What the Many Reactions to Emily Letts’ Video Tell Us About Society’s Views on Abortion


Dr. Drew: “Let me ask a crazy question. Did you get pregnant in order to do this video?”

When I heard Dr. Drew pose this question to Emily Letts—an abortion counselor who recently made headlines for filming her abortion—I wanted to cry. I know there is little trust or respect for women in our society, but I just couldn’t wrap my mind around that level of cynicism.

As you probably know, Emily Letts’ video of her abortion, “This Is My Story,” has gone viral. Letts has been inundated with requests for interviews from all over the world. You have probably seen or heard some of them. She is a wonderful, authentic spokesperson for valuing and trusting women and their choices.

As you can imagine, the volume of feedback has been overwhelming. Some people have congratulated her for her bravery, some have condemned her for “murdering her baby,” and some are contacting her because they need help resolving their feelings after an abortion. Other people who say they are pro-choice have chided Letts, saying she isn’t a perfect spokesperson for the cause—since she acknowledged that she wasn’t using birth control when she got pregnant—and that her video is a publicity stunt. Each of these audiences represents a part of the political and social landscape of the current abortion reality. I say hooray for the people who are thanking Letts for her honesty and courage. And I am not giving any of my energy to the people who think she “murdered her baby.” But I am interested in the women who need help and the pro-choice people who are offended.

There has been speculation that some of the negative comments from people who identify themselves as pro-choice may actually be from anti-choice people who are determined to stir the pot. But I also think there are negative reactions coming from people who really do think of themselves as pro-choice. Perhaps some of these comments are indicative of the gap between the theory of being pro-choice and the actual nitty-gritty of abortion.

Some people think Letts’ video trivializes abortion because she is very open about not being traumatized or feeling guilty about it. They don’t like her being honest that she wasn’t using birth control, because it seems like she’s being a bad role model. Some comments seem to be saying that an abortion is too personal to “reveal” (as if we are not a society that reveals everything!). To me this comes down to recognizing that we have to tell our secrets in order to preserve our privacy. The gay rights movement has seen this all too clearly. “SILENCE=DEATH” referred to the consequences of keeping secrets when it came to AIDS. Likewise, sharing the complex, nuanced reality of abortion, adoption, and parenting—telling the secrets that harm us when we hide them—may help us create a dialogue with pro-choice people who are uncomfortable with the reality of our work.

If you find yourself in one of these discussions, take a cue from Emily Letts and don’t see yourself as the target. It is essential to remember that everyone has her or his own perspective, and you have yours. Often the person wants to tell you her story—so show her it is safe to do that and listen well. If she wants to debate, you may find it helpful to talk about the experience that nearly every woman has (not to mention boyfriends and husbands)—of worrying when her period is late and holding her breath for the results of a pregnancy test. If you are able to refocus the conversation to something as universal and familiar as that, you may be able to help women see what they have in common, rather than what separates them. If you can invite others to tell their stories, you will be having a deeper conversation than one opinion “against” another—a conversation that is so much more real and allows a space for people to make unexpected connections.

Letts’ video has already sparked many conversations and will spark many more. She is a counselor at Cherry Hill Women’s Center in New Jersey, one of the excellent independent abortion providers that have served their local communities for decades. We know women have a wide range of experiences with pregnancy and abortion. How a woman feels is determined by many things, including her circumstances, the support (or lack thereof) she has, her age, how much information she has, her religious values, if any, the nature of the relationship with the man involved, her economic situation, her family, her culture, her length of pregnancy, whether she is being pressured, and so many other things. Sadly, many women don’t experience support to make the choice that is best for them, and not all women have had the opportunity to receive abortion care from providers who treat them with dignity and compassion, one of the hallmarks of the best independent providers.

If you know a woman who is having a hard time before or after an abortion, there are wonderful resources on the Abortion Care Network website, including publications and peer support phone lines. If you let it be known that you don’t judge, there is a good chance that people will share their stories with you.

As we watch clinics disappear and women’s access to safe abortion become more and more endangered, there is no one who is going to rescue us from this insanity. It is only our voices raised one at a time, in compassion and integrity, that will save us.

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

To schedule an interview with Charlotte Taft please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • purrtriarchy

    Pro liars are throwing a fit, even saying that she must be secretly depressed for ‘murdering her baby’.

    • Alex Hunter

      No surprise there. Dozens of clinics across America being shut down and they whinge because they aren’t winning fast enough.

    • Ella Warnock

      They need to believe that someday she will be as miserable as they wish her to be. Anything else flies in the face of their lies, which all fall apart when confronted with women who don’t think or feel or behave the ‘right’ way. Their passive-aggressiveness loudly proclaims that ALL women’s lives are destroyed by abortion.

  • Pinkladyapple

    If you can stomach the comments on some of the conservative websites, they say she should burn in hell for “murdering her baby”. So on that account, should every woman that’s had an abortion go to hell or just her for not feeling ashamed, guilty, depressed and miserable after her abortion, you know how women are “supposed” to feel.

    • lady_black

      Even worse, I’ve seen some of them laying claim to her body and her fetus because they themselves cannot conceive. I’ve never seen such a bunch of self-centered whiners in my life.

      • cjvg

        That is beyond disgusting and so extremely not full of “respect” for life.
        Trying to claim that you can have ownership of the body of another because yours is not producing in the manner you want is sick

      • Pinkladyapple

        This. A million times this. My fb thread has exploded with comments like “OMG there’s women out there that have been trying to conceive for yearzzz and cant what a selfish bitch just throwing her baby away”. I’m sorry for your fertility woes but nobody owes you a fucking child. Go take in foster children or adopt like you pro-fetus freaks like to screech about so much.

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

          My body, its contents and genetic material belongs to me and my family. These whackjobs will not make a deadbaby farm out of my body like poor Marlise Munoz. I vote and so do my daughters.

        • Ella Warnock

          I’d say the ‘selfish bitch’ is the one who thinks that all fertile women
          owe her something. You’d think their overweening love for children
          would result in their being very involved in the foster and adoption
          communities, thus too busy to obsess about others’ reproductive status. You’d be wrong, though.

          • lady_black

            Absolutely. My son and his wife are an infertile couple. They would never say something like that. The people saying that, their parents failed them miserably.

          • Ella Warnock

            You raised him right. ;-)

          • Pinkladyapple

            Well that’s because its so much easier to obsess over a potential life then do something for an actual child.

          • lady_black

            BINGO.

          • Ella Warnock

            Bingo.

        • Rainbow Walker

          What’s amazing is they spread propaganda that “there just aren’t enough kids to adopt”. Funny, I work with adjudicated children. TX alone has over 65k waiting to be adopted and/or fostered. The vast majority of which are between 0-9 YOA. And they keep adding to this by closing the abortion clinics. Go figure.

          • Notinoz

            Unfortunately for a lot of those children there are a lot of people who are highly selective on the child they want almost like shopping for puppies and it truly is a shame. When I adopted my children I didn’t look at them and itemize them and I took all of them because they are siblings although honestly at first the task was harder than I could imagine but they are wonderful and I love love them more than I could ever say.

          • lady_black

            They are “shopping for puppies” and do not deserve children. In fact, I wouldn’t give them a kitten to care for.

          • Rainbow Walker

            While it is true that people are highly selective as a rule that is not the reason for unwanted children. Women can either not have access to birth control or abortion services or the jurisdiction
            restricts or bans them. Taking away choice never makes a viable solution. Banning or restricting only leads to more problems. That is why there are unwanted children. It was even worse a century ago, when maternal and infant mortality was more than 200% more than today. The main reason for the drop is adequate medical care,
            which includes birth control and abortion. It is proven that in jurisdictions that have access to medical care unwanted children drop to almost nil.

          • Notinoz

            NNow are you proc house for those who abort based upon gender selection and don’t kid yourself it occurs in the US.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Proc house? Huh? And show me proof that so-called gender selection abortion is widespread in this country

          • Notinoz

            Once again I don’t see anything in my post stating it is wide spread but it does occur. So is abortion ok for gender selection?

          • Rainbow Walker

            Even if ‘gender selection” did exist in developed nations, so what? Does the mere existence of a social problem somehow negate a woman’s right to choose? Furthermore if less individuals of one gender are born that will mean less breeding, lower population, less unwanted children and poverty. It would also mean by definition if a child is born to that individual[s] at least it was wanted.

          • Suba gunawardana

            The reason for a particular abortion being questionable, doesn’t make abortion per se wrong.

          • Ineedacoffee

            Yes I am and Im not ashamed to say so

          • BJ Survivor

            I am pro-choice, which means I don’t care what “reason” a woman has for an abortion. Her body. Her choice. End of story. None of my business.

            Unlike the forced-birth crowd, I am not a panty-sniffer.

        • Vanai

          So, I’m not heartless BUT (I love starting my sentences with ‘but’), by their own logic, those trying and failing to conceive are the murderers. Which cases more a more callous loss of fetal “life:” the early termination of a few recognized pregnancies, or the desperate mating to create as many fetuses as possible in the hopes one will stick so you don’t need to go out and buy one of the “used,” post-natal babies?

      • Shan

        “I’ve never seen such a bunch of self-centered whiners in my life.”

        They feel entitled because capitalism teaches us to treat everything and everyone as a natural resource to be exploited. Since patriarchy props up capitalism, women fall into that “natural resource” category because of our reproductive capacity. Women aren’t supposed to reject that role by having abortions, we’re supposed to crank out babies. But we’re supposed to do it for free, whether we raise our children (at home, ostensibly supported by a husband), give them up for adoption (for which birth mothers are generally legally barred from receiving compensation), or opt for surrogacy, recently under some scrutiny in my home state, which is seeking to criminalize it but ONLY if done under contractual agreement – the only way a woman could be guaranteed to be compensated for it.

        Happy Mother’s Day, right?

    • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

      Best part is I heard some preacher saying on a youtube video that the souls of aborted children goes straight to heaven. Then the only guarantee of giving them a good eternal life would be an abortion.
      (They do not even have their theology right. No one goes straight to heaven – those who do, go there on the second coming.)

  • Maria

    I am definitely pro-life and do believe it is freeing to disclose things that are taboo and secrets. Otherwise guilt and feelings that you did something wrong persist. So I applaud Emily in this regard.
    I think where the video missed its mark and has become criticized by pro- choice folks is the way Emily presents herself. As someone who has had personal experience with women who have had abortions, I don’t know anyone who seemed so matter of fact about their procedure. I understand that is society stigmatizing and condemning women but also people get anxious about any medical procedure.
    I would like to hear your comments. Am I off here?

    • purrtriarchy

      Imnotsorry.net

    • terafied

      As someone who has had an abortion and was completely unmoved emotionally, I say yes, you’ve missed the mark.

      • Pam Mason

        Not sorry 43 yrs. and counting

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

          Not sorry. Three children and 4 abortions.

          • Notinoz

            Which is why people like you disgust me you are using abortion as a form of birth control likely on the tax payers dime. How’s your food stamps treating you

          • purrtriarchy

            Hyde amendment dumbass. No taxpayer spending on abortion.

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

            Has no idea about my medical issues. Just thought it would trash me for shitz and giggles. Expects to be seen as caring, moral and sane. That is the chief delusion of the antichoice pervert.

          • purrtriarchy

            Shits dumber than a turnip. I like the part about 17 week preemies surviving. Lolol

          • Notinoz

            With proper medical care they have do your research, because you obviously have no medical background

          • purrtriarchy

            Citation please.

          • lady_black

            No. Does not happen.

          • Notinoz
          • purrtriarchy

            That does not prove your assertion, which is that 17 week preemies survive to live long lives.

          • Notinoz

            Never side long lives read my post but they have lived long enough to experience the love of their mother and the medical community caring for them. I am proud to live in a state that reduces the babies who are born alive after failed abortions

          • purrtriarchy

            They can’t experience anything at that gestational age because they are not sentient. And they can’t live outside the womb because their organs are barely developed

            In other words, you are full of shit.

          • lady_black

            No.

          • choiceone

            The earliest fetus to survive outside the womb to date is thought to be James Elgin Gill, born 1988 at 21 weeks 5 days. One other early fetus to survive is Amillia Taylor at 21 weeks 6 days. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

            I think you are mistaking what you are reading. Sometimes premies’ ages are calculated backward from a full-term pregnancy term of 40-42 weeks, and 17 weeks earlier would be 23-25 weeks.

          • LostInUnderland

            Reduces them to what?

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

            People here, unlike you, can read, write and do research. You source does not prove your assertion.

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

            I like the evasions. It is a stone hoot.

          • Notinoz

            Ignorance really must be bliss for you

          • purrtriarchy

            Where is that citation?

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

            We will not get one not even an incorrect one. It is an ignorant sexpig come here to fap all over us. Nickel a dozen.

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

            Prove your assertion. You are ignorant and/or you lied. But like all sexpig zealots, you feel your native superiority means you should be IN CHARGE.

          • Notinoz

            Actually no was raised by a single mom working 3 jobs put myself through nursing school to become a nurse mid wife with a doctorate with no government assistance while raising 2 unplanned children.

          • purrtriarchy

            What is your PhD in?

          • Notinoz

            I have a doctorate in FNP with a graduate degree as a nurse midwife

          • purrtriarchy

            From which elite uni? Harvard medical school?

          • Notinoz

            No I went to community college then the university of Wyoming. While working 60 70 hours a week as a cna then an LPN then an RN while being the full support of my 2 children and never receiving any assistance.

          • purrtriarchy

            I don’t believe that you have a PhD in nursing. It takes brains to get a PhD. You’re dumb and incredibly ignorant.

          • Notinoz

            That’s your opinion and as a human you have a right to it.

          • cjvg

            However as a legally adult and legally competent woman we are not allowed to make our own medical decisions, and we are not shown respect for making the medical decisions best for our particular situation if that decision is not made along your personal beliefs.

            You then proceed to invalidate every reason that a woman might have for needing an abortion and arbitrarily judging those who state they had one as disgusting and on food stamps (even though you are more likely to be on food stamps if you did not have an abortion)

            You then proceed to support your position with some claims that are so obviously and blatantly lies that we can only conclude that you fully belief that we have no more education then a 5th grader

            But you think you are the insulted party? The disconnect between your behavior and the respect that you belief you are entitled to is astounding and leads me to conclude that you can not participate in a productive debate

          • Notinoz

            To be a nurse practitioner, you don’t go to medical school you participate in graduate program which end in a doctorate you can have a doctorate in physical education if you so choose. We are all entitled to our opinions and you quite frankly are digging for reasons to insult me, quite frankly I don’t care what you think of me you don’t know me, you don’t know what I have done or do on a daily basis for others and then myself. I wish you the best in your pursuits in life and as long as you are at peace with your actions and beliefs then great. I’m at peace with mine. Looking at the childish behavior on this site just tells me that I made the appropriate decisions in my life to not be filled with as much anger, resentment and fear of others opinions as it seems a lot of you on here have.

          • purrtriarchy

            You came in here insulting women. You reap what you sow.

          • Arekushieru

            Looking at your childish behaviour just tells me that I made the appropriate decisions in my life to not be filled with as much anger, resentment and fear of others’ opinions as it is DEFINITELY obvious you have. There, fixed it for ya. Calling people disgusting then expecting not to get flack for it IS pretty childish, after all, and pretty much par for the course for you antis.

          • cjvg

            Only reason needed was provided by you. 17 week preemies do not survive, no one in the medical field and specifically in the neonatal or labor and delivery field would ever claim that nonsense as a truth

          • LostInUnderland

            I have been to graduate school. My school expects graduate students to use correct grammar. I do not doubt that you have worked hard and deserve to celebrate what you have accomplished. However, you must realize that using incorrect grammar will cause people to doubt your educational claims. Those claims are for you and your family to celebrate. Of course, you have the right to talk about them here, but you must realize that you are reflecting badly on the University of Wyoming when you claim they gave a doctorate degree to someone without expecting them to learn to write properly.

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

            I am sure this is as true as your preemies assertion which is NOT TRUE.

            How Early Can a Premature Baby Be Born and Survive?

            The earliest baby to be born and survive was James Elgin Gill, born in Canada at 21 weeks and 5 days gestation. James is now a healthy young man, but he is the exception. The chances of survival for babies born at 21 weeks gestation is very low, and the chance of severe disability is high in the few babies who live.

            22 to 22.6 Weeks: Resuscitation at this age should only be started at the parents’ request, and if that request is reiterated after consultation with a pediatrician or neonatologist.

            Before 22 Weeks: Infants born before 22 weeks should only be resuscitated if enrolled in a research study that has been approved by a research ethics committee, and only with the parents’ consent.

            http://preemies.about.com/od/preemiehealthproblems/a/Premature-Baby-Survival.htm

          • lady_black

            BULL.

          • cjvg

            And living in Canada or another socially conscious northern European nation so I can claim I did it all myself while schooling is free for people in my circumstances

          • pitbullgirl65

            Why didn’t you have an abortion instead?

          • lady_black

            I happen to know what state Plum lives in, and NO taxpayer funds are available for abortion there. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you were really a nurse, you would know that abortions are often spontaneous.

          • cjvg

            That is an ironic statement coming from you, to bad you can not see the glaring lack of coherency in your own claims.

            Repost because of the egregious nature of your stance;

            You claim to be a nurse midwife and you can not conceive of an medical reasons that require her to have abortions when her attempt at having children is treating her life?

            Obviously she wanted to be a mom, she has three. It is very possible that she has a chronic serious disease that can be aggravated by pregnancy causing her to be forced to terminate some pregnancies before they can seriously or permanently endanger her health or life.

            There is no way you are a nurse midwife and if you are please leave the profession your lack of basic education and empathy is endangering your patients and their families

          • purrtriarchy

            She claims to have a PhD, yet she can’t express herself in a coherent manner, and seems to be incredibly ignorant about actual healthcare.

          • cjvg

            That is exactly my sentiment. Also she is curiously silent on any post that contain pertinent medical information she should have been aware of, not even a peep on those!

            Her (?) posts are either medically wildly inaccurate or they are completely personal in nature. Her personal experiences and beliefs are in no way binding proof and the “medical” claims are so far into the woods of fanatical make belief that you can only wonder about her actual level of education

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

            Homo sapiens has three strategies when dealing with unwanted reproduction (births):
            1. contraception
            2. abortion
            3. abandonment/infanticide.
            All three strategies are utilized in every culture around the world, historically and currently. Those who restrict contraception/abortion make infanticide inevitable. We have many in vitro examples of this. YOU DO NOT OCCUPY THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.

          • expect_resistance

            Forced-birther sexist pigs like you can piss off. Go fapp-off somewhere else.

          • Arekushieru

            Ah, so poor women either shouldn’t have sex, shouldn’t have access to food stamps to buy that nine dollar pack of condoms, OR just shouldn’t have an abortion, which would require them to exist on a greater number of food stamps. LOVE the hypocrisy.

          • cjvg

            You claim to be a nurse midwife and you can not conceive of an medical reasons that require her to have abortions when her attempt at having children is treating her life?

            Obviously she wanted to be a mom, she has three. It is very possible that she has a chronic serious disease that can be aggravated by pregnancy causing her to be forced to terminate some pregnancies before they can seriously or permanently endanger her health or life.

            There is no way you are a nurse midwife and if you are please leave the profession your lack of basic education and empathy is endangering your patients and their families

        • BJ Survivor

          29 and counting for me!

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

      What is your personal experience of women who have had abortions? I would never tell you a thing. You think there is a way a woman is “supposed to feel” about abortion. Why can you not accept the testimony of the young woman herself just as it is?”

    • Jennifer Starr

      What experience have you had? Are you a sidewalk harasser?

    • cjvg

      Because all women are the same and should react in the same you approved manner to a medical procedure?!

    • Ella Warnock

      I passed a big, bloody clot many years ago, before my tubal ligation. It was probably a miscarriage. Apparently I was supposed to be really broken up about it, yet I was relieved and even more determined to pursue permanent sterilization.

      Yes, yes, I know that miscarriages and abortions aren’t the same thing. Either way, the pregnancy was unwanted, so the emotions were the same.

      • lady_black

        Me too and more than once. If they were miscarriages, I really couldn’t care less because I didn’t want to be pregnant in the first place.

        • Ella Warnock

          I love how I’m supposed to be clutching my pearls for dear life over the fact that hormonal birth control *might* have prevented an implantation. Oh dear me – a sloughed off blastocyst is still mission accomplished, isn’t it?

          • Pinkladyapple

            Mission accomplished indeed. But if the fanatical anti choice movement had their way you’d be tried for manslaughter.

    • Ineedacoffee

      Not everyone sees a pregnancy as a blessing
      Why would they be cut up and sad about their abortion if they dont see it as a blessing

      Me personally couldnt think of anything worse than a second child, I would abort if I fell pregnant again. I wouldnt be sad, id be happy I have the option to choose in a safe, sterile environment

    • Suba gunawardana

      In response to: “As someone who has had personal experience with women who have had abortions, I don’t know anyone who seemed so matter of fact about their
      procedure.”

      I haven’t watched the video but I was completely matter-of-fact about my abortion. Just a procedure; just a little inconvenience.

      Also personally I don’t know anyone who regrets her abortion. Oddly enough all the “regretters” seem to be on-line on anti-choice sites :)

    • pitbullgirl65

      Two abortions, not sorry. I felt relief. I’d rather not gotten pregnant in the first place b/c frankly medical procedures scare me. i don’t care how she reacted and neither should any of the so called pro choicers. I’m assuming they were upset because it would upset the fetus huggers

  • terafied

    My head has exploded in the last few days. The “otherers” and the judgmental, so-called “pro-choice” shrews, have made me vomit worse than any lifers could.

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

      Truth. They are disgusting. We must modify our behavior so as not to piss off the fetusfreaks and maybe they will have “mercy.” I kid you not. I thought I would vomit.

      • cjvg

        No mercy needed or wanted from those. No surrendering on a woman’s basic right to claim her own life as hers

  • pegjohnston

    Emily’s video is just what we were looking for in sponsoring the Abortion Care Network’s “Abortion Stigma Busting Video Competition.” She was one of two winners and another Honorable Mention. (http://www.abortioncarenetwork.org “Latest Happenings: Abortion Stigma-Busting Poetry and Videos)

    The reaction to the video just shows how alive and well societal stigma is even, or disturbingly, among pro choice people. Emily has stated that she wanted to show the reality of abortion and to show that the only reaction need not be shame. I thought her video showed that she was nervous about the medical procedure and also her coping mechanisms (lots of support and her humming). It also showed that the process of decision-making gave her insight on her life and on fertility. As someone who talks to women in her situation on a daily basis, this all seems quite common. Everyone has a different take on any experience–this is Emily’s. I believe that if we had access to many more stories we would be able to see ourselves more and the anti-abortion induced stigma would recede, as it has with other societal stigmas. Which is the point of ACN’s cultural efforts to de-stigmatize abortion.

    • purrtriarchy

      Its because society as a whole is still very pro natalist. Pregnancy is always supposed to be a joyous event.

      • lady_black

        They know very well that pregnancy isn’t always a joyous event. I love my children. But I admit to feelings of ambivalence, and in one case, terror because the pregnancy was life-threatening.

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

      I saw both videos. My congratulations. Both excellent testimony.

    • TreeTreeTree

      I still think smiling broadly and humming and singing while the budding life in your womb is being terminated is the height of poor taste. She has crazy eyes and watching her video is like looking at a psychopathic selfie.

      • purrtriarchy

        Right. You think she should feel guilty because only dirty s1uts are not sorry to abort, right?

        • TreeTreeTree

          She is clearly selling women on the idea that they should use abortion as a method of birth control.

          • purrtriarchy

            And there is nothing wrong with that.

          • cjvg

            So what do you think an abortion is? It is the last resort method of birth control when others have failed

          • Arekushieru

            She is not ‘selling’ anything. She is merely trying to lift the stigma and shame surrounding abortion. In essence, making it just as an acceptable medical procedure in society as childbirth and delivery are, today. That you ignore that in order to stigmatize and shame her further speaks highly of your hypocrisy and misogyny.

          • TreeTreeTree

            She got knocked up by a stranger after a night of reckless boozing. She should be ashamed .

          • Arekushieru

            Oh, seriously, VICTIM-BLAMING, now? If she was drunk, she did not consent to sex. The one who SHOULD be ashamed is the stranger who didn’t think twice about having unprotected sex with such an obviously inebriated young woman. But, of course, if men have one-night stands their STUDS. If women have one-night-stands their whores/sluts. I wonder if you would be complaining so much about a stranger ‘knocking her up’ (great. Not only should women NOT have one-night stands, but sex and pregnancy are something done entirely TO women, except, of course, if the woman happened to be enjoying consensual, non-procreative sex) if she had decided NOT to have an abortion. Antis hypocritical double-standards just seem to exist more and more outside even a possible SEMBLANCE of reality with each and every utterance that comes out of their mouths.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            Yes of course it was her own fault. Women should not be drinking. Maybe she was dressed the wrong way. She should wear a burqha. That would cover her from us evil mens eyes so we would not be tempted to have sex with her. It is also good for a woman to be covered from the world. Just like your confused mind is covered from reality. Your post is outrageous.

      • Shan

        She was doing what it took not have a bad experience. If you think her experience should have been 100% bad for her, that says more about your crazy psychopathic side than hers.

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

        Women smile when they are under stress and cry when they are angry. Humming is one of the things even small children to do comfort themselves when they are under stress. A medical procedure, even a minor one, is stressful.
        Highly doubt you have ever had an affectionate intimate relationship with a woman. Not even your Mother. Where did all you freaky sexpig rapists come from? Patheos? Jill Stanek?

      • Suba gunawardana

        What does it matter at all if she looks happy or sad? The fetus is killed anyway.

        If it makes you feel better to see her sad, that means your concern is NOT about the fetus at all, but about punishing the woman.

      • cjvg

        And where is your psychology degree from, do you realize it is malpractice to diagnose a mental illness without having any (medical) background on the patient or ever even having met her or talked to her?!.

        You berate her for smiling and humming because it is to cheerful for the occasion, and in the same sentence you berate her for having crazy eyes which you should find appropriate for the occasion. So basically you will berate her for any signs of distress she is showing and at the same time you berate her for not showing signs of distress. Nice, so how is it having your cake and eating it too?

        • LostInUnderland

          Probably much like having a penis.

  • Shelley Oram

    Excellent article Charlotte! And Thanks to Emily for being courageous and standing tall for a positive abortion experience!

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

    Excellent.
    ……………
    To me this comes down to recognizing that we have to tell our secrets in order to preserve our privacy. The gay rights movement has seen this all too clearly. “SILENCE=DEATH” referred to the consequences of keeping secrets when it came to AIDS.

    I worry for this young woman.

  • P. McCoy

    Consent to sex is NOT a consent to be pregnant. Men don’t get pregnant, don’t know what it is like to be involved in a crisis pregnancy. Best advice here is: against abortion then don’t have one.

  • purrtriarchy

    So to you, sex is a crime for which only women must pay?

    • lady_black

      Sex with him probably IS a crime. Or it should be.

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

    Do the crime you have to do the time? Fuck you, Bedwetter.

  • Pam Mason

    43 years and still not one day of regret. I drove to NYC and back from Ohio and considered myself lucky that NY was close enough for me to get a safe and legal abortion. Thank you Emily for sharing your experience

    • LostInUnderland

      Wait, that was before Roe vs Wade. I thought all states in the US criminalized abortion before 1973. It was legal in NY?

      • Pam Mason

        Yes, it became legal in NY in 1970.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Ending a pregnancy is taking responsibility. It might not be a method you approve of, but that’s immaterial. Unless it’s your pregnancy, you don’t get a say.

  • Pam Mason

    She will be a great mother. When she is ready to become one

  • lady_black

    Why does it matter what you think of her capabilities as a parent? Do you now claim the right to make decisions for a total stranger? Of course if you have sex, pregnancy is a possibility (no matter how remote). It’s possible if you step outside your door, an asteroid will come whizzing down on your head and kill you. Does that mean you never step outside? Do you like to do any hunting? It’s possible another hunter will shoot you. So if you get shot, no treatment for you. You knew what could happen. Pregnancy is a possibility. Motherhood resulting from a pregnancy is by no means a certainty. How she chooses to take responsibility is no more your business, than how you choose to deal with your medical matters is any concern of hers. You have enough on your plate managing your own life. Don’t try to manage the lives of others. You’ll only get blamed if it doesn’t work out.

  • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

    Don’t make the mistake conservatives did by rushing and making a hero of the wrong person(s). Ms. Letts said on the Dr Drew show on CNN recently, as in the transcript.

    “LETTS: So, actually, what I want to clarify, is that I was not — I did not have a single partner. I was not in a relationship, and to be honest, let`s not talk about the fact that hormonal birth control can be very scary to women. It can be very scary to put hormones in your body. ” (quoted verbatim) CNN, Dr Drew Show Aired May 6, 2014 – 21:00 ET

    She felt that hormonal birth control was “scary”. She did not use condoms, the pill, IUD or anything else but had sex with multiple men in the short span of time needed to be the father. She could have contracted a STD then spread it to any number of other people. (HIV has a long incubation period and can remain undetectable for months or a year) That was a foolish foolish risk with not just her life but the lives of her partners. They at least had a choice too. The fetus was the only innocent, if not yet fully “alive” one in this. She had a right to that abortion under the law, that does not make it right to have done what lead up to the abortion, or protect her from criticism for putting it in the public forum.

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

      Oh shut up, SlutShamer. You skeeve me.

      • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

        You creep me out by wanting to enable some really self destructive behavior and thinking that’s empowering. Why don’t you go watch a snuff film.

        • lady_black

          You know what’s really self-destructive? Women keeping each other down instead of supporting each other. How about you stop being self-destructive.

          • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

            So we should all just go along with whatever foolish thing a woman does? Sometimes the best thing you can do to support someone is tell them no.

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

            You do not get to tell another adult what to do. Fetus Freaks have no boundaries. Disgusting and sick.

          • lady_black

            You don’t have to go along with anything. If you had home training you would know that. She was using “periodic abstinence” also known as the rhythm method, NFP, and Vatican roulette. It appears she now has an IUD. Young people make foolish young people mistakes. She’s learned her lesson. That’s not a license for YOU to accuse her of nefarious intentions. And I flagged your disgusting comment. It has no place on this forum.

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

            Good idea the flagging. I join you. This entity is a disgusting slutshaming pig.

          • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

            Actually I do know about that. In her Cosmo article she says she took the pregnancy test two weeks after last having had sex. She describes seeing pink lines. I think that is a test for people who want to know as soon as possible. As in expecting to get pregnant.
            Don’t assume those who disagree with you must be ignorant. As cynical as it is to think someone might do this for infamy…we live in a really messed up world.

          • lady_black

            Non sequitur. I always used the fastest pregnancy test possible. (Such as it was back then.) Flagged again.

          • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

            Perhaps, it still smells like a situation too much like what the hard right conservatives fell into with that rancher. They liked the surface appearance of his situation…but scratch the surface and BOOM. The 24hr – 48hr news cycle loves to build people up an tear them down.

          • cjvg

            You inferring an awful lot from the description of seeing two pink lines. Most pregnancy test use the two line system (some few use a plus) also pink is a very common color used for that although I have seen blue.

            Do you even know the brand or the name of the tests she used? Or is “pink” good enough for you to speculate on? You do realize that most pregnancy tests on the market are able to show if you are pregnant two weeks after unprotected sex, and that most pregnancy test promote themselves as being able to tell you as soon as possible?!

            For some reason people who suspect they are pregnant seem to want to know as fast as possible regardless if they intend to continue the pregnancy or abort! Desperate and ridiculous “argument” based on nothing but your personal speculation made to suit your personal preconceived thoughts on this!

          • cjvg

            You are not her daddy or her owner, she is a legal adult and as such you have no right or jurisdiction to tell her no (regardless of how much you want to) on whatever legal activity she wishes to engage in!

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

          I creep you out? Good.

        • Ineedacoffee

          You creep me out by thinking a woman is an incubator and should be punished for sex, dont say thats not what you think, its plainly obvious you do

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

          Yeah, you are telepathic and actually know what I think without asking me. That is a delusion and a symptom of mental illness.

        • cjvg

          So how is she “enabling” self destructive behavior? Please elaborate

      • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

        How about using your real name and face and commenting?

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

          How about them Eagles?

        • expect_resistance

          Many of use don’t use our real names because we don’t like stalkers and getting death threats. Emily has been getting death threats. Did you notice that?

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

            Nope. It wants to kill us for religious shitz and giggles. Of course it does not care about what happens to us short of that. Fricking freak.

          • expect_resistance

            This is exactly why I don’t use my real name. I have a very unique name and if it’s googled I’m found in a second. I’ve already had to deal with abusive men and I don’t want some forced-birther with a gun knowing where I live. Friends of mine that worked at Planned Parenthood were stalked and harassed by antis. It sucks because I would love to post as me but I don’t need any harassment and death threats. You understand.

          • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

            Notice the person that was addressed to made a content free comment which was nothing but a string of insults. Now if you are making thoughtful comments that’s one thing. :)

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

            Not content free. To the point.
            Shut up. You are a slutshamer and you skeeve me.
            Now you can choose not to shut up, but I get to ask for what I want any place any time. The fact that you ignore my request is immaterial.
            You are a sexpig. You are a rapist. And you expect us to see you as sane, moral and caring. That is the cheif delusion of the antichoice.

          • expect_resistance

            What was an insult? Plum is spot on.

    • Unicorn Farm

      “The fetus was the only innocent, if not yet fully “alive” one in this”

      Please tell us specific crime is Letts guilty of. Thanks.

      • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

        In my original post I said. “She had a right to that abortion under the law, that does not make it right to have done what lead up to the abortion, or protect her from criticism for putting it in the public forum”. Reading is fundamental.

        • Unicorn Farm

          That’s cute, the slut-shamer thinks she’s clever.

          You didn’t directly answer my question. What crime is she guilty of, if you say she isn’t innocent?

          When you write “In my original post I said. (sic) “She had a right to that abortion under the law, that does not make it right to have done what lead up to the abortion,” do you mean “she had sex”?

          Basically, you think she’s not innocent because she had sex; you’re just too much of a coward to say it.

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

            Just another forced birther pervert. Not one of them is sane or sexually normal.

          • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

            I did answer your question she isn’t “guilty of a crime” but there is a difference between crime, and morality. Which FYI is not a “right wing” thing either. To many people it smells like she got pregnant so she could get her 15 minutes of fame. I’m just waiting for some interview with one of the potential fathers faces in shadow, voice distorted saying “yeah she said eff me big daddy I want to get on ‘The View’”.

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

            What a fantasy life you have. Oh doG you are disgusting.

          • purrtriarchy

            *eye roll*

          • Unicorn Farm

            “To many people it smells like she got pregnant so she could get her 15 minutes of fame”

            Yeah, I usually try and “smell out” other people’s reasons for getting pregnant too. /sarc. This is why we call you people “creepy panty sniffers.”

            “I’m just waiting for some interview with one of the potential fathers faces in shadow. . .”
            Maybe stay out of other people’s business and just focus on your own life?

        • lady_black

          Personally, I think the wrong video went viral. There’s a much better one showing abortion as only one decision out of a lifetime of achievement. That puts things into proper perspective, and shows there is life after abortion.

    • lady_black

      I’m a HUGE fan of contraception. That being said, your comment is out of line. Yes, I believe in using contraception. No I do not believe in shaming women for not using it.

      • http://www.hontasfarmer.com/ Hontas Farmer

        How does pointing out someone not using some sort of condom, male or female (yes female condoms exists)..to protect herself and her future from a horrible disease is “out of line”. It’s for her best interest, not being in a relationship which is committed and exclusive to protect herself.
        I will not enable self destructive behavior. How about you?

        • lady_black

          Female condoms are only slightly more effective than the “pull out method.” They never really caught on. We aren’t discussing the prevention of disease. That’s a legitimate interest, and yes, it’s my personal belief that everyone not in an exclusive relationship should be using condoms every time. That has nothing to do with the video and the sickening reaction to it.

        • cjvg

          And how does stopping legal abortion stop the self destructive behavior of having unprotected sex?
          Nonsensical and very transparent attempt at justifying your belief that you should have control over women pro creative choices

    • cjvg

      Are you aware that it takes TWO people who chose to have unprotected sex to create a pregnancy?!

      Reading your little shame fest makes it seem like she is the sole responsible for this pregnancy and the sole person responsible for using birth control. Are men somehow exempt from taking responsibility for their own procreative choices in your world view. Have you never heard of the fact that men are actually legal adults that are responsible for their own choices and the consequences if they are choosing to have sex without protection.

      So where is your shaming of the sperm donor for his irresponsible and self destructive behavior? Where are you self-righteous admonishments for the male who had sex without a condom? Where is your disgust for the male who was not even responsible enough to check if his partner was using any form of birth control and on top of that did not even maintain contact to see if his irresponsible behavior might have led to a pregnancy? Where is your indignation at the male who was at least 50% responsible and who is getting 0% blame from you? Where is your criticism for the sperm donor for skipping all the responsibility for his self-centered actions, he should have paid for at least half of the abortion costs

      • Arekushieru

        Although, I don’t think men should have to pay for abortion or pregnancy costs, if they don’t want to. Paying for child care, however, is another thing, because those costs are incurred whether you are female or male. Women are not required to pay for the health care costs that are incurred by passing along a viral infection to their male partner(s), after all. This is why I think all abortions should be funded and free, though. It’s the political old boys club in the US and provinces like PEI and New Brunswick that are the real causes of these harms, actually.

        • cjvg

          Maybe, but it is hard to claim that a man does not carry equal responsibility if he did not use birth control either!

          If both were irresponsible and had sex without taking precautions , then both should step up and pay for the resolution (whatever it maybe) of the resulting pregnancy

          • lady_black

            Morally, yes. Legally no.

          • cjvg

            Sometimes the law is not just or equal. Regardless, that does not mean we can not continue to point out the disparity in how the responsibility and (social financial etc) consequences, for an act that both equally engaged in, falls disproportionately on the woman

          • lady_black

            Agreed.

    • Arekushieru

      A fetus has neither the capacity to be innocent nor the capacity to be guilty. However, Ms. Letts does have that capacity. She committed no crime. Yet, since you insist a fetus is innocent, although it lacks the ability to make moral decisions, it means you must be claiming that a fetus is innocent of a crime, whereby simply a lack of intent makes you innocent by default. Therefore, Ms. Letts is also innocent, no ifs ands or buts about it, UNLESS you are also insisting on changing the goalposts. Where the woman had sex must prove her innocence from a lack of moral decision-making, while the fetus merely has to be innocent of a crime. That’s called slut-shaming and misogyny, btw.

      A lot of women don’t take certain kinds of prescription medications if they feel uncomfortable about the hormonal effects they believe they are experiencing. Why are people singling out birth control as the one circumstance where this should not hold true? Probably because it’s just a way of entry by the backdoor to stigmatize and shame women for having an abortion, after all.

      Finally, if a woman having multiple partners isn’t a problem when it comes to having an abortion, it’s typical for rational people not to bring that up. However, if you DO think it is a problem, there’s also the other side of the coin, why don’t you think it is a problem for men having multiple partners when it comes to having an abortion, unless you really are just a misogynist in disguise?

    • Suba gunawardana

      I agree that not using condoms is irresponsible, considering the possibility of contracting & spreading disease.

      The rest of it “that does not make it right to have done what lead up to the abortion” applies ONLY if abortion per se is wrong or unethical. You have provided no reason to show it is.

      • Shan

        Exactly. I got pregnant with my first kid because I didn’t use contraception. That doesn’t make it wrong that my child exists.

  • expect_resistance

    I applaud Emily for the video. This is not the first time a woman has documented her abortion story. In the 21st century video is prevalent and a perfect way of storytelling. I’m a but surprised that pro-choice women are judging her. I’ve seen the mean and nasty things the antis have said. Anyone who is judging her should just shut the hell up because no one is perfect and mistakes happen. Pregnancy shouldn’t be a punishment for having sex.

    And Dr. Drew is a jackass idiot who should not be giving any air time to spout his asinine opinions. That guys is a jerk.

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

      I never watch him. Or Nancy Grace.

      • expect_resistance

        OMG Nancy Grace. I can’t stand the sound of her voice.

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

          She is so bad. Drew is only marginally better. Both are scrubs.

  • Unicorn Farm

    “So here is a saying I’ve heard If you do the crime be willing to do the time.”

    What crime, specifically, did Letts commit here? Thanks.

    “it was a choice you made when you decided to have sex”

    Right. She took the sperm and egg and smushed them together with her fingers and then smushed the egg into the walls of her uterus. Her choice. That’s what happened.

    Do you also believe that if you drive a car you choose to get in a wreck? It is a possibility, after all.

  • cjvg

    She took responsibility and chose an abortion. Just because you believe her way solving the problem is not how you want (to force) her to “take” responsibility, that does not change the fact that she took responsibility.
    By the way human sex is most definitely not just for procreative purposes, if it was we would have a fertile season in which we would be interested in sex and would not engage in said sex when there was absolutely no chance of conceiving!
    The human female is only fertile for 3 days out of a 30 day cycle, however both men and women are interested and engage in sex when there is absolutely no chance of conceiving. Even one time unprotected sex during those 3 fertile days only has a 20-25% chance of leading to conception. Of course continuing to have unprotected sex during this time increases your chance of (un)wanted pregnancy

  • TheBrett

    There has been speculation that some of the negative comments from people who identify themselves as pro-choice may actually be from anti-choice people who are determined to stir the pot.

    I wouldn’t be surprised about that. I’ve seen some “pro-choice” people over the libertarian side of things who, when you press them on it, sure don’t see to actually care that much about abortion access and take restrictions on it seriously.

    In any case, Letts is heroic for doing this. 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives, but it’s treated as this furtive, secretive shame thing even when it really shouldn’t be. I hope more women feel free to talk about it.

    • lady_black

      Very interesting that she was using the rhythm method. Someone ought to inform the Catholics over on Patheos.

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

        I think she mentions it in passing in the video.

  • Ineedacoffee

    What crime? Oh you mean a woman wanting to have sex for fun, not a baby and then takes control over her own body
    Guess what – not a crime – called taking a step that the woman feels is best for her life *oh the bloody horror*
    Realizing your in no position for a baby and aborting IS being responsible

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

    My Catholic Mother had an abortion when it was illegal. We could have lost her. Other women’s sexual/family lives are none of your business. If you cannot or will not give a woman the help and support for what she has decided to do about her pregnancy, stand down.

    20 week old fetuses cannot survive. Forgive me, but so many proliars have presented themselves as nurses in this debate when they obviously were not, that I simply do not believe you.

    • Notinoz

      How about you do your research prior to posting your ignorance fetus’ have survived ed at 20 weeks and all the way down to 17 weeks oh and btw if they are born breathing with a heartbeat they are considered an infant.

      • purrtriarchy

        Provide us with a citation or you are LYING.

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

        Source or it did not happen. Unbiased medical sites only. You are a liar. You are an abuser. And I flagged you for abusing me.

        • Notinoz

          I’m raunchy take a good look at yourself I haven’t used a single foul word or called you a name look at the language you use

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

            But Mommy, Johnny did it too-oo. What are you? A five year old. Man up.

            Where is the citation proving what you say about preemies? I am waiting for it. So are others. Where is it?

          • purrtriarchy

            Prove your assertion that a 17 week fetus has survived and thrived. It should be documented somewhere. Or are you lying?

      • purrtriarchy

        Still waiting for that citation.

      • lady_black

        Nope. Not even one. None of them can breathe, and none were ever considered infants because they never breathed. Nice try. A very few will survive at 22 weeks, maybe one in ten. Not until 24 weeks will half survive. 21 weeks and under, zero percent survive, And they probably never will, because they just aren’t developed enough.

      • Jennifer Starr

        No they have not. At 17-20 weeks the survival rate is 0%

  • purrtriarchy

    At 20 weeks fetuses are NOT sentient.

    And clearly, you are anti-abortion because *you* could have been aborted, and this fear drives you to seek to control the lives of people that are not you.

    • lady_black

      You hit the nail on the head.

    • Notinoz

      That’s why they can cry and flinch in pain is because they can’t see hear or feel, same must apply for the people in comas for years that the family keeps alive although all the doctors said they were brain dead

      • purrtriarchy

        They can’t feel pain because the thalmacortical connections that give rise to consciousness DO NOT YET EXIST. In fact, you ignorant lying fuckwit, neonates are UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF DISCRIMINATING TOUCH FROM PAIN UNTIL AT LEAST 35 WEEKS.

        • cjvg

          Beautiful and medically accurate. Amazing how a nurse midwife (!) does not know that, i’m starting to think (s)he was self-taught and that all of these “life” experiences only happened in her exist in her very fertile imagination

      • purrtriarchy

        citation 1:

        Highlights

        The human brain may discriminate touch from pain from 35–37 weeks gestation
        Before 35–37 weeks, touch and noxious lance evoke nonspecific neuronal bursts
        After 35–37 weeks, touch and noxious lance evoke modality-specific potentials

        Summary

        When
        and how infants begin to discriminate noxious from innocuous stimuli is
        a fundamental question in neuroscience [1]. However, little is known
        about the development of the necessary cortical somatosensory functional
        prerequisites in the intact human brain. Recent studies of developing
        brain networks have emphasized the importance of transient spontaneous
        and evoked neuronal bursting activity in the formation of functional
        circuits 2, 3]. These neuronal bursts are present during development and
        precede the onset of sensory functions 4, 5]. Their disappearance and
        the emergence of more adult-like activity are therefore thought to
        signal the maturation of functional brain circuitry 2, 4]. Here we show
        the changing patterns of neuronal activity that underlie the onset of
        nociception and touch discrimination in the preterm infant. We have
        conducted noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) recording of the brain
        neuronal activity in response to time-locked touches and clinically
        essential noxious lances of the heel in infants aged 28–45 weeks
        gestation. We show a transition in brain response following tactile and
        noxious stimulation from nonspecific, evenly dispersed neuronal bursts
        to modality-specific, localized, evoked potentials. The results suggest
        that specific neural circuits necessary for discrimination between touch
        and nociception emerge from 35–37 weeks gestation in the human

        citation 2:

        “The development of the subplate and thalamocortical connections in the human foetal brain”, Kostovic et al.

        The
        cortical subplate (a key transient structure that helps in the eventual
        development of the cortex) forms in the 21st week of pregnancy (19
        weeks post conception) and nerves from the thalamus penetrates it in the
        26th week of pregnancy (24th week post conception).

        “Thus, the
        available evidence suggests that the human foetus can receive a thalamic
        input through the transient subplate zone at the end of the midfoetal
        period [end of 2nd trimester](2,11,12,20,46). Although that period of
        connectivity development has been described as non-driven by sensory
        input (2,3,30), one cannot exclude the possibility of an extrinsic
        influence during the end of the midfoetal period. In relation to this
        intriguing question, it should be noted that the development of the
        thalamocortical input occurs more or less simultaneously in all sensory
        cortices (11,15,16).

        During the 22 and 23 PCW (25th week of
        gestation) (preterm infants with extremely low birth-weight), the
        majority of thalamocortical axons reside in the superficial subplate of
        sensory and associative (Fig. 2C) cortical regions (1,11,13–15), whereas
        few axons have already entered the cortical plate. This dual pattern of
        thalamocortical connectivity with transient (to the subplate) and
        permanent (to the cortical plate) component was described as a salient
        feature of the preterm cortex (2,12). Thus, preterm infants at 22–23 PCW
        do possess an anatomical substrate for extrinsic cortical input from
        both sensory and associative thalamic nuclei. Of all the layers of the
        foetal cortex, the subplate is the most active in the generation of
        action potentials (30,38,52) and contains the synaptic machinery for the
        most well-known cortical neurotransmitter systems, including
        monoaminergic and cholinergic arousal and activating systems (3,53).
        Thus, the cortical system of very young preterm infants is on the verge
        of transition from an endogeneous spontaneous processing (30,42) to a
        sensory-expectant functioning (2,12). The presence of thalamocortical
        synapses in the subplate is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement
        for the conscious cortical processing, which was emphasized in attempts
        to explain cortical mechanisms of responding to a painful stimulation
        (3,5,6,18). The general agreement seems to be that due to the
        functional immaturity of thalamocortical connections, there is no
        cortical processing and no feeling of pain before 23 PCW, i.e. 25 weeks
        of gestation (7).”

      • lady_black

        Only a born baby can cry, and only a very late term fetus can tell pain from touch. Crying involves moving air through the vocal cords, thus no crying in utero is possible.

        • purrtriarchy

          And yet she claims to have a PhD in nursing..

          • lady_black

            No.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, you know, ALL the online anti-choicers are ‘nurses’ or ‘embryologists’ or ‘pediatric specialists.’

            No, really, they are!

      • Suba gunawardana

        Do you claim that it is unethical to kill/injure any sentient individual?

      • Jennifer Starr

        Being in a coma and being brain dead are two different things.

    • BJ Survivor

      Sing it, sister.

  • lady_black

    Don’t you know that a fetus (as well as a newborn) has a palmar grasp reflex? Anti-choicers like to make a huge deal over reflexive movement that is as meaningless as when you instinctively pull your hand away from a hot surface, or blink if something gets close to your eye. And exactly as much “thought” goes into gripping a finger, it’s own umbilical cord, or anything else that touches it’s palm. It’s not a loving gesture. A 20 week fetus is incapable of that.

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

      Hey I know that and I am not a nurse. I think I was right – it is a liar for Jebus.

      • lady_black

        Any mother should know that. I might know more about the specifics.

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

    He made his choice when he left his swimmers in her. Now all the choice is hers.

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

    What childish wonky reasoning. Boy are you stupid.

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

    I am PRO LIFE so naturally I am PRO CHOICE. You are assuming there are no Mothers here? Boy are you stupid.

    • Notinoz

      Not assuming that at all responding to the comment about proliferation people not being there after the child is born and stating a fact that a lot of us adopt and foster already

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

        So many of the antichoice are liars. I think you are a liar too.

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

        Who is “us?” I am prolife and it certainly is not me and you. You got a hamster in your anus?

      • Suba gunawardana

        If that were true, why are there SO MANY children needing homes? Obviously the numbers of children being created are far greater than the numbers of responsible caring adults willing to take care of them.

        The answer: Stop making so many children!

        • Notinoz

          Exactly stop making children, that would also eliminate the need for most abortions. Yes there would still be abortion due to medical necessity, as well as the pregnancies which have resulted from incest and rape. If the pregnancy didn’t occur in the first place then it wouldn’t be an issue

          • purrtriarchy

            So you are saying that if a woman does not want to be pregnant she should abstain from sex for life?

            Also, there is no such thing as a no risk pregnancy. And labour and birth = torture.

          • Notinoz

            Yes the whole process is painful I have 2 children who I delivered naturally. No not abstain from sex this is an impossibility for most humans we are one of the few species that is specifically designed to enjoy sex.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What about contraception failure?
            What about young people who have no access to sex-ed or contraception due to religious nuttery of the adults in control?
            What about those people who are just plum irresponsible & don’t use birth control?

            Should all these people be punished with babies they are not ready for, which really means punishing the babies?

          • Notinoz

            I do understand your points, which are valid. Though a large portion of abortions are not due to the above though. The biggest issue I have is using abortion repeatedly to terminate pregnancies, there are other things you can do to prevent pregnancy then end pregnancy. Given hormonal contraceptives don’t prevent fertilization, they prevent implantation and come with risks. Abstinence for humans is impossible, our bodies are designed to get pleasure from sex. Surgical sterilization also is not a choice for everyone due to the difficulty in reversing which even sterilization is not 100%. I don’t have a 100% answer on prevention, but I would like both sides to come together and problem solve rather than breed more hate, the world has enough of that, without women attacking women .

          • Arekushieru

            Most of them are. Since the majority of abortions are had by women who were using some form of contraception. If you want women to stop hating on women, then tell the Pro-Life women to stop doing it. I guarantee if they stop, we’ll stop. But the onus should not be on us to prevent a problem we did NOT create.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Hormonal contraceptives prevent fertilization. This is how they work.

          • Ella Warnock

            Well, I’ll tell you this: As long as I have the attitude that my bodily autonomy is sovereign, and as long as I count myself the sole arbiter of what gets to hang out in my body for most of a year, then anti-choicers are going to hate me. I, going about my business without involving others, will be hated because I fully intend to keep my private business private.

            As long as I don’t buy into the tripe that there’s something magical or mystical about motherhood, and I don’t buy into the notion that my biology is destiny, I WILL be hated. As a woman, a feminist, who blazed her own trails and did things on her own terms, I AM hated.

            People who wish for me to buckle under and do things THEIR way, the TRADITIONAL way, are NEVER going to accept me for who I am because I have, for the most part, rejected those strict gender roles – and they do not like that one bit. So, they are going to hate what they don’t understand, and ignorance always breeds fear.

            Me? I don’t *hate* anybody. But I sure do believe that people who are not intimately involved with me should shut the hell up about ALL of my personal choices and should, most definitely, not give a second thought about what I might be getting up to that they don’t approve of. As long as I have to forcefully defend my right to bodily autonomy and privacy, there will not be any peace.

          • Ella Warnock

            I fear, @erin alexandra, that you’ve quite missed the point. That could very well be your own shallow understanding of everything I wrote. I would think someone so very concerned about ‘denouncing motherhood’ would see the wisdom in a woman who is not remotely interested in motherhood opting out. Biology isn’t destiny; never was.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I agree with such a compromise, and a bona-fide attempt to reduce births. Here’s my proposed solution, copied & pasted from another thread. (So far no anti-choicer has agreed with this proposal but never provided a specific rebuttal either.)

            Why is there so much child abuse & neglect? Because the number of children needing care is FAR GREATER than the number of responsible caring adults available to provide care. The result? Many many children end up with irresponsible uncaring adults, whether they are biological foster or adoptive parents.

            What’s the best solution? Equalize the numbers. How? Ensure that parenthood is not every idiot’s RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE to be earned only by those able, willing and eager to care for children as long as they need. i.e. responsible caring people. In other words, withhold the privilege of parenthood from irresponsible uncaring people. With the following steps:

            -Prevent unintended/irresponsible pregnancies by: Mandatory sex-education at an early age; provide free contraception, vasectomies and tubal ligations to all who seek them; Discontinue all the rewards associated with breeding.

            -Anyone who wishes to become a parent (biological, foster or adoptive) should prove their fitness by: proving financial stability; being free from substance abuse; having a record clean of any violent crime; and passing a psychological fitness test.

            -Anyone who becomes unintentionally pregnant despite the free contraception & still wishes to CARRY the pregnancy: should prove their fitness first, or give the child up to an adoptive parent who has proved their fitness.

            Instead of trying to catch & punish the abusers and rehome abused
            children, these measures will prevent abuse before it ever happens. IF parenthood is treated as a privilege to be earned, eventually there will be far fewer children, and every child will be valued, loved & cherished. Also there will be far fewer pregnancies, and little need for abortion.

          • Notinoz

            I agree with this post 100!

          • Suba gunawardana

            Thanks. I hope there will come a day when every single child is wanted welcomed & loved.

          • BJ Survivor

            Given hormonal contraceptives don’t prevent fertilization, they prevent implantation and come with risks.

            This is a lie. Quit repeating it. Hormonal contraception, including OTC emergency contraception, prevent ovulation, not implantation. Furthermore, the risks of hormonal contraception are vastly overwhelmed by the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

          • Notinoz

            http://www.patient.co.uk/health/combined-oral-contraceptive-pill
            Hormonal contraceptives work on 3 levels first they are supposed to prevent ovulation, next they form a mucous plug to make it difficult for sperms to enter 3rd they thin the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation.

          • BJ Survivor

            And there has only ever been scientific proof that it works solely by preventing ovulation. The rest is simply hypothesis, which is belied by the not insignificant numbers of women who got pregnant while on the pill.

            Furthermore, you didn’t even touch the fact that the risks of pregnancy and childbirth are far greater in both type and incidence than those imposed by hormonal contraceptives. Gee, I wonder why that might be? No, I really don’t. It’s because you are a forced-birther, which means you are a lying, male-supremacist sack of dung.

          • Ella Warnock

            Yes, well, if any zefs were ever flushed out with a menstrual period, then I didn’t end up with a kid I didn’t want. So, mission accomplished. If you want to mourn for a few cells not being able to find purchase in an inhospitable uterus, knock yourself out. I’m not losing any sleep over it. People who do lose sleep over it should eschew hormonal birth control. Easy peasy.

          • pitbullgirl65

            Both sides come together? lol. Sorry my side hasn’t murdered, bombed, maimed and terrorized fetus humpers. I do not wish to come join hands with terrorists. And I don’t care how many times a woman has an abortion or if she uses it for birth control either! Once is ok, but anymore then that is bad? Why? I’d rather she have an abortion then add to the population tbqh.

          • BJ Survivor

            Ramen, sister. And I’d rather that a drug addict who can’t even care of herself get 10 abortions than have 10 children she can’t take care of. Better yet, she should have access to long-term reversible contraception or sterilization, if she wants it.

          • LostInUnderland

            I share many of your views. I call myself pro-choice because the law has no business in the doctor’s office. Trying to limit access to abortion causes more problems than it solves. Why do you call yourself pro-life? You imply that you do not want abortion misused even though you think it should be available in the event of rape/incest/threat to mother’s life. I do not want oxycotin abused, either, but I agree that doctor’s should have the right to prescribe it for cancer patients. I do not think it is the place of legislation to decide what is or is not medically warranted.

          • lady_black

            Abortion stops unwanted children from being made.

          • cjvg

            That is the first thing you said that I can agree with

      • Rainbow Walker

        Really? If that were true there wouldn’t be 65K in TX waiting to be adopted/fostered. Every year more than 30k age out in TX alone and have been there more than six years on average. So your statement is not only false but cruel.

  • purrtriarchy

    Except the right to life does not include the right to use another persons body as life support.

    • Notinoz

      Actually it can in some states if you have no advanced directives and you die with no infectious disease cancer and such the state has the right to keep you alive for organ donation

      • purrtriarchy

        My right to life includes the right to take your kidney without consent while you are still alive, yes?

      • Notinoz

        Without consent

        • purrtriarchy

          So I can take your kidney right now without consent?

        • cjvg

          Seriously, you are not talking to kindergärtners here! In the US you have to opt in to be considered for organ donation, that is why there is such a shortage of organs!

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

        Which states?

      • lady_black

        In short, NO. If you die, you cannot be “kept alive.” That is a contradiction in terms. In the case of brain death due to trauma, the body may be placed on a respirator pending notification of family. Vital functions can be kept going artificially for a limited period of time. If you haven’t given prior consent, and your family will not consent, the state cannot take your organs.

  • purrtriarchy

    Not his body. Ejaculation does not give men ownership of women’s bodies.

  • purrtriarchy

    Oh, and you arent the special snowflake that you think you are.

    And how about the women who die from pregnancy or slip deeper into poverty and can’t live their dreams and enrich the lives of others as you brag that you have? Do you give a shit about them? Or is the future of the precious fetus the only thing that matters since the world will suffer horribly without special snowflakes such as yourself?

    You sound like a narcissist.

    • Notinoz

      You make of your life what you have the will power to do. Not everyone relies on the government to support them as much as proc house and liberals do

      • purrtriarchy

        Invalid rebuttal.

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

          It is dumb as a box of gohmerts. And twice as dishonest and cruel.

          • Notinoz

            Love how you refer to me as in it, this only further shows your ignorance.

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

            Where us the citation that proves what you said about preemies? We are waiting for it.

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

            No, it shows I can read and write in my native language. I have no idea what sex you are. So “it” is grammatical and appropriate.
            You cannot read and write English, but you want to be in charge of my sexual/family life? When sexpigs like you fly.

          • Notinoz

            No it shows you can’t read due to one of my first posts speaking of my children from my own body.

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

            You lie. No one believes anything you say. I think you are male and you came here to abuse us by masturbating all over us. Freak.

          • lady_black

            Everyone’s children come from their bodies. Male and female.

          • Arekushieru

            Never heard of transgender people? Or those who are agender, etc…?

          • cjvg

            Wait, when men have children they are not considered to be of their own body, whose body are they from then?

            Is there some magical sperm fairy that covers all those biological donations and men really are not involved at all?

            Is that why you believe men are not responsible for any pregnancies?!
            You desperately need to get back into a basic high school biology class, apparently you were exercising your privilege to not get educated when that came up

          • purrtriarchy

            So you admit that you lied about 17 week neonates survival? Is that why you can’t prove it with a link to a medical journal?

          • expect_resistance

            I’m beginning to think all of the forced-birthers are liars. I’m still arguing with dumbshit myintx at Patheos. I busted it lying and now its’s trying to deflect its actions by blaming Emily Lotts. The leaps in their logic or lack of logic is unbelievable.

          • purrtriarchy

            Myintx deserves a Darwin award simply for being so dumb.

          • expect_resistance

            On that same thread there is this really weird guy Victor posting about spiritual snakes.

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

            Victor is so ill. And weird.

          • expect_resistance

            I know. I feel bad for him. A guy I know is the same way, only he is a hippy peace loving liberal and he is also not living in reality. I find it difficult to have a conversation with him. My friend stopped taking his meds when they cut state aid to adults living in poverty.

          • purrtriarchy

            Where is this conversatoin with this victor

          • expect_resistance

            It’s at Patheos, article titled WEIRD: Her Abortion Is a “Special Memory”; In a Fire, She’d Grab Her Sonogram First.

          • expect_resistance
          • expect_resistance

            Wow I have an adult account I can post a link. Oh yeah :))))

          • expect_resistance

            If you go there myintx is there too. Feel free to dispense some logic.

          • Ella Warnock

            She is impervious to logic. I don’t know how one can function IRL with that level of denial. I would think it’d be painful.

          • Rainbow Walker

            You would be surprised. Delusional disorder can work wonders with denial and rational. Depending on the depth it only causes pain to those unfortunate enough to be around them. And they somehow function [if you call it that].

          • Jennifer Starr

            It seems like he has conversations with himself within his posts–well with ‘Jesus Godly Cells’ Victor and the person he calls ‘Sinner Vic’. If he’s trying to make a point I have no idea what it’s supposed to be.

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

            We take terrible care of the mentally ill. I wonder what his life is like. He seems attached to Manny. And Manny is good to him.

          • expect_resistance

            The mental health system sucks. I’ve been in it for 25 years plus Luckily I found an incredible feminist therapist although my insurance cut the awesome psychiatrist I was seeing. I’m fighting the insurance company on that one. Anyway the mental health system is a huge pain and often stands in the way of healing.

          • Rainbow Walker

            I know what you mean. I deal with adjudicated children and often have to clean up the mess a GP or psychiatrist made with a child. GP’s will give psychotropic meds for no reason or the wrong
            reason and then wonder why the kid tried to kill himself or acted erratically. Not that meds are wrong, you just have to know what they do and get recommendations for what treatments before tossing a pill down a kid’s neck.

          • expect_resistance

            Thank you.

            The medication merry-go-round can be a challenge. I hate hate hate having to take medication, but I know it helps me. I know I could function without it but it would be more difficult.

          • purrtriarchy

            DianG2 just showed up on Secular Pro Life (where me PD and LB are posting).

            She is just as dumb, delusional and misinformed as myintx and victor.

            BTW, wtf is with victor? What a fruitbat.

          • expect_resistance

            I’m not sure I can deal with that, but can you post the link?

            Although I’ve might be busy dealing with my cats. They are fighting and the orange boy is hiding. Not sure what the petit calico did to him. The usually get along.

          • purrtriarchy

            http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/05/the-invisibles.html?m=1#comment-1380482067

            Fiona Jennifer and I have had run ins with her before. She’s a LAN moron.

            Her definition excludes DS and includes somatic cells.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I hope they’d work it out. Cats rule! :)

          • Ella Warnock

            Ah, Ms ‘Little guy or gal.’ ;->

          • Rainbow Walker

            It’s a balancing act. Since more research is pointing at the gentic/bio/neuro roots of mental problems I have read about some very good and tangible results with gene therapy. By literally changing the genetic code the symptoms vanished. No medication necessary afterward, nor counseling. Maybe we will see these in the coming decades. Hopefully geneticists and neurologist will put me out of a job. Or at least my successors.

            I wish you the best.

          • expect_resistance

            Thanks. Glad you are posting here. Hope you’ll stick around. :)

          • Rainbow Walker

            I will, but I’m very busy. However, I look at [comment on] some of the more interesting discussions.

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

            Thanks for the information. I have a garden variety mental illness. Very good news.

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

            Truth. The system sucks. I went to mental health professionals for years trying to find out “what was wrong with me.” I was repeatedly misdiagnosed and given psychoactive drugs that were bad for me.

            I found my great psychiatrist by asking a supremely crazy wealthy woman in a bar what psychiatrist she was seeing. I figured he was either brilliant because he was keeping the nutjob woman functioning or he was incompetent and giving her all the drugs she wanted. I felt, either way, he was the one for me. He is very smart man who is good at his job.

          • purrtriarchy

            If you get the chance today, visit the other thread on SPL titled ‘the invisibles’ and trololo. Some real winners there, who think they are hot shit, but only have semantics.

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

            me too.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, that is very bizarre.

          • Rainbow Walker

            She’s not just developmentally delayed she suffers from a delusional disorder. This is coming from a psychologist.

          • expect_resistance

            Have you had the “pleasure” of arguing with myintx? Do tell.

          • Rainbow Walker

            More like therapy sessions then arguments. Although I have run into others that were more creepy online. Some are predators. One guy in particular. Strange how people will often say online what they won’t say to your face.

          • Ella Warnock

            She’s troubled and immature. I can’t tell whether she actually has kids or not, but if so I feel sorry for the little bugger(s). Constant, heightened paranoia is deeply damaging to a developing psyche.

          • purrtriarchy

            Have fun with Fenix. He tries to win through semantics because he does not have an argument. He’s like myintx only smarter.

          • expect_resistance

            Oh now myintx is pissed off because I posted a link to personhood funerals. They sell tiny coffins for tampons.

          • Jennifer Starr

            LOL–can you send me the link?

          • expect_resistance

            Sorry I’m on a mobile and can’t post a link, but it’s something like personhoodfunerals.com. I googled personhood funerals and found it. I posted it at the patheos thread.

          • expect_resistance

            Also at patheos modorator Kathy has stepped in to defend myintx.

          • purrtriarchy

            She’s a self important dumbass.

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

            Is that the person who wrote the article. She will not even speak to me.

          • expect_resistance

            Yep she wrote the article, which is horrible. Kathy is annoying.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Myintx is notorious for repeating the original points without addressing rebuttals. On a couple of threads I took the abortion debate all the way to its logical conclusion with myntix, then she got mad & ran off.

          • expect_resistance

            I wish it would go away but it keeps hounding me with the same canned response.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She never gives a straight answer and she never addresses rebuttals. If she doesn’t want to address somehing she either ignores, deflects, or miscontrues what you said in an attempt to redirect the conversation. Also she only seems to want to address abortions in the context of later term procedures–20 weeks, 30 weeks, 38 weeks and so on. And that’s not even getting into her dismemberment fetish.

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

            Stalker pervert. The antichoice movement is full of them. I was writing and reporting about the sexpigs but it started to make me sick so I had to stop for awhile.

          • expect_resistance

            Yes! I called it on what it was doing and of course I got some deflected from reality response. It’s a look at the delusional mind of a forced-birther. Sick fucks.

          • cjvg

            Sometimes you just have to take a break, it is hard to deal with the incredible amount of disrespect the anti-choice still has for women.

            Especially when you yourself are a woman it can be very painful to be confronted with how many still consider us a lower life form that in their mind beliefs women do not even have the value that a potential life has

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

            Well said.

          • pitbullgirl65

            Sex Pigs is the name of my next thrash metal band.

          • expect_resistance

            I’ve had the same argument over and over with her. She had no grasp on reality only a large library of canned parroted cut and paste responses.

          • expect_resistance

            Per usual Plum is spot on. Your the ignorant asshat.

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

        Citation please. Or it did not happen.

      • Suba gunawardana

        Why do you think many women need government assistance in the first place? Because they were forced to have a baby they couldn’t support.

        Don’t like govt assistance? Promote contraception and abortion.

        • lady_black

          In my own case, it was because I couldn’t get my ex to pay support. They “couldn’t find him.” Every time I would call, I would be asked if I knew where he was. Finally in frustration, I answered “In hell, I hope!”

      • lady_black

        Um, NOPE. You’re an idiot.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Takes a whole lot more than ‘willpower’ to provide financial support for a child and put food on the table.

      • Arekushieru

        And everyone who doesn’t rely on support is far more privileged than those who do. So, tell me, someone who lives under circumstances of poverty, that were created by the wealthy politicians and their elitist lobby, and makes only 600 dollars a month should be required to make more of an effort to improve their lifestyle than a lower middle-class family who makes more money in a week than the former does in a month, even though they had all the necessary advantages provided to them from the start? Wow, you really are a victim-blamer and classist aren’t you?

        • lady_black

          This poster is making the old and debunked “liberals are all on welfare” argument. It knows it’s lying. It’s an ad hominem argument.

        • Notinoz

          No but instead of using government assistance to stay at the same spot people are in they can use them to go to college, learn trades etc, and build a better life for themselves, instead of blaming those who are better off than them, for being better off than them.

          • Arekushieru

            You didn’t read my post, apparently. The advantages that even a lower middle class family has over an impoverished family were all given to them. And who has time to think about going to college if they’re fighting just to put food on the table. Please, try again.

          • expect_resistance

            Do you realize that government funding for education has dropped over the last decade, at least for higher education. Look at the drop in PEL grant funding. And the cost of higher education has gone up exorbitantly at the same time. Today’s college students will be in debt for a very long time and will struggle to pay off their loans. Wall Street got bailed out the rest of us got screwed. I think your post is not based in any sort of reality.

          • cjvg

            Yes because if you are forced to have a child it is so easy to work and attend college!

            As claimed by non personal experience by the ridiculous over privileged ignoramus

          • pitbullgirl65

            Bootstraps right?

        • expect_resistance

          It’s totally a victim blamer and a classist asshat at that.

      • expect_resistance

        Totally unfounded inaccurate statement. I suppose you don’t rely on the government for anything. Did you build your own roads, bridges, and infrastructure?

      • pitbullgirl65

        Ah here we go. I knew it.

  • Shan

    “I am grateful that my mother made her Choice, and I know that my 3 children are too.”

    When my mother was pregnant with me, her only choices were to have a shotgun wedding followed by the birth of a strapping “premature” baby (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) or an illegal abortion. Considering that fewer than 5 years before then she didn’t even know what was happening to her at the time she started menstruating – she thought she was DYING because nobody had ever told her what to expect – I’m not really going to count the much more complicated details around seeking out an illegal abortion as an option at the time.

    Am I grateful for my own life? Sure. I like being alive. Most people capable of posting on forums like this do. And I like it that my children are alive because of me as well. But am I grateful that my mother and millions of others like her were ever in the position she was in simply BECAUSE it means that I get to be alive now? Absolutely not. I would happily nullify my own existence for that NEVER to have happened to her or anybody else, for every girl and woman to have been educated enough about her own body, her own sexuality, and her own contraceptive and reproductive choices – including saying “no” to sex if they weren’t interested or ready. Which not a lot of 15yos are capable of.

    None of us would ever have known the difference if our moms had said “no” that fateful day we were conceived or whether she had an abortion a few weeks later, or if our dads had been more interested in watching the game on TV. We wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t know one way or the other. Not even you, waxing retroactively nostalgic about your 15yo mom in the parking lot of the abortion clinic. You might as well be retroactively worried about your dad having decided to go shopping for flip-flops. You still wouldn’t be here, and neither would your 3 children.

    And here’s the other thing: If your mom HAD had that abortion at 15, and if mine HAD had one when she was pregnant with me as a teenager, the chances are pretty high that there would be a bunch of OTHER people and their children around instead of us right now who wouldn’t have been born if our mothers had given birth to us. Because most women tend to have as many children as they WANT to have, WHEN they want to have them, over their lifetimes.

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

      Loud applause and cheering. Yes,

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

    I am pro life. I do not take the position you are taking.

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

    Why are you repeating what I already said as though I did not say it? How crazy are you?

  • Unicorn Farm

    Feel free to sprinkle a little punctuation on that word salad.
    FFS.

    • purrtriarchy

      Hey UF, I asked you a legal question regarding abortion/sex/consequences a couple of weeks ago. Did you not see it? I was hoping you’d tear it apart, because the Pro-lifer who invented it is a moron who doesn’t understand teh law

      • Unicorn Farm

        Someone pointed out a really poor (but really vehement!) tort law argument to me a little while ago, and I just didn’t get around to responding, sadly. It linked to a pro-life moron’s page… was that yours? There were a bunch of comments on that pro-lifer’s page that tore it apart pretty well. I’m happy to address your question! Can you re-post? I definitely wasn’t ignoring you on purpose :)

        • purrtriarchy

          Yeah, that was me. I just wanted your opinion on it. Secular Pro-life Perspectives = a bunch of dumbasses who literally try to make *any* secular argument they can opposing abortion, and often make fools of themselves in the process.

          In the past, they have claimed that FGM and abortion are both anti-woman in the same way, and that the ‘oligarchy’ makes mad cash from abortion! They claim to be atheist, but most of their arguments employ the naturalistic fallacy – pregnancy is natural, women were made for pregnancy, the fetus belongs in the uterus, so women shouldn’t have a choice, etc etc.

          http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/04/no-i-am-not-interested-in-punishing.html

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ahh- yes I skimmed that and it is full of sh** and totally refutable. Still so infuriating, though. I get especially frustrated when lawyers advance these arguments because its so disingenuous and anyone with a legit law degree *should* know that tort law doesn’t work that way, but it sounds really good to lay people who think women lose rights when they become pregnant. I’ll take another look and write out some thoughts that hopefully will be useful.

            I’ve read some stuff by the Secular Pro-life people and you’re right, its foolish and has never impressed me. The argument about a fetus “belonging” in the uterus makes me want to lobotomize whoever came up with it…. the penis naturally “belongs” in the vagina but we don’t let men put it there without a woman’s consent!!! Obvious as F*** if you give it 2 seconds of thought and aren’t a misogynist.

            I’m working all weekend (litigation, yay/ugh) so this can be a fun distraction.

          • lady_black

            I’m only educated as a paralegal, but that doesn’t seem to be a legal argument at all. Nothing “belongs” in anyone’s body without their ongoing consent. How nonsensical.

          • Unicorn Farm

            You’re right. I don’t think that’s meant to be a tort argument. It’s just some more bullshit.

          • lady_black

            As you said in much more detail, that claim fails in all four elements of tort, and what he is arguing for is basically unjust enrichment. To return the fetus to it’s previous condition of non-need, the only possible solution is non-existence. His argument is all kinds of crazy.

          • Shan

            “To return the fetus to it’s previous condition of non-need, the only
            possible solution is non-existence. His argument is all kinds of crazy.”

            I agree. Unless he’s actually arguing FOR abortion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Unless abortion is done forcefully against the woman’s will (as it is in China etc), it cannot remotely be equated to FGM or any other forced procedure.

            In other words what matters is not the procedure itself but the presence/absence of consent.

          • purrtriarchy

            You are kicking ass on SPL. BTW, have fun with marcusfenix, he can’t debate with facts so he relies on semantics and cherry picking of information.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Check out this one, where they were extensively badmouthing us behind our backs :)

            http://liveactionnews.org/did-emily-letts-fake-her-abortion-video/#comment-1382808712

            I invited them to an open debate more than once. All they did so far is whine & complain, & get opposing posts deleted.

          • purrtriarchy

            They have banned most of us because they can’t handle honest debate.

            PJ4 aka princess jasmine is a pathological liar. She claims to have been educated in Switzerland, have a rock star husband, 6 kids, and Louis xiv furniture. Her FB page at one point had profile pix of an actress…

            FYI, m. Fenix is also from LAN. I see that he is trying to baffle you with bullshit now.

          • lady_black

            LOL. Was that actually supposed to be a legal argument? Pregnancy is natural and the fetus “belongs” in the uterus? LOL. I realize that was the so-called pro-life argument. But it isn’t a legal argument at all.

          • purrtriarchy

            No. That is their secular argument which suspiciously sounds like a religious argument.

          • lady_black

            I went to your link and left a message there. It’s an argument, kinda sorta if you’re really not thinking things through. Or let’s just call a spade a spade. It’s a stupid argument. It has no legal basis. Religious basis, I’m not sure. It’s really out there, like the idiot who was arguing if he had to pay child support, he might not be able to afford to be cryogenically preserved. Laughable.

          • purrtriarchy

            I saw. I get email updates. You rock as always!

            The ‘idiot’ wants to get a sex change and he fantasizes about being pregnant and giving birth someday. He has clearly fetishized pregnancy, and I do suspect that this is a factor in his opposition to abortion.

            And the castration fantasy is all kinds of fucked up.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ok, I’ve read the Secular Pro-life article again.

            There
            are a number of flaws in this analysis. As a lawyer, I think it is
            reprehensible that a fellow member of the bar would misrepresent tort
            law so egregiously (and shroud it in cutesy language about knowing how
            to speak legalese). If a lawyer analyzed a tort issue for his client in
            this way, he would be committing malpractice. My source? A large
            portion of my practice is tort litigation.

            The first and
            most important is that the author neglects most of the elements that
            make up a tort claim, focusing solely on foreseeability.

            Presumably,
            although he doesn’t state it clearly, the author’s premise is that
            because sex is foreseeable, the woman should be required to gestate. (I
            disagree- birth control throws into question the idea that conception is
            foreseeable every time). He is trying to use a negligence theory to
            make his argument (foreseeability is not an element of an intentional
            tort, so it can only be either negligence or strict liability (more on
            that later)).

            In real tort law, not pro-life tort law, there are four elements to a negligence claim:
            1.) Duty;
            2.) Breach of duty;
            3.) Causation; and
            4) Damages.

            Each
            of these elements must be met before a tortfeasor can be considered
            negligent, and thus, be required to fix the damages by providing a
            remedy (more on the remedy component later).

            The causation element has two parts: proximate cause (where foreseeability comes in), and cause in fact.

            Cause-in-fact
            means what it sounds like, and is the easier concept. Did the action
            actually cause the damage? For example, let’s pretend a subway car
            explodes and hurts bystanders. The cause-in-fact question asks: did the
            explosion actually cause his injuries? If yes, then you have met one
            part of the causation analysis. The second part is proximate cause.
            This is where the question of foreseeability comes in. Pretend that the
            train car exploded because of a faulty wiring issue, caused when the
            train car was manufactured. Was that foreseeable? Likely yes. Pretend, on the other hand, that the wiring was chewed by rats, and that’s why it
            broke. Pretend that the rats were released by someone on the train
            platform a month prior, by accident. Was it foreseeable that having the
            rats on the platform could escape, causing the rats to chew the wires,
            causing the car to explode? Maybe not. Is it foreseeable that if your birth control fails because you took an antibiotic and happened to have sex and the sperm happened to fertilize your egg which happened to implant you become pregnant? You see my point. The less direct and longer the chain of events is, with more intervening causes, the less foreseeable something is. The point here is that cause in
            fact and proximate cause, which requires foreseeability, are not the
            same, and that BOTH are required to meet the causation element. For the
            purpose of this sad little article, the most important point is that
            causation is only one element of a negligence claim.

            Even
            if you can prove causation (cause in fact and proximate), the pro-life
            tort argument STILL needs to prove that the woman owed a duty to the
            foetus, that she breached a duty by conceiving it, and that by gestating
            she “makes it whole.”

            The author’s theory does not even address
            the remaining elements of the tort claim. So, in that sense, the
            article fails completely.

            For fun, let’s take each element of negligence in turn, showing why tort law does not apply to pregnancy.

            1)
            Duty. Before a person can be held liable for negligence, he must have
            owed a duty to the victim. The duty is usually described as the
            requirement to exercise a certain level of care, to take certain
            precautions, so as not to harm the putative victim. What is the duty
            owed by the woman in the pro-lifer’s argument? He doesn’t say. To whom
            is it owed? He doesn’t say. To the non-existent fetus? That’s absurd. For the tort theory to work, the woman would have to owe duty to the non-existent fetus NOT to conceive it. That’s crazy. Further, because we know that pro-lifers believe that, even if you use
            birth control, you should be required to gestate, we know this means
            that they believe every single pregnancy is an act of negligence,
            regardless of the
            precautions taken. This means that the negligence theory falls apart
            because there
            is no way the woman can engage in the action (sex) without risking
            liability.

            2) Breach

            Before a person can be held
            liable for negligence, he must have breached his duty to the victim. A
            breach happens when you owe a duty, but your actions placed the injured
            person in a position of harm that he wasn’t before. “Tort”
            means “wrong” in French, which is why the cause of action is called a
            “tort”. What is the breach in the pro-lifer’s argument? He doesn’t
            say. Is the breach conceiving the fetus? That’s absurd. The argument fails.

            4) Damages

            The
            last element of negligence is that there must be damage. The
            pro-lifer’s argument doesn’t address this either. What is the damage to
            the fetus? It was not placed in a *worse* position by the woman’s
            having sex. It was not placed in a *worse* position by the woman’s
            conceiving. It went from non-existence, to existence. Where is the
            harm? If the pro-lifer is arguing that the fetus is harmed by being in a
            position of dependence, this too fails. It is impossible for the foetus
            to exist in an “unharmed” state. I also argue that the woman is not
            responsible for the fact that the foetus is entirely dependent- that’s
            biology.

            As commentator Jim pointed out on the secular
            pro-life thread, the point of remedies for torts is to “make the victim
            whole.” This means that the tortfeasor (once ALL the elements are
            proven) must
            provide a remedy that returns the victim as well as possible to his
            unharmed state. Jim astutely wrote: “As anyone who went to law school
            should know, remedies in the torts
            context are specifically designed to return the victim to the status quo
            ante. In the case of an unborn child, the claim is that her parents
            negligently caused her to exist. What’s the status quo ante, exactly?
            Non-existence? There’s no coherent theory of damages that would justify
            allowing the child to inhabit the mother’s body against the mother’s
            will.” This is exactly correct. The pro-lifer argues that this remedy
            is gestation. However, 1) the elements of negligence have not been
            proven, so no remedy is required and 2) gestation doesn’t return the
            fetus to its prior state of non-existence. Thus, the tort algorithm
            fails, yet again.

            Further, tort law literally never EVER
            requires bodily donation as a remedy. Most of the time, only monetary
            damages. Even if it means someone will die.

            Lastly, a
            brief note about strict liability. Strict liability means that you are
            liable if you harmed someone while engaging in a certain action, even if
            you took all possible precautions. If every single pregnancy is an act
            of negligence, regardless of the precautions taken, then the negligence
            theory falls apart because there is no way the woman can engage in the
            action without risking liability. Strict liability only applies to certain types of very dangerous activities in real life; the most common
            example is blasting via explosives. The way I see it, because
            pro-lifers believe that pregnancy is ALWAYS foreseeable even with
            precautions, they are essentially trying to hold women strictly liable
            for having sex (or in the case of rape, simply being fertile). This, of
            course, is an unreasonable standard to hold women to, because the vast
            majority of women have sex in their lifetimes, which is completely
            natural and acceptable. This strict liability approach to pregnancy
            gives women no meaningful way to opt out. You either remain abstinent
            throughout your life or avoid (lol) getting raped, or your must
            gestate. It’s a no-win. In comparison with strict liability, no one is
            required to blast concrete. The tort algorithm fails again.

            I hope that makes some sense. I’m quite tired so I’m sure my writing could be more concise. Regardless, that author should ask for his tuition back, as Lady Black pointed out :)

          • Shan

            The “lawyer” who wrote that piece also seems to be hanging out the “no, pro-lifers don’t want to punish women for having sex” argument and then lays out all this “legalese” on it why they should still be required to give birth, but notably doesn’t address pregnancy resulting from NON-consensual sex. If he HAD addressed it, and made some sort of justification for why abortion should still be allowed in those cases, he’s punching a hole in his own pro-life assertion that childbirth isn’t meant to be a punishment for having consensual sex. And if he had made some sort of justification for why abortion should STILL not be allowed in cases of non-consensual sex, he pulls the rug out from under his tort argument completely. Unless he’d tried to make the argument that merely possessing a functioning reproductive system makes it “foreseeable” that you might get pregnant at some point and therefore you have a “duty” to gestate.

            Like you said, a no-win situation.

          • purrtriarchy

            Unless he’d tried to make the argument that merely possessing a
            functioning reproductive system makes it “foreseeable” that you might
            get pregnant at some point and therefore you have a “duty” to gestate.

            Yeah, they like to pull out that one a lot. They use the analogy of the lonely cabin in the woods and someone drops a baby at your door and you have to breastfeed it for 6 months, and if you leave it out in the snow you are a MURDERER, and oh, what a surprise, abortion is the EQUIVALENT of leaving a baby out in the snow because the innocent angelic embryo cannot survive outside the uterus:(

            Of course, they ignore the fact that even breastfeeding or simply looking after an infant is not a SUPEREROGATORY burden. You don’t have to let the infant use your body to breathe/excrete wastes/process waste/process fuel. Then, hilariously, they will use the argument that pregnancy is not an extraordinary burden because its NATURAL and it’s *what lowly women were made for*

            Clinton Wilcox, one of the writers for SPL, recently argued in a debate with Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience that even if a pregnancy was 100% going to cause a woman to become paralyzed from the waist down, she should *still* be legally obligated to give birth. Oh, and he opposes abortion in case of rape. So, I can gather that, if a woman is raped, and the pregnancy will permanently paralyze her, he would still force her to give birth, because zygotes are precious, and bitches ain’t shit.

          • Shan

            Ugh. How revolting.

          • Ella Warnock

            What if someone grossly miscalculated and dropped the infant off at the lonely cabin inhabited only by a male? Or a menopausal woman? There’s not going to be any breastfeeding then.

          • purrtriarchy

            *applause*

            Such a relief to read a post by someone who is actually living in the real world, and not just inventing bullshit to support her inane beliefs.

            This reminds me of the oft used ‘responsibility objection’ that SPL relies on, other than the naturalistic fallacy. That if you put someone in harm’s way, or in a state of ‘existential dependency’ that you owe them bodily compensation if that is the ONLY way to make them whole again. Of course, the problem with this, is that creation of the zygote does not ‘put it in harm’s way’. They can only get around this, as you said, by saying that if a woman has sex whilst ovulating, she is guilty of negligence. We don’t even force people who get into car accidents to donate body parts should they injure someone, so what makes pregnancy so special? And this is where we get into special pleading…”pregnancy is a unique situation and if another analogous situation existed i would force people to donate body parts but pregnancy is all alone, and women just have to deal with their biology”

            Regarding the car accident analogoy, Lady Black, Plum
            Dumpling and I had a looong debate about this on Personhood USA with the idiot known as Drew Hymer. He basically stated that abortion is a ‘breach’ of contract, because if you injure someone, you owe them your body, and if you deny them your body, you are guilty of a crime. Well, there is one big problem with this line of thinking, well more than one. First off, what if they die BEFORE you can offer them your body? What then? Are you not still guilty of negligence? Putting in harm’s way is putting in harms’ way right? Why is it not a crime if you kill them on impact, or if they die naturally at some later point (turns out their injuries did not require use of your body)? Why is it ONLY a crime if they need your kidney and you refuse it, and they die? This is just one inconsistency.

            Another inconsistency is that if you have teh negligent sex, and the ZEF dies at any point, and if you have in fact ‘put an innocent human being in harm’s way by having sex, then are you not responsible for ANYTHING that goes wrong? Every zygote that is flushed out, every miscarriage, every stillbirth, every genetic anomaly is YOUR FAULT because you 1) committed a negligent act 2) put an innocent being into a very dangerous situation. I pursued this line of thought with that Coyote fellow, and he kept saying ‘oh but miscarriage is natural, so no one would be at fault’. I’m right, and I know I’m right, because they say that the woman is *responsible* for fertilization, and responsible for implantation. One guy even compared it to shoving an HIV needle into someone’s arm and infecting them with AIDS. So, if you are responsible for every effect that HIV has on the person’s body, then are you also not responsible for every effect your s1utty body has on the zef? And, if we take it further, what if the woman dies from pregnancy or is injured? Is the man who ejaculated guilty of assault re the HIV analogy? What if she dies? Did he kill her because his ejaculate eventually lead to her death?

            So in summary, if we take the ‘responsibility objection’ to it’s logical conclusion, sex is at least a negligent, if not an outright criminal act. Cause and effect, right? If the possibility of something bad happening exists, and you do it anyways, you are GUILTY!

            I apologize if this is sounds incredibly jumbled – I have had these thoughts banging around in my head for months, and it is bit of a struggle to get them all out. I love your post because you explained it all in nice, legal, REAL WORLD terms.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Also, this part of the author’s article is weird:

            “….and the court must decide who will foot the bill. Will it be the person
            who innocently caused the situation? Or will it be the person who
            innocently was minding her own business and was harmed by the situation?
            Neither option is ideal, but it has to be somebody. So the law’s function is to allocate the risk of the accident.”

            I have no clue where this person, who presumably completed at least one year of law school, got the idea that someone has to foot the bill for every accident. Sometimes things are just accidents. In some states, if the plaintiff is also at fault, he cannot recover. Regardless, the concept of “negligence” does not grow out of smoothly out of the concept of allocation of risk in this black-and-white way. Duty =/=risk. It just isn’t like this.

          • purrtriarchy

            Awesome work. I will respond in depth tmrw when I am awake!

          • lady_black

            He begs the question of what “duty” a woman owes to a (as yet non-existent) fetus or embryo. That’s the first question for which there is no answer that won’t blow up his whole argument, because there is no duty. Therefore no breach of duty. As you say, some things are just accidents and every harm is not grounds for a lawsuit.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Who deserves real consideration?

    -Those who never had a life because their lives were terminated before birth (by human hand or by nature)
    Or

    -Those who suffer a horrible life of neglect and abuse because they were born to parents unable/unwilling to care for them?

    The latter group is HERE, and suffering. Why do they get less consideration than the former?

  • Suba gunawardana

    It’s important to show real abortion videos, if only to prove that abortion couldn’t be farther from the sensationalized gory spectacle anti-choicers portray it to be.

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

      So agree. God bless Emily Letts and keep her safe.

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

    Effective legal birth control did not exist when I was a young woman. Well, if you were a rich girl, somebody taught you about biology, and you did not live in a Catholic ghetto, you could get a cervical cap/diaphragm. I did not even know condoms existed. And they were sold in gas station rest rooms no sane woman would go near.

  • Suba gunawardana

    While not using birth control is obviously irresponsible, what matters regarding abortion is not HOW you got pregnant, but whether you are able/willing to carry the pregnancy.

    • Arekushieru

      What would you say about women who have to choose between putting food on the table to feed their families or going to either a crime-ridden area or walk long distances to buy a pack of condoms, then?

      • Suba gunawardana

        That scenario is not realistic, considering you can buy condoms wherever you buy food. (unless its a farmers market, which probably wouldn’t be there in a crime-ridden area :)

        Anyway, abortions are far more expensive than condoms. To have unprotected sex in a crime-ridden area knowing you cannot afford an abortion, is potential child endangerment in my opinion.

        • Arekushieru

          Actually, it is very realistic. Even nine dollars can be too expensive for some women to afford, it can even stretch their budget to the breaking point. Going to a convenience store is very scary even in white middle class areas such as the one I live in, I can only imagine what it would be like in areas that are considered ghettoized. And the convenience store tends to be the closest place to a person’s house.

          Women in crime-ridden areas also tend to experience a lot of domestic violence. Reproductive sabotage is just one example. Or they can be in on/off relationships (just as many other middle class women may have sex with multiple partners) but expecting them to not have sex just because they are poor so, therefore, might not be able to afford an abortion does seem rather… classist. Or they may be raped…. Etc… etc….

          Abortions are fully funded for the most part in Canada. The fact that it’s not the same in the US is not the the fault of poor women. They are the ones responsible for child endangerment.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Caring for seven non-biological children could either be commendable act of kindness; or just a way to earn an extra buck; or a “way to feel good about yourself” at great expense to those children. Only those children will know which.

    • Notinoz

      The money that the state pays for the children I foster I place into an account for their parents with the hope that at some time they will get their children back because unfortunately the state I live in most kids end up in foster care due to patents who are abusing drugs. I do understand women who feel abortion is the only way but I also don’t feel women should have repeated abortions and use as birth control there are a lot of ways to prevent pregnancy and this is the job of both the man and woman involved to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

      • Suba gunawardana

        That is certainly an act of kindness and I hope the children would get to benefit from it.

        Regarding the overall situation, the bottom line is there are far more children in need of good homes than there are responsible adults available to provide those homes. Adding more children into the situation only makes matters worse.

      • Arekushieru

        Abortion is birth control. Men carry none of the risks that come with pregnancy. If children are just put into foster care because their mothers abuse drugs, that is an unjustifiable use of the justice system.

  • Rainbow Walker

    If true, you are a rarity. Most forced birthers just spit babies out and don’t care one whit about fostering or adopting. Then if they can’t breed they whine that there aren’t enough to adopt, which is not true.

  • lady_black

    I’m not quite sure what you mean but I’ll try to answer. Men do not have a say in pregnancy unless he is pregnant. If he wants a baby, he needs to find a willing woman to bear one for him. And even then, he has no say in a pregnancy. Her body is pregnant, not his.

  • Jennifer Starr

    When he gets to carry a baby inside his uterus, then it becomes his choice to make. The fact that he ejaculates inside a woman does not give him ownership rights over something inside her body.

  • cjvg

    Yes since he irresponsibly and completely recklessly refused to use birth control and did not even bother to find out if the woman he was sleeping with felt the same way.

    Just because a man wants a baby that does not give him the right to conscript an unwilling woman’s body for his wants! A pregnancy and child birth only carries risk to the woman’s health and life, his “needs” are not enough justification to force unwilling women to take those risks for his sole benefit!.

    Also this is a complete red hering, a man who wants a baby (or is anti-choice) and has unprotected sex would at least stay in touch to see if he got his wish. She was clear that no potential father was in the picture!

    Again with the complete and utter disregard for the fact that men are responsible for their own reproductive choices or lack thereof. At least your consistent with that.

  • Jennifer Starr

    No, I think you’ll find that quite a lot of ‘pro-lifers’ are anti-contraception.

  • Ella Warnock

    Yeah, no, I wasn’t going to NOT have sex with my own husband just because ‘all protections can fail.’ They certainly can (actually, tubal ligation plus vasectomy rarely both fail), and that’s what abortion is for. Which is also, FYI, taking responsibility.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Having a child you are unable/unwilling to care for IS a prison sentence, more so for the child than the mother.

    Now as for being punished for the POSSIBLE consequences of your actions: If a rapist walks in through the front door you forgot to lock:
    -Are you supposed to let him rape you, considering it was your own fault for leaving the door unlocked?
    -Or do you have the right to kill the rapist to protect your body?

  • Ella Warnock

    *Some* anti-choicers don’t condemn using birth control. *Some* anti-choicers are anti-choice on the subject of the most effective types of birth control, i.e., the ones that *might* prevent implantation. Operative word here being *might*.

    To which I say – So. What? If I used hormonal birth control or an IUD, then a failure to implant would be mission accomplished, would it not? If those types of birth control make antis squeamish, then they shouldn’t use them. I’m not going to lose any sleep over any zygotes I might have sloughed off in the past. Why would I? I didn’t want kids, and I didn’t have them.

    • Notinoz

      I have not said I am against oral contraceptives. I would only like to see both sides come together on this issue, compromise and come up with a solution rather than treat each other like shit.

      • Ella Warnock

        Well, gawd knows I’d love for a woman to walk into a PP clinic – and the reason she’s there really isn’t important nor anyone else’s biz – without being treated like shit by sidewalk harassers, that’s for sure. She’s just going about her business and should have every expectation of privacy

        • Notinoz

          Pro choice are not the only ones who get treated like shit, believe me. I have never picketed or harassed as you would say on the sidewalk, I have as a nurse midwife had to lay out all the options for my patients which some like abortion I don’t enjoy putting out there due to my own beliefs but in some not all cases it can be necessary for the woman, because they either see no other way out or there really isn’t. But like I have said before I am against using abortion as a long term birth control method, this is what is highly against my beliefs, especially in those cases where you know you do not want children and continue to do little to nothing to prevent.

          • Arekushieru

            The solution to that is providing access to contraceptives, providing comprehensive sex education, not cutting funding to social programs that support pregnant women or impoverished mothers, etc… like most Pro-Life politicians like to do, NOT Pro-Choice ones. Oops.

          • lady_black

            You are not a nurse or a midwife if you believe a fetus can cry in utero, 17-20 week preemies can survive, brain death isn’t “really dead” or that a dead body can be “kept alive.” I’m sorry, but I do not believe you.

          • cjvg

            So how are you being harassed by actually doing your job?
            What are you trying to claim as harassment here, not being able to deny people information about their legal medical options?

            Free country find another job where you are not “harassed” by having to do your job

          • Ella Warnock

            That’s was my thought, as well. Anti-choicers are the ones who are
            harassing women just trying to go about their own private business. If an anti-choicer is getting treated like shit, it’s because they’ve far
            overstepped another person’s boundaries. What kind of reaction do they expect? Of course people are hostile when strangers who don’t really give a shit about them try to insert themselves and their issues and agendas into their lives.

          • cjvg

            Glad to know I’m not the only one who is a little flabbergasted by these supposed harassments she is subjected too. I just don’t see the harassment she claims she endures in her post. I read it twice and all I see her complain about is that she is required to do her job.

            I was not aware that that counted as being harassed. Funny how these anti-choicers complain about buffer zones because getting all up in a woman’s personal medical decisions is okiedokie , but doing a job you voluntary chose is harassment if you are not allowed to lie

          • P. McCoy

            If beliefs are getting in the way of doing your job, why not get completely out of the health professionals. Your views on abortion vis a visit the public arena as unhelpful as say the views of a Jehovah’s Witnesses’ views working in the same field with their beliefs in regards to blood transfusions and exchange of organs, blood products and so forth.

      • cjvg

        The solution is respecting the life that is, instead of placing a higher value on the potential life that eventually after a long and taxing gestation might be.

        Let the life that already is here and fully sentient, sapient, aware and present (the woman) make the choice that is best for her, after all she is the one who has to live with the physical, financial, social, mental etc consequences, not you!

      • Arekushieru

        We didn’t say you did. YOU, however, claimed that antis were opposed to abortion being used as birth control (which, again, is what abortion is, no matter HOW many times a woman has one).

      • lady_black

        There is no compromise. Either my body belongs to me or it doesn’t. I say my body does belong to me, and anyone who thinks my body belongs to them or the state is clearly insane.

      • pitbullgirl65

        Treat each other like shit?! Guess what side has committed acts of terrorism and harassment?

      • LostInUnderland

        What would be a solution that you would consider acceptable? I propose that since the military has cast off Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, we could recycle it. I promise not to rub my choices in anyone’s face or try to change their minds. Would that be an acceptable compromise?

  • Ella Warnock

    Sex isn’t a crime. Neither is abortion. There is no ‘time’ to do in matters of sex and reproduction.

  • Ella Warnock

    If a man wants a baby, then he should only be sexually involved with a woman who is willing to carry one. If he’s not sure, he should talk to her. If she’s undecided or is not willing, then he needs to move on.

    Men always sorrowfully whine about how they ‘don’t have any choice’ in matters of reproduction. Well, yes, they do. They always have the choice to remain celibate so as not to accidentally knock someone up. If those men are so ‘pro-life,’ then celibacy shouldn’t be that much of a sacrifice.

    • Notinoz

      So it is ok to ask men to be celibate, but not ok to ask the women to do the same. Which celibacy does not work for most humans our bodies are meant to enjoy sex, but with all the resources and knowledge available, it would be nice to see unwanted pregnancies decrease, which would j turn decrease abortions.

      • purrtriarchy

        Men don’t have to be celibate. But they can’t expect to force a woman to give birth simply because they happened to blow their load. Sex does not give one person ownership of another.

        • Ella Warnock

          Exactly. Some *pro life” guys expect to demand that a one-night hookup end up as parenthood. Dude, if you didn’t know what she thought about abortion, then you shouldn’t have fucked her. I don’t know how much more clear I can make it.

      • Ella Warnock

        No, what I’m saying is that if you’re are staunchly pro-life (male or female), then you should seriously consider celibacy. I don’t expect anyone in particular to be celibate, but an unmarried pro-lifer isn’t going to have much credibility if they don’t practice what they preach.

        • Notinoz

          So on that thought the pro life population is not getting abortions due to pregnancy. Also just because you are unmarried doesn’t mean you are not actively trying to get pregnant or that you are unsuited to have children. Which gets us to another topic when it comes to adoption and that is you should not have to be married or straight to adopt. There would be A lot less kids in foster care if the gay community was able to adopt as easily as the straight community.

          • Ella Warnock

            Some women claiming to be pro-life do indeed have abortions, or seek them out for friends and family. Abortion is accessed by every population – some are just honest about it. Others sublimate their ‘shame’ by doubling down on their pro-life activism.

            I don’t care about anyone’s marital status. Married or not, if you’re trying to get pregnant then you probably won’t be seeking an abortion, unless there’s a medical reason present.

            I agree, adoption should be more accessible to everyone.

          • lady_black

            Yes pro-life women are absolutely having abortions. Look up an essay called “The only moral abortion is MY abortion – when the anti-choice choose.” It’s one of the best essays ever written about the cognitive dissonance on the anti-choice side.

          • Notinoz

            I will admit I did miss speak there because there is always hypocrites who do not practice what they preach. I will read the essay, as it can only help to grow.

          • lady_black

            But see, the thing is, they do not consider themselves to be hypocrites. That’s called cognitive dissonance. They actually believe their own abortions are somehow “different” from those “other women.” The reality is they are no different. They have abortions for the same legitimate reasons other women do. They just tell themselves otherwise.

      • lady_black

        Well no I think celibacy is unrealistic for men or women. There’s always condoms and vasectomy. If that isn’t enough for them, that’s too bad. Men cannot spray their seed around and then claim “pro-life.” Start agitating for better male contraception. It DOES exist, and it’s called Vasagel. It’s relatively non-invasive (requires only an injection), 100% effective and lasts 10 years. It’s also instantly reversible. This could revolutionize birth control as we know it, and yes, greatly decrease unwanted pregnancy. What you have to remember is that men (unlike women) are 100% in control of where their little soldiers go. Once they are gone, so is any choice you may have.

        • Notinoz

          Yes men have the choice of a vasectomy and vasogel, women also have the choice of hysterectomy, tubal ligation along with multiple oral contraceptives , injections and implants which they can use. So why not hold the man and woman both accountable. Most men these days assume women are on some form of birth control, don’t get me wrong this is not saying that it is ok, but women do have to be the ones taking control of the situation because most men don’t. Men also are not in 100% control of where their little solders go, there is sperms in their pre ejaculate, which is released in small amounts through out the act to increase lubrication during sex.

          • Arekushieru

            Missed the point, of course. Men have far more control over where their ‘little soldiers’ go, than women have over where their ova go.

            Also, putting the onus on women to ‘take control of the situation’ simply because most men don’t is not only victim-blaming but is also part of the problem that contributes to a lack of accountability from men, a position many Pro-Lifers support, AND ignores how it is the responsibility of the man to put his money where his mouth is: IE; if a man is Pro-Life he cannot push the responsibility off onto the woman and really claim to be a practicing Pro-’Lifer’. It’s a position that benefits men on the backs of women, as ALL positions with patriarchal approval typically do.

          • lady_black

            As I pointed out in another forum, women are not cats or dogs and hysterectomy is never done for contraceptive purposes. EVER. That would be unethical because it involves the unnecessary removal of healthy organs. And men are absolutely 100% in control of where their little soldiers go. I am well aware of sperm being in pre-ejaculate. Do not put your uncovered penis in a vagina. Problem solved. Oh and Vasagel is at present not available in the USA. Hopefully it soon will be. If a man is not willing to be 100% responsible about where his sperm goes, then he has nothing to whine about. And assuming a woman is using something, well you know what happens when you assume.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you are actually a nurse, you should know that hysterectomies aren’t performed as a method of sterilization.

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

            It is a LIAR.

          • Notinoz

            They can be performed for sterilization if you are willing to pay for the procedure out of pocket no insurance coverage. Also you have the choice of uterine ablation, which in most cases eliminates menus as well while leaving ovaries intact, not all insurance companies will pay for though

          • purrtriarchy

            Uterine ablation will kill any innocent zygote babies that try to implant.

            That is MURDER.

          • Notinoz

            Most fertilized eggs do not implant in a normal healthy person, numerous things must occur for implantation to be successful. 20 to 30% of all fertilized embryos fail to implant. http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/333.full.pdf

          • purrtriarchy

            So? Uterine ablation prevents all of them from implantation. Clearly, that is murder.

          • Notinoz

            So earlier to you abortions were ok after implantation has occurred and now you are calling it murder prior to implantation, heart beat does not start until approximately 18 days after fertilization, implantation occurs usually around 6 to 14 days after fertilization. there is zero chance of survival at 6 to 14 days after fertilization, once again 20 to 30% never implant and most women in those early stages don’t even know they are pregnant and won’t know because there are little to no s/sx of spontaneous abortion at that time outside of a heavier cycle. You have also previously agreed that oral contraceptives are ok, which they often cause the same occurrence. So kind of confused on your stance here. Also I have never referred to any technique discussed on here as murder.

          • purrtriarchy

            So you don’t consider zygotes to be people?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’ve never heard of anyone having a hysterectomy for any reason besides cancer or disease. Can you find me a link confirming anything you just said?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Menus? Do you mean menses? And a uterine ablation is not the same thing as a hysterectomy.

          • Notinoz

            I don’t see anything in post saying that they are the same thing. OMG posting from my phone and when doing so, the automated spell check changed a word to an incorrect one, because I am the first person that has ever happened to.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Proof of anyone receiving a hysterectomy for anything besides cancer or disease? You have any?

          • Notinoz
          • Jennifer Starr

            While I have no doubt that abuses of this sort take place in Catholic hospitals (worst place for a pregnant woman to go), this doesn’t really prove your earlier assertion that women can just get a hospital to do a hysterectomy because they don’t want to have any more babies.

          • choiceone

            Hysterectomies should NEVER be performed for such a reason. Both ovaries and uteri have biological functions other than reproduction.

            Quite a number of sites online now discuss these functions which conventional biology and western medicine conveniently avoided identifying, studying, and mentioning to women in the days when hysterectomies were medically suggested for virtually no reason.

            Hysterectomies can have devastatingly negative health effects and should only be performed as a last resort life-saving surgery and nothing else!

          • cjvg

            Translation; Men don’t know that there is a risk of pregnancy when they do not use birth control ergo women should be held responsible for the sexual acts that men voluntary engage in!

            Yeah, by excusing the irresponsible sexual attitude of men who believe that only women should be responsible for birth control you do not get to claim that it naturally must be the woman’s responsibility.

            That is what is called circular reasoning because you just do not have any valid reasons why legally adult and competent men get to claim they are not at fault when they are not using contraception and a pregnancy ensues

      • choiceone

        Nonsense. I’m a woman and I’ve been celibate for over thirty years by choice, after having about a decade long sex life that was more than satisfactory, so it isn’t that I am ignorant of sexual enjoyment.

        There are all sorts of reasons to make a daily, weekly, monthly choice not to have sex, and my evaluation on that sort of basis simply led to that choice becoming permanent. Sex is actually not that important – we are socialized, enculturated to believe it is.

        This does not mean that anyone should have to abstain from sex just to avoid pregnancy or to avoid abortion when a contraceptive method fails. They shouldn’t. Sex has many purposes, including social purposes, other than facilitating reproduction.

  • Arekushieru

    Some women regret continuing their pregnancies and actually experience postpartum depression as a direct result of a pregnancy, unlike in the case of abortion, where women often report extenuating circumstances as the reason for the depression. Kthx,

  • Arekushieru

    You have no familiarity with the concept of ongoing consent, do you?

    And, yes, most Pro-Lifers DO condemn using birth control to prevent pregnancy.

    Again, abortion is birth control.

  • Arekushieru

    And what if he didn’t? Then you are arguing that he shouldn’t have to pay half the costs of the pregnancy, but I know Pro-Life likes to claim that gestation is mandatory, but if the man should not be required to pay half the costs then gestation should NOT be mandatory.

    • lady_black

      It shouldn’t be mandatory regardless of whether he pays.

      • Arekushieru

        i know. That’s what I’m saying. Because Pro-Life tends to require mandatory gestation but not mandate the costs, which is a really bad form of hypocrisy.. That’s all I was saying.

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

      Definitely worth reading.

      • purrtriarchy

        This is a good comment from the article:

        “”Except the foetus does behave like a parasite – dampening down the mother’s immune system, dials down into her blood system through the placenta and can manipulate their surroundings by hormone disruption – even paralysing arteries so that they cannot constrict and cut off blood supply. Other mammals allow the mother to abort at will, simply re-absorbing the foetus – we are strange in our inability to do so – all in part to placenta that even biologists describe as being at war with the mother. Really dangerous gestational conditions such as pre-eclampsia and ectopic pregnancy are in part evolutionarily descended from this. It really isn’t all rose tinted symbiosis.””

        —————-

        Though regarding fetal resorption, I would imagine that in our evolutionary history, during times of stress/famine, miscarriages would occur more frequently.

        • Arekushieru

          Isn’t one of the reasons why the placental-uterine interface is so adversarial in humans because the surface of the fetal placenta is covered with the sperm donor’s DNA?

          • purrtriarchy

            Idk. But it sounds like its worth researching!

          • Arekushieru

            I have a link that suggests that very thing. Lemme see if I can find it! …And, of course, post it, without putting my comment in moderation. Idk if I’m at the adult level, yet! :D

          • Arekushieru

            Well, it’s not precisely the reason why, but here’s the link I found that at least partially answers this question: http:// jem. rupress. org/ content /200/8/951. full ; and, as you can see, I did not post the link in an unbroken state because I don’t wanna find out that I’m NOT at the adult level, the hard way! :P

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

          This is the same “pastor” that got the crap beat out of him by border cops for being a prat. Those cops should have gotten a medal.

          • LostInUnderland

            I don’t know…I cannot advocate police brutality even against assholes. However, I’m also not sorry it happened to him.

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

            I am not sorry it happened to him. I think he won in court. I will never hit him. But I am going to enjoy it when anyone else hits him. And given his act, I am sure it happens to him often.

  • cjvg

    You are not really keeping up on the news are you. For instance read the hobby lobby suit and their reasons for preventing insurance to include contraception in their basic offering

  • cjvg

    And that is exactly the reason that that argument can not be used to deny a woman her choice of her own personal medical decisions

  • cjvg

    Next to his condoms

  • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

    I debated this one on Live Action News. A scary experience.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Wish I could help you there, unfortunately I’m banned. You’re doing a fantastic job.

      • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

        Thank you. We should all be there, instead of here. Until we get banned that is. Let’s see how long I survive.

        • Suba gunawardana

          I was there just for one night, & got banned. For the alleged reason that I am “the same person as Rainbow W”.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            I think it is interesting, that since I am a man I have already been accused of supporting rapists. I wonder why that kind of accusations not is reason enough to ban a “pro lifer”

          • Suba gunawardana

            I haven’t seen your posts there yet. My guess is you may have been too nice?
            BTW I don’t think they really have anything against rape, as the bible condones it too.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            You can find most of my posts in this thread:

            http://liveactionnews.org/former-planned-parenthood-abortionist-caught-sexually-molesting-patients/
            See for yourself if I am too nice?

          • Suba gunawardana

            LOL! I don’t think you were being too nice. Keep up the good work!
            Interesting that they have hardly any opposing views on their articles at all.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            Well if they are as quick at banning people as some here suggest, it is not that surprising, is it? One even edited his/her post after I replied to it so my reply just turned out strange when reading it afterwards. Truth is not ranked that highly among them. But that is hardly news, is it?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Wow the exact same thing happened to me. Altered the original post after I replied. They certainly take great pains to avoid/deny reality.

        • Ineedacoffee

          I would but banned too lol, didnt even take a day

          • Suba gunawardana

            Looks like they just can’t stand an opposing view at all. What a bunch of cowards, & talk about abuse of power.

          • Ineedacoffee

            They cant, apparently opposing views are evil. But leaving ones comments up, open for them to reply but leaving me unable to reply back to the idiots is ok

          • Suba gunawardana

            Exactly. Too cowardly to step out of their little compound & have a real debate, & too cowardly to defend their position with logic if anyone challenges it on THEIR turf. Apparently the only tactic they know is censorship & denial of reality.

          • purrtriarchy

            So tullia ciceronus said that I have a personality disorder because she can’t debate? She also said that I must have had abortions, or known people who had! I mean, this has to be why she’s too fucking stupid to debate her way out of a paper bag. BTW, check her FB page by clicking on her nym…she thinks she’s an intellectual because she ‘studied the classics’ lol.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            I wonder what I do wrong since I have been there for almost a week now

          • Ineedacoffee

            I dont know lol but keep it up there until the time comes

  • Jennifer Starr

    Actually, from what I’ve read, Plan B stops fertilization, which can take place anywhere from 24-72 hours after sex. There has been speculation that it might stop implantation but I haven’t found anything that bears that out.

  • Jodi Jacobson

    This is incorrect. We have many articles here explaining the science. this information is incorrect. Plan B, for example, prevents ovulation and therefore fertilization, and can not work after fertilization has occurred. Misinformation is the stock in trade of the anti-choice community.

  • Frances Shannon

    So it turns out there was a contest to make a positive video on abortion which Ms. Letts entered and won:

    http://tinyurl.com/llw49sf
    http://tinyurl.com/k69qglw

    Emily most certainly either got pregnant only to have an abortion, film it and post it to YouTube or her PR stunt was faked.

    • purrtriarchy

      Not proof of anything. She could have gotten pregnant by acciden and decided to film it after hearing of the contest. You’re an idiot with conspiracy theories in your tiny paranoid little pinhead brain.

      • Frances Shannon

        Let’s look at the facts. She was only two-and-a-half weeks pregnant when she had her abortion. Few women would understand they’re pregnant that early unless they were trying to conceive.

        She stated in the Cosmo article she was featured in, as a woman’s health counselor whose job it is to make women feel more comfortable with abortion, she was frustrated there weren’t any positive videos on surgical abortion. When did she decide this—before or after she got pregnant?

        She would also have understood as a counselor and someone who has stated she had multiple sex partners at the time she got pregnant the risk of not only and unintended pregnancy but also contracting an STD. She wasn’t using protection because she wanted to get pregnant.

        • purrtriarchy

          Women cant get pregnant on cue.
          You assume too much. She had an opportunity and she took it. Doesn’t mean she purposely slept around to get pregnant as part of a grand conspiracy theory.

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

          I got a question. Let us assume Ms. Letts did exactly that. Do you believe that such a person should be compelled by law to give birth?

    • Jennifer Starr

      No, sorry, but that’s not proof.

      • Frances Shannon

        What, does she have to appear in another video telling you that’s precisely what she did in order for you to believe it?

        • Jennifer Starr

          Has she told you what she did personally?

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

            FetusFreaks have the powers of telepathy and clairvoyance, don’t you know? I think Frances Shannon needs to get herself a new set of friends.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s like going around and around with Joey Polanco again, where he claimed to have written irrefutable proof of God’s existence and we were supposed to believe it was irrefutable just because he said it was. This person wants us to accept her speculation as fact, and when you don’t all she does is stamp her feet and claim that it’s true just because she says it is. Kind of boring, actually.

        • cjvg

          Actually yes.
          It would help prove your assumptions actually have a basis in reality

    • expect_resistance

      You have no proof of that claim.

  • Ella Warnock

    Thanks ;-)

    • purrtriarchy

      Yeah well, I do know you, and only a NAZI would get a tubal ligation.

      • Ella Warnock

        Sieg heil!

  • Suba gunawardana

    To those who are familiar with my posts: On live action news I was accused of being the same person as Rainbow Walker, and they blocked him. With NOT a single piece of evidence, of course, considering we are definitely not the same person.

    I was on LAN only since last night.
    http://liveactionnews.org/did-emily-letts-fake-her-abortion-video/#comment-1383479918

    They banned him under false pretenses for no reason other than they didn’t like what he was saying. Will probably ban me soon too. Talk about censorship & lack of freedom of speech!

    Is there anyone higher up we can complain to?

    • purrtriarchy

      No. They look for any reason to ban. And fenix is all pouty because you me and LB aren’t falling for his bafflegab.

      • Suba gunawardana

        OK so this is nothing new? That’s good to know. The guy who supposedly moderates that forum is a forced-birth nut too, so obviously can’t expect him to be fair.

        Bafflegab indeed :)

    • lady_black

      You don’t have freedom of speech on someone’s private forum. That only applies to government.

      • Suba gunawardana

        My problem is not with being banned per se, but with the false allegation that he failed to substantiate.

        He could have
        -just banned me without a false allegation (I’ve been suspended from other sites for saying things people didn’t like);
        -put his money where his mouth is & provided proof for the allegation;
        -failing that, admitted to his error.

        Instead he took the cowards way out.

  • pitbullgirl65

    If having an abortion instead of me was what my mother wanted to do, I would want her to do that.

    • BJ Survivor

      Right? I would not want my mother to have had me only because she felt some nonsensical obligation to gestate me, rather than because she wanted to create me, wanted to be a mother to me.

  • Arekushieru

    Sorry, but it is NOT by the right to life that I am here, now. My mother is Pro-CHOICE. She had me because she CHOSE to have me, just as she CHOSE to have an abortion. Just as she chose to have my sibling for whom it would be physically impossible to be here if she had NOT had that abortion. Which means, yes, that that existential crisis you’re having is nothing more than a mountain being made out of a molehill. After all, if my mother hadn’t had that abortion, my sibling would never have had this wonderful opportunity to live and to love and to speak and to roam and to wander and to think deeply. It means that we are NOT the special snowflakes you seem to think we are. If one life never comes to be, another may simply take its place, as my sibling took the place of the life that was never born because of my mother’s abortion. TBSS.

  • Shelley Oram

    It is great to hear positive abortion stories!

  • LostInUnderland

    Why would you think it is satire? I see nothing wrong with it. I see much wrong with people who have unwanted children that they neglect and/or abuse and children in the foster care system. Every child deserves more than the chance to breathe: they deserve the chance to be wanted.

    • Cymba

      Snatching babies away from parents in a delivery room as standard? Yeah that sounds like a really good system.

      • LostInUnderland

        No. No pregnancy. No baby born without preapproval. I do not advocate snatching or killing children. I advocate forbidding pregnancy until there is a willing and able parent available. Do you have a problem with that?

        • Cymba

          You advocate forced adoption if you agree with the above post.

          Yes I have many problems with “that” both moral and practical. It would be just as realistic to advocate funding research into finding a magic spell to create good parents.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Children are not toys to use & abuse. They are living breathing sentient individuals who NEED a lot of care & resources. Anyone unable or unwilling to provide those should really not be breeding.

            Briefly, idiots’ right to breed should never trump the safety & well-being of future children.

          • Cymba

            Really? You think the reason that you don’t have to have pre-approval to have kids is because “society” doesn’t care about them? How about the fact that there is no way to enforce that short of some sort of terrifying dystopian uber state? Are all poor people “idiots”? Are you planning on enforcing this globally? Think about what you are saying. Oh and if you think this would totally eradicate child abuse and neglect you are woefully ignorant on the subject.

          • LostInUnderland

            It would be cheaper to provide birth control, which is over 99% effective than to care for the children who are born in poverty. If society cared about children, then yes, we would find a way to prevent them being born unwanted. It may not eradicate child abuse and neglect, but if every child is a wanted child, it will decline to near eradication. I really do not understand what you find offensive about wanting to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

          • Cymba

            Where did I say I have a problem preventing unwanted pregnancies? I have no problem preventing unwanted pregnancies and never at any point did I even imply I did. That’s not what we are talking about.

          • LostInUnderland

            We can require vaccinations. We can require birth control. Why don’t we require birth control until a person passes some minimum requirements put in place for the benefit of their child?

          • Cymba

            We can? Where is this place? We don’t require them here and I am pretty sure they don’t in the US.

          • LostInUnderland

            Yes, we can.

          • Cymba

            Nice answer.

          • LostInUnderland

            Would you make sure that your daughter had birth control? Especially until she is through with high school?

          • Cymba

            If I had a daughter I would make sure she had access to it, can’t really force her to take it though. I don’t have daughters, I have sons. My teenage son knows all about birth control but I can’t physically be with him when he has sex so I have no way of ensuring he doesn’t get somebody pregnant. I can educate him and give him access to condoms but beyond that my hands are tied. Plus for every parent like me there are 3 that don’t bother with birth control either through negligence, naivety or ignorance.

            This is pretty much my point, you can only do so much. You’re idea is unrealistic. I live somewhere were everybody has free easy access to birth control. We also still have child abuse and neglect.

          • LostInUnderland

            Thank you for your answer. You may be right. I’ve often been accused of idealism. I DO want a world where every pregnancy is on purpose and for a good reason with support in place for the child. I’m sure it is unrealistic to expect that to ever be a possibility. Then again, even if it was the reality (like in Brave New World), who knows what other consequences there would be?

          • LostInUnderland

            We already take children from unfit parents. We just wait till they injure or neglect them first. Better to find out before a child is born whether the parents are likely to abuse or neglect it.

          • Cymba

            Right and how are you going to do that?

          • LostInUnderland

            By requiring a license to be a parent. China enforced a one child per family ordinance. How is it unrealistic that we require a license to be a parent?

          • Cymba

            Go and have a look into how well it works. Forced abortion, rooms full of abandoned babies, gender elective underground abortion, loop holes for the rich. Not to mention the fact that China are only able to enforce this because of the context of no democracy and massive human rights abuses. You may want to think through, or research, what you are saying.

            So you bring in licenses tomorrow, how are you going to enforce that? What happens to the people who ignore your licensing system and get pregnant? How on Earth are you going to stop them?

          • Suba gunawardana

            MAJOR reasons for unwanted pregnancy are lack of sex education and access to contraception. Correct those problems, and unwanted pregnancy will go down dramatically. As I said, provide mandatory sex-ed and FREE contraception to all, so poverty will no longer be an excuse.

            As to enforcing the parenting license, it should be like any other professional license. People should be mandated to go through training & be licensed before becoming [parents, and those who violate the law should be punished.

          • Cymba

            Well I live somewhere were we already have free contraception which is brilliant and I totally agree with you.

            Not thrilled about the idea of the state telling me how to raise my kids given that I disagree with them on many many issues (primarily education related). Also am not sure how punishing people for getting pregnant (presumably either by fines or imprisonment) will not negatively impact on the child.

            Ultimately all of theses things (eugenics, forced birth control, forced adoption) have been done and without exception they have resulted in terrible outcomes for parents and child… not matter how good the initial intentions.

          • Suba gunawardana

            -No forced contraception, only making it free & available to all, in order to reduce pregnancy.
            -No forced adoption UNLESS the parents are unfit. How is that different from what happens nowadays? Should abusive/neglectful parents be allowed to keep their children when better parents are available?
            -And of course, no eugenics at all.

            If every responsible job requires a license, why shouldn’t parenting require a license? Once again, children are not toys or slaves. and shouldn’t be treated thus.

          • Cymba

            If you want a job somebody has to hire you to do it. When you want a child you just have to get pregnant. That’s why.

            Do I give the impression that I think children are toys and slaves? Just to clarify – I don’t, so you really don’t need to keep reiterating that.

            I live in a country where adoption on birth happens already but the bar for that to happen is fairly high (although there are still some terrible injustices). There isn’t a test for good parents, good parents come in all different shapes and sizes and trying to standardise it will inevitably lead to abuse of power and corruption.

            Give me a state that I can trust to genuinely put childrens best interests first then give me a world were there is genuine equality. Then I will support your idea, although if we had those things I doubt we would even need it.

          • Suba gunawardana

            “Give me a state that I can trust to genuinely put childrens best
            interests first then give me a world were there is genuine equality.”

            I have yet to see one. That was exactly my point. Children’s interests are never put first, regardless of the fact that they are far more vulnerable than adults. That’s why we need to change things so children do come first.

          • Cymba

            The problem is adults don’t come first either. Money comes first. If they introduced parenting licenses tomorrow Money would be the bottom line. Where I live contracts for childrens services are awarded based on cost (actually cost is one of three factors but carries 50% of the weight when the final decision is made). The idea that those people are the ones who are telling parents how to raise their kids is horrifying to me.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Not satire. I am dead serious.