Political Battles Over Abortion Are About So Much More


Imagine if a politician tried to argue that people with broken legs don’t need casts, because “whole people” are focused on gas prices.

Or imagine the same politician saying that since you don’t choose the man you’re going to marry every week, but you do fill up your gas tank, having control over who you marry isn’t important and you should let the government choose for you.

If a politician said either of these things, she would be accused, at best, of tossing out non sequiturs in order to distract from her awful policies regarding forced marriage and/or denying people the ability to get broken bones set. At worst, she’d be accused of having lost the plot completely. And yet Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster working to increase the Republican Party’s appeal to women, made an equivalent statement to the National Journal.

“There are very few Democratic women who can begin or finish a sentence without mentioning a ‘woman’s right to choose,” Conway said, noting that she’s actually had her researchers go through hours of remarks by Democratic members to find a single woman who failed to mention abortion. They haven’t found one yet. “There is a tremendous opening for the ‘whole women,’ if you will, to step up and run for office as a Republican … What do you do every week, gals—do you fill up the gas tank or do you have an abortion?” she said.

Even if you accept the notion that electing Republicans leads to lower gas prices—an assumption that the actual evidence shows is not true—this comment makes no sense. As Maya Dusenbery at Feministing wrote, “However, if I had not been able to get an abortion that one time, gas money would be pretty hard to come by because all my income would be going toward diapers and baby food and preschool.” She added that abortion access is “inseparable from economic well-being.” The only thing as intimate and personal as the choice to have children—whether to, how many, and when—is the choice to partner with or marry someone. Even if a politician could lower gas prices and the tradeoff was that she got to choose your spouse and wedding date for you, I highly doubt the public would go for it. Conway’s statements are no different.

So why did she say such a foolish thing? It’s because while it is true that Republicans are attacking abortion rights at every turn, rhetorically, “abortion” is a dog whistle word to stir up conservative anxieties about sexual freedom. The insinuation here is that Democrats are talking to “gals” who have “abortions” as often as “whole” (that is, supposedly morally superior) women buy gas. That’s not really a literal claim, so much as a wink-and-nod insinuation that liberal women and feminists are a bunch of sexually loose women who are obsessed with sex. Suggesting that women have frequent or routine abortions is a way of insinuating that someone has too much sex—the literal realities of her abortion history are not actually being discussed so much and the insulter’s beliefs about her sexual choices.

Rush Limbaugh did the same thing by equating taking a lot of birth control pills with having a lot of sex—he claimed activist Sandra Fluke is “having so much sex … that she can’t afford it.” On a literal level, it was an utterly idiotic statement, since the dosage of hormonal contraception is not affected by the amount of sex you’re having. But it’s clear that Limbaugh was engaging in similar rhetoric as Conway here, though more bluntly: trying to turn a conversation about reproductive rights into a conversation about what is and isn’t the correct amount of sex for a woman to be having, and insinuating that the only reason a woman might be concerned about reproductive rights is because she is a “slut” who has “too much” sex, whatever that means.

Conway is right about one thing: Most women are not single-issue voters who focus only on reproductive rights. Ironically, however, by insinuating that reproductive rights is just a matter of a small minority of sluts acting out, she actually demonstrates exactly why Republicans are having increasing trouble reaching out to women. As the National Journal article shows, Republicans are struggling because they can’t talk to or about women without resorting to demeaning stereotypes. It’s not just the “slut” stereotype, and trying to bully women into voting Republican by insinuating that a vote for the Democrats makes you an oversexed bimbo, though that certainly doesn’t help.

Take, for instance, this quote:

[Rep. Ann Wagner] argues that women bring an important perspective on some of the biggest issues the country is dealing with, such as family budgets, health care, entitlements, and energy policy—all things women tend to handle in their households. “We’re the ones filling the minivan up,” she said.

As with Ann Romney’s speech at the Republican National Convention, Republicans fall into the trap that Wagner does here: Stereotyping women as a beleaguered servant class whose fate is to handle domestic chores that are beneath men’s attention. It is true that women are treated that way all too often, but it’s not inherent to women’s character. This article paints a bleak picture of the Republican worldview as one where there are two kinds of women: dirty sluts who need to be put in their place and “good women” who are martyrs who have no hopes or dreams outside of providing service to their families. It makes sense that conservatives would think of these things as inherent qualities of women instead of rigid, dehumanizing roles forced on women—to understand the latter, you have to believe sexism is real, which is basically against the Republican brand. But you can’t talk about women in strictly sexist terms and accept that’s going to make your appeal broader instead of more narrow.

The reality is that abortion isn’t just about abortion. For both sides, “abortion” stands in for a general worldview of what a woman’s place in the world is and how much right she has to decide that for herself. The anti-choice movement is rooted in a belief that a woman’s role is very narrowly written and that any rejection of a rigid, submissive gender role makes someone a “slut” or some other kind of “bad” woman. (There are a few conservative women such as Ann Coulter who elide this, but mostly by selling women out: They are given a pass for their own personal choices because they sell the idea that other women shouldn’t have freedom.)

That’s why relentless attempts by Republicans to paint pro-choice politics as a “single issue” that is beneath “whole” voters is missing the point entirely. Support for abortion rights is linked to a larger worldview, a worldview that takes a broad view of what freedom means: economic security, access to health care, right to self-determination, and a belief that a person’s goodness is determined by how that person treats others and less about how closely that person adheres to narrowly written social roles. Even if the abortion issue disappeared tomorrow, women would still lean more left than men as a group, because women are more likely to buy into the overall worldview more—and no wonder, as it’s one that’s more likely to see women as people and less as broad, ugly stereotypes.

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

  • colleen2

    I’ve watched Ms Conway (nee Fitzpatrick) on a PBS show called To the Contrary where she appears (or used to appear) as a regular commentator for the GOP. It never fails to amaze me that the GOP sends out women like this to appeal to other women. This woman is as appealing as a rabid honey badger.

    • HeilMary1

      I watch that show too, and don’t quite remember Conway, but the insulting smugness of Erbe’s GOP guests is always stunning.

  • Valde

    Yeppers I was over at LiveActionNews and one of the stories was titled ”

    BroChoice: Activist Says Oregon Best State to Have Sex In Because It’s Pro-Abortion”

    Which was hilarious because on the very comment page some anti-choicers were saying that their opposition to abortion had nothing to do with sex.

    • fiona64

      That’s one of the two big lies; the other, of course, is that it’s not about controlling women’s sexuality … which surely explains the constant refrain of “if you don’t want a baby, keep your legs shut.” That’s “some rare extremists.” Always.

      • Valde

        Is obnoxious Andrew still replying to you over at LAN?

        He came back to tell me that if a woman has sex, the fertilized egg is also the property of the father.

        He sounds like a rape apologist for sure.

        • L-dan

          Fine, then I’m going to evict said property should he leave it lying around in my uterus. There is no law anywhere requiring people to *keep* someone else’s property.

          Let the idiots suggesting such stupidity work out the fucked up mess that calling zygotes…or even actual children…property opens up. That’s the winner in the ‘stupidest thing I’ve heard today’ contest.

          • Valde

            http://liveactionnews dot org/the-ten-dumbest-things-said-in-defense-of-abortion/#comment-1000959904

            “It is partly property of her sexual partner. By taking off her clothes
            she admits another person into her so-called “reproductive choices,” and if she gets pregnant the child has half the father’s DNA.”

            The guy is an obnoxious, probably homeschooled, twit.

            I have also notice that they think they can dispatch any argument, no matter how good with this: “BUT THAT LEADS TO INFANTICIDE”

            Fiona and I have been banned, so we are unable to respond to the stupidity.

          • fiona64

            Wow! Who knew that taking off your clothes meant consenting to pregnancy! I guess I’d better be a lot more careful in department store fitting rooms …

          • HeilMary1

            LOL! Who knew fitting rooms were all about slutdom?

          • Valde

            Well yeah, they are.

            Because virtuous women make their own clothes on the Quiverfull plantation.

          • april showers

            Are you actually making fun of women who make their own clothes because they make their own clothes? Wow, just wow!

          • Valde

            No, I am criticizing purity culture, sweetheart.

          • Valde

            Hahaha.

            Are you Quiverfull? Or if not, you certainly seem to look down on women who don’t pop out as many children as you.

            Clearly, you believe that your value lies between your legs.

          • fiona64

            Eleven kids? Yeah, she’s Quiverfull.

          • fiona64

            I fail to see how she did any such thing …

            You seem to be deliberately disingenuous. Perhaps you would like to tell us why?

          • Valde

            Check her comment history.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s when they start making and wearing 19th century style clothes and reading badly-written tripe like Elsie Dinsmore that I get a little weirded out.

          • L-dan

            Headdesk

            Should I worry that these idiots will be pissy when I vacuum up loose skin cells and hair from the carpet and toss it with the trash? I mean, they dropped that DNA on the way in too. And that’s without even mentioning tossing the used condoms.

            Why is their discarded DNA something that allows them to poke their noses in my business a thing only when it means commandeering someone else’s body as life support for some of it?

            I’m rushing to finish things before a vacation or I’d see how long it took to get banned there too.

          • Valde

            It’s the ‘sacred sperm’ argument.

          • april showers

            Uh, I read that article and it didn’t say anything about removing clothes but, of course, as you know, every child actually does have a combination of the mother and father’s DNA. That is simply science.

            Further, any woman in the US who decides to carry her child to term, can use the power of the state to force a father to contribute in part or wholly to the support of his child. So, it seems to me, that the statement is true both as a matter of science and of law.

            Also, I didn’t see the word infanticide anywhere in the article, but maybe it’s been edited. I don’t know about that.

          • Valde

            It was from the comments.

          • april showers

            Agreed, zygotes are human beings, they cannot be some else’s property. That would be slavery.

          • L-dan

            Fine, then they don’t get to use my body for life support, just the same as every other human being.

            For the record, I make no argument that they’re human. But they are not persons in any meaningful sense.

          • april showers

            Oh, so how do you define humans that are not persons? Because throughout history those humans were known as property a.k.a. slaves.

          • Valde

            Because throughout history those humans were known as property a.k.a. slaves.

            IE, the pregnant woman is the PROPERTY of the microscopic embryo inside her

          • L-dan

            First, a point of history: The US defined slaves as legally not-people;
            this is not necessarily true throughout history when one looks at the
            long, long history of slavery.

            At minimum, a person is an autonomous human being. Meaning one at least
            capable of existing independently and containing a human mind to allow
            for a ‘self’ to even exist since that’s where everything exists that
            makes up and individual’s individuality. (Note that such mind may not always be active or working to capacity, etc. meaning that such sense of self is not, in itself, a requirement.)

            At birth, you’ve got a being that definitely meets the criteria. At
            conception,
            you definitely don’t. I’m willing to posit that somewhere in between
            there’s a point that would fit ‘person’ in this philosophical sense.
            However, that line is not clear cut, and it’s a legal mess trying to
            apply the legal sense of person to the unborn since that leads to things
            like figuring out when they become a dependent for tax purposes and
            many other things. The forced birth crowd don’t really seem to care
            about it other than with regards to abortion and contraception
            anyway…and that’s an entirely different argument.

            At no point
            does the unborn being’s rights exceed the rights of the person actually
            carrying and building it. Nobody has a right to demand that another
            actually build their body cell by cell from their own. Nobody has the
            right to hook into another’s circulatory system and demand that they be
            allowed to remain there. Nobody has the right to demand organs from
            another, even if they’ll die without that kidney or liver lobe. Nobody
            has the right to demand that anyone else risk their life and health
            providing such bodily life support.

          • april showers

            “At no point
            does the unborn being’s rights exceed the rights of the person actually
            carrying and building it.”

            Well said, both beings should have equal rights, neither being’s rights should exceed the other’s rights.

            “Nobody
            has the right to demand that anyone else risk their life and health
            providing such bodily life support.” Again, very well said. But, since, as you so succinctly phrased it, there are competing rights at stake, due process should certainly be accorded to each human being in order to ensure that justice and equality of rights is guaranteed to each human, and certainly that should occur before one or both humans die, not after.

          • Valde

            Well said, both beings should have equal rights, neither being’s rights should exceed the other’s rights.

            By forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term you are essentially subjugating her in favour of another entity.

          • april showers

            Oh, so apparently, you do NOT believe in equality of human rights. Your comment seems to imply that a woman’s right to not be subjugated is greater than another human’s right to not be killed. So unless her life is at stake and she is killing in self-defense, that’s a pretty broad jump from the laws that govern the rest of us.

            Normally, people who believe in equality, believe that there should be some sort of due process before other humans are killed.

          • Valde

            An embyro isn’t a human being. It is only a potential human being.

            And as L-Dan has so patiently explained to you above, the right to life does not trump all other rights.

            If born people cannot demand the use of anothers body to sustain their life, why should an incomplete and unformed embryo be granted that right? An embyro that might not even make it to term.

          • april showers

            Actually, an embryo is a human being in its first stages of development. This is already established medical fact. The embryo is complete and perfectly formed in accordance with its stage of development.

            Children (“born people”) demand the use of their parents bodies to sustain their life as a matter of normal human development. Without their parents or guardians, children would be helpless and unable to grow to the next stage of development. Refusal on the part of parents/guardians to provide for these “born people” is criminal and prosecuted as “child neglect”. When these “born people” die due to a parents/guardians refusal to provide or even accidental selfishness, it is called homicide which is a criminal charge and punishable with incarceration which is complete subjugation of bodily autonomy on the part of the state. Some pregnant women who cause the death of their fetus through neglect can also be incarcerated by the state. In other cases, when “unborn people” are killed by someone other than the mother, the state may charge the person who caused the death with homicide and incarcerate them as well.

            So, I guess according to established law in some states, some born and unborn people’s right to life already does trump some other people’s right to “bodily autonomy”.

          • Valde

            The embryo is complete and perfectly formed in accordance with its stage of development.

            Yes, it is a complete embryo – however, it is not a complete human being. A zygote does not start out as a human being – it becomes one.

            Children (“born people”) demand the use of their parents bodies to sustain their life as a matter of normal human development.

            Children do not live inside their parent’s bodies, and *anyone* can look after a child. If a woman is in extreme pain and discomfort from a pregnancy, she can’t simply give the fetus up for adoption.

            Refusal on the part of parents/guardians to provide for these “born people” is criminal and prosecuted as “child neglect”

            Since born people are separate individuals, one can give them up for adoption if one is unable to take care of them. What, if a woman is malnourished should she be charged with child abuse because the fetus is suffering due to her malnourishment? The very FACT that whatever a woman does to her body affects the fetus tells us that the fetus is NOT in fact a separate viable individual deserving of the same moral consideration as a born person.

          • fiona64

            I smell a new handle for myintx …

          • L-dan

            Valde’s covered all of that pretty well. I’ll note that if you pay much attention here, this group objects pretty vehemently to the states that prosecute pregnant women for ‘neglect’ and other ‘harm’ done to their fetus. Policing women for what they do to their bodies simply because those bodies might possibly be hosting an embryo is ridiculous. It leads down the path of disallowing any number of activities for all women because they might be in the early stages of pregnancy.

            Also, laws that add penalties for criminal acts that result in the death or damage of a fetus are additions on top of prosecution for acts that are already criminal. They are meant to compensate a mother for the loss of her wanted child…in other words, for an act that very deeply violated her bodily autonomy. Attempts to create laws that make a standalone crime of damaging a fetus haven’t worked well.

          • Arekushieru

            Clearly you have no idea what the right to bodily autonomy actually ENTAILS. It means the right to DIRECTLY control WHO uses your body and WHEN and HOW it is used, via ongoing, explicit and informed consent. Therefore, children who are sustained by the support of their parents who work for a living, are NOT infringing on their parents’ bodily autonomy. Simply because the children are not DIRECTLY using their parents’ bodies to sustain themselves. Same as when someone is incarcerated. The incarceration does not require the DIRECT use of the person’s body to incarcerate them. Oops.

            Besides, children CAN grow to the next stage of human development without their parents’ support. They just won’t be able to do it “PROPERLY”. When you consider that the use of the word properly, here, constitutes the same use that fiona64 was trying to impart to you, earlier, it’s surprising (okay, maybe not, when you consider, in turn, that I AM talking to an anti) that you have still failed to interpret it, correctly.

            Also, in order to be a human being/person, one has to be, at the bare MINIMUM, an INDIVIDUAL. A fetus is not.

            I should also add this to L-dan’s excellent commentary, below, in case you are STILL confused about the right to bodily autonomy: if someone causes a woman to abort without her consent and in a manner she does not consent TO, even IF the pregnancy is unwanted, that is STILL a violation of her bodily autonomy. DERP.

          • fiona64

            Your comment seems to imply that a woman’s right to not be subjugated is greater than another human’s right to not be killed.

            A fetus is not a person.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth,

          • L-dan

            Well, no. Due process is for people in the legal sense. It’s ridiculous to require it for non-people. And at the point where one *might* consider a fetus to be a person, you’re mostly talking about medical realities where it makes no sense to be dragging things out with a trial.

            Look at Siamese twins…there is no due process to the procedure around determining whether and how to separate them. In cases where there are only enough organs to sustain one of them well, there is no court intervening to say that both much be kept alive on struggling bodily systems rather than separating one to die so the other may hopefully thrive. Those are decisions for the families and medical professionals.

            Even granting a fetus a right to life does not grant it the right to infringe so profoundly on another’s bodily autonomy. Otherwise, we *would* have mandatory organ donation. Because we would have a system where the right of people to live trumped the right of people to allow the use of their bodies only as they see fit. We don’t have that system (rightly, in my opinion).

          • Valde

            Yes, and there is another point to be made as well.

            A zygote/embryo is about as sentient as a brainless parasitic twin. Yet we have no problem removing the brainless parasitic twin – even though it is fully human, and will continue to grow – we remove it because it is INCAPABLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.

            However, if the parasitic twin happened to be nothing more than a head, with a working brain and consciousness – then yes, we would not simply remove it because SENTIENCE IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF PERSONHOOD.

            This is why clinically braindead patients are often sent to the morgue – because when ‘no one is home’, they are for all intents and purposes, dead – even if the body is working thanks to a brainstem.

            A pre-viability zygote/embryo/fetus has the same EEG readings as a clinically braindead corpse.

          • L-dan

            More like, the capacity for sentience (where capacity doesn’t mean ‘it might develop in time if things go well’). But that’s just me being pedantic. ^^

          • Valde

            Poor wording on my part:P

          • april showers

            I have no problems with decisions of life and death where there is an imminent danger of death or permanent harm. That is not really the topic here and I think you know that, but are really reaching to support your increasingly untenable position.

          • Valde

            Right so unless the woman is in the process of bleeding to death, the stupid s1ut does not ‘deserve’ an abortion.

            Riiiight.

            Thankfully we have you to decide how much risk a pregnant woman should subject herself too.

          • L-dan

            If you ignore the rest of my posts, sure. However, I’m not the one reaching here. I also object to the idea that it’s only imminent danger of death or permanent harm that should give someone the right to their own body…who decides how imminent is imminent enough? Who decides what harm is great enough? I don’t think those are decisions anyone should be making for someone else.

            You have to reach pretty hard to convince most people that a zygote is a person and deserving of more rights than the one gestating it. You’re not convincing me that there’s any need for regulation or nebulous due process beyond medical best practices for abortions prior to viability.

            Even at viability, the vast majority of abortions are ones that reasonable people look at and go “huh…yeah I don’t have a problem with that. That’s a really rough spot to be in.” Keeping in mind that these comprise something like 3% of all abortions, I see no reason to create some additional ‘due process’ hurdle at that point for people in rough circumstances to navigate. I don’t think someone carrying an anencephalic fetus needs to justify their abortion to me or anyone else. I don’t think that anyone should be creating laws that say such a fetus has some right to continue using someone else’s body for support until term.

            Life is a gift…when it’s given voluntarily. It’s sort of hard to call it a ‘gift’ when it’s taken by force.

          • Valde

            You have to reach pretty hard to convince most people that a zygote is a
            person and deserving of more rights than the one gestating it

            ONLY if the woman in question has consented to sex.

            if the zygote is a clone or was created through rape, it’s totes acceptable to kill it

          • april showers

            What is it when it is given and then taken back by force?

          • L-dan

            Right…I need to skip the metaphorical language there since it’s easy to misinterpret.

            The life one gets to lead is a gift. It’s a gift granted by the hard internal work, risk to health and life, and labor of another person. I find it sick that people think their very existence is so valuable that people should be forced to provide that labor.

            If you’re actually not misinterpreting my statement and you mean to say ‘what is it when a person is killed?’ well that’s anything from murder to a wartime casualty.

            Life…as in ‘oh look it’s alive’ is not a gift. It’s common and unremarkable. Eggs are alive. Unless fertilized, those cells die unaware and unmourned. So no, I’m not talking about the simple trait of being alive as a gift.

            But, by all means ignore my arguments in favor of zooming in on a single statement as a ‘gotcha’ that isn’t actually one.

          • L-dan

            And a clarification: I did not say that both should have equal rights. For a long stretch of pregnancy, I don’t believe the blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus has rights at all.

            At the point of viability, I’m willing to argue rights, even though I still don’t think there are any that would force anyone to carry to term against their will.

          • april showers

            You did say that one’s rights shouldn’t exceed the other’s rights. This is where we agree completely. I guess I’m just more inclusive in my philosophy.

          • Valde

            You aren’t more inclusive. You are pushing gestational slavery – where the rights of the embryo override the rights of the woman to her own body.

          • april showers

            Uh no, Gestation is temporary and death is permanent. When there are competing rights, I believe one’s right to NOT BE KILLED are just a tad more important than temporary discomfort on what was at one time a willing participant in the creation of the human “subjugator”. However, there are cases where pregnancy can endanger a woman’s life and that is where the real competition in rights exist and there is a process for determining how to proceed.

          • fiona64

            Gestation is temporary

            And it is not a state of wellness. Women die of pregnancy complications every day in the US (we’re #50 in maternal mortality).

            Your dismissal of pregnancy as “temporary discomfort” tells me that you’ve never been pregnant at all …

          • april showers

            Lol! Your assumption is so completely wrong that it is funny.

          • fiona64

            You’re full of more shite than a French goose. We are indeed #50 in maternal mortality (Greece has the lowest rate) … which is appalling in the developed world. http://www dot huffingtonpost dot com/2012/08/24/maternal-mortality-rate-infographic_n_1827427.html

            And, as I already said, pregnancy is not a state of wellness … even in uncomplicated pregnancies, there are permanent physiological changes. You have stated elsewhere that you have 11 children. Your pubic symphysis has never reconnected fully after each birth; in fact, your pubic symphysis now has striations for each and every pregnancy; a forensic anthropologist could tell by looking at your bones how many times you’d been gravid. If I were a wagering woman, I would bet that you can no longer bicycle, and that your walking gait is no longer normal; this is the case with my (very pro-choice) friend who has five kids, so it’s easy to extrapolate the same thing happening with more than twice as many pregnancies.

            Common complications of pregnancy may be read here: http://www dot pregnancy dot org/article/common-pregnancy-complications

            Some of those complications are life-threatening (e.g., hyperemesis gravidarum — been there, barfed that — and preeclampsia, which kept my best childhood friend on bedrest for the latter half of her pregnancy). Some of them may be come permanent (e.g., diabetes). But you’re a-okay with deciding how much risk a given woman should take, right? After all, you know better than she does what she and her family can handle.

            Let me put it another way: I’m not out trying to legislate against your right to breed like a rabbit. I support your choice to have as many kids as you so desire. You, OTOH, will not allow my sisters, daughters, nieces and friends — oh yeah, and me — the same right to make their own reproductive decisions. How is that even remotely acceptable, in your eyes?

          • april showers

            So sorry, I was only laughing at your assumption about me, which again, are wrong and wrong, again. If I may be allowed to make some uneducated presumptions, I would assume your unable to walk or bike friend probably eats way too many carbs and sugar. This is a problem with many people my age.

            Oh, and I fully support the right of all humans to make their own reproductive choices, again, I’m just more inclusive in my philosophy since I would also extend that right to humans who have not yet reached full maturity.

          • Valde

            I would assume your unable to walk or bike friend probably eats way too many carbs and sugar.

            Oh, wow.

            Just…wow.

            Either you are acting purposely disingenuous or you really are dumber than a rock.

          • april showers

            What’s your point here? Do you people honestly believe that any women who has had five children cannot walk properly or ride a bike because of the number of children she has had? Seriously? And you are calling me disingenuous? Just…..wow.

          • Valde

            You should probably read what fiona64 had to say.

            She deals in facts, and stuff. Unlike you.

          • fiona64

            You didn’t understand the physiological information I provided, did you?

          • Valde

            She doesn’t understand much. She’s like myintix, with slightly more tools at her disposal.

          • april showers

            Oh, I understood, my dear:

            “Your pubic symphysis has never reconnected fully after each birth; in fact, your pubic symphysis now has striations for each and every pregnancy; a forensic anthropologist could tell by looking at your bones how many times you’d been gravid. If I were a wagering woman, I would bet that you can no longer bicycle, and that your walking gait is no longer normal; this is the case with my (very pro-choice) friend who has five kids, so it’s easy to extrapolate the same thing happening with more than twice as many pregnancies.”

            You very clearly imply that there is some physiological proof that multigravid women are unable to walk properly or ride a bike. Not true.

            For any young impressionable readers that may come across this post and think that this author is anything close to truthful, I can most definitely assure that she is not.

            There is absolutely no reason why any normal, healthy multigravid cannot continue the level of physical activity she is comfortable with. Physical activity, like sexual activity, is a use it or lose it situation. If you stop walking or riding your bike for a long period of time, it will be difficult for you to get back to it, just the same as with any other barren woman as she ages. If you don’t stop, you be able to keep up with the kids as long as you want to.

            Best of luck to all women as they age; nutrition, sunlight, good sleep, and clean water are the most important factors to good health.

          • fiona64

            I described the physiological realities of what happens to a woman’s body when pregnant, and stated that my friend is no longer able to ride her bike or walk properly because of that physiological reality. Her pelvic floor is has been damaged beyond redemption as well, but that’s another story for another time.

            You took this and created a straw man by stating that I believed this happened in 100 percent of cases. I merely said that it was not difficult to extrapolate the same thing happening to a woman who breeds like a rabbit.

            The simple reality is that your pubic symphysis never fully reconnects to its original, pre-gravid state, and that it remains further disconnected with each subsequent pregnancy.

            Or are you going to try to pretend that your body has not changed shape and size because of having 11 children? In which case I will call you out as a liar. It is physiologically *impossible.*

          • april showers

            Talk about changing goalposts? First your implication is that a multigravid cannot ride a bike or WALK PROPERLY! Oh, and now you imply that I’m actually pretending not to have changed size and shape AT ALL after 11 kids. FYI, my body has changed very much over the past 56 years, like every other human. If we are not changing and growing, then we really aren’t experiencing life, are we? Yet I can still walk faster than some of my children (not the boys, though) and we still ride our bikes through the neighborhood and along the river, go swimming in the lake and dance at weddings etc.. That being said, many of my friends, acquaintances, coworkers and some family from my childhood, adolescence, young adulthood and middle age are no longer with us at all. Further, I know quite a few women my age and older, who have decided not to “ruin their figures” with children and some who had just one or a few by choice and some with as many and more than myself. Some of them have kept themselves in shape and some of them, well, I don’t like to criticize, but let’s just agree that number of children has NOTHING to do with how mobility is or isn’t maintained through the mature years. It’s all about lifestyle.

          • Arekushieru

            That’s not what she’s saying, and you KNOW it. You are making FALSE comparisons. Compare YOURSELF to how you were BEFORE you had kids then compare yourself to how you are AFTER you had each kid. Ooops…? Now, do the same with all your friends and acquaintances. DERP. And, before you use a straw argument, I am NOT talking about whether or not she said most or all, likely or will. Kthx.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            11 kids? I don’t want your life.

          • Valde

            You could still model for Sports Illustrated after having 11 kids, right?

          • april showers

            That’s your idea of a woman’s value, right? If she can’t pose provocatively in a men’s magazine so they can drool all over her shiny, cold, hard, airbrushed image, then she is less than female?

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, that’s YOUR ilk’s idea of a woman’s value. So fucking sorry.

          • Valde

            Your idea of a woman’s value is that if she doesn’t pop out 11 kids she is worthless.

          • fiona64

            Your idea is that she’s nothing but a life support system for a uterus. Which is more deindividuating, eh?

          • april showers

            If I truly thought that way, there would be no need for me to walk or bike then anyway, would there? For that matter, I wouldn’t even bother to learn to read or write. Perhaps you’ve missed the mark again in your assumptions. But feel free to keep confirming your own bias by positing ridiculous non sequiturs.

          • Arekushieru

            HUGE difference between properly that means normal and properly that means not abnormal. Please, learn to read.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, and my friend’s physician is obviously just too stupid for color TV. He couldn’t possibly know that she has pubic symphysis diastasis. Because some nutcase on the internet says it’s because she eats too many carbs and sugar, and we all know internet nutcase > educated physician.

          • fiona64

            I would assume your unable to walk or bike friend probably eats way too many carbs and sugar.

            And you would be wrong.

            I don’t expect intellectual honesty from you at this point. After all, you deny science when it’s placed in front of you.

            Of course, I now know that you are one of those Quiverfull nutters … so yes, I was wrong in my assumption that you had never been pregnant. You are, however, entirely wrong about pregnancy being a mere “temporary discomfort.” You may have been brainwashed to believe that, but you’re wrong.

          • april showers

            “Quiverfull? Sorry, I haven’t any idea about that but what I can say is that I am a regular red-headed Irish girl married to a tall, dark and handsome Mexican guy.

            To be intellectually honest here I would say that I am NOT a Republican but the arguments over abortion are simply not about sex but about life. Life begins at conception when sperm and egg meet to create a new unique life. And that, my dear, is science.

          • fiona64

            Actually, life is a continuum. And that, my dear, is science.

          • april showers

            Human life is a continuum, yes, dear, and within that continuum, each INDIVIDUAL life has a beginning, a middle and an end.

          • Arekushieru

            If the arguments were about life and not sex, you would apply the same logic to every other circumstance that saves a life. You don’t. The Pro-Life movement in GENERAL doesn’t. So, yes, your arguments ARE about sex. So sorry to see that you’ve been brainwashed to believe otherwise.

          • Arekushieru

            Do you extend that right to rapists? No? Then you are extending MORE (not equal) rights to a fetus. Thank you for proving us correct, once again.

          • april showers

            Women who are not pregnant also die before they ever become pregnant. Pregnancy is a normal and natural part of life. Things can go wrong in life at any stage but we must carry on without living our lives in fear.

          • fiona64

            Pregnancy is a normal and natural part of life.

            Only if you want to be pregnant. Not everyone does. I know that this comes as a shock to you Quiverfull types, but it’s true!

          • april showers

            If you don’t want to get pregnant, then don’t. Most certainly you are well aware of the physiological limits of female fertility, you being a scientist and all. But if you do become pregnant in the natural course of your life as a human adult, it would just not be intellectually honest to blame or punish your child for the pregnancy. That’s all I have ever tried to clear up for all you bright young ladies.

          • fiona64

            I’m going to be 50 on my next birthday, so you can stop with the fucking condescension.

            I have a 26 year-old son. I suffered hyperemesis gravidarum, as I already said. It’s not my fault that you are too stupid to understand what that means.

            I support a woman’s right to make any reproductive choices she so desires — even if I personally think they’re stupid (like having 11 kids). You aren’t willing to grant other women the same right to make their own decisions, so your opinion isn’t worth shit.

            There. I said it.

          • Valde

            But if you do become pregnant in the natural course of your life as a
            human adult, it would just not be intellectually honest to blame or
            punish your child for the pregnancy.

            Naturally, that includes rape. I mean, it wouldn’t be intellectually honest for a rape victim to punish the ‘unborn baby’ for the pregnancy that was forced on her wouldn’t it?

            After all, being female and being fertile and getting pregnant from rape = completely natural – even if you’re 8 years old.

          • fiona64

            You know, I just can’t help it. Whenever she posts lately, I have two visions.

            The first is a red-faced woman, old before her time. Her greying hair is pulled up in a ratty “bun” with one of those claw things, and she’s attired in what one of my friends calls a “frumper” — those scoop-necked, sleeveless denim dresses — with a man’s white undershirt under it … for modesty, of course. Her swollen feet are covered by ankle socks and Keds … and she’s mad. She’s really mad, because other women’s lives have not passed them by the way her has.

            The other is much less kind, I’m sorry to admit: a Vienna sausage being hurled down the central walk way of the Gare du Nord.

          • Valde

            Haha. Exactly. I have thought about that as well. Not in regards to her – but in regards to some of the most vocal pro-liars who have spent their entire lives as housewives.

            Our ‘non-belief’ if you will. is threatening. Because that’s what it really comes down to . We subscribe to a different ‘religion’ – one that grants women freedom, and that calls into question the validity of their beliefs and choices.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The first reminds me of a woman from a Pentecostal Holiness group who visited our town in Arkansas once. And all their kids–I forget how many–were all dressed in identical jumpers, had long long hair (apparently it was sinful for scissors to even touch a woman’s hair) and looked like little Stepford robots. *shudder*

          • Arekushieru

            No one is punishing or blaming a fetus for a pregnancy, although it IS the fetus that is responsible for causing pregnancy.

            Punishment refers to modification of behaviour in order to reduce the instances of expected outcomes. Therefore, if we were punishing a fetus, the fetus would have to be ALIVE throughout the whole process (which leads us to another illogical conundrum: some antis like to claim that the intent of abortion is to end with a dead fetus, however, if it IS dead, abortion canNOT, inherently, be punishment. Oops) and it would have to have the capacity to LEARN (that is, to no longer implant themselves in a woman’s uterus). It isn’t and doesn’t. Which means… //drum roll please//… abortion is not punishment. The reverse also holds true, however. That just because a woman maintains a pregnancy it does not make a fetus/embryo/etc… more likely to implant in the next pregnancy. Which SHOULD make it even MORE obvious that abortion is NOT punishment. But, antis are sadly lacking in logic, so it’s unsurprising at the same time.

            Nor is it blaming a fetus. If a woman is being responsible by making a decision to carry the fetus to term, can we say that we are blaming her for the pregnancy? Uh, NO. So, why is it that another action that simply results in a DIFFERENT outcome can be automatically labeled as blame for the same thing? It only makes sense if you’re a hypocrite, I guess. Something can only be considered blame if it takes away something. Since abortion redresses a wrong against women (meaning unprotected and unequal rights) and doesn’t commit a wrong against fetuses (meaning to deny a fetus protected and equal rights), it cannot be considered blame, either. Herp derp!

            However, for the SAME reasons, it IS blaming and punishing a woman.

            As we have pointed out, numerous times, the only reason to deny a woman the right to bodily autonomy is because of sex or an accident of biology. That denies her the equal right to bodily autonomy. That commits a wrong against a woman. Therefore, it IS blame.

            It also means you are punishing a woman, because we have clearly demonstrated that you want women (and ONLY women) to have sex solely for procreational purposes. Therefore, you want to modify a woman’s behaviour.

            Oops, did I let the cat out of the bag, too soon?

          • Arekushieru

            The ‘physiological limits of female fertility’ are also the SAME reasons that pregnancy is not voluntary. Specifically, that female fertility cannot be controlled physiologically, NOR with 100% accuracy. Some women are allergic to latex. Other women may experience adverse effects or no beneficial effects at all with hormones. Other women are too poor to buy condoms let alone any other effective form of contraception. And still other women may be experiencing contraceptive sabotage. Yet, you are quite willing to discriminate against THESE women by denying them the same rights that all others have. SICK.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            But you can’t force someone to parent a child. What happens then? You don’t think children in the foster care suffer at all?

          • Valde

            Tell me, is pregnancy normal for an 8 year old rape victim?

          • april showers

            Do I really have to clarify for you that pregnancy is a normal part of ADULT life? It would be abnormal for an 8 yr old to even menstruate and then be forced into sexual activity since she is clearly a child not an adult. So that pregnancy would be anything BUT normal, but you knew that, right?

          • Valde

            If an 8 year old can menstruate and get pregnant, it is ‘natural’

          • fiona64

            Actually, precocious puberty is a real situation, and it is becoming more frequent due to a variety of factors. http://www dot mayoclinic dot com/health/precocious-puberty/DS00883 is just one of many discussions on the matter.

            There have been people who advocate that an 8-year-old rape victim should be made to gestate a pregnancy that was endangering her health, but not her life. There was extensive discussion of it on this very site. In fact, one anti-choicer said that it didn’t matter if her health was affected, because she would have a “precious baby” to care for.

            A goddamned 8-year-old child! And you wonder why we think the anti-choice are sick …

          • april showers

            Uh, yes, precocious puberty, as well as other side effects of exposures to environmental excess estrogenic compounds and estrogenic mimicry in so many household products is most definitely a real situation. Precocious puberty is still very rare, not normal or natural and sexual activity with children is always criminal.

            That some nut offers his/her opinion on a private personal issue during a “discussion” on a website and you choose to use that viewpoint on an extremely rare and unnatural situation to characterize a larger group of people speaks volumes.

          • fiona64

            … says the woman who is pleased to opine that other women are too stupid to make their own reproductive decisions.

            I’m not out trying to legislate against your right to breed your own damn baseball team, so how come you are out trying to stop people from deciding the size of their families? After all, it really is the same thing. I may think you’re crazy (and rest assured that I do) … but it’s your choice to have that many kids. Other women do not have to make the same choice.

            Hmm. Now that I write that out, I can’t help wondering whether you’re jealous that other women are not tied down to almost a dozen children, and you think they should have to be just because you are.

            Hmm.

          • Valde

            Most of your pro-life buddies have argued that pregnant 8 year olds should carry their rape pregnancies to term…

            In fact, many have said ‘old enough to bleed old enough to breed’

          • Arekushieru

            But it’s the Pro-LIFE side that only pretends to care when it interferes with their ability to ensure that a woman breeds, NOT Pro-CHOICE. They ALWAYS care.

          • Arekushieru

            Pregnancy is the second leading cause of death for women, WORLDWIDE. If you can’t do the math and figure out for yourself that that means that PREGNANCY DRAMATICALLY INCREASES MORTALITY RATES for women, don’t blame us for your ignorance.

          • Arekushieru

            Also, natural and normal. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean. Even if they DID, pregnancy is far less ‘natural’ than you think.

            Normal means something that happens frequently. At any given time there are more non-pregnant women/persons than there are pregnant women. Women are also most likely to be non-pregnant for the majority of their lifespan rather than pregnant. So, no, pregnancy is NOT normal.

            Natural means something that you are born doing. Females are not born pregnant. Although, there are some avian animals that are, I believe.

            If, by natural, you mean something that one is born with the natural CAPACITY to do, then I should point you to an article that clearly demonstrates how originally the uterus was meant to protect female mammals against parasites and how pregnancy developed as a result of epigenetic pressures on the transcription polymerase enzyme. Therefore, the ‘natural’ function of the uterus is parasite protection NOT pregnancy.

            Oops.

          • Valde

            There is no such thing as a no risk pregnancy.

            And hey, liver donation is temporary – and the donator’s liver will grow back.

            Therefore, liver donation should be mandatory – think of all the lives that can be saved.

          • april showers

            There is no such thing as a no risk life. Pregnancy is basically voluntary except in case of rape, which rarely results in pregnancy.

            Personally, I wouldn’t punish the child of a rapist for the crimes of her father, but I can totally understand how some women can’t handle having their rapists’s child. I probably only even think that I could handle it because of the women I know who’s mothers bravely carried them to term. But if I was on my own, I would probably go with the abortion in the case of a rape pregnancy.

          • Valde

            Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

            Aw, so abortion is ONLY murder if the ‘human being’ in question is created through consensual sex.

            However, it is NOT murder, if the ‘human being’ in question is created through rape.

            Tell me, should rape victims be allowed to kill their newborns? After all…the woman did not ‘consent’ to creating the rape baby!

          • april showers

            Consent to sex is most definitely consent to potentially becoming pregnant.

            Actually abortion is still murder in the case of rape pregnancy but, under the traumatic circumstances….

            I don’t think that anyone should be “allowed to kill” at all. But in a culture of death….

            You seem to believe that I think all “murderers” should be incarcerated. This is not the case.

          • Valde

            Consent to sex is most definitely consent to potentially becoming pregnant.

            Just like eating is consent to choking right? Yes, of course. Which is why we deny medical treatment to choking victims – THEY CONSENTED TO IT.

            Actually abortion is still murder in the case of rape pregnancy but, under the traumatic circumstances….

            Yes, murder isn’t murder if the murderer has been *traumatized*

            I don’t think that anyone should be “allowed to kill” at all. But in a culture of death….

            Well then. Let’s just kill kill kill, after all, the culture encourages it!

            You seem to believe that I think all “murderers” should be incarcerated.

            Well yes – that is what most sane people would think.

            Unlawfully, and maliciously, depriving another HUMAN BEING of life would certainly require incarceration.

            But hey, I guess if the murderer has been *traumatized* in some way, then they can walk free! Perhaps Sgt Bales, who murdered 16 Afghani people, should not have gone to jail for life – after all, he was traumatized from his service in Afghanistan.

            I predict that fiona will congratulate you on your mental gymnastics.

          • Jennifer Starr

            My minor in college was criminal justice–and yeah, a conviction of murder generally gets you some form of incarceration, whether it’s a prison, a juvenile facility or a mental institution. Or maybe you’re saying that having an abortion isn’t the same as murdering a born individual, after all.

          • fiona64

            Pregnancy is basically voluntary except in case of rape, which rarely results in pregnancy.

            Wrong … on both counts.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, you have as much chance of getting pregnant from rape as you do from unprotected sex. Contrary to what rape-apologist Akin and other anti-choice whackjobs have claimed, our bodies do not have any way to ‘shut that whole thing down’.

          • april showers

            You’re twisting. Obviously, my point was that the percentage of pregnancies from rape are small compared to total number of pregnancies at any given time. Obviously, each random act of sexual intercourse has the same chance of resulting in pregnancy, depending predominantly on female fertility, not whether intercourse was voluntary or forced.

          • Valde

            So, if only a few unwanted ‘human zygote beings’ are being MURDERED, then it’s totes ok.

          • april showers

            I am not OK with it, but I presume you are?

          • Valde

            You said that women should not be incarcerated if they murder the zyogte babies created through rape.

            Murder you said, is ok, if the murderer is *traumatized*

            Do try to keep up with your own bullshit

          • april showers

            I never said it was OK, but I did say that I understand how some people can make hard decisions after a trauma ( I didn’t say it but I meant based on fear or anger etc) that I or others, while we may not agree, cannot judge them on their decision making abilities post-trauma.

            Do try to stop putting words onto my keyboard.

          • Valde

            Am not.

            You said:

            “Actually abortion is still murder in the case of rape pregnancy but, under the traumatic circumstances….

            I don’t think that anyone should be “allowed to kill” at all. But in a culture of death….

            You seem to believe that I think all “murderers” should be incarcerated. This is not the case.”

          • april showers

            So where does that say that I think it is OK to murder a rapist’s child? Oh, yeah, it doesn’t at all.

            I do not think it is OK to kill anyone! Yet killing is going on all around us daily. What I think actually has no effect on culture at all. I can only be responsible for my own actions and set an example for those I am responsible for. Therefore, we concentrate on avoiding any situations that could lead to unwanted pregnancy. It is a priority in my family, but I get where some families have different priorities for different reasons. I am not judging anyone, I’m just saying that honesty demands that we acknowledge that the science is settled and new life begins at conception. The conversation about abortion is more about life and choices and their consequences than about stopping women from having sex, which is just patently ridiculous. Any woman who engages in sexual intercourse when she is fertile can conceive new life and she should be aware of the mechanics and the science on it and the expected consequences of her behavior. To act surprised about it is just plain disingenuous, as you say, and then to suggest further that, somehow, a fetus has forced its way into her uterus and is subjugating her bodily autonomy against her will and needs to be KILLED in order for justice to be done, well, is just beyond ridiculous.

          • Valde

            Well, you very strongly implied that rape victims should have the right to ‘murder’ their unborn ‘babies’.

            But now since you are backtracking we can safely say that you believe that rape victims should be obligated to gestate every rape pregnancy to term.

            Thanks for clearing it up.

          • fiona64

            It’s all about goal-post moving when you call them out on their nonsense …

          • april showers

            Well, so clarifying my opinion=”backtracking”, got it. Funny critique of a position posted on a comment board on a piece posted by a writer famous for serial backtracking. OK, I’m not in the “in” crowd. Got it.

          • Valde

            Yeah, it does. You were quite clearly trying to make ‘excuses’ for the rape victim by talking about the ‘trauma’ and how ‘murderers shouldn’t always be incarcerated’

            When I pointed out the inconsistency in your views, you were quick to move the goalposts and say that rape victims who abort = murderers.

          • april showers

            Yes, actually, I do have a lot of sympathy for victims of rape. Since incarcerating violent offenders is the purpose of prison, I just can’t see how a rape victim who has killed her rapist’s child is a threat to the greater population at large, especially since she is more likely to be raped again in prison than outside of prison, right? Similarly, when children who are under the influence of psychotropic drugs go on shooting sprees at their local school or in their community, I see it as a side effect of their drugs and even though they have murdered people, I feel that the adults responsible for the child are more responsible for the carnage. Incarcerating these children doesn’t make society safer, while others are still lurking around under the influence of these same substances, prescribed by the same doctors and marketed by the same pharmaceutical industries.

          • Valde

            Ok, and what if a victim of rape murders her newborn child who was created through that rape? Should she also get off easy?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Since many rapes go unreported and therefore aren’t statistically recorded, we really can’t state that with any degree of confidence.

          • april showers

            Again, I was comparing pregnancies by rape to total number of pregnancies, not total number of rapes.

          • fiona64

            Pregnancy is basically voluntary except in case of rape, which rarely results in pregnancy.

            … because in cases of legitimate rape, the female body has a way of shutting that whole thing down. /Akins

            What a joke.

          • Arekushieru

            Pregnancy is not voluntary. Seriously how ignorant ARE you antis? If pregnancy was voluntary there would be NO unplanned pregnancies. HERP DERP.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And what if they weren’t a ‘willing participant’?

          • Valde

            then ‘murder’ is acceptable

            seriously, read her comments

            she is a yogi!

          • fiona64

            Gestation is temporary

            I just did a little bit of math. Eleven pregnancies, assuming no multiple births and a normal 40 week gestation period, means that you have pregnant (so far) for 8.46 years.

            I mean, sure … that’s temporary, when you consider a full life time of 56 years. However, we can subtract 13 years from that for pre-pubescence, and I presume, at least another 5 before you could be legally married. So, for the sake of this discussion, that’s 38 fertile years … so you’ve been pregnant for almost 25 percent of your adult life.

            I honestly cannot think of anything more miserable.

          • Melooley

            “…a willing participant in the creation of the human….”

            Now, I’ve had sex more times than I can count, but I have never, ever–not once–been a willing participant in the creation of any human. Participating in sex is not actually the same as participating in parenthood, and I find it vaguely horrifying that anti-choicers seem to conflate the two. Did you forget that consenting to allow a penis in my vagina for the evening is not actually the same as consenting to allow a human in my uterus for 9 months?

            The vast majority of abortions in the US are not of intentional pregnancies, what with the United States averaging around 50% of pregnancies being unintentional, so quit pretending like consenting to sex is the same as consenting to pregnancy and birth.

          • fiona64

            No, you’re just more misogynistic.

          • april showers

            Right, equal rights for all humans is misogynistic! OK, got it!

          • fiona64

            both beings should have equal rights, neither being’s rights should exceed the other’s rights.

            You cannot afford rights to a fetus without, of *necessity,* abrogating the rights of the born, sapient, sentient woman.

          • Valde

            microscopic cells are not human beings

          • april showers

            Uh, all human beings are made up of microscopic cells in varying numbers depending on the stage of development.

          • Valde

            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.

            Each of those microscopic cells within your body is an unborn baby, sweetheart:)

          • april showers

            Not with a unique DNA. All my cells will only render my DNA, they can only produce clones of me, honeypie:)

          • Valde

            So it would be completely acceptable in your world to create cloned babies and then kill them because the DNA is not unique?

            Is that what you are saying?

          • april showers

            Hahahaha! Of course not! But that is not the topic at hand.

          • Valde

            Oh, but yes, yes it is.

            You have said that unique dna is what makes a zygote a human being.

            Therefore, a baby cloned from your dna is not a human being, because it’s dna is not unique.

            Therefore, killing such a baby would be completely moral!

            Do try to keep up.

          • april showers

            A baby created from my DNA would be a cloned human being not a natural human. A cloned human, at this point in science, could only be created in a laboratory at great expense. This would certainly mean that the clone was “wanted”. A cloned human could never exist in normal natural human relationships, so there isn’t really any point is discussing whether or not they have rights at this point or if they are property. Do I own my DNA? Yes, I think I do. I would not choose cloning for myself so I will never have to wrestle with the question of whether my clone is my property or not along with all the other issues surrounding this problem.

          • Valde

            This would certainly mean that the clone was “wanted”.

            And the woman gestating said clone could suddenly decide she no longer wants to gestate it.

            In which case – should she be allowed to kill it? After all, as you keep saying, if it doesn’t have unique DNA it isn’t a person.

            And enough with the attempts at evading the question – we all see through it.

          • april showers

            The question is: Is it human?, not: is it a person?

            The unique DNA makes it a separate human from the mother/father rather than just another part of her body like a fingernail or hair, If it has the same DNA as her or whoever makes it a cloned human rather than a natural unique human. It is still, however, human but a cloned human.

            The idea that she should be able to kill her clone on a whim without extenuating circumstances sounds ludicrous. Is that what you are saying? If her clone is defective, can she sue the scientists for wrongful life? What will the damages be?

          • Valde

            You have been conflating ‘human’ with ‘person’ this entire time.

            Species membership is not proof of ‘personhood’ and it does not automatically make something a human *being*.

          • fiona64

            The question is: Is it human?, not: is it a person?

            No, you are 100 percent incorrect — from biological, legal and philosophical perspectives.

            As has been explained to you ad nauseum.

          • fiona64

            zygotes are human beings,

            No, dear. They are potential human beings.

          • april showers

            No, dear. They are actually human with a unique DNA and everything they need to grow to the next stage of human development and so on until their natural death.

          • fiona64

            No, myintx. As has been patiently, and repeatedly explained to you, they are only *potential* persons. Hydatidform moles and tumors also have unique DNA …

          • april showers

            But moles and tumors are not stages of human development at all, on the contrary, moles will normally miscarry mainly because of inability to develop properly and tumors have not inherited a unique human DNA, rather it is mutation of the human DNA.

          • Valde

            She is pointing out that ‘unique dna’ is certainly not proof of ‘personhood’

            Also, a non-sentient parasitic twin has unique DNA – as does a clinically braindead patient on life support – and there is absolutley no law against removing the twin and/or harvesting the organs of said patient.

          • april showers

            “Personhood” is an artificial construct, created to plausibly deny rights to some humans in favor of other stronger humans. I am not even concerned with such labels. All I am saying is that a zygote is a human being in its early stages of development. Check any College Physiology book under stages of human development.

            Also, your twins are both humans and they both have rights but that certainly doesn’t mean that parents and doctors can’t or shouldn’t make the difficult life and death decisions that have to be made in the case of competing rights. This has never been an issue and I have never heard anyone saying that a brain dead patient on life support must be artificially kept alive because they are human.

          • Valde

            All I am saying is that a zygote is a human being in its early stages of development.

            A zygote is a human organism.

            Human being = person. Human beings and persons are sentient.

          • fiona64

            “Personhood” is an artificial construct, created to plausibly deny rights to some humans in favor of other stronger humans.

            No, it’s a biological and legal reality. I’m sorry you didn’t learn that at Close Cover Whilst Striking University.

          • april showers

            Read Bastiat “The Law” It’s a Classic.

          • fiona64

            You wrote a diatribe the length of a Bible about how you were leaving, and you just can’t stay away.

            Back in the days of Usenet, we called these flouncing posts “pail and shovels.” As in, “I’m taking my pail and shovel and leaving the beach … and you’ll all be sorry when I’m gone.”

            Trust me, sweetie. You can go with no worries on that count.

          • Arekushieru

            And that is what we are arguing, that in the case of competing rights, right to bodily autonomy and right to life, the law should fall on the same side as it does everywhere else, which is…. THE RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY. Ooops.

            Oh, so you are all hyped at maintaining biological sexism but not imposing ARTIFICIAL sexism? Wow, I hope you know you should NOT be too proud of that. After all, you are saying that it’s okay to penalize for an ACCIDENT OF BIOLOGY. And that’s just sick.

          • Valde

            The right to bodily autonomy only applies when YOUR BODY WASN’T MADE FOR A FETUS. IF YOUR BODY WAS MADE FOR A FETUS YOU BETTER SHUT UP AND TAKE IT CUZ NATURE > WOMEN.

            That is the argument I hate the most.

          • april showers

            I haven’t heard that the right to bodily autonomy only applies when your body wasn’t made for a fetus That means male, right? So do males have more bodily autonomy than women? Let’s see, Sexual intercourse occurs between two consenting adults and a new life forms. The female is totes in charge of whether or not the newly conceived offspring lives or dies. If she goes with death, she marches merrily on her way and her partner heaves a giant sigh of relief. If she decides to carry the child to term, than she can use the power of the state to demand material support from the father for the next 18 years. He can tell the court “Hey, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy!” all he wants but they will simply continue to send the bills. If he doesn’t pay, they will garnish his wages, if he quits his job, they will seize any assets he happens to own. If he cannot satisfy the demands on him, he will be incarcerated as a “deadbeat dad”. I don’t know, but that doesn’t sound like bodily autonomy to me. Rather, it sounds to me like adult females have bodily autonomy in spades but males and fetuses actually have zero bodily autonomy. They seem to be kinda at the mercy of the female.

            Now, before all the reactionary wailing and personal insults begin, may I please state that I am NOT advocating any position on this situation. I am simply stating what is. My view is that if you are talking about an issue, you need to,begin with the truth. You do not do yourself or your position any favors by ignoring the reality that everyone is fully aware of.

          • Valde

            And in 33 US states a rapist can impregnate a woman and demand, with state support, custodial rights and visitation.

            You support the right of rapist’s to decide if and when a woman becomes pregnant.

          • fiona64

            So do males have more bodily autonomy than women?

            Yes, actually, they do. How many laws do you see being made to deny *men* a full range of health care options?

            The whole reason that reproductive freedom pisses off so many people (most of them male) is that it puts women on an equal footing in the work place, in education, and a great many other areas as well. If a woman doesn’t have to quit her job or drop out of school to gestate a pregnancy, unless she wants to, she is better able to compete in the marketplace.

            As you are doubtless aware, “using the power of the state to demand material support” is not always successful. In fact, in about 30 percent of cases, the custodial parent receives not one thin dime — despite court orders to the contrary (Source). Single mothers (whether due to divorce or other reasons) are far more likely to be impoverished than single dads. They are more likely to be working low-wage, dead-end jobs (often more than one) in order to make ends meet. (Source)

            Quote from that last source: Why are so many single mothers poor? First, the majority of them receive
            either inadequate or zero child support from the fathers of their
            children. Support guidelines vary from state to state, but incredibly
            the minimums fall between $15 and $30 per week.

            But hey, who cares, right? After all, quality of life is totally irrelevant. Force a woman to remain pregnant against her will; through magical thinking, she’ll somehow be just fine. After all, she can spend what little money she may have trying to get some deadbeat to cough up $15 bucks a week … at a net loss, obviously.

            Congratulations on being the first female I’ve ever seen spew the “male rights advocate” nonsense, though. Really. Because $15/week for child support is slavery, but forced gestation is a-okay.

            You have some very peculiar ideas about *reality.*

          • april showers

            Now see here:

            “But hey, who cares, right? After all, quality of life is totally irrelevant. Force a woman to remain pregnant against her will; through magical thinking, she’ll somehow be just fine. After all, she can spend what little money she may have trying to get some deadbeat to cough up $15 bucks a week … at a net loss, obviously.

            Congratulations on being the first female I’ve ever seen spew the “male rights advocate” nonsense, though. Really. Because $15/week for child support is slavery, but forced gestation is a-okay.”

            You again ascribe to me positions that I do not even hold. Then you address 30% of cases where women cannot get their money usually because the father either has none or has absconded and gone underground to avoid paying, while in the other 70% of cases, the scenario I outlined is true.

            You need to address this issue not dismiss it as “MRA nonsense” because this situation totally undercuts your “bodily autonomy” theory, but hey, kill the messenger.

          • fiona64

            And ::woosh:: went the point.

            Not that I’m surprised.

          • april showers

            So may I assume that you agree with Ms. Valde’s analogy? Do you think that an embryo/fetus actually takes a woman’s blood? Interesting theory, but I just doubt if it is biologically correct, for those that care about the “science” of these issues. Anyway, moving on, how many people do you know that consent to a car accident and then complain about the “blood loss”. Most of the car accident victims that I know are just happy to be alive after recovery and then change their behavior significantly in order to avoid any future car accidents.. I have also known people who didn’t recover at all from a car accident, and we never asked them “why, oh, why did you consent to that accident?”. Yes, I think that Valde’s analogy fits much better with a rape victim, who may find herself impregnated without consenting to any sexual activity, so maybe Ms. Valde wants to propose that all men are rapists and that there is no such thing as consensual sex and that every instance of sexual intercourse is forced on a woman by a man? I’m not sure what her motives are exactly, but this is the kind of hyperbole that can polarize an issue when there is no need to do so. You simply cannot wish away the adult female consent issue here, unless you truly believe that women are too stupid to make their own reproductive choices.

            Now, onto the wallet; what is a wallet? It holds your money, right? Where do most of us get our money? Well, we all work and in doing so, we agree to exchange the fruits of our LABOR for the agreed upon currency, which we stuff in our wallet. Can we agree on this or does someone want to suggest that a magically refilling wallet is part of the male physiology? OK, so back to our analogy of the “consensual” car accident, in which, we are going try to compare the wallet which represents the fruit of a person’s LABOR (their personal autonomy) for 18 years to another person’s blood loss (or, to reach really hard to make this analogy work, rental) for 9 months. I mean, let’s face it, there are many other problems with this analogy but suffice it to say that the FACT that men cannot say “consent to sex is not consent to fatherhood” means that female equality demands that woman cannot say “consent to sex is not consent to motherhood”. Take you pick, I don’t care, but, guys, you need to deal with these issues, not with bad analogies that don’t work.

            Further, Valde says: When a man ejaculates inside a woman, he does not become enslaved. The clear implication is that a woman becomes “enslaved” when a man ejaculates inside her. Here again, you have a big problem with the semantics. Can we at least agree on the definition of slavery? How about:

            “Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation.”

            So you agree with Valde that women are “enslaved” when a man ejaculates inside her and men are not? You know, I don’t even have the time to get into the details of all the problems with statements like these.

            I address you, my dear, because you are obviously more mature and educated than your cheering section. But all you “reproductive freedom” advocates need to significantly step up your game if you expect converts in any number which you desperately need.

            You ladies need to deal with the physiological and legal facts as they are, not with the rhetoric of fear of the past or villainization of all men as predators. The past is over and it’s never coming back. Women have had access to birth control and abortion for 40 years now and some of them STILL make extremely poor choices, now in even greater numbers than before and, please, nobody is trying to get them to stop having sex but they absolutely NEED to learn WHO they should and shouldn’t have sex with and when sex is appropriate and when it isn’t. JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Children are still suffering in abusive, neglectful and dangerous environments. Birth control and abortion have not solved this problem one iota so we need to stop thinking that it can or will and move forward with common ground alliances not further polarization, because, as a disinterested spectator, I can assure you, you people have completed lost control of the media and you are losing the war with your antagonistic, rear view mirror battle tactics and echo chambers where those of you who claim to be educated in science, post comments on threads where others can say stuff like “Accident of Biology” and nobody corrects that kind of thinking, it really doesn’t reflect well on any of the participants or their knowledge of science.

            Anyway, my vacation is over today so I won’t be adding to this delightful discussion and I bid all you fine ladies “Adieu”!

          • fiona64

            Wow … what a lot of Randian Objectivist bullshit. I stopped reading about two paragraphs in and just skipped to the end.

            Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, okay?

          • fiona64

            Women have had access to birth control and abortion for 40 years now and some of them STILL make extremely poor choices,

            Like having 11 kids?

          • april showers

            See, here again, you’re calling my choice bad simply because you didn’t choose it for yourself. Why? Are my kids in foster care? No. Are they abused? No. On welfare? No. Am I a single mom living in poverty? No. My kids haven’t even been to public k12. My choice hasn’t cost you one thin dime or one night’s sleep, yet my choice will help pay for your social security and medicare, and my choice will help pay for your son’s US Navy career. So, you’re welcome, .

          • fiona64

            you’re calling my choice bad simply because you didn’t choose it for yourself.

            Excuse me, but you just broke my new irony meter. I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to replace it, as this is at least the second time.

          • Valde

            You are funny.

          • Valde

            I’m not even going to read that mound of bullshit.

          • Valde

            Interesting theory, but I just doubt if it is biologically correct, for those that care about the “science” of these issues.

            For you, dumbass:

            The zygote actually overpowers the woman’s immune system in the same way a parasite does. Isn’t that interesting!?

            Here are some scientific findings:

            Further investigation revealed that placental NKB contained
            the molecule phosphocholine, which is used by the parasitic nematode worm to avoid attack by the immune system of the host in which it lives.

            During implantation, fetally derived cells (trophoblast) invade the
            maternal endometrium and remodel the endometrial spiral arteries into low-resistance vessels that are unable to constrict. This invasion hasthree consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother’sarterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient contentof blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placentabecomes largely independent of control by the local maternal
            vasculature. Third, the placenta is able to release hormones and other substances directly into the maternal circulation. Placental hormones, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and human placentallactogen (hPL), are predicted to manipulate maternal physiology for fetal benefit.

            The host-parasite relationship during pregnancy is a fascinating
            interaction and research in this area will improve understanding of
            disease pathogenesis and the various consequences of the host immune response, being host-protective, parasite protective and contributing to disease pathology. Pregnancy poses an interesting problem for the immune system of the dam as she is essentially carrying a semi-allogeneic tissue graft (the foetus) without immunological rejection taking place.

            Another role for foetal transferrin receptors on trophoblasts could be to bind maternal transferrin at the materno-foetal interface, thus frustrating maternal immunosurveillance. This is similar to a mechahism used by schistosomes in the host-parasite relation where host proteins are bound by the parasite to escape immunological recognition.

            Why Women Menstruate

            A new paper by Emera, Romero, and Wagner suggests an interesting new idea. They turn the question around: menstruation isn’t the phenomenon to be explained, decidualization, the production of a thickened endometrial lining, is the key process.

            All mammals prepare a specialized membrane for embryo implantation, the difference is that most mammals exhibit triggered decidualization, where the fertilized embryo itself instigates the thickening, while most primates have spontaneous decidualization (SD), which occurs even in the absence of a fertilized embryo. You can, for instance, induce menstruation in mice. By scratching the mouse endometrium, they will go through a pseudopregnancy
            and build up a thickened endometrial lining that will be shed when progesterone levels drop. So the reason mice don’t menstruate isn’t thatthey lack a mechanism for shedding the endometrial lining…it’s that they don’t build it up in the first place unless they’re actually going
            to use it.

            So the question is, why do humans have spontaneous decidualization?

            The answer that Emera suggests is entirely evolutionary, and involves maternal-fetal conflict. The mother and fetus have an adversarial relationship: mom’s best interest is to survive pregnancy to bearchildren again, and so her body tries to conserve resources for the long haul. The fetus, on the other hand, benefits from wresting as much from mom as it can, sometimes to the mother’s detriment. The fetus, for instance, manipulates the mother’s hormones to weaken the insulin response, so less sugar is taken up by mom’s cells, making more available for the fetus.

            Within the mammals, there is variation in how deeply the fetus sinks its placental teeth into the uterus. Some species are epithelochorial; the connection is entirely superficial. Others are endotheliochorial, in which the placenta pierces the uterine epithelium. And others, the most invasive, are hemochorial, and actually breach maternal blood vessels. Humans are hemochorial. All of the mammalian species that menstruate arealso hemochorial.

            That’s a hint. Menstruation is a consequence of self-defense. Femalesbuild up that thickened uterine lining to protect and insulate themselves from the greedy embryo and its selfish placenta. In species with especially invasive embryos, it’s too late to wait for the moment of implantation — instead, they build up the wall pre-emptively, before and in case of fertilization. Then, if fertilization doesn’t occur, the universal process of responding to declining progesterone levels by sloughing off the lining occurs.

          • Arekushieru

            And it really emphasizes the theory that pregnancy is not ‘natural’. If it were natural, then the there wouldn’t be such conflict between the fetus and host, especially not to such a life-threatening extent for the FEMALE.

          • goatini

            Well, that was a huge, steaming load of GOTP forced-birther (who pretends to be a “libertarian”) nonsense. To these fake “libertarians”, anyone who doesn’t agree with their BS is just not “intelligent enough” to “get it”.

            It also had a giant dose of projection of its own faults upon the innocent opposition – par for the course for GOTP forced-birthers. It’s what they do best.

          • goatini

            hahahaha “down” vote from fake “libertarian” who doesn’t like the truth.

          • Valde

            It doesn’t undercut a thing. When a man ejaculates inside a woman, he does not become enslaved.

            You cannot compare a man’s wallet to a woman’s body. Your argument didn’t undercut shit.

            Here is an analogy that you will understand: you are driving your car. You cause an accident. You have injured someone and they require blood transfusions. Either 1) you pay their hospital bills 2) they take your blood, as much as they need

            #2 = forced pregnancy

            #1 = wallet

            big fucking difference

          • goatini

            I notice that the very simple and basic precept of “Don’t want to be a dad? Then ALWAYS wear a condom” is missing from the above diatribe. ANYONE who doesn’t want to be a parent should use contraception, and that includes men.

          • Melooley

            Remember, contraception can fail, so we shouldn’t just be telling men to wear a condom–although, yes, we should be telling men and women that contraceptives are your best bet for avoiding unintended pregnancy. The other half of the message is: Don’t have sex with someone who would react to an unintended pregnancy in a way you don’t want! If you are an anti-choice male, then DON’T PUT YOUR PENIS IN A WOMAN THAT SUPPORTS ABORTION RIGHTS. Boom. Problem solved.

            This seems to be so obvious that we pro-choice folk forget to mention it, but it really does seem to boggle the mind of the anti-choice crowd: you can discuss how you’d deal with an unintended pregnancy before you have sex, and you can use that discussion to decide whether or not to have sex with that partner.

          • Arekushieru

            Me, too. It’s a form of entrapment based on biological sex. Unless you happen to be a post-op transman. And it’s the most SICKENING, HEINOUS, and EGREGIOUS form of entrapment, I find.

          • fiona64

            Ugh. I just discovered (through reading her history) that, of all things, this individual supports the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum. So, she’s a Teabircher on top of everything else … and favors keeping her children just as ignorant as she is.

            I weep for the future. I truly, truly do.

          • Valde

            Jeez, that’s pretty bad.

            Hey, wasn’t Mr Cris telling us that homeschooling created the best and the brightest :P

            This isn’t unsurprising however – most of the Quiverfull nuts homeschool their children. In fact, they get to put ALL their children to work as slave labour!

          • fiona64

            Did you read the whole article? Some of the goals of this “curriculum” include “being able to run a YouTube channel.” Because uploading video is such a challenge? Really?

          • Valde

            Reading it now….

            This is like…what?

            1) It should be an academically rigorous curriculum that is tied to primary source documents — not textbooks. Textbooks are screened by committees. They dumb down the material.

            This was a laugh:

            2) Defend the free market system intellectually

            After reading it, it is clearly just another transparent attempt to indoctrinate lots of future obedient Libertards.

            Quite appalling, actually.

          • april showers

            Really kinda creepy, my dear, trolling through my disqus profile to make even more wrong assumptions? You must have quite alot of time on your hands, I guess when you’re not “tied down” with a life of your own, you gotta do something, right?

            Want a little project in forensic anthropology? Here’s my daily reading list, See if you can find my user names and review my comment history for each:

            Robert Wenzel
            Justin Raimondo
            Glenn Greenwald

            Oh, and don’t forget to bring your whole derpina gallery to agree with everything you type so that you can feel like you’re a majority.

            Btw, I am not a homeschooler at all, but I certainly wouldn’t ridicule people “with broad, ugly stereotypes” for the choices they make about education.

            If you get bored after that, you can do a little math project and figure out how many of my children and grandchildren will it take to pay for your social security and medicare?

            So far, 3 have graduated from college with 0 debt, and are working full time in their chosen fields, 3 are currently in college paying their own bills, 1 of which is finishing her internship and has already been offered a permanent position after graduation, 2 are still in high school while already earning college credits, 2 in middle school and I just went to my final back to school nite for 1 elementary school student.

            So, if you are really interesting in knowing something about me, just ask, so far every single assumption you have made about me is wrong, but, you really aren’t interested in knowing anything, are you?
            Good luck and good nite

          • fiona64

            Your comment profile is public, dear … as is mine. If you don’t want people to read it … perhaps because you’re ashamed of it … you can always make it private.

          • april showers

            Yes, my dear, I am so ashamed of who I am that I voluntarily offer you my reading list for your investigative pleasure. As far as reading comprehension goes, check yours, I haven’t accused you of calling me a homeschooler, I offered you the truthful info to clear up your confusion on the issue and a gentle reminder that you again choose to ridicule and marginalize a group of women based on their personal choices that don’t fit your particular worldview, even though, many of them definitely agree with you on so many issues. Way to fragment your coalition.

            Also, none of my children, nor myself, are picture perfect by any stretch of the imagination, we are all humans with human faults, and I am not the one who has reduced the value of children to their abilities in an industrialized education industry, that was you. I am just trying to offer you an insight into a world you seemingly are completely incurious about because you have based your opinion on so many incorrect assumptions.
            Good luck.

          • fiona64

            I offered you the truthful info to clear up your confusion on the issue
            and a gentle reminder that you again choose to ridicule and marginalize a
            group of women based on their personal choices that don’t fit your
            particular worldview,

            You mean, the way you do every single post-abortive and/or pro-choice individual on the planet? Excuse me, but I think you just broke my irony meter.

            Look, I get it. You’re jealous. I have a 26-year-old son, and a 20-year-old tubal ligation. We’re empty-nesters and I’m perfectly satisfied with that state of affairs. I’ve accomplished more in life than proving that my gonads function (for example, I’ve written 10 books, and contributed chapters to five others.), and that makes you mad. I’m very sorry for you, but you made your choice (and yes, having kids is a choice). I support your right to make that choice, even though I think it’s lunacy. And therein, madame, lies the primary difference between you and me.

            You think that no one should be allowed to make their own reproductive choices if they differ from yours. Well, here’s a news flash for you: just because you don’t like someone else’s reproductive decisions doesn’t mean you get to decide *for them.* If you think the government should make abortion illegal, remember that the same government that says you *must* have children might just decide that you *can’t* have children (or,more than a certain number of children). It’s just the other side of the same coin.

            If a law were written tomorrow that said no one could have more than 11 kids, and you and your husband were trying for a 12th, you would probably shit a gold-plated brick and yell about your reproductive freedoms. I suggest that you remember that while you try to deny reproductive freedom to *others* for no other reason than pure, unadulterated *envy.*

          • april showers

            My dear, review my posts again, if you have the time. I have not engaged in any name-calling, anger, stereotyping etc. etc. On the contrary, I have been called every name in the book here by all you lovely ladies and have been the subject of incredibly ugly speculation about my physical person! I mean, Vienna sausage in the Gare du Nord? So wow, you’ve never heard of Kegels, unbelievable. Jealousy, Envy? Good try, if you only knew.

            I have never tried to influence any legislation whatsoever, I’m not even registered to vote, nor do I belong to any political party or any activist organization other than my local gardening club, various PTO’s and my local community foodbank. I don’t even believe that legislation is a way to solve every point of contention in society. I believe in discussion and fact based consensus in local communities rather than emotional drama on a nationwide stage.

          • Valde

            Well hon, I give you credit for not trying to legislate morality.

          • fiona64

            On the other hand, I don’t know that not bothering to vote is something to boast of. The 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment was just last week. Born, sapient, sentient women were tortured and killed over their ardent wish to have the same basic rights as men …

            Wait. Now I understand why she doesn’t vote.

            Sorry, my bad.

          • Valde

            ooo, good point

            yes, it’s rather obvious now

          • Valde

            I stalk fiona. That’s the only way I can keep track of new posts, because Disqus often doesn’t update on my screen.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sorry, but anyone who likes anything endorsed by Gary North is borderline scary in my opinion.

          • Valde

            Thanks for the thumbs up :p

            We both stalk fiona muhahahaa.

            I like following her, because wherever she goes, there is action! I hate wandering into a forum all alone, I feel so, sob, lonely :P

          • fiona64

            PS: You clearly have no idea what forensic anthropology is, or you wouldn’t have made such a ridiculous statement.

          • april showers

            So sorry, if you missed my sense of humor, there. Just funnin’ ya, old girl!

          • fiona64

            Oh, I’m sorry. Were you trying to be clever?

            Try harder next time, okay?

          • Valde

            I almost feel sorry for her.

            And down thread, she is now making the MRA child support argument.

            lulz

          • Jennifer Starr

            Good lord, Gary North, the Christian Reconstructionist Y2K nutjob. I thought he was still holed up in a cabin in the mountains somewhere with his money/toilet paper. This is a curriculum in name only–any child taught by this will be some of the least educated children on the planet.

        • fiona64

          I don’t bother going over there to look, since I’m banned … but yes, he keeps replying to me.

          If the fertilized ovum is the property of the father, let *him* gestate it.

      • Ella Warnock

        And married women who don’t want kids, or more, should also keep their legs closed. Well shit, if I’d known that I’d STILL be a s1ut for having non-procreative sex with my husband, I wouldn’t have bothered to get married!

  • Sharon Diehl

    Good article that articulates exactly how I think and feel about the abortion issue. I loathe the Rethugs.

  • Valde

    http://3 dot bp dot blogspot dot com/-WpRmQH4h8WU/Uf_Z9zgl-xI/AAAAAAAA3dw/TOxh9Cs3NtQ/s640/anti-choice.png

    77% of anti-abortion leaders are men

    100% of them will never be pregnant

    • HeilMary1

      And I’d love to know how many are pedophiles, adulterers, and sex tourist fornicators.

  • Olivia Belote

    An absolutely fantastic article. Written with poise, clarity, and promise! Thank you for being a contributor to women’s rights and voices!!!!

  • Valde

    Where have I supported denying medical treatment to anybody? I have never made any such claim.

    Pregnancy is a serious health condition, in case you missed the memo.

    Yes, here is where the term “unlawfully” is required as a qualifier,
    meaning that some killers are exonerated by law, because their murders
    are “lawful”, Others, eh, not so lucky…off to jail with you lot!

    Right. So you consider abortion to be ‘murder’ which is:

    mur·der

    /ˈmərdər/Noun

    The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

    So, to recap…you consider abortion in the case of rape to be ‘murder’ but, also, not ‘murder’ because the victim has been *traumatized* and therefore she should not get thrown in jail for willfully killing another human being.

    • april showers

      “Pregnancy is a serious health condition, in case you missed the memo.” I got the memo, it is a health condition with TWO patients. Both deserve the best medical treatment available.

      • Valde

        The woman’s health is adversely affected by the fetus. The fetus is geneticaly programmed to suck as many nutrients from the woman’s body – to her detriment.

        A woman has the right not to be used as an incubator.

        • april showers

          There are also physical and emotional benefits to pregnancy, but if you want to completely disregard those and take the view of pregnancy as a pile of adverse effects, then I guess you’re just a glass half empty type, while some of see the glass as half full.

          • fiona64

            On the contrary, some of us live in reality-land and know that pregnancy is not all chocolate ice cream and fairy farts.

          • Valde

            The ‘pregnant glow’ thing has always pissed me off. It’s just another attempt at brainwashing women into believing that pregnancy makes them beautiful.

          • fiona64

            That’s not a glow, it’s being red in the face from bending over the bog to puke all of the time.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And sweat. I once worked in a real estate office with three heavily pregnant women–in late August. Our thermostat was a continual 65 degrees and I was taking a cardigan to work–lol. I’ll never forget one of the women looked down at her belly and said “Why won’t you just come out already!”

          • april showers

            Oh, yeah, the reality land, where women who have had more than five children can barely walk and forget about riding a bike!