A Pro-Choice Texan’s Dispatch From the National Right to Life Convention


Two months ago, when I signed up to attend the National Right to Life Convention (NRLC) in Grapevine, Texas, I could not have known that it would kick off the morning after Wendy Davis’ epic filibuster. Two months ago, the media was hailing a legislative session of compromise in Texas, with lawmakers reportedly agreeing to an ostensible truce on the abortion issue, focusing instead on restoring funding to family planning in my state. That was before Gov. Rick Perry pulled a bait-and-switch on progressives who’d had the bad sense to take the Republican Party at its word.

But there I was, in the lesser of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport’s two Hyatt hotels, stepping off the elevator with two men in priestly garb, their waists cinched with rope. I arrived a few minutes after registration had closed for the day, but a nice lady took pity on my tardiness and handed me my badge and a thick packet of programming notes and baby-plastered propaganda.

I milled around that evening visiting sparsely supervised vendor booths stocked with t-shirts and DVDs before happening upon a deeply unsettling table full “Umbert the Unborn” cartoons. It seems that “the world’s most lovable baby hasn’t even been born yet!” Umbert is a “pre-born infant of yet undetermined gender,” but of course the poster fetus of the National Catholic Register nevertheless prefers male pronouns; his “mother’s womb is his private universe, playground and think-tank from which he can anticipate life and the world that awaits him.”

My outlook was perhaps less sunny than Umbert’s. Despite Tuesday night’s resounding pro-choice victory, during which 500 people chanted Republican Lt. Governor David Dewhurst into cowed frustration in the state Senate chamber, I had no illusions about what came next: a second special session, with abortion legislation at the top of the agenda. I came to NRLC ready to find myself surrounded by fired up right-wingers revved up with the glory of their God.

Instead, I found a few hundred unfailingly polite white people, mostly middle-aged or older, shuffling sedately from conference room to conference room. It was, in a word, jarring. These were the people who would see Texans die behind legislation that would put 800 miles between a pregnant person and an abortion provider?

Sometime that first night, a flyer appeared under my hotel room door. It warned me: “National Right to Life Cannot Be Trusted.”

Alright, I’m listening.

Between phrases like “radical homosexual agenda” and “Mitt Romney’s assault on liberty,” I was able to gather that the NRLC is not nearly right-wing enough for the personhood crowd, who consider Ann Coulter and Billy Graham to be inveterate baby-killers. I did enjoy discovering, after visiting a suggested website, that the authors of this flyer consider Donald Trump to be a “Republican pretender.” Common ground in the unlikeliest of places.

The next morning, I found a back-row seat in the morning general session, looking forward to the party that was sure to begin with the arrival of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who out-Tea Partied David Dewhurst into a D.C. seat earlier this year. Cruz delivered, but the crowd didn’t, giving a surprisingly tepid standing ovation when Cruz called for the abolishment of the IRS.

But then he got to the good stuff, quoting a friend who remembered the glory days of 1969 when “women still thought aborting a child was a terrible thing to contemplate.” No doubt they did; in America’s pre-Roe v. Wade era, I can’t imagine any woman relishing a visit to a dirty motel room and a cash payment in exchange for bodily autonomy.

The ultimate result of the proposed legislation that Cruz championed, and that has been promoted in Texas’ second special session, is this: Abortion facilities will have to be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers, effectively shutting down 37 of Texas’ 42 existing abortion clinics. No abortion providers will exist west of Interstate 35, leaving the whole of west Texas—half of the second-largest state in the union—without abortion providers. Doctors who provide abortions will be forced to gain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of those remaining providers, a challenging task considering most hospitals don’t want to deal with protestors lining their sidewalks. And medication abortions—the two-dose regimen that Texans can administer themselves at home—will become a thing of the past.

With that on my mind, I spent the afternoon in seminars; the program listed social media training courses, advice on “overcoming pro-abortion opposition within a congregation,” and one very tempting offering called “We Are the Sheep … Where Are the Shepherds?”

But I didn’t want to hear people talk the talk. I wanted to see them walk the walk. That’s how I ended up in a session on international adoptions of special needs kids, led by a single mom named Joleigh who told us, “My significant other turned out to be a short, swarthy special needs child.”

She said that her toddler, a mouthy little girl from Bulgaria who had begun calling her prosthetic leg “Leggy,” was just one of untold thousands of children across the world housed in orphanages offering varying degrees of safety and care. These are the world’s discarded children, sometimes diagnosed with conditions like Down Syndrome and spina bifida, others simply thrown out because of their racial backgrounds.

I am a child-free person, and during that seminar, even I found myself wondering: Could I give a home to one of these kids? My heart broke when I saw the slideshow of photos of terminally ill children in need of a safe, loving home and welcoming family with whom to spend their final weeks, months, and years.

That seminar was meant to address a favorite refrain of anti-choice folks: that there is no such thing as an unwanted child. But certainly the website Joleigh directed us to, RainbowKids.com, and the overflow of kids in foster care here in the United States, show that there are many, many unwanted children in search of what Joleigh called “unfound families.” There are simply not enough folks who are answering that call, and I found myself walking out of the room with a profound sense of respect and admiration for a woman who had, as a single person, given a forever home to a child without one.

Of course, for all the good it does and is, adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy. It is an alternative to parenthood. That adoption seminar was a brief relief; the next thing I heard, in another dim, brown room in the basement of the Hyatt, was that Right to Life was largely unconcerned with making adoptions—domestic, specifically—easier for Americans. Indeed, RTL is singularly focused on forcing all people (let’s please remember that cisgender women are not the only people facing pregnancy, whether unplanned, unwanted, or otherwise) to carry their pregnancies to term.

In the next seminar I attended, titled “They Don’t Care,” National Right to Life president Carol Tobias spent 40 minutes hitting the highlights of accumulated anti-Planned Parenthood rhetoric before taking questions from attendees. One attendee asked precisely the question I had on my mind, even if it wasn’t phrased precisely the way I might ask it: If anti-choicers care so much about babies, why not work harder to make adoption easier and cheaper? Her response: “We certainly promote it, but we haven’t gotten into the specifics of that. We just think it’s a good thing.”

Adoption may be “good” in the eyes of the Right to Lifers, but for Tobias and her supporters, forced pregnancy and the dismantling of a social safety net are the top priority. I mustered the gumption to raise my hand, asking Tobias to elaborate on a comment she’d made early in her presentation about abortion as a “huge money-making industry.”

I wondered, aloud, if she could give me some examples of what to say to people who don’t believe Planned Parenthood employees are lining their pockets with gold-plated fetuses?

Everyone in the room turned around to stare at me. That moment in school when you fear you’ve asked the dumbest question of all time, and the A-group is going to mock your knock-off Doc Martens mercilessly until Christmas break? That was this moment.

Tobias told me that if Planned Parenthood really cared about women, its doctors would do abortions for free. This was supposed to be the big burn I could present to “opponents,” as if certain health-care providers—targeted as they are, by violent and murderous anti-choice zealots—should automatically be expected to work gratis. A woman in the row in front of me handed me a flyer detailing Planned Parenthood’s reported income and funding sources from 2010. The look she gave me was a mix of “Oh, honey” and “Prepare to have your mind blown.”

The flyer demonstrated little more than the fact that Planned Parenthood derives its support not from Satan’s heinous minions, but from funds that are a mix of private contributions, government grants, and patient payments. Breaking news, this wasn’t. Mind blown? Not hardly. No, that came later, courtesy of HBO.

I retired to my room in time to watch the original Proposition 8 plaintiffs get married live on the Rachel Maddow Show and stayed up late to finish Magic Mike on premium cable, a luxury I do not afford myself at home in Austin.

Thusly refreshed, I rose the next morning anxious to hear what Lt. Gov. Dewhurst had to say to the gathered sort-of-masses. I watched as he posed goofily with devotees standing to the side of a flag-lined dais, paying not a whit of attention to the NRLC counsel informing a somewhat riveted audience of the government’s plan to summarily kill them all with end-of-life legislation that had nothing to do with pain but with less worthy, in her mind, reasons that included “loss of dignity” and “loss of autonomy.” Pain: important when discussing fetuses, irrelevant when discussing living humans with mixed-up priorities about how they’d like to meet their maker.

I was excited for the Dewhurst show. What would he say to tireless supporters who hadn’t been in that room on Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning? Would he double down on his promise to punish reporters who he believed had incited what he called an unruly mob? Would the crowd welcome him with 15 minutes of sustained applause?

They did not. They clapped, they stood, and they sat the hell down, ready for instructions. It is no wonder, I thought, that Dewhurst interpreted Tuesday night’s uproar as a mob—if this is as excited as Right to Lifers get, I could see why Dewhurst became overwhelmed by some raucous clapping in the senate chamber.

But we have to remember that David Dewhurst suffers from a terminal lack of self-awareness. On Tuesday night, as the minutes and seconds ticked down toward midnight, and the gallery resonated from end to end with a righteous uproar, he actually told people to quiet down so he could take a vote on the very bill everyone was there to oppose.

David Dewhurst told people to shut up so he could take their rights away.

That morning in his NRLC speech, he blamed Planned Parenthood, the International Socialist Organization, and the Occupy movement for whipping SB 5 opponents into a frenzy. This man, who literally told people in one sentence how they could prevent him from taking a vote on a bill that was guaranteed to pass, blamed his own failure on his constituents, who he believes are so profoundly stupid that they would blindly do the bidding of whatever scrub-clad, speculum-wielding demon bitch he imagines pulls the delicate brainstrings of Planned Parenthood’s ignorant devotees, slaves as they are to affordable cancer screenings and contraception.

“We got the bill passed at midnight only to see that time ran out to sign the bill,” Dewhurst explained to the crowd, conveniently omitting the fact that state Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) had been making the media rounds that night, telling reporters that the 12:02 a.m. vote on June 26 was perfectly legal. This despite the fact that the special session had ended at midnight, shooting Wendy Davis into political stardom. This despite the fact that 180,000 people watched the midnight deadline pass on the Texas Tribune’s live feed.

I might feel bad for David Dewhurst if he didn’t so perfectly embody the bizarre combination of haplessness and malevolency that has come to define the flailing right wing in this country.

Probably the newly filed second special session legislation, which mirrors SB 5, will pass. I have very few illusions about that, despite my excitement about seeing thousands descend upon the capitol this week to make their voices heard in support of reproductive justice.

But if and when this legislation passes, it won’t be because anti-choice groups are better organized, more energized, and more representative of average Texans who are reasonable, pro-medicine, pro-science people who respect bodily autonomy. That much was apparent at the NRLC. No, if and when it passes, it will be because Republican politicians want to win primaries and have, over the past decade or so, very successfully capitalized on public fear—of a non-white America, of foreign terrorist threats, of empty gun racks. Those issues have conveniently aligned with an anti-choice base that is happy to piggyback on a party that thrives on the intersection of their anti-woman, pro-patriarchal ideals with the larger message, which is: Screw everyone who threatens my wholly unearned privilege.

In that decorous applause for Cruz and later Dewhurst, what I heard was a deafening smugness, emanating from hundreds of people who believe, deeply and passionately, that they know what’s best for others, not just in terms of reproductive rights, but in many ways. At Carol Tobias’ seminar on Planned Parenthood, a question about whether anti-choicers only care about people when they’re in the womb was answered, blithely, with the solution that individual Christians could do nice things for other people sometimes.

What the NRLC taught me is that there is a disconnect between the people who attended that convention and the politicians who claim to speak for them.

David Dewhurst, the consummate stooge, could not have spoken more dispassionately or with less conviction and charisma. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, oozed with a well-oiled D.C. slickness. And Rick Perry opened the convention by speaking, as he always does, with the confidence of a man who hasn’t heard the word “no” in decades. More than the fact that these men don’t know what it would be like to face an unplanned pregnancy, they plainly do not care.

nrlc photoThroughout the convention, I expected to feel rage or anger. I expected to steam, to struggle to hold my tongue. Instead, I felt sadness and, to a small degree, pity. Maybe I was hanging out at the wrong seminars, but the people sitting in those dimly lit brown rooms weren’t rage-inducing. They were versions of my grandparents. They were people whose faith—however misguided in my eyes, and however predicated on a fear of autonomous female sexuality—had been co-opted by affluent men looking to secure a seat of power.

After racing back down I-35 to Austin, eager to put sticky, searing Texas pavement between myself and 500 people with a collective fetus fetish, I met my best friend for mimosas. I never drink mimosas, but orange is a color that’s happening in my life these days. I tried to describe, for her, my feeling of sadness and pity. But I could see the skepticism in Carrie’s face. It’s hard to feel pity for people when Texans, desperate to end their pregnancies, will die because of the legislation they support.

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

Follow Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes

  • Mary O’Grady

    Infant adoption is favored by anti-abortion forces because it is yet another chance to punish women who have sex. The lying crisis pregnancy centers have been caught pushing adoption over and over again. Don’t be fooled: so-called open adoption agreements are not enforceable in law. Prosperous adopters get the babies and kick the mothers to the curb, usually without warning, over 70% of the time, according to researcher Karen Wilson Buterbaugh. She also reports that adoption causes severe psychological damage to mothers, up to and including post-traumatic stress syndrome.

    Why is it hard to find perfect white newborns to adopt? Women have alternatives now.

    • TullyMOI

      Absolutely true, Mary, and there is a Primal Wound for the adoptee that haunts them throughout their life. It is maddening as an adoptee to see adoption thrown around as some sort of resort should you be denied access to abortion or birth control. Adoption practice was built on the idea of “illegitmate births” in which women were punished for being “loose” by being manipulated or forced to surrender their children to financially-stable, two-parent families who could provide a “better” home. Yet the cost to the adoptee and birth mothers is very high. Unfortunately, some of them don’t make it.

    • Dez

      And yet anti-abortion nuts push the insulting narrative of the “black holocaust”, but no one wants black babies. They all want perfect white babies. Their faux love of babies is bullshit.

      • Mary O’Grady

        Truth.

      • Gary Cangemi

        That’s a pretty racist comment in itself. Didn’t the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger believe that blacks were members of an inferior race whose population needed to be controlled? Isn’t that one of the main reasons she championed birth control, to limit the explosion of “undesirable” populations? Don’t lecture us on racism. We aren’t the ones aborting more African-American babies than are, in some areas, being born.

        • fiona64

          Except for one little problem: you’re wrong. Again.

          http://www dot nyu dot edu/projects/sanger/secure/newsletter/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.html

          Quote: While “My Way to Peace” is brutally frank and among the most extreme of any of Sanger’s eugenic writings, it does not condone race-based eugenics. Sanger never accepted the racial hierarchies that led to the deadly racist policies of the Nazis. Rather, she vehemently rejected any definition of the “unfit”
          when it referred “to race or religions.” (MS to Sidney Lasell, Jr., Feb. 13, 1934 [MSM S8:541].) This was not true of the broader eugenics movement, both in Europe and the United States, which blurred the distinction between good science and racial prejudice, and generally failed to protest the perversion of its ideals under the Nazis. A number of American eugenicists excused or even
          commended reprehensible Nazi race policies camouflaged, however poorly, under the veneer of science.

          —-
          The children most likely to age out of the adoption system without ever having permanent homes are children of color or children with health issues. Dez was speaking truth. You continue to ignore the fact that there are 100K kids awaiting permanent homes in this country … and a good many of them are children of color. In the mean while, people lie whine about ‘being on waiting lists for years’ to adopt. What they really mean is that they are waiting around for a perfectly healthy Caucasian infant, preferably male. If they really wanted to adopt a child, they would have done so … and could have done so, many times over.

          Your intellectual dishonesty is shameful, Mr. Cangemi. However, it does remind me of a particular quotation:

          If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
          eventually come to believe it. — Joseph Goebbels

        • Valde

          Black babies cost 18k to adopt.

          A healthy white baby costs 30k+ to adopt.

          Wanna guess why black babies are so much cheaper Gary?

          • Gary Cangemi

            My response to your previous reply wasn’t posted. I wonder why. If I’m going to start being censored, I’m going to have to discontinue our discussions.

          • Valde

            No one is censoring you, it’s Disqus being buggy.

            Cute whine though.

          • Gary Cangemi

            It wasn’t your post, it my response to Fiona’s that was deleted. I said nothing inappropriate.

          • marbo

            Gary, that happened to a reply of mine as well…

          • fiona64

            Disqus is acting up. For all of us.

            No one is censoring your misogynist screeds. Stop whining.

        • goatini

          “Didn’t the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger believe that blacks were members of an inferior race whose population needed to be controlled?”

          NO.

          “Isn’t that one of the main reasons she championed birth control, to limit the explosion of “undesirable” populations?”

          NO.

          Dr Martin Luther King Jr, upon accepting the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award: “Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society.”

  • Suzie Kidnap

    ABORTION fills pockets?

    ADOPTION is a billion dollar a year unregulated industry.

    Take away contraception, abortion, and the social safety net, and it’s an enormous bonanza for the adoption industry.

    • HeilMary1

      And no contraception or safety net = Bangladesh/Manila on the Potomac. Forced birthers are really working for the pedophile priest lobby whose sexual crimes against street kids go unnoticed in Catholic poverty pits because the kids’ mothers were murdered by childbirth.

    • TullyMOI

      Exactly! No regulation for the industry. And yet, those of us who are the collateral damage – adoptees – have no voice. This is why open access to birth certificates for adoptees needs to happen!

    • Nor

      Yeah, that $55,000/yr average salary for abortion docs really is such a huge draw. Given the death threats and having to be afraid a nutjob is going to blow up your house all the time is a small price to pay for the same salary you could get for being a manager at McDonalds.

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    I am not interested in “making adoption easier.” Adoption is supposed to be about finding families for kids who do not already have them. It’s already easy if THAT is your ultimate goal in adopting a child and IF you are fit to do so. Like it or not, adoption IS NOT exactly like having your own child, and the state tries to ensure that you are ready for the challenge of parenting a child you didn’t make with your own body. THAT is why potential adopters have to jump through hoops–but IF you can do that, IF you can convince the state you’re fit, that’s 2/3rds of the battle as far as actually making the adoption happen. Because the state pretty much pays YOU to adopt from foster care.

    People think it’s hard because they think that if they want a baby they should just be able to “hey presto” produce one, even if they didn’t make the baby themselves. But adoption does not work that way, and it should *never* work that way.

    And before anyone rants about life being unfair, try being the one who loses the child because while adoption proponents want us all to think “all families are beautiful no matter what”, the truth is your family wasn’t pretty enough, so someone wants to take it away from you. It’s always, ALWAYS harder to lose a reality than an abstraction.

    • TullyMOI

      Are you a birth mothers, Dana?

      • Mary O’Grady

        Why is that any of your business?

        • TullyMOI

          Because I wanted to give her some resources. Birth mothers are not cared for in the adoption process and need peers for support.

          • vixxy

            Depends on who you do the adoption with. I had a daughter who was the product of rape I contemplated abortion but chickened out when they gave me the spiel about the entire process and etcetera. I had started out with a family but they said really weird things and were extremely rich and I changed my mind about them because I just got the feeling they didn’t want to raise a child and have a family but just wanted a kid for their life success highway. The family I actually found was wonderful to me I got pictures and letters and bonded with them it was a very open adoption. I think in some ways it made it harder for me but at least I never had to wonder how my daughter was doing. As a birth mother you can pick the family and just like in my situation if you get the feeling the people are being fake nice to you so they can get their hands on your baby and throw you in the trash the beauty of the situation is you can be picky about the family you choose. Don’t have any illusions though even if you find a perfect family it hurts. It’s a pain that I found never went away. Guess what the first question I was asked when I met my daughter was?… Why didn’t you want me. She cried. She had this fantasy all growing up that life would have been better with me which I assure you with the difficulties I had in life it would not have been better. Not to mention there was the fear that since she came from rape I would resent her for it especially being financially under duress.

            Just a note for Tully, if that birth certificates are “opened” then many women would go for abortion over adoption because many that do closed adoptions do no want to be found whether it be for reasons of embarrassment or because they need to have it that way to have closure. I am sorry if you are trying to find your birth parents and are unable to though. I know that has to be rough my heart goes out to you.

            I personally do not like the idea of abortion for myself it’s why I made the decision I did, on the same token though I do believe that abortion should be legal and highly regulated. Banning abortion won’t stop it anymore than banning drugs does in this country but at least with it being legal we will see less late term abortions and unsafe abortions. I am not sure I believe that abortion is really a “money making deal’ I am pretty sure that what they charge covers the doctors fees and etc and even if it’s a bit more you have to think about what planned parenthood does. I remember when I was younger getting free birth control from them which was a huge help for me since none of my jobs would give me enough hours to qualify me for medical insurance. I don’t think abortion is a good choice but at the end of the day I would feel better having something like that done in plain view and not going underground. It’s a sad world we live in where rape happens and ignorance is rampant so that we have to have a lesser of two evils available.

  • Aloanstar

    Andrea, you have such a great way of conveying your whole experience, that I honestly felt like I was you searing the pavement. Great job of observing, not just the people and their views, but empathizing with them enough to see how they are being played by the politicians who they think are trying to help them. Thanks for going undercover and sharing this.

  • JamieHaman

    Adoption causes severe trauma to a child once he or she finds out. It’s one of the reasons so many children look so hard for their birth parents. The only mother I know who did have the courage to give her son up for adoption mourns his loss.

    • HeilMary1

      And I’m betting Catholic hospitals have committed massive newborn stealing and selling here and globally, not just in Spain against “unworthy” leftist and single mothers.

      • JackLinks

        What about all the unborn kids buried around convents across the world?

        • HeilMary1

          The dirty truth is that priests routinely force abortions AND INFANTICIDES on their mistresses and rape victims to hide their double lives.

          • Arekushieru

            Yup, which is why abortion was not such a dirty word even in medieval times, when the patriarchy ran rampant. It was just more of a class issue. Rich upper class men forced poor lower class women to abort their pregnancies, so they could continue to live off of their squeaky clean reputations. And because it was a way to punish women for having consensual sex without fear of consequence.

    • TullyMOI

      You are very right, Jamie. (Read The Primal Wound) However, we seek our birth family because it is a human need and right to want to know where you come from. It is true that birth mothers experience a great less, yet are not told about this so they will surrender their children.

      • Arekushieru

        I also think that records for sperm and egg donors should be opened.

    • vixxy

      yes carrying to term you have to be a sociopath to not form a bond with the life in your belly especially once the baby is moving. I still mourn the loss of my daughter as well even though I’ve met her it’s something that always eats away at me, the what ifs I think are the biggest part of the sadness. What if I had kept her… is probably the one that effects me the most.

      • JamieHaman

        Sorry for your loss and wish things had been different for you and your daughter.

        Don’t know about the sociopath part, guess that would depend on “how” you got the baby in your belly.

        Peace.

        • vixxy

          i was raped and I still formed a bond with my daughter once I started feeling her move in my tummy. I wouldn’t call another rape victim that didn’t bond with their child a sociopath though but I am speaking of normal circumstances. Thank you for the sentiment Jamie you don’t have to be sorry for me I did what I deemed best for my daughter but I have a sensitive heart it was more than just difficult for me and I won’t lie I’ve had down in the abyss thoughts after I gave my daughter up for adoption I guess that is why I understand how some may not be strong enough to do the same thing I did. I also know from some research in journals that abortion happens whether it’s legal or not only when it’s illegal a higher percentage will happen later in the pregnancy which is why I so vehemently want it to stay legal because it’s bad enough to end a life but many times with illegal abortions they are getting done when the babies “DO FEEL PAIN” and are at the personhood stage because when it’s illegal it takes the expectant mom longer to find the means to get it done or they have to save to leave the country to do it. To get the numbers down however we need to set up programs that will give single mom’s to be the assurance that they won’t be worried about feeding or roofing themselves and their babies after the baby is born. What would really be nice is for Society to realize that telling people well don’t have sex isn’t going to work especially since this isn’t the “old days” We need to make birth control readily available to those that cannot afford it. We need to place a higher degree of punishment for rape I know people that spent more time in jail because they got caught with pot than some rapists do. Financial duress for mother’s especially if they end up having to work 2 jobs just to barely make ends meet can lead to resentment and mistreatment of children as well. It’s not a perfect world we live in unfortunately. I really with is was a wonderful world full of rainbows and sunshine ^^

          • JamieHaman

            Agree with nearly every thing you say. Europe does a number of things that I wish we would do here, such as paid maternity leave, a “present” of a one year supply of baby goods, clothing, diapers, etc. A lot of women would keep their child if they could afford to take off of work for 3 or 4 months, bond with the baby, and still eat, have a roof, etc.
            Most of Europe also provides free contraception, as well as honest info for preventing pregnancy. The abortion rate, as well as the teen pregnancy rate is much lower than here.
            Abstinence only doesn’t work, won’t work, and the lack of maternal care in this country is appalling.
            Men who want to make abortion illegal are really only saying that women are not able to make their own decisions.
            Personally, you and your doctor are the best people to decide your health care. Being free means not trying to stop other people from doing things we don’t like.
            Because of the trauma to both children and mothers who adopt out, I think it would be much better to start figuring out several ways to allow them to stay together, without living on a street, or in a car.

  • MisplacedVirginian

    I’m not even sure where to begin, except to say that I get the feeling that we attended different NRLC 2013 conventions.

    In response to the irrelevant and completely untrue sexist and racist jabs, while Umbert was indeed referred to as a he, every speaker I heard in a general session referred to unborn children as female. As for the “unfailingly polite white people, mostly middle-aged or older,” as a young person, I can assure you that we were incredibly well-represented. You might not have realized this because so many of us were working behind the scenes as interns or volunteers or attending the Teen Conference, but trust me, we were there. And the implication that whites were over-represented at the convention is simply false.

    What happened in the Texas legislature at the end of the first special session was mob rule, not democracy. Polls show consistently that the majority of Texans support HB5 (now SB9 or HB2), and the legislators they have elected to represent them voted for it. The angry crowd that gathered last Tuesday night claimed to speak for Texas women, but they were simply an angry minority who disrupted the democratic process – legislators on the floor say they couldn’t hear what was happening over the chanting and yelling. For the second session, pro-choice groups have literally been recruiting and paying people, some from out of state, to protest at the capitol with them. Please, tell me more about representing the people of Texas.

    Anyways, I’m so glad you had a chance to attend the convention, whatever you thought about it. I would just ask that next time you go, you try to have more of an open mind instead of just seeing what you want and expect to see.

    • yogayarnie

      You are sadly misled. It was not “mob rule.” I watched that livestream for hours. I watched as the Republican senators ran roughshod over rules and procedure. I watched and listened as everyone in the gallery stayed respectfully quiet for all but the last 10 minutes of the session. I watched as finally, when realizing that the Republican senators were intend on ignoring all rules in order to pass an unpopular (yes, unpopular) piece of legislation, the voices of the people could not be silenced. That’s democracy. That’s standing up when you see that wrongdoing is being committed under the guise of “justice.”
      I used to be a Republican. I used to be a “pro-lifer.” I attended all the Fellowship of Christian Athletes functions in school. I understand. I really do. Believe me when I say, if your ultimate goal is less abortions, then champion better access to contraception and education. Because the current “pro-life” paradigm – abstinence education, no birth control – leads to more abortions, not less.
      Of course, if you are actually trying to legislate your “sex is shameful when not used for procreation” morality, then I guess you are right on track.

      • Pei Kang

        “Pro-life” is a misnomer. They are “pro-birth”.

        • Nor

          They are anti-freedom.

    • goatini

      “And the implication that whites were over-represented at the convention is simply false.”

      One usually doesn’t take the hotel’s service staff into account when evaluating the demographic makeup of an event.

    • fiona64

      Could you put up some of the polls you are referring to for us to actually see? Including the sources, please.

      Oh, and for your assertion that the “Pro-choice groups have literally been recruiting and paying people” to protest.

      Thanks in advance.

      • goatini

        More like, the brown, I mean blue shirts were recruiting and paying people and busing them in.

        • marbo

          so…… orange shirts didn’t put the word out “recruit” protesters to come to protest the bill???? I sure saw a number of requests to get to Texas ….

          • fiona64

            In response to your comment in moderation:

            CNSNews dot com (altered due to moderation) is part of the so-called Media Research Center. Quote from the MRC’s “About Us” page: “MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the
            Left: the national news media. This makes the MRC’s work unique within
            the conservative movement.”

            So, you don’t have anything from the mainstream media, from an unbiased source? Just something from a right-wing propaganda website?

            Yeah, I thought not. If it smells like male bovine excreta, it’s probably male bovine excreta.

          • marbo

            I guess all the other sources who reported this were also ALL.. “right wing propaganda websites”? At the time it was reported , I checked craig’s list and found it to be credible. I always Trust and Verify! with a little work you can do the same…

          • fiona64

            So, then, you can put up the unbiased sources that you claim you saw, right?

            When you’re the one who makes the assertion, it is incumbent upon *you* to provide the proof. Not even a high school debate coach accepts “look it up yourself” as evidence.

          • Valde

            I have noticed that right wingers, in general, will not accept anything that isn’t from a right wing source, because they consider ALL MEDIA to be leftist and biased.

            Convenient for them isn’t it? The same strat works just as well when it comes to denying climate change, or any science that contradicts their views – just state that anything you don’t like is leftist propaganda.

      • Nor

        Yeah, I thought it was the Republicans who keep busing people in. I know that’s how it works around here. It’s especially funny because it’s very obvious they aren’t from anywhere within 600 miles because of the accents. I guess they just can’t find anyone closer.

    • Valde

      A new poll shows that substantial majorities of Texas voters also
      oppose the actions being taken against Texas women. That poll is a
      survey done of 601 registered voters between June 17th and 19th by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. Here are the results of that survey:

      Should the special session focus on jobs, education, and the economy instead of abortion?

      yes……………80%

      no……………14%

      Does Texas law already restrict abortion enough, or are new restrictions needed?

      enough restrictions now……………63%

      new restrictions needed……………27%

      Should abortion decisions be made by a woman, her family, and her doctor
      — or do politicians have the obligation to pass restrictions on that
      decision?

      made by woman, family, & doctor……………74%

      politicians have obligation to restrict……………19%

      Do you trust Gov. Perry and the legislature to make decisions about women’s health?

      yes……………34%

      no……………57%

      Do you favor the closing of all but 5 abortion clinics, and banning abortions after 20 weeks?

      yes……………42%

      no……………51%

      • Pei Kang

        Quite frankly. what goddamned business is that of politicians, let alone creepy old white men to control/take care of women’s health or ANYONE’s for that matter?

        This is why Tea Baggers are hypocrites and morons. They claim they want less government and less supervision…but only if it suits their own twisted needs.

    • Nor

      80% of Texans opposed it. How is that a minority?

  • TullyMOI

    Andrea: Do not use the term “forever home.” We adoptees are people so don’t use the right-to-life adoption mythology terms. We are not gifts.

    • Andrea Grimes

      Legit question: what is the best term to use?

      • TullyMOI

        They are just homes. I’ve heard forever homes in reference to animals needing homes and I don’t really want that translated to cover adoptees as well. Too often, the adopted person can be treated like a pet in their adoptive home so I don’t want to take the analogy any further than it has to. Gifts refers to an object, not a person and whitewashes the primal wound felt by the adoptee and trauma of the surrendering birth mother – something that already happens far too much in the industry. This kind of honesty is what really needs to happen – not more secretiveness. Hence, the call for regulation. I think the most important term is surrender or relinquish instead of “giving up” for adoption. Although giving up is exactly what some birth mothers were forced to do, it is hurtful for adoptees as it makes it seem as though we are something that can just be given away. The fact that we are already second-class citizens as the only group of Americans without access to our own birth certificates makes us feel less than enough. We don’t need to be told we’re some sort of “gift” that can be “given away” on top of it. If any one wants to know about adoptee rights at RHR, I’m happy to give them some resource info. This is missing in discussion, I think, because it has been dominated by the right-to-life movement.

        • Mary O’Grady

          How true. Giving people as gifts became illegal in the US at the end of the Civil War.

        • Valde

          More proof that fetuses and babies are just objects to pro lifer – every child is a ‘gift’.

  • TullyMOI

    Andrea: I hope you are not serious about the “Why not work harder to make adoption easier and cheaper?” This is an industry that has never had regulation and desperately needs it so please educate yourself about it before you echo their sentiments.

  • Gary Cangemi

    Nice try Andrea, but all you’ve succeeded in doing was spending your time and money in an effort to pick apart the NRLC and its attendees with no real intention of objectively examining our movement. I notice you either didn’t stick around for the keynote speaker, Reggie Littlejohn, or you decided she was just too good to say anything bad about so it was best to say nothing. Needless to say, those who listened to her heartbreaking stories of gendercide in China and India, were deeply moved. But I guess your sexual politics don’t include concern for women in overpopulated countries who are being brutally forced to have abortions WITHOUT freedom of choice. In fact the silence of feminists when it comes to female victims in other countries is amazingly deafening. As for my “unsettling” display of Umbert the Unborn, a project on which I have labored for 12 years, why didn’t you stop and talk to me about it? I would have happily explained the comic strip to you and my reasons for creating it, even if I knew you were a pro-abortion plant. I would have invited you to my workshop to see the cartoons, help me create a new installment, play a game of “Unborn Babies in Jeopardy,” and sing a few of Umbert’s pro-life songs. We all had a great time celebrating life in the womb through this harmless little character and his pre-natal pals. I’m actually gratified that my work has unsettled you. If it had had no affect whatsoever, I might have felt that I was losing my edge. (And by the way, it wasn’t necessary to waste your column space ridiculing Umbert’s supposed gender confusion. That issue was settled in the second year as a result of reader response. Umbert is indeed a boy. Once that issue was settled, I immediately created a companion character named Vita the Viable. Had you attended my workshop, you also would have seen the story of Umbert’s run for the Presidency of the Unborn States of America against another unborn candidate named Joyce for Choice. The story ran in 2010 on Umbert’s “womb-site” and showed the self-destructive nature of the pro-choice argument. Of course, Umbert wins by default because of Joyce’s mother’s “choice.”

    Your transparent attempt to portray the conference attendees as a bunch of sad, pathetic old people who are being misled and manipulated by politicians and the religious right was itself pathetic. You had already decided that before you even showed up. I’ve known these folks for many years and they are sincere, well-informed, and generous people who care about all children before and after birth, in spite of the pro-choice talking points to the contrary. I hope you plan on attending next year’s conference. Now that I know what you look like, I will wave you over to my booth and autograph you a copy of my book and attempt to have a heart to heart discussion with you. God bless.

    Your Friend for “Life,”

    Gary Cangemi, Creator, Umbert the Unborn

    • HeilMary1

      How about cartoons featuring mothers ruined by obstetric fistula incontinence living miserably as lepers in Africa or as scorned divorced “welfare cheats” here in the U.S.? Or cartoons about the millions of starving forced-birth street kids in Catholic poverty pits selling their bodies to pedophile priests for food? Or my dead best friend whose face was completely rotted off by two face cancer-causing female fetuses? Or cartoons about Ireland’s Magdalene laundries or Spain’s 300,000 stolen and sold infants? Or a cartoon about scalded spinster me? — my childbirth-ruined Catholic anti-choice mom burned all my skin off when I was first grade as her permanent abstinence excuse, and I wish she had aborted me instead. My worst insults always come from you looksist fetal idolaters.

      And what about intersex gay fetuses who may grow up and demand same sex weddings?

      You are a mother-killing, womb-pimping creep!

      • goatini

        Yes, he is. I’m with you 100% on that, HM.

    • goatini

      The problem with theocratic misogynistic forced-birthers is that they think that dreck like “Umbert The Unborn” is a documentary.

      • Gary Cangemi

        Wow! What bile and hatred you two have just spewed forth.If hating me makes you feel better about your misfortunes in life, then I’m happy to oblige. I pray God will touch your hearts and free your minds from all this negativity.

        • fiona64

          In which of your medical decisions should I be permitted to interfere, Gary? I’m just curious.

          • Gary Cangemi

            None and visa versa. But if either of us makes a medical decision that harms another human being, we BOTH have a right to voice our objection to such a decision.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth.

          • HeilMary1

            I believe in cheated-on wife and parishioner notification for all Viagra prescriptions given out to the Newt Gingriches and “celibate” priests.

          • fiona64

            Well, since the only human beings involved are born, sapient, sentient people, I don’t think we’re in much danger. For example, I cannot force you to donate a kidney against your will, and you cannot force me to gestate a pregnancy. I am nearly at the end of my childbearing years in any event, but that does not mean I will stop fighting for the rights of my sisters, daughters, nieces, etc., to have the right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

            You see, Gary, I have noticed that it’s very easy to be an anti-choice male. After all, it is never your life and health being endangered by pregnancy … which is far from being a state of wellness. So, it’s very simple for you to wave your hand in the air, or your pencil on some paper to make judgmental little cartoons, and announce what women should do in their lives in order to earn your approval.

            Please, let me assure you of something: when it comes to my medical decisions, your approval is neither desired nor required. After all, I grant you that courtesy; surely you can do the same for me.

          • Gary Cangemi

            You have the nerve to accuse me of misogyny when your view of men is so skewed by your evident resentment of them? You must be a cartoonist yourself, because with a few strokes of your keyboard you’ve created a caricature of me. I have a wife and three children. She had two difficult, life threatening pregnancies for which she would have willingly exchanged her life for that of her child, resulting in the birth of two girls, now grown women, both college graduates with brilliant futures. I was with my wife through every nerve-wrenching moment. Her fears were my fears. Her worries were my worries. Her risks were greater, but my loss would have been just as great. It’s not easy to be anti-choice. I thank God that I didn’t have to make such a decision should my wife’s life have been in eminent danger. No, being pro-life is the more difficult choice because it is often the only choice that involves self-sacrifice and putting others first. Real men do care. That’s why we educated our daughters first to respect themselves enough to find a man worthy enough to share their life with in a mutual lifelong commitment before even contemplating engaging in behavior that would risk bringing children into the world. My wife is the greatest role model they could have had.
            My cartoons are not judgmental. They are an attempt to get my fellow human beings to be more introspective about themselves. And they are a satiric examination of the disturbed logic which views abortion as women’s health care, completely ignoring the life which is sacrificed.
            Your rights and your medical decisions are you business. But when you’ve involved, through your own choices, another human person, they become his or her business as well. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Seems pretty clear to me.
            Have a great July 4th!

          • fiona64

            She had two difficult, life threatening pregnancies for which she would
            have willingly exchanged her life for that of her child, resulting in
            the birth of two girls, now grown women, both college graduates with
            brilliant futures.

            And all of that was *her choice,* which I support. Another woman in the same situation need not be forced to make the identical decision that your wife did.

            I will be sure to tell my husband that, according to some random dude on the internet, I must “resent men.” No, what I resent is your patronizing attitude that women are too dumb to make their own medical decisions. And it’s awfully easy to be that way when you’re male, because it’s never going to affect your *body.* Sure, you were emotionally involved as you describe, but it was not your *physical health* at risk when your wife chose to gestate those life-threatening pregnancies.

            No, being pro-life is the more difficult choice because it is often the only choice that involves self-sacrifice and putting others first.

            Unless, of course the “others” are born, sapient, sentient women. ::shrug::

            Aside from the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not the basis for law in this country, it’s too bad that, in your pursuit to ensure what what you perceive as a given fetus’ inalienable right to life (per that document), you are so willing to deprive a woman of her inalienable right to liberty.

            Good day to you.

          • Gary Cangemi

            There is no Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness without Life. And since that document was our national charter, it certain does carry legal weight in writing and interpreting our laws. How you can read my posts and still call my attitude toward women patronizing is beyond me. I would never suggest what you accuse me of. You simply refuse to address the crux of my argument, that a woman’s medical autonomy is mitigated when another human being with rights enters into the mix. Forget the men for a moment, let’s ask the expectant mothers of America whether they think their unborn child is a person or not.

          • fiona64

            You simply refuse to address the crux of my argument, that a woman’s medical autonomy is mitigated when another human being with rights enters into the mix. Forget the men for a moment, let’s ask the expectant mothers of America whether they think their unborn child is a person or not.

            You are talking about women with wanted pregnancies, Gary, and refusing to acknowledge that even those wanted pregnancies can go horribly wrong *anyway.* Those “expectant mothers” are projecting their dreams onto the fetus. However, your own use of the future tense (“expectant”) shows that the pregnant woman does not yet have an infant; she has a potential infant.

            Your “argument” is scientifically unsupported A fetus is not a human being; it is a *potential* human being. And in assigning “rights” to a potential human being, you are abrogating the rights of an *actual* one. So, your argument that a woman’s medical autonomy should be mitigated due to the presence of a fetus holds no weight whatsoever. After all, your medical autonomy is not ‘mitigated’ when someone with whom you are a donor match needs a kidney if you are not willing to donate one of yours. It is directly analogous to what you “argue.”

            So, I’ve addressed the “crux of your argument,” which has no foundation in science or law, or even reality. Thus, the “crux of your argument” is summarily dismissed.

            Your attitude toward women *is* patronizing, Gary. You talk about women’s need to take “responsibility for their actions,” which means that, in your mind, any woman who consents to intercourse has consented to pregnancy … and that is simply not the case (I have not failed to notice your non-response to my query about men’s responsibilities, by the way …). You make it very clear that you think women should be forced to remain pregnant regardless of circumstances, in order to satisfy *your* personal beliefs. And that is why I find your attitude toward women repugnant: you clearly find us all collectively too stupid to obtain reproductive health care of any sort without your Nosy Parker self involved.

            As the father of two daughters, I would think you would be ashamed of yourself. :-(

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Hi Fiona,

            Since you ran away from all the crappy arguments you left hanging over at Live Action and are now telling the same lies here in the comforting company of your fellow offspring execution enthusiasts, I thought I’d stop over to take one last effort at seeing whether you can muster any semblance of honest thought about what you’re saying.

            You say, “A fetus is not a human being; it is a *potential* human being.” To be blunt, only a biological illiterate or a shameless liar would say something so factually bankrupt.

            And frankly, I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter in your case, considering that (a) you claim to have such a superior grasp of science while saying such manifestly untrue things, and (b) you claim to have once been an “ardent anti-choicer,” which presumably means at one point you KNEW the very things you’re now pretending not to understand.

            “Zygote,” “embryo,” and “fetus” are all terms for developmental stages of LIVE, ACTUAL, human beings, not “potential human beings,” which is pseudo-mystical gibberish. There is no serious debate that they are (a) genetically human, (b) genetically distinct from their mother, (c) a whole organism, and (d) biologically alive (they undergo internally-directed growth, metabolize nutrients into energy for themselves, etc.). At the earliest stages of our lives, you and I WERE zygotes and embryos.

            You don’t have to take my word for it, or the word of any of the pro-lifers you hate so much. Let’s start with people on your own side of the debate who admit the facts:

            Ethicist Peter Singer: “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that fromthe first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”

            “A Defense of Abortion” author David Boonin: “n the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.”

            BPAS chief exec Ann Furedi: “We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life.”

            Feminist author Naomi Wolf: “Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life…we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.”

            Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams: “I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment
            in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me.”

            Now let’s see what biology texts say:

            The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th Edition) — “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

            Patten’s Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development — “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

            Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics — “The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.”

            Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd Edition — “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”

            Beginning Life — “Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother’s egg [...] When one of the father’s sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can begin.”

            National Geographic’s Biology of Prenatal Development, 2006 — “Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.”

            Last, let’s ask some doctors and scientists:

            Prof. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical — “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

            Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, U. of Pennsylvania Prof. of Pediatrics and Obstetrics — “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

            Dr. Jerome LeJeune, U. of Descartes Prof. of Genetics — “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

            Dr. Watson Bowes, U. of Colorado medical — “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.”

            This is the consensus scientific knowledge you are denying. It is your argument “which has no foundation in science or law, or even reality.” Your comments put you undeniably in the ranks of flat-earthers and young-earth creationists.

            This could be a crucial turning point for you: will you have the honesty to admit you have been saying untrue things and have based a set of positions on bad information? Will you have the moral strength to reconsider your stance accordingly? Will you allow the truth to reawaken the compassionate conscience that once led you to defend the unborn rather than persecute them?

            Or will you ignore the facts and drop all pretense of integrity? Will you *knowingly* commit to standing for mass violence against our innocent young?

            The choice — and the implications — are yours.

          • Valde

            You and I contain much, much more information, both
            genetic and otherwise, than a blastocyst. That’s why I can write this
            post and you can read it, whereas a blastocyst just.. .sits
            there. Indeed, that is the exactly the point of stem cell research:
            the stem cells in the blastocyst have not yet acquired the
            molecular programming required for differentiation, and so they
            remain pluripotent, awaiting the necessary molecular
            signals (the information) that will tell them whether
            to become nerve or muscle, skin or bone.

            Yes, once upon a time we were blastocysts, too. Nothing
            more than a little clump of cells, each of them a snippet of DNA
            surrounded by cytoplasm. But that DNA was later transcribed into RNA,
            and that RNA was translated into proteins. And some of those proteins
            were transcription factors that told other cells in the blastocyst
            what to do, when to divide, where to migrate. Transcription factors
            regulated the expression of still other transcription factors. Genes
            were turned on and off with clockwork precision. Some genes were
            methylated, so they could never be turned on again.

            In other words, the genome and the proteome of the blastocyst were
            changed as the embryo accumulated molecular information that the
            blastocyst did not have.

            The embryo became a fetus, with complex orientations of
            tissues–loaded with spatial, genetic, biochemical and mechanical
            information that simply did not exist in the embryo.

            The fetus became a child with a nervous system, and that nervous
            system sucked up information about the world, hard-wiring pathways
            for vision and movement, learning to make subtle distinctions between
            this and that, accumulating information that simply did not exist in
            the fetus.

            In other words, the blastocyst launched a genetic program that both
            extracted and acquired information. It didn’t start out
            as a human being. It became a human being, with a
            personality, feelings, attitudes and memories, by accumulating
            information that was not there before.

            Equating a blastocyst with a human being is like equating a brand new
            copy of an inexpensive spreadsheet program with the priceless
            databases that you’ll eventually build up with that program. It’s no
            less ridiculous than saying that a blueprint has the same value as a
            skyscraper–that it is the skycraper.

            No. They are not the same.

            We can certainly grant
            that a blastocyst and a fingernail contain the same genes.
            However, in 2001 we can no longer agree with his assertion that a
            fingernail can never become a baby. Clearly, it is quite within our
            grasp now to create a blastocyst from almost any cell of the body.
            Your hair follicles contain thousands–no, millions of potential
            human lives. Every cell in your body (save the erythrocytes) contains
            a nucleus, and that nucleus could be extracted and
            processed, and it could be placed in an enucleated
            oocyte, and you could implant that oocyte in a woman
            whose endometrium might be at the right stage for
            implantation, and that woman might carry the pregnancy
            to term.

            And so two of your three criteria for what constitutes a human
            being–viability and possession of a human genome–have just been
            extended to nearly every cell in your body, by virtue of the very
            sort of biology that created the stem cell debate in the first place.

            So, when we use a depilatory, or take a skin graft, or pull a tooth,
            or masturbate, or use a condom, we are, by your faulty logic,
            murdering human beings.

            That’s right–we’re evil when we clip a toneail. We’re
            discarding thousands of cells which each have the capacity to become
            human beings, simply because it suits us to do so.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            A word to the wise: it’s generally a bad idea to plagiarize in a debate setting where your opponent can Google.

            It was kind of obvious that “your” comment wasn’t directly addressing mine, considering that it shadow-boxed with criteria I never mentioned, like viability. Lo and behold, turns out you stole part of an article by Jonathon Sullivan to pass off as your own.

            Granted, I don’t expect pro-aborts to be sticklers for ethics or honesty, but plagiarism is really going the extra mile to discredit yourself. Far as I’m concerned, you just proved my point about your side’s integrity far more than I even hoped. Thanks!

            Even so, Sullivan’s claims deserve a response. I will readily concede that I’m not versed in some of the science he references, so I’ll abstain from a more thorough reply until I’ve done a bit more research. For now, the following observations will have to suffice.

            First, I just have to cackle at the absurdity of the way he characterizes ANDREW FREAKING SULLIVAN as a “religious fundamentalist.” That’s so insane I had to double-check that he was referring to the same Andrew Sullivan. That alone should raise serious skepticism of Jonathon’s grasp of the facts.

            Second, he doesn’t say anything that directly contradicts or refutes the laundry list of credible, non-partisan medical authorities — or the pro-choicers more honest than you & Fiona — who back up my assertion. In fact, he concedes it: “Yes, once upon a time we were blastocysts, too.” Whatever

            Third, even if we conceded for the sake of argument that the blastocyst stage was as morally insignificant as Sullivan contends, that doesn’t get you very far. Once, say, implantation has occurred, on what grounds can you deny the embryo is a live, individual human being? Jump ahead a little, and on what grounds could you deny the fetus is a live, individual human being? Taking blastocysts off the table only wins your side birth control pills that prevent implantation; it does nothing to justify abortion.

          • Valde

            It contradicts everything you said.

            And he does a wonderful job of it.

            You just couldn’t comprehend a word of it.

            I suggest you read up on gene expression, epigenetics, and methylation sweetie.

            PS He even talks about fetuses, you just chose to ignore that part.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Because you say so.

            Better luck next time, plagiarist.

          • Valde

            Because I have science on my side.

            You have nothing more than opinion.

            Read up on those subjects, please, you might learn something!

          • Valde

            BTW Calvin, your nose and ears were not *designed* to wear glasses.

            Just sayin’.

            :)

          • HeilMary1

            LOL!

          • Valde

            Calvin thinks he has the ‘bodily autonomy’ argument beat with the bullshit idea that ‘the uterus was created for the baby, therefore, all women must give birth’

          • HeilMary1

            The only bodily autonomy he believes in for cheating GOP mother killers like Rick Perry and pedophile priests on sex tours in Manila!

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the only plagiarist here, mother killer, because you steal everything from pedophile priests who stole from other pedophile priests!

          • cjvg

            Absolutely useless, he does not know what he is reading but he has convinced himself that they must affirm his views even if he does not understand it!
            When dealing with people who do not want to understand science, it is best to keep it simple!

            He really needs not to understand it, otherwise he might have to face the reality that there are no reasonable grounds for his mean spirited, cruel and inhumane attempts to reduce women to less then human.

            Once he is forced to admit that to himself, he has to admit that his real reasons are less then admirable and firmly rooted in his need to control and feel superior to women to prop up his pitiful self

            Sex does not have to lead to pregnancy anymore and that is what gave women the freedom to leave men after they had sex.
            A lot of men like him find that freedom threatening, anti-men and anti-religion.

            It is not, it is equal to men, and that is what is so scary and threatening since women are now no longer at the mercy of men through fear of unwanted pregnancy and economic devastation

            For some men this is the only way they can hold on to a woman and they are not enjoying their loss of power.
            It is seems to be mostly threatening to those who bought into the abrahamic religions since those consider women less then men and most certainly not equal, hence anything leveling the playing field is anti-them and their believes.

          • Valde

            cjvg, I have been lurking on this site for a while, and I have always enjoyed your comments.

            I especially like your explanation of fetal brain development and EEG readings – I’ve used that to shut down idiots on other comment boards who keep saying that embryos feel pain.

          • fiona64

            Says the guy who cites himself as a source …

          • Valde

            Calvin is quite the pseudo-intellectual.

            I couldn’t help but notice that he believes that he has destroyed the bodily autonomy argument with this ‘slam dunk’ argument: “the uterus was made for the baby, therefore, women don’t have the right to bodily autonomy if pregnant.”

          • fiona64

            Yeah, that’s “science,” all right.

          • HeilMary1

            By a pedophile!

          • HeilMary1

            Pompous mother killer, did you know that God/Goddess gave us women HUNDREDS of natural abortifacients like coffee, tea and holy wine to avoid divorce- and death-causing stinky obstetric bladder and bowel incontinence fistulas? You and your spoiled pedophile priest posse have committed millions of chemical abortions just by serving family, guests and staffers these “baby flushing” beverages!

          • fiona64

            There is no serious debate that they are (a) genetically human, (b)
            genetically distinct from their mother, (c) a whole organism, and (d)
            biologically alive

            So is a uterine tumor.

          • Valde

            And the majority of his ‘citations’ are merely the *opinions* of doctors and philosophers – nothing stating, without a doubt, scientifically, WHY a zygote/embryo/fetus should be considered a human being with the same moral value as a born person.

            Some pro-lfie doctor saying that a zygote is a person from the moment of conception is completely worthless.

            Edit; And I just love how he quoted Peter Singer who, quite clearly, does NOT believe a fetus should have more rights than a woman.

          • fiona64

            In reply to your comment in moderation: Good luck trying to lead a life without conscience.

            So, because I think women are smart enough to make their own medical decisions, *I* have no conscience?

            Dude, you’re laughable. You advocate enslavement of women the moment they become pregnant, and want to pretend that, since I don’t buy into your misogynistic, theocratic *bullshit* that *I* have no conscience?

            Excuse me for a moment …

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Now, go fuck yourself.

          • fiona64

            Hey, asshole Calvin! Since you think that abortion should be made illegal, what punishment should a woman receive for terminating her pregnancy?

          • HeilMary1

            Just because you share FIDS (Fetal Idolatry Derangement Syndrome) and mother-killing Munchausen by Proxy psychosis with millions of pedophile priests, looksist wife-dumpers like Deal Hudson and Newt Gingrich, and their suicidal brood mares doesn’t mean the rest of us women should suffer deadly lady parts shredding as punishment for your folie en masse. Whatever medical muck you throw at us doesn’t change the grisly fact that all fetuses grossly maim, bankrupt and often murder their captive hosts. That means ALL abortions are self-defense in the same category as removing fetus-in-fetu absorbed monster twins and tumors. We know mother killing is your goal when you rabidly also oppose contraception, sterilization and the removal of already dead and rotting fetuses, while never attempting to criminalize abortion- and adultery-causing Viagra abuse by your buddies!

          • cjvg

            I’m not denying their person hood since there is NO person hood to deny until the fetus actually has the brain structure (cortex) in which sentience resides, to be sentient and considered a person as much as the woman.

            Alive is not the same as sentient.
            My arm is alive and so is a tumor, no one advocates that these can not be removed when needed, incidentally both are also considered human.

            You are playing a dishonest and inane game of semantics that is fooling nobody.
            You are not explaining why the rights of a fetus with person hood potential, can superseded the rights of a living breathing feeling sentient and fully aware person, the woman!

            Quit possible because there is no way to make it even remotely reasonable to argue that a life that exists right now, should have far less rights then a potential life that has not realized, and may never realize.

            To promote the abrogation of bodily sanctity with the reasoning that a potential body could possibly have its bodily sanctity violated before it can even claim a body is insanity.

            And no, we did not all “get here” by forcing a woman to gestate an
            unwanted fetus.
            Most of us “get there” by explicit consent and agreement of the woman who actively tried to get pregnant!

            In case you do not understand what that means, it is not the mandated use of a woman’s body against her will, but an informed and wanted choice made by the woman with her full agreement and consent!

            The law and science agree that modern medicine (and an EEG) can determine what sentience is, how to measure it and were in the brain it is housed!
            ·
            Clinical brain activity is the criteria which is used to determine if a patient is deceased and if it is legal to discontinue life support and being harvesting organs for transplant, as without a functioning brain the body is just a collection of tissue.

            When people, including physicians, generally talk about
            “brain waves” and “brain activity” they are referring to
            organized activity in the cortex.
            A more scientific exactitude of “electrical clinical significant brain
            activity” would be better to avoid confusion.

            A brain-dead person with a functioning heart/lungs/brainstem
            will still show electrical activity in the brain, but they won’t show the particular “brainwaves” that are characteristic of the higher cortical functions of cognition. So the whole EEG isn’t “flat”, just the part of the EEG profile that shows a thinking person is using that brain tissue.
            At this point no “person” , sentience or awareness is present in
            the body.

            No doctor has ever been indicted for murder or assault for disconnecting life support or harvesting organs from a clinically brain dead person.

            Until 26-29 weeks gestation a fetus does not have a functional cortex, in fact it does not even have the needed brain structure until 22-24 weeks gestation.
            No embryo or fetus has ever been found to have “brain waves,” before 26-30 weeks gestation, although extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies.

            Pretty hard to be sentient without having the actual brain structure were sentience resides.
            You know who is sentient however, a born breathing aware woman!

            Unless you are also vehemently against organ transplant and are proposing outlawing this procedure you are a hypocrite
            You can not have it both ways, either the people or fetus’s who are (still) clinically brain dead have civil rights or they do not.
            You can not give these two groups with the condition, the same “person hood” different rights because of your personal feelings on punishing women for having sex and the need to control women and their fertility.
            They are exactly the same.

            So you believe organ harvest for transplant is
            murder because they are killing a person?

            If you consider fetus’s alive and abortion murder then you must consider organ harvesting and organ transplant murder too!
            I must insist that you start carrying a formal directive refusing to accept any and all organ transplants not from live donors (kind of tough to find those for a hearth) since you would not want to be the cause of a murder.

            If you maintain that a woman can, and must be forced to donate her body, health, life, wellbeing and finances for the good of a third party, then you must be subject to the same rule for the good of a third party on the transplant list

            People like you who feel so strongly that a woman’s right to determine the use of her own body is subject to third party approval (you), should themselves be mandated to be life organ donors.
            Just so they do not appropriate the unlawful and illegitimate (according to you) right to sanctity of their body that you and those like you deny to women.

            Your selfish and cruel refusal to make a live donor donation of a kidney, a piece of liver, bone marrow, a cornea (no one needs two eyes) skin grafts, etc is costing the lives of many who are on the transplant list today.
            What gives you the right to deny these third parties, that depend on the use of your organs and tissue to survive, the use of your body?
            You can deal with some discomfort, financial burdens, job risks, health risks etc, , just suck it up!

            You can safe actual lives of kids and adults here now, breathing sentient and more deserving of life then a potential could ever be.
            You have no right to keep your own body inviolate to third party use, but to advocate laws denying the same rights to a woman who
            is pregnant,

            It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy that you are not trying to pass laws that remove your objections to said use of your body by third parties against your will.

            But you have human rights you say, you are not to be used for the benefit of others against your will !
            Women are human too, so why are you so comfortable forcing women to donate their bodies for the benefit of a (as you claim) third party?!

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

            Why are you not trying to save some existing alive people by promoting and arguing passionately for these laws, because then the consequences of your choices would actually fall on YOU!

            Abortion is only legal and available till 24 weeks gestation (point of viability), well before sentience sets takes place.
            Again, a fetus younger then 26-30 weeks does not have all the brain structure (cortex) or the synapse, neurons etc in place to show more brain activity then a person who is clinically brain dead, as measured with the same machine (EEG)
            The heart might beat, but nobody is home.

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

          • Gary Cangemi

            While I doubt I could improve on Mr. Freiburger’s scientific and quotational evidence, let me address the logical and philosophical weaknesses of your argument, Fiona. You seem to be under the impression that it is the mother’s desire which confers humanity on her unborn child. If the child is wanted, it’s a person; if it is unwanted, it is not a person until it is born. The father apparently doesn’t even enter into the picture unless the child is wanted, then he gets the bill for child support. But even if the child is wanted, you argue that it is still not a real person, that the mother is simply projecting personhood onto the child; that it is a “potential” person, not a real person. Have you ever given birth to a child? If so have you never felt anything real about the life within you? Mothers and infants connect long before they are born. Or is that just a fantasy too? An unborn infant can distinguish its mother’s voice from others.All that aside, the real question your argument begs is that if the child within is only a potential person, what magical thing occurs when it exits the womb that gives it personhood? The fact that it switches from amniotic fluid to air for respiration? The severing of the umbilical cord? What difference do these biological mechanisms make? Have you never seen an ultrasound? You can honestly deny the evidence of your own two eyes that a living, heart-beating, growing, human person resides within? If existence itself doesn’t confer humanity on homo sapiens, what does? The mother’s say-so? How exactly does that work? How does the mother’s thought transmit personhood onto her infant? You’ve dismissed nothing, except in your mind.

            The problem with your argument is that if we exist in a country where the government and not God determines when human life begins, then we also live in a country where the government and not God can determine when human life ends. ALL human life! If we can pass a law legitimizing infanticide, then we can pass laws denying personhood and the protections of the law on any class of persons we choose. That includes the Terri Schiavos, people born with birth defects, the seriously ill, the elderly, the mentally disabled, and any other class of people the government decides is unworthy of keeping alive. Don’t laugh, one of Obama’s czars alluded to such things in a book years ago.

            As for personal accountability, I expect MEN AND WOMEN to take responsibility for their actions. Sexual behavior is reproductive behavior. When one engages in it, one risks reproducing regardless of the precautions taken. When you get behind the wheel of a car the law holds you accountable for everything that happens while the vehicle is under your control. There’s no such thing as driving without responsibility. If you engage in it you already know you run the risk of an accident. The same with sexual activity. If you engage in it you already know you run the risk of pregnancy. The difference is that a pregnancy is not a dented fender, but a real person for whom someone must take responsibility. And not just the woman. It takes two sets of chromosomes to make a human being. Both are responsible whether they are married or not. I hold my son to the same standards as my daughters when it comes to the choices they make in life. But for you to say that a woman consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy is like saying a person who gets behind the wheel is not consenting to an accident. She doesn’t want it but she knows full well her risk of it happening. This is the real essence of abortion. It’s life’s big reset button, isn’t it? It’s like Servepro for women…”like it never even happened.”

            I find it amazing how you wag your finger at men’s responsibilities and the next minute you tell us we are irrelevant and have no say in the matter. Well you’re wrong. We are in this world together, men and women and, like or not , we must share responsibility for the lives we create.

          • Valde

            Women give birth to viable babies – not to zygotes, embryos, or half formed non-viable, non-sentient, non-sapient fetuses.

            A zygote is nothing more than a genetic blueprint.

            An embyro is not much more than that.

            A fetus lacks sentience – there is no ‘consciousness’ there – it is the equivalent of a clinically brain dead patient with a working brain stem to keep the body alive – but with the seat of conscisouness gone – the mind – there is no ‘person’. And a non-viable fetus is the functional equivalent of that braindead patient.

            Abortion is by definition not infanticide. If an infant and a fetus were the same thing, then abortion wouldn’t be an issue – The “infant” could be removed and put up for adoption.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I pray to God you don’t work in a nursing home or in any capacity to provide care for other human beings. I’d hate to wind up under your care.
            Many children who are aborted in this country are capable of survival and adoption but the law says they should die instead. So abortion still is the issue.

          • Valde

            Sorry but no, you’re wrong on that. (nice try at an ad hominem btw, accusing me of being some sort of psycho killer)

            And you are the one who thinks that life, which causes suffering, should be imposed on those who did not consent to it.

            You are the one who lacks empathy.

            You are the one who thinks that its wonderful for a woman to die in childbirth and leave her newborn and family without a mother.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Now who’s resorting to the ad hominems? I just don’t like your criteria and would not want to be subject to them outside of the womb. Keep pitching Valde, I’ll keep knocking them out of the park.

          • Valde

            Except you wouldn’t be subject to them.

            And they are not MY critieria – it’s the criteria of people who know a lot more about the subject than you – actual doctors and biologists.

            Brain death is the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation. It should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state. Patients classified as brain dead can have their organs surgically removed for organ donation. Even after brain death, the working of the heart might continue at a slow pace, but there will be no respiratory effort.

            Brain death, either of the whole brain or the brain stem, is used as a legal indicator of death in many jurisdictions.

            In your nursing home example, clinically brain dead patients would be taken off life support – so feel free to accuse all doctors who ascribe to this (and all do) as murderers.

          • Gary Cangemi

            What difference does it make to you when the result is the same for both? Terri Schiavo was neither brain dead nor in a PVS, as affirmed by numerous physicians and she was brutally dehydrated and starved to death. So much for your distinctions. And to equate a developing fetus with a growing nervous system with a brain dead patient is ludicrous when it is crystal clear that one has a future and the other doesn’t, unless of course the mother is on her way to Planned Parenthood.

          • Valde

            “And to equate a developing fetus with a growing nervous system with a
            brain dead patient is ludicrous when it is crystal clear that one has a
            future and the other doesn’t, unless of course the mother is on her way
            to Planned Parenthood”

            Thanks for agreeing with me that a fetus is only a POTENTIAL human being, and not an ACTUAL human being.

            And we don’t hand out rights based on what you MIGHT become, we do so based on WHAT YOU ARE.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I conceded no such thing and you know it. And WE don’t hand out rights, God does. Any rights that come from governments are fleeting and worthless.

          • Valde

            Which god, Gary?

            There are THOUSANDS of them.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I’ll point Him out to you when we’re both standing before Him on Judgment Day.

          • fiona64

            Oh, I think you’re going to be in for a surprise when She looks at you and takes you to task for how you treated women.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I don’t have a thing to worry about on that score. I’ve always been a gentleman when it comes to the ladies.

          • fiona64

            Except, of course, when it comes to interfering with their reproductive choices. :-)

          • Gary Cangemi

            How have I interfered? I express my opinions and I vote, same as you. I have never forced or coerced anyone to do anything against their will. Laws in this country are made by the will of the majority except when the courts rule by fiat. And currently, they rule on your side of this issue. So stop whining about some nobody from Scranton who scribbles his views in a comic strip hardly anybody reads. Or would you ban pro-life art too?

          • fiona64

            Art is in the eye of the beholder; frankly, I am puzzled by Jackson Pollack’s popularity, but what can I say? I prefer the Fauvists, and quite a few people didn’t care for them either.

            Actually, you’re kind of wrong about how laws are made (not that I am surprised by this). We live in a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. And the reason for that is made very clear in Federalist #10, in which the Founding Fathers lay out their position that tyrannical majorities should not be permitted to vote on the rights of minorities.

            If you had your way, women would have no access to contraception or a host of other reproductive health services. I’m nearing the end of my child-bearing years, and should my tubal ligation fail (something I had no end of difficulty obtaining, thanks to anti-choice laws that make access to surgical sterilization difficult) you may rest assured that there will be an abortion so fast your head will spin However, I will not stop fighting for the rights of my sisters, daughters, nieces, cousins, etc., to have full bodily autonomy.

            Go ahead and scribble your misogynistic little trip; knock yourself out. It’s your right to draw whatever you like, and I’ll not interfere with it (despite the fact that you would like to interfere in my health decisions). I’ll stick with Matisse and Moreau, though; less moralizing, more art.

          • Valde

            Precisely.

            And this is why small states have two senators, and large states have two senators.

            So the majority cannot run roughshod over the minority.

            I know this, and I am CANADIAN.

          • Nor

            That last sentence is inherently creepy. Strongly advise not using around actual human females. No one who actually is a gentleman ever needs to say that. Ick.

          • fiona64

            It’s the equivalent of “Hey, c’mon! I’m a nice guy.” As you say, true gentlemen and nice guys don’t have to tell us … it’s obvious.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Ordinarily, I wouldn’t. I was defending against an attack on my honor as one. I’m one of the few people left on the planet it seems that actually uses the phrase “ladies and gentlemen” whereas the rest of humanity seems to have lost any ability to distinguish between the two. The vulgarity and commonness daily on display on our streets and in our media is a testament to the the fact that we’ve lost any sense of gentility, class, or self-respect. Men and women used to take pride in their appearance and great care in addressing each other in public. Now they walk through shopping malls in their pajamas,use foul language in mixed company, and promiscuously prey on each other in bars and night clubs. So please don’t lecture me on what a gentlemen is.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Ahh, yes. The great golden age that never actually was.

          • Nor

            Equality sucks huh? Oh for the days when women weren’t allowed to swear. Wouldn’t it be great if we lived in a time where appearances mattered more than reality? Bars, sex, and swearing are brand new phenomena, as we all know, and we also know those cuss words hurt women’s innocent virgin ears, probably inducing miscarriages somehow. You are talking about fictional rich white people of the vague past – not the 20’s, or 30’s, or 40’s even. Definitely not the 50’s, or 60’s, or 70’s. God forbid you mean the 80’s. Are we talking the 1800’s here? Abortion was so extremely legal then it hadn’t even remotely occurred to anyone to bother to legislate it. Sears sold hash, cocaine and heroin mail order, some in cough drop form. Little kids could drink. If you were male, you could have sex with/rape your slaves, male or female, whenever you wanted and trade ‘em around if you got bored, and the idea of infidelity for men didn’t really exist so that’s a plus if you weren’t lucky enough to be a slave owner. Syphilis was a bit more of a drag than it is now, but a fair price to pay for no HIV. You’d work your way through a number of wives usually as many would die in childbirth (why did you put your wife through a near death experience the second time? Birth control failure? I sure hope so.), but you could always mail order a new one if they were scarce in your parts, and it was not only ok but considered a good idea to beat her on the regular. I’m sure all the poor people, women, black people and Native Americans would be just overjoyed to go back to the days of yore with you!

          • Nor

            Because labeling oneself as a gentleman and expecting other people to believe you is bullshit. It’s something other people call you. It’s like saying “I’m amazing.” It’s also an antique term. You can’t name yourself a gentleman unless you are a member of the aristocracy. Legitimately born of course, bastards don’t count.

          • fiona64

            He’s trying to delete his most creepy, misogynistic posts — without realizing that they still show up, and we all know who wrote them. He’s really kind of laughable.

          • HeilMary1

            Mother-killing you will be in hell along with your pedophile priests!

          • Nor

            Ok, well until then, I’ll just pretend that he doesn’t exist, ok? And you can put off feeling morally superior until then. ‘Cause who knows? Maybe God doesn’t like fetus comics designed to make people in trouble feel bad. I mean, the Bible doesn’t talk about comics. Just like it barely talks about abortions, except to include a recipe on how to cause one. So it’s really hard to tell how He’d react, right?

          • cjvg

            Actually the bible and his god are quite comfortable with abortion and even infanticide.

            Not that Gary would be honest enough to admit that!

          • fiona64

            Yep. In fact, Numbers is pretty clear that a woman is being made to consume an abortifacient.

          • cjvg

            Get in line.
            You and the Muslim, the orthodox Jew, the Sikh, the Taoist etc and a multitude of others who make the exact same claim!

            Quite busy up there with all these godlets

          • fiona64

            I hate to break the news to you, Gary, but we don’t live in a theocracy.

            If you would like to do so, I understand that Iran is lovely … and that the ayatollahs hold much the same opinion of women as you do.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Last time I checked, we don’t live in a theocracy.

          • Gary Cangemi

            “WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…” This is a self-evident principle on which we are founded, not a religious doctrine. There is nothing sectarian in this statement. Acknowledging our Creator does not make us a theocracy.

          • HeilMary1

            But you insist we be short-lived incubating slaves in your pedophile theocracy!

          • fiona64

            You really don’t seem to understand that the Declaration of Independence is not the basis for law in this country. Nor do you seem to understand that the secular deists’ Creator, as acknowledged here, is not the Catholic version of God to whom you subscribe.

          • Gary Cangemi

            It’s amazing how quick you liberals are to dismiss the most important document in our history. We would not be a nation without that declaration. It is foundational to who we are. I do not subscribe to a version of God. There is only one God who transcends all doctrines and descriptions. And He is acknowledged in our founding document as the author of ALL human rights.

          • fiona64

            ::shakes head:: You really need to stop reading David Barton’s revisionist bullshit versions of this nation’s history.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Never read him. My views are all my own. And let’s keep it civil.

          • fiona64

            Then I suggest you update your views by visiting crackafriggingbook dot com.

            When I see bullshit, I call it bullshit. Would you prefer that I use the term “male bovine excreta” to satisfy your delicate sensibilities?

          • Nor

            Okely dokely!

          • Valde

            Whatever you do, don’t call him a misogynist, even though his views are quite plainly misogynist…just, don’t point out what is plainly there for all to see CUZ THAT’S RUDE.

          • fiona64

            I know, because the most important thing is that the wimmen-folk don’t get *uppity.* Because, see, when them wimmen-folk get uppity? They start to use bad words. And then pretty soon? They won’t have supper on the table and a martini ready when the men get home from doing Important Things (TM). And before you know it, them wimmen-folk who use bad words and don’t take care of supper will think they have the right to make their own medical decisions! And then, why, one of them uppity wimmen-folk will take it into her head to run for president!

            It all starts with the tone. You gotta keep them wimmen-folk in their place: barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

            /snark

          • HeilMary1

            My Goddess condemns you pedophile mother killers to hell!

          • Valde

            The 13th amendment prohibits slavery.

            Forced pregnancy = slavery

          • Nor

            Except the founding docs say black people aren’t full people, and that women aren’t either.

          • Nor

            Thomas Jefferson?

          • Nor

            My CREATOR was my mom. Well, probably. Yours too, I’m guessing.

          • Nor

            “all men”. Women got left out. But we fixed that right? We should fix the old fashioned religious language too.

          • Gary Cangemi

            The male gender refers to both sexes when speaking generally. English 101. They didn’t teach political correctness at my school.

          • fiona64

            They didn’t teach much of anything at your school, so far as I can tell …

          • Nor

            We didn’t have the vote. We were not considered citizens. We weren’t white males.

          • goatini

            Translation: “Women have always been invisible in my mind”.

          • HeilMary1

            Rights from God are IMAGINARY and no protection from abusive religious parents like you and my mom. I had my skin burned off as “God’s Will” as my mom’s permanent abstinence excuse to avoid another killer pregnancy. Rights from governments put child abusers like her and your mother-killing priests in jail where they belong.

          • Nor

            Well then, you have no worried. God only allows me to do whatever it is that I have a right to do. Which is pretty much anything I can think of. Since you don’t care about laws, you shouldn’t be politically debating anything, and have no place in this conversation, as I can guarantee no one here is looking to have their morals tweaked.

          • goatini

            Oh, so you ARE un-American and admit it.

          • Valde

            As for Teri Schiavo:

            The official autopsy report was released on June 15, 2005. In addition to studying Terri Schiavo’s remains, Thogmartin scoured court, medical and other records and interviewed her family members, doctors and other relevant parties.
            Examination of Schiavo’s nervous system by neuropathologist Stephen J. Nelson, M.D., revealed extensive injury. The brain
            itself weighed only 615 g (21.7 oz), only half the weight expected for a female of her age, height, and weight, an effect caused by the loss of a massive number of neurons. Microscopic examination revealed extensive damage to nearly all brain regions, including the cerebral cortex, the thalami, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, the cerebellum, and the midbrain.

            The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons
            that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, was also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS.

            The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, “irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.”

            ————

            She was, for all intents and purposes. brain dead.

          • Nor

            We starve people to death in this country all the time, in fact we make them do it to themselves. If you are lucky to live long enough, you may have to too simply to have access to the basic human right of suicide. Turns out some people find it upsetting that at the end of life, dying in unendurable untreatable pain, someone in their right mind might choose to die rather than live. We force these people to live against their will, so the only way they can die is to self-starve. Very ethical. Very humane.

            Terry Schaivo had been dead for years by the time they stopped her liquids and food. The part of her brain that made her a person was gone. Look at the pictures. Take a basic Neurophysiology course. Go to a nuero ward and see. You could have hacked off her arm with a dull butter knife and she would not have known. Her husband could have knocked her up (which would have technically been rape, but c’mon, it’s Florida), and forced her to have a baby against her will, and she would not have known. She didn’t know she was starving, she didn’t know when she died, she wasn’t there. Like the pre-22 weeks fetus isn’t there, isn’t aware. I’m sure your months in the NICU, watching babies die all around you, even those older than 22 weeks if you ever even saw one that young, taught you that.

          • cjvg

            So again you advocate the abrogation of the bodily sanctity of the woman with the reasoning that a potential body could possibly have its bodily sanctity violated before it can even claim a body.

            That is what is called circular reasoning and is insane!

            You are not doing a very good job explaining why the rights of a fetus with personhood potential, can superseded the rights of a living breathing feeling sentient and fully aware person, the woman!

            Quit possible because there is no way to make it even remotely reasonable to argue that a woman with a life that exists right now, should have far less rights then a fetus that has a long and taxing (for the woman) gestational road to a potential life that has not realized, and may never realize.

            Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, then the women in question have the right to mandate that her body be used for the health and betterment of another (especially one who is not even a sentient, aware and alive person like the woman)

          • cjvg

            So if you do not want to be subject to them I can presume you will also not benefit from them I hope?!

            Organs for transplant come from those who are declared clinically dead and harvested for viable organs with permission of the family.
            Organs are only viable for a short period of time and can not come from cadavers
            (Some tissues like skin, cornea etc can come from a cadaver under carefully controlled circumstances)

            So you and yours will not accept any organs when in need of a transplant to save your life?

            Can you swear on the truth of this?
            If not, you are clearly a hypocrite!

            No doctor has ever been indicted for murder or assault for disconnecting life support or harvesting organs from a clinically brain dead person.

            Obviously science and the law agree that modern medicine (and an EEG) can determine what sentience is, how to measure it and were in the brain it is housed!

            Until 26-29 weeks gestation a fetus does not have a functional cortex, in fact it does not even have the needed brain structure until 22-24 weeks gestation.
            Pretty hard to be sentient without having the actual brain structure were sentience resides.

            You know who is sentient however, a born breathing aware woman!

          • Valde

            An ad hoc committee at Harvard Medical School published a pivotal 1968 report to define irreversible coma. The Harvard criteria gradually gained consensus towards what is now known as brain death. In the wake of the 1976 Karen Ann Quinlan
            controversy, state legislatures in the United States moved to accept
            brain death as an acceptable indication of death. Finally, a
            presidential commission issued a landmark 1981 report – Defining Death: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death – that rejected the “higher brain” approach to death in favor of a “whole brain” definition.

            This report was the basis for the Uniform Determination of Death Act,
            which is now the law in almost all fifty states. Today, both the legal
            and medical communities in the US use “brain death” as a legal
            definition of death, allowing a person to be declared legally dead even
            if life support equipment keeps the body’s metabolic processes working.

          • fiona64

            Many children who are aborted in this country are capable of survival

            This is a blatant lie. Chances of survival at 20 weeks’ gestation; zero percent. Chances of survival at 21 weeks: zero percent. Chances of survival at 22 weeks: zero to 10 percent … and at that point, we’re getting into matters of medical necessity only. Chances of survival at 23 weeks: 10 to 35 percent. The numbers don’t look good, buddy. But don’t let facts get in the way of your histrionics.

          • HeilMary1

            I wish my disfiguring anti-abortion mom aborted me instead.

          • Nor

            How many have you adopted?

          • Pei Kang

            Yet you ignore the mother in question.

          • cjvg

            The fact that she places the right to life, health and happiness of a living breathing existing woman above that of the potential of a fertilized egg or a fetus makes her a danger to living breathing existing people?!

            Yeah, logic is sooooo not your strong point, this would actually make her more suitable then you.
            You are the one who has been exhausting every possible venue to convince us that the value of the potential live of a fetus trumps the value of the existing live of a woman.
            Obviously elderly people are already born and as such not so valuable in your reasoning!.

            Logic dictates that you are the one who should not be trusted among vulnerable existing people

          • Valde

            “The same with sexual activity. If you engage in it you already know you
            run the risk of pregnancy. The difference is that a pregnancy is not a
            dented fender, but a real person for whom someone must take
            responsibility.”

            Well I hope you support mandatory organ donation for those who injure others in car accidents. You hurt someone as a result of your careless driving (you took the risk, after all) then you owe them the use of your body until they get better. If that means your kidney, or part of your liver, or your bone marrow, too bad, it’s your fault!

          • fiona64

            He’s already tried to pretend that it isn’t the same, despite saying that a *woman’s* right to medical autonomy is “mitigated when another human being with rights is involved.” So, the bottom line of his argument is that the moment a woman becomes pregnant, she has the legal status of a slave.

          • Valde

            Exactly.

          • Valde

            I just spent the last few minutes reading some Umbert the Unborn comics.

            Truly truly creepy!

          • goatini

            I happened across those un-funny attacks on actual living, breathing female US citizens some years back. Can’t believe he’s got the stones to attempt to engage on RHRC with his whiny passive-aggressive BS.

          • HeilMary1

            And if he has served any ABORTIFACIENT coffee, tea, or holy wine to any fertile, sexually active women, he has performed many abortions himself! And let’s not overlook the miracle wine abortions performed by his alleged Fearless Leader himself, Jesus H. Christ! If Jesus was the son of God and spoke for God, and if God opposed all chemical and surgical abortions, then Jesus would never have served “baby killing” water-wine to the Cana bride and her female guests! Moreover, Jesus would have whipped the mother-saving midwife-abortionists instead of the money changers!

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s pretty damn creepy, yeah. And the few moments when it could almost be cute or slightly entertaining (womb service, for instance) are overshadowed by the overwhelmingly preachy tone of the comic–Umbert and the various other ‘unborn babies’ are basically little more than mouthpieces for the creator’s right-wing political views. Not to mention the fact that the woman carrying Umbert is basically invisible–which seems to be the way that most ‘pro-lifers’ see women, as little more than carriers of the fetus. Once the woman is pregnant, in their book, she effectively ceases to matter.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I once thought of doing it that way, Jennifer, and might even have had a shot at mainstream syndication, but then I thought, why should I water it down for the masses? Gary Trudeau certainly doesn’t muffle his political views, why should I? And Umbert’s mother isn’t seen because the strip is from the perspective of the babies. But he hears her and reacts to things she says. His father too. His parents matter a great deal to him. With 55 million children lost to abortions in this country alone, I’m not going to apologize for telling the truth the way I do best. That overshadowing you speak of is the reality of the culture of death that we’ve created in this country. I can’t simply draw a cute funny comic strip about a baby in the womb, as much as i would like to, because the womb is a dangerous place for unborn children in this world and that just isn’t very cute or funny. But I appreciate your input.

          • Valde

            Pregnancy is a dangerous situation for women to be in, and that just isn’t very cute or funny.

            FTFY

          • Gary Cangemi

            Maternity is a gift from God, not a disease. It’s how the human race regenerates. Life itself is dangerous. The ocean is beautiful and teeming with life, but it’s also a dangerous place to find oneself in the wrong conditions. We live in a physical universe, fraught with perils, but that doesn’t take away from its grandeur.

          • Valde

            And we don’t FORCE people to remain in dangerous situations in order to save a life.

            WE don’t force organ donation, and we don’t even force people to risk their lives to save people from burning buildings.

            You want women to be second- class citizens, forced to ‘save a life’ due to anatomy, and nothing else.

          • goatini

            Livestock is capable of maternity. It’s biology, not “a gift from God”.

          • fiona64

            Pregnancy is not a state of wellness, and it is not a gift if it is unwanted.

            Please, stop pretending pregnancy is some kind of grandiose miracle. It’s far from miraculous; it’s something that any two idiots with functioning genitalia can accomplish, for one thing. For another, miracles are by definition rare and unusual, and pregnancy is neither. It’s simply a biological function.

          • Valde

            Pregnancy is always dangerous.

            There is no such thing as a no risk pregnancy.

            It is not a state of wellness.

          • Nor

            Maternity can also be a curse and a death sentence. It’s how rats regenerate, and snakes, and parasitic worms that eat the eyes of little kids in Africa. Life is dangerous, but it’s a lot more dangerous if you are pregnant. We live in a universe with modern technology, and health care, and being told we can’t use it because we are women only adds to the grandeur of men who will never face this situation.

          • Ed Johns

            Mr. Gangemi,
            I cannot think of anything more contemptible than hearing someone extoll the “wonder” of blood and pain and death that they have never faced and never will face.

          • Ed Johns

            Mr Cangemi, I apologize for misspelling your name above. I assure you, it was a typo.
            However, that does not change my opinion of your posts. I judge you to be a Christian, so its on my mind to ask you, what you have done to help these women, in particular the poor, the desperate, the downtrodden, the ones who have been raped? I believe that according to Christian doctrine it is an explicit commandment of the Son of God that you do so.
            I believe its wrong to hate people, and it would ease my heart to know that you were doing something to materially help women who were struggling with the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
            With all due respect, I doubt that the man who willingly suffered death by torture to save you is going to be too impressed by pontifications about the “wonder” of dying in childbirth, and a cartoon about an unborn fetus. Still, let us judge not, lest we be judged. If you are confident that you can stand before your Creator and the women you are anxious to condemn to death, and answer for your deeds, who am I to say otherwise?

          • Gary Cangemi

            No, you’re not judgmental. When you take the log out of your own eye, then come see me about the splinter in mine. And when God informs me on Judgment Day that I’ve been assigned to Ed Johns’ Courtroom, THEN I’ll explain to you what I’ve done for the poor. Until then, look after your own house.

          • Ed Johns

            Mr. Cangemi,
            I think you just answered my question, thanks. Based on your posts, you seem to think you have a right to interpret the will of God for half the human race. Under the circumstances being asked how well you’re doing in following His commands doesn’t seem unreasonable to me at all. “Let he among you who is without sin….”

          • fiona64

            You haven’t done jack shit except draw a smarmy, misogynistic comic strip.

            You accused me, and every other woman on this board, of being “murderers” — the clear assumption being (let’s just ignore how wrong you are from a legal perspective for now) that every one of us must have terminated a pregnancy. You enjoy comparing yourself to God and sitting in judgment of women of whom you disapprove.

            Look after your own house indeed. You are a liar and a hypocrite. You want nothing more than to force other people to live as you desire (Oscar Wilde calls that the height of selfishness, by the way) and you have the *audacity* to tell someone to look after his own house? You’re laughable to boot.

            Take your own advice: look after your own house and stay the fuck out of mine and that of every other woman on the planet.

          • cjvg

            Timothy 3:16a – And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness

            -However you, apparently know exactly what he means to say, how comforting !

            John 14-17, Jesus several times states that the Holy Spirit was to come upon us and reveal all knowledge. One can infer from that this that, after that point, nothing would remain a mystery .

            -Viola the mystery is explained, gary is jesus and that is why he knows all and has gods permission to throw the first stone since he is without sin

          • Gary Cangemi

            Contemptible, Ed? You who think men should sit quietly and keep their opinions to themselves while women decide who gets to be born are calling me contemptible? When a man and woman marry, they make a lifelong commitment to each other. There is no me vs. you. It is all US. That includes everything. When they create a child together, it is THEIR child. When the mother faces a threat to her life, her husband faces a tragic loss as well should something go wrong. It is a reality he must FACE as well. You have no right to judge what I have or haven’t faced in my life. You know nothing about me. And I never said pain and death were wonderful. I was speaking of Creation, which by its nature, is both wondrous and perilous. But you knew that.

          • Ed Johns

            Mr. Cangemi,
            If you read my earlier post you would know that sitting quietly and keeping their opinions to themselves while women decide who should be born is in fact exactly what I think men should be doing. I could not possibly have put it better than you just did.

          • Ed Johns

            Mr. Cangemi,
            While it is true that I don’t have any particular knowledge about what you have faced in your life, I feel confidant in saying that you have never been impregnated by a rapist, never had to risk your life in childbirth, etc., etc.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Then I suggest you take your own advice and mind your own business, since you’ve never stood in my shoes and are therefore not qualified to judge my actions.

          • Dez

            Says the man not qualified to judge my and others lives he knows nothing about. Hypocrite much?

          • goatini

            But you don’t have any problems interfering with and obstructing the business of female US citizens exercising their civil, human and Constitutional rights as protected by the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment – even though you’ve never stood in THEIR shoes.

            You are completely and utterly unqualified to judge THEIR actions, which are NONE of your business.

            (Another “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrite, what a surprise, not.)

          • Ed Johns

            Mr. Cangemi.
            I’m sorry, I’m starting to suffer from a slight case of irony poisoning.
            Tell you what. When you stop judging women’ actions, I’ll stop judging yours.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Kind of funny that you should say that, considering how many women you’ve been standing in judgment of–women whose actions you are certainly not qualified to judge. So you can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it.

          • fiona64

            Oh, please. Are you going to try to pretend that you’ve been pregnant? Pro-tip: just because your wife got pregnant doesn’t mean you were.

          • Valde

            Now, now, according to Mr_Cris, pregnancy can 1) get a man lynched and/or 2) lower a man’s testosterone

            So, clearly, Gary has had a rough time with his wife’s pregnancies, being lynched for it and having his testosterone lowered as a result.

            Poor poor Gary!

            I wish we women knew what it was like to suffer so!

          • cjvg

            But you are qualified to judge each and every women and girl out there, and subsequently state that she should have no other choices then the ones you decide she can have?!

            Wow, your self presumed splinter is just a smidgen larger then a two thousand year old redwood!

          • marbo

            Neither have you ever been ripped apart , piece by piece… or left on a dirty utility table or in a pail to breathe your last breaths for minutes or even hours with no comfort or compassion for your agony….. or pierced in the back of your head to snip your spinal cord or had fingers down your throat to stifle your breathing… or have your head twisted around your body.. or drowned in a pail… or toilet… or pierced with a needle to stifle your heart… or agonize for 2 days while a solution burned your body and lungs or……. or ….. or…… this is the child you’re forgetting!!!

          • fiona64

            What a bunch of twaddle. Are you really going to pretend that the Gosnell case (the only one even remotely close to what you cite … and even then you exaggerate) is indicative of all abortion providers? How nonsensical.

            Gosnell and his ilk can only thrive in an anti-choice environment, when women become desperate to terminate their pregnancies.

            The vast majority of post-abortive tissue is indistinguishable from heavy menses without a high-powered microscope and an advanced degree in biology.

            And, once again, a fetus is not a child.

            I realize that, without your hyperemotionalized rhetoric and photos of stillborn late-term feti enlarged to hold up as you do your “sidewalk counseling,” you don’t have much to go on. But please, could we keep things in the realm of reality?

          • Valde

            I had a crazed anti-choicer tell me that she wished that my legs and arms would get ripped off – for the crime of being pro-choice.

            And ANOTHER one told me that she considers all pro-choice women to be dogs, and that they should all be sent to concentration camps and burnt in ovens because they are evil.

            She also said that she hopes that women who get abortions are run over by ambulances outside of the clinics and left to scream and die in their own blood. While she laughs at them.

            This is pretty typical actually, and not the occasional ‘rare’ poster.

          • fiona64

            And I would bet that every one of those people self-identifies as a “good Christian.”

            There’s a reason why I never call myself Christian anymore … and it’s people like *that.*

          • Valde

            Yes, the women did in fact identify as good christians.

            They also went to great lengths to assure me that there is no misogyny in the bible.

            The one who made the concentration camp + ambulance threats was a committed s1ut shamer. I got her number though, I pointed out that since she has had sex, she was no longer pure. And that by choosing to spread her legs, even for procreation, was proof that she couldn’t control her animal desires and that she was a dirty stinking ho.

            Suffice to say, she never bothered me after that.

          • Ed Johns

            I suppose I could answer you with an argument. I could point out that 61.8% of abortions occur before 9 weeks gestation, at which time the fetus is less than an inch long and weighs less than a tenth of an ounce.
            I could note that a further 20% all abortion occur before 12 weeks, at which time the fetus is a bit over two inches long and weighs less than half an ounce. I could argue that the situations you describe in your post, to the extent that they are not simply products of your fevered imagination are already regulated by state laws, as they undoubtedly occurred outside the period of the pregnancy covered by Roe v Wade. I could tell you some horror stories, like the one out of Ireland, where an adult woman was left to die in agony because Irish law forbade an abortion, even when it was known that the baby could not survive.

            I could go on forever, but why bother? It wouldn’t do any good. If you can generalize from a series of horror stories to the principal that a single fertilized egg has more rights than my grown daughter, then argument is clearly a waste of time.

            So let me just say this:
            I decline to support your attempts to foist your Bronze Age
            morality on my Daughter, or on any woman. I don’t believe in your God and I reject your attempts to force your religious views on me and the people I care about. I’m not with you and I never will be.

          • goatini

            Women are not “mothers” until childbirth has occurred.

          • fiona64

            We’ve already addressed this: neither you nor any other man on this planet assumes the physical risk of life and limb due to pregnancy which is, quite notably, not a state of wellness. Comparing your tears to a woman’s death by exsanguination (which yes, does still happen) due to pregnancy complications like placenta previa is ridiculous.

          • cjvg

            And there is the real crux of the matter “women decide who gets to be born” yeah for some insecure little men that is a real problem!

            How dare women make decisions about their own bodies and their own health! How dare these uppity women make those decisions for themselves!
            All women should always be subordinate to men, otherwise men like gary feel emasculated!

            Loss of your own life is not quite the same as losing your wife and remarrying after an appropriate mourning period.
            How incredibly arrogant you are!

            By the way, a born adult woman is also a product of creation, one that is already here so she is absolutely more wondrous and valuable then your need to risk her death for a potential!
            Your god states nowhere that you have the right to dictate what choices other people have

          • MsC

            But you have the right to judge and control what women face? Misogynist, rapist-wannabe scum.

          • fiona64

            No, Umbert’s mother isn’t seen because you don’t think she’s worth mentioning. And that’s neither cute nor funny.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Yeah, the very thought of an unborn child portrayed as a real human being must send shivers down your spine.

          • Valde

            The very thought of how you treat women as subhuman livestock sends shivers down my spine.

          • fiona64

            Actually, the fact that the pregnant woman in your strip is non-existent is what I find creepy. You’ve made her a tabula rasa whose only purpose is to be the meat around a uterus.

          • Nor

            The very thought of a grown woman portrayed as a real human being must send shivers down your spine.

          • fiona64

            The problem with your argument is that if we exist in a country where
            the government and not God determines when human life begins, then we
            also live in a country where the government and not God can determine
            when human life ends.

            Whose god? In case you haven’t noticed, religion is not the basis for law in this country … much to your immense chagrin.

            And in all of that lengthy screed, you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked you. Not that it’s surprising at this point …

          • HeilMary1

            If human pregnancy could be re-engineered in reverse so that eggs traveled up men’s penises, grew to water melon size in their testicles, then shredded men’s “birth canal” penises on their violent way out, you and your child-raping, marriage-eschewing “celibate” cult would make abortion God’s holiest sacrament.

          • Nor

            Why not Kickstart a movement to bring temporary non-surgical vasectomy to the US then? Free and mandatory for all males at the age of 12 or so. That would really be pro-life, for sure.

            Or at least campaign for deadbeat dad laws to be enforceable. Because currently they are a joke. Also domestic violence laws.

          • cjvg

            I have argued that before.

            You would think these men would consider that heaven, no more abortions, no more unwanted pregnancies, the men are in full control of who gets pregnant etc.

            You would think they would consider it heaven.
            However, for some strange incomprehensible reason there always is a lot of grumbling from these men about infringement of their rights to NOT have unwanted and unneeded medical procedures forced upon them, and others usurping their rights to make their own medical decisions ?!

            Some even go so far as to call it assault and allege I must be mentally disturbed to consider that an acceptable solution

          • Nor

            “The father apparently doesn’t even enter into the picture unless the child is wanted, then he gets the bill for child support.”

            The father is generally not in the picture of his own volition, hence the need for the abortion to begin with. And do you not think men should be contributing financially to the well-being of their offspring?

          • Nor

            “But for you to say that a woman consenting to sex is not consenting to
            pregnancy is like saying a person who gets behind the wheel is not
            consenting to an accident.”

            And so if she does get in an accident, even if it was a drunk driver hitting her for example, she should not receive medical care because she knew when she got in that car it was a risk?

          • TullyMOI

            Enforcement of child support is necessary to ensure shared responsibility for the child and is something the pro-life movement SHOULD be working to ensure if they want children to be born.

          • fiona64

            And since that document was our national charter, it certain does carry legal weight in writing and interpreting our laws.

            Nope, sorry. It’s a diplomatic kiss-off letter to the English government. The US Constitution is the basis for writing and interpreting law, not the Declaration of Independence.

            I’m sorry you missed that day in high school civics class.

          • Gary Cangemi

            You apparently showed up in civics class but did not bother to read the document or study it. To dismiss it as a “kiss-off” letter shows a wanton disrespect for the Declaration and those who risked everything to put their names on it. It is pre-eminent among ALL American documents for it is the thing that established us as an independent nation. It is our national charter and the Constitution is our set of by-laws that came AFTER the founders spilled their blood to pay the cost of declaring independence from England. The Constitution can be changed or completely rewritten if the states so choose, but the Declaration exists as the ultimate expression of what we believe until we no longer exist as a nation.

          • Ed Johns

            Mr. Cangemi, admire the Declaration of Independence as much as you like. Its one of the most eloquent example of Enlightenment values and the theory of the social contract, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the structure of our government.

            With respect to the larger issue, I have always believed it is contemptible to ask others to make a sacrifice that one was unwilling to make oneself. Given that you will never be impregnated by a rapist, never have to risk your life in childbirth, never have weigh the well being of your existing children against the well-being of an unborn child and never have to put up with religious zealots who assume on the basis of their personal religious beliefs the right to govern the intimate details of your life, I think you should shut up.

            I say this not because I disagree with you, although I do, but because I think neither you nor I should have a voice in this discussion. When you have a uterus, then you’re vote should count. Until then lets let the women of the United States make up their own minds. They can handle the job. Really.

          • fiona64

            If I were not already married, I would offer to buy you a cup of coffee on this basis of this eloquent statement alone. Seriously.

            Thank you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Thank you so much–you are awesome.

          • Guest

            Mr Cangemi,

            It might also be worth noting that if my some miracle the
            Pro-Life movement succeeded in packing the Supreme Court with Justices that
            would overturn Roe v. Wade and then getting legislation passed in the several
            states to ban abortion, it would probably only stop a de minimums number of actual
            abortions.

            I’m sure you’re not naïve enough to imagine that there were no abortions before
            Roe v. Wade. Regardless of the laws,
            women have always had three paths to an abortion:

            1)
            Rich women go on a “vacation” to Canada or
            Europe and when they come back they aren’t pregnant anymore. There is never any record of the pregnancy,
            and, of course, no record of the abortion.

            2)
            Middle class women who are lucky find a sympathetic
            doctor who will perform a “menstrual extraction”, after which they aren’t
            pregnant anymore. There is no record of
            the pregnancy and no record of the abortion.

            3)
            Middle class women who are unlucky and all the
            poor women go to a back alley butcher who performs an abortion with the
            equivalent of a rusty coat hanger. There
            is no record of the pregnancy and no record of the abortion, unless of course
            the woman dies.

            What will you do once you’ve outlawed abortion? Will you put a webcam in the panties of every
            woman in the United States? Will you
            make them undergo monthly pregnancy tests?
            Make them register with the government when they get their periods, so
            that you can track if they’ve missed one?
            Put a government overseer in the office of every ObGyn in the country? Where
            will you draw the line sir?

            On the other hand there are concrete measures you could
            undertake now, that would have an actual effect on the number of abortions performed
            in the United States. You could lobby
            for state provided pre-natal care for women who want to keep their babies, and
            you could cheerfully consent to the tax hikes that would be required. You could press for laws that would require
            employers to give women (and men) real parental leave, and to hold their jobs
            for them. You could work for a social
            welfare state that would spread the cost of raising these children over all of
            society, and you could pay for it without whining.

            Of course this sort of work isn’t glamorous and it doesn’t
            leave you with self-righteous glow.
            Mostly it just leaves you tired.
            You may be doing one or all of these things, but I doubt it. If you were, I don’t think you’d have the
            time or energy to author a cartoon about an unborn fetus.

          • Ed Johns

            Mr Cangemi,
            It might also be worth noting that if my some miracle the Pro-Life movement succeeded in packing the Supreme Court with Justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade and then getting legislation passed in the several states to ban abortion, it would probably only stop a de minimums number of actual abortions.

            I’m sure you’re not naïve enough to imagine that there were no abortions before Roe v. Wade. Regardless of the laws, women have always had three paths to an abortion:
            1) Rich women go on a “vacation” to Canada or Europe and when they come back they aren’t pregnant anymore. There is never any record of the pregnancy, and, of course, no record of the abortion.
            2) Middle class women who are lucky find a sympathetic doctor who will perform a “menstrual extraction”, after which they aren’t pregnant anymore. There is no record of the pregnancy and no record of the abortion.
            3) Middle class women who are unlucky and all the poor women go to a back alley butcher who performs an abortion with the equivalent of a rusty coat hanger. There is no record of the pregnancy and no record of the abortion, unless of course the woman dies.

            What will you do once you’ve outlawed abortion? Will you put a webcam in the panties of every woman in the United States? Will you make them undergo monthly pregnancy tests? Make them register with the government when they get their periods, so that you can track if they’ve missed one? Put a government overseer in the office of every ObGyn in the country? Where will you draw the line sir?

            On the other hand there are concrete measures you could undertake now, that would have an actual effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States. You could lobby for state provided pre-natal care for women who want to keep their babies, and you could cheerfully consent to the tax hikes that would be required. You could press for laws that would require employers to give women (and men) real parental leave, and to hold their jobs for them. You could work for a social welfare state that would spread the cost of raising these children over all of society, and you could pay for it without whining.
            Of course this sort of work isn’t glamorous and it doesn’t leave you with self-righteous glow. Mostly it just leaves you tired. You may be doing one or all of these things, but I doubt it. If you were, I don’t think you’d have the time or energy to author a cartoon about an unborn fetus.

          • Ed Johns

            Mr Cangemi,
            It might also be worth noting that if my some miracle the Pro-Life movement succeeded in packing the Supreme Court with Justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade and then getting legislation passed in the several states to ban abortion, it would probably only stop a de minimums number of actual abortions.

            I’m sure you’re not naïve enough to imagine that there were no abortions before Roe v. Wade. Regardless of the laws, women have always had three paths to an abortion:
            1) Rich women go on a “vacation” to Canada or Europe and when they come back they aren’t pregnant anymore. There is never any record of the pregnancy, and, of course, no record of the abortion.
            2) Middle class women who are lucky find a sympathetic doctor who will perform a “menstrual extraction”, after which they aren’t pregnant anymore. There is no record of the pregnancy and no record of the abortion.
            3) Middle class women who are unlucky and all the poor women go to a back alley butcher who performs an abortion with the equivalent of a rusty coat hanger. There is no record of the pregnancy and no record of the abortion, unless of course the woman dies.

            What will you do once you’ve outlawed abortion? ill you make all women undergo monthly pregnancy tests? Make them register with the government when they get their periods, so that you can track if they’ve missed one? Put a government overseer in the office of every ObGyn in the country? Where will you draw the line sir?

            On the other hand there are concrete measures you could undertake now, that would have an actual effect on the number of abortions performed in the United States. You could lobby for state provided pre-natal care for women who want to keep their babies, and you could cheerfully consent to the tax hikes that would be required. You could press for laws that would require employers to give women (and men) real parental leave, and to hold their jobs for them. You could work for a social welfare state that would spread the cost of raising these children over all of society, and you could pay for it without whining. I’d mention working to make contraception readily available for all women and men, but I suspect that is against your religious beliefs.

            Of course this sort of work isn’t glamorous and it doesn’t leave you with self-righteous glow. Mostly it just leaves you tired. You may be doing one or all of these things, but I doubt it. If you were, I don’t think you’d have the time or energy to author a cartoon about an unborn fetus.

          • Ed Johns

            I apologize for my post showing up three times with minor edits. Clearly I have not yet got the hang of this Intraweb thing.

          • Valde

            You are great Ed.

            I enjoyed all of your posts!

          • Nor

            Canada and many other countries pay out a cash baby bonus. Free health care is good too. And of course free birth control, and sex ed in schools starting in elementary, along with free birth control available in schools, without notifying the parents, or even the health care staff (condoms out for everyone, the pill, etc. would need a visit of course).

          • TullyMOI

            Exactly, he could also work for child support enforcement so that the financial responsibility of the child is equal among the mother AND FATHER and the taxpayer isn’t left with the cost. I believe actual child support enforcement (and not the broken system we have now), would be the VERY BEST birth control.

          • Ed Johns

            The list of practical things a person can do to reduce the number of abortions is almost endless. My experience has been that the more dedicated and more “Christian” the opponent of abortion is, the less likely they are to actually do any of them. Instead they lobby to pass laws that won’t actually prevent very many abortions. Its sad.
            I wonder if Mr. Cangemi understands that he’s being used by right wing politicians who actually have no interest whatsoever in abortion as an issue? Their only goal is to keep it alive as an issue they can use to turn out their base every election year.
            They may have overplayed their hand though. If you glance through Mr. Cangemi’s other posts on Disqus (he’s fairly prolific) you’ll see he’s pretty much a straight line Tea Party hard liner – one of the ones who’d rather be right than President. If guys like him keep going the way they are going we’ll have Democratic presidents for the next 50 years.
            Then we can really get busy indoctrinating the nations children in the principles of Kenyan Muslim Socialism while forcing straight people to become gay, and re-defining Sunday School as a form of child abuse…. MUAHAHAHAHHAHA.

            Just kidding Mr. Cangemi.

          • Nor

            Right – that religion has no place in politics, and that morality cannot be legislated.

          • Valde

            And there is no ‘life’ at all if you have no liberty.

            Or are you one of those guys who thinks that slavery is a great thing, as long as the slaves are not killed?

          • Gary Cangemi

            Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are no less important but they are moot if you are not alive to enjoy them. I don’t trust any government that declares human beings do not have the right to life unless their mother says so. They could easily attach a host of other strings to it.

          • Valde

            Except a zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t a human being!

          • Gary Cangemi

            In your opinion. Thank God, he didn’t appoint you to define humanity for the rest of us.

          • Valde

            A non-sentient non-sapient non-viable zygote/embryo/fetus cannot be a person due to the lack of a ‘mind’.

            A baby can feel. A baby is sentient.

            An embryo, not so much. People aren’t just DNA you know. We are much, much more than that.

            But go on pretending that zygotes are little babies, it makes you look silly.

          • HeilMary1

            You’ve appointed mother-killing, marriage-eschewing, intersex gay-bashing, child rapists to define women’s humanity.

          • Nor

            Nor you.

          • goatini

            Cangemi’s definitions:

            Woman: not humanity
            Blastocyst: humanity

          • cjvg

            He did not appoint you either, and your god and his bible are not to concerned with keeping babies or unborn alive

            Genesis 38 the story of Tamar: “Judah proclaimed that Tamar was to be put to death and her unborn child with her” The bible has no problem killing a unborn if it is not conceived in a manner the mothers society approves off.

            Hosea 9:14 “The progeny of the rebellious shall not be suffered to be born”

            Hosea 13:16 “Their infants shall be dashed to pieces and their women with child shall be ripped up”

            2 Kings 8:12 “dash their children and rip up their women with child”

            15:16 “And he smote all of Tiphsah and all the women with child were ripped up”

            Numbers 5 : god instructs Moses to have a priest give a pregnant woman an abortion inducing potion because her jealous husband is not sure the child is his”

            Exodus 21:22-25 Read the original translation from the Jewish bible (yes Jesus was a Jew)” if people hurt a pregnant woman during a fight and it causes her to lose the fruit but no further injury (to the woman) follows, he shall be fined as determined by the woman’s husband. If the woman suffers further injury he shall pay a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand etc.
            Obviously god considered the woman’s life more precious then the fetus since the death of the fetus will cost you a fine to the husband, but the death of the woman will cost you your life”

          • HeilMary1

            You have criminal Catholic Munchausen by Proxy psychosis: you support forcing fetuses to maim and murder all sexually active women.

          • Nor

            Like what?

          • goatini

            He likes gestational slavery, that’s for sure.

          • HeilMary1

            Mother-killer, you believe we women are disposable incubating cows for your child-raping, genocidal cult. Your kind supported the Confederate slave owners.

          • Nor

            Logistically, how would you prevent women from seeking illegal abortions/force them to remain pregnant against their will?

          • fiona64

            My guess: he’d restrain them. Physically.

          • Nor

            He would have to. There are states where they’ve done that, Utah for example, where miscarriages are a crime if they are determined to be “self-caused”. For example, if you fall down the stairs. They put women in a mental hospital or jail until they give birth. It’s the only practical way to make this guy’s world view a reality, but he and others like him can’t outright say that because then he’d sound like even more of a whackadoodle nutjob than he already sounds. Like a grown women is going to be convinced to do anything because a comic book tells her to. Ye gods.

          • Pei Kang

            NO. the fetus is not a human person, and neither are Republican/Tea Bagger politicians.

            If the fetus IS a person, than what about the mother that bears it?

          • Gary Cangemi

            Since I am one of the very few people with the guts to use his real name instead of posting anonymously, I would say that makes this “teabagger” a real human person. So what are the millions of new moms carrying around in their wombs, alien life forms? The lies you people get away with telling are astounding. There appears to be no truth you wouldn’t sacrifice on the altar of abortion-on-demand.

          • fiona64

            Typical Teabircher attitude on display, Gary. “Fuck you, I got mine,” and “You do as I say, not as I do” seems to cover your position just fine.

          • Gary Cangemi

            My responses only seem to be making you angrier and further entrenching you in your negativity. If the Holy Spirit is not finding its way to your heart through my words, I’d best stop talking. God bless you, Fiona. It was an experience chatting with you.

          • fiona64

            Oh, the “tone argument.” That’s right, if I’m daring to tell you off for being a misogynist, it must be because “Holy Spirit” is isn’t touching me. And how dare I use words of which Gary disapproves?

            The only thing finding its way to me through your words is the fact that you are a woman-hating jerk.

            Goddess bless you, too. I hope that she is able to cure your cranio-rectal inversion someday.

          • Valde

            MISOGYNIST

          • goatini

            Well, when you’re on the side of the violent gestational slavers, I guess you feel pretty safe when you’re preaching their lies.

          • Nor

            Your attitude in general is patronizing. It’s hard to tell if you are like that to everyone, or just to pro-choice people, or non-religious people, or to women.

            A lot of the expectant mothers of America don’t think so. Hence the existence of abortion, and your justification for creating your comic.

          • Valde

            I have noticed that a majority of forced birthers, especially the religious ones, tend to be *very* patronizing.

          • goatini

            Cangemi is a vile patronizer, as is evidenced here.

          • fiona64

            My vote: just to women.

          • Valde

            “I have a wife and three children. She had two difficult, life
            threatening pregnancies for which she would have willingly exchanged her
            life for that of her child”

            And I bet you would have thought it just lovely if she had died.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I forgive you for that cruel and thoughtless remark.And if you believe it was her decision to make, what a hypocritical thing to say as well.

          • Valde

            Aw, but you do think women dying in childbirth is heroic, don’t you?

          • goatini

            He’s a fundamentalist Catholic, and their first latter-day fundamentalist Pontiff canonized a mentally ill woman who needlessly and irrationally suicided herself in a troubled pregnancy and deadly childbirth, depriving her living children and husband of her presence – so yes, he most certainly DOES think it’s “heroic”.

            Reminds me of when the nuns had their “sex ed” class with us grade-school girls, and told us that when we were married and having our families, we should make sure we were brought to a Catholic hospital – because if something should go wrong with the pregnancy, a non-Catholic doctor might try to save our lives instead of letting us die to try and save the fetus. And that would be a mortal sin. If I hadn’t gotten it by then that the Church considered me to be nothing but livestock, I sure as heck got it at that moment.

          • Gary Cangemi

            So the only “choice” you would admire is the choice to sacrifice a child? If you really believe in choice, your question to me is very hypocritical. Any person who lays down his or her life for another is considered heroic by most standards, but apparently not yours. I’m sorry for you.

          • HeilMary1

            Pompous mother killer, how about you donate your in-use vital organs and body parts to the sick and dying to get a clue how deadly and ruinous pregnancies are for all women?

          • Gary Cangemi

            I’m done conversing with you Mary. Your posts indicate you are a disturbed individual in need of care. I hope you will seek it.

          • HeilMary1

            I’m a truth-telling survivor of your heretic mother-killing pedophile cult. You’re the morally bankrupt crazy here and you know it! You’re terrified that women are using the internet to inform each other of childbirth’s grisly dangers and the child-raping agenda of you fetal idolaters.

          • Valde

            That was an ad hominem attack Gary. Play nice.

          • Gary Cangemi

            No Valde, that was a sincere statement. She appears to be mentally imbalanced. Her rants are beyond any rational discussion and therefore I choose not to reply to any more of them.

          • Valde

            Ableist.

          • fiona64

            You accused her of being uncivil when she referenced a statement by an anti-choice congressman (I cited it for you). Is she harsh? Sure. She has good reason to be. She lost a friend due to complications of a wanted pregnancy gone horrifically wrong. While I do not always concur with her choice of words, I completely understand her passion: she doesn’t want anyone else to go through what her friend did, and your fellow travelers don’t care enough about the actual pregnant woman give a damn about her welfare, so long as the fetus is carried to term. Someone else already pointed out that the pregnant woman appears *nowhere* in your comic strip; you have proven the point that women are nothing but life support systems for their uteruses as a result, although I will give you the courtesy of presuming that it was not a conscious decision.

          • goatini

            Thank you Fiona. What HM has gone through in her life, all caused by radical fundamentalist misogynist cult beliefs, is tragic. And Mister Comic Man doesn’t like the storm of truth raining on his little imaginary fetus fetish universe.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Your characterizations of people in the pro-life movement are completely inaccurate. Most of them ARE women and many of the most ardent are post-abortive women who regret their decision and mourn the loss of their children. These women are very empathetic. They’ve been there. Why don’t you try listening to their stories instead of painting them with a broad brush? But how does the loss of a wanted child condemn those who support the rights of all children to be born unless the mother’s life is in imminent danger?
            You are also wrong about my comic strip. The strip is about the unborn, not about life on the outside. I wanted it to be seen through their eyes as if they were fully conscious souls anticipating life after birth while enjoying their time on the inside. By employing this device I am emphasizing their humanity while the world dismisses them as blobs of lifeless tissue, which is patently absurd to any eighth grade biology student. And precisely because children identify with cartoon characters, I want them as well to love Umbert and think it unthinkable to ever want to end his life in what should be the safest place on earth. You are the one perpetuating the notion of women as nameless breeders, not the the people in the pro-life movement. We honor mothers above all for their unique role in perpetuating the human race and nurturing our children.

          • fiona64

            Thanks for admitting that actual women are irrelevant to your position … at least you’re intellectually honest enough to do that.

            I wanted it to be seen through their eyes as if they were fully
            conscious souls anticipating life after birth while enjoying their time
            on the inside.

            Thanks also for admitting that a fetus is not a “fully conscious soul.” That takes birth to occur …

            And precisely because children identify with cartoon characters, I want
            them as well to love Umbert and think it unthinkable to ever want to end
            his life in what should be the safest place on earth.

            So it’s indoctrination propaganda. Got it.

          • Gary Cangemi

            You don’t follow my work, so you are not qualified to judge it. Umbert’s mother is a regular character whom Umbert hears but cannot yet see. Everything she says is relevant to Umbert. And yes, you finally have one thing right. I intend to teach children the truth about life in the womb. Someone needs to inoculate them against the lies they’re being told by people on the left. But kids are pretty smart anyway. They already instinctively know that the unborn baby is a living human being. It’s your side that supplies the propaganda to convince them otherwise.

          • fiona64

            I’ve read it, but you’re right. I don’t follow it. I find it saccharine and preachy. If I want a sermon, I can get it from my pastor. ::shrug::

          • Nor

            They instinctively know Santa Claus is real too.

          • Nor

            Why are they not the ones speaking at these conferences and on the news then? Why aren’t they in politics? Why aren’t they posting now, here? Part of the pro-life movement that makes it seem so illegitimate is that there are so few women on TV, in the public eye, speaking for it. It’s always older wealthy white men.

          • goatini

            77% of anti-abortion leaders are men and none of them will ever be pregnant.

          • cjvg

            We listened to their stories and we are in full agreement with them that it is their unalienable right to chose not to have an abortion if the need would arise!

            However, you and your fellow anti choicers do not do us the same courtesy and are actively trying to legislate our right to make our own medical choices away!

            You and your like minded anti choice friends are the only ones who are being intolerably rude and dismissive of the rights of others to NOT be forced to only have the option to make a “choice” you are comfortable with!

            It is severely ironic that you scold us for being rude and not respecting your choices when you are the one who is trying to pass laws to ensure we do not have any!

          • cjvg

            The world, science, medical knowledge etc but hey who believes science and medicine anyway, what do they know!

            Next time we have a serious medical problem or a question about treatment during coma, seizures, end of life treatment we will all ask Gary, at least he did NOT go to school to be trained in medicine so he should know what is really necessary!

            So are your wife and your daughters allowed medical treatment when they were sick, or do you decide what is a relevant and needed medical treatment for them?!

          • fiona64

            If you know of anyone practicing “child sacrifice,” contact the police. Infanticide is a crime, you know.

          • Valde

            Well clearly, you think women should be forced to die for fetuses,no matter their age, and no matter if the fetus is viable or not.

          • Fiona1933

            I would like to hear your comment on what goatini just said about the nuns. That Catholic girls are instructed their lives are valueless besides that of the foetus. If your girls were given this instruction, what would you think? Please, why is the living woman always the last in value to the anti-choicers? You say you love life: but why not our lives? Sally mann’s photo book “At Twelve” features a girl made pregnant at 11 and ready to have an abortion a local Catholic group came and showed this child horrifying pictures, so she decided against. Had anyone from the group been back to see her, Sally asked. No, Theresa replied. But that’s ok…she was living with the baby and her blind great-grandmother. At 12 years old. Why was her life of no value? Why is it you people are always the ones trying to cut government programs to mothers, too? Well, we know why. You are trying to turn back the clock. Make pregnancy so difficult and contraception so unavailable that everyone will be forced, miserably if it doesn’t suit them, into abstinence and faithful marriage. No contraception for marrieds, and no help with child-care: there go female careers. Back to the home, barefoot and pregnant. Have more respect for you if you’d just admit this whole plan. BTW, did you advise your daughters to use contraceptives ater marriage? To plan thier families? what about cervical smear tests? Youy know Planned Parenthood helps with those? Pro-life, hmm? What about the women who won’t get those tests and will die of cervical cancer? Without the Well-woman clinics of the UK, that would have been me at 21. Lucky for me, I came from an advanced nation that cares about female reproductive health, and not just the infants the womb can carry. You are surprisingly cavalier about the well-being of the incubators.

          • Valde

            This reminds me of something Bertrand Russel said. Basically, a preacher had sex with his wife, knowing that it would kill her. And it did. If he had used contraception, that would have been a sin – so he did not. However, the man had ‘needs’ after all. So he righteously had procreative sex with his wife – she became pregnant – and died.

            But hey, he can just replace her with another one. Because that’s what women are for!

          • Gary Cangemi

            At the risk of having you wig out on me again, I’ll attempt to answer your question. When members of my family need health care, they go to health care professionals, not a death mill euphemistically called Planned Parenthood. (Parenthood is the last thing being planned at these facilities). It is you who devalue women’s lives by your suggestion that a child somehow deposes its mother in worth or priority. There is no hierarchy of souls. We’re all equal in God’s sight. But because a newly conceived human being has entered the world in a highly vulnerable state, it requires a higher priority in providing for its physical needs. This elevates the importance and dignity of the mother, not reduces it. She is not only the sacred portal through which God brings new life into the world, she is the person chosen by God to nurture that new life to independence. We enter and leave this world in basically the same condition….helpless, wrinkled, and incoherent. The unspoken pact between human beings is that we take care of each other at those periods of vulnerability so that we may be taken care of when we are vulnerable. There was a time in this country when that pact was honored. New life was welcomed joyfully and the elderly were cared for by family members and let go tearfully. My first job was working with low income elderly in the community. I was saddened at the loneliness and despair. You talk about government programs? I got my first lesson in the bureaucratic indifference of government on that job. I discovered one woman living alone with her refrigerator packed with Meals on Wheels. The only problem was she was starving to death. She looked like a human skeleton. The government shoved money and food at her but they ignored her real problem…loneliness and isolation. I fear we are heading to a time in our country, thanks to the indifference toward life and death that abortion has brought us to, to a time when the elderly are considered just as non-viable as an unborn child and will be subject to legal euthanasia by family members, or if alone, by the government itself. With government being allowed more control over our health care system, this nightmare is not far away.
            We need to reject this culture of death Fiona and go back toward embracing a culture of life. We need people with your passion and compassion to realize the destructive nature of abortion and how it is destroying us as a civilization and turning us into a cold and indifferent people. There is no doubt in my mind that you care about those you care about. But please take a second look at those you think you don’t care about. I pray God will touch your heart and fill it with compassion for those as well.

          • Fiona1933

            But what if the important and dignified mother cannot safely bring the child forth? Whatever you say and however you dress it up, you are opting for the child’s life first. Now, if u and your wife agree on this (and a friend today, surprisingly told me that if this happened to her she’d tell the docs “save the baby first!”) then good, fine, it is your choice. But if the mother does not agre…I would not agree. I would prefer to save my own life. Now you may say “how selfish!” but as a man, you just dont have the right! When it comes to losing your very own life…it must be your choice. Not the choice of Gary Cangemi and his friends! I feel the mother’s life must take priority: she is a fully-fledged human being. At the very least, she must have the choice! It’s not really right that you, Gary, with your Christian beliefs, impose them on me.
            Second, Planned Parenthood does not constitute an abortion mill: thatis about 5% of their activities. Mostly, they prevent abortion through contraception.
            Please, you and your fellow travellers always ignore these two points: One, Criminalizing abortion does not stop it. It just makes it deadly for the woman. Right now, it is a very safe operation, taking only a few minutes. All you do is drive it underground. Whatever you say, whatever you do, that is what is going to happen.
            So therefore, Gary, you are doomed to fail. Will you tell me how you are going to stop illegal abortions after stopping legal ones? Please, I implore you, address this point. No anti-choicer ever does! How are they to be stopped?

            Brings me to this: Gary, please, again, address, please dont ignore. We MUST communicate. If illagal abortions cant be stopped, which they cant, then obviousy, contraception is the answer. Planned Parenthood isnt a death mill. It provides cheap contraceptives. It also gives health checks: Gary, you go on about “life” but how about lives threatened with cervical cancer? If it wasn’t for the british equivalent of PP, the Well Woman clinics, I wouldnt be here today. They caught the cancer early, before it began. This is what PP does. When you defund it, where are poor women to go for smear tests?
            I think, one of the problems with guys like you is you aim for an unreal world, where everyone is virginal tl marriage, so no need for Pap smears, and failthful afterwards, and where somehow, ppl will be able to ahndle all the pregnancies that arise. Funny, how that hasnt worked for centuries. Banning priests from sex caused them to attack altar boys or keep mistresses. Banning teens from it: Gary, the states with the highest rate of teen pregnancy are the ones which preach abstinence and deny contraceptives! It makes me bang my head on the wall: however beautiful your dream, it isn’t going to happen! I may dream of a world where each and every man treats women as absolute equals, never threatens them, never tries to take away hard-won rights, doesn’t judge them by their looks, doesn’t try to dominate them, doesnt prefer dumb women: what a wonderful world it would be, but t will never happen. Love peace, but prepare for war. Hate abortions, so prevent the pregnancies. practical help. Deal with facts. People love sex. Especially when they have nothing else. Especially bored teens. They cant study and go to church all the time! and when they get carried away, as they will, where are the condoms? Gary took them away and said” don’t do it kids! You know how well that works for preventing drugs!”
            If you dont want abortions, look at where accidental pregnancy is low. Dream your lovely dreams, and then be practical. Remember, not everyone is lucky to have a life of love like yours. Tonight, there is a terrified girl of eleven, huddled up by the headboard, hearing the heavy footsteps coming up, praying over and over that they will go past the door and Dad won’t come in…to force that child to carry her father’s baby, while you enjoy the warmth of your home…well.
            At least, dont tell lies. PP plan families, not abortions. They provide abortions when needed. They dont go looking for them..May I request one thing? Please google this link: The only moral abortion is my abortion, about when anti-choicers choose.
            I really hope you will not answer with more of these pretty dreams. Be practical. BTW, totally agree with you about the elderly. But it is the Western way, all the way back to Zeus fighting Cronos: it has never been a culture for the old. America is ridiculous about youth. There are women of 30 who are weeping because they feel old! Life has got harsher and more materialistic. This is one reason I dont want a child. Still want sex though. And I really dont see why you should deprive me of it or force me into child-bearing. It is very arrogant to force your God onto me. In the UK, we believe religion must be respected, but you must keep it to yourself.

          • Valde

            Oh man, Gary is going to read that and accuse you of murdering babies and drinking their blood in worship of Satan.

            Right Gary? Right?

          • Gary Cangemi

            Well, at least now we’re having a civil discussion. I am not naive enough to believe that we will ever eradicate abortion and I am for doing whatever is necessary to address or prevent the chief causes of abortion. We might agree or disagree on what those are and on what are the best solutions, but we do agree that more has to be done. As for contraception, I’m a Catholic and accept Church teaching, but I realize there are others who are not. Many of my fellow pro-lifers are in favor of birth control or would prefer contraceptives to abortions. Thus while I personally believe artificial birth control is wrong, I have nothing to say about other adults who choose to use them, that’s their business. Except for abortifacients. Any drug or device which results in an abortion, I would oppose. I believe in natural family planning…for natural families. That presumes a marital relationship, the only setting where I believe sexual relations should be taking place. Again, I’m not naive, I know how people live today, I just happen to believe that the nuclear family is the best way to live and raise children.

            I would never judge or second guess a woman who made a life or death decision such as you described, where her life was in imminent jeopardy by her pregnancy, whether she sacrificed herself or sacrificed her child. I would NEVER say “how selfish.” Only God has the right to judge a person’s heart or motives in such a case. Again, as a Catholic, I defer to Catholic teaching which states that the child cannot be deliberately killed to save its mother’s life. But I would not support a law that would impose this standard on everybody else. I have orthodox Jewish friends who believe that it is a moral duty to save the mother if her life were directly threatened. Thus, I would not pass a law that would deny others the opportunity to make their own decision in this rare circumstance.

            But abortion on demand is a far far cry from the poor soul who has children at home and has to decide whether to orphan them or survive to take care of them. You say those other reasons are none of my business. Innocent human life, when threatened, is everybody’s business whether it is from hunger, violence, disease, or abortion.

            You mentioned the church’s problems with pedophile priests. I have my own views on what caused the pedophile scandals in the Church. I was a seminarian for three years until I discerned the priesthood was not for me. I can assure you that celibacy does not cause normal men to attack children. The man has to be disordered to begin with. How such a person gets into the clergy is a problem the Church is now dealing with. I have my own theories but this discussion is about abortion.

            As for Planned Parenthood, I have to completely disagree with you on many points. That statistic they tout about what a small percentage abortion is of their business is creative mathematics. If they handed out 95 condoms for every five abortions, they would say that abortion was 5% of what they do. That’s an exaggerated example but it is essentially how they manipulate their statistics to downplay their real mission, which is to do as many abortions as possible. They earn a lot more money from abortions than they do from pap smears. In fact, 51% of income at PP clinics comes from abortions. They’ve also been stepping up pressure on every one of their PP offices to offer abortion services, forcing some to disaffiliate with them. Then there’s the issue of PP failing to report statutory rape when young girls come in for abortion referrals after having affairs with adult aged men. PP is not the only provider of cancer screening available to poor women. We have many community health clinics that can do the same thing, only they don’t do abortion referrals. So shutting down a few PPs by cutting off their federal funding or doing successful sidewalk counseling at their clinics is not passing a death sentence on women.

            Finally you talk about gender roles. As much as I have been unjustly called a misogynist, I have had mostly good relationships with the women in my life. My wife and I have been very supportive of each other’s careers and we have shared equally in the child rearing and other family responsibilities. Our children have been raised secure in the knowledge that they can accomplish anything they desire in life but that there is no greater accomplishment than being a good spouse and parent.

            I grew up watching Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, and the Brady Bunch on TV but lived a very different reality as a child. Unhappy marriages, divorces, some physical and emotional abuse. But I loved those shows because they showed me what a family COULD be like if people made the effort. So one day, when I had a wife and family of my own, I was determined to learn from my parents’ mistakes and do everything possible to create a happy family. It was hard work, but we proved to ourselves it was possible. Art only loosely imitates life, but life can imitate art if we hold on to the ideals it expresses.

            As for God and religion, I have never imposed them on anyone. I LIVE by my beliefs and I express them in my work and I exercise my conscience when I vote. That is not imposing, that is being true to one’s self. I respect people of all faiths and I respect people who think they have no faith at all. God never stops believing in them.

            Maybe Umbert is at times a bit preachy and a bit of an alter ego (or altar ego?), but working on this comic has forced me to confront and consider many difficult issues, such as those you have raised in your responses. I guess I have a difficult time convincing people that I am not trying to judge them but to challenge people to examine themselves and the issues in a different light. I’d much rather Umbert stick to ordering womb service and do his funny pre-natal schtick, but my conscience compels me to use God’s gifts more purposefully.

            I’ve never been to your country but I hope to one day. I love British history and watch every period drama I can get my hands on. Also, I’m a huge Gilbert & Sullivan fan. I’ve even included a British character in my strip at the suggestion of one of your countrymen, Nigel the Nascent, who extols the dubious virtues of government run health care to us backward yanks. Nice chatting with you again, Fiona.

          • fiona64

            In fact, 51% of income at PP clinics comes from abortions. They’ve also
            been stepping up pressure on every one of their PP offices to offer
            abortion services, forcing some to disaffiliate with them. Then there’s
            the issue of PP failing to report statutory rape when young girls come
            in for abortion referrals after having affairs with adult aged men.

            Citations needed. From mainstream or primary sources. Thank in advance.

          • Valde

            You say those other reasons are none of my business. Innocent human
            life, when threatened, is everybody’s business whether it is from
            hunger, violence, disease, or abortion

            Unless that human life is a woman’s then you don’t care!

            Oh wait, women are not innocent, are they! Especially if they have committed the unforgiveable sin of…having sex!

            Well in that case, they can suffer from the unwanted pregnancy, selfish witches!

          • Gary Cangemi

            Valde, why are you so bitter? If a woman’s life is threatened, of course I care. I have a wife, two daughters and three sisters. I love them all. Please stop stereotyping me as some pig-headed chauvinist male, it doesn’t apply. And let’s have a civil discussion.

          • Valde

            Not forcing people to be broodmares would be one way to show your love.

          • Gary Cangemi

            You force yourself onto a particular path and then accuse me of forcing you to walk it.Autonomy begins within the decision whether or not to engage in risky behavior in the first place, not with the decision whether to carry the results of that behavior to term. It’s all connected. You act like they are separate things. All choices have consequences. Don’t blame me for being in a situation where those choices, of necessity, must be limited.

          • Valde

            Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

            Consent to eating is not consent to choking.

            Consent to swimming is not consent to drowning.

            Consent to skiing is not consent to a broken leg.

            It’s that simple.

            And forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will = treating them as mere livestock without any agency of their own.

            All choices have consequences.

            Sex has RESULTS, not consequences. Pregnancy can be a result of sex. Consequence implies that the woman did something NAUGHTY and must be punished with a forced pregnancy.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Consent to sex IS consent to the RISK of pregnancy.
            Consent to eating is consent to the RISK of choking.
            Consent to swimming is consent to the RISK of drowning.
            Consent to skiing is consent to the RISK of a broken leg.
            It’s THAT simple.
            And outlawing abortion on demand is NOT forcing a woman to remain pregnant any more than outlawing theft is forcing people to remain poor. It is PREVENTING a doctor from destroying a human life without consequences. An don’t give me the old back alley abortion argument. Making heroine illegal doesn’t force people to o.d. on it.

          • fiona64

            An don’t give me the old back alley abortion argument.

            Why not? It’s what would happen in your little utopia.

            You are now arguing about risk. I have the right to mitigate risk. For example, if I am driving my car and am in an accident, I can have it repaired and restored to its original state. I am not forced to drive around in a damaged automobile. I can decide not to have it repaired if the damage is no big a deal to me; it’s my call.

            Abortion is no different. If my contraception fails, I can choose to correct the damage. I am not forced to go around pregnant, no matter how much it would please you to see me and every other woman in that situation. It’s my call.

            And still no answer to my question: which of your medical decisions should be put on the ballot for other people to decide upon?

          • Gary Cangemi

            So pregnancy is nothing more than a dented fender to you. One big “ooops.” Some damage cannot be undone. If you kill somebody with your car, your insurance will pay for the liability but they cannot restore the person to the family you took him from. That burden you will carry for the rest of your life. Pregnancy is only a temporary condition one must endure if their contraception fails. In nine months, it’s over and if you don’t want the child there are plenty of people willing to adopt.

          • fiona64

            if you don’t want the child there are plenty of people willing to adopt.

            Then why haven’t they adopted any of the 100K kids currently available to them? They must not be terribly willing to adopt, given the number of children who will age out of the system without ever having permanent adoptive families. You don’t seem too concerned about the born, sapient, sentient kids who are already awaiting adoptive homes, Gary. Why is that?

            You’re damned right that any pregnancy that happens to me will be “one big oops.” And it will be terminated. Now, I know that it pisses you off to see a woman with a plan to exercise bodily autonomy, but I’m sure you’ll learn to live with the pain.

            And still no answer to my question: which of your medical decisions should be put on the ballot for other people to decide upon?

          • Valde

            If you kill somebody with your car, your insurance will pay for the
            liability but they cannot restore the person to the family you took him
            from

            If you disable somebody with your car you are not then forced, by law, to donate organs/blood or anything they need. Funny though, you took a risk, you HURT THEM, you should take responsibility for your actions by giving up your bodily autonomy to restore their health.

            Pregnancy is only a temporary condition one must endure if their contraception fails

            Pregnancy is a temporary condition that can have profound health and economic impacts. It is not a minor inconvenience.

            In nine months, it’s over and if you don’t want the child there are plenty of people willing to adopt.

            Adoption is not the panacea you seem to think it is. And women still have to go through the pregnancy. Personally, I would consider it immoral to create a child, and then impose suffering on it through adoption. If I can’t guarantee that the child will have a good life I do not want to put it in such a situation.

          • goatini

            Women with unwanted pregnancies are not public baby ovens under gestational slavery, to be exploited by selfish barren vultures.

            And ALL pregnancies are highly risky health conditions, with possible outcomes up to and including permanent disability or death of the ONLY patient – the WOMAN. ALL full-term pregnancies permanently and irrevocably damage the body.

            Safe, legal pregnancy termination allows the ONLY patient – the WOMAN – to start or grow her family when SHE chooses to do so. How vile and vicious, to cavalierly force an unwilling citizen into a highly dangerous and risky health condition that, IF it doesn’t go well, could result in sterility, an inability to ever carry to term again, or even worse – just so she can be a cow for some selfish vultures with a fat wallet and no consciences.

          • Valde

            Public baby ovens.

            I like it!

          • Valde

            Making heart surgery illegal would essentially FORCE people to live with heart disease.

            Sure, they could have a buddy operate on their heart but uh, we all know how well that would turn out.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Who would advocate making heart surgery illegal? But even that would not force people to live with heart disease. People have the choice to reduce their risk by living healthier lifestyles. Your use of the word “force” doesn’t really make much sense.

          • Valde

            People have the choice to reduce their risk by living healthier lifestyles

            Yes, and if they take the risk, we deny them medical treatment, for they have done something TERRIBLE.

            By denying a woman treatment for an unwanted pregnancy, you are forcing her to *remain* pregnant.

            By denying someone treatment for heat disease, you are forcing them to remain sick.

            By denying someone treatment for lung cancer, you are forcing them to remain cancerous.

          • fiona64

            Your use of the word “force” doesn’t really make much sense.

            It makes perfect sense. You want to force women to remain pregnant, after all, because you want to make abortion illegal.

            Do try to keep up, Mr. Cangemi.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Again, pregnancy is a natural condition, not a disease. All of the information a woman needs to avoid becoming pregnant is available today in redundant quantities. Unless she were raped, there is NO reason for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn’t want to be. Abstinence is an absolute guaranteed method. Don’t have sex until you are in a committed marital relationship. But if you are in a sexual relationship, married or not, you have no right to expect that you will never become pregnant and therefore you must acknowledge the possibility that you will be responsible for a human life. Having sex with the intention of aborting any child that comes along is like playing Russian Roulette with other people’s lives. It’s selfish and unfair. If abortion on demand is outlawed, only women who engage in risky behavior are forcing themselves to become pregnant and carry to term. (By the way, is outlawing the killing of your toddler the government forcing you to raise a child to adulthood?) When the day comes when we have to answer for our lives and our actions there will be NO ONE to point our fingers at and say “they made me do it.” Each of us will be fully accountable for every decision we make and every act we perform. Your repeated attempts to absolve women of responsibility for their actions is a classic example of eating one’s cake and still having it.

          • fiona64

            (By the way, is outlawing the killing of your toddler the government forcing you to raise a child to adulthood?)

            I’m sorry that you’re unable to distinguish between a born entity and a fetus, Mr. Cangemi. May I gently recommend a return to high school biology class?

            You are, in essence, saying that any married couple who does not want children should abstain lest contraception fail. Well, guess what? That’s just one more decision you don’t get to make for people.

            Pregnancy is not a state of wellness, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise.

            Your repeated attempts to demonize women for being intelligent enough to know their own situations, and how much risk they are prepared to assume, are why I considered you to be a misogynist.

          • Valde

            Pregnancy is not a state of wellness, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise.

            QFT.

            Natural does not = healthy Gary.

            Best you get that through your thick skull.

            Oh wait, you probably do know that pregnancy isn’t healthy for the woman, but you don’t care. It’s what women were ‘made’ for, right?

            (By the way, is outlawing the killing of your toddler the government forcing you to raise a child to adulthood?)

            More logic fail Gary. A pregnant woman can’t hand the fetus over to a nurse if she doesn’t want to look after it.

          • goatini

            Sure, because “healthier lifestyles” can magically heal, for example, leaky heart valves caused by childhood diseases like rheumatic fever. Your patronizing ignorance disgusts me.

          • Gary Cangemi

            And how many people do you know who would be desperate enough to go to a back-alley heart surgeon?

          • Valde

            According to you, as long as you’re not tying them down, you’re not *forcing* them to live with the heart disease.

            Since very few people would be willing to go to a back alley heart surgeon, then they are, for all intents and purposes, being forced to remain ill.

            And even if they DID go to a back alley surgeon, that doesn’t really change things, because they would be putting themselves in harms way. So in effect, denying people safe treatment for their medical and health problems simply forces them to remain ill, or endangers their lives even more.

          • fiona64

            You are either deliberately obtuse or very, very stupid. At this point, in my mind, it’s a toss-up.

          • fiona64

            it has not escaped me that you refer to pregnancy as a ‘consequence,’ not a possible result. Consequences are, typically, punishments.

            What you’re really saying here is that women who engage in non-procreative sex should be *punished* by, in your own words, carrying “the results of that behavior to term.”

            And you have the audacity to pretend to be anything other than a misogynist? Because here is the reality of your position in a nutshell: “make that s1ut have a baby; that’ll teach her.”

          • goatini

            No, we accuse you of illegally attempting to limit our choices, which choices are Constitutionally guaranteed to us.

          • goatini

            I hope your daughters get accurate and factual sex education, and that they see through the Church’s vile misogyny as quickly as I did.

          • fiona64

            Why is it that when a woman presents actual facts, instead of emotional bullshit, you call her “bitter”?

            No one here is stereotyping you, Gary. Your own words convict you.

          • goatini

            It’s the gestational slaver glossary: any female US citizen who speaks out for her civil, human and Constitutional rights against those un-American theocrat misogynists who threaten said rights, is “bitter”, “angry”, “upset”, “emotional”… well, you get the picture. It’s one of their attempts to force FALSE blame and shame upon innocent female US citizens, to attempt to silence them. Always let them know, loud and clear, that they will NOT silence us, and we will NOT go back to being chattel property livestock.

          • Valde

            We are also s1uts who want to sleep around without ‘consequence’.

            This is why we support abortion – to be ho’z

          • fiona64

            Pro-tip: Fiona1933 is another person. Do try to pay attention.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Darn! Just when I thought we were starting to get along. I didn’t realize there were over 1900 Fionas out there. My apologies for mistaking you for the more reasonable sort.

          • fiona64

            Still no answer to my question, eh, Gary? I thought not. Because you think it’s okay to vote on whether *women* can have a full range of health services, but men’s medical decisions are obviously sacrosanct and not to be touched.

            And you wonder why we all think you’re such a misogynist. Pfft.

          • Valde

            Abortion is responsible for old ladies living in loneliness with a fridge full of meals on wheels.

            EDIT: Abortion is also responsible for Sandy Hook, Columbine…9/11….etc etc

          • fiona64

            And Hurricane Katrina. Don’t forget Hurricane Katrina … which was not only caused by abortion, but also lesbians practicing witchcraft.

          • goatini

            Those possessing actual compassion respect, support and defend the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to the protections of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

            And I notice you didn’t dare to touch the FACT that the RCC tried to brainwash me into being dumb livestock that would willingly suicide herself for a unviable fetus.

          • cjvg

            The only choice that I would admire is the right for all females to make their own medical decisions, whatever they might be

          • HeilMary1

            She’s a brain-dead brood mare for pedophile priests.

          • cjvg

            No you have made it clear that it should be your decision to make for her and every other female apparently.
            Unfortunately for you many of those other females are just not so willing to oblige you and your assessment that the loss is equal for you and the woman!

            I must conced it was very unselfish of you to willingly risk her death so you could have offspring!

          • HeilMary1

            For which he should have gone to jail!

          • marbo

            Aren’t you the one who said on another post you met these horrible pro lifers who said these awful horrible ugly things!!! What a hypocrate!!!

          • Valde

            And many do!

            You really need to pay closer attention to what your brethren say.

          • fiona64

            Mr. Cangemi was pleased to say that neither the health nor the life of the pregnant woman mattered, because his wife chose to gestate potentially life-endangering pregnancies and was fine.

            Do I agree with Valde’s statement? No, not really. But she did put it right back in Mr. Cangemi’s lap. He’s okay with other women dying because his own wife didn’t happen to.

          • marbo

            WOW!!!!! So he’s Ok with other women dieing because his wife chose to do what she felt was right for All of their circumstances and beliefs!! That’s a leap!! Never heard him say that!!!!! LOL I’ll have to ask him about that… He’s one of the most high pricipled caring men I know!! He’d give his life for another! So Please, You know what they say about Assumptions!

          • fiona64

            I don’t have to assume, dear. I read his own words. ::shrug:: I know it’s a long thread, and he has tried to delete some of his more outrageous remarks (look for the ones marked “guest” to which many of us had already replied, with pulled quotes and everything).

            He’s provided ample evidence of his misogyny via his own remarks.

            So, please; you know what they say about assumptions …

          • marbo

            Mysogyny???? I saw the guest posts… nothing there!!! btw… what’s the female version? have to look it up… LOL

          • fiona64

            Then you didn’t read very clearly if you didn’t see the misogyny. It was blatant.

            They weren’t guest posts, BTW; they were just comments on the article. Mr. Cangemi enjoys referring to the guest post, as though he were invited, but he wasn’t.

            If you are referring to those who hate men, it’s misandry. If you’re waiting to accuse me of it, you’ll wait a long time.

          • Valde

            And I wasn’t nearly as precise as I should have been with that statement.

            It would have been better to say that he would have thought her heroic, or a saint, to die in childbirth.

            And as fiona says, that’s great, if she chose that, and he honours her for it, but the problem is, he expects, no, demands, that all women act as his wife did.

          • goatini

            Both you and Cangemi are the ones here spouting awful, horrible, ugly things.

            Attempting to abrogate the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to the protections of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment IS:

            AWFUL
            HORRIBLE
            UGLY

            We are rightly and appropriately defending ourselves against those who would attempt to violate us and our rights.

          • marbo

            AWFUL
            HORRIBLE
            UGLY?… guess it’s in the eye of the beholder…
            What about all those females being deprived of Life?

          • Valde

            Until they are born, at which point they become livestock, in your perfect world.

          • marbo

            another irrational comment with no basis… you don’t have a clue! In your world they are trash to be dismembered and discarded… pariahs feeding off a woman… not worth to live or be protected.. that’s the world I abhor

          • Valde

            Stop it with the idiotic histrionics.

            You want to abrogate a woman’s rights in favour of a fetus.

            The point of an abortion is to end a pregnancy, not ‘dismember’ a fetus in sadistic delight.

            Grow up.

            PS 91% of abortions are before 13 weeks, 61% are before 9 weeks, and in many of those cases, the embryo is removed whole – no ripping or tearing. For that matter, there are no limbs to rip or tear, just limb buds.

          • fiona64

            But … but … without histrionics, poor Marbo would have no argument!

            Perhaps we should pray for her.

          • fiona64

            pariahs feeding off a woman

            You don’t know the difference between a pariah and a parasite, and you want to lecture people?

            Pardon me while I laugh.

          • marbo

            Fiona64, And you must know there are several differences in definitions for a word… and the word pariah was my intent… pariah is a PERCEIVED worthless outcast… that’s the impression I get here when an innocent life is barely recognized as having any value except when it suits all the criteria of another individuals purposes…. and having no merit on its own… and that’s no laughing matter it’s pathetic!

          • fiona64

            pariah is a PERCEIVED worthless outcast.

            Perhaps you meant, then, that you see the pregnant woman is a pariah … barely recognized as having any value once an embyro is present, in accordance with the criteria of *your* purposes … and having no merit on her own.

            You’re right; that is no laughing matter. That is why I stand up for the rights of the born, sapient, sentient woman.

          • marbo

            perhaps, then, you evaluate incorrectly….I see NEITHER is an outcast… and ONLY the BORN is a poor criteria for value… that is why I stand up for the rights of both!

          • fiona64

            and ONLY the BORN is a poor criteria for value

            Well, feel free to take up your concerns with the US Constitution, which is very clear in stating that rights are only afforded to the born (14th Amendment).

            that is why I stand up for the rights of both!

            No, actually, you don’t. You are in a great hurry to afford rights to the “unborn,” as you put it … which automatically abrogates the rights of the born, sapient, sentient woman.

          • Valde

            They really have to twist themselves into pretzels in order to justify how they could be ‘for the rights of both’ while simultaneously denying the woman her rights.

            So we get:

            pregnancy is natural
            you spread your legs

            and so on

          • fiona64

            You mean, the women who die every day of pregnancy complications in this country (the US has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the developed world, at #50)?

            How was it that you put it? Oh, yes. “No greater love, etc.” You seemed rather pleased at the idea a matter of mere days ago.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You seemed to be quite at home with the idea of my relative dying because of a lying ‘pro-lifer’ at a crisis pregnancy center–that seemed to suit you just fine.

          • marbo

            Jennifer, it’s strange that you pursue one circumstance and give an indictment and a scenario that you yourself choose as a reality… I know nothing of all the circumstances you say… nor do I know your relative or anyhting about this “crisis” pc or if there were deliberate “LIES” … for all I know it’s a bogus story or a onesided view.. You may be relating it as accurate as can be or it can be out of context… “quite at home with the idea of my relative dying … seems to suit you just fine” …. is an unfair statement based on nothing I have said…. or exagerating something I may have said… either way, I never take glee for anyones traumatic experiences…

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s a rather convenient copout–doubting the veracity of my story because it doesn’t fit into your worldview of ‘good, Christian, ethical’ ‘pro-lifers’. But I’m going to say thank you for reminding me of why I’m no longer ‘pro-life’.

          • fiona64

            Do the words “No greater love, etc.” ring a bell? Do the words “I smiled when I wrote that” ring a bell?

            They ought to; you wrote them.

          • marbo

            And you drew your own biased conclusions to what the meaning of my sentences were… When I said I smiled… It was a smile with a head shaking.. that this was not the place that would “get it”, or be open and I was just wasting my time!! That’s it!!! … As for “no greater love etc..” that was just a calling to look deeper, beyond ourselves … that seems to have no place here… I saw Gary called a misogynyst!! I saw faith and God and high principles scoffed at, and the ME substituted for them all… ( now don’t get unglued) not all!!!!!! there are good people here but most have bought the lie of self… and the innocent are the sacrifice… I know.. I know…. ….. only the women are the sacrifice… I saw the pain of women in more ways than you can comprehend, in more circumstances …. but as I said… it’s waste of time to here…

          • fiona64

            I saw Gary called a misogynyst!

            That’s because he is one.

            As for “no greater love etc..” that was just a calling to look deeper, beyond ourselves …

            You can’t seem to look beyond your own selfish position that an embryo should have more rights than a woman. How about if you look deeper, beyond *yourself,* and recognize that you have no right to determine another woman’s reproductive choices? And she doesn’t have to have a reason that suits you, either. It could be anything from her life being endangered by the pregnancy to thinking that baby powder smells disgusting: it’s still her decision and not up to you to moralize about.

            I saw the pain of women in more ways than you can comprehend, in more circumstances

            Because you know everything I’ve seen, and under what circumstances, of course. Just more of your hubris on display.

            it’s waste of time to here…

            Please feel free to hie yourself to greener pastures.

            ( now don’t get unglued)

            The only person I see displaying histrionics is you.

          • marbo

            So sad that serious issues can be reduced to one upsmanship! unglued, histrionoics , mysogynist… all considered by me to be unnecesary and rude and alienating no matter who says them….. I always told my kids there’s no guarantee I won’t make mistakes.. but I can guarantee I will pick up the pieces.. This is beneath me.. if you care to go on this way… it will be you alone… the issues are what’s important to me… as for moralizing… there is right and wrong…

          • fiona64

            Well, considering that I quoted you when you told me “not to get unglued,” I guess you can place the blame in your corner. And pointing out that you were histrionic was, frankly, gilding the lily since it was readily apparent to anyone who read your remarks.

            as for moralizing… there is right and wrong…

            And you are free to make those determinations for yourself. What is wrong for you might be right for someone else — across any number of matters. I’ve read your comment history, you see. So, your homophobic rants about how evil gay people are may seem “right” to you, but for those of us with gay friends and family members, we know they’re wrong. ::shrug::

            As I said, please feel free to seek greener pastures. I’ll hold the door and hand you your bonnet on your way out.

          • Valde

            You do sound more than a bit histrionic hun.

            If you’re going to write long screeds about selfish women tearing their fetuses apart limb by limb – and go into great detail about all of the suffering the fetus must endure during the procedure – then yes, you are going to be called on your histrionics.

          • HeilMary1

            Gary, like my cheating hypocrite dad, snuck away from “family festivities” for real sex with hookers or mistresses on the side since he is grossed out by his brood mare’s permanent injuries.

          • Nor

            If your wife had been a single mom with no financial or familial support, how would she have chosen? Please have her write a response.

          • goatini

            Cangemi is quite the benevolent despot to his property, isn’t he?

          • Fiona1933

            In other words, you have educated your daughters to abstinence, haven’t you? There is no need, Gary. There is contraception. Your campaigns could be taken more seriously if you worked for free and easily available contraception, the easiets way to prevent abortion. But instead, it is all about you r christian beliefs, and you have no right to push them on others. why not ask your daughters to be abstinent and explain why you think it’s best and then campaign for contraception for all those who can’t follow your abstinence agenda? That would be a moral position. It would prevent abortions without imposing your beliefs on others’ lives. Would you regard that as a reasonable position? Now, just because you believe abstinence is beautiful, or whatever, doesn’t mean you are right. Others, such as myself, may believe that freely and fully exploring sexuality with as many partners as you choose in an atmosphere of mutual respect, is beautiful. And not all men disrespect women for this. some do, even many do, not all. “Respecting yourself” does not mean you have to stay virgin til you marry and faithful after. that is your christian belief and depriving others of contraception is going to cause illegal abortions. See this is what I can’t get my head around. you never prevent a single abortion. You cause more pregnancies by opposing contraception And since people cannot and will not and shouldn’t have to deny themselves sexual pleasure, especially when it may be the only pleasure they have, there will be more pregnancies and those pregancies will be termonated. Closing abortion clinics causes illegal abortion! What is wrong with you? You save no lives. Instead, you cost lives, the mother’s lives. The lives of the babies she could have had when she was ready and now can’t because of the butchery.
            Also, it is outrageous to say you would have suffered a loss as great as your wife if she died. No, sir, you wouldn’t. By definition. You lose a wife, she loses her one and only life. You can get another spouse. It is not the same, is never the same.
            Gary, how are you going to feel when the stories and statistics of illegal abortion start coming in? When you hear of the coat hangers and the blood poisonings?

          • goatini

            Cangemi subscribes to the Roman Catholic view of women: “If your cow dies, get another cow”.

          • Valde

            Precisely!

          • cjvg

            If your wife was willing to exchange her life for a pregnancy that will also fail if she dies that is her choice!
            Congratulations to her for finding a husband who values an embryo over her life!

            Just because you and your wife were willing to ensure that two would die when her continuation of her pregnancy would require it, that does not give you the right to demand same of other women!

          • TullyMOI

            Exactly! All the women who had to surrender children pre Roe v. Wade were punished, yet the men were completely free.

          • cjvg

            I actually agree with you there, however unlike you I’m not under the religion induced delusion that a fertilized egg is just as much of an aware sentient living human like a woman is!

            Rational educated beings with and even marginally knowledge of biology understand that no human being other then the woman or girl in question are involved in a legal abortion procedure!

          • goatini

            He, along with every other male gestational slaver, would fight civil war in the streets to protect his civil, human and Constitutional rights to personal bodily autonomy as protected by the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, were they threatened just one-tenth as much as OUR rights are threatened.

        • goatini

          Your “comic” – and your vile, misogynistic comments – are what are overflowing with bile and hatred for actual living breathing WOMEN – as is your passive-aggressive attempt to make your hatred of and attacks upon autonomous female citizens seem “harmless”.

          Women’s civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy and personal bodily autonomy, as protected by the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment – the SAME rights that you and every MALE citizen are endowed with at birth – are NOT erased at the instant of fertilization.

          Women are NOT second-class citizens, nor are they property of the State, when they are between menarche and menopause – no matter how much you and your gestational slavery cabal may wish for that to be so.

          Thanks to Planned Parenthood, and highly effective medically prescribed contraception, I’ve never suffered the tragic misfortune of an unwanted pregnancy. And thanks to RvW and the protections of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, I’ve never suffered the tragic misfortune of being coerced into gestating an unwanted pregnancy to term against my will.

          And your “prayer” for your “God” to basically change smart, outspoken women into stupid, silent cows is just disgusting. We are not livestock, and no zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus erases our civil, human and Constitutional rights.

          • Gary Cangemi

            What are you so angry about? You have 40 years of Roe v. Wade and 55 million aborted babies in your column, a compliant government, an activist Supreme Court, and a President who thinks that even babies who survive an abortion should be left to die. You have the power and the means to keep the abortion mills grinding their human grist. What have you to fear from me, an unknown cartoonist whose comic strip reaches barely a million people worldwide, people who already agree with its message. And what is that horrific message? That a child in the womb is a real person with a life? And who put that absurd idea in my head? Every woman I’ve ever known who expected a child and treated it like a real person within her. Some of my best ideas and warmest sentiments have come from expectant mothers. I believe that God gives us dignity and personhood at the moment He creates us. You believe that personhood begins when the mother says so, based on her needs and desires. We live in a country where we are both allowed to believe what we want and we are allowed to vote our consciences. What more do you want, the right to take my vote away and to shut down my artistic freedom?
            Your post suggests that you may have availed yourself of your abortion rights. If this is true, I’m not your judge and I understand your need to depersonalize the person that once inhabited your body. It would be a terrible truth to face. I know many women who have had to face it, They are by and large the most active people in our movement. They offer empathy and understanding, not judgment.
            You’ve received no hatred from me or my work. I love and respect all of the women in my life. Whether you want them or not I will continue to include you in my prayers. I pray that God will bless me with the honor of touching your heart through my art.

          • goatini

            Has anyone ever noticed that the WOMAN is completely invisible in Cangemi’s un-comic strip?

          • fiona64

            That’s because women exist solely as life support systems for their uteruses. Why on earth should a woman be visible? /snark

          • Gary Cangemi

            Un-comics? Say, I like that. You’ve credited me with inventing a whole new genre of comics. I like your pseudonymn too, I might use that. How about I create a character named the Great Goatini who makes invisible women appear, instead of the reverse?

          • fiona64

            How about if I put a character in one of my novels called Cangemi the Chauvinist, who thinks women only serve as life support systems for their uteri? Say, I like that. /snark

          • HeilMary1

            Mother killer, if you really cared about mothers, you’d be changing bed pans in fistula hospitals and demanding the arrest of priests for opposing even contraception and sterilization.

          • Nor

            I guess you don’t know a lot of rape victims then.

          • Nor

            I’m basing my measure of personhood on science. I know that’s not your measure, but it is a provable and measurable one, so I feel like it’s more reliable than yours and a better basis for laws we all must live under, regardless of our religious beliefs.
            It is interesting to me that you love and respect all the women in your life, but you don’t trust them to make a decision.

          • Gary Cangemi

            What science? What branch of science says that even a zygote is not human? Please reference me the textbook that states that a biological life form does not become human until it exits the womb. Please, you have my complete attention.

          • Emmz

            She very clearly used the word “personhood,” not “humanity.” The genetic material is human, cut-and-dried; this is an undisputed fact for both sides. The personhood–a more nebulous, culturally defined phenomenon–is what is in question. A zygote may be human, but it is not necessarily a person. Most scientific sources believe what we consider “consciousness”–arguably the source of what makes someone a distinct “person” with thoughts and feelings–cannot possibly be established until the existence of a functioning cerebral cortex. Those are distinctly lacking in the vast majority of zygotes and fetuses that are aborted.

            Don’t confuse the matter by using different words.

          • fiona64

            Don’t play stupid semantic games. A zygote is not a *person.* Whether or not it is human depends on the species of its parents.

            I would guess that any number of veterinary textbooks dealing with viviparous vertebrates would prove that not all zygotes are human.

          • Valde

            Gary, you should do a comic where a bunch of blastocysts, sitting in a petri dish, talk about their hopes and dreams!

          • Nor

            And then a giant claw comes down and picks only one of them, the rest to be flushed down a toilet. “Why?” they cry as they swirl around. “Why have the pro-life Christian men of the world not signed up their wives to bear us to term??? Why are they focusing on forcing other people to make sacrifices rather than doing so themselves, or at least making their wives do so? The hypocrisy!! Ooohhhh, it’s killing us!!!! Gurgle gurgle. Flush.”

          • Valde

            Ayup.

            Gary should really work on persuading more pro-life wombs to birth as many excess blastocysts as possible.

          • goatini

            Cangemi thinks the putative hopes and dreams of blastocysts are very, very valuable – and that the actual hopes and dreams of actual female US citizens should be violated, abrogated, and utterly destroyed, so as to enforce the status he wants for them as non-citizens that are merely livestock to be exploited under Church-approved male ownership.

          • Nor

            My toenail is human. Yet it lacks rights. I’ve named it and everything!! Where is my justice?!?!?!

          • Nor

            Medical science? A zygote =/= a person. It’s human, but so is a tumor, an eyelash, and shit (we could definitely clone you from it).

            Ooh – religious person question! If you have a partially absorbed conjoined twin pulled out of you (happened to a friend, about five pounds of flesh with teeth and hair! very exciting) do you have to keep it alive cause it has a soul or something? When do you get your soul? Is it glued to the egg or the sperm? What happens to the souls glued to dead eggs and sperm, or dead fertilized eggs (half or more of those that occur?)?

          • goatini

            Cangemi doesn’t love or respect women. He can’t even draw one.

          • Pei Kang

            Stop being so disingenuous, Mr Cangemi. You “pro-‘life'” people are such liars and deluded folks it’s sad and sickening.

            You are not “Pro-Life”, you are Pro Birth, I’ll give you that.

            examples of why you aren’t pro-life:
            You people send some zealots to do dirty work like bomb clinics and kill the people working there (including the mothers and unborn babies). You are willing participants in sending the poorer humans to war-while killing millions of other children. Most of you look the other way once the ‘precious’ fetuses grow up or are born. You let them starve and blame the poor women for ‘not keeping their legs closed’.
            You ignore the mother of the child in ALL your supposed ‘I respect women’ conversations.

          • Gary Cangemi

            The pro-life organizations I belong to have all condemned violence of any sort whenever it has occurred. I believe in nonviolent, noncooperation with evil. And FYI, we hold mothers in very high esteem, especially the ones who make the loving choice. Those who choose otherwise we welcome to join us because we consider them to be a victim of abortion too. They need love, understanding , and healing and they’ll find it among pro-life folks. The people I know who travel to abortion clinics, do so to pray and offer counseling and referrals to crisis pregnancy services, not to do harm.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I hope you’re not involved in any way with Operation Rescue, as it is actually headed by a convicted bomber.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I assure you, I eschew violence in the pro-life cause. As for Operation Rescue, I am not a member of that organization.

          • goatini

            No, you don’t “eschew violence”. You support and carry out emotional violence on female US citizens protecting their civil, human and Constitutional rights to the protections of the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Any interference with said inviolable rights IS emotional violence.

          • fiona64

            “The people I know who travel to abortion clinics, do so to pray harangue and offer counseling harassment and ‘referrals’ to crisis pregnancy services places where they will be given medically inaccurate information by untrained volunteers.”

            There. I fixed it for you.

          • Nor

            Motherhood doesn’t make you some sort of saint. All it does is prove you are fertile. There is no need to hold mothers in higher esteem than other women, nor any need to hold women in higher esteem than men. It would be nice if things were equal, instead of some wishy-washy saintly pedestal thing. Being a breeder =/= deserving of higher esteem than anyone else.

            Are the praying type nice gentle protestors out there fighting the screaming “Murderer!” with the big old posters of gore in the streets? Why not?

          • goatini

            “The people (you) know” are vicious, abusive stalkers and harassers who are attempting to interfere with and obstruct the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to the protections of the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Emotional violence, which is practiced, even flaunted, by these vile gestational slavers, IS VIOLENCE.

          • Nor

            1/3 of the women you have known have had abortions. Even in the most conservative communities. So I’m guessing they just didn’t trust you enough to tell you, or your comic of shame indicated to them maybe you weren’t just enough of a gentleman to actually respect them for the choices they’ve made in their lives, that maybe your words about love and respect was just lip service. That’s how I’d feel if I was your daughter. I wouldn’t trust you enough to support me if I told you.

        • Nor

          Would it not be simpler and more humane to collect and freeze semen from all teen boys as soon as they are able, then vasectomize them? Or bring India’s temporary non-surgical vasectomy to the US?

          • fiona64

            He didn’t have an answer for my questions about men’s responsibilities to his preachy “comic.” There is no Sammy the Sacred Sperm character. To be fair, though, there is no pregnant woman in the strip, either; she’s just the meat around the uterus.

          • Nor

            Sammy the Sacred Sperm is a pretty good band name. Or a male roller derby name. I’m pretty sure he can’t include sperm in his comic, that would imply sex had occurred, and he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate for off-color terminology to be used around women. Plus, he’d have to keep on having the fetus wipe semen off his placenta, and that’s just hard to draw.

          • fiona64

            I want you to be one of my new best friends. Let’s hold hands and skip! :-D

          • goatini

            Exactly. Meat. Nothing more, nothing less. All we are to Cangemi and his gestational slavery syndicate, is livestock.

      • HeilMary1

        And does “Umbert The Unborn” also masturbate?? Perhaps an ultrasound will reveal that Umbert needs to confess his sins to a priest!

        • Gary Cangemi

          Very unworthy of you. Can’t we keep this conversation civil?

          • fiona64

            Mary is referring to remarks made by GOP Rep Michael Burgess (R-Mars Texas), who stated that “Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful. They stroke their face. If
            they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If
            they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel
            pain?”

            His justification for denying abortion rights was that male fetuses might be masturbating, Gary. Burgess did not opine on female fetal sexual pleasure.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re uncivil in demanding we be suicidal incubating cows for your child-raping priests! You’re uncivil in your Nazi contempt for the human rights of all non-aborted intersex gays who were made that way PRENATALLY by YOUR GOD and POPE through natural chimerism and microchimerism from UNnatural Family Cramming and large families. Everyone knows you Catholics have the highest number of gay offspring. Ever wonder why?? My two younger closet gay brothers are perfect examples of NFP “accidents” tweaking their orientations.

          • marbo

            I thought I heard it all… almost doesn’t deserve the dignity of a response… but just for the record… what hateful drivel!! maybe that dignifies it with too much depth…. let’s just say, for all the lofty pretentious drivel…… this is just plain S i l l y!

          • fiona64

            Well, Marbo, since you’re new to the game, you should know something: this woman’s dear friend died of complications from a much-wanted pregnancy that went horribly wrong. And, having been told *right on this site* by several of your fellow travelers that women were “incubators” and that their uteri “belonged to” any fetus that took up residence there, you will, I am sure appreciate that this is a rather sensitive subject for Mary.

            Do I agree with her choice of words every time? No. But i do understand her passion>

            I’ll tell you what: once you and your fellow anti-choicers stop referring to women as incubators, or to women who choose to terminate pregnancies as “murderers,” well, maybe then we can have a talk about tone. Until then, really, just shut up.

            Or are you really trying to pretend that accusing women who’ve had legal medical procedures of having committed felonies is “loving”?

          • marbo

            As for tone… the broad brush you use to characterize Pro life people definitely assumes too much! No one I know uses the rhetoric you describe or has the callousness that you describe concerning women who have had an abortion.. there is no felony accusation, or murderer label… how ludicrous! You are right about one thing… tone needs to be cleaned up for communication and truth to come to the forefront… I never have alienated a woman… It’s about the woman AND the baby… Love them both! And this is a sensitive subject for everyone who cares and loves…. so let’s not leave the child out of the equasion! Have you seen Trent Frank’s words at the hearing? If so it would be worth it… It covers a lot of ground! I’m not a novice to this issue…..It is a passion … have spoken to owners of abortion clinics, one owned 4, and what led them to it and out of it, abortionists who left the business.. And their heartfelt gnawing reasons why! It’s important to know what went on in their minds way before they decided to leave… the denial they were in, the horror of it they tried to justify… also spoke to multitudes of women who have had abortions who have become dear friends….there’s is the most poignant sharings… This is the depth that is lacking in the argument that you presnt.. real cold hard facts behind the scenes… Abortion is a crime AGAINST women… they need to be supported and loved… and given more than the one “Choice” that is offered at the abortionists

          • marbo

            P.S. I find it wholly unthinkable to refer to a baby as being ” ANY fetus that took up residence” in a woman’s uteri”…. this is not a ANY fetus… this is her child… a one of a kind never to be duplicated…not a parsite to be squashed like an annoying gnat or a vaginal infection to be eradicated
            .. but a destiny that God has ordained.

          • fiona64

            If it’s in utero, it’s a fetus. As I said, I have no patience with the kind of ignorance that disregards the clear, biological differences between an embryo (which is the stage of development during which the majority of abortions take place) and an infant. And yes, technically, the fetus does have a parasitical relationship to the pregnant woman. I realize that this is an unpleasant reality for some people to consider, but it is true.

            Unless it is your uterus, you really do not get a say.

            As for your religious rhetoric, as not everyone holds the same beliefs (nor should they be expected to), let’s leave out “destiny that God ordained” and keep it within the realms of science, shall we?

            Your religion has no place in my uterus, or that of any other woman.

          • marbo

            going back and forth nit picking with a fine tooth comb can be endless, easy and tempting, but not worth the time it takes when there is no connection… and Religion is not the impetus of this issue…The vote banning abortion after 20 weeks has no Religion tied to it… it’s the reality of a living breathing baby , squirming and being killed to satisfy the abortion procedure happening , more times than you could ever hope to comprehend. just the cold hard facts! Have you cared enough to deal with that reality? … Would you be able to winess that time and time again and not feel Something???? But then that’s what desensitization is all about! If that doessn’t mean anything , then this country is truly lost!!! All you see is the Woman “Victim”… and she is .. in ways you cannot recognize! Her choice? More times than you can count It’s not through her rational ability to sort things out but through coercian from her partener…. either ,or! and lack of support from her friends and family that discourages any other decision… that’s the sadness …. There are people willing to lend that support but they are steered away from that…. they’ve shared that!! And yes, there’s support to help before AND after a baby is born… and needs that surround getting her on her feet financially, schooling etc…

          • fiona64

            it’s the reality of a living breathing baby , squirming and being killed
            to satisfy the abortion procedure happening , more times than you could
            ever hope to comprehend

            A fetus at 20 weeks’ gestation is not a “living breathing baby.” It is a nonviable entity.

            Here’s the simple fact of the matter: the majority of fetal anomalies cannot even be *detected* prior to 20 weeks’ gestation. We are talking about wanted pregnancies gone terribly wrong when you get to 20 weeks. The majority of woman who learn, via ultrasound or amniocentesis, that there is something terribly wrong with the fetus are going to seek second opinions. They are also going to be dealing with the emotional turmoil of losing the dreams they projected onto the fetus.

            But hey, who cares, right? Because a woman should just carry a doomed pregnancy to term. Anencephaly? No problem! Ditto any number of other complications incompatible with life ex utero, right? As long as the “baby” is born.

            I would like to see citations from unbiased sources that back up your assertion that the majority of abortions are coerced, just for a start.

            And please, before you go down the “adoption” road, allow me to acquaint you with the fact that the most recent AFCARS statistics indicate that there are more than 100K children currently available for adoption in this country. The majority of those kids will age out of the system without ever having permanent homes. I see a lot of folks on the anti-choice side of the house (in fact, in one of the posts to which you responded) complaining about people who are “on waiting lists for years,” which is pretty much belied by the significant number of children they could have adopted many times over if they wanted to be parents that badly.

            I presume that by “help available,” you refer to the so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which are really of no use at all. They are staffed by admittedly well-meaning but uneducated volunteers whose job it is to convince the woman to remain pregnant and place the resulting infant for adoption with a “good Christian family.” Classes of the sort that you mention are offered only in exchange for agreeing to take religious courses. I really have no use for the adoption mills, but you’re welcome to feel differently. You see, I know far too many adoptees who have life-long anger issues about being abandoned by their mothers; none of them understand why their mothers didn’t love them enough to keep them rather than just handing them over to strangers.

            And finally? I worked in a hospital for seven years. I’m still in the medical business. I’ve seen it all and then some. I am far more concerned with living, breathing persons than potential persons that someone has romanticized into being anything other than what they are.

          • Ed Johns

            What about before 20 weeks? Something like 98% of all abortions are performed before 20 weeks. Are you pro-choice prior to 20 weeks gestation? If not, why are you harping on the level of fetal development at 20 weeks. If you oppose all abortions then you are in effect saying that a fertilized egg has more rights than an adult woman. If you think that, have the guts to say it in so many words.

          • Valde

            They love to talk about 20 weeks and later because they want people to think that actual babies are being killed – and it’s pretty tough to convince all but the most extreme that a zygote is a widdle cute baby waby.

          • goatini

            A 20 week fetus is not “breathing”, nor is it a “baby”. Stop lying.

          • marbo

            I was obviously referring to a failed abortion where the baby is expelled and the breathing process may start as in any newborn..
            A baby doesn’t actually breathe while in the womb. It gets all of its oxygen, food and blood flow from the the placenta and umbillical cord. The baby does what is called “practice breathing” while its in the womb where it expands its chest and lungs by inhaling amniotic fluid to get ready to breath for real. Once the baby is born or traumatically expelled the cord is cut and the baby will take its first breath .

          • fiona64

            was obviously referring to a failed abortion where the baby is expelled
            and the breathing process may start as in any newborn..

            Chances of survival at 20 weeks’ gestation: ZERO.

            Really, madame, you are beginning to embarrass yourself.

          • Valde

            A fetus at 20 weeks has lungs that are nearly solid.

            A fetus at 21 weeks, not much better. Only a handful of fetuses born at 21 weeks have survived, and they have spent up to 6 months or more in the NICU, and keeping them alive was a heroic effort in and of itself BECAUSE IT’S WELL NIGH IMPOSSIBLE TO FORCE AIR INTO LUNGS THAT ARE 99% SOLID.

          • goatini

            Fetus does not “breathe” at 20 weeks. Lungs are not developed enough. No “breathing process” is going to take place.

          • Valde

            I always have to inform forced birthers that a 20 week fetus has lungs that are nearly solid.

            They are so so ignorant.

          • fiona64

            In response to your comment in moderation: perhaps you will enjoy looking at the actual chances of survival at the developmental stages you cite in order to understand my position. Here, in percentages based on number of weeks’ gestation that you specifically list:

            21 weeks and less: zero
            22 weeks – zero to 10 percent
            23 weeks: 10 to 35 percent
            24 weeks: 40 to 70 percent

            At 22 weeks or less gestation, heroic revival is simply not employed due to the lack of lung development. This is not me “trying to be clever,” as you posit, but stating biomedical *reality.* Any of these infants that do survive will be severely compromised.

            You are welcome to review the entire data set here: http://www dot spensershope dot org/chances_for_survival.htm

            My position is, and remains, that women’s medical decisions are between themselves and their physician. If you are neither of those parties, it behooves you to butt out.

          • marbo

            Fiona, this is not new to me.. I’m very familiar with these statistics and the medical advances that are ever raising that bar..a 21 weeks and six days has been a recorded survival and each day new reports. These statistics focus only chances of SURVIVAL due to still compromised lung development etc.. but that does not give the picture of the child within the womb who needs nothing more than the weeks nature intended to add to that survival rate… this is a vibrant life within with so many milestones already completed… how could we see that and deny that precious time. This is not about unfortunate circumstances that precipitate an earty birth that have little to no opportunity of surviving. .. and even then that little life may struggle for a time , minutes, hours.. and should be given comfort care for the duration… how heartless if we did not consider that… BUT, as regards abortion how in good conscience could we know that there is a unique childs life, most times proceeding in a perfect state of develpment, and it is being deliberately killed and survival opportunity simply denied… that’s the difference! Nothing validates that! Nothing!!!

          • Valde

            21 weeks and six days has been a recorded survival and each day new reports

            I have studied this extensively and though rates of survival have increased over the last 20 years, RATES OF DISABILITY REMAIN THE SAME.

            And the disability is often PROFOUND. We are talking about deafness, blindness, a myriad of neurological, psychological and gastrintestinal problems. These children often suffer their entire lives. Many are permanently paralyzed. Many spend their entire lives with the mental age of a 6 month old, others have to be fed with a feeding tube otherwise they will aspirate their own food and die.

          • fiona64

            But … but … Valde! Quality of life is irrelevant! Just as long as the infant is born.

          • fiona64

            BUT, as regards abortion how in good conscience could we know that
            there is a unique childs life, most times proceeding in a perfect state
            of develpment, and it is being deliberately killed and survival
            opportunity simply denied… that’s the difference! Nothing validates
            that! Nothing!!!

            How, in good conscience, can we go around pretending that a woman is too stupid to know her own circumstances, evaluate how much risk she is willing to assume for herself and her family (again, this article is about a law that precludes women terminating wanted-but-doomed pregnancies, since the majority of anomalies cannot even be detected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation), and that she should be forced to risk injury to life and limb as a result? Nothing validates that! Nothing!!!

            There. I fixed it for you.

          • Ed Johns

            Right here is the part where it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion: “… destiny that God has ordained…”. In the end for the hard core anti-choice partisan, its always about religion. They may nod in the direction of science, when it suits them, but in the end its about forcing their religious beliefs on other people.

            “… destiny that God has ordained…”.
            Which God would that be? And who appointed you the arbiter of what his opinion is? Or if you’re a papist, who gave a collection of male child molesters permission to dictate to half the human race?
            There may be (some) room for discussion about abortion, although as I’ve said before, I think men generally should stay out of the discussion.
            There’s no room for discussion with the American Taliban.

          • Valde

            An automatic biological process does not by definition make a woman a mother. It makes her a pregnant woman. Nothing more. A woman is only a mother if she wants to be.

          • goatini

            The destiny of parenthood must ALWAYS be dignified by choice.

            Otherwise, women are just livestock.

          • fiona64

            No one I know uses the rhetoric you describe or has the callousness that
            you describe concerning women who have had an abortion.. there is no
            felony accusation, or murderer label… how ludicrous!

            Then, madame, I suggest you read some of the comments made by your fellow travelers right in these pages.

          • marbo

            There will always be ignorant people… but the difference is I can’t relate to that ignorance….

          • fiona64

            Well, that’s perfectly fair. I can’t relate to ignorance, either … which is why I don’t do well with the anti-choice position of “just have the baby” that doesn’t allow for women to be intelligent enough to know their own circumstances, or with romanticized language for stages of human development.

          • Valde

            and it’s not the mainstay of the movement but a fringe that is not even recognized as valid

            Those people appear to be the politicians who are passing all of the current anti-choice laws.

          • marbo

            Please let me know of any politician who used the irrational rhtoric that you described!

          • fiona64

            Well, there’s Rep. Michael Burgess, of Texas, who maintained that abortion should be illegal because male fetuses appear to masturbate (he didn’t opine on female fetal sexual pleasure). That’s pretty irrational right there.

          • marbo

            That is an out of contexct statement….This was only mentioned in the light of many ongoing discoveries in early fetal development that recognizes fetal sensation and how it may regard to feeling pain etc . the anchor of HB2….

          • fiona64

            This was only mentioned in the light of many ongoing discoveries in
            early fetal development that recognizes fetal sensation and how it may
            regard to feeling pain etc .

            Actually, it was not out of context at all. It does, however, highlight the extreme ignorance about fetal pain. Until the myelin sheath is complete, which does not take place until so late in gestation that abortion absent medical necessity is a moot point, the fetus is incapable of feeling pain.

            Furthermore, since anesthesia is systemic, any anesthesia administered to the pregnant woman will also anesthetize the fetus. There is no “baby squirming in pain,” despite your emotional rhetoric.

            Again, we are talking about wanted pregnancies gone horribly wrong. You are welcome to gestate any pregnancy, doomed or not, that you desire … I fully support your right to do so. I also fully support another woman’s right, in the identical circumstances, to make a different decision. And there, madame, is where you and I differ. I believe women are smart enough to make those calls without interference from me or anyone else who is not their partner or physician (in other words, uninvolved parties need to butt out).

          • Valde

            The official GOP platform is that no abortions ever, for any reason, even if the woman will die.

          • Gary Cangemi

            That’s not true Valde and you know it. There was no such language in the GOP platform at the last convention.

          • Valde

            It’s still in the official platform.

          • fiona64

            Oops. Seems like The Great Cangemi is wrong again!

            http://thecaucus dot blogs dot nytimes dot com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/

            Quote: “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday, which was first reported by CNN. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

            Additional quote: The Republican platform committee waded into the abortion debate again later on Tuesday when it approved language opposing drugs like RU-486, which can terminate pregnancies. “We oppose approval of these drugs and
            similar drugs that terminate innocent human life after conception,” said Mary Summa, a delegate form North Carolina, who introduced a plank calling on the Food and Drug Administration not to approve such drugs.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I stand by my statement. There is nothing in that platform plank that bans ALL abortions. It simply asserts the fundamental right to life and the right to due process should someone seek to terminate that life. If the child’s due process rights under the 14th amendment were upheld in this country, abortions could still be procured ONLY after a judge or master determined that the mother’s rights and circumstances outweighed the child’s as in the case of an imminent threat to the mother’s life. At least the child would get his day in court.

          • fiona64

            Wow. Did you take yoga to make that stretch?

            If the child’s due process rights under the 14th amendment were upheld in this country, abortions could still be procured ONLY after a judge or master determined that the mother’s rights and circumstances

            And you still want to pretend that this isn’t about enslaving women …

          • Jennifer Starr

            Shouldn’t a decision about a medical procedure where the woman’s life and health are threatened be made by the doctor, the woman and her family, rather than subject to the biases and caprices of a judge or a master? And what exactly do you mean by master?

          • Valde

            The problem with having a judge or ‘master’ make the decision every time a life and death/disability issue comes up is that the courts would not only be flooded, but a woman’s life should not depend on 1) timing. She’s deathly ill but we have to wait for the judge to get to work so HE can decide whether or not the abortion is medically necessary 2) judges are not doctors, they have no business making medical decisions for people.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Absolutely right. A judge or ‘master’ should not be making a woman’s personal medical decisions or sentencing her to death for the crime of not being able to carry a pregnancy to term. And I still don’t understand what he means by ‘master’.

          • fiona64

            I think he means just what he said: the woman’s owner. This would, of course, be some male relative. The Great Cangemi is clearly advocating for a return to coverture law.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I was afraid that’s what he meant–sounds like he wants women to be little more than slaves–kind of sick,.

          • goatini

            I actually think Cangemi is referring to Special Masters, who in the US commonly intervene when governmental entities are violating civil rights.

            Civil rights that he wants to STRIP and ERASE from female US citizens, leaving them in the status of human livestock under Church-approved male ownership.

            Civil rights that he wants to bestow, not on an actual person, but upon a single-celled fertilized egg in a gestational slave’s uterus.

            I think we need some Special Masters to protect OUR civil rights, and to bust out a can of RICO whoop-@ss on Cangemi and his jackbooted misogynist theocrat thugs, should they attempt to interfere with and obstruct those civil rights.

          • goatini

            Fetuses are not persons, are not citizens, and have no rights to anything. Rights accrue to citizens at birth.

            And your vile “proposal”, just like your not-comic strip, renders the ONLY person, ONLY citizen and ONLY entity with rights in the equation – the woman – completely INVISIBLE.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Georgia Representative Bobby Franklin. Now deceased, but he continually tried to pass a law which would have subjected all miscarriages to criminal investigation and possibly prosecution. And let’s not forget rape apologists Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin. All these just off the top of my head, but there are so many more.

          • fiona64

            And don’t forget Paul “rape is just another means of conception” Ryan!

            Yep. Mourdock said “rape is a gift,” and Todd Akin said that in cases of “legitimate rape, the woman’s body has a way of shutting that down.”

            These anti-choice men don’t even understand how biology works, but they think they know better than their female constituents what health care should be allowable and accessible to them.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And there was that guy who said that he knew all about women’s reproduction because he’d birthed livestock—the list seems to go on and on, doesn’t it?

          • Valde

            Yes, that guy was from Tennessee and he said that he’d watched pregnant livestock give birth to dead fetuses, therefore, it would be completely acceptable for women to carry a dead fetus to term.

            Someone brought up coathangers and how this law would result in women dying from illegal abortion, and the man shrugged and said that morality trumped women’s health and lives.

          • Valde

            And don’t forget Joe Walsh, who said that abortion is NEVER needed.

            And let’s not forget Ireland – where 40,000 catholics gathered to protest a law that would allow life-saving abortions.

            And a bunch of pro-life doctors from around the world got together in Ireland last year to proclaim that, scientifically, abortion is NEVER need to save the life of the woman.

            So there you go. The extremist views are not as rare as you might think they are.

          • fiona64

            now, look at the side you choose to sit with and you’ll find it is mainstream and not individual, but collective

            I can only presume that you were looking in the mirror when you typed that.

            I, too, welcome rational, open dialogue with sincere individuals. I haven’t found much of either on the anti-choice side of the fence, but there’s always hope.

          • Ed Johns

            Fiona64
            I admire you immensely. How you can manage to continue to respond to these people in an even reasonably sensible and civil way is something I can’t guess. Its quite beyond my capabilities.

            You’re doing an enormous service in preventing these lying swine, and, I suppose, the occasional well-meaning but ignorant passerby, from going unanswered.

            You deserve the highest praise.

          • fiona64

            Thank you. I will be the first to admit that I do not always manage to remain civil, although it is my goal. (Well, there is one anti-choice jerk whom I really enjoy tweaking because he is constantly admonishing people to “watch their words” … so it’s a particular joy to unleash a string of Anglo-Saxon on him periodically. It’s also fun to watch him back himself into a corner with a whole string of lies, and trying to pretend he never said things that he’s quoted on … but I digress.)

            I was once one an ignorant, bible-thumping anti-choicer. As I said, I then heard my mother’s story … which got me thinking.

            And then I got out of high school, LOL.

            I look back on that time of my life with nothing but embarrassment at how deliberately and delightedly ignorant I was.

          • Valde

            Speaking of Crissy, he is now denying that he ever said he doesn’t give two shits whether or not the girl becomes disabled from the pregnancy.

            See, he only said he doesn’t care if she goes BLIND, not DIABETIC

            Gotta love how he clings to the word games – it’s all he has!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh gosh. I think back to some of the things that used to come out of my mouth back then, when I was ‘pro-life’–and I just cringe inside.

          • Valde

            I remember reading an article from a reformed pro-lifer, and the woman said that pro-life for her was really all about the s1ut-shaming.

            She got a huge ego boost out of feeling morally superior to those dirty s1uts who slept around and aborted innocent widdle babies with a flick of their s1utty wrists!

            I suspect that part of the ‘moral panic’ regarding abortion is not just existential anxiety, but also a way to feel morally superior to others WITHOUT ANY EFFORT.

            It’s really easy to look down your nose at the s1uts while patting yourself on the back for your superior morality.

          • fiona64

            PS: By “new to the game,” I meant new to posting on this site. That means you don’t have the background that some of us do about our fellow posters. Mary also suffered personal injuries at the hands of her physically abusive, anti-choice Catholic mother. So, yeah. She’s got passion, and anger … and with good reason.

          • marbo

            Can only say my heart goes out to her and If I were in her presence would reach out to her and hug her in all sincerity…. obviously she endured a lot of pain from an unstable person that will affect her for a long time.. Does that indict Catholics and Pro life people? No more than than the coercive abusive boyfriend or husband reflects on you!

          • fiona64

            Does that indict Catholics and Pro life people?

            For her it does. And with good reason.

          • goatini

            Flagged for victim-blaming and shaming. Disgusting.

          • Valde

            I have talked to plenty of pro-lifers who have proclaimed that any women who procures an abortion should die for it.

            Oh, and if these women happen to use a coathanger, they say they hope she bleeds to death – painfully. That anyone who ‘kills their own child’ should suffer for it severely.

          • marbo

            What planet was that? Was it bus fulls!!!!!! How many signs said that at rallies… PUHLEASE!!!!!! LOL as I said there are individual crazy people out there… can’t say you didn’t meet one!! I’v met a few really off the wall wild eyed Pro aborts too… and I still won’t characterize all as such!!! So don’t belittle your stance by such foolishness!

          • fiona64

            I’v met a few really off the wall wild eyed Pro aborts too

            And right here, you engage in the typical, ridiculous rhetoric of the anti-choice. No one is “pro-abortion.” That would mean forcing women to have abortions against their will.

            So, if you want to demand that we make linguistic accommodations when discussing the actual behavior of your fellow travelers, well, I suggest you look to your own actions and example. You aren’t doing much to change my opinion of the anti-choicer … and yes, madame, I do differentiate between being pro-life and being anti-choice. Just so you know.

          • Valde

            I have found that pro-choicers are often misrepresented, even by their own side.

            There appears to be this misconception that many pro-choice feminists want ABORTION AT ALL TIMES FOR ANY REASON JUST BECAUSE.

            And after reading, for many months, every pro-choice board that I can – FTB, RH, Rawstory and some other miscellaneous blogs I can say with certainty that no, pro-choicers are not arguing for the right to kill late term healthy, viable fetuses.

            What pro-choicers want is for abortion to be between a woman and her doctor. That’s it. Restrictive laws only serve to hinder doctors in their decision making. How close to death does a woman have to be before she can get the life saving abortion? And health? A disability resulting from pregnancy that is acceptable to some might not be acceptable to others. Arbitrary rules do nothing but confuse people, and cause doctors to be afraid to act when the patient needs it most.

            Canada has NO abortion law, has not since the late 1980s. And guess what!? No abortions after 24 weeks unless the health/life of the woman is at stake, or the fetus is non-viable. The decision making is left to doctors and women – the way it should be.

            Pro-lifers have spent a long time trying to convince people that women have late term abortions for recreation. I suspect that this is partly because it’s hard to convince the general public to empathize with an 8 week blob of tissue. But you might get further, emotionally, with pictures of 28 week stillbirths. And this is why, imo, they spend a lot of time talking about how ‘life begins at conception’ but then almost exclusively talk about late term abortions. The later the better to upset people.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Why don’t we call people by their preferred title and let it go at that? You call me pro-life and I’ll call you pro-choice. It won’t change the fact that I am against abortion and you want to keep it legal.

          • fiona64

            Still no answer to my question, Mr. Cangemi? Not that I’m surpried at this point …

            As I said, I differentiate between those who are pro-life and those who are anti-choice. Your own words place you in the latter camp. How I refer to you is not a decision that you get to make for me. In fact, it’s just one of many decisions you do not get to make for me. This must vex you mightily … but I imagine you will learn to live with this particular difficulty.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Not at all. I don’t care what you call me and you’ve resorted to some rather choice derogatory characterizations. If I could find the burning question you keep insisting I answer, I’ll answer it. But this blog is getting too difficult to navigate with everyone jumping in from all directions.

          • fiona64

            I’ve only asked it of you four times thusfar, Mr. Cangemi. I’m happy to do so again; which of your medical decisions should be placed on the ballot so that other people may vote on it?

            If calling out your misogyny is a “choice derogatory characterization,” I’m sure I can live with that.

          • Gary Cangemi

            I answered that a week ago.

          • fiona64

            The question you answered was “in which of your medical decisions should I be permitted to interfere.” You have subsequently opined that people should be allowed to vote on women’s medical decisions. Hence, I am asking which of your medical decisions should be placed on the ballot for other people to consider. It is really not the same question.

            I am merely asking that you be congruent. If you are allowed to vote on my medical decisions, surely I should be allowed to vote on yours. Since you have decided *for me* that it’s okay for you to vote on my right to terminate a pregnancy, I am at least granting you the courtesy of choosing the procedure on which we will all vote. Surely this is fair …

          • Gary Cangemi

            Fiona, if you can terminate your pregnancy without killing your child, then you have my vote. But if your ‘medical decision” requires that you take another person’s life, then I will vote to defend that person’s right to due process. He or she is entitled under the 14th amendment to a hearing and legal representation (due process) before the state can authorize the taking of his or her life. Thus i am not advocating we vote on your medical decision, but that there be a legal balance between that decision and the rights of your child and a fair legal process for deciding the outcome.
            Conversely, if I make any medical decision that infringes on the life of any other person, I welcome your vote, for you would be standing up for the rights of a fellow human being.

          • Valde

            You are not advocating for any legal balance.

            You are saying, flat out, that fiona would be a murderer if she were to terminate a pregnancy.

            You are advocating the fiona be forced to gestate a pregnancy from the moment of conception. That is not ‘balance’ that is slavery.

          • fiona64

            So, no answer to the actual question then … I thought not. The question is very simple: which of your medical decisions should be put on the ballot for other people’s vote?

            He or she is entitled under the 14th amendment to a hearing and legal
            representation (due process) before the state can authorize the taking
            of his or her life.

            Nope. A fetus is not a person. Your rush to afford rights to the fetus abrogates the rights of the pregnant woman. And that, Mr. Cangemi, is why you are a misogynist … all protestations to the contrary. You specifically stated that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy is “mitigated” the minute she becomes pregnant … which makes her a slave.

            And you a misogynist.

            If I should become pregnant, which would mean my tubal ligation had failed, I will indeed obtain an abortion. And the reason, whether it be that I don’t want any kids at age 49, that my life is endangered, or the smell of baby powder makes me gag, is none of your concern. You are not me, my husband, or my physician — so you do not, and will not, get a vote.

            You enjoy sitting in the position of privilege to determine that women should not enjoy full rights to bodily autonomy — which men *do.* Really, one begins to wonder if you aren’t just a teensy bit angry that women are no longer forced to remain in the sole “career” of “homemaker.”

          • goatini

            Fetuses are not “persons”, “babies”, or “children”. They are fetuses. Rights accrue to citizens at birth. Fetuses have no rights.

          • Valde

            You did not answer it.

            I have been reading all of your comments and you did not answer it 4 days ago, or 6, or 8 or 10.

          • fiona64

            Nor did he answer it when he tap-danced around it again yesterday.

          • Valde

            Actually, it’s the majority of the comments on many message boards.

          • fiona64

            It’s really too bad that our little Mr_Cris has hidden his comment history; otherwise we could point to his delightful and oft-expressed opinion that women who terminate pregnancies should be subject to capital punishment.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, because women are incapable of considering a situation themselves, incapable of making up their own minds, don’t know what pregnancy means and have never heard of adoption or raising a child. Please–give a break.

          • marbo

            Jennifer, sad to say… when women are in great duress they can be led into situations they later regret…. keeping the child, adoption etc are not the things encouraged from the entities that they may seek out…. that’s been validated… the “choice” they’re “SOLD” leads them to believe there’s only one… abortion… there are videos by the score that have proven that from inside the abortion clinics! I’ve also talked with so many women/ young women who have confirmed this regretfully!

          • fiona64

            keeping the child, adoption etc are not the things encouraged from the
            entities that they may seek out…. that’s been validated… the
            “choice” they’re “SOLD” leads them to believe there’s only one…
            abortion… there are videos by the score that have proven that from
            inside the abortion clinics!

            Citation needed. Thanks in advance.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I had two friends who considered abortion. One friend went through with the procedure and my other friend decided to have and raise her baby. Neither regrets their decision and both will tell you that they were not ‘sold’ anything. The counselor at the clinic laid out their options for them and then asked them what they wanted to do–they both made different decisions and neither of them was pushed towards anything.

            Strangely enough, though–my friend who decided to have and keep her baby was pushed by a CPC that she mistakenly visited–they tried to tell her that ‘single motherhood was a sin’ and tried to push her into adoption, even calling her every day at home for two weeks after she visited–she finally had to threaten them with a lawsuit to get them to stop.

          • marbo

            Jennifer, I liked how you just stated facts as you knew them… That’s respectful!! I have no reason to disbelieve you were told these things. Don’t know what CPC is… As for the single motherhood, sin issue…possibly could have been been misunderstood… could have been an over zealous fanatical type! definitely was inappropriate ….being a single mother is a life changing decision and the woman should be encouraged for her courage and not demeaned. And any help available should be offered! But, Jennifer, there is the methods I related operating at full steam.. In fact one abortion clinic owner related , they were like telemarketers… they had a script to “sell” abortion… even to touching their elbow to show caring concern and that they can HELP!!! It was all in the marketing! It was all about the bottom line! Hard to believe , isn’t it! Much more devious than can ever be written in this little box!

          • fiona64

            CPC = Crisis Pregnancy Center.

            In fact one abortion clinic owner related , they were like
            telemarketers… they had a script to “sell” abortion… even to
            touching their elbow to show caring concern and that they can HELP!!!
            It was all in the marketing! It was all about the bottom line!

            Citation needed. Thanks in advance.

          • Valde

            I think I know what you are talking about and the woman has been revealed as a fraud.

            She never ran an abortion clinic, she just worked at one, and they fired her because she was dishonest and a poor employee.

            She then hooked up with pro-lifers, who paid her a fat amount of cash to make anti-abortion vids wherein she told sordid tales of abortions being forced on women so the clinic owners could make big bucks and retire obscenely rich.

          • marbo

            Sorry, It’s a man from Pennsylvania…

          • fiona64

            You’re thinking of Gosnell … and exaggerating, as I already noted.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A CPC–also known as a ‘crisis pregnancy center’ or a ‘pregnancy resource center’–also known as a fake clinic, often set up by ‘pro-lifers’ and oftentimes connected to and getting kickbacks from adoption agencies, like the one my friend visited. Usually staffed by volunteers who are not medical professionals and often spout half-truths and outright lies. I should also mention that a relative of mine who went to one of these places was told that her ectopic pregnancy could be safely moved to her uterus by a doctor. She believed what they said and almost died looking for a doctor who could do that. So you’ll forgive me if I discuss these places in terms which are less than kind.

          • marbo

            Jennifer.. thank you, I’m familiar with Crisis pregnancy Centers… just never used the CPC designation as it stands for a multitude of things… There are unscrupulous and devious things that we all must be careful of… trust and verify… and there are also propaganda misinformations put out to destroy as well… there may or may not have been Drs. who perform these things… I know there are new advances every day.. and medical facilities that deal with problem pregnancies.. so it’s all in wise and researched decision making… Just sorry for your friends difficult time… She had great courage to pursue what she thought was right… maybe in te final analysis a life is worth giving it your all… No greater love etc etc…

          • Jennifer Starr

            Please tell me that your last paragraph was not in reference to my relative with an ectopic pregnancy who was cruelly lied to by a volunteer and given false hope about a pregnancy which could never be viable and could have killed her. Please tell me that’s not what you were talking about. And if it wasn’t what you were talking about, please clarify.

          • fiona64

            I just asked the same thing, because it seems very clear to me that she’s saying your relative should have been willing to gestate a non-viable pregnancy to satisfy her “pro-life” beliefs.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, now that I’ve read it a second time it seems pretty clear to me as well–and everytime I hear things like this it reminds me of why I am no longer on the ‘pro-life’ side. Just–infuriating.

          • fiona64

            And then she goes on to say that doctors “may” be able to transfer an ectopic pregnancy to the uterus. So, she’s also spreading the same kind of disinformation. I’ve provided a citation in my post below that proves her wrong.

            I remain amazed that people are so willing to publicly flaunt their ignorance of simple biological processes in favor of emotion-laden rhetoric that has no basis in reality whatsoever. I guess if you’ve convinced yourself that a zygote is an infant, you can convince yourself of almost anything else.

            Honestly, I look back on my days as a bible-thumping, anti-choice zealot with nothing but embarrassment.

          • marbo

            You will read into it what you want to read into it…As a matter of fact I smiled when I wrote that expecting your answer… I meant no such thing! I meant people are willing to go that extra mile without automatically aborting to find if there are any other options.. First, you did not say FALLOPIAN tube ectopic pregnancy which is treated with a laporascope as the means to ptotect the mother from an unviable pregnancy that is a great danger… there are other kinds as my friend had an extopic pregnancy outside of the womb and just floating in the abdomen. It went to term and was delivered surgically! She went that extra mile. Wanted to give it a chance as long as she could with out risk to her or the baby. She, Ariana, is 3 years old. What’s infuriating about that? Pro Life.. is about being educated and considering what is best for both mother and child.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So–nothing about being angry that she was lied to–that she could have died because of this girl’s lies? However ‘well-meaning’ this ‘pro-life’ girl thought she was being, she lied and almost caused a death because of it. And did I mention that she was wearing a lab coat at the time? Oh yeah–so she would look extra ‘official’ when she lied. Luckily they were able to end her pregnancy and save the tube–she had two healthy pregnancies after that. If she had continued to believe that girl’s lies and continued to search for this mythical doctor, not only might she have died, but that’s two children that might have never been born. All because of ‘pro-life’.

          • fiona64

            Hey, who cares if the CPC idiot staffer lied, right? Because hey, “pro-life”! And it’s always funny to say that someone should be willing to die to carry a non-viable pregnancy. “I smiled when I wrote that” indeed.

          • Valde

            It went to term and was delivered surgically!

            I call bullshit on that. A fetus growing outside the womb and in the abdomen tends to destroy the woman’s organs and kill her. And if it doesn’t kill her, you are looking at constant unending abdominal pain. And the fetus’ kicks against the organs isn’t exactly safe either.

          • Valde

            From wikipedia:

            An abdominal pregnancy is a form of an ectopic pregnancy where the pregnancy is implanted within the peritoneal cavity outside the fallopian tube or ovary and not located in the broad ligament.[1] While rare, abdominal pregnancies have a higher mortality rate than ectopic pregnancies in general but, on occasion, can lead to a delivery of a viable infant.[citation needed]

            A primary abdominal pregnancy refers to a pregnancy that implanted directly in the abdominal cavity and its organs, save for the tubes and ovaries; such pregnancies are very rare, only 24 cases had been reported by 2007

            A patient with an abdominal pregnancy may just display the normal signs of pregnancy or have non-specific symptoms such as abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, and/or gastrointestinal symptoms.[4] Frequently the diagnosis of an abdominal pregnancy is missed.[2] However, it is a dangerous condition as it can bleed intraperitoneally resulting in a medical emergency with hemorrhagic shock and can be fatal; other causes of maternal death in patients with an abdominal pregnancy include toxemia[disambiguation needed], anemia, pulmonary embolus, coagulopathy, and infection

            Potential treatments consist of surgery with termination of the pregnancy (removal of the fetus) via laparoscopy or laparotomy, use of methotrexate, embolization, and combinations of these. Sapuri and Klufio indicate that conservative treatment is also possible if the following criteria are met: 1. there are no major congenital malformations; 2. the fetus is alive; 3. there is continuous hospitalization in a well-equipped and well-staffed maternity unit which has immediate blood transfusion facilities; 4. there is careful monitoring of maternal and fetal wellbeing; and 5. placental implantation is in the lower abdomen away from the liver and spleen.[11] The choice is largely dictated by the clinical situation. Generally, treatment is indicated when the diagnosis is made; however, the situation of the advanced abdominal pregnancy is more complicated.

          • Valde

            So, basically, an ectopic pregnancy in the abdomen is ONLY viable if the woman is extremely lucky with the placement of the fetus and has round the clock medical care.

            I guess it could work out for a woman with insurance – not so much for someone without.

          • fiona64

            First, you did not say FALLOPIAN tube ectopic pregnancy

            By definition, ectopic pregnancies are non-viable.

            there are other kinds as my friend had an ectopic pregnancy outside of
            the womb and just floating in the abdomen. It went to term and was
            delivered surgically!

            Riiiigggghhhhtttt ….

          • fiona64

            We’re talking about a life here… not an expendible tire or shrub.

            Unless it’s the woman’s life, of course.

          • goatini

            You must remember that to that Marbo thing and to Cangemi, the woman is just a used up old skin bag, that can be conveniently disposed of for a shiny new fetus.

          • fiona64

            Well, that is a good point on some levels …

          • cjvg

            So were was the placenta of that “floating” pregnancy located?
            Presumably you are aware that a placenta invades the uterine wall in order to facilitate absorbing nourishment from the mothers blood stream?!
            This works just fine when implantation takes place in the womb but I have severe doubts any person with some medical expertise is buying your story that this can safely be done at any area within the abdomen!
            You must be working at a CPC yourself because you are so willing to use complete and utter lies that are medically and physically impossible to convince any who had ectopic pregnancies that they will not die from continuing these!
            At best what you are doing is morally seen manslaughter since you are killing any women who would take your advise!
            Do you have no shame or conscience?!

          • cjvg

            Here is what actually takes place during a normal placement

            After fertilization, the cytotrophoblast migrates to form anchoring villi between the decidua anduterus through controlled breakdown of the extracellular matrix by metalloproteinases and localized expression of adhesion molecules, including integrins and collagen IV.

            Simultaneously, hypoxia-stimulated angiogenesis initiates vascular connections between the maternal circulation and the intervillous space. Once the maternal blood supply to the intervillous space is established, increasing quantities of placental secretory products appear in the maternal circulation. Concurrently, extravillous cytotrophoblasts infiltrate the maternal spiral arteries, progressively remodeling the vessel walls so that the musculoelastic media is lost In parallel, continuous villous vascular branching and thinning of the cytotrophoblast occurs in the fetal compartment.

            These processes result in low-resistance, high-capacitance vascular beds that allow increasing and matched perfusion of the maternal and fetal placental compartments. Intervillous blood flow is regulated mainly through paracrine factors, such as nitric oxide, endothelin, adenosine, released cyclic guanosinemonophosphate, and fetal atrial natriuretic peptide.

            After successful placentation, approximately 600 mL/min maternal cardiac output is matched to 400 mL/kg/min fetal flow distributed over a term placental exchange area of 12 m.

            The design of the fetal circulation allows preferential streaming of nutrients that enter the circulation through the umbilical vein. Modulated by shunting in the ductus venosus, 70% to 80% of the returning blood continues on to the liver; the rest is distributed to the heart.

            In the right atrium, the directionality of incoming bloodstreams ensures that nutrient-rich blood is distributed to the myocardium and brain, whereas venous return from the body is distributed to the descending aorta and ultimately to the placenta for re oxygenation and nutrient and waste exchange.

            In addition, because of the preferential distribution of left- and right-sided cardiac output, several organs can modify local flow by auto-regulation to meet oxygen and nutrient demands.

            Once the blood supply to the trophoblast and fetal circulation is established, placental transport capacity is the major determinant of maternal-fetal nutrient transport. All substances that traverse between the maternal and fetal circulation must pass through the villoustrophoblast, a syncytial bilayer 4 µm thick that consists of a maternal microvillus and a fetal basal layer.

            Its capacity for transport is enhanced by a growing membrane surface area and increased density and affinity of carrier proteins for glucose, amino acids (mainly), and fatty acids.

            The sodium/hydrogen (Na/H+) family of transport proteins maintains syncytio trophoblast intracellular pH and cell volume homeostasis, ensuring proper function of the trans placental substrate carrier proteins.

            By the second trimester, these placental activities consume 40% of the O2 and 70% of the glucose entering the uterus, leaving the rest for fetal use.

            This proportion decreases progressively until term. With the establishment of placental transport systems, endocrine signaling between maternal, placental, and fetal compartments helps to coordinate placental and fetal growth. Maternal metabolic changes include postprandial hyperglycemia, lipolysis, and increased fasting levels of free fatty acids, triglycerides, and cholesterol. All of these enhance substrate availability to the placenta and fetus and are at least partly mediated by increases in placental levels of lactogen and leptin. Similarly, maternal intravascular volume expansion and its relative refractoriness to vasoactive agents promote steady nutrient delivery to the placenta.

            Placental and fetal growth is regulated by the combination of substrate availability and endocrine or paracrine signaling. Glucose and amino acids stimulate insulin release from the fetal pancreas, and the subsequent release of insulin-like growth factors I and II provides the major stimulus for fetal growth and differentiation.

            Leptin stimulates fetal pancreatic growth and trans placental amino acid transport and affects fatty acid transport. Therefore, it may be an important modulator of fetal body fat content and body proportions.
            Normal placental and fetal growth across pregnancy is characterized by sequential cellular hyperplasia, hyperplasia plus hypertrophy, and finally, hypertrophy alone.

            Placental growth follows a sigmoid curve, with a plateau occurring earlier in gestation than the fetal curve. Between 16 weeks and term, human fetal weight increases 20-fold.
            The fetal growth curve is exponential. Maximal growth occurs in the third trimester, when significant body mass and particularly adipose tissue are accumulated.

            Several conditions may interfere with normal placentation and culminate in either pregnancy loss or IUGR. Broadly categorized into maternal, uterine, placental, and fetal disorders, these conditions affect either nutrient and oxygen delivery to the placenta, nutrient and oxygen transfer across the placenta, fetal uptake, or regulation of growth processes. When they are sufficiently abnormal, they produce growth restriction characterized by a reduction in fetal cell size, and when they are early and severe enough, cell number is also affected

            Early interference with placentation affects all levels of placental and fetal development and culminates in the most severe clinical picture. Diffusion may be adequate to meet embryonic nutrient needs, but it compromises fetal survival and growth potential. Typically, the trophoblastic invasion is confined to the decidual portion of the myometrium, and the spiral and radial arteries do not transform into low-resistance vessels.

            Altered expression of vasoactive substances increases vascular reactivity, and if hypoxia-stimulated angiogenesis is inadequate, placental auto regulation becomes deficient. Maternal placental floor infarcts and fetal villous obliteration and fibrosis increase placental blood flow resistance, producing a maternal-fetal placental perfusion mismatch that decreases the effective exchange area.

            With progressive vascular occlusion, fetoplacental flow resistance is increased throughout the vascular bed, which is the metabolically active placental mass, and nutrient exchange decreases or is outgrown.

            Oxygen and glucose consumption by the placenta is unaffected when nutrient delivery to the uterus is only mildly restricted and fetal demands can be met by increased fractional extraction. Fetal hypoglycemia occurs when uterine oxygen delivery (and likely substrate delivery) is less than a critical value (0.6 mmol/min/kg fetal body weight in sheep) and fetal oxygen uptake is reduced.

            Insulin is an important fetal growth factor. Fetal pancreatic insulin responses are blunted by mild hypoglycemia, allowing gluconeogenesis from hepatic glycogen stores.
            At this stage, fetal glucose stores and lactate are preferentially diverted to the placenta to maintain placental metabolic, endocrine, and nutrient transfer function.

            As the nutrient supply worsens, fetal hypoglycemia intensifies and secondary energy sources are required. Proteins are catabolized to gluconeogenic amino acids. However, limitations in placental amino acid transfer eventually result in hypo aminoacidemia.

            Decreased transfer leads to relative deficiencies of circulating long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, whereas metabolic limitation leads to hypertriglyceridemia and the inability to establish essential adipose stores. Even if provided adequate substrate, inadequate oxygen is available to maintain oxidative metabolism. Hypoglycemia, hyper lactic acidemia, and a growing base deficit correlate with the degree of fetal hypoxemia and protein energy malnutrition.

            Down-regulation of several cellular transporters and the Na/H

            +

            pump affects placental cellular function and aggravates the condition further.

            In this setting, the fetal brain and heart switch primary nutrients from glucose to lactate and ketones.

            Cardiac metabolism may consume as much as 80% of the circulating lactate.

            Simultaneously, the principal endocrine growth axis (insulin and insulin-like growth factors Iand II) as well as leptin-coordinated fat deposition is down-regulated.

            As a result, the placenta and fetus do not reach their size potential. The combination of fetal starvation, a modified endocrine milieu, and deficient tissue stores limits fetal growth and affects cellular and functional differentiation in many target organs.

          • goatini

            So, women dying of ectopic pregnancies makes you smile. Got it.

          • fiona64

            maybe in te final analysis a life is worth giving it your all… No greater love etc etc…

            Are you really implying what I think you are? That Jennifer’s family member should have willingly died trying to gestate a non-viable pregnancy (which, by definition, is the case with every ectopic pregnancy)?

            Wow. How “pro-life” of you.”

            here may or may not have been Drs. who perform these things… I know there are new advances every day.. and medical facilities that deal with problem pregnancies

            No physician can move an ectopic pregnancy to the uterus. Period.
            http://miscarriage dot about dot com/od/medicaltreatmentchoices/f/viableectopic.htm (just so you know, we have to alter URLs here or the post winds up in moderation for an extended period of time)

            Quote: When a pregnancy is growing anywhere except in the uterus, the pregnancy poses serious risks to the mother’s health and can even be fatal if the pregnancy is not terminated. No medical technology exists to move an ectopic pregnancy from the fallopian tubes to the uterus.

            I get that you’re very well-meaning, Marbo, but you’re putting out all kinds of misinformation.

          • goatini

            Translation:

            Needlessly dead woman: GREAT
            Safe, legal, life-saving pregnancy termination: TERRIBLE

          • Arekushieru

            What about the woman who chooses to live for her existing child? Is she not showing a great love? Or do you think like most antis that an existing child is not worthy of love? Sick.

          • goatini

            That “marbo” thing thinks that woman is just a used up old skin bag, who should suicide herself for a shiny new fetus. She’s just livestock to be exploited, and her husband can just get a new cow.

          • Valde

            yeah, it’s pretty fucked up how they think that a mother dying in pregnancy and leaving existing kids orphaned is a sign of love

          • goatini

            Lying lowlife Carol Everett’s claim that she ‘owned’ abortion clinics was false and was the subject of litigation which can substantiate the falsehood of that claim.

            She did not ‘quit’ but she was fired when it was clearly demonstrated on public television that she was guilty of consumer fraud. under those circumstances any clinic she was associated with would become a liability to the owner. One has to wonder what happened to allay those charges.

          • Arekushieru

            Are you talking about Abby Johnson, by any chance? No. Those words are what SHE was told to tell anyone else by Pro-LIFE. Touching an elbow and showing caring concern and that one can help is just so horrific, ISN’T it??? I mean it automatically means they are trying to promote ABORTION, after all, right? Oh… wait…. NOPE. It doesn’t!

          • goatini

            “Videos by the score” by LIARla Rose and LIE Action are ALL false, doctored, LIES.

          • goatini

            You mean vicious misogynist LIAR Trent Franks?

            “the incidences of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low” – Trent Franks LIE

          • Arekushieru

            Please go back and read what Valde said on the site before opening your vile mouth, again. If it’s about the woman AND the fetus, you just dehumanized the woman. You COMPLETELY ignore what it takes for someone to become a walking, talking, breathing, cognizant, thinking, conscious adult. By equating the two you strip a woman of ALL the qualities that make her, her. SICK.

            Ftr, you just said that defending against rape is a crime against women. Because rape just like an unwanted pregnancy violates a woman’s body. If defense against one is morally wrong so is defense against the other. But, of course, I forget I’m talking to an anti who thinks that the PWECIOUS MENZ should always be able to protect themselves from an unwanted violation, so this is why they believe rape should be and remain illegal, yet abortion should be illegal, at the same time.

            I can’t imagine the horror that some women who left the Pro-LIFE movement must have felt when they realized how much those people, ESPECIALLY CPCs, wanted to push women, but ONLY women this time, back into slavery. SFS!

          • goatini

            I’m a woman, and you most emphatically HAVE alienated me with your gestational slavery nonsense.

            Safe, legal pregnancy termination is a BLESSING for women who do not wish to be pregnant. If a women does not want to be pregnant, then the ONLY choice that can help her is a safe, legal pregnancy termination.

            Oh, and trying to coerce and exploit women with unwanted pregnancies into gestating to term against their will, then seizing the fruit of their slave labor to sell to the highest bidder in the global human trafficking adoption syndicate, is the ANTITHESIS of “support” and “love”. It is pure, unbridled hatred and utter depraved indifference towards an innocent citizen who simply seeks to not be pregnant if she does not want to be pregnant.

            Your saccharine passive-aggressive BS is alienating and offensive.

          • marbo

            “against their will, then seizing the fruit of their slave labor to sell to the highest bidder in the global human trafficking adoption syndicate, etc etc etc”… again, most of what I see here is making your assumptions reality… so sad, because I have no problem talking to pro choice women and men and finding common ground and yet respecting each other .. and , surprise!! many admitted it gave gave them food for thought.. and they sought out a continuing dialogue all on their own! NO! they were not coerced!!!!!! I’ve helped pregnant women… prayed for them, their children and the fathers and the abortion clinic counsellors .. Cared for newborns of these women etc etc…
            For all your obvious disdain for anyone who has a difference of opinion… it does not bring peace or solutions but only walls and hatred and anger… Funny… I’m not offended by you! You’re still on a journey in your life as I am with mine…

          • goatini

            A woman who cannot obtain the safe, legal pregnancy termination she wishes to secure, IS coerced into gestational slavery.

            And so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” are nothing but staging areas for the global human trafficking adoption syndicate to obtain fresh new inventory of infant flesh, seized from slaves.

            It’s obvious that you and your kind have a very, very large investment in keeping the billion-dollar global human trafficking adoption syndicate in their very, very profitable and lucrative business.

            When crimes are investigated, one of the primary investigative methods is to FOLLOW THE MONEY. And the billions and billions of dollars generated for the coffers of the global human trafficking adoption syndicate, on the backs of exploited slaves, is a crime against humanity.

            When crimes are investigated, another primary investigative method is to seek out “red herrings” that are merely distractions from the actual crimes being committed. Like the saccharine, passive-aggressive red herrings such as “helping pregnant women”, “pray(ing) for them”, “car(ing) for newborns”, “love them both”, “heartfelt gnawing reasons”, “supported and loved” – ALL LIES – and outright lying red herrings such as “abortion is a crime against women” – BIGGEST LIE.

            We’re on to you, and no amount of your passive-aggressive lying BS is going to distract us from protecting our civil, human and Constitutional rights from you vicious misogynistic theocrats.

          • fiona64

            Thank you. I have never forgotten my horror of almost a decade ago, when I first read an article on how CPCs were basically fronts for adoption mills. I have since read a great deal more, and it continues to offend me. This one in particular tells the tale perfectly:

            Quote: Most maternity homes
            identify as “christian”. Agencies like Bethany, Heartbeat
            International (1100 CPS’s), CareNet (1160 CPS’s) and Christian Homes
            and Family Services reserve their beds only for women who agree to
            give up their baby.

            Read here for more: http://www dot welfarewarriors dot org/mwv_archive/f09/f09_adoption.htm

            The compulsory pregnancy types (like the Great Cangemi and his sycophant Marbo) are always touting this “loving solution” … without giving a damn about the emotional costs to the adoptee and the birth mother.

            Every single adoptee I’ve ever spoken to had huge issues about having been abandoned and could not understand how his or her mother could have so little love for their infant that they would hand it over to strangers. And yet these anti-choicers accuse the pro-choice of being hateful because we think women should have the right to determine for themselves whether or not to use contraception, gestate or terminate, rear or adopt? Really?

          • Valde

            The compulsory pregnancy types (like the Great Cangemi and his sycophant
            Marbo) are always touting this “loving solution” … without giving a
            damn about the emotional costs to the adoptee and the birth mother.

            I have brought this up before, and they usually tell me that 1) the adoptee should just be happy to be alive and 2) the woman spread her legs, what does she expect. LIFE ISN’T EASY.

          • Valde

            Get over yourself.

          • fiona64

            What do you want, a cookie?

            I’ve helped pregnant women… prayed for them, their children and the fathers and the abortion clinic counsellors

            I’m sure that your prayers were very helpful in putting food on the table and paying medical bills.

            My disdain is for *anyone* who treats women as though they are too stupid to make their own medical decisions.

          • goatini

            She is quite succinct in her truthful assertions.

          • goatini

            You aren’t civil.

      • Dez

        Yup. Just another Christian fundie trying to force his spell book and imaginary friend into the wombs of women. What is with these people trying to force their fantasies onto others that don’t believe their delusions?

    • goatini

      Oh, and you and the rest of the gestational slavery movement are EXACTLY like what you hypocritically decry in China and India.

      Any power that can force women into the torture of gestating unwanted pregnancies against their will, can force women into terminating wanted pregnancies against their will.

      You’re on the same side as the forced-terminators of China and India. No difference whatsoever – just reprehensible on both sides of the same coin.

    • fiona64

      I’m curious about how Umbert is meeting all of his friends, Gary. Can you explain how the fetus is wandering around into various women’s uteri?

      And how does he get computer up there?

      • Gary Cangemi

        First of all, when you can explain to me how it is possible for a beagle to engage in aerial combat with a dead WWI flying ace from Germany, then I’ll explain to you how cartoon children in utero communicate with each other.
        Second of all, how is protecting the basic human rights of an unborn human being forcing someone to gestate? Unless she was raped, did she not engage in consensual reproductive behavior knowing full well the consequences and risk of creating another human being with rights of its own? You pro-choicers claim women have so much freedom and autonomy. It’s amazing how little responsibility is claimed for their actions.

        • goatini

          All children, everywhere, ever, have already been born.

          And sexual congress is not a contract to gestate.

          • HeilMary1

            Exactly! Does forgetting to lock your door, or having a cheap lock, or having an intruder with a hand grenade mean you are to blame when he uses one or more of the above to break in? Consensual sex doesn’t mean consent to forced multiple organ donations and other deadly injuries by fetuses. Fetuses and intruders, no matter how cute they look to their fan base, do not have special rights to hijack and harm the bodies of sexually active women. If women can use the Second Amendment against home intruders, maybe they need contraception and abortion instruments that resemble handguns!

          • Gary Cangemi

            If you leave your door wide open, I think that makes you somewhat responsible for who gets in.

          • Valde

            Yet you have the right to evict anyone who comes in.

          • fiona64

            And if you take precautions that fail, you have the right to remove the intruder.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Not with deadly force unless he poses an imminent danger to your life.

          • HeilMary1

            ALL fetuses pose imminent danger to their captive hosts’ lives.

          • fiona64

            Well, since pregnancy is not a state of wellness, I will once again leave the determination of what is or is not an imminent danger to the actual pregnant woman.

          • HeilMary1

            So you’d never evict a serial killer or a rampaging rabid raccoon if you left the door open?

          • goatini

            (Cangemi meant to say “spread your legs”, but he’s a “gentleman”, don’t you know.)

        • fiona64

          Children are born entities. A fetus is not a human being (despite your hyper-emotional entreaties), but the born, sapient, sentient woman is. You elevate the non-existent rights of a fetus above the actual rights of a person, and I find that disturbing.

          What I find fascinating is twofold, to be honest: first, your willingness to advocate for gestational slavery (consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy, and all forms of contraception, including sterilization, have known failure rates).

          The second is this: You pro-choicers claim women have so much freedom and autonomy. It’s
          amazing how little responsibility is claimed for their actions.

          You appear to believe that women are impregnated in a vacuum. Where is your moralizing and lecturing to the men? Where is your Sammy the Sacred Sperm character?

          Oh, wait, that’s right: “if she didn’t want to have a baby, she should have kept her legs shut.” I keep forgetting that this is the only argument that the anti-choice actually possess.

    • BCSWowbagger

      Oh, hey! It’s the guy who makes Umbert! I have often smiled at your strip over the years. I think once I even chuckled! I don’t remember what local paper used to run it, but they seem to have dropped it, which is a shame, because it was a paper that lacked for much humor, other than what your comic strip lent it.

      To be fair to the article, the writer’s impression of the NRLC and its usual attendees pretty much aligns with mine. It’s an aging organization that has seemed to become a little (a lot?) too complacent in its role as the pro-life establishment. It’s so comfortable with its position, in fact, that it proudly posts “40 years” right there on its convention badges, as if we should be proud that we are still needed after four decades of fighting. (We should be ashamed and stricken with grief!) The committee’s leaders are very set in their ways. Its strategy is cautious. It is exceptionally cozy with the Republican Party establishment. Its website is so archaic that it’s either a self-parody, a private homage to Geocities, or an attempt at post-modern art. And its attitude when criticized is to leap to the defensive — as I’m afraid your own post illustrates rather well.

      That’s not just from the pro-choice side, either. Sometimes it feels like NRLC is spending more time and money crushing Personhood initiatives in Wisconsin and Ohio, or bragging over its victories in campaign finance court cases (ten years ago!), than it is managing and forwarding initiatives that would actually save babies’ lives.

      We know that there are lots and lots and lots of young people in the pro-life movement. We know that this generation is the most pro-life since Roe. Yet they’re not at this convention. They’re at the March for Life, but they’re not here. I mean, just look at that picture she has. Even if that picture was specifically chosen because it showed the oldest crowd at the convention, there still would be half a dozen young people in there, if this convention were truly representative of our movement. But I think they’re looking elsewhere for leadership these days. At least, I am. Unfortunately, the people at Personhood USA are insanely aggressive and completely deaf to political concerns (like maybe clarifying that their Mississippi initiative won’t ban IVF? Please?), and the folks at Americans United for Life don’t seem to need a lot of volunteers — just money — because of their (perfectly appropriate) laser focus on legislation.

      I think NRLC needs renewal. And I think that Ms. Grimes, without really understanding everything that she saw and heard (including your very notable work!) has pointed to some symptoms. She is misdiagnosing some of them, but I think that’s because she’s not approaching it from the right angle, not because she’s being dishonest.

      I do hope you can hear this without going on the defensive, and that you know folks within NRLC that you can talk to about it. Because the pro-life movement really does need NRLC. We’re up against the monolithic billion-dollar government-funded Planned Parenthood propaganda machine, and the NRLC is the closet thing we have to a central coordinating committee that can unite our absurdly fractious movement and help the whole country stand up for life. But today’s NRLC? Sometimes it almost feels like a hindrance, not a help.

      • Gary Cangemi

        I’m not offended nor do I intend to go on the defensive with regard to the NRLC. I think your remarks are very sincere and for the most part a fair assessment of an organization struggling to find a way to adjust for the future of this movement and to find a way to pass the torch on to the next generation. There WERE several young people at this conference. the reason they were not in that photograph was that they were probably at their own session or set of workshops when it was taken.
        While the NRLC has been very gracious about inviting me to every conference for the last ten years (I’ve only missed two) I have been sometimes frustrated by they’re ignoring my standing offers to do more, especially for the young people. The last time I even did a youth workshop was in Nashville several years ago (which I’ve offered to do every year since). I agree with you that the March for Life burgeons every year with young people willing to contribute their time and energy. We need to start tapping that energy and getting these kids more involved because they ARE the future of this cause.
        That said, there needs to be a way of ushering in a new era without disrespecting those that have carried the load to get us here. Your criticisms were fair, unlike Andrea’s. Every year, conference attendees are asked to fill out evaluations. Your remarks are the kinds of things they need to hear and take seriously, so i hope people such as you expressed their concerns in earnest on those forms. In the meantime, I will do what I can to get through to the NRLC leadership and work for new strategies and approaches. I will continue to offer the services of Umbert and myself in the hopes that we will be called to greater service or even a place in the Right to Life News.
        I’m also with those such as yourself who are growing weary of the political gamesmanship that some in the movement play at our peril. Truth must never be compromised or sacrificed for expediency. There was a meeting of pro-life republicans at this conference in which the question of who to support in 2016 was debated. Personally, I think we need to get away from the cult of personality in Presidential politics and stop looking for rock stars or messiahs to rally behind. We need to rally around a set of principles and a plan for America’s future and then go about the process of hiring the right person for the job of carrying it out. Unfortunately the cart doesn’t even get built before the horse has already been decided.
        Renewal is a good thing and I for one appreciate your call for it. I’m sure, in time, necessity will be the mother of reinvention at the NRLC.
        Thank you for your kind remarks with regard to my work. Umbert and I have a long way to grow.

        • BCSWowbagger

          Amen to everything in that post. Cheers, sir.

          • HeilMary1

            Get a room already, you two lipstick-on-mother-killing-pigs!

          • Dez

            Just some more Liars for Jesus Christian fundies that can’t seem to understand that not everyone wants their delusions in their private lives or medical decisions.

        • fiona64

          Hey, Gary? When you try to delete a post, it still shows up as “guest.” And all know you wrote it, anyway.

    • Nor

      If you think it is bad that women in some countries are forced to have abortions, doesn’t that make you pro-choice?

      • Gary Cangemi

        No, it doesn’t. It makes me appalled at the human rights abuses that pro-choicers like you have become desensitized to. It’s amazing how many people have a “look the other way” attitude toward China because of their population problems. My opposition to forced abortions makes me consistent. But if YOU don’t oppose them, what does that make you?

        • Nor

          Pro-choice = anti-forced abortions and anti-forced pregnancy. They are equally abhorrent. For the same reason. They violate the rights of the mother.
          I sure hope you’ve been sending copies of your comic to China for free. That oughta change their minds.

          • Valde

            What people such as Gary fail to understand is that as long as abortion and contraception are denied to women, women will be second class citizens – because pregnancy is expensive, and this is why sons are preferred.

            Women are second class citizens in many developing countries PRECISELY because they are valued as little more than livestock. They don’t have the same opportunities as men because they are often used as nothing more than livestock. So who would want a baby girl when she’s just going to end up costing the family money in dowry, and spend her life barefoot and pregnant? With boys they see a future – with girls they see nothing but debt and no opportunities.

            Access to abortion and contraception are what have leveled the playing field and given women the opportunity to be free of their biology. Anatomy is no longer destiny. People such as Gary can’t stand that.

          • fiona64

            Oh, no. I think he understands it just fine. I also think he *likes* it that way.

        • fiona64

          The Chinese policy is just as anti-choice as your concept: it ignores the rights of the pregnant woman.

          I’m pro-choice because I lack the hubris to make reproductive decisions for any woman other than myself.

          (And yes, you may draw your own conclusions as to how I see *your* position on the matter.)

        • goatini

          YOU support human rights abuses right here in the United States, Cangemi. YOU support the abuses of the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to the protections of the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

          There is absolutely NOTHING different between you gestational slavers, and the reproductive policies of China. Any evil power that can force women into gestational slavery against their will, can force women into abortion against their will. You are two sides of the exact same coin.

    • marbo

      Great detailed response… respectful and right on tareget in addressing this very biased article with depth and logic and background…… if this whole issue was whited out and I had to pick a side to stand with on fairness, irrefutable fact, restraint, respect, openness etc…. it’s a no brainer on which side I would choose to be standing… the pro life side conveyed all of these characterisitics…… so refreshing compared to the uncivil, bitter sounding voices of those who do really believe they represent and care about women but are in denial to all the voices of women who bring the truth of the pain that they’ve endured because of the lies that have harmed them, namely buying the lie of abortion being the answer to their “problems”… and, as is common , when all else fails… throw in “child-raping priests! ” and the total lack of respect for the dignity of motherhood.. which is characterized with the words ” suicidal incubating cows”… bottom line… “you will know them by their fruits” either good and refreshing or rotten…

      • Gary Cangemi

        Thanks, marbo. It’s good to finally hear a friendly voice on this particular blogsite. I realize I’m just a guest here and that this site is for those who support abortion rights, so I’ve tried to conduct myself in a respectful manner, as a guest should. Unfortunately, most of the people who frequent this site don’t have the same respect for others and immediately resort to the name calling before even attempting to understand their opponent’s way of thinking. Most of these women have grown up in a culture in which abortion has been legal and so it is understandable they think I am trying to take something away from them. But that isn’t the case. I am trying to protect something that has been taken away from the most vulnerable among us…the unborn, and that is the right to life and the right of due process before the state can legally end that life.
        I would never treat a guest in my home or community the way I have been treated here, regardless of their views. God gives us all the right to think and the freedom to believe what we choose to believe, but actions have consequences. In the end I do not believe we will be judged by what we think but by how we act. We will be held accountable for the choices we make. But we can disagree as to what those choices should be without hating each other.

        • fiona64

          Most of these women have grown up in a culture in which abortion has
          been legal and so it is understandable they think I am trying to take
          something away from them.

          I was nine years old when Roe v. Wade was decided.

          My mother’s life was saved by an illegal abortion when I was a year old. Her obstetrician assisted her with finding someone to do the procedure so that it would be done safely. Other women in the same circumstance were not so fortunate.

          So, you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself. Again. Because I *do* know the difference. If you get your way, women will not stop having abortions; they’ll just stop having safe ones, unless they are as lucky as my own mother. You don’t care how many women die, obviously, as long as the “pwecious fetus” is saved.

          Your “respect” is non-existent. And that, my dear boy, is why you get none in return.

          It has not escaped my notice that, despite your dramatic, flouncing exodus, you’ve been back repeatedly and still never answered my question: which of *your* medical decisions is it okay to put on the ballot for other people to vote on?

        • Valde

          We’d all like to know Gary.

          Which of your medical decisions is it okay for others to vote on?

          • fiona64

            He came back to fling some more bullshit at me, but he can’t be bothered to answer this simple question. IMO, it’s because he *can’t.* He thinks that only women’s medical decisions should be up for a vote, but that men’s medical decisions are sacrosanct.

            And he wonders why we think he’s a misogynist …

        • goatini

          Cangemi, YOU haven’t shown one iota of respect towards the civil rights of female US citizens in your trolling of RHRC, and it takes a lot of stones to whine your nonsense projections of your own nastiness and rudeness on us. As a guest in our community, you’ve been nothing but a vile, reprehensible misogynist, harassing those who are bravely standing up and speaking out against vicious theocrats like you.

          I’ve been fighting for reproductive freedom and justice for over 40 years, and I am VERY well aware of exactly what you ARE trying to take away from us – our civil, human and Constitutional rights to the protections of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. I also remember when contraception was illegal in some states.

          And I very, very well “understand (my) opponent’s way of thinking” – I grew up in a culture, and religion (RCC), that tried to brainwash and indoctrinate me, with lies and threats, into meekly accepting being coerced into a second class status as chattel property livestock under Church-approved male ownership. I saw my Mother, forbidden by both Church AND State from protecting her physical and mental health with contraception, bear three children in less than four years. I know EXACTLY what rights we have gained since then, and EXACTLY what will be lost if vicious misogynists like you successfully overthrow our democracy for theocracy.

          Fetuses are NOT persons, are NOT citizens, and have NO rights. The ONLY entity with rights in the equation is the living, breathing WOMAN.

      • fiona64

        fairness, irrefutable fact, restraint, respect, openness etc…. it’s a
        no brainer on which side I would choose to be standing… the pro life
        side conveyed all of these characterisitics.

        Fairness? Restraint? Respect? Irrefutable “facts”?

        Excuse me for a moment.

        BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        There. I feel much better now.

      • goatini

        “the pro life side conveyed all of these (fairness, irrefutable fact, restraint, respect, openness etc) characterisitics……”

        Because harassing and threatening female US citizens with the erasure and destruction of their civil, human and Constitutional rights is all of those things… NOT.

    • Arekushieru

      Wrong. YOU are the ones who deafen yourselves when it comes to women in other countries, NOT feminists. El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Ireland, etc, etc….. NEED I go on?

      We are NOT Pro-Abortion. Or do you not understand that being forced to have an abortion (Pro-Abortion) is the exact opposite of freedom of choice? Your words definitely support that theory. (Otherwise you are simply being redundant). After all, your words imply that a woman can be forced to have an abortion, even if she has freedom of choice. Uh, HELL no. What you don’t understand is that China is a Pro-LIFE state. However, their one-child POLICY promotes forced abortion. It is ANTI-choice laws and a Pro-LIFE state that are ruining that country. NOT feminists, NOT Pro-Choice. Anti-choicers want to ruin that country FURTHER by supporting the Anti-Choice regime and blocking any action that would actually be EFFECTIVE. Meaning, decriminalizing abortion, providing comprehensive sex-ed and abortion and creating a high-functioning health care system. Then blame Pro-Choice feminists for not doing enough. Create enough Catch-22s and you can ALWAYS blame someone else for the problems YOU created.

      Why didn’t you compare the actual differences between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life? Making the decision to continue a pregnancy or being FORCED to continue a pregnancy. Therefore, as Joyce’ own mother probably did (yes, I know who Joyce for Choice was named for. After all, I live in Canada, too.), you should have portrayed her mother’s decision as the choice to continue a pregnancy while Umbert’s mother should have been portrayed as being FORCED to continue a pregnancy, Why is it that you didn’t do that? Because you realized just how bad your movement is to say anything good about it, while portraying yourselves as you TRULY are? And why do you use the word ‘choice’ in such a vague manner? Why don’t you TELL us whether or not Joyce’ mother made the CHOICE to CONTINUE or TERMINATE a pregnancy? Do you get it, NOW? Or are you really just a bunch of sad, pathetic old people, after all? (Btw, MORE women CONTINUE rather than terminate their pregnancies, even Pro-CHOICE women. Like my own mother. WHOOPS.)

      If they DO support children before and after birth then WHY do they keep voting in people who slash funding for WIC, SNAP and other programs? Hmm….? Yeah, thought so.

      • Gary Cangemi

        Actually Joyce for Choice wasn’t meant to represent anyone in particular. I just came up with the name because it rhymed. I’m not familiar with any woman named Joyce in Canada. The storyline in question featured Umbert running for President against a pro-choice unborn child. Her argument, in the debates, was that she was not a person unless her mother said she was. Umbert of course, can’t figure out how she’s debating at all if she thinks she’s a non-entity. The night before the election, Umbert’s guardian angel/campaign manager visits him and tells him that he wins by default because Joyce’s mother exercised her choice (meaning she chose to have an abortion). Umbert is saddened and declares he wanted to win fair and square, not this way. He then proceeds to pray for both Joyce AND her mother whose heart was in the wrong place.
        The pro-life position does not force a woman to do anything. The only way to force a woman to carry a child to term is to tie her down until she delivers. We certainly don’t advocate that. I never hear your side talk about the woman’s responsibility with regard to high risk behaviors that result in these pregnancies you claim we force on her. Why doesn’t she exercise her choice THEN so she doesn’t have to involve another human being in her decision making? If No means NO, why are so many unmarried women saying YES, and with very little provocation? Some of the most promiscuous people scream the loudest about sexual privacy. And I’m not letting the men off the hook, either. Their predatory behavior toward women is ungentlemanly and demeaning.
        There are alternatives to abortion. The first one is not risking pregnancy until in a married relationship. The second is giving the child up for adoption, a loving and generous thing to do. The third is for the natural parents to take responsibility for the life they’ve created.
        Abortion is not ServePro (like it never even happened). It DID happen and you’re never going to forget it.

        • fiona64

          I never hear your side talk about the woman’s responsibility with regard
          to high risk behaviors that result in these pregnancies you claim we
          force on her.

          Yeah, that’s why you never hear a pro-choice person advocating for comprehensive sex education and ready access to contraception, even for the most low-income women.

          Oh, wait! You hear that all the time. It’s the anti-choicers who are against those things. My bad.

          There are alternatives to abortion. The first one is not risking pregnancy until in a married relationship.

          By which statement you presume that all married couples want to have children … and that is simply not the case.

          Sorry, Gary. As much as you might want to force a Catholic theocracy into place for everyone, we live in a secular society.

        • Valde

          I never hear your side talk about the woman’s responsibility with regard
          to high risk behaviors that result in these pregnancies you claim we
          force on her.

          Yes, consensual sex = a high risk behaviour – and if it turns out bad for the woman, too bad, she better deal with the *consequences*

          You just keep proving that your problem is with female sexuality Garykins.

          The only way to force a woman to carry a child to term is to tie her down until she delivers.

          Or by making abortion illegal and/or a crime, which is what you want to do, right? In which case, desperate women will take matters into their own hands and end up dead or disabled as a result.

        • fiona64

          If No means NO, why are so many unmarried women saying YES, and with very little provocation?

          Don’t ever try to pretend again that your position is about anything *other* than controlling women’s sexuality. Your own words convict you.

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sexy-Atheists/156832574380566 Max Frisson

    How has this country fallen backward so fast? Everyone knows, both sides, that the surgical standards for clinics and tightly controlled admitting standards are unnecessary burdens that have nothing to do with health care. This ploy has been used in at least a dozen states this year to limit access.

    What is a federal mechanism to set a FDA standard that supersedes these ridiculous laws.
    What is the 20 week thing. 92% of abortions occur under 13 weeks, only 1.5% after 21 and those are almost all for medical reasons.

    • vixxy

      yes most of the ones post 20 are due to serious reasons because of “personhood” being agreed on around that point of pregnancy. I have seen many pro life state that medical etc doesn’t matter that the baby is more important which makes me a bit sad because apparently a big part of the anti-abortion does seem to think a woman is just livestock for breeding or like that other post said an incubator for an egg and what disgusts me even more is I have seen a lot of women state that kind of opinion.

  • Valde

    Really good article here, about fetus porn, do a search for:

    Rabble dot ca

    Why fetus porn doesn’t help the anti-choice cause

    By

    Joyce Arthur
    July 5, 2013

    • Arekushieru

      LOVE that woman. That reminds me, I have a post that I promised to write for her. Gah! Gotta get on that!

  • Valde

    While I am at it, I am going to ad this as well, got it from another blog I read (jobsanger)

    “I found the post below at a blog called jimrigby org.
    The blog is about a year and a half old, but I just discovered it (and
    added it to my blogroll). It is written by Jim Rigby, a Presbyterian
    minister in Austin. I repost his effort because I think it is excellent
    and thought-provoking. He says:

    Before we can have a meaningful discussion
    on the topic of abortion we must answer a previous question. Are women
    “persons” under the constitution? Do they have inalienable rights, or
    are they a kind of community property whose rights can be voted upon?

    In pregnancy, life develops within a
    life. Legally, one of those lives must be declared the context of the
    other or else there is no criterion from which to make a choice. Some
    are far too willing to put the needs and rights of a pregnant woman on
    the same scale with a microscopic egg. Unlike the egg, the pregnant
    woman can have a host of medical and personal issues, and she can have
    responsibilities to other children that pregnancy might make impossible
    to fulfill.

    To claim that a fertilized human egg is a
    person is to say that the woman is essentially an incubator for that
    egg. To pretend that the human egg is developing in a Petri dish without
    needs and rights of its own is to dehumanize the woman before the
    discussion ever begins.

    Problem is, these initial assumptions are
    never examined. So before we can meaningfully discuss the topic of
    abortion it is helpful to answer a fundamental question first. Is a
    woman community property so that her right over her own body can be put
    up for a vote? If so, the pro-life position makes perfect sense. Or, is a
    woman a person with inalienable rights, in which case the pro-choice
    position is the only possible ethical response.”

    • cjvg

      Thank you for posting this

    • Arekushieru

      THIS: “Some
      are far too willing to put the needs and rights of a pregnant woman on
      the same scale with a microscopic egg. Unlike the egg, the pregnant
      woman can have a host of medical and personal issues, and she can have
      responsibilities to other children that pregnancy might make impossible
      to fulfill.”; is what I’d LOVE to say to antis when they claim THEIR the ones who want to protect both women AND fetuses. LIARS.

  • Gary Cangemi

    Well Andrea, based on the few exchanges I’ve had with your feminist followers, I can honestly say that the anger and vitriol expressed towards me and my little comic strip are indicative of a rage and level of unhappiness and negativity that we simply don’t have in the pro-life movement. The people I’ve had the pleasure of knowing and working with over the past 12 years have been hopeful, upbeat, and committed to their cause. Could it be because we support a culture of life while abortion destroys human lives?
    Consider this however. Since only pro-choice people are, by and large, having abortions, who are they going to pass the torch of pro-choice leadership to in future generations? Meanwhile, pro-life people are having more children and teaching them pro-life values. Over time, the shear lack of members is going to relegate your movement to a dark chapter of American history.
    You can rest assured, Umbert and I will do our best to help move that process along with our message of Life and Hope. Hope to see you at next year’s NRLC conference in Louisville. Next time, stop and say hello.

    • HeilMary1

      Your numbers are getting smaller as more grossly injured and dumped mothers warn their daughters against childbirth and as more outsourced unemployed adults recognize forced overpopulation in Catholic poverty pits as the race to the bottom. We breeding and sweatshop slaves are linking up and rebelling against your tyranny.

    • fiona64

      That’s right, Gary. Those screeching “sidewalk counselors,” with their photo-shopped signs are all sweetness, light and positivity. And don’t forget your fabulous supporter, Mr. Cris, the one who says that eleven-year-old rape victims should be made to gestate pregnancies, even if their lives are endangered, because “a baby means something good came out of that.” Whee! “Pro-life” rape apologetics about a little girl who is going to be forced to gestate because of Chilean law that looks *exactly like what you support*!

      Feh.

      Bye-bye now! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

    • goatini

      Oh, here’s passive-aggressive whiner Cangemi again, the “cartoonist” who is evidently incapable of drawing actual living, breathing WOMEN, since they’re INVISIBLE in his un-funny not-comic. Back again, badmouthing independent, free female US citizens standing up for protecting their civil, human and Constitutional rights as protected by the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendement. Why do you hate women and their civil rights, Cangemi? This is America and we are NOT going to let you and your fellow gestational slavers strip us of our civil rights. It’s un-American to interfere with citizens’ civil rights, you know.

      • Gary Cangemi

        I didn’t realize voting was un-American. I have no more power than my one vote. And I will use it as my conscience dictates, same as you.

        • goatini

          Good thing you don’t get to vote on the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens as protected by the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

          Civil rights are NEVER up for a vote.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Way to cherry pick the Constitution. That same amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” The last time I checked there was still no due process for any child about to be aborted.

          • Dez

            By law a fetus is not a child so it does not apply. You would first have to gain personhood status for fetuses.

          • Gary Cangemi

            That is why I vote. One day we will change the law to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn. All you have to do is outvote me. So I guess goatini is wrong. Some decisions ARE up for a vote.

          • fiona64

            At which point, women will no longer be persons, according to you, because a woman’s right to autonomy is “mitigated” (your own word) by the presence of a fetus. Perhaps you will be kind and allow us to be considered 3/5ths of a person? Or to have shoes?

          • goatini

            He’s a misogynist pig, whose vile rantings and ravings here bare his true hatred of free, independent, autonomous women.

            Bottom line: Cangemi, and his gestational slavery cabal, wants to legislate that female US citizens be regressed to the status of livestock, with the sole purpose of exploitation for breeding under Church-approved male ownership. This depraved cabal wants to enact theocratic legislation in our Nation that relegates the entire life and destiny of all females to enslavement under the benevolent (or not-so-benevolent) largesse of her Church-approved male owner. Look to Afghanistan for Cangemi’s Utopia as regards women.

          • goatini

            You and your theocratic misogynist cabal will NEVER strip female US citizens of their civil, human and Constitutional rights. NEVER.

            Civil rights are NEVER up for a vote.

          • HeilMary1

            You oppose the personhood of women!

          • fiona64

            Hey, asshole Cangemi! Which of your medical decisions should we be allowed to put on the ballot for other people to determine?

          • fiona64

            Hey, Gary? It’s been four days since I asked which of your medical decisions should be put on the ballot for other people to determine. Still no answer, eh?

            Yeah, I thought not. Only *women’s* rights should be voted on in your world …

          • fiona64

            Um, sweetie? The key word there is *person.* A fetus is not a person.

          • Gary Cangemi

            In your opinion. THAT’s why we vote. To determine whose opinion will prevail. You’re aborting your future voters. We’re giving birth to ours and raising them pro-life.

          • fiona64

            No, sweetie. It’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of science, and the law.

            And you still don’t understand how law-making works, obviously. Your idea that breeding a whole slew of new voters will somehow change scientific fact is laughable.

            What *isn’t* laughable is that you want fetuses to have more rights than the women carrying them. And that, my dear boy is also unconstitutional. Why? Because it’s enslavement.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Science is supposed to deal with facts, not opinions. And any 8th grade science book will bear out the fact that an unborn child is a living human being. Now you can play your semantic games with the word “person” but the founders used it to signify living human beings because it was their right to life they were protecting. Keep lying to yourself. Keep lying to your feminist friends. It’s the only way you can sleep at night with 55 million abortions to answer for, or perhaps its one or two abortions that are troubling you. No matter, we ALL have to answer to God for the lives we have destroyed or allowed to be destroyed.
            You’re right, voters don’t constitute right or wrong. They constitute the power to decide which laws get passed and who will pass them. Look around you. States are already passing more pro-life laws because the voters are becoming more pro-life.And let’s not kid ourselves. It’s not just about abortion. This government is becoming more desensitized to death across the board. Wait until Obamacare kicks in and Czar Sebilius gets to decide who lives and who dies like Nero with her thumb in the air. It’s coming. You think the government is going to spend any money keeping eighty year old grandmothers and grandfathers alive? And how about that little girl who needed a lung? Who was Sebilius to have any say in that decision? Yeah you don’t want government involved in private medical decisions unless it’s controlled by a party that will guarantee your precious abortion rights.

          • fiona64

            It’s the only way you can sleep at night with 55 million abortions to
            answer for, or perhaps its one or two abortions that are troubling you.

            As I’ve already made pretty clear that I don’t worry about other women’s medical decisions, you would be wrong. As usual.

            And any 8th grade science book will bear out the fact that an unborn child is a living human being. Actually, it will use the word fetus, with an age appropriate discussion of the developmental stages of viviparous vertebrates. It will not use terms like “unborn child,” which is a hyper-romanticized and factually inaccurate term that has no place in science. Perhaps kindergarteners are the appropriate group for referring to “a baby in mommy’s tummy,” but by the time kids are in the eighth grade, it’s usually no shock to learn that the stomach and the uterus are not the same.

            Wait until Obamacare kicks in and Czar Sebilius gets to decide who lives and who dies like Nero with her thumb in the air.

            You mean, the way you enjoy doing now with the lives and health of pregnant women? Oh, wait. My bad. The actual woman doesn’t exist in your world: just Umbert in utero. Mea culpa, mea culpa. I shouldn’t have mentioned pregnant women; they’re irrelevant to the discussion on Planet Cangemi.

            You’re awfully fucking verbose for a guy who took his pail and shovel and left in a huff the other day …

            States are already passing more pro-life laws because the voters are becoming more pro-life

            Not so much. Eighty percent of Texans oppose the draconian bill that Perry is ramming through … to the masturbatory glee of you and people like you, who want to see women forced to gestate doomed pregnancies (the majority of fetal anomalies can’t even be detected until 20 weeks’ gestation or later … but hey, who cares about quality of life, as long as the pwecious baybee is born, right?) Anencephaly? Cleft palate so profound that the brain is split in two? No biggy; the Great Cangemi has spoken; he knows how much risk the (invisible) pregnant woman should assume, because he Knows All!

            Casse-toi.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sebelius? No, I think you’re thinking of Jan Brewer. How many people did she kill when she denied funding for organ transplants again? And she claims to be ‘pro-life’ , too. There’s your death panel right there, Gary–headed by one of your own.

          • Nor

            Question: Do you think your wife might have chosen abortion, for the first life threatening pregnancy or the second life threatening pregnancy (I surely hope that one wasn’t on purpose), if she wasn’t under threat of you divorcing her (as she’d be a murderess of your child), and possibly losing custody of her children if the court was in a conservative state? Or maybe she wouldn’t have been under threat of death twice in her life if those closest to her and the community she grew up in didn’t value her ability to pop out babies more than they do her safety?

          • Ed Johns

            I’d like to see this 8th grade science book you’re talking about. If you believe that all abortion is murder then you are asserting that a single fertilized cell has the same rights as a fully grown adult woman.

            You can believe that if you want, but to imagine that any thinking person, let alone any adult woman is going to regard you as anything other than despicable is a real stretch.

            I doubt very much that any of us will ever answer to any God, let alone the Christian God, but since you do, maybe you should worry less about what women do and more about what you do. Or are you without sin?
            FYI: the first laws banning abortion in the United States were not passed until 1821, so it might not be a bad idea for you to shut up about what the founding fathers thought. Of course lying about the founders is an old game for conservatives.

          • Ed Johns

            A follow up re Obama Care. A government bureaucrat may one day make decisions about your healthcare, but unlike a private insurance company, that bureaucrat will not get a bonus for denying your claims.

            Unless you are a very rich man, someone besides yourself is going to make decisions about your healthcare. It could be the government, paid by and at least theoretically responsible to, the people. Or it could be a private insurance company, responsible to no one except the shareholders and their demand for ever increasing profits.

            You didn’t have the stones to leave your name and we know nothing about you, but based on your posts I think we can safely conclude that you are (a) a man and (b) have never tried to shepherd a sick or dying relative through the maze of private medical insurance.

          • fiona64

            It’s Gary Cangemi’s post; he tried to delete it and it just shows up as “guest” now.

          • Ed Johns

            I should have guessed…
            I need to get away from this thread. It fills me with bile, but like a dog returning to his spew, I keep coming back to Mr. Cangemi’s posts.
            Its maddening.

          • fiona64

            IMO, the problem is this: If the intelligent people with fact-based arguments walk away, The Great Cangemi’s ilk stand unchallenged before people who may be reading and not commenting. People who may think his nonsense is accurate. I understand the need/wish to walk away for a time, but I cannot let complete and utter bullshit like his go unchallenged. :-)

          • Valde

            I made the mistake of ‘debating’ some of the anti-choice ilk on youtube and it makes me sick.

            I am currently talking to one right now who is pretty much echoing Gary here.

            The guy I told you about earlier – the one who called me every sexist name in the book – was also from youtube.

          • fiona64

            Where to these jerks *come from*? Gah.

          • Valde

            I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – they all sound the same!

            It’s uncanny.

            Gary could be Justin could be Mr_Cris could be the assholes on youtube.

            They are all very very patronizing, and they all use the same talking points.

          • Valde

            fuck yeah, I just got told I was a ‘cum dumpster’ for uh, basically writing a shorter version of what you just wrote about convenience, fiona

            well, that and disproving the fellow’s lie that abortion is more dangerous than pregnancy

          • fiona64

            I am sure that anti-choicer “Jennie,” over on LieSiteNews, is stewing in her juice because she told me “science AND emotion” were on her side in proving gestation was safer than abortion.

            Sometimes it’s almost painful to have actual information, with links and stuff, that makes people like that look ridiculous. ;->

          • Jennifer Starr

            I dealt with someone who called me that once on here–some guy who claimed that birth control allowed men to use women as objects without respect or regard and then tried to ‘prove’ his assertion using some of the most convoluted garbage I’ve ever heard. Apparently a guy doesn’t really love you unless he wants to make you pregnant? Makes no sense at all. And I asked him ‘well what if the woman doesn’t want to get pregnant either’? –that just seemed to completely throw him off kilter–apparently he’d never conceived of woman who doesn’t want baby after baby after baby. I sometimes wonder what planet these people actually inhabit.

          • Ed Johns

            No, you make a good point. Although in this case, I think Mr Cangemi may have moved on to greener pastures… I’m certainly not getting any replies.

          • Valde

            Before I started to take part in the debates here, I used to read all of the comments.

            People such as fiona do us all a great service by poking holes in anti-choice rhetoric, and by exposing these people for the misogynists they truly are.

          • fiona64

            You are too kind.

          • fiona64

            He told me just a couple of hours ago that I had no right to call him misogynistic, because he has always been respectful of women. So, yeah. He’s still around.

          • Ed Johns

            That sounds eerily like Jeff Davis saying he was always kind to “his” Negros…

          • Valde

            And don’t forget the Tea Partiers who have said that slavery was actually GOOD for blacks.

            Just like pregnancy is ‘good’ for women – it’s what they are ‘made’ for!

          • fiona64

            And our little friend Mr_Cris, who opined that slavery can be a good thing “under the right circumstances.”

            I don’t know what Orwellian universe these people came from, but I wish they’d go back!

          • Ed Johns

            Mr. Cangemi, want to weigh in on Black Slavery? Think the Confederacy got what it deserved? My opinion, at least, should required no exposition.

          • Dez

            I just love knowing that my women ancestors were raped and treated like breeding cattle unable to make any choices regarding their reproduction. sarc. Slave owners and the “pro-life” crowd have the same mentality that women are only good for making babies and if they die doing it, well that’s their god’s will.

          • Valde

            They offend me beyond comprehension when they compare abortion to slavery and the holocaust.

            I often inform them that black slave women were treated like livestock – and that often the slave owners went to great pains to keep the fetus safe while they beat the woman.

            Very good article on the subject here on RH Reality Check – I often cite it when debating these bigoted assholes.

          • fiona64

            Pro-tip, Gary? When you try to delete a post, it still shows up. It just says “Guest.” We all know that this is more of the “pro-life” rantings of the Great Cangemi.

          • Valde

            Mr_Cris tried to do the same thing on the other article.

            He said to me that “I would be just as pro-life if men could get pregnant”.

            And then he deleted it. I wonder why.

          • fiona64

            I swear to god, one of these days I’m putting a fake psychic in one of my novels … and that person will go by the name of The Great Cangemi.

            After all, Mr. Cangemi here thinks he knows why women have abortions. Since women are not required to disclose the reasons, he knows that it is all for “convenience.” Even when those reasons are about anything *but* convenience, well, “other women have gone through worse, so it’s still just convenience.” (He did generously allow that, though “tragic,” it was okay for a woman to obtain lifesaving cancer treatment …)

            Ergo, he must be psychic. And since, he is wrong, he is not a very good one.

          • fiona64

            My error: it was another misogynistic jerk I was thinking of, who also made the assertion that women terminate pregnancies for convenience. This was my reply to that assertion (after which he said that the cancer treatment was “tragic but acceptable,” but the other reasons were just for “convenience”):

            Where we do differ is the word that gets up my nose the most in these discussions: “convenience.” It is far more convenient to gestate, to be honest. But let me tell you why it really bugs the hell out of me when people use that word: you don’t know what the circumstances were that led to the decision, so it’s awfully easy to dismiss it as mere “convenience.” You do not know what is going on in that woman’s home. Maybe she’s trying to escape an abuser who would be tied to her forever if she gestated and gave birth to his child. Maybe there is a seriously ill child at home already, her birth control failed, and the family simply cannot afford to have another member and care for it adequately. Maybe she’s just been diagnosed with breast cancer and cannot take the lifesaving medications for herself and remain pregnant. Those three reasons I just cited happened in my circle of friends alone.

            There are a myriad of reasons that you will never know because,
            frankly, they’re none of your business. However, because you just see that a woman has chosen to terminate a pregnancy, you dismiss it as being for mere convenience.

          • Valde

            Exactly.

            Unless a woman’s life is at risk, these misogynist males (and females) think that every abortion is ‘of convenience’.

          • HeilMary1

            Your childbirth-ruined and scorned women are joining our side in vast numbers, jackass.

          • goatini

            All children, ever, have already been born.

            WOMEN are persons. All persons with rights are citizens who have been born.

            YOU wish to obstruct the right to life, liberty and property of female US citizens, by illegally interfering with the civil, human and Constitutional rights of said citizens to the protections of the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

            No “cherry-picking” going on here, except by theocratic misogynist obstructionists, who falsely portray products of conception that have NO rights and are NOT citizens, as entities that have MORE rights than the living, breathing WOMAN. You will NEVER strip female US citizens of their civil, human and Constitutional rights.

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses have no right to maim and murder their captive hosts.

    • Dez

      Yea tell that to Dr. Tiller’s widow and family about rage and unhappiness when a “pro-lifer” like you killed him in his church. I don’t see pro-choicers harassing and damning women to hell at clinics,and bombing, threatening, and killing doctors and their staffs. That is a honor exclusive of your “pro-life” movement. Also “pro-life” as well as pro-choice women have abortions. “Pro-life” women are hypocrites like that. They rail against abortion, but when they really need one, they are glad it’s there. Thankfully we will continue to fight against force birthers like you that would relegate women to the past of back alley abortions and septic wards in the hospital.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Oh yes, the ‘angry’ feminist–the label that we always get stuck with any time we actually have the nerve to stand up for our rights and demand to be treated as full human beings with the rights to control our own bodies. Isn’t it funny how that always happens? I still laugh about the time when I answered a woman’s question in a very civil, polite, manner and her response was to ask me why I was so ‘enraged’. So if I’m snarky, I’m ‘angry’ and if I’m polite I’m ‘angry’ too, I guess. Can’t win either way because people are going to perceive what they want to perceive. That’s not under my control, but I digress.

      It might surprise you to know, Gary, that I’m actually a very happy, positive and upbeat person. I read Wodehouse–watch the Marx Brothers and adore British comedy–especially Monty Python. But I am human and yes, I do get angry. Hearing about women being humiliated by arrogant pharmacists who refuse to fill or even return a woman’s prescription makes me angry. Politicians who play games with my rights so they can score points with theocrats and get more votes makes me angry. And yes, I get angry when your side basically suggests that women and female children are no more than throwaway incubators who should be forced to gestate regardless of the circumstances, against their will, no matter the costs to their health and lives. Have you been following Mr_Cris, who thinks that forcing an 11 year old little girl, a rape victim, to give birth even if it causes her to be permanently disabled is just hunky-dory? Yeah that does make me pretty mad–actually anyone with a soul should be furious about attitudes like that. So yeah, you can call me angry if you want. But if someone were trying to take your rights away, Gary, I’d imagine you’d be pretty angry too.

      • Valde

        Aw, but, you forget, forcing the 11 year old rape victim to carry to term even if it disables her is NOT DENYING HER HER RIGHTS BECAUSE SHE WAS *MADE* TO HAVE BABIES.

        And this is why you are not allowed to be angry Jennifer Starr, or even criticize Gary, because it is not your place to disagree with what GOD has in store for you as a mere baby factory.

        tsk tsk!

      • Gary Cangemi

        Jennifer, you and I probably like many of the same things. But the anonymity of blogging makes it all too conducive to treating each other as objects rather than persons. It is not my intention to stereotype you and I don’t like being stereotyped as a mysogynist and teabagger either. A quick perusal, however, of many of the comments made about me and my work suggest a degree of anger and vitriol that I have not heard expressed from the pro-life folks that I know towards your side. Most of them are kind, caring people who DO care about women and want them to avoid making a tragic decision. This debate isn’t about the anecdotal cases that strike the highest emotional chords. It is, by and large, about the majority of abortions which are for convenience, not life threatening situations. No one, even on my side of the aisle, honestly thinks that all abortions will be outlawed. Even pro-life people have differences of opinion as to which should be permitted and under which circumstances. I happen to follow Catholic teaching on these matters because, having studied philosophy and theology (former seminarian) I believe in the soundness and strong ethical grounding of Catholic teaching. But we live in a country where my background still only gives me one vote and I exercise that vote as well as my other gifts in the way my conscience dictates. Does that make me an evil person? No, it makes me a fellow citizen.
        I’ll tell you what really makes me angry. It’s the hypocrisy of so-called liberals or progressives as they now identify themselves.. They claim to be so open minded and tolerant and they are…towards anyone who agrees with them. But disagree with a liberal and you are branded a teabagger, homophobe, and mysogynist and you are attacked and have your career threatened, or, on college campuses, you are demonized and threatened with poor grades unless you march lockstep with the professor’s ideology. Political Correctness was invented by progressives as a way of suppressing dissent from the progressive agenda, aided and abetted by a bullying, badgering compliant media. It’s worse than McCarthyism, or just as bad because it has the same effect…setting Americans against each other. No, some liberals are neither tolerant, nor progressive. And I realize some conservatives can come across as pompous and self-righteous. We’re human and none of us is perfect. I abhor hypocrisy on the right just as much.
        All I’m trying to do with Umbert the Unborn is change hearts and minds. My comic strip has no power over the law, only my vote does, for what it’s worth, same as yours. I would much rather be doing something commercially successful so that I could take better care of my family. But that little character is like a small voice inside of me that needs to be heard and I believe it is what God wants me to do.
        There is no question that as my side of this issue makes gains, we are going to have to do more for these children that will result and for the women that bear them. But we also need to rededicate ourselves to strengthening the American family. Children need two parents, a mother and a father for the best chance of growing up happy and successful. The number of children being raised by single moms is astounding and a major contributing factor to all the abortions. I blame the culture of sexual freedom, promiscuity, pornography, and divorce for much of this problem. People are not making the effort to make their marriages work because it’s much too easy to discard one relationship for another.
        It’s a shame there can’t be more dialogue and less shouting between pro-life people and pro-choice people. I thank you for your comments and the respectful way they were made.

        • fiona64

          I don’t like being stereotyped as a mysogynist

          Well, perhaps you should stop acting like one. Just a suggestion.

          It is, by and large, about the majority of abortions which are for convenience, not life threatening situations.

          There’s that word again. You don’t know the reasons women abort; you just think you do. And it’s awfully easy (and no small measure mysogynistic) to wave your hand and dismiss matters as mere “convenience,” as already stated.

          • Valde

            They really hate being stereotyped as misogynists!

            One fellow was making the same arguments as Gary last week – I pointed out his misogyny, and he told me that I was a misandrist:

            s1ut
            b1tch
            c*nt
            wh*re
            tw*t

          • fiona64

            But, see, that’s okay … because only misogynistic men are allowed to be judgmental asshats. Women are supposed to sit quietly, with our eyes downcast, and concur with their assessments.

            Just ask the misogynistic men!

          • Gary Cangemi

            You have nothing on which to base such an accusation. I have never treated women in any disrespectful way. For you to accuse me of hating them is just pure bitter militant feminist malarkey. When a person has an abortion because they simply do not want a child, because it will interfere with their lifestyle choices, or because it takes to much effort to raise a child, I would call that an abortion for convenience. Or if having a child poses some financial or other difficulty that the mother chooses not to face. Inconveniences are not “mere” but neither are they life threatening situations. I just don’t understand the logic that says because you want to preserve the ability to have an abortion in a critical situation, we must preserve access to all abortions in every situation. It is possible to narrow down the criteria a bit, don’t you think, and save several lives in the process?

          • fiona64

            When you dismiss women’s medical decisions as being matter of “convenience,” your own words provide the basis for my opinion.

            It’s none of my business why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, any more than it’s my business why another woman chooses to gestate one. And the same applies to you.

            When a person has an abortion because they simply do not want a child,
            because it will interfere with their lifestyle choices, or because it
            takes to much effort to raise a child, I would call that an abortion for
            convenience
            . Or if having a child poses some financial or other
            difficulty that the mother chooses not to face.

            I don’t care if you call it a trip to England. It’s still none of your business. You don’t know the circumstances in that woman’s home

            Frankly, it’s more “convenient” just to gestate and do nothing. It’s far more inconvenient to (among other things) risk physical assault by “loving, peaceful ‘sidewalk counselors'” who want to scream at you about being a murderer, or call you a s1ut, or similar. It’s far more inconvenient to die of breast cancer because you have to choose between the drugs that will save your life and a pregnancy. It’s far more inconvenient to be tied forever to a physically abusive spouse who will eventually murder you for daring to escape and take the born children with you. It’s far more inconvenient to have a critically ill child at home and then have another one that you can’t afford to care for properly.

            And those three examples? Are in my circle of friends alone. All three of those women sought abortions. One of your fellow travelers graciously allowed that it was “tragic but acceptable” for my cancer patient friend to get the treatment she needed, but everything else was just for “convenience, because other women have gone through worse.”

            Well, in case you missed the point: one of those friends is *dead* at the hands of her abuser, as she was ordered by the courts to go back to him. He argued “parental alienation” because she took the kids with him, and despite his having been jailed for beating her previously, the judge sided with him. After he murdered my friend, he killed himself. I’m pretty sure that their born children founded it a trifle “inconvenient” to be orphaned.

            So, in short? Fuck you and your judgmental concepts of “convenience.” You prove your misogyny with every word you write, when you discuss real women and their lives in such dismissive terms.

          • Valde

            How much blood and bone marrow have you donated Gary?

            Have you given up a kidney yet? There are people dying right now, for want of organs.

            Are you living in poverty because you gave the majority of your money to help the poor?

            If you have done *none* of the above, then I can only conclude that you value your own *convenience* more than you value another’s right to life.

          • fiona64

            He’ll tell you that all of that is none of your business, Valde. That’s what he said when Ed Johns asked him basically the same question. Then, he said that Ed had no right to judge him.

            The Great Cangemi has spoken!

          • goatini

            What a load. Attempting to interfere with and obstruct the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to the protections of the guarantees of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, IS DISRESPECTFUL.

          • Valde

            You don’t hate women Gary.

            Neither do extremist muslims.

            You just view women as subhuman baby factories – put on this earth for men’s pleasure and profit.

        • goatini

          1. You’re NOT “pro-life”. You are pro-forced-birth and pro-gestational-slavery.

          2. We’re not “stereotyping” you as a misogynist – we’re stating exactly what you are, as all of your posts, and especially your nasty misogynist un-“comic”, are EXACTLY that.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Gary, why do you keep trying to delete some of your posts? It’s really kind of pointless–we all know which ones that you wrote.

      • Gary Cangemi

        I didn’t delete them, I just took my name off of them. I don’t care what you say about me, but I don’t appreciate the attempts by some to make inappropriate comments about by family.

        • Valde

          Well people can see our replies SO WE ALL KNOW IT WAS FROM YOU

          • Gary Cangemi

            That’s OK. I just don’t want my name on some of them when people are google searching my name. The general discussion posts where I’m just expressing opinions, I have no problem with signing. I’m just not relating any more family anecdotes or personal examples. Some of the bloggers here are a little too aggressive in their attacks.

          • fiona64

            You have no shame in having your name attached to your conspiracy-theorist “birther” nonsense about Pres. Obama, though … and dude, I would be far more embarrassed at being *that* plug-ignorant than just about anything else you’ve said or done.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A birther? You mean like Oily Taint, the folks at World Nutjob Daily and all the rest? Oh dear, Gary–now that is shameful.

          • fiona64

            Yep … a birther. He argues that as a graphic artist, he has specific forensic expertise that proves that Pres. Obama’s birth certificate is fake. Plus, he’s a supporter of Sheriff Joe Arpaio … and you can draw your own conclusions from *that.* Seriously, if he hasn’t hidden his comment history by now, you should have a look. It’s alternately disturbing and hilarious on some levels. It gives you a real insight into who Mr. Cangemi *really* is, behind his thin “nice guy/gentleman” veneer.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, good old Sheriff Joe and boy defective Mike Zullo and his ‘cold-case posse’, who were paid by Joseph Farah of WorldNutDaily to find evidence of fraud, and have used taxpayer dollars to do so–and yet mysteriously, have never filed any kind of criminal complaint, though they keep promising that it will be ‘any day now’–because they know they’d be laughed out of court just like every other birther has been and will be. Sad, very sad. Why this joker hasn’t been run out of office ages ago is a mystery to me.

          • fiona64

            Choice samples from his comments on the matter:

            — As a graphic artist, I have examined the White House- issued birth certificate and know for a fact that it is a composite.

            — And FYI, experts HAVE come out with the evidence but the media refuses to take it seriously.

            — I’m not employed by the Justice department, so I have no standing to issue a warrant for Barry Soetero’s arrest for impersonating an American citizen.

            — Sheriff Joe’s experts were quite credible in their analysis.

            Really, it’s laughable. He’s mad that women have the right to bodily autonomy … and he’s mad that there’s a black man in the White House. It must really suck to live in an age where one’s white male hegemony and privilege are periodically challenged by those lower on the ladder …

          • Jennifer Starr

            *snort* He’s really a joke. There haven’t been any credible experts. Just a potpourri of assorted nutjobs, disbarred attorneys, convicted forgers, disgruntled PUMAs, sovereign citizen loonies, conspiracy theorists, closet racists and out-and-out racists. And Donald Trump and the tribble that resides on his head. I guess Gary’s in good company with that lot.

          • Gary Cangemi

            Let’s not get off topic. If you want to challenge me on Obama’s birth certificate, there are plenty of blog sites that deal with that topic. Feel free.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh there’s nothing to challenge, Gary. A lot of people to ridicule, but nothing to seriously challenge.

          • fiona64

            Just one more choice you don’t get to make for us … what we address and where.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Taking your name off of them is pointless–we actually do have memories and we do remember which posts were written by you.

          • Valde

            Gary is a birther.

            Are you surprised:P

  • matermax

    Dear Andrea, I was there and you have misled your readers. Did you report about the young adults who are beautifully and eloquently defending life that were there and that maybe there weren’t just middle-aged people attending? Did you report about the love that truly filled the rooms and the respect shown the elderly? Did you report about the fact that there are plenty of people on a waiting list in America waiting to adopt children and have been waiting for years? Did you report about the woman who was the product of a rape and urged our governor not to allow late term abortions, which touched him in a profound way? Did you mention the decades of years thousands of people have volunteered to end abortion because they love humanity? Did you mention that it is not the so-called patriarchs that work mainly in the pro-life movement–but the young women? You will be forever changed…in a very good way. You will see…one day. Beauty of life lies within each of us and the opening it asks in your life knocks with love; not anger, not hate, not revenge, not decadence, not misunderstanding. It knocks with a profound charity and asks nothing in return. Your mimosas cannot help you forget what you heard or the dignity given to each human being attending the conference. What I saw on media outlets from pro-choice women at the capital was a far cry from anything I would call loving.

    • fiona64

      Did you report about the fact that there are plenty of people on a
      waiting list in America waiting to adopt children and have been waiting
      for years?

      I wonder then, why the most recent AFCARS statistics indicate that there are more than 100K children currently available for adoption in this country (source, with URL deliberately alternated due to moderation: http://www dot acf dot hhs dot gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-19). And why the majority of them will age out of the system without ever having a permanent adoptive home.

      I find it puzzling in the extreme that there are so many people who have been “waiting for years” when there are so many children currently available for adoption. In fact, I find it downright dishonest to pretend that they really want to adopt, because they could have done so many times over if that were the case.

      But hey, don’t let facts about actual born children get in the way of your emotion-laden rhetoric about fetuses.

      • HeilMary1

        And she ignores the millions of starving homeless orphans worldwide who are being sex trafficked by priests!

        • fiona64

          She doesn’t seem to realize how her smarmy little lecture reeks of privilege, to be honest.

    • HeilMary1

      You are committing criminal Munchausen by Proxy abuse on behalf of mother-killing pedophile priests when you bully women into deadly, disabling and bankrupting childbirths. The ugly truth about you fetal idolaters is finally being shared by us millions of victims. No woman deserves obstetric bladder and bowel incontinence, female fetus-caused face and breast cancers and multiple organ failures because of your pedophile cult.

    • Jennifer Starr

      There are lots of children available for adoption in this country right now. They just don’t happen to be cute, non-disabled, white newborns. There are literally thousands if not millions of children in the US currently languishing in foster care, who would love to have a permanent family, and the state will even help you with the costs. So don’t tell me about families on waiting lists. That’s a bunch of crap.

      • Valde

        Black babies cost less than white hispanic and asian because there is lower demand.

        That right there should tell you something.

    • goatini

      Women with unwanted pregnancies are not public livestock to be exploited by selfish vultures. Plenty of children in need of adoption in the US right now. adoptuskids dot com

    • Valde

      I find your misogyny to be anything but loving.

    • Dez

      As a young adult I am defending the rights of women to not be forced to abide by your personal and religious beliefs. It is insulting that the “pro-life” crowd treats young black women like me as idiots that needs your privilege, patriarchal, and religious views regarding our reproduction. Where’s “pro-lifers” adopting the many black babies that you are manipulating black women to have by spreading false conspiracies of a black “holocaust” and that PP brainwashes black women to abort their babies? Yet when black women do keep their children they are labeled by the same so called “pro-lifers” aka the “religious right” as welfare queens and sluts. They cut programs that will actually help them raise their children, yet will be quick to demonize black women. I have nothing but disdain for the current “pro-life” crowd that uses incorrect science, lies, and emotional manipulation to force women to continue an unwanted pregnancy and sometimes a much wanted pregnancy that goes wrong. If you need lies then you really do not trust or love women. The pro-choice movement respects women to make the best choice for their lives whether it’s abortion or continuing a pregnancy. The choices continue to adoption and parenting as well. Plus the bonus of not pushing Christianity onto women like the “pro-life” crowd loves to do. Pro-choice crowd actually respects the diverse religious and non religious beliefs of women instead of trying to indoctrinate them like so many CPCs.

      • TullyMOI

        You said it, Dez! Spot on.

    • https://twitter.com/LittleMsHaldol LittleMissMellaril

      Why should I follow YOUR beliefs and YOUR religion? Nothing shocking about the convention to me from her piece. It’s all perspective, which reminds me, why do we have to have YOUR perspective?

  • Vanessa Howe

    Great writing and exactly how deranged our country has become. I will fight this in everyday life until women are free from religious persecution!

  • Valde

    addictinginfo dot org rick-perrys-sister-could-personally-profit-from-closing-most-of-the-abortion-clinics-in-texas

    If the bill passes, only five Texas abortion clinics
    would remain open — those that are already equipped as ambulatory
    surgical centers, advocates say. But a question remains: would the 420
    other ambulatory surgical centers that exist in Texas begin performing
    the operation? Abortion rights advocates predict that the demand for the
    procedure won’t disappear with passage of the law.

    One company that will be faced with that decision is United Surgical
    Partners International, based in Addison, TX. Their vice-president of
    government affairs is Milla Perry Jones, Gov. Rick Perry’s sister. She
    is also on the board of the Texas Ambulatory Surgical Center Society.

    Simply put, Milla Perry Jones sits on the board of the United
    Surgical Partners Corporation. They currently operate 420 surgical
    centers in the state. Closing 37 of the 42 clinics in Texas
    significantly eliminates competition and gives the company the ability
    to offer and perform abortion procedures at a higher cost. This means
    low income women will have to pay more to get an abortion and Rick
    Perry’s sister will profit from it.

    • fiona64

      You know, there’s a reason why so much of detective work features the phrase “follow the money” …

      • Valde

        Your comment about Gary’s misogyny is in moderation because you used a bad word! (s1ut)

        It won’t let me reply, so I am letting you know here so you can fix it!

        • fiona64

          That assumes I can find it now, LOL.

          • Valde

            Just click on your own name and go through your history.

            Click on the ‘___minutes’ option and it will take you right to the comment!

            That is how I have been keeping up with all of the new comments from you, Jennifer, and others – I just click on your name and read each comment :P

            Disqus has been really irritating lately, and half the time I don’t even get the ‘new comment’ notification on a thread. So the ONLY way to keep up is to obsessively stalk you, jennifer, and anyone else who comments a lot:P

          • fiona64

            Weird. I found the comment, but it isn’t showing as in moderation. I think Disqus has the hiccups today.

          • Valde

            Hey fiona, you said you’ve studied anthropology, right?

            Do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions, in regards to beauty.

          • fiona64

            Go ahead. It’s kind of an interesting topic … a little more related to sociology than anthropology, but I’m game. If I don’t know the answer, I’ll say so.

          • Valde

            Basically, the idea is that facial and bodily symmetry = superior genes.

            I don’t buy it. There appears to be a belief that facial/body symmetry leads to higher intelligence, higher resistance to disease, and overall superior genetic fitness.

            And that as an offshoot, *ultra-feminine* faces and bodies are the most genetically fit.

            However, a lot of the evidence doesn’t seem to back up these claims. And when they talk about symmetry, they mean bilateral symmetry – one eyebrow being lower than the other, for instance. The Egyptian pharaoh , psusennes, lived until his late 70s I believe, and he had a genetic deformity whereby the bones on one side of his face were lower than on the other. He was incredibly fit, muscular, and a great leader. But, since asymmetry = inferior genes, then by all rights, he should have been sickly and weak, right?

            Also, it’s possible to be slightly asymmetrical and still be MORE ATTRACTIVE than someone with perfect bilateral symmetry who has unattractive features.

            Lastly, I don’t buy the ‘ultra-feminine’ face/body thing, because there is just TOO MUCH VARIATION out there in the world.

            Ever notice too, how beauty standards always seem to prop up the WHITE (preferably northern european) ideal? None of the waist-hip-ratio shit applies to certain african tribes, and an australian aborigine certainly wouldn’t fit any ‘golden ratio’ mask invented by privileged white plastic surgeons.

            Oh yeah, these people LOVE to reference the golden ratio as proof of beauty and thus…genetic fitness.

            There is also a new study out, and there have been few over the years, that though ultra-feminine might be rated as ‘most attractive’, that look is not necessarily the face that men will pick for the woman they want to actually mate with.

            Sorry if this appears a bit jumbled, I’m just thinking out loud and haven’t really managed to completely order my thoughts on the matter :)

          • fiona64

            You’re right; it’s a primarily European concept. That’s why it’s more related to sociology than anthropology. There’s no evidence that being physically desirable (as determined by whatever society makes the call) means your genes are “superior,” but it does mean that they may be more likely to be expressed.

          • Valde

            It’s annoying when you actually hear scientists repeating it. One fellow actually gave a speech on the subject and said that ‘the healthiest embryos will develop the most symmetrically, and thus when born, be the most genetically fit babies’

            /groan

            I thought I’d ask you because I was ‘debating’ a young lady today who thought she was an expert on the subject BECAUSE SHE’S STUDIED ANTHROPOLOGY AND READ LOTS OF SCHOLARLY PAPERS ON THE SUBJECT.

            I basically told her what I told you, and then she pointed out that I must look like a man, otherwise why would I be so upset?

            I love that she commmited that argument from authority fallacy, and then the ad hominem one right after that! Can’t help but be reminded of Gary!

          • fiona64

            She clearly hasn’t studied very *much* anthropology, I’ll say that. Otherwise, she’d know that European concepts of bilateral symmetry=beauty to do not apply across the board to all cultures, or across all time-periods. One need only research the Sara, Lobi, and Makonde African tribes, and the Burmese Kayan people to know that this is so.

  • fiona64

    The Great Cangemi has been very busy over at his favorite vehicle, “Right to Life News.” He has enjoyed editing pro-choice comments so that they are no longer contextual … mine, Valde’s, Goatini’s and several others. Interesting how much of the factual material is left out in his rush to “prove his point.”

    http://www dot nationalrighttolifenews dot org/news/2013/07/umbert-strikes-back-cartoonist-gary-cangemi-responds-to-pro-abortion-blogger-ambush-of-nrlc-conference/#.UeWuU6zhdy8

    Please, do have a look … and see the differences between what was *actually* posted here and what Cangemi *alleges* was posted here. It’s quite something.

    One wonders why the Great Cangemi felt the need to edit out so many factually accurate posts. Could it be to promote more lies about the pro-choice position for the sake of supporting his own rhetoric? Hmm.

    • Valde

      No wonder the sneaky bastard was deleting his name from certain comments

      • Jennifer Starr

        I knew there was a reason behind it—now it all makes perfect sense.

    • Valde

      Since only pro-choice people are, by and large, having abortions,
      who are they going to pass the torch of pro-choice leadership to in
      future generations? Meanwhile, pro-life people are having more children
      and teaching them pro-life values. Over time, the shear lack of members
      is going to relegate your movement to a dark chapter of American
      history.

      I can’t help but notice that this was one of his last comments. Heh. I love this meme – they think that they are the only ones who don’t have abortions, and that in a short period of time they will simply outbreed everyone and America will become a theocracy.

      lulz

      • fiona64

        Yeah, it’s quite clearly never occurred to him that pro-choice people also have kids.

        • Valde

          One of the lead podcasters on the podcast ‘Reasonable Doubts’, from FTB, is non-religious, pro-choice, and he has FOUR kids.

          • Jennifer Starr

            He actually wrote a character in his ‘comic’ called ‘Pro-Choice Joyce’, who runs against Umbert for president of the ‘Unborn States of America’ ?? And who is apparently some twenty-odd weeks along and whose storyline ends when her mother just aborts her, apparently on a whim? Because Gary apparently thinks that what all pro-choice women will do and can’t conceive of the fact that we would ‘choose’ to have children. This guy is really some piece of work.

  • Valde

    A great comment from Pharyngula, by Tigger:

    Back to regret:

    When we lose someone, the loss hurts;
    among other reasons because we remember all the time and experiences
    that we had with them and recognise that we will never repeat those and
    also because the future we had planned with them, and were looking
    forward to, is no longer.

    When a wanted pregnancy is lost, the loss
    hurts partly because we have lost the future we had planned; but the
    personality we were going to share that future with was, after all, a
    figment of our imaginations. We have very little, if any (depending on
    the length of the pregnancy) shared past with them to remember and
    mourn. The regret is for the loss of a potential life arc rather than an
    actual one. Yet when a baby is born, the future we had planned during
    pregnancy often turns out very different in the actual living of it, but
    we don’t usually mourn that loss of the planned future,
    because we happily adjust our expectations according to the real child
    we have borne, rather than the imaginary one of pregnancy.

    (I’ve had a thought – maybe the personal
    hurt that some people feel when they realise that they have a disabled
    child (especially Autism-Speaks-Parents) is because they are unable
    to adjust the plans they had, for the imaginary child-to-be, to
    accommodate the real child, and they cannot bring themselves to want
    that child as much as the one they imagined themselves having. That
    would also explain those parents who control every aspect of their
    children’s lives: choosing (or at least trying to choose) their clothes,
    toys, friends, careers, partners… they are trying to turn their real
    child into the one they imagined they would have).

    When an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy is
    discovered, the pregnant person suddenly finds themselves in a
    situation where the future they had planned, and were looking forward
    to, is no longer. That loss hurts just as much as any other; but they
    can do something about it that restores the original plan. That might be
    why few people regret elective abortion. It is something that restores
    their control over their lives and their futures, rather than something
    which takes everything away.

    One thing that might help people become
    more rational about the whole elective-abortion-equals-murder thing
    would be to put it in context by speaking out about miscarriage, AKA
    spontaneous abortion, statistics.

    A vast and important part of the
    experience of people seems to be hidden behind a curtain of shame, and
    failure, mourning and regret. Every person I have spoken to on the
    subject knows someone who has had at least one miscarriage. Most, like
    me, have had several. But no-one mentions it in conversation. It simply
    gets swept under the carpet and ignored. If one of us doesn’t
    deliberately ignore the hushing and silencing tactics and raise the
    subject anyway, it never gets discussed. So no-one knows how prevalent
    pregnancy loss is. And that isn’t counting the loss of embryos so early
    that no-one is aware that the egg was ever fertilised.

    I’d like to ask these ‘pro-life’
    whiners, picketing with their signs, something important (they aren’t
    actually ‘pro’ anything; nothing they do is actually aimed at changing
    the status quo; it’s all about them feeling superior without
    actually having to do anything helpful for anyone). Exactly how do they
    treat women who have miscarried a wanted pregnancy? How much sympathy
    and understanding do they give them? How do they commemorate the
    deceased conceptuses/embryos/fœtuses – all ‘unborn babies’? How many
    prayers do they offer up each week for the ‘souls of the babies’ lost by
    members of their congregation over the previous seven days?

    And I’d like to ask them who, exactly,
    is responsible for their loss? For every baby born, at conservative
    estimates more than one, up to three conceptions were lost.

    The truth is that, if they truly believe
    that not even a sparrow falls without the say-so of their God, that
    life begins at conception and that every death of an unborn baby is a
    major tragedy, they should be picketing the churches!

    I’d like to ask them why they aren’t angry at God.

    When their God kills blastocysts, embryos and fœtuses – ones that would be wanted – by the hundreds
    every minute of every day, all over the world*; yet they say it is
    wrong for someone to decide under any circumstances whatsoever to end
    their own pregnancy, when humans do so at the rate of just 83 a minute**?

    When 33 mothers die, every hour
    from complications caused by pregnancy and delivery***? (I was nearly
    one of those appalling statistics, back in 1984, when they were even
    higher.)

    When, of the 15,000 babies born every hour, 634 won’t live to celebrate their first birthday****?

    If no-one ever had an elective abortion
    again, anywhere in the world, 44 million elective abortions wouldn’t
    happen each year. But at least 22 million of those embryos and fœtuses
    would die, through miscarriage, anyway. And more would die because the
    person carrying them would die.

    By successfully ending elective abortion
    worldwide, you’d save, at best, 12-22 million lives a year. Meantime,
    over 150 million embryos and fœtuses, most of them very much wanted,
    would die before being born, through miscarriage.

    You think life begins at conception, and
    want to save unborn babies? Stop wasting time and money picketing
    abortion providers and trying to make people who have had elective
    abortions feel ashamed or guilty.

    Sponsor research into preventing spontaneous, not elective, abortion. Make pregnancy safer.

    Save over seven times as many lives.

    Thank you.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    *Worldwide births, 15,000 per hour, 250
    per minute; spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and failed implantation
    rates, conservative estimate 60-75% of all fertilised eggs = 22,500 –
    45,000 per hour, 375 – 750 per minute (various implantation estimations,
    several sites)

    **Elective abortion rates 42 – 44 million worldwide per year, 4,800 – 5,000 per hour, 80 – 83 per minute (Guttmacher Institute)

    ***”Every day, approximately 800 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.” (WHO)

    ****Worldwide infant mortality, 37.61 deaths/1,000 live births (UN)

    • fiona64

      but the personality we were going to share that future with was, after all, a
      figment of our imaginations. We have very little, if any (depending on the length of the pregnancy) shared past with them to remember and mourn. The regret is for the loss of a potential life arc rather than an actual one. Yet when a baby is born, the future we had planned during pregnancy often turns out very different in the actual living of it, but we don’t usually mourn that loss of the planned future, because we happily adjust our expectations according to the real child we have borne, rather than the imaginary one of pregnancy.

      I couldn’t have said it better myself.

      Back to reading the article. :-)

    • fiona64

      You think life begins at conception, and want to save unborn babies? Stop wasting time and money picketing abortion providers and trying to make people who have had elective abortions feel ashamed or guilty.

      Sponsor research into preventing spontaneous, not elective, abortion. Make pregnancy safer.

      This, and many other practical applications such as advocating for comprehensive sex education and ready access to effective contraception, would be far more practical use of the anti-choicers’ time … and far more pro-life in the long run. Unfortunately, it would require them to give up their moralizing and s!ut-shaming, so they are unlikely to do so. After all, it’s hard to feel morally superior if you aren’t shaming someone.

  • fiona64

    Whee! I’ve been banned from posting at LieSiteNews. I guess all of the facts, figures and data (with sources) was just too much for the anti-choicers.

    • Valde

      Of course it is.

      I will often reply with reams of science…at which point they will say ‘so and so has zero understanding of biology and medical science, it has been proven that a zygote is a human being’

      • fiona64

        The post to which I was trying to reply was one that said “They allow people to hunt extinct animals, but they don’t stop people from murdering babies.”

        My reply would have been “Pro-tip: if the animals are extinct, there aren’t any *to* hunt. And if you know people who have murdered babies, call the police.”

        Yeah, that’s the kind of genius residing over there: folks who think we’re all out hunting Carolina panthers and dodo birds before we commit infanticide.

        • Valde

          A lot of these people are just plain crazy and also stupid.

          One was lecturing me just the other day, and he used ‘apron’ instead of ‘upon’

          It just makes you go wtf???

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

      I was too! High five!

  • Valde

    Some of the posters here 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.”