‘Personhood’ Backers to Submit Signatures to Qualify for 2014 Ballot in Colorado


Anti-choice activists in Colorado are rushing to meet Monday’s deadline to submit 86,105 signatures required to place an amendment on the 2014 election ballot that would change the definition of “person” and “child” under Colorado law to include “unborn human beings.”

Backers of the vaguely worded measure describe it among themselves as “personhood” and say it would ban all abortion, even though the measure is promoted to the public as an effort to protect “pregnant mothers and their unborn babies from violent and dangerous criminals.”

If it makes next year’s ballot, Colorado citizens will have their third chance to vote on “personhood” amendments, as two measures were defeated overwhelmingly in 2008, when Colorado was the first state in the country to vote on the “personhood” concept, and again in 2010.

Last year, a “personhood” initiative didn’t qualify for the ballot after Colorado’s Secretary of State rejected 23,873 of the 106,119 signatures submitted, leaving a shortfall of 3,859 signatures.

“People have said, ‘When are you going to give up?’” Colorado Right to Life spokesperson and talk-radio host Bob Enyart told his radio audience Monday. “What do you mean give up? If they are killing Jews, when do you give up? I mean, you don’t give up, right? You fight for the innocent. You fight for the Lord.”

Enyart is confident that he and his allies have corrected signature-gathering mistakes that led to the disqualification of so many signatures last year.

“Over the years, we’ve lost tens of thousands of signatures because the notaries were disqualified,” he told his radio audience, explaining that this year “every one of the petitions that has been turned in has gone through a quality-control system, and many have been returned to notaries or to the circulator to get them re-notarized correctly.”

Backers of this year’s initiative, including Personhood USA, hope that, if their measure makes the ballot, it will have a better chance of being approved because the ballot language focuses on “pregnant mothers and their unborn children.”

Pro-choice groups reportedly spent a total of $2 million fighting “personhood” amendments in 2008 and 2010, and they say they are ready to fight again next year, if necessary.

“If Personhood Colorado has collected enough signatures to be placed on the ballot in 2014, we will again fight to make sure Coloradans know the truth that this measure punishes women who are victims of rape or incest and who become pregnant by these violent acts,” said Cathy Alderman, vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado, in a statement.

For now, “personhood” backers aren’t thinking about next year’s fight with Planned Parenthood and its allies. Their focus is Monday’s deadline for submitting their petitions, which they’re collecting at their office in a Denver suburb.

“No signature left behind,” Enyart chanted to his radio audience. “No signature left behind.”

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

  • fiona64

    What these twits don’t seem to realize is that the minute they afford rights to a fetus, they abrogate the rights of the woman. They won’t be satisfied until they’ve brought back coverture — because that’s the logical outcome of this slippery slope.

    • Michaela Dasteel

      Have your rights been abrogated by mine?

      • fiona64

        You and I are both born entities with rights under the law. A fetus is neither of those things.

        • Michaela Dasteel

          That’s my point. Do my rights abrogate yours? In some ways they do. You can’t do things that threaten my life. Your actions are limited, because I’m a person (a little more than an entity). Even if killing me would protect your life or health, you can’t do it. You can’t harvest my organs while I’m alive, or kill me to get them. You can’t use my body as a human shield. You can’t kill your mother to save yourself from having to take care of her the rest of your life. You can do all these things to the unborn as long as you can the the courts to protect the myth that they aren’t human beings in their first stages of life.

          • colleen

            I would love to make it obligatory for all ‘pro-life’ men to donate at least one organ or partial organ so that guys like you can know the joy of giving life to someone else. While we’re at it I would hope that all ‘pro-life’ males are willing to fully support public funding of all maternity care and, of course, increase child support enforcement funding so that the majority of men who have fathered a child out of wedlock can finally understand what it means to give of themselves and truly sacrifice for another. Can’t you feel the love?

          • colleen

            Notice how this piece of sanctimonious crap impersonating a woman avoids any substantive discussion. The American Taliban are such cowards when challenged

          • bj_survivor

            Ain’t that the truth! Or they’ll come back with some blabber about how their imaginary sky daddy will roast you for eternity for not agreeing to be breeding livestock.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Nice one. Maybe your invective is why I haven’t spent hours replying to everyone. Have I mentioned God anywhere in my posts?

          • BJ Survivor

            “higher calling” “Creator” “sacred” “contraceptives are abortifacient”

            Everything you write drips with Catholic dipshittery. You’re not fooling anyone.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            You have a similar contempt for the moral underpinnings of the founding fathers? jefferson’s ‘deism’ that inspired him to recognize that we are all CREATED equal, endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights – or the Christianity that inspired the abolitionists – and MLK

          • BB-Mystic

            Again, just because Thomas Jefferson (or you, or anyone else), says “we are all CREATED equal, endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights” doesn’t mean it actually happened in the real world.
            You need to learn to differentiate faith from facts.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            What other parts of the Declaration of Independence to you choose to ignore? Only reference to a non-Stateist source of human rights? We are Americans and our discussion is in that context. I think the French Revolution would have been more to your liking.

          • BB-Mystic

            You are twisting what I said.

            (Deliberately so, I suspect. Throughout this whole discussion, you’ve struck me as being more than a little dishonest.)

            Thomas Jefferson may have believed there was a Creator, and that deity passed out “inalienable rights,” but he could not prove that said Creator exists. Neither can you. If the Creator does not exist, those supposed “inalienable rights” are a bunch of hokum.

            In the real world, the only “rights” we have are the ones the society we are living in has decided we should have, and those rights have changed from society to society and throughout history. (Our own prime examples–the Civil War and the 19th Amendment.)

            Also, what the hell does the Declaration of Independence have to do with how the country is run? Our ruling document is the Constitution. Not coincidentally, God is not mentioned.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            The Constitution manifested the ideas present in the Declaration in a legal sense.

            The way our society more fully expresses (changes?) our rights is through ammendments. The Republic wouldn’t have been established if some of the founders had forced the issue of slavery. But the foundation was there in the Declaration and we had to go through hell to get the 13th Amendment. But the “created equal” phrase was there at the beginning.Same with the 19th.

            Of course rights and mores and values differ from society to society and over time. That’s a description of reality but it doesn’t justify a dictatorship of relativism within a society. Our society is governed by laws which must fall within the limits of the Constitution which was inspired by the Declaration.

          • fiona64

            Your grasp of history is clearly as warped as your grasp of science.

            Religion is mentioned only twice in the Constitution — and both times in *exclusionary terms.* Period.

          • BJ Survivor

            (Deliberately so, I suspect. Throughout this whole discussion, you’ve struck me as being more than a little dishonest.)

            Dishonesty and willful cognitive dissonance are hallmarks of forced-gestation proponents. Another nickname I’ve often heard for them is “pro-liars.”

          • fiona64

            People who think like you should be grateful that the Occupy movement never found its Maximilien Robespierre …

          • BJ Survivor

            Yes, I do have a similar contempt, since slavery was legal and they said not word one against it. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves and even raped them and produced offspring. And don’t even get me started on the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

          • BB-Mystic

            Oh, you absolutely did. The very one I replied to, as a matter of fact. (Look it up–I’m not about to trawl through 500+ comments looking for something you should remember doing.)
            Please don’t act like Republicans and try to pretend you didn’t say things you most certainly did say.

          • BJ Survivor

            It could very well be a woman. I’ve met many a female forced-birther. Some even have the gall to call themselves “feminists.” As if reproductive slavery could ever be a feminist or humanist ideal.

            Look up “philippines city of guilt part 01″ on YouTube, if you haven’t already seen the excellent expose on abortion in the Philippines (it’s 3 parts). Forced-birthers like to claim that banning abortion will stop it, but those of us who live in the real world know that isn’t the case. What happens is dehumanizing, grinding, unconscionable poverty and septic abortion wards. You’ll see a cadre of USian forced-birthers in several of the scenes.

          • colleen

            I’m pretty sure this is the same guy who has been trolling here for a couple of weeks now.

          • BJ Survivor

            You could be right. It’s just that it’s impossible to tell the female misogynists from the male ones, since they all spout the same bullshit.

          • goatini

            It’s definitely male.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            You talking about me?

          • HeilMary1

            Forced birthers want the same deadly chaos here because priests get away with buying sex from homeless kids and widowers like Gene Church can have multiple teen brides.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            So, who gave you the right to claim to the mantle of feminism? I would say that your likes have hijacked the movement. Our foremothers were against abortion. This “forced birthers” meme is really catching on, isn’t it? It’s a reaction to “pro-choice” not working any more because folks are becoming wise to what that “choice” really is.

            Re Philippines: Are you saying that eliminating the unborn is a solution to their poverty? Seems you skipped a few steps there.

            And septic abortion wards are the “forced-birthers” fault?

          • jejune

            Are you saying that eliminating the unborn is a solution to their poverty? Seems you skipped a few steps there.

            Yeah it is, you racist fuckwit. Because you can’t raise 8 kids on a dollar a day.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I’ve decided to not reply to any more people swearing at me. This site have any moderators?

          • jejune

            Call the waaaaaaaaaahumbulance.

          • expect_resistance

            Good, then you won’t reply to my post. Here’s the deal. This site is a pro-choice, pro-women’s health site. If you don’t like the fact that women have bodily autonomy or have a right to decide what is best for them, their bodies, their families, their lives, i.e. who to have sex with, what type of birth control to use, or have an abortion — than you sir can go fuck off.

          • BJ Survivor

            Yes, I can just feel the love you have for women who aren’t you, who find themselves so desperate to not have one more mouth they cannot afford to feed that they are willing to subject themselves to butchery to prevent its birth. You go, you forced-birth feminist you!

          • BJ Survivor

            Denying women agency over their own bodies, their own lives, is the antithesis of feminism. Feminists do not dismiss the unnecessary suffering, maiming, and death of women and little girls. Feminists do not advocate policies that are proven to engender suffering, maiming, and death of women.

            Feminism can be many things, but cannot be any of the above.

            Ergo, you are no feminist. You are a misogynist.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I agree about child support enforcement and public funding for maternity care. I don’t agree about donating an organ being equal to giving birth. The child is not one of your organs. You don’t lose any part of yourself (except for the placenta) when you give birth.

          • BJ Survivor

            Pregnancy and childbirth cause lasting damage to a woman’s body, far, far more damage than the extraction of blood or bone marrow, which are and have always been voluntary activities. Pregnancy and childbirth can cause permanent disability and even death. You are wrong, as you are on everything.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Pregnancy can also cause healing for the mother:

            From GrennMedInfo (on microchimerism):
            More recently (2012), the journal Circulation Research published a remarkable article titled “Fetal cells traffic to injured maternal myocardium and undergo cardiac differentiation,” which investigated the possible explanatory role that fetal microchimerism has in the clinical observation of the high rate of recovery from heart failure in peripartum (occurring during the last month of gestation or the first few months after delivery) cardiomyopathy patients.[5] Their stated objective was to “…determine whether fetal cells can migrate to the maternal heart and differentiate to cardiac cells.” The researchers reported the following results:

            “We report that fetal cells selectively home to injured maternal hearts and undergo differentiation into diverse cardiac lineages. Using enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP)-tagged fetuses, we demonstrate engraftment of multipotent fetal cells in injury zones of maternal hearts. In vivo, eGFP+ fetal cells form endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and cardiomyocytes.”

            .

          • BJ Survivor

            It would be great if this great treatment you are citing were available for my pregnancy-induced cardiomyopathy patients, but it’s not.

            Women have every right to decide what risks they are willing to endure, just like every other person.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, not so much. You need to stop reading LieSiteNews.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fetal-cells-microchimerism

            Quote: The jury is still out on the effects of microchimerism—or if there’s an
            effect at all. “There isn’t enough evidence to accuse or acquit
            microchimeric fetal cells,” Bianchi says.

            It is also unclear how long microchimerism’s harms or benefits might last. The protective effect of the cells on rheumatoid arthritis decreased over time, with no benefit seen 15 years after a woman last gave birth, according to a study in Arthritis & Rheumatism
            published online March 2010. The number of children a woman had didn’t
            seem to matter—only how recently the last one had been born. And pregnancies had to have lasted for at least 20 weeks to see an effect.

          • HeilMary1

            I would add mandatory Bobbitting and jailing of the sperminators whenever women suffer injuries and death from the resulting pregnancies.

          • fiona64

            You would give women less rights than a *corpse,* Michaela. You can’t harvest organs from a corpse without prior permission. Consent to sex does not equate to consent to pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy is no different than forced organ donation. When you abrogate a woman’s rights because you want to give rights to a fetus, you make her a slave.

            How is that a) not obvious to you and b) even remotely okay?

          • Michaela Dasteel

            My analogy was probably flawed. So nevermind that one.

            But unless you are sterilized permanently, consent to sex should include the possibility of pregnancy, however remote. They are linked. It’s not obvious to me that motherhood is unnatural or slavery. We are biological creatures. If you call being subject to nature slavery, then so be it.

          • fiona64

            But unless you are sterilized permanently, consent to sex should include
            the possibility of pregnancy, however remote. They are linked. It’s
            not obvious to me that motherhood is unnatural or slavery. We are
            biological creatures. If you call being subject to nature slavery, then
            so be it.

            Even surgical sterilization has known failure rates.

            Consent to sex is *not* consent to pregnancy.

            When a fetus is attached by an umbilicus (i.e., it is not a born infant), it is part of a woman’s body. When two beings (for lack of a better way to put it) exist in one body, you cannot afford rights to both of them. I prefer to err on affording rights to the born, sapient, sentient woman. Anything else is indeed slavery.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            So we are all the children of slaves.

            Again, the unborn child is “attached” as you say, but not a part of her mother’s body. The mother’s body shelters and feeds, but they are two different organisms.

            But, looks to me that most people on this site would rather not have this privilege as it looks to me that the default model of human being for them is male. That when they think of human rights, they think of male rights.

          • fiona64

            An embryo is not the same as a born, sapient, sentient person.

            I’m sorry you’re too goddamned stupid to understand the parasitical nature of the fetal/maternal relationship.

            And, just for the record, my identity is based on my *brain,* not my goddamned gonads. I have a 27-year-old son and a 20-year-old tubal ligation. Should that surgery fail, there will be an abortion so fast your stupid head will spin right off. My pregnancy was horrific and I will *not* go through it again. Period.

          • BJ Survivor

            Just because one has the capacity to create life does not mean that it is always wise or beneficent to do so.

          • bj_survivor

            And why on earth would you want to force unwilling women to create unwanted children? It’s obvious you hate women, but why do you hate children so much? Why don’t you think children deserve to be wanted, loved, fed, sheltered, clothed, educated by someone who wants/is capable of doing so?

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Children’s lives are “created” at conception. Any forcing is done before that. Of course I’m against that kind of force. But once a child is conceived, no matter if her father was a rapist or whatever, that child has dignity. If I hate women, I hate myself although I’m pretty disgusted with the way so many of us have been propagandized by phrases such as “forced” childbearing, etc, that cover up what abortion really is. But that’s social engineering for you!

            Of course children need to be taken care of. Family planning is fine. Just don’t kill those kids who slip through and you can’t take care of. Love them enough to at least let someone else take care of them. Or stretch yourself to make it work. That takes courage and that’s a feminine virtue.

            Life isn’t just about getting your education, getting your job, getting whatever. We women are the foundation of culture. We hold the reins. We need to respect ourselves enough so that we’re not getting in the kind of jams that cause abortions. The next revolution will come when women start crossing their legs again and ignoring the name calling when they do. Might find a good man that way. I see some smart women in their 20s catching onto this.

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh lawd, here we go with the leg crossing again.

            “Life isn’t just about getting your education, getting your job, getting whatever”

            Huh, you don’t say. Mine was. Been a damn good one, too.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Leg crossing before marriage. Family planning after. But the ones finally getting married and having stable families are the more educated ones. The less educated have inherited the cultural dream of uncommitted sex and it’s real repurcussions and they are the ones having kids before marriage. That’s what’s going on.

          • fiona64

            But the ones finally getting married and having stable families are
            the more educated ones. The less educated have inherited the cultural
            dream of uncommitted sex

            You clearly don’t get out much. Young people are delaying marriage and starting families so that they can finish their educations and see some of the world. It’s the undereducated ones who are marrying and having kids right out of high school.

          • BJ Survivor

            You live in a fantasy world. There have never been enough adoptive parents to care for the unwanted. Still aren’t, because there are literally hundreds of thousands of children in state and foster care that no one will adopt because they are no longer cute, little, white, healthy babies.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            They land in foster care because they weren’t given up for adoption as babies. They weren’t given up for adoption as babies because the thought lately is that it’s mean to give your child up. So, the only reason not to abort is to keep the baby. But then they find out they can’t manage, and the child ends up in foster care. That’s the way things are right now. There would be fewer children needing adoption if sex outside of marriage hadn’t been normalized. Not all change is good. We don’t have to return to the past. We need to learn from our mistakes and ignore the cultural/media brainwashing. You don’t have to be a Victorian or a character from Father Knows Best to regain your sanity.

          • fiona64

            You’re full of crap. There are more than 100K kids available for adoption *right this minute.* Most of them will age out of foster care without ever having a permanent home. Children of color, children with developmental disabliities (their age-out rate is 63 percent) stay in care from *infancy.* Selfish infertile couples who figure they’re owed a perfectly healthy Caucasian male infant whine about how there are no kids to adopt … all that tells ms is that they don’t want to adopt that badly. They want an infant as an accessory.

          • BJ Survivor

            So, you admit that once one is not a cute, little, white baby, then one’s health, life, and well-being can just be dismissed? Glad you’re being honest here.

          • BB-Mystic

            We women are the foundation of culture. We hold the reins.

            You know, that’s really demeaning to men. That’s just a variation of the old “gatekeeper” bullshit, where men won’t control themselves sexually so women have to do it for them.

            Also, maybe you want to go back to a Stone Age existence, where the only way to prevent pregnancy was to cross your legs. I want to live in a modern civilization, with modern medicine.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Modern medicine has lost it’s moral foundation when it includes abortion. About men – their nature is to go for it. We as women have to recognize and appreciate that. Yes, they need to learn self-control but we don’t make matters easier by uncrossing our legs so easily. That’s not Stone Age. That’s not gatekeeper bs. That’s human nature. Sound like modern medicine to you means making women available for uncommitted sex.

          • fiona64

            The next revolution will come when women start crossing their legs again

            And there’s the truth of your position: it’s about controlling women’s sexuality. “if you don’t want a baby, keep your legs shut.” Just think how much time you would have saved if you’d written this simple summary instead of that giant wall of bullshit …

          • Michaela Dasteel

            t’s about women controlling themselves so as to raise sex to a higher level. We gave up the control we had in relationships a couple of generations ago when we normalized uncommitted sex – and that has dumbed down both men and women to the point where a lot of young people don’t learn the skills of true intimacy. Especially if they don’t have fathers iin the home.

            Most abortions are the result of out-of-wedlock sex. In some sub-cultures, you have your 2 babies (without marriage) and then you start aborting. And if you want to talk about pleasure and sexual fulfillment, you find it inside marriage. Check out the statistics.

            When men and women get to know eat other without the possibility of sex before marriage, the whole dynamic is changed. If you are concerned with women taking back their power, and gaining respect, that’s the direction you want to go in. I work in a field where I see this in action. I have been pleasantly surprised to see young couples practicing chastity before marriage. I never thought things would turn around, but there are some smart young men and women who have caught on to the errors of the previous 2 generations.

            When you focus everything on the woman, you are isolating her. Sex has everything to do with family. Remove it from that and you get what we see around us. Poverty caused by out-of-wedlock births and the sadness of over a million abortions a year – and I dare say, covering a lot of pain and confusion with psychotropic drugs (SSRIs).

          • BJ Survivor

            Married couples choose abortion, too. In fact, I know several married couples who had one or more abortions together, even after they were married. Married couples are also subject to the Law of Economics and most want only to have as many children as they can afford and have time for.

            And, no, sex does not have everything to do with family. That may be true for you, but it is not true for most people. Most people, married couples included, have sex for pair bonding, stress release, and mutual pleasure. Most married couples, even the majority of Catholic couples, have sex for pleasure rather than procreation.

            Some married couples deliberately choose to not procreate at all, because they just aren’t interested in rearing children.This is a good thing, because the best outcomes for children and families occurs when those children are desperately wanted by their parents. Love is a biological need and there are a host of sequelae to being unloved. Look up “attachment disorder.” Look up what happened to all the children forced into existence in Romania when Ceaușescu was in power. It’s heartbreaking. And it was so unnecessary, so preventable.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Married couples are a family. Sex renews their commitment to each other and strengthens the bond. I’ll keep on repeating – I have no objection to family planning but I do object to using abortion as a back up. And I do object to sex outside of marriage because of the bonding that sex is and it’s potential for new life,. We should bond with one person. We should have children with one person. That’s what’s best for both parents and children.

          • BJ Survivor

            Married couples are a family. Sex renews their commitment to each other
            and strengthens the bond. I’ll keep on repeating – I have no objection
            to family planning but I do object to using abortion as a back up. And
            I do object to sex outside of marriage because of the bonding that sex
            is and it’s potential for new life,. We should bond with one person. We
            should have children with one person. That’s what’s best for both
            parents and children.

            Just quit with the panty-sniffing. The sex lives of strangers are none of your fucking business. However, since you seem to consider effective contraception to be exactly the same as abortion, then it would seem that the vast majority of married couples are having abortion. Also, 95% of Americans have sex before marriage, so it’s a safe bet that the vast majority of those who bleat about abstinence before marriage were not themselves abstinent prior to marriage. I did not get married until I was 37 years old. To expect me to have been abstinent all that time is neither realistic nor, IMO, desirable.

            You are welcome to follow your Bronze Age sexual superstitions and apply them to your own life and your own life only. I promise that we will never force you to use artificial contraception or have an abortion. What you are not welcome to do is force the rest of us to adhere to your untenable, misogynistic sexual superstitions.

          • goatini

            “covering a lot of pain and confusion with psychotropic drugs (SSRIs)”

            State in which the per capita use of SSRIs is the highest: UTAH.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Guess they’ve got other problems there. But, are you now defending the over prescription of SSRIs? That’s another 5 hours of back and forth.

          • BJ Survivor

            are you now defending the over prescription of SSRIs?

            Who’s defending it? The fact she’s getting at is that your rigid, authoritarian, women-as-breeding-livestock, sexual-deviants-must-repent-or-die (and never be allowed to know romantic love) worldview results in a LOT of unhappy people. Yet you continue to defend that horseshit.

          • fiona64

            Yep. Also the highest use of on-line pornography in Utah.

            The church that demands exactly what Michaela wants us all to do fucks up its members an awful lot.

          • BJ Survivor

            Remember, life, like sex, is something that must be grimly endured from birth to natural death, at least for women. Otherwise, the baby Jesus will cry and the sky will fall and Yahweh will rain vengeance down upon thee. Who the fuck knows.

          • fiona64

            Remember, life, like sex, is something that must be grimly endured from birth to natural death, at least for women.

            “Just lie still and think of England.” /Queen Victoria

          • fiona64

            Citations needed for every damn bit of this. Thanks in advance.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Sorry I didn’t keep up with all the replies. What are you referring to?

          • fiona64

            You know, that giant wall of bullshit about how having more than one sex partner in your life destroys your ability to have intimacy, and how single-mother households screw up their kids?

            That.

          • jejune

            We gave up the control we had in relationships a couple of generations
            ago when we normalized uncommitted sex – and that has dumbed down
            both men and women to the point where a lot of young people don’t
            learn the skills of true intimacy.

            Such sex is pretty common in some cultures. Cultures that don’t view women as *property*, interestingly enough.

            Sex has everything to do with family

            Sure it does. Social bonding and all that. However, it doesn’t mean the ‘family’ has to shit out a new kid every time they have sex. It’s not healthy to have more kids than one can feed. asshat.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Would one of the cultures you are referring to happen to be that Samoan one Margaret Mead did her fraudulent research in? I don’t think many pre-BCP cultures accept extra-marital sex as the norm. Never said that family’s shouldn’t use family planning. (Why do you have to be so crude about this?) But, again, they shouldn’t use abortion as a back up or method.

          • jejune

            I don’t think many pre-BCP cultures accept extra-marital sex as the norm.

            Then I guess you haven’t heard of Gerowas you ignorant fucking twit.

            Extra-marital sex IS the norm, and every year, there is a huge festival, and the men dress up pretty and the women choose which men they wanna fuck.

          • BJ Survivor

            It hasn’t heard of any shit beyond what it’s pulled out of the pope’s ass.

          • fiona64

            You have a rather Eurocentric view of what kinship diagrams look like, you know …

          • HeilMary1

            The biggest causes of single motherhood are WARS, LOOKSISM, and deadbeat daddy PRIESTS. Virgin brides like my ex-neighbor end up with closet gay playboys and huge wedding and annulment debts. And what about disfigured leftover spinsters like me who will NEVER get a proposal? Smart single women use contraception to avoid single motherhood risks.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, again, learn 2 history. Committed sex did not result in women gaining better control in relationships hundreds of years ago. NOR did it result in young people learning the skills of true intimacy (whatever that is). And, in fact, my mom is a SINGLE generation ago and she STILL reports the same attitudes that they did a hundred years ago, about committed sex!… but only for women! By YOUR logic, then, you’re actually trying to INCREASE the number of abortions. Oopsies.

            And, actually, I believe the majority of abortions occur WITHIN a committed relationship. Hmmm….

            And I’ve seen a lot of marriages ruined by the inability to satisfy each other, because one or BOTH partners had not an INKLING how to go about pleasing the other. The only ones that ACTUALLY weren’t coerced OR expected to enter into committed relationships or have committed sex up until this juncture were MEN. So, sorry, but the error you claim has been made only occurred on the MALE partners side. Essentially, then, you are trying to make women at fault for MEN’S behaviour in the past and for the (perceived) consequences you see arising from them, thereof. M.i.s.o.g.y.n.y.

            So, as we can see, it is YOUR ilk that makes it all about the woman. Not precluding the FACT that by denying rights to one specific gender, women, there is no way it can BE about anything other than women. Awww….

            Finally, most women report relief after having an abortion. (Unlike what your side tries to claim, however, most women do NOT report relief after having relinquished a child. They quite often report trauma, though. Oops.)

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I disagree that the best sex happens outside of committed relationships. Statistics show otherwise. Also, by requiring a man to prove himself as more than a great lover, you are challenging him to grow – up. Traditionally, once inside marriage, he was responsible for supporting his wife and the children he fathered. Now, with most children being conceived outside of marriage, and because it’s her “choice”, the woman is responsible. If she’s more traditionally minded, she may actually keep the baby instead of aborting the child and thus wind up in poverty. But that’s what’s becoming the new normal for the less educated (see Brad Wilcox). Abort or keep the baby (many of whom wind up in foster care), but don’t marry first and don’t give the child up for adoption. Yes, you can live together or entertain the child’s father, but a real family is becoming a distant dream.

            As for not knowing how to please each other, do you think that happens more easily without commitment? I think your experience and sounds like sort of adolescent wish.

          • fiona64

            Citation needed. Again.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            I don’t want to run my marriage like yours, I don’t want to be like you and I don’t want your life. You need to understand that.

          • goatini

            “We hold the reins.”

            This is the false “power” that misogynists try to sell to females. It’s the other side of the “women have all the power because women have all the pu&&y” trope.

          • jejune

            Oh fuck, I hate that.

            I read this article a few months ago, this asshat was making the case that feminism is bad for women because, and I paraphrase: “women have a higher calling than men. A spiritual, god given calling to create new life. A man just has a job, but a woman has a biological destiny that brings her closer to god. Feminism denies women this right”

            /puke

          • BJ Survivor

            Yes, because dontcha know that ALL women will be terrific mothers?! I mean, Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Casey Anthony et al were just such *wonderful* mothers!

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Women have the ability to bring new life into the world. I would say that’s pretty real and sacred “power” – that should be protected. I think the misogynists are the ones who want to deny this.

          • fiona64

            If you’re going to be smoking crack, please bring enough to share with everyone.

          • colleen

            We women are the foundation of culture. We hold the reins.

            Right. ‘We’ hold the reins so much that you have to impersonate a woman (and poorly) in order to find one who agrees with you and is still able to speak. The entire ‘pro-life’ movement is about controlling women, stripping us of power and creating a culture in which we are treated like garbage. By the time guys like you get done with women there will be no appreciable difference between the life of a trafficked 10 year old and ‘Traditional Marriage’, not from the perspective of the bride, anyway.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            How is that you can’t accept a diversity of opinion among women? I suspect you are an 18 year old boy.

          • BJ Survivor

            You are welcome to have your opinion, risible as it is. What you are not welcome to do is force the rest of us to follow it.

          • BJ Survivor

            “Life isn’t just about getting your education, getting your job, getting whatever”

            Yeah, who needs to pay for shelter, eat, or save for retirement? We can just have our children in the gutter and live in shanty towns. Like they do in “pro-life” utopias such as the Philippines.

          • HeilMary1

            Where thousands of unwanted kids trade sex with PRIESTS for food.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            What I meant was life also needs a moral compass. The poor need a way to limit their family size that doesn’t include abortion. The way exists.

          • BJ Survivor

            And since you’ve already stated that you believe that all contraception save NFP = abortion, then you would leave women with no real choices at all. In short, you are talking out of your ass.

          • BJ Survivor

            I will never share your authoritarian, misogynistic, religion-addled “moral compass.” I will live my life according to my values, not yours. And I will fight tooth and nail to allow others to do the same.

          • BJ Survivor

            My worth as a person does not lie in my chastity or my reproductive capabilities. When I was in my teens and 20s, I just wanted to have a good time, with guys who also just wanted to have a good time. Fortunately, condoms and effective contraception allowed us to have the fun we were seeking without deleterious consequences. I knew far too many young fundies who got married too early, to the wrong person, and then ended up divorced, all because they were so desperate to have “legal” sex. Granted, it did work for a few of them, so I’m not knocking it for those who choose this route; just know what you want and marry someone for the right reasons, not because it’s the only way you can “legally” get your rocks off.

            But the majority of teens and young people are walking hormones with extreme drive to rut. That’s perfectly natural and the risks of unintended pregnancy and STIs can be mitigated with modern technologies. This is a good thing, because it prevents so much unnecessary suffering.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            If you fundie friends got married to “get their rocks off” and then got divorced, guess they have the same problems the rest of us have. They got half the picture and bailed when the conflicts surfaced.

            I agree with you that young people without the pressures of adulthood can be dominated by their hormones. But the fact that you think that you can ever have sex just for fun is only because of modern modern technology (which doesn’t prevent herpes, HVI and some other H’s). We weren’t made that way. “In the beginning, it was not so”. The idea is to try to live the way we were created to – “in the beginning”. Which was to give ourselves completely. Both husband and wife.

            Anyway, I do think that people should get married young if that’s when they find love – even if it means living with parents while they finish school or job training. Even if they have kids before they buy a house. By the way, I also think that they should take care of their parents when they get old.

          • BJ Survivor

            You are woefully ignorant of historical facts. People have been fucking like bonobos since the beginning of the human race. They’ve been using abortifacient herbs to prevent or treat unwanted pregnancy since recorded history.

          • fiona64

            We weren’t made that way.

            Yeah, actually, we were. From a strictly evolutionary perspective, monogamy is *bad.* Far more evolutionary strength comes from promiscuity, as it increases the gene pool.

            You aren’t very well-educated in science, are you?

          • jejune

            Children’s lives are “created” at conception

            A genetic blueprint is created at conception, you ignorant fuckwit.

          • HeilMary1

            So you want MARRIED women to stop having sex?! You want fed-up husbands to go to hookers instead?! That’s what my parents did after my childbirth-ruined mom burned all my skin off as her permanent abstinence excuse. Abortion is so much kinder than what my RCC-deranged mom did.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            No, I don’t want married women to stop having sex. For Catholics, (and others) there are now modern methods of natural family planning that work (if the men buy in). I’m sorry about your parents and what your Mom did to you. Really sorry. I don’t know if it was solely the RCC’s fault. I’ve got relatives and friends with those big RCC families – some troubled, some really great – most intentional, some not. We are all sinners in need of grace. Really sorry for your what what happened to you.

          • BJ Survivor

            We are all sinners in need of grace.

            Speak for yourself. I’m not a sinner.

          • Arekushieru

            There are no children as pertains to pregnancy and abortion, unless you’re referring to BORN individuals like Lina Medina and the young Brazilian girl who was raped by her stepfather.

            I see someone needs to learn 2 history: “although I’m pretty disgusted with the way so many of us have been
            propagandized by phrases such as “forced” childbearing, etc, that cover
            up what abortion really is. But that’s social engineering for you!”; but that’s what happens when someone can’t consciously grasp the idea that some women just DON’T want children (yes, even throughout history). What ELSE would you call it, other than misogyny and forced childbearing, after all, if a woman was denied an abortion even if she vehemently insisted that she didn’t want to be pregnant, while men are allowed to go on their merry way, WITHOUT being subject to the same strictures and restrictions (namely that they must WANT children because their bodies are naturally designed for it and are ‘subject to nature’)? OOOPPPS?
            You can be a misogynist even if you’re a woman. JUST like you can be racist even if you’re black. (However, that does NOT mean a black person being racist against a white person, because there’s no such thing. Discrimination, yes, but not racism.)

            Adoption quite often causes MORE trauma than abortion, for BOTH women and children. Yeah, we see how much you REEEAAALLLYYY care about women. Yeah, we see how much you REEEAAALLLYYY care about actual, EXISTING children.

            Stretch it to make it work? Yeah, we can see how much you’re talking out of your privileged you-know-what. But, even if that DOES work, if that means a little less for an already EXISTING child to eat, wear or take shelter in, how can you say that you actually care about already existing children, again? After all, you just claimed that a fetus is more important than they are. Let ALONE the fact that this is just more victim-blaming. It’s YOUR policies that are creating these situations for women, but it should TOTES be the women who pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Of course, never see anti-choicers calling for men to be required to do the same, for the SAME REASONS. And they wonder why we call them misogynists???

            Actually, sweetie, women also get called names for NOT ‘crossing their legs’. And, besides that, where is the requirement for men to do the same, again? Oh, right, the pwecious menzzz must never be inconvenienced in such a manner. And, even though a male-dominated society has lead to the past and current oppressive situation women now find themselves in, the blame and responsibility lies on women’s shoulders for not/changing it. Victim-blaming at its finest.

            Although, I shouldn’t be surprised, after seeing this: We need to respect ourselves enough so that we’re not getting in the kind of jams that cause abortions; given that you already said that abortion is unacceptable even in cases of rape, because I must then assume that you are blaming the women for getting into EVERY jam that cause abortions, not JUST A FEW.

            On that note, sweetie, here’s one final thought. It’s YOUR ilk that likes to call women sluts if they have several children and decide to have one more while staying on welfare, thereby becoming what your ilk ALSO calls ‘welfare queens’.

            Addendum: Pretty much throughout history women have been told to ‘cross their legs’, see how well that worked out? Abortions STILL happened. Women were MISERABLE (yet you want women to return to that time, and STILL wonder how a woman can be called a misogynist???). (Which is why) the ACTUAL revolution happened. Women started to demand to be treated equal to men. Meaning, women wanted the SAME rights as everyone else, the VERY SAME THING that the Pro-‘LIFE’ movement (erroneously) claims to want for FETUSES. Hmm, if equal rights are fine for fetuses but not for women, how DO you people reconcile the EXTREME cognitive dissonance that occurs when you say, on top of that, that granting the status of personhood to fetuses will not abrogate the personhood of women (even if we forget for the moment that it’s NOT equal rights but MORE rights)???

          • jejune

            I fucken’ love your rants.

          • HeilMary1

            Me too!

          • Arekushieru

            THANKS, Jejune. I tend to get overheated on this subject, at times, I know. But, as long as someone can follow what I’m saying, and it isn’t degenerating into mere name-calling and bickering, I’m hoping people will be fine with that. :)

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Ive worked for an adoption agency and I can tell you there is very little dignity in the foster care system. There are over 400,000 children in that system and most of them will not be adopted. Each one of those kids will cost a minimum of $250,000 dollars each until they age out at 18. You and people who share your views should put your money where your mouth is and be prepared to care for those kids. You may think you can strap a woman to a table for 9 months and force her to give birth, but good luck trying to force her to parent. Not gonna happen.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            No one wants to force a women to raise a child. There are plenty of people waiting in line to adopt babies. I hate the foster care system, which is not where children should be adopted from. They should be given up at birth, so as to limit their pain. and give them the early experiences they need.

            They are in foster care because the main reason unwed mothers don’t abort these days is to “keep their baby”. They don’t consider adoption because they think it’s mean. They either abort or think they can raise their kids on their own. Then they can’t and/or the dysfunction hits and the kids get yanked around in foster care.
            You are right, there aren’t enough people who want to adopt children who’ve been traumatized in foster care. But there are waiting lists for babies. If you are for “choice”, help women start seeping the choice to give their baby up for adoption as an heroic one.. The same for chastity before marriage – a demanding and wise choice for the benefit of their future husband and children.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy. I have worked in the industry , and I would never push it on someone because I know first hand what it does to people. I also will not promote abstinence before marriage because I had sex before I got married and Im fine with that.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Some of us have sex that doesn’t result in a baby. Deal with it. If you are going to go around telling people they are bad for enjoying consensual sex with their partner that doesn’t result in pregnancy, you are going to deal with some backlash. I won’t tolerate being disrespected for life choices that don’t affect you, not matter how strongly you feel about it.

          • expect_resistance

            Well said! * applause*

          • BJ Survivor

            Why should I advocate adoption when I, myself, would never create a child only to give it to a stranger who may or may not cherish and treat that child kindly, who might instead beat, murder, or rape that child? I don’t expect women to make or think they should want to make the same choices as I. Some women are fine with adoption. For those women, I want legally enforceable open adoption, if that is what they want. Closed adoption with only information about genetic/medical propensities should be a legally enforceable option for those women who want nothing more to do with the child for whatever reason.

            Truly, I am sick of your condescending edicts. Do you realize how patronizing you sound? I am a grown woman who knows her own mind and is perfectly capable of making her own life, medical, and reproductive decisions. I want the same for every other woman. Men already have this inalienable right. You, who have the gall to call yourself a “feminist,” preach discrimination against women, seek to treat them like so much breeding livestock, as less autonomous as corpses, even. The cognitive dissonance is utterly appalling.

          • Ella Warnock

            Because its not about the children, of course. It never was.

          • bj_survivor

            Yes, being subject to nature is not always rainbows and unicorns and can be unbearable. Without antibiotics and vaccines, most of us would not be here. Without Nasonex, my life would be a living hell of allergic reactions. Without advances in surgical technology, my life would be one of constant, debilitating pelvic pain; instead, I had a laparoscopic, robotic-assist procedure to remove my uterus and went home the next morning. Without advances in surgical technology, the maternal and infant mortality rates would be even higher than they are now. In short, natural is not always better or even safe.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I am under no illusion that nature is perfect and without pain. You have disorders that technology is taking care of. Fertility is not a disorder. You can have disorders of the reproductive system, or problems with a pregnancy which technology can alleviate. But pregnancy is not a disorder. In that sense, it’s a natural, healthy outcome of having sex in a fertile time.

          • BJ Survivor

            Personally, I do consider my fertility to be a disorder. I have no desire to create a child. At all. The day of my hysterectomy was one of the happiest of my life.

          • goatini

            “being subject to nature”

            So, when you have an infection, you wouldn’t want any penicillin or anything like that. You know, because Nature.

          • colleen

            pardon me while I go shit by the river bank.

          • jejune

            Forcing women to be victims of their biology IS SLAVERY.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            You need oxygen to live. You are already a victim of your biology, you slave!

          • jejune

            No, dumbass.

            You are saying that anatomy = destiny.

            That women MUST be burdened with forced pregnancy because they are born with a uterus.

          • HeilMary1

            Forced breeding is slavery when you deny them begged-for modern contraception.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Who’s doing that? Or are you referring to abortifacient forms of “contraception”? (Which brings us back to the central issue of when human life begins. We all know the answer, but it’s not convenient because we’ve become addicted to living in a way that needs abortion in all it’s forms.

          • jejune

            It’s not obvious to me that motherhood is unnatural or slavery

            We are not animals. We can have sex for fun, and we can decide IF and WHEN we want to have a child.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            We only gained this ability (in an efficient way) in the last 50 years. Were we animals before?

          • jejune

            Abortion was pretty efficient during Greek and Roman times – provided people could afford the silphium plant.

            It went extinct because it was used to frequently.

            And in the absence of abortion, there is infanticide.

            I will point out, animals, under times of stress will 1) spontaneously abort or reabsorb the fetus 2) eat their young

          • fiona64

            You don’t get out much, do you? Contraception and abortion have been in use for *centuries.* In fact, as you reference the Bible later (when you come out of the closet and let us know that you think we should all be forced to breed for Jesus), you might want to hurry on over to Numbers … in which a woman is made to consume an abortifacient.

          • Arekushieru

            Consent to driving should include the possibility of an accident, however remote. But… where in there does it state that even the person who CAUSES an accident must consent to no medical treatment?

            And… here we go, again…. Pregnancy is TOTES natural so pregnancy can TOTES never be slavery; If you call being subject to nature slavery, then so be it. Except that isn’t what we’re arguing, because it’s like saying; Sex is TOTES natural so sex can TOTES never be rape; if you call being subject to nature rape, then so be it. But, you people NEVER argue that that IS what we’re saying when it comes to sex. It’s only when it comes to pregnancy, that this becomes an issue. And that is SO telling. Cognitive dissonance FOR THE FUCKING WIN!

          • Michaela Dasteel

            You are the one calling being subject to nature slavery. How about recognizing and embracing the fact that we are biological beings as a first step. We aren’t guaranteed in this world to live a life free of tragedy. (I don’t know what TOTES means.) We can chose to do a lot of things to protect ourselves, but killing our children (no matter what violence preceded their conception) shouldn’t be an option.
            Giving birth doesn’t mean rearing. Adoption (not foster care) used to be the option for those in extreme situations.

          • Arekushieru

            Please read more carefully. That is what I’m saying YOU’RE saying…? DERP. Because seriously why AREN’T you saying the same thing about sex? And why AREN’T you saying that we can never kill someone who rapes someone else? WHEN will you people realize that by your OWN logic you ARE saying all those things, otherwise you would make the same claims in ALL other instances? WHY is it that you people always IGNORE logic that proves you wrong? Because you KNOW you’re irrational and that we’re right? Yup, that would DEFINITELY make sense. Oops.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            If you are that worried about it, you can get a vasectomy or refuse to copulate with anyone unless you want a baby. Good luck with that.

            If you want biology to call all the shots, should you avoid using corrective lenses, taking medication etc? Birth control works so why are prolifers so hell bent on taking it away? It makes no sense.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Not hell bent on taking birth control away. Just be aware that some forms of “birth control” actually act some or all of the time to allow conception but prevent implantation. That’s quite a bit different from using corrective lenses. There are modern methods of natural family planning that are as effective as potentially abortifacient contraceptive methods.

          • BB-Mystic

            Since a pregnancy does not begin until the zygote implants in the uterine wall, those actual birth control (without scare quotes) methods you are referring to are not “abortifacients.” Many fertilized eggs naturally do not implant in a woman’s uterus and pass on through with the menstrual blood. (By the way, where are all the funerals, mourning and outcry for those? I’ve asked many pro-life people that question and have yet to receive an answer.)
            You may consider a fertilized egg a person, but scientifically (and legally), that is simply not true.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            What does the official definition of pregnancy mean? Certainly not the beginning of human life. ACOG changed the definition of conception from fertilization to implantation back in the 60s (maybe early 70s) when they were promoting the IUD which always acted at that time to prevent implantation. Look it up. It was so that women wouldn’t feel bad. So, now when ACOG and the feds talk about the beginning of pregnancy, they are mushing together conception (with a false definition) and implantation and calling it somehow the beginning of human life (although they insist that no one can agree on that definition). There was a political decision to do this.

            Implantation is the clinically easy point at which to identify the presence of an embryo because when he/she implants, she sends a feedback signal (HCG) to the corpus luteum to keep it producing progesterone which supports the lining of the uterus. If that signal isn’t received, you have a menses. There are other biochemicals that could be monitored to determine the presence of an embryo in the fallopian tube, but the tests for it would be very expensive at this time.

          • BB-Mystic

            when he/she implants, she sends a feedback signal (HCG) to the corpus luteum to keep it producing progesterone which supports the lining of the uterus. If that signal isn’t received, you have a menses.

            Which proves my point. No implantation, no signal, no pregnancy.

            Also: Please don’t tell me to “look it up.” You make the assertion, you provide the cite.

            Finally, “life” and “personhood” are two entirely different things. Ask Michael Schiavo.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Here’s your citation from Wikipedia. I can’t include the link according to the moderator of this site. By the way, can you give me a citation for Michael Schiavo? Don’t know who he is.

            “In 1959, Dr. Bent Boving suggested that the word “conception” should be associated with the process of implantation instead of fertilization.[15] Some thought was given to possible societal consequences, as evidenced by Boving’s statement that “the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech.” In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) adopted Boving’s definition: “conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”[16]

            The 1965 ACOG definition was imprecise because, by the time it implants, the embryo is called a blastocyst,[17] so it was clarified in 1972 to “Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst.”[18] Some dictionaries continue to use the definition of conception as the formation of a viable zygote.[19]”

            Me: The social consequence of viewing the IUD as a contraceptive and not an abortifacient is what was behind the change in definition of conception.

          • fiona64

            Have you lived under a rock, that you don’t know about the Schiavo case? Really? Michael Schiavo wrote a book about his struggles to honor his comatose wife’s wishes. http://www.amazon.com/Terri-The-Truth-Michael-Schiavo/dp/0525949461

            BTW, conception and implantation are not considered synonymous. You see, some of us have information from *this century.* http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception is a good layman’s site for you to review.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I couldn’t get to you Web MD link but if it says that conception and implantation are not synonymous, I agree, but that’s not what ACOG tells women.

            It didn’t realize you referring to the Shiavo case. Not sure how it applies to abortion except that euthanasia is the intentional taking of a human being’s life.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I answered this somewhere else.

          • fiona64

            How nice for you. I have no inclination whatsoever to chase down your “information.”

          • BJ Survivor

            I’m aware that the panty-sniffers and teabaggers try to find conspiracy theories in everything related to science, but that is not true. When scientific understanding advances, definitions and hypotheses are often changed and theories tweaked. Most people could give a fuck that a particular method doesn’t allow a microscopic cluster of cells to attach to the uterine wall, then and now.

          • BJ Survivor

            ACOG changed the definition
            of conception from fertilization to implantation back in the 60s (maybe
            early 70s) when they were promoting the IUD which always acted at that
            time to prevent implantation.

            Back then, scientists did not actually know how the IUD worked, just that it did. They hypothesized that it worked by preventing implantation. Recent studies have show that it works, instead, by preventing fertilization. A fact that made me despondent for an entire day, because I used to derive such joy from the idea that my IUD was chopping up what the panty-sniffers claimed was a person.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            WebMD states: “Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow)”

          • HeilMary1

            UNnatural Family Cramming is a mother-killing, husband-outsourcing criminal Munchausen by Proxy malpractice scam by pedophile priests who need to break up marriages to access countless neglected kids for sex. Since women ovulate 2 and 3 times PER MONTH, they have NO infertile cycle. Get over yourself, Church Lady!

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Wrong. Your info is based on a Canadian study by Pierson in 2002. He found what NFP researchers and teachers have known for 40 years – that waves of annovulatory ovarian activity take place. Billings and Creighton Model users are taught to recognize these “double-peaks”. Pierson’s research, according to Dr. James Brown recorded only one double ovulation in his work and it was an infertile cycle (the ovum could never have been fertilitzed).

            Natural family planning doesn’t mean you’re going to have a huge family, unless you want one.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            If you are talking about hormonal birth control you are wrong. My doctor has told me herself that the pill suppresses ovulation altogether therefore there are less fertilized zygotes that are lost, versus not being on the pill at all. Ovulating every month will produce a greater chance of a zygote becoming fertilized, and the body can terminate fertilized zygotes at random. Hormonal contraception keeps the body from ovulating by leveling out hormonal levels and by that making it less likely.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Your doctor is uninformed. There are breakthrough ovulations. How do you think women get pregnant even though they were using the pill according to instructions?

            From the CDC website:
            Also called “the pill,” combined oral contraceptives contain the hormones estrogen and progestin. It is prescribed by a doctor. A pill is taken at the same time each day. If you are older than 35 years and smoke, have a history of blood clots or breast cancer, your doctor may advise you not to take the pill. Typical use failure rate: 9%.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            You fail at reading comprehension. I said it SUPPRESSES ovulation. Of course you can still have a break through my point is that you will loose more fertilized zygotes if you are nnt on hormone therapy. eggs will be susceptible to implantation and ferilization.

            Also I can believe you are busting peoples balls over a 9% chance.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            The study that people are relying on for the assertion that there’s a high mortality rate for pre-implantation embryos is from the 50s. One study that had a lot of design problems with it. In animal studies, the rate is much lower.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Ok, I’m going to break this down for you one more time. If you cannot understand simple math, then I’m done.

            If I were not on the pill, I would ovulate once a month. I am sexually active so that gives me 12 chances to fertilize an egg. If I am on the pill, I might have a break through ovulation, about a 9% chance as you said. So say I had break through ovulate given the normal failure rate, that would give my body ONE chance to lose a fertilized zygote to keep it from implanting. There. 12>1

          • expect_resistance

            I heart Amanda!

            Your posts are great. I honestly don’t have the time to respond to this neanderthal so thanks for your awesome responses.

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Ok I also see what you are getting at here. You are trying to tell me to only have sex when it makes YOUR conscience feel better by not being in MY fertile period.. That is just creepy.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Amanda, You said “suppresses ovulation altogether”

          • Amanda Kazarian

            Yeah I did, because it can. I havent ovulated in like 5 years

          • fiona64

            Um, no. NFP only works if you *want* to be pregnant. Using it in conjunction with contraceptives is all well and good, but using it alone? Known 20 percent failure rate.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Wrong. The Creighton Model’s use effectiveness is 96.8 to avoid pregnancy. If you use a day of known fertility and get pregnant, that’s not considered a method related pregnancy. the 20% pregnancy rate isn’t calculated this way. Different use of statistics.

          • BJ Survivor

            If you use a day of known fertility and get pregnant, that’s not considered a method related pregnancy. the 20% pregnancy rate isn’t calculated this way. Different use of statistics.

            Doing such a thing is not how proper research is conducted. That is called “cherry-picking” and is highly unethical. I know it makes the panty-sniffers very sad that their pet projects are being held to the same standards as other actual, non-cherry-picked research, but that’s too bad for you, but good for the rest of us.

          • fiona64

            All NFP methods rely on a woman’s cycle being exactly 28 days … and not all women’s cycles are 28 days.

            It’s a recipe for pregnancy, not contraception.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Wrong. That was the Rhythm Method that was replaced by modern methods that identify a woman’s fertility day by day. the Billings Method in the mid-60s and the Creighton Model 10 years later. Also, there’s the sympto-thermal method that was introduced in the 70s.

          • fiona64

            … because *that’s* not a pain the ass …

          • BJ Survivor

            No, you are incorrect. There are no methods of “natural family planning” that are as effective as oral contraceptives, the contraceptive implant, the various contraceptive shots, or either of the IUDs. NFP, including the symptothermal methods that you bible-babbling misogynists continually crow about, have a real world failure rate of 16-25%.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            The statisticians producing those “failure” rates do their calculations considering a pregnancy resulting from sex during a fertile time to be a failure. With perfect use, modern methods of NFP are over 99% effective. With actual use (including mistakes by teacher and user AND method failure) the rate is 96.8%. The Billings Method is being used in China, where “failures” are taken very seriously and are killed by the government,There are more Billings teachers there than in America.

          • BJ Survivor

            In actual scientific studies, typical or real-world use, which includes those who miss doses or take them late, etc., is very important data and is absolutely included in statistical results. That’s because it takes into consideration the ease of use of a particular method or medication. If only a few subjects of a large group are actually able to perfectly follow the protocol, then the protocol is a failure and it tells the researchers that a simpler protocol must be found.

            With contraception, as with every protocol/treatment/medication, the less it has to be thought about, the more real-world/typical use matches theoretical perfect-use. That is why the most effective methods are sterilization procedures, implants, and intrauterine systems, because they are done once or only every few years and the user can then forget about them. It follows the KISS Principle (keep it simple stupid or, in other words, “set it and forget it.” NFP is none of those things.

            The Billings Method is being used in China, where “failures” are taken very seriously and are killed by the government,There are more Billings teachers there than in America.

            Not impressed. Since there are 4 times more people in China than in the U.S., it stands to reason that there would be more Billings teachers. And if those “studies” are throwing out those who have committed to using the protocol and then just could not follow through, then that efficacy statistic is bogus.

          • bj_survivor

            Less rights than corpses and even death row inmates. But they get all huffy when we rightly point out the misogyny of their views. Because it totes shows you just luurrvvee and value women when you force them to create children.

          • Lynnsey

            It’s funny that you make this argument. There are rights that you don’t have.

            YOU are a person. YOU have a right to life. What you lack is the right to use my body or any part of it to sustain your life without my express and continued permission. Even if you’ll die. Even if I caused your need for the use of my body.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I think children do have a right to use their mother’s body.

          • Lynnsey

            You can think that but, legally, they don’t. As I said above, I cannot legally be forced to give my four-year-old a kidney. There are laws governing what material support I must provide my dependent children or forfeit custody of them, but you’ll find that organs, tissues, and fluids are not included included in that list.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I guess I’m arguing that the law doesn’t reflect morality in this case. The law is a teacher and Roe v. Wade teaches error because the issue of personhood was ignored. They simply said that people disagreed. That was convenient. People will always disagree about things. But the scientific truth can be found despite that. Also, the Texas law had exceptions that undermined their case. That’s what the Personhood movement is working for. To pass state laws or constitutional ammendments that don’t have those exceptions. That’s the only way the Roe can be sidestepped. The editor of my local paper (who’s publisher was a big Planned Parenthood supporter) told me as we battled about letters to the editor and ads, that the abortion fight isn’t about truth, but about power. That’s what it looks like to me. The discussion of risk to health etc. must come after the issue of personhood is settled. Also, if you respect the unborn as persons, you are going to view your sex life differently. Don’t think that denial of the humanity of the unborn has changed social norms and the way we behave. I do think that this was all socially engineered to bring us down. Women haven’t been liberated by having “reproductive rights”. Our nature has been denied and disrepected. We have dehumanized ourselves along with our unborn children. We sell ourselves short. The beneficiaries are the men who never are challenged to grown out of adolescence. I lived through the sixties and have seen the culture change. Enough. I will never convince the true believers on this site. I guess I just enjoy hearing the latest memes.

          • Lynnsey

            So, women should die rather than terminate a pregnancy? For the sake of a z/e/f? Despite her own value and the actual, sentient, already-living people who may love and depend on her? People should only have sex if they want to potentially procreate? You realize that the view that a fertilized egg is a “person” dehumanizes the woman forced to carry it, right? It makes her nothing more than the capacity of her uterus. You realize that women like to have sex without getting pregnant all the damn time, right? You realize that one of the biggest killers of women all over the world is STILL complications from childbirth and pregnancy even with all the progress we’ve made, right?

            You’re right. You’ll never convince me that “potential people” are more important that those already living. I find that view deeply disturbing.

          • bj_survivor

            But, Lynnsey, it’s a person ’cause daddy ejaculated. So much should be obvious. Never mind the work, permanent damage, and risks of pregnancy, not to mention the social and financial costs of pregnancy, labor/delivery, and childrearing. Those are just minor “inconveniences.” The REAL work was done when daddy shot his wad.

          • Lynnsey

            Oh, right! Silly me!

          • Michaela Dasteel

            No such thing as a “potential person”. But your are right about third world women dying in childbirth. Don’t try to force abortion on them, though. Don’t try to import your western “liberation”. Let those historically pro-life cultures develop their own answers to maternal mortality, without abortion.

          • BJ Survivor

            And there’s no such thing as a right to life that includes demanding the use of another’s bodily organs against their will.

            It’s apparent that facts and reality have no foothold in your worldview, but the reality is that women all over the world are already dying from self-abortion or by going to some back-alley butcher. They are dying in childbirth from bodies weakened by too many pregnancies spaced too closely together. They want and need contraception. They need access to safe abortion when their pregnancies go dangerously wrong or when they find themselves unintentionally pregnant. It’s apparent that you and your ilk simply cannot grasp the idea that actual feminists believe that women, being persons, have every right to make their own health and reproductive decisions. Unlike forced-birthers, we aren’t trying to coerce or force women to abort or use contraceptives. We want effective contraception and safe abortion to be available for (not forced upon) all women, so that they can make the choices that are right for themselves and their families.

          • fiona64

            Women in developed nations die of pregnancy-related causes every day. We’re #50 in maternal mortality here in the US, and the rate continues to increase. But who cares about the born, sapient, sentient women, right?

          • bj_survivor

            Hey, why don’t you move to the Philippines? It’s a veritable forced-birth utopia over there. With its attendant grinding, dehumanizing poverty and septic abortion wards.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I’d rather move to Ireland with it’s attendant humor and similar lack of “abortion rights”.

          • BJ Survivor

            Where if you are miscarrying, they’ll let you die along with your doomed fetus, rather than save the only life that actually can be saved. Yep, what a utopia.

          • fiona64

            Oh, yes, Ireland … where women are allowed to die because a doctor can still hear fetal heart tones.

          • Lizzie

            “Women haven’t been liberated by having “reproductive rights”. Our nature has been denied and disrepected. We have dehumanized ourselves along with our unborn children. We sell ourselves short.”

            speak for yourself, zealot.

            Personhood? Personhood is a joke. You receive your rights upon birth, not before.

            Anyone who is using someone else’s body without permission is breaking the law. And the person whose rights are being infringed upon has the right to remove that person, rapist or zygote/embryo/fetus by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. An abortion removes the z/e/f from the body, it’s not the pregnant persons fault it can’t live outside of them.

          • goatini

            “The beneficiaries are the men who never are challenged to grown out of adolescence.”

            So it’s the job of females to breed in captivity to force males to grow up and be adults.

            You know, that really doesn’t speak well of males in general.

          • BJ Survivor

            Yes, don’t you know that men *never* abandoned their children/pregnant wives/girlfriends/entire families in the good old days when women had no rights? If we women would just give up on feminism, we can attain that utopia once again! (/sarcasm)

            Sheesh, Michaela lives in a total fantasy world. It should hurt to be that full of shit.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            No, there’s never been or ever will be a utopia. You are asking me to give up my feminism which includes respect for unborn women and their mothers.
            The fantasy is that you can justify killing your children and retain your sanity.

          • BJ Survivor

            Sorry, reproductive slavery can never be considered a feminist ideal.

          • HeilMary1

            And we know from centuries of experience that keeping sex dangerous for women never makes men behave.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Did you know that before Kinsey got our laws changed, seduction was a crime? That was pretty dangerous for men. Anyway, who wants men to behave? I like them the way they are. Just have to remember how to deal with them and not be so damn naive about human nature.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Doesn’t speak well of a culture that encourages adolescents to never become men.

          • goatini

            You mean, the Roman Catholic priesthood?

          • HeilMary1

            Divorce-causing obstetric incontinence, cancers, multiple organ failures, and limb-amputating sepsis from 10-30 unwanted pregnancies are hardly improvements over the sexual revolution. Our outnumbered males from non-stop wars is the biggest cause of single motherhood, but you’ll never hear that truth from war profiteers like the Bushes and Cheneys.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            How about the outnumbered females in China from their forced abortion policies which target female babies?

          • BB-Mystic

            “Reproductive rights” mean just that. The right to have an abortion, and the right not to have one. I condemn forced abortion in China just as strongly as I condemn forced birth in Ireland or anywhere else.

          • colleen

            Yes and all you have to do is ejaculate and order everyone around. what a joke

          • Lizzie

            You’d think someone working for a fertility clinic would be smart enough to be pro-choice.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I work with pro-life doctors who look for the underlying causes of infertility instead of resorting to “assisted reproductive technologies”. Did you ever read Brave New World? Never could understand how people don’t have a natural aversion to having lab technicians create their children in test tubes.

          • BJ Survivor

            Yes, we understand that forced-birthers believe that fertile female’s* wombs belong to their church, their sperm donor, the government, anyone/anything but to the actual woman whose body that uterus is attached. Y’all contort yourselves to amazing mental gymnastics to only apply this massive, unheard of right to commandeer another person’s body to female reproductive organs.

            *I say “fertile female” rather than “woman,” because many, many forced-birthers believe that even raped children should be forced to gestate and give birth, or die trying…I wish I were making this up, but it is all too true. Makes me queasy that such cruelty, such depraved misogyny is so prevalent.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            You are so offended by the reassertion of the reality that personhood begins at conception you have to concoct these memes like forced birthers etc. in response. This is the issue you guys were allowed to avoid all these years because the pro-life movement gave up on the personhood argument early on. Co–opted by the Republicans into merely trying to pass laws to regulate abortion. They knew all hell would break loose if abortion was faced head-on with the personhood of the unborn addressed. Well, as you can see from the response here, they were right. I say, bring it on. This is the real fight. And I am a woman. What man would rag this thing to death?!

          • BB-Mystic

            If personhood at conception is the real fight, then you’ve already lost, since every single time a “personhood” amendment has been voted on (even in deep-red Mississippi) it has been defeated. Decisively. Women will not stand for their birth control being taken away, which would be the result of these amendments.

            Just because you believe and say a “person” begins at conception, doesn’t make it so in the real world.

          • BJ Survivor

            Again, personhood is a legal and philosophical construct. Doesn’t matter to me whether or not a fertilized egg is a person; like every other person, it still shouldn’t have the right to commandeer another person’s internal organs against that person’s will. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? You get it in every other instance. Hmm, must be misogyny.

          • fiona64

            You are so offended by the reassertion of the reality that personhood begins at conception

            I don’t know what planet *you* live on, but that is not even remotely reality. Personhood is a legal concept … and it attaches at *birth.*

          • Michaela Dasteel

            You are so offended by the reassertion of the reality that personhood begins at conception you have to concoct these memes like forced birthers etc. in response. This is the issue you guys were allowed to avoid all these years because the pro-life movement gave up on the personhood argument early on. Co–opted by the Republicans into merely trying to pass laws to regulate abortion. They knew all hell would break loose if abortion was faced head-on with the personhood of the unborn addressed. Well, as you can see from the response here, they were right. I say, bring it on. This is the real fight. And I am a woman. What man would rag this thing to death?!

          • jejune

            Why?

            What makes a microscopic embryo so special?

          • Michaela Dasteel

            That’s what a human beings looks like, what you looked like, when your life first began.

          • jejune

            Nope.

            An embryo is not a human being.

            Again, you are showing your ignorance.

            Human beings are not composed of undifferentiated stem cells.

            Human beings are also sentient.

          • HeilMary1

            No fetus has the right to maim and murder its captive host, mother killer.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Wow. The rhetoric ignites!

          • jejune

            The right to life doe not trump the right to use another person’s body against their will.

            This applies to ZEF’s. They cannot harvest a woman’s organs without her consent.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            What really discourages me is that my children have to find mates in a country full of young people who think as you do and their baby boomer parents. You are not counter-cultural. You dominate and your ideas were promoted by the likes of the Rockefeller Foundation and Kinsey’s fraudulent research. I’m not kidding about social engineering. To whose benefit is it to devalue the process of giving life? Who’s? Not women, who do this work. Your dark view of the generation pf of life is benefiting someone

          • jejune

            What really discourages me is that my children have to find mates in a
            country full of young people who think as you do and their baby boomer
            parents.

            I am sure you wont’ have any trouble if you move to Quiverfull territory.

          • fiona64

            Oh, I’m sure you can find some other creepy Quiverfull families with whom your offspring can breed like rabbits; if the Duggars can do it, so can you.

        • dougmcburney

          When debating this issue, simply replace the word “fetus” with “negro”, or “Jew”. Then you will clearly see the low and vile implication of the pro-abort world view.

          • BB-Mystic

            The difference is that “negroes” and “Jews” are still born, separate people; they aren’t in the mother’s womb anymore and aren’t dependent on the woman for survival.
            A fetus and a born person are not the same things.

          • dougmcburney

            When a rational scientist compares the DNA of a Jew, a negro and a fetus, he concludes that they are indeed the same thing. But perhaps you reject the scientific method…

            And a 6 day old baby is dependent upon his mother, or other people for his survival, so your “viability” claim is invalid. But perhaps you reject logic as well.

          • fiona64

            No one but the pregnant woman can gestate an embryo, Doug. Your straw man about a six-day-old infant is dismissed.

          • fiona64

            Reply to Drew Hymer, in moderation, who says that the “unborn” should have rights under the law:

            No, really, they shouldn’t — because doing so strips the rights from the born, sapient, sentient *woman.*

          • BB-Mystic

            I didn’t say “viability.” I said a born person. Anybody can take care of a baby after it’s out of the womb.
            As far as DNA goes, that’s irrelevant. Of course a fetus has the DNA of homo sapiens. So does a sperm and an egg, and a cancer cell too, for that matter. These are not persons. Neither is a fetus that cannot survive outside its mother’s body. The mother, on the other hand, is unquestionably a person, and her rights should be paramount.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Sperm and egg and haploid cells, incapable of living beyond a few hours. Once they merge, a self directing human organism begins a life that can last 100 years (or forever if you believe in heaven).

          • jejune

            Up to 80% of those ‘self directing human organisms’ spontaneously abort you ignorant fuckwit.

          • Lynnsey

            You’re confusing social dependence and physical dependence. If I’m 4 months pregnant and I die, the fetus is no longer viable as it depended on my body. If I die when my child is 4 months old, someone else can care for that child as it is no longer physically dependent on my body, but socially dependent since it is still physically unable to provide for its own needs. It’s a significant difference, I assure you.

          • Brian Frang

            Your average scientist would say “it’s human DNA, that’s all I can tell you”. I find it hilarious that you bring science into this, considering the VAST majority of medical professionals, and biologists are pro-choice.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            They are pro-choice because their education and training wasn’t in the philosophical/moral dimension. Talk about cognitive dissonance. They can’t make the connection : Human diploid DNA = Human being.

          • jejune

            Funny. Many many pro-choice people have training in both philosophy AND science.

          • fiona64

            No, we are pro-choice BECAUSE we have education. Teratomas also have human diploid DNA; are you now arguing that they are persons?

          • Brian Frang

            I love how you TRY to prove me wrong, then make my point for me (obviously not knowing what I was responding to in the first place, which was dougmcburney claiming that, according to science, a fetus is a human being). SCIENTISTS do not make the connection between a zygote and a human being, because a zygote ISN’T a human being yet. Period. And the religious/moral/philosophical angle has NOTHING to do with whether or not it should be illegal, because there is NO evidence that an embryo is self aware, or even capable of thought. A baby isn’t a baby until it can survive without the mother. Period.

          • jejune

            When a rational scientist compares the DNA of a Jew, a negro and a fetus, he concludes that they are indeed the same thin

            Every skin cell and hair follicle contains that same DNA. A rational scientist would agree.

            Every time you brush your hair or have a shower you are murdering people.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            There is a difference between a cell and an organism.

          • jejune

            And each cell can become an embryo you dumbfuck

          • fiona64

            There is a difference between a cell and an organism

            Don’t give up your day job to become a science teacher.

            Ever heard of an amoeba? It’s a ::gasp:: single-cell organism.

          • fiona64

            When you compare the suffering of born, sapient, sentient people to an embryo that has none of those capacities, you see the low, vile implication of the anti-choice worldview.

            Of course, it’s easy to be an anti-choice male, isn’t it, Doug? You never have to risk life and limb for a pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. I had hyperemesis gravidarum during my pregnancy; women *die* from it. I was fortunate that I didn’t. And that’s just one of the many potentially fatal common complications of pregnancy.

          • Brian Frang

            Wonderful, so apparently, negroes and jews are somehow less than the white man, to you. I can’t believe you’re actually moronic enough to compare a HUMAN FUCKING BEING to a cluster of cells that can’t even survive on its own.

          • jejune

            A ‘negro and a’ jew’ are both actual born people. They can think, they can suffer.

            An embryo is a microscopic piece of undifferentiated stem cells.

            You cannot compare a blueprint to a real person, dumbass.

          • HeilMary1

            Or replace fetus with tumor to see how murderous fetal idolaters are.

          • jejune

            I see that his post got deleted.

            Welll, anyone who uses ‘negro’ is quite obviously a racist scumbag.

          • HeilMary1

            Yup!

        • Michaela Dasteel

          Are you a human “entity”? I agree that the unborn have no rights. I oppose that.

          • jejune

            You want to the give a zygote more rights than any human on this planet

          • fiona64

            Why should an embryo be assigned rights at the expense of the born, sapient, sentient woman? Seriously, you want women to have fewer rights than a *corpse.*

      • L-dan

        Try hooking yourself into my body and claiming I can’t remove you because you’ll die. Then consider that question.

        Risking one’s own health and life to create another person should only be a volunteer activity.

        • Michaela Dasteel

          Since when? Since when did the value of human life become subject to other’s convenience? Humanity depends on parents risking themselves for their children.

          • Lizzie

            There are 7 Billion+ people contributing to humanity. Abortion has been around throughout humanity, and we’re still going strong. We’ll be alright.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I’m not talking about the size of humanity. Talking about the character of humanity. You guys (notice I’m not calling names) have bought into the utilitarian world view. And, because technology has made it possible, you think it’s your right to completely divorce sex from procreation, from risk, and from love. And because of a Supreme Court ruling (which could be circumvented, just as Dred Scott was), you think it’s your right to deny human rights to a whole class of human beings. Sex is not safe. Life is not safe. What your are willing to sacrifice for the weakest has everything to do with your character. The character of whole peoples is being corrupted by the world views you’ve accepted and that you are foisting on other people and nations. Killing your own child should never be an option. It only becomes that if you deny the intrinsic worth of every human life. If you don’t value the “created equal” phrase in our Declaration of Independence.

            As for abortion being around throughout humanity. Not at the level it’s at now. And also, so has murder and incest.

          • Lynnsey

            That was a little over-dramatic, don’t you think?

            “…you think it’s your right to completely divorce sex from procreation…”

            That’s because it is. Sex is a normal part of a healthy adult life, not a naughty thing you ought not do unless you want babies. I don’t need to choose between a sexless marriage and a football team worth of kids (along with the health problems that accompany them) to make other people feel good about their Bronze Age superstitions about sex.

            “As for abortion being around throughout humanity. Not at the level it’s at now.”

            You’re probably right. Leaving infants to die from exposure as the chosen method of dealing with children you didn’t have the means to support…

          • Lizzie

            “Talking about the character of humanity. You guys (notice I’m not calling names) have bought into the utilitarian world view.”

            I have been told this by lots of racist old people who are resistant to change.

            “And, because technology has made it possible,”

            Science and technology have made lots of possibilities available to us. I hope you shun all forms of medicine and electronics.

            “you think it’s your right to completely divorce sex from procreation, from risk, and from love.”

            That’s because it is right. Sex is not solely for procreation, and those who think so are backwards and puritanical in their views. I don’t need your magical book to tell me what I can and can’t do.

            “What your are willing to sacrifice for the weakest has everything to do with your character.”

            Exactly. Imagine what your hate does to those people who are trying to exercise their rights.

            ” The character of whole peoples is being corrupted by the world views you’ve accepted and that you are foisting on other people and nations.”

            Please elaborate. Like how christians send missionaries to everyplace on the planet?

            ” It only becomes that if you deny the intrinsic worth of every human life. If you don’t value the “created equal” phrase in our Declaration of Independence.”

            Those “phrases” in the declaration of independence apply to those who have been born. If there is anyone or anything they are permitted to use any means necessary to remove it, if it refuses, deadly force can be used. This applies to rapists, intruders, and unwanted pregnancies.

            “As for abortion being around throughout humanity. Not at the level it’s at now.”

            You’re right, infanticide was far more common through history than abortion. Only now we have the technology to be as compassionate as possible and their deaths are early and painless.

            “And also, so has murder and incest.”

            So, why haven’t you tried to stop those things for the “character of humanity”?

          • goatini

            Always cracks me up that the ones who screech the loudest about fetal “equality” think that women are equal to livestock.

          • expect_resistance

            Excellent point

          • jejune

            Well if utility has no bearing, and if every child is ‘viable’ then let’s just induce labour at 21 weeks across the board!

            And hey, it will only cost approximately 2-5 million per baby

            But, fuck it, utility has NO BEARING, right?

          • expect_resistance

            “As for abortion being around throughout humanity. Not at the level it’s at now. And also, so has murder and incest.”

            Bullshit – have any stats to back that up? Abortion and birth control HAVE been around for 4000 years plus. Look it up 4000yearsforchoice online (see timeline).

          • Michaela Dasteel

            But not at the level they are practiced today

          • jejune

            No, back then, due to technological limitations, INFANTICIDE was the method of population control.

            And millions upon millions of babies were left to die of exposure.

          • expect_resistance

            Citation please.

          • fiona64

            I’m afraid you’ll need to provide a citation for this assertion, particularly as it flies in the face of *reality.* Estimates for the number of abortions per year in the US pre-Roe v. Wade: 1.2 million. Number per year s/p Roe: 1.2 million. Source is here: http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?compID=100&id=20

            For as long as we’ve had humanity, there have been unwanted pregnancies and terminations. Get real.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL:

            “We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions,” he said. “The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception.”

            “I mean as a founding member and chairman of the medical committee, I accepted the figures which came from a biostatistician named Christopher Tietze and he and his wife passed along these figures to us at NARAL. We were in no position to validate them or not, so we accepted them in the interests of higher standards, or at least higher objectives,” he explained.

          • fiona64

            Bernard Nathanson … noted quack and liar who faked “The Silent Scream.”

            Why don’t you just cite the National Enquirer; you’d have the same level of credibility.

          • HeilMary1

            Abortion rates are probably the same or lower than in previous times of war and famine. You’re just mad that American priests don’t have as many homeless kids to molest as Filipino priests!

          • Arekushieru

            You support rape if you believe abortion is immoral yet can provide no grounds other than those based on sexism to oppose it. Yet you also oppose incest, which can be consensual. WOW.

            Nope, equating the death of a fetus with the death of someone who is born, means you have to deny the intrinsic ‘worth’ of every human life. After all, like Goatini said, you are equating a woman with a fetus, saying she has never developed any more ‘worth’ than that. If a woman has never developed any more ‘worth’ than that, what’s the point of her being human, OTHER than utilitarian? So, no, WE’RE not the ones being utilitarian. SFS.

            And, yet, you’re NOT equating the death of a fetus with the death of every single person who is BORN. You’re not equating the death of someone who raped someone else with the death of a fetus, which means you RECOGNIZE that there is no such thing as equal intrinsic ‘worth’. Hypocrite.

            No, with the worldview YOU espouse, one would have to believe that every woman must want to have children if she has sex, because, otherwise, females would have to be masochists, as they are the only genotypical sex of humans that would be required to face a legally imposed nine-month sentence of bodily arrest, just for having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation. After all, men can do it, easily, simply because they lack the biological functions that WOULD enable you to legally impose such a sentence on them.

            Love that IMPOSES sacrifice on only ONE person (the WOMAN) is neither ‘love’ nor ‘sacrifice’. OOPS. Love that only expects one form of expression from only one-half of the equation (the WOMAN) is not ‘love’. OOOOOOPPPPPSSS!

            “Sex is not safe. Life is not safe.”

            Neither is driving. Your point is…?

            “What your are willing to sacrifice for the weakest has everything to do with your character.”

            So, what are YOU willing to sacrifice for the weakest (women) because you decided to deny human rights to a whole class of INDISPUTABLE human beings? Are YOU willing to sacrifice your body by having an embryo transplanted to it from a woman unwilling to gestate? Are YOU willing to sacrifice your time and energy to finding a solution to the very problem YOU created by denying human rights to a whole class of INDISPUTABLE human beings?

            Finally, you have been comparing women to livestock, what is THAT if not calling people names? OOOPPPPSS?

          • BB-Mystic

            It does not depend on parents. Anybody can risk oneself to save or protect a child. Just as anyone can take care of a newborn. Blood ties aren’t necessary.

          • colleen

            about the time Catholic doctrine was written.

          • HeilMary1

            Catholic doctrine written by pedophiles!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, “pro-lifers” are really big on risks–provided someone else is taking them.

          • Lynnsey

            I have two actual children AND a husband AND more family AND friends. They love and depend on me. Should I die for a fetus? That doesn’t seem like the most moral answer to me.

          • jejune

            Since when did the value of bodily autonomy become subject to the convenience of a microscopic piece of DNA?

          • HeilMary1

            We don’t have forced organ donations by the living to the unviable in this country, jackass.

          • Arekushieru

            Oh, seriously. Pregnancy is NOT a mere fucking ‘inconvenience’. Seriously, antis at least EDUCATE yourselves.

        • Michaela Dasteel

          As for me hooking myself into your body, you aren’t my mother. Are you saying that parents have no obligations to their children? Babies after birth will die if their mothers “remove” them. This new meme of children being parasites signals the death of humanity.

          • Lizzie

            You don’t understand autonomy. A baby can be handed off to another person. A pregnant person can’t give the zygote/embryo/fetus to anyone.

          • fiona64

            Babies after birth will die if their mothers “remove” them.

            Really? Then how are any children ever adopted?

          • fiona64

            Reply to CJ99 in moderation: My point was that Michaela’s claim that no one but the birth mother can care for an infant was bullshit. I’m sorry I didn’t make that more clear.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Anyone can care for a baby once it’s born. But only one person can be pregnant. As you can’t be pregnant for someone else and take that responsibility and risk, you don’t get to decide what’s best for her. She does. Period.

          • Lynnsey

            I can’t be legally compelled to donate a kidney to my four-year-old, though, can I? Even though he is *actually* a person. Even if he will die without it. And certainly not just because I had sex.

          • Ella Warnock

            You prolifers need to get cracking on artificial womb technology. Then you won’t have to deal with those pesky, troublesome women who are always not wanting babies. I suspect, though, that a lot of you would still be butthurt about something else we were doing – like, say, voting or being allowed to own property. We can all rest assured you’ll manage to come up with something.

          • colleen

            The American Taliban thinks their religious freedom is threatened if we speak. They complain about our lady pee polluting the water supply.

          • goatini

            Translation: “This new meme of women being actual persons signals the death of the patriarchy to which I desperately cling.”

          • jejune

            Should parents be legally obligated to donate blood, bone marrow, organs to preserve the lives of their born children?

          • Arekushieru

            Fetuses have ALWAYS been parasitic. Please learn to biology. And, as a matter of fact, if you had read my much earlier posts, rather than spewing your old bullshit talking points, you would KNOW that pregnancy is neither natural nor normal and that pregnancy only occurs BECAUSE fetuses are parasitic. DERP.

      • colleen

        not yet

      • cjvg

        Are you a fetus occupying my body against my wishes, if so yes you are.

        • jejune

          {{cjvg}}

          I occasionally use your lecture on fetal EEG readings vs. those of a braindead corpse.

          Hope you don’t mind.

          Sometimes I have to explain that an embryo does not in fact, have a fully functioning, working brain:P

          • cjvg

            No problem, spread the knowledge.
            In fact I’m flattered, I always wonder if I explain things clear enough.
            My spouse says I tend to become to esoteric on occasion

          • jejune

            Thanks!

            Being able to cut and paste is so much easier than having to rewrite the whole thing every time:P

          • cjvg

            No kidding, especially since it is the same thing over and over.
            It almost seems like they don’t really want an answer that negates their whole argument down to the fact that the only real human being that is denied rights is the woman!
            ~sarcasm~

      • HeilMary1

        Are you a fetus in fetu absorbed twin?

    • dougmcburney

      An actual example of one person’s right abrogating another’s is when one person is given the “right” to murder another. Which is exactly the right you and the author of this article support.

      • BB-Mystic

        Since, legally and scientifically, a pre-viable fetus is not a person, your argument is nonsense. Remember all those “personhood” amendments that the states keep voting down? Even in staunchly conservative Mississippi? Yes, choice is a woman’s constitutional right.

        • dougmcburney

          You are correct on the “legally” part for the moment, but on the “scientific” part you are dead wrong. Just because you say it’s not a person does not make it so. And just because you want to kill children does not mean you have the right to do so, no matter what the deviant perverts on the Supreme Court say. God will will be your judge, and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

          • BB-Mystic

            Oh, so your true character finally shines forth.

            Thanks for letting all of us see your religious fanaticism.

          • dougmcburney

            Better to be called a religious fanatic than to publicly advocate the legalized murder of a certain class of innocent person…

          • BJ Survivor

            Not murder, panty-sniffer. Just as removing someone from life-support machines is not murder.

          • dougmcburney

            It is murder. And your ad-hominem tells me you are no longer worthy of my consideration. See you on Judgment Day.

          • BB-Mystic

            Hmm. I think this scripture applies to you. Seeing as they’re Jesus’ words and all.

            Matthew 7: 21-23

            Not all who sound religious are really godly people. They may refer to me as “Lord,” but still won’t get to heaven. For the decisive question is whether they obey my Father in heaven. At the Judgment many will tell me, “Lord, Lord, we told others about you and used your name to cast out demons and to do many other great miracles.” But I will reply, “You have never been mine. Go away, for your deeds are evil.”

          • dougmcburney

            His words apply to the pastors an priests, teachers and preachers who claim to be in him, but advocate the slaughter of the innocent.

            If you’ve ever darkened the door of a church I’m certain they apply to you and your pastor.

          • Brian Frang

            His words apply to all who come in His name, then pervert His teachings. Here’s one of his teachings for you: Matthew 7:3-5 (KJV) “3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Since you’ve proven time and again that you’re too stupid for interpretation, let me explain: He’s saying that unless you have NO SIN, you have NO MORAL AUTHORITY TO JUDGE ANYONE ELSE. Really, Read the Gospels a few times, maybe you’ll learn something about JESUS, and not the bile that the Church teaches.

            But I digress, getting back to my original point. Jesus said “do not judge”, but you judge. Jesus said “take care of the poor, the sick, and the disabled”, but Republicans say “fuck ‘em, they’re lazy”. Right-wing fundamentalists like you are EXACTLY the people Jesus was talking about.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve flounced out in a huff only to come back again, Doug–keep this up today and you might set a record…

          • HeilMary1

            If he believed his own crap, he’d be attending “baby” tampon funerals every day of the week.

          • BJ Survivor

            Right? But not a one of them will even *touch* the assertion. Because they know how asinine they’d sound to either admit that they do or admit that they don’t. To me, it really sums up just what cognitively dissonant codswallop the forced-gestation position is.

          • HeilMary1

            If abortion offended Jesus H. Christ, he would have whipped the midwife abortionists instead of the money changers and he never would served abortifacient miracle wine to the Cana bride.

          • expect_resistance

            Good point.

          • BJ Survivor

            Nope, the expulsion of a mindless, alien-looking clump of barely differentiated tissue cannot even be remotely construed as murder. I know it makes you angry that we women won’t let you bully us with your patriarchal bible-babbling, but that’s just too bad. You’re enraged that we reject your Almighty Sperm, your obvious male superiority. You’ll just have to get used to it, cupcake.

            In any event, I’ll take “murdering” a mindless, alien-looking clump of barely differentiated tissue, a billion times over, than *just one* malnourished or starved or resented or neglected or belittled or beaten or raped or murdered actual, born child. That’s because the actual child is complete enough to actually experience pain and the condition of suffering. Potential children, not so much. And, because, unlike you, I have morals, compassion, and empathy; I like children and, like Jesus, I want there to be LESS, not MORE unnecessary suffering in the world.

          • grantal

            “a certain class”? here we go with classism in its worst form. What makes a fetus any better than a born child? Do you own a gun? if so did you know that guns kill pregnant women all the time? You were in the marines that’s all about killing to get your way. I could call you a pre-meditated trained mass murderer but I will do the Christian thing and refrain myself for now. Would not want to lower myself to your level.

          • fiona64

            Fetii are not persons.

          • bj_survivor

            I could care less about your imaginary sky daddy. Or about your blood-soaked, misogynistic, homophobic, rape-sanctioning, pedophile-enabling church.

          • dougmcburney

            And when you find yourself unable to sustain your own life, humbled and naked, in the presence of the almighty God, He will not care about you.

          • Brian Frang

            First Amendment. Read it. Your god has no bearing in this country.

            Also, read the fucking bible, because you seem to have missed all the parts about not being judgemental, looking to your own sins first, not judging unless you are sinless, and the whole pride thing, cuz you are really full of shit, and I hope we die at the same time so I can watch God put you in your place with my own eyes. You, and every other Republican, give Christians a bad name

          • dougmcburney

            Your profane vocabulary indicates you are no longer worthy of my consideration. See you on judgment day…

          • BJ Survivor

            Wow, a panty-sniffer, a sanctimonious bible-babbler, and a concern troll all in one fact-free package. Your mother must be so proud!

          • jejune

            Yeah?

            Go skull-fuck yourself, asshat:)

          • BJ Survivor

            And all the commands to dash babies against rocks and rip up pregnant women. Then there’s the setting a bear to kill 42 children for the apparent crime of teasing one of his favored psychopaths prophets. Among many, many other atrocities.

          • Brian Frang

            Well, yeah, there’s that. But I do think a lot of that was not divinely inspired, if any of it is. There is some good stuff in the Bible, just so long as you ignore all the bullshit that no loving God would give a damn about.

            And, to my knowledge, the only reference to “ripping up a pregnant woman” is the passage in Talmud that says if a woman’s life is endangered by her pregnancy, you are to rip the child from her womb, to save her life. That being said, I will gladly admit I’m wrong, if you can prove otherwise.

          • BJ Survivor

            Hosea 13:16 (New International Version):

            The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God.
            They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.

            I list several others at bjsurvivor*dot*livejournal*dot*com/618.html It is by no means an exhaustive list of the atrocities ordered/condoned by the sadistic deity of the Jewish/Christian holy book, but I debated a Catholic forced-birther regarding god’s pro-life credentials. These scriptural debates always end badly for the religitard, because so few Christians have actually bothered to read their disgusting holy book. Reading the Wholly Babble caused me to reject Christianity entirely and eventually become atheist. It’s done the same for many, many others. Which is why I absolutely encourage people to read their holy books for themselves.

          • Brian Frang

            Well, fair point. It was pretty much the same for me, there’s just too much of the Bible that I simply can’t reconcile with my own conscience.

            That being said, I still consider myself an agnostic deist (most days) because I feel that just because some of the Bible is obviously horseshit designed to control the minds and wills of people, doesn’t mean that the entire book is incorrect. Even when I was a Christian, I used to point out, a lot, “The Bible is the word of a perfect God, written by the hands of imperfect men. Do you REALLY think they didn’t change things to suit their own agenda?”

            So, yeah, I’m on the fence. To me, there is a very clear split within Judeo-Christian Scripture between what feels like the Word of God when I read it, and what feels like something no loving God would ever support. And as evidence, I’d like to point out that the Council of Nicea actually cut a number of texts from the Bible that were OLDER than the Gospels, and likely written around the time Jesus would have been crucified. These texts tell a very different story, about a Jesus who was infuriated by the perversions of His Father’s teachings. A Jesus who was much more explicit in his statements that much of Jewish law is full of shit and not really mandated by God. They tone it down in the Gospels, but the message is still there, when Jesus tells people not to carry out the punishments prescribed in Leviticus, because they have no right to judge, when he said that “keeping the Sabbath holy” is not the same as “sitting on your lazy ass and refusing to help those in need” (I might be paraphrasing, just a little). And when He said that if you Love God, and you Love your neighbor, all of God’s commandments would fall into place. To me, this is very clearly saying that God’s Laws and Man’s rights will never cross, meaning that any of the “laws” written that would violate the rights of Man, are perversions, and not divinely inspired. I can’t say the Christian God is evil, because it’s clear to me that the Christian church doesn’t follow their own God,

            Can’t say much for Judaism, though. The Jewish God is kinda a dick to his “chosen people”. Seriously, I remember being a kid and thinking, “If this is what it means to be a member of God’s chosen people, I wish he’d choose someone else”.

            Either way, Jesus, himself (provided he was a real, actual person), taught good things that are hard to argue. Love your neighbor, don’t judge, live a good life, and don’t be a hypocrite.

            So, yeah, I may cherry-pick what I like and don’t like, but at least my conscience is clean about it.

          • HeilMary1

            “Wholly Babble”

            That is priceless!

          • BJ Survivor

            Why thank you, Mary.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re welcome! ;D

          • BJ Survivor

            If the Christian fantasy is true, I will spit in god’s eye. Then I will gladly and proudly walk into the hell it’s created for those who don’t believe in his sadistic edicts.

          • Ella Warnock

            He loves you so much he’ll roast you for an eternity if you don’t love him back. Me, I like to give flowers. I’m a lover like that.

          • Lynnsey

            I’ll save you a seat.

          • BJ Survivor

            Hell is where the party’s gonna be! If there’s a Heaven filled with sanctimonious assholes like Yahweh and Dougie, I’m *not* interested.

          • dougmcburney

            Fine, go to hell.

          • fiona64

            Everyone, open your hymnals to page 22. We will be singing the chorus portion of “One in the Spirit.”

            “And they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love … they will know we are Christians by our love.”

          • bj_survivor

            A zygote/embryo/fetus is not a person, but even if it were, it still wouldn’t have any right to commandeer another person’s body without that person’s ongoing consent.

          • dougmcburney

            Since when does an innocent child “commandeer” the body of another? The child has no choice in the matter.

            You on the other hand, do have a choice, and you have chosen wrongly, and for that you will be condemned.

          • BJ Survivor

            An embryo is not a child; it is a potential child. Creating a child I neither want nor have the capability to properly care for is not at all a responsible choice. The responsible choice is the one I made.

          • dougmcburney

            An embryo is a child fool. How old was your baby when you murdered him?

          • jejune

            he 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 has
            three consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother’s
            arterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient content
            of blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to
            her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placenta
            becomes 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 placental
            lactogen (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.

          • dougmcburney

            Thank you to all of the lying murderers who read ALL of my posts. It’s probably the closest any of have come to hearing the truth since you were in college. There is a God, the children you murdered are with Him, and when you meet them upon your physical death, they’re going to be so angry with you …and you will be helpless, with no one to speak for you, defenseless and guilty, and you will pay with your own eternal life.

            Mr. Salzman, you must be some piece of work to write for a website that is nothing more than a place for guilt ridden post abortive killers to congregate and requite one another’s hatred for their fellow man.

          • jejune

            I have provided you with facts.

            You reply with more panty sniffing bullshit.

            You’re a sick fucker.

          • Brian Frang

            Really? Cuz Judaism actually REQUIRES abortion in certain situations, and since that was never actively changed by Jesus, I’d say it still stands.

          • fiona64

            Personhood is a *legal* concept, sweetie. You know that Constitution you promised to protect and defend when you stuck your hand in the air? You might want to go re-read the 14th Amendment. It’s pretty clear that rights are afforded to the *born.*

          • jejune

            A microscopic zygote is not simply a tiny person, asshat.

            It is in fact, a genetic blueprint.

            It contains the instructions for the creation of a placenta ffs

      • Lynnsey

        Even if a z/e/f was a person, it still doesn’t have the right to use another’s body to sustain its life. I’m not murdering you if I refuse to donate a kidney to you.

        • dougmcburney

          While not donating a kidney is not “murder” it certainly doesn’t make you a decent human being.And it’s not a character trait I’d teach my children.

          It’s as if your neighbor was hungry and thirsty, and instead of feeding him, you would proudly assert your right NOT to help him, even as he dies in your sight. Is that the kind of society you strive for heathen?

          • bj_survivor

            So, have YOU donated a kidney or bone marrow? Do you actually think that donating such should be mandatory? Of course you don’t, but you “pro-lifers” want to make it mandatory that women donate their bodies to a mindless cluster of barely differentiated tissue, risking permanent damage, disability, and even death, regardless of their willingness to do so.

            It’s as if your neighbor was hungry and thirsty, and instead of feeding him, you would proudly assert your right NOT to help him, even as he dies in your sight. Is that the kind of society you strive for heathen?

            That’s EXACTLY what you oh-so “pro-life” Republicans do all the time. Most recently, Republicans sought to keep farm subsidies while decimating SNAP (formerly known as food stamps). I, being a liberal, want no one to go hungry or without shelter or healthcare.

          • Lynnsey

            This.

            I wish I could like this seven billion more times.

          • dougmcburney

            I have not donated a kidney, but I would if I found my neighbor needed it, even if it meant risking my own life. And I don’t believe it should be mandated by government, but if it’s not mandated by your own heart you are evil.

            And if I found I’d inadvertently created another life, due to my own sin, (sexual immorality), or if a pregnancy occurred at time of extreme inconvenience, I would sacrifice my own liberty and convenience for the sake of another.

            That’s what I teach my children and my neighbors. You on the other hand, teach them to murder the innocent to solve a problem.

          • Brian Frang

            Bullshit. You can’t make that claim until you’ve done it.

          • dougmcburney

            I’m telling you what I believe and what I teach you fool. But if it makes you feel better, when I was 17 I volunteered to march into fire, and even death with the Marines to defend my neighbors…

          • Brian Frang

            Unless you’re over 85 years old, you weren’t defending shit.

          • fiona64

            Really? Which neighborhood needed defending by a 17-year-old jarhead? I’m curious. After all, you said you joined up to defend your neighbors …

          • Jennifer Starr

            Really? You’re too young to have been in WWII or ‘Nam. Too young for Grenada, even. So tell us, which ‘fire’ in 1985 did you volunteer to march into, exactly?

          • L-dan

            You *volunteered*. You have said in several places that you wouldn’t make organ donation mandatory.

            So…why should risking life and health to gestate be mandatory rather than volunteer duty? Why are women different in the ‘forced to donate your body for the betterment of others’ debate?

            I’ll counter one argument first…no, sex is not the equivalent of volunteering for that duty. In fact, when using birth control, I’d say the intent is definitely not to volunteer for that duty.

            I think it’s laudable to volunteer to serve one’s country, donate blood, organs, etc., or go through the work of having and raising children. A government forcing any of those seems rather draconian (and yes I’m against the draft, notice how it hasn’t been used in decades due to how unpopular it is?)

          • Lynnsey

            See, that’s the difference, isn’t it? You see sex as a naughty thing you ought not do unless you want to make babies and most rational people view it as a normal part of a healthy adult life. Not everyone wants to choose between having their own baseball team worth of kids or a sexless life/marriage.

            Again, be a martyr. That doesn’t mean you get to inflict your Bronze Age superstitions about sex on everyone else.

          • HeilMary1

            I’ll bet he’s spilled plenty of non-procreative sperm.

          • Ruth Rivera

            Don’t be such a chickenshit. You can put yourself on a bone marrow and kidney registry right now if you really wanted to. Think of the lives you could save!

          • jejune

            Oh so only your neighbour is worthy of your kidney?

            There are currently thousands of dying children who need kidneys RIGHT NOW

            Put up or shut up.

          • Brian Frang

            What Lynnsey said

          • tcarey

            They tried that in USSR how did that work out?

          • Arekushieru

            Thank you for making OUR argument. And YOU’RE the one who accuses people of reading incomprehension. Oi.

          • Lynnsey

            What if donating that kidney posed a danger to my life or health? Would I be such an awful person then? Pregnancy has, in the best of circumstances, a huge physical, emotional, social, and financial impact on women. In the worst? It can be dangerous and even deadly.

            There’s a huge difference between not giving your neighbor a glass of water and potentially risking your life to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. The fact that you can’t see one is quite telling.

          • dougmcburney

            I would risk my life for the sake of another.

          • Brian Frang

            Easy to talk the talk, come back when you’ve actually done it.

          • dougmcburney

            This is a forum. By definition it’s “talk” I could tell lies like the pro abort heathen scum. But choose to be truthful.

          • fiona64

            “Pro abort heathen scum.”

            Really? There’s some good, loving Christianity in action …

            To say nothing of being a textbook case of fundamental attribution error …

          • Brian Frang

            Really, what “lies” have us “heathens” been saying?

            And, you do know that “truth” means you have to be able to provide cold, hard, facts, right? Your faith is not proof.

            Kinda funny calling me a heathen, considering I obviously know the Bible way better than you could ever hope to. Or maybe I don’t. Maybe you know that people like you are destroying everything that Jesus stood for, and you just don’t care. I’m no heathen, I just refuse to be bound to the Church of Man, since they couldn’t have gotten it more wrong.

          • Arekushieru

            Teh fucking AWEsome.

          • jejune

            You sound so stupid, I almost think you can’t be for real.

          • Lynnsey

            Good for you. Be a martyr. I have real people who depend on me. Dying for a fetus is NOT my most moral choice.

          • dougmcburney

            You are no longer worthy of my consideration. See you on Judgment Day

          • Ella Warnock

            Whooo, burn, Lynnsey! Now where’d I put those marshmallows . . .

          • dougmcburney

            I’ll bring the marshmallows…

          • Lynnsey

            And YOU aren’t getting anything from Santa…

            Scary, huh?

          • Ella Warnock

            Nailed the flounce.

          • fiona64

            I think you’re going to be awfully surprised when Jesus tells you that you’re going to hell for judging others …

          • Jennifer Starr

            Don’t let the door knock you in the bum on the way out, Dougie..

          • grantal

            LOL so now your God??? LOL so typical

          • colleen

            please do so then.

          • dougmcburney

            Truth is, there are a bunch of child killing savages on this site, who do not even attain to the fundamental requirements of civilized existence.

            God will judge between us!

          • fiona64

            If you know of anyone who is killing children, notify your local law enforcement agency.

          • Brian Frang

            You’re right, God will judge… Provided He exists, I’m still not too sure on that front. But either way, you’ve ignored and perverted the teachings of Christ. Somehow, I have a feeling God will be a little more pissed off about people like you than me.

          • colleen

            truth is a guy like you believes all he needs to do is ejaculate and order the rest of us around. fuck you.

          • jejune

            You’re a moron.

          • fiona64

            Easy for you to say when it’s not *your* life that is at risk. You are demanding that women put their lives and health on the line to gestate — something that you, as a male, will never be expected to do.

            It’s very easy to be an anti-choice male, eh, Doug? You just wave your hand in the air and announce what women you don’t even know should be forced to do in order to satisfy you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Pretty words, Dougie, but we both know that words are all they are…

          • jejune

            Then donate that kidney, asshole.

          • fiona64

            Why is it that anti-choicers do not understand the difference between born, sapient, sentient *persons* and embryos?

            This never ceases to puzzle me.

          • Brian Frang

            Really? What puzzles me is how they can claim to be “pro-life” when these bastards are the same ones that want to cut SNAP and TANF benefits that save the lives of impoverished children every day.

          • fiona64

            They’re only “pro-life” until the fetus is delivered and there is a resulting infant. Then, it’s all about the “welfare queens” who “just have babies to make more money” … despite the fact that anti-choicers are the same ones who don’t want underprivileged women to have access to contraception, etc.

            They can’t handle actual facts, or having the contradictions in their positions being pointed out, because the cognitive dissonance is too painful.

          • BJ Survivor

            Why is it that anti-choicers do not understand the difference between born, sapient, sentient *persons* and embryos?

            This never ceases to puzzle me

            Oh, they can. They like to use that convenient semantic ploy to further their misogyny and, really, their misanthropy. I mean, why on earth would you want children to be born to parents who don’t want them or haven’t the means to properly care for them? Why would you want there to be *more* rather than *less* child abuse? Why on earth would you seek to increase the amount of suffering in the world rather than lessen it (as Jesus would do)?

            These idiots do not really believe that a fertilized egg/blastocyst/embryo is a person. I know this as a 99.9999% certainty, because there is not a single “pro-lifer” that holds funerals for their own/their partner’s used feminine hygiene products. If you honestly believed that a fertilized egg was a person, a fully-formed child, then you would do so. But they don’t, so I call bullshit.

          • HeilMary1

            Can you picture gynophobic priests giving last rites to used tampons?

          • BJ Survivor

            I can, but it would never happen, because even the most fetus-worshiping religitard gets that such a thing would be exceeding stupid. And gross.

          • HeilMary1

            It would remind priests why they were grossed out by their own mothers and sisters.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So who’s the next person you’re going to donate a kidney to, then?

          • jejune

            If a woman is hungry and thirsty, would you force her to give you life support by donating her blood, bone marrow, kidney functions and liver to keep you alive?

      • fiona64

        No, sweetie. A fetus is not a person. And murder is the unlawful (illegal) taking of a *person’s* life with malice aforethought.

      • jejune

        A fetus isn’t a person.

  • Chet J Gee

    What proofs are there that an unborn fetus is a person? What makes a person? Our definitions may differ but the fact remains that abortion is legal in this country.

    • Michaela Dasteel

      The proof is that all human beings are persons. Personhood is a quality of being a human being. There is no such thing as a human being that is not a person.

      • Chet J Gee

        That’s true but I guess you consider a fetus as a human being?

        • Michaela Dasteel

          According to the textbook definition below, yes, a fetus, a blastcocyst, a zygote – they are are terms for stages of human development.

          “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
          “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
          [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

          • Chet J Gee

            The term human development doesn’t mean it’s already a full human being. It only means it’s still developing that’s why it is attached to its mother via umbilical cord for life support.

          • jejune

            Yeah you twit, stages of human development, however, that doesn’t mean they are human BEINGS

            Human BEINGS are sentient

            Human BEINGS are not microscopic ells

  • http://www.frivjogo.info/ Friv Jogos

    If possible me too would joined on choices Ủng Hộ where, the meaningless than its măng back.

  • tcarey

    I have never read so many posts by people so full of hate and with so much blood lust. The rationalizations given here, of their “rights” to live and act without consequences is amazing.

    I would bet that everyone of them still holds Michael Vick in contempt because he killed a dog.

    Even Horton knew “A person is a person, no matter how small”

    • bj_survivor

      I just love the whole children as “consequences” tripe. Why do you hate children so much? Why don’t you think they deserve to be loved, wanted, fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, cherished by parent(s) who are willing/capable of doing so?

      • Ella Warnock

        Yep, pro-liars prattle on about how much they wuv teh chirrruns. Their vocabulary tells a bit of a different story, though, doesn’t it?

        • BJ Survivor

          Oh, they can. They like to use that convenient semantic ploy to
          further their misogyny and, really, their misanthropy. I mean, why on earth would you want children to be born to parents who don’t want them or haven’t the means to properly care for them? Why would you want there to be *more* rather than *less* child abuse? Why on earth would you seek to increase the amount of suffering in the world rather than lessen it (as Jesus would do)?

          These idiots do not really believe that a fertilized egg/blastocyst/embryo is a person. I know this as a 99.9999% certainty, because there is not a single “pro-lifer” that holds funerals for their own/their partner’s used feminine hygiene products. If you honestly believed that a fertilized egg was a person, a fully-formed child, then you would do so. But they don’t, so I call bullshit.

    • Lynnsey

      Geisel supported the right to choose and he and later his widow both threatened action against groups that used that quote out of context.

      People who actually want to reduce the number of abortions should be advocating for real and affordable access to effective birth control and comprehensive sexual health education. Are you doing that or are you just getting bent because chicks can have sex without getting punished?

      • tcarey

        Which is why Dr Suess is in hell now..

        People who actually want to eliminate abortion work to make it illegal since murdering a person is a crime.

        Children aren’t a punishment they are a blessing but to heathens they are an impediment to their selfish desires thus they are expendable and if you need to kill them to keep your life the way it is then so be it.

        Repent your time is drawing nearer every day…

        • BB-Mystic

          Since I don’t believe in your God, and you can’t prove your God exists, that doesn’t mean shit to me.

          Also, you eliminate abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place–hence contraception.

          But obviously people who reject science and believe in a mythical “hell” can’t understand that.

          • tcarey

            Just because you don’t believe in someone or something doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming..

            Creation itself speaks of God. And evolution is just a fairy tail for atheist.

            You will never prevent all pregnancy via contraception so when it fails you think you should be able to kill the kid.

            Yeah it has always been Christians who have rejected science.. Yet the fathers of most of the major scientific disciplines were all bible believing Christians. You are a willfully ignorant heathen with your blood lust..

          • Brian Frang

            “The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming”

            Um… No. No, it’s not. If the evidence was overwhelming that God exists, then we wouldn’t be having this argument, and we wouldn’t need faith. You want to know what DOES have overwhelming evidence proving its existence? Global warming, dinosaurs having died out LONG before humans showed up, the universe being 13.7 billion years old, and let’s not forget holes in the ozone layer, but according to you right-wing dumbasses, none of that is true. So, who’s the willfully ignorant one? A person who relies on blind faith, even when fact and science contradict them, or a person who relies on science and fact and leaves faith for when he sees proof?

          • BB-Mystic

            Amen, brother. Preach it.

            Swing that “fairy tail!”

          • fiona64

            The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming..

            Citation needed.

        • Jennifer Starr

          And the mask of the ‘loving pro-lifer’ falls away once again. Not that it ever was a really convincing mask in the first place.

        • expect_resistance

          Excuse me, but who the hell are you? I’m a proud modern day heathen and you are offensive. So please piss off. We are not all broodmares for jesus or your man-god. I determine my own destiny, not you, and not your god. I REFUSE to breed for the patriarchy.

          When you say, “Repent your time is drawing nearer every day…” you better be looking in the mirror and talking to yourself fool.

          • tcarey

            I always find it fascinating how much hate can be brought out in someone by the thought of having something that is created in the image of God within them. I think it is their fear of actually accepting that they are a woman, thus their self hate kicks in, and they want to kill anything that reminds them of God.

          • expect_resistance

            What the hell are you talking about? If you are saying I’m hateful, you better check that statement again. Oh, please. I don’t hate myself but I do loath and abhor misogynists who can’t mind their own business. (Like you)

          • HeilMary1

            Mother killer, aren’t you late for your pedophile priest convention?

          • Ella Warnock

            The only one around here exhibiting hate and contempt for women is you. What, you think nobody noticed? If you’re so disgusted, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Otherwise you’re just another little angrums throwing a temper tantrum.

            Stamp little feet and wave little fists. But, but, you HAVE to! You’re the MOMMY!

    • Ella Warnock

      Horton is a fictional character.

      • tcarey

        And even a fictional Character had the sense to know that which science and every pregnant woman knows… That it is a small person growing in her…

        • Ella Warnock

          That’s super special. Thanks for sharing.

        • fiona64

          Oh, sweetie. I don’t know if you got the memo, but we’ve dismissed the homonculus hypothesis of human development.

          • tcarey

            Of course you have since life with human DNA isn’t human after all…

          • fiona64

            I think you need to look up the big words, dear …

          • jejune

            By your logic, a skin cell is a human being because it 1) is alive 2) contains human DNA

            Nope, you’ll have to do better

        • jejune

          A zygote isn’t a small person.

          It is actually a genetic blueprint. It contains *instructions* for the creation of the placenta and umbilical cord.

          Tell me, are you part placenta?

          • tcarey

            Then what is it? If it isn’t human then it isn’t a person..

          • jejune

            I just told you.

            It is a GENETIC BLUEPRINT.

            It contains INSTRUCTIONS for the creation of a person.

            It is like the blueprints to a skyscraper, but it isn’t the skyscraper.

          • tcarey

            No you didn’t you make the claim that it is a blue print. What is it? Is it human? The single cell that is created by the sperm and Egg has the information to create what?

          • jejune

            From a noted embryologist, Dr. Johnathan Sullivan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            No. They are not the same.

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

          • tcarey

            You dodged the question… Is it human?

          • jejune

            Yep. It is composed of Human DNA.

            EVERY CELL IN YOUR BODY IS HUMAN

          • tcarey

            No every cell is not a human. If I kill one cell in my body I still live..

            You kill the one cell that the unique child starts from you are killing a PERSON. Wether that person only has 100 cells at the time.

            You kill one of my skin cells I still live… Kill enough of my cells an I die…

            You are a piece of work..

          • jejune

            Well if your cells are not human, what are they? Frog?

            Is your liver composed of frog cells?

          • tcarey

            No not every cell is A human which is what you are trying to equate. That the zygote or blastocyst is just like any one of the many differentiated cells which on their own can be kill and I live.. Sorry swing and a miss

          • jejune

            Really?

            So if not every cell is composed of human DNA then WHAT are they composed of? Horse DNA/ Frog DNA? Cat DNA? TELL ME

          • tcarey

            What part of reading comprehension class were you absent from?

            You are equating A cell as A human I am not.

          • jejune

            No, you are conflating HUMAN with HUMAN BEING.

            HUMAN denotes species membership in H. Sapiens – NOTHING MORE

            adjective

            Of, pertaining to, having the attributes of, a being belonging to the species of the Homo sapiens.

            Supplement

            In taxonomy, humans belong to the family Hominidae, of the Primates, under class Mammalia of phylum Chordata. They are identified by the highly developed brain that confers advanced skills in abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem solving, and sapience. They are bipedal primates in having an erect carriage. They are skillful in handling objects with their hands.

            ——————–

            You can’t say that a zygote is human, and that a born person is human, but that the cells that make up the human species ARE NOT HUMAN.

          • tcarey

            Are you really this obtuse?

            You don’t see a finger laying in the road and say THERE IS A HUMAN…

            You don’t say THERE IS A HUMAN when you see the hair on the floor of the barber.

            But the blastocyst or zygote is A HUMAN fully contained…

          • jejune

            No, you’re the one who is being obtuse.

            And as has been explained to you, a cell can now be taken from that finger on the road, and that cell can be manipulated and it can become an oocyte and it can be implanted in a woman and she can give birth to a baby.

            Every. single. cell . in your body, or in that finger on the road, is a potential human being.

            That is what you don’t seem to understand.

            You don’t see a finger laying in the road and say THERE IS A HUMAN…

            Answer, please. What is the finger *composed of*. Is it composed human DNA or frog DNA?

          • tcarey

            So typical of your kind move the goal post..

            So a cell can become a human if manipulated by a CREATOR a designer. While that cell is a human cell it is not a UNIQUE human. But a blastocyst is…

            The finger is composed of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. DNA is composed of this same stuff.. These things are inanimate just like DNA is. It is the Unique information in the DNA which is not a product of the DNA that makes a human. The fact that we have found ways to take that information and turn it on again to clone things doesn’t make a single cell a HUMAN… Though it contains the information to create one…

            You kill a fetus, you kill a human being, a PERSON with a Unique soul and personality.

          • jejune

            So a cell can become a human

            The cell is already HUMAN.

            Dumbass.

            While that cell is a human cell it is not a UNIQUE human.

            So clones aren’t people then?

            The fact that we have found ways to take that information and turn it on again to clone things doesn’t make a single cell a HUMAN

            So if a single cell that belongs to a human being does not contain human DNA then what kind of DNA does it contain? Frog DNA? Bear DNA? Enlighten me, smartie pants.

            You kill a fetus, you kill a human being, a PERSON with a Unique soul and personality.

            There is no such thing as a soul. I get that you are using ‘soul’ as a synonym for ‘personality’, however, a blastocyst is incapable of having any sort of personality because the structures that give rise to a personality are NOT YET PRESENT. Can;t have a personality without a brain, you ignorant fuckwit.

          • tcarey

            The cell is human but not a HUMAN BEING….

            Clones would be once the process of creating a HUMAN BEING is started. You know when conception or fertilization happens..

            I have never said that it is not a human cell..Or that it does not contain human DNA…

            Yes there is such thing as a soul..

            I am not using it as a synonym for personality. Much of your personality is Genetically determined, if you are an introvert, thinker or feeler. These things are genetic so their is a personality there but there is also a SOUL…

            You have a personality and I can see from your posts that you don’t have a brain…

          • jejune

            The cell is human but not a HUMAN BEING….

            Good boy! Finally, we are making progress. Human cells contain human DNA!

            Clones would be once the process of creating a HUMAN BEING is started.

            A clone doesn’t have ‘unique’ DNA.By your standards, it is not new life, because it’s DNA Is identical to it’s clone. By your definition, monozygotic twins are not human beings.

            Yes there is such thing as a soul..

            Prove it. Soul is a religious term, not a scientific one.

            Much of your personality is Genetically determined, if you are an
            introvert, thinker or feeler. These things are genetic so their is a
            personality there but there is also a SOUL…

            Nope, not necessarily. Transcription factors, methylation, epigenetics – nature/nurture combined are what determine your personality. It can also determine your weight, and other disorders. What happens in the third trimester of pregnancy can make you more prone to diabetes, or anxiety, later in life.And that has fuck all to do with the genetic information that is present in the zygote.

            You have a personality and I can see from your posts that you don’t have a brain…

            Yeah, you’re funny. Says the asshat who can’t differentiate between human and human being. The asshat who doesn’t have a clue about what fetal development actually entails. An asshat who woudln’t know what a transcription factor was if it hit him over the head.

          • BJ Survivor

            While that cell is a human cell it is not a UNIQUE human.

            So clones aren’t people then?

            Really, this halfwit is also saying that multiples (twins, triplets, etc.) aren’t persons, because their DNA is NOT UNIQUE. And he thinks he has any sort of valid point…It’s pretty goddamn funny, actually!

            *Never mind; you covered it below.

          • HeilMary1

            Then why don’t you fetal idolaters ban abortifacient coffee, tea and holy wine?

          • BJ Survivor

            Then why don’t I see you fetus-worshipers holding funerals for your/your
            partner’s used feminine hygiene products? After all, we hold funerals
            and bury even indigent, unknown, unclaimed persons, so why don’t you honor those poor, beleaguered, microscopic persons?

          • Ella Warnock

            Every tampon deserves a proper burial. And last rites, too.

          • HeilMary1

            Think of what tampon funerals could do for Matel’s Barbie and Hallmark sympathy cards! And SNL opening skits!

          • BJ Survivor

            It’s the logical conclusions to forced-birthers’ half-baked egg-is-person claims. I can totally imagine the scene, but I suck at drawing. I would love for someone to create a cartoon with this theme. It should go viral, especially in the states where these nutters keep trying to get egg-as-person amendments passed.

          • HeilMary1

            These nutters also deserve to have their garbage inspected for tossed-out, coffee-aborted “baby” napkins. Imagine if we held “dead baby” napkin funerals on their front lawns and displayed posters of their Viagra prescriptions!

          • Ella Warnock

            It’s only fair that they suffer from the lack of privacy that they would force on others. You could almost wish they get exactly what they’re asking for. Can you imagine the outrage at having to actually be accountable? It would almost be funny if it weren’t so tragic for the rest of us.

          • HeilMary1

            Adulterous wife dumper Randall Terry deserves this.

          • HeilMary1

            Blastocysts threaten the lives of their hosts.

          • jejune

            Cancer is also human btw.

            It grows, it has it’s own metabolism…

          • Lynnsey

            “You are equating A cell as A human I am not”

            That’s pretty rich coming from someone who thinks a fertilized egg is a person.

            I think my irony meter just broke…

          • jejune

            He thinks they have souls.

          • tcarey

            There is no such thing in human reproduction known as a “Fertilized egg”. More planned Parenthood disinformation to de humanize a child..

          • HeilMary1

            What do you think of intersex gay fetuses who have one of the 46 known commonplace intersex syndromes? What do you think of God/Goddess for allowing such gender bending throughout nature?

          • tcarey

            I don’t think much of fairytales…

          • HeilMary1

            Your rejection of medical science is very telling, flat earther.

          • Ella Warnock

            You don’t?

            “Just because you don’t believe in someone or something doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming.”

            Sure. Whatever you say.

          • tcarey

            Hey Hater… Where did the INFORMATION that is coded in the DNA come from? It is not a product of the matter. Where did it come from..

            I don’t because there is not such entity as a “gay” fetus.. More homo babbling to try to pretend that they didn’t choose to be a pervert and self hater…

          • Ella Warnock

            I didn’t say anything about gay fetuses. What are you even talking about? {{Circling finger on side of head. We’ve got ourselves little nut ball here. Sadness abounds}}

          • tcarey

            If you are going to be rude and comment on a comment to someone else, please at least read the post in context of the conversation. You really are a ……..!

          • Ella Warnock

            Better look again. You responded to ME. I’m so sorry you’re not very good at this. How unfortunate for you, little angrums.

          • tcarey

            You replied to ME and my statement to someone else. Thus I replied to you in context to that conversation. If you aren’t bright enough to follow along have your mother increase the internet filter on your computer, to not allow the comment section of websites.. You are in over your head obviously…

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh, no, the tantrum continues. I’m so sorry you’re still not very good at this. Here’s a box of tissues, now settle down.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, someone who describes homosexuals as ‘homos’ obviously does NOT understand the science and should look it up before making themselves look FOOLISH. So, right back atcha with your OWN ignorant arguments. After all, neither did you back up your OWN implication that there is more evidence to support God than there is to support gay fetuses (and, as a CHRISTIAN, I should tell you I STILL find that you are very foolish. That should tell you something). Because, if you HAD read the previous posts Heil Mary has posted you would understand where she is coming from. And for every piece of evidence you attempt to show of God’s existence, there is MORE evidence that it is proof of SOMETHING ELSE. You see, I choose NOT to be a ‘hater’, like you. I choose not to coerce people with damnation and hell in order to get them to believe like I do. I choose NOT to use ‘evidence’ to prove something that should be a question of faith ALONE, then decry evidence that proves something with EMPIRICAL value. DERP.

            Nor did YOU succeed in making use of those filters to not allow you to read the comment section of websites that you are obviously not bright enough to follow given the above. But, hey, wait a minute, that means you wouldn’t have been able to read the previous comments from someone else and gained a reasonable understanding of what they were trying to say, like others did with YOU. OOOPPPPS. You antis really like shooting yourselves in the foot,.dontcha?

            She wasn’t talking about gay fetuses, btw. She was specifically talking about the fairy tales that she purports YOU believe in, while claiming NOT to believe in them. Totally different topics, OBVIOUSLY. So, no, YOU should learn to read.

          • Ella Warnock

            Now sit back and watch him crawl up your ass because he wasn’t commenting to you in the first place. And then accuse you of “homo ranting.”

          • tcarey

            You ain’t a Christian anymore than Hitler was.

          • HeilMary1

            Hitler was a NEVER-excommunicated anti-abortion CATHOLIC whom the Vatican ordered German Catholics to vote for.

          • tcarey

            most catholics aren’t christians. Evidenced by their support for obama.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re not christian because of your murderous contempt for intersex gays and women’s right to safe sex.

          • tcarey

            Yeah and pedophiles are caused by mom taking aspirin while pregnant.

          • HeilMary1

            Pedophilia is caused by the looksist, sex-hating PRIESTHOOD!

          • tcarey

            No the Priests that were molesting the kids were the “Celibate” homo priests that the church said were okay to be priest since they were celibate.

          • HeilMary1

            Liar, most pedophiles are STRAIGHT and the RCC’s next sex scandals will be the abortions forced by priests on their mistresses!

          • tcarey

            When a guy molests a boy he is not straight no matter what he or his wife says.

          • HeilMary1

            Most pedophiles molest girls. You just don’t hear about it!

          • jejune

            Yeah well, you’re a bigoted asshat.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Mr Carey is obsessed with gay. It’s what he spends the majority of his time talking about. Nut ball is about the gist of it.

          • Ella Warnock

            Yeah, and the priggish little whiner mewls about being “rude.” Such tender fee-fees. Such histrionics. Such lame retorts and insults.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? If you can choose not to be heterosexual, then we can talk. And, UNTIL then, it is CLEAR who is the hater. Btw, what are we, in grade school? I haven’t heard the word hater used since then, anyways…. *Scratches head*

          • tcarey

            Uh yeah I did…

          • HeilMary1

            Your functioning XY chromosomes chose your orientation for you, just as XXY Klinefelter Syndrome chromosomes cause many such males to have same sex attractions. Google Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) and Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS) for more examples of XY “males” BORN with supermodel FEMALE and intersexed bodies.

          • tcarey

            So you are saying that homos have a genetic defect so I guess we then need to do some prenatal testing so they can be aborted right?

          • HeilMary1

            I’m proving to you why commonplace same-sex attractions are biologically determined BEFORE birth, jerk.

          • tcarey

            Yeah and every ex-gay finds what you are saying completely offensive. But what do you know they dealt with their issues you obviously haven’t.

          • HeilMary1

            Lying bigot, there are NO “ex”-gays! Just science-hating flat earth Nazis like you!

          • tcarey

            Yeah there are 10,000’s of them.

            It is just that the MSM hates that people aren’t sexual deviants anymore and have overcome the disorder and that ruins the narrative that those trapped in their perversion want to promote like “anderson cooper”… “don lemon” just mental patients who have been give the right to be neurotic about their disorder.

          • HeilMary1

            Google freemartin cows to get a clue why LGBT folks are BORN THAT WAY! Having opposite sex twins and older siblings are a major cause of same sex attractions because of the siblings’ endocrine-disrupting DNA microchimerism. Female cows with male twins turn out lesbian because of prenatal testosterone exposure! Anderson Cooper probably absorbed a twin sister before birth. He may have XXY Klinefelter Syndrome. No one is to blame for that except GOD.

          • Arekushieru

            Have you tried being homosexual? Then, no, you did not. Sorry, pal. but you put your OWN foot in your mouth. Typical. OOPS.

          • tcarey

            I am a person who has come out of the closet…
            Healthy..
            The closet is the a place of psychological isolation which causes the sexual inversion you know as ‘Gay’…

            Typical liberal an ignorant bigot..

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, the only bigot, here, is YOU. You have never been psychologically isolated because mainstream society actually agrees with YOU, therefore the only ones who are ever isolated are those who are GAY. So, tell me, ignorant BIGOT, why someone would CHOOSE to become gay even though they KNOW they would face persecution from SATANIC people like YOU. Because it is HEALTHIER for them to do so, than not. Unless, of course, when you refer to coming out of the closet, you’re talking about a five-year-old actually choosing to become heterosexual, but that means that, unlike those you ACCUSE, YOU are the ones who are so abnormally obsessed with sex, and at an even YOUNGER age than preteens. YOU. IGNORANT. BIGOTED. HYPOCRITE. Either WAY you are a hypocrite. Like I said, before. OOPS.

          • tcarey

            This is your delusion you put the cart before the horse. The isolation causes the “same sex” attractions. Homoism is just the developmental disorder of the sexualization of the normal emotional male bonding. Miss that stage of development because of Psychological isolation and the next stage is puberty and and that unmeet need is still there so it becomes sexualized.

            The the reason that homos CHOOSE to be homos is because it places the psychological burden to change off of themselves and onto society. Thus all the things that caused them are now really, in their delusion, because they were “always” a gay to begin with. It is the fallacy of embracing the consequence.

            So you are totally ignorant and unwilling to accept the reality of this..

            Since homos have been accepted in society we see the reflection of their disorder in society. If two guys are friends and hang out a lot they are accused of being closeted homos. If one guy complements another for something that they did well, the slam is that they have a “man crush” or their is a “bromance”. Thus all normal male bonding is now tainted with a sexual aspect as a result of the developmental disorder known as “gay” being allowed to influence society.

            So you are totally out of your element here so just admit you have NO idea about what you are saying and go home.

          • Arekushieru

            PRAY tell, how does one get ‘isolated’? You have YET to back up your claims with evidence, after all, and yet you call ME ignorant. Oi. That just exposes your ignorance MORE, not less. OOOPPPS.

            PRAY tell, how do fucking FIVE-YEAR-OLDS ‘choose’ to place the burden to change off of themselves and onto society. Seriously, how IGNORANT are you?

            And, please, the REASON they are sexualized is because of HOMOPHOBIA, not homosexuality. So, thanks for contributing to bigotry, but not accepting the responsibility, like you accuse OTHERS of (erroneously) doing, to change things, but placing ALL the onus on the victims, LIKE USUAL.

            So, no, YOU, you little piece of SHIT (see, I managed to use name-calling without being offensive to minorities, but, somehow, IRRATIONALLY, you cannot), need to go home and admit you have NO idea about what you are saying. DERP.

          • tcarey

            Simple you are either emotionally or phisycally or sexually abused, your trust is broken.

            5 year olds don’t, but you tell five year old they they may be a homo and they may decide to say they are just like they might say they are a fireman.

            Your ignorance is astounding.

          • HeilMary1

            So the 46 known commonplace intersex syndromes have no connection to sexual identity and orientation, just like the sun has no connection to DAYLIGHT?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Have you ever thought that the time you spend obsessing over the sex lives of others might be better spent improving your basic literacy and grasp of the English language? Just a suggestion.

          • tcarey

            Not really but one of the reasons my english writing is so poor is because my father was a english major and since one of the aspects of Homoism is about hatred of your parents I intentionally didn’t study or do any of the assignments in english. And the public schools just passed me right through.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Excuses, excuses…

          • tcarey

            No it is my fault for even conversing with you since it is typical of a liberal to look down their nose at people. I have noticed with liberals that as soon and they can’t refute your argument they attack your spelling or grammar as though that has anything to do with it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s assuming there’s any actual substance to your argument apart from “Mommy,please make the gays go away!” But there isn’t, of course. There never was.

          • tcarey

            Really! Isn’t that tolerant of you. I tell you what I know from my EXPERIENCE and there is no substance to it. I have always laughed at what hypocrites liberals are since they talk about diversity and everyone’s opinion and views should be welcomed. But as we know that is all just a lie since it isn’t about diversity it is about conformity. Everyone must adhere to their dogma and what they believe if your views and experience expose their narrative as a lie then it is not accepted.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the conformity bully here, bashing us for recognizing your dad probably was born intersexed from UNnatural Family Cramming fertilization anomalies.

          • HeilMary1

            You conservaturd bigots bash us for defending everyone’s basic human rights, and you blame us for any inherited or GOP abuse-inflicted disabilities.

          • fiona64

            But, sweetie … you haven’t made any arguments. You’ve just spewed a bunch of homophobic nonsense that has no basis in reality.

            Why are you obsessed with what gay people do in the bedroom? Hmm …

          • tcarey

            Thanks for proving my point…
            You don’t have to think since anything that exposes homos for the mental patients in denial they are is just “homophobic” and I say so what?

          • fiona64

            You … are laughable.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you’re homophobic because you’re worried you might be one of them.

          • tcarey

            I could have given into my fear and then I would have been a homo. You see it is the homos who are the sexually insecure people which is why the march around in parades trying to convince themselves that they are proud of their sexual inversion and insecurity.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I bet you check underneath your bed each night, just in case gay people might be hiding there.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, they march in parades to combat the fear and terror YOUR ilk tries to instil in them, which is WHY there are no heterosexual pride parades. Seriously, how can you NOT get the bigotry they face when YOU, YOURSELF, call them homos? The ignorance you display is fucking astounding.

          • tcarey

            No once again they get to blame society for all their own personal dysfunction. That is because homoism is just a type of depression so they blame society..

            I call them homos because they don’t. They call themselves “gay” which is just a psychological state.

            I stigmatize the behavior and stand up proud so that anyone who might be quietly resisting the sexual inversion will know that it is okay to be homophobic. That it is necessary to keep from succumbing to the inversion.

          • HeilMary1

            So you probably inherited an intersex gay syndrome from your dad, and you brutally bash everyone else just to be sadistic. And what did your gay dad do to you that justifies your bigotry? My STRAIGHT mom disfigured me as her abstinence excuse, and I get the impression your gay dad treated crybaby gender snob bully you very well.

          • HeilMary1

            Maybe they just refuse to be ashamed of how GOD/GODDESS made them: INTERSEXED!

          • fiona64

            Well, I did post the link to several controlled studies that prove the loudest homophobes are closet cases …

          • Jennifer Starr

            Let me give you a tip, Mr. Carey. As a general rule, people who are secure in their own sexuality tend not to obsess over the sexuality of others.

          • tcarey

            That is the classic fallacy which purports then that only those who are sexually insecure oppose sexual deviants. Thus the way that you prove you aren’t sexually insecure it to allow the sexual deviants to have their way in society and promote their perversion to kids.

            Sadly many people have fallen for this fallacy.

          • Arekushieru

            Actually, you are the ones who contribute to perversions such as pedophilia, by blaming the victims. YOU are the ones who contribute to rape culture, by blaming the victims.

          • tcarey

            You have totally bought what the homos are selling.

            You should read the book “after the ball” were the homos talk about how they will need to cast themselves as the victims so that other will come to their aid. They are sociopaths.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the sociopath, bigot.

          • HeilMary1

            Explain how infants choose to be born with hermaphrodite syndromes, bigot!

          • jejune
          • tcarey

            LOL ROFLMAO…

            You dope this doesn’t explain where the INFORMATION came from it just says that DNA and RNA are there… They are just the chalk on the chalk board.. The chalk is not the information it is just used to transmit the information.

            Viruses? Where did the virus get the info from? Duh a virus doesn’t contain the ability to reproduce without using a host. It is more complicated than a regular cell. Thus in the fairytale of evolution it would have had to come along after the first cells. But since it couldn’t have formed spontaeously that shows that delusion for what it is…

            WHERE DID THE INFORMATION COME FROM?

          • jejune

            Just because something *exists* it does not automatically follow that it had to have been *created by an intelligent being* you dipshit.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m sorry you’re not bright enough to comprehend the information given to you. Perhaps a remedial class is needed?

          • tcarey

            No sorry I can but you can’t.

            They are starting with the information already there..

            It is like darwin and origin of the species, he started with species that were already CREATED.

            INFORMATION IS NOT A PRODUCT OF MATTER… Information is SPIRITUAL like IDEAS…. That is a scientific fact…

          • fiona64

            We can explain it to you, but we cannot understand it for you.

          • fiona64

            You know, the University of Georgia did a very fascinating controlled study of homophobes … in which they discovered, to put it bluntly, that the loudest, most vocal homophobes of all are closet cases. And then … the findings were *replicated* in yet another study. You can read all about it here: http://www.ibtimes.com/homophobes-likely-be-closet-gays-study-finds-434958

          • jejune

            You’re the religious one, not us.

          • HeilMary1

            Notice how the troll dismisses science as “fairy tales” whenever science disproves the troll’s OWN fairy tales?

          • jejune

            Yes, my irony meter is breaking.

          • tcarey

            Actually you are religious and you defend your religious views with great vigor.

            You have your own dogma…

          • jejune

            What are my religious views, you twit?

          • Arekushieru

            There sure is. At least, fertilized egg was what my BIOLOGY text book called it. And that’s the SAME text book you antis like to use to claim that a fetus is a human being. So I should TOTES be able to do the SAME. Ignorant ASS.

          • Lynnsey

            Given your posts, I really didn’t expect you to know the word zygote…

            “Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.”

            Sounds like a fertilized egg to me…

          • Ella Warnock

            Typical pro-liar logic, trying to redefine the term fertilization. If the egg isn’t fertilized, then how does conception even occur? He probably also thinks women “get themselves pregnant.” Oh well, at least he’s cheap entertainment. Some people really do exist as a warning to others.

          • cj99.willingness99@gmail.com

            Entertaining well not really but he’s definately dollar store cheap.

          • tcarey

            But it is called a zygote not “a fertilized egg” the whole point of the pro aborts in calling it that is to shape public opinion and dehumanize the newly created human being who only needs time and nutrients to fully develop…

          • fiona64

            We dumb it down for low-information anti-choicers … who claim that using correct medical terminology like zygote, embryo, or fetus is “dehumanizing.”

            You know, dehumanizing — like what you do when you opine that women are too stupid to make their own medical decisions.

          • BB-Mystic

            Oh, for frak’s sake. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. When sperm and egg meet, the egg is FERTILIZED and it starts to divide. It’s not an actual PREGNANCY until it implants in the uterine wall.

            A considerable number of fertilized eggs don’t implant naturally–are you mourning them? I don’t see any funerals over monthly maxi pads.

          • fiona64

            Oh, sweetie. Maybe your mommy didn’t explain it very clearly … but when a spermatozoa meets an ovum? The ovum is ::wait for it:: fertilized. It happens in all viviparous vertebrates.

            I learned that in high school biology.

          • HeilMary1

            Yes, you are conflating brainless blastocysts with sentient humans and reducing pregnant women to pea pods.

          • HeilMary1

            Since zygotes often maim and murder their captive hosts, ALL abortions are self-defense.

          • jejune

            You are a piece of work..

            And you are an ignorant fuckwit who can’t tell the difference between ‘human’ and ‘human being’

          • fiona64

            Not all zygotes are human, no. It is a stage of development for every viviparous vertebrate.

          • tcarey

            So a zygote created by the combining of a male human sperm and female human egg would not be human to you in some cases is that what you are saying?

          • fiona64

            You insisted that all zygotes were human; I merely pointed out that you were incorrect.

            I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

          • fiona64

            Personhood, and its attendant rights, accrue with *birth.* A zygote is not a person.

        • HeilMary1

          Does that apply to intersex gay fetuses too?

    • goatini

      Mr Geisel respected women and was pro-choice. During his lifetime he demanded, and received, an apology from forced-birther types like yourself who co-opted his writings to further their misogynist cause.

      • tcarey

        Misogynist cause ROFLMAO.

        Mr Geisel did not respect women since half of the kids killed were little girls.. He didn’t respect them..

        Forced birthers… That is clever… Must be right after I forced her to be a tramp…

        • goatini

          The fact that you even use the term “tramp” says more about you than you will ever know.

          • tcarey

            Yeah there should be no social stigma for a sexually immoral woman or man should there?

            I am just a sexually insecure person who is repressed, so I fear those who have accept their sexuality and embraced it because I fear some man in the sky will punish me, right?

          • Brian Frang

            Finally, he admits it. Good, now you can go see a shrink about your obvious case of “Judgementalis Assholeitis”. Remember, admitting it is the first step to recovery.

            P.S. Jesus didn’t like people like you who judged others. In fact, he said people like you burn.

          • BB-Mystic

            No, there should not be. Because sex is a normal, healthy part of human life.

            If you don’t believe in sex before marriage, fine. Notice how I’m not trying to force you to have it. You, on the other hand, are trying to force your view, which comes from a God that may not exist and a holy book that may not be true, on me, an adult woman who is perfectly capable of, and also has the right, to make her own decisions.

            You have no right or business slut-shaming me, so to be perfectly frank, fuck off.

          • Ella Warnock

            You’re the one telling the story here, so spin it however you want. Sounds like a load of butthurt to me.

          • BJ Survivor

            Pray tell, when have men ever had any social stigma for being “sexually immoral”? They can commit the most egregious rape, of little girls even, and be high-fived by wastes-of-oxygen such as yourself.

          • tcarey

            Well I don’t know the type of people that you hang around with but those I know don’t accept it as a good thing..

            They had that stigma when actual men were in charge.

          • jejune

            Clearly, you’re not an actual man.

            An ‘actual man’ wouldn’t be stalking women on pro-choice boards and trying to sniff his neighbour’s panties.

          • BJ Survivor

            You live in a fantasy world. You really should get some help.

          • HeilMary1

            Your men in charge hide pedophile priests from the police and Nazi genociders from the Allies.

          • jejune

            What social stigma should there be for sexually immoral men?

          • cj99.willingness99@gmail.com

            Sandpaper underwear comes to mind. Would that be too cruel?

          • expect_resistance

            You are a sad repressed little man.

          • tcarey

            No I have dealt with my fears thus I am free to be me. I no longer repress my disgust for sin and perversion, I used to though out of fear of what other might say. I didn’t want to be left out because of the ignorant bigoted society so I hid what I really felt. But now I no longer repress my disgust and I am free to be me, out an proud.

          • jejune

            You are disgusting. And a pervert.

            Anyone who is so obsessed with female sex lives has serious mental problems.

          • tcarey

            I care about my neighbor and I don’t want to see her get used by some heath scumbag.

            The actual sex part I don’t want to know…

            But I am concerned about what someone like that might do to another, you know murder someone for their own selfish interest.

          • jejune

            What? You are trying to meddle in your neighbour’s medical decisions?

            Sick fuck.

          • tcarey

            Health should have been Heathen… But you should have been bright enough to figure that out.. You have a personality after all…

          • jejune

            Your neighbour’s sex life is none of your business, pantysniffer.

          • jejune

            And actually, no. Because you have not talked about your neighbour. At all.

            This is the first time you brought it up and it was completely lacking any and all context.

            And due to your inability to write a coherent sentence, it’s a wonder anyone here has been able to decipher the shit you write.

          • HeilMary1

            Church Lady was funny, you are plain scary.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m sure your neighbor is capable of running her own life without interference from some crazy old guy who can’t seem to mind his own business.

          • cj99.willingness99@gmail.com

            Most of them are insanely crazy old white men. I’m a causcasian male myself but hopefully NOT crazy!

          • expect_resistance

            So your protecting with world from heathens. Do you hear voices inside your head telling you what to do? How about minding your own business.

          • jejune

            This halfwit is mentally and emotionally disabled.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Kind of gathered that from reading his past posts. Guy is definitely not playing with a full deck.

          • expect_resistance

            I think you need more therapy. What you’ve done so far hasn’t worked.

          • Ella Warnock

            I, my, I, me, I, my, I, I, I, I, my,I, me.

            All about your neighbor, huh?

            Okay.

        • colleen

          “Forced birthers… That is clever… Must be right after I forced her to be a tramp…

          typical Republican
          glad to know that yoi and your tiny penis don’t have issues with women.

        • fiona64

          Forced birthers… That is clever… Must be right after I forced her to be a tramp…

          Yep, misogynist.

          You presume that all post-abortive women are 20-something party girls, eh? Well, if you looked at some ::gasp:: facts, you would learn that nearly two-thirds of women seeking abortions are a) married and b) already have two or more children.

          But, that would wreck your fabulous opportunities for slut-shaming … which only proves that it has nothing to do with caring about fetii and everything to do with controlling women.

        • BJ Survivor

          Theodore Geisel is more commonly known as Dr. Seuss, writer of very popular children’s books. Gosnell is the name of the monster that performed illegal abortions on desperate, poor women.

          • tcarey

            Yeah I know that, did you read the conversations or just pick a random post to comment on?

    • colleen

      seriously, go fuck yourself. a zygote is not a small person. a woman IS a person, not breeding livestock for the American Taliban.

  • Brian Frang

    Here’s a little tidbit:
    I know this guy, let’s say his name is… Frian Brang.
    Frian was conceived little more than 3 months after his mother received an abortion. The aborted fetus likely had a different father, meaning that is his mother had not had that abortion, Frian would not have been born.

    So, tell me, why do you think it’s better that Frian had never gotten a chance at life

    • Lynnsey

      Frian’s aborted sibling might have cured CANCER!!!!111!!!!! Or something…

      Because precious aborted fetuses could never have been the next Stalin or Wal-mart cashier, amirite?

      • Brian Frang

        While I appreciate the sarcastic remark (I presume) in support of my post, I worry that some republican will take you seriously.

        For the record, you can’t cure cancer. “Cancer” is a blanket term for a number of different diseases with wildly different causes. You might be able to cure individual types, but there’ll never be a one-size-fits-all cure.

        Ok, I’m done being pedantic.

        • Lynnsey

          I was being sarcastic. This is one of the common arguments from these nutters…”that fetus could have been…insert amazing thing, but never awful thing or average thing!” It’s one of my favorite fallacies.

          • Brian Frang

            Like I said, I figured you were being sarcastic. I’m just waiting for a conservitard to take you literally.

            Besides, what if Frian DID go on to cure AIDS or something. Would they STILL think that he shouldn’t have been born, because he owes his life to an abortion?

            Actually, there’s an interesting moral dilemma. A woman becomes pregnant, and somehow sees two possible futures, in the first, she has a kid who grows up to be the next hitler (guaranteed, can’t be changed), but if she has an abortion, the kid she gets pregnant with next cures cancer.

            I wonder what the conservatives would answer….

          • jejune

            Your question is too nuanced for most forced-birthers. The typical response would just be ‘it’s wrong to kill an unborn child for any reason!!’

            The reasoning is this: ‘once the fuse is lit, it is wrong to snuff it out’

          • Brian Frang

            Hey, it’s not my fault they’re too stupid to handle a little moral dilemma.

          • jejune

            I have been ‘talking’ to one over the last couple of days who is arguing that Hitler is just as valuable as Einstein, or anyone else, because HE IS HUMAN.

          • Ella Warnock

            They’ve pretty much boxed themselves into a corner with the every life is valuable meme. At this point they can’t even admit that the Hitlers and Pol Pots of the world should have never existed. They’re their own worst enemies in that way.

          • Brian Frang

            To be honest, I’m not sure which person you’re referring to, but I don’t like either side that first argument seems to be taking. Sorry, but both that wladyslaw (or whatever) and that Kodie person seem to be completely out of their minds.

          • jejune

            Yeah, apparently wladyslaw has a history of presenting incoherent arguments, and Kodie is rather peeved with him over that.

          • Brian Frang

            Yeah, ok, definitely not getting into that one. Quite frankly, wladyslaw is right, there’s a big fucking difference between fetuses at different stages, that’s why late term abortions are illegal in most states, and Kodies implication that a woman should be allowed to wait until 8 months into her pregnancy to terminate it makes me sick. On the other hand, I don’t like wladyslaw, either, because he/she/it misses the primary point: It doesn’t matter if you don’t like abortion, it’s not your business.

          • jejune

            Actually, wladyslaw is saying that a zygote is just as much a person as an 8 month..or a 40 year old.

            I have been talking to Kodie a bit more and no, she isn’t pro-infanticide from what I have read.

            I only brought it up because wladyslaw has been arguing that Hitler has the same value as, say, Martin Luther King, because Hitler and MLK were both born human.

          • Brian Frang

            Yeah, I got that part. It was disturbing me, that’s why I didn’t want to go there. What had caught my eye was Kodie’s response to this little gem “Bob’s abortion rights spectrum argument is basically that there is a profound difference between a one day old zygote and a 24 week old fetus, and 9 month fetus (baby) and that it is a different matter to kill a zygote than a 24 week fetus.” Now, obviously that isn’t wladyslaws personal belief (which is just freaking weird), but Kodie’s response…. at best it could have been worded better, because to me it looked like she was saying that a woman should be perfectly allowed to have an abortion at 8 months, because the baby hasn’t been born, yet.

          • jejune

            I’ll have someone else ask your question, because it is a good question.

            I think I know how wladyslaw will react, however. Still worth a try.

            I can’t ask it because he won’t talk to me now. I told him that his arguments were silly, and he didn’t like that!

          • Brian Frang

            Meh, I asked it, with a little more of a straightforward explanation.

          • cj99.willingness99@gmail.com

            why any1 would value hitler should immediately raise a huge red flag. I’m not certain of many things but 1 of them is that hitler is on the recieving end of a lot of bad karma.

          • jejune

            Yeah, he said that Hitler: ‘didn’t lead a good life, however, he has value as a human being’

          • HeilMary1

            I love stumping them with the 46 known intersex syndromes. They never give me straight answers.

          • BJ Survivor

            I love stumping them with the 46 known intersex syndromes. They never give me straight answers.

            Ooh, I haven’t seen this. Can you provide a link or references that I can look up?

          • HeilMary1

            My links don’t post here, but google intersex syndromes, chimerism and microchimerism. Most people aren’t quite the pure gender they think they are. Both an X and a Y sperm can fertilize one egg, resulting in XXY Klinefelter Syndrome males who are often gay.

          • HeilMary1

            A better dilemma might be medical tests or ultrasounds that reveal the fetus to be intersexed gay. Fetal idolaters hate it when their beloved blobs exhibit prenatal gender bending as opposed to post natal “chosen life styles of sin”.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            I would say that if your Mom had a fever or or your father hiccuped, someone else would have been born besides you. It didn’t take that previous abortion for you to be here. Any little different change in their lives would have affected which or their gametes met.

          • Brian Frang

            Um… thanks for making my point for me, even though you were TRYING to prove me wrong. Yes, ANY little change could have changed ME, but it’s a simple fact that the previous kid did NOT have my DNA (or the same father), therefore would not have been me. Therefore, without that abortion, it would not have been me. Your argument is not only invalid, but actually proves me right.

      • HeilMary1

        Frian’s pre-sib also could have grown up to be a pedophile priest.

        • Michaela Dasteel

          I never liked the argument about what kind of hero the aborted child could possibly have been. Shouldn’t matter what the child contributes later in life. The child has present value unrelated to what good or evil he might do in the future. Even Hitler, as an innocent child (pre and post natal) had value. When he turned criminal, he was still loved by God, even though Hitler refused that love which would have turned him around.

          I think bringing God into this is the only way I can talk about the value of human life (according to the Bible, we are made in the image and likeness of God). Also, our dear Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence talked about our rights coming trom the Creator.

          Even the sinners (pedophile priest, zombie banker, abortionists, etc) are loved by God and can be changed by His grace if they accept it. There’s no way to see what kind of person your child will become because of free will. So the philosophical game of deciding who has value and who doesn’t isn’t one I can play.

          • BB-Mystic

            The only thing is, when you bring God into it, you immediately invalidate your argument….because there is no concrete proof that God exists.

            If you believe in God, and you have faith…fine. More power to you. But you must realize that there is no scientific proof of his/her/its existence, and a country cannot be run on the doctrines of a possibly non-existent God.

            Whether or not this country was founded as a Christian nation (and there’s a great deal of legitimate argument on that score) it is not one now. This is a secular country, as it should be. Any religion and/or holy book has no place in our government. Any doctrine drawn from one’s interpretation of, say, the Bible, and codified into law (and in this case, I’m talking about a law restricting a woman’s right to do as she wishes with her own body) has no place in our government.

            (And if you don’t think anti-choice laws aren’t, in the end, drawn from the Bible, you should watch the stream of Wendy Davis’ filibuster against that terrible Texas law. I did. Close to the end, a Texas senator got up and pontificated for a good ten minutes on how the Bible says this and that about human life, and what about the baby, and other obviously religion-based nonsense. It was disgraceful, and absolutely did not belong in a legislative body.)

            The problem is, you’re trying to restrict other people’s choices based on your own religious beliefs. Religion, as I’ve stated many times, is only for those who choose to believe in it, not the general population. You have no business telling other women they cannot have an abortion because of the love of a possibly non-existent God, and we will not stand for it.

          • fiona64

            Um, sweetie? The secular deists’ Creator was not the Christian god.

            And thanks for admitting that this is all about you trying to shove your personal Biblical worldview on to women.

            You don’t make a very good fake woman, Mike.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            OK . . . Fred. What God were the “secular deists” trying to shove down our necks? Who was their Creator who endowed us with our rights to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness? They wanted to make sure that we didn’t think those rights came from the state, but from the Creator. What creator?

            And your worldview? You aren’t trying to shove your personal worldview that human beings have no rights until birth? That’s a subjective evaluation – based on what? Embryological texts define the beginning of an individual, self-organizing human being’s life at fertilization. Where do your personal values come from? The State, because of Roe? The State’s constitution says they come from the author of creation.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Last time I checked, the United States was not a theocracy. Not a Christian one and definitely not a Catholic one.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            No, it’s not a theocracy, but our founding documents cited the Creator as the source of our inalienable rights, not the State.

          • fiona64

            The Declaration is not the basis for law in this country. It is a diplomatic kiss-off letter to George III.

            Like I said, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And incidentally, which state’s constitution are we talking about? Colorado? Thomas Jefferson’s words were in the Declaration of Independence, which is an historical but not legally enforceable document, and it is not a part of the US Constitution.

          • jejune

            Hi Mike.

          • fiona64

            I guess you missed a few days of history class if you think that the secular Deists believed in a Christian god. In fact, you obviously have never read the Treaty of Tripoli, which states *specifically* in Article 11 that the United States is “in no way founded upon the Christian religion.” I am glad to rectify these two apparent gaps in your education: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/deism.htm and http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html will be of tremendous assistance to your continued comprehension.

            As for the rest of your screed, trying to prove that an embryo is a person, well … I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. Personhood is a legal concept. If you are not clear what that means, I suggest you revisit another document with which you are apparently unfamiliar: the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment makes very plain that rights are afforded to those who are *born.* http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv is your source.

            You’re welcome.

  • jejune

    I ignore RHRC for a weekend and I come back to see that the site has been inundated with fuckwit trolls!

    -formerly Valde

  • jejune

    After WW2 Ireland took in CATHOLIC Nazis who were running from punishment, but they refused to let Jewish refugees – including children – into the country.

    • Michaela Dasteel

      Similar thing happened in the US, didn’t it?

  • BJ Survivor

    Plutonium isotopes are also very natural, yet I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near them, either.

    • Michaela Dasteel

      So unborn children are like plutonium!

      • BJ Survivor

        Unwanted/untenable pregnancies are like plutonium.

  • BB-Mystic

    Aw, gee. Dougie went through and deleted all his comments.

    Typical cowardly asshat. Will dish it out but can’t take it.

    • Ella Warnock

      Wouldn’t you just want him watching your back as a fellow soldier. He’d cut and run if somebody threw a rock at him.

    • fiona64

      Actually, a moderator did it. If you delete your own posts in Disqus (like Carl Seaton did) they just show up as “guest.”

      • jejune

        Is it just me, or do pro-life women – even *if* they are not in favour of banning abortion for pragmatic reasons – appear to be snobbish to you?

        The two that I have come across lately (VID and Christine) just seem so intent on taking a condescending, moralizing tone.

        “I don’t want to ban abortion because it wouldn’t be practical, however, women who choose to have sex and then kill a baby are immoral sluts, and besides, a fetus is a human being and you’re an idiot if you believe otherwise. Cuz I know fetal development and you don’t ! “

        • fiona64

          Actually, they appear to be ridiculously proud of their *ignorance.* The last two, who considered themselves quite clever, were shut down pretty quickly with facts.

          I can condescend with the best of ‘em, obviously. I don’t think they’re snobbish; I think that they think they’re morally superior, which is really not the same thing, IMO.

          • jejune

            Yeah, good point, about snobbish vs. morally superior.

            I left out the word ‘insulting’, and I think that this is where the moral superiority comes in.

            It makes me sad that you cannot condescend to the best of your abilities on LJF:(

          • fiona64

            Well, it is Libby’s sandbox …

          • HeilMary1

            These Church Ladies are conceited snobs and probably get their unjustified conceit from paperback romances like my condescending mom and sister did. Their novels always featured natural beauty virgins competing against undeserving heavily-made-up “sluts” for the same hunk. My frumpy mom and sister couldn’t feel like the victorious virgin heroines showing off their engagement and wedding rings unless thinner but scalded ringless me was also in the room being shamed by their sanctimonious “sexiness”. I got the same put downs from biddies at the USCCB, including Helen Alvare.

          • Michaela Dasteel

            What did you want with Helen Alvare and the USCCB?

  • Michaela Dasteel

    I love these civil discussions. Must be taking cues from your great leader!

  • Michaela Dasteel

    So children are like cancer and lightening.

    • fiona64

      Unwanted pregnancies are. A pregnancy is not a child.

  • Michaela Dasteel

    They didn’t remove life support from her in terms of making her heart beat or breathing for her. They starved and dyhydrated her to death.

    • BB-Mystic

      Once again, you’re deliberately ignoring reality because of your beliefs. There was no “her” to starve. Her brain was gone. Her mind and personality had vanished. They simply removed the feeding tube that had been keeping her body alive and allowed it to die.

  • Michaela Dasteel

    Don’t worry, I’m not a man. Hard for you to believe, but there are women who don’t think your brand of feminism speaks for us. And have you noticed that I’ve not called one name?

    • BJ Survivor

      Oh yeah, telling us we’re sexual deviants and murdeerrs, that’s not at all name-calling. /eyeroll

      Maybe if you stopped with the panty-sniffing and barging into the private decisions of others, you might not get so much pushback.

  • Michaela Dasteel

    I was accused of not answering challenges so I decided to spend a bunch of hours finishing what I started.
    I don’t trust the medical profession when they say that abortion is needed to save a woman’s life. Don’t trust them. I think they are worried about malpractice. I practically know it.

    How can I protect someone from rape unless I;m right there to shoot the guy? Can’t do anything after.

  • Michaela Dasteel

    Have you read the biography of Dietrich Bonhoffer? It describes how the Nazi’s corrupted the Lutheran Church. He was sent to a concentraton camp for plotting to kiil Hitler.

  • BJ Survivor

    But only for those with vaginas and uteruses, of course. And that’s totes compatible with feminism.