Abortion Is Not Like Slavery, So Stop Comparing the Two


Anti-choice comparisons between slavery and abortion are nothing new. It is a canard so common that whenever I see it, my eye starts to twitch, because it is nonsense, devoid of fact and logic, stripping women of agency and co-opting this country’s brutal racial history to score a political point against ideological foes.

Abortion is not slavery, nor is it comparable to slavery. An abortion is a medical procedure that results in the termination of a pregnancy. People who seek abortions do so for myriad reasons: because a wanted pregnancy presents a danger to the health of the pregnant person, or simply because a person has decided, as is her right, when and whether to have children. Abortion, quite simply, allows women the freedom to live full and free lives and to retain control over their bodies.

Slavery, on the other hand, was the centuries-long system under which Black men and women were treated not as human beings, with attendant freedom and liberty, but as chattel—human property owned by other humans, stripped of their freedom and cruelly forced to work under inhumane conditions. During slavery, Black human beings were murdered, raped, and treated like animals simply for the economic benefit of white aristocracy and to further white supremacy.

Comparisons between abortion and slavery are popular among the anti-choice crowd because most people agree that slavery is morally wrong. If anti-choice forces can equate slavery and abortion, and draw parallels between an “unborn” person and an enslaved person, then surely no morally righteous person could continue to defend abortion as a medical procedure that enables women to retain some modicum of control over the physical selves and their economic realities.

The comparisons are often tailored for the Black community and lobbed at Black women by the same forces who erect billboards in Black communities that scream “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb,” blissfully ignorant of the bitter irony of feigning concern for Black children even as they appropriate images of Black girls to spread their anti-choice propagandistic messages, and wage war against social programs—public assistance, food benefits, health care, sex education, fair pay—that would permit Black women to not only choose motherhood, but to raise healthy children.

These messages are tailored for Black women in an effort to exploit Black history and to shame Black women into signing on to the anti-abortion crusade. Our ancestors suffered under the yoke of slavery, so we understand, don’t we? We understand how horrible it is to deny freedom to the innocent. Surely we would agree that abortion is worse than slavery, right? After all, under slavery, we were permitted to live. Abortion denies innocent lives even a single breath, they argue.

Such arguments are the bread and butter of the rabid anti-choice crowd—who ignore any discussion of the hostile birthing environment that exists for women of color and low-income women to this day. Moreover, such arguments ignore the horror that slavery was for Black people, and the unique ways in which Black women in particular suffered under slavery.

Among the less rabid anti-choice crowd, attempts to elide the differences between abortion and slavery lead to commentary like that from federal Judge Lee Yeakel who, in his recent opinion striking down the admitting privileges provision of Texas’ HB 2 as unconstitutional, and upholding the medication abortion restrictions as constitutional, essentially claimed that abortion is a divisive issue about which reasonable people could disagree. Almost as if he were apologizing to the anti-choice forces that worked so hard to ram HB 2 through the Texas legislature, he wrote (emphasis added):

Today there is no issue that divides the people of this country more than abortion. It is the most divisive issue to face this country since slavery. When compared with the intensity, emotion, and depth of feeling expressed with regard to abortion, the recent arguments on affordable healthcare, increasing the debt ceiling, and closing the government retreat to near oblivion. Sincere and caring persons of good will are found on both sides of the issue, but neither side will ever change the position of the other.

We are talking about the same slavery, right? The slavery that saw millions of Africans snatched from their homes and crammed by the hundreds onto slave ships, where many of them died, either due to unsanitary conditions, brutal beatings and assault by slavers, or by throwing themselves overboard to avoid the fate that awaited them in the United States? The slavery that saw human beings beaten into submission so that by the time they reached the shores of this country, the prospect of forced labor in the hot sun seemed like paradise compared to the conditions they suffered during the trans-Atlantic slave trade, when they were shipped like animals? The slavery that saw families ripped apart—mothers taken from sons and husbands taken from wives? The slavery that saw Black female slaves exploited as breeding mares and sexual objects ripe for rape? The slavery that made any children born to a Black woman automatically the property of whomever owned that woman?

The slavery under which, as Loretta Ross pointed out in her article “African-American Women and Abortion: A Neglected History” (referencing a 1989 brochure published by African American Women for Reproductive Freedom), “Somebody owned our flesh, and decided if and when and with whom and how our bodies were to be used. Somebody said that Black women could be raped, held in concubinage, forced to bear children year in and year out, but often not raise them.”

That is the slavery supported by “sincere and caring persons of good will”?

No.

To put it bluntly, Black women weren’t seen as human, and there certainly were no “sincere and caring individuals” on the side of slavery who gave a moment’s thought to the ways in which Black women were systematically stripped of their reproductive rights and their humanity. Black women were simply pawns in a cruel game, the goal of which was to increase the economic viability of this nascent country, at least until the point that fear of Black mass reproduction led to forced mass sterilization when slavery ended.

I understand what Judge Yeakel was trying to do—or at least I think I do. He was trying to soothe anti-choice anger as he ruled unconstitutional the latest anti-choice effort to squeeze abortion access out of existence, so that even if Roe v. Wade is never overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, it won’t matter; it will be so impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion that the right to abortion will be meaningless.

I get it. But that doesn’t make Judge Yeakel’s commentary any better than that of the “abortion is just like slavery” crowd. His characterization of slavery, well-meaning though it may be—is based on a romanticized notion of slavery that simply never existed. In Judge Yeakel’s hagiographic version of slavery, well-meaning white folks were to be found on both sides of the issue. This is simply not true. Such comments attempt to absolve white people, some of whom call themselves good Christians, of the horrible deeds that were done in the name of Christianity, and lead to ahistorical claims that credit Christianity and Christians with the downfall of slavery without ever mentioning that Christianity was used to promulgate slavery and to oppose those who wished to end it.

The fact of the matter is slavery was not all that divisive an issue during the period leading up to the Civil War. The number of people who outwardly opposed slavery were few and far between, and abolitionists were not popular in antebellum America. And those who did sign on to the abolitionist cause usually had already succumbed to the racism that slavery fomented, believing that Black abolitionists were inferior to white abolitionists, thus silencing the voices of Black abolitionists in favor of white ones.

In Texas, Judge Yeakel’s home state, abolitionism was wildly unpopular. According to the Texas State Historical Association, only a few people dared criticize the institution of slavery, and even fewer were outright abolitionists. Texas was as much a Southern pro-slavery state as any other Southern state at the time. The revised version of slavery urged by Judge Yeakel, therefore, is a vulgar recasting of history, as is “abortion is like slavery” rhetoric.

What I find most troubling about this rhetoric is the profound ways in which it erases the history and experiences of Black women who, as slaves, sat at the intersection of abortion and slavery. During slavery, Black female slaves used contraceptive and abortion methods learned in their native land to resist slavery—to avoid bringing into the world children who would suffer under the yoke of oppression with no chance of living a free and healthy life, and to deprive their masters of property born from their own bodies.

If abortion is like slavery—indeed, if abortion is the most divisive issue since slavery—then what of the women who suffered under slavery? What of the women who performed self-abortions in order to resist slavery? They cease to exist.

The point is this: Abortion is not like slavery. And while it is true that abortion is a divisive issue, it is incumbent upon legislators, politicians, and judges to make that argument without leveraging slavery to do so.

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

Follow Imani Gandy on twitter: @AngryBlackLady

  • Dez

    Great article. There is no comparison of abortion to slavery. Anti-choice groups have no shame.

    • Ella Warnock

      And just why is it that they have to co-opt others’ tragedies to prop up their position? If it’s strong, it’ll stand on its own.

    • Charbel El-chaar

      People who commits abortion should be a shame

      The Truth is the slaves were called property of their owner
      The unborn are called property of their mother

      Slaves have no rights – the unborn have no right
      The law then considered Slaves are human being – the present law considers the unborn are human being

      • Jennifer Starr

        Your LinkedIn page says that you have a ‘professional working proficiency’ of English. I suggest you change it. It’s clear from your posts here that your English skills are abysmal.

        • Charbel El-chaar

          Jennifer
          I suggest when you wake up in morning to wash your face just remember this there is another woman like you washes her tears from abortion everyday

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, and I strongly suggest that you fuck off, as I do not possess the patience today to deal with a sanctimonious little w@nker like yourself. All right?

          • Charbel El-chaar

            God love you and bless you Jennifer

          • Jennifer Starr

            Get bent.

          • dance commander

            Go die in a fire.

          • P. McCoy

            I’ll be thanking God for you too, of course when you’re locked in solitary confinement in a Federal Prison for being a terrorist .

          • dance commander

            I suggest you shove a pineapple up your ass.

          • HeilMary1

            And millions more who are relieved they had safe abortions!

      • Charbel El-chaar

        Sorry The law then considered Slaves are Not human being – the present law considers the unborn are human being

        • fiona64

          The law is concerned with *persons,* which are born entities.

          Do try to keep up.

      • dance commander

        you’re a fucking moronic retarded piece of shit

      • klhayes

        Slavery considered Blacks as property and there were constant attempts to make them SUB-HUMAN.

      • Arekushieru

        YOU want to make WOMEN property of the FETUSES. OOPS.

      • Dez

        Do not tell me about slavery. I know the history of my ancestors and the horrors that was done to them. To compare it to abortion shows how depraved and evil a person you are.

  • dance commander

    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/22/originalist-argument-abortion-rights-compulsory-childbearing-during-antebellum-sl/

    As Professor Roberts explains, “[w]e often envision the hallmark of
    slavery’s inhumanity as the slave picking cotton under the overseer’s
    lash.” However, “[a]s much as slaves’ forced labor, whites’ control of
    slave women’s wombs perpetrated many of slavery’s greatest atrocities.”
    The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits treating human beings as they were
    treated under antebellum slavery. The denial of reproductive autonomy is
    a brutal and under-recognized aspect of that treatment.

  • sgla

    How do you reconcile the fact that legalized slavery and legalized abortion both depend on the legal denial of personhood to a human being?

    • Arekushieru

      How do you reconcile the fact that legalized slavery and illegal abortion both depend on the LEGAL denial of personhood to WOMEN???

      How do you reconcile the fact that legalized slavery and illegal abortion BOTH depend on the LEGAL abrogation of rights to black people and women???

      You antis are SO ignorant.

    • dance commander

      The slave women who aborted their forced pregnancies – do you consider them to be as evil as the slaveowners who routinely beat and raped them? Who traded them like livestock?

      Well?

    • Arakiba

      A fetus so underdeveloped that it couldn’t survive outside the womb is not a human being. It is not a person. Is an acorn an oak tree?

    • colleen

      Pretty easily. I do not believe that a zygote is a ‘person’. Indeed a zygote has never BEEN a ‘person’ in a legal sense.The notion that a z/b/e/f is a ‘person’ is a religious belief from assholes who don’t believe that actual born persons are deserving of healthcare or food. How do you reconcile inventing a class of ‘persons’ out of thin air and hatred of women and then claiming that the zygote’s invented ‘person hood’ destroys the basic human rights of the woman in whose body said zygote resides?

    • fiona64

      You mean, the way you want to deny it to the only person in the equation: the woman?

    • fiona64

      You mean, the way you want to deny it to the only person in the equation: the woman?

    • sgla

      All of these follow-up comments lead back to the same point. Legal slavery was based on the belief that some human beings are not persons. Legal abortion is similarly based on the belief that a fetus is not a human being therefore not a person. Colleen affirms that she “believes” a zygote is not a person. Belief should not be part of the discussion. Is a slave a human being and therefore a person? Yes, there are many ways to prove that. Is a fetus a human being? Science, not belief, should be the criteria to answer that question. What is the scientific proof that a fetus is not a human being? Often the argument proposed is independence. This isn’t a proof, just a reflection of reality. A human being who depends on another human being, according to this argument, is not a person. Shouldn’t the fact that one human being is dependent on another make that individual more vulnerable and therefore more in need of our protection?

      • HeilMary1

        You mother-killing fetal idolaters keep ignoring that ALL abortions are medical self-defense against deadly, disfiguring and bankrupting pregnancies. No matter how hot those fetuses look to pedophile priests and and their useful fool breeders, those fetuses are still ticking time bombs of cancer, sepsis and multiple organ failures.

      • L-dan

        No, it all wraps around to bodily autonomy, not a belief in personhood. Slavery is pretty much the ultimate in negation of bodily autonomy as one’s body is not considered ones own for any reason. That body belonged to a master, to be beaten, worked, and bred as they saw fit.

        Abortion hinges upon the bodily autonomy of the pregnant person. Requiring them to act as life support for another organism against their will is negating their bodily autonomy. You do not get to demand my kidney, even if it’s a match for you and you need a transplant. I get to decide if I am going to risk my life and health to build a new person. Not you.

        Were the slaves who aborted perpetuating slavery upon the fetuses their masters demanded that they carry? How exactly do you reconcile those cases?

        We ordinarily have due process for stripping people of certain elements of bodily autonomy when they have committed crimes, and even then there’s a lot of law involved in limiting that to what is necessary (the fact that the police state often ignores both the letter and spirit of those laws is a whole different mess). The simple existence of a fetus is not enough to strip anyone of their rights in such a fashion.

      • dance commander

        http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=3C6vRvw0LkCgHM&tbnid=B7TDPwKndAWzKM:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbiologypop.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2For-zygote-stage-through.jpg&ei=1tmDUs2uGYHv2QXFjoGwBg&psig=AFQjCNH0-hIvo1Rlu-fmWHZAsmYp0oDgOA&ust=1384459094493580

        A single cell is not a person you ignorant fucktard.

        What is the scientific proof that a fetus is not a human being?

        People are sentient. Fetii are not.

        A human being who depends on another human being, according to this argument, is not a person

        Your right to life ends where another person’s bodily rights begin.

        You sound like the one who is pro-slavery. Treating women as incubators, not people.

      • dance commander

        “Were the slaves who aborted perpetuating slavery upon the fetuses their
        masters demanded that they carry? How exactly do you reconcile those
        cases?”

        answer that

      • sgla

        Slavery was eradicated by implementing in law the recognition that all human beings are equal, reversing a law that had previously regarded some human beings as non-persons. Abortion laws have as their foundation a similar denial of human rights recognition for human fetuses by regarding these human beings as non-persons. Abortion and slavery share the similarity that each is based in law on the denial of human rights to some human beings. I remain unconvinced that abortion is not like slavery.

        • dance commander

          If you want a fetus to be treated as a person and since NO LIVING PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO ENSLAVE ANOTHER PERSON AS BIOLOGICAL LIFE SUPPORT then the fetus does not have a right to the woman’s body and can be removed.

          On the basis of Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude to protect individual liberty and equality, that the government may not prohibit abortion. To do so would be to require physical service from a woman for the benefit of a fetus.

      • fiona64

        Is a fetus a human being? Science, not belief, should be the criteria
        to answer that question. What is the scientific proof that a fetus is
        not a human being?

        Two things.

        First, when you are discussing science, you don’t set out to prove what something is *not.* That’s pretty much impossible.

        Second, personhood is a *legal* concept. It requires ::wait for it:: birth.

        A fetus is not a person.

    • goatini

      Rights accrue to citizens AT BIRTH.

  • Charbel El-chaar

    it is the same so stop denying is yours the same

    • Jennifer Starr

      No, it isn’t the same. And we’re not denying.

      • Charbel El-chaar

        The Truth is the slaves were called property of their owner
        The unborn are called property of their mother

        Slaves have rights the unborn have no right
        Slaves are human being the unborn are human being

        • Jennifer Starr

          Slaves were not directly inside the bodies of another and directly affecting their health and life.

          • Charbel El-chaar

            the right to life Inside or outside the mother remains a right to life
            Anti life groups have no sense on human compassion toward the unborn and the mother
            Abortion hurts a woman and kills a baby, there we have two victims not only one

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well, when you get pregnant, Charbel, then you get to decide what to do with your pregnancy. Until then, leave that decision up to the woman who is actually pregnant.

          • HeilMary1

            He’s never tolerate water melon sized fetuses shredding his penis!

          • dance commander

            You have zero compassion for women.

          • fiona64

            There is no “right to life” for a fetus. There is, however, the right to liberty and bodily autonomy for the pregnant woman.

            You seek to enslave her when you assign a “right to life” to a fetus.

          • HeilMary1

            Childbirth shreds lady parts so grossly that 50% of husbands cheat on and divorce their brood mares. Pregnancy still murders 20% of mothers in many nations by causing multiple organ failures, strokes, autoimmune diseases, cancers and sepsis limb amputations.

          • dance commander

            This is what forced pregnancy does to a woman

            You are pro woman torture you despicable piece of shit

            http://img.medscape.com/fullsize/migrated/507/500/jmwh507500.fig2.jpg

          • Charbel El-chaar

            abortion is not slavery I agree but there is a great link in morality and human right issues .
            Please watch the movie Amazing Grace about slavery and William Wilberforce
            half of the slaves died on the ships
            that means death is one of the common link

          • Jennifer Starr

            People die in lots of things–are you going to call those things slavery as well?

          • dance commander

            Human rights = the right not to be used as an incubator by a fetus that kills and maims

          • fiona64

            You’re right: that film is brilliant.

            It also has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion — which was known and practiced commonly durint Wilberforce’s time.

          • HeilMary1

            Google stinky childbirth fistulas that only became fixable 150 years ago after grisly experiments on slave brood mares by Dr. Marion Sims.

        • dance commander

          The slave women who aborted
          their forced pregnancies – do you consider them to be as evil as the
          slaveowners who routinely beat and raped them? Who traded them like
          livestock?

          Well?
          Do you consider slave women who aborted to be more serious criminals than the slaveowners who beat and raped them?

        • colleen

          It’s unfortunate that your ‘moral’ qualms would leave women with no rights. But, then, that’s the point now, isn’t it.

          • Charbel El-chaar

            I disagree to give a women right to hurt themselves and kill their babies
            When we let government gives right to kill any groups, all our lives will be in danger

          • Jennifer Starr

            You can ‘disagree to give’ all you like, Charry baby. But since someone else’s pregnancy is not your concern, it doesn’t really matter.

          • colleen

            The notion that women are hurt by abortion is a crock of self justifying crap.What you’re doing i9s imposing disgusting and deeply offensive religious beliefs on women who want nothing to do with you or your religion.

          • dance commander

            Abortion doesn’t hurt women. It helps them be free of something that can kill and maim them.

            Why do you ignore this fact?

          • fiona64

            If you know of anyone who is killing babies, contact the police! Infanticide is a crime.

          • HeilMary1

            Fetuses have grossly maimed and murdered billions of women throughout history and I’m sure you’d divorce any brood mare disfigured and disabled by pregnancy. You’re probably a pedophile.

        • L-dan

          So it’s also wrong to end life support for the brain dead? Or, as in Texas, those who don’t have the funds to pay for it whether or not there’s a chance they might recover?

          Human beings do not have the right to expect other human beings to act as life support machines and incubators for their benefit without a choice in the matter.

        • fiona64

          Rights are afforded to *persons,* who are born entities.

          You advocate enslavement of women.

          • Charbel El-chaar

            The pain and hurts guilts from abortion enslave women you smarty fiona64

          • dance commander

            You’re a moron.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You want to try that word salad again in English, Charred?

          • dance commander

            I dig it.

            I wish that I was fiona’s opponent, and not on the same side

            Then I could be like:

            “YOU SMARTY FIONA64!!!ELVENTY!!”

            :(((((

          • fiona64

            The vast majority of women feel nothing but *relief* after an abortion. Just one of many, many sources:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507322.html

            Quote: Rigorous U.S. scientific studies have not substantiated the claim that abortion, compared with its alternatives, causes an increased incidence of mental health problems. The same conclusion was reached in 2008 by an American Psychological Association task force, which I chaired, as well as by an independent team of scholars at Johns Hopkins University. As
            recently as September, Oregon State University researchers announced the results of a national study showing that teenagers who have an abortion are no more likely to become depressed or to have low self-esteem one year or five years later, compared with their peers who deliver.

            Just a little pro-tip: you’ll look a lot less like a dumbass if you actually do some research.

            I am curious, though; where is your concern for the misery of post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis? Unlike your fake “post-abortion syndrome,” those are real conditions.

            OTOH, it is very easy for you to be an anti-choice male. After all, it’s never your life and limb at risk due to pregnancy, is it? You can just wave your stupid hand and demand that women do all kinds of things that will never affect you.

        • fiona64

          Rights are afforded to *persons,* who are born entities.

          You advocate enslavement of women.

        • dance commander

          Are you muslim? Is this why you hate women so much?

          • fiona64

            Let’s be fair, now. Not all Muslims are misogynist any more than all Christians are.

          • dance commander

            True. I was just reading the person’s history.

            Ze hates the RCC, because the RCC isn’t pro-life enough. Ze also hates women and contraception apparently.

            Weird shit.

          • L-dan

            The RCC, which allows women to die rather than abort their septic fetuses isn’t pro-life enough? I mean, I’d argue that this isn’t a terribly pro-life position myself, since everyone dies, but I sort of doubt that’s where they’re coming from.

          • dance commander

            True. I was just reading the person’s history.

            Ze hates the RCC, because the RCC isn’t pro-life enough. Ze also hates women and contraception apparently.

            Weird shit.

          • fiona64

            Let’s be fair, now. Not all Muslims are misogynist any more than all Christians are.

          • Charbel El-chaar

            I love women you smarty, that is why I want to them abortion hurts them and kills children, don’t divert the issue what is religion got to do with killing children by abortion?

            The issue is abortion destroys women and enslave them with guilt

            Why do you hate Muslim?
            search on google the image and name Saint Charbel

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, so you think you’re a Saint now. Rather egotistical, though that’s hardly surprising. There was another ‘pro-life’ poster in here not too long ago who was fond of comparing himself to Christ. Delusion abounds.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah you love women, which is why you want to treat them like livestock and force them into pregnancy after pregnancy until their bodies wear out and they die. Because you love them so much. Do me a fucking favor and spare all of us your ‘love’, please.

          • CJ99

            What charbel describes is love is a little to close to what nambla describes as being love.

          • fiona64

            If you know of anyone who is killing children, contact your local law enforcement authority; infanticide is a crime.

            Women are not “enslaved by guilt” after abortion … unless, of course, you take into account the masturbatory fantasies of the anti-choice. You all obviously get off on the idea of women being miserable.

          • Charbel El-chaar

            When is the last time you saw a woman after abortion? I did see many hardly can walk weeping sad for their lost.
            For being an a victim of choice and for killing their own baby. this is very sad

          • fiona64

            You are a liar.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507322.html

            Quote: Rigorous U.S. scientific studies have not substantiated the claim that abortion, compared with its alternatives, causes an increased incidence of mental health problems. The same conclusion was reached in 2008 by an American Psychological Association task force, which I chaired, as well as by an independent team of scholars at Johns Hopkins University. As
            recently as September, Oregon State University researchers announced the results of a national study showing that teenagers who have an abortion are no more likely to become depressed or to have low self-esteem one year or five years later, compared with their peers who deliver.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’re probably one of those nutjobs that stands outside of clinics harassing and stalking these women.

          • fiona64

            Yep, he is. Read his comment history; he talks about doing “sidewalk counseling.” Which, as we all know, is anti-choice for “stalking and harassment.”

          • Ella Warnock

            I wonder who would put up with me if I “sidewalk counseled” people outside a rehab clinic by screeching that they were goin’ ta hay-ull if they didn’t follow the 12 steps and repent for the see-yun of abusing their bodies with drugs and drank?

            Yeah, nobody.

          • dance commander

            Why do you sound developmentally disabled?

          • dance commander

            I don’t hate muslim.

            However, I dislike nutjobs who think they can control women’s lives.

        • HeilMary1

          Suppose your life was threatened by a fetus-in-fetu “tumor” — your prenatally absorbed twin? You’d have it removed (aborted!) faster than adulterous Gov. Perry tipping strippers at “Gentlemen Clubs”.

          • goatini

            The word in Texas is that Slick Dick is a habitue of “other” kinds of “gentlemen’s” clubs*

            * Not that there’s anything wrong with that… so long as you’re out and up front about it…

          • HeilMary1

            I heard his own wife caught him in bed with a male staffer, but he hides his preference from his gay-bashing backers by hanging out at straight strip clubs.

    • dance commander

      Slaves didn’t do this to their ‘masters’:

      Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

      exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

      altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

      nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)

      heartburn and indigestion

      constipation

      weight gain

      dizziness and light-headedness

      bloating, swelling, fluid retention

      hemmorhoids

      abdominal cramps

      yeast infections

      congested, bloody nose

      acne and mild skin disorders

      skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

      mild to severe backache and strain

      increased headaches

      difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

      increased urination and incontinence

      bleeding gums

      pica

      breast pain and discharge

      swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

      difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

      inability to take regular medications

      shortness of breath

      higher blood pressure

      hair loss

      tendency to anemia

      curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

      infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women,
      and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

      extreme pain on delivery

      hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

      continued
      post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section —
      major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
      fully recover)

      Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

      stretch marks (worse in younger women)

      loose skin

      permanent weight gain or redistribution

      abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

      pelvic
      floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former
      child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with
      urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life —
      aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the
      transvaginal mesh)

      changes to breasts

      varicose veins

      scarring from episiotomy or c-section

      other
      permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by
      women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

      increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

      loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

      higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

      newer
      research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges
      of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother
      (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

      Occasional complications and side effects:

      complications of episiotomy

      spousal/partner abuse

      hyperemesis gravidarum

      temporary and permanent injury to back

      severe scarring requiring later surgery

      (especially after additional pregnancies)

      dropped
      (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
      pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
      and enterocele)

      pre-eclampsia
      (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy,
      associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

      eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

      gestational diabetes

      placenta previa

      anemia (which can be life-threatening)

      thrombocytopenic purpura

      severe cramping

      embolism (blood clots)

      medical
      disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
      many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
      or baby)

      diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

      mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

      serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

      hormonal imbalance

      ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

      broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)

      hemorrhage and

      numerous other complications of delivery

      refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

      aggravation
      of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in
      .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and
      treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency
      of seizures)

      severe post-partum depression and psychosis

      research
      now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female
      fertility treatments, including “egg harvesting” from infertile women
      and donors

      research
      also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival
      rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

      research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

      Less common (but serious) complications:

      peripartum cardiomyopathy

      cardiopulmonary arrest

      magnesium toxicity

      severe hypoxemia/acidosis

      massive embolism

      increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

      molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease

      (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

      malignant arrhythmia

      circulatory collapse

      placental abruption

      obstetric fistula

      More permanent side effects:

      future infertility

      permanent disability

      death.

      ————–

      By forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will YOU and the fetus are behaving like slaveowners. You are saying that the woman’s body is public property – to be used by the fetus and the government and whoever impregnated her.

      • HeilMary1

        Thank you!

      • Charbel El-chaar

        When they used to ship slaves from Africa to America most of these side effect syndromes after abortion that you listed ( I thank you) are the same it is not me who is making the links it is you now at the end slaves died on the way

        • HeilMary1

          You make NO sense!

        • dance commander

          Idiot.

        • Jennifer Starr

          You really are a monumental idiot, aren’t you?

        • CJ99

          This by far is some of the most inane verbal flatulance I’ve ever seen.

        • Dez

          So women who had abortions are like slaves that were beaten, whipped, raped, and hung for amusement are the same? How much of an idiot are you?

          • Charbel

            you do not respect the life of pre born baby how can I expect you to respect those who speaks for them

          • Dez

            You do not respect the life of black slave women. How can I respect you as a person at al when you dismiss the horrors of my ancestors went through? How do you live with yourself that you value a fetus over raped and beaten slave women?

    • HeilMary1

      No fetus has the right to shred women’s lady parts or trigger cancer, sepsis, strokes, organ failures and autoimmune diseases.

  • Jeff

    We must address the lack of consistency when we charge someone with murder for an action that “that results in the termination of a pregnancy”…while we fully accept that “a medical procedure that results in the termination of a pregnancy” is legal. In one case the fetus is a person and murder charges are brought forth and in the other situation it’s a part of a woman’s body. While I am pro-choice I feel uncomfortable with this lack of consistency in our laws. It’s a very similar inconsistency we would see in slave vs free states with certain people…I think we need a clear legal distinction for when a fetus can be treated like a person and when it cannot.

    • dance commander

      The lack of consistency exists because violent men often beat and murder their pregnant girlfriends.

      And also because anti-choicers have campaigned long and hard to get fetal ‘murder’ on the books in an attempt to influence attitudes regarding the value of ‘fetal life’ and eventually ban all abortion.

      • Jeff

        So what would your choice of laws be regarding a fetus? Would it never be treated as a person or should the current laws remain? You seem to want to change the laws with your attack on the “anti-choicers”…please clarify your desire with the legal treatment of a fetus.

        • Jennifer Starr

          I don’t think you’re actually pro-choice. I smell blatant concern trolling.

          • Jeff

            I’m glad you used this format to make an attack rather than clarify your viewpoint. I am pro-choice but I like to understand the opposing viewpoint and I can remove myself from the emotion of a particular issue…many other people seem to be unable to do that…you could answer my previous questions if you want a real conversation about this issue.

          • dance commander

            jeff wrote a day ago: “Odd how we never discuss abortion in the terms of slavery. While I’m
            pro-choice myself I think we need to understand how the other side views
            abortion. People who are anti-abortion view the fetus as an innocent
            life that must be protected which cannot voice their own opinion…very
            much like how abolitionists tried to protect people who were enslaved.
            The parallels are very similar both groups were/are attempting to stand
            up for a group that appear to have little to no choice in how they are
            treated/viewed. I think when you can make that connection then you can
            at least begin to understand the mentality of the opposing
            viewpoint…we should at least make that attempt to put ourselves in
            other people’s shoes even if we don’t necessarily agree with their
            position on an issue.”

            Yeah, abortion = slavery.

            Because the fetus is forced to work on behalf of the pregnant woman, right?

            The fetus is the one who’s body is scarred by pregnancy, right?

            it’s not like pregnancy permanently disables women and kills women, is it?

            It’s not like the fetus steals sugar and calcium from the woman’s body in order to grow it’s own body

            it’s not like the fetus causes gestational diabetes because it takes so much sugar from the woman’s body

            it’s not like the fetus steals so much calcium that women develop osteoperosis and lose teeth

            it’s not like the fetus drills into the woman’s blood supply so that it can take all of these nutrients

            it’s not like the fetus causes hours and hours of painful birth and rips apart a woman’s vagina during birth is it?

            no, the fetus is quite CLEARLLLLLLLLY being made to labour on behalf of the woman, not the other way around

          • Jeff

            I would suppose that a pro-lifer would suggest that not having any living experience would be worse than slavery…I agree that a woman decide to have a baby or not…but why do we have so many inconsistencies in the law when the fetus is a person or not?

          • dance commander

            So why isn’t organ donation mandatory?

            Do you think it should be?

            After all, life ALWAYS trumps bodily autonomy, right?

          • Jeff

            Actually I think that organ donation should be the default and that you should have to opt out, like how it works in many European nations. Also, there could be a small benefit for checking the organ donation box like a free driver’s license (or any ID) instead of the $20 fee you currently have to pay…the number people who would live due to the extra donations would be well worth the cost of such a program.

          • dance commander

            Uhm, organ donation from LIVING persons is not mandatory in Europe, dumbass.

            Because that would be SLAVERY.

          • Jeff

            I think organ donation among the non-living is a more pressing issue. I’m pro-choice, not sure why you’re suggesting I’m not…I’ve never heard of mandatory organ donation from the living…anywhere in the world.

          • dance commander

            You believe that the right to live should trump the right to your body.

            Therefore, you would agree that organ donation from living donors should be mandatory.

            That people such as yourself should be legally forced to give up blood bone marrow and organs to save lives.

          • Jeff

            No, but we should have some sort monetary rewards system for organs from living people in order to motivate donation of their organs (as long as their own life is not in much danger). I’m not pro-life; I’m pro-choice remember?

          • dance commander

            no, you are not pro-choice

            because you can totally sympathise with pro-lifers that ‘abortion is slavery’ and the right to live should supercede the right to not be enslaved

          • Jeff

            If you had to choose between never being born or being born into slavery with a hope of that changing for yourself or your children in the future, which would you choose?

          • dance commander

            http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg?t=20111027092220

            I wouldn’t have cared

            Because that ‘zygote’ wasn’t me, it was just a genetic blueprint

            How many kids do you have? Unless you and the wife are creating one new kid every year THEN YOU ARE DENYING LIFE TO CHILDREN

            Oh, and for your information, slave women routinely aborted their pregnancies and some even killed their children rather than see them enslaved for the rest of their lives.

            Liberty or death, I am sure you’ve heard that one before.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh for fuck’s sake. You know, you might as well come right out and admit that you’re not pro-choice at all, since it’s blatantly obvious to anyone with even half a brain.

          • dance commander

            If your mother had been a slave, and been routinely raped and beaten, would you have argued that her slavery and rape were good things, because it resulted in your birth?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I mean, I might have had marginally more respect for you if you’d stated right off the bat that you were against abortion rather than attempting this sad and rather transparent charade. But you really thought that it was going to work, though–didn’t you?

          • goatini

            A meaningless and impossible hypothetical is not an argument.

          • Jeff

            Translation: I can’t seem to answer that difficult question because I know the answer but I don’t want to say it in front of everyone.

          • goatini

            A meaningless and impossible hypothetical cannot be logically answered in any way whatsoever, no matter how much you may want to try to push your RIght Wing Radio Host routine on me.

          • fiona64

            I know, right? It’s the equivalent of “have you stopped beating your wife yet.” And somehow, every anti-choicer who traipses through here with “It would be better to be born than not born” thinks s/he is infinitely clever.

          • dance commander

            They also think that bringing up Gosnell = cleverity

            And Erin Frances believes that she is one clever mofo:

            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/11/05/national-right-to-life-thinks-texas-woman-denied-an-abortion-is-hilarious/#comment-1119829118

            I am a highly educated woman in her 30′s. I have a Master’s degree. Interesting you ask what story would be better to tell. It I was not alive I would have no story to tell by the hands of the woman who should love me more than she loves herself.

            Did legalized abortion make it safe for Gosnell’s clients? No. So it abortion is not safe then why on earth is it legal.

            To want to be alive is not self centered. I would like you to tell a
            cancer patient that their desire to live is selfish. It’s the same
            thing”

            ————

            I just realized that this comment is a day old but I just saw it a few minutes ago and I am laughing my ass off right now.

          • fiona64

            No, sweetie. The translation is that your straw man is moronic and not even worth dignifying.

          • dance commander

            Let’s take that argument to it’s logical conclusion.

            If more slaves born = better life in the future, then, ergo, the more people who are enslaved, and the more women who are raped and forced to bear children who will be raped and enslaved = a net positive.

          • colleen

            I would never choose slavery. That’s why I am pro-choice. and you are not. now fuck off.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You don’t see how a monetary rewards system could be abused? Because I can see about half-a dozen possible problems right off the bat. The possibilities for corruption, organ selling to the highest bidder, etc would be endless.

          • colleen

            then why not have a ‘monetary rewards system’ for pregnant women? BTW, we do not define what you are as ‘pro-choice’. We define your ‘libertraian’ position as ‘intrinsically dishonest and useless as tits on a boar’. so fuck off.

          • L-dan

            Because of oh…decades of these sorts of arguments.

            You think the law is entirely consistent in other areas? After 200+ years of adding onto them? They look like sausage.

          • fiona64

            We have absolutely on inconsistencies in the law as to when a fetus becomes a person. The answer is *at birth.* Personhood is a legal concept, not a biological one.

          • HeilMary1

            No life at all is better than slavery and torture.

          • L-dan

            Sorry, but if you look and quack like a duck, fluffing your feathers, slapping a Ren faire horn on your head and quacking “I’m a unicorn” doesn’t make us actually think you’re a unicorn. Your arguments have flown by most of us many, many times already. Not once were they from sincere pro-choice advocates.

            In such a situation skepticism is rather warranted. Your past commenting history only reinforces it.

            If you’re an actual unicorn, your actions will eventually reveal the magical rarity even to the skeptical. Rhetorical tricks we’ve seen dozens of times before only reinforce how hard you’re attempting to hold the charade.

          • Jeff

            Lots of fancy words that say nothing useful, thanks for calling me a unicorn.

          • L-dan

            Nah, I pretty clearly called you a duck. The lack of reading comprehension is no surprise, given the quality of your logic so far.

          • HeilMary1

            Do you have specific cases in mind? — because fetal idolaters use third party injury cases as Trojan horses.

          • HeilMary1

            ALL women EVERYWHERE should have the legal right to defend themselves against deadly, disfiguring fetuses. Abortion, like gun ownership for you Libertarians, is a SELF-DEFENSE human right against a deadly invader. The selfish whims of pedophile priests don’t trump the self-defense rights of women.

          • Jeff

            No, I’m pro-choice within my own state.

          • dance commander

            And pro-slavery for others.

          • Jeff

            No, I’m more of states rights for everyone else, change your own state’s laws.

          • dance commander

            So why would you have been an abolitionist if state’s rights always come first?

          • HeilMary1

            He’d NEVER be an abolitionist.

          • HeilMary1

            Which means execution of women BY FETUSES. You are a Scott Peterson wannabe using fetuses instead of fists to legally murder unwanted women.

        • dance commander

          yeah, you’re not pro-choice

          you’re a lying sack of shit is what you are

        • dance commander

          In the case of the murder or harm inflicted on the pregnant woman, attack on the fetus = attack on her.

          And this is how these laws are often interpreted.

          It is an act of violence upon the woman.

          The fetus isn’t a person.

          • Jeff

            I have seen murder charges when a fetus dies, you are suggesting that we remove those laws?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Why would we remove these laws?

          • Jeff

            Because the fetus cannot be a person if it can be eliminated by another person on a whim. This is a logical inconsistency, it’s very clear to anyone who wants to be intellectually honest.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Again. One is a legal medical procedure that the woman chooses, the other is not her choice at all and is predicated upon harm done to her as the primary victim. You’ve already said that it should be a woman’s decision, correct?

          • Jeff

            So using that logic, if a woman plans on having an abortion but hasn’t had it yet and someone harms the fetus then you’re saying there simply couldn’t be charges for harming the fetus, right?

          • Jennifer Starr

            There were actually some pro-liars who tried that argument when they pushed a woman down in front of a clinic (this was before the FACE act) and caused her to miscarry. It didn’t wash then and it doesn’t wash now. The woman consents to a legal medical procedure. She does not consent to being beaten, shot, stabbed, etc.

          • L-dan

            That’s like saying it isn’t assault if someone jumps out of the bushes and hacks off the diseased leg I was about to have properly amputated. Or heck, skipping the diseased part…cutting off a breast as I was heading in for reduction surgery…slicing my guts apart on the way to liposuction.

            You see the stupidity of that argument, right?

          • Jeff

            I do see the stupidity of your argument yes!

          • dance commander

            I suggest you actually try to debate xer logically instead of using ad hominem attacks.

            Weren’t you the one who was complaining about how no one wanted to have an intellectually honest debate?

          • Jennifer Starr

            No actually, the argument is the same one you were just making. I’m sorry your foolproof argument against abortion is failing, but you have to realize that it was never a good or original argument to begin with.

          • L-dan

            Such reasoned and sensible debate! Wow. And here we were *almost* convinced you were sincere in your protestations.

            Not really, but thanks for not even sticking the disguise for half a day.

          • dance commander

            When media coverage focuses on the victim’s fetus, the pregnant woman is forgotten. Homicide is the second-leading cause of injury-related death for pregnant women and new mothers (in the U.S.), and violence against women increases during pregnancy.

            Pregnant women have been arrested under U.S. fetal homicide
            laws: In the United States, 37 states have enacted fetal protection laws or so-called “fetal homicide” laws, which make it a crime to cause harm to a fetus. (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873) But under these laws, it’s been shown that pregnant women are more likely to be punished for behaviours and conditions that are not criminalized for other people, such as drug or alcohol abuse and mental illness. (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/unborn_victims_of_violence_act/) Women have also been charged or jailed for murder for experiencing a stillbirth after refusing a caesarean section, or just from suffering a stillbirth. Some states have proposed punishing pregnant
            women in abusive relationships who are unable to leave their batterers.The worst offender is South Carolina, where nearly 100 pregnant women with drug abuse problems have been
            arrested under its fetal homicide law, even though they had virtually no access to drug treatment programs. Meanwhile, only one man has been arrested for killing a pregnant woman under the South Carolina law. http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/punishment_of_pregnant_women south_carolina_leading_the_nation_in_the_prosecution_punishment.php)

            Measures to achieve better justice in these tragic cases already exist. Prosecutors can recommend more serious charges, such as first degree murder or aggravated assault. Judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators. We could even pass a law mandating greater penalties for attacks on pregnant women, as has been done in 13 U.S. states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873). Alternatively, harsher penalties are already mandated under the Criminal Code’s hate crime law, which would cover attacks against women because they are pregnant.
            Any of these measures would provide justice, while avoiding the abortion controversy and protecting the rights of all pregnant women.

          • goatini

            Why, YES. Let’s have significant charges for VIOLENT ASSAULT of the ONLY person and citizen in the equation – the living, breathing WOMAN.

    • Jennifer Starr

      There’s no inconsistency. One is a medical procedure and the woman’s choice, and the other is predicated upon violence and harm deliberately done to the woman.

      • Jeff

        So if it’s only harm done to the woman then we should treat it as an assault not murder, right?

        • Jennifer Starr

          To put it more plainly, one is a woman’s choice, the other is not.

        • L-dan

          An how often do they just drop the assault charges and go straight for a fetal murder charge? There’s nothing wrong with additional charges that take into account the loss to the pregnant person (and/or their family) that goes beyond just the damage from any assault. One doesn’t need to actually treat the fetus as a person with all the rights and responsibilities of a person in order to agree to this without inconsistency.

          The pro-choice position does not view laws that take this loss into account as affirming the personhood of embryos or fetuses, nor do they somehow, inconsistently, grant them rights to the bodies of pregnant people.

    • fiona64

      Um, sweetie? Fetal homicide laws attach as special circumstances when a pregnant woman is harmed (you know, the actual person whom you’re trying very hard to erase from the picture?). Abortion is a legal medical procedure that has nothing whatsoever to do with those special circumstances.

      Your concern trollery is a) duly noted and b) highly lacking in originality. I’ve been explaining this to anti-choice nutjobs like you for decades now.

      PS: We already have a clear line for when a fetus becomes a person: birth.

    • fiona64

      Um, sweetie? Fetal homicide laws attach as special circumstances when a pregnant woman is harmed (you know, the actual person whom you’re trying very hard to erase from the picture?). Abortion is a legal medical procedure that has nothing whatsoever to do with those special circumstances.

      Your concern trollery is a) duly noted and b) highly lacking in originality. I’ve been explaining this to anti-choice nutjobs like you for decades now.

      PS: We already have a clear line for when a fetus becomes a person: birth.

  • Jeff

    Well at least I found out this website appears to be an echo chamber, rejecting anything that doesn’t fit into the far left ideology. I was looking for a thoughtful conversation between adults but it’s pretty obvious that’s not allowed in this echo chamber. Good luck to everyone and I hope you can get some information that doesn’t fit neatly into your world view. BTW, I am pro-choice and I think it is a woman’s choice when to have a child…I just want to address the inconsistencies in our current laws…which is not allowed here.

    • dance commander

      Well at least I found out this website appears to be an echo chamber,
      rejecting anything that doesn’t fit into the far left ideology

      Why don’t you actually attempt to debate the points, dumbass. Instead of whining about how you are not understood.

      Logic, you know?

      I sincerely doubt that you are even pro-choice.

      • Jeff

        Yes your use of “dumbass” really furthers the adult conversation. You still never answered my questions about inconsistency. I am pro-choice, but I’m glad you can decide my political positions for me. Debate what points? You seriously only made attacks but no concrete points yet.

        • dance commander

          I did.

          You didn’t answer.

          You just came back with some shit about how you are misunderstood waaah waaah.

          • Jeff

            You are a child, thanks for showing the world.

          • dance commander

            You are the one who is accusing others of being stupid when they rebut your arguments with pefectly logical, valid points

            Your blatant concern trolling is become even more obvious now.

          • Jeff

            You are a troll.

          • dance commander

            How so?

            Don’t appreciate the fact that I and others are showing you for what you are?

          • L-dan

            Serious concern troll mode to petulant name-calling in under an hour. Is it just me, or are they sending a thinner-skinned grade of troll these days?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, they’re not making ‘em like they used to :)

          • dance commander

            yeah, this “Serious concern troll mode to petulant name-calling in under an hour”

            if you are so interested in honest adult debate then why did you go to insulting everyone who provided you with valid, rational rebuttals?

            well?

            explain yourself

          • colleen

            Now, now Jeff.Just because dc is winning the debate by an wide margin, that’s no reason to get all petty and pout like that. Grow the fuck up,

        • Jennifer Starr

          It’s odd how a pro-choicer goes around parroting tired old ‘pro-life’ talking points–yes I know how the other side thinks, because I used to be there. One person imagines that he or she has struck gold with the perfect logical argument against abortion, that’s it’s such a provocative argument, so foolproof, and then proceeds to go around testing it under the guise of ‘I’m pro-choice, but I have concerns….’ it’s kind of obvious that’s what you’re doing.

          • dance commander

            He really seems to have an incredible ‘understanding’ of how anti-choicers consider abortion to be slavery, doesn’t he?

        • CJ99

          you just disproved your nonsense yet again. In the same paragraph claiming “pro choice” and spewing yet another anti choice diatribe.

    • CJ99

      Note to you: conversation with intelligent adults requires that you be one. Throwing out mufflebutt placard fillers like “far left ideology” shows that you are not part of said group.

  • dance commander

    Jeff claims to be a moderate pro-choicer

    Yet he is:

    1) climate change denier

    2) pro corporate spending on elections

    3) pro corporations as peopole

    4) anti SS and medicare (says they will go bankrupt)

    5) anti ACA

    • L-dan

      Noticed that. Obviously he is a baby concern troll who hasn’t yet learned the ways of multiple accounts in this fancy digital age to keep his concern troll persona at least consistent.

      Dude, I’m what these kids consider old, and I’ve got that one nailed.

    • Jeff

      It’s called being a libertarian…which you can be pro-choice or pro-life…I’m pro-choice BTW. I just think we need a legal definition of a person, when it begins…if a person begins at birth then by all means we need to remove murder charges from any action that results in a death of a fetus…charge that person everything else, the most extreme level of assault, but you can not with any intellectual honesty call it murder.

      • goatini

        Mmmm, like your Fearless Leader R Paul is a “libertarian” who wants to strip female US citizens of their civil, human and Constitutional rights. Men and zygotes get “liberty” – women get gestational slavery, and get LESS rights than a fertilized egg, or a corpse. We get it.

        • Jeff

          Huh, what now? The actual position of Rand Paul on abortion is that it’s a state issue…no federal laws what-so-ever.

          • goatini

            I’m referring to Pere Paul, not Fils Paul. And the position of BOTH regressive misogynists is that the CIVIL, HUMAN and CONSTITUTIONAL rights (as in, FEDERAL) of female US citizens should be erased, because females are livestock.

          • Jeff

            I’m glad you can cite specific positions…false assumptions and false representations are the works of people who truly want to do those horrible things to your life.

          • goatini

            So, which of YOUR civil, human and Constitutional rights do YOU want erased, and left to be decided upon by a state?

            I was going to say that this is what the Civil Rights Act is all about… but then I remembered that both Pere et Fils Paul BOTH oppose the Civil Rights Act.

          • Jeff

            Actually they both want the Civil Rights Act applied to government, just not on private businesses and organizations…since that would violate the First Amendment which states that we have the freedom of association.

          • goatini

            Yeah, because it’s perfectly okay to discriminate against the, um, “fleet-footed” “welfare check” recipients in business.

          • Jeff

            Sure, you could as a daycare provider choose to not take a person that uses government assistance to pay for daycare…in my state they wanted to force all daycare providers to join a union if they take kids who receive government support for daycare. Therefore it has to be a choice to take the money or not, that means picking an choosing who you work for.

          • goatini

            Oh, I was quoting your hero, Pere Paul, on the contents of some of his newsletters, which may or may not have been written by one Llewellyn Rockwell.

          • fiona64

            *Individuals* have freedom of association. Businesses are separate from individuals … and public accommodations must ::gasp:: serve the public without discriiminating.

          • lady_black

            So, a return to “whites only” hospitals, huh? Do you libertardians ever think before opening your crapper?

          • Jeff

            Of course a liberal can’t see past their nose…the immediate response is “government MUST do something!” rather than using logic or the free market to solve problems. If there ever was such a business that put a sign out front that said “whites only” it would be front page news, CNN wouldn’t stop covering it and the business would be boycotted from coast to coast…and surprise, no government involvement would be necessary to close down the business or shame them into changing the policy. Government isn’t the only way to solve problems..think beyond your small world please.

          • CJ99

            got 2 things for you:

            1) logic and you are not good friends.
            2) the “free market” has a horrific track record at upholding human rights.-

          • lady_black

            How OLD are you Jeff? WHY would it be all over CNN if that were to happen? Because it’s ILLEGAL, that’s why. But such things were once legal and commonplace, and even the SCOTUS erred in Plessy v. Fergusson by affirming such an arrangement, only to later overturn that decision in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education. You know what they say about those who fail to learn from history? They are doomed to repeat it. I might well ask you, what is your interest in rolling back progress? How do you benefit? I ask YOU to please think beyond your small world.

          • goatini

            And PS, the “libertarian” Pauls consider females between menarche and menopause to be Property Of The State. Funny how “libertarians” are actually vicious Statists when it comes to controlling females as chattel property livestock.

          • Jeff

            Cite the direct quote please…they both work for the federal government…neither would ever suggest anyone is owned by the government.

          • goatini

            Voiding the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens effectively renders female citizens between menarche and menopause as Property Of The State.

          • Jeff

            Emotion and lack of facts…awful, just a single quote to support your statement would be nice.

          • dance commander

            No, moron.

            The government has NO place in making reproductive decisions for women.

            This involves forcing women to remain pregnant, and forcing them to abort, as in the case of China.

          • Jeff

            Ugh, this is like talking to kindergartners…goatini was claiming that the Pauls were attempting to use the federal government to make those choices…my point was they are not, they don’t believe that the federal government has any role to play in reproductive choices.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Frankly I don’t think the state should either. Come January in my state we’ll say a happy buh-bye to Governor Ultrasound and thank God we didn’t elect his pal Cooch, but unfortunately they managed to pass plenty of bad laws while they were in office. I’m kind of glad we only elect for one term here.

          • Jeff

            So here’s the big issue, wouldn’t you rather have the choice to live in a state where you agree with their view of abortion rather than the federal government set a rule for all states…which that rule changes based on who is in charge…which can change on the whim of a single election?

          • HeilMary1

            Women should be free to avoid stinky deadly obstetric fistula incontinence in ALL states through FEDERAL protection. Would you tolerate banning Viagra and prostate treatments in some states?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually I’d like to see Roe v Wade reaffirmed by the Supreme Court and most of these restrictions passed by the American Taliban tossed out on their ear. Because if you leave it up to the states, the next thing you know some legislator will try to make it illegal for women in his state to travel to another state for an abortion–not being hyperbolic here either, because someone in Ohio actually tried that a few years back. But no, I don’t think my reproductive rights should have to be taken away because I happen to live in the wrong state.

          • fiona64

            What you propose, in your Ayn Rand utopia, is that those with means will still have access to a full range of services (all they have to do is travel to get what they need, just like in the pre-Roe days) and those without will suffer.

            The Libertarian creed in a nutshell: “F**k you, I got mine.”

            Here’s a clue for you, Jeffie: John Galt ain’t real.

          • Jeff

            Who is John Galt?

          • fiona64

            I suppose you think you’re clever …

          • Jennifer Starr

            And Ayn Rand was actually a pretty crappy writer–her books were badly written, chock full of one-dimensional Mary Sues and Gary Stus who only served as mouthpieces to push her so-called philosophy.

          • fiona64

            Yep, and Jeffie here thinks he’s being awfully clever by using part of Ayn Rand’s own publicity campaign for “Atlas Shrugged” to pretend he doesn’t know who John Galt is. Laughable.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I forced myself to watch a half-hour of Atlas Shrugged on Netflix. A half-hour was about all that any human person could stand. Painfully bad. Possibly one of the worst movies ever made.

          • Jeff

            Yeah but that chick is great in Orange is the New Black.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well good actors sometimes end up in lousy movies–not their fault.

          • CJ99

            If I was an actor & jeff was my agent I’d soon be an out of work actor looking for a career change.

          • HeilMary1

            And if that chick needed an abortion to save her life, health, looks and career, but was stranded in a forced-birth state with no money, would you say tough toddies?

          • goatini

            I want my incontrovertible civil, human and Constitutional rights on a Federal level, which are in this case guaranteed by the protections of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Women are NOT nomads that need to move from state to state, to find a state that will NOT violate their essential human rights.

          • dance commander

            Oh, and regarding ‘state’s rights’ uhm, if you grant a right, then make it such that the right is *unavailable* then that right has effectively not been granted.

            If people cannot exercise their rights, then they don’t have those rights.

            It’s as simple as that.

            So, in this case, federal law trumps state’s rights.

          • Jeff

            Only as long as you have a Supreme Court that agrees with you.

          • CJ99

            People shouldnt be force to move cause buffoons like you harass them with dictitorial legal mumblings.

          • HeilMary1

            You support gestational slavery and gestational freedom states?

          • Jeff

            Until we get a new constitutional amendment then yes, I suppose that’s a way to put it.

          • dance commander

            So the southern states should have the right to re-enslave black people by your logic

            States rights!

          • Jeff

            Yeah, except for constitutional amendments 13-15; read the US Constitution.

          • dance commander

            So in other words, yes.

          • Jeff

            In other words it would violate the US Constitution, which applies to the states as well. So absolutely, 100% NO!

          • dance commander

            But if it’s not in the constitution, then ‘states rights to slavery’ would be okey dokey with you, right?

          • Jeff

            No, if there was no US Amendment preventing the act of slavery then I would push for one as an abolitionist. I had a few ancestors that fought on the union side of the war, I’d join them if it came to that over slavery.

          • dance commander

            Yet you don’t think that women should have people fighting for their rights to not be enslaved by certain states.

            States rights before women’s rights. In your view.

          • Jeff

            Read the 10th Amendment, the laws are up to the states…if not expressed clearly in the US Constitution…please point to the word abortion in the US Constitution, if you can’t find it then the states have the right to make any law that does not violate the US Constitution.

          • dance commander

            People have a right to privacy. dumbass.

            They also have the right not to be forced to labour on behalf of another.

            Forced gestation = slavery.

          • Jeff

            Aw, cute, reciting the words from the Roe v Wade case…no direct line in the US Constitution means it just takes another Supreme Court case to interpret it differently, that’s the risk you take when you read the word “abortion” into the right to privacy. BTW, can you point me to the line where the word privacy is used in the US Constitution?

          • dance commander

            Pregnancy is a medical condition, or were you unaware of this?

            Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will, or forcing her to terminate = the state making medical decisions for women.

            That means removing a person’s FREEDOM of self-determination. The FREEDOM to make their own private medical decisions.

            The right to privacy and specifically medical privacy iis the right to choose which medical treatments and risks a person will take. If there is no right medical privacy, doctors and the state are free to force any medical treatment on any person at any time.

          • Jeff

            Sure, so you agree, there is no need for federal inference this is a state issue since the US Constitution doesn’t use the words privacy or abortion. Glad you could clear things up for me.

          • dance commander

            On the basis of Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Thirteenth
            Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude to protect
            individual liberty and equality, that the government may not prohibit
            abortion. To do so would be to require physical service from a woman for
            the benefit of a fetus.

          • dance commander

            The Supreme Court, however,
            beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions,
            has broadly read the “liberty” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to
            guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass
            decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination
            of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support
            this broader reading of the Constitution.

          • HeilMary1

            Criminal Munchausen by Proxy medical abuse of women by fetal idolaters shouldn’t be legal in any state.

          • lady_black

            States cannot deprive their citizens of essential liberties. Including the right to medical self-determination. Cruzan established the right to death with dignity. I don’t want the state deciding what medical care I have to have. I don’t want the state interfering in ANY medical conditions, including pregnancy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you don’t agree with the Roe v. Wade decision? What was that about being pro-choice again?

          • Jeff

            Sorry my comment response was removed…apparently quoting a liberal Supreme Court Justice is not allowed. Here’s what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about Roe v. Wade: She said the court “should have held only that the Texas law before it in Roe, which prohibited abortion unless necessary to save the life of the woman, was unconstitutional, leaving for the future the question of what other restrictions on abortion might be constitutional.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg contended, the court prevented the states from working out on their own how best to regulate abortion, short-circuiting the democratic process and provoking an angry “backlash” among conservatives and resistance to Roe that continues to this day.

            Crazy how much she sounds like a libertarian isn’t it?

          • dance commander

            Actually, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that she should have included some words on how the government should NOT have the right to DENY a woman the right to remain pregnant either.

            IE, the right to make private medical and reproductive decisions.

          • CJ99

            Amazing how you can sound so crazy & not hear it.

          • dance commander

            Aw, cute, reciting the words from the Roe v Wade case…no direct line
            in the US Constitution means it just takes another Supreme Court case to
            interpret it differently, that’s the risk you take when you read the
            word “abortion” into the right to privacy. BTW, can you point me to the
            line where the word privacy is used in the US Constitution?

            Aw, cute, reciting the words from the Roe v Wade case…no direct line
            in the US Constitution means it just takes another Supreme Court case to interpret it differently, that’s the risk you take when you read the words “triple bypass” into the right to privacy. BTW, can you point me to the line where the word privacy is used in the US Constitution?

            FTFY

          • Jeff

            Funny, point to the law, court case or even a discussion where “triple bypass” was even a controversial issue.

          • dance commander

            Why should the ‘controversy’ matter?

            The ‘right to a triple bypass’ is not enshrined in the constitution is it?

            I mean, you can’t even find that phrase. Ergo, it should be up to the states to decide whether or not people with heart disease should be permitted to have a triple bypass!

            And since ‘privacy’ specifically ‘medical privacy’ is also NOT found in the constitution, then the right to a triple bypass is at the discretion of the states.

          • Jeff

            Sure, by law that would be perfectly fine…in fact the Obamacare law (ACA) is creating the IPAD committee to decide which procedures are not worth the cost…triple bypass could very easily be on that list. By law a “triple bypass” could be deemed too expensive and no longer allowed to be performed. Nothing in the US Constitution prevents it.

          • dance commander

            The right to liberty and privacy does, dumbass.

          • CJ99

            I don’t mean to pick nits to excess but its more than just his butt being dumb. but I do get your point.

          • dance commander

            I don’t know what has come over me lately, I just can’t stop using these words:

            dumbfuck
            dumbass
            twit
            imbecile
            ignoramus
            fuckface

          • JamieHaman

            lol, we did notice. ;-)

          • dance commander

            I think it’s the level of troll. They don’t deserve better. Sometimes I’m too lazy or late to a debate that the best I can do is use the above bad. Werdz as my ‘argument’ lulz. I mean when you have heard the same ‘but u kill babies’ for the hundredth time you just lose all patience. I’m never angry, just bored with the quality of anti-choicer!

          • CJ99

            when I see those insane arguments I feel like the trolls are killing my brain cells. It’s worse than being subjected to barney or teletubbies.

          • CJ99

            All of which also apply, theres even more but I think we all get the point by now, except jeffy. And yes I know why those words occur. I’ve used similar in moments of impatience when the goons refuse to get a clearly demonstrated point.

          • L-dan

            No, it would not be covered. Which is rather different from no longer allowed under law.

          • dance commander

            Isn’t he cute, he is now resorting to semantics.

          • fiona64

            Citation needed. Thanks in advance.

          • lady_black

            No, the committee is NOT to decide what “isn’t worth the cost.” It’s to decide what doesn’t work often enough to justify the cost. Outcome based medicine. You are still free to procure procedures that are expensive and don’t work often. Triple bypasses will NEVER make that list.

          • HeilMary1

            States run by Christian Scientist politicians: “No triple bypass for you!”

          • CJ99

            I’d like to see those loons even try it. They’d probably try to repeal ohm’s law or that of gravity first.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t see why women should be denied the right to make decisions about their own pregnancies simply because it upsets certain people. Call me crazy, but I don’t think the rights to determine what happens inside my own body should be subject to a popular vote. Unless these so-called ‘pro-life’ people are able to be pregnant for me and take on the resulting risks, why should they get to decide for me?

          • goatini

            Not to mention that were Jeffie and his fellow “libertarian” fellows similarly threatened as to THEIR civil, human and Constitutional rights, they’d fight civil war in the streets to protect those rights.

          • HeilMary1

            Imagine his LibertarDian “Utopia” of Free Viagra states versus contraband Viagra states! He’d start an “abolitionist” underground to free men enslaved by their ED torments! Free the flaccid penises! Imagine his phallic symbol flag of penis freedom! Ewww! Maybe we better not imagine!

          • Jeff

            I tend to agree that’s why I’m pro-choice.

          • dance commander

            And if every state outlawed abortion you’d be ok with that and wouldn’t fight to change it because hey, state’s rights!

            Which is why you are NOT pro-choice.

          • Jeff

            I would fight it within my own state, just like I voted against a constitutional amendment to make marriage only between one woman and one man.

          • dance commander

            Just like you’d have fought slavery only in your own state and let other states have the right to enslave persons of their choosing yes?

          • Jeff

            Already addressed this one, I’d fight for a US Constitutional Amendment in that case…and fight a civil war if necessary.

          • HeilMary1

            At least you recognize the rights of born intersexed people.

          • HeilMary1

            Yeah, he wouldn’t let overcrowded sepsis wards of dying and dead women bother him, even if his own girlfriends/wives ended up there!

          • CJ99

            Jeff the proper term for what you are is professional chump.

          • HeilMary1

            Really! Who knew the Framers wanted Mark Obenshain aka Virginia Attorney General wannabe to inspect all women’s bloody tampons and napkins for evidence of “homicide”??

          • fiona64

            You’re the one who argued that since the word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, women don’t have the right to seek them.

            Following this logic would mean that any other medical procedure would be subject to the same standard.

            Not that I’ve noticed anti-choicers following anything even remotely like logic …

          • HeilMary1

            It is to Christian Scientists!

          • CJ99

            Reminds me of those loons in the 70′s who faked some human foot prints inside dinosaur footprints that allegedly walked side by side in 4004BC. yeah, they weren’t believed either though religious nuts still trout that 1 out as “fact”. though the last 1 who tried that with me 7 years ago is still dizzy.

          • lady_black

            Want me to MAKE it one? Mind your own damn business.

          • dance commander

            And no, part of what I wrote was from this:

            Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”.

          • Jeff

            The word abortion or privacy was where?

          • dance commander

            Right, which means you’d have absolutely no problem with any number of medical treatments being outlawed on a whim by the states.

            Want prostate surgery? Cancer treatment? Too bad, those words are not in the constitution, and you do not have the right to make private medical decisions.

          • dance commander

            Forcing someone to labour on behalf of another, at great phsyical risk = slavery.

            Seems pretty damn clear to me.

          • Jeff

            So you’re suggesting that drafting people into military service is slavery?

          • fiona64

            So, you’re a typical anti-choicer with nothing but bullshit straw men?

          • lady_black

            I don’t like the draft, and it no longer exists. But they have to pay you to serve. They can’t just conscript people without remuneration.

          • JamieHaman

            Never been drafted huh? Those boys in Vietnam sure compared it to slavery.

          • fiona64

            The words “slavery and involuntary servitude,” which you support for pregnant women, are in there.

          • goatini

            The word “woman” is not in the US Constitution either, which seems to you to provide ample “justification” as to why you consider us to be livestock with less civil, human and Constitutional rights than a corpse.

          • Jeff

            Huh, there’s that 19th Amendment isn’t there? The word woman isn’t directly used but it’s pretty clear that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

          • dance commander

            Should female suffrage have also been a state’s right’s issue?

            How about segregation?

          • Jeff

            After all these emotional comments sometimes I wonder about giving women the right to vote…just kidding…that’s fine being a federal issue since it is a US Constitutional Amendment. Segregation…if it’s government instituted segregation then of course I support removing it…if it’s a private group I don’t think we should get involved.

          • dance commander

            Slavery plantations = private businesses.

            So, why would you have fought to abolish slavery/

          • Jeff

            Because it’s an individual right issue, individual rights of choice, freedom of movement and earning wages pretty much out weighs almost anything other law.

          • dance commander

            Except in the case of pregnancy…right?

          • Jeff

            That counts too, I’m pro-choice.

          • dance commander

            No, you aren’t.

          • CJ99

            then do the world a favour and choose to leave us sane people alone from now on.

          • L-dan

            Abortion is also very much an individual rights issue. But really, if you don’t want to put much energy into it, fine. There’s hardly a requirement to do so. But romping in here to throw up bizarre concerns about inconsistency while descending into your own = sort of a random waste of time that tends to be viewed with suspicion.

          • CJ99

            That’s exactly what makes his bizarre little group so easy to spot. In jeffs case his 70′s styled pornstache makes it even easier.

          • fiona64

            Because it’s an individual right issue, individual rights of choice

            You mean … like what you would deny to a pregnant woman?

          • HeilMary1

            Women who continually leak urine and feces from childbirth lacerations can’t get hired anywhere or keep husbands. Forced breeding ruins their ability to find and keep employment.

          • dance commander

            After all these emotional comments sometimes I wonder about giving women the right to vote.

            Slaves were pretty emotional about slavery. How *silly* of them!

          • fiona64

            After all these emotional comments sometimes I wonder about giving women the right to vote…just kidding..

            No, you aren’t. That’s blatantly obvious.

          • fiona64

            Why, how kind of you, Jeffie. You concede that women have been actual persons for about 100 years.

            What a misogynistic prat you are.

          • HeilMary1

            Mother killer, the Constitution doesn’t forbid people from saving themselves from diseases through medical intervention. Abortion is to women what guns are to you LibertarDians: SELF-DEFENSE.

          • fiona64

            Hey, dumbfuck: are you familiar with the right to privacy as defined in the Constitution (you know, the bit about being safe from illegal search and seizure)? That’s why women have the right to privacy over their medical decisions.

            And abortion was known and widely practiced during the time the Constitution is written.

            You might want to pay a visit to crackafrigginbook.com.

          • Jeff

            That’s actually a right to property…not privacy…your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Those are all property rights, not privacy rights which were a creation of the Supreme Court.

          • fiona64

            Your *person* – sweetie, in order to have your person be secure, you must have privacy.

            God, it’s like dealing with a particularly slow toddler …

          • HeilMary1

            He’s a LibertarDian.

          • dance commander

            In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right). In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme
            Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the
            liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy. Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution’s protection for privacy:
            “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life….The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State
            cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ‘It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal
            liberty which the government may not enter.’”

          • JamieHaman

            Nicely done dance.

          • colleen

            Thank you so much dance. you made my toes curl.

          • L-dan

            Yet you just said you’d fight on the side of abolition to put such anti-slavery guarantees in place as historically occurred.

            As an avowed pro-choice individual, however, you’re saying that it’s hunky dory to leave the human rights of pregnant people up to the states rather than fighting for federal recognition of same? Therefore, as it’s put above, you’re fine with essentially freedom states and gestational slavery states?

            That seems rather inconsistent.

          • dance commander

            Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

          • Jeff

            Without a US Constitutional Amendment that’s how it works…many pro-lifers would suggest that the fetus has some rights as well.

          • dance commander

            And many southerners argued that black people shouldn’t have any rights.

            So why would you have been an abolitionist in all states?

          • goatini

            Since rights accrue to citizens AT BIRTH, that “argument” would be completely specious.

          • L-dan

            Again, why are you willing to fight for a constitutional amendment when it comes to slavery, but not regarding the fundamental right of people to determine what happens in their own body.

            It’s not just that you’re saying “well, I’m really not gung-ho enough for that, I’ll stick to my state.” You’ve said you are against a federal requirement in this area. Which sounds rather like you’d actively fight against those who aim for that.

          • Jeff

            I’d probably say that there’s just not enough national support to get an abortion right US Constitutional Amendment right now. I’d rather have almost all issues be states right issues so that I’m not imposing my viewpoint on other people.

          • dance commander

            I’d rather have almost all issues be states right issues so that I’m not imposing my viewpoint on other people.

            Then why would you have done that for the abolition of slavery/ There wasn’t a lot of popular support for abolishing slavery either.

          • Jeff

            As a libertarian getting paid for your labor is the essence of freedom. Getting into a religious/scientific debate when life begins or is viable would probably be best left up to the individual states to hash out.

          • dance commander

            The Thirteenth Amendment
            reads as follows:
            1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
            punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
            2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
            appropriate legislation.

            The amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion.
            Whenwomen are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to “involuntary servitude” in violation of the amendment. Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment’s guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth,by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates “that control by which the personalservice of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude.”

            Such laws violate the amendment’s guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves.

          • Jeff

            So which Supreme Court justices agree with you on that viewpoint?

          • dance commander

            “As a libertarian getting paid for your labor is the essence of freedom.”

          • HeilMary1

            How would you compensate women who are grossly maimed/murdered by the OTHER labor? You sound fascist to me.

          • SunlessNick

            Getting into a religious/scientific debate when life begins or is viable would probably be best left up to the individual states to hash out.

            That just replaces one chance for oppression with fifty. And make no mistake, many of the states are oppressive on this issue.

          • goatini

            He is completely aware of that, and he uses his “libertarian” ideology to disguise this FACT as somehow relative to, ahem, “liberty”.

          • CJ99

            your as lib as a can of beans with all the same aftereffects.

          • fiona64

            When you afford rights to a fetus, you abrogate the right of the born, sapient, sentient woman (you know, a person under the law) to liberty.

            Do you know what it’s called when you abrogate a person’s right to liberty?

            Slavery.

          • lady_black

            They insist WRONG. Just as you have no right to demand the tissues of another person, EVEN if it means that you die. The fetal “you” had no such right either. It’s impossible to give “rights” to a fetus without taking rights from the pregnant woman.

          • lady_black

            Jeff, take a few steps back and read the ninth amendment. You know… the one that explicitly states that all rights held by the people need not be enumerated. Interesting that they gave this notion precedence over the tenth amendment isn’t it? To wit, states cannot limit the freedom of their citizens simply because said freedom isn’t specifically stated in the Constitution. There are certain aspects of the concept of FREEDOM where the state needs to tread very carefully (if at all). The state has no legitimate interest in who it’s citizens choose to marry, or if they marry at all, when and how they choose to reproduce (or not), or personal decisions about medical care (including but not limited to the use of contraception or abortion.) BECAUSE of the concept of freedom, states have had many laws overturned by courts because they UNCONSTITUTIONALLY limited the freedoms of their citizens. Just a few examples are miscegenation laws, anti-contraception laws, anti-abortion laws and anti-sodomy laws. The law rejects your notion that states can pass any laws they please.

          • Jeff

            Specific laws pick winners and losers all the time, why do we have a child tax credit? Why does having a child lower your tax burden? Because the government decided that giving people with kids a benefit would result in a better society. While I agree that the state has no reason to recognize marriage (I’d much rather see all people get civil unions and leave marriage to religions) between anyone and we should all be treated as individuals as far as the government is concerned…many other people disagree and think that marriage should be recognized by the government. Sure we have lots of rights not specifically listed in the US Constitution but laws can be written to limit or hinder them if they are not specifically listed out. Think about hunting, what other basic right is there than to put food on your table for your family…yet there are all sorts of limits on that right…when you can hunt, you must have a license, you must go through firearm safety training and you must pay an obscene amount of money if you ever want to hunt outside of the state you reside. Perfectly legal to infringe upon that “right” as per the SCOTUS.

          • lady_black

            Apparently you do NOT understand the principle behind a child tax credit. That is not the same thing as a dependent deduction, wherein everyone is equal. Two persons = 2 dependent deductions. 5 people = 5 dependent deductions. A child tax credit is different. It’s to encourage single parents to keep working and stay off welfare by allowing them in some cases to receive a refund of more than they have actually paid in taxes. Having a child doesn’t “lower your tax burden” per se. I have three children and none of them are my dependents anymore. As I pointed out before, the concept of FREEDOM doesn’t allow states to meddle in the RIGHT of people to live their lives freely without a legitimate state interest. The outcome of my pregnancy isn’t a legitimate state interest. It’s MY business whether, when and how I reproduce (or not.)

          • fiona64

            You might want to revisit #14 yourself, since you’re unclear on that whole personhood and rights business …

          • HeilMary1

            So women are the new black slaves? — free in some states, not free in others? And you do realize spoiled pedophile priests are the ones pushing gestational slavery so they’ll have unlimited altar boys and girls to molest?

          • fiona64

            Thanks for your refreshing honesty. Most anti-choicers won’t admit that they support gestational slavery like you just did.

          • colleen

            Libertarians think they’re entitled to subject women to slavery. But, then, they also have a really high divorce rate….

          • JamieHaman

            Honesty indeed. What would you propose as a new constitutional amendment pertaining to abortion?

          • fiona64

            Ugh, this is like talking to kindergartners..

            Funny … that’s usually the feeling I have when dealing with “liberatarians,” aka Randtards …

            they don’t believe that the federal government has any role to play in reproductive choices.

            Really? Then I’m sure you can explain Rand Paul introducing S. 583, which would make make abortion illegal at the Federal level?

            What is it with you idiots?

          • goatini

            They want the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to be erased, in favor of “States’ Rights”. I’d call that “us(ing) the federal government to make those choices”.

          • colleen

            I’m always amused by the abusive assholes that call themselves ‘libertarian’. The sad tapdance the Ob-Gyn from hell does with states rights gives him a NRTL rating of 50 and a big fat zero from NARAL. His spawn Rand, however has a NRTL rank of 100% and, of course, a 0 from NARAL. Your readers here are not stupid enough to vote for either Paul. Or date guys like you, for that matter.

          • dance commander

            FYI, Ayn Rand was pro-choice.

            Ayn Rand:”One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its
            meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the
            nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living.”

          • HeilMary1

            That may be her only dead-on accurate observation that I agree with!

          • CJ99

            Pot, Kettle, Black. You demand quotes & citations yet provide none. You demand facts but you only provide rabid emotionalism. Typical losing arguments of the zealot (being you jeff)

          • HeilMary1

            And the pedophile priest-serving Vatican!

          • fiona64

            Just one source out of many: http://www.policymic.com/articles/30223/rand-paul-abortion-bill-life-at-conception-act-would-outlaw-abortion

            Quote:

            However, the Life at Conception Act doesn’t embrace liberty in the
            personal sphere for women — instead, it takes their choice away from them and demonstrates that while Paul may be talking a good game, his actions contradict what he says.

            According to a press release from the Senator, the legislation he is introducing would declare that human life begins at conception and therefore would provide fertilized eggs the same legal status as a born person, as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

          • dance commander
      • L-dan

        I’m all for stripping murder charges from actions resulting in the death of a fetus. There are a variety of laws across the country that apply penalties for that loss without muddying the waters by treating fetuses the same as people.

        Is there some epidemic of pro-choice people pushing hard for fetal murder laws that I don’t know about? If not, then frankly, I’m going to put my energy toward reproductive justice issues that benefit people instead of fighting for changes in wording simply for the principle of intellectual honesty. I only have so many hours in the day. But if it’s important to you, by all means, I’m sure the cause could use an injection of energy.

        • goatini

          They can only execute Scott Peterson ONCE.

          • HeilMary1

            And they can only kill each mother through forced birthing only once.

        • Jeff

          I do believe that another poster suggested that there was a large group of pro-lifers that is trying to get fetal murder laws on the books. I just think it’s an odd mix of laws to have murder on one hand and legal abortion on the other. At least you did address my points directly, thank you. My other suggestion would probably save hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives…we should look at tweaking the organ donation strategies. Perhaps the best method would be to give each organ donor a free driver’s license (or ID) when renewing their ID, while charging the non-donor the normal fee.

          • HeilMary1

            How do you propose avoiding abortions? Simply not having sex? My anti-abortion mom disfigured me as her abstinence excuse.

          • Jeff

            Protection, the pill, plan B…all preferable to a medical procedure…but then again I’m not against that either.

          • fiona64

            You do know that all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilization, have known failure rates. Right?

            Right?

          • dance commander
          • HeilMary1

            Yeah! Even with modern obstetrics, 50% of American MOTHERS need adult diapers as they age, hence our 50% DIVORCE rate, especially among repulsed GOP anti-choice looksist playboys who trade in their Depends-wearing brood mares for child-free young hotties. I smell Depends and divorce lawyers in clueless Jennifer’s future!

          • cvxxx

            The reason for that is the adage that the infant comes first. if a woman suffers then well and good.

          • dance commander

            Embryos are innocent.

            Women are sluts.

          • cvxxx

            Women choose to enjoy sex. Embryos are to be aborted.

          • dance commander

            If women are allowed to enjoy sex, civilisation will collapse!

          • cvxxx

            Or be reborn!

          • cvxxx

            Innocent as a viper.
            Women have dominion over their bodies.

          • CJ99

            so you finally admit men are the sluts. took freakin long enough.

          • CJ99

            Yet those who hate choice hate all forms of contraceptions with equal vitriol.

          • L-dan

            And pro choice people push back against the folks aiming to put those laws on the books. The odd mix of laws is hardly an indication of inconsistency on the part of either side, so much as the fact that we have sides and all of them win sometimes.

            I expect there would need to be ways to provide the agencies providing licenses with something to offset those fees. But as a carrot to encourage people to mark the donor dot on their card, it’s not a bad idea.

          • fiona64

            I’m sorry that you don’t understand the difference between homicide and murder. It’s a common problem amongst those who get their legal information from television dramas.

      • fiona64

        I just think we need a legal definition of a person, when it begins.

        We DO have that. It’s called *birth.* How many times does this have to be explained to you?

        Ref. 14th Amendment to US Constitution if you’re unclear.

        And, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, fetal homicide laws only attach because an actual person has been harmed: a woman. Fetal homicide is NOT a murder charge. Suicide is a homicide. Manslaughter is a homicide. Homicide merely means death by unnatural causes.

        “Libertarian.” Feh.

      • JamieHaman

        Ummm, Jeff it is not a case of pro-choice or pro-life. It is a case of pro-choice, or forced birth.

      • CJ99

        you are neither intellectual nor honest.

    • colleen2

      But, but those are the political positions of a reactionary lunatic

  • dance commander
  • happyhedonist

    $10 is a bargain for this breath of fresh air. Thank you for writing.

  • cvxxx

    Slavery has been around for thousands of years. Many countries have histories of slavery or people chained to the land. It is not just a black thing.

    • dance commander

      True. However, this is in the context of Americans referencing antebellum slavery, whilst ignoring the fact that female slaves were traded as livestock, and that these slaves often aborted those pregnancies

      And American pro-liars often talk about the ‘black genocide’ of black women having access to contraception and abortion.

      So, under this context, it is fair to ask them, would black female slaves have been guilty of ‘genocide’ for aborting their rape pregnancies? Were they more vile criminals than the men who raped and enslaved them? Because that is the logical conclusion.

    • CJ99

      Yet this is the same guy who in other articles, even on this site so blatantly defended the religious loonies. something smells here & its not roses.

  • Charbel El-chaar

    oh yeah sure I believe it that’s a big lie what are you getting is the Washington Post biased pro abortion newspaper liar, they support murder
    all women feel relief of the Moon today baby what a big lie they get rid of their baby they feel relief let conscience what is their conscience murder is murder

    • dance commander

      You’re a fucking imbecile.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Reply to your post in moderation which seems to have disappeared–yeah, and if Charry had his way there would be no birth control, period. I was reading his posts and he’s even against NFP.

        • dance commander

          One of my posts is in moderation?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I tried to reply to it and it said I couldn’t because it wasn’t active–not sure what’s going on. I went through a week in here with all my posts immediately being moderated–never found out why.

          • dance commander

            oh, I know

            i called you a s1ut !~!!!

            cuz you are!!!!

            !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            cuz you’re pro-abort!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • dance commander

            That carmello idiot is trying to argue that obstetric fistula’s and pubic symphisis diastasis are not disabilities, just disfiguring

            wtf world do these people live in?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t know, but reading their posts sometimes just makes me want to repeatedly bang my head against something.

          • dance commander

            Yep. I can ONLY handle so much of the self-righteous people. I prefer many of the patheos debates because at least they TRY to be ‘intellectual’ and just don’t pretend that all zygotes = 5 year olds and that pregnancy is fairy farts and unicorns.

          • JamieHaman

            If only we could bang the heads of stupid people, some stupidity might fall out.

          • CJ99

            Isn’t that called the gong show?

          • HeilMary1

            They should have those grisly complications if they think they’re so benign!

          • fiona64

            Wait, what? Pubic symphysis diastasis is absolutely disabling. It is not a mere “disfigurement” to be unable to walk properly.

            Gah.

            And obstetric fistulas can be life-threatening.

            What an imbecile.

          • CJ99

            No idea where the loonies are from but i don’t appreciate them dumping their village idiots here.

          • CJ99

            Same happened to me not long ago when I had to make a disqus account when my gmail acct would no longer let me sign in.

      • CJ99

        Being a human I approve the extremely rude word starting with the 6th letter of the alphabet.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Relief of the moon? What the hell are you even blabbering about?

      • colleen2

        you got further than me. I got stuck at the notion that the Washington Post is ‘pro-abortion’.
        I believe the ‘relief of the moon’ is a reference to menstruation and that the barely literate babbling is from a white Republican racist twat. But that’s just me.

        • Jennifer Starr

          He should have my menstrual periods. There’s a lot of things that I like call them, but ‘relief of the moon’ never comes into my head. Relief comes after they end.

          • dance commander

            And if you want to put an end to those periods through the use of birth control, you will have to present to your boss a list of why your period is so unhealthy for you and why you should be allowed to use the birth control because if you are using it for sex you are a very naughty girl and your employer should not be forced to pay for you to be a s1ut!

            And yes, that is a run-on sentence, but fuck it!!!

          • HeilMary1

            And if Mark Obenshain is the next VA attorney general, women will have to report their periods to the police as negligent homicide!

          • CJ99

            Very true, in that way a period is like a christian fanatic since they leave loads of happiness behind them for the same reason. We’re all so glad when they’re gone!

        • CJ99

          I thought that relief of the moon was a misquote of that 50′s serial “radar men from the moon” (yes it really was that baaad) or Plan 9 from outer space? y’know these fanatical zealots should take a lesson from that movie. Not only were the invaders as ape-shit crazy as current day fanatics but in a similar vein they never realized the 1st 8 plans failed is natures way of saying STOP.

    • goatini

      Since this poster trashes the CENTRIST-RIGHT Washington Post, perhaps the “relief of the Moon” refers to the Moonie Times, aka the Washington Times, the RNC house organ.

    • HeilMary1

      FETUSES grossly maim and murder their captive hosts.

    • JamieHaman

      English isn’t your first language is it?

    • CJ99

      Yet here you are again mooning the world with your gigantic leaps of illogic which apparantly you need to navigate over your steaming pile of poop.

  • Shan

    Anti-abortionists who insist on comparing themselves to abolitionists just end up comparing black people to non-sentient embryos. How insulting.

    • dance commander

      It’s also insulting when they compare victims of genocide to non-sentient embryos.

    • CJ99

      I have doubts those who oppose rights for anyone (including contraception & such) are indeed sentient at all. The reason their fallacious arguments lack any kind of logic is if they did indeed use any reasoning skills they couldn’t justify their rampant abuse of others.

  • dance commander

    You can link without moderation now.

    I am so happy that they changed that policy.

    Now I can show pix of what abortion realy looks like.

  • Dez

    It’s so sad to see the ignorance of the anti choice commenters on here. They are ignorant of the black women slaves that were raped to breed more slaves with traits the slave owners wanted like lighter skin or strength. I grew up on hearing these horror stories of my ancestors raped to produce children and have them ripped from them to be sold to other plantations. Slaves were even hung on trees for entertainment during picnics. Abortion would have been preferential to the torture inflicted on slaves. I have yet heard of a fetus going through anything remotely like what slaves went through.

    • outrageous

      One asshole had the temerity to suggest that being born a slave was better than not being born at all because you could ‘fight for your freedom’.

      fucking idiot

      Oh, and you know which question they NEVER answer? I always ask them if slave women who aborted their pregnancies should have received a harsher punishment for their crimes than the slaveowners – since the women were guilty of ‘murder’ in the pro-life mind, and the slavers were only guilty of kidnapping. They can’t answer it, because to do so would expose how evil they are – or how they don’t truly believe abortion is murder.