. When a pregnant woman has an abortion, it’s her CHOICE. When a pregnant woman is murdered (or loses her pregnancy due to assault), that’s obviously NOT something she chose. Whether life begins at conception or not is, again, completely irrelevant to your example.

        • Mr_Cris

          You cannot murder a choice. You can only murder a human being.
          The law contradicts itself. The rights of the pre-born child
          solely depent on the mothers emotions.

          • fiona64

            No, you can only murder a person. Murder is the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person’s life with malice aforethought. A fetus is not a person (persons are born entities) and a legal medical procedure cannot simultaneously be unlawful.

            So, with all of that established, tell me, Mr. Cris: how long should a post-abortive woman go to jail for? Since you think abortion should be treated as a criminal act, what punishment do you recommend?

          • Mr_Cris

            Is a dog a person? That’s a “born entity”.

          • fiona64

            Now you’re just being stupid.

            Not that it’s much of a change, but still.

          • Mr_Cris

            I maybe stupid but at least I’m right.

          • fiona64

            You keep telling yourself that, sweetie. I’m sure it’s a great comfort to you.

          • Valde

            A dog is a dog, not a fetus.

          • Mr_Cris

            You didn’t answer my question.

          • goatini

            There is no such thing as a “pre-born child”.

            Are you a “pre-dead corpse”?

          • Mr_Cris

            The difference between a living person and a corpse is larger than the difference between a child before and after birth so that comparisson is not valid.

          • goatini

            Children have been born.

          • fiona64

            In reply to your comment in moderation:

            You didn’t answer my question. You say that abortion should be made illegal and made into a hate crime and that the doctor and woman should be put on trial.

            So, again, what punishment should the woman receive for having an illegal abortion?

          • Mr_Cris

            That’s up to the judge to decide. But in certain circumstances capital punishment should be considered.

          • fiona64

            So, you think that a woman who terminates a pregnancy should be executed.

            And you still want to pretend that you “love women”? Sorry, buddy, but I’m not buying what you’re selling.

            Pro-tip: “The Handmaid’s Tale” is *fiction,* not a handbook.

          • Mr_Cris

            No I never said that. I believe people like gosnell should be executed. But not women who are tricked into believing abortion is liberating.

          • Valde

            Oh, so your ‘get out of jail free card’ is to pretend that women are tricked into believing abortion is liberating.

            lulz

            And how about women who murder their own born children? Have they too been tricked??

            And you also sidestepped the question by referencing abortion *doctors*. So, how about women who willingly perform coathanger or medicinal abortions *on themselves*?

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t have to pretend. It is simply true. To deny media bias and cultural bias is ignorance of the highest degree. The majority of women is pro-life, yet the media supports abortion.

            “So, how about women who willingly perform coathanger or medicinal abortions *on themselves*?”
            If a woman is risking her life to kill her child she deserves to die.

          • Valde

            What if she isn’t risking her life?

            And she does succeed in aborting the pregnancy, at say, 4 weeks?

          • Mr_Cris

            Then she’s lucky.

          • Valde

            NO, should she the death penalty for safely performing an abortion on herself?

          • Mr_Cris

            Not when it’s legal. Not when she isn’t caught. Not when she is mentally ill. Not when she is forced to do it.
            Only in specific circumstances when it’s illegal.

          • fiona64

            But you said women who had abortions should face capital punishment. That seems pretty straightforward. And now you’re saying that :;gasp:: there are extenuating circumstances?

            Well, guess what? Abortion is legal. If you want to live somewhere that does not allow for abortions, it seems like Chile will be your wet dream. There, a pregnant 11-year-old rape victim, whose life and that of the fetus are at high risk, is being denied an abortion. Sounds like your kind of place. After all, according to you and Augusto Pinochet (who outlawed abortion under any circumstances), pregnancy never kills women, let alone little girls, and the uterus is there for the fetus’ use.

            Feh.

          • Mr_Cris

            Abortion in the cases of raped children only benefits pedophiles. It is used to cover it up. Rape is no reason to commit abortion. People shouldn’t be punished for their fathers mistake.

            “and the uterus is there for the fetus’ use”
            It is. What else is it for? A landing spot for a spaceship?

          • fiona64

            Yep, I knew Chile would be your wet dream. A little girl has been raped and impregnated; her rapist is in custody. But she can’t have an abortion even though her life, and that of the fetus, are in danger. But hey, pro-life, right? Just let the little girl die due to pregnancy. It’s all good. That’s what the uterus is for!

            You’re an asshole.

          • Valde

            If the Chilean girl were to take a drug and abort the fetus, with no injury to herself, should she get the death penalty?

          • Mr_Cris

            If it is a minor no. If she is an adult then whatever sentence is common for that crime. Given she was complete sane and knew what she was doing.

          • Valde

            And if the 11 year old killed a newborn baby? What then? Death penalty or does she get to walk away from that too?

          • Mr_Cris

            No death penalty either. She needs treatment.

          • Valde

            Treatment? such as?

          • goatini

            Oh, you know, child care and home economics classes. That kind of “treatment”.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you think that an 11 year old little girl should be forced to carry to term?

          • Valde

            I want to see him say she should get the death penalty if she dares to perform an abortion on herself.

          • Mr_Cris

            If her life is not at risk then yes. It would be worse trying to cover it up.

          • Valde

            Nah, he just thinks she should get 10 years in jail.

            Btw, eveyrone knows she was raped, so, getting the abortion won’t cover anything up.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Cover it up? So you think she should be forced to forego her life and childhood and carry the pregnancy as what–as evidence against her attacker?

          • Mr_Cris

            Motherhood is not he end of a life. It is the beginning of one.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A little kid should not be forced to be a mother. That’s just sick.

          • Mr_Cris

            The rapist is the one who forced the girl to become a mother. He is sick and should be punished for it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            But chances are he won’t be punished for it. At least not in the same way she will be. .

          • Mr_Cris

            Pregnancy is not a punishment. And abortion won’t punish the rapist.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you’re an eleven year old kid, yes–it is very much a punishment.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And you also seem to have missed the part where doctors do believe that her life is endangered by this pregnancy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s not a question of ‘punishing the rapist’–that is simplistic twaddle. It’s a question of forcing a crime victim, and a child crime victim at that, to go through a pregnancy that was forced upon them. To use the law to force them to do that and to think that is a good thing or a blessing is just sick.

          • goatini

            I’d say that when an innocent victim gets raped and a pregnancy results, that anyone who DOESN’T think that’s punishment is a depraved monster.

          • Mr_Cris

            The rapist is the depraved monster.

          • Valde

            If pregnancy is not a punishment, perhaps rape camps could be set up to ‘gift’ little girls with rape pregnancies?

          • Mr_Cris

            Rape is a punishment, not a gift. Where did I wrote that?

          • fiona64

            No, it’s people like *you* who want to force this little girl to gestate a pregnancy. The rapist has *nothing* to do with that. That’s all on people like you.

            The rapist had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Now, I realize that in your mind this is not such a big deal, because, after all, she got pregnant and that’s what little girls’ women’s uteruses are for. And that’s not the end of a life, even though her life is in danger. Oh, laws, no. That’s the *beginning* of a life in your perverted mind.

            One thing I can say for you, though; you at least have the courage to say all of the sick, fucked-up things that we all know the anti-choice are thinking anyway.

          • fiona64

            She’s eleven goddamned years old, you sick fuck.

          • fiona64

            If you click “newest” at the upper left side of the screen, you will be able to see the article (I posted it). Both her life and that of the fetus are endangered, but the Chilean government does not allow for abortion under any circumstances. You know, sort of like you want it to be.

            That’s the logical extension of your position, you sick POS. A little girl was raped and is likely to die because she can’t get an abortion. And you’re probably rubbing your hands together with glee at the idea.

            Unless, of course, one of those hands is busy elsewhere while you think the situation … which wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

          • goatini

            More like, better to let the rapist win.

          • Valde

            But you are totes ok if the little girl ends up permanently disabled as a result of the pregnancy – which is highly likely considering her young age.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m not ok with it. But having a disability is not good enough reason to kill an innocent child. I’m glad you don’t get to make that decision for my future daughters.

          • Valde

            Nope, you are ok with it.

            Since you believe that the rights of the rapist and the rights of the rape pregnancy to destroy the little child’s life outweigh the little child’s right to make decisions regarding her own health.

          • Mr_Cris

            “rights of the rape pregnancy”

            A pregnancy has the same rights as laughter, a fever or cancer.
            It is a state of the body. Only humans have rights. Unborn children are humans.

          • Jennifer Starr

            For child, forced pregnancy would be a punishment. Pregnancy is hard enough on a grown woman’s body, for an 11 year old girl it would be unimaginably hard.

          • Mr_Cris

            It is the rapist that caused the suffering she could face during pregnancy, not pro-life people. The rapist should be punished and the mother should be loved and cared for.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Mother? You are talking about a little kid. Who should still be able to be a little kid.

          • Mr_Cris

            You want to redefine the word mother as well? You people make me sick.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I’m not the one who wants to force little girls into pregnancy and motherhood. An eleven year old should have baby dolls, not baby babies.

          • Mr_Cris

            Neither am I.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes–you are.

          • Guest

            Name one girl I forced into pregnancy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Don’t be obtuse, Cris. You would force an 11 year old to remain pregnant and to carry a forced pregnancy. And you know good and goddamn well that’s what I meant.

          • Valde

            You are a rape apologist.

          • Mr_Cris

            Could you quote me where I defended rape?

          • Valde

            The girl is better off , in your opinion, now that she is pregnant with a rape fetus.

            Therefore, in your view, rape may not be good, however, rape can lead to wonderful happy things, ESPECIALLY if it results in a forced pregnancy.

            Conclusion: Rape may be horrible, but it is a tool of goodness and gives the gift of pregnancy to women and little girls.

          • Mr_Cris

            That was not a qoute. In fact I said the exact opposite of what you claim.

            “a tool of goodness”

            How can you say rape is “a tool of goodness”? You disgust me.

          • fiona64

            “A rape can lead to good things.” Your words, fuckwad.

          • goatini

            Since mothers are women who have given birth, it’s YOU who want to redefine the word. A pregnant woman is NOT a “mother”.

          • goatini

            Punished? You believe in REWARDING the rapist.

            You’re a rape supporter and enabler. You support the rights of the rapist to select, by violent felony assault, the mother of his child.

            If a rapist succeeds in impregnating his victim, and if his victim is forced into gestational slavery to bear his genetically defective spawn, THE RAPIST HAS WON.

            You support the rights of the rapist to destroy forever, for his innocent victim, the intrinsic dignity of being able to choose for herself when, where, why, how and with whom to start or grow her family.

            You support the rights of the rapist to forever taint the DNA of his innocent victim’s family, by criminal force by the rapist, and by criminal force by those who would force his victim into gestational slavery to bear the rapist’s genetically defective spawn.

            Many mental illnesses are genetically linked, and you support the cruel and inhuman torture of forcing an innocent victim into perpetuating the results of genetic damage.

            Anyone who can say, without irony, that forcing an innocent crime victim into gestational slavery has anything to do with “lov(ing) and car(ing) for” ANYONE, is a depraved monster.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You believe in REWARDING the rapist”

            Wow. Hold it right there. I believe in punishing the rapist. Let him pay for all the care the women needs and let him go behind bars for a long time. No reward.

            “THE RAPIST HAS WON”

            If having children was the main motive of rapists then I guess you have a valid point.

            “to forever taint the DNA”

            There is no rape gene. Quit your pseudo-science.

            “gestational slavery”

            There is no such thing. Unless you mean surrogate mothers.

          • goatini

            Mental illness is often genetically transmitted. Criminals are mentally ill. I’m assuming, then, that you’re completely okay with your sister or daughter being impregnated by a mentally ill violent criminal.

          • goatini

            And being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy against one’s will IS gestational slavery.

          • Valde

            He supports the rights of rapists to decide if and when any girl or woman gets pregnant.

            If that isn’t a case of treating women like property, I don’t know what is.

          • Ella Warnock

            I’d much rather have a spaceship land there than a fetus. Not that that’s a concern for me any longer. thank goodness. No, a uterus was always a completely useless and mostly troublesome part of my anatomy.

          • Mr_Cris

            Not that it any of my business. But why was your uterus useless?
            Or do you mean unused? That is different.

          • Ella Warnock

            Uselessness led to unuse, not so different at all. Unwanted, as well.

          • Mr_Cris

            So you couldn’t have children? That’s sad.

          • Ella Warnock

            Ah, no, you misunderstand. My uterus was useless because I didn’t want children. Hence the term unwanted – as in, all of it was unwanted and unwelcome.

          • Mr_Cris

            So you meant unused.
            Why didn’t you want children If I might ask? I won’t judge.

          • Ella Warnock

            If I don’t want to use it, then it’s useless to me, obviously. Didn’t want children because I just didn’t want them. Whether or not you (or anyone else) judges is irrelevant.

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t understand why someone wouldn’t want to have children.

          • Ella Warnock

            Can’t help you out with that one, I’m afraid. I don’t understand why anyone would want them.

          • Mr_Cris

            What about unconditional love? Good memories. Spreading your values. Making the world a better place by raising good children. Grandchildren. People that take care of you when your older. Purpose.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, let’s see. I give and receive unconditional love. I have good memories. I’ve made the world a better place for those I love. I have people that will take care of me when I’m older. And my life has been full of purpose.

            If you absolutely need children to obtain any of the above at all, then perhaps you (generic you) are not a particularly well-rounded, self-actualized person.

          • Mr_Cris

            You have a valid point.

          • fiona64

            “People that take care of you when your [sic] older.”

            I suggest you visit an old folks’ home and talk to some of the people who live there. People who would love nothing more than to have “the kids” come by and see them.

          • Mr_Cris

            The people that don’t visit their parents do not have a pro-life attitude. That is the problem.

          • Valde

            Raping little girls and gettting them pregnant = spreading values in your world.

            After all, unless she dies, that rape pregnancy is a gift from god!

          • Mr_Cris

            “Raping little girls and getting[sic] them pregnant = spreading values in your world”

            You know that is not what I meant. With having children I don’t mean raping little girls.

            If I have a daughter and she gets pregnant by rape I would support her all the way in raising her child. That way I spread the value that every child is a wanted child and no child should be punished for their parents mistake.

          • Valde

            “You know that is not what I meant. With having children I don’t mean raping little girls.”

            That is what you meant.

            In fact, you think that little girls should just grow up and deal with blindness, diabetes, and permanent injury as a result of the rape pregnancy.

            Oh, and that they should be HAPPY to be having a rape baby.

          • Mr_Cris

            “That is what you meant.”

            No it isn’t because I say so. You can’t decide what my opinion is.

            “Oh, and that they should be HAPPY to be having a rape baby.”
            Yes they should. You are full of prejudice towards ‘little bastards’ aren’t you?

          • Valde

            According to you, the girl is better off now thanks to the pregnancy.

            She should be very happy that she is pregnant with her rapist’s offspring.

            Babies are always wonderful to have, even if you are 11, even if it could kill and disable you, and even if it was forced upon you through a brutal rape.

            Therefore, we can only conclude that you believe rape is a good thing, because rape leads to good things.

            In your opinion, the girl is much better off now than she was before she was raped and impregnated against her will.

          • Mr_Cris

            These are your words not mine. You want me to tell rape is wonderful thing so you can knock down a straw man.
            Every word you write is the exact opposite of the truth.

          • fiona64

            “A rape can lead to good things.” Those are your words, asshole.

          • Mr_Cris

            And it can. Any tragedy can lead to good things. That is a fact of life.

          • Valde

            And you also said that the little girl should be ‘happy’ that she is having a baby.

            No, you can’t backpedal out of this.

            You said that rape can lead to good things, and that rape pregnancy = good.

            Tell me, if the rape victim is NOT happy with the pregnancy, and not happy with the rape baby, would you consider her to be ungrateful? After all, she’s been given a gift, as far as you are concerned.

          • Valde

            You believe that victims of rape are ‘better off’ than they were before they were raped.

            You believe that rape, though horrible, is a tool of good, especially if the victim becomes pregnant as a result.

            Therefore, you are a rape apologist.

          • Mr_Cris

            A car accident, though horrible as it is, can lead to good things. I don’t believe in euthanising paralized people. Does that make me a supporter of car accidents?

            A rape, though horrible as it is, can lead to good things. I don’t believe in aborting unborn people. Does that make me a supporter of rape?

          • fiona64

            “A rape … can lead to good things.”

            You know something? I am a rape survivor; I’ve talked about it before in these threads, and you’re welcome to look at my posting history (unlike little liars who like to pretend they’re Dutch, I have nothing to hide). Let me just say this briefly: you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Because, with this asinine statement, you assert that (among other things), PTSD is a good thing.

            Drop dead, little boy.

          • Mr_Cris

            I never said that rape always leads to good things. And never said that all things leading from rape are good. You are not reading my words correctly because you are very emotional about the topic. I don’t blame you, but you don’t have to take it out on me.
            Rape is always horrible and should always be punished severely.
            We agree on that. We disagree about the personhood of unborn children. From that everything follows. You just keep getting sidetracked and falsely accuse me of things.

          • fiona64

            And I never said that you said “always.” You said, very plainly, “A rape can lead to good things” … specifically in the case of an 11-year-old child, by stating that having a child herself (regardless of danger to her own life and limb” was a gift.

            You’re wrong. You are insanely, insanely wrong.

            I am not “falsely accusing” you of anything. Your own words convict you of being one of the most fucked-up people I’ve ever encountered on the internet, and believe you me, that is saying something.

          • Valde

            In Mr_Cris opinion, rape only leads to good things if a pregnancy results.

            A majority of rape victims would disagree with him on that.

          • fiona64

            If Little Cris ever gets out of his mommy’s basement, he will learn that in 31 states rapists can sue for parental rights and visitation if their victims gestate. So, in his little masturbatory fantasies of all women being delighted to keep infants resulting from rape (and please realize that I support that decision just as much as any other reproductive choice), then those women can be forced to be in contact with their rapists for at least another 18 years! Yay! How “pro-life”! Because as long as there’s a pwecious baybee, who cares how it got there? And, of course, being visited on a regular basis by the man who raped you isn’t going to be stressful at all …

          • Valde

            This is from an old RH reality check article, by Amanda Marcotte, and I am going to repaste it here because I believe it is brilliant. It relates to Paul Ryan and the belief that ‘rape is just another method of conception’ that is so popular amongst extremist anti-choicers:

            “For anti-choicers, the fact that someone can make a baby means that making babies is what she is for.
            People mistake the term “objectification” to mean “looking at with
            lust,” but what it actually means is “reducing someone to an object to
            be used.” Sexual objectification is assuming that because women turn you
            on, they are for sex, instead of a person whose sexuality
            should be an expression of their agency. What anti-choicers engage in is
            reproductive objectification. Women are among an array of objects to be
            used. The refrigerator is for storing food. The bookshelf is for
            holding books. The woman is for making babies. You no more give her a
            choice in the matter than you would give your refrigerator veto power
            over what food it hold because it didn’t like your method of shopping.”

          • fiona64

            Well, that’s Little Cris in a nutshell all right.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That pretty much says it all, and very eloquently too.

          • Valde

            I am sure that if you talk to car accident survivors that they would tell you they would rather go back to how they were BEFORE the accident.

            You, however, believe that the rape victim is BETTER OFF as a result of the rape.

            You are indeed a rape apologist and there is no escaping your words.

          • Mr_Cris

            I never said that. Stop twisting my words. I know exactly what I said.

          • Valde

            Yes, you said that rape can lead to good things.

            You also said the girl should be happy that she is having a baby.

            Therefore, rape is a gift to her, and she is much better off than she was before she was raped.

          • Cheryl Nelson

            Oh my god, I can’t believe you just said that.

            Many women and men who are raped proceed to rise above the trauma and become, or continue to be, awesome, strong people anyway. That is not the same as a rape leading to good things, you sick, sick bastard.

          • Mr_Cris

            So you and I agree.

          • fiona64

            You don’t read very well, do you?

          • Valde

            ” You are full of prejudice towards ‘little bastards’ aren’t you?”

            You are full of disdain for victims of rape, no matter how young they are.

          • fiona64

            Thanks for proving the other women’s point so clearly: you’re a rape apologist.

          • Mr_Cris

            I’m the exact opposite of a rape apologist. I don’t want the evidence covered up. I don’t want innocent children to be punished by killing them in the womb. I want the rapist to be punished severly. That is the exact opposite of supporting rape.

          • fiona64

            No, you want an innocent 11-year-old child to be punished by dying of pregnancy complications. You don’t care about the rapist at all, as long as the little girl in the article is forced to gestate. Terminating a pregnancy that is endangering her life is not “covering up the evidence.”

            And that is the very definition of being a rape apologist.

          • Valde

            If terminating the pregnancy is ‘covering up the evidence’ I guess that there has never been any evidence that altar boys were raped, because hey, they can’t get pregnant, right?

          • Mr_Cris

            I support abortion if the 11-year-old child will die from pregnancy complications.

            “You don’t care about the rapist at all”

            I don’t care about him. I want him to be locked away and not given any attention. The victim is the one that needs the care. Not the rapist.

            “Terminating a pregnancy that is endangering her life is not “covering up the evidence.””
            I completely agree. Because at that stage it is already know. But at an early stage it can cover up(and has covered up) the evidence.

          • goatini

            I’m beginning to think this is Josef Fritzl posting from Garsten Abbey.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            No, ESPECIALLY if she does, Valde!

          • Jennifer Starr

            There seems to be quite a lot that you fail to understand.

          • fiona64

            Well, plenty of people (male and female) don’t. You’re very fond of saying “Do the research; it’s easy to find.” Google the term “childfree.”

          • Valde

            Yeah. So the 11 year old should be HAPPY that she was raped, right?

            She’s been given a gift – even if she is permanently disabled as a result.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Yeah. So the 11 year old should be HAPPY that she was raped, right?”

            No of course not. But if she has a healthy child that is something to be happy about. Just not the way she got it.

            “She’s been given a gift – even if she is permanently disabled as a result.”
            Exactly. Sometimes wonderful things result from horrible tragedies.

          • Valde

            Yeah, so you are nothing more than a rape apologist.

            If wonderful things can result from tragedies, and if a healthy child is something to be happy about, perhaps more rape is a good thing, yes?

            If children are rounded up and sent to rape camps, and they are all impregnated by the rapists, just think of how happy everyone will be!

            Yes, that’s a good plan mr_cris.

          • Mr_Cris

            “you are nothing more than a rape apologist”

            Where did I defend rape?

            “If wonderful things can result from tragedies, and if a healthy child is something to be happy about, perhaps more rape is a good thing, yes?”

            No it isn’t. I never said the good things cancel out the bad things. They don’t. But that doesn’t deny there can be good things resulting from tragedies. Read the story about Joshua Prager. His tragedy made him a better person, but he is not advocating running people over with cars.

          • Jennifer Starr

            An eleven year old is still a little kid. She should not be having a kid–the fact that she can get pregnant does not mean that she is in any way ready to give birth. Any sane person would be more concerned for her and the damage this pregnancy will do to her body and her mental and emotional health, but not you. All you’re concerned about is the fetus. To you, she’s just a container holding the fetus, and if the container is damaged or blinded, or suffers disability, what do you care? As long as ‘teh precious baybeee’ is okay. Thank you for reminding me daily of why I am no longer on your side. Because your side is just sick.

          • Mr_Cris

            “All you’re concerned about is the fetus”

            All you’re concerned about is killing the fetus.
            To you she is just a container. To me she is a mother.

          • goatini

            Females are not “mothers” until birth has actually occurred.

            To you, she is livestock, a container, something to be cruelly exploited.

          • Mr_Cris

            No they are simply baby containers to you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Eleven years old is too young to give birth and too young to have or raise a child. It’s very disturbing that you don’t seem to understand this.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Eleven years old is too young to give birth ”

            Sometimes it is sometimes it isn’t. Some girls have given birth to healthy children.

            “and too young to have or raise a child”
            They don’t have to raise the child on their own. The child can be raised as a sibling or put up for adoption.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sorry, but I’m a bit more concerned for the child that’s already existing–not for the pregnancy. And if you had any conscience, you would be too.

          • Mr_Cris

            If having a conscience means you sacrifice innocent children for your false religion called feminism, then I don’t want a conscience .

          • Jennifer Starr

            But you’d sacrifice an eleven year old’s childhood.

          • Mr_Cris

            No the rapist did.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And you’re helping him by forcing a little girl to remain pregnant. The thought of forced pregnancies gets you all excited, I know–just like the rest of your kind.

          • Mr_Cris

            That doesn’t help the rapist.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Forcing a raped child to carry a pregnancy give birth is the same thing as rape,

          • Mr_Cris

            By that logic reparing a damaged painting stolen in a heist is the same as stealing that painting.

          • Jennifer Starr

            In what way is a forced pregnancy ‘repairing’? Go on, tell me–I’ve got to hear this.

          • Mr_Cris

            Pregnancy doesn’t just repair, it creates something new. That makes my argument even stronger. Thanks for pointing that out.

          • fiona64

            Unless, of course, the 11-year-old child *dies.*

            You are indeed a rape apologist.

          • Mr_Cris

            You want me to be a rape apologist so you could blame me for your rape. Then you wouldn’t have to listen to my arguments and just name-call.

          • fiona64

            so you could blame me for your rape.

            No, sweetie. I don’t blame anyone for what happened to me except for the rapist. What a completely irrational and stupid thing for you to have said. (Not that I’m surprised, really; irrational and stupid seems to be your modus operandi.)

            You, OTOH, think that women who are raped are at fault for what happened to them … even if the victim is an 11-year-old child … and that they should be glad if they get pregnant because then “something good came from it.”

            Then you wouldn’t have to listen to my arguments

            You haven’t presented any arguments, just a random lot of bullshit.

          • Valde

            You flat out admitted that the pregnancy will most likely permanently maim the girl, and you said that you are totally fine with this.

            So no, there is no ‘repairing’ going on – it is only suffering and permanent disability for the little girl – and you are happy to see this happen because a rape baby is worth it in your mind.

          • Mr_Cris

            “there is no ‘repairing’ going on”

            The bodies of unborn children repair themselves.

            “a rape baby”

            There is no such thing as that. A baby is a baby. You use that word to dehumanize the life of the unborn. Just as Hilter did with the jews.
            Abortion is the second holocaust.

          • Valde

            And the Nazis raped little girls – that’s right up your ally.

          • fiona64

            This little cretin certainly is obsessed with Hitler …

          • Valde

            When they run out of things to say they invoke Godwin’s Law. That or Antebellum slavery.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Basically you only care about the unborn child, and not the damage you do to the real, actual child. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be as sick as you.

          • goatini

            As the daughter of a survivor, I find your Godwin to be highly offensive to actual women, and to all actual persons of the Jewish faith.

          • Mr_Cris

            Why do you choose to be offended?
            I never insulted Jews or the Jewish faith.

          • fiona64

            Um, really? Just as Hilter did with the jews.
            Abortion is the second holocaust.

            Hitler carried out his actions on born, sapient, sentient persons.

            A fetus is none of those things. When you compare a legal medical procedure to atrocities, you insult Jewish people and women at the same time.

          • Mr_Cris

            People get abortions because the unborn children are female, are black, have down syndrome etc. They are deemed less fit. That is sexism, racism and downophobia.
            This is worse then the holocaust, because there are more victims and more deniers.

          • Valde

            And 11 year old girls get abortions because pregnancy is terrifying and could maim them.

            Tell me, if the 11 year old does not want to be pregnant, does that make her selfish? Is she a little Hitler?

          • Mr_Cris

            “Tell me, if the 11 year old does not want to be pregnant, does that make her selfish?”
            No that would make her completely sane.

          • Valde

            Would it make her a little Hitler though, especially if she was to choose to end the pregnancy?

          • Mr_Cris

            That is not her choice to make.

          • Valde

            Yes, it is.

            However, your reply does not surprise me, in your view, she is not a person, but a slave, a mere incubator.

          • Mr_Cris

            She is too young to make that decision. Her parents should make that decision for her.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            Her MOM should make that decision for her?! Her MOM is a rape apologist who said sex between the mom’s boyfriend and her own 11 year old daughter was consensual. But this woman should make the decision for her?!

            I’d say she’s had enough decisions made for her…

          • Valde

            Mr_Cris is also a rape apologist, however, he won’t admit to it.

            He’s also been banned for his trolling.

          • fiona64

            Unfortunately, he hasn’t been banned. He was back yesterday with more nonsense.

          • Valde

            Yeah, RHRC told me on facebook that he had been banned so who knows. Perhaps it was only from one article, but not others

            /shrug

            Check out this article on the RH wire if you haven’t already. More ammunition for when you school idiots on NFP

            5 questions you’d never think to ask about childbirth – CNN International

          • Valde

            4. Is there a distinct fertile window in a woman’s cycle?

            The “egg-timer” model of
            the human menstrual cycle, with ovulation and conception regularly
            occurring close to midcycle, has formed the basis for medical thinking
            and intervention since the 1930s. This model needs radical revision.

            The notion of regular
            midcycle ovulation is itself just a statistical abstraction. Menstrual
            cycles show considerable variation both in length, routinely ranging
            between three and five weeks, and in timing of ovulation relative to
            menstruation.

            More important, however,
            several lines of evidence lead to the revolutionary conclusion that
            sperm are stored in the human womb, probably in crypts in the cervix.
            This means that intercourse leading to conception can occur up to 10
            days or more before ovulation takes place.

            This raises major
            problems for the “rhythm method” of contraception, which relies on the
            accepted wisdom that sperm and eggs have strictly limited maximum
            life-spans, surviving for only two days and one day, respectively. In
            practice, the rhythm method (even with refinements) is very unreliable.

            Worse yet, deliberate
            avoidance of intercourse around the time of ovulation can be confidently
            expected to increase the risk of fertilization with a time-worn sperm
            or egg and hence the probability of fetal abnormality. Various studies
            have indicated that this is, indeed, what happens.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            Kid, you really are some kind of sicko. And still a rape apologist.

          • Mr_Cris

            You still haven’t given one valid argument for why I’m what you call a “rape apologist”.
            You are sick for calling it a right that a child, that has not have the right to drink, have sex or drive a car, can kill her unborn baby.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She’s not ‘killing’ anything. Pregnancy can wait until she’s grown and ready. No eleven year old has a body that’s in any way prepared for childbirth. None.

          • Valde

            Gonna paste this again:

            Crissy the rape apologist believe that pregnancy for an 11
            year old Chilean girl is just dandy, and they have no problem with whatever
            disabilities she may suffer as a result of the pregnancy. Here is a bit
            more info:

            “The main risks are associated with
            immaturity of the female urogenital system,” Dr. Elena Rosciani, a
            gynecologist with the Instituto de la Mujer in Argentina explained to
            BBC World. “And this immaturity can lead to abnormalities in the growth
            of the fetus, which can cause premature birth and other complications.”

            This immaturity of the reproductive system
            means that the uterus has not reached its maximum development. In fact, a
            girl of eleven who is beginning menarche (the first menstrual bleeding)
            is at the beginning of the development of her reproductive organs. “At
            the beginning of development, the uterus is smaller; it may measure some
            five or six centimeters. The developed uterus reaches some seven or
            eight centimeters and this development is completed between the ages of
            19 and 21,” the gynecologist says. And that small a uterus can result in
            complications for the development of the fetus and can result in a
            premature birth.

            Doctor Jorge Parra, a gynecologist and
            representative in Ecuador of the United Nations Population Fund,
            explained to BBC World that pregnancy at such a young age can cause
            other problems as well. “The most frequent complications in a pregnancy
            of a 15-year-old minor are pre-eclampsia and eclampsia — hypertension in
            gestation,” the expert states. “It is a condition that occurs only in
            pregnancy and it is an important cause of death in pregnancy. It is
            known that girls younger than 15 have a greater possibility of
            developing it and the only way to cure it is to terminate the
            pregnancy,” the expert adds.

            “But there are also nutritional factors for
            a girl who is in a stage of growth and from whom, when she becomes
            pregnant, the fetus can take away required nutrients. So there is a high
            incidence of anemia in this group.”

            Pregnancy at such an early age, the
            gynecologist adds, not only causes problems in gestation. There are also
            complications during delivery. “Due to the fact that an adolescent’s
            pelvis is still in development, obstructed deliveries are common,
            because the small pelvis blocks the passage of the fetus. The percentage
            of girls of 15 who require caesareans is very high, almost 70% compared
            to other births,” Dr. Jorge Parra states.

            And according to Dr. Rosciani of the
            Instituto de la Mujer in Argentina, “There are also psychological
            alterations that giving birth brings about: a lot of stress, a lot of
            effort and, above all, a lot of pain. So it is dangerous to subject so
            small a girl to the job of giving birth.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            It is just unbelievable that he sees nothing wrong with that–he definitely is a rape apologist—makes me sick to my stomach. .

          • Valde

            Well, it’s nice of you Crissy, to stand up for an 11 year old girl’s right to be 1) raped 2) forced to gestate a pregnancy.

            You are a rape apologist.

          • fiona64

            Yep, because Chilean law (your wet dream) is denying her the right to bodily autonomy.

          • Valde

            Apparently she says she wants to have the child now, because it will ‘be just like holding a doll’

            And the Chilean President congratulated her for her ‘maturity’.

            /vomit

          • fiona64

            Cris is probably out stocking up on hand lotion even as we speak …

          • fiona64

            “Downophobia”?

            Wait, don’t tell me. Let me guess. It’s a “Dutch word,” right?

            You’re laughable.

          • Valde

            And slavery is not always immoral.

            And women are incubators.

            Must also be ‘Dutch’ things.

          • fiona64

            And we’ve always been at war with Eurasia. ;->

          • Mr_Cris

            People have prejudices towards children with down syndrome. They fear the unknown. Unlike you I don’t consider abortion to be a laughing matter.

          • goatini

            Gender selective terminations are performed only in patriarchal, misogynistic cultures in which females have no value and in which females are liabilities.

            It is an insult to women of color to presume that they are incapable of personal agency in their reproductive decisions and choices.

            And the decision to bear a child with lifelong significant developmental issues belongs ONLY to the family, and certainly NOT to an immature, meddling Catholic high school brat.

          • Mr_Cris

            “It is an insult to women of color…”

            Let me stop you right there. First of all there is no such thing as “women of color”. You mean black women(or brown if you will).

            “to presume that they are incapable of personal agency”
            Where did I claim that black women are less capable then white women?

          • goatini

            You claimed it in your comment of 14 days ago:

            “People get abortions because the unborn children… are black”

            This statement presumes that women of color are incapable of personal agency in their reproductive decisions and choices.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            Oh please. Abortion is not a holocaust. No sex, race, political group, faith, etc is being sought out and erradicated.

            And there is already a 2nd genocide going on on the African continent. So fail again.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are lying. In India the ratio between boys and girls is extremely skewed because of sex selective abortion. Blacks in the USA have a disproportionate amount of abortions. Unborn children do not have a political view or faith so I don’t know why you mentioned those!

          • Lyra Belaqua

            Nope, not lying. I mis-spoke before, including “sex” considering the actual definition of genocide does not include it. And that most abortions are done before sex is determined.

            I mention political view or faith because genocide can include ” national, racial,political, or cultural group(s).” Faiths can be cultural groups. Since fetuses cannot have a political or faith group since both are taught, thus they cannot belong in either. So fetuses, or unborn children, if you will, meet none of the categories for “genocide”.

          • goatini

            Gender selective termination is practiced EXCLUSIVELY in misogynistic patriarchal cultures, in which females have no value, and in which females are classified as liabilities. Women are coerced, under emotional and physical duress imposed by the male spouse, and the male spouse’s family, to terminate female fetuses.

            The mindset that advocates for gender selective termination is EXACTLY the mindset of Master Cris, the Catholic high school lad.

          • Mr_Cris

            Everything you just wrote is the exact opposite of the truth.

          • goatini

            But sadly (to you) – no, what I wrote IS the truth.

            The ONLY cultures that practice gender-selective termination are those that consider females to be a liability – which are the misogynistic patriarchal cultures. That IS a fact, and it’s a fact that you will not be able to produce credible evidence to dispute.

          • goatini

            Actually, ANY and ALL full-term pregnancies permanently and irreparably damage the body of the woman.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            Ummmm, no. If pregnancy made things stronger, then women wouldn’t be hurt by pregnancy. Pre-eclampsia wouldn’t exist. Fetal surgery wouldn’t be required. Therapeutic abortions wouldn’t be necessary. Getting your cervix sewn shut (I forget the technical name) because it’s not thick enough to hold the fetusbabyperson in wouldn’t be necessary. Blood clots wouldn’t be thrown out in the woman’s body.

            Or are blood clots the something “new” that’s created?

          • Mr_Cris

            The unborn child is repaired. Development without reparative mechanisms is impossible.

          • Mr_Cris

            No it isn’t. Rape is forced sex. Giving birth is neither sex nor is forced.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It is if the person in question does not want to be pregnant and give birth. And there are not any eleven-year old girls out there who want to be pregnant or give birth. I know the thought of forced pregnancy and birth really gets you off, but you really need to stop lying, kid.

          • Valde

            Forcing someone to remain pregnant is no better than rape.

            You are forcing her to continue to have her bodily autonomy violated.

          • Mr_Cris

            It is not her body that I have a problem with. It is the unborn child’s body.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, you’ve made it quite obvious that you don’t care about her at all.

          • Valde

            He just said that she was nothing more than an ‘incubator’

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, that is exactly what he said. And it is disgusting.

          • Valde

            Yes, you’ve made it quite clear that you don’t care if the little girl ends up blind or unable to walk as a result of the pregnancy.

          • Valde

            You did say that she is ‘an incubator’

            And you did say that slavery is not always immoral.

          • Mr_Cris

            Technically that is correct. But I’m not the one who reduces a person to less than a person. You reduce the unborn child to less then a person.
            Slavery is not always immoral. If the slave has equal rights and is slave by choice or by necessity.
            Modern slavery is immoral. Take for instance prostitution in the Netherlands. Some estimates say that 80-90% of prostitutes are forced in prostitution. The other 10-20% didn’t actually dream to be a prostitute either and can not easily leave. There is a lot of forced abortion going on in prostitution. So abortion is a tool used to keep modern slavery going.

          • Valde

            “But I’m not the one who reduces a person to less than a person.”

            You said that she is an incubator and that forced pregnancy is a gift.

            Clearly, you do believe that 11 year old rape victims are non-persons, and that their enslavement is good.

            “Slavery is not always immoral. If the slave has equal rights and is slave by choice or by necessity.”

            If you are a slave you don’t have equal rights. Period.

            As for the rest of what you wrote, citation needed, for your bullshit.

          • fiona64

            Pro-tip: Slaves don’t have equal rights or choices.

            “Dutch” university grad, my ass …

          • goatini

            Van Nostrand University

            Dean Cosmo Kramer

          • goatini

            No such thing as an “unborn child”. These are just lying weasel words made up by the gestational slavery movement.

          • Mr_Cris

            There is no such thing as “gestational slavery”.
            An unborn child is a child that is not born(yet). You don’t believe in things you can’t see. You think that at birth children appear out of a magic portal between the women’s legs.

          • goatini

            Wrong. There is no such thing as an “unborn child”.

            There is a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus.

            And then a child is BORN.

            And gestational slavery is what you want to impose on free, independent, autonomous female US citizens – violating their civil, human and Constitutional rights to personal bodily autonomy; and violating their right to decide when, where, why, how, and with whom to start or grow their families. You think women are livestock and that women should be coerced into gestational slavery with unwanted pregnancies. We are NOT livestock.

          • goatini

            And I see you can’t even say “vagina”.

          • Valde

            Mr.Cris thinks that wombs are sterile and vaginas are dirty.

          • fiona64

            This is the guy who HM to “watch her words” when she used the word “tampon.,” remember. His mommy probably taught him that the correct anatomical terms are “magic portal between the woman’s legs” and “the man’s thing.”

          • fiona64

            You think that at birth children appear out of a magic portal between the women’s legs.

            Well, I suppose that is one way of explaining it to a 5-year-old …

          • Valde

            Yes, clearly you don’t have a problem with ‘her body’ as you think she should risk permanent disability, because you believe a zygote has more worth than she has.

          • fiona64

            You’ve made it abundantly clear that the woman is irrelevant to you, other than in her capacity as a life support system for a uterus.

            One begins to doubt you are out of middle school, let alone a “Dutch” “university graduate,” since you cannot comprehend the simple, biological fact that children are born entities …

          • Valde

            “The main risks are associated with
            immaturity of the female urogenital system,” Dr. Elena Rosciani, a
            gynecologist with the Instituto de la Mujer in Argentina explained to
            BBC World. “And this immaturity can lead to abnormalities in the growth
            of the fetus, which can cause premature birth and other complications.”

            This immaturity of the reproductive system
            means that the uterus has not reached its maximum development. In fact, a
            girl of eleven who is beginning menarche (the first menstrual bleeding)
            is at the beginning of the development of her reproductive organs. “At
            the beginning of development, the uterus is smaller; it may measure some
            five or six centimeters. The developed uterus reaches some seven or
            eight centimeters and this development is completed between the ages of
            19 and 21,” the gynecologist says. And that small a uterus can result in
            complications for the development of the fetus and can result in a
            premature birth.

            Doctor Jorge Parra, a gynecologist and
            representative in Ecuador of the United Nations Population Fund,
            explained to BBC World that pregnancy at such a young age can cause
            other problems as well. “The most frequent complications in a pregnancy
            of a 15-year-old minor are pre-eclampsia and eclampsia — hypertension in
            gestation,” the expert states. “It is a condition that occurs only in
            pregnancy and it is an important cause of death in pregnancy. It is
            known that girls younger than 15 have a greater possibility of
            developing it and the only way to cure it is to terminate the
            pregnancy,” the expert adds.

            “But there are also nutritional factors for
            a girl who is in a stage of growth and from whom, when she becomes
            pregnant, the fetus can take away required nutrients. So there is a high
            incidence of anemia in this group.”

            Pregnancy at such an early age, the
            gynecologist adds, not only causes problems in gestation. There are also
            complications during delivery. “Due to the fact that an adolescent’s
            pelvis is still in development, obstructed deliveries are common,
            because the small pelvis blocks the passage of the fetus. The percentage
            of girls of 15 who require caesareans is very high, almost 70% compared
            to other births,” Dr. Jorge Parra states.

            And according to Dr. Rosciani of the
            Instituto de la Mujer in Argentina, “There are also psychological
            alterations that giving birth brings about: a lot of stress, a lot of
            effort and, above all, a lot of pain. So it is dangerous to subject so
            small a girl to the job of giving birth.”

            NOT THAT CRISSY CARES

          • Mr_Cris

            This confirms everything I wrote. Thank you for proving me right.

          • Valde

            No, it confirms that pregnancy is extremeley dangerous for an 11 year old girl and could kill her.

            As usual your reading comprehension is found wanting.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Or perhaps you don’t care about the eleven-year old because in your eyes, she’s no longer ‘innocent’.

          • Mr_Cris

            So an innocent child is not innocent? That doesn’t make any sense.

          • fiona64

            Don’t be silly! Of course that eleven-year-old isn’t innocent! She was raped, and you know what that means. I wonder what she was wearing. The fetus is innocent. though. /Mr.Cris

          • fiona64

            You’re the one willing to sacrifice a child: an eleven-year-old rape victim, to be precise. That’s the only child in existence.

            I don’t want a conscience.

            Lucky you! It’s quite apparent that your wish has been granted.

          • Mr_Cris

            Again. Every word you just wrote is the exact opposite of the truth. You lie about me and misquote me all the time.

          • fiona64

            You only *wish* I were misquoting you.

          • Mr_Cris

            You take my words out of context. That is what I call misquoting. Because that changes the apparent meaning.

          • fiona64

            Right. Because using your exact words is “misquoting” you.

            Oh, wait. I keep forgetting. Words don’t mean what they mean because you’re “Dutch.” My bad.

          • goatini

            So the concept of women as fully human, fully realized, fully whole persons is “false religion”.

            Thanks for letting us know, o believer in All Women Are Tainted With The Sin Of Eve And Must Suffer.

          • Mr_Cris

            “So the concept of women as fully human, fully realized, fully whole persons is “false religion”. ”

            No. But that is not what feminism stands for. It stands for that women don’t need men.

            “Thanks for letting us know, o believer in All Women Are Tainted With The Sin Of Eve And Must Suffer.”
            The bible teaches that men and women are equal. In fact the first thing the bible says about women is that they are equal to men.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, not so much. In fact, Adam’s first wife, Lilith, was booted out of the Garden of Eden for refusing to be subservient to him. And Eve was created as a “help meet.” This means “appropriate helper” if you look at the original Hebrew.

            Women (like slaves of either gender) were *property* in Biblical times.

          • Mr_Cris

            The word “Lilith” isn’t even found in the bible.

            The Hebrew word for what you translate as “help meet” is ezer kenegdo which means a helper/savior that is equal.

            Women *are* property of men in a marriage. Just like men are property of women in marriage.

          • fiona64

            Lilith is referred to in the Talmud, the Torah and the Midrash. She was Adam’s first wife. Educate yourself. http://judaism dot about dot com/od/jewishculture/a/Lilith-In-The-Torah-Talmud-And-Midrash.htm would be an excellent place to begin.

            Pro-tip: What was included in the Bible was determined by the Council of Nicaea. They chose to leave out a great many things that are referenced in scripture.

            And no, Biblical marriage was not something between equals. Your mommy’s homeschooling fails once again.

          • Mr_Cris

            Lilith is Jewish folklore. It is not found in the Torah.

          • fiona64

            Couldn’t read and understand the information I provided to you, eh?

            Poor little boy.

          • Valde

            To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” -Genesis 3:16

            Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
            -1 Corinthians 14:34

            A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
            -1 Timothy 2:11

          • Mr_Cris

            Women are equal but not the same. Both men and women suffer.

          • Valde

            Men don’t suffer from forced pregnancy so your point is moot.

          • Mr_Cris

            Men do suffer when their mothers, wives, sisters or daughters get raped.

          • Valde

            They don’t suffer from a pregnancy that can kill and maim them.

          • Mr_Cris

            Not true. Unborn men can suffer being maimed and killed through an abortion.

          • Valde

            /rollseyes

          • fiona64

            Hey, Mister “University Grad”?

            At the time that 98 percent of abortions take place, all fetuses are *female.* Y-chromosome genetic expression doesn’t start until approximately six week’s gestation.

            There really is no such thing as “unborn men.” A man is the adult male organism in H. sapiens.

            And now you know.

          • Mr_Cris

            None of what you wrote refutes my arguments.

          • fiona64

            You haven’t made any arguments, little boy.

          • Mr_Cris

            “You haven’t made any arguments”
            That’s a very efficient way to silence the debate. Simply deny your opponent made any arguments.

            Life is not fair. Men and women have their own challenges and gifts. But tragedies that effect women effect men as well.
            Men in many ways face challenges women don’t face and in many ways have less rights then women.

          • fiona64

            Men in many ways face challenges women don’t face and in many ways have less rights then women.

            Oh, yes … the poor, oppressed men. It’s especially tragic if you’re a cisgender, heterosexual, Caucasian male. It’s so hard, sitting at the top of the sociological privilege totem pole. Let’s feel sorry for them, given all of the stress they must feel with having their medical decisions put on the ballot, being told that who they want to have sex with makes them gross …

            Oh, wait.

            Yeah, none of that is happening.

          • goatini

            No such thing as “unborn men”.

          • fiona64

            Women are equal but not the same.

            Separate, but equal? Really? Perhaps women should have their own water fountains and sit in the backs of buses. After all, since you approve of slavery(“under certain conditions, slavery can be a good thing”), you probably think that’s fine.

          • Mr_Cris

            Yes really. Do you believe men and women are the same? If so you should seek professional help.

            “their own water fountains ”

            No reason. Both men and women require water. But separate bathrooms is a good idea (and that very idea is under attack at the moment).

          • fiona64

            But separate bathrooms is a good idea (and that very idea is under attack at the moment).

            Citation needed.

          • fiona64

            Reply to your comment in moderation: You clearly don’t understand what transgender is. A male-to-female transwoman is not a man using the lady’s room. The transwoman is using the appropriate restroom. This bill is about ensuring that transgender youths’ rights are protected under the law.

            You would think that a “university graduate” would understand that women using the ladies’ room is perfectly appropriate.

            You would also think that, by the time he reached adulthood, the average male would know that the average female has used a men’s room at least once — usually in a situation where the line for the ladies’ room is around the corner and down the hall whilst there is no one in the gent’s. It’s not at all unusual. ::shrug::

            But then, that presumes that the individual in question really is a university grad, so who knows …

          • Mr_Cris

            The point is that they can go to the restroom they prefer. So they can go to both. So whether you call those people men or women they can’t be both.
            Stop with those ad hominem attacks. It is getting annoying.

          • fiona64

            So whether you call those people men or women they can’t be both.

            A transwoman is a woman. A transman is a man. No one, except an intersexed individual, is “both.” It is not a matter of mere “preference” for a man to use the gent’s room.

            So, calling you a “university grad,” which you claim to be, is an ad hominem? I don’t think that term means what you think it does.

            Unless, of course, you find it derogatory because you’re being called something you aren’t …

          • Mr_Cris

            “No one, except an intersexed individual, is “both.””

            So you agree with me that it is ridiculous that person can choose the restroom they prefer. That completely destroys the entire purpose of separate restrooms.

            “I don’t think that term means what you think it does.”

            You attack my age, nationality, education, integrity etc. You mock me. Name-call me. You want me to be something I’m not so you can blame me for all problems women face. Just read your own comments. What would your parents think of you when they see you are falsely accusing people you’ve never met of being rape apologists just because they believe unborn children have the right to live.

          • fiona64

            So you agree with me that it is ridiculous that person can choose the restroom they prefer.

            No, dumbass. That is not even remotely what I said. And you know it. You maintain that transfolk are “both sexes,” and they are not. Transwomen are women; they use the ladies’ room. Transmen are men; they use the gentleman’s room. Intersex people use the restroom for the gender for which they most present physically. If you were really in the Netherlands, none of this would be a surprise to you. Instead, you are pleased to pretend that transwomen are just men in drag, for example — which demonstrates your ignorance.

            What would your parents think of you when they see you are falsely
            accusing people you’ve never met of being rape apologists just because
            they believe unborn children have the right to live.

            It’s not a false accusation. Your own words bear out the truth that you are a rape apologist.

            Aside from the fact that I am going to be 50 years old on my next birthday and am thus way past worrying about what my parents might think … If my parents read your words, specifically “Rape can lead to good things,” and (with regard to the 11-year-old child) “I don’t care about her health, just if her life is in danger” and “being blind and diabetic isn’t the end of the world if she has a baby,” I suspect that my father would beat you into a tiny little pulp if given half an opportunity. ::shrug:: And, since my mother had an abortion (as previously related) when I was a year old, I think she’d just find you pitiful and figure that you needed more education to understand that life is not as black-and-white as you think it is.

            (More proof that you are not what you claim to be? You asking what someone’s parents might think. That’s usually something asked of a child … or by a child.)

          • Mr_Cris

            ” You maintain that transfolk are “both sexes””

            No. That is not even remotely what I said. And you know it.

            “I suspect that my father would want to beat you into a tiny little pulp if given half an opportunity”

            Like father like daughter. Both have no control over their words or actions.

          • fiona64

            Yes, you did write those things, both about the pregnant 11-year-old (when you said that you didn’t care about her health, you said that being blind and diabetic wasn’t the end of the world) and about transfolk when you said they are just “choosing whatever bathroom they prefer+, it was because they were both sexes (“So whether you call those people men or women they can’t be both.”) You hid your comment history in a desperate attempt to keep people from seeing the filth you spew. It isn’t working very well, is it?

            And believe me, I have full control over my words and actions. And so does my father. You just don’t like that I don’t kowtow to your bullshit. And guess what? I am *proud* to say that I learned that from my dad.

            You asked what my parents would think, and I told you. You’re just pissed because I didn’t get all sniffly and say “Oh, I’m sorry, little fake Dutch boy. You’re right and I’m wrong.” Because, for one thing, as I said, I am far past the age of being concerned with what my parents think. And for a second, you’re wrong.

            You’re a liar and always have been. I’ve read some of your bullshit on other sites, where you vomit up your homophobia and misogyny at length. People like you have no place in polite society. None. And if you don’t like the words I choose, well, too fucking bad. (Chosen deliberately, specifically, because you want to get all offended about not only my choice of words but about my defense of other women’s rights. I’m far more offended by your hate speech than you will ever be at my choosing to use Anglo-Saxon terminology.)

          • Mr_Cris

            No I did not write “isn’t the end of the world if she has a baby”

            I wrote that it isn’t the end of the world. And that she should be happy with and love the baby. I never said that the baby undoes the trauma. So I wrote the exact opposite of what you claim I wrote.

            “it was because they were both sexes”

            I never wrote that. I wrote the exact opposite. Almost every word you write about me is the exact opposite of the truth.

            “And believe me, I have full control over my words and actions”

            So you deliberately loose control.

            “homophobia”

            There is no such thing as homophobia. It is a term made up by homosexual activists to make normal people feel guilty about themselves.

            “I’m far more offended by your hate speech”

            Where did I say I hate a group of people? Answer: you can’t. I simply share my views. You are the one committing hate speech you hypocrite.

          • fiona64

            You must be a yogi, to make stretches like that. I quoted you directly. I’m sorry you’re too stupid to understand your own words, or realize that hiding your comment history doesn’t preclude people finding them to copy and paste in various threads.

            I do not “deliberately loose [sic] control.” I am in full control of my actions and my words. Sometimes, I tell you to go fuck yourself because I know it pisses you off that you can’t control me, and that you feel the need to lecture adults to “watch their words” so that you can feel like you are “large and in charge”. So, go fuck yourself.

            There is no such thing as homophobia. It is a term made up by homosexual activists to make normal people feel guilty about themselves.

            Pro-tip: “normal people” don’t go around hating people for being gay … or for being women, as you do.

            Now, go color while the adults talk. I’m sick of dealing with ignorant little boys.

          • Mr_Cris

            “I am in full control of my actions and my words.”

            But not in control of your character.

            “Pro-tip: “normal people” don’t go around hating people for being gay … or for being women, as you do.”

            I love both gays and women. I never wrote anything disrespectful or impolite about any gender or sexual orientation. I simply disagree with your definition of humans.

            I’ll stop debating you now. I’ve learned a lot by debating a troll like you.
            Have a nice day. God bless you.

          • fiona64

            I love both gays and women. I never wrote anything disrespectful or impolite about any gender or sexual orientation.

            You keep telling yourself that.

          • Valde

            Yeah fiona, he’s accused me of being a troll – twice now.

            And you may have missed it due to the sheer volume of comments, but he took issue with your statement about his indifference towards the little girl going ‘diabetic and blind’

            See, he only said he didn’t care if she went BLIND. He didn’t specifically say that he thought diabetes was something she could ‘live with.’ No, just the blindness.

            Really, we need to stop misrepresenting what he says :P

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh no–she’s not the troll, Cris–you are. So please, go fuck yourself.

          • fiona64

            Hey, little liar boy: Here are the exact words you used: The point is that they can go to the restroom they prefer. So they can
            go to both. So whether you call those people men or women they can’t be
            both.
            This was in reference to transfolk using the restrooms. You are the one saying that a transwoman using the ladies’ is doing so out of “preference.”

            And I’m not “calling” transfolk anything. Transmen are men. Transwomen are women. Period.

          • Mr_Cris

            What color is the sky in your world?

            “You are the one saying that a transwoman using the ladies’ is doing so out of “preference.””

            No I wrote the exact opposite. I wrote that if she is allowed to choose both it is preference. Not if she is allowed to choose one. If you only have one option it is not exactly a choice right?

            “And I’m not “calling” transfolk anything”

            You are calling them ‘transfolk’. So I was the one not calling them anything. Not you.

          • fiona64

            The point is that they can go to the restroom they prefer. So they can go to both. So whether you call those people men or women they can’t be both.

            Your words, dumbass.

          • Mr_Cris

            I know what I wrote. And nowhere in that quote you gave me did I call those people anything. Nowhere in that quote did I state that those people are both sexes. You simply repeat my words without pointing out how those words say what you want me to say.

          • fiona64

            ::yawn:: Really, little boy. You are very boring. Your own words condemn you.

          • Valde

            “being blind and diabetic isn’t the end of the world if she has a baby”

            I’ve never wrote that.

            Yes you did.

            It was in reply to me.

          • Mr_Cris

            I quote: “Being blind is not the end of the world. The rapist should be punished for the blindness as well in that case.”
            I never wrote that having a child undoes the trauma of rape. I never wrote that I justifies rape. So in fact I wrote the exact opposite. Quit twisting my words.

          • Valde

            We all know what you said.

            Keep protesting little boy, you’re only digging yourself a deeper hole.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are one resilient little troll. I know exactly what I wrote and I looked it up. We all can see you are lying.

            Almost everything you people write is the exact opposite of the truth.

          • Valde

            oh, so you deny that you believe that she can live WITH both diabetes and blindness?

            so, if diabetes was on the table, you are saying you would permit an abortion, right? right?

            seems to me you said she could only get an abortion if her life was at stake, and that any disability is something she could live with – and that includes blindness, diabetes, and any manner of horrific disability.

          • Mr_Cris

            I think it is disgusting how you joke about rape like that. Rape is not a laughing matter. Or do you seriously believe that rapists use rape as a means to cause blindness?! I think if the rapist wanted to blind the victim he would use more efficient ways. The way you combine unrelated arguments is ridiculous.

            I agree with the doctors in the case of Alicja Tysiac. The right to live is more important than the right to see. Apparently the European court is blind considering moral matters.

          • Valde

            And another failed strawman from you.

            You’re the only rape apologist here, and everyone knows it – even you.

            And thanks for admitting, once again, that in your mind, women exist as mere vessels without any agency of their own, vessels to be abused and blinded by rapists and fetuses.

          • Mr_Cris

            And another failed strawman from you.

            You’re the only liar here, and everyone knows it – even you.

            And thanks for admitting, once again, that in your mind, children exist as mere commodities without any agency of their own, vessels to be abused and ripped apart by feminists and pedophiles.

          • Valde

            And thanks for admitting, once again, that in your mind, children exist
            as mere commodities without any agency of their own, vessels to be
            abused and ripped apart by feminists and pedophiles.

            FTFY

            And thanks for admitting, once again, that in your mind, little pregnant children exist as mere commodities without any agency of their own, vessels to be abused and ripped apart by anti-choicers and pedophiles.

          • fiona64

            If you know anyone in Podunk, Nebraska, who is dismembering children, please call the local sheriff.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You are blind considering moral matters, because what you propose and support is not the least bit moral. In fact, it’s profoundly immoral. This immorality is one of the many reasons why I am no longer, nor will I ever again be, ‘pro-life’.

          • Mr_Cris

            All I’m for is saving and protecting lives. No one will get hurt. Yes people have to accept the truth. That hurts. Yes sacrifices have to be made. That’s tough. Responsibilities have to be taken. That’s difficult.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No there’s only one life here–and this little kid doesn’t have to ‘take responsibilty’ for anything. She’s a little girl. And it’s rather cavalier of you to wax poetic about a ‘sacrifice’ that you’ll never have to undertake yourself. As long as it’s someone else risking death and permanent disability, you’re great with it. But that’s ‘pro-life’ for you. Always demanding sacrifice for others and never themselves. And you’re still a rape apologist.

          • Valde

            You have no problem with the little girl going blind, or developing diabetes, or any other illness as a result of the pregnancy.

            You only care about the fetus.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There’s only one person with the ‘right to live’ and that’s the born child. She has the right not to be disabled or killed by a pregnancy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Neither is pregnancy and birth and yet you think that little kids should be forced to go through them if they are raped. In fact, you think it’s just hunky-dory.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You are the troll, Cris. And you are also a liar.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Your age is teenager, your nationality is American, your education is sorely lacking in all areas, pointing towards some bizarre evangelical home schooling. And you don’t have a college degree, certainly not in engineering. Integrity? You have none. You’re constantly trying to backtrack on everything you said under the guise of ‘clarification’. And yes, you are definitely a rape apologist.

          • goatini

            I think it’s a Catholic high school boy on summer vacation.

          • Mr_Cris

            Everything you wrote is the exact opposite of the truth. You are a leftist. Leftism is the most dynamic religion. It replaces reason with mantra’s. It replaces refutation with ad hominem attacks. You are a feminist. Feminism is a false religion that takes away femininity of women.
            In stead of responding to the things I say you keep making things up about me. I’m a Christian but not evangelical or catholic. I’m Dutch not American. I’m not home schooled since homeschooling is illegal in the Netherlands.
            You are an infanticide apologist.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Homeschooling is not illegal in the Netherlands–we’ve covered this already. Infanticide can only occur with a born child–no one here advocates that.You are definitely a teenager. And we’ve confirmed that you’re definitely not Dutch–your complete ignorance of their language, culture, healthcare system, educational systems and history, along with your use of American idioms has pretty much conclusively proven that.you are not Dutch. You may have Dutch ancestry, relatives that live there or even parents who came from there, but you are not Dutch. And yes, you still are a rape apologist.

          • Valde

            If you were Dutch, you would know what ‘AH’ is, and you did not. And everyone in the country knows what it is.

            cvjg, who lives in the Netherlands, exposed you for the fraud that you are.

          • fiona64

            You’re a sick fucking bastard.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Couldn’t have said it better myself. Sick, sick individual.

          • Mr_Cris

            My parents where maried when they conceived me, I’m perfectly healthy and I abstain from premarital sex. So I’m none of the three things you accused me of.

          • fiona64

            I’m sure that the women of your little podunk Bible-belt town are relieved about all of that.

          • Mr_Cris

            My home-town is not in the Dutch bible-belt.

          • fiona64

            No, it isn’t. Because it’s not in the Netherlands at all. Thanks for admitting that you’ve been lying all along.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There seems to be quite a lot that you fail to understand. Perhaps you want to grow up a little more–well,a lot more–before you go around acting like an idiot and running your mouth about issues that you don’t begin to comprehend and that actually aren’t your business to begin with. In less civil language, shut the hell up, kid.

          • fiona64

            Does the phrase “none of your goddamned business” mean anything to you?

          • Mr_Cris

            Yes it means you have serious issues and you want everybody that asks you about it to burn in hell for it. Maybe you should seek professional help in stead of releasing all your anger to someone you’ve never met. Or watch your words better next time.
            I asked you the most normal question in the universe. If you don’t want to answer that it is fine.

          • Valde

            You have serious issues consideirng the fact that you believe 11 year old rape victims should be:

            1) happy to be pregnant

            2) suck it up and stop whining if the pregnancy causes permanent disaiblity

          • Mr_Cris

            “suck it up and stop whining”
            I never said that.

          • fiona64

            … said the guy who believes an 11-year-old rape victim should be forced to gestate.

            You’re goddamned right I have issues about people sticking their fucking noses into other people’s medical decisions. Don’t you ever fucking tell me to “watch my words” again. And I wasn’t the one of whom you asked the nosiest goddamned question in the world: it’s none of your business why a woman might not want kids. Do you ask childed women why they *wanted* them? I’d bet not.

          • Mr_Cris

            Watch your words. Are you a teenage girl who doesn’t have control over her words?

          • fiona64

            And you said you weren’t trying to control how other people speak. What a laugh. It really pisses you off that I don’t kowtow to your desires, doesn’t it?

            This is just for you: fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Kid, you’re far too young to be telling adults to ‘watch their words’. And if the words that are being used are too adult for your tender ears to hear, perhaps that’s a sign that you don’t need to be here.

          • Valde

            Anyone who believes that a child is better off after having been raped and impregnated has ‘serious issues’.

            Anyone who believes that a child is ‘better off’ after having been raped, impregnated and permanently maimed as a result of the pregnancy is a sorry excuse for a human being.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Anyone who believes that a child is better off after having been raped and impregnated has ‘serious issues’.”
            I completely agree. I never said that that girl is better of.

          • Valde

            Yes, you did.

            You said ‘rape can lead to good things’ and ‘she should be happy to be having a baby’

            Therefore, she is better off than she was before the rape.

          • Valde

            You should help out women and girls by raping them Mr_Cris.

            Do it where abortion is illegal.

            Just think of all the happiness you’ll bring to their lives!

          • fiona64

            He’s probably typing with one hand now, just thinking about it.

          • Valde

            He is trying to backpedal now.

            But he quite clearly believes that pregnancy = god’s gift, and that this little girl should be happy to be pregnant and to have a healthy baby.

            Yes, he is quite concerned about the healthy baby. He pointed this out when I said that pregnancy can go terribly wrong. However, he is not at all concerned that the little girl might end up with horrific lifelong disabilities as a result of the pregnancy – after all, as long as she doesn’t die, she should be happy, right?

            And he believes that his position is the humane, moral one.

            I sincerely doubt that the International Court of Human Rights would agree with him.

          • fiona64

            You really are a Nosy Parker, aren’t you?

          • Mr_Cris

            You are the one who started talking about your uterus! Hypocrite.

          • fiona64

            No, dear. I didn’t say a thing about my uterus. Do try to keep up.

          • Mr_Cris

            Sorry. I confused you with someone else. But that doesn’t invalidate my statement that I wasn’t the one starting about it.

          • Valde

            OK, so when it is illegal and a woman successfully performs an abortion on herself with no injury you believe she should get the death penalty?

          • fiona64

            That’s exactly what he believes. He also believes that the little girl in Chile, about whom I posted the article yesterday, should be denied abortion even though her life, and that of the fetus, is in danger because of said pregnancy. “Committing abortion after rape just covers up for pedophiles,” quoth he.

            He’s real “pro-life,” that one. Let a child rape victim die of pregnancy complications, as long as she stays pregnant! What an asshole.

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t know. If judges decide that the penalty is 10 years I would have no problem with it. But I wouldn’t object if under extreme circumstances the woman would face the death penalty.
            That is equality. If a man kills his unborn child he gets punished. So women should also be punished.

          • Valde

            Ok, so in other words, the 11 year old gets the death penalty for aborting the rape pregnancy that is probably going to kill her.

            Thanks for the heads up.

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t believe in giving the death penalty to 11 year olds.
            I fact an 11 year old girl can’t make such an appointment or such a decision on her own so she isn’t capable of making that choice. The ones that try to make that decision for her are the ones responsible. They are anti-choice and pro-abortion.

          • Valde

            Ok, so you’ll prefer if she is denied an abortion and dies from that instead. As punishment for getting raped.

          • fiona64

            Well, considering that the people making the decision are saying that she can’t have an abortion, I would say that they are indeed anti-choice. No one, BTW, is “pro-abortion.” Or are you going to pretend that it’s a Dutch term that means something different than what it actually means?

          • Mr_Cris

            You oppose murder right? Then you are anti-choice when it comes to murdering people. You oppose stealing right? Then you are anti-choice when it comes to stealing from people.

            An 11 year old girl can’t legitimately consent to an sexual act. So it is always rape. But she also can’t consent to the medical procedure.
            So it is the parents that have to make that choice for her. If the child’s life is not at risk the fate of the grandchild completely depends on the convictions of the parents. How is that not anti-choice?
            Pro-abortion means you consider abortion a solution to certain problems. Sometimes it even means you consider no abortion immoral. Abortion is only justified in the case of the life of the mother.
            Safe, legal and rare is a lie. Abortion activists don’t want to make it rare. So therefore they are pro-abortion.

          • fiona64

            You and your stupid straw men. We have laws against murder because our laws (you know, in the US, where you actually live) are based on the rights of *victims* to be safe and secure in their persons as provided for in the US Constitution … the rights under which only accrue after birth, so you can stop your next stupid straw man in its tracks.

            And no, it is not this child’s parents who are preventing her having an abortion: it is the laws of her *country,* which are identical to the ones you want to see implemented here. The child’s life is at risk, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

            But you don’t care, because hey! “That’s what the uterus is for.”

          • Mr_Cris

            If you oppose an immoral action you oppose people choosing that immoral action. So in that sense we are all anti choice. That’s my point.

            “it is not this child’s parents who are preventing her having an abortion”
            I wasn’t talking about preventing abortion, but getting one. Parents letter their daughter have an abortion are anti-choice. I always thought the pro-choice argument was that it was the woman’s body. But a little girl is not a woman yet and unable to make those kinds of decisions about her body.
            If you’re unable to consent to having a kid you are unable to consent killing it.

          • Valde

            Actually, a little girl can consent to not being pregnant, given the fact that the growing fetus will likely, given the size of the girl, cause her intense pain and suffering.

            You know, as it tears apart her tiny uterus.

          • Mr_Cris

            So having pain means you can consent?
            What if a little girl has mental pain and thinks she needs to have sex. Do you think she can consent to that as well? Because if pain makes you capable of making adult decisions, then why not those kinds of decisions?

          • Valde

            So if a little girl is in a car accident, and her arm is cut open, and it’s causing her a great deal of pain, she shouldn’t be allowed to get any treatment for the injury because she is too young to consent to medical care?

            lulz

          • fiona64

            Tell me, Mr. Cris. Do you have to take yoga to make stretches like that?

            We do not have laws because of morality; we have them because of the rights of victims.

            Stop being stupid. If you can.

          • Mr_Cris

            “We do not have laws because of morality”
            Well that is simply false. Without morality there wouldn’t be a need for laws.

          • fiona64

            No, dear. Laws are *not* based on morality. They are based on the rights of victims. I’m sure your mommy told you differently during homeschool time, but that’s not the case. Law does not cease to be law based on moral criticism. This article would be a good place for you to start educating yourself: http://freethoughtblogs dot com/axp/2011/11/07/what-does-it-mean-to-legislate-morality/

            Quote: Laws are just a set of rules to ensure the safe and harmonious interaction of society. Whether or not laws align with morality, has everything to do with your personal sense of moral values. But we don’t govern from morality, in the U.S. for example, but from a Constitution that was put forward by some people, as what was considered to be a goodidea for governance. The Constitution does not tell anyone what is right or wrong. It talks only about governmental authority. Regulations aren’t morals.

            A good example would be the food industry. They have food safety
            regulations. You might think it’s immoral to produce food in a way that makes it unsafe and potentially harms people. But that is NOT the reasonfor our food safety laws. The food safety laws are enacted because the government is tasked with looking after citizen safety. In short: It’s a bad idea to have your population eating poison. It causes a problem for your citizens, and therefore is a government concern, because the government wants to ensure the smooth function of society. Not because the government is telling people what is moral.

          • Mr_Cris

            Your example clearly illustrates my point. Harming citizens is immoral. Poisoning citizens harms citizens. Therefore poisoning citizens is immoral. That’s why it is illegal.

          • fiona64

            No, it is not illegal because it is “immoral.” It is illegal because people have the right not to be poisoned: you know, to be safe and secure in their persons. Like I said in the first place.

            You still suck at Aristotelian syllogism; stop trying.

          • Mr_Cris

            And people have the right not to be poisoned because being poisoned is immoral.

          • fiona64

            Let me post this for you in nice, bold print. From the same source: It’s a bad idea to have your population eating poison. It causes a
            problem for your citizens, and therefore is a government concern,
            because the government wants to ensure the smooth function of society.
            Not because the government is telling people what is moral.

            There, dumbfuck. Now that it’s in big print, perhaps you can read it better.

          • L-dan

            In fact, for a good while, the moral arguments actually prevented giving any teeth to regulating certain poisons. During prohibition, they were hunting for ever nastier things to add to industrial alcohol that would allow it to be used for industrial purposes while remaining undrinkable. Lots of people died thanks to the less than successful attempts at removing poisons from industrial alcohol, and the moral argument was that those who went drinking on the sly like that deserved their poisonings.

            Thankfully, we eventually realized that trying to legislate morality caused more problems than it solved, and Prohibition was repealed.

            This isn’t to say that some laws aren’t firmly based in moral panic; those against prostitution, for example. But overall, our legal system is not based on what is moral. Even the foundations of it are about keeping society functioning in good order (things like weregild make that clear. It’s not about scolding one for a moral wrong so much as making it expensive to be a disruptive element of society).

            Now, in the case of the 11 year old rape victim, it’s pretty damned immoral to say that she can’t consent to pregnancy or termination of pregnancy and thus we can’t do anything…de facto condemning her to continuing the pregnancy she couldn’t consent to and which will damage her health, possibly to the point of killing her.

          • Nor

            Fetuses are not citizens.

          • Mr_Cris

            And cats are not automobiles. What’s your point?

          • Nor

            Well, Prohibition worked out so well. That and the not letting women or black people vote, or interracial marriage. Or gay marriage. Ah, the good old days, when morals were law!

          • Mr_Cris

            Biblical marriage doesn’t discriminate on gender, race or sexual orientation. It is simply defined as one man and one woman.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, not so much. Biblical marriage is also defined as “one man who marries his rape victim after paying her father for property damage” or “one man and as many women as he can afford” or “one man and his brother’s widow” or “one man, his wife and her slave” or “one male soldier and a female prisoner of war” or “two slaves, with or without their consent.”

            Nice try.

          • Mr_Cris

            Read the bible again please.

          • fiona64

            I guarantee I’ve read it in far greater detail and understanding than you have, sweetie. And why do I say that? Well, remember that whole linguistics business I’ve talked about?

            How much Hebrew or koine Greek can *you* read, Little Cris?

            Here are the biblical citations for your edification:

            Polygyny (one man and as many women as he can afford): Gen 4:19, Gen 16:3, Gen 25:1, Ex 2:21, Judges 8:29-32 … really, I could go on, but this is ridiculously easy pickings.

            Levirate marriage (one man and his brother’s widow): Gen 38:6-10

            A man, a woman and her property (one man, his wife and her slave): Gen 16:1-6 and Gen 30:45.

            Male soldier and female prisoner of war: Deut 21:11-14

            Rapist and his victim: Deut 22:28-29

            Male and female slaves, with or without consent: Exodus 21:2-6

            It’s not Vacation Bible School, little Cris. Some of us actually know what we’re talking about.

          • Mr_Cris

            You only see what you want to see. Your feministic fundamentalism makes you incapable of reading the bible in an objective way.

            Take for instance Exodus 21:2-6. Where male ‘slaves’ are given the choice to stay with their master or leave them. Nothing about consent is mentioned. The bibles teachings about slavery are brilliant. We can learn from that.

          • fiona64

            Well, since you support slavery, your position is not at all shocking.

            I’m sorry that you were too stupid to understand the information presented to you.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            This is some seriously good trolling.

          • Guest

            What about that king who had 700 wives, and 300 concubines? Is that a marriage between “1 man and 1 woman”?

          • Mr_Cris

            Just because the bible mentioned it does not mean God approved of it. A lot of sins are mentioned to give us bad examples.

          • fiona64

            If you knew your Bible half as well as you pretend to, you would know that the man to whom our guest refers was Solomon … who was praised by God in 1 Kings for his wisdom and discernment. Hardly a “bad example.”

          • Valde

            So if the little girl suffers permanent injury and disability, or goes blind, or develops diabetes as a result of the forced pregnancy – THAT’S OK.

            Glad to see you don’t give two shits about the quality of life of a little girl.

          • fiona64

            Because that’s pro-life!

          • Mr_Cris

            Being blind is not the end of the world. The rapist should be punished for the blindness as well in that case.

            You think being blind or disabled makes life not worth living. So you support aborting children with a disability. Just like Hitler did.

          • Valde

            Tell me, what other disabilities are you pleased to see little girls and women suffer as a result of a pregnancy that has been brutally forced upon them?

            And how truly *kind* of you to decide, for a rape victim, the validity of her suffering. What would rape victims do without you to tell them that their injuries aren’t worth shit?

            “You think being blind or disabled makes life not worth living. So you
            support aborting children with a disability. Just like Hitler did.”

            I never said that. Stop twisting my words. You, however, seem to believe that all manner of indignity and health problems are things that victims of rape should just ‘deal with’ and ‘be happy that they have a baby, even if they are blind’ – because after all, being a male, you will never find yourself dying or injured from a rape pregnancy.

          • Mr_Cris

            “what other disabilities are you pleased to see”

            I’m not pleased with any disabilities.

            “that their injuries aren’t worth shit”

            They are significant.

            “because after all, being a male, you will never find yourself dying or injured from a rape pregnancy.”

            Males can have mothers, sisters, wives and daughters that can become victims of rape. Males can get injured from being raped too. They just don’t get pregnant.

          • Valde

            “Males can get injured from being raped too.”

            If you get raped, trust me, you will not end up disabled as a result of a pregnancy.

            “They are significant”

            You seem to think a child should be obligated to give birth to a rapist’s offspring, even if she ends up permanently disabled. Clearly, you don’t think any injury is significant enough to let the girl decide whether or not she wants to remain pregnant.

            “I’m not pleased with any disabilities.”

            My bad. You are, however, pleased with the rape pregnancy, and think the girl should just suck it up and deal with any resulting disability. After all, why should a rape victim be allowed to lead a normal life? The rapist embryo is far far more important than the child is.

          • fiona64

            I invoke Godwin’s Law. (BTW, Hitler was a forced-birther, like you. Look up Lebensborn.)

          • Mr_Cris

            There is no such thing as a forced-birther.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, there is: you see him in the mirror every day when you squeeze your zits.

          • Mr_Cris

            Every person delivered through natural birth is a forced-birther. Because unborn children force the birth.

          • Cheryl Nelson

            Okay, I don’t mean to take this conversation off on a whole “Hitler” tangent, but I just have to jump in here.
            A) You always know an arguement is over when someone calls Hitler. It’s a meme rule isn’t? Rule 34 or Godwin’s Law or something like that? ALSO, it’s a weak arguement. I mean, it’s like saying “So, you like art, do you? Just like Hitler did.” or “So you’re a vegetarian, are you? Just like Hitler.”
            B) Damn RIGHT I support aborting children with disabilities! I mean, as a scientist and a big fan of the study of evolutionary biology, part of me cringes at the thought of the loss of all those potential interesting case studies, or more directly useful scientific insight, and of course depending on the disability a disabled person can have a truely excellent life, and enrich the lives of those around them. ON THE OTHER HAND, one of my worst fears about parenting is that I’ll end up with some tragically, unhelpably disabled child, unable to ever enjoy a high quality of life of live independently.

          • Mr_Cris

            “I mean, it’s like saying “So, you like art, do you? Just like Hitler did.”

            I was not Hilters preference in art that led to the extermination of the Jews. It was the attitude that some people are not fit to live. He got that idea from Darwin.

            “Damn RIGHT I support aborting children with disabilities!”
            If you think Gods children are not worth living because they require extra care then indeed you can be damned as you said.

            “a big fan of the study of evolutionary biology”
            Where did you think Hilter got his ideas from?

          • fiona64

            It was the attitude that some people are not fit to live. He got that idea from Darwin.

            You’ve clearly never read Darwin.

          • Valde

            “An 11 year old girl can’t legitimately consent to an sexual act. So it
            is always rape. But she also can’t consent to the medical procedure.”

            Well then, by that logic, as soon as a girl is old enough to consent to a medical procedure she should have the right to an abortion!

            ” Abortion activists don’t want to make it rare.”

            You are the one who doesn’t think women, let alone girls, should have access to contraception and plan B. Clearly, you would prefer it if a pre-teen went through a pregnancy that nearly kills her, than to have that pre-teen use contraception.

            Yeah, to you, women are merely containers for the all important fetus. And they had better not whine if it maims them.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Well then, by that logic, as soon as a girl is old enough to consent to a medical procedure she should have the right to an abortion!”
            She does have that legal right at that age. But it is not her body she is abortiong. So she shouldn’t have that right.
            Pedophiles love plan B. They can rape a girl over and over again and nobody finds out, because the abortion pill plan B will be sold to little girls without parental consent or notification.

          • fiona64

            More proof that you’re American, sweetie: It’s not called Plan B anywhere but the United States. In the Netherlands, where you claim to be from? It’s referred to as RU486. Nice try.

            And since it’s not sold to girls under the age of 15, well, you’re lying about this, too: They can rape a girl over and over again and nobody finds out, because
            the abortion pill plan B will be sold to little girls without parental
            consent or notification.

            We’re not stupid, Cris. You give yourself away constantly.

          • Mr_Cris

            Just because I use the American word doesn’t mean I am American. I just read more English articles than Dutch articles.
            Everything I said is true. They are in the process of legalizing the over the counter sale of abortion pills like Plan B without parental consent or notification. That’s why I said ‘will’ and not ‘is’. I hope it won’t.

          • fiona64

            More tap dancing. Quelle surprise.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Plan B is actually birth control. It doesn’t cause an abortion and it’s not an abortion pill. And yet again you out yourself as an American. Why don’t you just quit with the lying, Cris?

          • Mr_Cris

            It is an abortifacient form of birth control. That is the whole point of Plan B.

            “Why don’t you just quit with the lying, Cris?”
            I never lied here.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, it isn’t. Fertilization does not take place immediately during intercourse, but 24-72 hours after. Plan B prevents that fertilzation from ever happening. If a woman is already pregnant, Plan B will do nothing. And yes, you lie–you lie quite frequently.

          • Nor

            Abortion is not murder if you do it yourself? Interesting.

          • Valde

            Yeah, just more deflections so he can get out of actually answering the questions put to him.

          • Mr_Cris

            I said the exact opposite. But you can’t read apparently.
            It is always killing and sometimes murder. When abortion is performed to safe the life of the mother then it is not murder. When abortion is performed because the mother doesn’t like the gender or color of the child it is murder. If she is forced to undergo an abortion then obviously she can’t be held accountable.

          • Jennifer Starr

            How callous. I am so very glad that I’m no longer on your side of the fence.

          • fiona64

            I know, right? I used to be a bible-thumping anti-choicer as well. Then, I got out into the real world and discovered that nothing is quite as black-and-white as I thought. It is amazing how people are able to delude themselves into thinking they know best for other people without having the slightest idea of the other party’s circumstances.

          • fiona64

            Oh, yes, you bloody well did. I asked you what punishment a woman should have if she had an abortion, and you said “That would be up to a judge, but capital punishment should be considered.”

            You’re a goddamned liar.

          • Mr_Cris

            No I didn’t. The whole world can see you are lying.

          • Valde

            Actually, we can see that you are the one who is lying.

          • Mr_Cris

            I reread my comments and I still can’t see where I claimed that a woman who terminates a pregnancy should be executed.
            I said that once it is illegal it should be considered in certain circumstances. I gave the example of Gosnell. A serial killer.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, she specifically asked you what punishment a woman should receive for having an illegal abortion. And you said that in certain circumstances, capital punishment should be considered. You didn’t specify what these circumstances were or say anything about Gosnell. You keep trying to mislead and backtrack on your statements and it won’t work.

          • Mr_Cris

            If she had an abortion to safe her life, then there’s nothing wrong with it. If she had an abortion because the child is black or a women, then it is not only a crime, but a hate crime. Taking away all her money and donating it to a pregnancy crisis center would be a start. Then lock her up for 10 years.

          • Valde

            so if a black woman has an abortion it’s a hate crime?

            lulz

          • Mr_Cris

            If the child is aborted because the color of it’s skin it is a hate crime. Whether the mother is white or black it is still racism.

          • fiona64

            As Kandor and Ebb said in “Chicago”: “Ladies and gentlemen, a tap dance …”

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t understand what you mean.
            Do you support killing a child because it is black?

          • fiona64

            I don’t support killing children. I also do not think abortion is killing a child, because children are born.

            What I mean, dumbass, is that you are tap-dancing and backpedaling when confronted with your own idiotic words.

          • Mr_Cris

            “I also do not think abortion is killing a child, because children are born.”
            What parts are added at birth?

            What if science finds a way to keep unborn children at all stages of development alive outside of the mother. Would that child never be alive?(because it is never born)

          • fiona64

            What if science came up with a way to insert an actual thinking *brain* into your head?

            I’m sorry that you’re too stupid to differentiate between an embryo (which is the developmental stage at which the vast majority of abortions take place) and an actual, born child.

            If the embryo is the same as a born child, well, it can just move out of the uterus and get a job and a cute apartment.

            And none of this changes the fact that you’re a backpedaling liar who is pissed off that we’re pointing out the stupidity of your “arguments” by using your own words.

          • Mr_Cris

            You didn’t answer my questions.

            Or is this your answer “get a job and a cute apartment”.
            That would mean you get to kill a child up to the age when it can get a job or an apartment.

          • fiona64

            Yes, actually, I did answer. Repeatedly. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to understand the words.

            An embryo is not the same as a born entity. Or, to make it simple: the little organism in Mommy’s tummy is not the same as an infant.

            Oh, wait. I used big words.

            It’s not a baby, little boy. It’ll be a baby after Mommy goes to the hospital and gives birth.

          • Nor

            The ability to live independently.

            That would be fine. They could then all be removed into jars as fetuses and pro-lifers could adopt the jar. Problem solved. You best get to funding that science.

          • Mr_Cris

            That is simply false. Newborn babies completely depend on adults. The are not independent.
            And even some adults are incapable if living independently. Are they not alive?

          • fiona64

            Newborn babies completely depend on adults. The are not independent.

            They are independent of the mother, as they (wait for it) no longer *depend* on the umbilicus for survival. That is why *anyone,* not just the birth mother, can care for an infant. It’s an independent organism/being.

            And you tried to pretend you are a university graduate. Pffft.

          • Mr_Cris

            But they depend on her breasts.
            This reminds me of a case where a mother in Canada stabbed her newborn baby to death. She didn’t get any punishment because the umbilical cord was still attached. Those kinds of horrors are a direct result of your pseudo-science.
            Just because some tube is attached to you doesn’t make you any less human.

          • fiona64

            But they depend on her breasts.

            Which must be why a father, grandmother, auntie, sibling, babysitter or adopter cannot ever feed an infant from a bottle. (You are no university graduate, that is for sure.)

            As every single other “case you’ve heard of” (like the woman walking around with a decaying fetus in her uterus for years without suffering any health complications) was bullshit, I feel pretty safe dismissing this one as well.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Which must be why a father, grandmother, auntie, sibling, babysitter or adopter cannot ever feed an infant from a bottle”

            Well you are wrong. They can feed the child and if they don’t the child will starve. So it is not “an independent organism/being.”.

          • fiona64

            I guess that understanding sarcasm is not your strong suit. You said that infants are “dependent” on a woman’s breast in order to be fed — and I said that being “dependent” on that mechanism must be why no one else can feed them.

            Infants are independent organisms. They are not attached to anyone by an umbilicus or, as you put it, “some tube.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            Cris, it’s called formula. And anyone can feed it to a baby–you do it with a bottle. I was bottle fed. You’re either painfully young or just not very bright. Personally, I’m guessing both.

          • fiona64

            Yep. No university grad I’ve ever encountered refers to the umbilicus as “some tube.”

          • Mr_Cris

            How does the existence of formula make a newborn child “an independent organism/being.”?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Anyone can take care of baby once it’s born. Only one woman can carry a fetus.

          • fiona64

            You would think that a Dutch college grad would know these things … /snark

          • Valde

            “This reminds me of a case where a mother in Canada stabbed her newborn
            baby to death. She didn’t get any punishment because the umbilical cord
            was still attached”

            Nice fake story.

            Got any more fake stories for us?

          • fiona64

            I’m sure he’s got several, all of them just as true as this one and the one about the magic, non-decomposing dead fetus. In fact, I’ll bet I can predict one!

            See, there was this couple that went parking out by the woods this one time … even though they’d been told about the Hook-handed murderer …

          • Valde

            Fiona, how do I bold and italicize text so that I can be cool like you.

          • fiona64

            It’s HTML tags. Bold is [b][/b] and italic is [i][/i], except you use the symbols where I used brackets. The words you want to emphasize go between the brackets.

          • Valde

            Thanks.

            Now I can properly highlight Mr_Cris lies and fake stories in order to discredit them@

          • Jennifer Starr

            There is no such case. The closest thing that I found to a case like that was a woman in Georgia, but guess what? She’s been charged and being held without bail awaiting a trial. Any other things that you care to make up?

          • Valde

            And recently there was a woman in Canada who had a stillbirth and she was CHARGED with a crime for concealing the body.

            In Canada, infanticide is a crime.

          • Valde

            A fetus cannot be given up for adoption.

            The 11 year old girl cannot hand the fetus over to someone else if it is the process of disfiguring her.

          • Valde

            Yeah, black women abort their fetuses all the time because they are black. It’s because they are waiting for that extra special white baby that they can give birth too.

            lulz

          • Mr_Cris

            Gosnell gave black patients less quality treatment then white patients. People can be racist towards their own race. However that is rare.
            And I wasn’t mentioning the case where a black mother had a black child. You started it. I obviously refer to the case of a white mother and a black child, but you challenged me. The logic still holds.

          • Valde

            I want you to tell me where a black woman has tried to abort the black embryo inside of her.

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t know of such a case. But I wasn’t the one who brought it up.

          • Jennifer Starr

            How would you go about proving said racism? Or would you just make the assumption that any time a woman of color has an abortion that racism must be the reason?

          • Mr_Cris

            You make an excellent point.
            If the woman makes her motives clear when having a conversation with her doctor and her motives are deemed immoral(race, gender etc.) they can offer her psychological help to deal with her delusions.
            If the woman remains silent, however, then it would be impossible to ban it.

          • Nor

            You couldn’t tell that until birth, genius.

          • Mr_Cris

            So all blacks start out white according to you? They change color just after birth?

          • Jennifer Starr

            But you previously tried to tell me that abortion was never necessary to save a woman’s life.

          • fiona64

            I keep coming back to the same thing: he’s full of more shit than a French goose.

          • Mr_Cris

            And I still believe that. In theory it could be necessary. In practice it never is. But if the doctor tells the woman it is necessary when it isn’t then she can’t be blamed for it.

          • fiona64

            Tap dance, tap dance, tap dance.

          • Nor

            You said doctors lie.

          • Nor

            Look, murder is murder. You are being morally inconsistent. Either a fetus’s rights trump a woman’s or they don’t. Either abortion is murder or it’s not. It doesn’t stop being murder just because the woman selfishly wants to live. She still has committed murder by your rules. The doctors, should save her, then according to you, ship her off to jail to be executed. Pro-life for the win!

          • Mr_Cris

            “murder is murder”
            Not all killing is murder. But all murder is killing.

            “Either a fetus’s rights trump a woman’s or they don’t”

            They have equal rights. Not more rights.

            “The doctors, should save her, then according to you, ship her off to jail to be executed”

            That was the exact opposite of what I wrote.

          • fiona64

            No, you fucking well did not. I asked what punishment a woman should face for having an abortion, and you said: That’s up to the judge to decide. But in certain circumstances capital punishment should be considered.

            You never mentioned Gosnell until I called you out for saying that women should be executed … and you then backpedaled and said you referred to Gosnell … who have never been mentioned *once.*

          • Mr_Cris

            You agree with me. But you are lying about it because you like to falsely accuse people.

          • fiona64

            No, I do not agree with you. Nor am I falsely accusing you. Your OWN WORDS accuse you, dumbass.

          • Mr_Cris

            Screaming. Name-calling. Falsely accusing. Misquoting.
            To you the ends seem to always justify the means.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Pretty funny thing coming from a backpedaler. And she’s not misquoting–she’s stating your words exactly. You just don’t like it.

          • fiona64

            No one is misquoting you, dear.

            Name-calling? Who was it who said “men-hating femenist [sic]” in reference to the posters here? Why, that would be you!

            Who was it who falsely accuses post-abortive women of committing felonies (murder)? Why, that would be you!

            Who is it who tells lies and calls them “well-known scientific facts,” such as that a dead fetus will not decompose in the womb, or that sex outside of marriage “permanently rewires the brain”? Why, that would be you!

            So, what were you saying about the ends justifying the means again?

          • Mr_Cris

            That isn’t name-calling. That is a fact.

            Murder is not a murder because it is a felonies. It is a felony because it is murder. But not all murders are felonies.

          • fiona64

            Can someone parse this for me? I lost my “bullshit-to-English” decoder ring and I can’t figure out what this poor, benighted creature is trying to say.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think he’s trying to say that his homeschooling failed to cover even the most basic criminal justice concepts.

          • fiona64

            If you go over to the Hobby Lobby article, you will see how it also failed to cover Aristotelian syllogism. Wow.

          • Nor

            It’s ok to murder women. It’s not ok to murder fetuses. Is that what you are saying?

          • Mr_Cris

            “It’s ok to murder women”
            No that is not what I’m saying. Could you quote me on that?

          • Nor

            You understand words stay after writing them, right?

          • Mr_Cris

            Yes. But you have a different definition of the words I used.

          • fiona64

            But, Nor! Words don’t mean what they mean! Especially if you’re pretending to be Dutch! /snark

          • Nor

            Gosnell is what will happen for all abortions if made illegal. He was an illegal abortion provider. He is the future you want for all women. I hope you like your choice.

          • Mr_Cris

            Actually he was a legal abortion provider. The pro-abortion activists just made sure the laws where not upheld. If the clinic was inspected then It would never have happened. Pro-choice people caused these deaths. Not pro-life people.
            If abortion is banned then the amount of abortions will drop. Opportunity creates additional demand.

          • Mr_Cris

            “and made into a hate crime”
            I never said that.

          • fiona64

            Yes, dear, you did: “If the fetus is black, or female, then abortion should be punished as a hate crime.”

          • Mr_Cris

            Busted! You misquote me:

            “If she had an abortion because the child is black or a women, then it is not only a crime, but a hate crime”

          • fiona64

            Yes, the quote was imprecise (and that is why you hid your history; you know that not all of your comments made it out of moderation, and thus cannot be perfectly quoted). It does not change the fact that my recollection was 100 percent accurate as regards your intent.

            In fact, you are “busted” (I’m sure that the Dutch use that term constantly … or, you know, not) by your own words: “If she had an abortion because the child is black or a women, then it is not only a crime, but a hate crime”

            So, yes. You maintain that abortion should be treated as a hate crime if the fetus is black or female.

            However, I do thank you for handing me an additional nail for your linguistic coffin.

          • Mr_Cris

            “So, yes. You maintain that abortion should be treated as a hate crime if the fetus is black or female.”

            No I didn’t. I said:

            “If she had an abortion because the child is black or a women, then it is not only a crime, but a hate crime”

            But I didn’t say:
            “If she had an abortion and the child is black or a women, then it is not only a crime, but a hate crime”

          • fiona64

            More backpedaling. Quelle surprise.

            I said: You maintain that abortion should be treated as a hate crime if the fetus is black or female

            And you said: If she had an abortion because the child is black or a women, then it is not only a crime, but a hate crime

            Are you seriously quibbling over my use of the word female vs. your “women” (I don’t know of any fetuses that are women …)? Because our statements are identical.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Quelle surprise”

            I’m Dutch. Not French.

            Let me clarify.
            If she had an abortion because the child is of a race she hates or of a gender she doesn’t desire, then it is not only a crime, but a hate crime.

          • fiona64

            Nope. Abortion is legal in this country. The reasons for having an abortion do not need to be disclosed.

            And you’re not Dutch.

          • fiona64

            Let’s just take this part of your “clarification,” shall we?

            If she had an abortion because the child is of a race she hates

            Tell me, little Cris: aside from the fact that a fetus is not a child … if a woman hates people of a particular ethnicity so much, why would she have intercourse with a person of that ethnicity?

            I can’t wait to see your “explanation” for this particular piece of stupidity …

          • Valde

            Yes, great question.

            I eagerly await the strawman answer that Mr_Cris will have to invent.

          • fiona64

            Two weeks on, and Mr. Cris still can’t explain to me why a woman would have sexual intercourse with a person of an ethnicity that she “hates” …

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses don’t have the right to maim and murder their captive hosts.

          • Mr_Cris

            Fetuses are incapable of murder. You are a fool.

          • Nor

            Making abortion illegal will not eliminate or even slow abortion. It will kill a lot of women though. You’ve chosen a very pro-life stance!

          • Mr_Cris

            It will not eliminate it. I agree. But it will be reduced. Availability of abortion and the abortion mindset increases demand on abortion.
            There are alternatives to abortion.

      • fiona64

        You know, I predicted this in another thread — because anti-choicers love to talk about “poor Connor Peterson” whilst completely disregarding the murdered Laci. The fetal homicide law attaches as a special circumstance when a crime is committed against the actual person — in the case you cite, Laci Peterson.

        It would really help if people understood how fetal homicide laws *really* work, instead of thinking that they declare a fetus to be a person.

      • fiona64

        PS: Since we can’t even identify when conception takes place (we can only estimate when implantation takes place based on formulae that presume every woman has a 28-day cycle), that’s a fairly silly assertion. According to your beliefs, women must be committing murder every time they have a period, since well over half of products of conception flush out with menses without ever having implanted.

      • cjvg

        lacy Peterson was 8 months pregnant!
        Which is well beyond the point of viability, which is set at 24 weeks gestation and, at which point no legal abortion can ever be obtained!

        So yes it that point it can be considered a crime against 2 people.
        However science, ethics and morality do not offer a shred of support for this at any point before viability!

      • Nor

        Well, on the bright side, you can count on a lot more cases like that one as access to abortion is restricted. Access to abortion helps get women out of violent relationships, as they are often raped/forced to become pregnant by their abuser so that he can gain more control.

  • Saralyn Fosnight

    I had a friend whose fourth pregnancy ended with her fetis dying in utero in the seventh month. Her doctors said her body would “naturally” reject the dead fetus. It did not. She used to call me at work and we’d spend fifteen or twenty minutes sobbing at the awfulness of her situation. The fetus, of course, was starting to decompose inside her. Finally, after a month (!) the doctors decided to induce labor. My friend had a history of irregular labors—labors that would start and stop, start and stop, with her two living children; I can’t imagine why her doctors thought her body would reject the dead fetus to begin with, and as was usual for her, she required massive amounts of pitocin to get the baby out. Her parents though she was nuts for wanting to bury the baby in a coffin, but she and her husband did just this. I can’t recall a worse experience among any of my friends. I can’t believe that under these new laws thought up by ignorant, bigoted, women-hating men other women might conceivably have to endure what my friend did if their fetuses died earlier while in utero.

    • Mr_Cris

      They burried their child. I think it is very disrespectful of you to refer that child as fetus. Her parents are disrespectful aswell, by calling their daughter nuts.
      I don’t know how abortion could have saved the life of this child. It would only hide it.
      That is what abortion is. Closing your eyes for the truth.

      • Christine

        Such situations can make the pregnant woman sterile or gravely ill with
        serious permanent consequences, or even make her die. It is a dangerous
        matter to house decomposing tissue, such as that of an unborn child who
        has passed away, inside one’s body. A close friend of mine was in this
        situation, and now has a wonderful child she would likely not have had
        if she had not, upon medical advice, chosen to abort in a timely fashion
        the one who died in utero, before it could cause a massive infection,
        sterility, or death.

        • Mr_Cris

          Abortion can make women sterile also and puts them at much high risks for cancer.

          ” is a dangerous matter to house decomposing tissue, such as that of an unborn child who has passed away, inside one’s body.”

          The womb is a sterile environment. The baby won’t rot. No worms will craw out. In fact I’ve heard of a case where a women miscarried but didn’t have the money to have the dead body removed. Years later the child was in a sort of petrified state. No decomposition.
          If the baby has died it is no longer an abortion. If is simply retreiving the body.

          • Valde

            omg you are so full of shit

          • Mr_Cris

            Truth hurts.

          • fiona64

            You wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked you in your ignorant, misogynistic face.

          • Mr_Cris

            I love women.

          • fiona64

            Then why do you treat us as though we’re all too collectively stupid to make our own medical decisions?

          • goatini

            So, be ready when you’re confronted with it, because you haven’t said anything even remotely truthful yet.

          • Ella Warnock

            I’m not hurting, so it must not be the truth.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are incapable of understanding logic.

          • Ella Warnock

            Sure you did.

          • Mr_Cris

            Sure I didn’t.

          • fiona64

            Nor have you spoken anything true here.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Only you’re telling complete lies. You’re actually against removing a dead fetus? Why?

          • fiona64

            Because he’s a misogynistic asshole.

          • fiona64

            Lies. All of it.

          • HeilMary1

            Mother killing jackass, female fetuses cause breast cancer all the time and rotting fetuses murder their mothers all the time. It’s called sepsis.

          • Mr_Cris

            Fetuses can’t murder.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            “Abortion can make women sterile”

            Extremely rarely. But to be fair, so can childbirth. Or a car accident. Or abdominal surgery. Or stupidity.

            “…also and puts them at much high risks for cancer.”

            Not according to science in the last 28 years. Misinformation is not the way to go.

          • Mr_Cris

            “so can childbirth”

            Yes. But then she has a child. If a mother aborts her child then it could be the last one she had. And nobody chooses to be in a car accident so that one can’t be used for comparison.

            “Not according to science in the last 28 years. ”

            Not according to *your* science maybe. Giving birth reduces the chance of breast cancer. Having abortion increases the chance of breast cancer.

          • fiona64

            Having abortion increases the chance of breast cancer.

            You are such a goddamned liar. http://www dot cancer dot org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer. That’s the American Cancer Society’s website. They *study* this stuff in depth. And guess what? No such causal link exists.

            Quote (emphasis added): The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of people and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints in many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women aside from skin cancer; and breast cancer is
            the second leading cancer killer in women. Still, the public is not
            well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.

      • goatini

        There is nothing remotely disrespectful in calling a fetus a fetus. It’s a scientific, technical term for a stage of development of a product of conception. That’s why it’s not a “child” or a “baby”. It’s a fetus.

        However, it is extremely disrespectful, and un-American as well, to attempt to interfere with the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to privacy and personal bodily autonomy as protected by the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. So stop being disrespectful, etc.

        • Mr_Cris

          A fetus is a child. Look up the origin of the word fetus.

          They burried their child. Not their fetus. People say “we lost a child”, not “we lost a fetus”.

          Abortion is not a constitional right. Why is not aborting a violation of privacy but sticking sharp instruments in a womans body not a violation of privacy?

          • fiona64

            Fetus: A fetus /ˈfiːtəs/, also spelled foetus, fœtus,
            faetus, or fætus, is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate
            after the embryonic stage and before birth.

            There. Challenge accepted. And you’re wrong. Again.

            And you also obviously have no idea how abortions are performed (not that I am surprised, since you don’t know anything else, either).

            We have the right to privacy about our medical decisions, Mr. Cris — and yes, that is a constitutional right. Check out the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution if you’re unclear about the matter. You’re welcome.

          • Valde

            I would also like to point out that I refer to my kitty as ‘my baby’ all the time.

          • Mr_Cris

            That doesn’t surprise me. You equate animals with people.

          • Valde

            Let’s try a thought experiment:

            Do you have a pet dog or pet cat?

            Would you let someone torture your pet cat or dog to death if you could save one zygote somewhere in the world?

            Would you?

          • Mr_Cris

            Yes.

          • Valde

            Why?

          • Mr_Cris

            Because humans are more important than animals.
            I’m not a vegetarian so I have no problem with killing animals.
            Animal cruelty I do have a problem with. But that is the lesser of two evils.

          • Valde

            so you would let someone cruelly torture your pet cat or dog to death – tearing off limbs, skinning alive, burning to death – to save the life of one zygote somewhere in the world, a zygote that has an 80% chance of not even making it to implantation – a zygote that might belong to a Taliban member.

            lulz

            you have got to be trolling

          • Mr_Cris

            “a zygote that might belong to a Taliban member.”
            You cannot punish someone for a crime they haven’t committed.
            A child of a Taliban member has the same right to live as any other unborn child.

          • fiona64

            But you’re okay with animal torture and dismemberment. Not too surprising, given that you think women should be executed for having abortions.

            You’re just in favor of a Christian version of Taliban law. Feh.

            Go color while the adults talk, little boy.

          • Mr_Cris

            “But you’re okay with animal torture and dismemberment”
            No I’m not.

          • fiona64

            Funny, you said above that if it would save a zygote, somewhere in the world, you’d be fine with it.

          • Valde

            Yes, you are

            You would let your own pet be horrifically tortured to save one zygote someplace in the world.

          • Mr_Cris

            But I’m not okay with it. It is the lesser of two evils. I would try to save both.
            The question didn’t make sense anyway since there is no causal connection between torturing an animal and saving an unborn child.

          • Valde

            Nope, you said you’d let your pet be burned alive to save a taliban zygote.

          • fiona64

            There’s no causal connection between sex outside of marriage and vasopressin function, either, but you sure as hell tried to create one.

          • Valde

            DId you read the bullshit where he said that pregnancy affects a man just as bad because their testosterone is lowered

            Oh, and men get lynched all the time for getting the wrong girl pregnant.

            He is just making shit up as he goes along.

          • fiona64

            I just have missed the bit about testosterone (and this dude pretends he has science on his side?), but i did see the stupid crap about lynchings.

            Why, yes, there’s strange fruit hanging in the trees all of the time nowadays. @@ <– Those are my eyes rolling.

          • fiona64

            I don’t know why my earlier post disappeared, but it did.

            Yeah, there’s all kind of “strange fruit” hanging in the trees. Or, you know, *not.*

            He’s such a liar.

          • Mr_Cris

            O yes there is. If you live a perverted lifestyle it will rewire your brain. Making it harder for people to sustain healthy monogamous relationships.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No. Now, I know that’s the kind of crap they peddle in abstinence only ‘education’ these days, but it’s simply untrue. They really need to go back to the comprehensive sex-ed that I learned in school in the eighties–teach actual facts and stop peddling this ‘pseudo-science’ to kids.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are brainwashed by the people supporting the most dynamic religion ever conceived: leftism.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I didn’t say anything about religion. I talked about teaching kids actual facts about reproduction, pregnancy, protection, etc. instead of just telling them garbage about remaining ‘pure’ for their future spouses and using pseudo-scientific bollocks to try to scare them into abstinence. You’re not ‘preserving innocence’ when you don’t tell kids and teens the facts. What you’re preserving is ignorance.

          • fiona64

            The rate of teen pregnancy in areas that have abstinence-only “education” is significantly higher than in parts of the country (US) where comprehensive, fact-based sex ed is available. Hmm. I wonder why that is?

          • Valde

            MS, Texas, Georgia – all of the abstinence only, anti-contraception states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy.

            Indcidentally, they also have the highest rates of single mothers – right across the bible belt.

            The oft-repeated meme that ‘black democrat welfare queens leech off the system’ is uhm, wrong. It’s all bible belt teens who couldn’t keep their pants on, and had the baby because they are pro-life.

          • fiona64

            Or their parents were, and wanted to “teach them a lesson” about the importance of “responsibility” and “consequences.”

            Funny how the boys get a bye on all of this, isn’t it?

          • Valde

            Yep!

            And not one of those boys has been lynched, as far as I know.

            And since the women are single parents, I would imagine the boys testosterone has not been affected!

          • fiona64

            Of course not! “That’s mah boy!” was doubtless the response from the proud Pa-paw, who is all the while talking behind his hand about “that dumb tramp yonder who got herse’f knocked up.”

            Ref also: any number of idiots on the Maury show and similar who demonstrate a direct proportion of likely paternity to lack of mathematical skills: “I am one thousand percent sure that baby ain’t mine. We only did it once!”

          • fiona64

            I know, right? What kind of a dumbass thinks that the neuropeptide that regulates homeostasis is even remotely affected by the marital status of someone having sex? Gah.

          • fiona64

            ::yawn:: You’re very boring with your constant lies, let alone your complete lack of comprehension where biology is concerned.

          • Mr_Cris

            Name one lie.

          • fiona64

            Really, dear, we’ve gone over this many times. People can see for themselves. How about the lie you just posted, in which you posit that neuropeptides know whether people are married when they fuck?

          • Mr_Cris

            You indeed named a lie. Your own lie. But I meant that you quote a lie from me.

          • fiona64

            No, you are the liar. I said There’s no causal connection between sex outside of marriage and vasopressin function, either,

            And then you said: O yes there is. If you live a perverted lifestyle it will rewire your
            brain. Making it harder for people to sustain healthy monogamous
            relationships.

            Which is a lie. Neuropeptides don’t know whether you’re married or not. They don’t care whether you’re married or not. The function of vasopressin is homeostasis, not “rewiring your brain” if you “live a perverted lifestyle” (whatever the fuck that is).

          • Mr_Cris

            I don’t want to talk to you anymore. You only accept scientific evidence when it supports your beliefs. You are narrow-minded.

          • fiona64

            You haven’t put up any scientific evidence; I have. You make statements and call them “scientific fact,” every single one of which has been disproven, with references. I don’t have to be “narrow-minded”; all I have to do is put up actual scientific information.

            Het is niet mijn schuld dat u zich niet te begrijpen de begrippen zoals gepresenteerd.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think our Mr. Cris wants some cheese to go with his whine.

          • fiona64

            Dutch cheese, of course … because he’s Dutch now. ;->

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’ve always been partial to a good edam, myself. :)

          • fiona64

            And I enjoy a nice smoked gouda from time to time.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh yeah–gouda is a good cheese :)

          • Jennifer Starr

            That you had a bunny, that a woman can’t be harmed by a rotting fetus, that you didn’t want the death penalty for women who have abortions, that you’re not American when you’ve been whining about ‘your tax dollars’–the list goes on and on.

          • Mr_Cris

            Every word you just wrote about me is the exact opposite of the truth.
            I’ll stop responding to your trolling.

          • fiona64

            Oh, and one more: that he’s Dutch.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, that has got to be the most bizarre lie yet

          • Valde

            The point being, you would let a sentient being suffer HORRIBLY so that you could save one single celled organism that is essentially blueprints. And that zygote might not even implant, in fact, it may even abort itself once it implants because 80% of zygotes never make it past implantation.

          • Valde

            yeah, well, I can understand your position

            that Taliban child will grow up to either:

            1) enslave women and deny them contraception and abortion

            2) be born a female, and be enslaved

            So, I can totally understand your love for the taliban child, and your wish to see animals tortured

          • Mr_Cris

            You have a deeply rotten notion about the fate of unborn children. Attitudes like yours make this world the disgusting place it is.

          • fiona64

            No, I would say it’s attitudes like *yours* that make this world the disgusting place that it is. You would force an 11-year-old *child* to remain pregnant, even though her life is in danger. You would be fine with animal cruelty if it saved a freaking *zygote* somewhere. You tell all kinds of ridiculous lies in an attempt to bolster your position, which is best described as “if women don’t want babies, they should keep their legs shut.”

            I’ll bet you call yourself a “good Christian,” don’t you?

          • Mr_Cris

            “You would force an 11-year-old *child* to remain pregnant, even though her life is in danger”

            No I wouldn’t. I said only if her life wasn’t in danger.

            “which is best described as “if women don’t want babies, they should keep their legs shut.””

            And men as well.

          • Valde

            11 year old girls should really try harder not to get raped

            the little s1ut

          • fiona64

            I know, right? if she’d just kept her legs together, none of this would have happened to her. It’s all the fault of that little girl, daring to be female in public. If she’d just not been walking around being a little girl, why, she wouldn’t have tempted that rapist.

            (I cannot tell you how hard it is for me to even write those words … and yet there are people out there who believe just that.)

          • Valde

            Yeah, because Taliban children are not going to grow up and spend their lives killing christians such as yourself.

          • Mr_Cris

            That still doesn’t justify it.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            But you will willingly torture and kill and living, breathing, conscious animal that also has not committed a crime?

            Would you kill another human being to save a zygote?

          • Mr_Cris

            “But you will willingly torture and kill and living, breathing, conscious animal that also has not committed a crime?”
            No. Not willingly. If my wife is pregnant and someone points a gun to my wife’s belly and if I don’t kill a dog my unborn child will die. Then I would consider killing that dog. That is not willingly choosing to kill an animal. That is choosing the lesser of two evils.

            “Would you kill another human being to save a zygote?”

            No. I’m pro-life. Killing one innocent person to save another is not what I stand for.

          • fiona64

            Then you should not be permitted to have any pets. You are now advocating for animal cruelty. Disgusting.

          • Mr_Cris

            Luckily you don’t get to decide if I get to own pets or not.

            “are now advocating for animal cruelty”
            No. In fact I did the exact opposite.

          • fiona64

            No, you said that you would be perfectly fine with your pet being cruelly killed in front of you (limbs torn off, skinned alive, burned to death) if it would save a zygote. So, yes. You did indeed advocate for animal cruelty.

            I personally think it’s unlucky for the *pet* that I don’t get to make the call. I wouldn’t trust you with a pet rock.

            You, OTOH, think you should be able to make the call on whether or not women have access to contraception, under what circumstances they should be permitted to have intercourse (procreation only), and should not be permitted to terminate pregnancies. I think you almost broke my irony meter, dude.

          • Mr_Cris

            “you said that you would be perfectly fine with your pet being cruelly killed in front of you”

            Could you quote me on that?

            “procreation only”

            And that one to please.

          • fiona64

            You said: Women who don’t want babies shouldn’t have sex. Yep, that’s what you said. Women should only have sex if they plan to procreate.

            In response to Valde’s query:

            Let’s try a thought experiment:

            Do you have a pet dog or pet cat?

            Would you let someone torture your pet cat or dog to death if you could save one zygote somewhere in the world?

            Would you?

            You said: Yes.

            Then, she asked a clarifying question: so you would let someone cruelly torture your pet cat or dog to death –
            tearing off limbs, skinning alive, burning to death – to save the life
            of one zygote somewhere in the world, a zygote that has an 80% chance of
            not even making it to implantation – a zygote that might belong to a
            Taliban member.

            And you said: You cannot punish someone for a crime they haven’t committed. A child of a Taliban member has the same right to live as any other unborn child.

            You made it quite clear that you would be all in favor of animal torture to save a *zygote.*

            You’re sick.

            You really need to stop challenging people to use your own words against you, buddy. It never comes out well. You seem to labor under the impression that no one can find them.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Women should only have sex if they plan to procreate.”
            Exactly. But that was not what you previously said. You said I believed sex is for reproductive purposes only. I didn’t. I said it wasn’t for only recreational purposes. It is for both.

          • fiona64

            No, you were very plain. You also said that women who work for Hobby Lobby should have to pay for contraception out of pocket if it was only for “recreational use” and not “legitimate medical use.”

            “Women should only have sex if they plan to procreate” *is* saying that women should only have sex for reproductive purposes. Is anyone as big a simpleton as you appear to be?

            Pro-tip: preventing pregnancy is the legitimate medical use for contraception.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            What about men having sex? Any restrictions on that?

          • Mr_Cris

            Of course. The same restrictions apply to men. No double standard.

          • Valde

            ” You cannot punish someone for a crime they haven’t committed”

            To clarify, he believes that an 11 year old girl should be punished with a forced pregnancy for the crime of getting raped.

          • fiona64

            You know, I already said this elsewhere, but I think this dimwit serves a purpose … just not the one he thinks. He is saying all of the horrific thing that we know the anti-choice actually *think.* It just goes to show that they aren’t “pro-life” at all. They’re just a bunch of misogynistic asses, male and female alike, who want to force other women to do their bidding.

          • Valde

            Yep.

            And even if trolling, the fact that they say this stuff in public is good – look what happened to Todd Akin and Richard Rape is a gift Murdouck

            BTW, I used to pretend to be like Mr_Cris here on yahoo comments, just to make the anti-choicers look realllly bad :P

          • fiona64

            Um, Mr. Cris? I’m guessing you missed more than a few days of biology class (as evidenced by a whole slew of nonsense that you’ve posted). But H. sapiens? We’re animals: highly functioning primates, to be specific. Just so you know.

          • Mr_Cris

            We are created in the image of God. Animals are not.
            Animals have no rights. People do.

          • fiona64

            ::yawn:: More ignorance. Not even surprising at this point.

          • Valde

            so it’s totes ok in your book to torture animals because they have no rights?

            gotcha

          • Lyra Belaqua

            So women are animals?

          • goatini

            Women say, “I had a miscarriage”. That’s what normal, sane women say. I’ve known women who have had miscarriages, and not a one ever said “I lost a child”. I guess that’s because women know the difference between a child and a fetus.

          • Dez

            I had a early miscarriage and not for even a second did I consider the fetus as a “baby.” I didn’t lose a child or a baby, I miscarried a fetus. Yet you get mad because women like me refuse to bow to your personal belief that a fetus is a baby despite the fact that it’s an emotional term and not a scientific one.

          • Mr_Cris

            Yet you get mad because men like me refuse to bow to your personal belief that a fetus isn’t a baby despite the fact that it’s an emotional term and not a scientific one.

          • fiona64

            I’m sorry, my “bullshit to English” decoder still doesn’t work properly. Fetus *is* the correct, scientific term.

            You may be male, but you’re not a man (yet).

          • Mr_Cris

            Science means knowledge. We know the unborn is a child. Therefore child is scientific term.

          • fiona64

            No, dear. The stages of human development are: conception, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus. All of these are before birth. After birth, the stages are infant and then child.

            No “unborn” is a child. It is only either a product of conception, zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus.

            The definition for science is just a *wee* bit more than that of its root word, scientia. Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3]
            In an older and closely related meaning, “science” also refers to a
            body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained
            and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. (Source: Wikipedia)

            You’re not a university graduate. You’re not even a high school graduate.

          • Mr_Cris

            The unborn child goes through stages. But it will remain an unborn child during the entire development. There is no instantaneous transformation from fetus to infant during birth.

            The term unborn child is not an unscientific term. No laws of nature or logic are violated by calling something what it is. It is just a game of semantics for you. You have an agenda to call the unborn child a fetus so you can support infanticide without violating your conscience.

          • fiona64

            Your histrionics (have mommy help you look up the word) are duly noted.

            Since I don’t support infanticide, my conscience is untroubled. I do support a woman’s right to access a full range of health care services, including contraception and abortion. I’m sorry, once again, that you are too stupid to understand the differences.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            If I call my phone “baby”, does that mean I gestated and gave birth to it?

          • Mr_Cris

            If you named your child ‘Phone’ and call that child baby then the answer is yes. If you name your cellular phone baby then you are mentally ill.

      • HeilMary1

        So go to “baby” tampon funerals, idiot!

        • Mr_Cris

          Little girl. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

          • fiona64

            Oh, dear. She said “tampon.” Who knew that was a bad word? ::in a sing-song tone:: Tampon, tampon, tampon! Tampon, tampon, tampon!

            Really, when all you have left is trying to control what words people use, you’re demonstrating how pathetic you are.

          • Mr_Cris

            It is people on the left that are trying to control the words people use.

          • fiona64

            … said the guy who told me to “Watch my words” after I said “bullshit.”

            Dude, you’re a joke.

          • Valde

            I really think he should be ignored his only purpose here is to get everyone running in circles so he can chuckle about what a great pro-life crusader he is

          • fiona64

            Well, pretty soon his mommy is sure to call him up from the basement for some Ho-hos and Kool-Aid, and then the adults can talk again.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Tampon is not a bad word. Not in any way, shape or form. If you think it is, you have some serious issues

          • Mr_Cris

            It is not that particular word I have a problem with. It is her whole sentence.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Over half of fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant and are simply washed out with the menstrual flow. So if you really believe that life begins at conception (and there’s no way to tell that conception has occurred until the egg implants), you probably should hold funerals for all those poor little eggs that never attach.

          • fiona64

            Oh, boo-hoo. She pointed out that zygotes are often flushed out with menses, and that challenged your belief that a zygote is exactly the same as an infant. Sure, she didn’t say it in so many words, but that’s what she really did.

            Pro-tip: We dismissed the homunculus theory of human development a long time ago. A zygote is not an itty-bitty, perfectly formed little infant. Just so you know. It’s DNA and cells, and not much else.

          • goatini

            To be fair, taking the radical extremist theocratic misogyny, that those like “Mr Cris” wants to enact as civil and criminal law in the United States, to its logical conclusion, must by needs include mandatory monthly inspection of all used menstrual products of all females between menarche and menopause for presence of zygotes, and funerals held for menstrual products, since over 70% of all fertilized eggs are passed as bodily waste. Women would then be prosecuted for some degree of manslaughter at the menses, should zygotes be found in the waste.

  • txcg

    I am an RN and did home iv therapy in the late 1980s. One patient was a woman who was dying of breast cancer at home, she had five kids. she was a misshapen, discolored mass of flesh who was disoriented and bed bound. her five children would peer into the bedroom and come in at the insistence of their father. the aggressive breast cancer was found early in the pregnancy with the fifth child. the doctors offered an abortion so they could do surgery and chemo and try to save her life…the husband said they discussed it with their priest and decided “god knew best” and refused treatment. prayers would get them through.

    after the birth (7 months after the discovery of the aggressive and untreated cancer) the couple accepted treatment. mastectomy, chemo, tpn,etc. it was too late. by the time I met them the ” baby” was three. the other children were up to age 12. The youngest would have no memories of his mother and the last memory by the older children would be as I described above.

    friends and the priest would often be there as I changed dressings, etc. and there were many accolades for the mother….” she sacrificed herself for her son” ” did God’s will” ” was a good Catholic”

    all I could see was the despair on those kids faces and wonder how a mother could choose an almost certain death over her 4 children. I often wonder what happened to those kids. did the youngest feel guilt? did he praise his mother for her sacrifice? did his older siblings despise him for causing their mothers death? Or cherish him for obviously being special gift from God? our did they happily carry on and become good Catholics reproducing no matter the woman’s risks?

    I kept my mouth shut during that time, supported the family and got a mammogram at a very early age due to caring for so many young bbreast cancer pts. when I scheduled the mammo I remember the woman saying, ” you are really young for a mammogram, are you having a problem?” ” yes, the problem I have is women dying of breast cancer at young ages”

    despite my revulsion to this families choice, it was their choice. it would have been unthinkable that our government would have entered the doctors office and said ” you have four children, we think you need to live and raise these children, we are terminating this pregnancy.”

    her body, her choice

    • Mr_Cris

      That mother is a hero. God bless her soul.

      • Valde

        Why not mandate that all women should not get treatment from a pregnancy that could kill them?

        Just think of all the heroes that will be created!

        • Mr_Cris

          You cannot force someone to sacrifice their life. Heroism requires self-sacrifice.

          • Valde

            At least you’ll be happy when they die, won’t you?

          • fiona64

            Of course he will. He’s already said that women who have abortions should face capital punishment/execution. Real “pro-life,” eh?

      • Dez

        Yet you could care less about her children that will live without their mother as long as the fetus lives. There’s the so called “love” from the forced birther crowd. Love the fetus, hate the woman, screw the children.

        • Mr_Cris

          It was her own choice. I thought you where pro-choice?

          • fiona64

            Yes, it was her choice . And you want to force all women to make the same choice. That makes you *anti-choice.*

          • Mr_Cris

            I am anti-choice in all forms of murder.

          • fiona64

            As has been repeatedly explained to you, little boy, abortion is not murder. Only actual, born persons can be murdered. A fetus is not an actual, born person.

            Your desperation is showing. Again.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Only actual, born persons can be murdered”
            So if I shoot a baby that is in the process of being born in the head I don’t commit murder. I simply damage a woman’s property?
            She can get a new one right?

          • fiona64

            I am sure that, if you try harder, you can come up with some more stupid straw man arguments. Those seem to be your forte.

          • Valde

            That’s all he is capable of.

    • HeilMary1

      Almost all breast cancer victims I know of recently had daughters. Many acquaintances have also noticed the link between pregnancies, especially female fetuses, and breast cancer.

  • Mr_Cris

    The primary cause of death of pregnant women is murder.

    • fiona64

      Yes, most often at the hands of her husband/partner. :-/

      • Mr_Cris

        Because these women refused to have an abortion. The abortion mindset is in part to blame for the death these women.
        Getting rid of the abortion mindset and banning abortion would save the lives of thousands of women and millions of children.

        • fiona64

          So, it’s access to abortion that makes men abusive? Really? I think not.

          It’s very easy to be an anti-choice male, Mr_Cris. You’re not the one whose life or health will be endangered by pregnancy complications, ever. But it’s very easy to wave your hand and talk about how “banning abortion would save the lives of thousands of women.” Tell that to Savita Halpannavar.

          Oh, wait. You can’t. She died because she was denied a life-saving abortion. And she’s not the only one.

          • Mr_Cris

            “So, it’s access to abortion that makes men abusive?”

            I never wrote that. I wasn’t talking about access but about mindset and I never claimed it was the cause of the abuse but part of the problem.
            You seem incapable of understanding nuance.

            Savita Halpannavar didn’t die as a result of denied abortion. Read the facts. She died of an undetected infection, not lack of abortion.

          • goatini

            Well, yes, she did, and I see it makes your fetid, black soul feel good to push this lie.

          • Ella Warnock

            She died because of a culture that makes doctors afraid to perform abortions even when they’re legally able, in the event a woman’s life is in danger. Doctors are reluctant to even perform them then because they know that if the theocracy disagrees with any little treatment detail, they could lose their licenses and/or serve jail time.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are lying. Read the reports.

          • Ella Warnock

            I’ve read the reports. I also read between the lines and it’s very clear what happened.

          • Mr_Cris

            Read the reports again. This time from a non-leftist source.

          • Ella Warnock

            I don’t need to. I think you do.

          • Valde

            Aw yes, the ” I don’t like the FACTS you have presented me with, therefore I will say it is leftist so I can dismiss it’

          • fiona64

            I have. I even cited them for you. It’s not my fault you’re too stupid to understand them

            On the other hand, you’re also stupid enough to believe that a woman can walk around with a decomposing fetus in her uterus and be just fine, so I guess this shouldn’t surprise me.

          • Mr_Cris

            I just reread the report. We obviously have a difference in opionion.

            “you’re also stupid enough to believe that a woman can walk around with a decomposing fetus in her uterus and be just fine”
            I don’t believe that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You did actually call the womb ‘a sterile environment’ and said that a woman carrying a dead fetus inside her would be in no danger.

          • Mr_Cris

            I never said the woman are never in danger.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Wouldn’t be a politician, by any chance, would you, Mr. Cris? I’ve never seen so much backtracking in my life.

          • Mr_Cris

            Do you know what generalizations are?
            Do you know that a lot of rules have exceptions?
            Do you know what nuance is?
            Do you know what distinctions are?
            I never claimed that women are never in danger. I just responded to someone proclaiming falsehoods about rotting fetuses.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I understand nuance and distinctions. I also understand backpedaling, and you seem to be trying to do an awful lot of that, particularly when you get backed into a corner.

          • Mr_Cris

            Do you understand the distinction between clarifying and backpedaling?

          • fiona64

            Oh, yes, we do. And you’re backpedaling.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Every time you get backed into a corner over something that you clearly stated, you try to convince us that it wasn’t what you actually said at all, or maybe you said it but that wasn’t what you actually ‘meant’. I call that backpedaling, and you’ve done it quite a few times here.

          • fiona64

            You speak only in absolutes, calling them ‘well-known scientific facts.’ They are anything but.

          • fiona64

            He’s an expert at backpedaling and goal-post moving, that’s for sure.

          • Valde

            You stated that the womb is a sterile place.

            Liar.

          • Mr_Cris

            And normally it is.

          • fiona64

            No, it is NOT. It never has been. If the uterus would be a sterile environment, there would be no bacteria in meconium. And yet, there is.

          • fiona64

            You are a flat-out liar. You said that “the womb is a sterile environment. Nothing can rot in there. Worms will not crawl out. I read about a woman who had a miscarried baby in there for years and she was fine.”

            Do you really think that people do not read, recall and *find* what you wrote? Wow.

          • Valde

            Yep, you lied, and this is from Blue_Tigress, at the bottom of this comment thread:

            “My former co-worker keeps sheep and she graphically described having to
            extract a dead fetus from one of her ewes since it could not be expelled
            during contractions. She also had to give the ewe a course of
            antibiotics to combat the infection that developed because the dead
            fetus went septic. Why you’d want to wish that on anything is beyond
            me.”

          • HeilMary1

            Mother killer, an abortion would have ended the deadly infection caused by Savita’s rotting dead fetus.

          • Mr_Cris

            She died because of an undetected infection of e-coli that was resistant to antibiotics. If the infection was detected earlier or if doctors didn’t overprescribe antibiotics she wouldn’t have died.
            Abortion is not a cure for an infection.

        • Ella Warnock

          Well, good luck with that.

          • Mr_Cris

            Thanks.

        • HeilMary1

          Banning abortion would mean a massive explosion of murdered mothers by livid men who hate fat women and child support duties. One Mexican priest was so furious at his teen mistress for being pregnant again after she bore his first kid when she was just THIRTEEN that he cut her head off! With abortion being illegal in Mexico, there goes you stupid claim!

          • Mr_Cris

            In the long run it would save more lives wrong both women and children.
            Banning abortion would mean men can no longer expect abortion and cannot force their girlfriends from having abortions. That option would disappear and men and women would be more careful.
            Abortion causes a lot of pregnancies. It is called risk compensation. Risk compensation is the same thing that causes the use of birth control to increase the occurrence of pregnancy instead of decreasing it.

          • Valde

            What a load of bullshit.

          • Mr_Cris

            But it is true.

          • Valde

            Nope. it’s never been true.

            The rate of abortion the USA has remained relatively the same pre and post roe v wade.

            In addition to this, the nations with the highest abortion rates also happen to be the countries where abortion is illegal – and where sex ed and contraception are frowned upon.

            In other words, your dream pro-life societies kill more woman, and more ‘babies’ than countries with free contraception and abortion.

          • Mr_Cris

            Pro-life countries have the lowest cases of maternal death.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, not so much. Greece has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world (the US is #50). And guess what? Since 1984, Abortions can be performed on-demand in hospitals for women whose pregnancies have not exceeded twelve weeks.[2] In the case of rape or incest, an abortion can occur as late as nineteen weeks, and as late as twenty-four weeks in the case of fetal abnormalities.[2] Girls under the age of 18 must get written permission from a parent or guardian before being allowed an abortion (source: Wikipedia).

            So, yeah. You’re all kinds of wrong in *that* assertion, too. Quelle surprise.

          • fiona64

            He really is full of more shit that a French goose.

          • Aphra Behn

            You didn’t read this article, did you.

          • Mr_Cris

            I did.
            You didn’t read my comment, did you.

    • HeilMary1

      By fetuses, pedophile priests and cheating husbands like Erik Prince of Blackwater.

      • Mr_Cris

        Fetuses can’t murder. I thought pedophile priest had sex with young boys not women.

        • Valde

          A fetus can kill a woman. That’s pretty clear.

          Whether it intends to or not – it can still kill.

          • Mr_Cris

            An infection can kill a woman. That’s pretty clear.
            Whether it intends to or not – it can still kill.

          • Valde

            A fetus can kill a woman. Period.

        • fiona64

          With pedophiles, the gender of the child is not nearly as important as access to the child.

          And that’s not the topic of discussion anyway.

          • Mr_Cris

            “With pedophiles, the gender of the child is not nearly as important as access to the child.”
            Probably. But you can’t ignore the statistics.

            “And that’s not the topic of discussion anyway.”
            I didn’t start about it.

        • Lyra Belaqua

          Murder requires premeditation. A fetus has no cognitive awareness until very late in the third trimester. So it cannot murder, but it can kill.

          • Mr_Cris

            You are completely right.

  • flowerplough

    Why a 20-Week Abortion Ban Is Unthinkable, except in almost all of Europe, where abortion-just-because-I-say-so is generally banned after 16 weeks.

    • fiona64

      May I have a citation, please? Thank you in advance.

    • fiona64

      In response to your comment in moderation: Ever heard of “If you’re the one making the assertion, it’s up to you to provide the proof”? No need to get snotty, dear.

      And France, Sweden and Denmark (from your citation) do not constitute “almost all of Europe.” But that’s okay.

      • flowerplough

        “very few with laws as liberal as those of the United States.”

        • fiona64

          As the majority of the countries in Europe are still at least nominally Catholic, this should surprise you exactly not at all. ::shrug::

          Here, we have separation of church and state. Theoretically, we should also have separation of church and medical decisions, but the anti-choicers don’t seem to like that very much.

    • Valde

      And in Canada there are no abortion laws or limits whatsoever and guess what…no late term abortions !

  • sandra

    No.The comment in which I used that specific example was to whomever said “life obviously begins at birth”.It’s my right to disagree with that statement. It’s your right to disagree with the example I used. To continue debating my example is irrelevant to the topic at hand. my opinion stands as intended, which is a very simple right that belongs to each of us.

    • Jennifer Starr

      I fail to see how life or even pregnancy can begin at conception since there’s no way of even telling that you have conceived until the fertilized egg actually implants in the uterus.

      • Valde

        Fertilization is a process that takes up to 4 days so I would like to know…at which ‘magic moment’ during the process is a super special unique human individual created???

      • sandra

        How is conception defined?

        • Jennifer Starr

          Generally when the sperm fertilizes the egg. But until the egg implants in the uterus, no test will detect a pregnancy.

          • sandra

            You know, I do agree with you on that one. I think a lot of times women have cycles that are heavier than others and it’s impossible to tell if they miscarried or not.

    • Aphra Behn

      agree or disagree with whatever you want; just don’t let paternalist men who aren’t doctors meddle in my health choices.

  • sandra

    Life begining at birth is also not a religulious point of view, but a medical one, as well. I have much empathy with women who find, 20 weeks or later in that the baby will not live or the mother won’t survive from that point on. from my position, that must. be a heart wrenching decision. I am pro life, not anti choice. It would make discussions less inflammatory to not use that language. I don’t call pro choice people anti life. Let’s be grown ups about our differences.

    • Dez

      I prefer forced birthers. Naw I rather continue commenting about the complete disdain I have for the current “pro-life” movement. They deserve no respect and I shall not be giving them any.

      • Mr_Cris

        The baby is the one causing, or forcing if you will, the birth. It is the pro-abortion people that do the forcing. Not the pro-life people. We want nature to take it’s course on this one.

        • Valde

          Humans have brains, which means, during times of stress, instead of instinctually EATING our young, or reabsorbing, them, we use our big brains to abort the pregnancy.

        • fiona64

          Liar. You don’t care about the life or health of the woman, so what you really mean is “let women die as long as they stay pregnant.” After all, that could be part of “nature taking its course.”

          And, by your own admission, you would like to kill any woman who terminates a pregnancy … so, yeah. Real “pro-life” of you there.

        • Dez

          Fetuses aren’t babies. No one is pro-abortion. Pro-abortion would be making every pregnant woman have an abortion whether they want one or not. That is as bad as being “pro-life.” It takes away the choice from the woman. Nature causes miscarriages all the time. Cancer is natural, should we just let it take it’s course instead of using medical technology to allow a person to live?

          • Mr_Cris

            With pro-abortion I mean supporting abortion for any personal ‘reason’ and not consider any abortion immoral.
            There are many people that are pro-abortion.

            “Nature causes miscarriages all the time”

            Natural tragedies don’t justify deliberate tragedies.
            People drown due to floods. So does that justify drowning people?

            “Cancer is natural, should we just let it take it’s course instead of using medical technology to allow a person to live?”

            Of course we try to safe their lives.
            My point was that not doing something is a choice but not a forced choice. Stepping in and making an irreversible decision is more of a forced choice. So I’m not forcing any woman to give birth. That happens naturally.

          • fiona64

            Stepping in and making an irreversible decision is more of a forced
            choice.

            Having a child is an irreversible decision, too … and one that you would cheerfully, by your own word, force on the 11-year-old Chilean rape victim because “a rape can bring good things.”

            And the reason a woman chooses an abortion is none of your business. Your input into medical decisions other than your own is neither desired nor required.

          • fiona64

            Hey! I thought you said you didn’t post in the middle of the night, because you’re in the Netherlands and you have to sleep …

            You’re no more in the Netherlands than I am.

          • Dez

            That is not pro-abortion then. Pro-abortion would be forcing abortion on a woman despite her personal reasons. Pro-choice is supporting abortion, pregnancy, or adoption as long as it is the choice of the woman. You are pro-force birther which is as bad as pro-abortion. You completely take away the choice of a woman. Abortion is not similar to drowning a person. That would be murder and abortion is not. Whether something is natural or not is irrelevant to the rights of women’s reproductive rights. We live in an age of technology that allows us to do more than nature. You are forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy they do not want because of your personal opinions and beliefs. That is a force birther.

          • Mr_Cris

            “Pro-abortion would be forcing abortion on a woman despite her personal reasons”

            Or forcing society to accept it through indoctrination.

            “You are pro-force birther ”

            I don’t force birth. Nature does. The unborn child does.

            “Abortion is not similar to drowning a person. That would be murder and abortion is not.”

            You are right. It is more like dismembering or poisoning. But that is not the point. My point is that natural tragedies don’t justify deliberate tragedies.

            “We live in an age of technology that allows us to do more than nature.”

            We have technology that allows us to do all kinds of immoral things.
            Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.

            “You are forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy they do not want because of your personal opinions and beliefs”

            I’m not forcing her to continue. I’m trying to stop her from ending it.

          • fiona64

            I’m not forcing her to continue. I’m trying to stop her from ending it.

            By which you force her to continue. Really, you are too stupid for color TV.

          • Dez

            Naw that would be force birthers using Cpcs to indoctrinate women to Christianity. Pro choicers use science and facts. Something your side adamantly rejects. No your forcing your personal opinions unto a woman that disagrees with your opinion. Again what you think or feel is irreverent to everyone but you. Trying to stop her is forcing your personal views into her private life.

          • Mr_Cris

            Pro-choicers use pseudo science and lies. Pro-lifers use modern science and truth.

            “No your forcing your personal opinions unto a woman that disagrees with your opinion”

            Unless she is under hypnosis I don’t see how sharing my opinion is forcing them unto a woman.

          • Dez

            Lol Yea that’s why CPCs fight so hard to legally lie to women. If they were actually telling the truth then they wouldn’t mind stating they are not a medical facility or have any actual medical staff. Plus I don’t see pro choicers trying to indoctrinate women with Christianity, more lies. By legislating your personal beliefs. It’s a violation of her first amendment right by forcing your personal beliefs into to her.

          • Dez

            Naw you force birthers lie to women by CPCs, try to indoctrinate them into Christianity, kill and threaten medical staff at clinic, and call women sluts and murderers. If you actually had facts on your side none of that would be happening. You are legislating your personal beliefs into law violating women’s first amendment rights since your beliefs are based on opinion and not facts.

          • fiona64

            Pro-lifers use modern science and truth.

            You mean, like the “well-known scientific fact” you stated that a woman is in no danger from a decomposing dead fetus in her uterus?

            ROFLMAO.

    • fiona64

      I do differentiate between pro-life and anti-choice, so I understand what you’re saying.

  • sandra

    I work as a paralegal in criminal law. please tell me how these laws really work.

    • Dez

      Please show in the law where it says the life begins at conception.

      • sandra

        Challenge accepted. different states have their own laws so give me a bit.

        • canaduck

          Haha it’s been a week, hurry up.

          • fiona64

            Two weeks now … and still nothing. Quelle surprise.

    • fiona64

      Well, that’s really unfortunate for the firm that employed you … since you don’t seem to understand the term “special circumstances.”

      • sandra

        That’s not an answer to my request. It came across as personal, which is the fallback position for people who have no answer. that does nothing to further understanding of both sides. It makes you. appear to be disagreeable just because we don’t agree, and this kind of comment adds to the depiction of pro-choice as being an angry bunch, which I’m sure is not the case. its ok to disagree and be civil.

        • fiona64

          Well, considering that I already explained how special circumstances work (i.e., with fetal homicide, it can only attach when a crime is committed against a born person, the pregnant woman), I am sure you can see why I thought your comment was … snippy.

          Special circumstances are basically sentence enhancements. In other words, Scott Peterson’s sentence was enhanced because he committed a crime against a pregnant woman. This does not mean that the fetus was viewed as a person under the law, which is what you originally contended.

          • sandra

            Special Circumstances *sentence enhancements, *exactly. Scott Peterson’s sentence was not enhanced because he committed a crime against a pregnant woman. He was charged with TWO counts of *pre-meditated homicide.* The special enhancement attaches at sentencing. The prosecution had to prove that *he planned ahead of time to take the life of his pregnant wife, which in turn would kill the baby. Not a fetus, but a baby.* The “fetus” was indeed considered a person under the law. Had he not killed her when he did, baby Conner would have lived. How is that not a life? The prosecution had the burden of proof during the guilt phase, which they did. Then the special circumstances attached at sentencing, where the prosecution proved the the crime was against more than one person, that he planned an alibi, and that the crime was especially cruel and heinous. Sentence enhancements do not attach until SENTENCING, as the name implies.
            The same holds true of someone who is a habitual offender. If someone has been convicted of three or more felonies, or of selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school or church, then ten years can be added to the otherwise lesser time he would have received. That is called a sentence enhancement. Sentence Enhancements have nothing to do with the guilt phase of any trial. They are intended to bring the full force of the law, or a jury of your peers, to bear upon the perpetrator.
            There’s your answer to special circumstances and sentence enhancements. I’m sorry, but on this one, you are just plain misinformed.

          • fiona64

            The prosecution had to prove that *he planned ahead of time to take the
            life of his pregnant wife, which in turn would kill the baby. Not a
            fetus, but a baby.*

            http://en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Murder_of_Laci_Peterson

            Quote (emphasis added): The death of Laci and her fetal son led to the United States Congress passing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which is widely known as Laci and Conner’s Law. On April 1, 2004, Sharon Rocha and her common-law husband Ron Grantski were in attendance at the White House when President George W. Bush, signed the bill into law

            Seems pretty clear that the references are indeed to a fetus, not a born infant.

            ::shrug::

            In any event, the point remains that nowhere in any fetal homicide law is time of conception considered.

  • BlueTigress

    My former co-worker keeps sheep and she graphically described having to extract a dead fetus from one of her ewes since it could not be expelled during contractions. She also had to give the ewe a course of antibiotics to combat the infection that developed because the dead fetus went septic. Why you’d want to wish that on anything is beyond me.

  • Mr_Cris

    Terminating an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. You made the right decision.

    • Valde

      According to the RCC it is abortion.

      • Mr_Cris

        It depends on your definition of the word abortion.
        A miscarriage is also refered to an abortion sometimes, yet they are the exact opposite.

        • fiona64

          No, sweetie. They aren’t. Either way, the pregnancy has ended before birth.

          • Mr_Cris

            Yes salty. They are.

  • Mr_Cris

    You are incapable of reading. So just stop responding.

    • Valde

      Can’t refute her points so you make an ad hominem attack.

      Classy.

      • fiona64

        Yes, all the while telling me that I was not allowed to call him a misogynistic asshole. He’s clearly part of the “do as I say, not as I do” crowd.

        What an ass.

      • Mr_Cris

        She is the one making false accusations and ad homimen attacks because she can’t refute my arguments.

        • fiona64

          You haven’t made any arguments; you’ve just posted a bunch of lies that have *all* been debunked by reliable, unbiased sources.

          You’re just pissed that I’ve refused to kiss your ass. I’ll bet you’d like to hit me, too, since calling me names and telling me I’m too stupid to make my own medical decisions has failed to make me bend to your will. ::shrug::

    • fiona64

      You really are pissed off that your lies have been so tidily exposed, aren’t you?

      As with so many other choices, you don’t get to decide when and where I will respond.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Anti-choice men tend to get very testy when challenged by a woman. Ever notice that?

      • Valde

        Heh, I was just arguing with one on youtube – yeah I know, bad idea, but it was my first time on youtube. Anyways, after I made the horribly misandrist comment that hey, you know, only women die and are maimed from sex/pregnancy, not men, he called me a stupid misandrist, s**t, b**ch, c**t and tw*t.!

        I had accused him of being a misogynist, due to his s**t-shaming, but clearly, *I* was the only offender, with my misandirst comments – by pointing out his obvious double standard.

        Good thing he was able to set me straight by calling me every derogatory name in the book!

        • canaduck

          Misandry = aw, you hurt my feelings/disagreed with me and that is the same thing as millenia of systemic oppression.

      • fiona64

        I have indeed noticed that. They get awfully huffy and pretend we are stupid, and can’t read unbiased sources and understand them … and then they get *angry* because we don’t kowtow to them.

        I have come, over the course of time working with my fellow domestic violence survivors, to recognize certain attitudes that anti-choice men have in common with men who beat their wives, children and animals. I’ll just leave it at that; i don’t think I need to get into any details with those who have read this and other threads.

  • Mr_Cris

    Well that’s the problem with words. Sometimes a word means two completely different things. People don’t refer to a miscarriage as an abortion. Because they are the exact opposite! One is a ‘natural death’ and the other is murder.

  • fiona64

    Another example of what the GOPTeabirchers and anti-choicers want our country to be like for women and girls:

    Child’s pregnancy sets off Chile abortion debate

    From Associated Press
    July 05, 2013 5:25 PM EDT

    SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — The case of a pregnant 11-year old girl who was raped in Chile by her mother’s partner has set off a national debate about abortion in one of the most socially-conservative countries in Latin America.

    State TV reported that the girl is 14 weeks pregnant. Police arrested her mother’s partner who confessed to abusing the fifth grader. Doctors say her life and that of the fetus are at high risk. But ending the pregnancy is not an option.

    Chile allowed abortions for medical reasons until they were outlawed in 1973 by Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. The current government of conservative President Sebastian Pinera has opposed any loosening of the prohibition.

    Many Chileans were venting outrage on social media Friday. Some have started an online campaign to demand legalization of abortion in cases of rape or health risks for mother.

    Chile’s Senate rejected three bills last year that would have eased the absolute ban on abortions.

    One of the bills would have permitted abortion when two doctors said it was needed because of risks to a mother’s life or other medical reasons, such as a fetus with low chances of survival. Another of the measures rejected would have allowed abortion in the event of rape.
    —-
    That’s the world you anti-choicers want us to live in: a world where an 11-year-old *child* who is a survivor of sexual abuse has to have her life on the line to satisfy your histrionic beliefs that a fetus should have more rights than a born entity. Chile’s law is your *wet dream.* Congratulations.

    Feh.

    • Valde

      “culture of life’ my ass.

    • Valde

      Remember the 9 year old Brasilian girl who was pregnant with twins?

      I remember arguing with a catholic forced birther about the case, and he – astoundingly – had this to say – that if the girl can get pregnant she can give birth.

      It’s hard to believe that in this day and age people could be SO ignorant about biology. But these fuckwits would force a little girl to remain pregnant, because, in their minds ‘old enough to bleed old enough to breed.’

      It’s really quite scary.

      • fiona64

        I do remember that case, vividly … and a whole lot of “but what about the baaaaayyyyyybbbeeeeessss” whining, without considering that the only baby in question was the pregnant little girl. Because, precocious puberty means that a little girl is well-enough developed physically to handle a pregnancy? It is indeed mind-boggling to me that people this stupid still exist, and yet they do.

        • Valde

          I really like the phrase you’ve been using ‘pregnancy is not a state of wellness.’

          I hope you don’t mind if I repeat that:P

          It seems to me that these ignoramuses think that, as stated earlier, if a woman can get pregnant, and pregnancy is natural, it is therefore always healthy (until things go wrong, of course) and always good.

          But, as far as I know, there are no HEALTHY side effects to pregnancy. Every single side effect puts stress on the woman’s body, and negatively affects her health in some way.

          A woman is not ‘better off’ as a result of pregnancy.

          • fiona64

            I don’t mind at all. I wish it were original to me; the first time I heard it was during a peer review meeting, from the mouth of an obstetrician.

            As a forensic anthropology major, I can tell you that even pregnancies that have relatively few complications create permanent changes to a woman’s physical anatomy. Each pregnancy creates a striation on the pubic symphysis due to the cartilage spreading. It is possible to examine female skeletal remains and know exactly how many times she’s been pregnant (I amazed a colleague at a museum when I showed him the striations on the x-ray of a female mummy and explained what I was looking at). Once the pubic symphysis expands, it never fully contracts to the pre-birth state again. It contracts less and less each time. One woman friend, who has had five children, can no longer ride her bicycle because her pubic symphysis has expanded so far that it is physically impossible to be seated and pedal. Her gait has also been affected by the drastic alterations to her body.

            So, yeah. Not a state of wellness even under the best of circumstances. That’s why I refuse to romanticize or hyperemotionalize pregnancy, to be honest.

          • Valde

            Yep, and if I recall, too many pregnancies in a woman’s lifetime ultimately results in death, because the body simply wears out.

            So, if pregnancy were simply a ‘natural state of wellness’ the body would never wear out, and women could have babies until menopause.

          • fiona64

            Yep. I am, frankly, surprised that Mrs Duggar is still among the living. They’ve been advised by physicians to stop having so many kids, as they are becoming more compromised (IANAD, but I think that the aforementioned pubic symphysis issues are why she’s having trouble carrying to term; her pelvic girdle can no longer support a full-term pregnancy). While I fully support her choice, I am amazed at the wanton disregard for her health … not only by her husband (who I think is a nutjob), but on her own part.

          • Jennifer Starr

            As far as I understand with the Quiverfull lifestyle, they apparently believe that if you don’t take every chance to have as many children as possible, you’re denying the will of God. That may not be 100% accurate, but given my research I believe that is the general mindset.

          • fiona64

            That pretty much covers it.

          • canaduck

            ” It is possible to examine female skeletal remains and know exactly how many times she’s been pregnant ”

            Wow, that’s amazing!

          • fiona64

            It really is pretty fascinating, actually. http://www dot utc dot edu/Administration/DepartmentalHonors/VanWinkleT.pdf (URL altered due to moderation) is an excellent scholarly paper that discusses this matter, as well as other osteological changes that are apparent in the pubic symphyses of both men and women, although this one focuses on the changes caused by parturition trauma … aka pregnancy complications.

      • Ella Warnock

        Based on what I’ve read, it’s not surprising at all, but I do know what you mean. I can’t help but think that that cretin had the idea in mind that even a child (female, natch) should suffer and possibly die for having committed the “sin” of sex. Actually, his point was probably that she should suffer for the misfortune of being born female.

      • goatini

        They fantasize about being able to marry a child who they can mold to their specifications.

        • Ella Warnock

          And all the better if you can tie her down with children – if birthing them doesn’t outright kill her, that is.

      • youmustbejoking

        Part two of that story was that the two doctors who agreed that the pregnancy must be terminated in order to safeguard the life of the 9 year old girl and the mother who approved it were all excommunicated by the bishop for the abortion the little girl was given. The rapist wasn’t excommunicated, but those saving her life were. Which is just one more reason I find that religion despicable.

  • marie72

    Having a abortion when your baby is already 5 months old is called a late term abortion,i think that is what they want to stop not someone with a medical emergency.A woman still has up to under 20 weeks to get an abortion…

    • fiona64

      Having a abortion when your baby is already 5 months old is called a late term abortion

      No, ‘having an abortion’ when your baby is already 5 months old is called impossible. Or infanticide. Infants are *born.*

      Oh. Perhaps you meant 5 months’ gestation? Well, then, allow me to enlighten you. The majority of fetal anomalies can’t even be *detected* until approximately 20 weeks’ pregnancy, and sometimes later. It’s not up to you to decide what kind of medical risk a woman other than yourself will assume, just for starters. Then there’s the fact that you’re talking about wanted pregnancies having gone horribly wrong at that point to boot. Most women in these situations seek second opinions. They also have emotional factors to deal with as the hopes and dreams they projected onto the fetus are dashed.

      Really, it just isn’t up to you (or to a bunch of legislators practicing medicine without a license) to make these calls unless you are the pregnant woman.

      • marie72

        I know its not up to me at all- but people that are for abortion rights can still be against or do not like late term abortions.I would think a late term abortion would be 22 weeks when a baby can live on its own.

        • fiona64

          I would think a late term abortion would be 22 weeks when a baby can live on its own.

          Chances of survival at 22 weeks’ gestation: 10-35 percent. That means that 65-90% of infants born that early *die,* and those that do live are severely compromised.

          Further, as already stated, we are talking about wanted pregnancies. Since the majority of fetal anomalies cannot be detected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, and since the majority of women who learn that their wanted pregnancy is going horribly wrong, I would find it completely reasonable for such women to seek second opinions. And that, madame, can take more than an additional two weeks.

          It is between the woman and her physician, no one else.

          • marie72

            Of course in a perfect world…

          • fiona64

            Which is why the politicians need to stop practicing medicine without a license the way they are with these asinine laws.

          • Valde

            Hey fiona, I have just heard a novel anti-choice argument, in regards to abortion bans in the case of rape.

            “They are political concessions for some pro-lifers, but not for all of
            them. Some pro-lifers think that it is morally justifiable for the fetus
            to exercise the right to life/not to be killed which they think
            it/he/she should have at the expense of the woman’s right to bodily
            autonomy in cases of consensual sex (which can be a loveless one-night
            stand–it does not have to be a happy marriage) but not think that it is
            morally justifiable for the fetus to exercise this right at the expense
            of the woman’s rights in cases of rape (since the woman was not
            responsible for the creation of the fetus in cases where she was raped).
            This is similar to supporting forcing males who had legally consensual
            sex to pay child support but not forcing male victims of rape to do the
            same. Thus, one can be morally consistent and still support a rape
            exception for abortion
            ———————–
            I think it fails because in order to abrogate the woman’s bodily autonomy in favour of the fetus, you just can’t say that some fetii have more value than others based on how they were created.

            Either fetal life has intrinsic value EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE WOMAN’S, OR IT DOES NOT.

            Interested in your opinion.

            Every day anti-choicers surprise me with the new shit they can come up with.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, they throw in the “exceptions for rape or incest” thing as a desperate attempt to say they aren’t misogynists.

          • Valde

            Ok, the guy explained a little bit more:

            Premise 1: Life/Personhood begins at birth.
            Premise 2: Abortion is strictly a woman’s choice.
            Conclusion: Only a woman decides whether or not a person/life comes into being/is born.

            Premise 1: Only a woman decides whether or not a person/life comes into being/is born.
            Premise 2: We cannot be held responsible for the consequences of somebody else’s decision
            Conclusion: Men cannot be held responsible as parents because their status as such is the consequence of the mother’s decision.”

            ———————

            So what they are doing is trying to reframe the argument as coming down to *responsibility* for one’s actions – which is sidestepping the issue and just more slut-shaming in the end.

            I hope you don’t mind my asking your advice from time to time – I am still relatively new at this, and don’t always have complete confidence in my arguments. I don’t care about winning per se- I want to actually KNOW I’m right. And these people are often intimidating due to their rhetorical, I mean bullshit, skills.

          • fiona64

            Oh, he’s also thrown in some men’s rights activist (MRA) nonsense into the mix — i.e., that a man should have the right to force a woman to remain pregnant.

            And yes, it’s always about “responsibility,” which is a euphemism for not having sex outside of marriage … ugh.

          • Valde

            I don’t understand how the fuck you manage Live Action News and Lifesite.

            I just ventured over there and I already feel dirty.

          • fiona64

            Because someone has to tell the truth … and it’s kind of fun to watch them flip their shit.

          • Valde

            That Roger Resler guy thinks he’s smart.

            He is trying to trap me with this leading question:

            “Do you agree that demanding the right to kill another human being for someone else’s benefit is worse than demanding that another being give up their bodily autonomy for someone else’s benefit?”

          • fiona64

            “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

            Same kind of deal.

    • marie72

      However i don’t agree with all the restrictions and regulations they are adding with the bill.They took the one part of the most people can agree with and added things to it -that ruin the bill.

  • fiona64

    He’s already tried to pretend that the abortion wouldn’t have saved her — because “the womb is a sterile environment” and he heard of a woman once who walked around with a dead fetus in utero for years.

    I wish I were making this up. If you go through the thread (and yep, it’s a long one), you’ll see this and other absurd bullshit “well-known scientific facts” that he likes to tout.

  • Valde

    I was watching a documentary the other day ‘Ireland’s Nazis’ – it’s available on youtube – and apparently the Irish had problems accepting Jewish refugees – children included – but welcomed Catholic Nazi war criminals with open arms.

    I also learned, from the documentary, that a far right catholic party took control in Croatia and proceeded to exterminate Jewish people and other ‘undesirables’. Oh, and they did it with the blessing of a Croatian arch-bishop. Yep, the man said that ‘god only has so much love to give out’ which was code word for ‘genodice, fuck ya!’

    • fiona64

      If you *really* want to be creeped out, look up the Magdalene Laundries …

      This is not to take away anything from the horror of what you describe, by any stretch of the imagination.

      The laundries were not only punishment for women who had children out of wedlock, but for women who were mentally ill or (wait for it, I couldn’t make this up) too pretty.

      It was one of the most disturbing institutions I’ve ever studied.

      • Valde

        Already familiar with them.

        Modern day slavery is what that is!

        And I am sure you are familiar with the practise of symphiosotomy as well? Practised right up until 1992!

        That place is the dream country for Gary and Crissy!

        PS I have trouble keeping up with new posts on all of these various articles (disqus freezes my pc), so I have gotten into the habit of just clicking on your name, Jennifer’s and others who post a lot. Hope you don’t mind, if it appears like I am stalking you :P

        • fiona64

          I don’t mind at all. :-)

          This article about the symphysiotomy survivors was just published last month. Truly disturbing and barbaric. http://www dot thejournal dot ie/symphysiotomy-survivors-want-justice-for-barbaric-acts-967720-Jun2013/

  • jp

    Real statistics show that only 1 to 2% of abortions are because of medical reasons. It’s the other 98% that is a problem. And really? Pregnancy and childbirth are a natural and safe thing. Stop trying to make it sound like it is more risky than it is. Yes there are risks. Yes there are complications that CAN arise but the majority of pregnancies are healthy. There are also risks with abortion. People need REAL facts about all the health and safety issues of pregnancy and abortion. Not sensationalized stories to persuade people to their side

    • fiona64

      Real statistics show that only 1 to 2% of abortions are because of medical reasons

      Actually, real statistics show that no woman actually has to disclose the reason for an abortion. And, to be honest, her reasons do not need to be “good enough” for anyone but her. Whether it’s as serious as her life being in danger or as frivolous as “I hate the smell of baby powder,” it’s none of your concern.

      Pregnancy and childbirth are a natural and safe thing.

      Wrong. Pregnancy is *not* a state of wellness. Women die every day of pregnancy complications in the USA (we have one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the developed world). Early abortion is 14 times safer than gestation: http://health dot usnews dot com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2012/01/23/abortion-safer-for-women-than-childbirth-study-claims would be a good place to start educating yourself.

      Quote from article: The risk of death associated with a full-term pregnancy and delivery is
      8.8 deaths per 100,000, while the risk of death linked to legal abortion
      is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 women, according to the study. That means a
      woman carrying a baby to term is 14 times more likely to die than a
      woman who chooses to have a legal abortion, the study finds.

      I am glad to be able to rectify this gap in your education. Because, you see, I am in wholehearted concurrence that people need to have real facts about the health and safety issues of pregnancy.

    • Valde

      Pregnancy is not a healthy state for a woman. A woman is better off NOT being pregnant.

    • Lyra Belaqua

      Arguably, abortions prevent many pregnancy complications that would have arisen.

      “. Yes there are complications that CAN arise but the majority of pregnancies are healthy.”

      You need to define the parameters around “complication”. I would consider chronic back pain a complication.

      Statistically speaking, abortions are 14 TIMES SAFER for a woman’s health than pregnancy (they’re only counting physical health here, so that’s not including mental or emotional health).

      You want people to know the real facts about pregnancy and abortion? GOOD. Then press for more legislation mandating that every pregnant woman be counseled about how stressful parenting is, her chances of getting post-partum, how her body will change and how it may affect her, post-partum psychosis, the odds of her and her partner (if he’s still around) staying together and/or odds of divorce (which goes up after having children), the increased risks to a womans health, the increased financial burden, the decrease in many states of state or federal support for food or insurance or rent, etc. She should be mandated to get counseling to see if pregnancy is really the right thing for her. To see if she’s really thought her decision through.

      • jp

        You make it sound like having kids is such a horrible thing. It’s so sad. Children are a blessing. Yes they change your life and things get more complicated and more expensive, but kids are still a blessing. I know. I have 3. 2 of which were unplanned. And I’ve been through a lot of what you described. Postpartum depression , divorce, a difficult pregnancy that put me in bed rest for 13 weeks, financial troubles and yet in all of that I have never once regretted my children. They are wonderful beautiful blessings. And there are a lot of people who can’t have children who would be over the moon to adopt. There are other options besides abortion. What about the child’s rights? Do you know why the bill is lowering the abortion age limit to 20 weeks? It’s because a baby can feel pain! It can feel the forcepss ripping it apart! The baby being aborted tries to get away from the tools that are inflicting pain on it.

        • jp

          Also, people will give you unsolicited advice regardless. Your body changes with age regardless. And as for risk of cancer going up, breastfeeding lowers your risk of breast and reproductive cancers. And there are plenty of other things in our world that cause cancer. None of those are reasons to end a life. Not to mention I know plenty of women who have successful, well paying careers even after having kids.

          • Lyra Belaqua

            Just being fair. If pro-birthers want to force a whole bunch of legislation to “make sure a woman has fully considered what an abortion can do to her and her body and her life”, she needs to be aware of what having children can do to her. Many women regret having children, and don’t consider them “blessings”.

            ” Do you know why the bill is lowering the abortion age limit to 20 weeks? It’s because a baby can feel pain! It can feel the forcepss ripping it apart! The baby being aborted tries to get away from the tools that are inflicting pain on it.”

            No. Thalmacortical fibers are necessary to feel and interpret pain as pain. Thalmacortical fibers do not begin to develop until 23-28 weeks gestation. The “fetal pain” stuff is more a political heartstring than a scientific platform. It’s a way to get funding from pro-birthers, possibly some pro-lifers (though I doubt these people live in Texas, what with all the executions they boast about). Not to mention all these bills and articles that are written about fetal pain being felt at 10, 15, 20 weeks gestation have been widely discredited.

            Regarding cancer, how come gyno docs aren’t required to tell women who experience spontaneous abortions that their chances of cancer will increase significantly? There is essentially no difference between 1st and 2nd trimester spontaneous abortions and elective or therapeutic abortions. Yet ONLY with elective abortions are people spouting lies that chances of cancer increase (something that has been debunked since the what, 80s?).

            Glad you’ve known many women who have successful, well-paying careers even after having kids. That’s like saying c-sections are never necessary, so all women should give birth vaginally. The amount of time required to raise a child if a woman is working requires her to take time off. If a woman doesn’t have a job that offers PTO, or does not pay well, this will impact her more financially. Also, there is a stigma in the workplace around parents with young children, considering that kids can get sick on a dime or get into an issue at school, and suddenly at least one parent needs to leave the office, often dropping whatever they’re doing. (I had a boss who had to cut at least 10 hours a week for a full year from her work because she needed to tutor her son. This impacted our entire team. We had as many team meetings as we could without her, but many times, more executive level questions would go unanswered for 2-3 weeks because she was so bogged down with catch-up work.) This often leaves the coworkers to pick up the slack. If the parent-coworker doesn’t make up for it, this can lead to resentment, poor reviews, less chances for advancement, which leads to less chances for earning potential, etc.

            Yes, people always give unsolicited advice. But it comes out of the woodwork when you’re visibly pregnant or a parent (especially a young/new one). I’m all for boundaries, but I hate that strangers think it’s OK to just come up to me and rub my belly. So I grab their boob just to be fair. (Ok, I don’t, but in my mind I am).

            I’m not “anti-having-kids”, it’s called being rational. Having children is a huge responsibility and can be a big burden on all pillars of life, especially if one is doing it alone.

          • fiona64

            Many women regret having children, and don’t consider them “blessings”.

            Exactly. Ann Landers performed an admittedly unscientific survey; she asked parents in her readership to send in a postcard answering a single question, which was “If you had it to do over again, would you still have kids?” A whopping 70 percent of respondents said they would NOT.

            In fact, numerous studies show that couples without children are happier than those with them. You can read this article that discusses several such studies, including the Landers one: http://www.salon.com/2003/05/06/breeding/

            So, please, JP. Do not behave as though unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children are a “blessing.” They aren’t. And children are keenly aware when they are unwanted.

        • fiona64

          Children are a blessing.

          Only if they are wanted.

          The baby being aborted tries to get away from the tools that are inflicting pain on it.

          Pro-tip: “The Silent Scream” is faked. The rest of your screed is predicated on the idea that it’s real. Educate yourself: http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2009/11/silent-scream-is-lie.html

        • fiona64

          And there are a lot of people who can’t have children who would be over the moon to adopt.

          Then tell them to get on the fucking stick and do it. Current AFCARS stats indicate that there are 100K children *currently available for adoption in this country.* Most of them will age out of the system without ever having permanent adoptive homes. Do you know what this tells me? That all of those “people who can’t have children who would be over the moon to adopt” must not want to do so very badly.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Plenty of kids available for adoption at adoptuskidsdotcom. They just don’t happen to all be perfect, non-disabled white newborns. But they are kids that need homes badly and they would love to find a permanent family and not be in foster care. The state will even help with the costs. Anyone who says there is a shortage of adoptable children in this country is not telling the truth.

        • Lyra Belaqua

          “And there are a lot of people who can’t have children who would be over the moon to adopt.”

          Interesting choice of words, considering all the children in the world waiting for homes could easily reach to the moon, and probably back again.

          You’d be more accurate to end your sentence with “… a brand new, healthy, white infant, for $40,000″

          • Lyra Belaqua

            Also, adoption is a great option. I don’t really get why more people don’t want older kids. I think it’s great that you can adopt older children: you can see their personalities, their likes and dislikes, they can express whether they like you or not, oh, and they can immediately play an active roll in the family. It’s much less a form of human trafficking, and much more adding a sentient person to your family.

            Also, no diapers.

  • jp

    Oh and there is always fertility awareness and knowing when you can and can’t get pregnant and being responsible in when you choose to have sex! And there’s condoms too. It’s not like abortion being banned would mean that you are forced to have 15 kids! A medical intervention may be necessary but it’s still possible to do everything one can to save mother and baby and not just kill one or the other.

    • Valde

      1) birth control fails

      2) sex is not a crime

    • Lyra Belaqua

      “Oh and there is always fertility awareness and knowing when you can and can’t get pregnant and being responsible in when you choose to have sex! ”

      Oh, good! Thanks for explaining it to me! But a few questions…

      What if your cycles are irregular? What if you don’t choose to have “sex”, but someone forces themselves on you, and you’re one of the 25,000+ women or children per year to get pregnant from rape (usually from someone you know)? What if you ARE responsible when having sex, and you get pregnant anyways? What if you find out you’re pregnant when you’re 17 weeks (but 19 weeks fetal development), and still need to get money together, and the nearest clinic is 450 miles away, and you can’t get off work for the 2 doctor appointments, mandatory “counseling”, and abortion procedure and recovery? What if pregnancy complications or severe defects incompatible with life show up on the 20-week ultrasound or blood tests, and the most humane, best thing you can do for your child, yourself and your family is seek an abortion?

  • Valde

    Some of the posters here believe that pregnancy for an 11 year old girl is just dandy, and they have no problem with whatever disabilities she may suffer as a result of the pregnancy. Here is a bit more info:

    “The main risks are associated with
    immaturity of the female urogenital system,” Dr. Elena Rosciani, a
    gynecologist with the Instituto de la Mujer in Argentina explained to
    BBC World. “And this immaturity can lead to abnormalities in the growth
    of the fetus, which can cause premature birth and other complications.”

    This immaturity of the reproductive system
    means that the uterus has not reached its maximum development. In fact, a
    girl of eleven who is beginning menarche (the first menstrual bleeding)
    is at the beginning of the development of her reproductive organs. “At
    the beginning of development, the uterus is smaller; it may measure some
    five or six centimeters. The developed uterus reaches some seven or
    eight centimeters and this development is completed between the ages of
    19 and 21,” the gynecologist says. And that small a uterus can result in
    complications for the development of the fetus and can result in a
    premature birth.

    Doctor Jorge Parra, a gynecologist and
    representative in Ecuador of the United Nations Population Fund,
    explained to BBC World that pregnancy at such a young age can cause
    other problems as well. “The most frequent complications in a pregnancy
    of a 15-year-old minor are pre-eclampsia and eclampsia — hypertension in
    gestation,” the expert states. “It is a condition that occurs only in
    pregnancy and it is an important cause of death in pregnancy. It is
    known that girls younger than 15 have a greater possibility of
    developing it and the only way to cure it is to terminate the
    pregnancy,” the expert adds.

    “But there are also nutritional factors for
    a girl who is in a stage of growth and from whom, when she becomes
    pregnant, the fetus can take away required nutrients. So there is a high
    incidence of anemia in this group.”

    Pregnancy at such an early age, the
    gynecologist adds, not only causes problems in gestation. There are also
    complications during delivery. “Due to the fact that an adolescent’s
    pelvis is still in development, obstructed deliveries are common,
    because the small pelvis blocks the passage of the fetus. The percentage
    of girls of 15 who require caesareans is very high, almost 70% compared
    to other births,” Dr. Jorge Parra states.

    And according to Dr. Rosciani of the
    Instituto de la Mujer in Argentina, “There are also psychological
    alterations that giving birth brings about: a lot of stress, a lot of
    effort and, above all, a lot of pain. So it is dangerous to subject so
    small a girl to the job of giving birth.”

  • Kim

    I’m so sorry to
    hear about your loss. I had a similar situation with my son, Christian. I was
    20 weeks when my water broke. Prior to this I had a blood clot whereas I bled
    for weeks into my pregnancy. My maternal fetal doctor told me I could ‘terminate’
    my pregnancy because if I did make it to ‘viability’ my son COULD have downs
    syndrome, cystic fibrosis, mental retardation, etc. I could not bear the
    thought of killing my son and was insulted he would even suggest so-needless to
    say I NEVER returned to that doctor. I was put on strict bed rest I went to the
    doctor every week for the next 4 weeks only to get bad news at every visit.
    Finally at 24 weeks I developed HELLP syndrome which nearly killed me. My blood
    pressure was so high I was on anti-seizure medicine, my organs were shutting
    down and I was not going to make it. My doctor did an emergency C-section and
    Christian made it 17 minutes. He was perfect, no disabilities. No, we could not
    see inside to see if anything was wrong but he was perfect. If I had died
    having him it would’ve been ok. I believe being a mom puts you in tough
    positions and had I died it would’ve been hard for my family but I believe that
    is the way God would’ve wanted it. Sometimes being a mom means sacrificing
    things, including your life. I am 100% pro-life, NO exceptions.

    • Dez

      I’m happy you and your son are well. But you do understand that not everyone believes in your god and that it was your choice to sacrifice your life? I respect your views, but in no way should your views be forced on me or any other woman.

    • fiona64

      And that was *your* choice. Another woman under identical circumstances need not make the same one.

    • Jennifer Starr

      You made the decision that you were happy with, that was best for you and your family. Please have the courtesy to allow other women to make their own decisions as well.

    • Valde

      I am 100% pro-life, NO exceptions.

      100% pro-death for pregnant women.

  • http://www.courtyardcarolinabeach.com/carolina-beach-courtyard-local-guide/ Courtyard Carolina Beach

    nice article……..

  • http://www.courtyardoceanfrontnorth.com/virginia-beach-courtyard-room-suites/ Courtyard Virginia Beach

    nice article……..