Anti-Choicers Desperately Insist You See Things That Are Clearly Not There


The most interesting thing about the video abortion counselor Emily Letts made to chronicle her abortion is how simple and straightforward it is. Letts talks a little about her pregnancy, shows herself getting an abortion (not in a graphic way), and then talks about how glad she is that she did it. While there are many feelings women have about abortions, her trajectory is a fairly standard one: a little regret, a little self-forgiveness, mostly relief and joy that she was able to get help when she needed it. “Sh*t happens” appears to be a major message, which is much closer to how a lot of women who remain silent feel about their abortions than is generally acknowledged in the public discourse.

Of course, the public reaction to Letts’ video has been anything but simple. Charlotte Taft covers some of the more well-meaning but often misguided reactions here at RH Reality Check, and on this week’s episode of the Reality Cast podcast, I’ll be discussing the attempts to slur Letts with misogynist stereotypes in an attempt to discredit her. What fascinates me the most about the reactions is the role fantasy plays in criticisms from the right, and what that generally says about the state of debate over abortion in this country—specifically, the fantasy that there’s a “baby” or even a “fetus” involved in an abortion like Letts’. It’s a fantasy that anti-choicers have angrily tried to assert in the loudest, most hyperbolic terms possible, no doubt hoping they’d drown out the evidence of how wrong they are.

To hear the lurid descriptions of what anti-choicers imagine abortion to be, it seems that they imagine someone killing an actual baby. Upending that narrative and reminding people, through incontrovertible visual proof, that during a first-trimester abortion the embryo is so small as to barely register as a potential baby, much less an actual baby, might be the most threatening part of the Letts video. Her stomach is flat. The abortion is quite obviously a quick gynecological procedure. If she had stayed pregnant, eventually there would be a baby. But it’s clear as could be, watching the video, that only fantasists have the ability to see “baby” where realists see nothing more than the beginning of a long process known as “pregnancy.” It’s no more a baby than a seed is a tree.

While the debate over abortion is really about sexuality and women’s rights, the official line from anti-choicers is that they’re against killing “babies,” and so this probably is pretty embarrassing for them, because it reveals that their cover story is perhaps even sillier than their fears about female sexuality. So, their effort to save face involves multiple variations of “Don’t believe your lying eyes! Just because you can’t see a baby doesn’t mean there isn’t a baby there!”

Adam Weinstein at Gawker collected a few of the more amusing “don’t believe your lying eyes” gambits, like this one from Breitbart’s William Bigelow:

“Of course, it wasn’t so pain-free and safe for the baby, but there is no mention of the baby in the entire article—or, for that matter, his or her father.”

That would be because there was no baby there to suffer, something people who actually watched the video were perfectly capable of seeing.

Then there was the National Review‘s Wesley J. Smith:

“Ah. good times. Becoming irresponsibly pregnant and then having a birth-like experience of destroying a fetus–complete with pictures!”

Here you have someone not only imagining that there’s a “fetus” in the situation (Letts is very early in her pregnancy, making the abortion during the embryonic stage), but also pictures of it. In reality, all we see is someone undergo a very short gynecological procedure. No pictures involved.

At Red State, Joe Cunningham said:

I don’t know what degree of godlessness you have to have in order to not only film the slaughter of a child but feel fondness every time you re-watch it.”

Remember, what you see in the video is someone with her feet in stirrups undergoing a short procedure. There are no children slaughtered.

I think these guys are hoping that by promising you that there are “children” being killed and that the video is gross and disturbing and violent, you will be too afraid to watch it and just take their word for it. There’s clearly a lot of fear here that if people watch this video in a calm, rational state of mind, they will be able to see clearly that it’s not violent and there are no babies involved, alive or dead. Anti-choicers are invested in the visual, which is why they’re so attached to using misleading pictures of fetuses from stages much later in pregnancy than when most women get their abortions. The sheer honesty of the imagery in Letts’ video—the fact that abortion, as you can see with your own eyes, is not child-killing—has got to be terrifying for them.

There are a lot of lurid accusations flying from anti-choicers, accusing pro-choicers of trying to conceal the “truth” of what’s going on inside a woman in the early stages of pregnancy. Those accusations should be understood for what they are: attempts to mislead people and get them to believe that it’s a man’s ejaculation that makes a “baby” and not, despite all biological evidence to the contrary, nine months of a woman’s body building a baby, bit by bit.

Yes, it’s true that people who are pregnant tend to talk about their “baby.” But it’s generally true in English that we refer to potential or future events with that present-sounding language. We say “our wedding,” “our vacation,” or “my birthday” even when it hasn’t happened yet. That so many anti-choicers try to overread what is simply a linguistic tic of English is yet another example of how desperate they are to convince people not to believe the evidence of our own eyes and instead believe their fantastical imaginings where zygotes are the same as kindergartners and seeds are the same thing as a mighty oak tree. Good on Letts for interrupting their fantasies.

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

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • TheBrett

    The patronizing, misleading rhetoric also came out, including one of the national anti-choice organization leaders talking about how Letts doesn’t understand the Power of a Baby otherwise she wouldn’t get an abortion. Of course, many women who get abortions do already have children, but that would disrupt the anti-choice crowd’s personal myth that this is all about “sluts” having sex and then refusing to “take responsibility” for it – as well as the concurrent myth they have that these are deluded, stupid women who would not have abortions if only they realized they were carrying a “baby” (hence all those stupid ultrasound laws).

    • CT14

      According to Guttmacher, it’s 60% of women who have abortions that are already mothers. So, a majority of abortions are by women who completely understand what being pregnant and giving birth are all about.

      • Pinkladyapple

        Also many go on to become mothers later on. So there goes their bullshit theory that all pro choicers hate babies/children.

        • lady_black

          I love babies. So long as I get to hand them back.

          • BJ Survivor

            Me, too!

      • TheBrett

        I got to remember that one. I knew it was a significant percentage, but I didn’t know it was that high.

    • Laurie Bertram Roberts

      In their opinion the only way you can understand “the power of a baby” is to have one. I am a mother of seven. Yet when I blogged about my daughter’s abortion experience they said I was a heartless unfit parent who forced my daughter to abort or I must be covering up a “crime”. So to them if you don’t wish to parent just yet you are flawed and if you don’t want another child you are flawed. If you are a loving mother who has compassion you are heartless and exploited by the “abortion industry” that wants to “kill black people”.
      They will attempt to find a way to demean any person who has an abortion or supports the right to have one.

      • purrtriarchy

        You are proof positive that pro choices don’t hate children.

        • Laurie Bertram Roberts

          LOL they don’t know how to take me I homeschool, I’m a doula, and I help pregnant teens who choose to parent. They like that stuff but since I also support abortion as an acceptable option I am in league with Satan

          • BJ Survivor

            Yeah, don’t you know it’s evil to believe that children are best served by being had by parents who desperately want them and have the means to care for them? God wants you to suffer and will torch you for eternity if you don’t do as RWNJs say, but He loves you!

    • lady_black

      What is “the power of a baby?”

      • TheBrett

        It was a remark made by the anti-choice organization person I was referencing (Scheidler was her last name). She was making some patronizing remark about how Letts wouldn’t understand what she was doing until she had a kid, or the like.

        • lady_black

          Apparently she doesn’t see the difference between giving birth to a child you want, and aborting an embryo you don’t want then… to begin with, one is a baby and the other isn’t. Anti-choice isn’t known for it’s logical stance.

        • Ella Warnock

          I guess she’s not aware that often giving birth will turn a pro-life woman into a pro-choicer.

        • Laurie Bertram Roberts

          She should read my blog post “it’s easy to be pro life until”. Many people are anti choice until they aren’t that’s the power of unwanted pregnancy.
          They truly believe that if a woman just stays pregnant and gives birth than magically she will feel maternal because that’s what we are made for.
          As a doula I call bullshit. I know women who go through wanted pregnancies and carry get guilt and shame because they didn’t experience “the glow” when they gave birth and for some it took time for them to bond.
          On the flipside of their if you gestate it the feelings will come belief they think it’s perfectly normal for women to hand over their babies to strangers to raise because hey if you didn’t want to be pregnant, if you’re young, or you’re poor you don’t really deserve to be a mom, right? Besides other more deserving people really, really want babies.
          It happens and it’s normal. For someone who never wanted to be a parent bonding may never happen even though they have no desire to relinquish their parenting role.
          Oh what am I talking about anti choice arguments don’t have nuance!

  • purrtriarchy

    They are also saying they she will slide into deep depression someday once she realizes her crimes.

    Others have said that she is a nazi .

    Delusional fucks.

    • Ella Warnock

      They *hope* she’ll slide into a deep depression, as that would vindicate their depravity. If she doesn’t, she has a ‘reprobate mind’ and will surely burn in the lake of fire. Whatever the outcome, they want her to be as miserable as they are.

    • lady_black

      People like that are misery-pimps. And that’s what they do.

    • BJ Survivor

      29 years later and I have yet to slide into any sort of depression over dodging that bullet. Same with my mom and both my sisters. Yes, the women in my family are too fertile in their childbearing years. Seriously, my sperm donor never once ejaculated inside me, yet preggers I was. It’s why it kills me when people claim that the pull-out method is a-okay. For some of us, just a teeny tiny, undetectable drop of semen will do the deed.

      • Ella Warnock

        Oh, you’re still miserable, all right. You just don’t *know* you’re miserable. Which is why you should contact Rachel’s Vineyard immediately. They’ll happily sell you a disease that only they have the cure for.
        s/

        • BJ Survivor

          In fundie world, I should be gnashing my teeth and self-flagellating over my (now non-existent) empty, murderous womb. Pfft. I could not be happier not to have ever brought a new human being into this overcrowded, insane world.

          • Ella Warnock

            Word.

  • Aaron Evan Baker

    I think I’d put it differently: anti-abortion folks include “fetus” and
    “embryo” and even “zygote” in their definition of child or baby–so, for them, a
    baby’s being slaughtered every time an abortion takes place. But the
    lines we draw in the ever-changing process we call reproduction are
    utterly arbitrary. “From this point on, the being in question has
    rights, but not before” has not been engraved on stone tablets by any
    deity. There is no objectively correct answer that we might or might
    not stumble on in the dark. Once you’ve realized that fact, you’ll draw
    your lines in the way that best fits what you value–and if you value a
    woman’s autonomy, you won’t be drawing the line at conception.

    • Amanda Marcotte

      Just because you can label whatever you want a “child” doesn’t magically make it so. That’s why they are fantasists. They see babies where common sense demonstrates that there are not babies.

      We’re also talking about the same group of folks who think climate science can be waved away because it’s inconvenient and evolutionary theory must be untrue because it hurts their fee-fees.

      • Aaron Evan Baker

        One of these is not like the others. Differing about where in the process of development you go from non-child or not-yet-child to child is not erroneous in the sense that denial of evolution or global warming is. Any demarcation you pick is going to have a subjective element to it.

        • purrtriarchy

          There are objective traits associated with personhood. Sentience and sapience being two of them.

          An unborn human is neither sentient nor sapient

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Is a newborn baby sapient? if it isn’t, and we nonetheless treat it as a person, the concept “person” is less clear-cut than you’re implying.

          • purrtriarchy

            They are autonomous individuals who are capable of interacting with their environment.

            They aren’t half formed incomplete tissue. They at least have a mind, even if it is only developing. Zefs are completely mindless. And abortion only exists because the zef is violating the pregnant persons body.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Oh, come on. A garden slug is an autonomous individual, capable of interacting with its environment. A person on life support may be neither–and yet we still accord rights to people on life support and withhold them from slugs.

            You do know, don’t you, that though we accord a right to life to newborn infants, not every culture does. The entire busines of who, or what, gets rights is a human artifact–about which human beings often differ. Emotion plays a role in these determinations, different priorities play a role–as well as objective criteria.

            I like your “mind” criterion better, but if having a mind, even if it’s only developing, is good enough, then fetuses become problematic, don’t they? If the mental processes of a newborn add up to a mind, it’s very unlikely that the mental processes of a fetus in its eighth month don’t. Do you have an objective, bright line for separating the two?

            I reiterate my point. Any division is arbitrary. Again, I favor a line that affords women more rather than less autonomy–but I’m not immodest enough to think that people who disagree with me must be irrational or lying.

            Incidentally, you can base a right to abort on something much firmer, more objective than the exact status of the unborn entity: the fact that a pregnant woman experiences a non-trivial risk of death or permanent disability by being pregnant. That seems to me to be a plausible shortcut around endless wrangles over personhood, life vs. bodily autonomy, and all that sort of thing.

          • lady_black

            Yes. I’ll give you a bright line. The ability to survive outside the uterus. i.e. viability. Your hypothetical eight month fetus may or may not be viable. Getting it outside a human body will require a delivery (not an abortion) regardless of whether it will survive outside or not. If it’s unviable outside the uterus I don’t consider it a person regardless of gestational age.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            As a criterion of whether to assign rights to a being or not, viability is as arbitrary as any other. if one eight month fetus is viable and another is not, the difference may have nothing to do with the mental development of either fetus. Then why treat them differently? When saying “[i]f it’s unviable outside the uterus I don’t consider it a person regardless of gestation” it should be obvious to you (and frankly I’m mystified if it isn’t) that you’re NOT saying the same kind of thing as “Mt. Everest is X feet tall.” Clearly we need a dividing line between “has rights” and “doesn’t have rights,” and I think viability is better than some others–both because it affords more autonomy to the woman than other dividing lines and because, yes, a viable fetus is much closer in form to that being, a newborn infant, which (uncontroversially for us, but not in every culture) we assign human rights to. But granting a right to abort right down to the moment of birth respects the woman’s autonomy even more. Is there some objectively valid principle that makes the one position more “correct” than the other?

          • lady_black

            No. We really do not have any rights that include biological dependence upon the physical body of another person. The main difference between a ZEF and a child is that anyone can take care of a child. Only one person can take care of a ZEF.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            “We really do not have any rights that include biological dependence upon the physical body of another person.” Again, there isn’t some set of objective facts that, by itself, gets us to this ethical assertion.

            If we’re talking about an actual “we,” a person, an individual with a right to life, and if this person’s right to life conflicts with another person’s right to autonomy, we don’t have some magic algorithm that says: the one right (autonomy) must trump the other (life). A rational person person could just as readily say No; i think life trumps autonomy. (This, incidentally, is why, in my view, Judith Jarvis Thompson’s arguments fail.)

            Better, I think, to say: the zygote, the embryo, even the fetus (maybe up to a certain point in its development, maybe throughout) aren’t rights-bearing beings unless we decide they are, and we have no sufficient reason to sacrifice the woman’s autonomy by doing so. Instead we’ll wait until the entity in questions looks a lot more like us (maybe at viability, maybe at birth) and assign rights then.

          • lady_black

            By “we” I clearly mean YOU and ME. We do not have any right to demand that any person breathe for us. Even if we are their child, and even if we will die if they don’t breathe for us. If you want to call this a “magical algorithm” please feel free. I call it common sense and the law. The “right to life” is not without limitation. And one of those limitations is that you cannot take, use, or conscript in any way, any part of another person to further your life without consent. CONSENT. Look that up if you don’t understand the concept. Bodily donation is a gift, not an obligation. No court will ever order me to give the use of my blood, organs or tissues to another because they have “a right to live.” Not even a relative, not even a child. Not even if I “don’t need it.” After all, the liver regenerates, a person can live with one kidney or one lung and bone marrow and blood will be replaced by the body in due time. Our bodies are sacrosanct. The Constitution says we have a right to be secure in our persons. Even a death-row inmate cannot have blood, organs or tissues stolen for the benefit of another. How much they look like us, or the fact that they are human and alive, are all irrelevant smokescreens.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            I understand the concept of consent completely. What may have escaped YOUR attention somehow is that abortion is not merely the withholding of consent. It’s killing the entity in question. So if that entity were an undoubted human being or person, with the same right to life as you and I, we would be faced with the question not just of an infringement on bodily autonomy, but whether in this context one could or should kill a being essentially like you. That, I submit, would be a question on which reasonable people could differ. As to the law: no system of law I know (and I’ve practiced law in the US since 1997) recognizes the defense: ” I killed her/him because she/he was infringing my bodily autonomy.” If you want to argue that autonomy should always trump life, fine; but spare me the sanctimonious references to the Constitution (which doesn’t, btw., treat security in our persons as having no limitations—don’t forget the deprivation of life or liberty in the Fifth Amendment ).

            “Our bodies are sacrosanct” only because you’ve chosen to regard bodily autonomy as untrumpable. Please articulate for me a reason why the right of bodily autonomy should be without limit and the right to life should not. The reality, so far as I can tell, is that both rights can be, and are, limited, like every other right everywhere.

            I’ve been courteous to you up to now; but that’s starting to be a strain–and further discussion would probably not be productive. I’ll just finish by saying I’m very skeptical about the existence of objective moral values, and nothing I’ve read today is making me less skeptical.

            Once more, we don’t have to address an issue of life vs. bodily autonomy here, because we can perfectly reasonably choose not to regard a zygote or embryo has having human rights; why we need to do anything more is, frankly, a little mysterious to me.

          • pitbullgirl65

            Then you must be for mandatory organ donation right? I say every forced birther should give up a kidney to save a life, since body autonomy means so little to them.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Not a forced birther, as my comments above should have made clear.

            I was assuming for the purposes of discussion that the embryo/zygote/fetus whatever had the same right to life as you or I. The question then is: can you kill such a being as you or I when it interferes with your bodily autonomy? There IS a moral difference between withholding needed help from someone and actually killing (for one thing, killing forecloses any possibility of their getting the needed help elsewhere. I said a reasonable person could come down on either side of this question, and I still do.

            Incidentally, I come down on the side of the woman because of the significant risk of death or disability that she has to incur if she continues with a pregnancy. So I do value autonomy, though I’m not laboring under the illusion that autonomy can’t or shouldn’t be limited. in some contexts.

          • Arekushieru

            And… of course… whoosh… the point flies completely over your head.(I know, I know, I will not be getting a response, but *especially* considering your patronizing attempts to tell women that you know better how to deal with a topic that affects them more than it will EVER affect you and that it was followed by tone policing and a rather abrupt and rude reaction because you didn’t get the response you wanted in the manner you wanted – I guess what’s good for the goose, isn’t good for the gander, eh? – I really don’t give a flying fuck. You are a very pompous ass. Oh, sorry, was that too blunt? Well, I guess you’ll have to go back and reread that part of the sentence that begins with a first-person pronoun and ends with a verb that denotes a common trait shared by many birds and another word that describes a certain kind of carnal activity to really grasp how badly I feel about that. :) )

            LB gave you examples where the right to bodily autonomy trumped the right to life. If someone dies as a result of the one person who matched them refusing to give up the organ, even though they don’t need it, the other person is just as dead as a fetus is. Whether or not the death was a result of (direct) killing, someone’s life could have been saved by mandating organ donation in EITHER case, meaning that the *right to life* could have been GRANTED in the same way (in either case), regardless of the circumstances that *brought* about the death. All it requires is people actually capable of thinking things through rationally.

            Just because you find the argument one of morality (even though you can’t articulate why) doesn’t mean you can arbitrarily dismiss one part of the argument, then claim the whole argument fails, since it hinged on the part you dismissed.

            Abortion doesn’t kill, not even, no, especially not, by your logic. I see that you go by strict definitions, after all. Well. the definition of killing? …is… cause of death. What medical professionals give the cause of death as a mountaineer cutting his companion’s rappelling line rather than sudden impact causing lack of brain function or the like?

            Even if abortion is killing, and direct killing was somehow worse than indirect killing, why are women seemingly the only select group of humans to whom it is deemed acceptable to assign responsibility to mitigate the effects of dependency on an organ, especially when no other class of humans is assigned a similar responsibility in any way whatsoever? You see, in order to justify your argument against the right to bodily autonomy as an appropriate rebuttal to anti-choice sentiment you have to engage in some form of sexism, which is a false premise of your own design, especially given that you’re not a member of the sex that will be forced to face the consequences as a result of such lazy thinking. TBSS.

            You say that the right to bodily autonomy is not a recognizable defense by any system of law you know. Guess what? That’s irrelevant. Rape is illegal because it violates a person’s bodily autonomy, not (just) because rapists are bad. Therefore, in order for you to be right that it is necessary for this to be a recognizable defense first and foremost, any victim who happened to kill their rapist and did NOT use this as a defense would be convicted of some crime. As a matter of course, they’re not. So why do you think that is, perhaps? Especially given that a rapist is more ‘essentially’ like me than a fetus is (and, I have to tell you, that the part where you compared a fetus to women was one of the more grossly insulting comments you’ve made by FAR)?

            Two things with regards to your Fifth Amendment: Firstly, in order for you to claim that the interpretation of the provisions for the deprivation of life in the US constitution are rationally, not morality, based, you have to prove that the interpretation is universal. It is not. My own country (Canada) being one example. Secondly, as to the deprivation of liberty, perhaps you didn’t understand what LB was making so clear, but that deprivation of liberty never included forcing prisoners to give up their organs, tissues or blood to save another person’s life. It required them to sacrifice some other form of liberty, therefore, you are either comparing apples and oranges or you are attempting to, not so subtly, change the goalposts. And, we all know what that means, that you know you do not have a winning argument so, instead, have (stooped to) com((e)ing) up with a way to distract us from the real issue at hand, albeit unsuccessfully, and win the argument that way. Better than you have tried. SFS.

            So, perhaps you can tell me, then, where is the bright line that makes it perfectly reasonable to not regard a zygote or embryo as having rights? I am Pro-Choice and a feminist, because I believe that every living thing deserves the same rights as every other living thing. Therefore, even by your OWN logic, your argument is one based on personal morality.

            For that matter, where is the bright line that makes it reasonable for us humans to consider ourselves special snowflakes? See, I’ve seen a lot of people claim that we’re superior simply because we have the brain capacity that allows us to simply declare ourselves as such. But that doesn’t necessarily follow. Because the reverse could actually hold true, as well, that we are inferior simply because we have the brain capacity that allows us to simply declare ourselves as such. And, really, brain capacity isn’t all that great of a determiner in the first place. It would be better to take a look at what we’ve actually DONE with it. And that doesn’t give much hope for the human race, as a superior species, sorry to say.

            Finally, life presupposes bodily integrity.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            As I noted above, actual killing is morally, and practically, different from refusing to provide help that another person will die without getting. Killing for one thing eliminates the possibility of getting that help elsewhere. For exactly that reason, I can comprehend a rational woman or man concluding that where a right to life and a right to bodily clash, not-killing should be the response. As I’ve said before, because a woman undergoes a significant risk of death or disability in continuing with a pregnancy, so if we were actually having a right-to-life vs. autonomy dispute, I’d come down on the side of the woman (this is just a statement of my opinion–not a pompous assertion that my opinion is important).

            I never said anything to suggest that I was disregarding how much more personal a matter abortion and pregnancy are to a woman than to a man. If I did say anything that could be reasonably interpreted that way, I apologize and will try to do better.

            As for the rest of your first paragraph, are you objecting generically to a man’s expressing an opinion on this subject, or is it just to opinions you don’t agree with? I don’t think either approach is justified.

            As for the question of tone, and your personal abuse: well, I’ve been down that road before and there’s really no winning. If the arguer make an issue of incivility, they’re tone-trolling and pompous; if they respond in kind, the verbal abuse just ratchets up until the thread is dominated by that and nothing else. You and one other poster seem to regard my disagreeing with you as a discourtesy: arrogant mansplaining and what not, so I was a hypocrite to ask for civility. Well, disagreement , in and of itself, is not mainsplaining condescension. I am taking your arguments seriously, or I wouldn’t be responding to them.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            You go on to ask: ‘So, perhaps you can tell me, then, where is the bright line that makes it perfectly reasonable to not regard a zygote or embryo as having rights?”

            Well, I think that sacrificing a woman’s bodily autonomy to a microscopic clump of cells with no brain is obviously nuts. That’s an intuition I have that unfortunately isn’t shared by everybody. When the (non-religious) argument is then made that the mere potentiality to be an undoubted person gives an entity the right to life, I say: well, that leads to results that are just nuts, and I can also say: prove to me that this principle that you’re announcing is, morally OR practically, the correct approach. At that point, I think all the other person can say is that Well, I place such a high value on human life, that I’ll assume full humanity in all these instances. At this point, we ARE arguing morality, aren’t we? I can and do respond: there are more things to valued in the world than just life, particularly the life of a mindless clump of cells. I’m not finding the mix of argument and confident assertion that the pro-choicer is engaging in to be convincing. But do I have some bright line that should shut her or him up? Probably not.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            You wrote: “(and, I have to tell you, that the part where you compared a fetus to women was one of the more grossly insulting comments you’ve made by FAR)”

            I was assuming for the purpose of an argument, not because it’s true, that a fetus had the same right to life as the woman carrying it. As I said above, I’ll apologize for comments that can be reasonably interpreted as belittling a woman, but how is your reading of this reasonable?

            As for alleged human superiority to animals, I think I’ve touched on that issue more than once, and I haven’t argued for human superiority.

          • purrtriarchy

            They claim logic. But a majority of their arguments come down to emotion. They identify with and empathize with the zygote. Abortion is ‘dirty’. There is a podcast on this way of thinking about morality if you are interested.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            OK, I’d listen to it; pls share.

            I have run into the type, and not just in the context of abortion–for example, people who are convinced that gay sex is simply “filthy,” “dirty,” what not. I don’t see much chance of arguing those folks out of anything.

          • purrtriarchy
          • Aaron Evan Baker

            thanks!

          • Arekushieru

            Um, actually, it’s not up to you, a man, to decide what is and isn’t mansplaining. And, in fact, by your own logic, you were mansplaining.

            After all, this: “I am taking your arguments seriously, or I wouldn’t be responding to them.” immediately followed your argument against mansplaining, which would imply that it is heavily based on whether one responds to others’ arguments, seriously, so, in that case, then why did you say this: “I’ve been courteous to you up to now; but that’s starting to be a strain–and further discussion would probably not be productive.”; to Lady-Black, since that obviously dismisses her arguments as not worthy of responding seriously, and heavily implies you were mansplaining and being discourteous?

            But, now that I go back and look at it, I never even made the claim that you were mansplaining. Being patronizing is not exactly the same as mansplaining. Don’r put words into my mouth next time. Thanks!

            Please do not apologize for something, then go on to do that very thing (again). It shows that your apology is not sincere. First you use the sexism of female biology (and, yes, I DID point out that sexism in my previous post) against women and, thus, disregard our LIVED experiences, then you use that to go on to make the claim that my objections to your argument are based solely on whether someone is a member of the male gender, in order to declare them unjustified and an appropriate response from you unnecessary, even though it should have been perfectly clear, REGARDLESS of whether or not female biology is sexist, that I was personally objecting to something you SAID and the WAY it was said. In that case, it does not matter whether you are male or female, to me. Kthx.

            Besides, it was NOT a real apology. You put the onus on someone else to ‘prove’ that it was a ‘reasonable interpretation’. That’s not how apologies work, just so ya know.

            I also explained further as to why direct and indirect killing are not morally different. Perhaps it would behoove you to go back and read that part, this time? But to give you the courtesy of doing something you seem unable to do yourself, I will expand on that, one more time. After all, organ recipient’s do die on the waiting list, and, because there are actually, rarely, two donor matches to every recipient, and a limited time within which to perform the transplant, it means that a recipient’s chances of receiving help elsewhere are pretty much foreclosed, too. Therefore, requiring people to give up their organs would have the same effect as requiring a woman to give up her uterus to the fetus for nine months. It would grant both of them much better chances to live. If the effects are effectively the same, why are they morally different, again?

            Staying silent is what got us where we are, today. Rape culture and an even more entrenched patriarchy. It was also what led to severe bouts of depression on my part due to continued bullying that only got worse BECAUSE I did nothing before it got better because I actually DID something. It prevents others from speaking out against it, too. The presentation of an attitude like yours (as I explained above) makes it perfectly acceptable to respond the way we do. It also makes it perfectly UNacceptable for that person to then turn around and demand civility.

            Finally, why are you using much different standards by which to judge your arguments than by the ones you use to judge your own, if you’re NOT being ‘patronizing?

            .

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            I didn’t accuse you of using the word “mansplaining”; I referred to you and another poster in my comment, and that poster was the one who used it.

            If a man gets to offer no input into whether he’s “mansplaining” or not, then it becomes a kind of perfect insult (or smear), as the target of it isn’t allowed to defend himself. That makes it a great weapon for personal abuse–but not much good for intelligent discussion. As for apologies, it’s hardly inappropriate for the allegedly offending party to ask where they have offended.

            If you don’t think my response on the question of whether withholding lifesaving help can be morally equivalent to killing was adequate, I’ll go at it in more detail.

            As I’ve said already, but I’ll be more detailed here, I think the reason that withholding lifesaving help from another human being is NOT equated morally with killing most of the time (and it IS the intuition of most people that they’re NOT equivalent) is that, most of the time, in the former case you’re unambiguously and irrevocably ending a human life, and in the latter case you are not. Even if it’s nearly certain that the person won’t get help elsewhere (“pretty much foreclosed,” as you put it), that possibility, however slim, hasn’t been foreclosed.

            So, to be morally equivalent, I think that your withholding help must, in fact, kill the other person. That is, there is NO possibility of help from elsewhere–not just a great improbability of help. A person contemplating organ donation is, the great majority of the time, NOT in that position, as they’re not the only person contemplating whether to donate.

            If, however, we in fact reach the point where there is no practical difference between withholding help and killing, do I think a person can rationally argue that in that situation, you MUST NOT kill another human ever, even at a significant cost to your autonomy? Well, yes. Neither life nor autonomy is absolute. And that, incidentally, was all I was trying to prove. And this is why, again and again, I’ve suggested the best course here is not to give a weapon to the anti-choice by suggesting (even just for the sake of argument), a rights-bearing status, when you don’t have to.

            One other point: pro-choicers who think abortion can be restricted or even denied from viability on are privileging a life over the mother’s autonomy. So doing so is not unheard of, even outside the anti-abortion community. They may of course be wrong; abortion should be available throughout pregnancy (a position I think is perfectly rational, too).

            How I’m sexistly using female biology against women you haven’t really explained. Since I favor abortion down to viability (or some other late milestone) without reservation, and since I’ve said there’s a good case to made for unrestricted abortion to the end of a pregnancy.

            You wrote: “then you use that to go on to make the claim that my objections to your argument are based solely on whether someone is a member of the male gender.” Never said that. You used my being male as a reason to be dismissive of what I was saying, and I simply asked whether you were consistent when doing so.

            As for civility, maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up. In my experience,the usual online attitude toward civility is “trollishness for me, but not for thee.” Because that’s the case, I should probably just never mention it and let the chips fall where they may.

          • purrtriarchy

            Are you familiar with Mcfall v Shrimp?

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Are you suggesting a rational person couldn’t have decided that case differently? Also: the judge regarded Shimp’s refusal as morally indefensible (but how could it be morally indefensible if Shimp had an absolute right to bodily autonomy?). Neither you nor I believe that abortion is morally indefensible–to support our belief, this case by itself won’t be enough.

            Further, as bad as McFall’s situation was, we still have here the circumstance where another donor might have emerged. I get why the decision figures in abortion debates–and even if you could prove that the being that was killed in the case of abortion had a right to life, I’d side with the mother–because of not just autonomy concerns but also the non-trivial risk of death or long-lasting injuries that pregnancy brings with it. But again, I’m not prepared to call the person who disagrees with me unreasonable or irrational.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Thinking about this further: Shimp’s refusal was morally repellant at least in part because the burden he was asked to shoulder wasn’t much of a burden. Since pregnancy burdens a woman (and threatens her health) more than a bone marrow transplant would, that should account for the moral difference between the two situations.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “What may have escaped YOUR attention somehow is that abortion is not merely the withholding of consent. It’s killing the entity in question”
            This response is always such a failure.
            This response assumes, but does not prove, that there is a moral difference between active and passive killing, and that that difference applies in the case of abortion. I refer you to the writings of James Rachels for a more thorough discussion, although I know you won’t read it.
            Would you think abortion was more moral if we excised the fetus, living, from a woman’s uterus, and set it on the table. It will die because she has withdrawn her resources, but not because she killed it. If you do not think this is more moral, than you are lying when you assert that there is a morally significant difference between withholding consent to use the woman’s body and killing the fetus. Thanks for playing; better luck next time.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            I’ve given my reasons already for why I think there’s (usually) a moral difference between killing a human being and withholding lifesaving help from a human being. Try reading them.

            I’d be happy to look at James Rachels on the subject. The problem, however, with even the smartest philosophers of ethics is that they almost never SOLVE a moral problem to such an extent that a reasonable person can’t disagree with them. So, I may agree with Rachels, others may not, and the argument continues.

            I’m not really sure what you’re getting at with your exsising example. If I cut a living fetus from a woman’s uterus and leave it on the table to die, unless she’s consented, I and not someone else have full moral responsibility (whatever it may be) for the fetus’s death. (If she has consented, then between us we’ve both killed a fetus. When principal and agent together accomplish a task, if there’s any moral blameworthiness involved, most people think it attaches to them equally). If it’s your point that pulling a fetus out and leaving it to suffocate on a table is anything but killing it–is, instead, the withholding of lifesaving aid, I’d say you’re nuts. The fetus dies because of where I put it. I’ve killed it as certainly as I’ve killed a land-living organism if I submerge it in water.

            I do see some fail here; but not on my part.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “I’ve given my reasons already for why I think there’s (usually) a moral difference between killing a human being and withholding lifesaving help from a human being. Try reading them.”

            Needlessly evasive. I’ve read your posts. You haven’t. And you certainly haven’t for the specific scenario of abortion.

            “If it’s your point that pulling a fetus out and leaving it to suffocate on a table is anything but killing it–is, instead, the withholding of lifesaving aid, I’d say you’re nuts”

            Why is that nuts? It’s exactly withholding aid- the fetus suffocates because I am no longer allowing it to use my body as its oxygen delivery system, which I have every right to do.
            Look, you were the one who came in here saying that there is a moral difference in refusing to save a life and abortion, because abortion involves an active killing. I am trying to show you that the withdrawal of support and “killing” are one in the same in the case of abortion, and you’ve given zero reason whatsoever to think that abortion is morally bad because withholding the resources requires an action instead of merely inaction, as traditional organ donation does. Try again.

            “The problem, however, with even the smartest philosophers of ethics is that they almost never SOLVE a moral problem to such an extent that a reasonable person can’t disagree with them.”

            Also pointlessly evasive.

            “I do see some fail here; but not on my part”

            So basically, I’ve challenged you on highly specific aspects of your argument, and you’ve responded with nothing but evasive prattle, and you can’t see any issues with that.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Unless you’re prepared to paraphrase Rachels’ argument here, your remarks about him are just an appeal to authority–which proves nothing. So no evasion there; your statement didn’t deserve any more than the response I gave it.

            As for your withholding/killing example. If all you intended was to say that a woman cannot deny lifesaving care to the being inside her without killing it, you could have said that, and a lot more clearly.

            But it’s just that fact that makes abortion morally problematic, though ONLY IF the victim of the abortion has a right to life. You’re not withholding something that this being might get somewhere else, you’re guaranteeing its death. Most of us feel some hesitation at guaranteeing the death of an unquestioned human being, whatever the context. So pointing to the many other contexts where withholding of lifesaving care doesn’t guarantee death and saying we let people withhold care, even if with some misgivings, in those contexts–that’s not enough to settle the matter in this context.

            So again I return my frequently reiterated point: why get into these wrangles in the first place, at least when talking about a zygote or embryo. Our granting them or withholding from them human rights is not dictated by some ironclad, always objectively valid rule, and so we have no need to worry about rights here.

          • purrtriarchy

            If a woman refuses to eat, is she directly or indirectly killing a fetus :p

          • ChrisFFs

            Depends on the intent.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope. Direct and indirect and intent. One of these is not like the others.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Unless you’re prepared to paraphrase Rachels’ argument here, your remarks about him are just an appeal to authority–which proves nothing. So no evasion there; your statement didn’t deserve any more than the response I gave it.”

            I’m not, because I know you won’t make the effort to argue in good faith so I won’t waste my time. It’s not an appeal to authority- it’s a reference to a solid argument on the point. Don’t be an idiot.

            You really have no business chastising me for unclear writing. Very few of your sentences are actually clear. Like this:

            “Our granting them or withholding from them human rights is not dictated by some ironclad, always objectively valid rule, and so we have no need to worry about rights here.”

            What does that even mean?

            “As for your withholding/killing example. If all you intended was to say that a woman cannot deny lifesaving care to the being inside her without killing it, you could have said that”

            That’s not all I intended to say. I said that you haven’t proven there is a relevant moral difference between killing and letting die in the abortion debate. Which you still haven’t proven, despite making the assertion.

            “You’re not withholding something that this being might get somewhere else, you’re guaranteeing its death.”
            So what? How does the fact that death is guaranteed reduce the right to withhold support?

            “Most of us feel some hesitation at guaranteeing the death of an unquestioned human being, whatever the context. So pointing to the many other contexts where withholding of lifesaving care doesn’t guarantee death and saying we let people withhold care, even if with some misgivings, in those contexts–that’s not enough to settle the matter in this context.”

            I vehemently disagree that most of us feel some hesitation guaranteeing the death of an unquestioned human being, whatever the context. Our society makes the choice to guarantee the deaths of humans all the time- allowing killing in self-defense, the castle doctrine, allowing corporations and legislatures to enact lax safety standards, to go to war, to withhold foreign aid. Even by electing to drive cars instead committing the entire country to public transportation, we commit to a system that we KNOW will cause the deaths of actual people in car accidents. Yet we choose to because it’s convenient to us.

            Regarding your argument that in other contexts, withholding aid doesn’t guarantee death, and so that makes those situations morally different from abortion, I’d say that the fact that death is not guaranteed in those situations is not very relevant. (BTW, you certainly haven’t put forth any reason to think it is, you just stated it). For all intents and purposes, while in theory it may be possible for person in need of aid to get it from another source, that certainly doesn’t mean its possible in reality. I don’t think that makes your argument, because we unequivocally say, as a society, that you can’t be forced to save a life. We don’t qualify it by saying: “you aren’t forced to donate organs unless the potential recipient can point out that you’re the only one who is available to donate and so his death is guaranteed.”

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            “I’m not [paraphrasing Rachels], because I know you won’t make the effort to argue in good faith so I won’t waste my time. It’s not an appeal to authority- it’s a reference to a solid argument on the point. Don’t be an idiot.”

            So you’re a mind reader. Actually, you’re not. So fuck you. If you give me a citation, I’ll happily look it up. Fuck, don’t bother, I’ll find it myself. And yes, “Professor Mugwump has a powerful argument here that blows you out of the water,” with nothing more, IS an appeal to authority.

            “That’s not all I intended to say. I said that you haven’t proven there is a relevant moral difference between killing and letting die in the abortion debate. Which you still haven’t proven, despite making the assertion.”

            I’m beginning to believe you simply don’t understand the point I’m making. So, very slowly, there IS a morally relevant difference between killing and withholding lifesaving aid (not “letting die”), WHERE the possibility of help from elsewhere isn’t foreclosed with certainty–as it surely is by killing. Clearly that moral difference doesn’t exist in the context of abortion, as the woman who wants to withhold lifesaving aid to the conceptus can only do so by removing it, so that it can no longer live–or as I would say, by killing it. But let’s stick with your term: letting die. In the context of abortion, one can withhold lifesaving aid solely by letting the conceptus die. And that, as I’ve said, is exactly what would make abortion problematic, if the conceptus were a being with a right to life. It’s not that complicated.

            “the fact that death is not guaranteed in those situations is not very relevant..”

            Not very relevant to abortion? Exactly; which is why using the withholding of aid in those cases as an argument FOR abortion isn’t very convincing.

            “Our granting them or withholding from them human rights is not dictated by some ironclad, always objectively valid rule, and so we have no need to worry about rights here.” “What does that even mean?”

            Inartfulness in onlline comments should probably be off limits. It means, and I’ve said it more clearly elsewhere: I doubt that our choice of a division–before which an organism has no rights and after which it does have them–is based on an objectively valid criterion. Conception certainly doesn’t strike me as as objectively correct; but viability is problematic, too, as whether the organism is viable or not may depend on morally irrelevant facts like the overall health of the organism, or some non-lethal defect in the organism. Whether it’s viable or not also depends on our level of technology at the time we encounter it. What was not viable twenty years ago is viable today–and, again, I don’t see that difference as morally relevant. We might set the dividing line at just before birth–which horrifies lots of people, who will ask: what’s the morally significant difference between the fetus one week before birth and a newborn? The one morally relevant difference I can think of is Well, it’s still in the woman’s body, where she doesn’t want it–but again, for reasons I’ve suggested elsewhere, that fact doesn’t definitively end the argument.

            ” we unequivocally say, as a society, that you can’t be forced to save a life.”

            Wrong. Some jurisdictions in America and in enlightened places like Western Europe have duty-to-aid statutes. also, the right to abort in America and in several Western European countries can be, and is, limited by law. Even if you limit your assertion to the US, we’re not saying this unequivocally.

            “I vehemently disagree that most of us feel some hesitation guaranteeing the death of an unquestioned human being, whatever the context.Our society makes the choice to guarantee the deaths of humans all the time- allowing killing in self-defense, the castle doctrine, allowing corporations and legislatures to enact lax safety standards, to go to war, to withhold foreign aid. Even by electing to drive cars instead committing the entire country to public transportation, we commit to a system that we KNOW will cause the deaths of actual people in car accidents. Yet we choose to because it’s convenient to us.”

            OK, I would have thought “most people are reluctant to kill other other people ” would be uncontroversial. Your counter-examples certainly don’t prove otherwise, as they’re mostly statements about governments or companies and their policies, not about the choices of the great majority of individuals. Self-defense and the castle doctrine implicate individual and governmental decisions, but many people are reluctant to kill even in self-defense. I very much doubt the vast majority of people who drive are conscious of guaranteeing death to others, whether they should be or not.

            But enough of that: I think the more important point (and maybe you were moving towards that) is that the reluctance to kill another human being might be morally irrelevant. I would suggest that if it’s wrong more often than not to kill another person, my reluctance to kill, even in contexts when it might be plausibly excused or justified, is morally appropriate. But ignore the intuition completely; however I feel about it, killing other persons is wrong, barring a short list of exceptions. Which leaves us back where we started. If the conceptus is a person, some people will wrestle with the question of whether it should be killed, and again if they choose to elevate it above personal autonomy, we’re faced with a conflict of values. And what if any objective justification those values have is contested and contestable.

            “don’t think that makes your argument, because we unequivocally say, as a society, that you can’t be forced to save a life. We don’t qualify it by saying: “you aren’t forced to donate organs unless the potential recipient can point out that you’re the only one who is available to donate and so his death is guaranteed.”

            OK. When people don’t equate the failure to aid with killing, I think a plausible explanation for their not doing so is that failure to aid is, well, usually not the same thing as, or tantamount to, killing. Most people may not phrase that thought the way I have, but a thought of this kind seems to me nonetheless to be part of ordinary reasoning when distinguishing the two. It’s only when the failure to aid goes into McFall v. Shimp territory that people are likely to say: “You might as well kill him,” or “for all practical purposes you’ve killed him”–things that are rarely if ever said about failure to aid when the consequences of that failure are less drastic.

          • BJ Survivor

            It has already been pointed out to you, more than once, that no one has a right to life that includes commandeering someone else’s body and/or its tissues. Not even blood or bone marrow, the extraction of which are far, far less harmful to the donor than pregnancy and labor. We don’t even compel organ donation from death row inmates or corpses, for that matter, but you and people like you claim it’s perfectly okay to privilege mindless clusters of human tissue over women in a way that no other human being has any sort of right to do.

            Just stop it.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            “you and people like you claim it’s perfectly okay to privilege mindless clusters of human tissue over women in a way that no other human being has any sort of right to do.

            Just stop it.”

            I haven’t said that anywhere. I respond to what you’ve a

          • BJ Survivor

            You keep claiming that the forced-birth position is one that can be arrived at “by a reasonable person.” Your asserting that is, indeed, privileging mindless clusters of human tissue over women in a way no other human being has any sort of right to do.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “So you’re a mind reader. Actually, you’re not. So fuck you. If you
            give me a citation, I’ll happily look it up. Fuck, don’t bother, I’ll
            find it myself. And yes, “Professor Mugwump has a powerful argument here that blows you out of the water,” with nothing more, IS an appeal to authority.”

            You mad, bro? Here, let me google that for you. Look, twat. I routinely post lengthy explanations of Rachels’ piece and other arguments for the pro-choice side. How often do you think I get a legitimate discussion from someone who claims to be pro-life? Pretty much never. Meanwhile threads are clogged with BS like
            your concern-trolling and that shit upthread from the trolls. I spent a good chunk of time a few days ago writing a response to a legal argument for banning abortion and do you think even one pro-life person has bothered to engage with me on it? Absolutely not. Why waste my time on you? When you’re clearly not even debating in good faith?

            “I’m beginning to believe you simply don’t understand the point I’m making”

            Face it dude, your point doesn’t make sense, and you’re not explaining it well. That paragraph beneath this quote barely makes sense.

            “the fact that death is not guaranteed in those situations is not very relevant..” Not very relevant to abortion? Exac
            tly;”

            No. Not relevant to our moral calculation that people are not required to donate their bodies to avoid letting die.

            ” we unequivocally say, as a society, that you can’t be forced to save a life.” Wrong. Some jurisdictions in America and in enlightened places like Western Europe have duty-to-aid statutes. also, the right to abort in America and in several Western European countries can be, and is, limited by law.”

            You know I was talking about forcing people to save a life BY BODILY DONATION outside of the abortion context.. Don’t dance around it.

            “OK, I would have thought “most people are reluctant to kill other other people ” would be uncontroversial. Your counter-examples certainly don’t prove otherwise, as they’re mostly statements about governments orcompanies and their policies, not about the choices of the great majority of individuals.”

            Cute. Nope, if we as a society really cared about reducing death and preserving all human life, we, via corporations or governments (which are made up of people), would make
            these choices. We don’t.

            I agree with you that most people don’t always equate failure to aid with killing. There’s a contiuum of failure to aid that we all may agree is morally acceptable (refusing to donate organs) and some failure to aid we probably don’t (refusing to call 911 if you see a baby trapped in a burning building). But it’s only the intellectually weak people that think there is always a moral difference between direct killing and failing to aid. Which is the point i was making to you when I cited James Rachels. For fucks sake.

            “It’s only when the failure to aid goes into McFall v. Shimp territory that people are likely to say: “You might as well kill him,” or “for all practical purposes you’ve killed him”–things that are rarely if ever said about failure to aid when the consequences of that failure are less drastic.” I agree that, philosophically, people might say you’ve just as killed someone in a McFall v Shimp scenario, but I sure don’t think anyone would the defendant for refusing to donate.

            And, amazingly enough, that’s basically the same scenario we have with abortion.

          • purrtriarchy

            I spent a good chunk of time a few days ago writing a response to a
            legal argument for banning abortion and do you think even one pro-life
            person has bothered to engage with me on it?

            And it was brilliant. It’s always funny when they don’t respond. It was out of their depth, they can only deal with very simplistic ideas. They life in a fantasy world.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Aww, you are sweet. I’m glad it was useful to you and hopefully other pro-choicers, which is important to me. I’ve learned so much from reading the comments (and articles too, of course, but particularly the debates in the comments) on this site for the last decade, I’m glad I can contribute something.

            As for the anti-choicers….. must just be easier to stick their heads in the sand…

          • livingdonor101

            I appreciate your sentiment, but please don’t cloud the water with misinformation about living liver or kidney donors.

            Living donors die ever year in the US within a year of donating. 20% of kidney donors suffer complications, as do 40% of liver donors.

            30% of all living donors experience depression, anxiety, anger, grief and/or PTSD.

            The US has NO comprehensive short or long-term data on living donors’ health or well-being. The OPTN “national” LD database is “useless” for research or analysis (per OPTN’s own data taskforce). Yet US transplant surgeons keep using it in studies to “prove” that living kidney donation is low risk. And the media continues to perpetuate the fraud.

            Your overall point is spot-on, and I agree. But be careful when invoking living organ donation – it is *not* a pint of a blood.

            For more info: http://www.livingdonor101.com

          • lady_black

            I agree, and I never said it was. Good to see you looked past the trees to see the forest. For the same reasons we do not require living donations, we ought not to be requiring pregnancy, which is the donation of basically the entire body of the pregnant woman. I gave the gift of life to three children. It was just that, a gift. Not an obligation.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “we don’t have some magic algorithm that says: the one right (autonomy) must trump the other (life). A rational person person could just as readily say No; i think life trumps autonomy. (This, incidentally, is why, in my view, Judith Jarvis Thompson’s arguments fail.)”
            And yet, our society has decided that autonomy trumps life. Can you explain why you think this rule shouldn’t apply to pregnant people? Can you explain why you are willing to sacrifice a woman’s autonomy for a fetus, but not any other presently existing rights-bearing individual? Or why you are not willing to sacrifice a man’s autonomy for any presently existing rights-bearing individual?

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Please note that what I have consistently argued is not that a being with a right to life (if the unborn critter WERE such a being) should get preference to the personal autonomy of the woman carrying that being, but ONLY that a reasonable person could hold such a view. By all means criticize what I’m saying, but please criticize what I’ve actually said.

            This is why assuming (even just for the purpose of argument) that an embryo has a right to life is, I think, kind of dangerous for the pro-choice position. Rather, I’d recommend steadfastly saying we have NO NEED whatsoever to attribute that (in the last resort arbitrarily determined) status to a zygote or embryo. It does get more troubling as this being comes closer and closer in form to a newborn infant–which I imagine is why so many people are OK with restrictions on late-term abortions. I have to say, however, that I’m inclining more and more to the view that the autonomy rights of the woman, combined (as I’ve said ad nauseam) with the risk that pregnancy poses to her life and health, justifies a right abort THROUGHOUT the pregnancy.

            I’d add something else I’ve said before: people who think that abortion should be unconditionally available before viability and restricted (or even banned) post-viability are saying that the woman’s bodily autonomy isn’t absolute. Well, I would say that, like any right, it was never absolute, but even the fact that there’s now a largely developed fetus may not be sufficient reason to limit the woman’s autonomy in that way.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Please note that what I have consistently argued is not that a being with a right to life (if the unborn critter WERE such a being) should get preference to the personal autonomy of the woman carrying that being, but ONLY that a reasonable person could hold such a view.”

            Same difference. I am asking you WHY you think a reasonable person could hold that view. By saying that a reasonable person could hold that view, you are categorically endorsing it as valid.

            As to the rest of your post, so basically your entire purpose of posting on this blog is to mansplain about how we should argue abortion rights?

            No thanks. I’ll argue it however I want. Of course I don’t think a fetus is a rights-bearing entity. But that doesn’t mean I need to type that argument out every time I’m arguing some other facet of the pro-reproductive rights argument.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            So now “mainsplaining” means pointing out problems with one approach or recommending a course of action. Of course you’ll argue however you want, but if your criterion for dealing with suggestions is sex-based, you’re not in much of a position to criticize my thought processes.

            WHY could a reasonable person hold that view? “Same difference.” As I think I’ve already said, the hypothetical reasonable person would argue as they do because they’re prepared to trump the right of personal autonomy with a person’s right to life. That’s why they could hold that view; giving first place to human in one’s valuations else isn’t irrational.

            And saying so isn’t an endorsement of that view, categorical or otherwise. I’ve indicated more than once that I think differently. Or is the mere attribution of reason to an opponent unacceptable?

          • Unicorn Farm

            “So now “mansplaining” means pointing out problems with one approach or recommending a course of action.”

            Don’t pat yourself on the back so hard your head falls out of your ass. We wouldn’t want that. People are saying that you’re mansplaining because you, a man, are coming in here and telling women how they should argue for their own rights. Think about how patronizing that is.

            ” but if your criterion for dealing with suggestions is sex-based”
            I assure you, it is not. Your poor suggestions are just particularly annoying because you’re a man. They are poor suggestions regardless of your gender. Believe me, few, if any, pro-choicers concede that the zygote is a rights-bearing individual. The pro-choice position as set forth by the major groups certainly do not. None of us on this site do. So who are you yelling at? We’re just called focusing on one part of an argument.

            “As I think I’ve already said, the hypothetical reasonable person would argue as they do because they’re prepared to trump the right of personal autonomy with a person’s right to life.”

            And I’m asking you WHY you think that view is REASONABLE.

            By calling that view REASONABLE, you are endorsing it. That doesn’t mean that you AGREE with it, but you ENDORSE it as acceptable.

            By contrast, I do not agree with it AND I do not endorse it as acceptable. Keep up.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Amanda Marcotte posted her article on a website that allows comments. Presumably, she did so to enable comments, supportive, critical, or otherwise. She seems VERY familiar with the internet.

            I made this comment in response to her posting, and I see no reason to think it was not on point:

            “I think I’d put it differently: anti-abortion folks include “fetus” and “embryo” and even “zygote” in their definition of child or baby–so, for them, a baby’s being slaughtered every time an abortion takes place. But the lines we draw in the ever-changing process we call reproduction are utterly arbitrary. “From this point on, the being in question has rights, but not before” has not been engraved on stone tablets by any deity. There is no objectively correct answer that we might or might not stumble on in the dark. Once you’ve realized that fact, you’ll draw your lines in the way that best fits what you value–and if you value a woman’s autonomy, you won’t be drawing the line at conception.”

            The comment showed I was largely in sympathy with Marcotte’s position, but I thought I’d put things differently (the effrontery!). The sentence that followed was a bit critical of her approach, though not worded explicitly enough: I was taking issue with the “they’re being dishonest when they say these crazy things” argument–because of course they’re often fanatically sincere. After that, and much more explicitly, I said that they (antichoicers) are wrong to say that there is some objectively valid dividing line that they can impose, so that past that line, everything from a blastocyst on up has rights. Given that lack of an objective basis, you can put the dividing line where it suits your values to put it.

            Somewhat surprisingly to me then, my rejection of an objectively valid dividing line stirred up a storm of criticism. (The idea had been suggested to me by P.Z. Myers, someone who presumably knows whereof he speaks (see: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/09/03/anti-choicers-arguing-against-me-in-absentia/).)

            Many people wrote then to express their strong, even vehement, disagreement with my rejection of ANY objective criterion. So I justified my position. I explained my reasons for thinking it was a correct position. Because I do take people’s criticisms seriously, I responded to almost everything said in response to my first post, and in the process elaborated on what I meant. That included making the point more than once that the choice to prefer bodily autonomy to life wasn’t forbidden by any objective criteria either. In the course of defending my position, and myself, I did, more than once, continue to recommend this approach.

            Others, including you, continued to attack it, and me. At this point in the discussion, I’m sorry, but you don’t get to whine at me now for my explanations, most of them in response to your attacks. And a man suggesting a line of argument to women re abortion? If you’re that easily offended, don’t post online.

            As for the “poorness” of the argument: I get that most prochoicers don’t regard an embryo as a person–but I thought, and think, that the “I can kill it, even if it is human” argument (which lots of prochoicers DO assert) is weaker than it’s usually advertised as being–and my opinion here flows in part from my skepticism about objective criteria of delineation between has-rights and doesn’t-have them, and about objective moral values. For those reasons it belongs with the rest of my arguments.

            As for reasonableness, I’ve said ad nauseam that the decision to privilege life over autonomy is not unreasonable (at least not in the sense that any other value judgment is) because human beings normally place a very high value on human life, and there’s no objectively dispositive reason for them not to privilege it above another thing they value. A society could certainly exist, and even thrive, in which blood and bone marrow donations were mandatory. In such a society, your right to withhold aid would be limited in ways we’d find intolerable here. But I’ve yet to hear from you a reason why we’d be objectively right on this issue and that society would be objectively wrong.

            As for “endorse,” as in: I’m endorsing authoritarianism if I say that some authoritarian measures are reasonable. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

            With that, i have to go home. I am grateful that you forced me to think about some of these issues harder than I otherwise might have.

          • purrtriarchy

            AEB: the folks at FTB can be a bit ban happy at times. They got mad at me because I said that when my fingers are frozen I don’t care about any typos I may make. I was accused of being an ableist asshole misogynist rapist. Yes. I am serious. Some of their members are a little…angry. I think it’s simply the effect of group think, and having your own little corner of the internet. It can lead to extremism. I still post there on occasion, but I am very very careful about how I phrase things, because if you’re not the right kind of politically correct they will tell you that you should be violently raped with a porcupine.

            BTW, ever heard of or visited Atheism+?

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            S’OK..

            I haven’t heard of it; I’ll give it a look.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “A society could certainly exist, and even thrive, in which blood and bone marrow donations were mandatory. In such a society, your right to withhold aid would be limited in ways we’d find intolerable here.”

            Sure it could. I once wrote an argument in college that argued, at least fairly successfully, for such a society. But ours doesn’t work that way. And pro-life people seem damn fine with that EXCEPT for when it comes to women. And that’s some sexist bullshit.

            “But I’ve yet to hear from you a reason why we’d be objectively right on this issue and that society would be objectively wrong.”

            I don’t have to prove that society is objectively right on the issue of bodily donation to make the pro-choice point. All I have to show is that OUR society concurs as to this issue. And it does. The onus is on the pro-life position to show why these societal rules- that we NEVER use other people’s bodies without their consent- shouldn’t apply to pregnant women.

            “As for “endorse,” as in: I’m endorsing authoritarianism if I say that some authoritarian measures are reasonable. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

            No. That sentence is not analogous. You said a “reasonable person” could believe that the fetus is entitled to use a person’s body. By saying that it is reasonable, you endorse the position that the fetus could be entitled to use a person’s body as reasonable. Its like this: You’re endorsing authoritarianism if you say that authoritarianism is reasonable. THAT s the equivalent of what I said. My use of the word “endorse” is informed by my legal training. “Reasonable” is a very common standard in the law, and to call an action or a position “reasonable” is, effectively, to endorse or condone it.

            “With that, i have to go home. I am grateful that you forced me to think about some of these issues harder than I otherwise might have.”

            Good. Think a little harder next time. I’m exhausted from a long day of lawyering so the rest of your post is a TL;DR.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            “Good. Think a little harder next time. I’m exhausted from a long day of lawyering so the rest of your post is a TL;DR.”

            Just as well. ;You’re kind of thick.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ah, yes! Ad homs always make you look better. Better luck next time.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Yes, an ad hom makes your points stronger. Better luck next time.

          • BJ Survivor

            Again, give examples of any instance other than pregnancy where “reasonable people” privilege human life over bodily autonomy. Truly, I really want to see this.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Fair enough. I haven’t found any in American law so far.

          • BJ Survivor

            Please, point to any instance other than pregnancy where anyone, anywhere claims it’s okay to trump the right of bodily autonomy and ongoing/prior consent to preserve someone’s life. You can’t, which is why we keep telling you that the forced-birth position is not at all reasonable, but thoroughly discriminatory against female-bodied persons.

          • BJ Survivor

            And I believe fetuses should have the exact same rights as anyone else, which does not include some special right to commandeer the body of another person without that other person’s ongoing consent. The forced-birth position is notnot reasonable. You are trying to lend validity to a misogynistic, discriminatory, male-supremacist view, which is why you are getting such pushback.

          • purrtriarchy

            Zef’s are incomplete and unformed. And yes, the line is arbitrary, because until they can survive as an independent autonomous individual they are nothing more than potential people. They are *under construction*. And yes, a garden slug is a viable autonomous individual, unlike a zef.

            Furthermore, a person on temporary life support has already achieved sentience and sapience. They are temporarily incapacitated. However, they are not mere incomplete potential humans under construction. Saying that a zygote is a person is like saying that the blueprints to a building are already the building.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            And yet we don’t usually assign rights to slugs.

            Since I had no a priori idea of what a “zef” is, I’m inferring that you mean “zygote” and/or “embryo.” For reasons I’ve given above, I wouldn’t grant human rights to either, and I would set any dividing line much closer to a newborn infant—maybe even right down to just before birth–but again people are failing to provide a convincing bright line rule here.

            Those who want to draw the line at conception will use different analogies than your blueprint and building, or define “person” or “human” differently than you, or decide that potentially sapient is good enough. To say they’re wrong in the way that people who deny climate change are wrong strikes me as, well, wrong.

          • purrtriarchy

            I have addressed this in another post, but yeah, they think that zygotes are people because they believe that zygotes have souls. And the secular arguments are really just a reiteration of the belief in a ‘soul’ – the argument that zygotes, because they are human, are therefore persons. Of course, the problem with that, zygotes are single celled organisms, mere genetic blueprints. They essentially use human DNA as their ONLY marker of personhood. Well, if that’s the case, then every cell in your body and certain cancers, beating heart cadavers and babies born without brains are all ‘people’. But, if any of these were actually people, we would never unplug feeding tubes, for example. And we all the time. Because we know that once the upper brain is gone, the cerebral cortex and thalamus, the person is gone.

            But, they say, the zygote will be a person someday! It has the ‘inherent capacity’ for personhood, it just hasn’t expressed it yet. The problem with this line of thinking (other than it’s a secular version of the soul argument) is that potentiality is not actuality. Just because something has the *potential* to develop an ability/traits, does not necessarily mean that it will. For example, we will all be corpses someday, but we don’t start burying one another and taking their stuff because we look at what people *actually are* right now, not ‘what will be’ sometime down the road.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            I agree (of course) that potentiality isn’t the same thing as actuality, and I think that fact is a pretty good counter to the anti-abortion position you’ve described. BUT (as i suggest below) the matter is complicated by our attribution of rights to newborn infants, IF I’m right in thinking that their potentiality to be like us one day is one of the reasons we accord rights to them. So the anti-choicer could say: I’m just applying to zygotes, embryos, fetuses, whatever, a principle already applied to newborns.

            you might then counter that this potentiality principle isn’t a good one as applied to newborns–and that rather we should value newborns solely for what they have in common with us (whatever complement of emotions, awareness, sensations they have). This would, additionally, if we’re to be consistent, be a ground for according rights to other beings that have at least as much mental sophistication as a newborn.

            But again, we’ve made a choice to value certain things that we might as easily not choose to value, and I don’t yet see a definitive resolution of which choices are right or wrong.

          • purrtriarchy

            1) newborns are not infringing on anyone’s bodily autonomy, so it doesn’t matter. Abortion would not exist as a concept if infants were delivered by stork. Also, anti-abortionists make an error in assuming that as soon as we don’t grant something personhood rights, that this automatically means auto-kill, but this isn’t so in practise, since there are plenty of things that we don’t consider to be persons, and we don’t run around killing them willy nilly.

            2) all infants develop at a different pace. Within the first 2 years they start to develop the traits associated with personhood, but everyone develops at a different rate. Therefore, it makes sense to draw an arbitrary line at birth.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            See my argument above re life versus autonomy. Since reasonable persons can differ on which trumps which, let’s not even go there: we don’t attribute human rights to zygotes and embryos, so there’s no need to enter into these Jarvis-Thompsonesque arguments.

          • CJ99

            You’re spurious arguments are based on “reasonable persons” which you are not.

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

            Liar. A legal person is born or a corporation. Words have meaning. You are here with your magic eraser pretending that (zygote, embryo, fetus) have no real meaning. You are stupid.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Of course they have real meaning. But that fact alone doesn’t solve moral controversies about them. Legal meanings, incidentally, being stipulated by this or that law making body, notoriously vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So not the best example to support your case.

          • purrtriarchy

            Human is not synonymous with person, first off. We value humans, apart from ordinary animals, because of our minds, and of certain cognitive skills that we have. Certain animals meet these cognitive skills to varying degrees. Humans are not by nature persons, because there exist humans that are alive, but 1) don’t have minds 2) are mere animals (feral children, having missed out on a very brief window of opportunity, never attain the traits associated with personhood, and merely remain clever animals)

            For hundreds of years people and philosophers have been asking ‘what is a person’. Here is a partial list:

            1 Persons are self-aware.

            2 Persons have Free Will.

            3 Persons can do “time binding“.

            4 Persons are able to understand the concept of “the future“.

            5 Persons are able to manipulate abstractions rationally.

            6 Persons can exhibit conscious creativity.

            7 Persons are able to mentally place themselves into the situations of other entities.

            8 Persons are individuals who transcend their organic individuality in conscious social participation. (Sir Julian Huxley)

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

            You do not get to impose your morals on me. I have my own morals. If you want to talk to me about public health, use the correct terminology.
            You play a fabulous game of “Yes, but …” So boring.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Who’s imposing their morals on you? I’m pointing to what I think is the best way to defend the pro-choice position. You’re welcome to disagree, but my pointing to difficulties in some of the common arguments isn’t an imposition on you.

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

            You continue to insist that I acknowledge the “morality” of those who have no morals I can recognize. Do not bother to make “moral” arguments at me.
            Neither your morals nor fetusfreak morals have anything at all to do with my family, sexual or medical life.
            Your BS is an imposition because I have been debating abortion for years now, I am a domestic violence and reproductive rights advocate, and you act as though no one has heard these arguments before. You are boring. You are priggish. And you are narcissistic. And annoying.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            If you don’t like my arguments, don’t listen to ‘em, don’t read ‘em. Where’s the imposition?

            “you act as though no one has heard these arguments before.”

            How so? Since I didn’t make that clear, I’m not claiming originality.

            As for “fetus freaks”: I think i was kind of admitting that reasonable arguments were unlikely to work with them.

            I’d further agree that a lot of them have a major bad-faith problem, as they seem to be more interested in restricting women’s control over their bodies than in lessening the number of abortions. I don’t assume this is true of all of them, but I still oppose the efforts of even the more sincere among them to lessen women’s autonomy. I’d rather not regard all of them as sick or morally unrecognizable, but if you do, and you’d like to dance on all their graves, I’m not standing in your way.

          • purrtriarchy

            I’ve only ever seen one argument work with a pro lifer, and that was the sentience one. He thought that embryos were conscious and all that. I explained that sentience is not possible until at least 24 weeks, when abortions are generally restricted.

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

            Are you still here? Ewww.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Impervious to argument much?

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

            You are still here. Ewwwwwwww.

          • Arekushieru

            Again, you put the onus on the other person to take responsibility for something you did. NOT a good argument.

          • CJ99

            To put what you’ve been told in words you’ll understand: your being willfully ignorant and insulting the intelligence of everyone. Until you can make a coherent argument shut the hell up. The rest of us have no room for your intellectual deliquency.

          • feloneouscat

            Aaron said:

            I’m pointing to what I think is the best way to defend the pro-choice position.

            Comparing zygotes, embryo’s or fetuses to garden slugs, to me, is an awful defense and unlikely to gain adherents.

            I’m more in the favor that as a sentient being I have the right to make choices over my own body. Seems far more logical and sensible.

          • BJ Survivor

            Thanks for the mansplaining. Your mental masturbations are our actual bodies, our actual lives. Lucky for you that you will never be pregnant. It makes it so easy for you to live in judgment and tell women you don’t even know how much damage they must endure so as not to hurt your little fee-fees.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            Did you read my arguments at all? I’m consistently pro-choice.

          • lady_black

            Yes, a newborn baby is sapient. It already knows the sound of it’s mother’s voice and will quickly learn her smell. A newborn baby doesn’t see as clearly as we do, but demonstrates a preference for faces that are anatomically correct, and will reject those that are scrambled (the features being where they don’t belong). In the first five years of life, more brain development will take place than at any other time in the child’s life, though the brain will not be considered developmentally mature until about age 27. Are babies born with the ability to reason and problem-solve right away? No. That isn’t the same thing as “not sapient.” We humans are unique great apes. Our upright posture presents reproductive challenges. Consequently, our offspring are born relatively undeveloped compared to other primates and mammals. Our offspring are born just developed enough to permit survival, but they start catching on quickly. Evolution has rendered that necessary due to the size of our brains. It’s a delicate balance between development being ” just good enough” and extinction due to the human female being unable to pass offspring through her narrowed pelvic bones (allowing for upright posture), resulting in loss of both fetus and maternal organism. It’s an imperfect process.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            I got my definition of “sapient” from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience#Sapience), and theirs would not, i think, cover newborns. If people differ re the meaning of “sapient,” that seems to me to be another reason for thinking that all of these discussions are as bright-line as a bowl of mush.

            But let’s accept your definition. If we encountered a being that was every bit as sapient (in your sense) as a human infant, but was an adult example of its (non-human) species, we probably would not extend human rights to it. We probably would NOT treat it the same as we treated a newborn human. I’m pretty sure that one of the reasons for our attributing rights to a newborn human is that it may (or if you prefer: it will, barring certain accidents) become one of us. in the absence of that potentiality, it might get get as much consideration from us as a dog or cat or a bonobo–but that likely would be about it.

            As another of you says above, “potentiality is not actuality.” that’s a good response to the anti-abortion crowd, but they CAN point to our treatment of newborns in favor of potentiality being good enough to entitle a being to human rights.

            But somehow, the correct resolution of this controversy is as clear as a cloudless day at noon. So far I’m not convinced

          • purrtriarchy

            Same species prejudice, pure and simple. However, if you ever watch any sci-fi, we clearly believe that minds = personhood, because we accept that intelligent alien beings can be people too, and should not be targeted for genocide/slaughter/enslavement simply because they don’t have human DNA.

            We are also a k-strategy species. K strategy species raise very few offspring, but those offspring are high quality. R strategy species, on the other hand, give birth to thousands, of which only a few will survive. K strategy, in the case of abortion/contraception makes sense if, as in ancient times, infant mortality was incredibly high. But nowadays, with our vast resources, there is absolutely no need to give birth every time one gets pregnant. The earth’s resources are finite, and more people puts a strain on those resources. And life is actually devalued with the more people there are. Look at the nations with the highest populations – the people have virtually no rights, are treated like slaves, and crime rates are outta control. EXCESS human life does not make us value it more, it makes us value it less.

          • Aaron Evan Baker

            I’m describing a common human attitude–I’m agnostic so far about whether we should or shouldn’t have the attitude.

            Whether animals have rights or not seems to be another hotly debated philosophical issue where (again) there may not be a correct answer that defeats all others. I haven’t studied it closely, so if I had a fixed opinion on the subject, it probably wouldn’t be worth much.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, where do you think rights come from? Do you think they’re manufactured out of thin air? No, humans grant rights to other humans. That’s a very arbitrary line from which to determine whether animals should have rights. Forget same-species prejudice. That’s speciesism.

          • lady_black

            We don’t afford human status to non-humans at all. Taking your strict interpretation of sapience, my 40-something brother wouldn’t qualify, as he doesn’t possess “great wisdom.” Neither does any infant. I think of it as more an ability to discern, no matter how slight. And I wouldn’t even argue “sapience” as a qualifier for being a person. That was someone else’s definition and I disagree in part. A person in the late stages of dementia isn’t sapient by your definition, but they are still a person. This is my definition of “person.” A human who has been successfully born and has not yet died is a person. I realize that isn’t much of a qualifier, and tends toward the legalist view. But that’s acceptable because “person” is a legal concept, and that would define a natural person. Therefore, a miscarriage (or if you prefer, spontaneous abortion) is not a person, a stillbirth is not a person (we do not issue them birth certificates, but in some places death certificates will be issued). An infant that is born and dies an hour later or a day later is a person.

          • purrtriarchy

            Did you see what DianaG2 aka the twit said on SPL?

            That it’s impossible to tell if we, here are sentient! Yep, can’t be measured! Fuck is she an ignorant twit. She also keeps repeating that 23 pairs of chromosomes = a person, only that disqualifies those with DS, and includes two species of deer!

            I was gonna bury her under some citations, but my motherboard just died, and I am without my main pc.

          • lady_black

            She’s a nut.

          • fiona64

            Actually, no. The concept of “personhood” is very clear. It is a legal status, not a medical one … and it is conferred with *birth.*

        • Arekushieru

          Legal/medical/non-archaic definitions only please. Makes sense, after all, for a legal/medical/contemporary issue does it not? Thanks in advance.

        • CJ99

          Then my cat is a person too, and he’s still more intelligent than your buffoonery.

          • feloneouscat

            If my cat is a person, does that mean I’m giving drugs (catnip) to a minor? What about neutering against their will? (Well, not that the cats have ever expressed an opinion one way or the other) Or do I get to decide because I can understand the future and they are pretty much sitting in a box and staring at invisible objects?

            Comparing a woman’s decision to that of a cat… a lot to think about /snark

    • purrtriarchy

      And some people believe that not creating as many children as you can is murder, a denial of life.

      • lady_black

        They can bite me.

    • Arekushieru

      Unfortunately for them abortion isn’t slaughter, either.

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

      Arbitrary? There is no such thing as being “a little bit pregnant.”

  • SomeGuyOnTheInternet

    Unless you’re going to engage in a war against the English language, the word child has prenatal application, and it’s often times used for such a purpose.

    • purrtriarchy

      Yeah, and my kitty is my child. Big fucking deal.

      • Ella Warnock

        Crazy cat lady. ;-p

      • lady_black

        I have fur-babies of my own :)

      • expect_resistance

        Me too. And my fur babies are still in an argument. The petit calico is having some displaced aggression from seeing the other cats outside. She has decided she hates our orange boy. We are working on it. She’s so little and so cute and so crabby. Sorry I know I’m off on a tangent. I’m just worried about my kitties,

        • lady_black

          It’s not just your little calico. Ask any cat breeder about “tortie-tude.” It’s a real thing. Every tortie I’ve ever had has it.

          • expect_resistance

            I’ve heard of that. Our last calico was very lovey. She was really affectionate and she loved her white spotted tabby. The were inseparable and he died at 22 years old, five months after she passed.

          • Unicorn Farm

            This makes me smile :) My very close family friends/second family have a calico who is the biggest diva. She’s so cute, and her ‘tude is just over the top. It cracks me up. Her majesty, is right!

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

          We have a tortie feral cat who comes around to get fed sometimes. We call her Patches. She has beautiful kittens, litter after litter. She is so tiny she looks like a kitten herself. Talk about attitude. We love her. She will occasionally come inside our house. She will not let us touch her.

          • lady_black

            My present tortie scolds me with loud chattering every time I do something her majesty does not find amusing. Like chasing her off the dinner table.

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

            i can just hear it. I love cats.

      • SomeGuyOnTheInternet

        I see. So instead of responding to the point made, you instead resort to snark? Unsurprising, really, as that is typically how someone without a counter argument responds.

        It bears repeating that child has prenatal application, and has come to refer to both the born and unborn. Look up child in the dictionary; the majority of dictionaries acknowledge its prenatal application (the same goes for “baby”). The idiom “with child”, for example, is a historically common way to denote pregnancy. To ignore this fact is to ignore reality. To argue otherwise is to not only argue against the English language, but to engage in purposeful obtusity.

        But don’t let me stop your fun. Have at it.

        • purrtriarchy

          Its not snark. People can, and do, refer to anything they want to as a child.

          Its subjective. And argument by dictionary is not an argument.

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

          I replied. You ignored me. There is no child until I make it out of my blood, flesh and pain. I will decide when and if I make a child. YOU will not decide for me. The state will not decide for me.

          You are an anus. Get lost, pervert.

          • SomeGuyOnTheInternet

            But this argument is, on its face, wrong. You cannot decide what a child is and when a child, is a child. Even the law, which most pro-choicers use to rationalize abortion, will at some point restrict you from having an abortion *regardless* of what you think.

            Anyway, your reply is indicative as to why the response to the posted abortion video had been overwhelmingly negative. Just because you believe X, doesn’t mean X is true. You can go on and on and on about what the unborn aren’t, but if the majority disagrees with you then what? Either you’re wrong, or everyone else is.

            …By the way, nice insult. What are you? 12?

          • purrtriarchy

            Persons have minds and are born. Unborn humans do not. They do not qualify as persons.

          • SomeGuyOnTheInternet

            There are simply too many responses for me to reply to each and every one, so I’ll try to consolidate everything here and to make it as brief as possible.

            We aren’t talking slang. We’re talking about readily accepted denotations of the words “child/baby” as they pertain to a young human. Solely because you reject those denotations, does not make them invalid. In fact, if the majority holds that the aforementioned words pertain to the unborn, then the only “fantasists” are the individuals who argue that they do not, as they are restricting words to mean and reference only what they want them to mean and reference in an attempt position more palpable.

            And at the end of the day, this is what it boils down to. You can stamp your foot, claim otherwise (with a position that is scientifically inaccurate, mind you) and scream that everyone who disagrees with your assertion is a “pervert” or whatever other insult you want to heave, but it does not change the meaning of the words, nor does it change the fact that “child/baby” ARE readily applied to zygotes, embryos, fetuses and neonates. I’m sure everyone who is 100% honest has heard a pregnant woman, an expectant father, a grandmother, etc., use the words “child/baby” in reference to the unborn, and use it in a way equivalent to how they would speak of a newborn. You cannot pick and choose which definitions you “like” based on self-serving criteria, ignore the rest and then call everyone who disagrees with your arbitrary restrictions wrong. That doesn’t make any sense.

            Now you are free to continue the rationalizations, coming up with absurd reasons as to why you believe that you are “right” contrary to common vernacular, but that’s all they are.

            There really isn’t much more to be said here.

          • Arekushieru

            Common vernacular. Exactly. That’s WHY a fetus isn’t a baby. And it’s laughable that you haven’t figured this out. After all, YOU are the one who said words have meaning. And a meaning isn’t determined by ‘common vernacular’. Otherwise, AS we said above, our ADULT fur-children are babies, then. Babies is a SLANG term for a development stage of a human fetus outside of the uterus. AW.

          • purrtriarchy

            Dictionaries only record common use age, they do not reflect scientific or medical fact.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Pathetic. You come on here and post this whining, irrelevant nonsense about the use of the word “baby” and don’t respond to a single substantive post. You’re the one who came in here squalling about how “words mean things!1″ and yet, when someone gives you a substantive response about the interpretation of the English language, you ignore it.
            Even if people do use the word baby, so f*ing what?

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

            I get to decide what is wrong/right in my life. I have total control of what goes into or out of my body. You have no standing of any kind to comment on or interfere in my sexual/family life.

            This woman was not prosecuted. Sane people know why. You are not sane. You are a fetusfreak.
            http://voices.yahoo.com/pregnant-woman-shot-herself-stomach-killed-99607.html

            You are also an anus. And unfortunately, you are still here.

          • Arekushieru

            Actually, maybe you should stop your patronizing bullshit and realize that we are not here to explain and/or teach every little thing that every anti-choicer who crosses our paths decides to nitpick about. Maybe we’ve gotten tired of regurgitating the same old shit over and over. Telling us how to respond is just another form of tone-policing, btw.

            Also, in Canada, the law doesn’t restrict women from having an abortion in any way.

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

            Politicians in Canada would not even dare and do not dare to campaign on criminalizing abortion. When Canadians say “constitutional right,” they mean it.

          • Arekushieru

            No, but three recent events have demonstrated how much we need a Pro-Choice law that protects women. The closure of the only (unfunded) abortion clinic in New Brunswick that served women from both NB and PEI (since it has no clinic or hospitals that perform abortions, there), And Justin Trudeau’s transformation of the Liberal party into one with a strictly Pro-Choice platform and Niki Ashton’s (I LOVE this woman), of the NDP, private member’s motion to enshrine a woman’s right to choose into law (both situations have, respectively, led anti-choicers to claim that the debate is settled or that it ISN’T settled, as if a woman’s right to choose was more something to be fought and won by politicians or public sentiment, rather than a woman’s due, as a matter of course).

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

            Thank you for the information.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “You cannot decide what a child is and when a child, is a child.”

            Why not?

            “You can go on and on and on about what the unborn aren’t, but if the majority disagrees with you then what?”

            Then I will still have the right to have an abortion, because the right to an abortion is not contingent on what the unborn “is”. People might think I’m mean and nasty and a bad person for having one, but what do I care?

        • Jennifer Starr

          It bears repeating that child has prenatal application, and has come to refer to both the born and unborn.

          So I take it that this is your ‘pro-life’ argument–what the dictionary says? Because it’s not a very strong argument.

          • SomeGuyOnTheInternet

            It’s interesting to me that Amanda can write:

            “Just because you can label whatever you want a “child” doesn’t magically make it so. That’s why they are fantasists. They see babies where common sense demonstrates that there are not babies.”

            But when I point out that the English language proves this assertion wrong, and that both the words “child” and “baby” have prenatal application (and, indeed, are used commonly every day to reference the unborn), then somehow that’s a problem, never mind the original assertion. From what I gather, arguing against the English language = good. Pointing out that someone is arguing against the English language = bad.

            What a topsy turvy place, this is.

            As it stands, pointing out that both “child” and “baby” do pertain to the unborn does not make one a “fantasist”; it means that one realizes that words have meanings.

          • purrtriarchy

            And its SUBJECTIVE. And pro life dumbasses such as yourself want to force your subjective valuation on the rest of the world.

          • SomeGuyOnTheInternet

            What if I didn’t value you as a human and wanted to kill you (I don’t)? Should I be allowed to? That’s a rhetorical question, obviously, as you would argue no, even though that would require “forcing” a valuation on me that I don’t necessarily agree with.

            I do not know of any society in which one’s “subjective valuation” is not imposed on another. Do you?

          • Jennifer Starr

            What if I didn’t value you as a human and wanted to kill you (I don’t)? Should I be allowed to?

            The day that one of us is actually physically inside your body and having an effect on your life and health, that might be a valid question. The uterus is more than just a location.

          • purrtriarchy

            Persons have rights based on ability to participate in the social contract and the existence of objective traits associated with persons.

            Unborn mindless partially formed tissue does not qualify.

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

            There are situations in which killing/causing a death is neither immoral nor illegal: assisted suicide, defense of self or others, war, police work, abortion etc.
            You are stupid and you want us to join you in your stupidity. When sexpigs like you fly.

          • Arekushieru

            The only subjective valuation that would allow you to kill someone else without having another subjective valuation imposed on you, is in your own head. AS we’ve already told you, arguing whether or not a fetus is a child has NO BEARING on the OBJECTIVE valuation that a fetus infringes on a woman’s rights during pregnancy.

          • lady_black

            You are using the words human and person as though they are interchangeable. They aren’t. Your appendix is human. It’s not a person. “Human” is a scientific classification. “Person” is a philosophical/legal construct, and in law might not refer to a human being at all. In law, human beings are “natural persons” but corporations are also (fictitious) persons. Human ZEFs are human. They are alive. They are not “persons.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            And it’s still a weak ‘pro-life’ argument.

          • purrtriarchy

            Dictionary definitions reflect common use age dumbass. They don’t actually convey factual information. And useage changes over time.

          • Arekushieru

            Common usage is… subjective. Legal/medical/non-archaic definitions are… objective. Thanks for playing!

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

            Yep. My dog’s name is Baby. I call my car “my baby.”

          • Unicorn Farm

            “But when I point out that the English language proves this assertion wrong, and that both the words “child” and “baby” have prenatal application. . . ”
            The “fact” that both words “have prenatal application” still doesn’t prove your point that it is reasonable to think of a six week old embryo as the physical or moral equivalent of a new born baby or even a 26 week old fetus.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “As it stands, pointing out that both “child” and “baby” do pertain to the unborn does not make one a “fantasist”; it means that one realizes that words have meanings.”

            In the law, we follow certain principles of statutory construction. One of these is that, when you are interpreting an ambiguous piece of writing, you avoid defining a word such that that definition of the word renders any other word in the text meaningless. You must give effect to each term.

            In my view (legally and otherwise), using the words “fetus” and “baby” interchangeably renders the word fetus meaningless, and so this use fails this canon of interpretation.

            Using the word baby to mean fetus decreases the meaning and value of the word fetus. If the word fetus is to have any meaning, it must not equal “child” or “baby”. After all, like you said, one ought to realize that words have meanings. So yeah, call it a baby all you want. Call it a watermelon, I don’t care. But you know fetus is the most precise word and connotes very important characteristics that don’t apply to “babies”.

          • BJ Survivor

            Except that I know with 99% certainty that you don’t even believe your own bullshit. No forced-birther does. Want to know how I know this? It’s because there is not a single, solitary one of you who holds funerals for their/their partner’s used feminine hygiene products. If you are sexually active, then there could very well be a microscopic baby, a microscopic person, on those tampons and maxi pads, so it would stand to reason that funerals should be held for them. After all, we provide funerals even for indigent persons in the real world.

        • CJ99

          When you play the part of the ‘net tard you will be treated as such. Don’t like it? then get stuffed.

        • Arekushieru

          Again, legal/medical/non-archaic definitions, please. Thanks in advance.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Do you have a point?

      • CJ99

        Like the rest of the religious reich his point is under his hat.

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

      There is no child until I make it. Please point to the child in the video. Which frame is it in?

    • Shan

      “the word child has prenatal application, and it’s often times used for such a purpose.”

      So it does and so it is as far as just about every woman who has ever been pregnant on purpose, who would agree that they were carrying a child from the moment they learned they were pregnant because they intended to MAKE a child. But if they’d, say, applied to the IRS for a tax exemption that year and had a miscarriage or stillbirth instead of a live child, they would have flat been turned down because, you know what? Not a child under the law. And women don’t DO that because they already know that most pregnancies don’t produce an actual child.

      There has to be an objective standard. The dictionary is not that. Your opinion is not that. Because the English language is a creative, subjective thing open to interpretation. But biology is not. A fertilized egg is not an embryo, fetus or child any more than it is a neonate, toddler, teenager or geriatric.

    • CJ99

      Children are born. there were no born children killed in that video so if yiour gonna keep bitching about “war against the english language” then learn it first or shut the hell up.

  • PictishMonster

    A woman with a wanted pregnancy is a mother-to-be. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy has a treatable medical condition.

  • 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

      That proves nothing. You are an idiot conspiracy theorist.

      • Frances Shannon

        You’re a fool.

        • purrtriarchy

          Youre the fool with your idiot conspiracy theory.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She believes in the whole knock-out game myth–she’s already gullible.

          • Frances Shannon

            This isn’t rocket science. The contest was announced on Twitter in early October she had her abortion in the middle of November and was only two-and-a-half weeks pregnant at time. The abortion-rights group that sponsored the contest is one of her followers. What’s more RH Reality Check must have known about the contest too considering they follow that same group as well.

          • feloneouscat

            This isn’t rocket science. The contest was announced on Twitter in early October she had her abortion in the middle of November and was only two-and-a-half weeks pregnant at time.

            Which means nothing.

            Let me explain science to someone who doesn’t apparently understand it: correlation is not causation. Because it happened around the same time does not prove that it was “caused” by the contest.

            I could say that it was the fact that she was impregnated by an alien and my proof would be just as valid.

            Without proof you are blowing hot air.

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

          Twatwaffle. Eat shit and die.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Is there a reason why you’re spamming this nonsense?

      • Frances Shannon

        You’d have to be a complete schmuck to believe otherwise.

        • purrtriarchy

          You assume that its possible for a woman to get pregnant on cue. Youre an ignorant fuckwit.

        • Jennifer Starr

          That there was a contest isn’t exactly breaking news–we already knew about it. But claiming that she got pregnant on purpose to enter is very far-fetched. But apparently you’re going to choose to believe it because it reinforces your existing prejudices about her reproductive decisions. I don’t think I’m the one who’s the schmuck here.

          • Frances Shannon

            Don’t be such a gull. That’s exactly what she did.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And you know this how? Because you know this woman and you’ve talked to her? Actually, I think it’s hilarious how you latched onto the contest like it was some big shocking piece of news that you imagined we didn’t know. May I suggest that you never go into detective work?

          • Frances Shannon

            So you approve of a woman deliberately creating a human being with the sole purpose of destroying him or her? How nice.

          • purrtriarchy

            Embryos aren’t people.

          • Frances Shannon

            Neither is Emily in my book.

          • purrtriarchy

            Well at least she isn’t a paranoid dipshit like you.

          • Frances Shannon

            And she’s not a simp like you either.

          • purrtriarchy

            You know it’s hard out here for a simp

            When he tryin’ to get this money for the rent

            For the Cadillacs and gas money spent

            Because a whole lot of twits talkin’ shit

          • Arekushieru

            Wow, an anti speaks truth about what she thinks about (other) women!

          • Jennifer Starr

            You still haven’t shown any proof. You’re copying and pasting groundless speculation and rumors with no evidence. Just because you think that something is true doesn’t make it so.

          • Frances Shannon

            How have I not proved it? Does Emily have to tell you herself? Somehow, I believe under pressure (even from the pro-choice side), in the next couple of weeks she’ll do just that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’ve proved nothing. Unless you personally know this woman, all you have is speculation. I know you think you’ve laid out a neat little detective case, but you’re not a good detective at all.

          • BJ Survivor

            Please show me the human being, other than Miss Letts, in that video.

        • Jennifer Starr

          And you have absolutely no proof that she did that.

          • Frances Shannon

            This isn’t rocket science. The contest was announced on Twitter in early October she had her abortion in the middle of November and was only two-and-a-half weeks pregnant at time. The abortion-rights group that sponsored the contest is one of her followers. What’s more Reality Check must have known about the contest too considering they follow that same group as well.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sorry, that’s not any kind of proof. As someone else has already pointed out, it’s not usually possible to get pregnant on cue. You’re going to believe what you like, obviously, but you don’t have much of a case.

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

          You did not answer my question. Are you for compelling an evil woman like Ms. Letts to give birth by law?

        • Bonzai

          The average woman in her 20′s has only a 15-25% chance of getting pregnant in any given month. That means the odds of getting pregnant at all are pretty small. And you think she took that small chance just to win a ridiculous contest? You actually think anyone would deliberately get pregnant and deal with all the crap you have to deal with in early pregnancy, not to mention everything you have to deal with to get an abortion, plus all the crap she was bound to get from idiots, for a CONTEST?? Unless this contest had a reward of hundreds of thousands of dollars and she had somehow found out that if she filmed an abortion she was guaranteed to win, you have completely lost touch with reality.

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

      Or it was real and she is a genuine as she seems. I vote for that.

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

      5×5 is this you?

      • Jennifer Starr

        I think it’s a fake facebook page, so it’s possible.

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

          Looked at its comments. It is a racist too. Charming.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yep. Very racist. But it thinks, ‘ooh Seattle, Frances Fisher, Nirvana…ooh I’m so edgy and hip.’. Gag.

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

            Racist, sexist and a liar. The Fetus Freak trifecta.

          • Frances Shannon

            Resorting to personal attacks? Grow up.
            This isn’t rocket science. The contest was announced on Twitter in early October she had her abortion in the middle of November and was only two-and-a-half weeks pregnant at time. The abortion-rights group that sponsored the contest is one of her followers. What’s more RH Reality Check must have known about the contest too considering they follow that same group as well.

          • lady_black

            Actually she was six weeks pregnant. Next!

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

            … which equals the time frame most women get abortions. 1/3 of abortions by 6 weeks and 89% by 12 weeks.

          • Frances Shannon

            In the Cosmo article she was featured in she said she had her abortion “very early in the pregnancy, only two to three weeks.” She also said “I found out I was pregnant in November,” (she doesn’t specify the date). Even if it was early in the month when she discovered she was pregnant (it could very well have been later), it would be days or even weeks later before she had her procedure and that would mean she conceived four or five weeks before. That’s still after the contest had been announced. What’s more, the first tweet appears promoting the competition in early October, it could very well have been announced by other means before that.

          • lady_black

            Um NO. There is no flashing light on women that goes off when we conceive. In fact nothing happens at all until successful implantation. When she says “2-3 weeks” she means since the detection of a pregnancy becomes possible. Abortions are not done at 2-3 weeks (which is about the time her period would be due). Minimum time is six weeks.

          • Frances Shannon

            Read the article. Yes, that procedure is usually performed later in pregnancy, but Emily said she wanted to have the procedure done to show surgical abortion in a positive way.

            “I could have taken the pill, but I wanted to do the one that women were most afraid of. I wanted to show it wasn’t scary — and that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story. It’s my story.”

          • lady_black

            No doctor does abortion at the time the period is due. That would be more on the order of a menstrual extraction, which may or may not include an embryo.

          • Frances Shannon

            Well, ask Emily about it. It’s also possible her PR stunt was faked.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You got that from Lie Action News, didn’t you?

          • Frances Shannon

            Look, the contest announcement as well as the post declaring Emily as the winner are still up on the web. It’s not as if these things didn’t happen. Emily either got pregnant only to have her abortion or faked all of it—it’s that simple.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, it really isn’t. You have neither proof nor evidence. Simply repeating the same schlock that you repeated before and screeching “It is too a fact!” isn’t going to make it so.

          • Shan

            So?

          • Shan

            “Minimum time is six weeks.”

            I had no idea. For a surgical or medical? Or are they both the same?

          • lady_black

            Six weeks (or four weeks post conception, or if you prefer, two weeks past the overdue period) for a surgical abortion. We were discussing the use of misoprostal to jump-start the period in another thread. At present that isn’t an approved use for the drug, but maybe it should be. Removing the uterine contents at the time the period is due is menstrual extraction (and may or may not include an embryo). At this point, pregnancy is not always diagnosable. And then again, most providers will want to rule out an ectopic pregnancy which will have different implications for treatment.

          • Shan

            I can’t believe I didn’t know that. It makes the mandatory waiting periods even more obscene than they already were.

          • lady_black

            Well, you know… our brains just don’t work on weekends and holidays. Only business days.

          • Shan

            That should make me laugh but my flabber is still too gasted by trying to get my brain around the fact that women ALREADY have to wait at least two weeks until it’s *physically possible* to have an abortion and legislative assclowns all over the country are making them wait even LONGER.

          • lady_black

            I’m not sure what the rationale behind that is. I’ll need to look into it. It may be as simple as a doctor wanting to do his own pregnancy test (and not just take your word for it), and then get the results, arrange an ultrasound, get those results and schedule the abortion. Because, liability. It’s definitely not all doable on the same day. The woman who wants the abortion isn’t the doctor’s only patient or even his/her highest priority, only one of many. That’s the case for any elective surgery, not just abortion. You won’t discover a problem one day and be whisked into surgery the next day. That’s a good reason for women taking their reproduction into their own hands as they did when menstrual extraction/regulation became a thing.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sorry, but just copying and pasting the same groundless rubbish that you copied and pasted three times before isn’t going to be any more convincing. You have no proof, just speculation.

          • 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?

          • Frances Shannon

            Accidentally getting pregnant and having an abortion is one thing. Purposely creating a human being only for the purpose of destroying him or her is a whole other ball of wax.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And you still have absolutely no proof that she did that. All you have is conjecture, and it’s not even based on sound facts.

          • Frances Shannon

            Oh c’mon. Wake up.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Sorry, but you haven’t shown anything that’s even approaching a fact.

          • Frances Shannon

            I hope you’re never asked to serve jury. You’d be the same sort of juror that let OJ Simpson off the hook.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And I hope you don’t think that anything you’ve presented is anything close to actual hard evidence. I know you think you’re awfully clever, but you’re not. You don’t even have circumstantial evidence.

          • lady_black

            And I certainly hope if I’m ever on trial, you aren’t serving on my jury. You’re an idiot who would buy the argument “Well, the police arrested her, so she must have done something wrong.” The jury in the OJ case was presented with scientific evidence. You have none, and what you’re saying actually defies science, as well as logic. Women do not possess the ability to get pregnant on cue within a window of hours. Now, move on.

          • Frances Shannon

            What? You mean like climate change? You gonna deny that as well?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think grunge rock has addled your brain, Frances. Because climate change has been studied scientifically, unlike your rumors.

          • Frances Shannon

            Actually, that was pretty funny.

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

            You did not answer my question. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Ms. Letts did exactly that. Do you believe that such a person should be compelled by law to give birth?

          • Frances Shannon

            Hmm… what to do? Well, I know indulging her in her 15 minutes of fame isn’t one of them. You and RH Reality Check should at least be condemning her for her stunt.

          • Jennifer Starr

            For what stunt?

          • Frances Shannon

            I’m sorry you don’t get it, but that doesn’t mean that’s exactly what happened.

          • Jennifer Starr

            For what stunt?

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

            Prove it. We are waiting for you to prove it. We are wanting you to prove it. We are willing for you to prove it.

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

            Nope. The administrator of the Cherry Hill clinic came here and made a comment on the video. We know it is genuine. She signed her real name and everything.

            In any event, let us assume for the sake of argument that Ms. Letts did exactly what you say she did. Do you believe that such a person should be compelled by law to give birth?

          • Frances Shannon

            What does that prove?

          • Jennifer Starr

            More than what you’ve ‘proven’, that’s for sure.

          • Frances Shannon

            Ok. Enlighten me.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Everyone here already has. Unless you know Emily Letts personally and have first hand knowledge of this, everything you’re stating is just speculation and rumors. It’s just as groundless as the anti-choice speculation that Savita’s miscarriage was the result of a DIY sex-selection abortion. But still, anti-choicers love lies and half-truths.

          • Frances Shannon

            Ok. But the comment made by the Cherry Hill clinic administrator doesn’t mean anything.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It means more than what you have. Because she actually knows Emily.

          • Frances Shannon

            It was nice debating you guys. I gotta get some work done. However, I do wonder if Ms. Letts will reveal what she did in the next couple of weeks once more of the media have reported on the contest. Take care.

          • Jennifer Starr

            This hasn’t been a debate. This has been you stamping your feet and going “I am so right! You take that back!” over and over without any concrete proof or evidence.

          • Frances Shannon

            Sigh.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Precisely what all of us are doing right now.

          • Frances Shannon

            Good. Get some oxygen into those brains of yours and maybe your critical-thinking skills will get better.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m sorry, you haven’t demonstrated any critical thinking skills and you don’t have facts or a plausible case.

          • Frances Shannon

            Oh gawd. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel smarter.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And still no plausible case, facts or evidence. Something isn’t a fact just because you keep saying that it is. If you have first-hand concrete proof or know Emily personally, tell us. Otherwise, this is just speculation and it’s getting repetitive and pointless.

          • Frances Shannon

            Look, you all can bury your heads in your vageens all you like. But the fact remains, Emily got pregnant, filmed her abortion and entered it in a contest promoting abortion that had been announced weeks prior to when she conceived.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes,she got pregnant, yes she filmed an abortion. What you can’t prove is that she did so deliberately with intent to enter a contest. We’ve already told you that women can’t get pregnant on cue, and Lady_Black, who is a nurse, has explained the time frame to you. This is just spreading groundless lies and speculation, and it is libelous.

          • Frances Shannon

            No, I can’t prove that was her motive. But the contest was announced before she conceived—that’s damning enough.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, it really isn’t. That’s about the flimsiest ‘evidence’ I’ve ever heard. You’re just spreading lies and rumors about a woman you don’t even know because you don’t approve of her reproductive choices.

          • purrtriarchy

            Jennifer, I think it’s time you started citing Bob Dylan

          • Jennifer Starr

            And once again, women can’t get pregnant on cue. It doesn’t work that way.

          • Shan

            So what if she did? Why do you have so much invested in pushing that theory?

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

            Like I said, you are not a woman.

          • lady_black

            That’s what’s so galling to me about this poster. Her vision of women as evil, and it’s the same mean spirit that goes into libeling a dead woman who was sacrificed on the altar of their fetal idolatry. It’s one thing for men to be that ignorant. Quislings that don’t support other women, I have no time for. I would gladly cut their lying tongues out and tack them on a wall as an example to all who maliciously bear false witness. That’s probably the most evil thing a person can do to another person.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Exactly. Bearing false witness is precisely what she’s doing, and it’s horrible.

          • lady_black

            A thief can take only material goods. He who steals another’s good name steals everything.

          • Frances Shannon

            You’re right, I’ve been so wrong. Let’s all braid our hair and listen to some Indigo Girls.

          • Jennifer Starr

            My hair is short, and right now I’m watching Scarecrow and Mrs. King. And no, I’ve never listened to the Indigo Girls, but I can find some Stone Roses or Madness somewhere. None of this negates the fact that you’re still spreading lies.

          • Frances Shannon

            Scarecrow and Mrs. King! Oh, I loved that show! Gotta go, but peace, Jennifer.

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

            You are a liar, a gossip and a slanderer. No peace for you. You need old timey justice. A hot poker on your tongue (fingers?) I want to be the person with the poker.

          • Frances Shannon

            “…woman who was sacrificed on the altar of their fetal idolatry.” Oh gawd. This sounds like something right out of my 90s women’s-studies class.

          • lady_black

            That’s a very apt description of what was done to Savita Halappanavar.

          • Ella Warnock

            Huh-UH! It was just medical malpractice! It had nothing to do with the doomed fetus having a ‘heartbeat.’ Nothing!

          • lady_black

            Damned right it was malpractice. And it had everything to do with fetal idolatry.

          • Ella Warnock

            Yeah, expecting medical personnel to save a miscarrying woman’s life is so 1990′s. Phew, I’m glad we’re over all THAT now.

          • BJ Survivor

            And if those women are so evil, why on earth would anyone want them to be responsible for an actual child?! The “logic” of that just boggles the compassionate mind.

          • lady_black

            As I’ve already explained to you, the timing just doesn’t point to deliberate abortion to win a contest, much less deliberate conception and abortion to win a contest. Here’s what it looks like to someone with medical knowledge. She discovered she was pregnant and had an abortion about two weeks later. Coincidentally, a contest was being run, not for a video of an abortion, but for a video to debunk the whole “abortion is a scary, dangerous thing” meme that anti-choicer like to kick around. I saw all the videos that won awards. Personally, I wouldn’t have selected hers. I would have selected the one depicting multiple women for whom having an abortion was simply one decision made in a lifetime of other decisions. The wrong video went viral, IMHO. Of course, the reason is because anti-choicers don’t like having to admit that many women have abortions (the reason doesn’t matter) and go on to further achievement, future marriage and children, further education, etc.

          • Frances Shannon

            But the fact remains she DID get pregnant after the announcement had been made. Maybe the timing is miraculous—I dunno—but it happened. There’s no way I could prove she intended to get pregnant to make her video, but the order in which it happened is damning enough.

            I know I’m not going to convince the diehard-pro-aborts on this site and really, it doesn’t matter. You guys are out of touch with most of the pro-choice community who’ve been leaving nasty comments here as well.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well, you could always try peddling it at Jill Stanek’s site or Lie Action ‘News’, which is run by Liar Rose–they eat up half-baked conspiracy theories and unfounded gossip with a spoon. About half of them are even birthers.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, how does that prove we’re out of touch? It just proves that the Pro-Choice community doesn’t always agree amongst themselves. Hrm. We are not pro-aborts. And the order in which something happens is not proof of anything, never has been considered proof of anything, only the circumstances under which the order happened. Oops.

          • feloneouscat

            But the fact remains she DID get pregnant after the announcement had been made.

            So far, that is the only mushy fact you have.

            The rest is pure speculation – and not even good speculation at that.

            I could argue, with just as much evidence (none) that the abortion occurred because it was determined that she had been inseminated with alien sperm.

            And my evidence for that is just as strong as your evidence that she did it for a contest!

            In other words, zero evidence. Zero fact.

            There’s no way I could prove she intended to get pregnant to make her video, but the order in which it happened is damning enough.

            Correlation does not imply causation. If your cat had kittens in the oven, by your logic, the oven had something to do with the pregnancy. That is how fact-less your argument is.

            You guys are out of touch with most of the pro-choice community who’ve been leaving nasty comments here as well.

            Again, this is a fail.

            Pro-choice means exactly that: it is a woman’s choice to choose – not you, not me, not the nice neighbors down the street – it is a personal choice. No one else gets to make it.

            What Letts did was her choice.

            You making things up without facts isn’t an argument.

            It is speculation. But nothing more.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “There’s no way I could prove she intended to get pregnant to make her video”
            So then shut the f*** up about it.
            “but the order in which it happened is damning enough.”
            As everyone else has been patiently pointing out to you, its called a coincidence.
            Did it ever occur to you that, pretty much ANY woman who submitted a video of an early abortion to this contest would have had to get pregnant around the time it was announced? Oh, what a scandal!!!
            “pro-aborts.”
            Lol.

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

            It proves you are full of bovine excrement.

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

            Boy, you are stupid and dense. Are you trolling? Or do you get up this wifty every morning?

          • Jennifer Starr

            She gets up that wifty every morning.

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

            I think that is an inescapable conclusion.

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

            Why should I condemn her? I admire her for her courage. You have not yet proved it is a stunt. You have not yet stated whether you think Ms. Letts should have been compelled to give birth.

          • goatini

            Oh, too bad for you that patriotic American reproductive justice freedom fighters aren’t stupid sheep who will believe any BS you throw their way, just because your fellow radical theocratic misogynistic forced-birthers are.

          • cjvg

            No human being was create, at the very very best she initiated a potential. Are you aware that a full term pregnancy takes 40 weeks?

            Why do you think it takes 280 days to form a sentient human out of two cells that you can not even see without a microscope?! Two cells that combine do not a human make, that takes an enormous amount of time and fast amounts of resources that are all provided by the mothers body.

            Dishonest and patently absurd assertions that are not supported by any real fact or science do not make your arguments look any better or even remotely sane

          • purrtriarchy

            An idiot at SPL was telling me that since zygotes have the ability to develop into sentient beings that they are already sentient. And that they are merely “undeveloped” sentient/sapient beings.

            They think that potential is actual. And they won’t stfu about how coma patients are just as non sentient as zef’s! Yes. Just the same! The coma patient has to recover and the zygote has to develop. No different really!!

          • Frances Shannon

            Of course a human being is created at conception. Look in any medical textbook and read just that. I don’t think NARAL would even argue that. Hello, NARAL are you there? Please answer.

          • purrtriarchy

            A human organism is created at conception. Not a human being. Human being is a synonym for person. And zygotes are not people, they are merely DNA.

          • cjvg

            Seriously you actually believe that a human being consist out of only two cells? You are beyond delusional.

            There is a reason all the developmental stages of the potential life have their own specific name, this is because those stages clearly miss several things that are present (and need to be, for a fetus to become) in living breathing sentient and sapient human beings!

          • ChrisFFs

            Infant, toddler, adolescent, adult……hey, hey different names.

            They must not be humans.

            And BTW, a :”fetus” (one of those non-humans you were talking about) at about 21 weeks is capable of being a “living breathing sentient and sapient human beings” Which is why abortion should be banned after 21 weeks.

          • cjvg

            Infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, all born humans, not potential humans! I’m so sorry that you never reach the level of mental development that allows you to understand reality and facts.
            A 21 week fetus does not have a fully developed cerebral cortex as such there is no sentience present. The cerebral cortex is only fully functional and developed after 26-30 weeks gestation, at that point no legal abortion can be obtained unless the life of the mother is endangered or the fetus is severely impaired.
            Before 26-30 weeks gestation a fetus has the same status as a beating hearth cadaver. It is well established in the law and in the medical community that life support for these can be discontinued at the behest of the nearest relative or if the former patient left an advanced directive to that effect

          • ChrisFFs

            “A 21 week fetus does not have a fully developed cerebral cortex as such there is no sentience present.”

            Ha….wrong.

            The brain continues developing until a person is like 20 years old. Do you not consider them humans or sentient, you dumbass?

          • cjvg

            Ah, i’m so sorry that you had to prove me right on the very limited education and mental capacity you have.
            However, sentience is housed in the cerebral cortex, no such structure in place and functional = no sentience
            That brain development is ongoing until the age of 20 does not in any way precluded that at certain fetal stages the brain is not complete, in fact that actually supports it.
            The reason viability is at 24 weeks is that pretty much the structure of the cortex is almost complete and so are all major organs need for life. At 24 weeks there are intermittent bursts of activity in the cortex, although not synchronous bilateral activity like in a sentient human

          • ChrisFFs

            Babies have been born….and lived long, productive lives after being born at 21 weeks.

            Try again.

          • purrtriarchy

            Very few you ignorant fuckwit. Like 4 total.

          • ChrisFFs

            Which is more than none.

            Derp derp.

          • purrtriarchy

            Out of billions born its essentially a zero percent survival rate. And, a majority of extreme neonates end up profoundly disabled for life because they were born too soon.

          • ChrisFFs

            billions are born at 21 weeks?
            Wow. That’s a lot.

          • purrtriarchy

            The rate at which 21 weekers survive is essentially 0% it is so low.

          • ChrisFFs

            Source please.

          • purrtriarchy

            Why don’t you give me your source proving that lots of 21wk neonates have ‘lived long and productive lives’ you lying piece of shit?

            COMPLETED WEEKS OF
            GESTATION AT BIRTH

            (using last menstrual
            period)

            CHANCE OF SURVIVAL

            21 weeks and less
            0%

            22 weeks
            0-10%*

            23 weeks
            10-35%

            24 weeks
            40-70%

            25 weeks
            50-80%

            26 weeks
            80-90%

            27 weeks
            >90%

            30 weeks
            >95%

            34 weeks
            >98%

            The literature regarding the prevalence of major neurodevelopmental disabilities among extremely premature survivors in the last 25 years is heteogeneous, and the reported prevalances of major disability vary much more than do survival rates. However, the majority of extremely premature infants who survive will be free of major disability. Overall, approximately one fifth to one quarter of survivors have at least one major disability-impaired mental development, cerebral palsy, blindness, or deafness. Impaired mental development is the most prevalent disability (17%-21% [95% CI] of survivors affected), followed by cerebral palsy (12%-15% of survivors affected). Blindness and deafness are less common (5% to 8% and 3% to 5% of survivors affected, respectively). Approximately one half of disabled survivors have more than one major disability. Based on studies of infants less than 750 to 1,000 grams birth weight, it can be anticipated that approximately another half of all extremely premature survivors will have one or more
            subtle neurodevelopmental disabilities in the school and teenage years. There is little evidence to suggest that long-term neurodevelopmental outcome has changed from the late 1970s to the early 1990s or with increasing survival.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11707021

            http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm

            Now, where’s your source?

          • ChrisFFs

            That’s ok. I already knew that. I just wanted you to waste you’re time looking it up.

            Ha ha.
            I win.

          • purrtriarchy

            NP. I always look forward to pasting the info, I have it bookmarked, took me an entire 10 seconds to look it up. I pasted it for the lurkers, as I always do.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s funny how he tries to save face after having been proved wrong. Either that or it’s kind of pathetic.

          • purrtriarchy

            Give us some citations please. Especially the ‘long life’ part. TIA.

          • cjvg

            Try that again but now with proof since there was only one (!) again ONE (!) baby that has been known to survive a 21 week plus 6 days birth.

            http://voices.yahoo.com/worlds-youngest-premature-baby-survives-215735.html?cat=25
            Never mind you have made perfectly clear that reason and reality have absolutely NOTHING to do with your anti-choice fanaticism

          • purrtriarchy

            I love it when you talk neuroscience. I don’t currently have your essay handy because my PC died((

            BTW, what is a stationary neuron and why do they matter?

          • cjvg

            I just typed up a whole response and then accidentally deleted it, but here goes another try.

            Stationary in this aspect (neurons) does not quite mean the same as stationary in other aspects. A “stationary” neuron is more differentiated and as such is more limited in the way it expresses. These neurons are more limited because they have differentiated and built such broadly integrated dendritic trees that it was once thought they were immobilized. However there are now several studies that indicate that through certain activity in the brain neurons can become migratory again (in particular seizure activity)

            Neurons originate in a different place from the final place where they end up (and even then, as I previously mentioned there is now indications that unexpected activity sometimes sets them to become migratory again) Surprisingly enough a very good and accurate explanation is on this wiki site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron_migration#Neuronal_migration

            To better understand what “stationary” neurons are it is best to first understand non stationary neurons and then move on to differentiated neurons.
            Try this site http://neuronresearch.net/vision/index.html

            and in particular http://neuronresearch.net/neuron/files/modeling_neural_system.htm

            Basically differentiated neurons are usually presumed to be stationary.
            I hope this helps. I’m not aware of how much neurological knowledge you already have so I tried to not get to out there.

            This is also a good site http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2010/08/migrating-neurons-clear-their-path.html

          • purrtriarchy

            Thanks! I just skimmed it but i think I get the basic idea. Embryos do not have stationary/differentiated neurons, which essentially means that their brains are still very very primitive and ‘unorganized’. So, people are full of shit when they talk as if primitive alpa and beta waves in the embryonic brain mean anything.

          • cjvg

            I presume they are talking about the alpha waves that show alertness and wakefulness. These alpha waves are only found when in a waking but mentally relaxed state (found in the occipital lobe) are seen at four months of age, and mature alpha waves are first seen at 3 years of age. This is the most commonly researched alpha wave.

            I don’t know how long these people think pregnancy is but generally it is understood that 4 months after birth it is no longer considered a fetus (I guess if you confuse 2 week pregnancies with babies anything goes)

            Beta waves are found when you are awake but in an altered state of mind (ie under medication, arousal)ot during REM sleep
            REM sleep is first observed at 7 months gestation. Around that time of a fetus’ development, the first rapid eye movements are seen. The brain of the developing embryo appears to cycle every 20 to 40 minutes between REM sleep. The neurons that generate sleep states mature long before the rest of the brain is developed enough to fall into REM sleep.
            This paper has a very interesting theory to which I’m partialhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166790/

            And then there is the Slow Wave State which takes place in the anterior-posterior gradient. This is known as the delta state, and can in no way be confused with actual alpha waves, During this state you are not aware, This is the state during which brain growth takes place as well as protein metabolism. Obviously this is the state a fetal brain is in most of the third trimester. There is no awareness and it is in the business of growing and building

            http://www.psych.westminster.edu/psybio/BN/Labs/Brainwaves.htm

            If they are discussing the third trimester then yes beta waves will be present, not so much alpha waves. Anything under the third trimester I do not believe there are any alpha waves present and i’m not sure about beta.

          • Arekushieru

            Human =/= human being. Born humans are human beings. Fetuses are humans but not human beings. See how simple that was?!?

          • Arekushieru

            Of course, you didn’t answer her question. Antis, so dishonest.

          • lady_black

            Let me explain how this works. She was six weeks pregnant at the time of the termination. Now that means six weeks since her LMP. It assumes an actual gestation of about 4 weeks. Given that conception and implantation are a process that takes about 5 days, you have her hatching and carrying out some nefarious plot with a window of only a few days, during which time there was no way of knowing whether or not she would actually ovulate on a certain day, an ovum would be fertilized, and would actually implant (most don’t). Given the timing involved, she had likely already conceived when the contest was announced, which makes it a coincidence, not a conspiracy. How many other women do you suppose conceived on the same day and did not actually become pregnant, or did become pregnant and lost the embryo before even realizing she was pregnant? You are a RUBE, easily led by the babbling of anti-choice people who engage in magical thinking.

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

            God bless Nurses.

          • Frances Shannon

            She says only that she discovered she was pregnant in November and does not give a specific date. She didn’t give the date for her abortion either. Even if she found out she was pregnant early in the month her procedure wouldn’t have been performed for days or even weeks later. She also said she was “very early in the pregnancy, only two to three weeks.” That would means she conceived four or five weeks before. That’s still after the competition had been announced in early October. What’s more, that’s only when the first tweet promoting the contest appears, it could very well have been announced before that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, you said this 11 minutes ago, and lady_black has already replied to this. You love the copy/paste function, don’t you?

          • purrtriarchy

            Lady black just destroyed your conspiracy theory, dumbfuck.

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

            Well, one thing is for sure. You are not a woman.

          • goatini

            Um, I believe the one who came to the reproductive justice website to personally attack Emily Letts, and patriotic Americans posting here who are standing up for her, and their, civil, human and Constitutional rights, was YOU.

            Projection 101 – that, and lies, are ALL the ranty antis have.

          • purrtriarchy

            Racists don’t deserve respect.

  • Oak Cliff Townie

    Thanks EMILY…. The fight is hard enough without this “VIDEO” making the rounds

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

      Fuck you and the white horse you rode in on.

      • Frances Shannon

        Oak has got a point. Emily may have only inadvertently set abortion-rights back.

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

          The point on top of her head maybe.

        • expect_resistance

          It is not setting reproductive rights back. Other women have also documented their abortions. This won’t be the last video or story about a woman’s abortion experience. I’m really glad women are doing this. I’m proud of Emily and totally support her.

        • goatini

          Riiiight… because shedding factual light on a overwhelmingly safe minor LEGAL outpatient medical procedure, that is wrongfully demonized by radical theocratic misogynists, somehow “sets… back” the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice. Tell me another BS story.

      • Oak Cliff Townie

        So lets give the anti choice crowd gasoline and a new book of matches ?

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

          You believe you can reason with zealots? And they should be soothed with tender words. Kiss my sweet petunia.

          • Oak Cliff Townie

            No I don’t and no I won’t kiss that sweet petunia of yours.

            Still they get worked up enough by their ideas that have no basis in truth .
            On the bright side I guess the video will thin out the other side when they have heart attacks watching it

  • Laurie Bertram Roberts

    If I see one more PRO CHOICE person bashing this video I’m going to scream. They are making the same arguments against the video as the anti choicers and it’s pretty disgusting. If you are for shaming women who get abortions maybe you should reconsider your pro choice stance. Even if her response makes you uncomfortable SO WHAT? As supporters of choice we don’t have to agree with the reaction of every women all we need to know is that it was her choice and hers alone. PERIOD!

    • warriorgoddess

      Don’t you just love the “I am pro-choice but…” statements? I have started ignoring them completely because they do not understand that either you are pro-choice for every choice or you are not. You really cannot straddle that fence.

      • CJ99

        Those I’ve seen who make the opening statement “I’m pro choice but….” more often than not aren’t.

  • BJ Survivor

    Spot on, Amanda! I crown thee Queen of Snark. And there is no group of authoritarian assholes more deserving of ridicule than forced-birthers. Please, please, please skewer the forced-gestation “feminists,” who are the absolute worst of the lot of them.

    • purrtriarchy

      Hey BJ! Come to TFA and fuck shit up ! There are TWO abortion posts, the secular one is the biggest. Lots of asshats.

      • BJ Survivor

        I have 4 days off starting Thursday. If I’m not dead tired on Thursday, I will join. Linky please?

        • purrtriarchy
          • BJ Survivor

            FSM, Coyote is a bloviating pig.

          • purrtriarchy

            I’m reading. LOL. You’re so mean. It’s great.

            I had a discussion with him like 6 months ago, on another site, and he does permit abortion in the case of rape because the woman did not create the ‘existential dependency’ therefore she is off the hook, and does not have to take responsibility for her actions.

          • BJ Survivor

            I really can’t make myself be nice to these assholes. What they believe in, what they do, causes real harm to millions of people. They are deserving of nothing but ridiculef and censure. I’m probably not a good pro-choice ambassador, because I really don’t have any stomach for their women as breeding livestock bloviating.

          • Arekushieru

            The woman didn’t create the existential dependency in any case. The fetal DNA and evolution did.

          • BJ Survivor

            Can you provide a link to your “responsibility objection” piece?

          • purrtriarchy

            the one I told you about this morning on tfa?

          • BJ Survivor

            What is “TFA”?

          • purrtriarchy

            The friendly atheist

  • lady_black

    Ending the life of a baby is illegal. Call 911.

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

    Does the word “development” have meaning for you? There is no “baby” until I make it out of my blood, flesh and pain. I will decide when and if I do that. You will not decide for me. You have no standing in my sexual/family life.

  • goatini

    A zygote, blastocyst, embryos, or fetus is NOT a “baby” – and misrepresenting any of these by calling it “baby”, 5 times (as in your irrational rant), does NOT make it so.

  • feloneouscat

    What I suspect drives many of the anti-choice crowd nuts is Emily Letts is an attractive, white and well-spoken young woman.

    The procedure is very short and the people around her are very supportive. There are none of the horrors that anti-choicers like to depict. It looks like (shocking) a simple medical procedure.

    To me what is striking about it is that it cuts deep into the anti-choice argument which, as the author points out, is visual. How can someone so wholesome looking be evil? She may not look like me or you, but she still expresses the same worries, the same concerns and, most important, the same relief.

    I think a much of the vitriol towards this video is to keep women from watching it in order to maintain that fantasy of blood and gore that seems to make up the anti-choice world (surely immersing yourself in that culture can’t be good for you?).

    Letts did this country a service by helping us all to better understand what abortion is and what it is not.

    • Frances Shannon

      No, what drives us nuts in this particular situation is that Emily deliberately created human life with the sole purpose of destroying him or her for her 15 minutes.

      • purrtriarchy

        You can’t prove that.

        • Frances Shannon

          At you can’t prove otherwise.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you just keep making up lies.

          • Frances Shannon

            I’ve made my case. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You haven’t made your case, because as you’ve already stated, you have no proof. The onus is on you.

          • Frances Shannon

            Nope, it’s on you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Afraid not. You haven’t made your case. You have no evidence at all, and until you can produce it, all you have is conjecture. It’s all on you. Prove it.

          • Frances Shannon

            Maybe for dullard like you it’s not enough to prove that’s what she did, but for most people with any bit of intelligence they see right through Emily.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’ve already said that you can’t prove anything, dimwit. Which means you have no evidence and no case. Just libel.

          • Frances Shannon

            Exhibit a: a contest is announced asking women to make a positive video on abortion

            Exhibit b: Emily (who is not using any form of birth control) gets pregnant after the announcement is made

            Exhibit c: Emily expresses her frustration there aren’t any positive videos on surgical abortion

            Exhibit d: Emily enters her video into said contest and wins

            Maybe this isn’t damning enough for you simply because you lack the critical thinking skills necessary.

          • CJ99

            For someone who does whatever the religious reich tells them you get to say exactly nothing about the thinking skills of others as you have none yourself.

          • Frances Shannon

            Not religious. Try again.

          • CJ99

            You’re not believed, so try again. and no telling the same tired old lies won’t help you sockpuppet.

          • Frances Shannon

            It doesn’t matter what you believe.

          • CJ99

            And that is why you fail (smart guy that yoda) cause its not about “belief” its about facts which you have none.

          • Frances Shannon

            Yoda is Muppet, I hope you honestly don’t take advice from him.

          • CJ99

            Yes once again you’ve proven yourself quite the idiot. the whole freakin planet knows yoda’s short, green & quite fictitious. Yet even that silly puppet is smarter than you. But that doesn’t inpugn me at all, on the contrary it shows your arrogance & stupidity for exactly what it is.

          • goatini

            You lie about everything else so far, so not buying it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Most everything you’ve presented has already been disproven. Mainly because women can’t get pregnant on cue. And the timeframe has been explained to you by an actual RN. The fact that you refuse to listen to this is not my problem. It is yours. All you have is guesswork, and not even particularly intelligent guesswork. We can keep going around and around with this and you still won’t be right.

          • Frances Shannon

            Point to me where it was disproven.

          • CJ99

            A place you’ve never been called planet earth.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There’s no point, You know it, I know it, and this is getting boring. There’s also the fact that you’ve already said you can’t prove anything, and without proof or evidence, all you have, all your ‘exhibits’ is nothing but speculation, Never take up any kind of detective work and don’t become a lawyer, Frances–you’d suck at it.

          • CJ99

            There’s no doubt “Frances” / “Chris” would be the Ken Ham of the legal profession.

          • ChrisFFs

            I don’t know who Ken Ham is, but I know who you are and I like you.

          • CJ99

            So jackass tell us what my name is. Oh but you won’t cause your lying out your maloderous ass again. Yack yack yack. before replying again buy yourself a dollar store jokebook, your entertainment value is starting to wear thin.

          • goatini

            We are under no obligation to “disprove” a BS lie concocted by a trolling bully.

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

            Point to me where you proved your assertion. You made it. Your obligation to prove it.

          • CJ99

            You’ve no doubt figured this out but such zealots are incapable of reasoning or understanding pesky facts. All they have is mindless trolling they learned online reinforced by such dubious sources as faux news.

          • ChrisFFs

            So either she did what Frances claims

            or

            She’s an idiot and didn’t know how to use contraception or that she could get pregnant.

            Pick one. (I pick #2)

          • CJ99

            Still being an Ass I see. As if there was doubt you’re a masochist always coming back for another smackdown. Take the hint: your a prime example of someone who should never have children.

          • ChrisFFs

            Nah bro. It’s cool, I’ll just tell my wife how cool you think abortions are you’ve got nothing to worry about.

          • CJ99

            Not your “bro”, btw I don’t give a crap what you “say” to your imaginary wife.

            once a liar always a liar, yeah thats still you. Boo freakin Hoo for you.

          • ChrisFFs

            You’re my bro. I like you.

            Will you be my pro-abortion friend?

          • CJ99

            Why would anybody be friends with a bigoted gamer troll member of the religious reich (that being you)?

            yeah that’s rhetorical. Have somebody read you the definition. Or better yet get an education. Real education not homeschooling.

          • ChrisFFs

            I wish I was a gamer. My joystick broke and I haven’t been able to play Call of Duty for weeks.

            I went to public school. It was super duper awesome fun time. They taught us reading and learning and stuff.

            Again, thanks for being my friend. I really appreciate it.

          • CJ99

            If you had friends you wouldn’t be trolling adults on subjects about which you know nothing. To me you’re a yawn on your best day, every other day you worthy of nothing more than a poke to the ass with a hot pink yardstick. To reiterate, the friend you think you have is imaginary (in other words not anyone on this site).

          • ChrisFFs

            Alright, friend. I like you even more.

          • CJ99

            Even if I wasn’t a guy that’s got no hope in hell of working trollbot. Sorry you lose again, but here have a free buttkicking as a consolation prize.

          • ChrisFFs

            I like buttlickings friend. But only from you my new friend.

          • CJ99

            You’re perversion is all to predictible. You should’ve known coming in here your trolling won’t get you laid. BTW, thats still a good thing. Anyone being a child of yours would be cruel & unusual punishments. The really unfortunate part is when your childish trolling gets deleted along with your posting privileges nobody will know what you really stand for. On second thought thats no great loss at all.

          • ChrisFFs

            That’s ok, if I get someone preggo I’m definitely going to encourage abortion.

            You’ve convinced me friend. No fetus is safe around this guy. Abortion #1.

          • Arekushieru

            Why, why would you want to be even more anti-choice?

          • CJ99

            I see I must repeat myself (which gets tiresome) but your flagrant stupidity leaves no choice. No woman will date you ergo you will get nobody pregnant. There’s no doubt nobody no matter how masochistic desires the ranting lunatic that is you.

          • Guest

            Gawd I hope so. You’d be doing that little shit a big ol’ favor.

          • Arekushieru

            We’re not Pro-Abortion, that would be just as anti-choice as Pro-Life.

          • ChrisFFs

            I’m pro-abortion now. I’ve been converted.

            Abortion is #1. USA! USA!

            I like all of you pro-abortion people. Babies are stupid.

          • Arekushieru

            Who converted you? Not us. We’re not ANTI-choice. Reading comprehension, peeps, reading comprehension.

          • ChrisFFs

            You helped sir. Thank you. I like you.

          • Arekushieru

            I’m a woman, jackass. And, no, I did not, I’m PRO-Choice not ANTI-choice. AW.

          • ChrisFFs

            If you’re a women, then why are you using a man’s picture in your avatar.

            That’s confusing.

          • CJ99

            His sockpuppet called me a schoolgirl earlier tonight, being a guy I just don’t get some guys obsession with schoolgirls, maybe its the plaid miniskirts? or is he a pedophile? but then I don’t care enough about him to find out.

          • ChrisFFs

            I’m 5X5s sockpuppet. It was someone else who called you a schoolgirl.

            You are my friend. I do like plaid clothes though.

          • goatini

            The majority of women who avail themselves of their civil, human and Constitutional right to obtain a safe, legal pregnancy termination have children, and/or will later have children.

          • goatini

            His wife Rosie.

          • CJ99

            what he doesn’t get is inflatable “girlfriends” don’t count.

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

            One of the Palm sisters.

          • Arekushieru

            What does thinking how ‘cool’ abortions are have to do with anything? Oh, right, I’m speaking to someone who doesn’t HAVE a point and couldn’t argue himself out of a paper bag.

          • Frances Shannon

            Oh, brother.

          • CJ99

            Btw sockpuppet, you are not taken seriously either so the answer to “does anyone really care what you think?” is a resounding NO.

          • Frances Shannon

            Taken seriously? Why should I care if I’m taken seriously by the three or four schoolgirls here who resort to insults and bullying to anyone with views opposite of theirs?

          • Jennifer Starr

            No one here is bullying you. You came here to troll and got exactly the reception you wanted.

          • Frances Shannon

            “No one here is bullying you.” This from the girl who just told me I get off on abortion videos.

          • Jennifer Starr

            This from the person came here to troll, who’s been personally attacking anyone who doesn’t uncritically accept the half-baked schlock that she cooked up. Little late to be playing the ‘poor me pity party’, Frances.

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

            You definitely get off on trolling.

          • CJ99

            That’s funny you coming in here running your ignorant mouth then screaming about “harassment”. Almost as funny as calling a guy a schoolgirl. Funniest yet is you bitching about getting a new 1 ripped after your caught lying repeatedly. The delicious irony being that even if anyone here was a schoolgirl you’d still be outsmarted at every turn.

            So to put it simply enough for even you to understand: You’re an idiot and the butt kicking you’ve received is well deserved.

          • Frances Shannon

            No bullying here.

          • CJ99

            In other news the sky is pink. Or in simple terms you might understand you just lied…..again.

          • Frances Shannon

            What is this in reply to?

          • CJ99

            The blatant lie you previously told about you not bullying dumbass. Wilfull stupidity will score you no browny points in the next life. I have no doubts you’ll be quite shocked when your forcibly confronted by reality. Luckily I won’t have to see it as I’ll be living my own life….without further interference from you.

          • goatini

            You came here with the express intent and purpose to lie and bully.

          • expect_resistance

            Forced-birthers are bullies. Anti-choice legislation is killing women.

            Sidewalk “counselors” are bullies too.

          • goatini

            This is a reproductive justice website, and it is actually YOU who have come here to troll, bully, lie, and insult.

            Projection 101 – it’s what the ranty antis do best.

          • lady_black

            I am not a schoolgirl. I am a grandmother. You are a malicious liar, a quisling, and a judgmental bunghole.

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

            GrandMother and Mother of three daughters here. You have repeatedly lied. You have not supported one assertion you have made. You need some time out on the naughty chair.

          • expect_resistance

            Yes he does need a timeout in the naughty chair.

          • fiona64

            Oh, look, everyone! 5×5′s mommy is letting him use the computer again.

          • expect_resistance

            Nice.

          • Arekushieru

            Neither. We have made our assertions clear, from what Emily HERSELF said. You have made wildly inaccurate assertions based FAR from Emily actually said. AW..

          • ChrisFFs

            Ha ha.

            Either she intentionally got pregnant or she was too stupid to use birth control.

            There really isn’t any other explanation. I’d at least understand if her contraception failed, but she herself admits that wasn’t the case because SHE WASN’T USING ANY.

          • Arekushieru

            And she EXPLAINED why she wasn’t using any. So, better luck next time at reading comprehension, ignorant fool.

          • ChrisFFs

            Oh, yeah….why?

            Was she too stupid?

          • Arekushieru

            Still too ignorant too go and actually read the article? Then I guess that Emily isn’t the one who’s ‘stupid’, after all.

          • ChrisFFs

            No, why don’t you tell us why she chose not to use contraception.

            This will be fun.

          • CJ99

            Jackass thats her business not yours. but as Arekushieru already said, why don’t you read the article if indeed you can? or at least use text to speech.

          • ChrisFFs

            While reading the article might seem like a good idea, THIS article doesn’t specify why Emily chose to go sans birth control. But other articles did.

            Care to wager why?

          • CJ99

            Your both too ignorant and too unwilling to understand the facts before you, no wager required. Note to you: don’t make bets you know you’ll lose.

          • ChrisFFs

            Actually, from reading other sources I know she wasn’t using hormonal birth control because she was afraid it would make her fat.

            I don’t know why she wasn’t using condoms. That is still a mystery.

          • lady_black

            Once again, she wasn’t using “no birth control.” She was using a method of birth control that has a high failure rate. That isn’t the same as none.

          • ChrisFFs

            You should probably reread my comment before posting again.

          • lady_black

            No, I think not.

          • CJ99

            You’re still being deliberately stupid. A condom goes on the man, thats how they work moron. So until you get your leaky tinfoil hat replaced shut the hell up cause at this point you make pat robertson look almost normal.

          • CJ99

            Your moronic statements make only one person stupid, that would be you. get somebody to blow in your ear, you desparately need the refill.

          • ChrisFFs

            It was actually because she didn’t want to get fat.

            And I agree. If it’s the risk of getting fat, or having an abortion, I choose abortion 8 days of the week.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope. Still haven’t read the article, obviously. Either way, you just ignored women who have serious self-image issues. Why are you antis such BIGOTS??? You will never experience a pregnancy nor do you have to deal with issues involving self-image as much as women have to do. Misogynist.

          • lady_black

            Actually, she said she wasn’t using any artificial birth control. She was using the rhythm method according to what she said.

          • lady_black

            She was using periodic abstinence, also know as the rhythm method, natural family planning and Vatican roulette. Now she has an IUD.

          • ChrisFFs

            So she’s an idiot. Thanks for confirming.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A mite hypocritical there, Chris. Most pro-lifers love NFP.

          • ChrisFFs

            I don’t.

            Derp. derp .

          • goatini

            You made up BS – it is not incumbent upon the innocent opposition to “prove” your lies.

          • ChrisFFs

            Hi friendo

          • expect_resistance

            No you need to provide proof.

          • CJ99

            The only case you’ve made is that you’re indeed a hate filled twit. But thats a mistake the rest of us don’t have to live with.

          • goatini

            You’ve proven nothing, and no one is under any obligation to prove anything to YOU. Stop lying.

          • lady_black

            If that’s your case, you have no case.

          • fiona64

            No, you haven’t. You’ve stated an opinion as though it were verifiable fact, and then just stamped your feet and shouted “Is too! Is too!” Show us your proof that backs up your assertion.

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

            She does not have to prove otherwise. You made an assertion. You must prove your assertion. Thus far you have not proved it. And in fact, others have proved PROVED it cannot be so.

          • feloneouscat

            Speculation is just that – speculation. It is not a fact. It is not proof.

            You might as well said that her “child” was an alien as there was no proof that it wasn’t.

            What you are employing isn’t called “logic” or even an argument.

      • Shan

        So?

      • CJ99

        Not there was a shred of doubt but you’ve just proven yourself quite the douche. Or in the moronic parlance of the gamer generation ‘you’ve just gone full tard” (not that I approve of making fun of the disabled who are more sensible than you are)

      • Arekushieru

        That’s what you’d like everyone to believe about every woman who has had an abortion. Sorry, but if women could control pregnancy, there would be no infertile women or women who couldn’t get pregnant in a heartbeat. TBSFS.

        • ChrisFFs

          You’re a man. What would you know about abortion?

          • CJ99

            You’re still a liar & you know nothing. This is not news except to you. What is also not news is people are not safe in your immediate vicinity. Your rants show signs of violent pyscopathy

          • ChrisFFs

            But I like you. That’s not violent. I wouldn’t hurt a friend and more than I’d harm a fly.

            They’re probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I’m not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are
            watching… they’ll see. They’ll see and they’ll know, and they’ll say,
            “Why, he wouldn’t even harm a fly…”

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

            Movie script. Troll.

          • CJ99

            Calling your bullshit what it is is not violence, but your acting in a violent manner towards women is. So not to put to fine a point on it: FUCK OFF.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, I’m a woman, jackass. I guess you DID fail reading comprehension

          • ChrisFFs

            Are you using somebody else’s disqus account? Because there is a picture of a man next to your name.

            Now, I don’t have a picture, and my name is Chris. That’s kind of ambiguous. Are you kind of ambiguous?

          • Arekushieru

            There is a picture of a woman beside my name. Good to know just how judgmental you are, Jackass/;

          • ChrisFFs

            You look like a dude. Sorry about the mistake.

          • expect_resistance

            You’re an idiot jackass!

          • lady_black

            She looks like a woman to me. Maybe you need glasses?

          • expect_resistance

            Me too.

          • expect_resistance

            You need glasses or contacts. Time to get your eyes checked.

      • goatini

        Telling the same big LIE over and over again does not make it true.

        • ChrisFFs

          Will you be my friend too?

          CJ99 is my friend. I’m trying to get all the other like-minded pro-abortion peeps to be my friend.

          • Arekushieru

            Then, if only Pro-Abortion people are your friends., CJ99 is NOT your friend. Oops, caught in another lie?

          • CJ99

            Same old lie of his yet again but I care not. Whats humourously ironic is I desire to enjoy life far more than the so called “pro lifers” who are akin to the theocratic prison reich-state

      • fiona64

        So, you’re psychic?

        Yeah, I didn’t think so.

        • CJ99

          I’d bet on Psychotic but what bookies gonna take a dead cert.

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

    “Science disagrees with you dear.’
    ……………….
    Citation needed here. Unbiased medical sites only.

    • Frances Shannon

      “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

      “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”[O’Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

      Of course a fetus a human being—you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The dispute is whether or not a fetus is a “person” and the word person is little more than a philosophical term that has historically been used to deny certain people rights.

      • purrtriarchy

        1) As I have just shown you, embryologists disagree on whether or not a’ human being’ is created at fertilization.

        2) The word “being” has a number of definitions, one of which relates to “existence”. So, in that sense, because an unborn human exists, it would qualify as a “human being”. However, likewise so would a radish plant qualify as a “radish being”. But since that latter phrase is not normally used in casual conversations, it logically follows that in those conversations, which so frequently include the phrase “human being”, the word “being” refers to something other than “existence”. The actual relevant definition can be inferred from other phrases that are
        used from time to time: “intelligent being”, “extraterrestrial being”,
        “alien being”. The word “being” is simply a synonym for “person”.

        Since a radish plant is not a person, that is why the phrase “radish being” does not get used in ordinary conversations. Likewise, because ordinary animals are also nonpersons, that is why we don’t use phrases like “rabbit being” or “bacterium being” in typical conversations. So, if an abortion opponent wants to claim that the word “being” only means “exists” in the phrase “human being”, then that abortion opponent should be willing to prove it by always using “being” when talking about rocks and trees and houses and roads and ….Otherwise, the propaganda becomes utterly obvious; abortion opponents are claiming that an unborn human qualifies as a person, without offering any evidence other than the label “being”.
        Meanwhile, measurably animal-level are the minds that unborn humans do have! (How often do you encounter the phrase “fetus being”?)

        • Frances Shannon

          “As I have just shown you, embryologists disagree on whether or not a’ human being’ is created at fertilization.” Citations, please. Show me exactly where an embryologist has argued a fetus isn’t a human being.

          • purrtriarchy

            I JUST did. Biologist Scott Gilbert and embryologist John Sullivan Md PhD

            Try to keep up, sweetie. You are embarassing yourself.

          • Frances Shannon

            Reread that quote, you dolt. Point to where they argued a fetus IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.

          • purrtriarchy

            From John M Sullivan

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

            From Scott Gilbert

            As such the view that we are ‘complete but unformed’ at conception is far from accurate.

            The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

            IE, human life, ‘human being/persons’ are NOT present at fertlization.

          • Frances Shannon

            But where exactly does he say a fetus IS NOT a human being? What’s he’s writing is merely opinion.

          • purrtriarchy

            It’s all opinion. Which is why there is no consensus on the subject. Which means science has NOT proven whether or not zygotes are people.

          • Frances Shannon

            Wrong. The three quotes I gave you all appeared in peer-reviewed medical textbooks. Denying a fetus is a human being would be like arguing the Earth is flat.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yeah and if you were not an illiterate fucktard you would realize that neither quote that you supplied says that a zygote is a human being. Just that human development begins at fertilization, essentially.

          • Frances Shannon

            If human development begins at conception that would mean a zygote is a human being.

          • purrtriarchy

            No, it wouldn’t.

            It means that it is a human organism that has the *potential* to develop into a sapient/sentient human being. It doesn’t start out as a full human being, because it has none of the objective characteristics associated with human beings.

          • Frances Shannon

            Ok, sherlock. When does a fetus magically become human being?

          • purrtriarchy

            When it can function as a viable, autonomous, sentient individual.

            In other words. birth.

          • Frances Shannon

            So you would abort a this “non-human being” right up until his/her due date?

          • purrtriarchy

            Late term abortion = induced birth, as that is the safest way to remove the fetus from the woman’s body. In which case, it won’t die, doctors will resuscitate it.

          • Frances Shannon

            Let’s just your aim was merely to kill this non-human being? Do you have the right to do that?

          • purrtriarchy

            The point is to not be pregnant anymore. Induced birth = safest.

          • Frances Shannon

            Answer the question, coward.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Induced birth is the safest. That is the answer to your question.

          • Frances Shannon

            Coward.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s the truth. I’m sorry it doesn’t satisfy your lust for dismemberment.

          • Frances Shannon

            My lust? No, that would be yours.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, afraid not. You’re the one that fantasizes about it while all the rest of us are talking about induced birth.

          • Frances Shannon

            I’m not the one that advocates for exactly what you described—that would be you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            For induced birth?

          • Frances Shannon

            No silly, for dismembering a fetus limb by limb and sucking them up with a vacuum. That’s the “choice” you believe you should have.

          • purrtriarchy

            Dismemberment porn really gets your panties moist, doesn’t it sweetie?

          • ChrisFFs

            She obviously thinks it’s sick. The question is, why don’t you?

          • Jennifer Starr

            She doesn’t think it’s sick. She gets off on it.

          • ChrisFFs

            You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you?

            That’s call “projection.” Look it up.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, you’re the ones projecting!

          • Frances Shannon

            Jennifer, grow up.

          • Frances Shannon

            No, that would be your panties.

          • purrtriarchy

            You are so intuitive.

          • Frances Shannon

            And you have the mind of prepubescent boy.

          • purrtriarchy

            No. You’re the one mastutbating to fetal pron.

          • Arekushieru

            Citation needed to prove that your presentation of an abortion procedure is correct and factual.

            Medical, non-biased, peer-reviewed sites only, please!

            That you people obsess over a fetus being dismembered in an early-term abortion (even though it’s not) but fail to mention your movement’s responsibility for making the intact extraction method for abortion illegal, just proves how much your ilk loves dismemberment porn.

          • CJ99

            Yeah you were that kid in high school who still said “I know you are but what am I” even through high school.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What’s worse is that she’s the kid who still thinks that’s a witty comeback.

          • CJ99

            Not all that unsual for the religious reich either. I’ve seen their ilk all my life, they firmly believe, ignorance, arrogance are praiseworthy virtues.

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

            I swear it is 5×5. Same kind of evasions.

          • purrtriarchy

            I agree.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, it’s 5×5. Same evasions and the same type of answers, and just as boring as she’s always been.

          • ChrisFFs

            No, I’m 5×5. I’m your friend.

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

            God’s truth.

          • Arekushieru

            Sorry, but who was it in the US that made the procedure otherwise known as Partial Birth Abortion (a made-up term, btw) illegal? The method that was used in its place actually dismembers the fetus. So, WHO has the lust for dismemberment, again?

          • purrtriarchy

            No, because there’s NO POINT.

            Besides, women have late term abortions for medical reasons, not fear of being too fat for bikini at 9 months you stupid shit.

          • Arekushieru

            That’s irrelevant. If my intent was to kill someone and I had them rape me, in order to justify it, I STILL have the right and priority to choose to defend myself from a violation of my body, even with the use of deadly force.

          • Arekushieru

            That’s not why we argue for the right to choose. So sorry.

          • Guest

            Hell no. I would have gotten rid of it long before then.

          • Arekushieru

            Human development begins before conception. Therefore you are arguing that human development in one case makes someone a human being, while not in another. Hypocrite.

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

        A fetus does not even meet the dictionary definition of human being. A fetus is not a legal person. Legal persons are born or a corporation.

        • Frances Shannon

          Really? You might want to tell that to the people at Webster.

          fe·tus
          noun ˈfē-təs
          : a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born

          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

          I don’t make monkeys, I just train ‘em.

          • purrtriarchy

            Aw, argument by dictionary. More proof that you’re a twit.

            Dictionaries only record common usage. They do not enforce particular usage. Some words are in dictionaries despite the best efforts of English teachers to declare they should never be used (prime example: “ain’t”). One of the consequences of “recording common usage” is that many definitions tend to change as the generations pass. Words can even become obsolete.

            Meanwhile, some words are less likely to become modified with time, and this is directly trace-able to scientific research. Consider the word “arsenic”, for example. For centuries its primary definition referred to a particular poisonous substance, but then chemists began discovering some rather fundamental things about many substances, and the word “arsenic” acquired a new primary definition, a particular chemical element. The classic poison, a chemical compound containing the element arsenic as one of its constituents, is now only a secondary definition for the word.

          • Frances Shannon

            Why don’t you call Plum Dumpling out then?

          • Arekushieru

            Why should they? Plum didn’t use words that were simply common usage. You did.

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

            Ooooh the dictionary game. You lose.

            from Webster
            human being
            noun
            : a person

            from Oxford English dictionary
            hu·man be·ing
            noun
            a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

            from Merriam Webster Medical Dictonary.
            Definition of FETUS
            : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth—compare embryo

      • goatini

        Aw geez, not this amateur “embryologist” cut and paste BS again…

  • purrtriarchy

    Science says that a genetic blueprint is created at fertilization. Not a baby.

    • Frances Shannon

      Science says a human being is created at the moment of conception, look in any medical textbook and read just that.

      • purrtriarchy

        You’re wrong. And ignorant as all hell.

        Biologist Scott Gilbert writes:

        Instructions for Development and Heredity are not all in the Fertilised egg.

        The view that we are genetically determined by the combination of parental DNA has been shown to fall far short of the complete story. How the DNA is interpreted can vary greatly affected by things such as the maternal diet. Similarly some development requires certain bacteria to be present. Thirdly, and most surprisingly, the level of maternal care can determine which areas of DNA are ‘methylated’ which radically alters how they are interpreted. As such the view that we are ‘complete but unformed’ at conception is far from accurate.

        The Embryo is Safe Within the Womb. Modern research shows that 30% or fewer fertilised eggs will go on to become foetuses. Many of these early miscarriages are because of abnormal numbers of chromosomes. The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

        There is a Not Moment of Fertilisation when the passive egg receives the active sperm.

        Again recent research has shown that the previous commonly held view that the fastest sperm races towards the egg and, bingo, we’re up and running is wrong on many levels. Fertilisation is a process taking up to four days. As such there is no magic moment, rather there is a process.

        There is no consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception.

        There isn’t even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there’s consensus. There are embryologists who support each of the major view points belying the common and oft repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.

        • Frances Shannon

          Ask anyone when life begins and they’ll give you different answers (some people say life begins at 40, ha!). But ask science when does the life of every human being begin and they’ll tell you the life of every human being begins at conception.

          • purrtriarchy

            And I just told you, dumbfuck, SCIENCE disagrees because embyrologists, the people who study this, DISAGREE

            Get that through your thick skull.

            Here is what one embryologist has to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            No. They are not the same.

            http://www.sullydog.com/sullysites/qm/classicmeat/10-01.htm

          • Frances Shannon

            These are two separate questions—fool. No embryologist in their right mind would argue that the life of every human being begins at conception.

          • purrtriarchy

            You wrote:

            But ask science when does the life of every human being begin and they’ll tell you the life of every human being begins at conception.

            That’s what you said. stupid.

          • Frances Shannon

            Er…. yeah.

          • purrtriarchy

            Is science created by scientists? yes or no?

          • Frances Shannon

            Think about what you’re suggesting… that an embryologist would argue a fetus is not a human being. If a fetus is not a human being when does he/she become one?

          • purrtriarchy

            I have explained, multiple times, with quotes…from embryologists.

            Did you not read? Or are you too fucking stupid to keep up?

          • Frances Shannon

            No you didn’t. Reread the quote you copied and pasted. He never argued that a fetus isn’t a human being only that embryologists disagree when “life” begins.

          • purrtriarchy

            Uh yeah….and ‘life’ = human being/personhood, dumbass. When people talk about when ‘human life begins’ they are actually talking about when personhood begins, as in, whether or not a zygote is human being/person or if it’s just a mindless human organism.

          • Frances Shannon

            I’m not talking about life in a subjective, philosophical sense and I never suggested otherwise. I’m telling you that it is just simply fact that the life of every human being begins at conception. This ins’t negotiable.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yes it is. Since science itself disagrees with your assertion.

          • Frances Shannon

            No they don’t. Please show me where they do.

          • purrtriarchy
          • goatini

            Oh boy, another amateur cut and paste “embryologist”…

          • purrtriarchy

            Did you miss this part? Science is created by SCIENTISTS. And they all disagree:

            There is no consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception.

            There isn’t even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there’s consensus. There are embryologists who support each of the major view points belying the common and oft repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.

            Does it hurt to be as stupid and obtuse as you are?

          • Frances Shannon

            Face palm! You just typed the same thing.

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

        Citation needed.

      • goatini

        A diploid cell, the vast majority of which get flushed down the toilet, is no more a “human being” than a fingernail.

        • ChrisFFs

          Your fingernail cells are from a different species?

          Cool.

          • Arekushieru

            So, you think fingernails can speak, think, write, work, etc… even if they are cut off from the rest of the body? I don’t know what word describes that kind of thinking but it is NOT ‘cool’.

            You call your fingernails human beings, so what am I talking about? The lazy thinking displayed here is just too bothersome to deal with.

            But I’ll sign off this comment with this: Human = species. Human being = philosophical concept. BUH-BYEEEEEE.

  • purrtriarchy

    My cat is my baby. Calling her a feline does not change the fact that she is a baby TO ME.

  • purrtriarchy

    Babies are born. They are not non sentient non sapient partially developed tissue.

  • Frances Shannon

    “Anti-Choicers Desperately Insist You See Things That Are Clearly Not There.” Well I know one thing, I didn’t see an abortion in her video.

    • Jennifer Starr

      What exactly did you expect to see? Something to satisfy a gore fetish?

      • Frances Shannon

        Considering one can find plenty of gory videos of actual abortions on the internet, is it unreasonable to expect Emily to actually show a procedure she claims is positive and harmless. My guess is she didn’t want to show it because it’s horrible and ugly.

        • Jennifer Starr

          So you seek this stuff out to satisfy your fetish.

          • lady_black

            Maybe it wants to see her hoo-hoo. That’s what it sounds like to me. Ewwwwww. How nasty can you get?

          • Frances Shannon

            What are you, in 7th-grade?

          • lady_black

            Well that’s what you’re complaining about, right? There was certainly no “baby” to see. Obviously you wanted to see her below the waist so you could whack off to it. You wouldn’t see anything else that can’t be found in a used sanitary napkin.

          • ChrisFFs

            You think “hoo-hoo” are nasty?

        • Alex Hunter

          People who eat meat don’t need to see animals get hacked up for the same reasons. Who are you to judge?

          • lady_black

            This was nothing compared to watching anything get hacked up. More like a menstrual period, only removed all at the same time and in a suction canister.

        • lady_black

          No you can’t. Now you’re just lying. Citation please.

        • feloneouscat

          Considering one can find plenty of gory videos of actual abortions on the internet, is it unreasonable to expect Emily to actually show a procedure she claims is positive and harmless.

          I’m not a doctor, but seriously, you need to talk to a shrink.

          Who goes out of their way to find gory videos?

      • ChrisFFs

        Maybe if you think it’s such a horrific procedure, then you shouldn’t support it so much.

        • lady_black

          You DO realize she never said it was a horrific procedure, right?

        • BJ Survivor

          There is nothing at all horrific about early term abortion procedures, except having to run through the gauntlet of bible-babbling terrorists who get in the way. My periods were typically way more bloody and painful than my 8-week abortion. The clots I used to pass were quite often much bigger than the embryonic sac suctioned out during my surgical abortion. Had medication abortion been available at the time I had my abortion (1985), I would have been able to get my abortion 4 weeks earlier than I did.

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

    My Baby is my dog. And that is her name. Baby is a cute sentimental colloquial word. We are discussing public health. Use the correct terminology.

  • Shan

    ” I guess your vocabulary has magical powers of some kind to create life when you feel like it.”

    Deciding to create life when you feel like it IS the actual magical power. That’s not something we should be legally mandated to do.

  • ChrisFFs

    Is Lett’s really that stupid that she doesn’t know that pregnancy is a possible result of unprotected sex?

    Answer: Yes.

    Also, if she’s so damn proud of her abortion, why not show the little scoops of embryo that she prevented from being a baby? Is she going to have “non-birthday” cards celebrating the joyous event?

    • CJ99

      The ignorance you seek impose on others belongs only with you. Clearly you have nothing of value to contribute otherwise you wouldn’t be going out of your way to be an asshole.

      • ChrisFFs

        I’m not the one who extinguished a human existence.

        • CJ99

          nobody here extinguished a human existance. However you are the one who’s lying like a cheap rug and demeaning not only 1 women but all of them. You’re insolence is disgusting.

          • ChrisFFs

            Emily Lett’s did. Did you forget about her?

          • CJ99

            no she didn’t and your still lying. but in your own ignorance you once again prove yourself quite the douche. The only benefit of your idiotic tirade is that no woman will be caught dead with you preventing you from passing your insanity on to another generation.

            Oh & btw if you’re stupid enough to keep replying you’ll still be lying.

          • ChrisFFs

            This whole article is about her extinguishing human existence.

            Wake up.

            Oh, did you think her fetus was an alien? Then maybe I’d understand your logic.

          • CJ99

            I am awake dumbass and unlike you I’m not a willing lunatic harassing others for living their own lives. The crap you spew may be considered “normal” in Iran or the Boko Haram campgrounds. But those places in the rest of the world your shit flinging behaviour is not acceptible. Don’t like it? too freaking bad.

          • Guest

            Who cares what it was? Go whine and cry to somebody who gives a shit. Stomp stomp, pout pout. Little toddler who doesn’t get its way. Too bad, so sad.

          • lady_black

            Nope and nope.

        • purrtriarchy

          The right to exist does not include the right to use the body of another without their consent, dipshit.

          • ChrisFFs

            Emily consented when SHE decided to get pregnant or are you claiming she was too stupid to know that pregnancy was possible with unprotected sex?

          • CJ99

            No you decided that. The problem is you deciding what another person does with there life doesn’t make you right, it makes you sexist, arrogant and unjustified. You are indeed a miserable excuse for a human. If I could be a martian, jovian, andorian or anyplace else I’d gladly do it in a hot minute just to get away from fools like you.

          • ChrisFFs

            It wasn’t HER life anymore. It was the life of another being growing inside of her. A life that she invited in by her actions of having unprotected sex.

            And then destroyed it.

          • CJ99

            A genius you clearly are not. It was her life when she was born, it’s hear life now & all points in between. Her life does not belong to you and if you can’t accept that then fuck off back under whatever rock spawned you.

          • goatini

            The civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens are NOT erased, or diminished in any way, by pregnancy. Pregnant female US citizens are NOT property of the State.

          • ChrisFFs

            Oh, I agree. Fuck the State and their nasty laws against pregnant women.

            Free GOSNELL!!!!

          • goatini

            It’s a fact that criminal Gosnell was tried and convicted, and that his actions were in no way related to the practice of safe, legal pregnancy terminations. There are no Federal laws that erase or diminish the civil, human and Constitutional rights of pregnant female US citizens to personal bodily autonomy.

          • Arekushieru

            Actually, Gosnell committed VIOLATIONS of women’s bodies, just like you want to do. Oops.

          • lady_black

            There is no right to grow inside someone’s body. You ARE dumb. But I refuse to believe you’re THAT dumb.

          • Arekushieru

            Pregnancy is not punishment for a woman having consensual, non-procreative sex, just because it’s a ‘natural’ part of female biology, misogynist.

          • Guest

            Boo effin hoo. Go cry to somebody who gives a shit.

          • lady_black

            Yes it still remained her life. A woman isn’t some sort of container for an embryo or fetus, and does not disappear upon conception. You are an idiot, 5×5.

          • purrtriarchy

            Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

          • ChrisFFs

            Are you also too stupid to know that sex can result in pregnancy?

          • purrtriarchy

            Are you too stupid to know that driving a car can result in an accident?

            if you get injured you have consented to the injuries, and should be denied treatment, because you took the risk and drove the car, dumbass

          • ChrisFFs

            That absolutely happens. Ever rented a car and actually read the contract? When you rent their car you accept liability. Everyone knows that. Do you?

            Actions have consequences. One of the consequences of Emily’s behavior was pregnancy. However, she’s apparently too much of an idiot to know that. Just like you.

          • purrtriarchy

            yeah, so, you agree that if you are injured in a car accident that you should be left to die alongside the road, right? after all, you took the risk, you better live with the consequences

          • ChrisFFs

            Whether or not you’re treated has nothing to do with liability. Try again.

            I guess you’ve never known anyone in a car accident (regardless of who’s fault it was) either. Not too bright…..are you?

          • purrtriarchy

            Stop avoiding the question.

            If you are injured in a car accident, did you not consent to the injuries? And therefore, should you be denied treatment because you consented to those injuries?

          • CJ99

            Once again the only fool here is you. You’ve once again backpedalled to the polar opposite of what you’ve just said minutes ago. I’m surprised you’ve not been visited by the fire department with all that smoke pouring out your ears.

          • lady_black

            Women who get pregnant can be treated having nothing to do with liability as well. You aren’t too bright.

          • CJ99

            Dear asshole,
            you do NOT determine the outcome of other peoples action, nobody on this planet belongs to you which is a good thing. you are indeed such a mysoginistic piece of filth nobody wants to be around you.

            Whats also clear is you’ve got a masochistic streak as you go out of your way to exhibit your extreme arrogance & stupidity for all to see guaranteeing you’ll have your butt handed back to you with a side of mint sauce. But I don’t mind indulging you on kicking your insolent butt 5 ways from friday if disuades even 1 other from following in your footsteps.

          • ChrisFFs

            No, no. You’re right. Other people should also be allowed to murder whoever they want, whenever they want. After all, it’s not ME. So who I am to judge all those murderers.

            In fact, while we’re at it. Gosnell should be released from prison. After all, he wasn’t hurting anybody. Those ladies wanted to get rid of those nasty fetuses and he simply obliged. What’s wrong with that?

          • CJ99

            Hey crispy critter. as previously stated you’re lying once again. And yeah the strong language I used calling you ASSHOLE & SHITHEAD along with a few others is well deserved. I sincerely hope the SETI program is unsuccessful in finding proof of ET life. You’re a shameful embarrassment to all of humanity. In fact you belong inside right next to gosnell. There are no murderers here unless your admitting to murder yourself. Abortion isn’t murder, using condoms isn’t murder. However treating women (or indeed men) as slaves by dictating their lives is a crime.

          • ChrisFFs

            “Abortion isn’t murder”

            In Gosnell’s clinic it was. Derp derp.

          • CJ99

            Now that you’ve confirmed even to the thickest of readers that indeed you’re not only an incurable liar but impossibly ignorant. You should’ve stayed in your read only mode on ign or psx extreme. Thats the only refuge for you outside of the taliban or Iran. Just so you know, the crap you so happily fling rings hollow outside the bible concentration camp you grew up in. Heres a parting thought for you, when you’re gone from here you will not be missed by anyone.

          • lady_black

            Those were not abortions. A live delivery isn’t an abortion. You seem confused.

          • ChrisFFs

            The term “abortion” simply means “termination of pregnancy”

            Did you not know that? I thought you were a nurse. A doctor would have known that.

          • lady_black

            No actually abortion does not mean termination of pregnancy. Every pregnancy terminates. Prior to viability, it’s an abortion whether by natural or induced means. After viability it’s a delivery or birth. That’s the medical definition. Abort also means stopping a process before it’s completion, as in “aborting the mission.”

          • ChrisFFs

            Here’s the Merriam Webster definition for your edification:

            : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as

            a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage

            b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

            c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion

            It seems like you are using your own clever definition that fits your needs. Now if you want to be a lawyer about it, you’re right. If you remove the viable fetus and kill it, in this country, that’s also considered murder. But you’re not a lawyer. And you’re not a doctor. You’re a nurse who needs a little more training.

          • lady_black

            Yes, thank you for posting from a dictionary. But that is not a MEDICAL dictionary, nor is it a LEGAL dictionary. That is a common usage dictionary. There is a difference. The definition I gave you is the correct MEDICAL definition. If a fetus dies in utero at 32 weeks and labor is induced, what results is a birth or delivery of a stillborn. Not an abortion. That is the termination of a pregnancy after the death of the fetus. But the medical term abortion doesn’t really fit. And the delivery of a live child, followed by the murder of the live child is definitely NOT an abortion. Medically or legally.

          • ChrisFFs

            Alright, you want to play the medical definition game. Let’s go.

            The medical definition of an abortion is

            —”Interruption of an established pregnancy before 20 weeks’ gestation”

            That includes both spontaneous and induced abortions. Medically, a spontaneous abortion after 20 weeks is consider a birth. If it doesn’t live you get a +1 to the P of TPAL (you also don’t get to add the +1 to the L). You know what that is, I’m sure. Guess what also adds a +1 to the P….that’s right induced “abortions” after 20 weeks, even though post-20 week “abortion” is still legal in some states. And even though it’s not medically abortion at all – because it’s after 20 weeks.

            Look, I know you want to play semantics. So do it. And we could go around and around about what is abortion and what is not – because legal, medical, and common-use definition do not all concur.

          • lady_black

            Actually, let me correct your nonsense. It’s GTPAL. A delivery 20 weeks would add 1 to the G and the P only. It would not be an L because 20 weeks is not viable. You are talking specifically about an obstetrical history. My medical dictionary specifically says abortion is pregnancy loss prior to viability, not defined as 20 weeks. For obstetrical history purposes preterm is defined as 20 weeks to 37 weeks. There is a huge difference in the expected outcome at 20 weeks and 37 weeks.

          • ChrisFFs

            I was talking about PARITY. Do you know what parity is? It’s TPAL. . GTPAL is for both parity and gestation. .

            But you knew that. Please tell me you knew that nursey.

          • expect_resistance

            I’m really sick of your condescending attacks on nurses. Stop it!!!!
            I know many nurses who have more intellect in the fingernail of their pinky finger than you do in your entire little tiny brain.

          • ChrisFFs

            Well, when the alleged medical professional (nurse) get’s a basic medical knowledge and stops trying to contradict reports written by doctors (like in the Savita case) then I’ll stop being condescending toward her.

            Or in this thread, like she was acting like she didn’t understand that I was talking about parity, not gestation.

          • fiona64

            That’s rich, coming from a homeschool drop-out like yourself, who does not know how to properly differentiate between plurals and possessives …

          • expect_resistance

            You’re not a medical professional so sit back down.

          • CJ99

            crispy critter personifies the headline to this article of antichoicers desparately trying to make others see what isn’t there.

          • lady_black

            You do not belong here, because you have language difficulties. You use words that you don’t understand.

          • expect_resistance

            5×5 I thought you got banned. Deep derp asshat! Please go screw yourself.

          • ChrisFFs

            Well since you said please, OK.

          • fiona64

            Unfortunately, Disqus can’t ban by ISP. So, little fappin-in-the-basement boy creates a new handle — and thinks no one notices. Derp derp indeed.

          • Shan

            Disqus needs an “ignore” function. Desperately.

          • goatini

            Criminal Gosnell was tried and convicted – and had NOTHING whatsoever to do with safe, legal pregnancy termination. Stop lying.

          • ChrisFFs

            Gosnell was just helping those women get rid of their unwanted pregnancies.

            Why are you being such a forced-birther about this?

          • goatini

            Still lying, I see. Again, criminal Gosnell was tried and convicted. He was not involved in any way whatsoever with safe, legal pregnancy termination.

          • ChrisFFs

            Yeah, because of all those nasty, restrictive laws that don’t allow woman to have the CHOICE to abort in the third trimester.

            Admit it, you’re a third trimester forced birther.

          • goatini

            The parameters of safe, legal pregnancy termination are detailed in Roe v Wade, and are protected by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

          • ChrisFFs

            You’re a forced birther. I knew it.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, because how can you force something that’s ALREADY HAPPENED

          • ChrisFFs

            The birth of a 30-week old fetus has already happened?

            Wouldn’t that make it a baby?

          • lady_black

            Yes.

          • Arekushieru

            Oh, so the babies (actual babies) were still in the uterus when Gosnell killed them? Hint: No, they weren’t. Therefore no abortion and no pregnancy. Murder, plain and simple. Oops.

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

            And a nice safe legal abortion is sometimes the consequence of having hot enjoyable sex. Cry me a river, Asexual Anus.

          • expect_resistance

            Pretty sure Chris is 5×5.

          • fiona64

            Of course it is … and so is sock puppet Frances.

          • expect_resistance

            I’ve been busy arguing with sick puppet myintx over at MJ and patheos. *sigh*

          • purrtriarchy

            There is an idiot just like her on TFA. She goes by the name of Ash and she uses similar arguments. Different person, but only slightly smarter.

          • expect_resistance

            I noticed that. JPPrichard is very annoying with his “post abortive” faux counseling crap.

          • Shan

            “Different person, but only slightly smarter.”

            That wouldn’t be too difficult…

          • fiona64

            Myintx is not a sock puppet, more’s the pity — she’s just a nutter single mom who’s pissed that the baby-daddy took off when she tried to “oops” him … and wants everyone to be as miserable as she is.

            Pro-tip: she works for a CPC in Texas. That should make her game very obvious, eh?

          • expect_resistance

            Thank you. It all makes sense now.

          • lady_black

            She’s an idiot.

          • fiona64

            I could not agree with you more.

          • ChrisFFs

            Everyone who disagrees with you is 5X5. I’m 5×5. Frances is 5×5. I think Plum Dumpling might even be 5X5, but that’s unconfirmed.

          • expect_resistance

            Call it an educated guess.

          • Arekushieru

            Funny. Because its antis like you that would love to keep women ignorant of that. NOT us.

          • Guest

            Well that’s just a goddamn sad story. Here, have a tissue. Take the whole box.

          • fiona64

            One of the consequences of Emily’s behavior was pregnancy. However, she’s apparently too much of an idiot to know that. Just like you.

            And a subsequent consequence may be an abortion. However, you are apparently too much of an idiot to know that, 5×5.

          • Guest

            One of the consequences is an abortion. Poor, poor little fetii that never sees the light o’ day. Boo hoo, too bad so sad. Here’s a tissue. Call somebody who gives a shit.

          • CJ99

            Just remember that you being an abusive jackass is what has consequences. If you dare put your vile words into action you’ll see for yourself what they are.

          • CJ99

            Purr isn’t the one being stupid, you are. You don’t decide who gets pregnant and who does not. You don’t determine who has sex & who doesn’t. Since your stupidity is so overwhelming for you I’ll make it simple. America is not “one theocracy under you”.

          • Guest

            Pregnancy can end in abortion. Boo fuckin hoo. You’ll get over it.

          • Arekushieru

            That’s not how consent works, asshole. Besides, by your logic you consent to no medical treatment when you get involved in an accident that is clearly your fault, because you knew when you climbed behind the wheel of that vehicle that an accident was possible.

          • ChrisFFs

            Don’t be angry man.

          • lady_black

            Don’t be angry, lady.

    • lady_black

      There is nothing to see that early.

      • ChrisFFs

        They scooped out nothing?

        She should get her money back.

        • expect_resistance

          There is no scooping during an abortion at 6-7 weeks. See for yourself http://www.thisismyabortion.com.

          • Dez

            Yeah he’s pretty ignorant on what abortion actually is and how it is performed.

          • expect_resistance

            Yep. Most anti-choicers are ignorant and whine the loudest about it.

          • lady_black

            What do you expect from someone who thinks a woman can insert her own IUD, just like a tampon?

        • Dez

          Not much more than a heavy period.

          • ChrisFFs

            Your heavy period had a heartbeart?

          • Dez

            I wouldn’t know since it was a first trimester miscarriage and it went down the toilet. A clump of bloody mess isn’t worth trying to get a heartbeat from.

          • Dez

            You do know most abortions happen in the first trimester and is like getting a heavy period. Unless you are a woman you have no idea.

          • ChrisFFs

            And you’ve just described a natural death.

            Not a murder. Congrats, now you know the difference.

          • Dez

            Nope it’s the same thing. There is no death since it was never born. Can’t murder someone that doesn’t exist. Try again.

          • ChrisFFs

            Why would she need an abortion for something that doesn’t exist?

          • Dez

            Because she doesn’t want it to develop into something, Duh.

          • Guest

            Oh boo hoo. Murder this murder that. Call someone who cares.

          • lady_black

            Naturalistic fallacy.

          • Guest

            Probably not. Because it was dead.

        • lady_black

          When did I say they “scooped out” anything?

    • lady_black

      Are you too stupid to know that abortion is a possible result of unwanted pregnancy? Apparently so.

      • ChrisFFs

        So is murder.

    • Arekushieru

      Um, because that is not part of the medical procedure that she had? Oi, asshole, if you know nothing about medical practices don’t bring them up and embarrass yourself, next time. Just saying!

      See, Ms. Letts isn’t so enthralled with dismemberment porn, anyways, that she would wave the image around in the air on placards like Pro-Life ‘sidewalk counselors’ like to do. They just LOVE the gore, after all.

      Actually, yes, she does know. She’s an abortion counselor for crying out loud. OI.

    • Guest

      That’s a good idea, non-birthday cards. You just never know where the next good business idea will come from. Somebody could make a ‘killin!’

      • lady_black

        And a very Merry Un-birthday to you. Un-birthdays are so much better than birthdays, because you only have one birthday.

    • Dez

      So I should get a non-birthday card for the bloody clumps that I flushed down the toilet from my first trimester miscarriage?

      • BJ Survivor

        Don’t you know that you’re the mother of a dead baby? At least according to the fuckwits of the forced-birth brigade. /eyeroll

    • lady_black

      Who the hell are you? The March Hare?

    • Suba gunawardana

      Why the obsession with dead fetuses?

      • fiona64

        I think that he gathers stuff like this for his spank bank, myself …

  • goatini

    Nothing magical about an accurate vocabulary.

  • ChrisFFs

    “Don’t take birth control cause you’ll get fat, just have an
    abortion instead!” –Emily Letts.

  • Arekushieru

    Actually, the whole reason we are Pro-Choice is BECAUSE the truth matters to us. Your emotional manipulation of words has nothing to do with truth which is, along with your attempts to subvert women’s rights by superimposing images of cute widdle baybeez on top of them, the reason why we object to the use of that word. If YOU, on the other hand, think that the unborn are human beings, YOU would not OBJECT to the use of the term fetus, because the status of a human being is not erased by merely changing the name of the development stage at which it currently stands. Oops. Whether it is a baby or not is IRRELEVANT, however. SFS,

  • Arekushieru

    Well, another ignorant asshat, who just admitted that they think women are indeed incubators and broodmares. They can’t make decisions for themselves, after all. *Barf*

    Nowhere in my embryology or biology textbook was a fetus called a baby, most especially not in a women’s studies class. Although, I wonder what kind of upbringing YOU had that led you to believe that Women’s Studies classes taught you anything about reproductive biology? I studied that and it never said one word about that. Oops.

  • Arekushieru

    Again, if you think calling something a fetus, blastocyst, embryo or zygote makes something not a life while calling it a baby does, you are the one with the problem, not us.

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

    God bless a prochoice man.

  • Shan

    “When male lawmakers can make babies, they will have earned the privilege to bellow pro or con.”

    Only for themselves, individually.

  • Catalin Renee Davies

    I’m so happy that a feminist writer has taken on the magical thinking of the anti-choice brigade. It’s what I find most bizarre about their stance. Zygotes aren’t babies. Blastocysts aren’t babies. Embryos aren’t babies. Fetusus aren’t babies. We aren’t BABIES until after we’re BORN. Period.

    My abortion consisted of a cup or two of bloody fluid, some clots, and a clump of cells smaller than a raisin. I was awake. I saw what was removed. At seven or eight weeks, I was not carrying a BABY, and the abortion procedure didn’t KILL anything. It prevented the further development of an embryo.

    I fully support Ms. Letts’ decision to have her abortion recorded. I wish every woman would. Count me in favor of any effort to destigmatize abortion and to spread facts, rather than anti-choice propaganda. There should be no shame in deciding, “I’m pregnant, but I don’t want to be,” and taking action on that decision. You don’t need to share your reasons with me. You’re not require to explain. You’re not required to make excuses or apologize.

    Anyone who claims to be pro-choice should take the same stand. Whatever your reasons for wanting an abortion are, they are acceptable. They don’t have to meet any other human’s standards.

    Oh, your abortion is acceptable because you were raped?

    Oh, your abortion is acceptable because the condom broke?

    Oh, your abortion is acceptable because you had sex with someone you
    were madly in love with but he bailed on you?

    No. Nope. Nu-uh. That’s just so much judgemental BS. That’s society using women’s reproductive capabilities as a weapon against them. It’s how it tries to control female
    sexuality.

    Your abortion is acceptable. Period. It’s a safe, legal, medical procedure–14 times safer than giving birth, as a matter of fact–and whether or not you want it is up to you. How you got pregnant, why you want an abortion: None of my business.

    I. Support. Every. Woman’s. Choice.

    • BJ Survivor

      Brava! I agree with every, single word! It gives much such *headdesk* when forced-birthers trot out the (nonexistent at least in U.S.) “epidemic” of gender-selective abortion, as if then I’ll finally decide that such women should be forced to give birth to girls they don’t want. I like children. I want them to be had by parents who genuinely, desperately want them and have the means to provide for them. I am a liberal, so I fully support expanding the social safety net and providing workplace protections and standards to pregnant and lactating people. I want their to be high-quality, fully-funded, accurate public educational standards (mostly because I find it offensive to be surrounded by ignoramuses /sarcasm).

    • Suba gunawardana

      Exactly. Abortion needs no justification.

    • AmyE

      Well written. So often we forget on the pro-choice side and it seems we let our judgment come out when we should remember that we should not be making exceptions for cases. If you want an abortion, you should get an abortion, no question why.

  • lady_black

    Only if the baby was already born and carried in her arms.

  • ChrisFFs

    The baby was already born — according to Arekushieru.

    Read above.

  • lady_black

    Not when they went there it wasn’t.

  • ChrisFFs

    Ahh, but they knew they were going there to kill their baby and not leave with a healthy baby boy or girl. Or do you think they got confused about what “abortion clinics” do?