What Happens When We Share Our Abortion Stories: Hate, Vitriol, But Also Love


Wednesday morning, like most, I rolled over in bed, hugged Harley the cat, and looked at my phone to check the morning’s news stories.

“Congrats on killing your baby. Nice job,” the first Facebook post said. It had seven “likes.”

Throughout the morning, Facebook posts, messages, emails, and tweets rolled in calling me a “murdering piece of garbage,” “twisted waste of a human,” and a “disgusting slut,” among many other things.

Because of a Mamas Day article I wrote on the Huffington Post about how an abortion changed the way I experience Mother’s Day, people I’ve never met requested that I kill myself, get raped, die in childbirth (as a Black woman, that is something for which I am at higher risk), and be sterilized (something that many women of color have experienced). They asked if I have dementia (something I watched my grandmother suffer from) and hoped that I would be sold into the “sex trade” and “forced to give birth over and over again and then die from giving birth.”

Charming.

email

I hadn’t even gotten out of bed yet.

You might be shocked at these messages, appalled even, but this is actually quite normal. This is what happens when we share our abortion stories publicly. This harassment is now part of my abortion experience.

Recently, Emily Letts bravely filmed her abortion in order to show others that they aren’t alone, that it is a safe procedure, and that there is support out there. After anti-choice activists got wind of the video, she had “threats and curses put on [her] uterus,” parody videos were made mocking her and coat hanger abortions, and countless articles have been written. Even Sarah Palin weighed in on the shame game. As Letts continues to share her story, the harassment continues.

But this kind of stigma-based attack is not just something people experience from strangers. Earlier this month, boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. publicly shamed his ex-fiancée, Shantel Jackson, on his Instagram account for having an abortion. I watched on Twitter as messages of hate toward Jackson poured out; people even wished death upon her. Many of her supporters pointed out that Mayweather had served time for domestic violence and harassment after abusing his ex-girlfriend in front of their children, which is an important point given that his behavior of outing her is in itself an abusive violation of her privacy. As an abuser, it’s no wonder that he would use his platform to have more people degrade and shame her.

What’s frustrating is that this is all too often deemed “part of living publicly.” It is seen as the ugly part of sharing your story, and something for which you just grow a “thick skin.”

But that’s no longer good enough for me.

Every week I have people telling me they want to share their abortion stories, but then they see the backlash people like Letts, Jackson, and now I have faced, and it makes them run in the other direction.

As a movement, we often ask people to share their stories to change policy and influence the hearts and minds of our country—but at what cost? We ask people to put themselves out there, but we do not really think about the possible impacts on their lives. We forget, just as our opposition often does, the real people behind the political debates. Given my personal experiences and my belief that storytelling is an important tool to raise awareness and empower individuals, I often think about how we can (and must) show love for people who share their experiences. How can we adequately show support for the millions of people who’ve had abortions, but are scared to speak out because they see the violence hurled at those who dare to share? These hurtful comments aren’t only being seen by the person they’re aimed at, they’re being seen by the one in three women who’ve had an abortion who are also online and the people who are considering their options.

I tweeted messages of love and support to Jackson, Letts, and others who have faced vitriol after their abortion was made public, but my comments were lost in the sea of vile comments and debates over the right to an abortion.

As I write this, I continue to receive message after message of hate for my own storytelling. I just received a threat of violence should that person see me on the street. I take those threats seriously since I have been approached and threatened in person for saying I had an abortion. It’s hard to keep working in a movement and sharing your story when that is what you see every day. This is unacceptable.

We have to look at how we can stand together in solidarity behind the people we’re asking to share their abortion stories publicly. There are many campaigns and organizations asking people to share their stories, and it’s wonderful to see so many women taking a step into vulnerability to share and speak publicly. But, after they share, then what? How is our movement following up with them to ensure they receive love and support as their inbox fills with hate? No matter how anyone feels about abortion, no one deserves the abhorrent comments that are flung at us.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I have thought about what has helped me (and what I wish I saw more often). And that includes:

Call attention to the behavior. We must call this behavior what it is: abuse and harassment. We cannot sit idly by as people threaten the lives of those in our movement who are out there either speaking in support of abortion access or sharing their stories. We must support them in reporting the harassment through the social media platforms and to authorities, if they so choose. I continue to turn to friends about what actions I can take to defend myself, but very few people know what can be done. Let’s do the research, lean on those who have experienced and written about online harassment, and demand that authorities take action to protect us online. We must demand that Congress pass laws to catch up to the times. For people who are vulnerable and visible online, this is very real.

Have our backs. If we want people to share their stories for our organizations and our movement, we must be willing to hold their hand in the best and worst of times. The folks who volunteer and work at our organizations take on a lot when they write op-eds, put their names on flyers, and speak out on behalf of an organization’s mission. I’ve been sharing my story with and on behalf of organizations for several years. The staff at Forward Together, the nonprofit running the Mamas Day campaign, asked me how they could help and “share the heat” with me. This was the first time any organization had ever offered that. We didn’t know what that would look like, because it rarely happens, but the simple fact that they offered reminded me that I am not doing this alone. Their tweets and posts let others know they had my back.

Let your storyteller know your organization supports them, cares for their well-being, and will publicly offer them love and support. They are not alone.

Know #YouAreLoved. I also realized that our society has few models of what support looks like. Rather than judging people, let’s just show up in solidarity for the bravery it took them to speak publicly. The way I have survived these constant attacks is by receiving messages of love and support, both online and in person. Hugs make all the difference.

Today, I cried because of this simple tweet from Mikki Kendall:

I don’t know Kendall. We’ve never met. But because of her tweet, my Twitter feed flooded with messages of support, kittens, and puppies. All of a sudden, the day felt bearable again.

I again wept tears of joy when the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, the organization I intern for, partnered with the Repeal Hyde Art Project to make beautiful memes to offer support for me, Emily Letts, and all the other people who share their abortion stories in the face of hate.

fly with renee

So that’s what I’m asking of the movement: Let’s start a new campaign to let those who are vulnerable, brave, and share their stories know they are loved—each and every time they receive hate, and all the days in between! Join me in reminding the one in three women who’ve had an abortion that they are loved and respected using #YouAreLoved on Twitter. They need to know that we are an army of support and we’ve got their backs. And just as importantly, the people thinking about sharing their abortion stories will know that we will have their backs too. It is our responsibility to stick together.

And remember, through it all, #YouAreLoved.

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

Follow Renee Bracey Sherman on twitter: @rbraceysherman

  • Elizabeth Creely

    Remember that moment in the SF City Hall when you and I both spoke? How powerful it was? There was (unexpectedly) one other voice- yours- right ahead of mine in that line and in that room where, before you spoke, I had only seen many people committed to misleading women and forcibly superimposing their “knowledge” over my direct experience.
    Hearing your voice made it infinitely easier for me to speak as well and made all the difference.
    For every ugly tweet, there’s another woman waiting for any cue at all to talk about what she knows and how it’s shaped her.

    Big hug. Let’s keep sharing.

  • TheBrett

    You’re a goddamn hero for speaking out on this, at a time when the anti-choice crowd is doing their best to patronize, shame, and restrict women’s rightful access and control over their own bodies. Keep up the good work!

  • Leanne McKenzie
    • lady_black

      Great essay, I’ve read it, re-read it and used it extensively.

  • Shan

    Much support to you, Renee. Thank you for writing that beautiful HuffPo article and I’m so sorry people think it’s acceptable to direct such ugliness at you for it.

  • lady_black

    Don’t let the bastards grind you down. Sorry that human beings would treat another human being that way. They are trying to shame you into silence. Don’t give them the satisfaction.

  • Suba gunawardana

    History is being made right now, Renee, and you played a huge part in it. Much love & gratitude to you!

    Things are tangibly better now than the last century, thanks to courageous people who spoke out. And those who speak out today will make tomorrow a hundred times better.

  • Ineedacoffee

    So much support your way
    Remember you are stronger and a much better person then the ones who spew the hate

  • Alex Hunter

    And yet the anti-choice crowd insists that getting an abortion is what causes depression.

    • Alex Harman

      Much like the homophobes (the same people as the anti-choice crowd, for the most part) claiming that homosexuality causes depression, when it’s their own bullying and harassment that tends to make LGBT people feel depressed. Their chutzpah knows no limits.

  • Sitara Singley

    I support you sweetie. Kittens and puppies for you. :)

  • Mack

    Hooray for Margaret Sanger, the FOUNDER of Planned Parenthood! She had some great things to say about population control, especially when it dealt with “Negroes” as she referred to them…

    Here are a few of her quotes:
    From page 108 of her pamphlet that was printed in “Birth Control Review” April, 1932, Vol XVI, number 4:

    “to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization”
    (–Hmm… Some choice…)

    “to apportion ["steal" or "confiscate"] farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the penod of their entire lives”
    (–Hmm… Their entire lives??? That sounds like a plan Hitler tried to implement)

    “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to EXTERMINATE the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
    (–No explanation needed)

    Now, do you still like Planned Abortionhood?

    Source:
    The pamphlet with her dinner speech (verbatim):
    http://birthcontrolreview.net/Birth%20Control%20Review/1932-04%20April.pdf

    10 quotes from Margaret Sanger’s mouth:
    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10-eye-opening-quotes-from-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

    • purrtriarchy

      All bullshit.

      • Mack

        Clear, concise answer, supported with factual information, complete with the properly-cited references.

        Typical sheeple answer…

        • purrtriarchy
          • Mack

            The “family planning” of which the great Reverend spoke about in that speech referred to birth control–not abortion. As I mentioned, Planned Abortionhood did not support abortions until King was long gone.

            Nice try…

          • purrtriarchy

            Racist.

          • Mack

            Really? Have you met my ethnic wife?

            You just made yourself look beyond stupid and ignorant.

            You have no clue…

          • purrtriarchy

            How often do you beat her?

          • Mack

            What does that question have to do with the abortion topic? Nice spin job.

            Liberal silence the opposition method #125: When you are losing an argument, begin the personal attacks…

            You have just graduated to method #126. Go ahead…

          • Suba gunawardana

            Exactly. Your wife-beating has NOTHING to do with Sanger or PP :)

          • Mack

            Suba,
            Some jerk beating his wife is no joke. It’s not even CLOSE to being funny.

            Those people are exactly who my wife counsels in her office. Well, abused women and kids… She holds her Master’s degree in counseling, and she is currently working on her PhD. She will have “Dr.” in front of her name in 2 years.

            Not funny at all… I volunteer at the abuse shelter where she volunteers twice a week after she is done working in her office.

            Open your mouth, dork, and insert foot.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Do you know this is about the 10th point in this conversation that flew right over your head?

            OK you specifically said my statement was not a joke. That means you ADMIT to beating your wife.

          • Mack

            I did not admit to that. Do not put words into my mouth.

            You said:
            Your wife-beating has NOTHING to do with Sanger or PP. Just a joke.”

            First, your personal attack is a flat-out lie. You are wrong. I do not beat my wife, and I do not know why you spun this conversation inso some sort of fantasy land that you concocted from thin air.

            Liberals are good at spinning things when they begin to lose an argument. They begin with PERSONAL attacks, rather that an honest debate.

            I said some jerk beating his wife is NO JOKE. I find your sense of humor is questionable, at best.

            Here is what I said. Please pay attention this time and quit fantasizing about what you would LIKE TO believe about me:

            “Some jerk beating his wife is no joke. It’s not even CLOSE to being funny.

            Those people are exactly who my wife counsels in her office. Well, abused women and kids…”

            Comprende’?

          • Suba gunawardana

            After a week you STILL haven’t got it? Let me try to explain once more.

            You mentioned your “ethnic wife”.
            Someone asked “how often do you beat her?”
            Instead of simply denying that you beat her, you said “that has nothing to do with the topic”.

            LOL That implies exactly what I said, i.e.”Your wife-beating has NOTHING to do with Sanger or PP. ” I added “just a joke” because at the time I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were probably NOT beating your wife.

            Now that you are getting so….o sensitive & defensive about the whole “wife-beating” issue, I am not so sure. I know many strong men who wouldn’t hurt a fly and always protect the weak, and they would have seen the humor right away and made a joke right back.

          • Mack

            I am sorry to misinterpret what you said.

            Abuse just hits a nerve with me. I see the result of it when I volunteer where my wife works. These so-called “men” are freaking animals. I never have, nor would I ever strike a woman. I cannot understand why those animals would.

            There are children who come into that shelter with eye sockets that are black. They have belt marks across their back. Women have handprints across their cheeks and foreheads. Women have burn marks from cigarettes being held against their arms. It is disgusting.

            What hits my nerves is that I do so much to help those women, and then I come here and several idiots accuse me of the very thing I am trying to eliminate–wife abuse. I donate about 10-20 hours per week down there, and my business donates about $12,000 annually to help them do the right thing.

            Sorry I got carried away.
            /End rant

          • Rainbow Walker

            You think you’re wife treating abused patients precludes her from being abused?

            I’m a psychologist working with adjudicated children. What do credentials have to do with this? No sense of humor or touched a nerve?

          • Mack

            No, I don’t think that. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

            Touched a nerve.

            She could be abused, but that is not the case. She was abused by her mother when she was a young girl. That is why she went into counseling with a focus on abused women and children.

            As I mentioned earlier, I volunteer about 10-20 hours a week at the shelter where my wife works. I see what the results of abuse are first-hand, but not on such a personal level as my wife does during her individual counseling sessions and groups.

            I cannot fathom what goes through an abuser’s mind. I just can’t understand why they think the way they do…

          • fiona64

            I cannot fathom what goes through an abuser’s mind. I just can’t understand why they think the way they do…

            And yet you do not hesitate to verbally abuse and demean the women who post here (myself included). What goes through the head of an abuser is just the same thing that goes through yours: “How dare you? I’ll show you …”

            And it starts out just like you are doing here, with the nasty comments about how women need to keep their legs closed, how stupid women are, etc.

            Just. Like. That.

            You know, like Elliot Rodger, who felt he was entitled to have sex with women who weren’t interested in him … and that they needed to be punished for believing differently.

            Just like you think that women who don’t “keep their legs closed” (your words) need to be punished by having children they don’t want.

          • Mack

            …and you sure didn’t hesitate one second to fling wild, false, unsubstantiated accusations at me nonstop. Who is the REAL abuser (or bully) here, dear?

            Here are the comments from some of the other dorks here:
            —Racist.
            —How often do you beat her?
            —Your wife-beating has NOTHING to do with Sanger or PP :) Just a joke.

            (Really? Referring to wife beating is considered to be a JOKE now??? Nothing funny about that. Some sick people on here!)

            —Elliot Rodger, who felt he was entitled

            (I do not feel entitled to anything. I have earned everything I have, and respect others’ property)

            I don’t kick my wife, like you claimed.
            I don’t hit my wife, like you believe.
            I don’t abuse my wife. Period.

            My comment about women who don’t keep their legs closed has to do with taking personal responsibility for their bad decisions which have consequences that they do not want to accept. It is not a punishment in any form, as you assert. Rather, it is a simple consequence (result) of their personal bad decision-making. Some women (and men!) do not want to accept any responsibility for their actions, while others accept full responsibility for their actions.

            (My mom for example. She raised my brother and I as a single Mom back when it was not the norm like it is today. She did just fine, and actually had a couple more boys before she was done.) None of us are in jail, on drugs, on welfare, or wife-beaters–despite what you’d like to believe. We are all successful and happily married.

            I think you guys have a problem believing somebody can actually have a long happy marriage (I am on my second very happy marriage, and I am blessed to do so). I guess you want everyone to miserable like the rest of you.

          • fiona64

            My comment about women who don’t keep their legs closed has to do with taking personal responsibility for their bad decisions which have consequences that they do not want to accept.

            And guess what, jerk? Having an abortion *is* taking responsibility, whether you like it or not. You want to force women to remain pregnant as punishment.

            You do know that the majority of women (60%) who have abortions are married, with one or more children in the home already. No? Well, now you do.

            It quite clearly pisses you off that you cannot control women’s reproductive decisions. Learn to live with the disappointment.

            Trust me, no one here is jealous of you. I feel sorry for your trophy wife, though.

          • cjvg

            It is amazing how you continue to appropriate new attributes every time the conversation flows in that direction.
            -First you appropriate an ethnic wife to claim you are not racist against black women (which proves nothing, your wife might be Asian and thus considered acceptable by you)
            - then you appropriate a abuse counselor ethnic wife to deflect your are attempting to control women.
            Curious what your next claim will be, I guess that depends on where this debate is going. In the mean time you are still anti-choice and are still attempting to appropriate the right to own women’s personal medical choices simply because they are women! Not exactly a show of respect and confidence that women are competent legal adults who know what is best for their own particular situation

          • Mack

            I didn’t “appropriate” anything.

            I married her, and she willingly married me. I eventually put her through Grad school. As a result, now she earns more than I do. Next year, she will put me through Grad school, as we agreed a few years ago. Is that unusual to you? What is “usual” in your expert opinion?

            I don’t control women. I open doors for them and pull chairs for them when they sit down. I buy them flowers for no special occasion. It sounds like you are rather jealous. Doesn’t your spouse do that for YOU? If not, why not?

            There is a difference between be controlling and being chivalrous, and apparently, you do not know what that difference is.

            Oh, and she is not Asian. Nice try, but you are wrong on all counts.

            Try again, junior…

          • cjvg

            Ah, the personal attack!
            When it hits to close to reality you can always just claim that those who have a different opinion then yours must be
            - jealous
            -ignorant of acceptable social norms
            -to young to know better

            What do you know, you hit the trifecta!

            You are most definitely appropriating something, you are appropriating the right of other competent adults to make their own medical choices. I can’t think of anything more controlling then attempting to own the reproductive choices of others!

          • Mack

            “…you are appropriating the right of other competent adults to make their own medical choices…”

            Rights??? Oh, yeah, I forgot…
            Which Amendment was that, again? Is it in the one that mentions “muskets”, or is it in the one that mentions “abortion”?

          • purrtriarchy

            Right to privacy, liberty, freedom from slavery

          • Mack

            Which amendment was it that guarantees a “right” to make their own medical choices, again? You didn’t list it. Nice deflection… Please be specific.

            Doesn’t personal liberty include the “right” to sell my left kidney or my right lung? Oh yeah, you have all kinds of liberty, don’t you? *cough

            Not necessarily a “right” to privacy, but rather, a federal law that prevents the government from performing unreasonable searches and seizures on its citizens.

            We are ALL slaves to our government. Try not paying your property taxes one year and see what happens. The government confiscates your personal wealth. Didn’t you realize that?

          • purrtriarchy

            Forced pregnancy = forced labour without renumeration on behalf of a fetus and the government.

            That is slavery. Property taxes are not slavery.

          • Mack

            I think you meant “remuneration”.

            Renumeration is a common misspelling of remuneration:
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/remuneration

            Then don’t pay your property taxes. In fact, don’t pay ANY taxes and see how that works out for you.

            If you labor in any field or career, the government will forcefully confiscate some of your personal wealth that your accumulate. Forever…. Even after you die…

            Without remuneration? Labor has been going on for several million years without remuneration. How is a pregnancy on behalf of the government?

          • purrtriarchy

            If you are compelled to give birth against your will by the government you are enslaved by that government.

          • Mack

            Taxes are a form of enslavement. Big government is bad. It feeds off the sweat of those whom it governs.

            Why don’t you direct your anger towards the outrageous, lopsided, top-heavy tax rates in this country? Half of this country pays no income tax at all. Doesn’t that tweak you off?

            Every single problem in this country has been caused by the government. Every single one…

          • purrtriarchy

            Taxes are not enslavement. Perhaps you would be happier living in the libertarian paradise of Somalia.

          • fiona64

            And yet you keep trying to pretend you are not a Teabircher …

            Heh.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Government forcing you to carry an unwanted pregnancy is what? Unreasonable seizure of your person.

            Property taxes are about property. Nothing to do with your person.

          • Mack

            “Government forcing you to carry an unwanted pregnancy”

            Government isn’t forcing anything. It is a consequence of someone’s personal responsibility, obvious bad judgement, and their refusal to take personal responsibility for their bad decisions. It’s always someone else’s fault… It’s the daddy’s fault. Yeah, that’s it. It’s the daddy’s fault…

            “Unreasonable seizure of your person”

            Are they locking people up or confiscating people? Not hardly. A cop taking your car without probable cause is an unreasonable seizure. A pregnancy is not.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If the government restricts or bans abortion, then it FORCES women to carry all unwanted pregnancies to term. What part of this don’t you get?

            NOT all pregnancies are a result of irresponsibility. Even if some pregnancies do result from irresponsibility, women should still have the right to terminate if they so wish. To take that right way is to FORCE birth.

            Using your body as an incubator against your will IS unreasonable seizure/slavery/imprisonment.

            You seem to not understand the difference between body and property. Unreasonable seizure applies to property too, but is far more serious when it is done to your body.

          • Mack

            Please cite the US Code that states that an embryo is “property”. When you find it, I will believe your fantasy.

            I’d also like you to tell me what the going rate is to buy a piece of property called an “embryo” on eBay, an auction, or a garage sale.

          • purrtriarchy

            Do you believe that womens bodies are the property of embryos?

          • Mack

            women’s

            No. That defies all science. An embryo is created from parts of a woman’s body, such as blood, oxygen, calcium, and other components removed from the host, not the other way around. You should have paid attention in science class.

          • purrtriarchy

            As usual, the point went right over your head

            You want to make gestational slaves out of women. That would essentially make women the property of fetuses and of the government.

          • Mack

            No I dont. Perhaps, in your fantasy world, but not in mine. Nobody wants to make slaves out of anybody.

            A fetus is created from parts of a woman’s body, not the other way around. A fetus cannot “own” anything.

            Oh, and we are all slaves of our government, by the way. A child born today owes the government over $225,000.

          • purrtriarchy

            By forcing a woman to labour on behalf of a fetus against her will you are making a slave out of her. A slave to the government and to the fetus.

          • Mack

            Slaves are either captured, or are bought and sold, or are abused to the point where they fear their masters so much that they will not run away from them.

            A woman who had voluntary consensual sex was not “forced” to do anything. That’s why they call it “consensual” sex.

            If she was, as you allege, a “slave” to the government, she would not be free to have consensual sex. In your hypothetical scenario, the government would decide when and where she would be having sex.

            If you doubt me, then do your research on how REAl actual sex slaves are abused in Indonesia or Africa and get yourself a real eye opening education…

          • purrtriarchy

            Forcing a woman to REMAIN pregnant against her will is slavery.

            Consent is not a one time thing. If you are having sex with your fake ethnic trophy wife, and midway through she asks you to stop, and you ignore her request, you will then be guilty of rape.

            Consent is ALWAYS REVOCABLE.

          • Mack

            Since you think it is a fake wife, there would be no hypothetical rape because your hypothetical fake ethnic trophy wife in your hypothetical fairy tale does not exist. You said so.

            In actuality, if she said stop, I would. That is the difference between you and me–you have fantasies of rape and I don’t. You are consumed with it… No.. Obsessed with it. You should seek help.

            That is what happens when you create hypothetical situations. There is no right answer because the situation does not even exist.

          • purrtriarchy

            If you did NOT stop, it would be rape, period.

            That is the CONCEPT.

            DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

          • Mack

            Not in the case of a non-existent fake ethnic trophy wife.

            If you had a unicorn, would a basketball still know what time it is?

            Hypothetical questions are childish… Why do you insist on using them in a debate?

          • purrtriarchy

            You really do have to be spoon fed every concept.

            If two people are having sex, and one revokes consent, and the other refuses, it becomes rape. Period. That’s the concept. Dumbass.

          • Mack

            “Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass.
            Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass.
            Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass.
            Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass. Dumbass.”

            Boy. That didn’t take long for the personal attacks to begin.

            “If two people are having sex, and one revokes consent, and the other refuses, it becomes rape.”

            You are learning quickly. Now, that is NOT a hypothetical question, and it is what you should have said in the first place without involving me or my wife.

            Although, to be precise, it is still a hypothetical situation.

            Your hypothetical situation would be true if it would happen.

          • purrtriarchy

            Stop acting like an idiot and we won’t accuse you of being dumber than a doorknob.

            And no, it is not a hypothetical situation. It happens all the time.

          • Mack

            The statement begins with the word “if”.
            It is a hypothetical situation…

            Who is “dumber than a doorbell”, again?

            Try a dictionary sometime…

          • purrtriarchy

            Its also a very common form of rape.

          • Suba gunawardana

            The whole point flew right over your head. Please re-read my comment, you just might get it.

          • fiona64

            He’s not too bright, that’s for sure.

          • Rainbow Walker

            This one is none too swift.

            Embryos are of the property of those they inhabit [inhabited]. Just as your plasma, blood and seaman can be sold to a biologics company, so too can embryos and eggs. When there is a marriage contract it becomes trickier. It’s a question of who owns that property [the husband, wife, both or neither, if they sold them]. And if the wife went against the estranged husband’s wishes and implanted the embryo it then becomes a matter for family court.

            Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.) on reh’g in part, 1992 WL 341632 (Tenn. 1992), cert. denied sub nom. Stowe v. Davis, 507 U.S. 911 (1993); Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554, 673 N.Y.S.2d
            350 (1998); A.Z. v. B.Z., 431 Mass. 150, 725 N.E.2d 1051 (2000); Cahill v. Cahill, 757 So. 2d 465 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000); J.B. v. M.B., 170 N.J. 9, 783 A.2d 707 (2001); Litowitz v. Litowitz, 146 Wash. 2d 514, 48 P.3d 261 (2002).

            [http://www.livescience.com/28652-made-to-order-embryos-legal-ethical-issues.html][ http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1215894”Made-to-Order Embryos for Sale — A
            Brave New World?”

          • Mack

            You cannot sell eggs. You must donate them.

            From the article:

            “Donate” was officially the correct term, because selling eggs isn’t legally allowed, so to skirt around this issue, agencies call it “donating”—with $10,000 given as compensation for the medical processes and physical pain involved in the “donation.”

            http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/96591/why-i-couldnt-donate-my-eggs

            From the article:

            “Our current egg donation compensation for your time, commitment and services is $8,000 at our CHR-New York program for a completed egg donation cycle (i.e. retrieval of eggs). If your cycle is canceled due to no fault of your own, compensation is $1,000.”

            http://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/egg_donor_faq.html#paid

            Egg donor website:
            “The typical egg donor profile is a woman of fertile age, between 21 and 30, with a good medical history.”

            Opps! Did they say “donor”? It surely must be a misprint…

            http://www.cyberfeminism.net/eggdonor/ed_donorprocess.html

          • Rainbow Walker

            You are one dumb shit. Even your own links show compensation. They call it donation but you still get compensated for it. Even when you sell plasma they call you a donor. Which technically
            isn’t correct. Donation is giving away with no compensation.

            do·na·tion noun
            1. an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.
            2. a gift, as to a fund; contribution.

            sell
            1 [sel] verb (used with object), sold,sell·ing.
            1. to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price: He sold the car to me for $1000.
            2. to deal in; keep or offer for sale: He sells insurance. This store sells my favorite brand.
            3. to make a sale or offer for sale to: He’ll sell me the car for $1000.
            4. to persuade or induce (someone) to buy something: The salesman sold me on a more expensive model than I wanted.
            5. to persuade or induce someone to buy (something): The clerk really sold the shoes to me by flattery.

            If you get paid in exchange for something it’s called a sale.

          • Mack

            Man what a twit you are.

            The links said they pay the compensation for the TIME in order to
            ****CIRCUMVENT THE LAW.***

            It is illegal to SELL eggs, or any other part of your body. It’s in black and white.

            Would you like it to be in pretty colors on big blocks that you can arrange instead?

            Compensate someone for their time?
            Pay for human eggs?
            Hmmm… Which one is actually legal…?

            Butter up on your reading comprehension.

            Oh, and you said:
            “Donation is giving away with no compensation.”

            So donating $100 to Valley Children’s Hospital in exchange for a ticket to eat dinner with George Strait is not an actual donation by your own definition…

          • Rainbow Walker

            “The links said they pay the compensation for the TIME in order to ****CIRCUMVENT THE LAW.***”

            You are a dimwit. And you can’t read. This isn’t circumventing the law. Compensation for donation is legal. See 42 U.S.C. § 274. It’s not just compensation for time, it’s reimbursement for expenses and other costs associated with the donation procedure.

            [http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/News_and_Publications /Ethics_Committee_Reports_and_Statements/financial_incentives.pdf]”In the analogous circumstance of biomedical research, human subjects exposed to physical and psychologic risks are often reimbursed for expenses. Moreover,
            they may receive additional payments to compensate for the time and inconvenience associated with study participation. These facts support the compensation of oocyte donors regardless of the ultimate use of the oocytes (e.g., fertility therapy or research).”

            And after FLYNN v. HOLDER, No. 10–55643., March 27, 2012 – US 9th Circuit made bone marrow fair game we are reexamining the National Organ Transplant Act. In the future you will be able
            to sell organs/body parts outright to reputable biologics companies.

            “So donating $100 to Valley Children’s Hospital in exchange for a ticket to eat dinner with George Straitis not an actual donation by your own definition…”

            No it’s not. It’s exchanging something for something. I call that a sale or a lottery.

            You really need to get that operation to remove your embedded cranium from your rectum.

          • fiona64

            He does a fabulous job of proving how easy it is to be an anti-choice male …

          • fiona64

            Actually, they are part of the penumbra covered by the 14th Amendment. Please feel free to refer to this document: http://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/docs/privacy-rights.html

            Thanks for proving that you’re a Teabircher, with the typical ignorance of constitutional law that your ilk possess …

          • Mack

            Wrong again. Did you know that the Constitution does not specifically grant you (or ANY citizen) the right to vote for President?

            As far as your interpretation, it’s not Constitutional law. It’s is an interpretation of the Constitution, much the same as citizens’ right to vote for President.

            According to your own sourced article:
            “Although the Constitution DOES NOT explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights…”

            Ah… The SCOTUS, not the Constitution. Just as I asserted.

            What the heck is a Teabircher? Seriously…

          • fiona64

            I’m sorry that you are too stupid to understand how the government works, but that really isn’t my problem.

          • Mack

            Please cite the specific Article and Section of the Constitution that states you you have an explicit “right” vote for the President. I’ll be waiting right here (obviously for a very long time because such a clause does not exist…anywhere).

            What the heck is a “Teabircher”?

          • fiona64

            Well, there is the 19th Amendment, in my particular case. Were you homeschooled or something? http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=63

            A Teabircher is a Tea Party/John Birch Society (the Tea Party was astroturfed by the Koch Bros., whose family started the JBS) … like you.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If in your own words “the government has no business making medical choices”, what right do they have to force a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will?

          • cjvg

            I’m not attacking your relationship, that requires that I actually make a judgment on your relationship, which I have not done.
            I’m doubting your claims to actually having said relationship.

            Very sad that you must sink to such lows to ensure your anti choice statement will not be questioned. Unfortunately for you it is a very transparent and quite pathetic attempt!

            Nice stalking horse you are introducing here, but then again you have been doing this all along.

            You are the one who uses your supposed relationship as some form of reason that you can not be considered a misogynist or a racist regardless of the fact that you are making misogynist and racial tinted statements.

            If you introduce your relationship as support and justification for your argument then you open the door to questions and doubts about the veracity of your supposed relationship, especially considering the fact that your supposed relationship keeps evolving along the lines of the debate.

            Maybe it would be best if you find some independent proof to support your claims, especially since you belief your personal experiences must never be doubted or questioned since that is somehow proof of jealousy.

            By the way I do not need to use personal relationships as a justification but I have been married to the SAME man for over 20 years, and that is my one and only marriage thank you very much.

          • Mack

            No judgements?
            “you appropriate a abuse counselor ethnic wife to deflect you are attempting to control women.”

            Appropriate?
            I cannot change the fact about to whom I am married. I did not “appropriate” anything. It was a mutual ceremony in front of a minister and some friends and family. No appropriating transpired. It was, and still is, a 50-50 deal.

            The relationship is not “evolving”. More and more facets about us are becoming public knowledge here. Nothing has changed. You can go back through this thread and see my consistency. You see, if you don’t lie, then you don’t have to remember anything.

            “…I have been married to the SAME man for over 20 years, and that is my one and only marriage…”

            That is great. I hope you have many more years together. How would you feel if someone outright said he abuses you or kicks you, or he buys you flowers because he is a control freak, or opens doors for you because he is a control freak? Those are the types of greetings that awaited me after I began posting here. I have been on the defensive from personal attacks (that have nothing to do with this thread) henceforth.

            I was married to a wonderful woman and the mother of our 3 children for 31 wonderful, blessed years. We were together for 32 years. I wish it could have been more. I met my current wife and we have been married for nearly 7 wonderful years now.

          • cjvg

            You are passing off your personal experience as a fact that somehow justifies you in taking private and very personal medical decisions away from competent adult women you do not even know!
            Attempting to appropriate the reproductive decisions and rights to their own body of women you know nothing about, somehow comes across as abusive arrogant and oblivious (I wonder why?)
            Therefore you are judged on your stated willingness and eagerness to deprive, to you unknown legally competent and adult, women of their basic right to own their own body, without any other reason then that YOU belief you should have that right to do so. Understandably you are judged abusive because of that!
            You then promptly bring in a wife as if that somehow proofs you are not abusive, because abusers always admit they are abusers right?!
            You introduce a racial component to why you should have the right to deny women their choices and beliefs regarding their own bodies. Understandably you are called racist for that. You then introduce your ethnic wife as proof you could not possibly be racist, because racists never interact with other races, right?
            And on and on. Every time you assert you have the right to usurp the personal medical decisions of unknown legally adult women.
            You claim that right because you think your opinion on this trumps theirs regardless of the fact that the only person who has to live with the consequences of your opinions is another person NOT you! Subsequently attempt to justify your arrogance by giving us some new tidbit about your wife.
            Since you use your wife and personal life as proof, how can you object to being questioned on that, maybe you should restrict yourself to providing independent facts to support your assertion you should have the right to demand women suffer the consequences of you making decisions for them. I belief that is a lot more invasive and upsetting then you being called out on why your personal life is somehow proof of anything.

          • purrtriarchy

            **wild applause**

          • cjvg

            Thank you, come here often :)

          • purrtriarchy

            I r jejune. I forgot to comment on the last few neuroscience links that you showed me. I think I understand it better now. How truly incomplete the fetal brain reallyis.

            Btw have you heard of the latest research about how anaesthetizia works?

          • cjvg

            I know who you are, just giving you a pick up line. The Dutch sometimes have a strange sense of humor for Americans. Unless you are used to it , it can be confusing, or so I’ve been told

            I’m glad I was of help to you. This is really the reason why I always hammer that fact to illustrate that a fetus is not a life until a quite advanced gestation point is reached

            Which research are you referring to (publication,title and researchers involved?), I still receive tons of professional publications so it might still be lost in the woods on my side

          • purrtriarchy

            I’d have to find your reply in my disqus history. My computer died two weeks ago and I’ve been having to use a slow laptop and my phone. Temporarily without all of my bookmarks as well((

          • Suba gunawardana

            Well said! Unfortunately he won’t get it. :)

          • cjvg

            I don’t doubt that, considering his comment history here.
            However some statements can not be allowed to stand unanswered

          • Mack

            “You then promptly bring in a wife as if that somehow proofs you are not abusive.”

            “Proofs”?
            Proves, perhaps?

            No, I brought her into the conversation after some jerk told me to go home and “kick my wife”, and after another jerk spewed some bullcrap about me being a racist. If I was a racist, I would not commit the rest of my life to a woman outside my race. If i was racist, I wouldn’t even associate with someone outside my race. That is not the case, not one little bit, despite your big fantasy.

            Klansmen are racists, I am not. I wish you understood the difference. (Your race card tactic is getting soooooo old and predictable, now…)

            “You then introduce a racial component to why you should have the right to deny women their choices and beliefs regarding their own bodies.

            I don’t have rights to do any such thing. I don’t have the authorization to write laws, now, do I? How will I suppress someone’s rights? Try again.

            “Maybe you should restrict yourself to providing independent facts to support your assertion that you should have the right to demand women suffer the consequences for you making decisions for them.”

            I never asserted that I have the “right” to do that. You are putting words in my mouth.

            Nope. I don’t make decisions for women, either. Women can, and should, make their own decisions, and must live by the decisions they make. Some are good decisions, and some are not. That has always been my assertion.

          • cjvg

            I did not introduce any race card, but nice try.

            You are her defending and supporting laws that give others the right to decide who gets to use a woman’s body and for what purpose it is acceptable to deny a woman the very basic right to own her own body and medical decisions. YES you are most definitely attempting to appropriate that right by supporting those laws, very cowardly of you to hide behind semantics.

            PS: this is my third language, we can try this in my native language and see how well you do?! Other then that. what are you trying to imply that one grammar mistake in multiple statements invalidate my opinion, sad you have to go that low!

          • Jennifer Starr

            I can’t even sell my blood to the blood bank every 8 weeks. I have to donate it instead. (I have donated over 15 gallons so far.

            You can donate plasma for money. And I promise you, the next time you’re gestating any pregnancies, you get to make the decision about what happens to them.

          • Mack

            I said “blood”. I cannot sell my BLOOD. Did you see “plasma” anywhere in that post? I donate whole blood. Lots if it…

            Next time I become pregnant, I will remember that…

          • fiona64

            The all-knowing government has no business making medical choices.

            And yet you support the government forcing women to gestate … which ::wait for it:: is a medical choice.

          • fiona64

            You’re a walking, talking picture of rape culture. “I’m a ‘nice guy,’ look at all the kind things I do for women … except those nasty sluts who should have kept their legs closed.”

            You have no idea what chivalry was about, obviously … part of the code actually said things like “Don’t rape nuns.” Raping other women was okay, but lay off of the religiouses.

            http://romanceuniversity.org/2010/05/05/amm-the-code-of-chivalry-man-in-the-middle-ages/

            OTOH, you are a splendid example of one part of it: you don’t believe that your “chivalric code” applies to people you consider “lesser.” So, I may be wrong.

            Quote from above link:

            Yet we know that the rampant destruction of the chevauchee
            was a key tactic of the Hundred Years War. How do we reconcile this noble knight with the man who could rape, pillage, and burn villages?

            The answer? Only others of the noble class deserved to be treated by the code. Peasants did not.

            And then there are your constant references to your “ethnic wife.”

            Quote, ibid.:

            A man’s success in love was another demonstration to his fellows that he was a “winner.” He wins the tournament, therefore, she “loves” him. It was not an emotional commitment, but a reward for prowess. Women were, ultimately, prizes to be won.

            Hmm. Just a little food for thought.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You contradict your own statements.

            “I don’t control women. I open doors for them and pull chairs for them
            when they sit down. I buy them flowers for no special occasion.”

            That is a form of manipulation, a subtle way of saying “I am in control”.

            Real love is expressed not by empty gestures but by always being there when she needs you, in small ways as well as large. (Ranging from getting a band-aid for a cut; through rushing 50 miles to bring a back-up disk for that presentation in time; all the way to donating an organ).

          • Mack

            A feminist might interpret it as “control”. Most younger women do not know how men used to act before the feminists took control in the 70′s.

            I look at it as several subtle ways to pamper her. She is free to refuse my door-opening, chair-pulling, or flowers if she wants. I don’t force her to do anything. She actually likes it- especially the flowers.

            It’s too bad your spouse doesn’t buy you flowers without a reason. You might actually like it. It makes her co-workers jealous. They always tell her, “MY husband doesn’t buy **ME** flowers anymore…” It makes her feel special, and she is special to me. It makes her feel loved, too.

            Yes, I am there when she needs me. When she had a near-heart attack last summer, I spent 4 days sleeping by her side in her hospital room on a chair that gave me crooks in my neck every morning. I also closed the doors of my business for a week, cancelled all of my appointments, and even paid all of my employees their usual weekly wage because they have families they need to support.

            Once we got home, I ran to the pharmacy to get all of her prescriptions. I contacted her clients for her to reschedule her appointments. I even created the new menu that the doctor recommended, and I also cooked the meals for her.

            I didn’t HAVE TO, but it was the right thing to do. It’s called “being there when she needs me”, as you so eloquently put it.

            I would also donate an organ to her (or anyone else, for that matter). It’s specified in my living will.

            Oh, and I open doors for men and kids, too–not just women. It is simply common courtesy. I take it that you don’t hold doors for kids or women when you go into a store or restaurant…

          • Suba gunawardana

            Contradicting yourself again. Opening doors for anyone is common courtesy. If that’s all it is, why did you specifically claim it to be “chivalry for women”?

            “Most younger women do not know how men used to act before the feminists took control in the 70′s.”

            Thank goodness. I absolutely wouldn’t want to live in that era with
            designated gender roles, where women couldn’t own property, get a loan, or have any responsible job.

            “It’s too bad your spouse doesn’t buy you flowers without a reason. You might actually like it. It makes her co-workers jealous. They always tell her, “MY husband doesn’t buy **ME** flowers anymore…” It makes her feel special, and she is special to
            me. It makes her feel loved, too.”

            Look who’s making huge unwarranted assumptions. Did it ever occur to you that I may not be as shallow as you, and actually not care for empty gestures?

            Now why would you wish to demonstrate your “love” in public and “make other women jealous”? Some mighty insecurity in there. People secure in their love do not need shallow gestures, particularly in public.

            Another thing, if you actually care about abused women & children as much as you claim to, you would not be wasting money on frivolities. If your wife actually cares about them, she would not approve of you wasting money on frivolities.
            A child is abused every 10 seconds in the US, and you are wasting money “making other women jealous”? Could you BE more fake & superficial?

            “Yes, I am there when she needs me. When she had a near-heart attack last summer, I spent 4 days sleeping by her side……”

            Now you are bragging about doing what a husband normally does. In other words, you seem to think you get brownie points for not being an a$$hole. No, not being an a$$hole is a given. Brownie
            points are for going above and beyond good.

            Also, expecting brownie points for not being a jerk, actually makes you a jerk. :)

          • fiona64

            Here’s the thing. The guy who physically abused me? Held doors for me, bought me flowers for no reason (and was delighted that this made other women in the office jealous) … and beat the crap out of me all of the time. And you’re right; those gestures were shallow and meaningless. But they made him look good to outsiders, and that was all he carted about.

            Doing one set of behaviors does not mean someone is not doing another set of behaviors. Mack’s verbally abusive posts here do not smack of someone who is anything but a misogynist, in my opinion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Exactly. While holding doors etc. is just habit for most people, when anyone makes a show of empty gestures in public (flowers for no reason & “making others jealous”) that’s a red flag in my opinion.

            It’s hilarious that Mack seems to think that kind of superficial “chivalry” can hide his misogyny, when he has specifically stated his wish to enslave women through forced pregnancy as punishment for having sex.

          • fiona64

            He also stated that there is no such thing as a woman who is smarter than he is.

            Yep, the very flower of chivalry. @@ <– those are my eyes rolling

          • fiona64

            PS: The most romantic gift my husband ever gave me was a dressage saddle, back when I was an equestrian athlete. Beats flowers 10 ways from Sunday. It was exactly the saddle I’d wanted for quite a while (I had not made a big deal of it … unless you count visiting it at the tack shop when we were picking up other stuff as a big deal), and so he got it for me as a Valentine’s gift. Being thoughtful is about more than just “making other women jealous.”

          • purrtriarchy

            My mom had an alcoholic bf once. He was obsessed with appearances and always bought her flowers. He wanted the world to think he was living the white picket fence 1950s life. Kinda like mack.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Exactly what I mean. A thoughtful gift for a specific person is very different from flowers for show.

          • Mack

            “Thank goodness. I absolutely wouldn’t want to live in that era with designated gender roles, where women couldn’t own property, get a loan, or have any responsible job.”

            I was referring to the era when men routinely opened doors, pulled chairs, and tipped their hats to the ladies. Most of the youth today are selfish.

            That’s why they have been deemed the “Me Generation”. They cannot even make change without a machine telling them how much to count back. On a weekly basis, I encounter some pimple-faced kid behind a counter who cannot perform simple addition or subtraction without a calculator or a cash register.

            It took a lot of self-discipline and patience to teach my kids the way to share with others, be polite, and to show compassion towards others. Most parents aren’t being parents anymore.

            I know all kinds of women who owned property in the 50′s and 60′s. My single mother is one example. I don’t know what the heck you are talking about.

            Money is insignificant. Anyone can donate money. I donate my TIME. You cannot write out a check for your TIME. The abuse shelter… Pet adoptions… The Lions Club… Yup. My time is better than donating money, although I donate both.

            “…you are wasting money “making other women jealous”.

            Nope. I am spending my money making my wife happy and feel good. The others in her office adding their comments about their uncaring hubbys is an added bonus, NOT the primary reason. You are wrong (again)…

            The only reason I give her flowers is because SHE LIKES receiving them. I suppose you would rather have me give her something she DOESN’T like?

            Figures…

          • Suba gunawardana

            That same era was also characterized by women NOT HAVING RIGHTS.

            Opening doors for anyone is a common courtesy today. What you are talking about, i.e. opening doors, pulling chairs & tipping hats just “for the ladies” is a blatant expression of control, or an attempt to sugarcoat the plight of women at the time. What good are all those empty gestures if women had no independence?

            “That’s why they have been deemed the “Me Generation”. They cannot even make change without a machine telling them how much to count back. On a weekly basis, I encounter some pimple-faced kid behind a counter who cannot perform simple addition or subtraction without a calculator or a cash register.”

            I agree to some extent, although you are confusing inefficiency with selfishness. Yes, the excessive dependence on machines &
            inability to perform basic tasks is highly annoying for me too. However that’s not selfishness, but incompetence due to lack of proper training. The selfishness was on the part of whoever taught them.

            “It took a lot of self-discipline and patience to teach my kids the way to share with others, be polite, and to show compassion towards others. Most parents aren’t being parents anymore.”

            I disagree. Compassion cannot be taught. Either you have it or don’t. People are born with an inner set of ethics or they don’t have it. However, children CAN be taught politeness, and to PRETEND to care. What you claim the past generation had and the current generation lacks, is that PRETENSE.

            True, people are less polite nowadays. Who cares? That’s all just a show. All that matters is if they step up when others really need help. And that has not changed throughout the ages. 5% of the population always step up to help, 90% don’t care, and 5% actively harm others. How polite people are, doesn’t matter at all.

            “The others in her office adding their comments about their uncaring hubbys is an added bonus, NOT the primary reason. You are wrong (again)…”

            How in the world is it a plus to make other women feel bad? (Although I can’t imagine why anyone would be so shallow as to feel any emotion over something so mundane as flowers).
            If ALL you wanted to do was make your wife happy, you would make whatever gesture in private. The only reason to make a public show of it is to make yourself look good, or even worse, feel
            good at the expense of others.

          • Mack

            “…tipping hats just “for the ladies” is a blatant expression of control, or an attempt to sugarcoat the plight of women at the time.”

            My God!… Everything a man does is about “control” to a woman? Criminey!

            No… No… NO…! My generation was taught that it is a sign of respect for the ladies, much the same as giving up your seat to a lady or an elderly person. I’m not trying to “control” an elderly person by giving them my seat on a bus or train. You want to call that “control”, then so be it. I look at it as a sign of respect for them.

            See how you twist something as simple as giving flowers around to be some sort of “control” by a crazed control-freak man? She likes the flowers. Period!

            I guess you think I should do something for her that she doesn’t like, in order to not appear to be a control freak in your twisted mind, eh?

            Would you rather have your husband do something for you that you like or something you don’t like? Think about it…

            If she didn’t like to receive flowers, I would not give them to her. Nobody in her entire life had ever given flowers to her until I went out with her on our first date. She actually cried because she liked them so much. She likes all the simple *UNCONDITIONAL* things I do for her.

            I don’t send them to her to get a reaction from anyone in her office. If her co-workers are upset, then it is her co-workers who have husband issues, not my wife. Maybe they need to ask their husbands why their own husband won’t send them flowers. I don’t know. I’m not a shrink. I’m a network engineer…

          • Suba gunawardana

            Missing the point yet again. No, not EVERYTHING a man does is about control, not by a long shot. Only certain blatantly fake gestures made solely for show are. And what are “tipping hats & pulling chairs just for the ladies”? Fake fake fake.

            As I repeatedly pointed out, there’s a huge difference between genuine concern, and fake “chivalry” just for show. I appreciate the former, while the latter irritates the hell out of me. Only an idiot cannot tell the difference, and certain men seem to think that ALL WOMEN cannot tell the difference between fake and real. Think again!

            If your wife likes empty gestures, good for you. Not all women do, and please don’t insult people by assuming so.

          • Mack

            “And what are “tipping hats & pulling chairs just for the ladies”? Fake fake fake.”

            You are so full of poo poo I can smell it from here.

            What part of the country do you live in that men do not show courtesy and respect to ladies? Sounds like a prison or something. Around here, that is a way of life. Deals are done with a handshake. That is the America that has not fallen under control of sharks who stand in courtrooms wearing $500 suits. Handshakes. Interesting concept, eh?

            I guess your suggestion to me would be to not give up my seat to a lady and make her stand up? Let’s hear it for Women’s lib! Now I can be a control freak, selfish, and can remain seated!

            Hooray!

          • Suba gunawardana

            Can you BE more contradictory of your own posts? Do you keep forgetting what you said before? That happens when you are lying you know.

            I thought we agreed that opening doors for anyone is common courtesy. Now you are back to the manipulative sexist crap, and what’s worse, EXPECTING BROWNIE POINTS for being sexist.

            Let me spell it out for you again. Yes, some men do those things out of habit, & there’s nothing wrong with it. The moment you start bragging about it and claiming you are someone special for having common courtesy, there’s something SERIOUSLY wrong. Your priorities are all screwed up.

            Those things are just politeness, NOTHING SPECIAL. Nothing to brag about. Get it?

            People who have inner kindness don’t brag about politeness; don’t even consider politeness a big deal. They may be polite out of habit, or not. Who cares? It’s what’s inside that counts.

            You have shown quite a bit of your inside with your perpetual worship of all things shallow. Not a pretty sight….

          • Suba gunawardana

            I’d already made a detailed response below, but just in case you need spoon-feeding as usual, let me clarify once more:

            A real act of consideration is to do something that someone needs, or at least wants. Something that actually HELPS someone.

            Giving up your seat to an elderly person or pregnant woman actually HELPS them. Opening the door for anyone holding a big package actually helps them.

            How is “tipping hats, opening doors and pulling chairs” help women just because they are female? Doing things they can very well do for themselves, is NOTHING SPECIAL. Tipping hats? How does that help at all? Performing all these useless tasks “just for the ladies” does only one thing, i.e. establish and maintain a gender distinction.

            Any man who really cares about women wouldn’t bother with totally useless gestures like tipping hats. They would provide real help with things women may find hard to do, such as work requiring physical strength. Back in the era you are speaking of, men who really cared would have helped women get equal legal rights.

            Today, men who care try to stop discrimination against women regarding unequal pay, reproductive rights, and rape. Considering your take on abortion, you seem to be the opposite.

          • fiona64

            You must not get out much; $500 is a pretty cheap suit.

          • Rainbow Walker

            “I was referring to the era when men routinely opened doors, pulled chairs, and tipped their hats to the ladies. Most of the youth today are selfish.”

            People were just as selfish back then, you just choose to ignore it. Opening doors are just cultural mechanisms and when one gender does it for another it is simply to reinforce social ideology. And there were just as many idiots back then as today. I know older people who could barely read and write in spite of having attended school.

            “Most parents aren’t being parents anymore.”

            And they were before? My birth father was mean as hell, screwed anything that didn’t move quickly enough and blew money like water, letting his wife and kids go hungry. And we were not alone. Most of the kids I went to school with were in the same boat. Even Aristotle made the same exact complaints you are making.

            You cannot teach compassion. The ability to have empathy is actually genetic. I see this in children. Those that lack empathy upon instruction only become crafty, not to get caught.

            “I know all kinds of women who owned property in the 50′s and 60′s. My single mother is one example. I don’t know what the heck you are talking about.”

            Once again, you’re wrong. Woman’s property rights depended on the era, the state, whether she was married, divorced, separated or single and the type of property. In many states today a married woman cannot buy real property or autos without her husband’s signature. But a man can purchase them without hers.

            In the UK it was only in 1882 that the Married Women’s Property Act was passed. Single women couldn’t own land. In MA 1787: a law was passed which allowed married women in limited circumstances to act as femme sole traders. Connecticut, 1809: law passed permitting married women to execute wills. Various courts in colonial and early America: enforced provisions of prenuptial and marriage agreements placing her “separate
            estate” in a trust managed by a man other than her husband. Mississippi, 1839: law passed giving a woman very limited property rights, largely in connection with slaves. New York, 1848: Married Women’s Property Act, a more extensive expansion of property rights of married women, used as a model for many other states 1848-1895.

            Other states such as TX was much different. Only if the husband died was the wife allowed to manage the property, as this 1879 Texas law illustrates:

            Art. 2181. The surviving wife may retain the exclusive management, control and disposition of the community property of herself and her deceased husband in the same manner, and subject to the same rights, rules and regulations as provided in the case of a surviving husband, until she may marry again. . . . .

            Art. 2852. All property acquired by either husband or wife during the marriage except that which is acquired by gift, devise or descent shall be deemed the common property of the husband and wife, and during the coverture may be disposed of by the husband only.

            This law wasn’t repealed until 1994. Living in TX all my life I remember my grandmother stating that papa would have to die before she could sell their land. A woman couldn’t get a loan
            without a man’s signature either.

            “Money is insignificant. Anyone can donate money. I donate my TIME.”

            And those who actually do it usually don’t publish it.

            “Nope. I am spending my money making my wife happy and feel good.”

            More like manipulation. If you actually do it. And actually have a wife.

          • Mack

            I said:

            “I know all kinds of women who owned property in the 50′s and 60′s. My single mother is one example. I don’t know what the heck you are talking about.”

            You said:

            “Once again, you’re wrong.”

            You’re telling me I’m wrong about my mother. You are an idiot. You did no know my mother. I did. She owned property.

            “In the UK it was only in 1882…
            In MA 1787…
            Connecticut, 1809…
            Mississippi, 1839…
            New York, 1848…
            as this 1879 Texas law illustrates…”

            My mother did not live in either of those centuries, and she owned property in the 20th and 21st century. Personal property… Your antiquated data is irrelevant.

            I said:
            “Nope. I am spending my money making my wife happy and feel good.”

            You said:
            “More like manipulation. If you actually do it.”

            So, you want me to stop spending money on my wife, otherwise in your expert medical opinion, I am manipulating her? No rings for anniversaries, no earrings for birthdays, no flowers every other Friday, no dinners in a quiet restaurant, no surprise flights to LA to see her kids, no camping trips to the coast in the summer?

            In other words, you want us to lead a dull, uneventful, boring life? Should we sell our TV, RV, and boat, too, dear doctor?

          • Rainbow Walker

            You do have a reading comprehension problem.

            “You’re telling me I’m wrong about my mother. You are an idiot. You did no know my mother. I did. She owned property.”

            Given your previous statements I believe we all know who the idiot is. Whether I knew her or not is not the point. I cited the laws [and most were in the US dumbass]. These laws weren’t repealed until recently. The TX law was repealed in 1994.

            “In other words, you want us to lead a dull, uneventful, boring life? Should we sell our TV, RV, and boat, too, dear doctor?”

            Are you that full of yourself? It has nothing to do with doing things for your wife. It has to with the mere fact that you are using it to justify your actions. You seem to think you can buy
            your wife. You seem equate all women to prostitutes and only follow the stereotypical view of society for your purposes.

            My medical recommendation is for you to get over yourself and get your head surgically removed from your ass.

          • purrtriarchy

            As suba and Fiona have so eloquently pointed out, you are a pathetic, racist, misogynist and superficial piece of shit.

          • Mack

            Thank you for that thoughtful, informative, well-documented, insightful, and expletive-free contribution to this conversation. It will be long remembered and, perhaps, it may be quoted on MD-LSD or CNN some day. On second thought, maybe not…

            Try real hard and see if you can actually hold a conversation without using expletives. It’s really not that hard.

            I hope you kids turn out **JUST LIKE YOU**—filled with hate, foul-mouthed, and disrespectful. They should go far working at McDonalds forever.

          • fiona64

            Aww, isn’t that cute? Mack’s trying to tone-police the “ladies” by telling us how we’re allowed to post.

            Fuck that noise.

          • Mack

            Are you out of ideas for the conversation, so you want to resume the personal attacks instead? How Leftist of you…

          • Rainbow Walker

            I note you didn’t deny it. And I’m not saying you are.

            And yes I have seen racists marry outside their race. I think subjugating someone of another race brings back the good ole days of slavery. At least in their mind.

          • Mack

            I didn’t marry her because of race. I married her because we fulfill each others needs and I love her to the ends of the earth. I love her so I can spoil her rotten.

            My first wife and I were married for 31 years before she passed away in her sleep. I have been married to my current wife for 6 years.

            No, I don’t beat my wife. I run her over with her car every night when she gets home. Yup. I have murdered her about 2100 times so far.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Good for you. Funny you didn’t say this right off and you use levity in the same manner you were offended by with Suba.

            Abusers often profess their love while they beat their wife. And they don’t consider what they are doing abuse.

          • Mack

            Abusers do, but on the flip side, good husbands profess their love and DON’T beat their wife–they spoil them rotten, open doors for them, pull chairs for them to sit down, and buy them flowers without a reason.

            If someone ever struck my wife, I’d be behind bars for a while, or at least until the guy healed up and got released from the hospital…

            Some idiots cannot fathom what real love is,so in order to compensate for their own personal shortcomings, they assume that all men beat their wife.

          • cjvg

            And if you wife wanted an abortion because she just could not bear to thought of having to go through child birth and pregnancy would you deny her one if you could? Even if it cause irreparable mental harm to her?

          • Mack

            If my wife became pregnant, I would sue the doctor who tied her tubes years ago. If my wife believed in abortion, I would not have married her. It’s called “Having some core beliefs in common”, and it tends to make relationships last much longer– like my first marriage.

          • cjvg

            Not an answer to the question!
            If she became pregnant and decided she did not want to give birth would you deny her an abortion?

          • Mack

            That hypothetical question deserves a hypothetical answer. My wife would never have an abortion, so your question is moot, and the answer has just been given to you.

            That is part of her beliefs, had you read my post in the first place…

          • fiona64

            My wife would never have an abortion

            Actually, you don’t know that. Circumstances and opinions can and do change.

          • Mack

            My God, how ignorant can you appear to be? Making assumptions to which you know nothing about is making you appear even more ignorant by the minute.

            She is post-menopausal. She would NEVER have an abortion.

            Doh!

            Keep the guesses coming. It’s quite entertaining. Please hurry, though, I have to get my employee’s payroll done in the next couple of hours, so my time is limited tonight.

          • cjvg

            Still no answer I see, keep ducking!

          • Mack

            What part of “My wife would never have an abortion” do you not understand? It’s not rocket science…

            Your hypothetical question is based upon a false premise, and I’m not being suckered into a false argument. Nice try.

            Logic 101:
            If the first premise in an argument is false, then everything else based upon that premise is also false.

            Thus the entire question has no logic. Sorry, but I’m not taking the bait.

            If your nose fell off tonight, would your car start tomorrow morning?

          • cjvg

            Still ducking, your good at it you must have a lot experience

          • fiona64

            If my wife became pregnant, I would sue the doctor who tied her tubes years ago.

            Then you wouldn’t be very smart, would you? (Not that this will surprise anyone who reads your post). Tubal ligations (as with any other form of contraception) have known failure rates, and your wife should have been told this as part of informed consent.

          • Mack

            He/she set me up with a ***HYPOTHETICAL*** question, so I gave him/her a ***HYPOTHETICAL*** answer, twit… (Look it up)

            Of course I know what my wife’s consent form said. I was there. (Well, not THIS wife’s consent form, but my first wife’s form.) I was not around when my new wife had her tubes tied years ago, but since she is 10 times smarter than you can ever dream of being. She is an independent woman, so I am confident that she knew the risks when she had the procedure done.

            Nice attempt to trap me with a HYPOTHETICAL question, though. I didn’t take the bait.

            Try again.

            Oh, and abortions also have failure rates, but you, of course, ducked your head into the proverbial sand by denying it.

          • fiona64

            Oh, and abortions also have failure rates

            Citation needed. Thanks in advance. Peer reviewed science, for a change, would be nice.

          • Mack

            “Approximately 95% of women will have a successful abortion when using Mifepristone/Misoprostol…”

            “Approximately 95% of women will have a successful abortion when using Methotrexate/Misoprostol…”

            “Studies conducted throughout the world have demonstrated that Aspiration abortion results in a complete abortion in 97-99% of cases…”

            As I said before, abortions have failure rates.

            Source (Peer-reviewed article):
            Author:
            Angel M. Foster, DPhil, AM

            Reviewed by:
            Ms. Katrina Abuabara
            Dr. Charlotte Ellertson
            Dr. William Fawzy
            Dr. Daniel Grossman
            Mr. Emad Mancy
            Ms. Kate Schaffer
            Dr. Beverly Winikoff
            Dr. Lisa Wynn

            http://www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/downloads/Medication_abortion_A_guide_for_health_professionals_English.pdf

          • Mack

            Regarding a Florida bill that protects a patient lying on a table in an abortion clinic, struggling to live after a botched abortion:

            “The [Florida] bill would require that medical care be given to newborns, likely to be premature, who survive botched abortions. The care would be given at a hospital and not at the abortion clinic.”

            This spokeswoman for Planned Abortionhood in this video believes the decision regarding what to do with an infant who survives a botched abortion should be between the “patient” and the doctor.

            This is what she said after a committee member asked her:

            Rep 3:

            “…you stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

            Miss Snow:
            “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

            Rep 3:
            “I think that at that point the patient would be *****the child struggling on the table*****, wouldn’t you agree?”

            Miss Snow: “Uh, that’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that…um…I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

            Watch her squirm to avoid answering that brilliant question. It’s hilarious!

            The Video:
            http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/28/planned-parenthood-opposes-bill-protecting-babies-born-after-botched-abortions/

          • fiona64

            Um, sweetie? Life News is not peer-reviewed science.

            But you knew that.

            Put up or shut up.

          • Mack

            It was a verbatim transcript of sworn testimony. I am sorry you do not believe in transcripted testimony as a reliable “peer-reviewed” source.

            Are you also under the false belief the streamed video was created in a Hollywood studio?

            Here is the video testimony in its entirety (or was it created in a Hollywood studio, perhaps?):

            http://myfloridahouse.gov/VideoPlayer.aspx?eventID=2443575804_2013031292&committeeID=2719

          • fiona64

            I’m sorry that you are not bright enough to evaluate sources for bias. Are you under the false belief that video cannot be edited?

          • Mack

            Why would Florida’s State House edit it’s OWN WEBSITE videos to show some sort of imagined bias for someone’s agenda? What would the State of Florida and their House have to gain from doing that?

            What would happen if the edited video actually got disproven by someone sitting in the audience? (Not likely, since it didn’t happen) How many politicians would lose their jobs?

            I can’t force you to believe anything you refuse to believe, but take a reality check for a second…

            It’s the C-Span equivalent for the State of Florida. Don’t you trust live video streams on C-SPAN?

          • fiona64

            I don’t trust *you,* Mack. That’s why I’m asking for peer-reviewed science. Is that too hard for you to understand?

          • Shan

            When infants are born prematurely (or with some other condition incompatible with life), their parents are legally allowed to decide whether they should be resuscitated or have any extraordinary measures taken to keep them alive or not. Do you think that should change? Why should aborted-alive infants be the only patients afforded that legal protection?

          • purrtriarchy

            Great question.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Tubal ligations are not 100% effective either, and I’m sure she was told that at the time of the procedure. The question is not about the doctor but what to do about the unwanted PREGNANCY.

          • Mack

            The question is hypothetical. There is no correct way to answer a hypothetical question. Had you paid attention to my post, the question was already answered hypothetically. Read it very closely next time.

            “If my wife believed in abortion…”
            She doesn’t.

            Do I need to use bigger print?

          • goatini

            “Have you seen my exotic trophy?”

          • Mack

            Oh. Are you a racist too? Wow… I guess I am one now all of a sudden, even though I have never been one before. This is all new to me, so I am not sure how to act.

            This race card is sooooo 1999. Can’t you Lefties come up with some other means of personal attacking someone besides using that old one?

          • L-dan

            ‘ethnic’? Curious if she knows that’s what you call her.

            But really? See the recent racist spew from Donald Sterling with his ‘ethnic’ mistress and tell me how the fact that your wife is of a different race is some kind of “I’m not a racist” proof card.

            You twist and turn to say Sanger was a racist…yet MLK thought she was spiffy, on account of he thought birth control was fine but not abortion…and since PP turned to abortioneering, that made Sanger racist retroactively.

            These are not the actions of someone intellectually honest so much as someone wanting to keep tossing anti-choice smears into the mix by plucking out pieces without context. Put the pieces together and you’re squirming.

          • Mack

            Sorry, but I did not call myself a racist. Someone else did. If I was a racist, I would not marry, associate with, nor tolerate anyone outside my race. Isn’t that what a true racist does?

            Drop the race card. It’s soooo 1999, and it won’t work with me.

            If Sterling was a racist, then why are his coach, general manager, screw buddy, and 90% of his players black?

            No, I don’t call her “ethnic”. I call her “Hunny”

            Planned Abortionhood was not performing abortions until the mid 70′s–long after King had died..

          • fiona64

            Your “ethnic wife”?

            We’re all ethnic one way or the other, dude. Stop trotting out your alleged wife as though she’s a trophy.

          • Mack

            If I was a racist, as this dipstick alleges, then I would have nothing to do with anyone outside my own race–especially marrying someone outside my race.

            Now, he is not the only one who has no clue.

            Oh, since you brought it up, she is a trophy wife: very sexy, smart (Masters Degree in Psych), and she actually has a nice job. Your envy is showing. It sounds like you are currently in a miserable relationship. Not all of us are miserable victims…

            Nice try, junior.

          • fiona64

            Wow, so much projection in so little space …

          • Mack

            Thank you. It’s a talent, really…

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

          Liar liar pants on fire. I have read Sanger.

    • Suba gunawardana

      Sounds like blatant lies. More importantly, even if every single claim you made about Sanger were true, that in NO WAY diminishes the value of women’s right to choose, or PP, or any legitimate abortion provider.

      • Mack

        So then, you are fine with carrying on the original goal of its founder by “exterminating the Negro population” as she said (her words, not mine)?

        You’re sick.

        • purrtriarchy

          Mack, do you believe that black women are too stupid to control their own destiny?

          • Mack

            Of course not. They have simply been pressured and duped by preachers, just as Sanger had planned, by their spiritual leaders.

            As she said (her words, not mine):
            “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to EXTERMINATE THE NEGRO POPULATION, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

          • purrtriarchy

            So you think that black women are stupid. You are a racist pos.

          • Mack

            There is a vast difference between being pressured and being stupid, but perhaps you don’t quite comprehend the distinction between the two.

            Drop that race card crap. It won’t work on me. It’s soooo 1999.

          • purrtriarchy

            Racist moron.

          • Mack

            Rally? Which hand do I write with? What color are my eyes? What is my middle name? What is my profession? Where did I graduate college?

            When you can answer those, then you can claim you know me and you can lie about me being a racist. If you doubt me, then ask my wife about her ethnicity, turd-brain. I’ll tell you, she’s not white.

            The more you write, the more stupid you are looking. I am getting a kick out of your desperation.

            Racist… Now that’s a good one. Problem is, it’s sooooo 1999. It’s an OLD attempt to stifle a conversation. If someone disagrees with you, pull the old race card.

            Ha ha ha…

          • Arekushieru

            See, that’s something that racists say. You see, the only ones who claim that calling someone a racist is an attempt to stifle a conversation are those who generally complain that they no longer have the power to use their VERY privileged narrative. While people who AREN’T racists typically take a step back and examine how their privilege may be informing their opinions. You do not do that and make the typical claim that racists make. Hmm. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s usually a… DUCK.

          • Mack

            Where did you get your Psychology degree in order to make such a wild fantasy of an assessment? I don’t think I’ll ever attend that school. *Cough

            Woof. Woof.

            I don’t have a racist bone in my body.

            “..how their privilege…”

            ???
            Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don’t consider myself to be “privileged”, wherever that nonsense came from…

            I earned everything I own. I am not privileged, nor entitled to ANYthing…

            Most Liberals, on the other hand, think they are entitled to personal property that is owned by others–such as one’s personal wealth.

            Priviledge… Yeah, right.

          • fiona64

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don’t consider myself to be “privileged”, wherever that nonsense came from…

            You’re a straight white male … which puts you right at the top of the privilege ladder (which was created by straight white men).

            Learn something (I promise, it won’t hurt): http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf

          • Mack

            “Straight white male”
            You think I’m a straight white male.
            How prejudicial of you.

            My brother and I were raised by our single mom in a tiny house after my sperm donor of a father left us at the age of 4 months pregnant and 2 respectfully, respectfully.

            By the time I was in the 6th grade, I had 2 sources of EARNED income coming in every single week:
            –mowing lawns (yes, manual labor *gasp!)

            –and a paper route (yes, manual labor *gasp!)

            She drove a beat-up 59 Chevy, but managed to always have food on the table and presents under the tree each Christmas by collecting S&H Green Stamps, clipping coupons, and living in a poor section of my hometown. She also worked full time at Pactra Paints as an accounts receivable clerk.

            Despite your fantasy, I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I EARNED everything I now enjoy. I worked 60-70 hours per week while I was in college earning my IT degree (Summa Cum Laude, 3.96 GPA).

            Compare that to Oprah Winfrey.

            Privileged? Ha!
            I earned it…

            Do you envy (or hate) successful people or something?

          • Suba gunawardana

            So are you saying you are not a straight white male? :)

          • Mack

            I am saying I am not “privileged”.

            I could be a transvestite green Martian female for all you know.

            “Tis not a good practice to prejudge anyone. Judgements should be reserved until they can be based upon data that has been gathered. You know, just like the government does with your cell phone…

          • fiona64

            It amuses me no end to see how privilege-blind those are who benefit from it the most.

          • Mack

            Who is privileged? What the heck are you talking about?

            I had callouses on my hands until the age of 22. I was “privileged” to have have those callouses until I went into the Army. At that point, I had callouses on my feet.

            Afterwards, I had callouses on my brain from studying hard in college in order to provide a better living for my young family. Sounded like a pretty good game plan, I think. It worked-out pretty well. I have a nice business now, and built it all by my lonesome…

            The only privilege I have is living in a semi-free country where my every move is monitored by our “transparent” government.

          • fiona64

            Thanks for proving my point so well!

            You have privilege just by virtue of being a white male. You might want to educate yourself: http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html is a good place to start.

            Built the business all by your lonesome, did you? No small business loans, no use of public utilities like electricity or water, no use of public roads, etc.?

            I always laugh when people say “I built my business by myself.” It’s clearly untrue.

            And your Teabagger/Teabircher buzzwords are duly noted.

          • Mack

            I paid taxes from my labor to build and maintain the public roads that I use.

            ALL roads are USER-FUNDED, in case you haven’t heard. Fuel taxes pay for the roads… If you don’t use the roads, you don’t pay for them. User-funded…

            Back when I was over-the-road, I paid an average of $13,000 annually just in fuel taxes. NOT income taxes, just counting fuel taxes. That would buy fuel for your car for 4 years, based upon $3.75/gallon and 20,000 miles per year, and 25 MPG. How much have YOU paid for roads?

            No small business loans. Just shrewd asset management for the first 5 years. I ate a lot of Top Ramen and beans, and usually slept for about 5 hours a night. My hard work has finally paid off, as does nearly ALL hard work.

            We do not have public utilities. They are private businesses with which I do business. They are REGULATED by the government, but they are not OWNED by them. They are owned by *gasp* evil stockholders, most of which are just average Joes who have a 401(k) plan.

            Electric company. Water company. Gas company. Trash company. All of them are private business who have contracts with the city or county.

            As far as sewer, my property taxes from my labor help pay for that, along with schools that I do not even use.

            I see you hate successful people. Not sure why. Successful people employ others. One of my former employees has actually gone on to start his own business. The others are very happy. The newest one has been my associate for nearly 4 years.

            Teabagger? Sorry, I’m not into kinky sex…

          • purrtriarchy

            You wish that you were as successful as Fiona. The fact that you have to brag on a message board shows what a loser you are.

          • Mack

            “You wish that you were as successful as Fiona.”
            No I don’t. I have had plenty of success and I am very happy with my life right now, but you don’t believe that can ever be possible. In your eyes, everyone has to either be a control freak, or they should be miserable. Sorry to disappoint you.

            Brag? About what? Hard work? I guess you don’t know what hard work entails… You can’t handle the truth?

            Oh, and she didn’t build that…

          • purrtriarchy

            If you are as successful as you claim, you would not care what a bunch of women on an obscure forum think.

            Loser.

          • Mack

            I don’t.

          • purrtriarchy

            Then why are you still here?

          • fiona64

            I never said I did. Unlike you, I know how to credit those who helped me build it: college professors, book publishers … the whole she-bang.

          • fiona64

            I don’t hate successful people; I don’t even hate you.

            You’re just intellectually dishonest when you claim that you built your business all on your own.

          • fiona64

            I know, right? Who would put up that photo if it wasn’t their own?

          • Alex Hunter

            Godwin’s Law predates 1999, yet you have no problem pulling that card.

          • Mack

            Of course. Let’s just shove history under the carpet, shall we? That way, it never really happened…

          • Alex Hunter

            You’ve had 2 whole weeks to reply and that’s your best?

          • fiona64

            He’s not very good at facts … just bloviating misogyny.

          • Mack

            Pretty much. 2 weeks. You see, I have a business to run and employees to pay, so I don’t have the luxury of sitting around my computer for hours on end spewing hate and personal attacks like most of the people who have been posting here.

            Godwin’s Law, revised: If we don’t ever talk about an historical event, then it never happened and, thus, cannot be used during a debate

            So, judging by your attempt to spin my reply, you still think it’s OK to pull the race card on one side, just as long as Godwin’s Law isn’t used simultaneously on the other side? Interesting one-sided perspective you have…

          • fiona64

            First, the word is really.

            Right.

            Brown (because you’re full of crap).

            Loser.

            Gas-pump jockey.

            You didn’t.

            You’re welcome.

            PS — Nice going with the “I’m not a racist, my wife isn’t white.” If I were a wagering woman, I’d guess that she’s Asian. Because you seem like just the sort of dude who would buy into the “submissive Asian woman” trope.

          • Mack

            Let’s see how you fared:
            RIght
            Wrong
            Wrong
            Wrong
            Wrong

            20% correct is beyond an F-.

            Oh, did I mention that your guess about my wife is wrong, too? Submissive Asian woman? Really? My God, that’s funny… How sexist of you to assume such nonsense. Try again. You should be a comedienne.

            You know, it’s awful hard to raise children of a different ethnic background from oneself if one cannot stand to be with anybody except one’s own race, isn’t it? Isn’t that the belief of a racist: They cannot stand others who are not like them?

            Nice try.
            Epic.FAIL…
            Grade: F-

            Conclusion: You do not know me, so you cannot make a deduction about my racial preferences.

            The more you open your mouth, the dumber you look.
            Dip…

          • fiona64

            You’re funny.

          • Mack

            Your statements make you sound like a sexist.

            “…sort of dude who would buy into the “submissive Asian woman” trope.”

            Submissive Asian woman? How degrading to women (and the men you appear to hate…)

            What a riot…

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

            So if a black woman is having a white baby, is it okay for her to choose abortion?

          • Mack

            If she was raped or in the case of incest, sure, just like if your example was reversed.

          • fiona64

            But you claim that your anti-choice stance is about the widdle baybees … so, how is it different if the widdle baybee is the result of rape or incest?

            Thanks for proving what we all knew anyway: it’s about your desire to punish women for daring to have sex without the desire to procreate.

          • Mack

            My god. You are slow! There is no consent in a case of rape or incest, is there?

            There is consent when a woman spreads her legs to have unprotected sex. That is called stupidity, unless she desires to have a child, and according to your stance, abortion is the method to resolve her stupidity/ignorance. There is no consent in rape or incest.
            *Sheesh!
            *shakes head

          • Suba gunawardana

            I am sure I answered this before and it flew right over your head.

            Once again, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

            Knowledge of possible consequences does NOT bind you to those consequences.

            If you get raped while walking in a bad neighborhood, are you obligatedto ALLOW the rape to happen, because “it was your fault for walking there to begin with”?

          • Mack

            —”Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy”.
            Pregnancy is a result of unprotected sex. I learned that in the 5th or 6th grade…

            All actions have consequences.
            If you drive drunk, the consequences are that you can be arrested, have an accident, or may be killed. If you rob a store, the consequences are that you can be shot, arrested, or killed. If you drive too fast, the consequences are that you may get a ticket, have an accident, or die. If you have unprotected sex, the consequences are that you can get pregnant, get an STD, or even get AIDS.

            Consequences are always bound to the action that caused it. Sometimes, the consequences are good, and sometimes they are bad. But they are always there.

            —”Knowledge of possible consequences does NOT bind you to those consequences.”

            Ha ha ha… Right! Try telling the judge, “I was speeding, but I am not bound to the consequences of my actions.” He will laugh at you and then give you a big fine.

            ALL actions have consequences, dear. Name one that doesn’t…

            Rape is not sex. It is a violent crime and it is all about control from the rapist’s perspective. No woman should be obligated to allow a rape to happen, regardless if she was “walking there to begin with”, just the same as a man should not be obligated to allow a mugging to happen just because he was “walking there to begin with”.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Do you need to be spoon-fed EVERYTHING? Now you are confusing criminals with law-abiding citizens.

            Every action you mentioned was ILLEGAL (speeding, drunk driving, robbing a store etc.). OF course you have to face consequences for breaking the law.

            Having sex is NOT illegal. Neither is walking in public, no matter how dangerous the area.
            -A person should not be punished with rape/mugging/robbery for walking in a dangerous area. Even if they knew of the possible consequences.
            -Similarly, a woman should not be punished with forced childbirth for having sex, Even if she knew of the possible consequences.

            Get it?

            Knowledge of possible consequences does NOT bind you to those consequences, as long as you are not breaking the law.

          • Mack

            “Knowledge of possible consequences does NOT bind you to those consequences, as long as you are not breaking the law.”

            Oh, as long as you are “not breaking the law”. Your ambiguous statement didn’t say that the first time around.

            Okay… Even though you have the **knowledge** that sticking your finger in an electrical socket has consequences, try telling it you are “not bound to those consequences.”

            Try telling that to the Challenger 7 or the Columbia 7 when they died in space. They **KNEW THE CONSEQUENCES** and were still bound to the consequences of the actions they undertook. So much for your abstract theory.

            Nature is unforgiving. All actions have consequences–some are good and others aren’t.

            “-A person should not be punished with rape/mugging/robbery for walking in a dangerous area. Even if they knew of the possible consequences.”

            Agreed. Mugging, robbery, and rape are never right. They all violate a person’s individual sovereignty and personal freedom.

            They are not being “punished”, they are being foolish. Big difference. There is a difference between being in the right and being a target for an armed robbery. That is called “common sense” That is called “Reality”. That is called The real world”.

            A person should not be “punished” by drowning when they try to cross a creek that has come out of its banks, right?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Earlier you confused legal and illegal actions. Now you are confusing consequences that are reversible and irreversible.

            Eating improperly cooked food may give you parasites or salmonellosis. Skiing or ice-skating could give you injuries & broken bones. If these things happen, are you obligated to lie down and die because you “should have known of possible consequences”? NO. You have every right to go get treatment, and CORRECT the situation.

            Similarly, unprotected sex (or protected sex) may cause pregnancy, a foreseeable consequence. Because you “should have known of the consequence” are you obligated to carry the pregnancy? NO. You have every right to go get rid of the pregnancy.

            Obviously it’s better to prevent undesirable consequences than try to reverse once they happen. However, there’s NO OBLIGATION to live with consequences that are reversible, even if those consequences may have resulted from your irresponsibility.

          • Rainbow Walker

            If you are volunteering with abused women I recommend you stop. You have neither the head for it nor the compassion.

            All your allegories [Challenger, crossing a creek] are incorrect. You are using manmade instances and inferring them to nature. Man created a shuttle [which they didn’t have to] to fly into space, understanding the consequences. If someone must cross a creek it’s for manmade reasons [get to a job, find food], which has nothing to do with nature in and of itself. Sexual intercourse is natural, like breathing or defecating. To restrict ones natural bodily functions or tell them not to receive a medical procedure is totalitarianism. But then you know that. That’s why you are against abortion. You are trying to punish individuals for having control of their body. Reality check: man imposes most of this stupidity on themselves. By using religion to justify restricting an individual having control over their anatomy.

            “Agreed. Mugging, robbery, and rape are never right. They all violate a person’s individual sovereignty and personal freedom.”

            And forcing a woman to have a child doesn’t? Reality check: over 60% of conception among homo sapiens is through rape or coercion. Indeed, most consensual sex doesn’t lead to conception. Go figure.

          • fiona64

            Pregnancy is a result of unprotected sex
            … or contraceptive failure.

          • Mack

            Contraceptive failure means the sex is unprotected. If a condom breaks, you are having unprotected sex. If a diaphragm doesn’t work, you are having unprotected sex. If a pill doesn’t prevent the egg from dropping and/or attaching to the wall of the uterus, you are having unprotected sex.

            I guess we are in agreement…

          • fiona64

            Deliberately obtuse man is deliberately obtuse.

          • fiona64

            There is consent when a woman spreads her legs to have unprotected sex.

            More slut-shaming … and yet you claim to be the picture of chivalry.

            It is to laugh.

            Consent to sexual intercourse is *not* consent to pregnancy, and (as has already been explained to you) every single form of contraception has a known failure rate. The simple truth is that you do NOT know whether a given woman was or was not using contraception. The majority of women seeking terminations *were,* and the number who were NOT includes women who were trying to conceive and whose wanted pregnancies went terribly wrong.

            Not that you care … because women are just targets and objects to you. They are to be cherished if they’re “good” and shamed if they’re “bad.” We can all see what you’re about, Mack, and it’s not a pretty picture.

            But thanks for proving me right: you want “sluts” who “open their legs” to be punished by being forced to remain pregnant.

            Just. Like. I. Said.

          • Mack

            My god. You are slow! There is ***no*** consent in a case of rape or incest, is there?

            There is consent when a woman has unprotected consensual sex. That is why they call it “consensual”. Nature takes over from there. Some women become pregnant, most don’t. It’s up to nature… Not having a “desire to procreate” has nothing to do with absolute physiological reality.

          • purrtriarchy

            When you leave the house, you consent to any illness that might just kill you. Nature in action. You should not receive treatment for the illness because you chose to leave the house and breathe it in.

          • Mack

            Treating an illness caused by some sort of virus is not killing a baby. It is killing a one-celled organism. I learned that in science class. 6th grade, I believe…

          • purrtriarchy

            The point made was about *consent* dumbass.

            Stop moving the goalposts.

            And a zygote is a one celled organism. And embryos are mindless.

          • Mack

            “dumbass. dumbass. dumbass. dumbass. dumbass.
            dumbass. dumbass. dumbass. dumbass. dumbass.
            dumbass. dumbass. dumbass. dumbass. dumbass.
            dumbass. dumbass. dumbass. dumbass. dumbass.”

            Geez, your argument is so strong, I simply don’t know what to say. I am impressed with your overall 5th grade vocabulary.

            A zygote is not a virus. I never said it was. You cannot leave the house and catch a zygote by breathing it in. Your turn, personal attack specialist…

          • purrtriarchy

            You are saying that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy should the woman happen to be fertile and ovulating. If that is the case, then you also consent to the flu should you leave the house and happen to breathe. Women can’t help that they ovulate, and you want to force pregnancy on them for the heinous crime of having sex while fertile. Which is no different than telling the person who breathed in air at the mall that they “asked for it” because they chose to take the risk of breathing in a potentially unsafe space.

            In short, you are punishing women for their biology. Biology is not destiny.

          • Mack

            Consensual sex is voluntary. Breathing is not.

            Breathing is involuntary and is controlled by the Medulla, as is your heart rate and blood pressure. You do not stop breathing until you die. No comparison, doctor…

            One cannot decide whether or not to breathe when they leave the house simply to avoid a influenza virus. One *CAN*, however, decide whether or not to have unprotected sex during their ovulatory cycle.

            “heinous crime of having sex while fertile.”

            LOL

            More like a personal bad judgement call if they weren’t planning on becoming pregnant.

          • purrtriarchy

            Ovulation is involuntary.

            If a breathing person does not want to get the flu, they should never leave the house. Once they engage in the act of walking out the door they have consented to an airborne infection.

            If a person who ovulates 3 days out of every month, they should avoid sexual relations for as long as they live.

            ^this is your ‘logic’, and it is fatally flawed, as I have demonstrated.

            1) all known forms of birth control have known failure rates

            2) semen can release a hormone that kickstarts ovulation in a woman who is not ovulating

            3) youre a moron if you expect every woman and girl to be a scientific expert at tracking ovulation

            4) sperm can survive inside the woman’s body for many days, and impregnate her once she does start to ovulate

          • Mack

            “Ovulation is involuntary.”
            Yes. Consensual sex is not.

            “If a breathing person does not want to get the flu, they should never leave the house. Once they engage in the act of walking out the door they have consented to an airborne infection.”

            Influenza can be transmitted via airborne avenues. Inside a house or outside a house does not matter. Air is everywhere–even contaminated air. If you don’t believe me, then if your neighbor has a natural gas leak, your house will be safe…

            “If a person who ovulates 3 days out of every month, they should avoid sexual relations for as long as they live.”

            3 days a month translates into “as long as they live”. That’s quite a stretch. Where did the other 26.9 days come from?

          • purrtriarchy

            Your rebuttal is invalid.

            Sperm can live inside the woman’s body. Semen can trigger ovulation. By your logic, women should avoid sex over the entire course of their lives, should one sperm get through and impregnate them.

            And the chances of the flu or cold virus travellling through THE air and into your house is absurd. Yoy are grasping at straws and making a fool of yourself.

          • Mack

            Absurd? Think again, Doctor:

            “Our results demonstrate that a highly pathogenic avian H7 virus can become airborne transmissible in a mammalian host, and support on-going surveillance and pandemic H7 vaccine development.

            Importance: The major findings of this report are that a highly pathogenic strain of H7N1 avian influenza can be adapted to become airborne transmissible in mammals without mutations altering the receptor specificity.”

            http://jvi.asm.org/content/early/2014/03/27/JVI.02765-13.abstract

          • purrtriarchy

            Uhm…airborne transmission does not mean that these viruses can magically enter your house. Person to person transmission is how it works, ad in, being in the vicinity of people who are coughing up the viral particles.

            Besides, if it could get into your house, and you have not blocked your vents or put on a gas mask, then clearly you have ‘consented to it’ by refusing to take precautions.

          • Shan

            “Yes. Consensual sex is not.”

            So? Does that mean only the embryos/fetuses of women who got pregnant by non-consensual sex should be aborted? What’s so wrong with them? Don’t they deserve to live, too?

          • purrtriarchy

            Oh, and by your logic, consent to sex is consent to std’s too. Therefore, treatment should be witheld.

          • Mack

            Wrong. Didn’t you ever take a logic course in college?

            Unprotected sex can lead to STDs. Anyone with half a brain knows that. The difference is (now pay attention) an STD does not suck its thumb at 12 weeks, and have a heartbeat at 6 weeks. An STD does not get hiccups at 25 weeks.

            STDs should be treated, as should any medical illness: Cold, Influenza, Stroke, Obesity, High Blood Pressure, Diabetes, etc.

          • purrtriarchy

            Another invalid rebuttal.

            You have stated that if one consents to sex, one consents to the consequences of the act. And that one must live with said consequences no matter how much damage they cause.

            STDs are an illness, and pregnancy is not a state of health. Suppressed immune system, anemia, high blood pressure, bone loss, and potential death and disability. Pregnancy is a medical condition. And women have the right to protect themselves from harm. Oh, and birth = torture.

          • purrtriarchy

            BTW, thumb sucking at 12 weeks is a meaningless involuntary reflex.

            Cardiac cells can beat in a dish. Braindead patients have beating hearts. Its meaningless.

            Hiccups, again, involuntary.

          • Mack

            So, your implication is that STDs can suck their thumbs and have hiccups, too.

            Interesting fantasy…

          • purrtriarchy

            Purposesly obtuse for 100$ Alex.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Just how much spoon-feeding do you need?

            “One cannot decide whether or not to breathe when they leave the house simply to avoid a influenza virus.”

            Well one CAN decide whether or not to leave the house, duh! Same logic you used for sex.

          • Mack

            Went right over your head. The subject of my post was breathing being involuntary.

            Leaving the house is voluntary, but you cannot stop breathing in order to leave the house to avoid the influenza virus.

            Also, you are not immune to flu viruses inside your house.

          • Suba gunawardana

            While you are splitting hairs, try to grasp this bit of logic:

            Sex is voluntary, but the sperm getting to the egg is not voluntary, not within your control. (just like leaving the house is voluntary but breathing is not). If you aren’t bound to the consequences of one, you shouldn’t for the other either.

          • fiona64

            There is consent when a woman has unprotected consensual sex.

            There is consent to sex, which is NOT implied consent to pregnancy.

            BTW, just because someone gets pregnant does not mean they were having “unprotected sex.” How many times must it be explained to you that all forms of contraception can, and do, fail?

            And you have the nerve to call me slow? What a loser.

          • Mack

            “How many times must it be explained to you that all forms of contraception can, and do, fail?”

            Just once. I have NEVER denied that. In fact, I agree with that statement. Reading comprehension problems, perhaps?

            Consent to UNPROTECTED sex is implied consent to nature taking over and causing a possible pregnancy. Are you naive enough to believe that having unprotected sex cannot lead to a pregnancy? Are you really unaware of the associated risks of having unprotected sex?

            Really?

          • fiona64

            You’re the racist, sweetie … no one said anything racist until you showed up.

          • Mack

            I didn’t say anything racist. I was quoting Planned Abortionhood’s racist founder. Those were HER words, not mine. Please try to comprehend the difference.

          • fiona64

            I’m sorry, little man, but I can only give you half for that. You quoted Sanger out of context (not surprising, since you’re clearly not too bright) without the slightest comprehension of what the Negro Project was really about. And, as has already been explained, if you had bothered to READ THE MATERIALS PROVIDED FROM PRIMARY SOURCES instead of the bullshit you get from anti-choice sites, you would know that.

            You really don’t handle being wrong very well, do you? I suggest counseling for that, your anger issues, and your misogyny.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Religion tries to brainwash everyone. People don’t have to get brainwashed. Furthermore preachers nowadays never tell women to get abortions.

            Besides, if you are stupid enough to be brainwashed into anything, you can’t blame Sanger or a preacher or anyone else for that. It’s your own fault.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Yes she said that, but it’s been taken completely out of context.

            This quote has been cited by Angela Davis to support her claims that Sanger wanted to exterminate black people. However, New York University’s Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues
            that in writing that letter, “Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”

            Actually Sanger was not a racist. In her day people thought she was way too lenient on African Americans. While she did believe in a type of eugenics she criticized the Nazis. She worked with
            the Black community of the time. W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger’s Harlem clinic. And MLK praised her.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

          • L-dan

            This. This is the context that quote operates in.

            Even today, campaigns for education and access to reproductive technologies have to work with the fact that past history of reproductive coercion makes any campaign involving reproductive health susceptible to rumors or claims of the intent being coercive, or dishonest.

          • goatini

            But that would be a lie, because Margaret Sanger respected ALL women of ALL races and wanted to help ALL families be happier and healthier:

            “This is every baby’s birthright, the birthright planned parenthood seeks to give him, by making it possible for his parents to plan his arrival when they will themselves be healthy, when they will be able to give him at least the minimum essentials of good care and above all, welcome him with love because they really want him. Babies are too precious to be left to chance.

            The Negro race has reached a place in its history when every possible effort should be made to have every Negro child count as a valuable contribution to the future of America. Negro parents, like all parents, must create the next generation from strength, not from weakness; from health, not from despair.”

            Margaret Sanger, 1946

          • https://www.facebook.com/HumanAnimalasTotem luckytroll

            If what you say about Sanger is true, and her intentions were less than honorable or even downright evil, her words are still not an indictment of a woman’s right to decide if she will give birth– they are, however, an indictment of the religion that is used as a tool for controlling people. If we didn’t give “ministers” so much voice, we wouldn’t be concerned about Sanger’s intentions as anything but vile hatred. We wouldn’t have to be afraid of any woman of any race being led in any direction she doesn’t want to go by so-called spiritual leaders.

            Even if your quotes are correct, you are like a dog looking at his master’s finger instead of where the ball went. Such is the brainwashing that makes sure believers never condemn the religion that keeps them bound, but remain easily fired up when trigger points are touched.

            Also, where are all these ministers you seem to think Planned Parenthood has lining up to pressure minority women to have abortions?

          • jruwaldt

            Similar arguments are used to criticize evolution. So, maybe Darwin was racist. Certainly, most people in his day were. It sounds like he was actually more enlightened than many in his day. For example, he was opposed to slavery, while many of his acquaintance supported it. However, the validity of a scientific claim stands on the evidence, not on the motives of the claim’s originator. In the same way, regardless of what Sanger’s intentions were, that doesn’t change that people have and should have the right to control their own fertility. I think the quote about not “[letting] the word … out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” is poorly worded, perhaps because Sanger was not a native English speaker. On the other hand, the quote was written more than eighty years ago, and the language has changed somewhat since then. So, the fact remains that she was not saying that Black people should be eliminated but that some people might get that FALSE impression.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HumanAnimalasTotem luckytroll

            I’m not sure if you think I was agreeing with Mack. I don’t have anything invested in what Sanger did or didn’t believe or intend. The argument about her words is an obfuscation. Women are not breed stock. Until humans are capable of never having unwanted or non-viable pregnancies, any woman should have safe, modern procedures or medication to choose from as options.

            Mack and his ilk are trained (knowingly or not) to use emotion and contradiction to confuse issues (the same tools used to train them). For example, if the conversation is about the history of PP, then of course Margaret Sanger is relevant and her background is fair game. If the conversation is about abortion and its value to the field of women’s health, Margaret Sanger is a footnote. Those are two separate conversation points, but religionists are taught early to take great leaps of causal reasoning– and if they don’t, they’ll burn in hell for eternity. For the great majority of religionists it’s an unconscious result of manipulation, for others is a choice they embrace because they are bullies who thrill at controlling everything around them including others’ intimately personal lives. I think it’s time we stop letting them detour so many important conversations; the fact that the dog’s attention is stuck on the master’s pointing finger, has zero bearing on where the ball really is (to reference my earlier analogy),

          • jruwaldt

            No, I didn’t think you were agreeing with Mack. You’re quite right about obfuscation. I was adding to what you said by mentioning that great ideas are often condemned by referring to their creators’ (or early proponents’) (often merely claimed) additional attitudes.

          • Alex Harman

            The reason they didn’t want that idea to “go out” is that that idea was completely and utterly false, you blithering idiot.

          • fiona64

            And have you ever read the document in its entirety? Yeah, I thought not. The reason was that they did not want people to think that the contraception clinic was something other than what it was: the first health clinic *at all* in a New York City black neighborhood.

        • Suba gunawardana

          You didn’t get the point. Please re-read my post.

          • Mack

            Those aren’t “claims”. Those are her own exact words. Planned Abortionhood’s goal is the “extermination the Negro population”, as she put it.

            You said you DON’T think that diminishes the value of Planned Abortionhood. I strongly disagree.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Abortion is ELECTIVE, never forced (here in the US). And it’s a valuable service, regardless of how racist Sanger may have been.

            The personality of the founder has nothing to do with the value of a product or service.

          • Mack

            Cars do not have the ability to hold prejudicial views. They are inanimate objects. Duh? Apples and oranges.

            Part of the German population was anti-semantic, until most of them were either killed or captured by the Allies. None of their cars were anti-semantic, however. Cars have no ability to feel emotions…

          • Suba gunawardana

            Cars may not be the perfect example, but my original point remains.

            Just like cars are not anti-semitic, abortion per se is NOT racist. It’s just an ELECTIVE procedure open to any woman who wants it, just like a tattoo or a nose job.

          • Mack

            I never said abortion was racist. I said Planned Abortionhood was FOUNDED UPON a principle to “exterminate the Negro”.

            When did I ever say abortion was racist?

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I said, the founders’ principles don’t matter anymore, because racial extermination is NOT what PP does.

          • Arekushieru

            It’s not Planned Abortionhood, UNLESS you want to call grocery stores banks because a few of them provide financial services as three percent of the total income they make. Oops.

            Planned Parenthood, itself, cannot hold prejudicial views, so Suba’s analogy holds, despite your ignorant rant, as per usual.

            If abortion isn’t racist, who the fuck cares if the founders were racist. Most of the founders of the US were racist, so I guess that means all USians are still racist, by YOUR logic (or lack thereof), of course.

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

            Liar liar pants on fire.

          • goatini

            //I said Planned Abortionhood was FOUNDED UPON a principle to “exterminate the Negro”//

            And that is a bold-faced lie.

          • lady_black

            Um no it was not.

          • Shan

            “I said Planned Abortionhood was FOUNDED UPON a principle to “exterminate the Negro”.”

            And you’ll still be wrong no matter how many times you say that.

          • fiona64

            Part of the German population was anti-semantic

            They were against correct word use?

            And you want us to believe you graduated college? Really?

          • purrtriarchy

            Omg I missed it the first time. Brilliany .

            Anti semantic. Lol

          • Mack

            anti-semitic

            That was an auto-correct typo… I’m so sorry it tooted your horn. I didn’t know it affected you in such an exaggerated and pronounced way.

            Are there any more personal attacks you would like to employ in order to spin away from the issues I addressed in my post? That was a nice attempt to sidestep the issues I addressed. You must be out of ideas…

            Oh, did you know “And you want us to believe you graduated college?” is an incomplete sentence? Perhaps, you should have used three dots to imply a partial sentence.

            …and the saga continues…

          • fiona64

            It’s not a typo when you do it more than once.

            It surely does irritate you when women are smarter than you, doesn’t it?

            Learn to live with the disappointment.

          • Mack

            AUTO-CORRECT does the same thing EVERY time. I have since “taught” it to spell the correct word, just so you won’t go into a tissy fit.

            Anti-semitic
            See? It works now… Now, go take your meds and calm down.

            It might irritate me if I ever encountered that situation. I have yet to meet one who meets your criterion. I haven’t even met one who qualifies for MENSA membership yet, but it could happen…

          • fiona64

            Poor little MCP Mack …

          • Mack

            Somebody thinks:

            “AUTO-CORRECT does the same thing EVERY time. I have since “taught” it to spell the correct word, just so you won’t go into a tissy fit”

            is offensive, so the admin,who believes in silencing opposing viewpoints, deleted my post. How nice of them….

          • Arekushieru

            Nope, antis like to use quotes out of context, loser. And we have proven that is the case with your ignorant rants. When you do that we KNOW you’ve lost the argument. TBSFS.

          • goatini

            That’s a lie and was not “the goal”. Stop lying.

          • fiona64

            Lies are all people like Mack have, the poor things.

          • Mack

            I am not lying. I am quoting someone.

            Can’t you make the distinction between the two?

          • fiona64

            You are quoting out of context (despite having been corrected repeatedly, with sources) and now doubling down on it. That makes you a liar.

          • Mack

            Obviously, you cannot make the distinction between the two.

            Thank you for proving my point.

          • lady_black

            First, she didn’t say that, and second, she was right. Sanger was anti-abortion. Abortion was very dangerous in her day. She saw birth control as a way for poor families to lift themselves out of poverty. She was right.

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

            Citation needed. Chapter and verse. You do understand that all of Sanger’s work is online and we can check your source?

          • Mack

            You should refer to the post where I already gave the citations.

            Please pay attention next time…

          • fiona64

            Your citations have been dismissed. You, however, are the KING of ignoring citations … because you can’t stand being corrected by mere women.

            Sucks to be you doesn’t it?

          • Mack

            Your citations have also been dismissed.

            Now what? Does that make us even?

          • Alex Harman

            You fail reading comprehension forever. Sanger didn’t want that to be perceived as Planned Parenthood’s goal because it wasn’t their goal, not because it was. It was worth talking about because that was indeed the goal of some of the advocates of coerced sterilization, which was an actual phenomenon inflicted on thousands of poor, mostly black people in the U.S. in the early twentieth century. Sanger was working with black ministers to ensure that Planned Parenthood would not be mistakenly associated with the racists that wanted to reduce and perhaps ultimately eliminate the black population through sterilization.

          • fiona64

            No, dumbfuck, that was not the goal of Planned Parenthood. And if you had read the actual document (which has been provided to you thrice thusfar that I have seen) you would know that.

            It’s so easy to be an anti-choice male, isn’t it? After all, it’s never your life and health that will be endangered by pregnancy, wanted or not, so you just wave your dumb, misogynistic paw in the air and pronounce about what women you’ve never even met should have to do about a pregnancy that doesn’t involve you in the slightest.

            Go back to kicking your wife around and leave the rest of the world alone.

          • Mack

            “Dumbfuck”? Ah, good old personal attacks. When you are desperate, you resort to personal attacks. I draw the line, however, at libel:

            –”Go back to kicking your wife”?–

            Do you know what the legal definition of libel is? Well if you don’t. you had better educate yourself pretty freaking quick. I just captured a screenshot of your public false allegation. You have crossed the line.

            My lovely wife is a very successful counselor for abused women and children. She went through 8 years of college in order to attain this level of respect in our small community. I am not a spousal abuser. I am quite the opposite. I love my wife, and I also volunteer about 10-20 hours per week at the abuse shelter where my wife works.

            You have not only damaged her reputation, you have also damaged my reputation with your unsubstantiated allegation by accusing me of being a spousal abuser, and it fits the legal definition of libel.

            A retraction is on order, sir/madam…

            Oh, and I have reported you to the moderators of this site and to Disqus.

            Good day. I’ll be waiting for that retraction…

          • fiona64

            Learn the difference between figurative language and literal language; then we can talk.

            Your willingness to verbally kick around women on this site (myself among them) has been noted by more than just me. Your willingness to verbally abuse me and others is quite telling.

          • Mack

            Learn the definition of libel. Quickly…

            I never accused you of abusing your spouse.

            You, on the other hand, initiated that attack towards my character and reputation on multiple occasions, and it was unsubstantiated. It was a fantasy in your small, sick mind.

            Give me an example of my “willingness to kick around women on this site”. Please be specific… You can throw in some of the alleged “verbal abuse”, too.

            I guess an honest apology is beneath you. Still waiting for that retraction, too.

          • fiona64

            All anyone has to do is read your remarks here, to me and to others, to see the evidence. ::shrug:: It’s not my fault that you’re too dim to realize that.

          • Mack

            Yes. It is obvious an apology for spewing libelous information is beneath you.

          • fiona64

            You’re a joke.

          • purrtriarchy

            I think it must really bother him that we silly wimmenz aren’t buying his bullshit.

          • fiona64

            Look for the post where he tries to one-up my husband … in the same breath as claiming that he is not about outside appearances. He’s laughable.

          • Mack

            I am glad they deleted your comment. Apparently someone on here actually DOES know the definition of libel.

          • purrtriarchy

            A www www

            Did Fiona bruise you fragile ego?

          • Mack

            Nope. The moderators actually know what libel is and were covering their a$$.

            Educate yourself. You might learn something.

          • purrtriarchy

            No libel. Your identity is anonymous you stupid shit.

          • Mack

            Typical answer from someone who has no clue how networks, routers, switches, and IP addresses are used and tracked.

          • purrtriarchy

            Still not libel.

            And for any of us to learn your identity we would need a court order to get the ISP to surrender you IP and name.

            Its ONLY defamation if your real name is used in conjunction with reputation destroying words.

            I know how defamation law works in the USA.

            I suggest you read up on the law, you ignorant fuckwit:
            http://www.hg.org/defamation.html

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

          Forced Birther brings its favorite murderporn for show-and-tell. So special.

        • fiona64

          You’re so full of crap that your eyes are brown. Sanger NEVER said that … which you would know if you actually,you know, read some of her papers and not just some bullshit that Calvin Freakburger made up on LieSiteNews. Educate yourself, I dare you:

          http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html

          • Mack

            She attended a KKK meeting in order to make a speech. Here’s the photo.

            Yup. She was all buddy-buddy and rubbing elbows with guys who strung up blacks in trees and burned down their homes and business.

            –>That KKK…

            You are in denial.

            http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/

          • fiona64

            Your citation of an anti-choice personal blog is asinine.

            She attended the meeting of the women’s auxiliary to talk about *birth control.* She also stated that it was like talking to children, because the women were so under-educated. And why did she do that? Because women in the South had problems accessing information on contraception. (Which, if you had two brain cells to rub together, you would be able to find out without any problems whatsoever.

            For the fourth and final time: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/newsletter/articles/bc_or_race_control.html

            Read it. Just frigging read it … and then come back and admit how wrong you are (a fact of which the rest of us are quite aware).

          • Mack

            A photo is a photo. The source is irrelevant.

            Since you don’t like THAT website, how about going right to the ACTUAL SOURCE of the photo: the Ku Klux Klan’s website?

            Satisfied now? Does the SOURCE of the Sanger photo change ANYTHING in the content of the photo at all?

            The KKK liked her, and she liked the KKK. Any idiot with a good search engine can figure that out.

            From the site’s description of the photo:
            “For those who can’t tell their right from their left, the Klansladies are giving a left handed salute copied from the old Roman Empire. It dates back to the Reconstruction Era as the Klan salute and predates the Nazi salute by decades.”

            Source:
            http://www.kkklan.com/various.htm

          • purrtriarchy

            Hitler admired Henry Ford. Henry Ford admired Hitler.

            The inventor of the transistor (which is why you can use a computer and electronics) was a believer in eugenics and the inferiority of blacks.

            Therefore, you should stop benefiting from anything that uses an assembly line production (Ford) and especially eschew all electronics since the above were invented by RACISTS and HITLER LOVERS

            You fucking moron.

          • Mack

            “The inventor of the transistor (which is why you can use a computer and electronics) was a believer in eugenics and the inferiority of blacks.”

            More unsourced Horse puckey.

            There were 3 inventors of the transistor, 2 of which shared a Nobel Prize, and all of whom worked for AT&T. Only 1, Shockley, believed in eugenics. The other two did not.

            That’s only 1-for-3…

            Try again.

          • purrtriarchy

            My point still stands. And anything made on an assembly line is tainted by Hitler.

            And your constitution was written by slave owners.

          • Mack

            …WAS tainted by Hitler. In addition, your assertion pertains only to the Ford assembly line.

            Henry Ford is dead. So is Hitler.

            Louis Chevrolet did not hate jews.
            William C. Durant did not hate jews.
            Joseph L. Hudson did not hate jews.
            Peter Studebecker did not hate jews.
            Walter Chrysler did not hate jews.

            Assembly lines are safe. Your computer, TV, and DVR are safe. You can safely remove your tin foil hat.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yet contraception = KKK, according to you.

          • Mack

            ????????

            No it’s not. Why are you putting words into my mouth again? When did ever I say that? You are either tired or delusional. Go to bed.

          • purrtriarchy

            Then stop harping on how Sanger and PP are Nazi KKKers.

          • Mack

            That is not a doctored photo. Photoshop did not exist back then.
            Reality check…

          • purrtriarchy

            So you are back to saying that contraception was invented to kill non whites

            Idiot.

          • Mack

            I never said that.
            **You** did, in your twisted sort of way…

            You sure like telling me what I did not say, don’t you? You ought to see if there is a job description with that someplace, and just make a career out of putting words into other people’s mouths. You’ll get rich, and then you’ll have to actually pay outrageous taxes.

          • purrtriarchy

            Listen, you racist dumbfuck, if you don’t want people pointing out that you appear to believe that contraception=KKK THEN STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT.

          • fiona64

            Yeah, Mr. “I’m not racist” sure knows his way around the KKK website, doesn’t he?

          • Mack

            “…you appear to believe that contraception=KKK…”
            I didn’t say that–you did.

            I posted a link to a photo. You didn’t accept the first one because of the source, so I used the source who actually saved the photo. You were happy with neither of them.

            Using mouthfulls of expletives is sooo 4th grade, by the way. Grow up.

            I guess you are talking to someone else because I am neither a racists, nor am I a dumb****.

          • purrtriarchy

            Well then, why do you keep shit talking Sanger and referring to the KKK if NOT to insinuate that contraception = the devil?

    • Alex Hunter

      A white person in the 1930s making a racist comment? What other nuggets of information did you bring? Rocks are hard? The Sun is hot?

      • Mack

        Are you in denial of someone else who wanted to exterminate an entire race in the 30′s? He was a little white boy who happened to speak German.

        Margaret’s plan wasn’t just to allow abortions. Her agenda was to exterminate an entire race. Hello?

        Wake up…

        • purrtriarchy

          MLK praised Margaret Sanger. Clearly, he too wanted to wipe out the entire black race as well.

          • Mack

            Dr. King did in fact receive the Margaret Sanger Award in 1966. But it is also a fact that in 1966, Planned Parenthood was still (at least publicly) ANTI-abortion. They were still using a pamphlet they wrote and published in 1963 titled Is Birth Control Abortion?.

            The pamphlet read:
            “Is birth control abortion? Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely post-pones the beginning of life.” (Is Birth Control Abortion, Planned Parenthood pamphlet, Aug. 1963, p.1)

            Planned Parenthood was ANTI-abortion until the early 1970s, which was long after King died.

            Nice try, Junior…

            Source:
            http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/king.html

          • purrtriarchy

            Why do you believe that black women are too stupid to control their own fertility?

          • purrtriarchy

            Oh look, you’re a racist white guy. Why do you hate black women?

          • Mack

            Oh. You are losing the argument, so you play the desperation “race card”. That’s getting old, and it won’t work on me.

            Had you bothered to read my posts, I said I am OPPOSED to Planned Abortionhood’s “extermination of the Negro” (as she put it).

            OPPOSED to exterminating a race. Got it???

            How the hell do you twist that around to mean I hate blacks, or ANY other race, for that matter???

            Try again.

          • purrtriarchy

            Abortion is not extermination dumbfuck.

            And yes, you are a racist piece of shit, because you are saying that you think black women are idiots.

            And if abortion is also offered to white people, then by your logic, Sanger also planned to exterminate all whites.

            Youre a racist moron.

          • Mack

            “…you are saying that you think black women are idiots.”

            Really? Please cite the passage where I said that. I’ll be waiting right here. I guess my wife is an idiot, too?

          • purrtriarchy

            “Pressured” = code word for idiot/stupid

            We get it. You’re a racist piece of shit.

          • Mack

            So, according to your definition, when a young man PRESSURES a young woman into having sex in the back seat of his car, that would be a code word for the woman being “idiot/stupid”?

            I see…

            Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist.

            *yawn. You are obviously getting desperate.

            Would you like to see a photo of my lovely wife? She’s not white…

          • Arekushieru

            So fucking what? Black people can be racist against other black people, women can be misogynists and people with homosexual friends can still be homophobic. Have you gotten the POINT about how IGNORANT you are, now?

          • Mack

            —”So fucking what?
            This is as opposed to “so what”?

            —”Blacks can be racist against blacks, women, homosexuals, blah blah, blah…”
            So, tell me how that utterly disconnected threesome of unconnected comparisons you listed that have nothing to do with Margaret Sanger makes me ignorant how, again?

            —”And I see you lack reading comprehension.”
            I see you are incapable of completing a sentence without beginning it with a conjunction. If I lacked reading comprehension, then explain how I am able to answer your expletive-laced mindless rants.

            —”Pressured” = code word for idiot/stupid
            We get it. You’re a racist piece of shit.”

            Those are the exact words of your fellow troll “purrtriarchy”, proudly displayed a few posts above this one. That would be HIS lack of comprehension, not mine.

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

            Does your wife know that one of the reasons she exists in your life is to prove to others you are not a racist?

            Does she know you are willing to publish a picture of her on a public website to prove your nonracist bona fides?

            If you used me that way, I would kick you to the curb in a New York minute. Your wife is kept ignorant by you or she is a scrub. Which is it?

          • L-dan

            Or she doesn’t exist and will be random internet pic of black woman (or FB friend) for yet another of our endless sockpuppets.

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

            Agree.

          • Mack

            Where did you get your degree in Psychology to make such an absurd assessment? I am going to make sure I don’t attend there, because every single statement you made is pure fantasy concocted in your limited mind.

            She exists because we compliment each other. The very first time we met, we stared at each other for 15 seconds without saying a word. Very powerful…….

            I was not thinking, “Boy, I can have her as my life’s partner and post future photos to show everyone to prove I’m not a racist!”

            Your personal relationship with your husband must have some serious problems if you cannot fathom that two people can simple love each other without any other relationship constraints.

            You’re wrong (again). I don’t publish any pictures of her. That is her decision, and I don’t need to prove anything.

            Try again, sweetie…

            How about the fact that she is not a “scrub”, whatever the hell that is. She is an intelligent, good-looking, talented, and loving partner, which is something you can probably only dream of having at this point.

            Nice attempt at spin, too. I have no idea what this has to so with this topic, and why you keep bringing my wife into the conversation.

            Her participation ends right now…

          • fiona64

            If you didn’t want to discuss your wife, you shouldn’t have brought her up as “proof” of your “anti-racism.”

            I don’t believe she exists either, to be honest. This is the internet, where people can claim anything they want to and no one can prove it. Prove I’m not a coloratura soprano with the Met. Go on.

            You’re an angry, white male loser who doesn’t like that women are no longer available to be treated as property. Why don’t you just admit to it; we can all see that it’s the case anyway.

          • Mack

            Property? Are you living in the 1600′s or in a Muslim country? Women are not property. My wife is about as independent as the come. That’s why I married her and she married me. Nice try, junior…

            —YOU brought up the fantasy that I kick or beat my wife, not me.
            (I don’t)

            —YOU brought up the racism accusation/wife thing, not me.
            (I’m not)

            —YOU brought up the fantasy that I am an angry white male, not me.
            (I’m very happy and we are both very successful business owners who earned everything we have)

            I am still waiting to see which college you got your Psych degree from. They are obviously not doing a good job at teaching you to assess people correctly. My wife uses about 5 Psych tests before she makes an assessment on someone. You are trying (in vain) to do it without ANY tests. Amazing!

          • goatini

            So you’re a racist who gets off on his exotic trophy.

          • Mack

            Oh, so you know me very well. Darn…! I have been discovered.

            So tell me, oh wise one. Since you know me so well, then how tall am I? What color are my eyes? What kind of cars do I own? Where do I hang out? Who was my best man at my wedding? (Hint: It wasn’t you…)

            More personal attacks…
            *Yawn…

            When you can answer those questions without making any more personal attacks (of which I have never done to you, by the way), then you may call me the “R” word all you want.

            Until then, you are looking more like a giant fool with every fantasy you post.

            Did you know personal attacks are a sign of insecurity? Just thought I’d throw that out, since I learned that when I edited my wife’s paper about that very subject about a year ago.

          • fiona64

            Did you know that being a controlling, misogynistic, bullying POS is a sign of insecurity? I learned that ages ago … and you continue to prove it to be so.

          • goatini

            You began your stay here with the specific purpose of making personal attacks on each and every defender of reproductive justice who posts here by advocating for the forcible stripping from female US citizens of their civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy and personal bodily autonomy – the SAME rights that you and every MALE citizen are endowed with at birth – then posting your giant, foolish fantasy lies about the great humanitarian Margaret Sanger. Just another lying forced-birther MRA who whines like a spoiled baby when he gets back what he deliberately, specifically, and maliciously came to dish out. Too bad, so sad.

          • Mack

            Nope. I just ruled-out your use of your over-played race card. I don’t get off on anything. My wife is precious. Nothing more.

            As I said earlier:
            Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist. Racist.

            *yawn. You are obviously getting desperate.

          • fiona64

            No one said anything racist until your sorry ass showed up.

            “Some of my best friends are black/Asian/something non-white” is the rallying cry of the racist.

          • Mack

            Others will simply look at that statement as factual reality without filtering it through the prism of racism.

            Take the fact for what it is. If I was truly a racist, as your fantasy claims, then I would not even consider associating with anyone outside my own race, let alone marrying somebody outside my race.

            Nice try, junior…

          • fiona64

            Your constant attempts to demean me by calling me “junior” are amusing … and failing.

            Men who feel the need to do that, and to have trophy wives, do so because they are insecure about themselves. I feel sorry for you, to be perfectly honest.

          • Mack

            Glad you are amused. You sound rather immature in most of your posts, so I am inclined to address you in such a manner until you can grow up and address me in the context of the adult you could potentially be.

            “Some of my best friends are black/Asian/something non-white” is the rallying cry of the racist.”

            Why is it that you are such an expert on other people being a racist?

            Why are you so wrong in your judgement all the time? How do you function at home with all that vitriol cooped-up inside you?

            You, and several of your Leftie buddies, have vainly attempted to label me as a wife-beating, homophobic, racist. Those masterful attempts at spinning the issue have touched on every subject EXCEPT Margarets own words that I quoted when I started this thread.

            When you grow up, junior, and finally realize that I am none of the things you and your cronies have accused me of being, then I will cease using the moniker I have selected for you.

            Have a nice day.

          • fiona64

            You’re a laughable, angry, little man.

          • Suba gunawardana

            The assumption that they are brainwashed into getting abortions by someone else implies that you think black women are too stupid to make their own decisions.

            Otherwise why would this even be an issue nowadays? As I said abortion is elective, NEVER forced.

          • goatini

            If she agrees with your lying BS nonsense, I’d say she is.

          • goatini

            That’s not at all what Ms Sanger wrote. Stop relying on notorious liar and radical theocratic misogynist Diane Dew for your unethical, amoral lying propaganda.

          • Arekushieru

            Oh, my GOD. I just remembered where I heard that name, before. I am not totally familiar with all of our allies and leading opposition members. But that IS one I remember. She was one of the very first antis I encountered on my own. Blech!

          • Arekushieru

            That doesn’t help your cause, Jackass. That helps OURS. Planned Parenthood was anti-abortion because Margaret Sanger was ANTI-ABORTION, which is totally unlike you and the rest of your colleagues. Because SHE actually wanted to REDUCE the instances of unplanned pregnancies, seeing as how it was MULTIPLE PREGNANCIES that killed her OWN mother, by providing contraception to ALL women to control their fertility, thus reducing the NEED FOR ABORTION. YOUR ilk is generally anti-contraceptive, which tends to RAISE the rates of abortion. Oopsies?

            Planned Parenthood’s abortion services are ONLY THREE FUCKING PERCENT of their total services. And not all Planned Parenthood’s provide on site access to abortions. The one in my own city being a HUGE example. Planned Parenthood provides a LOT more services to REDUCE the rates of unplanned pregnancies, than your CPC shills could, or WOULD, ever do.

            Next time, please provide sources that are peer-reviewed and evidence-based instead of some hack website. Thanks in advance.

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

            Same with the Elizabeth Blackwell Planned Parenthood here in Philly. No abortions, medication or surgical, are done there. They refer to private practice gynecologists.

          • Mack

            Did I personally attack you or call you names?

            If you are going to start with the personal attacks, you should know your intended victim. The latter was your first mistake.

            —”Jackass”
            How sweet! That 4th grade name-calling really helps your argument, and makes you look highly- educated. At least you spelled it correctly. Strike one.

            —”YOUR ilk is generally anti-contraceptive”
            Nope. Strike two. Contraception does not kill any living beings. Abortion does. Contraception prevents a child from ever forming. I am not anti-contraception. Your assumptions are wrong again.

            —”Oopsies?”
            Yup.

            “…ONLY THREE FUCKING PERCENT…”
            As opposed to only three percent?

            —”Next time, please provide sources that are peer-reviewed and evidence-based instead of some hack website.”

            LIke the ones you provided, for example? Or just ones that are approved by you and your selected friends, perhaps?
            Strike three…

          • goatini

            An anonymous Angelfire link of made-up nonsense – yeah, that’s real credible, NOT.

          • Mack

            And the link you posted is more credible. Oh, wait… You didn’t post one…

            Nevermind.

            Quoting another site that you might find more credible, although I am not too confident you find ANYthing credible…

            “—THE CLAIM

            Reproductive rights (i.e. “abortion” rights) for women is like civil-rights for blacks and other minorities. To try to deny women reproductive rights is the same as trying to deny African-Americans civil-rights. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a great advocate of women’s reproductive rights, and for this he was awarded Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award on May 5th, 1966.

            —THE TRUTH

            Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. certainly believed in birth-control, but all the evidence available shows he was staunchly against abortion.

            One researcher writes:

            “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stridently denounced abortion as a form of genocide in many speeches.” (Lifelines, Winter 1997, p.14 online)

            Dr. King did in fact receive the Margaret Sanger Award in 1966. But it is also a fact that in 1966, Planned Parenthood was still (at least publicly) ANTI-abortion. They were still using a pamphlet they wrote and published in 1963 titled Is Birth Control Abortion?

            The pamphlet read:
            “Is birth control abortion? Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely post-pones the beginning of life.” (Is Birth Control Abortion, Planned Parenthood pamphlet, Aug. 1963, p.1)

            http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/afrikan-reflections/40591-martin-luther-kings-support-plan-parenthood-synopsis.html

          • fiona64

            Another personal site … nothing peer reviewed, etc.

            What a snooze-fest you are.

          • Mack

            “Is birth control abortion? Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely post-pones the beginning of life.”

            Source:
            Planned Parenthood, (1963) Is Birth Control Abortion?, Planned Parenthood pamphlet, p.1
            New York, NY: Planned Parenthood,
            Retrieved from: http://s81.photobucket.com/user/yodavater/media/PPPlanYourFamily63.jpg.html

            It’s in APA format (if you even know what that is…)…

            Happy now? Go home…

          • fiona64

            Hey, dumbass? PP didn’t provide abortions in 1963, and the pamphlet was explaining the difference between contraception and abortion in everyday terminology … as opposed to medical terminology that a dim bulb like you would find too scary. Furthermore, the pamphlet was addressing the dangers of *illegal abortion,* which will become the situation *again* if jerkwads like you got their way. Making abortion illegal again won’t make it go away; it will just mean more dead women.

            Happy now? Go to hell.

          • Mack

            Isn’t it interesting that the only comments that are being deleted are the ones by me? I have no idea what you are responding to because someone obviously reported my reply to you to the moderators. Aren’t one-sided conversations wonderful if someone’s personal agenda is promoted, but the opposing viewpoint is silenced?

            Ah, that’s classic Liberalism for ya…

            I never said Planned Abortionhood provided abortions in 1963. That is why Martin Luther King accepted the award from them–because they didn’t begin to provide abortions until long after his death.

            Go to hell? How nice and civil of you. Boy… That’s a great way to win an argument… I have never exposed you to such expletives. Why do you insist on initiating them?

          • goatini

            Here’s a link to actual, factual, academic, unbiased information about the great humanitarian, Margaret Sanger.

            http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/

          • L-dan

            So your argument goes…

            MLK was cool with receiving the Sanger award and praised Sanger, but he would have considered her a genocidal racist if PP had been pro-choice at the time? Because somehow Sanger’s history and stance changes with PP’s?

            Additionally PP should be forever tarred by association with Sanger, because eugenics, despite the fact that you assert they have radically shifted their stance on abortion and thus obviously don’t adhere to Sanger’s philosophies as gospel or something.

            This argument makes zero sense. But it’s about what I’ve come to expect from you.

          • fiona64

            Some anti-choice nutter’s personal website is the best you can do? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

            Anyway, the main purpose of PP has always been contraception; abortion is less than 10 percent of the services they provide.

            Now, why don’t you crawl back under your rock while the adults talk?

          • Mack

            Facts are terrible things. I see you made the choice not to dispute the facts I presented.

            Nice spin job.

          • fiona64

            You didn’t present any facts, sweetie … you presented a nutjob personal website (probably your own). Nice spin job indeed. Now, go back to beating your wife and defending your position of patriarchal privilege in various other Neanderthal fashions, and leave the civilized people alone.

          • Mack

            No, I don’t build websites. I build networks and switching terminals, and in my spare time, I compose and record music in my own digital studio.

            That is why I don’t get to spend a lot of time online (and which is why I haven’t replied to these comments for a couple of weeks.

            So, any website that doesn’t agree with your views is a “nutjob website”? Really? I wasn’t aware that you knew the website’s owner personally in order to make that assessment of him so quickly.

            Beating my wife. There you go again with the hallucinations. You need to watch those mind-altering drugs. They make it hard for you to separate your fantasies from the real world.

            Real world:
            I volunteer at my wife’s domestic abuse shelter, where she is a counselor. I see the results of abuse firsthand, but unlike you, I do NOT think abuse is something to joke about or something that is funny. Grow up.

            Your fantasies:
            You degrade women in general by make disgusting jokes about spousal abuse by telling me to “go back to beating your wife”. It shows your utter ignorance with the real world of abuse.

            In your fantasies, I beat my wife.

            In the real world, you have unfulfilled desires to have a fulfilling relationship because you are jealous that we have a nearly-perfect relationship, just like I had with my first wife for over 30 years, and you think that such a relationship is simply not possible.

            Wrong. It is possible. We are living proof.
            Sober up…

          • fiona64

            Sweetie, I’m a survivor of DV … and I recognize that the verbal abuse you are displaying here is a precursor of physical violence.

            My husband, unlike you, is a man who does not feel to tell strangers what a “great guy” he is. He just goes around being a great guy.

            You’re an angry, pathetic *tiny* man with a great need to control others in order to feel like a “real man.” Perhaps your wife can recommend a counselor to you so that you can figure out why you hate women who are smarter than you, and who don’t kowtow to your misogyny.

            BTW, I’d watch it with your random accusations of libel, since you’re now doing the same thing. What was it you said? Oh yes, I’ll be waiting for that retraction.

          • Mack

            I dont feel a need to tall anybody what a “great guy” I am. My actions speak much louder than my words, and my actions are something you will never witness.

            The only reason I ever felt a need to tell you (or any of the other people here who like to spew hate and false allegations) anything about my personal life is because the first thing you did was falsely accuse me of beating my wife. I believe it was phrased as “kick you wife” or some other bullshit. That put me into some sort of defensive mode because you love to employ personal attacks.

            Your writings indicate you are filled with hate. I hope it is not because your husband hates you.

            My wife knows the truth. I know the truth. You live in a fantasy world where all husbands beat their wives and don’t marry outside their own race, lest they be accused of having a “trophy wife for racial purposes”.

            I really think you hate men.

          • fiona64

            You’re funny.

          • fiona64

            It’s cute how you’re upvoting your own posts …

          • Mack

            It’s a “guest vote”, not mine. Mine would say “Mack”.

            Sorry to disappoint you. Grasping at straws now, are we?

          • fiona64

            ::pats head::

            Of course, sweetie. You would never do anything so unethical as upvote your own post without logging in, causing it to show up as “guest.” Of course you wouldn’t.

            ::walks away laughing at ‘Mack’s’ expense::

          • Mack

            Nope. I wouldn’t. Do you think you are the only one who has ethical values?

            Not hardly…

            I could care less if I received no votes at all. My world does not revolve around how many “Up” votes I receive. My world revolves around my wife, my business, my employees, and my music.

            “It’s cute how you’re upvoting your own posts …”
            As they say, “Put up or shut up…”

            Interesting how you can sling unfounded accusations (again) without even breaking a sweat.

          • fiona64

            ::yawns in the face of the angry misogynist::

          • Mack

            “I could care less if I received no votes at all.”

            Yup. Sounds like anger to me…

          • Alex Hunter

            Well it is pretty hard to incarcerate a person of colour when they’re already ded

          • fiona64

            Poor Mack, he’s an angry little man who doesn’t like it when women talk back to him.

        • Arekushieru

          Margaret Sanger was anti-abortion. Margaret Sanger DESPISED Hitler.

          Hitler was anti-CHOICE like you. He supported forced abortions for Jewish women and forced birth for German women, *neither* of which is Pro-Choice. Gisella Perl provided abortions to Jewish women to keep them from being tortured and killed. While anti-choicers like YOU would proselytize over the woman’s decision to abort leaving both the woman AND fetus to die. Oops.

          Also, again, the point flew right over your head. Alex was merely referring to how commonplace racism was back in the day. It was hard to find ANYONE who was completely non-racist. Hitler was EXTREMELY racist and Margaret Sanger was at the OPPOSITE extreme. In fact, Margaret made sure ALL her employees were treated equally, whether black or white, and if a black employee was treated unfairly, the other employee would quickly find themselves UNEMPLOYED. Again, oops?

          • Mack

            Why did she make a speech at a KKK meeting with the guys donning their white hoods?

            KKK… Now, that’s a nice bunch of non-racist guys, eh? Of course…

          • fiona64

            Citation provided already. She spoke to the women’s auxiliary about contraception. You claim to be so pro-contaception, after all …

            You get off on telling these lies, don’t you? Are you typing your nonsense with one hand? I think you are …

        • Alex Hunter

          In North Korea, it’s a crime to not mourn the death of Kim-Jong Il or his ilk. Would you rather we emulate them?
          I wouldn’t put it past your type. Where you see criminals who need to be punished, I see survivors being targeted by bullies.

        • goatini

          Margaret Sanger abhorred Hitler, whose massive book burnings included her entire works. Stop lying.

        • lady_black

          Um… NO.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Sorry, but that’s simply not true.

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

          Name one person Sanger exterminated. Sanger was opposed to abortion. Put up or shut up.

        • lady_black

          Sanger hated abortion.

    • fiona64

      Oh, look. Another LieActionNews troll who has never read any of Sanger’s actual writings.

  • Atheist Finch

    Thank you for sharing your story, and I’m so sorry for the horrible abuse you’ve had to endure. Funny how life becomes less precious with these people after it’s born. Kinda makes you think it’s more about controlling women than it is about caring for humans.

    • fiona64

      Of course it’s all about controlling women. It’s never been anything else with these modern anti-choicers.

  • CJ99

    Perhaps those who spew such hate should be exposed for what they are. Such as the post quoted in the start of the article, perhaps showing the posters email address. How many of such hateful bigots would continue if their actions were fully known by those around them on a daily basis?

    • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

      Good idea – why not expose them?

      • Shan

        Because it opens them up to the same sort of harassment this article is speaking out against. That’s not something that should be encouraged.

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

          I disagree. I support Voice of Choice.
          http://www.vochoice.org/

        • Alex Harman

          They don’t deserve the kinds of threats and wishes of violence they inflict, but they absolutely deserve a sarcastic “thank you for exposing how vicious, vile, and inhuman the anti-choice movement is.”

      • CJ99

        I’m thinking putting big stickers on their cars saying “my name is ……….. and I support sexism, racism, abuse of women & children, my address is …… and phone # is ……..”

  • Donnie McLeod

    Visceral hate is what makes us common with cornered rats. It comes with the complex process of evolution. Hate is our fear based thinking process in operation when it is allowed to trump our reasoned based thinking process. This second thinking process separates us from most other animals. The first is our default. The second requires some effort. Martin Luther preferred the first because it is good for God belief. The second process he hated. He knew it allowed people to be good with out God. He ranted against the second. Here is a good example of someone who is using our fear based thinking process retorting to something I wrote. I think it is a wonderful explanation of what is going on in their heads when they hate.

    “What lies Donnie?..where is religion mention in conservatism?.Conservatism is bad for life spans?..where do you get this drivel from?.You slam religion yet all our laws are based on Judeo Christian tenants that have served us better than human secularism.You are weak pathetic piece of human debris that wants to be taken care of from cradle to grave.You don’t have the balls to stand up and be a man.you whine snivel and complain..you bring nothing to the table that can or will improve your lot in life…You make me sick and I wouldn’t piss on your heart if it was on fire..you and all you represent disgusts me”

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

      Martin Luther: If they (women) become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth. That is what they are there for.

      • Donnie McLeod

        Martin Luther said God accepts liars.

        • Jennifer Starr

          And what does that have to with the very accurate quote posted by Plum?

          • Donnie McLeod

            The lie has to be a good lie. Good for God or the Church. A bold faced lie like abortion leads to suicide.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Abortion isn’t a lie, and it doesn’t lead to suicide. And no, that is actually what Martin Luther said. Sorry if you choose to deny that fact, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

          • Donnie McLeod

            I am not fan of God’s liars. I know abortion does not lead to suicide. I blame Martin Luther. He wrote “”What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church…a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”

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

            Abortion is a medical procedure. You are asserting an appendectomy is a lie? How so?

          • Donnie McLeod

            I am on your side. A women must have the right to choose. Lies are terrible. Especially lies created for a make believe God. Martin Luther wrote “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church…a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”

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

            I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were antichoice.

          • Donnie McLeod

            My apologies.

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

          Can we then assume that you are here “lying for Jesus.” You are filth as is Martin Luther. I hate a liar worse than I hate a thief. A thief steals material things. A liar distorts reality.

    • Arekushieru

      Donnie, the people who throw the phrase “You don’t have the balls to stand up and be a man’ at you, have already marginalized women and ‘real’ men don’t need to put down less privileged groups in order to build themselves up. Thank you SO much for your support. You are AWESOME. :)

      • Donnie McLeod

        “Have the balls to stand up and be a man”. Thank you. I did not have your perspective. The piece is even more useful. It propagates the lie of social Darwinism. That we must be self reliant not inter reliant. In fact we evolved to be inter reliant. That is our strength not our weakness. Which gets back to creating micro communities of inter reliant and inter supportive people.

        • Arekushieru

          YUP. 100% agree with you! Inter reliant and inter supportive does not mean exclusive of smaller communities, after all. In other words, it does NOT mean that just because it MAY take “a village to raise a child’ (as the saying goes), it does not mean that the community has to be one homogeneous hive-mind, about which so many people (especially antis) complain!

          • Donnie McLeod

            The opposite of the hive model is more organic.

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

          ‘In fact we evolved to be inter reliant. That is our strength not our weakness.’
          …………….
          Well said. Social cooperation is mankind’s chief survival skill. Those who trash ‘inter reliance’ are lovers of death and destruction.

          • Donnie McLeod

            Do more than cooperate, collaborate. Do more than socialize, create networked micro groups and make change. Micro groups give the quietist voice in the room volume.

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

            Well said. I am a strange bird. Almost all groups eventually kick me out. So I tend not to join groups.

          • Donnie McLeod

            Groups should not last forever. Just long enough to address a near and present danger.

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

            Like teams. Thank you. I can do that.

  • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

    You are a hero, taking that risk and going through with it. Do not ever let them put you down!

  • Rachel Barnes

    You are a hero for speaking out. I did a couple of times about my abortion and I lost a lot of people I thought would stand by me forever. Funny how life is sometimes. Anyway, keep up the good work.

  • Rachel Barnes

    I also wanted to tell you that I have started speaking out again after being silent for so long thanks to this post and the video Emily Letts shared. Thanks for giving me a voice again and reminding me this is important.

  • Suba gunawardana

    LOL could you BE more biased? Your source being a religious-nut forced-birth site, these claims are not just questionable but most likely out & out lies.

    More importantly, EVEN IF these claims were true (which they aren’t), what you describe are ILLEGAL activities. Should the whole procedure/field be banned because some professionals commit malpractice? If that were the case we would have no more doctors, lawyers, cops, judges or any kind of professionals.

    The solution to malpractice is transparency, more regulation, and punishing those who do wrong. NOT abolishing the whole profession, duh!

    • Mack

      You missed the point (again). The point was that it is NOT like getting a tattoo or a nose job. People can and do die during abortions.

      Hello?

      The source was the ever-leaning left ABC News, not some “religious-nut forced-birth site”. I don’t know what religion has to do with anything. I did not bring up religion, nor do I ever attack anyone with different religious views that mine, nor did I bring up forced birth.

      Nobody “forced” the woman to spread her legs and become pregnant. If that was the case, however, then she should have the option to abort the baby, as is the case with incest or life-threatening medical problems for the mother.

      If women want birth control, then they should be using a pill, diaphragm, tubal ligation, condoms, or a means other than a surgery that has a risk of killing the patient and murdering a tiny human being.

      • fiona64

        CitizenLink is not ABC News.

        Nobody “forced” the woman to spread her legs and become pregnant.

        There it is, right there: proof that your anti-choice position is, as I stated earlier, all about punishing women who dare to have sex without the intent to procreate, with an unhealthy dose of slut-shaming on the side.

        If women want birth control, then they should be using a pill, diaphragm, tubal ligation, condoms

        All of which have known failure rates.

        or a means other than a surgery that has a risk of killing the patient and murdering a tiny human being.

        Abortion is 14 times safer than gestation and pregnancy. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2012/01/23/abortion-safer-for-women-than-childbirth-study-claims . Where are your concerns for women whose life and health are destroyed by pregnancy every day in this country? Or, like Martin Luther, do you believe that it’s a woman’s duty to die in childbirth?

        Murder is the unlawful (illegal) taking of a person’s life with malice aforethought. Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, and that which is legal cannot also be unlawful, your asinine canard fails on that level alone. Throw in that an embryo is not a person (check the US Constitution, 14th Amendment, if you’re unclear) and you lose yet again.

        It must be so sad to be an angry white dude afraid of losing his hegemony …

        • Mack

          “Where are your concerns for women whose life and health are destroyed by pregnancy every day in this country?”

          Actions have consequences–including the action of having unprotected sex.

          If a woman made a bad personal decision, such as having unprotected sex and becoming pregnant, that bad personal decision has consequences, right? Well, unless you are a Liberal. Then, it’s always someone else’s fault…

          If a pregnancy will endanger the mother’s health, then, of course, an abortion should be considered. Duh?

          At an execution, the medical doctor goes up to the inmate afterwards, listens for the absence of a heartbeat and declares the inmate to be dead. His heart stopped. That is considered to be the end of his life at that moment. If that is the case, why is it NOT the beginning of a life when the heart begins to beat?

      • Suba gunawardana

        -Why is an abortion not like a tattoo or nose job? They are all ELECTIVE procedures, and if botched, death can result from each one them.

        -And don’t lie. Citizenlink and all its affiliates such as live action, focus on life etc. are rabid right wing forced-birth sites. Who else would publish such blatant lies?

        -But what flew right over your head was: EVEN IF these claims were true (which they aren’t), what you describe are ILLEGAL activities. Should the whole procedure/field be banned because some professionals commit malpractice? If that were the case we would have no more doctors, lawyers, cops, judges or any kind of professionals.
        The solution to malpractice is transparency, more regulation, and punishing those who do wrong. NOT abolishing the whole profession, duh!

        -Women should have a right to have sex without being punished with forced pregnancy and childbirth. (And FYI,contraception is never 100% effective.)

  • Suba gunawardana

    All these abortions are ELECTIVE, done at the request of the pregnant woman. You cannot blame Sanger or the democratic party or the boogeyman for a choice the woman makes HERSELF.

  • L-dan

    Yeah, because being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is so awesome for anyone. We should be advocating the the poor be forced to continue pregnancies for their own good, I suppose?

    I’m pretty sure I can advocate for the poor, and advocate for abortion access, given that lack of access disproportionately affects the poor–generally in a negative fashion.

    By that standard, Margaret Sanger, who advocated for birth control, not abortion btw, was pretty stalwart.

  • http://batman-news.com Gordon Cash

    I hope everyone here will read or has already read This Common Secret by Dr. Susan Wicklund. Dr. Wicklund is an abortion provider in Montana, but her book is (mostly) not political. It consists mostly of stories about her, her extended family, and her patients. The book speaks for itself much better than I can speak for it, so just read it.

    • Arekushieru

      Gordon, Dr. Susan Wicklund is AWE-INSPIRING. When I heard her speak about her own Grandmother, I was literally in TEARS.

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

    So if a black woman is having a white baby is it okay for her to abort?

  • mydoulalife

    Thank you for sharing! Together we are stronger!

  • Kelli Crackel

    I have never had an abortion. I cannot ever completely understand how difficult that must be. That being said, I have never seen more vile, un-Christian, and flat out psychotic responses than those directed at women who’ve had abortions and were brave enough to admit it. You’re right. Speaking out is the only way to lessen this stigma. I wish you all the luck in the world and I am behind you. As a woman and a mother to a daughter, I work to make the world understand that women should always have the right to make their own reproductive choices. I do not believe that I could ever have an abortion for personal reasons, but I can’t really say that for a fact because, by the grace of God, I’ve never been put in that position before. However, I don’t condemn anyone’s choice to have one because, quite frankly, it’s none of my damn business how others live their lives, and because I am constantly POed that the government tries so hard to curtail women’s rights. Thank you for being so brave.

  • emjb

    If I got pregnant at the age/health status I am now, I would probably have an abortion. Because I have an existing child who needs me and a life that would make things tough if another child came along–for that child as well as for the rest of us. I am also old enough that there might be increased risks of problems for me and for a baby, a challenge my family absolutely is not prepared to deal with. You were very brave to share your story, thank you.

  • Arekushieru

    Please stop spreading biased links. The Guttmacher institute is a center for the collection of information no matter HOW closely (which is very loosely) it is (was) affiliated with an arm of Planned Parenthood. FAR less biased than your own links by ANY standard.

    You don’t talk about how more common it is for women who go through childbirth and delivery to suffer from infections, at times. Nor do you go about saying that pregnancy should be banned for that reason? The truth comes out, now, eh?

  • Arekushieru

    If you actually want to learn something about Margaret Sanger, read some of the other responses that my fellow posters have already concisely and neatly laid out. If you wish to remain ignorant, however (and which I suspect is the path you will most LIKELY choose), just keep spouting the lies you’ve been brainwashed into believing.

    Would you have preferred that Ms. Sanger used white ministers? Why do you THINK she was using black ministers? It couldn’t POSSIBLY have been because to do otherwise would have exacerbated the very problem of which you accuse Ms. Sanger? Nor that this, in turn, could have meant that Ms. Sanger, HERSELF, was actively SEEKING a solution to that very problem? It’s funny, in a tragic way, that you antis always seem to think that solving a problem of racism is inherently racist. But creating a problem of racism is anti-racist. Up is down and down is up for you people.

    Black women tend to have more unplanned pregnancies than white women, which would proooobbbabbblyyy account for the higher numbers of abortions performed on black women than white women, y’know. You antis have SO much difficulty dealing with anything of a contextual nature, don’t you? Of course, if you did take the context into account, you would realize who the true racists are and you would no longer be able to avoid acknowledging that fact, now, would you? Namely, that the Pro-Life politicians are the ones that are cutting funding to social assistance programs like TANF, Snap and WIC, which, therefore, make it nearly impossible for poorer women (the majority of whom tend to be black) to access the services, which their wealthy, white counterparts can seek more freely, WITHOUT having a more inexpensive option available to them… such as Planned Parenthood. Oops.

    Does it make sense that Democrats would grant MORE rights to certain fetal offspring, on the backs of poor and minority women, at that, just because they support the communities of the members from which they sprung? Wouldn’t it make MORE sense for Democrats to grant equal rights to ALL fetal offspring if they wanted to show they supported minorities and poor women? Does it make sense to support minorities and poor women by exacerbating the poor conditions in which they live? I’d think that would be showing that they DON’T support them. Oopsies.

    Finally, is it more compassionate to end a life BEFORE it can experience pain or pleasure or AFTER it experienced either? If you say the latter, then I have to ask what kind of cruel existence have you forced others to live in order to serve your own selfish, greedy whims? Besides that, you just engaged in privilege-splaining, not surprising coming from a bigot like yourself. A relatively well-to-do WHITE woman patronizingly telling those less privileged than herself that, because HER experiences didn’t cause her to suffer beyond endurance, being forced to live a possible life of misery that they know she, herself, will never experience under the worst circumstances, is doing them a favour.

    (Can the REAL racist please stand up, now?)

    Oops.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Oh he realizes. He just prefers to ignore and take the quote out of context.

    • fiona64

      Because, Charlie, he’s a nitwit. /appropriation of line from “Willy Wonka”

  • Alex Harman

    Thank you for speaking out; it takes a lot of nerve to draw fire like that, especially when you know ahead of time exactly what’s coming your way. I hope that by exposing themselves as the misogynistic filth they are, the forced-birthers polluting your social media feeds will drive people on the fence toward the pro-choice position, and inspire apathetic pro-choice people to become more active in fighting for that position.

  • fiona64

    You just really outed yourself as an ignorant dumbfuck, citing the lies of a known hate group: Focus on the Family.

    http://www.citizenlink.com/about-us/

    You’re a joke, dude. If you want to live in a theocracy where women have no rights, I’m sure Afghanistan would be right up your alley.

    • Mack

      Mistake #1:
      They are not Focus on the Family. They are Citizen Link. They may associate with Focus on the Family, but are not funded by them, nor do they share the same Board of Directors. I am confident that they associate with several dozen religious organizations, one of which is Focus on the Family.

      That is the same thing as attempting to tie Chevrolet to Pontiac. Nice try…

      Mistake #2:
      Quoted directly from their “About Us” page you just cited:

      “We also encourage them to participate in the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS in order to forge a better future for our children and our culture.”

      Yup. Sounds like a theocracy, doesn’t it? Just like Iran…

      Mistake #3:
      Your name calling and personal attacks are soooo 4th grade. Grow up. Please try to stick to the issue, if you can…

      • fiona64

        Wow, look at all of the tapdancing around the fact that you cited a known hate group.

        As you are wont to say, “nice try, junior” …

        • Mack

          “As you are wont to say”

          I am assuming you meant to say, “As you want to say”, or something to that effect.

          Comparing apples to oranges, or comparing Pontiac to Chevrolet. They associate with each other, but they are not the same group. Planned Abortionhood is also a hate group. They hate life. They love murder. They love manipulating young women. Sounds like a hate group to me…

          • Suba gunawardana

            I usually NEVER nitpick about language, but this is just too funny.

            Your profile says “I actually paid attention in school and learned something. I can spell, use proper grammar, and I can add, subtract, multiply…….”

            And you don’t seem to know the meaning of “wont”? Really?

          • Mack

            “As you are wont to say”

            I know the meaning of want. My correction was meant to address one word that didn’t belong there.

            Why is “are” in that sentence?

          • Suba gunawardana

            If you dare to brag about your language skills, you should at least know the difference between “want” and “wont”. LOL!

          • fiona64

            Sweetie, your “correction”? Wasn’t.

          • fiona64

            Learn the difference between “wont” and “want.” They are not the same thing. Do you really still expect us to believe that you attended college?

            Allow me to rectify this unfortunate gap in your education:

            wont
            wônt,wōnt/
            adjective
            literary
            adjective: wont

            1.
            (of a person) in the habit of doing something; accustomed.
            “he was wont to arise at 5:30 every morning”
            synonyms: accustomed, used, given, inclined More
            “he was wont to arise at 5:30″

            noun
            formalhumorous
            noun: wont

            1.
            one’s customary behavior in a particular situation.
            “Constance, as was her wont, had paid her little attention”
            synonyms: custom, habit, way, practice, convention, rule More
            “Paul drove fast, as was his wont”

            verb
            archaic
            verb: wont; 3rd person present: wonts; 3rd person present: wont; past tense: wont; past participle: wont; past tense: wonted; past participle: wonted; gerund or present participle: wonting

            1.
            make or be or become accustomed.
            “wont thy heart to thoughts hereof”

            You are an angry, hateful, misogynistic, wee, small individual … who is obsessed with controlling women, as you demonstrate every time you post to me.

            I’m sorry to disappoint you; I have a delightful husband, do not date outside my species, and am only attracted to men.

          • Mack

            I don’t date outside my species, either. Squirrels, whales, giraffes, and fish never appealed to me.

            Does he open doors for you and give you flowers for no special reason, other than to say “I love you”?

          • fiona64

            Oh, good grief. “Empty Gesture Man” is back.

          • Mack

            So, your husband does EXACTLY the same things I do. Therefore, since he is married to you, he is NOT a monster and I am.

            I see..

            Despite your fantasy, it’s not about “outward appearances”. It’s about the feelings in my heart towards the woman I love. Our love is based upon a very deeply-rooted respect for each other.

            Why do you have such a big problem accepting that? Is it because you distrust men, as do most women who have been previously abused?

            It is justified. Even abused pets know better that to ever completely trust humans for the rest of their lives.

            He is not the only one who shows compassion towards animals. I have housed well over a hundred dogs over the years under the adoption program while they waited for their forever home. I have probably spent upwards of $10,000 housing them and taking them to the vet when they fall ill.

            A saddle. How nice. I put my wife through a Master’s program so she could obtain her domestic abuse counseling license and counsel abuse victims. It was something she has wanted to do–her passion–for MOST OF HER LIFE, and because of my commitment to her, it has finally became a reality.

            We agreed that she should not have to work the entire time so she could focus her time on her school work and graduate Summa Cum Laude. I have worked long hours for over two years to help her make that possible. That is my commitment to her.

            I edit all of her papers and dissertations. I let my employees head home early, close up my office, head home, and cook most of our meals.

            A saddle suits one person. An education suits another. It just depends upon what the recipient wants. To each, his own.

          • fiona64

            Don’t try gaslighting me, jerk. It doesn’t work. You keep arguing that all it takes to make someone a good person is opening doors and buying flowers.

            Well, it takes one helluva lot more than that. And your snide remark about my saddle proves that you are an angry little loser because I don’t think you’re a prince if you hold a door for someone. Plus, you’re trying to one-up my husband … because it IS all about outside appearances to you.

            You have already irrevocably demonstrated yourself to be a misogynistic POS. This just serves as the icing on the cake.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What is your obsession with opening doors & bringing flowers? As we explained at length before:

            -Opening doors is common courtesy, NOTHING special. Bragging about that means you have little else to brag about. Not that bragging is a good trait anyway, but come on, if you choose to brag, the least you can do is find something worth bragging about.

            -Flowers are nothing but an EMPTY gesture for show. No real use to anyone except to make you feel important. Anyone who truly cares about the needy & unfortunate (as you claim to, for the abused women & children) would not waste time & money on superficial things, considering every spare penny can be used to help an individual who truly needs it, such as abandoned animals or abused children who are suffering as we speak.

          • Mack

            There are not a lot of men who show that simple courteous gesture anymore. That was my point. Nothing more. I am not bragging. I am simply stating a fact.

            The first time I ever met my current wife (for our first date), I brought her some flowers. She cried. I thought I had brought the wrong kind or something, so I asked her why she was upset. She told me that nobody had ever given her flowers. I thought she was kidding, but she insisted she had never received flowers. Ever… To this day, flowers have a special meaning to her.

            As long as she likes them, I will give them to her.

            As far as helping animals, I have not mentioned it, but I have been helping animals for quite a few years. I have housed hundreds of pets as a temporary adoption house until they could be placed into a forever home. I have spent well over $10,000 on feeding, housing, and vet bills when they fall ill. Don’t lecture me about helping pets. You have no clue.

            I volunteer at my wife’s domestic abuse shelter every week. I see the results of spousal abuse and child abuse firsthand. Don’t lecture me about helping abused children, either.

          • Rainbow Walker

            The mere fact that you mention these [flowers, opening doors, helping animals, etc.] is more proof you are attempting to divert us from something you don’t want us to know. And it’s very odd: whenever a point is brought forth, you have done that [eg. helping animals]. You must be superman. Giving your wife flowers, helping animals, volunteering at an abuse shelter, and all holding down a full time job.

            For someone who volunteers at an abuse shelter you have a very narrow and stereo typical view of the world. Of course some volunteer at abuse shelters because they get off on seeing others
            abused.

          • Mack

            I brought up the animals only because because Suba suggested that I should do that. I informed Suba that I ALREADY DO help animals, and have been for years. Her prejudging me is now a moot point.

            “Of course some volunteer at abuse shelters because they get off on seeing others abused.”

            Yes, and some volunteer at abuse shelters because they want to show compassion for others in need. You must have a hard time comprehending that aspect because it does not fit how you prejudged me. Nice try…

            Stereo typical?
            You mean “stereotypical”, perhaps?

          • Rainbow Walker

            Sure thing Mother Teresa. And you never did answer my previous observation. Funny, for every argument you counter
            saying you’re already doing that. Between ‘volunteering’ at abuse shelters, helping animals, getting your wife flowers and swinging a full time job you have time to show your cruelty and stupidity on the web.

            “You must have a hard time comprehending that aspect because it does not fit how you prejudged me.”

            Prejudging? Evidently you need to read your tripe before you hit the post button.

            “Stereo typical?
            You mean “stereotypical”, perhaps?”

            Found a typo. Good for you. Want me to give you the definition? Make you feel better? It sure doesn’t justify your ideology. If anything it only proves you must divert because you lack an
            argument or are trying to hide something.

          • Mack

            “Of course some volunteer at abuse shelters because they get off on seeing others abused.”

            Your implication is…?

            …wrong…

            Sorry, junior…

          • Rainbow Walker

            “Your implication is…?”

            You ask what my implication is and then say I’m wrong without knowing it. You are an idiot and quite transparent. Of course you get off on others suffering that’s why you are against abortion:
            more children to use and abuse.

            Then you follow it up with a weak leveling attempt.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Looks to me like you customize your life to fit each response you receive here.

            -Someone called you a racist. You said you have an “ethnic wife”.

            -Someone implied you beat your wife. You bragged about “opening doors; bringing flowers & volunteering at the abuse shelter”.

            -I and others pointed out that opening doors etc. are nothing to brag about, and if you really help others you should know your priorities. Now all of a sudden you have housed hundreds of pets, in addition to all you do at the abuse shelter.

            Well…. Sounds a bit too fake to me. I am not making allegations as I have no way to verify anything, but in general, a person with his priorities straight would not make a big deal out of mundane things like flowers & opening doors.

          • Mack

            It’s not fake.

            It is all the result of YOUR wild preconceived ideas of me, all of which are not true. In fact, the opposite is true. Your false allegations are a direct result of YOU being prejudicial.

            I didn’t bring up the adoptions because there was no need to do so until after YOU brought up the idea that I should care for animals.

            —I already do.

            I didn’t bring up my volunteer work until after YOU suggested I should work with abused people.

            —I already do.

            I didn’t play the race card first. Some uninformed dipstick did.

            If you would simply know somebody, and not prejudge them, then you wouldn’t have had this problem.

            I didn’t change. I just responded to false personal attacks, which is a favorite tactic of Lefties…

          • Suba gunawardana

            Quite amusing. I don’t know how this conversation became about your personal life, when it’s supposed to be about abortion.

            From what I recall, it was you who first brought racism into it by claiming PP is “out to get” black people because Sanger was allegedly racist. That’s a baseless and untrue statement, considering all of PP’s services are ELECTIVE, upon request. Thus your statement that PP does race-selective abortions implies YOU think black women are too stupid to make their own decisions. That makes you a racist.

            So, someone called you out on it. In response you said you have an “ethnic wife” as if that somehow precludes racism. It does NOT. There are many racists who constantly associate with the very groups they condemn.

            The rest is you providing more details of your life to counter more allegations. They are not that important. I related the first part to show that your statement “Your false allegations are a direct result of YOU being prejudicial.” was wrong.
            I was not being prejudicial. It was YOU who first made a racist statement. Things progressed from there.

            Anyway, if you do spend time and money on helping abused animals & children, I do appreciate it. My husband and I do the same. There are far too many individuals who need help, and not enough people providing help.

          • Mack

            ‘It was YOU who first made a racist statement.”

            Nice try. I was quoting someone. I did not make the statement, I only repeated it.

            “There are many racists who constantly associate with the very groups they condemn.”

            So, you think EVERYONE who marries someone outside their own heritage is a racist? Nobody can do it unless their is some sort of ulterior motive? That’s quite a stretch. You do not know people well…

          • Suba gunawardana

            How slow are you? I am NOT referring to what Sanger said, but what you said, i.e. PP performs race-selective abortions on black women. Which implies YOU think black women are too stupid to make their own decisions, a blatantly racist mindset.

            No, NOT everyone who marries someone outside their own heritage is a racist. Only those who USE their “ethnic wife” to get out of a racist comment they already made.

          • fiona64

            Yep. He also felt the need to “one-up” my husband with what a wonderful guy he is, because of my saddle. “A saddle. How nice.” Followed by a big-assed brag list about how he takes care of animals … because I mentioned my husband’s rescue of a raven.

            Mack’s a big phony.

          • Suba gunawardana

            LOL!

          • fiona64

            And an insecure one at that … he always has to be “biggest and best” at everything. Makes me wonder what “shortcoming,” if you will, is causing him to try so hard to overcompensate. ;-)

          • Suba gunawardana

            Haha. Has to be quite a “shortcoming” there, considering he had to one-up every single thing anyone ever mentioned…

  • me1952

    Lady, learn a simple fact of life. Put your business out there for the world(literally) to know and you will attract perverts, weirdoes, ding-a-lings, and sometimes very dangerous and deranged people. So quit your whining.

    • Jennifer Starr

      So which are you, then?

      • me1952

        None. How about you?

        • Jennifer Starr

          None either. But it’s good to know that you acknowledge that the people who are harassing others for their reproductive choices are perverts, weirdoes, ding-a-lings, etc.

          • me1952

            I’m not acknowledging that. I’m saying that when you put your business on the internet for the world to read, don’t cry victim when you attract unwanted attention. Not exactly rocket science.

          • Dez

            Okay we got it. You have nothing useful to say about the specific topic except to complain about the obvious trolls on the internet.

          • me1952

            All in the POV. I happen to find what I said very useful.
            I’m a little tired of people putting their business on the internet, and then crying victim.

          • Shan

            Way to completely miss the point of the article.

          • me1952

            No, just expressing a POV.
            When you put your business out there for the world to know, be prepared for the consequences, which may not always be very pleasant.

          • Shan

            So is your POV “If you don’t keep quiet about your experiences, you should expect nothing better than being roundly shamed, abused and harassed”?

            And does that just apply to the internet or does it apply to speaking out anywhere about any life experience?

          • me1952

            Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
            I clearly stated that when you share your business with the world there can be some unpleasant consequences. People may not like you or what you have to say. If you want to tell the world your business be my guest. But don’t cry victim when you attract the attention of dangerous or unstable people when you have chosen to share your business with them.
            It also applies to speaking out anywhere. When you are making your business public, you don’t know or control who is listening.
            If you don’t want to be a victim then don’t set yourself up to be one.
            Like I said, not rocket science.

          • Suba gunawardana

            The point is that it shouldn’t be that way. People shouldn’t have to shut up just because some idiots may not like what they say. The more you kowtow to idiots & stifle yourself, the more they get to bully people for doing NOTHING wrong.

          • me1952

            We don’t live in the perfect world. We live in a very dangerous one.
            I’m not saying anyone has to shut up, I’m saying our actions, including making our business public, can have some very serious consequences. If we choose to make our business public, then be prepared for the consequences and don’t whine about your victimhood. You made this decision.

          • goatini

            There should be NO “consequences” any different than talking about a root canal procedure, for talking about a safe, legal pregnancy termination.

          • me1952

            If you don’t want people to comment negatively on something you have done, then don’t tell the entire world about it. Got it?

          • Shan

            The author never expected NOT to get comments. Youngsters these days don’t post blogs and articles on the internet without expecting them. She knew full well what many of the comments would be like and she said as much. She’s not “playing victim” at all, in this article she’s calling in reinforcements for herself and anyone else, and calling on *everyone* to call out the assholes. That’s why she told her story. That’s what the article is about.

            “Given my personal experiences and my belief that storytelling is an important tool to raise awareness and empower individuals, I often think about how we can (and must) show love for people who share their experiences. How can we adequately show support for the millions of people who’ve had abortions, but are scared to speak out because they see the violence hurled at those who dare to share?”

            If you even read THIS much of what she wrote and still think she’s playing the victim, YOU are the one with the reading comprehension problem.

          • me1952

            She starts out telling us about the threats, harassment, and insults she’s gotten on Facebook, twitter, e-mail, etc. Oh poor me, what I must endure for going public. Oh and being a Black woman, I am even more of a victim.
            Now apparently several people on this blog beg to differ with you and consider her a victim. So please get it straight amongst yourselves if she’s a victim or not.
            She talks of “millions of people” who want to share their experiences but are afraid to speak out because of violence that is “hurled at those that dare to share”. Source??

          • Shan

            She’s not putting herself out there as a victim. You continue to miss that point. Again, with the reading comprehension problem.

          • me1952

            All in the POV.
            First thing we hear is all the nastiness she must endure, and then, spare me, even more victimhood she endures as a Black woman, though what her supposed increased risk of childbirth and sterilization(?) has to do with anything escapes me.
            She talks of “millions of people” who live in fear of violence for discussing their abortions, for whom she must endure these threats and harassment, yet offers no source to back this claim of “millions of people” being afraid of much of anything.
            Spare me.

          • Shan

            “Spare me.”

            No problem.

            *yawn*

          • me1952

            I’m glad we both agree the woman is tiresome.

          • Shan

            Why are you still here?

          • me1952

            Are you the blog monitor? Do posters explain their presence or absence to you?

          • Shan

            No, I was just curious as to whether you thought you were accomplishing anything positive.

          • me1952

            To answer your question: yes

          • Shan

            What would that be, then?

          • me1952

            Telling someone to quit whining about her victimhood when she puts her business out there for the world to know.

          • Shan

            “It also applies to speaking out anywhere.”

            That’s what I thought. If you ever have an experience you need to talk about, I hope nobody ever judges you as harshly as you seem to think Ms. Sherman deserved, no matter how you speak about it.

          • me1952

            Again I ask, do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
            Where did I say she deserved this?
            Like I said, if you want to make your business public, go for it. But just remember you don’t control who hears it or how they react. You made this choice, so be prepared to accept the consequences of it.
            BTW, that also goes for talking on your cell phone in public. Exercise extreme caution, you never know who’s listening and what information you are giving them about yourself.

          • Dez

            So you don’t have anything useful to say. Got it. You stated the obvious. Do you have anything to say about abortion or the topic at hand?

          • me1952

            As I said, all in the POV. I think what I had to say was very useful.
            I know I stated the obvious, glad you see that. Also, isn’t this an open forum or do you decide what opinions can be expressed?

          • Arekushieru

            Says the person who thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for those expressing certain opinions to expect harassment and not speak out about it, but that it is not acceptable when it comes to those who express majority held views to expect harassment and not speak out about it (which is, in and of itself, a common silencing tactic for expressing opinions, something that becomes amazing to me when I realize that a know-it-all like yourself didn’t know that), obviously, since that kind of reaction does NOT happen to the more privileged and widely held beliefs and should be something someone as arrogant as you should know about.. And, the only difference between the two? That one view became acceptable because people agitated and MADE it acceptable. But, here you are, arguing for different plans of action. Gee, I wonder why THAT could possibly be, eh, Jackass?

          • me1952

            I’ve explained time and again what my point is and its not about harassment ever being acceptable. I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you to understand.

          • goatini

            “Explaining” a completely untenable position over and over again doesn’t make it tenable.

          • me1952

            Please explain how it is untenable.

          • Arekushieru

            And, no, you can’t claim I lack reading comprehension with my previous comment, because that would only prove it is YOU who lacks reading comprehension. It would be unsurprising and oh-so-typical, however.

          • me1952

            You’re still not making any sense.

          • goatini

            This is a forum on a reproductive justice website, in which trolling and victim-blaming comments, among other noxious forced-birther propaganda tactics, are monitored and, if appropriate, deleted.

          • me1952

            Hardly victim blaming. The world is full of very unsavory people. Put your information out for millions of people to read and comment on and these very unsavory people will also read it…and comment.
            Now, if you make the choice to put your info out there anyway, that’s no issue with me. But spare me your victimhood when some very unsavory people respond.
            Let me make it simple for you. How often have you warned people to stay away from dangerous neighborhoods? Well, why did you warn them to do so? Same concept here.
            Don’t set yourself up to be victimized.
            Your “victim” needs to put on her big girl panties and realize that telling the world her business can have some unpleasant consequences. If she can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

          • goatini

            Exactly the kind of person who didn’t want domestic violence, child molestation, and rape talked about, either. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

          • me1952

            I’m all for talking about these crimes in public. I have admired the courage of individuals who have done so without whining about the threats, harassment, and public humiliation they have endured. They made the choice to go public and didn’t whine about their “victimhood” when they faced a not so receptive public.

          • goatini

            Bullcrap like your hate speech is the MAIN reason why good people are afraid to speak up when their rights and dignity have been violated by vicious bullies.

          • me1952

            LOLLLLLL
            Whatever.

          • Dez

            Naw I just don’t like useless trolls that contribute nothing. I’m weird like that.

          • me1952

            I will definitely agree that you are weird.

          • Dez

            Yup useless troll. Bye troll.

          • me1952

            LOLLL. Deleting my comments? You must be very afraid of opposing opinions. And I thought you people were supposed to be such bastions of tolerance.

          • Dez

            I don’t have the ability to delete anyone’s comments. Stop playing the fake victim.

          • me1952

            I wasn’t referring to you specifically, but to the member of your blog who did.
            Apparently that person doesn’t consider you and the other readers of this blog to be adult enough to decide for yourselves what you will or will not read.

          • Dez

            I’m just a commentator that realizes that private blogs are not guaranteed freedom of speech zones. Probably stay on topic or stop trolling.

          • me1952

            Or else you’re a commenter someone doesn’t think has the ability to decide for herself what to read.

          • Dez

            I like to read intelligent comments, not trolls with one point repeated numerous times. If you actually have anything constructive to the conversation besides tone trolling you should bring it out instead of complaining. But it seems unlikely you have any actual arguments besides your one note.

          • me1952

            All in the POV.
            Who is forcing you to read anything? And shouldn’t it be YOUR decision, not decided for you?

          • Dez

            So nothing new like usual. Anything intelligent to the actual topic or are you going to complain some more like a whiny child?

          • me1952

            Again I ask, who is forcing you to read anything I write?

          • Shan

            Individual posters don’t have the ability to do that, it’s the moderators responding to either downvotes and/or flagging or a combination thereof. It’s possible that even lurkers (i.e., people who are not registered or logged in) can flag/downvote comments.

          • me1952

            I’m aware of that. I was making reference to whoever did.

          • Shan

            Ah. Well, I wish so many wouldn’t do that. We were actually discussing that on another thread recently and lamenting the disappeared posts (except for the ones by Chris, who is suspected of being a re-registered, previously banned troller). People need to realize that downvotes and flaggings aren’t just an expression of displeasure, too many will get rid of a comment. As much as I disagreed with you, there wasn’t any reason to delete that many of your posts, or Rita’s. And now the conversations look really weird.

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

            Good point. I try to err on the side of free speech. I want to hear from everybody. You cannot know what is going on if you ban too many folks. I have my limits. I am human.

          • purrtriarchy

            I enjoy a good troll. Funny trolls are worth their weight in gold. And idiots like Rita are fun to debate. But those who troll just to be jerks and who go for the low brow insults are a waste of time.

          • Shan

            Ok, this is weird. My reply to you less than half an hour ago is being held in moderation. Huh.

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

            Something is seriously wrong with disqus today.

          • Shan

            I don’t think it’s Disqus, I think it’s RHRC because I used multiple bad words.

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

            I post on multiple boards all the time. You may be right. But I am seeing failure to record my comments or reproduce posts across a number of those boards. I follow people so I can be sure to keep track. I believe disqus is having a fit. Did you cuss me out?

          • purrtriarchy

            I receive disqus updates through my email and over the last two days it has taken 8 hours or more to get any updates on a thread.

          • Shan

            LOL! No, I didn’t cuss you out. Perish the thought.

          • me1952

            Thank you Shan.
            It smacks of censorship. No one is forced to read anything. But I will decide what I read. If I don’t like it, too bad. There are opposing opinions out there.

          • Dez

            You mean your one opinion you keep repeating over and over. How is that constructive to an adult conversation?

          • me1952

            Again, if you don’t like what I write, who forces you to read it?

          • Dez

            Still got nothing as usual.

          • Dez

            Still nothing as usual.

          • Shan

            Censorship doesn’t really apply to websites like this. It’s more like an echo-chamber sometimes, which is why I like to see differing opinions and NOT have them disappeared just because X number of people reading them disagree and flag them into oblivion. But that’s not the same as censorship. Nobody in an official capacity (never mind anybody in the government) is out there monitoring every comment and deleting everything THEY don’t think should ever be read at all, by anyone.

          • me1952

            Well, censorship may apply if someone decides certain opinions shouldn’t be heard for whatever reason. It certainly doesn’t have to be in any official capacity. Let’s say I run a blog and I decide I don’t like what Shan has to say, though it is an open public forum. Her opinion opposes mine and most others, so I delete her posts. Only opinions I favor stay on.. Yes it is my blog, but I am prepared to silence those opinions I don’t like. I would consider that censorship.

          • Shan

            “Yes it is my blog, but I am prepared to silence those opinions I don’t like. I would consider that censorship.”

            But that’s not what it would be. It would be more like a 1st Amendment disagreement. Censorship is more serious, like when the government controls what you can hear and say. Private blogs? Not so much. Everybody has the free-speech right to be an a**hole there AND to delete anybody they think is BEING one.

          • me1952

            Sure, its your blog you can do what you want, including censoring people you don’t like.
            You and I will just have to disagree on what constitutes censorship.
            To me censorship covers a wide range. A professor who silences opposing opinions, a news editor who covers up important facts, etc.

          • purrtriarchy

            RHRC only has a couple of moderators. Its possible that some of your posts got caught by mistake as a mod was deleting posts from a particular nasty troll.

            I think you’re an idiot, but not so offensive that any of your drivel needed to be deleted. My condolences.

          • me1952

            Anything is possible.
            Its a free country and you can think of me what you will. I am free to express an opinion and you are free to disagree with or completely ignore it. Fair enough?

          • purrtriarchy

            Which is what we are doing!!

            I like to think that we are better than the authoritarians at certain pro life blogs who will ban and censor in a heartbeat. You will find that the posters here enjoy a good rowdy debate, and that they abhor censorship. However, we have zero control over the mods. Some of my posts have been deleted in the past, and I was even accidentally banned because a mod misread a post of mine and thought that I was a troll.

          • me1952

            Well I can tell you that any number of PC blogs I have visited have been downright vicious, vile language and name calling, and very intolerant of opposing ideas. I have caught flak on a PL blog for defending Amanda Marcotte on one of her posts. I said you may not like what the lady is saying, but the facts are what they are and you can’t fault her for saying them.
            I understand the issue is the mods, no one can delete a post on a whim. Even if your post was misread as a troll, you had no less right to express an opinion. The mods deleting it for that reason is completely unacceptable.
            I can understand banning if you are threatening or using abusive or vile language. Not for your opinion.

          • Shan

            “The mods deleting it for that reason is completely unacceptable.”

            Having been a mod myself on various other forums, I can say that it’s not so easy to pick which ones to delete. Especially if you have a pre-existing algorithm that says “X down votes + Y flags = delete” that gets there before you.

          • me1952

            I understand your point. I can also understand why there are rules and regulations. For instance racial, religious, ethnic slurs and vile language are never acceptable and the owner of the blog has every right to set and enforce standards.
            However, deleting a post simply because people don’t like what is being said is another matter altogether.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I agree. The only reason to delete posts should be blatant violation of specific rules, and not the moderator’s dislike of the message.

            Personally I don’t like to see any posts deleted at all (even the really stupid ones) considering the responses make no sense once the original post is gone.

          • me1952

            Thank you Suba,
            Why should we be so fearful of opposing opinions that we delete them? If you have the strength of your convictions then why are you so threatened by what someone else says?

          • goatini

            Troll posts get deleted, troll.

          • me1952

            Why is that? Afraid of opposing ideas?

          • goatini

            BIG difference between, ahem, “opposing ideas”, and aggressively advocating for the forcible stripping of the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice.

          • me1952

            Again, all in the point of view. If you are so secure in your position, why should opposing views matter to you?

          • goatini

            Anyone who asserts the insane rationalization that anti-American hate speech advocating for the forcible stripping of the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice is a “point of view”, is morally and ethically compromised to the point of depravity.

          • me1952

            Again, a matter of perspective. But then, if you are secure in your position, you should have no problem with any opposing POV, right?

          • goatini

            Advocating for stripping citizens of their inalienable rights is not a “matter of perspective”, nor is it a “point of view”. It’s anti-American sedition.

          • me1952

            Where is abortion listed as an “inalienable right” in the Constitution?

          • Suba gunawardana

            The rights to bodily autonomy and privacy are inalienable rights in the constitution. Forced birth violates both of them.

          • me1952

            Please tell me where in the Constitution they are written.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I believe they are in the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments.

          • me1952

            Direct quotes please.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That will take some time but I will find them.

          • Rainbow Walker

            The 14th amendment. Although not explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled ‘a right to be left alone.’ This personal autonomy has grown into a ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court first recognized an independent right of privacy within the ‘penumbra’ (fringe area) of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Later cases expanded upon this fundamental right, and in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the right of privacy was firmly established under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court classified this right as fundamental, thus requiring any governmental infringement to be justified by a compelling state interest. Roe held that the state’s compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother’s personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, it was held, the mother’s liberty of personal privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

            The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been utilized to varying degrees of success to protect privacy in these gray areas of activity.

          • me1952

            Please, direct quotes from the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments and the Bill of Rights.
            Also a “penumbra” has various definitions, including the shadow cast by an eclipse. How is this related to the Constitution?
            Keep in mind Justices have a long and notorious history of “finding” what they want in the Constitution, including “justifications” for segregation and the imprisonment of American citizens in concentration camps during WW2.
            You see why I must insist on direct quotes.

          • Rainbow Walker

            I am assuming you have heard of Cornell law? Read.

            [http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_autonomy]
            [http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Privacy][ http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

            And UMKC law.

            [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html]

            No, you insist on only reading what you want and ignoring the rest. And justices are not notorious for “finding” what they want, they are notorious for interpreting outside of the framework, i.e. using the bible instead of the framework.

            And legal definitions often hold meaning outside those defined by Oxford or Merriam-Webster.

            Penumbra: The rights guaranteed by implication in a constitution or the implied powers of a rule. In legal terms penumbra is most often used as a metaphor describing a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government. The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), where Justice William o. Douglas used it to
            describe the concept of an individual’s constitutional right of privacy. The history of the legal use of the penumbra metaphor can be traced to a federal decision written by Justice Stephen j. field in the 1871 decision of Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.). (At the time, Field was performing
            circuit duty while a member of the Supreme Court.) Since the Montgomery decision, the penumbra metaphor has not been used often. In fact, more than half of its original uses can be attributed to just four judges: oliver wendell holmes, jr., learned hand, benjamin n. cardozo, and William O. Douglas.

            I don’t have the time nor the inclination to give you a free legal course. If you don’t understand something just say so instead of wasting time.

          • me1952

            Rainbow Walker, I asked you for direct quotes from our Constitution.
            Interpreting outside the framework? So when the Supreme Court sanctioned FDR ordering the confiscation of the property of American citizens and putting them into concentration camps during WW2, this was just “interpreting outside of the framework”.
            When they found “separate but equal” this was also interpreting “outside the framework”.
            You will understand RW why I must insist on direct quotes from the Constitution given the history of the SCOTUS. So please, provide those quotes directly from the Constitution concerning that specifically mention abortion..

          • purrtriarchy

            There is no direct quote from the constitution guaranteeing your ‘right’ not to have your blood forcibly taken from you. Or your ‘right’ not to be raped.

            Neither are explicitly mentioned.

          • me1952

            We have state laws that cover crime and punishment, and these must be in the Constitutional framework.
            In the medical area, forcing any procedure on a competent patient who refuses is considered assault and battery.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Wasting my time again because you have no argument. I did give you quotes and links. Your inability to read or comprehend is not my responsibility. The links are directly to the amendments
            regarding privacy. “Later cases expanded upon this fundamental right, and in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the right of privacy was firmly established under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.” Don’t divert, read.

            All the nonsense about FDR and such were government or individual actions using government power. And your separate
            but equal reference is exactly what I mean being outside the framework. They used the bible to justify slavery and segregation, not the constitution. Once we started waking up from the insanity that is religion those unconstitutional laws began to fall. Like the prohibition on abortion, gay marriage and sodomy.

          • me1952

            RW,
            I gave you information in response to another post so I won’t repeat myself.
            I said I want direct quotes from the Constitution, not judicial rulings. Judges, like all of us, have their prejudices, politics, and agenda.
            Your inability to produce direct quotes is not my responsibility.
            “Nonsense” about FDR. You consider a president confiscating the property of American citizens and putting them in concentration camps “nonsense”? An executive order that was sanctioned by the SCOTUS.
            Oh so the justices used the Bible! Of course. So you acknowledge then that SC rulings are not always based on Constitutional law but the personal biases of the justices promoting their own agendas.
            Thank you.

          • Rainbow Walker

            I did quote from the constitution and from rulings as the law stands. You’re inability [or flat out not wanting to] to read isn’t my responsibility.

            “You consider a president confiscating the property of American citizens and putting them in concentration camps “nonsense”?”

            This one is real slow on the uptake. He has to have ever thing spelled out and even then he doesn’t understand.

            No, your interpretation of it is nonsense. You’re using it for your agenda is nonsense. And you really need to understand how executive orders work. SCOTUS never “sanctions” executive orders. SCOTUS is the highest court in the land they hear cases. They are part of the judiciary branch, not the executive or the legislative. And their powers can be limited during times of war.

            United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

            Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

            “So you acknowledge then that SC rulings are not always based on Constitutional law but the personal biases of the justices promoting their own agendas.”

            The kid didn’t get it. Must always spell it out. When they are not based on the framework they are always base on the bible.

            And yes the justices have relied and quoted from the bible on several occasions. You can see it in the rulings of Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy.

            Fortunately now that we are waking up from the nightmare of religion we are starting to rely on the framework. That’s why these laws are changing slowly. Unfortunately people like you who want the good old days of slavery back must die out before we can have true freedom.

          • me1952

            Rulings yes but no direct quotes from the Constitution on abortion.
            Again RW, I’m surprised you don’t do your research before you write. Does Koramatsu vs. The United States ring a bell?
            http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp
            RW you continue to make my argument. I am convinced justices do not always make rulings based on sound Constitutional law. Again thank you for pointing this out.

          • Rainbow Walker

            I directly quoted. You cannot read, or refuse to.

            “Does Koramatsu vs. The United States ring a bell?”

            Yes it does. And you didn’t read my post. I said “And their powers can be limited during times of war.”

            Justice Felix Frankfurter explained the ruling.

            “According to my reading of Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34, it was an offense for Korematsu to be found in Military Area No. 1, the territory wherein he was previously living, except within the bounds of the established Assembly Center of that area. Even though the various orders issued by General DeWitt be
            deemed a comprehensive code of instructions, their tenor is clear, and not contradictory. They put upon Korematsu the obligation to leave Military Area No. 1, but only by the method prescribed in the instructions, i.e., by reporting to the Assembly Center. I am unable to see how the legal considerations
            that led to the decision in Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, fail to sustain the military order which made the conduct now in controversy a crime. And so I join in the opinion of the Court, but should like to add a few words of my own.

            The provisions of the Constitution which confer on the Congress and the President powers to enable this country to wage war are as much part of the Constitution as provisions looking to a nation at peace. And we have had recent occasion to quote approvingly the statement of former Chief of the justice
            Justice Hughes that the war power of the Government is “the power to wage war successfully.” Hirabayashi v. United States, supra, at 93, and see Home Bldg. & L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 426. Therefore, the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war. That action is not to be stigmatized as lawless because like action in
            times of peace would be lawless. To talk about a military order that expresses an allowable judgment of war needs by those entrusted with the duty of conducting war as “an [p225] unconstitutional order” is to suffuse a part of the Constitution with an atmosphere of unconstitutionality. The respective spheres of action of military authorities and of judges are, of
            course, very different. But, within their sphere, military authorities are no more outside the bounds of obedience to the Constitution than are judges within theirs. “The war power of the United States, like its other powers . . . is subject to applicable constitutional limitations,” Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156. To recognize that military orders are “reasonably expedient military precautions” in time of war, and yet to deny them constitutional legitimacy, makes of the Constitution an instrument for dialectic subtleties not reasonably to be attributed to the hard-headed Framers, of whom a majority had had actual participation in war. If a military order such as that under review does not transcend the means appropriate for
            conducting war, such action by the military is as constitutional as would be any authorized action by the Interstate Commerce Commission within the limits of the constitutional power to regulate commerce. And, being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts. Compare Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447; 155 U.S. 3, and Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U.S. 177. To find that the Constitution does not forbid the military measures now complained of does not carry with it approval of that which Congress and the Executive did. That is their business, not ours.”

            The decision of the case, written by Justice Hugo Black, found the case largely indistinguishable from the previous year’s Hirabayashi v. United States decision, and rested largely on
            the same principle: deference to Congress and the military authorities, particularly in light of the uncertainty following Pearl Harbor.

            They were basically saying in times of war the executive must be allowed to do their business. They were staying out of it.

            Thank you for proving my point.

          • me1952

            Oh yes Hugo Black, a former Klansman.
            So the Supreme Court did agree American citizens could have their property confiscated(stolen) and that men, women, children, and old people, who had commited no crime other than being of a certain ethnicity, could be herded into concentration camps on the whim of the executive.
            Thank you for proving MY point.

          • Rainbow Walker

            You are a head fart. How does the fact that SCOTUS didn’t want to get involved in an executive order prove your point? It disproves it. SCOTUS didn’t want to get involved during times of war and let the executive do its job. Same with the Patriot Act. Unbelievably unconstitutional. Yet many parts of it was upheld by the court. Because they are extremely tentative about restricting executive privilege during times of war.

            As for Hugo Black. Yes he did join the KKK to get votes. He consistently opposed the doctrine of substantive due process (the anti-New Deal Supreme Court cited this concept in such a way as to make it impossible for the government to enact legislation that interfered with the freedom of business owners) and believed that there was no basis in the words of the Constitution for a right to privacy, voting against finding one in Griswold v. Connecticut. He was rabidly prolife. Black’s jurisprudence is among the most distinctive of any member of the Supreme Court in history and has been influential on justices as diverse as Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, and Antonin Scalia.

            So racism and prolife go hand in hand. Still want to bring back the good old days of slavery, so you’re starting with women. Thank you for continuously proving my point.

          • me1952

            LOL. Head fart. Now that’s a new one. OK, time for you to get out of the sandbox.
            The SC determined that the executive can blatantly violate the rights of American citizens and imprison them on a whim. Since when is this the executive doing its job? It sounds more like racial prejudice on steroids.The SC should have screamed bloody murder.
            It proves my point that the SCOTUS makes some very dubious decisions that have no basis on the Constitution. Unless of course you can show me where in the Constitution this is. Does anyone applaud that decision now? It should be and is a matter of national shame.
            Yes and interesting point about Hugo Black’s history. At the time of this decision, could he have been influenced by racial prejudice? Not that someone can’t change. I find it a little hard to believe that one joins a racist hate organization solely to get votes.
            Racist and PL go hand in hand. LOL, oh of course. Well, since Black was also a Democrat and former klansman, that must prove being a Democrat and a racist go hand in hand, right?

          • Rainbow Walker

            It’s not new, you have never been in the military or you would have been call it many times.

            I don’t agree with the order, I’m telling you why they didn’t get involved. I know you have a severing comprehension problem so let me simplify. We were at war. They thought there were spies amongst the Japanese population. SCOTUS didn’t want to fetter the executive because we had just been attacked. Same thing with the Patriot Act. Instead of incarceration they wanted to be able to keep an eye on communications for possible threats. In doing so they didn’t need the inconvenience of due process and systematically violated all of our rights. I am not applauding the decision I am explaining it. And having been raised by Japanese Americans, one of whom served during WWII he didn’t like it but understood the whys,unlike you.

            As for Black. You don’t know much about history do you, boy? In those days the vast majority of whites had a white sheet in their closet, so joining to get votes could make sense. Much like joining a church. And the vast majority of the dems and repugs in those days probably were members.

            Furthermore if he was a racist [as you imply] he was openly a rabid prolifer, and consistently made opinions based on those beliefs. So there you go.

          • me1952

            Not quite. I’ll try to make it simple for you as well,
            There was great animosity against the Japanese, plus people who wanted their successful and competitive west coast businesses out of the way, as well as wanted to confiscate everything they owned. Just plain old racial prejudice and animosity against people harder working and more successful than you.
            In fact Eleanor Roosevelt vehemently opposed this and made every effort to influence her husband to the contrary, with no success.
            On the whim of the executive, with no proof Japanese American citizens were guilty of anything other than their heritage, and with many on the west coast wanting to get rid of them based on nothing more than personal animosity and prejudice, American citizens were sent to concentration camps. Now you can talk about war all you want, yet it was German Americans who openly supported Nazis, who were caught spying, yet my German American mother and grandmother didn’t end up in concentration camps. This remains a national disgrace to this day and the fact the SC gave its blessing is even more of a disgrace.
            BTW, I’m female so kindly refrain from calling me “boy”.
            Sure, what’s burning a few crosses and terrorizing a few black citizens if it means getting votes, right? Oh Republicans could not be members, the KKK was a Democrat organization.
            Well, since Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, went to all the trouble to address the Klan ladies, and apparently had no problem with their activities, Well that must tell you something about Planned Parenthood….

          • Rainbow Walker

            This one still doesn’t get it. The Japanese were a minority with very little in the way of monetary possessions nor businesses [whites precluded them]. And Eleanor Roosevelt did agree with the interments.

            [http://hnn.us/blog/47221]”At a time when libertarians and libertarian-conservatives, such as George W. Schuyler, a pioneer in the Harlem Renaissance, and newspaper publisher, R.C. Hoiles, were criticizing the internment of Japanese Americans as a violation of fundamental individual rights, Eleanor Roosevelt was penning this article making the case on the other side.“

            [http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/anthropology74/ce2.htm]

            And German Americans were rounded up too and put into camps. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_internment]”The internment of German Americans refers to the detention of German and German-American citizens in the United States during World War I and World War II. Unlike the Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II and the Italian Americans who were subject to the same fate, these internees have never received an apology or reparations.”

            “BTW, I’m female so kindly refrain from calling me “boy”.”

            Ok little girly. Pick a gender and stick with it.

            And yes Sanger gave a lecture to the KKK one time but was very derogatory about them. In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. She described it as “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing,” and added that she had to use only “the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.”

            Proving you are constantly wrong.

          • me1952

            A very industrious and hard working people, the Japanese ran successful businesses and owned homes on the west coast. They were also envied by their less successful caucasian neighbors who would like nothing more than to have them out of the way.
            German nationals in the US were rounded up, as were some German American citizens, but for the most part the population was too large, and very difficult to sort out, to make massive internment possible. Lucky for my numerous German American relatives.
            The Japanese Americans were much easier marks.
            Eleanor tried very hard to persuade her husband not to sign the executive order but once it was done she had little other choice than to support him. The country was at war, the deed done. She could hardly publicly speak out against her husband.
            Yes Italian Americans were interned, but not on the scale of the Japanese.
            All this aside, the SC gave its blessing to American citizens who had committed no crime being deprived of property and businesses and sent to concentration camps on executive whims.
            The Italian and German Americans got no apology or reparations. Well I suppose the Japanese Americans shouldn’t have either.
            After all there was no injustice, right? According to the SC, the executive branch has this power.

            Oh I’m sure when old Maggie gave her lecture she was nothing less than respectful. After all she had put herself completely at their mercy, included being blindfolded and taken to a secret destination, and these weren’t exactly the nicest people.
            What was she trying to make them understand and why? Why would she want anything to do with these people?
            Keep trying. So far you’ve had little success.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Little girl you need to learn history. And because you have been proven incorrect time and again you are trying to take something you know nothing about and use it for your own purposes.

            The Japanese capacity for industriousness or hard work is not an issue. All races can have these same traits. The difference was, the dominate Caucasian society they lived in restricted their activities. Even in Hawai’i where a third was Japanese at the time, they owned less than 1% of the businesses. Furthermore,
            not all of them were sent to camps, approximately 110k were detained, less than a tenth of the total population. They were not the envy of their neighbors. My father said they were scorned and shunned, treated like half-humans. Racist considered Africans animals and ignorant, but they knew Asians could be quite intelligent, therefore distrusted them even more.

            [http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/wwii/ahf/mineta/background.htm]

            Almost as many Italians and Germans were detained as Japanese. In WWI and II Germans and Italians [during
            WWII] not detained had to carry cards identify them as their ethnicity, much as the Jews in Germany. I remember my parents telling me that German people would change their names to avoid being taken in or having to register.

            It was no “blessing” [blessings don’t exist] that your relitives were not confined. You just don’t understand history.

            “Well I suppose the Japanese Americans shouldn’t have either.”

            It was a political ploy on the part of the Regan administration. There was tension with Japan over economic policies. Otherwise they would have included all the detainees.

            “After all there was no injustice, right?”

            Once again proving your racism. Of course there was injustice. Injustice happens all the time. Religion still exists doesn’t it?

            “Oh I’m sure when old Maggie gave her lecture she was nothing less than respectful.”

            She was teaching them not to breed like rabid rabbits and have children they can’t care for. Of course being a forced birther that’s beyond you. People like you only want to create more
            children to use and abuse.

            “Keep trying. So far you’ve had little success.”

            I know. Like Maggie I must consider the delayed development of my audience. I will try to dumb it down for you, girly.

          • me1952

            I know. I was pointing out that they owned successful businesses and property.
            I was referring to the West Coast, and yes people can be scorned and treated as second class citizens, along with being envied for the fact they are successful competitors.
            I did not say they were loved and admired, in fact the local Caucasian population was only too happy to see them dispatched.
            I didn’t say all were sent to camps.
            According to sources, identifying people of German ancestry, including my family, was not as easy as the Japanese so the numbers were not as great, same with the Italians. That doesn’t mean people weren’t unjustly imprisoned.
            By a “blessing” I mean I’m glad it didn’t happen to them in WW2 or WW1 and yes I understand history. My great grandparents and their siblings and children had to hide their German ethnicity in WW1. Not a good time to be German.
            Racism? I was being facetious and was referring to all people unjustly detained. I think I made it plain I condemned this action and the SCOTUS ruling that sanctioned it.
            Oh here we go with your anti religious bigotry again. Its really getting tedious and repetitious.
            Oh yes, Maggie visited the Klan ladies to teach them not to reproduce. LOL. Seems the old girl made such a great impression she was asked to speak at about a dozen more KKK rallies. Of course nothing got the admiration and respect of the KKK like lectures on birth control.
            No need to dumb anything down. It comes natural for you.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Repeating the same thing doesn’t make it true. I forget believers must repeat things to themselves to believe the irrational.

            I was referring to the west coast. Japanese were almost nonexistent in middle and eastern America at the time. Their businesses were not successful because whites made sure they weren’t. There was nothing to envy. They had little money and possessions. My father was a dirt poor farmer born in a house with a dirt floor and no running water. The vast majority of the Asians were in the same boat. Few even owned a suit.

            “Racism? I was being facetious and was referring to all people unjustly detained.”

            Then why even mention it at all? You had been proven wrong. Now you back track. You are only trying to cloak your racism by attempting to project it on me.

            I explained the ruling, not supporting the result.

            “Oh here we go with your anti religious bigotry again. Its really getting tedious and repetitious.”

            Yes it ok for you to spew your hatred, and propagate a belief system that systematically enslaved, tortured and killed most of the human race, but when we call you on your bigotry you cry
            foul. Much like the whites when, African Americans stood for their rights. Or my Native American ancestors. Or women. How dare I question your elf god and stop you from hurting others.

            Your analogy is likened to ‘the Nazi Party did some bad things but there were some good Nazi’s so let’s continue to propagate that ideology’.

            As for Maggie. Probably the KKK women were getting tired of being used as incubators for their racist men. They showed
            more intelligence then you have demonstrated. You just want to propagate racism, slavery and cruelty via religion.

            “No need to dumb anything down. It comes natural for you.”

            If I can get something across to an individual as delayed as yourself then my training has paid off. It’s not easy to reach someone like you, especially considering your other challenges.

          • me1952

            I’m agnostic. You should learn not to assume things, it makes you look foolish.
            Yes there was certainly prejudice and the nation was emerging from a major depression. My German American family members were poor as church mice as well.
            The vast majority, but not all Asians, just like not all whites and not all blacks were in the same boat. Yes there were people of all races who did manage to run successful farms and businesses, my great aunt being one of them.
            I was being critical of the SC decision. You said the Germans and Italians got no reparations or apology as did the Japanese. I am facetiously pointing out that since the SC didn’t think there was any injustice, that the executive acted appropriately, then why should anyone get an apology or reparations?
            Only you know why that would be racist. If anything I have vehemently condemned this imprisonment of American citizens, whatever their ancestry.
            What racism am I projecting onto you? I accuse you of religious bigotry, not racism.
            Yeah right, if anything gets the KKK to admire you and begging you to come back its lectures on birth control. That really gets the white sheets out, their rallies going and those crosses burning. Maggie sure looked right at home with all those hooded klansmen, I’ll give her that. Some great company she kept. You aren’t really that dense, are you?
            Speaking of challenges, try not to make assumptions about the beliefs of people. It really does make you look foolish.
            Also bigotry is bigotry, however justified you think yours is. Maggie’s friends thought they had as much justification to hate blacks and Jews as you think you have to hate people of faith.
            I

          • Suba gunawardana

            Amendment IV (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
            The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

            Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: No State shall… deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

          • me1952

            That Amendment protects citizens from government tyranny, the gov’t entering your home on a whim and seizing what it wants and finding “evidence”.
            The Liberty Clause. Again, sounds like it protects you from a tyrannical gov’t.
            Where is a “right” to abortion mentioned in any of this?

          • Suba gunawardana

            It’s about the privacy of PERSON and possessions. Right to
            be secure in your PERSON (and home) against unreasonable searches and seizures.

            The government using your body as an incubator against your
            will is what? Unreasonable seizure. Can also be called Slavery.

            Using the Liberty clause: The government forcing you
            to carry a pregnancy and give birth against your will is what? Depriving a person of LIBERTY and property, possibly life.

          • me1952

            Its about protecting you from the government and that was the intention. You can read privacy into it but it isn’t specifically mentioned.
            Please don’t insult the true victims of slavery throughout history and now with such drivel as comparing pregnancy to slavery.
            Again, its what you are reading into the Constitution, not what is actually there.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Protecting you from the government includes protection from forced pregnancy/ forced childbirth, or any other forcible use of your body.

            What is slavery? Someone using your body for labor or any other purpose against your will. What is forced birth? Someone using your body as an incubator against your will. What’s the difference?

            The constitution does not specifically mention a lot of things. For example, doesn’t say “Rape is wrong”. Does that mean rape is OK? Doesn’t say “It’s wrong to take an organ from a living person”. Does that make taking organs by force OK?

          • me1952

            Nope, that’s what you read into it. Its very specific about what is says.
            Big difference. Slavery involved treating other human beings a sub or non human property. It meant humans could be abused, used, and disposed of on a whim.
            It meant dehumanizing and having complete control over the life of another. Sound familiar?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Slavery involved treating other human beings a sub or non human property. Yes, and forced birth involves the exact same thing. Treating women as property; i.e machines to incubate future human beings.

            As I asked before: The constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit rape or seizure of organs. Does that mean these things are OK?

          • me1952

            So its OK to kill a full term baby in utero then, right?
            Why are there any restrictions then as to when abortion can be done?
            The Constitutions does not address these issues. The states make their own laws concerning these issues.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Personally I disagree with ALL restrictions on abortion, and believe that it should be legal any time between conception and birth. When the states make their own laws, they feel free to take freedoms away from certain people, mostly women. That should be stopped, and all laws should conform to the constitution.

          • me1952

            They have to conform or they will be repealed or struck down.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Yes, all the abortion restrictions are unconstitutional, and if ever challenged all the way to SC, they should be repealed/struck down.

          • me1952

            Again, direct quotes from the Constitution on this matter.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Please stop being so repetitive. I already provided the quotes.

          • me1952

            No you provided amendment into which you have read what isn’t there. I want direct quotes from the Constitution.

          • purrtriarchy

            Show us a direct quote from the constitution that permits the wearing of clothes.

          • me1952

            Another absurdity?

          • purrtriarchy

            Show us a direct quote from the constitution where driving cars is permitted.

          • me1952

            Regulated by state law.

          • purrtriarchy

            Irrelevant. As usual.

          • me1952

            So driving isn’t regulated by state law?

          • purrtriarchy

            The constitution does not explicitly permit driving. Or clothing. Or shaving.

            If something is not explicitly permitted in the constitution, there should be no right to it.

            Your logic, cupcake.

          • me1952

            Not at all. I have stated time and again the Constitution provides the framework, the feds and the states make the laws.
            I hope I made that simple enough for you to understand…cupcake.

          • purrtriarchy

            Oh great, so you do agree with me suba and RW.

          • me1952

            Agree with what?

          • purrtriarchy

            Take a wild guess.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Then what are you arguing about? That’s exactly what the Constitution provides, the FRAMEWORK. It doesn’t have to spell every little detail out, such as rape is wrong, or abortion should be legal, or clothing & driving are permitted. (Apparently the founding fathers thought people were smart enough to figure these things out :)

          • purrtriarchy

            The stupid shit is just trolling and has been all along.

          • me1952

            I’m not arguing. I’ve been pointing out that fact time and again.

          • Suba gunawardana

            And as you well know, those amendments protect your right to be secure in your person; and protect you from threats against your life, liberty and property.

            Now, could you please give yes/no answers to the following?
            -Do you agree that rape is wrong?
            -Do you agree that rape is a threat to your personal liberty, and violates your right to be secure in your person?
            -Do you agree that the constitution does not specifically prohibit rape?

            You will see the connection. If not, I will clarify.

          • purrtriarchy

            Forcing one to labour on behalf of another is slavery.

            Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is forcing her to labour and risk life/health on behalf of the fetus and the government. It essentially renders her uterus as public property.

          • me1952

            Well I know of no law dictating a woman become pregnant.
            Also, does this apply to the full term baby, can she decide the week before labor to kill the baby? Why do we have any restrictions at all as to when abortions can be performed then?

          • purrtriarchy

            What if the government prevented you from getting cancer treatment?

            They did not force you to get cancer, so making chemo and tumor excision illegal is certainly not a violation of your autonomy is it?

            And the constitution does not specifically mention cancer treatment, so the government could outlaw it and your rights would not be violated yes?

          • me1952

            I’m sorry to say your cancer analogy makes no sense.

          • purrtriarchy

            It makes perfect sense. Cancer and pregnancy are both medical conditions. Is forcing someone to live with a medical condition not a violation of their rights?

          • me1952

            Not really.
            Many people are forced to live with medical conditions like heart disease and multiple sclerosis.

          • purrtriarchy

            They are not denied treatment by government decree. Heart bypasses are not illegal.

          • me1952

            Heart bypasses may not remedy the problem and multiple sclerosis has no cure or any real treatment.

          • purrtriarchy

            Irrelevant. The government does not make treatment for disease and other illnesses illegal. To do so would be a violation of privacy and autonomy.

          • me1952

            Depends. The gov’t may outlaw alternative treatments and deny people their right to seek them out. They may harass and prosecute alternative practitioners. They may pass laws favoring Big Pharma and limiting access to more natural remedies.

          • purrtriarchy

            Irrelevant. My point still stands.

          • me1952

            Its very relevant to people who want to seek certain alternative treatments and are forbidden to.

          • purrtriarchy

            Treatment, in general, is not illegal.

          • me1952

            Again, depends.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Only because there is no permanent cure. If there WAS a cure and the government prevents you from getting it, it is a violation of your rights.

          • purrtriarchy

            Zie is trying to baffle us with bullshit.

          • me1952

            I agree. I wish the gov’t wouldn’t be so sympathetic to the cancer industry and big pharma and deny some people the right to seek alternative treatments.

          • purrtriarchy

            Forced pregnancy and birth were part of slavery, just fyi.

            Female slaves were bred like livestock and forced to give birth. They often aborted their pregnancies using available herbs.

            By your logic, female slaves who aborted were slavers. LOL

          • me1952

            A lot of horrors were part of slavery, and yes treating human beings as subhuman possessions was part of it.
            A pregnant slave brought a better price. Disgusting.
            No they weren’t slavers, they were in horrific and desperate circumstances. Fleeing slaves were also known to kill their children to keep them from being forced back into slavery. Was the problem their children, or their enslavement?

          • purrtriarchy

            By your logic, abortion is slavery. Slaves who aborted treated their fetuses like property and were de facto slavers.

          • me1952

            No I pointed out that women in desperate and horrific circumstances, such as slavery and let’s include famine, will be forced into some pretty terrible decisions, such as deciding which child lives or dies, aborting a child, or killing children to keep them from returning to slavery.

          • purrtriarchy

            A woman who does not want to be pregnant is in a desperate circumstance.

            Btw, birth itself is torture. If the pain and injuries of birth labour and gestation were induced by other means, it would be classed as torture by article v of the UN.

          • me1952

            Well, if it wasn’t for this “torture” the human race would have died out long ago and you would never have been born. I’m sure being pregnant with and delivering you wasn’t all that fun and easy either.
            Also, we have better pain management for this “torture” and throughout the centuries women looked to natural remedies to ease the pain of labor.
            My first labor was miserable. 22 hours of labor with a face presentation. Couldn’t sit down for a week.

          • purrtriarchy

            The point is, if one is going to undergo pain torture and risk of death and injury, then it should be their CHOICE.

            And plenty of women choose to give birth without needing to make it mandatory.

          • me1952

            People choose to undergo pain, torture, and risk of death and injury?
            What happens if a day before going into labor the woman decides to kill the baby, should she be allowed to? I mean she does have the option to change her mind and decide she doesn’t want to go through this after all, right?

          • purrtriarchy

            Day before = induction of labour.

            And multiple posters here have risked death and permanent injury to give birth.

            Lady black almost died.

            Fiona was sick with hyperemsis gravidarum for the entire pregnancy. She nearly died.

            So yes, life and limb on the line = choice, not mandated by government.

          • me1952

            You didn’t address my question.
            A full term woman ready for labor at any time. Should she just be able to change her mind and decide not to have the baby after all?
            Yes women do suffer complications from childbirth. Thank heaven for better medical care. Its likely what saved these women.

          • purrtriarchy

            For a late term abortion induced labour is the safest and most common way that the procedure is performed. The point of abortion is to end the pregnancy. Induced labour on a viable fetus ends the pregnancy.

          • me1952

            You’re avoiding the question. Can a woman have the full term fetus killed because she had decided she does not want it after all?

          • purrtriarchy

            Because the question is asinine. There is no need to. Abortion is not about killing. It is about ending pregnancy. Embryos die because they are incomplete and unformed. There is no need to kill a viable fetus when it can be removed through c section or birth, ending the pregnancy.

          • me1952

            Now wait a minute, you were making a comparison to slavery, were you not? OK, if the woman is forced to go through the “torture” and risk of labor and delivery, is that not treating her like a slave? She has decided she does not want this baby and she is being treated as a slave if she is forced to carry it one more minute. She wants it dead and out of her. Is this not her right?

          • purrtriarchy

            Induced labour = SAFEST WAY.

          • me1952

            Not answering my question.

          • purrtriarchy

            The answer is sufficient, troll.

          • me1952

            Thank you. You definitely answer the question.

          • purrtriarchy

            Liberty and freedom

          • me1952

            Doesn’t answer the question.

          • goatini

            Deliberately ignorant trolling.

          • me1952

            I take that to mean you can’t answer my question.

          • goatini

            Hate speech against the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice is not tolerated here. Go to notorious perjurer Stanek’s cesspool of radical theocratic misogynistic hate speech to spew your hate speech.

          • me1952

            Directly quote me saying something hateful. Not something you don’t like or disagree with, but actually hateful.

          • purrtriarchy

            I will agree that youre a pro life concern troll. A shitty one at that.

          • me1952

            Coming from you that’s a compliment.

          • purrtriarchy

            You know nothing of me. :p

          • me1952

            Lucky me.

          • purrtriarchy

            You’re an idiot.

          • me1952

            Again, from you that’s a compliment.

          • purrtriarchy

            You don’t know a bloody thing about me. Yet you keep saying that, because you’re an idiot pro life concern troll.

          • me1952

            No I say that because you persist with your infantile name calling.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yeah, because as dez has rightly noticed, you are a pro life concern troll who endlessly repeats the same talking points.

          • me1952

            And as I told Dez, no one forces anyone to read my posts.

          • Dez

            Still nothing.

          • me1952

            No need to keep reminding me you have nothing to say.

          • Dez

            Still trolling or do you actually have something intelligent to say about the topic besides your one talking point?

          • me1952

            You tell me. All you’ve been saying is “nothing”. Literally.

          • Dez

            Still a useless troll with comments being deleted for being such. LOL.

          • me1952

            Come on, you just can’t challenge anything I say!

          • Dez

            Liar. You haven’t said anything yet.

          • me1952

            Write again when you can offer an intelligent argument.

          • Dez

            Write something actually intelligent then besides whining about censorship and your one talking point.

          • me1952

            I discussed several things. I’m sure they were all over your head

          • Dez

            Liar. Show me where on this comment thread you brought up any other talking points and not trolling? I asked you numerous times to stay on topic, but you refused too. Are you too stupid to have any other talking points or are you a troll?

          • me1952

            Got into quite a few interesting discussions.
            Check it out.

          • Dez

            Haven’t seen anything in your replies to me.

          • me1952

            Probably over your head.

          • Dez

            Troll. Show where you responded to my requests to offer more than one talking point. You can’t and you know it.

          • me1952

            I told you to go through blog where I had discussions with other people. If you can’t find them that’s your problem.

          • Dez

            Yea ok troll. Good nite.

          • me1952

            Well thank you. And a good nite to you as well. Don’t let the bedbugs bite!

          • Dez

            LOL. There is no challenge to a troll that whines about deleted posts and their one talking point.

          • me1952

            In fact there were several issues discussed. Again, I’m sure all of them were over your head.

          • Dez

            Still trolling despite asking for other talking points. Duly noted. You’re on a great road on being banned.

          • me1952

            I’m shaking in my boots.

          • Dez

            You’re whining last week says otherwise.

          • me1952

            Your point?

          • Dez

            You’re a one note troll.

          • me1952

            LOLLL. Whatever.

          • Dez

            Ok troll. Good nite.

          • purrtriarchy

            You haven’t made any rational arguments. Just assertions.

          • Dez

            Yeah I’ve tried to ask for other talking points but the troll won’t come up with anything else except to whine.

          • Arekushieru

            If you find it very useful, then you should be able to tell us WHY you find it useful. Just ‘putting out your POV’ isn’t useful in and of itself, y’know. If it’s because you expect someone holding a less common view would stop complaining about it, then it’s more than just ‘putting out another POV’. If you think it’s only useful to yourself, you don’t follow your own advice very well, do you? Oops.

          • me1952

            Well at least you’ve stopped with the “victim-blamer” whining.
            The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense.

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

            So go away. Nobody likes you here and nobody wants to read your sadistic shyte.

          • me1952

            Is anyone forced to read anything?

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

            You know as much about reading skills as you know about victimology = nothing.

          • me1952

            But wait….didn’t one of your fellow posters insist the writer is not portraying herself as a victim?
            So is she a victim or not?
            Please get it straight among yourselves as to whether or not this woman is in fact a victim.

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

            Unlike you, we do not insist upon group think. That is why folks are tolerating you, TurdBreath. You are stupid. I repeat, you know next to nothing about reading skills and even less about victimology. You are stupid and you want us to join you in your stupid. No thank you.

          • me1952

            My, what a bastion of tolerance you are.
            Now that you’ve had your tantrum, can you put on your big girl/boy pants and try to act like an adult?

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

            I iz laffing.

          • me1952

            Thank you. I found my comment enjoyable as well.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You also seem to overlook the whole purpose of “putting your business on the internet” in this particular situation.

            Our society has the bad habit of maligning certain things for no reason (abortion, homosexuality, transgender etc.), and making life hell for people. Speaking out about such things is important just to remove the stigmas & stop the victimization. This is entirely different from putting your personal life on the internet for no reason at all.

            Not that there’s anything wrong with the latter either, but speaking about abortion has an important purpose, as opposed to, say, speaking about your latest sexual escapade.

          • me1952

            Fine, speak out all you want.
            But remember there are millions of people, a lot of dangerous people, and you can’t control who is reading your business. Don’t put your info out there for any reason, then whine about your victimhood. You made the choice, live with it.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You keep stating the obvious. Yes the way things are today, speaking out involves a slew of negative consequences including possibly getting you killed.

            The point is, IT SHOULDN’T BE THAT WAY, and people should work together to change these stupid attitudes.

            Just because things happen a certain way doesn’t make it right. When the way things are is wrong, it needs to be changed.

          • me1952

            I couldn’t agree more.
            However until things change, and I wouldn’t hold my breath,….protect yourself from dangerous people.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Fair enough :)

          • me1952

            I just gave you a “like” :)

          • CJ99

            there is no POV where your abusive bullshit is in any way real.

          • me1952

            Say what?

          • CJ99

            Yeah you really are that ignorant which is no surprise.

          • me1952

            My, but we are feeling negative tonight.

          • Suba gunawardana

            It’s not OK to be harassed for simply talking about your life.

            To stifle yourself for fear of unwanted attention from “perverts, weirdoes, ding-a-lings & deranged people”, is to let THEM win.

            We should all make a collective effort so the perverts, weirdoes, ding-a-lings & deranged people do NOT get the upper hand.

          • me1952

            No its not “letting them win”, its setting yourself up to be their victim.
            If you want to talk about your life, go for it. Just be prepared for the consequences, which can include hearing from people who aren’t very nice.
            Do you let total strangers into your home and share personal information with them? Why not?
            Well, that’s exactly what this writer is doing and this is the consequence for doing so. Hey, be my guest, just don’t whine about your “victimhood”.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Letting them win would be to refrain from speaking out for fear of what the crazies might do. The crazies should have no right to harm a person for talking about her life. It’s not words alone, sometimes they make death threats or cause actual physical damage. That is wrong, and they shouldn’t be allowed to do it.

            ” If you want to talk about your life, go for it. Just be prepared for the consequences”

            That’s tantamount to saying if you wear a flimsy outfit be prepared to be raped. No, it’s the AGGRESSORS who need to control their behavior, NOT law-abiding citizens.

          • Shan

            Absolutely this.

          • me1952

            Speak out all you want. I’m just saying don’t cry victim when making millions of people aware of your business results in some not so nice responses.
            Your rape analogy is totally absurd. This woman put her business out there for millions to read. You can’t control who will read your business or how they will react. Its like deliberately walking through a dangerous neighborhood. You know the danger, you are setting yourself up to be a victim.
            Sure aggressors need to control their behavior, but don’t bet on it. The world is full of predators and dangerous people. Law abiding people also have to take the responsibility to protect themselves.
            Like I said, broadcast your business all you want, just spare me your whining about your victimhood when some not so nice people say things you don’t like.

          • Arekushieru

            Victim-blamer. You are telling people that they have to take responsibility for situations they did not create. Ugh. SFS.

          • me1952

            Would you stop YOUR whining about “victim-blamer” and try to give an intelligent argument.

          • Arekushieru

            I’m not the one whose whining about being called a victim-blamer. Besides, if it’s logical and the conclusion follows the premise, it’s an intelligent argument. Surprised you didn’t know that…. Oh… wait… no, I’m not.

          • me1952

            Well wait, the argument is out there that she isn’t a victim. So which is it?

          • Suba gunawardana

            OK let’s go with your analogy of walking through a dangerous neighborhood. Why should criminals have the right to dominate certain areas to the point of exclusion of everyone else? People should have a right to walk in public places, no matter where they are. Why should they be inconvenienced by not being able to go to a store because it’s in a “dangerous place”? That’s giving the criminals the upper hand. Communities should work together to ensure there are no dangerous places. Living in fear is not the answer.

            It’s the same for freedom of speech. While some people may not like what you say (and certainly have the right to express their own opinion), they have no right to make threats or impede your life. No one should have to tolerate threats or any kind of physical harm, or refrain from speaking for fear of the above.

          • me1952

            I couldn’t agree more. Decent law abiding people should not have to live in fear and freedom of speech is a right.
            Now if we only lived in the perfect world, which unfortunately we do not.
            It is necessary for decent people to take measures to protect themselves and to exercise good judgment, which includes staying away from dangerous neighborhoods. Criminals and predators don’t care about your rights, they are looking for easy marks. It is what it is. Of course you can go ahead and walk through the neighborhood, but I will think you are one damned fool for doing so or that you have a death wish.
            Sure people should have a right to speak out without abuse. You should tell that to some of the folks on this blog.
            However, it is what it is. We live in a world full of dangerous people. You speak out, you share personal details of your life, you have no idea who is receiving this info or what they’ll do with it. It isn’t right, it isn’t fair. Its the world we live in.
            So don’t cry victim when you get some nasty backlash, or dangerous people are suddenly threatening you. You made the choice, you put your info out there, and like walking through a dangerous neighborhood, you had better expect some serious consequences.
            However if you want to make that choice, you’ll get no argument from me…or sympathy either for that matter.

          • Shan

            The author isn’t crying victim.

          • me1952

            Even some of your fellow posters view her as a “victim”. Guess its all in the POV.

          • Shan

            But the author isn’t calling herself a victim. Nor is she whining. She’s telling her story, for a purpose you don’t seem to understand. Maybe the 1 in 3 Campaign site can help explain it to you a bit better.

            http://www.1in3campaign.org/about

          • me1952

            I understand your point and thank you for the link. However people do not have to specifically call themselves victims.
            Not only do nasty people greet her first thing when she wakes up, but as a black woman she is at greater risk for death in childbirth and being sterilized(?). She watched her grandmother suffer dementia. The relevance of this is….what? To me its says, “what a victim I am”.
            I would also like a source as to who the “millions of people” are who she refers to as being too afraid to speak and for whom she must gallantly endure this abuse. I have just one question. Why do people think the whole world wants to hear about their abortion? If you want to talk about it, go ahead. If you want to tell the world, expect some scary consequences.
            I have said all along I am a proponent of free speech and I don’t advocate harassment or violence. Nor do I excuse it. But when you make a choice to go public that’s the risk you take, whatever your stand is on any issue.
            Its happened to me BTW and yes it is scary. A former police officer gave me some valuable advise for avoiding future scary situations: Never let anyone know your business.

          • Shan

            “But when you make a choice to go public that’s the risk you take,”

            And Ms. Sherman knowingly took that risk, on purpose, WITH a stated purpose, which is the same as the 1 in 3 Campaign is trying to do. She told her story, detailing what happened when she did, because this is what happens to a LOT of women, no matter who they tell, even people – friends and family in their lives – they thought they could trust.

            The author is trying to be part of the change in the discussion around abortion, to enable other women to do the same by talking about her experiences and suggesting ways we can all bring the kind of support necessary to counter the shamers and the harassers who continue to bully women into keeping silent because of the self-same “scary consequences” they then subject them to. Some women might be discouraged by what the author related, but others might be inspired to tell their own stories, or to send their own words of encouragement to the other women who have told – or will tell – theirs.

            Abortion is deeply personal decision. And yet recently, there has been so much legislation passed and proposed which is intended to take the ability to MAKE that decision away and put it in the hands of the state. Part of the way this is happening is by stereotyping the women who have abortions, painting them as irresponsible or callous or baby-haters because I guess that makes it easier somehow to pass these laws (although it doesn’t explain why they would be better mothers instead but that’s a different discussion).

            And one way to undo that stereotype for people who presume they know all the business of every abortion-seeking woman is for women like Ms. Sherman to tell their stories, to let everyone know that, yes, there are real, whole women involved. But doing that involves letting people – sometimes everyone – know your business. By bringing these things to light – her business, if you will – she wasn’t whining or playing the
            victim. She was trying to let other women know they’re not alone in
            what they’ve experienced, that people reacting the way they did to her
            story is common. And wrong. And that we can ALL do something about it.

          • me1952

            Shan,
            Ms. Sherman may have the most noble of intentions. That will not change the minds of abusers and dangerous people. Also, what makes you folks think the world wants to know, or even cares, about your abortions? You might as well discuss your hemorrhoid operation or sinus surgery for all most people care.
            Now if this is what you choose to do, to discuss your business with millions of strangers, go for it. But remember you can’t control who hears it, or what they will do. You may change a few minds, you may turn people off. You will also invite the attention of dangerous and abusive people. If you think you can change or stop this kind of harassment and abuse, dream on. So long as people go public, or are public people, the danger is out there. Always has been, always will be.
            In the end you may find you have only succeeded in sharing your business with millions of strangers.

          • Shan

            “You might as well discuss your hemorrhoid operation or sinus surgery for all most people care.”

            Apparently, people DO care, and in a very polarized way. Otherwise, they wouldn’t react as negatively as they do, or find it so necessary and helpful to read about the experience others have had.

            “If you think you can change or stop this kind of harassment and abuse, dream on.”

            I don’t think it’s a dream, and neither does the author or everyone at the 1 in 3 Campaign and all the other, similar sites.

            Because nobody ever stopped a bully by sitting down and shutting up for fear of how the bully will react. That’s exactly how bullies win.

          • me1952

            I’m not saying to shut up. I’m saying don’t expect the abuse to stop.
            These people are out there, always have been, always will be. If you think putting your business out there for the world to see is going to stop these people, you are sadly mistaken. You are only giving them fertile hunting ground. If it is Ms. Sherman’s intention to stop abuse by having people tell the world their business, she is wasting her time.
            People have always been polarized on this issue and will remain so.
            However, its your decision.
            BTW, any source for Ms. Sherman’s claim about “millions of people” who want to tell their abortion stories but are too afraid?

          • Shan

            “BTW, any source for Ms. Sherman’s claim about “millions of people” who want to tell their abortion stories but are too afraid?”

            I can’t find any so I dunno for sure but I’ll take a crack at the math. Feel free to correct it or any of the assumptions I’m about to make.

            The statistics I’ve seen put the total number of recorded (recorded, mind you) abortions over the past 40 years since it was legalized in the US at about 55 million. I’ll presume some of those women have died since then, for whatever reason – old age, illness, etc. Let’s say a quarter of them. That would leave about 40 million. So, yes, I’m going to say that Ms. Sherman’s claim about “millions of people” isn’t out of line. Especially since I’m not including any of the still-living women who had abortions BEFORE RvW. Which would add still more millions.

          • me1952

            Pre Roe, 90% of women had illegal abortions done in doctor’s offices, according to Planned Parenthood, so no one can know the exact number. One of the founders of NARAL admits they pulled the number of illegal abortions, and the deaths, out of thin air. Actually, it was anyone’s guess. The death rate had been steadily declining prior to Roe.
            http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12
            It sounds like Ms. Sherman pulled a few numbers out of thin air as well, as it was up to her to give a source, not you.
            Anyway I’ve enjoyed our back and forth. I believe you have the best intentions but this same thing has been tried before. The country has remained polarized. Whatever you decide, be extremely careful what anyone knows about you.

          • Shan

            “One of the founders of NARAL admits they pulled the number of illegal abortions, and the deaths, out of thin air.”

            I suspect they used whatever real data they had and then extrapolated. There’s no value in merely guessing.

            “The death rate had been steadily declining prior to Roe.”

            Medical advances, particularly cleanliness and antibiotic use, contributed greatly to that.

            “It sounds like Ms. Sherman pulled a few numbers out of thin air as well, as it was up to her to give a source, not you.”

            Being familiar with the stats on the subject, like I am, she probably did some quick mental math the way I did. Because it’s not like there’s a solid source out there. I doubt there’s ever been a poll asking the question: “Have you ever had an abortion but are too afraid to tell your story?”

            “I believe you have the best intentions but this same thing has been tried before.”

            Hey, it worked with “the love that dare not speak its name”, the civil rights movement, suffrage and slavery. Why not this?

          • me1952

            No Shan, Dr. Nathanson admits the numbers were completely made up. Worse, he and they others knew they were totally false.
            True, about medical advances.
            Well, as far as we can see, Ms. Sherman has no source for her numbers or any that indicate people are afraid of anything.
            True, the great movements were a struggle of long endurance.
            Why not this? I see the trend going away from support of abortion, state laws, clinic shutdowns etc. Yes it varies from state to state, but it did prior to Roe as well. The country has been divided since Roe and I see nothing to indicate it won’t remain so. I have seen efforts like Ms. Sherman’s time and again over my many years. You have to ask yourself why it is still necessary.
            Anyway, I’ve come to like you quite a bit. You present your side very well. Again, please heed my warning to be careful.

          • Arekushieru

            So, respect for those who can present their argument better than you can, but only some…?

            Mr. Nathanson was an outlier. Something YOU should very well have known.

            Why are you so US-Centric like the antis? You COULD look at Canada and see how support for abortion has not dwindled (even though we still treat a woman’s decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy as an issue of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, free speech and moral debate), but then that would only prove you wrong, so why WOULD you look at it?

          • me1952

            No, respect for someone who can present an intelligent argument…unlike you.
            No one would know better than Dr. Nathanson, himself a one time staunch supporter of abortion, as to what all was involved in legalizing abortion in this country. You should read his book. You might learn something.

          • goatini

            Thanks for confirming that you’re just another radical misogynistic forced-birther. Nathanson was an amoral, venal opportunist who wished for our nation to be ruled under the iron fist of misogynistic theocracy, and who had deep connections with the fascist fundamentalist Opus Dei cult. His vicious misogynist propaganda has all been debunked.

          • me1952

            Really? Well swallow a lot of bile because you also have to thank Nathanson for getting abortion legalized.

          • goatini

            Nathanson, like Norma McCovey, are both amoral, venal opportunists.

          • me1952

            LOL. Your folks had no problem with Norma McCorvey when her lie helped get Roe v Wade passed. All the lady wanted was a little recognition and respect for her efforts. However the little white trash had served her purpose.
            Also the facts are what they are. Nathanson was a co founder of NARAL and dedicated to making abortion legal. Swallow a lot of bile and say “thanks”.
            Hey these folks are the ones you have to thank. Live with it.

          • goatini

            Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington got RvW passed.

            Pat Maginnis, Rowena Gurner, and Lana Phelan; and Lawrence Lader, Garrett Hardin, and Lonnie Myers, are responsible for NARAL. Nathanson was only a conference speaker at the 1969 conference. Following the conference, Nathanson was only one of 12 planning committee members, and he was never on the executive committee.

            Nathanson, like Norma McCorvey, are both amoral, venal opportunists.

          • me1952

            Good heavens get your facts.
            Coffee and Weddington needed a case to present to the SCOTUS. Norma McCorvery alleged she was the victim of a gang rape. In fact the pregnancy was a result of an adulterous affair. Coffee and Weddington jumped on this opportunity, what a gift dumped in their laps. Of course they could have done a little investigating and try to find out if there was any truth to McCorvey’s rape story, but hey who cared? I mean the woman did have a history of drug and alcohol abuse and mental instability, but so what? This was the perfect scenario, the “rape” victim who can’t get an abortion.
            Years later, after being discarded as white trash by the very people who should be thanking her, McCorvey switched sides. Weddington never acknowledged if she knew, or cared, that her client was lying.
            Nathanson, along with Betty Friedan was among the founding members of NARAL and a fanatical advocate for legalizing abortion, including running the largest abortion clinic in the country. Check out his book “Aborting America” to learn the true history as to how abortion was legalized in this country. BTW, when Nathanson wrote this book, he had not yet switched sides.
            Like I said, swallow a lot of bile and say “thank you” to Norma and Nathanson.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Even not knowing the full details of this case, I can tell your take is wrong just with logic & common sense. Considering a rape
            exception existed even back then, IF she really were raped she could have got the abortion with no problem. Even if someone denied the abortion by error, a lower court would have granted it eventually, without having to go to SC.

            The case went all the way to SC with full knowledge that she lied about being raped. That lie was unimportant and IMMATERIAL. Because this case was not about abortion for a rape victim at all (which was already legal),but about abortion as a basic right to privacy.

          • me1952

            You are correct, states had their own laws and exceptions were made for the life of the mother, and usually fetal defect, rape and incest. All of which account for a very small percentage of abortions performed.
            McCorvey claimed she was gang raped and couldn’t get an abortion. If she could or not under Texas law at that time I’m not certain. This whole case was based on a lie. She was in fact pregnant as the result of an adulterous affair, which would hardly inspire sympathy, so the gang rape claim went unchallenged. It had far greater emotional appeal and we have to wonder if Coffee and Weddington knowingly perpetrated this lie for its emotional appeal.
            They certainly had to know their client was mentally unstable with a history or drug and alcohol abuse. Someone who’s story you might have reason to question, yet still a gift thrown in your lap.
            Years later McCorvey acknowledged that she had lied.
            I don’t agree this lie was immaterial and unimportant.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Again no, the CASE was not based on a lie, only her original attempt to get an abortion was based on a lie.

            The case was NOT about a rape exception, but about abortion on demand, as part of your right to privacy. That’s why the rape (or lack of it) was irrelevant and immaterial.

          • me1952

            Suba,
            I’m sorry to tell you this but this case was based on a lie, a lie perpetrated on the American public, and would be to this day had McCorvey not come clean years ago.
            McCorvey was looking for recognition and respect from the feminist leadership, who in fact wanted no part of the little white trash. She had served her purpose.
            This lie was perpetrated to generate sympathy. A gang rape victim can’t get an abortion. Weddington and Coffee needed a case to take to the Supreme Court, and this gift was thrown in their lap.

          • Suba gunawardana

            IF your claim is true, the scotus ruling should apply only to rape victims. Instead it allows abortion on demand to anyone, under the right to privacy. Therefore the rape (or lack thereof) was totally irrelevant. The fact that she had lied sometime in the past is also totally irrelevant, because the concern before scotus had nothing to do with a rape exception.

          • me1952

            No, because many states already made exceptions for the rape victim. I don’t know if Texas did. It gave the SCOTUS the opportunity to tear down the laws.
            Weddington and Coffee needed a defendant and case to take to the Supreme Court in order to achieve their goals of bringing down state laws. If rape was irrelevant, why not just say this woman was pregnant as the result of an adulterous affair and can’t get an abortion?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Again I don’t know all the details of this case. But logically, if rape WAS relevant, shouldn’t the final decision apply only to rape victims? How did it enable anyone to get an abortion under the right to privacy if it was just about rape?

          • me1952

            Not necessarily. If the circumstances were irrelevant, then why not just say she was pregnant because of an adulterous affair and couldn’t get an abortion?
            “Gang rape” had tremendous emotional appeal. Did the lawyers and McCorvey concoct this scenario to strengthen their case? For its emotional appeal?
            Perhaps McCorvey couldn’t get an abortion because she was not in fact a rape victim.
            Yes that’s all SCOTUS had to do, but maybe SCOTUS was looking for an opportunity to strike down state laws. Justices certainly can have their own prejudices and agendas. After all, decades earlier, didn’t justices of the SC find “separate but equal” used to “justify” segregation, in the Constitution?
            I would challenge anyone to find it.

          • Suba gunawardana

            As Rainbow pointed out below, she did indeed fail to get an abortion because she was not a rape victim. If she couldn’t prove rape before, why keep stating an unprovable lie? That would only HURT your case. So I assume she did not lie to the court about rape, as it would have served no purpose.

            Sometimes emotional appeal does help. Regardless, the final decision of the court was not based on emotion or any alleged rape, but the legal right to privacy. So no matter how they got there, the validity of the decision stands.

          • Rainbow Walker

            You are confused. Let me explain Roe.

            In TX at the time abortion for rape, incest and the woman’s health was already in place. In June 1969, Norma L. McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found the unauthorized site had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade who represented the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was the result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.
            “Rape” is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in this case.

            Norma L. McCorvey was married at the time and couldn’t afford another child. This was about on demand abortions not rape.

            I know forced birthers must demonize her and warp facts because they have no argument.

          • me1952

            Excuse me but it is the PC crowd I hear demonizing her and who treated her as an embarrassment they wished would go away. She then turned to the “forced birthers” who have accepted her and treated her with far more kindness and acceptance.
            The fact remains this falsehood about a “gang rape” was perpetrated for years and Weddington and Coffee exploited this woman and her lie for everything it was worth. Why not just come out and say the truth? “Later” was about two decades or so later when McCorvey admitted the lie. Had she not done so, we would be believing it to this day. Apparently her lawyers would not take the initiative to dispel it and I am hard pressed to believe they didn’t know.

          • Rainbow Walker

            “Excuse me but it is the PC crowd I hear demonizing her and who treated her as an embarrassment they wished would
            go away.”

            Really? It seems you are still ill informed. McCovey’s actions during that period are demonised by your ilk. Now they have taken a woman who has severe mental illness, been institutionalized and are using her for their cause. She turned to the forced birthers after several hospitalizations.

            She never claimed “gang” rape. She claimed rape to get a legal abortion, when that failed she sued the DA for her right to have an on demand abortion. Rape was never mentioned in the case and
            was not a part of the opinion.

          • me1952

            RW,
            No, I’m afraid you are ill informed. Who is she embracing now and why? The PL folks. Just listen to how some people on this blog have talked about her. Let’s just say it wasn’t with affection and admiration.
            This woman had a long and troubled history when she encountered Weddington and Coffee, who were looking for a defendant in their efforts to overturn state abortion laws. Norma fit the bill, and a great “gang rape” story to boot. Hey, who used this deeply troubled, mentally ill drug and alcohol addicted woman for their cause? Can we say Weddington and Coffee? She turned to the “forced birthers” because of her rejection by the very people who should have been thanking her. This woman’s cries for attention and recognition by your side can only be called pathetic.
            She claimed gang rape. Do your research. Weddington and Coffee did nothing to dispel this lie and McCorvey didn’t for a couple of decades later. We’d still be hearing it today if McCorvey hadn’t come clean.

          • goatini

            //Who is she embracing now and why? The PL folks. //

            Grifter McCorvey is embracing MONEY. (The only person who spins a concocted BS story about how she lives a subsistence life is reprehensible theocratic misogynist “Father” Frank Pervert of “Priests” That Lie. ) She didn’t think she was getting enough dough from the reproductive justice movement, so, like Scabby Johnson, she followed the money.

            “‘I almost forgot i have a one thousand dollar fee,’ (McCorvey) texted in August in response to a request for an interview. Told she could not be paid, she texted back: ‘Then we wont speak.’”

            “McCorvey received a salary of $40,000 annually from Roe No More Ministries”

            “Flip Benham, once national director of Operation Rescue… gave money to McCorvey… and helped work out an $80,000 deal for McCorvey’s second book, Won by Love.”

          • me1952

            A salary of $40,000 annually. Hardly a king’s ransom. Sounds more like a livable wage at best.
            An $80,000 deal. Let’s see, that would last about a year?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Considering she was an “addict of unsound mind”, these ministries are apparently exploiting her for peanuts. A person with more sound mind would have held out for more money. Doesn’t change the fact that the motive is still *Money*.

          • me1952

            It looks like if anything they have turned her life around.
            If they are indeed “exploiting” her, they sure don’t have any monetary gain to show for their efforts.
            Maybe the money wasn’t that important to her.
            I think it strongly suggests money is not the motive.

          • Suba gunawardana

            A person of unstable mind can be easily exploited with SMALLER amounts of money than a person of sound mind.

            If by “they sure don’t have any monetary gain to show for their efforts” you mean the forced-birth movement, they are using her not necessarily to make money but to spread their message that “abortion is wrong, Roe v Wade should be overturned”. (Money comes later, when more & more children are made.) And they get to do it for as little as 40K a year. What a windfall.

          • me1952

            Look Suba, you argued that money motivated her and I’m pointing out that she obviously never got rich off this.
            No I think you are a tad confused. It was Wedding and Coffee who exploited her circumstances for everything they were worth, with a lie or two thrown in for good measure.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You are repeating the original arguments that have already been addressed.

            A “money motivation” is not the same for everyone. For the average person millions would be a lot of money but not for a rich person. Similarly for a poor person or a person of unsound mind, getting just enough for a living could be motivation enough.

            Again as I already said, Wedding and Coffee won her case for her didn’t they? Isn’t that exactly what good lawyers are supposed to do? IF they exploited the case for their own agenda, so what? They did not harm her in the process, so she has nothing to bitch about.

          • me1952

            Well, hopefully they will sink in.
            Again I think this “money motivation” has been argued to death. We can conclude that no one got rich. End of discussion
            No, they won the case for themselves and their agenda. McCorvey never had an abortion, which was all she wanted. The lawyers encouraged her to go to term, or their case would go up in smoke. She did not originally intend to go to court when she sought our Weddington and Coffee on getting an abortion.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Wrong again. She didn’t go to Weddington and Coffee for an abortion. Going to a lawyer for an abortion? Seriously? She was
            steered to them because they were young constitutional lawyers who could help her with the claim.

            Coffee guess lectured during my time at law school [one of my professors worked with her after Roe].

            According to Coffee, when McCorvey came to them she did want an abortion because she was depressed, suicidal, and splitting
            from her ‘old man’ because she was a lesbian. She said that McCorvey took money from them, which they thought was for doctors’ visits, food etc. but found out later McCorvey was snorting coke with it. They told her it was possible to file a complaint, challenge the law, get an injunction, thereby getting a legal abortion. McCorvey signed the papers knowing this and knowing they could lose. But she would owe them nothing. Fortunately for women the Texas court ruled in their
            favor but unfortunately for McCorvey denied the injunction. McCorvey was pissed and blamed the lawyers. Given her addictions and psychological instability her lashing out at them publicly was predictable. And of course the loads of money the forced birthers dumped on her was nice. That can buy a lot of coke.

          • me1952

            She may have been referred to them. Now why would a pregnant woman who wants an illegal abortion go to Constitutional lawyers? She probably didn’t even know what that was.
            Maybe because she was told they were sympathetic to women’s issues and would help her? Maybe it was someone who had been helped by them?
            I told you McCorvey admits she was a willing dupe. Did these lawyers try to get her help or did they just exploit her situation for their own agenda? Sounds like the latter.
            Any source as to the money “dumped” on her and her coke use?

          • Rainbow Walker

            Pulling from forced birth sites doesn’t constitute being informed. Yes they needed to overturn these archaic laws, because women were dying in botched abortions. But that doesn’t matter to you. And yes she was troubled, so why do you want a troubled woman having more children. Studies show they abuse their children far more. Her lawyers got her help. Both monetarily and medically. The forced birthers told her to stop her medication and that’s why she’s in the state she’s in today.

            You keep on with the “rape” crap. By the time the case was filed there was no mention of rape. Do my research? I studied law and we examined this case extensively. One of my professors worked with Coffee. The only ones talking about this “rape” story are you forced birthers. You don’t understand the case and so you fabricate.

            [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/]

            [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113]

            There is no mention of rape at the trial, in the complaint nor in the opinion. McCorvey never “came clean”. Forced birth religious nuts manipulated a woman with mental illness to do their bidding.

          • me1952

            RW,
            No, but a little research does.
            Planned Parenthood acknowledged in 1960, 14 years prior to R v W that 90% of illegal abortions were done by doctors in their offices, not back alleys. Doctors in good standing in their profession and the community. Many continued to do so after Roe.
            The death rate had been steadily declining and was at an all time low a year prior to R v W. Largely due to improved sterility, surgical techniques, IV and blood therapy, and antibiotics.
            You can thank Nathanson and his cohorts at NARAL for perpetuating the lie that women were dying by the thousands. Numbers they admit they knew were totally false. The numbers of illegal abortions were at best, anyone’s guess.
            Oh, so now the elitism comes out. Poor women are just somehow not as fit and we’re better off aborting them. Any poor women in your family tree?
            BTW, has abortion eliminated child abuse in this country?
            Her lawyers exploited her situation for their own purposes RW. What happened to NM after she served her purpose? What great help did they give her? The “forced birthers” forced her to stop her medication? Did they put a gun to her head? Can you tell me what this medication was and what “state” she is in today because of it?
            A little inside information for you concerning your heroines Coffee and Weddington:
            NM: “I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made it even worse? A gang rape”!
            “I wasn’t pursuing a legal remedy for my unwanted pregnancy”, I met with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee to find out where I could obtain an illegal abortion. They said they didn’t know where to obtain one. Sarah already had already had an abortion but she lied to me like I lied to her. She knew where to get one but obviously I was of no use to her unless I was pregnant! Sarah and Linda were looking for somebody, anybody, to use to further their own agenda. I was their most willing dupe”.
            “….all these lies succeed in dismantling every state’s protection of the unborn…”
            Norma McCorvey, testifying before Senate Subcommitte on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights”
            BTW, Coffee and Weddington insisted McCorvery NOT have an abortion or their whole case would go up in smoke.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Your claim is that “illegal abortions did not kill as much they were alleged to have killed”.

            -So, if the number of deaths were smaller, does that somehow justify illegal abortions? If hundreds die instead of thousands, does that make it OK?

            -If clinics not following regulations is “no big deal”, why is Gosnell being sensationalized by forced-birthers?

            “Oh, so now the elitism comes out. Poor women are just somehow not as fit and we’re better off aborting them.”

            -From your own account, NM’s problems extended far beyond being poor. She was substance-addicted and mentally unstable. Would YOU consider her a fit parent?

            -In my opinion, any person unable to provide ALL resources necessary for a child (physical, emotional, financial), should NOT be spitting out a child. Children are not toys, slaves, or ego-boosters. They are living breathing sentient individuals who need love and care for a lifetime. If you are unable/unwilling to provide that, you have no business making children.

            “Her lawyers exploited her situation for their own purposes RW. What happened to NM after she served her purpose? What great help did they give her? The “forced birthers” forced her to stop her medication? Did they put a gun to her head? Can you tell me what this medication was and what “state” she is in today because of it?”

            -With the same logic, did the lawyers put a gun to her head? She went to them VOLUNARILY, and went through the trial voluntarily.
            Sure, lawyers always have their own agenda, but at least they won her case for her. What more should they have done?

            -I don’t know what the forced-birthers did about NM’s drugs, if anything. What I can conclude from the info available here is that
            they are using an impressionable person of not-so-sound mind to further their own agenda.

            “A little inside information for you concerning your heroines Coffee and Weddington: NM: “I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made it even worse? A gang rape”!”

            From your own account, NM is a substance-addicted person of
            unsound mind. So why do you believe her now? If she lied then, she could very well be lying now. If she lied then at the behest of her lawyers, she could be lying now at the behest of the forced-birthers. On the other hand If she was drug-addled then but NOT now, how can you trust her memory?

            “BTW, Coffee and Weddington insisted McCorvery NOT have an abortion or their whole case would go up in smoke.”

            Obviously she could not get the abortion because she couldn’t prove rape. So what was wrong about claiming she didn’t have an abortion?

          • me1952

            -Its not my claim. Planned Parenthood stated that the majority of illegal abortions were done in doctors’ offices, not back alleys 13 years prior to Roe. Also Dr. Nathanson quoted the CDC on the decreasing death rate back in 1972. Read his book. You might learn something. BTW he wrote while still a strong supporter of legal abortion.
            -The death rate from illegal abortions had been steadily declining for years. Also, doctors performing had to be very careful. Dead and mutilated women could mean a jail sentence. This may have also accounted for the ever decreasing death rate, along with improved medical techniques. Also, many were performed in hospitals under false pretenses or with a wink and a nod. Women were not dying by the thousands, or even the hundreds, from illegal abortion.
            -The argument was that people like Gosnell would be put out of business by the legalization of abortion. Instead he and his butcher shop ran full tilt, out in the open and with the full blessing of the state. A highly unlikely occurrence when abortion was illegal. BTW, where were the state inspectors when women, mostly poor and/or minority, needed to be protected?
            -No, I wouldn’t consider her at all a fit parent, but then we can be very wrong about predicting a good parent. The assumption that people with money make good parents? Not always. I’ve noticed that its the rich who always seem to know what’s best for poor women and their children, born and unborn.
            BTW, if Coffee and Weddington were so “concerned” about her fitness, why did they insist she continue her pregnancy?
            -Really? Since the dawn of the human race children have been born into less than ideal circumstances and the human race goes on. Children have been born into poverty, slavery, war, social upheavel, you name it. Maybe a lot of us wouldn’t be here today if children should only be born into ideal circumstances.
            Are you so certain all your ancestors were?
            -Nope, the lawyers didn’t put a gun to her head, she admits she was a willing dupe. She went to them seeking an abortion, not judicial redress. Won their case for her? No it was for themselves and their agenda. She was advised to continue her pregnancy, that would certainly be more convincing if she didn’t get an abortion.
            -Using an impressionable person of unsound mind to further an agenda. Well gee it sounds like history repeating itself, doesn’t it?
            -Well Coffee and Weddington considered her worthy of belief, or else they just didn’t care enough to get the truth. This was sworn testimony in front of a Senate committee. Do you know if Weddington and Coffee offered any testimony to the contrary?

          • Suba gunawardana

            -You didn’t answer my question. EVEN IF the numbers of deaths are smaller, does that justify illegal abortion at all? I would say even one death/mutilation from illegal abortion is one too many.

            -Gosnell and many like him get to operate due to the excessive restrictions & clinic closures caused by forced-birthers. The terrorist activities of forced-birthers lead to limited transparency, in order to protect legitimate abortion clinics. Same limitations enable the Gosnells to fly under the radar. In other words, even when abortion is legal, forced-birthers make it as difficult and traumatic as possible.

            -If a person thinks she is unable/unwilling to be a good parent, then no one should FORCE her to be a parent.

            “The assumption that people with money make good parents?”

            No, money ALONE is never enough. It should always be combined with love and devotion to children. However love alone is not enough either, without money. Because without money, a child won’t get the basic necessities such as food, shelter, medical care.

            “BTW, if Coffee and Weddington were so “concerned” about her fitness, why did they insist she continue her pregnancy?”

            I don’t know that they did. It’s only forced birth propaganda that says so, and I haven’t seen the case files.

            “Really? Since the dawn of the human race children have been born into less than ideal circumstances and the human race goes on”

            And look at the state the human race is in. Look at all the crime, poverty, child abuse, animal abuse, rape, slavery, dishonesty, exploitation of the weak etc. that goes on every moment all over the world. The situation would be very different if EVERY single child born were wanted, welcomed and loved; if every person received a GOOD life complete with love and resources. When people are happy and content, they tend to harm others less. (some still do, but those are the really pathological cases and would be easy to weed out).

            “Nope, the lawyers didn’t put a gun to her head, she admits she was a willing dupe. She went to them seeking an abortion, not judicial redress.”

            That alone shows she is lying NOW. Who goes to a lawyer
            seeking an abortion? You go to a doctor, legal or illegal. A lawyer CANNOT do something illegal for you (openly), and you can’t expect them to.

            “Won their case for her? No it was for themselves and their agenda. She was advised to continue her pregnancy, that would certainly be more convincing if she didn’t get an abortion.”

            Again I don’t know if any of this is true. IF true, and IF she didn’t want to continue the pregnancy, why stick with them? Why not go find a doctor & get an illegal abortion? This makes no sense, and she is LYING.

            “Well Coffee and Weddington considered her worthy of belief. This was sworn testimony in front of a Senate committee.”

            Sworn testimony doesn’t necessarily mean truth. If it contradicts what she said back then, either she was lying then, or is lying now. Either way what does it matter? As we already discussed in detail, any improprieties in the case are IRRELEVANT, considering they didn’t impact the verdict. Besides, this ruling was not just about her case but about changing the law for all women.

          • me1952

            So is dying from legal abortion more palatable to you? Is a woman dying from a legal abortion just another statistic as far as you’re concerned?
            The fact is the death rate from illegal abortion was at an all time low the year prior to Roe.
            No Suba, Gosnell got to operate due to the state turning a blind eye and the fact he had nothing to fear in the form of regulation or inspection. But it was only poor and/or minority women so who cared, right? Legal abortion was supposed to put the likes of him out of business once and for all. Apparently legal abortion only enabled him.
            Again, its those who often think they will make such great parents that get the rude awakening. Sometimes the higher and more unrealistic our expectations, the more frustrated and disappointed we are, and abuse and neglect can be the result. So tell me the circumstances under which good parenting is guaranteed? Again its perspective. One sibling may think the parents were great, the other may not.
            No, its Norma McCorvey who claims they told her to continue her pregnancy. She may have been referred to them by other women they advised. Maybe they offered free consulting services to women. Maybe she thought her confidentiality would be better protected.
            Suba, I know this makes you irate, and like RW you’re starting to rant. The testimony is what it is, it was before a senate committee. McCorvey admits she was a willing dupe.

          • purrtriarchy

            So is dying from legal abortion more palatable to you? Is a woman dying
            from a legal abortion just another statistic as far as you’re concerned?

            It’s possible to die from wisdoom tooth extraction. It’s even possible to die from getting one’s tonsils removed – a routine procedure.

            All medical procedures carry a certain amount of risk. Some more than others. Abortion is still 14x safer than pregnancy.

            But the point, which you seem to be missing, is that we don’t *force* women to get abortions, and we don’t force them to remain pregnant. If a woman wants to risk her life doing either, IT IS UP TO HER AND HER ALONE.

          • me1952

            Interesting. So a woman dies from an illegal abortion, most of which were done by doctors, and you’re apoplectic.
            Let a woman die from a legal abortion, done by a hack like Gosnell, and its just an unfortunate consequence of a medical procedure.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Hacks like Gosnell wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the excessive forced-birth restrictions running real doctors out of business.

          • me1952

            No Suba,
            Hacks like Gosnell exist because they can. They fear no legal consequences because there aren’t any. T poor and/or minority women who unknowingly enter his hellhole are viewed as irrelevant.
            You know, women not fit to have children anyway.

          • Suba gunawardana

            No, there should be no deaths from any abortions (to the extent possible). With legal abortions, when properly regulated, death is far easier to prevent than with illegal abortions.

            “The fact is the death rate from illegal abortion was at an
            all time low the year prior to Roe.”

            Rainbow already provided stats showing this claim to be
            false (and all the global deaths TODAY from illegal abortion).

            The rest of your post is repetition and speculation.

            “Suba, I know this makes you irate, and like RW you’re
            starting to rant. The testimony is what it is, it was before a senate
            committee. McCorvey admits she was a willing dupe.”

            I made SPECIFIC rebuttals to each point you brought, i.e. no rant. You have yet to counter. As I pointed out, her testimony makes no sense. Logically she has to be lying now or lied then, because her story doesn’t add up.

          • me1952

            “Easier” to prevent but still occurring.
            Actually women may have been far safer with illegal abortions. Doctors in good standing who didn’t want to do prison time tended to be extremely cautious. Gosnell didn’t have to concern himself with such trivialities.
            RW proved no such thing. If anything, his/her post also indicated the steadily decreasing illegal abortion death rate. As for the number of illegal abortions, that was anyone’s guess.
            Suba, I have countered your points time and again. Is it that her testimony doesn’t make sense or just that you don’t want to believe her?

          • Suba gunawardana

            “”Easier” to prevent but still occurring.”

            Then the answer is more regulation and transparency, NOT abolishing abortion and going back to illegal abortions. Childbirth carries risk of death, as does any surgery. Do you want to ban all these procedures?

            “Actually women may have been far safer with illegal abortions. Doctors in good standing who didn’t want to do prison time tended tobe extremely cautious.”

            That’s just your opinion. The stats from the Guttmacher institute
            say otherwise. Please read Rainbow’s posts again.

            “As for the number of illegal abortions, that was anyone’s guess.”

            Then how would YOU claim that the illegal abortions are safe, or small in number?

            “Gosnell didn’t have to concern himself with such trivialities.”

            That’s why he is in prison now.

            “Suba, I have countered your points time and again. Is it that her testimony doesn’t make sense or just that you don’t want to believe her?”

            Obviously her claims don’t make sense. I pointed all this out before, but here it is again:
            -Who goes to a lawyer for an abortion? She should have found a doctor.
            -Lawyers cannot help with anything illegal. Getting her an
            illegal abortion is NOT part of the lawyers’ duty, and it’s stupid to assume so.
            -She signed the papers and filed the case voluntarily. No one forced her to.
            -If all she wanted was an abortion, why didn’t she fire the lawyers & go get an illegal abortion?

            It is always easier to blame others. The fact remains that she made all the decisions voluntarily.

          • me1952

            I thought when abortion became legal this was all settled. There would be regulation and safety. So how did Gosnell materialize?
            RW’s posts agree that the death rate had been steadily declining. As for the number of illegal abortions, that was anyone’s guess.
            Now if illegal abortions were in the hundreds of thousands and were so dangerous, why was the death rate continuing to drop? Wouldn’t you expect the opposite? Also, doesn’t it make sense that doctor’s who fear going to jail are going to exercise extreme caution when performing abortions? Something Gosnell did not have to concern himself with?
            I didn’t say they were small in number. The ever decreasing death rate spoke for itself.
            Yeah Gosnell is in prison. Sure took long enough.
            Perhaps Coffey and Weddington were known to be sympathetic to women and feminist causes. Wasn’t it mentioned that NM was
            “steered” to them? Maybe a discreet referral to “someone who will help you”? Somehow I don’t think NM was swift enough to seek them out on her own.
            Lawyers can’t help with anything illegal? Please don’t make me laugh. Why can’t they? Doctors shouldn’t help with anything illegal either, but we know how that went.
            Right, she admits she was a willing dupe.
            Maybe what the lawyers suggested sounded like a good idea and she thought she was doing something important.
            She doesn’t blame others, she clearly blames herself. As I said time and again she admits she was a willing dupe.

          • Suba gunawardana

            “I thought when abortion became legal this was all settled.”

            It would have been, had they NOT left a loophole where states can come & place all kinds of restrictions. Now with all those restrictions, abortion is legal in name only but there are no clinics in many states; and in the few clinics left women are still forced to run the gauntlet of waiting periods, forced ultrasounds, and of course the terrorists on the street. An ideal environment for Gosnells to set up shop in poor neighborhoods where women
            cannot afford to go out of state to get an abortion.

            “Lawyers can’t help with anything illegal? Please don’t make me laugh. Why can’t they? ”

            NOT openly. Also, arranging an illegal abortion is NOT part of a lawyers duty, no matter how you twist it. The ONLY way they could help was by getting a court to order a legal abortion, which they eventually did get done by changing the law. As Rainbow said the court denied a specific injunction DURING the trial for NM to get an abortion, despite requests. I don’t see how that is the lawyers’ fault.

            The rest of your post is just speculation EXCUSING why NM behaved the way she did. Doesn’t change the facts that she did everything voluntarily, and that the lawyers did all they could.

          • me1952

            Well the state government is elected by the people Laws are passed by elected representatives. If the people truly support abortion, then there should be no problem, right?
            Tell me what isn’t state regulated? Can you drive your car without regulation? Can a veterinary clinic or beauty parlor operate without state regulation? Why shouldn’t an abortion clinic have to meet state regulation?
            Gosnell had a great set up because the state looked the other way.
            And who cares about poor andor minority women anyway? We all know they just produce kids they can’t care for.
            Who said her meeting was open? What she discussed with Coffey and Weddington was confidential. It would be her word against theirs. As I told you NM may have been referred to them by someone who told her they could “help her”. Maybe they were known for assisting women. I don’t really think NM was swift enough to seek out a Constitutional lawyer on her own, or that she would even know what one was.
            How many times must I tell you NM admits she was a “willing dupe”. She never accused them of forcing her to do anything.

          • Suba gunawardana

            In my opinion the states should only have been able to regulate HOW abortion is done (i.e.licensing & inspection etc), not WHEN or WHETHER it is done. That part was already decided. Abortion should be legal, period.

            Instead, states are now systematically TAKING AWAY the right to abortion, thereby taking away the constitutional rights to liberty and to be secure in your person.

            “And who cares about poor and or minority women anyway? We all know they just produce kids they can’t care for.”

            So you are a racist in addition to a misogynist? Women are people with constitutional rights, regardless of color or economic status. Anyone who produces kids they can’t care for, should have unlimited access to contraception and ABORTION. To restrict them is to show you have no concern for either the women or the children.

            Considering NM knew what she was doing all along, what are you blaming the lawyers for? So far you failed to show anything unethical they did against their client.

          • me1952

            Well the states didn’t do even do that much. Gosnell example number one.
            Nope, just quoting some of your fellow posters, including you. Didn’t you say there are circumstances where people shouldn’t be parents?
            I don’t blame the lawyers. I think they were all cut from the same cloth. I didn’t say they did anything unethical, it NM. Since we were not there or privy to their conversations, we can only go by what both sides say.

          • Suba gunawardana

            “Well the states didn’t do even do that much. Gosnell example number one.”

            All the more reason to NOT give too much power to the states in matters concerning personal rights.

            “ Didn’t you say there are circumstances where people shouldn’t be parents?”

            Yes, and those circumstances certainly do NOT include specific skin colors. It’s you who keep mentioning skin color.

            “I don’t blame the lawyers. I think they were all cut from the same cloth. I didn’t say they did anything unethical, it NM.”

            Well then there’s not much left to argue about.

          • me1952

            No, all the more reason why there needs to be state regulation and oversight.
            No, its me who mentions minorities and/or poor women. You and other posters consider poor women unfit to have children.
            I agree. Client and lawyers were all cut from the same cloth. And NM would be in the best position to say if they did anything unethical, which she says they did.

          • purrtriarchy

            Btw, the constitution only applies to born people. And abortion was legal when it was drafted.
            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/busting-a-myth-about-iroe-v-wade-i/

          • Rainbow Walker

            Once again you are only pulling from forced birth sites. PP did no such thing. Most pre-Roe abortions were not performed by doctors. That’s why the death rate was so high.

            [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html]”Estimates
            of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967. One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death
            for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently
            developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely
            much higher.”

            My grandmother was a nurse during this time. To further complicate matters families would often pay coroner’s off
            to not list the actual cause of death [if it were due to a botched abortion]. Religious nuts can’t let those things get out.

            Furthermore to this day illegible abortions in jurisdictions that restrict or abolish the procedure bring huge tolls, resulting in approximately 47,000 maternal deaths and millions of hospital
            admissions per year globally.

            Lohr, P. A.; Fjerstad, M.; Desilva, U.; Lyus, R. (2014). “Abortion”. BMJ 348: f7553. doi:10.1136/bmj.f7553

            Shah, I.; Ahman, E. (December 2009). “Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges” (PDF). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 31 (12): 1149–58. PMID 20085681

            Between 1973-2009, 411 women have died from legal abortions in the US. Compared to the 650 who die annually in pregnancy.
            Making abortion far more safe then delivery.

            [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6208a1.htm?s_cid=ss6208a1_w][http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/Pregnancy-relatedMortality.htm]

            As for abuse. In jurisdictions that restrict or abolish abortion abuse is rampant. In those where abortion is freely available it is minimal, almost nonexistent. Sweden [who has on demand abortion up to birth] has had less than 2K instances of reported child abuse
            per year. We have more than 3 million a year- nearly six referrals every minute. And that’s just the ones reported. I deal with adjudicated children in a state known for restricting abortions [and ironically the place where Roe took place]. Before the trap laws came into effect abuse was dropping. The minute the abortion clinics shut down we were flooded. It’s a proven fact women who
            are denied abortion suffer great psychological impact and often take it out on the children they already have.

            Regarding Roe. You are pulling from more forced birth crap. Weather she gave birth or not would have no impact on
            the opinion. She lied later to satisfy the forced birthers and their agenda. First of all, why go to a lawyer to get an abortion? Or anything illegal? If this were all true why didn’t the DA [or bar] at the time investigate and a least try to get these two very young girls disbarred or file charges because they were engaging in illegal activities? Or do it now? There’s no SOL as far as disbarment. And rape was never mentioned in the complaint, the trial, nor the opinion. This is a very delusional woman. She was arrested on the first day of U.S. Senate hearings for the confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States of Sonia Sotomayor after she and another protester started yelling during the opening statement of Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.). And of course there’s all that money the catholic church is giving her to fund her addictions.

            The only thing this proves is that she is one disturbed individual. At least Weddigton and Coffee used her to help others. Forced birthers use her to harm others.

          • me1952

            RW, I know facts can really bite but I would expect someone of your intelligence to do his/her research.
            http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12
            So the death rate was steadily declining. I’m glad we agree on that. Why was that? How could illegal and “self induced” abortions be so dangerous, occurring by the thousands, yet fewer women dying?
            Also, what was the criteria? How could anyone know for absolute certain the number of illegal abortions? Also, if most were done in doctors’ offices, the death rate was steadily declining, then what was the problem? Check out my source. You’ll find out the American public was lied to by people well aware their “statistics” were lies.
            I’m not interested in Sweden’s child abuse rate I want to know about ours. How has 41 years of legal abortion drastically reduced our child abuse rate? Shouldn’t it be virtually non existent?
            Whether of not she gave birth had no impact on the ruling? Well, then why would Coffee and Weddington insist she continue with the pregnancy? Didn’t they have “concerns” about her fitness as a parent?
            She went to them asking about obtaining an abortion, perhaps they presented themselves as sympathetic to women’s concerns and offering free consults, or perhaps Norma was referred to them.
            Look RW, this was testimony before a Senate committee, not something I pulled off any “forced birther” site. Two very young girls? They were grown women who were practicing law for heaven’s sake!
            All the money the Catholic Church is giving her to fund her addictions? And you accuse her of being delusional. RW, you are just ranting now.
            Hey speaking of Al Franken, check out his favorite rape fantasy.
            http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2008/06/freaky_franken.php

          • Rainbow Walker

            “RW, I know facts can really bite but I would expect someone of your intelligence to do his/her research.”

            Abortionfacts is a forced birth site. Proving once again you don’t know what you are taking about and only disseminate misinformation.

            “So the death rate was steadily declining. I’m glad we agree on that.”

            Warping things for your agenda. We don’t agree. Fewer women dying? Those who lived got better treatment only due
            to sterility not the procedure. Read again.

            [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html]”Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North
            Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967. One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death
            for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that
            frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number
            was likely much higher.”

            Between 1973-2009, 411 women have died from legal abortions in the US. Compared to the 650 who die annually in
            pregnancy. Making abortion far more safe then delivery.

            [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6208a1.htm?s_cid=ss6208a1_w][
            http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/Pregnancy-relatedMortality.htm

            In one year alone [1965 after more sterile procedures were in place] deaths from illegal abortion were just under 200. Compared to 411 between 1973-2009 from legal abortions or about 11 per year [20 times less].

            Most [illegal abortions] were not done in doctors’ offices. How could they run the risk of someone finding out? If a doctor did perform them it was a ‘house call’.

            “How could anyone know for absolute certain the number of illegal abortions?”

            Then how can you say they were declining? What we do know is from coroner’s reports from the era and comparing them with death from illegal abortion today. As in the report from Guttmacher we see no drop between 1930-1973 regarding the procedure itself. We see a significant drop after legalization.

            Regarding child abuse. Of course you don’t want to hear about Sweden, it will make you think about the relation between abortion and child abuse. We have legalization but only to viability and trap laws further complicate matters and cause the closing of facilities. So your analogy is quite silly. We still don’t have true on demand abortion. Looking at the countries that do, their child abuse is almost nonexistent.

            “Whether of not she gave birth had no impact on the ruling?”

            You are daft. Why would her lawyers insist she continue the pregnancy [which they didn’t, that was her choice and they left it to her]? They nor the courts had control prior to her giving
            birth, because the laws then precluded on demand abortion and just as today if she were an unfit mother CPS would take the child. We do it all the time. We have state nurseries to care for the hundreds we take from unfit mothers every year.

            She didn’t go to Weddington and Coffee for an abortion. Get it in your head. They filed a complaint for her and represented her. They weren’t doctors and had no means of getting her an
            abortion. The only hope for an abortion was to sue and get an injunction.

            I don’t care what crap she put forth to the Senate later. Even by your own words she was known to lie before, how can you think the crap she told the Senate wasn’t a lie later? Because it’s
            convenient for you. It fits what you want to believe. Yes the catholic church funds her and she still uses drugs.

            As for Franken. He was a comedian, who cares about his jokes. Just trying to divert attention because you have no argument.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The rape is immaterial because the case was decided on a woman’s right to privacy, not the rape exception. I know that Norma McCorvey tried to take the case back to the Supreme Court on the grounds that she’d lied about the rape but she failed to grasp the fact that it really wasn’t all just about her. It was about women everywhere.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Thanks, you said it much better!

          • me1952

            Well, if the rape was immaterial then why lie? That’s obvious, the emotional appeal.
            Whatever the case was decided on the fact remains it was based on a lie. Weddington and Coffee needed a defendant and case to take to court, and were willing to exploit McCorvey’s dubious mental state and circumstances to get one.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Again, while McCorvey was indeed the Roe of Roe v. Wade, it really was not all about her. It was about and for all women and their right to privacy in their reproductive decisions.

          • me1952

            Sorry, but Weddington and Coffee needed a defendant and a case. An easily manipulated mentally unstable, alcohol and drug abusing drifter would serve their purpose just fine.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I think the original reason she lied was to try and get an abortion under the EXISTING law.

            More importantly: Even if they continued to lie for emotional appeal, the final Supreme court decision was NOT based on emotional appeal but facts. So whether they lied about the rape, and if so why they lied, are still irrelevant.

          • me1952

            The entire case was based on a lie and the American public was lied to for decades until Norma McCorvey finally told the truth.
            Again, why lie?
            The SC decision wasn’t based on emotional appeal? Did they know this was all a lie? Maybe it was based on the justices’ personal agendas and desire to overturn state laws. It wouldn’t be the first time SC justices have done anything like this when it suited their own convictions.

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I mentioned before, IF the entire case was based on “rape” the right to abortion would be limited to rape victims. How did it magically become applicable to anyone?

            “The SC decision wasn’t based on emotional appeal? Did they know this was all a lie?”

            You are beating a dead horse. Whether she lied about the rape or not; whether the court knew if she lied about rape; is IRRELEVANT, since the decision was not about a rape exception but about abortion ON DEMAND.

            When the court’s concern is abortion on demand, why does it matter whether she was raped or not, or whether she lied about it or not? RAPE DOES NOT APPLY HERE.

          • me1952

            Ok, so why was this lie perpetuated? More importantly, why was it even necessary to begin with?

          • Suba gunawardana

            The lie is being perpetuated by the forced-birth crowd, in an attempt to try and discredit the Roe v Wade decision in any way they can. (Such attempts will only work with the really stupid and ignorant, considering the court’s decision had nothing to do with rape).

            As was already explained, in the beginning Norma lied about being raped in order to get an abortion under the EXISTING law. Failing to prove rape, she gave that up and filed a suit requesting abortion on demand. It was granted NOT based on the alleged rape but under the right to privacy.

          • me1952

            I already responded to Rainbow Walker with quotes from Norma McCorvey when she testified before a Senate committee.
            You can check it out.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I posted a detailed response to you there. Also wanted to add:

            Seems your overall claim is that various improprieties that occurred before or during the case should make the verdict invalid.

            I disagree. The ruling was made based on the word of the constitution, NOT based on any lies or attempts at sympathy on the part of plaintiff/ her attorneys. EVEN IF the judges may have been inclined to rule in her favor out of sympathy (that’s a big if) that does not change the word of the constitutional law on which the ruling is based.

            Improprieties would matter ONLY if they had a direct impact on the verdict. They didn’t. So they are irrelevant.

          • me1952

            Nope. I’m pointing out the lies.
            You haven’t told me where the Constitution says anything about abortion. Why do you suppose they wanted such a hard luck case like McCorvey and why did they advise her not to have an abortion?
            Obvious, it would help their cause. OK, a little lie here and there, and by all means stay pregnant, whatever you do!
            Whether or not the improprieties had had any direct impact on the ruling is a matter of speculation. Probably cannot be proved either way.

          • Suba gunawardana

            OK so if you agree that the lies are irrelevant, what’s the purpose of pointing out the lies? It’s pretty obvious that NM lied about a lot of things, then and now. What does it matter? The case is not just about her, but a constitutional right for ALL women.

            I never said the constitution says anything about abortion. What I said was the constitutions protects your right to privacy and the right to be secure in your person. And I showed the specific passages. Forced birth is a violation of both those rights.

            To change an existing law that’s wrong/unethical, it still takes an individual case. If this case didn’t do it another one would have. The fact that there may have been improprieties in this case, doesn’t change the fact that the existing law NEEDED to be changed and it was changed.

          • me1952

            I don’t think they’re irrelevant. You folks do. Apparently no court has agreed they are either.
            I agree, it wasn’t about helping her, it was about exploiting her situation for the benefit of their agenda.
            The Constitution protects you from the government. Privacy is not mentioned. Again, prohibiting “forced birth” is what you choose to read into the Constitution. It is not specifically mentioned.
            So you agree lying and exploitation is acceptable to win a ruling you want. So be it.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I never agreed to any such thing. My consistent positiion was that any purported lying or exploitation was IRRELEVANT and immaterial, considering they had no bearing on the final ruling.

            Yes the Constitution protects you from the government from USING/INVADING YOUR BODY AGAINST YOUR WILL, which is what forced birth is.

          • me1952

            We don’t know for certain they had no bearing on the final ruling. Really can’t be proven either way.
            The direct quote from the Constitution please.

          • Suba gunawardana

            IF the constitution had direct quotes on abortion and other specific matters, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.

            SC is there to INTERPRET and APPLY the existing language in the constitution to each circumstance.

            You still didn’t answer my question. The constitution does not specifically mention a lot of things. For example, doesn’t say “Rape is wrong”. Does that mean rape is OK? Doesn’t say “It’s wrong to take an organ from a living person”. Does that make taking organs by force OK?

          • me1952

            There is a problem though, allowing for “interpretations” means a justice’s prejudices, politics, or personal convictions can enter into law, which they have and do. They have made some very dubious decisions. Be careful what you wish for.
            No, of course rape is not OK. The Constitution can only lay the framework, it is up to the states to make laws concerning rape through the people’s elected representatives.
            Again, organ procurement would be a matter of state law. People can either donate their organs or refuse. If the refuse, that must be honored.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Yes, justices are human and prejudices can play a role. That doesn’t mean EVERY decision they make is wrong. If a decision is blatantly wrong, it should be reversed. So far there’s absolutely no proof that Roe v Wade ruling is wrong, considering it CONFORMS to and upholds the language of the Constitution.

            When it comes to basic rights regarding your body, there should be one set of basic rules. States should not be able to take people’s rights away against the constitution, for example by making certain rapes legal, or certain abortions illegal as they have already done.

            “People can either donate their organs or refuse. If the refuse, that must be honored.”

            Exactly. Organ donation should never be FORCED on anyone. So why should pregnancy and childbirth be forced?

          • me1952

            No, it means we do not mindlessly accept their “interpretations” as if they were divinely inspired.
            Tell me the language in the Constitution it upholds.
            Check out how long segregation was around until it was reversed. Not everyone thought it was wrong and people weren’t so willing to see it end. I think the original decision was wrong. Apparently many did not agree.
            States pass laws. They must stay in the framework of the Constitution if the law is to stand. Not everyone will like or agree with a law.
            The state doesn’t force anyone to become pregnant.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Not mindlessly, only if it makes sense. You have yet to prove how this particular decision doesn’t make sense.

            “Tell me the language in the Constitution it upholds.”

            Now you are just repeating yourself. I already quoted the language. It is the right to be secure in your person (4th amendment) and the liberty clause in the 14th amendment.

            “States pass laws. They must stay in the framework of the Constitution if the law is to stand”

            They stand unless challenged, even unconstitutional ones such as abortion restrictions and anti-gay laws. Many get challenged and struck down while some keep standing.

            “The state doesn’t force anyone to become pregnant.”

            No, it forces women to CARRY a pregnancy against their will, which is still slavery.

          • me1952

            Who determines if it makes sense? Many legal scholars have been very critical of the Roe decision.
            I’m not repeating myself, I’m trying to get an answer. You defer to the Constitution, back it up.
            Exactly, and state laws are challenged, especially if they are deemed unconstitutional.
            Where are women forced to carry against their will. Last I heard abortion is still legal.

          • Suba gunawardana

            OK, what is wrong with the Roe decision?

            For the 10th time: The 4th & 14th amendments protect your right to be secure in your person; and protect you from threats against your life, liberty and property.

            Now, could you please give yes/no answers to the following?
            -Do you agree that rape is wrong?
            -Do you agree that rape is a threat to your personal liberty, and violates your right to be secure in your person?
            -Do you agree that the constitution does not specifically prohibit rape?

            You will see the connection. If not, I will clarify.

            “Where are women forced to carry against their will. Last I heard abortion is still legal.”

            Some states are restricting abortion as early as 12 weeks. With no clinics in the area and mandatory waiting periods, this makes it IMPOSSIBLE to get an abortion within the allowed time. Ergo, forced birth.

          • me1952

            They protect you from the government. I see no quotes concerning abortion.
            Plenty. However I’m not a legal scholar. Google for more expert opinions.
            1. Absolutely
            2. Absolutely
            3. Absolutely
            Rape is a crime defined and punished by state law. There may be federal statutes covering federal employee or the military as well.
            Not necessarily. What if after the 4th or 5th month, or later in the pregnancy the woman changes her mind and wants the baby? Happens all the time.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Rape is a crime because it takes away constitutional rights of a person. The right to liberty, and the right to be secure in their person. Forced birth does the exact same thing, and SHOULD be a crime under state law. Technically it is. Abortion being legal on demand, is an unspoken agreement that forced birth is a crime.

          • me1952

            Puh-leeze, to compare rape to pregnancy is an insult to every rape victim.
            Rape, like murder is legally defined and laws are passed by the federal gov’t and states concerning these crimes.

          • Suba gunawardana

            How is forced pregnancy different from rape? Both are invasions of your body against your will.

          • me1952

            Suba, that comment is too disgusting to dignify with a response.
            What an insult to the victims of rape.

          • purrtriarchy

            There are many victims of rape who would disagree with you. In fact, some of these victims have pointed out that pregnancy is more destructive to the body than rape.

            I suggest you go to patheos blogs and the blog Love Joy Feminism and ask the many rape victims their opinion. They will tell you that you are full of shit.

          • me1952

            Women who have been beaten, mutilated, raped, and left for dead might beg to differ with Suba. Women who have endured the horror of gang rapes in warfare or children, men and women who have endured sexual slavery may also disagree with Suba.

          • purrtriarchy

            Not all rapes are violent. In fact, the majority fall under acquaintance rape. No overt violence. And you will find that women who have been raped violently and in war hate being pregnant, and view it as a second rape.

            You are an ignorant twit.

            Now go to pharyngula and patheos.

          • me1952

            Not all rapes are violent? So some are a little nicer than others? No overt violence? What exactly constitutes violence in your mind? Is there no overt violence when a woman submits because a gun is at her head?
            You are one sick twit.
            The rapes I refer to are no less of a horror whether pregnancy occurs or not, and in some, the men and children, pregnancy isn’t possible. The crime is a horror, a violation under any circumstances.
            Because of this I am especially disgusted with the lie promoted by Norma McCorvery and her lawyers.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yes you moron. Not every rape involves being nearly beaten to death and gang raped by 39 men WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING.

            try to keep up

          • me1952

            So tell me moron, which rapes do you consider non violent?
            Would the victim agree?

          • purrtriarchy

            No physical damage. Go to my link. Rape victims will say the same as me and suba.

            You are full of shit.

          • me1952

            No physical damage. What constitutes “physical damage”
            What about psychological damage? Emotional damage?

          • purrtriarchy

            Pregnancy can tear the vagina and cause obstetric fistulas. A rapist can rape gently.

            Forced pregnancy can be more physically damaging than rape, and just as emotionally damaging.

          • me1952

            You are positively disgusting.

          • purrtriarchy

            You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. My statement is factually accurate. The numerous rape victims at petheos will agree with me. Are you planning on telling them that they too are disgusting???

          • me1952

            No, unlike you I have only compassion for rape victims.
            I don’t view some as not suffering physical damage or enduring assaults that aren’t really violent. I don’t view their violations as “gentle” penetrations.
            Talk about sick.

          • purrtriarchy

            So you are telling us that every rape ravages the body and tears the vagina like pregnancy can do? Got a peer reviewed article to back up your assertion?

          • me1952

            Would you please keep you asinine claptrap and disgusting comparisons out of my mailbox?
            Non violent rape and gentle penetration.
            I consider you a sick twit.

          • purrtriarchy

            Are the rape victims who agree with me also sick twits?

          • me1952

            They agree their attackers were gentle and non violent?

          • purrtriarchy

            Are the rape victims who agree with me also sick twits?

          • purrtriarchy

            Tell that to the many rape victims who agree 100% with me.

          • me1952

            I asked you to keep your sick claptrap out of my mailbox and would appreciate it if you would do so.

          • purrtriarchy

            Awwww. You don’t have a rebuttal.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Forced pregnancy also leads to ALL those types of damage. Physical; emotional; psychological and financial.

          • me1952

            Sorry, I do NOT see the comparison to the rape victim, assuming he or she even survived.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Forced pregnancy can also lead to death, in addition to all the aforementioned damage. So HOW is it different from rape again?

          • me1952

            Driving a car can lead to death along with a great deal of bodily damage.
            I hardly compare it to rape.

          • Suba gunawardana

            No one forces you to drive a car, unlike with rape or FORCED BIRTH.

          • purrtriarchy

            One rape survivor, in testimony before the Louisiana Senate Committee on
            Health and Welfare, described her son as “a living, breathing torture
            mechanism that replayed in my mind over and over the rape.” Another
            woman described having a rape-conceived son as “entrapment beyond
            description” and felt “the child was cursed from birth”; the child
            ultimately had severe psychological challenges and was removed from the
            family by social services concerned about his mental well-being. One of
            the women I interviewed said, “While most mothers just go with their
            natural instincts, my instincts are horrifying. It’s a constant,
            conscious effort that my instincts not take over.”

            The journalist Helena Smith wrote the
            story of a woman named Mirveta, who gave birth to a child conceived in
            rape in Kosovo. Mirveta was twenty years old, and illiterate; her
            husband had abandoned her because of the pregnancy. “He was a healthy
            little boy and Mirveta had produced him,” Smith writes. “But birth, the
            fifth in her short lifetime, had not brought joy, only dread. As he was
            pulled from her loins, as the nurses at Kosovo’s British-administered
            university hospital handed her the baby, as the young Albanian mother
            took the child, she prepared to do the deed. She cradled him to her
            chest, she looked into her boy’s eyes, she stroked his face, and she
            snapped his neck. They say it was a fairly clean business. Mirveta had
            used her bare hands. It is said that, in tears, she handed her baby back
            to the nurses, holding his snapped, limp neck. In Pristina, in her
            psychiatric detention cell, she has been weeping ever since.” The aid
            worker taking care of Mirveta said, “Who knows? She may have looked into
            the baby’s face and seen the eyes of the Serb who raped her. She is a
            victim, too. Psychologically raped a second time.”

            In working on my book, I went to Rwanda in 2004 to interview women who
            had borne children of rape conceived during the genocide. At the end of
            my interviews, I asked interviewees whether they had any questions for
            me, in hopes that the reversal would help them to feel less
            disenfranchised in the microcosmic world of our interview. A
            woman paused shyly for a moment. “Well,” she said, a little hesitantly.
            “You work in this field of psychology.” I nodded. She took a deep
            breath. “Can you tell me how to love my daughter more?” she asked. “I
            want to love her so much, and I try my best, but when I look at her I
            see what happened to me and it interferes.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/16/balkans

            http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/the-legitimate-children-of-rape.html

          • me1952

            You will find stories either way on pregnancy resulting from rape.
            This is violence and degradation against a human being, be it male, female, child, or old person. Whether the victim becomes pregnant, is permanently mutilated, psychologically damaged, infected with AIDS, left to die, or murdered, this is always an act of forced violence against another human being. To compare this to being unable to obtain an abortion for a non rape pregancy or to suggest its is not always an act of violence is to trivialize the horror these victims have endured.
            So, tell me which rapes aren’t violent and not quite as bad.

          • purrtriarchy

            Nope. You said that the analogy is an insult to rape victims. ALL RAPE VICTIMS.

            Talking out of your ass.

            Now, do as I say, fuckface:

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/03/the-lesbian-duplex-6-an-open-thread.html

            http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/

            Tell these many rape victims that they are WRONG to agree with suba’s analogy. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is.

          • me1952

            You are one sick twit.

          • purrtriarchy

            Is that what you think of the rape victims who agree with suba and I?

          • Suba gunawardana

            The fact that rape can be horrible does NOT make forced pregnancy good or tolerable.

            They are BOTH invasions of your body, and BOTH equally bad.

          • me1952

            Again, I won’t dignify you ignorance with a response.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Again obviously you have no answer.

          • me1952

            I gave you my answer.

          • purrtriarchy

            Go to patheos, I gave you the link, and ask actual rape victims what they think. Do it. I dare you.

          • me1952

            You might ask them if they suffered any violence.
            Do it, I dare you.

          • purrtriarchy

            I got the analogy from the rape victims sweetie. They often suffered more physical damage from pregnancy than from date rape.

          • purrtriarchy

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/03/the-lesbian-duplex-6-an-open-thread.html#comment-1415013138

            Go here and ask them.

            Also visit Freethoughtblogs specifically Pharyngula and ask the rape victims there about the rape/forced birth analogy.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Which means you have no logical response.

            To claim forced pregnancy is not like rape, is an insult to vitcims of forced pregnancy.

          • me1952

            Please Suba, keep this claptrap out of my mailbox.

          • purrtriarchy

            Go to patheos and pharyngula, dipshit. Rape victims will school your ignorant ass.

          • me1952

            Don’t talk to me about ignorance.
            A rape isn’t violent when there’s no physical damage? Please define “physical damage”.
            Maybe you need to talk to some rape victims who endured no violence and tell us what they said.

          • purrtriarchy

            Your original comment was about rape victims being violntly beaten. You made this failure of a point to try and counter the fact that pregnancy can be more physically damaging. I proved you wrong.

            Try to keep up.

          • me1952

            Absolute sicko.
            I have never read anything so appalling.

          • purrtriarchy

            So you don’t have a logical rebuttal?

            LOL

          • Suba gunawardana

            What claptrap? It is YOU who have failed to present a logical response.

          • me1952

            No Suba, I said I won’t dignify the comparison with a response.
            This comparison is demeaning and trivializing to rape victims.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You have not backed up that opinion with any logic. You have provided NO reason how forced pregnancy is different from rape. They are both invasions of your body against your will.

          • purrtriarchy

            The rape victims at patheos would disagree with you. The rape victims that you refuse to consult because you think they are disgusting, just like me?

          • me1952

            I don’t find them disgusting, my heart goes out to them.
            You see, unlike you, I would not EVER view the assaults and the horror they endured as not violent or gentle penetration. Gee, the rape wasn’t really all that bad.
            You make me gag.

          • purrtriarchy

            Please tell the rape victims at patheos and pharyngula that they make you gag.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You claim others “trivialize rape” yet here you are trivializing forced pregnancy, the exact same kind of invasion into your body.

            If you think it’s fine to force pregnancy on someone, by default you should think its OK to force sex on them too, i.e.you must think rape is OK too.

          • Rainbow Walker

            And where do you think they get those state laws from, Einstein? They interpret Federal and State Constitutions.

            If the idiots we elect make an unconstitutional law, the judiciary can correct it.

            It’s called the rule of law. A.V. Dicey was the modern interpreter of constitutional law and formed the basis of how we practice and apply.

            You seem to think rights are immobile and two dimensional. They are in fact dynamic and fluid while remaining unchanged.
            A given right in one circumstance may not apply in another. And justices must interpret the law and rights. That’s what they are there for. It’s their job. But you are right, prejudices such as
            religion and politics should not sway them. And it did far more in the past. Few were looking over their shoulder. Now the world judges them and their actions and it is far harder to be so. That’s why Scalia and his ilk’s days are numbered.

          • me1952

            Haven’t I pointed that out in several posts dipstick?
            Yes I am well aware unconstitutional laws can be challenged and have pointed that out in many posts.
            Yes justices must interpret, my point is their decisions are not divine and interpretation can be in the eye of the beholder. Decisions are criticized and supported. They do not always make the wisest or correct decisions, and decisions get challenged and overturned at the various court levels.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Touchy, aren’t we. Guess people get that way when their stupidity is revealed.

            And no dipstick, you didn’t. You said they, “There is a problem though, allowing for “interpretations” means a justice’s prejudices, politics, or personal convictions can enter into law, which they have and do.” Implying that it isn’t their job to interpret.

            And why do they usually let their personal beliefs taint the law? Religion.

          • me1952

            LOLLL. Nope not touchy at all. Don’t like it don’t dish it out.
            No dipstick, I ‘m stating the obvious. Yes they must interpret but like all of us, they are influenced by their biases, prejudices, and politics.
            Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder and not all may agree.
            Oh yes religion. Source??

          • Rainbow Walker

            Very touchy indeed. I can take it as well as I give it, shit for brains.

            As for religion and its effect on justice. I would have to write a whole book. Wait many have. Here’s one.

            Witnessing Their Faith: Religious Influence on Supreme Court Justices and Their Opinions by Jay Alan Sekulow.

            Believers cannot separate themselves from the belief, justices are no different.

          • me1952

            Still in the sandbox I see.
            Believers cannot separate themselves from their belief…?
            My but you sound a tad bigoted.

          • Rainbow Walker

            You are a child.

            Bigotry? Yes the minute we call you on your crap you cry bigotry. Much like the racist who cries reverse racism.

          • me1952

            LOL. Still in the sandbox.
            Sounds like a bigoted opinion to me. You make a blanket statement concerning all believers based on your personal prejudice.
            Now, if I made a blanket statement that all black people can or can’t do something, you would accuse me of…what?

          • Suba gunawardana

            The difference is: Skin color is a physical character you are born
            with, beyond your control. Religion/belief is something you actively CHOOSE.
            Also physical characters don’t dictate your behavior. Beliefs do, particularly blind beliefs.

          • me1952

            Please answer my question.
            If I made the blanket statement that all black people can’t do something because of their race, you would accuse me of …what?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Making generalizations based on skin color is racism.

            Making generalizations based on a person’s CHOSEN belief is not bigotry but realism.
            If a person CHOOSES to be a KKK member, he is most likely a racist. If a person CHOOSES to be part of Al Queda, they are most likely a terrorist.
            If a person CHOOSES to be a Christian, he most likely to wants to subjugate others & take away their rights.

          • me1952

            No, racism is viewing another race or ethnicity as inferior to you.
            Generalizations on a person’s chosen belief may well be bigotry, especially if those generalizations are wrong.
            A person who is a Muslim is not necessarily a terrorist. An Al Qaeda member is.
            LOLLL. Please, any idea how ignorant you sound?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Did I say every Muslim was a terrorist? Please re-read my post.

            Yes, wrong generalizations are bigotry. The generalizations I made based on people’s CHOSEN beliefs are correct and realistic.

          • me1952

            Nope, that would be bigotry and of course you are NOT bigoted, right?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Again please re-read my posts.

          • me1952

            If a person CHOOSES to be a Christian, they most likely want to subjugate others & take away their rights.
            You’re doing a great imitation of a bigot if in fact you are not one.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What are the principles of Christianity? “Women are subservient to men; Homosexuality is an abomination; Animals are here for us to use & abuse” to name just a few.
            Do you deny that these guidelines are designed to subjugate others?
            If anyone CHOOSES to follow these principles, what is bigoted about calling that choice what it is? Just stating a fact.

          • me1952

            No, not stating facts, but displaying your ignorance.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Now you are resorting to insults because you have no argument.

            If you disagree with what I said, why don’t you provide reasons?

          • me1952

            I think you have trivialized the crime of rape and its victims.

          • purrtriarchy

            Go to patheos and ask the rape victims there . do it.

            I double dare you.

          • me1952

            I want answers. You made the statements, back them up.

          • purrtriarchy

            I want you to go there because you are speaking for all rape victims. Victims who AGREE WITH ME.

          • me1952

            What does it take to convince you that I think you’re a sick twit and would appreciate you staying out of my mailbox?

          • purrtriarchy

            Why wont you speak to the rape victims at patheos? Do you not care what they think? Or in your opinion are they also sick twits?

          • Suba gunawardana

            BTW this conversation was about religion, not rape. (Not that rape is not too far from religion). I will answer anyway :)

            I’ve always fully acknowledged how horrible a crime rape is. It is YOU who refuse to acknowledge how horrible forced birth is.

            I pointed out the similarities. They are BOTH invasions of your body against your will. How is one a crime and not the other? So far you have provided no answer.

          • me1952

            I refuse to equate the inability to get an abortion to rape.
            Rape is a comparison a little too freely thrown around.
            This compares to rape, that compares to rape.
            No it doesn’t.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Your refusal makes no difference. The fact remains that both these activities involve forcible invasion of your body against your will, i.e. violation of the right to be secure in your person.

            The extent of damage caused by each activity depends on the victim. Some may feel more damaged by the rape, others by the forced pregnancy. Regardless, every person should have the right to reject BOTH types of invasion.

          • me1952

            I have told you nothing infuriates me like the trivialization of rape and the horror its victims endure. Making ridiculous comparisons like this does just that.
            A pregnancy may be difficult and a woman may go through much emotional upheavel, or it may be a very joyous occasion for her.

          • purrtriarchy

            Go to patheos and ask the rape victims for their opinion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            For the 100th time I am not saying rape is good or tolerable (NEVER said that), but that forced pregnancy is horrible.

            If you can acknowledge rape is an invasion of your body, why can’t you acknowedge forced pregnancy is the same? The problem is with YOU trivializing the horror of those victims. I have trivialized nothing.

            “A pregnancy may be difficult and a woman may go through much emotional upheavel, or it may be a very joyous occasion for her.”

            ONLY if it is consensual. NOT if it is forced. Just like sex can be the most wonderful experience when it is consensual, and the most horrible experience if it is forced upon you, i.e. RAPE.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And reproductive choices should be made by the woman who is actually pregnant.

          • me1952

            I’m saying that pregnancy should not be compared to rape. This trivialized the horror the rape victim endures.
            I’m a little tired of various life experiences being compared to rape.

          • purrtriarchy

            And rape victims disagree with you…fuckface

          • Suba gunawardana

            You have yet to provide a reason why forced pregnancy is NOT comparable to forced sex. They are both invasions of your body without your consent.

          • purrtriarchy

            “”because I say it isn’t a good analogy””

            ‘isn’t a valid rebuttal, dumbfuck

          • purrtriarchy

            Go here sweetie, and ask the rape victims – victims of violent rape and reproductive coercion, what they think of the analogy:

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/03/the-lesbian-duplex-6-an-open-thread.html

            Do it. I am subscribed to the thread, so I will see your question. Fucking do it.

            Go here too, and ask the many victims of rape, violence and abuse what they have to say about the analogy:

            http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/

            Quit talking out of your ass and speaking for rape victims. go see what they have to say. If you are unwilling to do so, it will be clear to suba and i that you are talking out of your ass and don’t have a leg to stand on. You are avoiding a proper answer because you don’t have one and you know it.

          • me1952

            Why don’t you try to talk like you have some brain function, assuming you do.
            I want you to tell me which rapes you do not consider violent.

          • purrtriarchy

            Already did. Now go to my links.

          • me1952

            Non violent gentle rape.
            You are indeed a sick twit.

          • purrtriarchy

            Tell the rape victims at patheos and pharyngula that they are sick twits too. They use the exact samr analogy. Do it.

          • me1952

            I’ve told you already I have only compassion for them.
            I’m not the one who views rape as “gentle” or “non-violent”.

          • purrtriarchy

            How can you have compasion for them when they ‘trivialize rape’ just like me?

          • Rainbow Walker

            I think we’re dealing with a teenager here. About the same mentality.

            Of course you pull the bigot card. You have no argument. Blanketed statement? I guess all the religious wars and slavery, witch hunts, crusades, sharia law, Al-Qaeda, prejudice against women, minorities and sexual orientation didn’t or doesn’t exist? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Not including all the rape, abuse and child molestation that religious people perpetrate. Not to mention the psychological studies proving religious people suffer from far more disorders. A hint: while mental illness is genetic, it is drawn to dogmas and irrational. That’s why there are so many in churches and temples. You are just pissed that someone is calling you on YOUR bigotry.

          • purrtriarchy

            I think we’re dealing with a teenager here. About the same mentality

            Shit’s been trolling all along. Hence the deliberate obtuseness.

          • me1952

            LOLLL.
            Take a belt of Jack Daniels and calm down. Also, thank you for proving my point.

          • Rainbow Walker

            Still no argument. And I guess that’s how you solve your all problems, with alcohol? Adolescence and drinking don’t mix.

            And no one is proving your point. You are just way too slow [and cruel] to understand your own bigotry.

          • me1952

            No, not at all. I just recommend a good belt to people who are just spewing a lot of venom. I figure they need to calm down and think a little more rationally.
            Also, when it comes to bigotry, the best place to start is always with a long hard look in the mirror. I would suggest you do that.
            Cruel? Do you listen to yourself?

          • Rainbow Walker

            Still no argument. Projection and leveling. I know it’s hard to face your bigotry and cruelty. That’s why you’re pissed.

            How often do you take a belt?

          • me1952

            Brilliant analysis RW.

          • Rainbow Walker

            You’re welcome. You still didn’t answer the question, which leads me to believe you just had a belt.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Did your finger get stuck on the ‘L’ key at one point or had you taken a ‘belt’ yourself? Personally I don’t care for Jack Daniels–nasty tasting stuff, and booze will not help you think more rationally.

          • me1952

            Nope, I thought what RW was quite funny. RW has a tendency to rant so I suggested a good belt before he/she has a stroke.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually, RW makes very sound and reasoned arguments that are well worth reading.

          • me1952

            Some are, yes. Others are anti religious bigoted rants. Also, he/she could dispense with the childish name calling and condescension.

          • purrtriarchy

            Pot calling the kettle black.

            You resort to insults when you are incapable of presenting us with a logical, rational rebuttal.

          • goatini

            //McCorvey was looking for recognition and respect from the feminist leadership//

            Amoral grifter McCorvey received ample recognition and respect from the feminist leadership – but she didn’t think she was getting enough dough from the reproductive justice movement, so, like Scabby Johnson, she followed the money.

            Forced-birthers seem to assume that pro-civil rights supporters are stupid like their sheeple followers, and will believe any BS they spew. We know the entire history of our movement for freedom, autonomy and justice and cannot be deceived.

          • me1952

            goatini,
            You really need to get your facts straight. This woman was pathetic in her attempts to get attention from your side. What dough?
            BTW, Weddington and Coffee had no problem with McCorvey being an amoral drifter.
            Hardly BS goatini. And yes you can be deceived. That much is obvious.

          • goatini

            My facts are completely straight, and you are here for the sole purpose of derailing and trolling.

          • me1952

            Sources on all the money she raked in??

          • goatini

            The sad truth is that we are talking about a person bereft of education, job skills, and stable work history, who without her notoriety would be lucky to be making minimum wage. Most other people of her knowledge, experience, and skill level don’t receive $1K per speaking engagement, 5-figure book advances, or tens of thousands of dollars of living expenses. The sad truth is that based on what she could earn on her own in the free market, she is indeed “rak(ing it) in”, and she most assuredly has been following the money.

          • me1952

            Again, please provide sources to substantiate your claim as to the amount of money she is “rak(ing it) in”.

          • lady_black

            You don’t really get it, do you. I don’t know if she lied or not, and I don’t care. Besides begging the question was she lying THEN, or is she lying NOW, Norma never had an abortion. So it doesn’t matter “why” she wanted one. That’s what’s known as a moot point. It was moot when Roe was argued and decided. The decision had nothing to do with whether she was raped or not. I’ve read Roe. There’s no mention of rape, just the privacy rights of a woman who wishes to end her pregnancy. She doesn’t even need to give a reason. She can say it’s none of your g-d business. That’s why her “lie” is immaterial and unimportant.

          • me1952

            You seem not to get it. According to NM, who may NOT be lying, the lawyers were looking for as pitiable case as they could find…and found her. Not an uncommon tactic for lawyers.
            OK, so if it didn’t matter, then why wasn’t this lie made public for another 20 or so years, and by NM and not her lawyers? Why weren’t they willing and ready to set the record straight from day one? Maybe because a “gang rape” victim would generate a little more sympathy?
            They needed a defendant and NM was made to order. Again I stress she was no victim, and she is the first to admit it.

          • lady_black

            Because although Norma M. served as the plaintiff in Roe, the case was NOT about her. In order to bring suit in federal court (including the SCOTUS) two conditions must be met. 1) there must be a federal or constitutional issue, and 2) the plaintiff must have standing to bring suit. That means not merely someone who ‘just doesn’t like the law’, but someone who can legitimately claim harm due to a law. Anyone who has experienced harm would do as a plaintiff. Norma M. just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and most importantly, she agreed to participate in the case. Now, the harm suffered by the plaintiff had nothing to do with the circumstances of her pregnancy or why she wanted an abortion. The harm suffered was that she wanted to end her pregnancy and wasn’t permitted to do so under Texas law. The fact that she was given ill-advised advice to claim rape doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t successful and that’s another problem with the Texas law. There is no law in Texas (or anywhere else) that says a woman must report a rape, but I digress. By the time Roe has argued, Norma M. had already given birth, thus whatever reasons she had were mute. What was argued was the law in Texas and other states and whether or not they were constitutional. For the same reason states lost in Griswold and Eisenstadt, they lost in Roe. The court essentially (and correctly) found in all three cases that there are certain spheres that are so intensely private that states had no business intruding. It was a violation of the rights of American citizens to medical privacy, and bodily autonomy. In Roe, the SCOTUS laid out exactly when the state had an interest in protecting potential life, and whether or not a rape happened, the state was intruding where it had no business being, in the bedrooms and doctor’s offices of female citizens. You can keep insisting that the holding was based on an alleged rape. It wasn’t. You can go online and read the holding in Roe. It wasn’t about rape, and it wasn’t about Norma.

          • me1952

            Absolutely, it could have been anyone. She was referred by an adoption lawyer. I never said she was any victim and neither did she. She made the choice to cooperate.
            I know it wasn’t about rape, but the more pitiable the client, the better. NM also maintains she was discouraged from getting an abortion or it could render the case moot. Apparently she was willing to cooperate and she did place the child for adoption.
            Now, was NM sent to Weddington and Coffey under false pretenses, thinking that she would be referred to an abortion. Remember the woman wasn’t very bright, and she definitely had issues. I seriously doubt she would have any idea what a constitutional lawyer is all about. Weddington and Coffey were in the market for a plaintiff, and now this waif shows up, pregnant by a “gang rape” who supposedly can’t get an abortion. What a gift.
            McCorvey claims she didn’t want to be part of any major case, she just wanted an abortion and thought Weddington would refer her. Again this woman wasn’t too bright and I suspect could be easily pulled into something she didn’t completely understand the ramifications of. Also, the lawyers didn’t seem too troubled by her ever changing stories.
            She was perfect for the lawyers’ purposes.
            Yes I’m well aware how the case was decided. Could the plaintiff and her circumstance have had an influence? We will never know.
            Interesting that in 2009 SC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg revealed in a NY Times article that she and others commonly believed that “at the time Roe was decided there was concern about population growth and the growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”.
            Just something to think about.

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

            Norma gave birth to three children and cared for none of them. One went to her Mother and two went to foster care. Norma is a sad ineffectual person who found a home and support among the forced birthers. I do not begrudge her that. She found the home and support there she could not provide herself and/or her children. Sad story all around and could have been me. I have a garden variety mental illness.

          • goatini

            The party regurgitating poisonous bile here would be you. Your irresponsible revisionism is reprehensible.

            Nathanson, like Norma McCorvey, are both amoral, venal opportunists.

          • me1952

            LOL. Facts bite don’t they?
            BTW, if anyone were the amoral opportunists, it would be Weddington and Coffee who were only too happy to exploit the drug and alcohol addled McCorvey and her situation for their purposes, which was to bring down state abortion laws. I wonder if they knew or even cared that McCorvey was lying. Its not like they couldn’t have done a little investigating and found out.
            Read Nathanson’s book. You might learn something.

          • goatini

            I’ll read amoral, venal opportunist Nathanson’s book right after I read amoral, venal opportunist Scabby Johnson’s book – when Hell freezes over. Neither of these two vile grifters or their heirs and assigns will get a dime of blood money out of me.

          • me1952

            My goodness, and to think how you should be thanking Nathanson.
            Talk about ingrates.

          • goatini

            Way to ignore the FACTS:

            Pat Maginnis, Rowena Gurner, and Lana Phelan; and Lawrence Lader, Garrett Hardin, and Lonnie Myers, are responsible for NARAL. Nathanson was only a conference speaker at the 1969 conference. Following the conference, Nathanson was only one of 12 planning committee members, and he was never on the executive committee.

            Amoral, venal opportunist Nathanson was only a bit player in the reproductive justice movement.

          • me1952

            Goatini, I can only suggest you read Nathanson’s book, written before he went to the PL side, and get your facts straight.

          • goatini

            Again: amoral, venal opportunist Nathanson was only a bit player in the reproductive justice movement. I have my facts straight. We are not the dumb sheeple that you forced-birthers are accustomed to encountering in your specious propagandizing.

          • me1952

            I understand. Facts can really bite.

          • goatini

            You don’t have any actual facts, and you ignore all facts posted here.

          • me1952

            Suit yourself.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually, from what I recall, prior to Norma switching sides she was quite a vocal pro-choice advocate and worked at a women’s clinic. Perhaps she didn’t feel that she was getting the fame she wanted, but that hardly counts as ‘discarded as white trash’.

          • me1952

            Indeed she did.
            However when she sought some respect and recognition from the feminist leadership, she was given the cold shoulder. The woman was almost pathetic in her cries for attention.
            She definitely did not get the respect, appreciation, or recognition she thought was her due. Just listen to the contempt many PC people have for her now, the very people who should be thanking her.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well, quite frankly it is kind of childish to switch sides on the basis that no one is kissing your ass enough. If I was feeling particularly cynical I’d echo Goatini and call her an opportunist.

          • me1952

            Childish or not, it is what it is. There may have been any number of reasons. We can’t know what is in someone’s mind or heart.
            I would say the true opportunists here were Weddington and Coffee. Give credit where it is due, these ladies knew when a gift was thrown in their laps.

          • fiona64

            Wow, that’s a pretty amazing fantasy you’ve concocted.

          • me1952

            Not really. Do your own research. You’d be surprised what you learn.
            In the meantime, don’t forget to say “thanks”.

          • fiona64

            So, you make fantastic claims and can’t be bothered to back them up yourself?

            Typical.

            Here’s a pro-tip for you, sweetie: when you make the affirmative claim, it’s on *you* to provide the sources. I’m not going to do your homework for you.

            Other people have already rebutted you quite effectively. So, either put up your source or go color while the adults talk.

          • me1952

            From Norma Corvey’s testimony to the Senate subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights:
            She said her attorneys, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey “needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable” She says she never intended her case to be taken to the Supreme Court on behalf a class of women.
            She testified, “Sarah and Linda were looking for somebody, anybody, to use to further their own agenda” and that she herself became their “most willing dupe”.
            McCorvey also states the lawyers had no problem with her ever changing rape story, which was a complete fallacy.
            Source: Life in the Matrix by Karen Blanks Adams

            Also, Aborting America by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Written BEFORE his conversion.

          • fiona64

            No links, I see, so we’re supposed to just take your word for it?

            That’s okay. I looked up your “sources.” Karen Blanks Adams is an anti-choice minister, so she’s dismissed for bias.

            Bernard Nathanson is likewise dismissed, for his known fakery of “The Silent Scream” alone.

            You’ll have to do much better than “because I said so,” sweetie.

            Oh, my source? Why, I’m happy to. How about the actual transcripts? http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18

            Quote (emphasis added: The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the
            pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of
            state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the
            laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.

            In other words, m’dear, the decision had nothing to do with rape whatsoever and everything to do with the right to privacy.

            Just. As. You. Have. Already. Been. Told.

          • me1952

            I gave you direct quotes and books you can check out. That’s called a source.
            LOL. The testimony of NM before the Senate is an official record and not something Adams made up.
            Also, kind of an absurd excuse to disregard what Nathanson had to say.
            I get the impression you want to believe what you want and aren’t about to let bothersome facts get in the way.
            I wasn’t discussing the decision, which I have already read, I was discussing the events leading to the decision, when NM got involved and how. I also did not say the decision said anything about rape.

          • Jennifer Starr

            But you keep trying to insinuate that Norma McCorvey’s lie about the rape somehow means that Roe v. Wade itself is invalid or ‘based on a lie’, even though nothing about the opinion mentions rape.

          • me1952

            Not insinuating anything. I’ve stated the events leading to the decision as McCorvey tells them.
            She was referred to the lawyers by an adoption lawyer or case worker that she was seeing with the understanding they would provide her with the information as to how to obtain an abortion.
            She changed her rape story time and again and this did not seem to concern her attorneys. She said they wanted as pitiable a client as they could get and she fit the bill. The drug addicted homeless little white trash pregnant by a “gang rape” who supposedly can’t get an abortion fit the bill.
            Though she was a “willing dupe” she in fact never wanted to be involved in any lawsuit and I seriously doubt she understood much of anything. In all honestly the woman wasn’t very bright, was an addict, and could certainly be easily manipulated.
            She also claims they wanted her to continue her pregnancy or risk having their case go up in smoke.
            Since we were not privy to client/lawyers conversations in this case, we can only go by what the parties tell us.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Not insinuating anything. I’ve stated the events leading to the decision as McCorvey tells them.

            Which still doesn’t prove your assertion that Roe v Wade was ‘based on a lie’.

          • me1952

            Not so much the decision itself but they way they got there. A pitiable client that can be portrayed as a rape victim left to her fate. The perfect plaintiff. The lawyers didn’t care she was lying? They certainly had to be at the least suspicious. Maybe because they thought this lie would better serve their purpose? Why didn’t they insist on the straight facts? Maybe because a pregnancy resulting from an adulterous affair doesn’t generate much sympathy.

          • lady_black

            Sweetie, her alleged rape wasn’t even part of the issue before the court. If the issue had been her individual story, the entire case would be dismissed as moot. She did not have an abortion, and had already given birth. You’re looking at a tree so hard you fail to see the forest around it. Whether she was raped or not wasn’t even part of the question being asked. So get over it.

          • me1952

            Little girl, I’m well aware of what the ruling said so I will try to make this as simple for you as possible.
            Norma McCorvey stated before the senate committee that Weddington and Coffey were looking for as pitiable a client as possible and she fit the bill….a drug addicted street waif who claims she’s pregnant by a gang rape. Of course this was a lie but why spoil a great scenario? You see, justices, like all of us, are elitist, biased, and bigoted. Like all of us they are influenced by these factors. Lawyers have always been aware that emotional appeal can go a long way. Oh sure the guy is a murderer, but he was abused as a child!
            NM claims she was discouraged from getting an abortion by the lawyers. Why do you suppose that was? Bingo. They needed this pregnant white trash rape victim who couldn’t get an abortion. Otherwise, why didn’t they bring a case sooner? Certainly NM wasn’t the only woman who supposedly couldn’t get an abortion.
            Now, SC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has stated that the elitist mentality of that era was that certain people shouldn’t be born. Gee, would that include the children of drug addicted white trash? Especially if they were the product of a gang rape?
            Now is it possible the justices were influenced by this mentality? We can’t really know can we but it looks like Weddington and Coffey were taking no chances when selecting a client. Also, Justice Ginsberg has voiced her suspicions.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So what? NONE of what you said is relevant to the ruling. If you are “well aware” of what the ruling said, you would know that it said nothing about rape, and has nothing to do with a rape exception.

            So why do you keep harping on the rape? It is IRRELEVANT.

          • me1952

            Suba, lawyers play on the emotions and prejudices of juries and judges. No one is immune.
            That is why a pitiable client like NM was essential, to appeal to emotion and bias. Even SC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had her suspicions as to what motivated the justices decisions, given the mentality of that era that “certain groups” shouldn’t be reproducing.
            I well remember how bias against poor women having children was very open and blatant. Who’s to say the justices did not have such biases of their own?
            Of course the justices will say it was all based on legalities, but that doesn’t rule out their being influenced by their biases or the “pitiable” client. I have no doubt Weddington and Coffey planned their strategy very carefully, and it started with picking the “right” client.

          • lady_black

            First, I’m not a little girl. Second, I’ve read and studied the case and none of the nonsense you’ve stated here is even mentioned in the case. McCorvey is a confused liar. She was NOT discouraged from getting an abortion by her lawyers. She was not permitted to have one by Texas law and was unsuccessful in obtaining an illegal abortion (yes, she did attempt to get an illegal abortion, but the place she went to was closed down). Ginsburg said no such thing. No matter if the plaintiff was the married daughter of the Mayor of Dallas, the end result would have been the same due to established legal precedent. Because of Griswold and Eisenstadt wherein the SCOTUS had already ruled that a right of privacy exists in reproductive matters, how could the court rule otherwise? They could only acknowledge a state interest in the health of the mother prior to viability. Post viability, of course the state has an interest in preserving fetal life. A requirement to continue being pregnant prior to viability amounts to involuntary servitude to the state, AND violates a woman’s right to decide her own medical matters. McCorvey may truly fantasize that she was some sort of gift to her lawyers, but she is wrong. Any woman who wished to end her pregnancy would have done equally well. Our constitution requires equal legal protection for all citizens. Not one standard for stable persons and another for “pitiful” persons. At the time Roe was argued, Norma was not claiming she had been raped. Now PLEASE stop making shit up. It doesn’t work here.

          • me1952

            Well little girl, I’m not your “sweetie” so let’s call it a tie.
            Also my point is that justices, like all of us can be influenced by their biases.
            NM was a “confused liar”? Her lawyers didn’t know this? They didn’t question the “gang rape” story that repeatedly changed? Why do you suppose that is? Also, we weren’t privy to conversations between lawyers and client so we can only go by what the parties involved tell us. Do we know for a fact her lawyers didn’t advise her to continue her pregnancy? Unless we sat in on their conversations, we can’t know either way, right?
            Stop and think, why would they pick some half literate street waif like NM? Certainly they could have had their pick of intelligent, educated women. Maybe because NM couldn’t read half of what was put in front of her? Maybe because she was easy to manipulate? Maybe because the emotional appeal of a “gang raped” drug addled street waif would have such emotional appeal to the judges and public alike?
            Sure the justices based their decision on legalities, what else would you expect them to do? Does that mean they could not be influenced by their biases and the lawyers took this into consideration when selecting a client? How long was the public fed this lie?
            Back in the 60′s, when attempting to get abortion legal, the local medical society asked the segregationist governor of a southern state how he would feel about the white woman impregnated by the black rapist not being able to get an abortion. Its obvious what’s going on here. Appeal to emotions and prejudice. I maintain this was the strategy of Weddington and Coffey in selecting NM, and believe it could very well have influenced the justices, as did Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
            BTW, I do hope you are grateful to Norma.

          • fiona64

            I get the impression you want to believe what you want and aren’t about to let bothersome facts get in the way.

            I can only surmise that you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that. ::shrug::

          • me1952

            Nope, in fact I was addressing you.

          • fiona64

            The anti-choice really don’t like it when facts get in the way of their screeds, do they?

          • lady_black

            Is this the same Nathanson who produced the bad joke in film format known as “The Silent Scream?” Customarily I don’t buy books written by proven liars, and I seriously doubt that I could learn something other than more lies.

          • me1952

            Yes, that’s him.
            He wrote the book long before his conversion, and the making of The Silent Scream.
            Personally, reading the book I found the man totally obnoxious and can see where he was a force to be reckoned with when it came to getting abortion legalized. Definitely someone you wanted on your side.

          • fiona64

            One little problem; you haven’t presented an intelligent argument.

          • me1952

            All in the POV

          • goatini

            No facts behind your “POV”.

          • me1952

            Please point out the fallacies then.

          • goatini

            Correct. Nathanson was only a bit player, and now that he’s turned fascist, any credibility he may have had is now utterly gone.

          • Arekushieru

            No, you’re NOT just saying to stop expecting the abuse to stop. Don’t you actually read what you write? Your assumption is also that they shouldn’t expect SYMPATHY for getting a reaction that they should have fully expected. You are aware that by creating a cause and effect, where an expected reaction leads to a lack of sympathy, you are creating an expectation that one is responsible for the other. Except that the only ones who are responsible for a behaviour are those that created the behaviour. Since Ms. Sherman is invested in actively opposing abortion stigma she could not have had a hand in creating it. Therefore, 100% of the responsibility for any of the reactions that are generated by the anti-choice side fall completely in their lap. Meaning that there is no cause and effect between expected reactions and sympathy.

            Also. you are not implying a similar cause and effect for the anti-choice when they garner a reaction from those who tell their abortion stories to their hateful vitriol. Why the double standard? After all, it could just as (if not MORE) EASILY be said that they will not change our way of thinking either. Oops.

            Besides, you are aware that abortion rights and destigmatization are a part of WOMEN’S rights… right… right??? How do you think women gained rights, in the first place? By keeping silent and not expecting sympathy because of the reaction they should have fully expected? Suffragettes, anyone? They succeeded because they did NOT keep silent and because they DID garner sympathy for their cause. And, really, it didn’t take that long for the war to be won, from start to finish. Oops.

            My point about the reaction antis should expect and thus not receive sympathy for it, proves to be even more true than yours, when you realize (apparently for the first time) that abortion was legal for much longer and long before it was illegal! Double oops?

            Good thing the author isn’t as contradictory as you, either. If this is such a polarizing issue that it will bring out dangerous people, why DO you think it is more likely that there AREN’T millions of women who want to tell their abortion stories but are too afraid than that there are?

          • me1952

            Like I said, tell whoever you want about your business, even if its millions of strangers. Don’t expect me to feel sorry for you attract the attention of some very dangerous people.
            My reaction would be the same if you told me you are in the habit of inviting complete strangers off the street and into your home and sharing your business with them.

          • fiona64

            In other words, “What was the rape victim wearing?”

          • me1952

            Nope, nothing to do with rape and everything to do with sharing your business with millions of strangers.

          • fiona64

            I know, right? Me1952, Mack, and the other anti-choicers who come here quite clearly care — because women are having the audacity to behave in ways of which they don’t approve, and must be shown “the error of their ways,” forceably, if necessary.

            They claim that they’re “nice guys,” but they’re rape culture write large.

          • purrtriarchy

            Me1952 says that we are ‘sick twits’ for making an analogy between rape and forced pregnancy. See, it speaks for all rape victims and only it is not trivializing rape, unlike us.

            It is incapable of offering up a rational response and can only insult. I told it to go to LJF and talk to actual victims of rape about the analogy but it refuses to do so. I guess it knows better than all of us.

          • goatini

            Both Mack and me1952 obviously have the expectation that all females must, and will, accede to any and all of their patriarchal BS hate speech against female citizens’ rights to reproductive justice, that’s for sure. They think if they bluster enough (Mack), or if they post their uninformed opinions and specious agendas as “facts”, over and over and over again (me1952), they can bully the female truth-tellers into silence.

            I’m pretty sure that me1952 doesn’t have, and hasn’t had for a long time, a woman. And I’m also pretty sure that Mack’s woman was, shall we say, acquired from a distance in a transactional manner. So they’re not used to having their male privilege challenged.

          • purrtriarchy

            me1952 claims to be a woman
            yet denies the physical pain and damage of pregnancy, even though she claimed that she was unable to sit for days after her last pregnancy

          • goatini

            I can say with relative certainty that me1952 is NOT female.

          • fiona64

            If Me1952 is a woman, I’m the Queen of Sheba.

          • Arekushieru

            You DO understand that there is a difference between a victim of an action and FEELING like a victim, right… right???

          • me1952

            Sure. Why, don’t you?

          • Arekushieru

            Again, victim-blamer. The only ones who make victims are the perverts, weirdoes (spell checker doesn’t like that spelling of the word, btw, and I knew that before I checked), ding-a-lings, etc… that YOU say putting your business out there attracts. But you are saying that they can complain about someone else’ business and not be called out for it, then turning around and saying that victims can’t complain about the business of the ones who victimized them and not be called out for that. Hmm, wonder why THAT is, bigot?

          • me1952

            Let me make it simple for you. Your “victim” needs to put on her big girl panties and understand that actions have consequences.
            The world is full of people who aren’t very nice. When any of us put our business out there for millions of people to read, we better be prepared, people can get very nasty, and not whine like schoolchildren about how we’ve been picked on.
            Sure she can complain about people who “attack” her. But hey, those people are out there and if you’re going to make your business known then you better have a very tough skin, as well as the courage of your convictions. I don’t condone harassment and threats, I’m well aware its a fact of life.

          • Arekushieru

            Ah, yes, so, therefore, you are ADMITTING you don’t understand Suba’s analogy, but claiming you do, then pretending that Suba is the one who doesn’t understand. Nice. Let me put it in simple terms so that even YOU will understand. In this analogy, lack of sympathy equals rape culture. Walking down a dangerous back alley is sharing your abortion story. Getting raped is *equivalent* to garnering an expected anti-choice reaction to sharing an abortion story. So we should just expect women to deal with rape culture because they should have expected the consequences of walking down a dark alley?

            I understand that my actions have consequences but I do not understand why I can not expect sympathy from others, regardless, because that then makes it clear that those who respond to actions such as the author’s should also receive a similar lack of sympathy, otherwise, it’s a… double standard? Oh….

          • me1952

            Can you stop babbling and get to your point?

          • Arekushieru

            If you aren’t acknowledging that, then why say it in the first place? Methinks you are very CONFUSED. Besides, it proves my earlier points. Judgmental of the victims, not so much the ones who actually victimize. Which leaves me wondering why you called Suba’s rape analogy absurd? Maybe you’re just that desperate. Wouldn’t surprise me.

            Btw, your nasty way of writing is very familiar, so is the screen name. Just because it’s been awhile since that name has been on here doesn’t mean no one remembers it. Oops.

          • me1952

            The harassers could be anyone who gets their sick thrills harassing and threatening people, whether its about abortion or anything else.
            The “victim” made a choice, to tell the world her story. Fine with me, but when we put our business out there for the world to read we may get feedback we don’t like. We may hear from some very unsavory people who get their sick thrills from harassing and threatening people. That doesn’t justify anything, it states a fact.
            I called her analogy absurd because that is exactly what it is.
            BTW, I’ve never been on this site so your memory is a little foggy to say the least.
            What your “victim” needs to do is put on her big girl panties and understand that actions have consequences. If she wants to put her business out there for the world to read, go for it. But keep in mind millions of people are reading it and not all of them may be the most savory of people.

    • CJ99

      You’ve implicated as all of the above so if anyone should shut the fuck up its you.

      • me1952

        Again, say what?

        • CJ99

          And again your a socially maladjusted idiot, get lost. This is not the 1st time you’ve heard either.

          • me1952

            Well, you are beginning to make some sense but you still need to work at it. Better luck next time.

  • goatini

    If “me” had his way, domestic violence would still be condoned.

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

      So would ‘fag bashing.”

  • AmyE

    Sorry, I’m late to this article. That’s really brave of you posting of your abortion. I haven’t had an abortion, but if I did I’d be way too scared to say it on the internet and I’d definitely not say it in real life when I see how mean and at times stalkerish some people can be when they learn of these choices. Also, on the discussion of possible stalking, it was really classy of you to keep your insulter’s email anonymous. I wish you and the rest of the 1/3 the best of luck in progressing reproductive rights through your stories. :)

    • Guest

      i do not want to hurt anyone. I am scared. I cannot let scared keep me from action or from being me. I would have no life. I am scared a lot of the time.

      • catseye

        The definition of bravery is living your truth when you are absolutely petrified with fear. If you don’t let scared keep you from action or from being you, believe it; you are the essence of brave.

    • lady_black

      You realize that being scared is counterproductive, right. The more women who speak out about themselves, or other women they know, and tell the stories, the less scary it becomes. We succeeded in bringing the abortion procedure out of the back alleys, but allowed it to remain in the social back alley, and that’s dangerous.

  • goatini

    Doesn’t bother me at all. Anyone who comes to a reproductive justice website to deliberately troll, with vicious radical misogynistic hate speech against the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice, deserves every insult and every flag they receive. I don’t tolerate that garbage EVER.

  • Kathleenicorn

    “Charming” lol!

    you go girl! xo

  • Amanda Purdy

    I had 2 abortions.
    1 when I was 17 because my boyfriend at the time beat the hell out of me , a lot. I was sscared he would hurt the baby too. The process and coping with the choice was at times unbearable but it was for the best. I couldn’t put my son up for adoption because he refused to sign . I had no choice. I to this day wish my baby boy a Happy birthday every year. I named him Jacob Keith. I still have his sonogram pictures.

    My son Caleb Michael was aborted as well. Caleb was not well. He would have not made it long after birth and would have suffered terribly. I couldn’t bare having my sweet baby, let him suffer and pass on. As a mom letting him suffer would be a grave injustice for him. After endless talks and thousands of tears my partner and I made the heart wrenching choice to abort him.

    I have a 12 yr old girl and a 4 yr old girl. It’s not that I didn’t want my kids because I obviously did as I had 2 more angels. I made the decision that was best for them. Not me. People don’t understand what many women and couples go thru when the decide to go thru this decision. It’s the worst and best choice I’ve ever made. It doesn’t make me a terrible person. There is no reason why anyone should wish death upon me. A part me already died when I made the choice I made.

    I will leave you all with this :
    “Every year I get balloons with my baby’s name handwritten on each one and it says Happy birthday, mommy loves you. When it reaches Heaven my babies know they are loved” -Amanda Purdy

  • Mack

    “So, no, you do NOT know what your wife might actually think or do. You are not the Amazing Kreskin.”

    I never claimed that I was.

    My wife would never have an abortion. Period.

    We knew each other inside and out before I finally dropped to my right knee and asked her for her hand. I knew her favorite color, her favorite gemstone, her favorite muscle car, her favorite food, her favorite president, and even what her favorite highs school teacher’s name was.

    One thing we discussed was abortion because I wanted to spend my life with a wonderful woman who did not believe in killing humans who have a heartbeat at 6 weeks, and have hiccups at 2 months. If she did, I would have kept searching for someone who didn’t.

    That being said, she does not believe in abortion. Period. I know what she believes, despite your assertions to the contrary.

    • fiona64

      No, you only know what she *told you.* There is a difference.

      • Mack

        Oh, so now you are calling her a liar? We do not lie to each other, and we have no secrets between us.

        Deception is not one of our mutual virtues…

        • fiona64

          No, I’m just telling the truth. You only know what she told you; you do not know what she thinks … despite your clear assumptions to the contrary.

          • Mack

            You do not know how much we think alike. I can finish her sentences, and she mine. We could have been twins separated at birth, except for our differences in heritage and our differences in our age.

            I am sorry that you do not have the same type of soul-to-soul relationship with your partner that we share together. Some people actually do, Why do you find that so hard to believe?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Some people certainly do, but it’s hard to believe that YOU do, considering you keep bragging about empty gestures such as flowers & making other women jealous.

            People with true soul-to-soul connections won’t even think of shallow crap like that, let alone use them as bragging points.

          • fiona64

            ::yawns in the face of angry little man who thinks he has to prove something to strangers on the internet::