Texas Law Forces Hospital, Family to Keep Pregnant Woman on Life Support Against Her Will


Read more of our coverage on Marlise Munoz’s case here.

A Fort Worth, Texas, hospital says it has no choice but to keep a pregnant woman on life support until the fetus she is carrying can be delivered, something her family says goes against her end-of-life directives.

Marlise Munoz collapsed in her home on November 26 when she was 14 weeks pregnant, and has been hospitalized and on life support ever since.

Her husband, Erick Munoz, told local new outlet WFAA that he and his wife, who are both paramedics, had talked specifically about not wanting “to be kept alive by machine.” But because of Marlise Munoz’s pregnancy, that decision has now been made for them by the State of Texas. According to state statute, “A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient.”

J.R. Labbe, a spokesperson for John Peter Smith Hospital (JPS), the county hospital where Munoz is being kept on life support, told RH Reality Check via email, “Our responsibility is to be a good corporate citizen while also providing quality care for our patients.” Labbe added that there has “not been a case with similar circumstances” anywhere previously in the hospital network.

“Advance directives are governed by state law,” she said. “At all times, JPS will follow the law as it applies to healthcare in the state of Texas.”

Labbe was unable to estimate the cost of Munoz’s hospitalization in the coming months, calling it a “secondary issue to providing the best care we can for the patient.”

In the Munoz case, that “best care,” as defined in a 1989 state law, does not align with what Munoz herself wanted. According to WFAA, the Munoz family would have to secure an injunction or court order to be able to carry out Marlise Munoz’s final wishes.

Erick Munoz, who has a toddler-age son with his wife, told WFAA that he doesn’t agree with the law, and that he worries about the health of the fetus his wife is carrying. According to Munoz, it will be mid-February before doctors can make another determination about the fetus’ health and when it might be delivered. “They don’t know how long the baby was without nutrients and oxygen,” he told WFAA. “But I’m aware what challenges I might face ahead.”

The fire department where Munoz works has been collecting diapers, supplies, and money for Munoz since early December, and because of the outpouring of support, they’re now asking solely for financial contributions to help the family.

According to a preliminary analysis, at least 23 states, including Texas, do not authorize either the patient or the patient’s agent to withhold life-sustaining care if the patient is pregnant.

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

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

Follow Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes

  • Anon rust

    “Forced”. “Birth.”

  • Ivy Mike

    Shades of Terri Schiavo. There is no way I can comprehend someone who would support what is being done to this woman and her family.

    • marshmallow

      The father is also on the hook financially. The bill will probably be over 2 million when all is said and done. Especially if the baby once born is brain damaged.

      • fiona64

        And that man should sue the state of Texas, and Governor Goodhair, for every dime and then some.

      • lady_black

        The state wants her tortured… THEY can pay for it.

  • Skeptical_thinker

    I can’t imagine that the national Republican party wants this to be in the headlines in the run up to the 2014 elections.

  • fiona64

    This is absolutely ridiculous. A 14-weeks’-gestation fetus is non-viable, and a woman’s advance directive should NOT be ignored for a non-viable fetus.

    Once again, Texas proves that women are not persons under their regressive laws.

    • expect_resistance

      Yes, again a non-viable fetus trumps the rights of a woman.

    • AveMaria02

      That non-viable fetus is a person with rights just the same as this woman is a person with rights.

      • Jennifer Starr

        And you would put the rights of the non-viable fetus over the rights of the woman, even if that meant that the woman died and took the fetus with her.

        • AveMaria02

          No human being has any right which violates the rights of another human being. There are two human beings here. One of those human beings just so happens to not yet be ready to be born.

          • RonPaul2012

            No human being has the right to use another human being’s body without consent.

            No non-person has the right to use a person’s body without consent.

            The fetus has *no* right, human being or not, to use a woman’s body without consent.

            The fetus has no right to the woman’s body and can be evicted at will.

          • fiona64

            Nope. A fetus does not have rights. The minute you afford rights to the fetus, you abrogate the rights of the born, sapient, sentient WOMAN. You make her a slave.

            So, what you support is slavery. Nice.

          • RonPaul2012

            Fiona, kindly stop using the ‘divine fallacy’ or ‘argument from incredulity’

            Yes, someone made a statement similar to yours, and was told that they were engaging in a logical fallacy.

            “There is no way at all that they can be equal when you are putting the developing life of the fetus above the life and rights of the woman who is living.By forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term anti-choicers are saying the eventual life of the fetus means more than the woman’s life.”

            ^Divine fallacy, allegedly

            ———–

            I looked up Divine Fallacy. I am not seeing it. WTF?

            From rational wiki:

            “”The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

            The general form of the argument is as follows.

            Minor premise: One can’t imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.

            Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.

            Conclusion: Not-P.

            As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major
            premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn’t
            follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited.
            Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn’t follow that no one will ever be able to.””

            ———–

            So basically, we are engaging in this fallacy because we are incapable of imagining how a woman forced into biological subservience to a fetus is in fact an ‘equal’ to the fetus?

            wot?

          • fiona64

            The person who posted that this particular reality is a logical fallacy has no idea how logical fallacies work.

          • RonPaul2012

            Yeah, this is the same asshat who told BJ survivor and I that, when we asked him under what circumstances are persons FORCED to donate blood/tissue/organs to save a life, he replied:

            1) China!

            2) Pregnancy is an exception to the rule because it’s an exception. Don’t like it, too bad. It just is. So stop whining.

            He then bragged over at LAN that he had ‘crushed’ us with his superior logic.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And giving full rights to a 14 week fetus violates the right of the born woman.

          • AveMaria02

            Which of the woman’s rights were violated?

          • RonPaul2012

            The right not to be used as a mere means to an end.

            That is slavery.

            That is objectification.

            Women are not incubators.

          • HeilMary1

            Or human puppy mills for pedophile priests.

          • Ella Warnock

            Ohhh, but we are. Nothing but the carriers of the precious seed of life. No value in our own lives, natch. If you have a uterus and you’re still ovulating, you do realize you’re classified as “pre-pregnant” at all times, and thus are subject to reproductive slavery for the “irresponsibility” of enjoying your own sexuality. Wanna play? Be prepared to pay. Always. It’s your biological lot in life, doncha know. Any woman who opts out is a coward, and DEMONIC, to boot!

          • RonPaul2012

            What *really* annoyed me about the idiots over at LAN/mommyish is that they sneered at us for even *daring* to suggest that a zygote was less important than a woman.

            And how *dare* you even suggest that the pain of childbirth should give you the right to deny life to a precious baby! That baby had the *right* to tear apart your body, and if you don’t think so, you’re just selfish! and immoral! and just plain disgusting!

          • Ella Warnock

            Exactly. Which is why contraception is problematic for those mental midgets. A woman shouldn’t even be able to opt the fuck out of the whole mess.

          • RonPaul2012

            Speaking of selflessness..

            What exactly is so selfless about choosing to have kids?

            How often do people *really* have kids because they selflessly want to give the gift of life?

            People have kids because 1) they want kids 2) societal acceptance/maintain the status quo

            I am really having a hard time imagining that anyone, no matter how meaning, would have kids to be truly altruistic. There has to be something in it for them.

            Wouldn’t it be safer to say that imposing life on someone, for your own needs, is more selfish? That burdening the world with more mouths to feed is selfish?

          • Ella Warnock

            Of course there’s something in it for them. “Unconditional love.” Snork, hardly. Do you love your parents unconditionally? And they hardly loved us unconditionally. There were actually a fuck of a lot of conditions.

            At any rate, it’s one of the most narcissistic things you can possibly do. “Continuing MY genetic legacy,” as if it’s actually all that special. Please. “Selfish” is insisting that others live exactly as they do. I don’t give a shit whether people have kids or not, but I do believe I have the utter and complete right to be left the hell alone.

          • RonPaul2012

            Exactly. I was a wanted child. With one caveat. My mom’s mother had heart disease and was dying. She begged my mom and her sister to give her a grandchild. My mom relented, got married young, and had me. She genuinely loved me, but it irks me that she was still *pressured* into it.

            And why the fuck do the grandparents need grandkids? I hear this all the time. Pro-lifers talk about how selfish the s1ut is for not giving the grandparents what they are entitled to – a grandchild! And why do they want that grandchild? Their genetic legacy of course! But why? I mean, unless you’re an aristocrat, or a farmer who needs 12 kids to run the farm and look after you when you’re 60 and can’t move, what is the point of having descendants other than pure narcissism???

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, exactly. They think this gives them “immortality.” So, do you know anything about your great-grandparents? I know, in an intellectual manner, my geneaology back to England and Scotland and Germany. Do I know anything about the actual PEOPLE, though? No, not really, and it doesn’t really matter.

            I think my mother had kids to prove her mother wrong. Her mother apparently didn’t really think she was mother material, and my mother just really wanted to show her up, I think. We were loved, no doubt, but I’d say the results were mixed, at best. I would imagine that my own massive distaste for the whole thing does come, in part, from a realization that motherhood was not what she thought it was going to be, and perhaps not quite as rewarding as she’d thought.

            Again, it doesn’t really matter “why.” I don’t want to. That’s reason enough.

          • RonPaul2012

            The usual suspects (you know who i am talking about) over at LAN and secular pro-life hate hate HATE being called breeders. I think it’s funny. I think it comes down to the fact that they are threatened by us the way religionists are threatened by atheists. Our choices call into question the wisdom of their choices.

            Like you I don’t care if people want to have as many kids as they can handle. Just give them a good life, and don’t beat them into submission, Debi and Micheal Pearl style. (Funny, isn’t it, how the very pro-life view children and women as property/objects).

          • Ella Warnock

            That is interesting, how they’ll insist that a fetus isn’t a woman’s “property,” but THEIR children most definitely ARE their property and utterly at the mercy of their oppressive beliefs. So, my question is: When did that kid BECOME your property? When it exited the birth canal? Cutting of the umbilical cord? It became yours to do with as you please at some point, so just what point, exactly is that?

            “Our choices call into question the wisdom of their choices.”

            I wonder. I have to say I’ve never once questioned the propriety of my choices, so it’s hard to say.

          • RonPaul2012

            OH, one last thing. I keep replying to you because I keep thinking up more points haha.

            OK.

            You had mentioned contraception. The usual suspects always talk about contraception. They always say, don’t have sex unless you take precautions. Ok, then why is it that LAN, secular pro-life etc. all have anti-contraception articles? Why do they speak out against plan B? Why do they support parental notification and signatures for teenagers wanting to use plan b/contraception? Why do they print articles that say the pill causes cancer and makes you fat? Call me crazy but…it sure seems that they oppose contraception just as much as the RCC does…they are just more dog-whistley about it.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, it does go against what’s “nachurl,” after all.

            Speaking of geneaology and contraception, something that I noticed often on my family tree was men marrying a second time after the first wife died from . . . TA DA! Birth complications! Yep, just marry another younger one and keep pumpin’ em out. Ohh, but Ella, you might not BE HERE if it weren’t for those situations!

            So what?

          • RonPaul2012

            Yes and back in those days, if a man divorced the wife, he kept the kids and she was thrown out of the house. What’s that about kids being property again?

          • Ella Warnock

            And in Islam, the children are the property of the man, as well. Fundies don’t appreciate that parallel, but it’s apt nonetheless.

          • lady_black

            I have grandchildren too. Two of them I will never have a part in their lives, because they live too far away and the mother and my son have divorced and re-married. I love them, but I’m realistic enough to realize they will never really know me. I would never demand that ANY of my kids give me grandkids. I already know one son likely never will, as they both have fertility issues and time is running out. And that’s OK. I enjoy spending time with the one granddaughter who lives near me. Grand-parenting is much more satisfying than parenting. You know why? You can have fun with them, and then you get to give them back.

          • CJ99

            My parents were religious zealots and I certainly wasn’t loved uncondtionally. My lifes been nothing but a bunch of extreme conditions. As a kid I was expected to be seen & not heard always, be ready to serve them hand & foot at all times. They even started expecting me to be out looking for paying work as young as 8 or 9 years old. If you’d heard with your own ears what they’d said & done you still wouldn’t believe most of it. Even had my father screaming at me all the way through my teenage years for not signing my life away for “hard physical labour”, yeah they actually wanted me in a slave labour camp. I wish I was making this crap up but in reality I lived it.

            Ugh, so many religious extremists have kids not cause they love life or kids. Its about making more of the faithful who they think they can be easilly controlled. Yeah I’m sayng religion isn’t what it claims to be, instead its become a form of slavery hiding in plain sight under the guise of “what god wants”

          • lady_black

            I have to admit, I had kids because I wanted to have them. And I even risked my own life with one of them (complete placenta previa). However, if it had been my life or that of the fetus, I’m not ashamed to say I would choose my own life. Why would I choose to leave the child I had motherless?

          • RonPaul2012

            But, but, avemaria told us with certainty that no fetus has ever hurt a woman in all of history???

          • lady_black

            She’s wrong.

          • RonPaul2012

            I looked up placentia previa. That’s harsh. So much can go wrong in a pregnancy.

            But hey, don’t tell Drew Hymer that you had a life threatening pregnancy! Because then you will be suggesting that women were not ‘designed’ to give birth! Which is misogynist! Stop shitting all over women! Women were made to have babies, every pregnancy is healthy because of the aforementioned point, therefore, women should be forced to make babies!

          • lady_black

            He’s an idiot.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Her wish not to be kept on life support and basically reduced to a thing. I call that a pretty big violation.

          • AveMaria02

            And since when did a person’s wish not to be kept on life support become a human right?

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you would hook your dead loved one up to machines against their will and treat them like an object and not see anything wrong with that? Really?

          • AveMaria02

            I would if someone else’s life was at stake as is in this case.

          • RonPaul2012

            OK. I am dying. I can harvest your corpse or your loved one’s corpse for organs in order to keep myself alive, right?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well, you see, once the dead woman holds ‘that pwecious baybee’ in her arms, she’ll forget all about being a corpse ‘n stuff……

          • RonPaul2012

            Is she Duncan Macleod’s wife?

          • Jennifer Starr

            You must not think too much of your loved ones. I would never hook someone I loved up to a machine against their wishes.

          • AveMaria02

            And neither would I so long as there wasn’t another life at stake.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And that’s the thing about ‘pro-life’. It sounds so nice and benign, doesn’t it? All cute little babies and mommies and who could be against that? Until you realize that ‘pro-life’ also means forcing raped children to give birth,requiring women who are miscarrying a non-viable fetus to die with their fetus if it still has a heartbeat, mutilating women with ectopic pregnancies by removing their tube to satisfy ‘double effect’, and keeping dead pregnant women hooked up to machines to harvest their fetus. Among lots of other things. Then it doesn’t sound so nice and benign at all. I’m so glad that I’m no longer ‘pro-life’.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well said, Jen.

          • AveMaria02

            All of those things are justified.

          • RonPaul2012

            Really?

            Torturing a rape victim is justified?

            Removing a woman’s fallopian tube so she can never have kids again is justified???

            Forcing a woman to DIE with a fetus that is doomed is justified?

            Forcing a 9 year old girl to give birth is justified?

            Thanks for proving that you are a monster, AveMaria.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, I know you think those things are justified. You have no problem with those things. Thank you for reminding me of why I’m no longer ‘pro-life’.

          • Ivy Mike

            With that statement, you mark yourself as an unfeeling psychopath.
            This is where your unthinking, fath-based, and preist-promoted fetus fetishizing inevitably gets you.

            You have decided that the condition of pregnancy relegates an adult woman to the status of non-citizen, whose rights are subject to other’s religions..

            Further, you have decided that you are so smart and wise, and so absolutely correct, that your personal religious beliefs should be made into law that everyone, including those who do not share those views.

            You worship fetii. You do not care about any other lives at all. The woman’s life, health, and those of her existing family, mean absolutely nothing to you. You are a psychopath with a religious excuse.

          • lady_black

            They are justified only in the mind of a sociopath. What part of your religion says that women are utilitarian objects and have no human dignity.

          • AveMaria02

            There is no part of Catholicism that says that. Catholicism teaches that all human beings are created in the image of God and that we all have an inherent dignity.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Unless you’re a pregnant woman or a child abused by a priest. Or a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. Or someone who’s miscarrying a non-viable fetus, which you think either deserves death or punishment by removing her uterus and preventing her from having another child. Your ‘faith’ is more than a little sick.

          • RonPaul2012

            If it did, it wouldn’t teach that women are property and must give birth even if it kills them.

            Asshole.

          • HeilMary1

            Except women, altar boys and non-white, non-Catholics!

          • Ivy Mike

            No. All those things are atrocities. The only way an otherwise normal, empathic, feeling human could see that list of horrors as “justified” is through the lifelong brainwashing and propaganda at which the Catholic Church, among others, is a master at.

          • colleen2

            Justified by monsters,

          • HeilMary1

            Your sadism exceeds your stupidity and sanctimony.

          • fiona64

            Only if you’re an effing nutter …

          • RonPaul2012

            Do you get email updates? A new asshat is posting at the TFA atheist/abortion thread. He is extremely pretentious, think yippeekayay, only atheist. He likes to throw around big werdz enmeshed in a glorious word salad.

            Anyways, I checked his post history out of curiosity, and he gave myintx a “+100″ reply because she made the statement that ‘all parents should be responsible for their children’.

            Yeah, that’s real deep. It just goes to show that even the most sophisticated secular pro-life arguments are just 1) misogynist 2) religious, when you look deeper.

            One last thing. Considering the smug superiority that I have witnessed over at the secular pro-life sites, I am honestly at a loss as to why they didn’t just *descend* on that TFA thread. If their arguments are so bulletproof and they are so much more intelligent than us then why did we only get a couple of them?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I get some, but not a lot–can you link me?

          • RonPaul2012

            I finally had to set disqus to email notifications because I am missing half the convos around here…

            Anyways, it’s not very interesting, just that he is a pseudo-intellectual asshat who thinks that myintx is a master debater..

            http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/18/planned-parenthoods-abortion-theater/#comment-1183241209

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/12/03/does-it-make-sense-to-be-a-pro-life-atheist/#comment-1183058577

          • Lizzie

            ugh just when I start to forget about myintx…

          • RonPaul2012

            Well said Jennifer.

            Here is the latest acyu update, for the comedy. He really is *creepy* as fuck. I think he’s one of those fetish fetishists who will walk up to women and rub their bellies:

            “”“If I were a woman and saw a man trying to control my body, that would certainly seem oppressive, dogmatic, creepy, or whatever. I really do get that.” But then I would go on to say, “It would seem that way IF I thought of my unborn baby as a piece of tissue or a parasite or whatever. But if I saw it as a beautiful and valuable human being, I would also see the man and his motivations differently than I would otherwise.” “””

            —————

            On RvW, he again shows his stupidity by talking about zygotes vs. babies only in terms of *size*:

            “””Getting back to “All that was lacking was to recognize the baby’s personhood starting from the single-cell stage”: Why didn’t they recognize it? Hard to say how they were able to make such a crucial distinction between a small unborn baby and a big unborn baby, but it seems to me that this kind of distinction is often just like the outlook of a child who thinks that “Oh wow, being big is everything.”

            “If a human being is a half-inch long, does she deserve respect? If she is 20 inches long, does she deserve 40 times more? People who use years and pounds to quantify the respect due to another human being are not [he said ‘not well-intentioned,’ but I would say ‘not very thoughtful’.]” (Lejeune)

            “As feminists, we don’t believe in discrimination based on size, age or location. Do you believe that a child has less of a right to exist because he or she is small? Are large or tall people more valuable than small or short people? By that logic, most women would have fewer rights than men! For years, abortion advocates have been pitting women against their unborn children . . .” (president of Feminists for Life)”””

            ————–

            ^Pre-natal development has been *throughly* explained to him, by multiple people, that it isn’t just a matter of *size*.

            *eyeroll*

          • lady_black

            NO ONE else’s life is at stake. They are doing an experiment to this woman that even Frankenstein wouldn’t have dared, and I think it’s BARBARIC. If it were MY family member, I would round up six or eight large men, lock the door and pull the plug myself.

          • AveMaria02

            Wrong! The unborn baby’s life is at stake.

          • RonPaul2012

            A fetus is not an unborn baby. For it to be an unborn baby, it would have to have the same capacities and abilities as a baby. And it does not.

            Furthermore, it has no ‘life’ because it is not yet living as a human being – only a potential one.

          • L-dan

            Disturbingly enough, it’s an experiment that’s been done before. One of the articles regarding this case mentions two other instances (one nearly this early in fetal development) where pregnant corpses were kept on life support long enough to harvest living infants.

            This does not, however, support doing so as a general rule, even if we posit that the fetuses life warrants essentially donating one’s entire body after death to its welfare. There was no mention of how many times it was tried unsuccessfully, or even of the other particulars in those cases. For all we know, the women died with parting wishes that everything be done to save those fetuses. One of them was delivered at just above the threshold of viability due to deterioration of the condition of the dead women gestating it. Pregnancy is taxing, and life support does not maintain a body in anything like normal health. So it’s not surprising that even life support can’t keep the body going throughout pregnancy in some (or possibly most) cases.

            It’s horrifying.

          • RonPaul2012

            One idiot on yahoo said that using dead women as living incubators would be the way to go to clone humans!

          • L-dan

            As soon as I typed it–shades of A Modest Proposal as it is–I knew someone, somewhere would have suggested that seriously. *sigh*

            The technical issues with keeping someone who is actually dead, vs in a vegetative state, ‘alive’ artificially make it a poor idea to begin with. That said, should such things ever come to pass, I believe it’s as much a volunteer gig as pregnancy for actual living people is (or should be).

          • RonPaul2012

            BTW, are you a medical student or researcher or somesuch?

            btw, i r marshmallow/jejune

          • L-dan

            Biology degree with some medical interest on the side and a friend in postnatal nursing. My actual work is more paper pushing and client services relating to plant material with impressive technical pedigrees (to be somewhat vague). So I get to use the plant biology portion of my background more than the animal/human.

            Currently getting back up to speed on things with a fair number of used textbooks preparatory to picking up a few lab courses and aiming at a Clinical Lab Science program. Though I’d like to hunt up one or two to talk to and make sure it’s not one of those medical fields that’s got more trained people than positions available. Some of the imaging tech fields look that way upon a casual search; which is a pity since I could qualify for those programs more quickly and the math/physics component is appealing.

            And good to know the shifting ID. There have been a few name changes in the comment section over the past year or so.

            Tangentially, possibly because it’s winter, possibly because of the trolls…but I find myself missing Crowepps this month more than usual.

          • RonPaul2012

            yeah, BJ told me about her. I started reading this site a year and a half ago, before they switched to Disqus and I could start posting.

            I learned a lot from the comments. Crowepps was great.

            I am up late because I went to the bathroom and made the mistake of checking my phone for updates. i see Maria here spouting her nonsense and atheist pro-lifers spouting theirs.

            Did you know that all human organism have the 1) capacity for personhood 2) ‘presumptive’ capacity to become rational beings, cuz ‘embryology’

            Therefore, every prenate is a person with mental capacities and abilities that they just haven’t yet * manifested*. They have not expressed it, and they may never (if born disabled) however, the ‘capacity’ is there simply by virtue of being members of the human species. I will admit that I struggled with this concept for a couple of days because it is so counter intuitive. BTW, we are apparently guilt of “the faulty assumption that because personhood is a sufficient condition for human rights, it must be a necessary”. For good measure, the atheist pro-lifer threw this sentence in: “This is a result of affirming the consequent, which is confused by many with modus tollens, but the latter is valid whereas the former is a fallacy”

            I find that semantics are at the root of most of these arguments and it *really* makes my head hurt. Everyone is basically saying the same thing, they just say it differently, and by throwing in some big sciencey words and talking about logical fallacies they think this gives them some sort of authority.

            Is it just me, or does this sound like a fancy way of saying that every zygote has a soul? One pro-lifer compared a prenate to a kodak picture – that everything is ‘there’ – you just can’t ‘see’ it ! And that somehow the car/building analogies are wrong, because outside sources ‘build’ them, whereas the prenate ‘builds itself’. I don’t see how a mindless biochemical process is supposed to count towards a prenate being a rational being but eh…

            Sorry for ranting to you, but this has been bugging me and I am driving my bf insane with constant’ what do you think of this argument’ questions. And he is sick of the abortion debate hehe.

          • L-dan

            Sorry, finally crashed last night. ^^

            Someone, relatively recently, posted a really excellent embryology based outline of what’s going on with embryos.

            The basic gist is that, what you have is a blueprint. A zygote or embryo has about the same relation to a person that a blueprint does to a house. If it isn’t constructed, that house will never exist. It’s not that there’s the capacity for personhood there. The capacity is still in construction. If you consider any lump of cells that can be coaxed into expressing the series of instructions necessary to develop into a person to be a person, cloning makes all adult stem cells people…we just haven’t given them the right prod towards production.

            The whole “it builds itself” argument is stupid. Cells acting on their programming is not evidence of an entity ‘doing’ anything. If it could sit in a jar and build itself, that’s one thing. But it can’t. It requires all sorts of inputs from the pregnant person, and has developed to be aggressive in taking them. Everything is not ‘there’. Genetic expression doesn’t work that way. There’s a reason most of them don’t make it all the way through to birth.

            For a while, you can split the blastocyst multiple times and get more
            embryos (hence identical multiples) and smush them together to get one
            (hence chimerae). Personhood isn’t splittable, a chimera isn’t two
            people.

            As for mr. “I have a pocket of logic terms to toss off”: “the faulty assumption that because personhood is a sufficient condition for human rights, it must be a necessary” Does he have a better set of sufficient conditions for personhood? A set that denies human rights to molar pregnancies, fetus in fetu, and the like? Because right now, assigning personhood to infants at birth, and assigning human rights likewise, is the clearest and most logical way to do it without creating some severe stupidity.

            Beyond all that, just because we restrict what can be done to our bodies, we do very little in the way of mandating what can be done to them (i.e. involuntary commitments if one is a danger to self or others). We do not mandate treatments for adults. We do not mandate organ or tissue donation. We do not mandate self-improvement like braces. We only mandate things like glasses or hearing aids if you are going to be doing things where sight or hearing are necessary…like glasses for driving if you have poor vision. So why is pregnancy an exception where we mandate that one is required to put their life and health at risk for another ‘person’ at all. That’s even more egregious when you’re pressing someone’s body into involuntary service for a blueprint.

            And before that contingent jumps on the “harm to self and others” exceptions, realize that the consequence of allowing restrictions on pregnant people due to the potential harm to a fetus means that all obviously pregnant people would have their lives severely curtailed. There’s a huge list of substances they potentially wouldn’t be allowed, including medication necessary for their own well being. What activities would be too dangerous? If you can’t take a toddler mountain climbing, what about a fetus? And, because you can’t tell that the little pre-person has been conceived until a few weeks later, you’re potentially looking at such curtailment for all women of reproductive age. If anyone thinks that sounds reasonable, they can fuck themselves right the hell off.

          • RonPaul2012

            Someone, relatively recently, posted a really excellent embryology based outline of what’s going on with embryos.

            Was it here? This piece: http://www.sullydog.com/sullysites/qm/classicmeat/10-01.htm

            They try to find a way around the arguments you made by pointing out that even if we can’t say that a zef has a personality yet, it has a *generic personality* by virtue of *having a full complement of human DNA* – therefore, it’s a person!!! Because the *capacity* to be a person is in the DNA! It just hasn’t been expressed yet!

            As for your final point about zygote personhood, I followed lady)_black and Plum Dumpling over to Personhood USA. The folks over there are trying their damndest to pretend that we are all a bunch of silly billies to think that zygote personhood wouldn’t result in every miscarriage being investigated as a possible crime. They say ‘but it didn’t happen pre RvW.’ No, it didn’t. But zygotes weren’t persons back then! As far as the law is concerned, every death must be investigated. Period. Why the hell should zygotes be any different if they are *people*.

            Anyways, I think that I summed up the secular pro-life position quite nicely here:

            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/12/23/texas-law-forces-hospital-family-to-keep-pregnant-woman-on-life-support-against-her-will/#comment-1183299042

            Once you dig a bit deeper you realize it’s all about widdle souls and misogyny.

          • L-dan

            That’s the one. It’s a decent layman’s version of what’s going on. Sadly, without some science background, it’s never going to convince those who think that simply having a dab of DNA makes a cell a person.

            The capacity to be a person is in the DNA *plus* interaction of that DNA with the cellular environment and the environment it’s sitting in. A blob of DNA on its own will not magically become a person, or a liver, for that matter. The entire field of stem cell research is basically about that liminal space between potential and becoming. Having the capacity to become a tree does not make an egg a chicken or an acorn a tree.

            Nor does having the capacity to write sonnets make me a poet if I don’t actually, you know, sit down and write some. I mean, if mere potential is the same as actually becoming something, I’m a poet already, and a doctor, teacher, rocket scientist, fashion designer!

            The point about the placenta is spot on; with the addition that the placenta is the one organ that belongs to both the embryo and the pregnant person. Both sets of DNA have to collaborate, so to speak.

          • RonPaul2012

            That essay by John Sullivan really helped me to understand the process of ‘what it takes to make an unborn human’ more thoroughly. Up until that point I would say that I didn’t really believe in the homunculus theory of development, but i was probably like most people when I believed that ‘all of the genetic information is there, it just needs to grow’. Prior to then, I didn’t know that a zygote was just a blueprint, and I didn’t know the role played by epigenetics – especially in the womb. I had always thought that ‘nurture’ happened *after* birth. But after reading that essay, and spending about 20 hours watching Robert Sapolsky videos on youtube, I came to understand the role of epigenetics.

            That until you have a *viable* *individual* you really have nothing. Nothing more than a potential person, at any rate. Yes, every zygote is *genetically unique*, but that doesn’t mean they are VIABLE, AUTONOMOUS, INDIVIDUALS with the CAPACITY for SENTIENCE which is, in the end, what makes a person.

            That the genetic information must be read, interpreted, and expressed. And that anything can go wrong during that process. Some folks have tried to use analogies to the creation of a car, or to a building. But, I don’t think those go far enough. With a car and a building the parts are already in existence. With a zygote, those parts do not exist. I would rather equate the construction of an unborn human to that of a building/car only starting at the resource extraction phase. And, keeping in mind the part about how the instructions have to be interpreted/expressed, problems can start with resource extraction and continue all the way up to the ‘placing of parts’, if you will. The whole thing is one giant gamble, in essence. And you can’t look at the metal in the ground, and the steel in the mill, and at the rubar in a pile, and say “we have a building here, we just can’t see it.’

            I’m a poet already, and a doctor, teacher, rocket scientist, fashion designer!

            I often like to say that I need to lose 5lbs. And I do, and I am working on it;P But until I lose that 5lbs I can’t put on my size S t-shirt now can I?

            PS1 I have found that arguing abortion helps with hunger pains when dieting haha

            PS2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA <–Bob

            Sapolsky, for anyone who is interested in a layman's course to behavioral genetics and epigenetics

            PS3 BTW, what do you say to people who say that fetus *must* be sentient because of fetal hearing and fetal memory? Since those 'abilities' appear to be present before the cortex is sufficiently developed at around 24+ weeks. The problem is, people read that the fetus 'hears' or that it ''learns' and they figure that it is capable of cognition at 19 weeks. I would suspect that the brain, while developing, is capable of reacting to sound, and creating some kinds of 'memories' but not in a meaningful sense. It's like when, with epigenetics, you say that a fetus 'learns' to be anxious because mom was stressed. It didn't actualy 'learn' it in a conscious sense – but it's body 'adapted', if you will, to certain stimuli.

          • L-dan

            Well, with epigenetics, you’re looking at genetic responses to stimuli/chemicals, which is not the same thing as a central nervous system response. The brain doesn’t need to be involved. So it’s a bodywide ‘learning’. It’s like talking about metabolism. You can’t just ‘think’ your metabolism up or down, it’s more about your body responding to things, and those responses feed into parts of the brain that regulate other things…and so on.

            As for the fetal hearing and memory, I haven’t seen any research that supports memory that early (though I’ve hardly done exhaustive searches). There’s research about response to sound pre-having-much-brain, which, since the structures of the ear are in place, could be simple physical response to stimuli. Some of those don’t require complex brain structure. Think of the knee-jerk reaction doctors do with that little strike below the kneecap. That doesn’t go to the brain and back. It’s not conscious. When you’re talking about low frequency sounds, you’re going to be rattling not only the ear structures, but the entire aquatic environment the fetus is floating in (think about the feeling through your body to loud bass sounds). So I don’t see that kind of response as indicative of much early on.

            All the things I see about remembering tunes indicates that they were hearing them over the course of pregnancy, including late in pregnancy. I didn’t see any that went “ok, play these tunes up to x weeks, then not again until we can test the infant to see if they respond to it.”

            And yes, assembling a person is rather like having a blueprint for a house, but still needing someone to cut down the trees and make boards out of them, etc. At least to some extent. All analogies are flawed when you start getting too far into the details.

          • RonPaul2012

            Well, with epigenetics, you’re looking at genetic responses to
            stimuli/chemicals, which is not the same thing as a central nervous
            system response. The brain doesn’t need to be involved. So it’s a
            bodywide ‘learning’. It’s like talking about metabolism. You can’t just
            ‘think’ your metabolism up or down, it’s more about your body responding
            to things, and those responses feed into parts of the brain that
            regulate other things…and so on.

            Which is what Sapolsky said, about the Dutch hunger famine. Third trimester fetuses of starving women ‘learned’ to be more efficient in extracting and storing calories. And 50+ years on, those fetuses grew up to be diabetic and obese. 1st and 2nd trimester fetuses during that period did not suffer from future obesity and diabetes.

            Of course, the problem is, when you say ‘learned’ the ignorant dumbasses out there always assume that the widdle ‘baby’ was conscious at the time and was taking notes!!!

            I often paste the sullydog link and other related information to people when trying to explain the whole ‘under construction’ idea. Sometimes I think that I overdo it, and get embarassed (and I am accused of plagiarism, even though I attribute it to him) because i can’t ‘put things into my own words’. However, I take that back because to a certain extent, when dealing, not with pro-lifers, but with the casual reader, an 1) argument from authority works best 2) the information is also helpful to pro-choicers (just like it helped me).

          • L-dan

            Besides, how many arguments have you seen from forced-birthers that are actually their own words vs. parroted arguments?

          • RonPaul2012

            Since I have been visiting secular pro-life I see that they all recycle the exact *same* arguments and quotes.

            They do it more than us.

            Someone mentioned it in jest, however, it may have been serious, but apparently, Liberty University has a course for arguing against abortion.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if that was true.

            Btw, they even have online guides for how to argue against Pete Singer’s IVF clinic fire thought experiment. And the BEST rebuttal they could come up with is:

            “We value the 100 embryos in a petri dish just as much as we value the baby, only we save the baby because we are emotionally attached to babies and can see them suffer, and we lack those same emotional attachments to zygotes, *however* we love zygotes just as much and we assert that they have the exact same value as a baby”

            lulZ

          • L-dan

            No, no you don’t value those embryos the same or 100 of them ought to be enough to outweigh that one baby. When you’re talking about a thought experiment, the idea is not that you pick one in the heat of emotion, the idea is that you’re having the time to weigh the decision and determine what choice you feel is moral. If you chose to save the baby, obviously there is something there that makes their survival a greater moral good than those 100 embryos. Where..if they are all equally people, you should be opting for the petri dish.

            Imagine being at the wheel of a careening truck and trying to control it, the best you can do is go left or right (let’s say straight would take out the support for a huge building, killing thousands…so it’s obviously right out). One direction will run over the innocent kid sitting there, the other will take out a schoolbus with 100 kids. Here, they’re all obviously equal entities and sane people chose to save as many as possible. Now, one kid vs a bus with 100 convicts creates a different sort of moral thought experiment for that crowd. But I’d rather illustrate the point without the added variable.

            After all, they’re perfectly happy watching those with unwanted pregnancies suffer despite the fact that they’re emotionally attached to actual people and don’t want to see them suffer. So I really don’t buy that the baby’s suffering (that they won’t actually see if they run out with the petri dish) is what’s dissuading them.

          • RonPaul2012

            Yeah, one guy made the argument that we only ‘permit’ abortion because we can’t ‘see’ embryos cry or suffer, because it’s silent and occurs inside the body!

            What they are trying to do is say that, on the one hand, we dehumanize embryos by not granting that they have the same moral value as born children…but on the other, they are trying to humanize embryos by asserting that they have the same value…but then they are trying to say that embryos, in certain situations, don’t really have the same value, because they don’t act like born children, but they do have that same value…because…

            ^You see what a mess that was? How hard it was to read? How it didn’t make any goddamn sense?

            Yeah!

            You can’t dehumanize something that doesn’t have the traits of a human to start with (don’t wanna ignore Spock and Data here). And you can’t then justify your dehumanization of it in the thought experiment by pointing out the lack of those very human traits, and then try to cover up the inconsistencies by pointing out that you *dehumanized* it because it *lacks those very human traits* by then claiming that *it really is a human being with the same value as a newborn*.

            /migraine

          • L-dan

            We dehumanize embryos…by saying, correctly, that 99+% of abortions happen before they even have the capacity to suffer. So no, we aren’t blase because we can’t see them cry and suffer. They don’t cry and suffer.

            I feel more for the doctors performing abortions at later stages, because even knowing that they don’t suffer, it’s not a simple thing to deal with taking apart something that’s close to being a baby. You can agree wholeheartedly that the abortion needs to happen, and you’re still not going to find that an easy thing to do.

            They want to keep shifting the debate. They focus on later term abortions because they think they’ll get more sympathy when bringing up the specter of dismembered almost-babies–and then try to squirm away from the articles about how people suffer from wanted pregnancies gone wrong when they run into these abortion limits that are set with no consideration for all the complexities of pregnancy. Talk about early term ones that comprise most abortions and suddenly they have to prove that even blastocysts are people, otherwise there is no reason to oppose first term abortions. It’s stupid all around.

          • RonPaul2012

            Oh, and the right to do stuff to your body is a ‘weak right’

            There are regulations governing what we can and cannot do to our bodies. Certain surgeries, drugs etc are out of bounds, or highly regulated.

            And we have a moral duty not to kill.

            Oh, and even IF you are only harming your body, if you shoot a bullet through your arm and it kills the innocent person in front of you, you are guilty of murder

            Therefore, abortion is wrong!

          • CJ99

            that’s just so unbelivably sick. Excuse me whilst I barf.

          • AveMaria02

            Only if there was another life at stake and no I would see nothing wrong with that.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, I would. And I wouldn’t do it.

          • lady_black

            Yeah, I realize your church is all about turning human beings with dignity into utilitarian OBJECTS and all, but see, I have major issues with being used. You and your pedophile leaders better keep your filthy mitts off of me, and stay the hell away from my daughter and granddaughters too. You have been warned.

          • AveMaria02

            Ohh, I am so scared that I am shaking!

          • RonPaul2012

            Yeah, you are the kind of person who would mock a 9 year old rape victim.

            Sicko.

          • lady_black

            You should be scared of me.

          • AveMaria02

            Why?

          • RonPaul2012

            Because you’re a goddamn idiot that’s why.

          • HeilMary1

            You’re so pompously immoral that you’d be thrilled if pedophile priests molested all your kids! May Goddess bless you with an embarrassing obstetric incontinence annulment and decades of prison time for enabling pedophile priests.

          • RonPaul2012

            Since when did a person’s wish not to be raped by a necrophile after death become a human right?

          • Ella Warnock

            Since when was a person’s EXPRESS wish to NOT be kept on life support cease to be that person’s right?

          • lady_black

            Since life-support was invented. Every adult human being has a human right to refuse treatment!

          • RonPaul2012

            What about the unicorns that are hit by cars????

            Drew hymer is a twit.

          • AveMaria02

            Yes, every adult human being has a right to refuse treatment but every human being also has a right to life. Pulling the plug on this woman would be violating the unborn baby’s right to life. The right to life is a far more important right than the right to refuse treatment and therefore the baby’s right to life supersedes the woman’s right to refuse treatment.

          • RonPaul2012

            You don’t have a right to life, actually. If you did, natural disasters and animals wouldn’t kill humans in the millions. The hurricane doesn’t care about your ‘right to life’. Neither does the hungry tiger.

            And no, the right to life is not more important than the right to refuse treatment. If it was, doctors would have had the legal right to force Steve Jobs to take their cancer treatments vs. the treatments he chose.

          • lady_black

            If there actually were a baby, I might agree with you. The only “right to life” a fetus has is dependent upon it’s ability to metabolize nutrients, oxygenate, and eliminate on it’s own. You can’t co-opt anyone else’s body to perform those functions for yourself, no matter how badly you need them. And if YOU (who unarguably are a person) can’t do that, then the fetal “you” had no such right either.

          • AveMaria02

            The fetus is a baby.

          • lady_black

            Then remove it. Give it it’s shot at life. If it’s a baby, it will survive outside her body.

          • RonPaul2012

            If it were a baby it would have one. It cannot survive without a placenta – which is part of the prenatal organism. Abortion by definition is not infanticide, if it was the “baby” could be removremoved and put up for adoption.

          • RonPaul2012

            NO, it isn’t.

            If a fetus WAS a baby (hint, a baby is a viable, autonomous individual) the fetus could 1) survive without a placenta (the placenta is in fact part of the fetus you know) 2) eat, shit and breathe without assistance – all things a fetus is inapable of 3) operate as an autonomous being ( see 1 and 3) 4) have the capacity for sentience (a fetus has the same capacity of sentience ie consciousness that a braindead corpse has, and no one complains when a braindead corpse is left to die or taken off life support. Until a fetus develops the capacity it is not a baby because it lacks the necessary brain structures needed for sentience).

            And I suggest you back up your claims, as I have been doing with mine.

            Offer up some reason, some logic. something.

            You are just giving us your opinions, which, frankly, are utterly *worthless* without an argument to back them up.

          • fiona64

            Learn to biology, please. An infant (i.e., a baby) is a *born entity.* Fetii are not infants; they are potential infants.

          • HeilMary1

            Then all of us have a right to help ourselves to all of YOUR organs, womb trafficker.

          • fiona64

            The right to life is a far more important right than the right to refuse
            treatment and therefore the baby’s right to life supersedes the woman’s
            right to refuse treatment.

            Tell me, Ave; do you support mandatory organ donation? After all, someone is dying on a dialysis machine right now. Are you tissue type-matched to make a living donation? That person’s right to life supercedes your right to refuse donation, according to your logic …

          • L-dan

            We can’t take organs from the dead unless they’ve previously agreed to be an organ donor. In most states, they have to sign something with witnesses, in fact. So we do have some kind of societal understanding that we have some rights regarding what happens to our corpses.

            Commandeering the entire corpse to act as life support for a fetus strikes me as pretty boldly going against that set of rights.

            I mean, if this is fine, why don’t we just hook up dead women to life support to act as gestational surrogates for the infertile as a general rule?

          • AveMaria02

            Perhaps because in vitro fertilization is gravely immoral?

          • RonPaul2012

            And pray tell why is ivf immoral?

            And why are you ignoring me?

          • Ivy Mike

            This blind, unsupported assertion is the religious belief of a version of Christianity, and has no bearing whatsoever on reality or law, and can therefore be dismissed.

          • colleen2

            A VERY small minority of people believe that. Again, it is so difficult for normal people to accept advice about morality from pedophiles.

          • HeilMary1

            And Nazi supporters!

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the gravely immoral and ignorant bigot here, you wanton womb trafficker!

          • L-dan

            Somehow I doubt that’s the reason, since most people don’t see IVF as remotely immoral.

            How about keeping people’s dead bodies going to harvest for organs as a compulsory thing? Is that moral?

          • Ineedacoffee

            Ive read all your comments here
            Let me sum you up in a few words
            Woman hating, forced birthing nutjob

            People like you are the reason priests still get their little boys, women are treated like sh*t and used as incubators and gay teens commit suicide
            You think a 9yo rape victim is fine, you are a sick twisted individual
            I cant wait for the day religion is abolished and made illegal

          • CJ99

            Unfortunately they’ll just scream louder about “teh persecurted churchez” and call for overthrowing the government so they can get their theocracy they crave so badly.

          • colleen2

            About the time that the Catholic church decided to maximize it’s healthcare profits with it’s favorite kind of patient. Insured and brain dead.

          • fiona64
          • lady_black

            How about her RIGHT not to be used as an incubator??????

          • AveMaria02

            Last time I checked, there is no such right.

          • RonPaul2012

            There is such a right.

            The right not to be enslaved.

            The right to medical privacy.

            Using a person as an incubator is to *objectify* them. It’s called reproductive objectification. And is no more moral than using someone as a sex slave, or any kind of slave. It is to treat a person as a mere means to an end. Which is what you are advocating.

          • lady_black

            OH there ABSOLUTELY IS such a right. It’s tied up in the concept of liberty. If you have no rights over your own body, that makes you a slave. Nice slavery mentality you have going on there. I think I’ll pass on that!

          • AveMaria02

            There is no such right as to not having your body used as an incubator. There is, however, a right to bodily autonomy. However, there is also a far more important right which is the right to life. The baby’s right to life supersedes this woman’s right to bodily autonomy in my opinion.

          • lady_black

            A right to bodily autonomy vs. a right not to be used as an incubator. Sounds like a distinction without a difference. And there IS no “baby.” If there were a baby, it could be removed.

          • RonPaul2012

            Can I have you kidney? My life trumps your comfort.

          • RonPaul2012

            The right to life does not supersede the right to bodily integrity as a general principle, no.

            If it did, people would have made blood and tissue donation mandatory long ago. They would have made such donations mandatory in the case of car and other accidents as well. You hit someone in a no-fault accident, you give them a kidney. Or blood. Or anything they need.

          • HeilMary1

            You are a disgusting misogynist exploiting other women’s wombs for pedophile priests! Keep your pedophile-blessed rosaries off all our ovaries!

          • fiona64

            Please feel free to gestate any pregnancies that happen in your own body. Pregnancies in other people’s bodies are none of your goddamned business.

          • Ineedacoffee

            A right to bodily autonomy should ALWAYS come before a bunch of unviable cells.
            My right to MY body will always surpass cells NO MATTER WHAT
            Until the fetus is born and separate from me I choose what happens to my body
            Not some religious wack job

          • HeilMary1

            Ever hear of our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

          • HeilMary1

            ALL abortions = maternal self-defense. Abortions are women’s Second Amendment equivalent.

          • AveMaria02

            How exactly are all abortions maternal self-defense?

          • RonPaul2012

            300k women dead per year from pregnancy – World Health Organization

            If the pain of childbirth were induced by other means it would be considered torture. Unless you consider 6-73 hours of having your stomach violently punched and ending with a cantaloupe being shoved your asshole to be a pleasant experience?

            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.

          • HeilMary1

            Thank you! But this list is above Ave’s infantile intellect.

      • fiona64

        Nope, sorry. A fetus is not a person. Personhood, and its attendant rights, accrue with birth. Not clear on why that is? Revisit the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

      • marshmallow

        A non viable fetus is not a person and will never one.

      • goatini

        Fetuses don’t have rights. Women do.

      • lady_black

        Um, nope. The only one with rights in this situation is the woman, who’s will is being communicated by her husband, since she is unable to communicate her wishes herself. The fetus has no rights because it is not viable yet, and likely never will be.

        • AveMaria02

          Actually the unborn baby most certainly does have rights. The unborn baby has rights that are given to him/her by God and that includes the right to life.

          • lady_black

            Yeah? Well “god” isn’t serving in the legislature of any state, or a secular nation such as the USA. And our Constitution says otherwise.

          • AveMaria02

            You are right but the state does have an obligation to protect all of our God-given rights and unborn babies have just as much of a right to life as anyone else.

          • RonPaul2012

            1) rights are not given to us by an imaginary deity

            2) unborn humans (which are not babies, please don’t mis-use the language) do not have the right to use another person’s body against that person’s will. That is rape.

          • fiona64

            Personhood, and its attendant rights, are legal matters — not religious ones. And those rights accrue with ::wait for it:: *birth.*

          • HeilMary1

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

          • AveMaria02

            Ummm yeah, that is obvious. Nobody has the right to maim and murder anyone. However, I don’t believe there has ever been a single case in the history of mankind of a fetus maiming and murdering his/her mother.

          • RonPaul2012

            OH really?

            287,000 women die per yer from pregnancy: source World Health Organization

            http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/10/torn-apart-by-childbirth

            Try wearing a colostomy bag for life, thanks fetus, for ripping apart vaginal wall, resulting in uncontrollable feces and urine running down leg…

            “That means each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory
            distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.”

            Data modeling suggesting 21/100,000 US maternal mortality rate

            In 2004/2005, 1.7 million women per year suffered adverse health effects

            http://search.worldbank.org/data?qterm=us%20maternal%20mortality%20rate&language=EN

            http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

            http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html

            Side effects pregnancy, scroll down to the end, where uteruses are prolapsed…women lose teeth, go blind, develop osteoperosis, cancer, incontinence, broken back/nerve damage requiring wheelchair for life..broken bones, diabetes, hemorrhage, multiple sclerosis, parkinsons, depression…

            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.

            ———-

            You’re an ignorant little shit, aren’t you?

          • Ella Warnock

            Aww, RonPaul, it’s all the miracles and joys of pregnancy and childbirth! You know it’s all worth it when you hold your precious baby in your arms! Why, you won’t even mind dying if you know you’ve given a life, nay, a GIFT, to the WORLD!

          • RonPaul2012

            Ron Paul has looked at a lot of vaginas in his time, you harlot!

          • HeilMary1

            BILLIONS of mothers throughout history have suffered deadly calamities like obstetric bladder and bowel fistula incontinence. My best friend’s face rotted off from lethal skin cancer triggered by her daughters’ high hormones during the pregnancies.

          • AveMaria02

            Okay and that is very sad and all but it still does not justify abortion.

          • RonPaul2012

            so you believe that..

            1) women should die

            2) women should leak feces and urine down their legs for life

            3) women should get cancer and die

            All for a fetus?

            What kind of sicko are you? Do you get off on torturing gays and women?

            Justify your beliefs. All you have been doing is repeating the same empty platitudes over and over again.

          • HeilMary1

            Yes it does, fetal idolater.

          • lady_black

            It happens ALL THE TIME, Maria.

          • AveMaria02

            Please provide evidence to back up your assertion.

          • RonPaul2012

            You haven’t provided ANY evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions.

            And I have provided plenty of evidence to back mine up, which you ignore for some reason. Don’t like facts, do you?

          • lady_black

            Other people have pointed out the many ways women die because of pregnancy. Do your OWN homework, papist.

          • colleen2

            You’ve figured it out! The maternal mortality rate is a liberal myth.

          • Ella Warnock

            God, hmm. No, I don’t think so.

            Gotta be born to have rights.

          • RonPaul2012

            The right to life does not come at the expense of someone else’s body.

            If I steal your blood, and stick a cantaloupe up your ass you would be within your rights to kill me in self-defense.

            The fetus harms the woman and thus it has NO right to use her body without consent. Abortion *is* self-defense.

          • RonPaul2012

            And don’t even try basing your argument on the existence of a god. If you want to debate it, debate it with logic, not by appealing to an imaginary skyfairy.

          • HeilMary1

            A sky fairy promoted by pedophile priests!

          • Ineedacoffee

            Rational argument please or can I work Santa and the tooth fairy into this

          • HeilMary1

            God/Goddess gave us women hundreds of plant-based abortifacients, including consecrated wine, GOP tobacco, and coffee.

          • AveMaria02

            How exactly are wine, tobacco, and coffee abortifacients? Please provide sources to back up your assertions. Also, Wikipedia does not count as a valid source since it can be edited by anyone.

          • HeilMary1

            My links get filtered as spam on this web site, but you should google books on the ancient history of birth control by Angus McLaren. Silphium and hundreds of plants have been known to trigger miscarriages. Just two cups of coffee can trigger miscarriages. My mom’s tea drinking caused a miscarriage and her good friend’s eleven miscarriages were caused by her closet alcoholism.

          • AveMaria02

            Well, thanks for the information.

          • LisaC

            Actually the unborn baby most certainly does have rights. The unborn baby has rights that are given to him/her by God and that includes the right to life.

            Well, surely God knew when he smote Ms. Munoz that her fetus would expire with her. If there’s any thwarting of the will o’God here, it’s being done by the state of Texas, not Mr. Munoz.

          • AveMaria02

            How is the state of Texas thwarting the will of God?

          • L-dan

            Wouldn’t one think that artificial life support is pretty much thwarting the will of God? If someone is dead, but machines are keeping them alive, that seems like God intended them to die, but silly humans think they can keep the meat shell going.

          • AveMaria02

            Artificial life support is not thwarting the will of God. The person is already dead. We are only keeping their body running for the sake of the person living inside of her.

          • RonPaul2012

            If your imaginary sky daddy wanted her to die then clearly it didnt’ want the fetus to live either.

          • HeilMary1

            If Goddess wanted that fetus to live, she wouldn’t strike dead the parasitic fetus’s host body.

          • L-dan

            So, God wanted the fetus to live, but killed the woman carrying it? Isn’t that sort of an “oops”. I would tend to assume, if I believed in an all-knowing, all-meddling God, that killing this woman meant that God intended the fetus to die as well. By keeping it alive, one might, in fact, be thwarting his will, no?

      • Ineedacoffee

        Where are the woman’s rights right now as she is being kept alive by machines
        Where are her family’s rights?
        Thats right people like you only care about the rights of cells, NO MATTER the outcome for the living person
        A bunch of cells should NEVER have rights over the living breathing person

  • Ivy Mike

    All goes back to the heart of the whole problem (IMHO, of course), which is that far too many people think that pregnancy, childbirth, being a wife and mother, etc…are not things that women CAN do, it’s what they are FOR.

    • AMH29

      So well said.

      • Ivy Mike

        I can’t take credit for it…I got that from a column by Amanda Marcotte.

        • expect_resistance

          I love Amanda! I often quote her too. :)

          • Devi Sensei

            Amanda wrote that? I’m lib but I think her writing is often crap. Impressed, good point!

        • marshmallow

          I always use that quote. Its where she talks about women as easy bake ovens.

          • Ivy Mike

            That’s the one…I think it was published here, but I’m not sure. I love Amanda’s work, and I don’t even consider myself progressive. At the very least, she gives you a lot to think about.

            That one quote got me thinking about a whole lot of things in a new light, and that is something I love to have happen on any issue. It enables finding the correct answer.

            I’m a husband and a father (2 boys and one girl), and I’ve become quite concerned about issues that affect the women closest to me.

            When you think about Marcotte’s words, a whole lot (from anti-choice fanatics to rape apologists and enablers) becomes a great deal clearer.

          • marshmallow

            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/08/26/todd-akin-is-just-tip-iceberg/

            For anti-choicers, the fact that someone can make a baby means that making babies is what she is for. People mistake the term “objectification” to mean “looking at with lust,” but what it actually means is “reducing someone to an object to be used.” Sexual objectification is assuming that because women turn you on, they are for sex, instead of a person whose sexuality should be an expression of their agency. What anti-choicers engage in is reproductive objectification. Women are among an array of objects to be used. The refrigerator is for storing food. The bookshelf is for holding books. The woman is for making babies. You no more give her a choice in the matter than you would give your refrigerator veto power over what food it hold because it didn’t like your method of shopping.

            —————-

            I have the page bookmarked and paste this quote whenever it is necessary to make a point:P

          • Jennifer Starr

            That is an awesome quote :)

          • lady_black

            I have no idea why they would think such a thing. Lust and objectification have nothing to do with one another. I would hope all loving couples have lust for one another, but that none of them objectify their partner.

  • PurpleAardvaark

    Send the bill to Rick Perry. Personally.

  • Ivy Mike

    This story is almost like something written for a horror/torture flick. I cannot believe that anyone but the most psychopathic anti-choice lunatics, and the Catholic Church, could justify this ghoulishness.

    • ceallaigh

      I am in the planning stages of a novel set in a dystopian future where the Quiverfull/Duggar/Bates wingnuts get their way and there’s a wildly overpopulated theocracy. This story fits right in to that nightmare vision.

      • HeilMary1

        I could probably help you with ideas because I drafted a screenplay summary of a similar Catholic sci-fi dystopian future.

      • CJ99

        I’d read that book for sure. Only one I remember similar was the handmaids tale by margaret atwood so your in good company

        • HeilMary1

          “Rain Without Thunder” is a similar movie. A wealthy mother and daughter get jailed for the daughter’s abortion in Sweden.

  • Devi Sensei

    I wonder if this woman is in pain? If so they are just going to keep her in pain and either make her go through birth or C-section and create even more pain and all for a result that may not even survive.

    • lady_black

      She’s brain dead. In other words, DEAD. This is monstrous, keeping her on life-support to use her body as a human incubator. It’s like some Frankenstein lab experiment. As she went without oxygen to the point where her brain died, what kind of chance does the fetus have? What a slap in the face to the dignity of women.

      • Ivy Mike

        Have you seen the comments at the original story link? Most of them would make you vomit day-glo.

        They mostly think that “This Is What A Mother Would Want”.

        • marshmallow

          I have been posting at the yahoo site and people are saying that women *are* incubators.

          • colleen2

            That is one of the main roles of women according to the religious right. The other roles are 1. masturbatory aide and 2. source of cheap or free labor. Because that’s what the God of the Republicans demands.

          • lady_black

            Screw them and screw their god. How weak their god must be to need the likes of them to speak for it.

          • Ella Warnock

            Superfreak “myintx” is commenting on the CNN site with her tired spiel about “fingers and toes.” Gawd she’s tedious.

          • marshmallow

            oh jeez.

            Superidiot acyutananda on the pro-life atheist thread at TFA has made some new *very* compelling arguments, almost as compelling as myintx’s. I was only going to post a couple but when going through his posts I found a whole bunch more…they made me laugh. This is him vs. ansuz (formerly tsara). You know what, he is basically using myintx level arguments, but dressing them up in fancy pseudo-intellectual speak. He refuses to talk to me, because I asked him if he would consent to being gently buttfucked to save a life. I guess it was too offensive and not intellectual enough. See, he can talk about how women shouldn’t have rights to their own bodies, and how we shouldn’t object, because he is *polite*. He can’t see that behind his politeness, he is essentially threatening us with the gentle ‘buttfucking’ example that he found too uncomfortable to contemplate.

            1) In the abortion debate, ultimately the wisest person may be the one who says, “It just seems wrong to me.” They may add, “It’s wrong to just let it happen, also.” <–I duno, it's wrong to enslave women to the contents of their uterii.

            2) As Dr. Maureen Condic has said, it's the DNA and the potential that make it human (not the potential to be a human being, which, she explains, it already is, but the potential to be a more developed human being)<—How convenient. A worthless semantics argument.

            3) It's a good reply, but it doesn't justify abortion advocates pitting women against their unborn children MORE than nature ever did. <–After I pointed out that maternal/fetal conflict is the very essence of pregnancy.

            4) In my "Personhood" article, I argued that ethics all comes down to intuition, and that some people's intuition is better developed and therefore more accurate than that of others, but that everyone's is developing in the same direction. Therefore what we should all hold as moral values is what the most intuitive people hold.<–Yes, he knows best, we should shut up and take his word for it.

            5) I would say that a zygote will wake up soon enough, in the sense of "waking up" that should concern us here, and will live for 80 years. You would probably say that a sleeping person whose doctors have given her only a week to live has intrinsic value, and that that value should not be discarded. Your position can be argued, but using abstractions that would seem arbitrary to me.<—Keeps confusing potential with actual and seems to think that a zygote is a homunculus. Points out that we better not even argue our position because the science that says that a zygote is not a homunculus is 'arbitrary'.

            6) o are there no absolute values? I think there are, as absolute as anything can get in this universe, but I think some people's intuition is better than that of others.Certainly (again according to my intuition) my intuition now is better than when I intuited that zygotes have no value, as I once did. <–Again, he knows best!!!!

            7) Ethics only makes sense when it's future-oriented — how much future suffering and future happiness does each party stand to gain or lose? (I discussed this in a blog post called "Too Young for Rights?") It's true that the woman knows best (imperfectly, but best) what in the future she stands to gain or lose, but she cannot know how much the baby stands to gain or lose, nor could she be impartial if she did know.<—The zygote has a life ahead of it, so selfish s1uts should let it live.

            8) talks about how women who regretted their abortions are now seriously depressed because they killed their fragile little babies, he cried and stuff, cuz it's like all sad that women would kill their babies

            9) I cited a 2004 Guttmacher study in which none of the 1209 respondents seemed to have expressed a concern about pain as a reason for abortion. Similarly, none seem to have mentioned bodily integrity. You may say that it is bodily integrity which gave them a right to abort for their stated reasons, but if a violation of integrity is not an affliction in itself, such a statement would be to set up bodily integrity as a value arbitrarily. <–Women don't mention bodily integrity as a reason to abort, therefore, they should not be permitted to abort

          • Jennifer Starr

            Goodness, he’s an idiot.

          • marshmallow

            No Jenn, he’s an intellectual! Which is why he won’t lower himself to talk to me! He even said that he might..he just might respond to my argument about negative/positive rights in regards to abortion *if* I promised to be a good girl and maintain a civil tone!!!!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, we all must be good little girls when we address his giant meaningless walls of text. *snort* I swear, he uses fifty words to address a point when he could actually do it in five, and then he indulges in virtual wanking about how clever and intellectual he is on that uber-pretentious blog of his. Ugh.

          • marshmallow

            BTW, the negative/positive rights thing came from here:

            http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm

            I freely admit that I just copy pasted. Acyu isn’t worth the effort of actually composing a proper response.

            I really like the argument presented here because libertarians argue that the fetus has a negative right not to be killed. And that self-defense only counts if the violence is proportional. Roderick T. Long destroys that argument with his rape analogy.

          • marshmallow

            You have a knack for thinking up good putdowns, Jennifer.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I swear, I don’t know that I’ve ever spoken to a ‘pro-liar’ as messed up as Helen. I mean, most of them are messed up by definition, but this person takes it to a whole new level.

          • marshmallow

            Yeah. I think she is living in some fucked up fantasy world, and is blinking in and out of reality.

            Oh, I know! I know!

            She’s caught in one of those space-time continuum things like in Star Trek!

          • Jennifer Starr

            She just told me that she’s the product of a ‘Droit du seigneur’. I don’t think she’s living on this solar system right now.

          • marshmallow

            Yeah….she makes myintx look normal.

            Btw, peace1203 is harassing me about ableism on that other article. All of her posts go to moderation immediately.. Hmm. Is she a known troll around here?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’ve never heard of Peace1203–though it’s not the first time that we’ve had trolls like that. Progo is one of those that we haven’t seen in a while.

          • goatini

            So, her mom got raped by her husband’s boss?

          • Jennifer Starr

            From dear old Helen:

            Yes, the legislators are deciding who can have sex and when. How can you believe they’re not? Are you sure it is the parents pressing charges? In some ways, our laws on sexuality are more like slave and cattle breeding, than Droit du Seigneur.

            Excuse me, please, as I now need to bang my head against something repeatedly. Dear lord, how is it possible for someone to be this idiotic? How?

          • marshmallow

            She’s a few bricks short of a full load. You think ‘she has got to be a troll’ but she has a twitter account with the same name + avatar so…

            I think she’s for real, but just happens to be one of those bigoted, hateful old people who is suffering from dementia.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She seems to think that age of consent laws and laws governing when minors can get married are unjust–it seems to be an obsession with her. I hate to say it, but I suspect she has a kid who’s a sex offender.

          • marshmallow

            Yeah, that would probably explain the obsession. How some rapists are ‘nice guys’ who could be ‘great fathers’. About how she is trying to twist things to make it sound like rape victims are to blame for the assaults…

            BTW, I held my nose and ventured over to acyu’s blog. He has a new argument lol. The argument is that because pregnancy is unique, and only affects women, that pro-choicers want to ‘win’ by default by giving women *special treatment* based on the uniqueness of their condition, all in service of ‘equality’. That a sore ankle is a ‘unique’ condition, but that doesn’t give you the right to drive over a kid because your ankle is too sore to hit the brakes….

            I mean, the argument is basically just a fancy way of saying ‘biology is destiny bitches, suck it up’. And that equality = special treatment. What a shocker.

            He also talked about how life in India is really tough, and that there are more than enough people already, and that being burdened with more children than they can feed is really really tough on the poor blah blah…BUT LIFE IS PRECIOUS SAVE THE BABYEEZ I DON’T CARE IF OVERPOPULATION RESULTS IN SUFFERING…SAVE.THE.BAYBEEEEEZ.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, it’s funny, that–how only women can get pregnant. *snort* There’s a healthy dose of uber-misogyny there drenched in all that ‘politeness’. Man. Just when I think they can’t possibly get any more obnoxious, they outdo themselves again.

          • marshmallow

            Yeah, and I will add that considering that he seems to be educated, and has more than enough time to fuck around on the internet all day + engage in pro-life work/demonstrations then I would hazard a guess that he is middle, if not, upper class (caste) and that he probably doesn’t give a flying fuck about how the poor in India suffer.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Helen Cordelia Kistler, formerly Metz, widowed, age 54, from Siloam Springs, Arkansas. She sometimes goes by Cordelia Metz. One of her sons died in a fire in 2009 but she thinks that he was killed by one of her rapists??? She homeschools, she’s a Ron Paul fanatic and a general all-around nut.

          • marshmallow

            Wow. What a nut.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She’s making my brain hurt.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She is definitely not well-adjusted or normal. I don’t know what she is, but reading her twisted version of what ‘morals’ are and hearing her defend pedophiles and rapists is making my stomach churn.

          • marshmallow

            This Mojirim guy is a…self-important know it all. And bit of an ass for suggesting that since child rape was the ‘tradition’ up until very recently that…we are somehow in the wrong for criticizing Helen et al? wtf?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I agree. It’s all still making my stomach churn.

          • marshmallow

            He is also using the argument from authority and tradition fallacies…

            And is supremely self-assured.

            /vomit

          • Jennifer Starr

            And Helen’s defense for child marriage and adults having sex with children seems to be ‘if someone did it in the past, it’s okay now’. I honestly do not understand how someone thinks this way.

          • colleen2

            I would say that there are very few well, if any well adjusted people in the ‘pro-life’ movement.

          • HeilMary1

            But it’s OK for BORN babies to starve to death as punishment for their “selfish sinful” married parents having sex! Only white wealthy GOP men are allowed recreational sex!

          • RonPaul2012

            Hey Mary, if you ever need backup somewhere, just say so. I am always looking for a fight;P

          • HeilMary1

            Thanks! I’ve been very distracted this week with co-workers being off and a grieving neighbor who alerted me to the heartbreaking movie, “Hachi: A Dog’sTale”. That true story-inspired movie about a dog that waited 10 YEARS at a train station for his dead master to return reminded me of the unrelenting grief of millions of abandoned, lost and homeless OVERPOPULATED kids and pets. That loyal dog preferred years of homeless rain and snow over the warm home(s) his dead master’s widow sent him to because he didn’t want to miss his beloved master’s return! Imagine the desolation of the millions of unwanted forced-birth kids and un-spayed stray pets!

          • colleen2

            I know a woman like this. She and her husband are both Republicans. Her son spent his 20’s and much of his 30’s grooming little girls for sexual abuse by dating their mothers and, when finally caught in his mid 30’s, actually spent 6 months in jail. His sister refused to allow him near her children after he was caught. She, not her brother, was denounced from the pulpit (for lack of forgiveness). Both parents insist that 11 and 12 year old girls seduced him and they denounce the sex offender rolls at every opportunity and as a liberal invasion of privacy. They are, all three, pro-child rape. It’s extraordinary how deeply that sense of entitlement goes and it’s REALLY obvious how she and her husband managed to raise a child rapist.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And just when I think she possibly can’t get any stranger, she posted this little gem in defense of child marriage :

            You want to keep young girls from marrying anyone who might be mature enough to pass on traditional family values of the American Republic instead of the latest 3-year phase of Democratic Skinnerism.

            I am honestly speechless.

          • marshmallow

            You’re just jealous because you’re not livin’ the dream

            http://thelibrary.org/lochist/periodicals/bittersweet/2i4p11.jpg

          • marshmallow

            On a more serious note…the US bible belt was settled by these people:

            http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/series/799/born-fighting

            Violent. Irascible. Deeply religious. True back then, and true today.

          • Ella Warnock

            Heh, my ancestors. Some of us have become more civilized. There aren’t any actual hillbillies left in my family, but we left Texas for the left coast PNW a couple of years ago and won’t go back. I do have to cop to some irascibility from time to time, but distance from the religious faction does tend to lower my blood pressure substantially.

          • marshmallow

            Every time we meet a new fucktard I change my ‘nym in honour of said fucktard.

            So, what do you think:

            Droit du Seigneur?

            Prima Noctis?

            RonPaul2012?

            Personally, I am leaning towards RonPaul.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I like all of them, but particularly fond of the RonPaul one

          • RonPaul2012

            I think I’l go for that one. Tis ironic!

            Do you ever watch The Colbert Report? He has a running joke that whenever he visits an internet forum or youtube there is *always* a ‘ronpaul2012′ post.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I’ve watched him online–I’ve seen that :)

          • RonPaul2012

            Her mom? MIT? 14?

            I think that Helen is a pathological liar.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think so. She has got to be one of the most twisted individuals that I have ever encountered.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The most disturbing thing about Helen Cordelia Metz Kistler is that she thinks she’s moral, Christian and sane.

          • RonPaul2012

            She has confused ‘sex’ with ‘rape’.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t actually think there’s a difference with her–her worldview is so incredibly skewed.

          • RonPaul2012

            And that fucker Mojim keeps talking down to everyone ’14 year olds have been having sex for 1000s of years so like it’s not rape ok’

            Asshole.

            He is all polite and shit but he is a rape apologist. Period. He really is.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I know. It’s disturbing.

          • RonPaul2012

            Yeah. Not enslaving people is also a 20th century invention. No more child labour ALSO a 20th century invention..

            Add to that..

            The vote for people who are not landowners..
            Privacy rights
            The vote for women..
            Women no longer being regarded as property…
            Marital rape is no longer legal..

            ^all 20th century inventions

            Appeal to tradition is such a weak fallacy

          • Jennifer Starr

            She just actually said that gang rape is ‘droit du seigneur’ because gangs claim territories. How is it even possible for someone to be this dim?

          • fiona64

            And don’t forget … CPS is bad, mmmmkay, because she got in trouble for having her kids sleep on the floor in a house with no electricity.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, how dare those busybodies report her for child neglect because she neglected her children. Borg collective! Eleventy!! *snort*

          • HeilMary1

            Fetal idolaters usually are child abusers.

          • RonPaul2012
          • fiona64

            Absolutely, 100 percent. She, like Paul Ryan, clearly believes that rape is just another form of conception.

          • RonPaul2012

            Oh my, on another forum that I read an asshat is claiming that fetus doesn’t meet the definition of parasite because it:

            “Of course a fetus doesn’t meet that definition, because the fetus does
            provide something to the parent — a partial replication of its genetic
            material”

            Yet he presented the definition beforehand:

            “Parasite — An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a
            different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its
            host.”

            ———–

            I am not even going to touch this one. Even though he’s wrong, and a fetus is a functional parasite. And the fetus doesn’t actually contribute to the pregnant person’s *survival*.

            This guy is one of those asshats who, while debating veganism with a doctor, told the doctor that the ONLY way to get B12 was through eating meat, because he took a culinary course!! He also whined about how hard it is being a man because he had to sign up for selective service and if you don’t do it in time you get dinged.

          • fiona64

            With very little effort, I was able to find that her son died at age 19. I think I know who the registered offender in her family was, given her obsession with 18-year-old boys and their 15-year-old girlfriends …

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I think you’re right on the money.

          • fiona64

            Source

            That it was Valentine’s Day makes me suspicious that this was a suicide … which is all kinds of unfortunate in and of itself. I just know that her little crusade is way too rabid to be anything *but* personal.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh yeah–it’s definitely personal.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m still trying to make heads or tails out of that ‘mother figure’ post of Helen’s. I think she thinks I’m a ‘man hater’ because I think rapists belong in jail and not hetero(?)–personally I’m going to let her think what she likes because the increasing histrionics are downright hilarious.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, that was beyond bizarre.

          • lady_black

            That’s just like saying that “forgiving” a mass murderer necessitates giving him a chance to kill YOU as well in the name of forgiveness. It is possible to forgive your brother for being a child molester, and STILL not allow him access to your children. Only a fool would allow a molester access to a child.

          • HeilMary1

            I’ll bet these Rethug parents also love demonizing non-abstinent non-white teens, because only WHITE MALES are allowed to be holy sex offenders!

          • HeilMary1

            Maybe her sex offender “kid” is an “unfairly accused” priest?!

          • goatini

            She’s just bigoted and hateful. I’m older than her and I have plenty of vigor to fight for reproductive justice.

          • marshmallow

            If I sounded ageist I’m sorry. Thought she was far far older. And I don’t think that dementia + bigotry is an unknown phenomenon.

          • CJ99

            I guess he never figured out having his ass kicked by a woman doesn’t make him intellectual but rather a sore loser.

          • Ella Warnock

            Tarted up new agey woo. He’s tedious too.

          • marshmallow

            Some of those pro-lifers over at MJ are dumber than a fence post. Helen Kistler cough cough

          • Jennifer Starr

            Can you link–I was trying to find the comments by Helen Kistler.

          • marshmallow

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/9-worst-things-said-womens-bodies-2013

            I see that you are dealing with your own idiots over at CNN.

            :(

            Helen is ‘special’.

            She believes that sperm contain souls, that life begins with bone marrow, and that transvaginal ultrasounds are necessary because to not provide one is to commit medical ‘fraud’.

          • expect_resistance

            Thanks for posting the link to MJ. Your posts are incredible! You are seriously a wealth of knowledge. I wish I could up vote all of your posts on the MJ thread but my internet connection is really slow and every time I upvote a post it slows down my internet connection. Very glad you are posting at RH!!! :)

          • marshmallow

            Thanks. Though I will point out that I’ve had a lot of help. I’ll give you some links, and you are free to use the same stuff. I like to paste walls of text/science because, generally speaking, it tends to shut them up when they start telling me that every zygote is a widdle baby.

            1) I borrowed this from cjvg with permission. cj is awesome sauce, and she also happens to be a neuroscientist. Rather than re-type the whole thing, it’s just easier to cut and paste it:

            Are you willfully ignorant or are you just that uneducated about fetal development ? Either way, you need to educate yourself before you take the liberty to make decisions for others based on false, or just flat out misleading statements.

            Your glib and unsupported statements clearly will not hold up to any sort of scrutiny from an unbiased and educated mind.
            I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you are just plain uneducated so I will spell out reality of fetal development and the development of sentience and awareness to you.

            A brain-dead person with a functioning heart/lungs/brain stem
            will still show electrical activity in the brain, but they won’t show the particular “brainwaves” that are characteristic of the higher
            cortical functions of cognition. So the whole EEG isn’t “flat”, just
            the part of the EEG profile that shows a thinking person is using that brain tissue.

            (A better description would be the more scientific exactitude of “clinical significant electrical brain activity” to avoid confusion.)

            At this point no “person” with sentience or awareness is present in the body, and it is legal to discontinue life support, and harvest organs for transplant, as without a functioning brain the body is just a collection of tissue.

            People who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead are routinely disconnected from life support and used to provide the organs for transplantations (no murder charges have ever been filled for this and none ever will be) A fetus does not have the bilaterally synchronous electroencephalographic patterns in the cortical area of the brain to be considered alive until 26-30 weeks of gestation, exactly like those who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead by physicians.

            People who are considered clinically brain-dead, have brainwaves (and sometimes even a beating heart), just not in the part of the brain that means that they are still alive.
            At this point doctors can start organ harvesting or turn off life support, no murder charges have ever, or will ever be been filed.

            A fetus younger then 26-30 weeks does not have all the brain structure (cortex) or the synapse, neurons etc in place to show more brain activity then a person who is clinically brain dead, as measured with the same machine (EEG)
            The heart might beat, but nobody is home.

            No embryo or fetus has ever been found to have “brain
            waves,” before 26-30 weeks gestation, although extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies.

            In fact a fetus does not have a functional cortex before
            20-24 weeks gestation, no neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them are physically present.
            (Pretty hard to show activity in a structure that is not even present yet)

            Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record the clinical significant electrical brain activity indicative of any form sentience and awareness prior to 20-24 weeks. (at that point the cerebral cortex can display some small intermittent non synchronous activity (“stutter”) This is not surprising since it is pretty hard to show activity in a brain structure that is not even present yet.

            Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, bilaterally synchronous electroencephalograpic are ONLY seen at a minimum of 26 to 29 weeks gestation.

            Studies used are;
            -Hamlin,H. (1964), “Life or Death by EEG,”Journal of the American
            Medical Association, October 12,113
            -J. Goldenring, “Development of the Fetal Brain,” New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
            -K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM

            2) I quote biologist Scott Gilbert from this excellent RationalWiki post: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F <–Until I read that, I really had NO idea that fertilization was a long drawn out process that was more likely to end in a dead zygote

            3) Next up is an awesome bodily rights argument. It can be condensed to this: since pregnancy harms a woman, she has the right to remove the threat, because, analogously, rape also harms a woman, often less than pregnancy, and no one is going to whine if you kill your rapist to escape. http://praxeology.net/RTL-Abortion.htm

            4) This is from fiona: http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html

            5) I never did understand the concept of 'zef is a human under construction' until I read this article: http://www.sullydog.com/sullysites/qm/classicmeat/10-01.htm

            Basically, a zygote is nothing more than a blueprint, and the embryo and fetus, though resulting from that blueprint, still don't have what we associate with what makes a 'person' because the blueprints have to be read, interpreted, and then 'built' – and that this process can go wrong at any time, and is highly malleable.

            6) Women menstruate as a consequence of self-defense. Pregnancy IS inherently harmful re nature. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/21/why-do-women-menstruate/

          • expect_resistance

            Thanks for putting this together!!!!!!
            This is great. I’m putting this in my RH file. :)

            I didn’t know cjvg is a neuroscientist. Wow impressive.

          • marshmallow

            This is also good:

            http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/article/864/

            This too:

            http://infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/

            Richard Carrier discusses the philosophical side of cjvg’s excellent essay on fetal brain development. Secular pro-lifers will try to discount his argument by stating that, due to species membership, every embryo is a person with the capacity for sentience, it’s just that they haven’t realized or expressed that capacity yet. They then compare it to a kodak photo, and say ‘it is smudged, but the picture is there, you just can’t see it’

          • marshmallow

            No wonder she sounds like a developmentally disabled toddler (as fiona is fond of saying).

            i searched the name on google…she’s 82!

            EDIT: i know it sounds ageist but, given her age and her viewpoints, she sounds like the kind of person who misses the good old days of segregation and Donna Reed housewives.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah her viewpoints sound like they’re right out of the 1950s. Good lord,she’s dense.

          • goatini

            I’m older than that nutjob, proving that forced-birthers are deliberately ignorant bullies. She was watching Captain Kangaroo when the civil rights marches were going on. She has no excuse to be an ignorant bully.

          • lady_black

            @ 9) Women mention bodily integrity all the time as a reason to abort. What is he even TALKING about??

          • RonPaul2012

            Harm caused by pregnancy.

          • lady_black

            And he claims women never have abortions to avoid harm caused by a pregnancy? OF COURSE they do. all the time. That’s what I meant by “what is he talking about?” It was a rhetorical question.

          • RonPaul2012

            He and others make the argument that since the stats list ‘harm’ as ‘a very small percentage’ that women mainly have abortions cus they don’t want a kid. He also stated that the average pregnancy doesn’t harm a woman in any appreciable way

          • lady_black

            Yes it does. And the damage doesn’t show up for decades.

          • RonPaul2012

            Yes they are misogynist pieces of shit.

          • HeilMary1

            I’ll bet Randall Terry dumped his first wife over incontinence issues and soon dumps the current brood mare when he finds her replacement!

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh, FFS, how the hell would he know anyway. It only takes ONE full-term pregnancy to completely destroy your bladder. What the fuck do these people think “Poise Pads” are for, anyway? All my innards are more or less where they’re still supposed to be, and I don’t piss myself when I sneeze or laugh, either. Many of my childed peers . . . do.

          • HeilMary1

            We need Hollywood movies with female leads suffering obstetric incontinence for this GOP/USCCB-addled nation of fetus worshipers to get a clue.

          • goatini

            Oh, I met that one over at Bloomberg a few weeks ago. I don’t think it’s female, it hates women far too much.

          • marshmallow

            It has claimed that it has 1) a daughter 2) is divorced

            Always talks about how the women can just have the baby and then ‘sue the pants off’ the guy once she dumps him.

            Also seems to think that women in abusive relationships can just walk away once pregnant and get loads of help from family/friends/shelters etc.

            Has told us that if her daughter was raped, her daughter should be forced to give birth because a rape baby is no different than a regular baby. Of course, the view is consistent, but also rather vile.

          • goatini

            “Always talks about how the women can just have the baby and then ‘sue the pants off’ the guy once she dumps him.”

            Ding ding ding – it’s a MAN, baby!

          • lady_black

            Gee… that’s too bad for him. She doesn’t have to stay with him, and her body isn’t his to control one way or the other. I have trouble imagining why any woman would sleep with someone who thinks that way in the first place.

          • fiona64

            Myintx, amiright? She’s definitely female. I know her actual name … and which CPC she works for. So do a few other people.

          • marshmallow

            Yes. I r jejune:p

          • fiona64

            Ah ha!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh yeah, Mathilde is a real piece of work, all right.

          • RonPaul2012

            I cringed today when I saw that she had replied to me.

            Speaking of douchebags, I have been reading acyu’s blog, which i will not link to…but he is being thoroughly owned by 3 commenters, one of which is the person who wrote: http://fightforsense.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/manyargs/

            Which is awesome.

            I still have a difficult time slogging through acyu’s text. It’s not just me, is it? His tripe is hard to read? Anyways, his two latest arguments appear to be that 1) the right to bodily integrity is not inviolable, cuz vaccinations, but yet it is held up as some gold standard by pro-choicers 2) person and traits defined with personhood cannot really be decided or described by science because it’s all arbitrary and down to personal opinion and stuff but my intuition is that zygotes are people so they should be saved.

            I really think that he believes that every zygote has a soul, but is trying to find secular/science reasons to justify that belief. Well, that and his ‘intuition’. One of his other harebrained arguments was that as humans ‘evolve’ they will begin to realize that abortion is evil, just as they have realized that slavery is evil and so on.

            He even mentioned me in his last post, and pointed out that I was 1) still waiting for a reply from him (see, he knows that he is purposely ignoring me) 2) showed some confusion over the fact that I had changed my ‘nym to RP2012

            p.s. RON PAUL 2012!!!!

          • lady_black

            If ANY of my relatives ever did that to a child, I would personally take a niece or granddaughter to another state if she wanted an abortion. I agree, that’s a vile attitude. Girls who have this happen to them have committed suicide over it.

          • Ella Warnock

            If it really is female, something really broke her in the past.

          • fiona64

            (I think the baby-daddy dumped her and she’s bitter about being a single mom …)

          • CJ99

            a lot of men do pretend to be women online for many reasons. but its still nothing other than digital cross dressing.

          • Ella Warnock

            Digital cross dressing. I like that. ;->

          • CJ99

            You might be surprised the stuff guys get up to on 2nd life or playstation home. Not even those “gaming sites” that cater exclusively to male sexual fantasies.

          • HeilMary1

            “digital cross dressing”

            LOL! Love it!

          • expect_resistance

            I just checked the comments on the CNN site about this story. OMD wish I hadn’t. This is why I love RH because of the community here and like-mindedness of pro-choice folks. I haven’t seen the comments from “myintx.” There are so many comments I think I only at page three or something. I made the mistake of arguing with a men’s rights asshole and he is a huge jerk.

          • fiona64

            I made the mistake of arguing with a men’s rights asshole and he is a huge jerk.

            Is there any other kind of MRA?

          • marshmallow

            Yeah I made the mistake of posting one comment there and now my email is being inundated with 20 disqus notifcations every 10 minutes. I hate having to do this, but disqus sucks so bad that I am unable to keep track of new comments on certain threads that I *want* to follow because disqus hides them!

          • marshmallow

            MRA’s, through some twisted logic, think they have solved the abortion debate by proclaiming that:

            1) if a woman has rights over her own body, then she can’t charge a man for child support EVER, because it’s 100% her choice to bring a child into the world

            2) the woman however can abort in the case of rape, because she did not choose to put the fetus there through s1utty s1ut behaviour, therefore the fetus has no ‘rights’ to her body

            Tortured logic at best.

            I have been researching a bunch of secular pro-life arguments lately and it’s making my head hurt. They basically make the same mistakes as religionists – they put the cart before the horse, and claim that every zygote is a human being from conception, cuz ‘science’.

          • lady_black

            Oh, science doesn’t say that a zygote is a human being from conception. Something that resembles this “.” or this “o” is no way a human being. A zygote may or may not develop into a cancerous mole. It may or may not develop into a human being.

          • lady_black

            In addition, someone ought to tell Mister “men’s rights activist” that child support is the right of the child, not the right of either parent. Consequently, neither parent may unilaterally deprive the child of it’s right to be supported by BOTH parents. The child isn’t accountable for ANYONE’S decision to bring it into the world, and was not a party to that decision. The MRAs can just DREAM ON, because that is NEVER going to happen.

          • fiona64

            That woman needs to seriously get psychiatric help.

          • marshmallow

            Ella, you rocked it last night. You were destroying one anti-choicer right after another. Boom! Boom! Boom!

            I sat back in awe, wishing I could destroy forced birthers with such eloquence + conciseness.

            And then I woke up. It was all a dream!!! Damn you Ella! That will teach me not to go to bed whilst reading Disqus notifications!

            P.S. In case this gets taken the wrong way, it is based on reality, you do have a way of getting to the point clearly and concisely:P

          • Ella Warnock

            Damn, that was a good dream!

          • marshmallow

            I got 4 thumbs up for that post. People are impressed with your elite debating skillz in my sleep:P

            (sometimes I wonder if people around here just thumb us up because we are all on the same side hehe)

            EDIT: AND YOU DIDN’T THUMB IT UP. YOU DON’T APPROVE OF YOUR DREAM-AWESOMENESS. YOU…YOU..baybee killer? I guess…whatever. Only insult I can think of on the fly!

          • CJ99

            I’m a guy who thumbs up a lot, when people are being intelligent. I also thumbs down a lot when those who post bollocks do their thing. I guess its not far off what the british call putting the boot in.

          • Renee Goodwin

            I posted on a couple of sites about the story and I think it was on yahoo that I called it “zombie wombs for Jezus”

          • marshmallow

            I remember that!!!

            Good one!

            Yeah, I am half-heartedly posting on the giant 220 post by Raven. some idiot accused her of being a ‘feminist’, which, acccording to the poster, was a damning accusation!

            (Posting as Huggle btw)

          • lady_black

            Nobody better ever say such a thing to my face, that women are incubators.

        • ceallaigh

          I am 16 weeks pregnant and can say firmly that FUCK NO, this is NOT what I or my husband would want. Those people can go fuck themselves. Oh, this makes me see red!!!!

        • lady_black

          Yeah, except that runs contrary to what she said she wanted, and what her husband, and parents want. I wouldn’t want it, and if it were my daughter I would be going apeshit.

      • CJ99

        this is what I thought. What chance would there be of a successful birth with the child having much of a life after birth? even if they did survive it what would the child think when they found out what happened to the mother?

        • lady_black

          I’d be willing to bet it would be extremely damaging to him/her psychologically.

          • RonPaul2012

            The anti-choicers are going around saying that the poor child, once it’s born ‘healthy’, will be told by everyone that it’s dad wanted it to die!!!!

    • colleen2

      She is what the religious right values in a woman, a living body without appreciable brain function. I just wish Republicans would stop running women who fit that description for public office. I guess it takes a certain sort of special stupid for a woman to vote for Republicans these days.

    • lady_black

      She cannot possibly be in pain. She’s brain dead. They STILL have no excuse for reducing a human being with dignity to a utilitarian object.

  • goatini

    And as soon as the fetus is harvested from this poor woman, the Texas Futile Care Law requires that life support be discontinued pronto – so were her spouse and family wanting to keep life support going after that, they would be SOL. Proving that females in Texas are just incubators, to be sustained only for a fetus, and no longer. They’re only valuable as livestock.

    • Devi Sensei

      Seriously, that is fucked up. Does prove it.

    • AveMaria02

      If you are against the Texas Futile Care Law then petition your legislators to change it. I would do so if I were a Texan.

      • CJ99

        What you would do if you were a texan is act like a good little communist and abduct women who become pregnant “to save the baybay” which is very unlikely to survive in this case for certain.

        • goatini

          You DO know that the HaHas were cooking up a kidnapping scheme to abduct pregnant women seeking safe, legal pregnancy terminations, to illegally detain them so they could preach their woman-hate BS at them, don’t you?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Somehow I’m not surprised by anything they do anymore.

      • goatini

        Who said I was against the Texas Futile Care Law? I’m pointing out that the state of Texas legally considers female citizens as nothing more than livestock.

        • Jen

          Actually, no – any rancher worthy of the title would sacrifice even a full-term calf in a hot second to save the heifer, who is far more valuable in the long run than a single calf. You’d think that in Texas, of all places, they could make the obvious connection there, but alas, no. Their cows ARE more valuable than their women.

      • Ella Warnock

        I’m against being public property. These things are not difficult to understand.

    • lady_black

      I think this law should be challenged. It reeks of unconstitutionality. I could understand keeping a brain-dead pregnant woman on life support if a) her family agreed and b) she was WAY further along than 14 weeks. This just seems like the intentional infliction of emotional harm upon this poor woman’s family. It’s not like she has a few weeks to go. The most merciful thing that could happen under these circumstances would be that her body just shuts down, or she has a miscarriage. At least then her family could progress through their grief. SHE is dead and never coming back. I don’t think there is any way the baby could be born normal after being deprived of blood flow for so long.

  • Ineedacoffee

    Foul and disgusting.
    That poor woman and her poor family. Prolonging pain and suffering of all involved, not to mention who will have to foot the bill from this. Bet it wont be the state

    Why dont they just tattoo the womans forehead with ‘Incubator2000′

    • lady_black

      I would refuse to give them a dime.

  • Ashley

    There is no way that this baby is coming out of there with no medical complications. This poor woman is brain dead which means that they are using a ridiculous amount of machines to basically provide that fetus artificial everything. Her body can’t regulate her own body temp, cant provide the nutrients that it needs, cant fight off infections.

    IMO the husband should be legally allowed to carry through with this if it is his wish. A woman is legally able to get an abortion for no reason other than not wanting a child in the state of Texas until 22 weeks, so why should he not be able to take her off life support during the same time span?

    People will say that is because “the woman is no longer in need of her body but there is a person that is still alive due to a ventilator that they are required to save” which still would make no sense to me. Regardless of a person’s age, 8 weeks or 80 years old, if they are unable to make their own healthcare decisions they fall on the next of kin. And the next of kin has made a decision that should be all there is to it.

    • Ivy Mike

      Some idiots are insinuating things…on the order of “Why does the Husband want to KILL her and the BABEE so badly?” on some of the comments I’ve seen.

      It closely mirrors the Schiavo case.

      • ceallaigh

        Vile. She and her husband are paramedics with a solid medical background. They know the realities of keeping someone alive artificially, and both of them are opposed to it in their own cases. It’s ghoulish how the state of Texas has wiped its ass with the wishes of this woman and her family, all in the name of an unsentient fetus. Ghoulish.

        • marshmallow

          Bumper sticker politics.

      • lady_black

        Tell them too late. She’s already dead. He can’t kill her. You can only die once.

    • lady_black

      I don’t even think those kind of laws are constitutional, and ought to be challenged. An adult (or their next of kin) have every right to decline treatment.

  • penny0314

    The solution is EASY: give the hospital legal notice that you will not pay any further bills for this woman, period. Believe me, they’ll get her off life support!!

    • fiona64

      Or, they can send the bills to Governor Goodhair, since the State of Texas has decided that it is in loco parentis for an adult woman whose advance directive says she didn’t want this.

      • penny0314

        Love your solution!

      • Renee Goodwin

        I’m still trying to figure out why anyone decided that a woman’s womb becomes property of the state if she is pregnant, to me that is a total violation of her rights as a individual

        • fiona64

          Of course it is … but, you see, anti-choicers don’t really see women as actual individuals/persons/human. We’re just incubators.

          • marshmallow

            Don’t you love it when they say: “you pro-choicers always talk about the woman and ignore the poor innocent widdle baby!!eleventy!!”

          • HeilMary1

            Human puppy mills.

    • goatini

      What a coincidence! That’s EXACTLY how the Texas Futile Care Law works – as soon as the fetus is harvested from this tragic zombie, if the husband/family wanted life support to be extended further, they would be SOL, per the Futile Care Law.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      And tell them that if the fetus actually survives to birth, you will sue them for care and damages if it is defective in any way.
      Personally, I would bring a couple of big guys to bar the door and remove my wife from life support myself. Let the hospital and the state sue. I want to see that trial.

      • CJ99

        since its against her & her husbands wishes it may be possible to bring up the hospital on charges of malpractice, forcible confinement / kidnapping.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          Is the ACLU on this? This sets a precedent that is very bad for any family with a loved one on life support a la Schaivo.

          • CJ99

            I hope the ACLU or someone is on it.

  • CJ99

    I have only 1 “word” for this:

    GRRRRRRRRRR

  • marshmallow

    So I am discussing this on yahoo, sorta, and some ignorant fuckwit had this to say, after I posted my usual 10000 examples and essays of what pregnancy does to a woman:

    “Oh good grief! marshmallow I will say it again… you are by far the most
    ignorant, self-centered, uneducated, ridiculous person. I know nothing
    about you personally so I am basing my opinion solely on the stupidity
    you have written on this post. Children are a gift, a joy, a treasure
    and all of the “side effects” are non-issues when you hold that child,
    that baby that you have birthed in your arms. The minor inconveniences
    you’ve listed pale in comparison and offer no grounds to support or
    condone killing a baby.”

    ————

    ^Yeah, because medical FACTS and STATISTICS from the CDC and the WHO are all you know…ignorant!

    And besides, once a woman has had her insides ripped out and is suffering from PPD and has painful tear in her vagina she will smile because she has a precious baby to hold and forget about the fact that she is permanently disabled…right????

    • CJ99

      use that fool for a pinata, I’ll bring the stick.

      • marshmallow

        Yeah, I told her that until she could offer up anything other than worthless anecdata to back up her bullshit that her points could summarily dismissed.

        • Ella Warnock

          Worthless **sentimental** anecdata. The most worthless of all.

      • HeilMary1

        LOL!

    • Ivy Mike

      Marsh, that’s a class-A example of what I call “Magical Fetus Thinking”. We see it all the time with the anti’s. ..
      If you see that Precious Baby, you will forget everything else.
      If you really knew that what’s inside you is a Precious Baby, you’d automatically want it.
      If you only looked at an ultrasound of the Precious Baby inside you, you’d forget all about its abusive, absent father and have it anyway.
      If you only show the abusive, rapey, druggy father that Precious Baby, he’d straighten right up, go to church, and get a good job.
      And so on…

      • marshmallow

        haha good one mike

        Magical Fetus Thinking lolol

        • Ivy Mike

          Yep. Defined as “the psuedomagical belief amongst fetus worshippers that a Precious Baby(tm) can solve or alleviate all percieved problems, traumas, issues, and difficulties relating to its conception and birth, simply by its (magical, miraculous) existance”.

          Also qualifies, if i’m not mistaken, as a logical fallacy.

          I am happy to take all credit for that one, until shown otherwise.

          • marshmallow

            Seriously. That should go on a list of pro-life logical fallacies.

          • HeilMary1

            Next they’ll crank out Super Fetus comic books!

      • Renee Goodwin

        Or if a woman will just carry her rapist’s baby, the magic of a new life will make everything better

    • fiona64

      Children are a gift, a joy, a treasure
      and all of the “side effects” are non-issues when you hold that child,
      that baby that you have birthed in your arms.

      This has to be the same dumbassed anti-choicer who, back in the days of the AOL Abortion Debate boards, told a rape survivor who’d had an abortion that she would have “forgotten all about that rape the minute she held that precious baby,” and should have been ashamed of herself.

      And, from one who knows, those complications are so far from being “minor inconveniences” that it’s laughable.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        I remember those days well. I was PhllyRose.

        • RonPaul2012

          The one I mentioned goes by the name M.A.

          • fiona64

            The one back in the proverbial day used the handle LadyPJ (do not ask me why I remember that …but I’ll bet Plum Dumpling recalls her …).

          • RonPaul2012

            I just had a look at MommaBeanBlessed…

            Seems that she had a rough life and her pregnancy made her feel *amazing*…

            Funny how pro-lifers seem to have had really *positive* pregnancies (hormones, family support, societal support) and then they think that because pregnancy somehow *saved* them, that this gives them the right to force other women to be ‘saved’ by pregnancy?

          • CJ99

            My mind keeps going to Margarat Atwoods “the handmaids tale”

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            OMG Lady PJ. I have not thought of her in years. She was prolific. She stuck with it a long time.

        • fiona64

          OMG! PhillyRose, I remember you so well. I was MiladySCA!

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I cannot believe I have found you. What a small cyber world.

          • fiona64

            I am doing well. Got a few books published out there in the real world, and am hanging in there. I am so delighted to have found you. ::hugs::

    • HeilMary1

      And she won’t notice that her repulsed husband is dumping her for the office hottie, that her injuries will get her fired and keep her unemployed and never remarried! In addition to bankrupt, foreclosed on, homeless and heartsick over her now fatherless child’s catastrophic disabilities!

    • Bonzai

      They’re partially right. For a lot of women, it really does all not matter that much when you’re holding your baby IF THE BABY WAS LOVED AND WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. If it wasn’t, then likely you will be even more pissed at the baby. And women with PTDS, post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis often feel nothing for the baby even when it was loved and wanted.

      • RonPaul2012

        No, they are not partially right. Because were talking about women who are denied abortion. Those women won’t magically feel all happy-pants after a few hours of painful labour. Oh look, I haz a baby! I’ll forget all about that rape, I haz a baby now!!!!

  • Renee Goodwin

    So in Texas, if I woman had sex the night before she collapsed, would they keep her brain dead body on life support until they got the pregnancy test results back? I could see that being the next thing in the forced birther’s playbook

    • goatini

      The sum total of the forced-birther playbook is:

      From menarche to menopause, the bodies of female citizens are the property of the State.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        State/Church.

  • Jennifer Jonsson

    The sad thing is, this Texas law is unconstitutional on its face. If the husband went to Federal court he’d win. He could also transfer her to anoher hospital out of state. I get that he doesn’t want a legal battle (probably in no shape to handle one) but I wish he’ d do more to honor his wife’s wishes, if those were indeed her wishes.

  • Jennifer Jonsson

    Incidentally, when I wrote my medical directive, I crossed out that part of the Texas form and wrote in the case citations for Roe v Wade, Cruzan and Cruzan II. I wrote on the side that if I happened to be pregnant, the directive still applied, and that my desigated representative was instructed to begin litigation immediately if anyone tried to stop the removal of.life support for any reason. I carry it with me in my purse so it’s available 24/7. In short, I am not fucking around.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      I like the way you think.

  • Jennifer Jonsson

    Odds of me getting pregnant as a 44-year old lesbian: Slim just left town.

  • AveMaria02

    I am thankful for this law because we are not just talking about one person. We’re talking about two people here and one of those people is the child in her womb.

    • Jennifer Starr

      No, there’s one person here. A woman who was against being kept on artificial life support and does not deserve to be used as a container for a fetus. And the husband who loved her is trying to honor those wishes.

      • AveMaria02

        You are wrong. There are two people there whether you like it or not.

        • Jennifer Starr

          No, no there aren’t.

          • AveMaria02

            Hey, if you want to believe a lie then keep on believing that.

          • RonPaul2012

            Why don’t you try backing your statements up with logic and reason instead of making the same baseless assertions over and over again.

          • fiona64

            Because s/he *can’t.* She only has bumpersticker bee-ess instead of actual information.

        • Ella Warnock

          Nope, you’re wrong. Always will be. That’s just the way it is.

        • RonPaul2012

          No, a 14 week fetus is most definitely *not* a person. Not until it is capable of sentience and capable of living without a placenta.

          Until it has the capacity for sentience it is no more a person can my pet cat. And I will point out that my pet cat can at least interact with the world, experience life, and suffer. A 14 week fetus can do none of that. Species membership does not = personhood.

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            Just to clarify what you are saying, is it actually being sentient that makes one a person, or having the capacity to be sentient?

          • RonPaul2012

            capacity

          • fiona64

            No, actually, being *born* is what makes one a person. Personhood is a legal status.

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            It would sure make the debate over abortion easier if we simply decided that human life is only worth saving once it is separated from its mother. Does personhood vary by state? Also, the debate over abortion is difficult if you recognize the value of both lives that are involved. If you don’t believe that the fetus is a human life, the choice becomes much easier. Of course a woman’s bodily autonomy would trump non human life. The rub exists when you recognize that both have value..then comes the problem of assigning amounts of value. Just trying to explain why prolifers struggle with this issue.

          • RonPaul2012

            A zygote/embryo/fetus is human life.

            But the question is, is it A human life?

            And even if it is A human life (as in person) does that give it a right to use another person’s body as life support without consent?

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            In the case of rape, your question makes sense, for in that case, the woman CLEARLY did not choose to be pregnant, or choose to engage in actions that could possibly result in pregnancy. As for women who have sex, knowing it could result in pregnancy, then your comparison falls short, as willingly having sex virtually invites the baby to take up residency. Whether liked or not, the biological purpose of sex is to procreate. Now, we humans also do it for recreation, but that doesn’t lessen our responsibility to the unique, human life, that may result from that recreational activity. That is why we have ways to protect against pregnancy, although they are not perfect. Yes, I know, I am a horrid person to suggest an adult take responsibility for their actions – even when the result is not one they wanted. Abortion as emergency contraception is sad.

          • Ella Warnock

            You know, married women have sex too. Willingly, and all that. Some of us have zero interest in babies, however. Now, my husband and I certainly did our part to limit any possibility of pregnancy, and tubal slash and burn plus vasectomy rarely fails. But in my house, sex was never for procreation, and nary a baby invitation was ever proferred. Some of us are pretty serious about it.

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            And that is why we should all be thankful for contraception. And I appreciate your clarification that women have sex too. I, as a married woman, had sex for years without wanting a child. I too used contraception. However, if I had ended up pregnant by accident, I think that I owe that life some care, as it would not be there apart from my conscience actions.

          • fiona64

            However, if I had ended up pregnant by accident, I think that I owe that
            life some care, as it would not be there apart from my conscience
            actions.

            And that’s hunky-dory for you. Some other woman need not make the same decision. Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy.

          • Ella Warnock

            Exactly.

          • HeilMary1

            You do realize that most of your fetal worshiping pals want to criminalize ALL contraception and even miscarriages?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Keep your value judgements to yourself. My sex/family life is private. It is not subject to religious or public review.

          • RonPaul2012

            And when you eat you know that you might choke. You are practically begging for it!

            And when you drive your car, you know that you might get in an accident and injure yourself or someone else!

            And when you go skiing, you are risking an avalanche or a broken leg!

            In all of the above examples do we deny people medical care because they took a risk? No, we do not! Pregnancy is *dangerous* and a woman can choose not to go through with birth in order to preserve her health.

            And by you logic, if two people ‘create’ a ‘unique living being’ then don’t they also owe it blood/organs/tissue AFTER it’s born? Why should a fetus get special treatment that a born child doesn’t?

            And don’t you think, since a man had a hand in creating the child, that he should ALSO be forced to donate blood/tissue/organs to preserve life – during AND AFTER the pregnancy?

            And, if you injure someone while skiing or driving your car, shouldn’t you be legally obligated to donate blood/tissue/organs to preserve their life since YOU made the decision to do something risky?

            es, I know, I am a horrid person to suggest an adult take responsibility for their actions

            Would you permit abortion in the case of rape? Yes or no?

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            I’m not sure how I feel about legislating abortion in general. My heart breaks that it is so common, but I’m not sure making it illegal will make anything better. If my purpose here on earth is to love people, how does making it illegal do that? How is that showing love. I don’t think a woman should choose abortion, even in the case of rape – but I’m not sure that is something I can force on her.

          • RonPaul2012

            Then try treating women as people with subjective feelings, needs and wants instead of elevating a fetus above them and telling them that they need to give birth because they were dirty s1uts who spread their legs.

            Yeah, the ‘responsiblity’ bit, that’s all about s1ut shaming. You wouldn’t condemn a person to 9 months of pain and then shove a cantaloupe up their ass and say ‘that’s taking resposniblity’ unless they did something REALLY BAD. And having consensual sex is not a fucking crime.

          • fiona64

            I don’t think a woman should choose abortion, even in the case of rape – but I’m not sure that is something I can force on her.

            Your “generosity” is duly noted.

          • CJ99

            Your heart is not nearly as broken as your hysterical illogic.

          • fiona64

            Yes, I know, I am a horrid person to suggest an adult take
            responsibility for their actions – even when the result is not one they
            wanted. Abortion as emergency contraception is sad.

            Not to put too fine a point on it, but so f*cking what? Every form of contraception, including surgical sterilization, has a known failure rate. As I said earlier, my pregnancy was horrific, and I took measures to see that it would NEVER happen again. (My son is 27; my tubal ligation is 25). If that tubal ligation should fail, I will seek an abortion so fast that your head would spin right off.

            You don’t get to decide what is or is not “sad” for anyone but yourself. And, once again, consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy … any more than consenting to drive a car is consenting to be in an accident.

          • CJ99

            No what makes you horrid is you expect everyone else to take responsibility and still think you can be completely irresponsible.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            No thank you. I will have lots of hot sex. I will use contraception. If I become pregnant, I will give birth or abort as I see fit. Not as YOU see fit.

            Next time you have an auto accident, we will just leave you on the pavement to bleed to death. After all, you were the one who decided to drive. Take responsibility for it.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            What a fine example of polite and refined slutshaming. Ewww.

          • fiona64

            Does personhood vary by state?

            Nope, it’s made pretty clear by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

            If you don’t believe that the fetus is a human life, the choice becomes
            much easier. Of course a woman’s bodily autonomy would trump non human
            life.

            A fetus is human life in the same way that your fingernail is human life. We are talking about personhood, which is a legal concept.

            The rub exists when you recognize that both have value..then comes the problem of assigning amounts of value.

            Please explain, in detail, why a potential person’s “rights” (i.e., those of a fetus) should trump the rights of an actual person: the pregnant woman. Please explain, in detail, why the fetus has greater value than the pregnant woman.

            I’m keen to know.

            Just trying to explain why prolifers struggle with this issue.

            The anti-choice don’t seem to struggle very much at all, frankly; you (collective you) just pretend that the pregnant woman doesn’t really exist … while simultaneously pretending that an embryo (the stage at which most abortions occur) is the same as an infant.

            So, again, I’m keen to see the rationale behind your assertions.

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            I don’t think a fingernail and a fetus are equal in terms of the human life argument. Last I checked, my fingernail does not have its own unique DNA and is not capable of growing up into a separate individual from myself. Now, if your fingernails each have their own unique DNA and the ability to grow up into individual persons, I would love to meet them!

            I never said that the fetus’s rights trump those of the mother. I just said that if you recognize the fetus as a unique human life (it is not a potential human, it IS a human, just in a different stage of development) then it makes abortion a gray area. Where does one draw the line? How much responsibility does a mother have toward her unborn offspring? What standard of care do we hold her to? It’s interesting that a mother can be charged with endangerment if she gives birth to a baby addicted to drugs – at the same time, this clearly shows that we understand the baby to unique and have rights once it is separated from the mother, as I don’t believe a pregnant woman can be charged with child abuse or endangerment until she has actually given birth. I think these are important questions to think about and to accept. I am very much pro-life, but I’m not sure that I’m anti-choice. I was for a time, but I am not sure that being anti-choice is helpful to the women or the children the pro-lifers want to save.

            I’m not convinced I want the hospital or laws making decisions like this (keeping a woman on life support against the will of her family). If they dictate in one direction, they can easily dictate in another. My position on whether we should legislate things such as this, and abortion in general, is still being determined.

          • fiona64

            Last I checked, my fingernail does not have its own unique DNA

            Hydatidform moles have their own unique DNA. So do tumors. Unique DNA and “growing” do not really constitute an argument for personhood, which is what we are talking about. Regardless of how you romanticized your pregnancy (mine was horrific, thanks, so no romanticism there), the fetus was NOT a person. It was NOT separate from you until it was born. It was sucking you dry of nutrients via the umbilicus, and did not give two shits about your health or well-being. It functioned, in essence, as a parasite. I don’t wax all sentimental about a common, everyday biological process; pregnancy is not “miraculous” in the slightest.


            I’m not convinced I want the hospital or laws making decisions like this
            (keeping a woman on life support against the will of her family). If
            they dictate in one direction, they can easily dictate in another.

            The same thing applies to abortion; the same laws (which you appear to support) that deny women access to abortion can be turned around to *force* women to have abortions.

            Bottom line, in this case: a born *person’s* advance directive is being ignored by the State of Texas because a *non-viable fetus* exists inside a heartbeat cadaver. This is absolutely absurd and has no place in decent society. At least you and I seem to be in some level of concurrence there.

          • RonPaul2012

            Now, if your fingernails each have their own unique DNA and the ability
            to grow up into individual persons, I would love to meet them!

            Yes, they do. Somatic cells of the body can be implanted in an ovum, and with a very minor tweak, they can become embryos, and eventually, babies. Basically, *all* that the ovum provides are the nutrients needed for the somatic cell to grow into a baby. See, every single somatic cell in your body has the 46 chromosomes that are necessary to create a ‘new unique human life’

            It’s interesting that a mother can be charged with endangerment if she gives birth to a baby addicted to drugs

            Yeah, because it’s BORN. A fetus future health is immaterial if is not going to be born.

            I just said that if you recognize the fetus as a unique human life (it is not a potential human, it IS a human, just in a different stage of development)

            A hydatidiform mole is also human. Your markers for personhood seem to be 1) human dna 2) living – and that also applies to many of the cells in your body, molar pregnancies, and tumours. You will have to do better. In other words, you cannot claim that a conceptus is a person based on those two markers alone.

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            If you can’t accept that a fetus is human life – that’s your problem, not mine. We can argue till the cows come home, and I’ll look up the science about fingernails becoming babies.

          • RonPaul2012

            It *is* human life. The question is, it *a* human life? As in, a person?

            What is a person, Momma?

            As has repeatedly been explained to you, your markers for personhood 1) alive 2) human dna also apply to most of the cells in your body, tumours, and molar pregnancies.So, there has to be more to peronshood than just that. What is it?

          • RonPaul2012

            It is quite within our grasp now to create a blastocyst from almost any cell of the body. Your hair follicles contain thousands–no, millions of potential human lives. Every cell in your body (save the erythrocytes) contains a nucleus, and that nucleus could be extracted and processed, and it could be placed in an enucleated
            oocyte, and you could implant that oocyte in a woman whose endometrium might be at the right stage for implantation, and that woman might carry the pregnancy to term.–Johnathan M Sullivan MD PHD

            In recent years, the technique of cloning whole organisms has been developed in mammals, allowing almost identical genetic clones of an animal to be produced. One method of doing this is called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” and involves removing the nucleus from a somatic cell, usually a skin cell. This nucleus contains all of the genetic information needed to produce the organism it was removed from. This nucleus is then injected into an ovum of the same species which has had its own genetic material removed. The ovum now no longer needs to be fertilized, because it contains the correct amount of genetic material (a diploid number of chromosomes). In theory, the ovum can be implanted into the uterus of a same-species animal and allowed to develop. The resulting animal will be a nearly genetically identical clone to the animal from which the nucleus was taken. The only difference is caused by any mitochondrial DNA that is retained in the ovum, which is different than the cell that donated the nucleus. In practice, this technique has so far been problematic, although there have been a few high profile successes, such as Dolly the Sheep and, more recently, Snuppy, the first cloned dog.

            http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/about/news_events/news/2013/05-15-ohsu-research-team-succe.cfm

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            I am not a scientist and so I won’t pretend to be able to fully understand all of the science behind this. However, taking the nucleus from a skin cell and implanting it in an emptied egg, seems vastly different than insinuating that fingernails have the potential to become a person. We are talking about a fetus – whatever processes needed to create the life have already happened (sperm, egg, multiplying). In other words, we have a life but that life is still dependent on another’s life. So, for me, the question is when does that life, matter less and when does it matter the same and when does it matter more than the person’s life on who it depends? A newborn baby depends on its mother for milk – it is arguably not self-aware – should we charge mothers who give birth and then abandon the baby? Should we allow mothers to allow newborns to die? My question is – where is the line? My thoughts are that we should all accept that there is a gray area in the realm of abortion, and we should have sincere, honest conversations about that gray area and what the consequences would be of the various opinions defining the gray area. These conversations will likely touch on what it means to be human, what defines life, what defines death and what constitutes a life worth living…and who decides these things.

          • RonPaul2012

            As I stated, somatic cells have the potential to do what a zygote does; they merely need some help (as stem-cell research has shown). The thing is, the zygote also needs help to grow. It needs a uterus. It doesn’t grow in a vacuum. There is no significant difference between the zygote and those other cells that have a full 46 chromosomes of human DNA. The concept of “potential” makes *no* distinction regarding “barriers to the fulfillment” of a potential.

            As an analogy, consider standing at the top of a long staircase, where you would have the potential to fall and break your back. Whether or not something is between you and the stairs, a railing, a gate, some sort of barrier –the *potential* to fall still exists. Likewise, every cell possessing a full complement of human DNA has the potential to do what a zygote does, and the existence of barriers between that potential and its fulfillment makes *no* difference whatsoever to the fact that the potential does indeed exist.

            Thus, if you believe that a zygote is a person, because of its DNA and its potential, you must also do the same for all of the cells in your body. Trillions of them. Which is absurd, if you really think about it.

            Why don’t you tell us what you think. Under what circumstances do you believe abortion should be illegal? When do you think personhood begins? Do you believe that the right to life trumps all other rights?

          • fiona64

            A newborn baby depends on its mother for milk – it is arguably not
            self-aware – should we charge mothers who give birth and then abandon
            the baby? Should we allow mothers to allow newborns to die?

            What part of *personhood accrues with birth* is too hard to understand? Once again, personhood is a *legal* status. We do charge women with child abandonment and neglect, you silly cow.

            My question is – where is the line? My thoughts are that we should all accept that there is a gray area in the realm of abortion,

            No, there goddamned well is not. Decisions about pregnancy lie with the woman and her physician and her deity (if any). If it’s not your pregnancy, it’s none of your goddamned business. I think the Duggars are insane for having so many children, but you don’t see me out there trying to legislate away their right to make their own reproductive decisions. Just because YOU wouldn’t do a given thing, doesn’t mean your choices should automatically apply to other people.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            A fetus is human, It is alive like my kidney is alive, it may be unwanted. Cry me a river.

          • fiona64

            PS: Answer the freakin’ questions I asked:

            Please explain, in detail, why a potential person’s “rights” (i.e.,
            those of a fetus) should trump the rights of an actual person: the
            pregnant woman. Please explain, in detail, why the fetus has greater
            value than the pregnant woman.

          • RonPaul2012

            AveMaria won’t explain anything in detail either…

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

            An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

          • HeilMary1

            If you believed your own crap, you’d be attending round-the-clock “baby” tampon funerals!

          • RonPaul2012

            I followed Plum and Lady Black over to Personhood USA and Drew Hymer is making the argument that women who miscarry are the mothers of ‘dead babies’ and to tell them otherwise is insulting????

          • HeilMary1

            A former coworker, who conveniently miscarried an unwanted pregnancy because of her cola drinking, but who later had two wanted children, didn’t mourn her “dead baby”.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Drew Hymer is an internet troll with many screen names. There is something wrong with is ability to reason. That is typical argument for him.
            Now that you have experienced the delight of “debating” him, you will come to recognize him in other guises, RP.

          • RonPaul2012

            Drew Hymer wrote:

            “”

            Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy. When that possibility is realized, you become a causal agent of an unborn baby’s needs and this makes you responsible to care for that unborn baby.

            Here’s an analogy that might help. A man likes to shoot guns, he loves it. He shoots a bullet almost vertically into the air. A very short time later, the bullet plummets and hits a man near his spinal column as he’s tanning poolside.

            The shooter didn’t invent gravity. The shooter didn’t manipulate the winds in the atmosphere that changed the trajectory of the bullet. Yet, when he consented/volunteered to shoot that gun, he consented/volunteered to take responsibility for the outcome of his action. The shooter is responsible to provide for the needs of the man he injured. He couldn’t merely claim that the injured man is subject to his continued consent. The shooter’s initial consent obligates in the long term as the injured man undergoes surgery and therapy as he learns to walk again.

            Repeating the mantra “Physics isn’t destiny” won’t extricate the shooter from his obligation. Likewise, when a couple have sex, they put in motion things beyond their control which could bring into existence a needy human being. Their consent for their action makes them responsible for the child’s needs.””

            —————–

            Which is what I have been waiting for. A woman engaging in non-procreative sex is the equivalent of a criminally negligent act…

            And btw, by Drew’s reasoning, IVF should be illegal because people purposely *create* needy human beings to whom they owe a *debt* and by refusing to let all of those human beings gestate to birth, they are guilty of homicide…

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Which is what I have been waiting for. A woman engaging in non-procreative sex is the equivalent of a criminally negligent act…

            And btw, by Drew’s reasoning, IVF should be illegal because people purposely *create* needy human beings to whom they owe a *debt* and by refusing to let all of those human beings gestate to birth, they are guilty of homicide…

            ………………..
            Correct. You are a smart woman.

            That is Drew and the forcedBirther’s idea of sane argument. The argument that makes the woman seeking an abortion
            and also the woman seeking to give birth
            EQUALLY (murderers) moral degenerates.

            Fetus Fetishists rarely and perhaps never picket fertility doctors or their clinics. Those imprisoned and aborted implanted embryos are not attached to a woman they can have the fun of stalking, ridiculing and harassing. Takes all the fun out of it for the nutters.

          • CJ99

            It doesn’t matter if it “varies by state” thats irrelevant. You’re just being stupid everywhere and visible to all…except you.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

            An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. – Judaism 101

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            A fetus acquires all the rights and duties of legal personhood when it survives birth and not until then.

        • fiona64

          A 14-weeks-gestational age fetus is NOT a person. It is a potential person. In this case, it is ghoulish to keep a dead woman alive to gestate a pregnancy that is doomed *anyway.* Anyone who supports this kind of barbarism has no place in polite society.

          • MommaBeanBlessed

            “it is ghoulish to keep a dead woman alive”… I think we need to define the terms “dead” and “alive,” because this sentence does not make sense otherwise. Either the woman is not dead, and is being kept alive, or she is dead and they are keeping the fetus alive. Maybe you meant “brain dead,” or that it is ghoulish to keep someone alive when the only thing keeping them alive is a machine. Perhaps it is now time with all of our advances in science, to redefine “death” and “life.”

          • RonPaul2012

            You’re an idiot.

            I was going to type up something more…

            but,

            You’re a fucking moron.

          • fiona64

            You knew quite well what I meant. The woman is brain dead — she’s *dead.* She is being kept alive by machines to gestate a doomed pregnancy because some anti-choice dimwits in the Texas Legislature say so.

            Brain dead is *dead.* Period.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s ghoulish to keep someone alive when the only thing keeping them alive is a machine. Happy now?

      • AveMaria02

        You can sit here and deny the truth all you want but there are two people here and one of them is the unborn child.

        • fiona64

          Nope, just one person: the pregnant woman. A fetus is not a person.

        • HeilMary1

          You’re just livid that no pedophile priest will get to molest that fetus!

          • AveMaria02

            Okay, that is just downright rude. I absolutely condemn child molestation regardless of whether it is done by a pedophile priest or a pedophile teacher or a pedophile person down the street.

          • HeilMary1

            No, you’re just too stupid to see who is behind all this MOTHER-KILLING fetal idolatry: pedophile priests!

          • AveMaria02

            You are going to have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion.

          • RonPaul2012

            Traditionally, children were actually given to the RCC as a tithe. And they were essentially enslaved/raped by the priests.

          • HeilMary1

            Have you been on some other planet your WHOLE life?

          • AveMaria02

            Nope. I’ve been right here on earth my entire life. Now proceed with providing the evidence that pedophile priests are behind the pro-life movement.

          • CJ99

            So your just willfully stupid. no surprise there.

          • HeilMary1

            Former Notre Dame dean/convicted pedophile Father James T. Burtchaell made his name demonizing married women who used self-defending contraception, thereby depriving him of fresh victims. The priests who most condemn maternal life- and marriage-saving contraception are hypocrite sex offenders.

          • CJ99

            There was another person (a guy I think) who commented a few months back on a pedophile priest article on this very site. He went very indepth with page after page of evidence just from the last 20 years. It’s mindblowing how the foaming at the mouth fanatics still even try to deny reality when its so blatant.

          • CJ99

            what planet would take him? a planet that’s as bad or worse than this one, its a scarey thought.

          • CJ99

            As apposed to your hubris filled tirades being stupid rude & incredibly arrogant.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, but only if it’s a priest will everything be hushed up while the priest is shuttled to another parish for fresh victims.

        • CJ99

          You still won’t know the truth if Jesus himself smacked your butt with it.

    • marshmallow

      A 14 week fetus is not a child.

    • colleen2

      The fetus is doomed, the woman is dead and you are pathetic

    • CJ99

      Anyone grateful for this gross abuse of power is certifiably insane. Yeah your in that group you religious fascist goon.

    • goatini

      So, you are another one of those ghouls who is gleefully gloating over this tragically deceased woman being exploited by the State into being an undead corpse livestock zombie. Also a liar who maliciously spreads deliberate misinformation intended to deceive. All persons and citizens have already been born, and all children have already been born. So actually, there are NO people in this tragic equation – only a corpse, and a product of conception that is NOT a child, NOT a person, NOT a citizen, and has NO rights.

      Maybe the next victim to become a State-compelled zombie to be exploited will be one of your loved ones. Then we’ll see how “thankful” you are.

    • Ella Warnock

      We’re always just talking about one person.

    • HeilMary1

      I’ll bet you don’t give a hoot about the brain-dead black child whose parents want her to be kept on life-support, even though she isn’t incubating a “more important” fetus!

      • AveMaria02

        Actually, I do “give a hoot” about her. I find the whole situation to be very sad and I wish that there was something that could be done for her. However, it would seem that she is dead and only being kept alive by machines.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Yeah, but if there was a fetus in there, she would keep the corpse going.

          • HeilMary1

            Looks like “caring” Ave would pull the plug on the non-pregnant girl, despite her parents’ wishes! What a hypocrite!

          • AveMaria02

            What exactly are you talking about?

          • Jennifer Starr

            That it’s quite obvious that the life you ‘value’ most is the life of the fetus. The woman can be forced to be hooked up to machines so that you can harvest said fetus or gladly unhooked if she’s not carrying an ‘all-holy fetus’. Her consent or body autonomy doesn’t matter to you at all. In other words, the born, living woman and her wishes or her family’s wishes are immaterial to you. The woman can go hang. All you really care about is that fetus.

          • AveMaria02

            Actually I do care about the woman. However, the unborn child’s right to life supersedes this woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

          • RonPaul2012

            No, if you did care about women, you wouldn’t subjugate them to microscopic cells.

            And no, the ‘right to live’ does not supersede the right to bodily autonomy. The right to live does not trump all other rights.

          • fiona64

            However, the unborn child’s right to life supersedes this woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

            Bullshit.

          • HeilMary1

            No fetus has the right maim and murder its host on behalf of your heretic pedophile priests. ALL abortions are self-defense, you pompous MOTHER KILLER.

          • CJ99

            The irony is almost too precious, that of a sanctamonius old white male such as “avemaria” having a nun as an avatar. Makes mine seem like a good counterpoint.

          • RonPaul2012

            The reason that I asked you to take your disqus profile private when debating anti-choicers is because…when you click on that profile…you see links to FB and other stuff hint hint

        • CJ99

          You’re still revolting. The only thing you care about is your own ego.

        • fiona64

          However, it would seem that she is dead and only being kept alive by machines.

          Yep … just like the woman in this article.

  • RonPaul2012

    According to pro-lifer Dr Maureen Condic, this woman is ‘alive':

    “”There is very little biologic difference between a living person in the instant before death and the body of that person an instant after death. Yet some property has clearly departed from the body in death, and that property is precisely the element that defines “human life.” What, then, is the difference between live persons and dead ones? How is death defined medically and scientifically?
    Defining death as the irreversible loss of brain function remains for some a controversial decision. The fact that the cells and organs of the body can be maintained after the death of the individual is a disturbing concept. The feeling that corpses are being kept artificially “alive” as medical zombies for the convenient culture of transplantable organs can be quite discomforting, especially when the body in question is that of a loved one. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that this state of affairs is essentially no different from what occurs naturally following death by any means. On a cellular and molecular level, nothing changes in the instant of death. Immediately following death, most of the cells in the body are still alive, and for a time at least, they continue to function normally. Maintaining heartbeat and artificial respiration simply extends this period of time. Once the “plug is pulled,” and the corpse is left to its own devices, the cells and organs of the body undergo the same slow death by oxygen deprivation they would have experienced had medical science not intervened.

    People whose bodies continue to function in an integrated manner are legally and medically alive, despite their limited (or absent) mental function. Regardless of how one may view the desirability of maintaining patients in a persistent vegetative state (this being an entirely distinct moral and legal question), there is unanimous agreement that such patients are not yet corpses

    Linking human status to the nature of developing embryos is neither
    subjective nor open to personal opinion. Human embryos are living human
    beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of
    human life that is lost in the moment of death—the ability to function
    as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human
    cells.
    “”

    ^Therefore, she concludes, an embryo is a ‘person’ because braindead patients in a persistent vegetative state are ‘alive’ because their bodies have not yet started to decay!!!

    I have been reading a lot of secular pro-life arguments lately, in order to improve my skills, and I have noticed that they like to twist the language, specifically in regard to what it means to be human/human being/person

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/life-defining-the-beginning-by-the-end-24

    • Nullifidian

      You probably don’t need this pointed out to you, but it’s ironic that she uses the phrase “integrated biologic function”, because that’s precisely what the fetus doesn’t have. Under the integrated physiological view of life, the fetus is alive when it possesses an independent circulatory, respiratory, and alimentary system—i.e. when it’s born. Prior to that, it’s entirely dependent on the mother’s body for these vital functions, which is why this Texas law exists in the first place. As a person who subscribes to this view, I find it ridiculous to say that the fetus is fully a human being, with all attendant rights, when this life could be snuffed by removing another being from life support. What’s next? Personhood for the pancreas, which is also being maintained by life support in this case?

      • RonPaul2012

        What they are trying to say is that the zygote/embryo/fetus has a certain ‘agency’ in ‘growing’ itself. That it isn’t just a mindless biochemical process. But that the zef, being special, acts as some sort of ‘moral’ agent, and acts in the ‘characteristic’ of that agent. And that analogies to the the construction of a car, or a building, are not precise, because outside forces ‘build’ the car, whereas the embryo *builds itself*.

        I mean, if you look closely enough, it’s really just an argument for ‘embryos have souls’ disguised as science.

        I have been researching secular pro-life arguments as of late, and they all seem to be as described above. They point to that ‘special something’ that ‘only humans have’ and that if human *persons* have a trait, then all human embryos must have that same trait as well, by virtue of being human. Therefore, all embryos are persons!!!

        The argument made is that all human zygotes have the *capacity* for rational thought, it’s just that they are unable to express the *abilities* that arise from that inherent capacity, because they are not yet fully grown. But once they are fully grown, they can *express* their inherent *capacities* and act like rational, moral beings. And an analogy is made to a Kodak photo. That the smudge you see when the photo is developing in front of your eyes is not really a smudge, but is in fact a photo – but you just can’t see it yet!

        And the fellow I was reading today started talking about ‘presumptive’ embyrology – that when an embryologist looks at a healthy embryo, he/she knows that it will become a healthy baby! Because a healthy embryo *always* becomes a healthy baby right? And they can tell this *how*? Why is it that certain problems aren’t detectable until 20 weeks then? Or even until birth???

        It took me a while to parse their bullshit because it’s usually couched in convoluted philosophical speak. This sentence, for example, was offered up as a rebuttal to a prochoice argument: “This is a result of affirming the consequent, which is confused by many with modus tollens, but the latter is valid whereas the former is a fallacy” <—WTF does that even mean? Word salad!

        • L-dan

          This all then becomes an argument for keeping everyone on life support who has usable organs which could save actual persons with indisputable agency.

          In arguing that we must keep a person on life support if another specific sort of ‘person’ would die on account of removing the other from life support, they can’t really find a distinction between fetal ‘persons’ and other persons, can they?

          • RonPaul2012

            The best argument a forced birther could come up with to counter a similar point was ‘but the corpse cannot give consent’

            I mean, it all comes down to ‘biology is destiny’. And that if women are *made* to make babies, and just happen to be pregnant, that they *must* be subservient to biology. And this is the ONLY case in which subservience to biology, and consent, and bodily harm are all hand-waved away.

          • L-dan

            Given how recently marital rape even became and acknowledged crime, we’re still in the early stages of struggling with consent.

            And seriously? The corpse needs to give consent to harvest kidneys but not to harvest babies?

          • RonPaul2012

            Yep.

            This was from the guy that BJ, specifically, repeatedly asked to give one example of where people were forced to act as life support for others.

            He had said:

            1) China (as if that somehow supported his point)

            2) Pregnancy is an exception cuz it is, don’t like it too bad, you whiney pro-abort s1ut

            And when pressed about organ donation from corpses, he said that a corpse has to give it’s consent first, otherwise it’s just wrong to take organs from it.

            He then bragged about how he crushed us over at LAN.

          • L-dan

            China, because we totally look up to them as a beacon of human rights. Don’t they also have the choice of abortions or fines for pregnancies beyond the first? Shall we also emulate that?

            ‘Exception, just because,’ is ridiculous logic, particularly when followed up by the idea that corpses must give consent to using their parts but living pregnant people do not.

            The idea that the latter bit of logic was ‘crushing’ speaks loads as to his lack of sharpness.

          • RonPaul2012

            Yeah, I had pointed out as a rebuttal that black people were considered an ‘exception’ to the rule that we don’t enslave people because they just ‘were’ an exception to that rule, cuz ‘nature’.

            His rebuttal…slavery is different because like, black people were a minority, and stuff.

            He also invoked the ‘divine fallacy’ when a woman stated that no, if you force a woman into subservience to a fetus, she cannnot, by definition, be treated as it’s ‘equal’. He’s like yo, dummy, argument from incredulity!

            I looked it up and no, she is not invoking the fallacy by ‘failing’ to imagine a world in which forced pregnancy is all rainbows and unicorns.

            He only ever squashed me on one thing, which is that pregnancy *only* kills close to 300k women per year, and not 580k. The WHO stats that I was using were a few years old.

            He then went on to make the argument that *most* pregnancy health problems are a result of *pre-existing conditions* and not technically the fault of the pregnancy. Yeah, because it’s not like pregnancy aggravates those conditions or anything, due to toll that it takes on a woman’s body, by it’s very nature!

          • L-dan

            Argument from incredulity there would simply mean that one lacks the imagination to figure how a woman forced into service to a fetus could be considered equal to said fetus, but being unable to imagine such a thing does not make it untrue.

            Except that makes no sense at all. If he wants to argue that she is not being forced to be subservient to the fetus he needs to make that point. Since it is correct that, by definition, being forced into subservience means being forced into an unequal position. Unless he wants to make ‘separate but equal’ arguments that somehow equality is a different thing for women and has different definitions.

            Which is an argument that’s long been discredited in other instances.

            You might say most murders are the result of pre-existing conditions like being poor, for example. But the solution there is not to say that poor people should just resign themselves to being murdered at a higher rate.

            If I could imagine a world where pregnancy was never a danger or a health risk, that still would not make it ok to press people’s bodies into the job of building new people against their will.

            Besides, if that were the case, there’d be no argument at all given how much of the anti-choice argument is fueled by the desire for women to face pregnancy as a scary outcome of sex to scare them away from it.

          • HeilMary1

            Wasn’t this brain-dead woman’s condition triggered by her pregnancy in the first place?

          • RonPaul2012

            I think so. Blood clot/embolism. Which can be caused by pregnancy, right?

          • CJ99

            Would be almost funny watching his head explode after he’s asked why his pro life (sentence) ilk are so anti-sex.

          • RonPaul2012

            The asshat is M Fenix, remember him?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh he is such an asshat.

          • CJ99

            yet we don’t see those people who claim biology is destiny arguing that people should eat themselves into a diabetic coma cause we’re predisposed to being hungry, though I can imagine they’ll start arguing that rape is “natural & healthy” if they haven’t already.

          • L-dan

            For that matter, they’re mostly the same people who say “it’s your own fault you’re a lardass” despite that fact that we’re primed to really like fats and sweets.

            Or, as in the other busy thread here, gay people are horrible for being gay.

            So basically biology is destiny, except when it isn’t. Pretty much like all of their convenient rules for how life is supposed to be.

          • RonPaul2012

            They tie everything into ‘taking responsibility for your actions’.

            They use it the way they use ‘god works in mysterious ways’.

          • HeilMary1

            Notice how murderously livid they get over fetuses that grow up to be gay or expensively disabled?! Female = compulsory pregnancy but intersex gay = lifelong celibacy for all non-clergy.

      • HeilMary1

        If you want to make their hypocrite heads explode, ask why they never attempt to rescue, freeze and re-implant miscarried tampon blastocysts, or have priests perform last rites and funeral masses for such tampon “babies”.

    • colleen2

      I find it terrifying that this woman made it through medical school.

      • RonPaul2012

        Yeah I did a search for some rebuttals of her work and even pro-life embryologists *mock* her distinct lack of knowledge.

        One pro-ilfe embryologist went so far as to say that she is WRONG that life begins with the zygote because clearly…life begins when the sperm enters the egg…

        The kind fellow then went on to explain that women should stop enjoying the pleasures of sex so much, that way, innocent babies wouldn’t have to die on the altar of their s1uttiness.

    • Jennifer Starr

      These people are just completely sick. There’s no other word to describe it.

  • RonPaul2012

    Considering the abject hate and disregard coming from AveMaria02, I feel that I should share this quote that I read today:

    “I don’t think pro-lifers have any real concern for blastocysts and fetuses, except insofar as they can call them “babies” and use this sentimental sleight-of-hand to objectify
    and revile sexually active women.

    This is the inhumanity of abstraction laid bare: pro-lifers don’t have to acknowledge that there’s an adult female in the equation, or acknowledge her situation in life, or acknowledge the position of women in human society. By focusing on a fetal heartbeat, they’ve given themselves the right to be as vicious and misogynistic as they want.

    Pro life is nothing more than a hate group, a bunch of moralistic psychopaths who have their crusade all mapped out. They resent the fact that women nowadays have the last say in childbearing, literally the power over life and death, and they want women to have to carry and deliver the man’s baby without complaints, just like in the good old days.”””

    -Anton

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/10/20-arguments-against-abortion-rebutted/#comment-1183354646

    • HeilMary1

      Exactly!

    • CJ99

      Can’t believe its me saying it buuuut:

      AMEN BROTHAH!

  • Marlowe53

    I feel so sorry for Mr. Munoz and his son. At a time when he should be allowed to mourn and to help his son adjust to life without his mother, he’s been forced by the religious beliefs of bullies to face numerous difficulties now and in the future. Where are the true conservatives when we need them?

    • CJ99

      The true conservatives are the ones pushing this abuse on an already victimized family.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        They are not “conservatives.” They are Authoritarians. You know, these folks:
        …………………………..
        Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds. They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result. … And they are so submissive to their leaders that they will believe and do virtually anything they are told. They are not going to let up and they are not going away.

  • http://oursilverribbon.org/ adolmd

    Why can’t they transfer her to a state that doesn’t have such horrific laws and then discontinue life support?

    • Guest

      I believe that once the courts have become involved, they hold jurisdiction over all parties. The court would never allow her to be moved until the “birth” is over. They likely would have had to have had her moved prior to it going to court — which, of course, they would never have known. My heart goes out to the family. Nothing about this – no matter what decisions or outcome – is going to be anything less than tragic.

  • Renne Stew

    I really hope the hospital has to pay the bill, since it was their decision to continue life support.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      The husband and family are bringing a lawsuit as I write.

  • HeilMary1

    She puts her fetal idolatry above the welfare of already born kids.

  • HeilMary1

    Pedophile-serving cults have no moral compass.

  • CJ99

    If you’d seen the disgusting diatribes avemaria had spewed here you’d have a clue what your talking about. As it stands you know nothing & it shows.

  • lady_black

    No. YOU have no idea what I’m talking about. I am speaking not of this particular case, nor do I care what the Catholic church has to say about it. I’m speaking of the general treatment of pregnant women in Catholic theology, as well as in your hospitals, as brainless and inconsequential incubators who are not fully human beings. Here I am… the patient. The customer. When I seek healthcare, it really IS “all about me.” That means if I have been raped, you offer me an emergency contraceptive. If my life is being endangered by a pregnancy that has no hope of coming to fruition, you save the only life that can be saved… MINE. And that means you do it in the least intrusive way possible, without mutilating me. And finally, that means that when my doctor and I decide that it’s not in my best interests to undergo any further pregnancies and I ask for a tubal ligation, you give me one. And if I’m suffering from debilitating fibroids or endometriosis, you perform a requested uterine artery embolization, endometrial ablation or hysterectomy, whether it will render me sterile or not. In other words, you leave the practice of medicine not to a bunch of celibate men in dresses, but to actual doctors who have been trained in the practice of medicine. And if you can’t bring yourself to do these things, then you transfer me to someone who will. I’m not Catholic, and I do not have to suffer for your beliefs. Pick up your own cross if you must. Don’t you dare balance it on my back.

  • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

    The ACLU has something to say about it. Killing women is about to get expensive for the Priests. Oh, and I am a Catholic
    https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief-womens-rights/aclu-sues-bishops-behalf-pregnant-woman-denied-care-catholic-hospital

  • Jennifer Starr

    Sorry, but I don’t actually understand what you’re trying to say here.

  • RonPaul2012

    The majority of extreme neonates do not survive, and those that do are often severely disabled. Blind, deaf, cerebral palsy, and a myriad of neurological disorders. Some are born completely paralyzed – for life.

    It is also possible that these so-called 21-weekers were 23 or 24 weeks, and that someone got the gestation wrong.