Texas Adoption Bill Shows How Little Anti-Choicers Think of Women


Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry had to call a third special session this summer to deal with the actual business of running the state government, which went neglected during the first two special sessions—sessions that were completely hijacked by anti-choice politicians ramming through a major omnibus abortion bill that will shut down most of the state’s clinics. But any hope Texas might have had that anti-choicers would drop their obsession with passing restrictions and impediments to abortion was quickly dashed when state Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D-Brownsville), filed a bill that would require women to take a three-hour webinar on adoption in order to get an abortion. And once again, we are reminded that the anti-choice opinion of women’s intelligence and capabilities is shockingly low.

Anti-choicers just can’t help themselves. They know that they need to fend off (entirely accurate) accusations of misogyny, but their view of women is just so dim that misogyny keeps cropping up anyway. The stereotype of women underlying this legislation is a particular favorite in anti-choice circles, the belief being that women who seek abortions are sexually incontinent morons who are too stupid to understand the realities of their own lives, or even what an abortion actually is.

The notion that women are too stupid to know that adoption is an option is breathtakingly misogynist, but what makes the whole thing even more disturbing is that this patronizing belief that women get abortions because they’re stupid is the anti-choice version of trying not to be misogynist. After all, they routinely claim abortion is murder. If you don’t present women who get abortion as too stupid to tie their shoes, then, as an anti-choicer, the only other alternative is to present them as cold-blooded killers—which, in turn, means arguing that one in three U.S. women deserves to go to jail, a politically toxic idea that the anti-choice movement will do anything to avoid. So they portray women as stupid instead of evil, because those are the only two options if you think abortion is morally wrong.

When your entire political movement is built on the premise that so many women must be stupid or evil, it’s politically wise to change the subject away from your bigotry as much as you can. Indeed, that’s what a lot of politicians have been trying to do. Passing regulations like requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals or requiring clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards is a stroke of evil genius, because it exploits a regulatory system that has legitimate uses in setting health and safety standards—though of course these particular health and safety standards are not necessary. While forcing abortion clinics to have wider hallways or doctors to have hospital admitting privileges isn’t a very sexy way to go about restricting access to abortion, it has the benefit of dropping the entire subject of women and why they get abortions. And the less anti-choicers share with the world about how little they think of women, the better they tend to do in the polls.

So why come up with a bill that might as well be titled the “Abortion Opponents Believe Women Are Stupid Bill”? Frankly, at the end of the day, I think many anti-choicers just can’t help themselves. Their low opinion of women is, in their minds, a glittering jewel that can’t just stay hidden away, but has to be shared with the world, even if the cost of doing so is making it that much harder to do real damage to women’s lives. There’s just something about misogynists that makes it hard for them to keep their opinions to themselves. Anyone who spends time online can attest to that, as the internet is teeming with woman-haters whose desire to issue rape threats or taunt feminists over the most piddly nonsense overwhelms pragmatic concerns such as preserving one’s reputation or future employment opportunities.

Of course, expecting sexists to be logical about how they go about being sexist is kind of a silly thing to expect, if you give it a moment’s thought. After all, being a devoted sexist is an irrational thing to waste your energies on in and of itself. The Texas legislature’s anti-choice faction has demonstrated this beautifully. Passing this massive omnibus bill not only got in the way of doing real business and forced lawmakers to work throughout the summer they thought they’d have off, but it’s going to cost the taxpayers up to $2.4 million just in the legislative costs. The cost of defending the law in the courts after the inevitable lawsuits are filed will likely run into the millions as well. The law runs a very high chance of being struck down by the court for clearly violating Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but even if the anti-choicers get their way and the law goes into effect, things are still going to be sour for anti-choice politicians.

The growth of a black market for abortions, the costs of having to enforce this medically unnecessary law, and the growth of social spending to help women who did not successfully seek an abortion all will be bad for Texas. The rational choice for people who are tasked with running the government is simply to let abortion be legal and available. After all, restrictions like this won’t even stop that many abortions—some, sure, but women are going to seek illegal abortion drugs or travel out of state, and anti-choicers have to know that. So this is all a very, very expensive ploy to make life harder for women. People who put their resentment and loathing of women ahead of basic common sense aren’t really thinking rationally to begin with, so their tendency to shoot themselves in the foot on the PR front all the time is understandable.

Right now, it’s reasonable to believe that Lucio’s bill will die without getting a vote. The mainstream anti-choice movement has very little time right now for antics like this, with the heavy focus being directed more at doctors than women when it comes to abortion restrictions. But as with most things misogyny, I expect that this sort of thing will rear its head again. Condescending women and making life hard for them are two things that are just so personally rewarding to anti-choicers that they’ll be drawn to bills like this, even if part of them knows that, politically, it will only hurt them in the long run.

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

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

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • fiona64

    Texas, moving forward to the 19th Century …

  • John H

    Clearly this is all the result of dedicated misogyny; no argument there. I am always interested when I encounter someone who opposes abortion suggest adoption as an alternative (I’m thinking more the ground troops, grass-roots activists, etc. – I’m more convinced the politicos are operating purely out of disdain for women). This is mis-aimed not only in the ways Amanda points out, but also because adoption does not end pregnancy in any way, so adoption is not actually in any an alternative to abortion. The presumption seems to be that abortion is about not having to raise children. While this may be the case for any given person (perhaps even most), abortion is most directly about not being pregnant, and adoption does nothing to make one not pregnant if one does not wish to be pregnant (or does not wish to continue to be pregnant). I am all for framing this issue such that anti-abortion advocates are forced into the position of explicitly arguing for forced pregnancy, as that is what they actually want (whether they consciously realize it or not, opposing abortion necessarily means supporting forced pregnancy, as we do not have any forms of birth control that are 100% effective and/or 100% accessible).

    • Valde

      If a woman does not wish to become pregnant or continue to be pregnant,
      we should use the power of our law enforcement system to force her to
      become or remain pregnant,”

      Yeah, because that quite explicitly states what anti-abortion laws are all about – state ownership of women’s uterii.

      • Freethinker01

        Actually, Valde, our long and distinguished respect for the common law right to life is the reason we have anti-abortion laws. It’s about protecting innocent human beings from homicide.
        All human beings deserve the Constitutional right to due process.

        • Valde

          A zygote/embryo/fetus is not a human being, and you are not a freethinker.

        • Arekushieru

          Nope. The Constitutional right to due process only applies after the fact. If that WEREN’T the case, anytime someone who is raped, the victim would have to call a lawyer before being able to defend themselves. Oops, there goes THAT theory. Fetuses are neither innocent nor guilty.

          Our common right to bodily autonomy is the reason we have laws that say we can defend our bodies against any intrusion, even by using deadly force, such as rape.

          You really need to read up on laws, before commenting, next time.

        • goatini

          All rights are endowed upon citizens when they are born.

    • KristenfromMA

      You have summed it up perfectly!

    • Tahni Danielle

      “Forcing a woman to BECOME pregnant”….That’s called RAPE. Did they really just openly sanction rape?

  • Ella Warnock

    Adoption is the same old, same old – forced birthing.

  • Dez

    Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy.

    • myintx

      Adoption is an alternative to killing an unborn baby. A good alternative.

      • Jennifer Starr

        No woman is obligated to carry a pregnancy just to provide someone with a baby. Plenty of kids available to adopt in this country right now.

        • myintx

          Except in extreme circumstances (e.g. life of the mother in danger due to her pregnancy), your post is the definition of selfishness. Whatever happened to ‘doing the right thing’? A few months of ‘doing the right thing’ and a new human being gets to live an entire LIFETIME. WOW.
          As a society, everyone has a right to smoke… but, are you patting someone on the back for making the choice to smoke? NO! As a society, we discourage it because it could lead to death. Abortion leads to death too. We should be discouraging abortion and encouraging women to do the right thing if faced with an unexpected pregnancy. Encourage her to go to a place that will help her through her pregnancy. I read a story a few weeks ago about a priest who went to his congregation after he found out about a lady wanting to abort her unborn baby that had Down Syndrome. She agreed to bring the baby into this world if the priest could find someone to adopt it. Hundreds of people lined up to adopt it. More cases like this and more lives could be saved.

          • Jennifer Starr

            ‘The right thing’? No. Let’s be honest here. You don’t want a woman to do what is ‘the right thing’ for her, you want her to do what is ‘the right thing’ for you. Instead of presenting her with options and letting her make up her own mind, you want to be able to push her into the choice that makes you the most comfortable. Now that is the definition of selfishness. And it’s also selfish to demand that a woman go through with an unwanted pregancy to provide someone with a baby when there are plenty of children in foster care right this minute who desperately need permanent homes. Of course they’re not all ‘cute babies’, but isn’t adoption supposed to be about kids needing homes instead of people wanting a newborn?

          • myintx

            No.. I want her to do the right thing for her unborn baby – i.e. LET IT LIVE.. A woman thinking “I am more important than…” is selfish.
            “it’s not selfish to demand.. ” – First, what kind of society do we live in where people think of their own conveniences over someone else’s LIFE.. wow… it boggles the mind. And, there are not that many newborn babies up for adoption. Part of the reason there are long waiting lists. Most babies put up for adoption as newborns get adopted. Most adoptions work out. ALL abortions end in death.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Part of the reason there are long waiting lists is because some people are thinking more about ‘wanting a baby’ rather than helping a child currently languishing in our foster care system who many times will age out of the system without ever finding a permanent home because selfish people only ‘want babies’. So no, I don’t feel sorry for people on waiting lists.

          • fiona64

            Exactly. The people who allege to be on “waiting lists,” when there are hundreds of thousands of kids already awaiting adoption, remind me of people who dump their adult dogs in shelters when it’s no longer a cute puppy. They don’t want to do any actual parenting or have any challenges; they just want an infant to carry around like an accessory.

            If they really wanted to adopt, they could do so many times over.

          • Valde

            And don’t forget about all the people who will pay up to 60k for a surrogate birth.

            Oh, and I came across an interesting article on adoption:

            http://dissidentvoice dot org/2012/08/american-babies-exported-for-adoption/

            “With thousands of Americans eagerly adopting and more vying to adopt, why then are American-born babies – shockingly ­– being placed out of the US by American adoption agencies?”

            Why? FOR THE MONEY OF COURSE. Adoption is all about the big bucks, not helping children.

          • fiona64

            “Selfishness does not consist in living as you wish; it consists in demanding that *others* live as you wish.” — Oscar Wilde

            Looks like you’re wearing the selfish crown, sweetie …

          • L-dan

            What about the right thing for her? You people really seem to forget that this precious potential person doesn’t exist except by using another human as life support. What about their rights not to used in such a fashion?

            At the point the vast, vast majority of abortions take place, the embryo/fetus can’t live without that life support. Sorry, but people are completely within their rights to deny the use of their body to *anybody*.

          • KristenfromMA

            How many children do you have? How many have you adopted?

          • Arekushieru

            If a woman is NOT more important than a fetus, then a fetus is more important than she is. False equivalencies tend to do that, mayhaps you’ve heard of them? And THAT is fucking selfish and SICK. Pregnancy is not a mere inconvenience. Way to go, you just called rape a walk in the park. SFS.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And don’t even get me started on the priest who lied (said the couple was talking to an adoption agency when they weren’t) and showed up, unannounced and unsolicited, at the door with a couple of prospective adoptive parents in to pressure and emotionally blackmail these people into adoption. Because I really don’t have kind things to say about people like that.

          • myintx

            “Pressure” is wrong, but killing an unborn baby is OK? wow.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The decision to end a pregnancy should lie with the person who is actually pregnant. I don’t think that total strangers or the government should have the right to insert themselves, unwanted, into private matters.

          • Tahni Danielle

            It’s better than your opinion that it’s ok to rape women but not ok to abort mini-rapists. Rape-baby=rapist.

          • Arekushieru

            More false equivalencies? No, reproductive slavery is wrong, but terminating a pregnancy is okay. Stop blaming women, and ONLY women, for an accident of biology, hypocritical misogynist.

          • fiona64

            In reply to ldwendy, in moderation: There was lengthy discussion of the matter on two different Patheos
            articles, which included that the priest showed up with potential
            “parents” unsolicited.

          • fiona64

            You don’t give two shits about actual born children; that much is obvious.

            Unless, of course, they’re Caucasian infants who can be handed off to a “good Catholic family” so that the CPC where you work gets its kickback …

            And you’re lying about that priest. That young woman was not looking for an adoptive family at all. He took it up on himself to find an adoptive family, no screening, no nothing — via FACEBOOK. Then he showed up at her house to try to blackmail her into remaining pregnant.

            I know that’s what your CPCs do, and so you think it’s fine. It’s disgusting. Forcing someone to remain pregnant to satisfy your agenda is enslavement.

          • cjvg

            How many live organ donations have you made?

            Have you donated a kidney some liver, bone marrow, skin tissue etc yet?
            No, you sir are the epitomy of selfishness, you are directly responsible for the death of existing , sentient aware children and adults who are alive right now and on the waiting list for compatible organs!
            Of course we do expect you to be fully responsible for all the costs for the medical care and surgery involved in this.
            As well as take all responsibility to any and all detrimental effects upon your employment, career opportunities, social and health impediments caused by these organ donations!

          • KristenfromMA

            We should be discouraging abortion and encouraging women to do the right thing if faced with an unexpected pregnancy.

            You should mind your own damned business.

          • Arekushieru

            Pregnancy is the second leading cause of death for women, WORLDWIDE. So, pregnancy leads to death, too. Oops, guess it doesn’t matter if a woman dies. I, personally, discourage smoking because it generally affects others, not just the person smoking. Kinda like pregnancy affects the woman more negatively than it does the fetus. OOOPS?

      • Dez

        Yea that’s why all those black babies are being adopted right?

  • myintx

    You’re a parent from the moment of conception.

    • Dez

      No you aren’t. You’re a parent when the baby is born.

      • Freethinker01

        If it’s just a “blob”, what stops the government from forcibly removing said “blob” from you without your consent?
        The government often forces people to undergo medical procedures if they determine said procedure is in the patient’s (or the state’s) best interests.
        Think about it.

        • fiona64

          Well, see, that’s just the other side of the coin that you represent. It’s just as anti-choice to force someone *not* to have children as it is to force someone *to* have children.

          Not that you guy ever seem to think about that …

        • goatini

          Here’s something for YOU to think about: Any power that can force a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to gestate to term against her specific will and wishes, can force a woman with a wanted pregnancy to terminate against her specific will and wishes.

        • Dez

          What you just said is very stupid. Your scenario fits any situation. The law and my attorney would stop the government and you from forcing any medical procedures against my will.

    • L-dan

      Not even close. A huge percentage of fertilized eggs either never implant or never make it through the first few weeks.

      A fertilized egg does not a parent make. Parenting requires some actual work.

      • Tahni Danielle

        Something his parents never did.

    • Tahni Danielle

      You have clearly never been raped.

  • myintx

    Plenty of laws on the books saying people can be charged with murder for killing an unborn child… Go tell all those lawmakers their laws are messed up.

    Part of an Arizona law:

    A. A person commits second degree murder if without premeditation:

    1. The person intentionally causes the death of another person, including an unborn child or, as a result of intentionally causing the death of another person, causes the death of an unborn child; or…

    • fiona64

      Um, sweetie … you conveniently left the part out where the injury has to happen to the pregnant woman. Fetal homicide laws attach as special circumstances; they do not stand alone.

      Nice try, though.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Crisis pregnancy centers are often tied in with adoption agencies and once they pressure these women into continuing their pregnancies they will try to coerce them into adoptions, getting kickbacks from these places for each woman they coerce.

    • fiona64

      Yep … and myintx works for one of the biggest: White Rose Women’s Center, which is affiliate with the Catholic St. Joseph’s Helper’s adoption mill.

      • L-dan

        oh ick. One of those types.

  • WagatweRHRC

    Emailed you yesterday. However, there is no evidence of your posts disappearing…

    • Valde

      Was MYINTX banned?

    • Ella Warnock

      Thanks, they’ve all shown up now.

  • Valde

    Sometimes my posts don’t seeem to be there when I refresh either – I think it’s something to do with Disqus.

    • Ella Warnock

      I’ve never had Disqus hiccup that badly on me before. Everything’s showing up now.

  • fiona64

    The two articles were on this blog channel:

    http://www dot patheos dot com/blogs/thinplaces/

    I hope you will forgive me for not digging further; I am at work today and do not have time.

  • Valde

    From the Thin Places blog at Patheos, the articles you will want to read are:

    Three Reasons Why We Might Not Want to Cure Down Syndrome

    Bridging the Abortion Divide, in conversation with Ellen Painter Dollar

    And this:

    http://www.patheos dot com/blogs/ellenpainterdollar/2013/07/i-am-pro-choice-but-jezebel-does-not-speak-for-me/

  • Valde

    And you will probably want to read the comments. There is one poster there, a Mike Sullivan, who has some stuff to say about this priest, and has his own website dedicated to DS and how it is completely normal, like hair or eye colour.

  • fiona64

    I once had an anti-choicer tell me that “the minute she holds that precious baby in her arms, a girl will forget all about being raped.” They seem to truly believe this nonsense.

    As a survivor of sexual assault I cannot even begin to tell you how insulting this is.

  • Freethinker01

    “Anti-choice”. What silly name calling.
    “Anti-life” people like you, Amanda, will do and say whatever is necessary in order to preserve your “right” to commit homicide. It’s ugly and evil. You can’t be reasoned with…you simply need to be defeated.

    • Valde

      No, moron.

      We believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant.

      Anti-choice = either forced pregnancy, or forced abortion – and we support NEITHER viewpoint

      • Arekushieru

        “We believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to get or remain pregnant”

        Fixed that for you, Valde!

        • Valde

          thanks!

    • Arekushieru

      Abortion isn’t homicide. Please do look up definitions before commenting next time. Such as… killing? Killing equals CAUSE OF DEATH. The cause of death for a fetus that is aborted (meaning, the termination of a PREGNANCY – that is, the implantation of the fetal PLACENTA into the UTERUS) is incompatibility with life upon separation from the uterus. Calling it killing when no other similar circumstance is described as such, is blaming the woman for having a uterus. After all, if it was not her fault, you wouldn’t presume to dictate that she is the one responsible for the death (ie: killing) of the fetus. And, sorry, but that tautology is prescribed by you, not me.

      Y’know who is Pro-Life and anti-abortion? Margaret Sanger. Oops. She strived to prevent abortions, because her own mother died from an excessive number of pregnancies. She absolutely ABHORRED abortion. Today’s Pro-Life, however, serves only to stigmatize and shame women because they are female. They preserve all the rights of men, but if you happen to be assigned female at birth (meaning you potentially developed a uterus), they will deny you the same rights everyone else has, by using a fetus to punish you for having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation. They do NOT, in the main, support birth control OR comprehensive sex-ed, both of which decrease the rate of abortions, either.

      We are not anti-life. If we were you would be, too. Because the majority of today’s Pro-Life also support gun (which kill people) ownership, wars (which kill mainly innocent people, y’know, the same thing they claim a fetus to be???), deadly force during rape (which kills the rapist), etc… etc…. But, no, we are not anti-life. After all, we fight to protect a woman’s right to preserve her own life as she sees fit. How that, in ANY way, can be considered anti-life, is far beyond me.

      I’ll leave ya with something to chew on: Life is presupposed by bodily integrity. Now, what do you think, is the right most commonly associated with preserving one’s bodily integrity?

      Oops.

  • Freethinker01

    Are you saying that a “baby” is not a baby until she falls out of her mother’s vagina?
    If so, when does a baby deserve the Constitutional right to life? A moment after birth? After her umbilical cord is cut? Once her head leaves the vagina? When she can feel pain at 20 weeks? When the mother feels like acknowledging the life inside her?
    Nothing else in this fight matters except for determining when a human being inherits the Constitutional right to due process.

    • Valde

      You know, the abortion in the birth canal stuff is way overused.

      Give it up if you wanna be taken seriously around here.

    • Arekushieru

      The fetus deserves the right to life, just like when EVERYONE ELSE DESERVES IT, when they are no longer infringing on someone else’ bodily autonomy. SMDH. How many times do we HAVE to repeat this?

      A fetus is not a baby. Baby is a SLANG term for a stage of development OUTSIDE of the uterus.

      Look at the anti calling a fetus a ‘she’, as if, somehow, we must be magically ignoring all scientific evidence that female fetuses develop inside the uterus just like male fetuses? That if, somehow, we can be made to stop ignoring this wonderful, magically scientific, FACT, we would somehow be against abortion. When, all along, that has NOT been our point of contention. After all, being female does not automatically stand for women’s rights. HERP DERP.

      A woman is not a mother until a baby has been released into her care.

      And, please, stop proving our point. “…until she falls out of her mother’s vagina?”???? You just made the woman sound like an object, that a fetus falls out of, from, off of, etc…. That is VERY misogynistic. So sorry.

      And, no, just because a woman has an abortion, doesn’t mean she is just as ignorant as antis. After all, MOST rational, thinking people, understand that a fetus is biologically alive. It’s just that some antis, no matter how much you prove them WRONG, still don’t get that being alive is irrelevant, even if you happen to be BORN, to having the right to life. Like I said, earlier, their ignorance ASTOUNDS.

      Finally, it has never been OUR contention that just because a fetus is not a baby, abortion should be legal. But, when the antis claim that this IS our contention, they prove that THEY are the ones who don’t believe a fetus can be a human being. After all, if something is a human being you don’t need to play bait and switch with the terms in order to PROVE it. Oops. And that’s what you were doing, sweetheart, when you implied that babies are deserving of the Constitutional right to life simply by virtue of being babies. What ELSE is it supposed to mean, after all, when you have previously argued over the semantics, and then go on to make the Constitutional right to life contingent upon being considered a baby?

  • Freethinker01

    On the contrary, the laws were passed to extend Constitutional due process to all human beings.
    If you want to address the real problem, put your efforts into determining when human beings deserve the right to life. Uncover when human beings are first alive. Use science–not just rhetoric and emotion and euphemisms–to support your argument.

    • Arekushieru

      NO one has the right to life when they are infringing on someone else’ right to bodily autonomy. Please, feel free to show me any Constitutional/legal precedent where the right to life IS present under such circumstances. But I’m not going to hold my breath.

    • goatini

      Actually, I am correct and you are just making up nonsense to futilely attempt to support your non-tenable BS.

  • Freethinker01

    Does science agree with you, goatini? I’ve read recently where science has shown that babies experience pain as early as 20 weeks, with solid evidence that they certainly experience pain when they are 24 weeks old. Last time I checked, “non persons” don’t experience pain.
    Furthermore, what is the scientific difference between a baby one moment after birth and one day before birth? Is one human and the other is not? Is one alive and the other is not?
    How about if just the full term baby’s head is hanging out of her mother’s vagina? Is the baby a “person” or not at that point?
    What if just one of her legs is still in the vagina…is she a person or not?
    Draw a line for me, goatini.

    • fiona64

      I’ve read recently where science has shown that babies experience pain as early as 20 weeks,

      Citation needed. Thanks in advance.

    • Valde

      Science agrees with goatini.

      “The question of when the human fetus develops the capacity for sentience is central to many contentious issues. The answer could and should influence attitudes toward IVF and embryo experimentation, abortion, and fetal and neonatal surgery. For the fetus to be described as sentient, the somatosensory pathways from the periphery to the primary somatosensory region of the cerebral cortex must be established and functional. Fetal behaviour is described and the development of the underlying anatomical substrate and the chemical and electrical pathways
      involved in the detection, transmission, and perception of somatosensory stimuli are reviewed.
      It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.”

      How about if just the full term baby’s head is hanging out of her mother’s vagina? Is the baby a “person” or not at that point?

      The ‘abortion in the birth canal’ nonsense is nothing more than that, nonsense, so stuff it. Women don’t have abortions at 40 weeks you twit.

    • Valde

      Last time I checked, “non persons” don’t experience pain.

      So it’s acceptable to torture your pet cat/dog/goldfish because they are not people????????

    • Arekushieru

      Last time I checked, animals experience pain. They’re certainly not considered persons. Yet they have more reason to be called persons than FETUSES do.

      A fetus is not a baby. Whether or not a fetus is human is entirely irrelevant. Whether or not a fetus experiences pain during abortion is entirely irrelevant (even if it were, that means birth would be outlawed because a fetus, especially at a latter stage of development, would certainly experience pain during birth, especially if could be proven they experience pain during an earlier stage, but antis rarely ask to have birth outlawed for the same reason. Such hypocrisy). Whether or not a fetus is alive is entirely irrelevant. We’ve said this, and discussed the difference between a fetus and a baby (I’ll repeat the hint, JUST for little ol’ you: occupation), *numerous* times, anyways. I would appreciate it if you antis would learn to read and discuss rather than skim and dismiss, at least for once in your lives.

      And what is with people who claim to be simply passionate about defending the ‘rights’ of the ‘unborn’ (iow, NOT misogynists) equating pregnant women with vaginas? Because, y’know, that is the very DEFINITION of misogyny. Also, a pregnant is not a mother. For the effing 1000th TIME.

      • Valde

        Over on Libby Anne’s blog at Patheos a misogynist fuckwit is making the argument that ‘mothers’ have been ‘entrusted’ with an ‘innocent life’…

        And yes, This also applies to victims of rape.

    • goatini

      Rights accrue to citizens at birth.

    • Ella Warnock

      “hanging out of her mother’s vagina”

      I think this turn of phrase you keep using is pretty self-explanatory. You have, as antis are wont to do, erased the woman. It’s just a baby and a vagina, and nothing else exists. It’s offensive and dismissive, just as you intend it to be; and it clearly communicates that your issue is not one of concern for babies, but one of humiliating women. I have no idea why you don’t know this is obvious, but you’re certainly not fooling anyone here.

    • Elaine Walker

      And the number of abortions that happen after 20 weeks (apart from possibly in states where they make it so difficult for women to get abortions that they run out of time) is a tiny tiny percentage of abortions. And most of those are due to fetal abnormalities or threats to the life of the woman involved. Chances are if an abortion is required after that point it is because it is medically necessary. So all your bunkum about pain is irrelevant. Before birth the fetus is completely dependent on the woman and is a parasite taking nutrition from them. After birth it is no longer dependent on that woman and it is possible for it to live with no more support from her. Duh! And seriously, nobody has an abortion during childbirth. So either you are trolling, delusional, or an idiot.