Four Ways to Create Culture Change Around Abortion


Take a moment to think back to where you were in November 2010. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 1 was in theaters. The song you couldn’t get enough of (or get away from) was Ke$ha’s “Tik Tok.” In the political world, the Tea Party had just ascended to legislative power and a slew of anti-choice governors came into office.

Dismayed and depressed by this political turn, I wanted to do something, anything, to show that although they’d won in the polls, anti-choice advocates weren’t winning in the streets. Or, in this case, online. I read a blog post comparing “coming out” about abortion and “coming out” about being gay. It seemed like an easy formula in my mind: “coming out” = culture change.

At the time, using Twitter as a tool for social change was still a relatively new strategy, and I wanted to give it a shot. So I sent the tweet that you see above. I didn’t know what would happen, but I didn’t think it would be a big deal. I actually sent the tweet and then headed to the gym.

Over the course of the day, there were over 10,000 tweets on the hashtag #ihadanabortion. At first, the hashtag accompanied tweets in which people shared their own abortion experiences. Later, anti-choice advocates joined in to shame people sharing their stories on the hashtag. And then came the media. Stories about the hashtag appeared everywhere from feminist-leaning outlets like Jezebel and Salon to mainstream media like CNN and the Washington Post. I had no idea this would happen. Obviously the hashtag struck a nerve, and I was excited.

Starting a trending topic on Twitter led me to think more deeply about what creating culture change really means. Seeing thousands of tweets on a hashtag you start feels pretty incredible. But what happens the next day, the next week, or the next month? I had what shame expert Brene Brown calls the “vulnerability hangover.” Starting the hashtag felt great. And then I woke up the next day thinking, “What did I do??” I asked all these people to talk about their abortions only to be attacked by anti-abortion activists and ridiculed by mainstream media?

I really wanted to claim that my hashtag made a difference, but I didn’t have concrete evidence. I knew I had made a difference in the lives of a few dozen women and perhaps demonstrated the power of social media. But I kept wondering if I actually affected the broader stigma system. Did I contribute to changing the big picture?

Looking back, my hashtag was based on a simplistic understanding of culture change. In the wake of the media coverage of the hashtag, I began to deepen my understanding of culture change strategies by studying other social justice movements. What I learned validated my frustration with the seemingly ephemeral nature of my online activism; it turns out you often can’t create meaningful, lasting culture change alone and in one day. But my investigation also solidified my belief that culture change efforts are imperative to the policy and health-care access work that our movement is doing. Ignoring culture change to focus on policy and health care may garner some short-term wins, but leaves you without a long-term aspirational vision for change. In other words, a movement that is built only on two legs—policy and health-care access—cannot stand. We need that third leg: culture change.

Culture refers to our beliefs, customs, and norms and how these factors vary by age, race, ethnicity, religion, and other demographic factors. In order to achieve our vision of a world in which all people have the rights, resources, and respect to make their own decisions about their reproductive lives, we need to have a sophisticated approach to culture change. We need to invest in innovation, invention, discovery, and contact.

What exactly do culture change strategies do and how can they add to policy strategies as we move forward our vision?

Address silence, shame, and fear. People keep silent about their abortions for many reasons, including for fear of the consequences of coming out. Culture change initiatives such as private support groups can address this fear by giving people who’ve had stigmatized experiences a chance to connect with each other in a private space. This allows people to come out of isolation and increase their sense of connection to people who understand their experience. It also gives people an immediate support group to aid them in figuring out if and how to disclose their experiences to loved ones in their lives.

Increase visibility. Many stigmatized experiences are concealable—you can’t tell by looking at someone that they’ve had an abortion. So many people don’t realize that they likely know someone who’s had an abortion. Increasing the visibility of marginalized reproductive experiences (such as filming your abortion for millions to see) shows that people who have stigmatized experiences are normal, familiar, and acceptable. Once people know that someone close to them is affected by these experiences, they are likely to be more empathetic toward that experience. This can only mean positive outcomes for us in the policy realm.

Transform negative attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes. Culture change strategies aim to transform the attitudes and beliefs that contribute to stigma, often by raising awareness about personal experiences. Culture change also addresses discrimination, emphasizing changing behavioral norms in communities and institutions, including behaviors like shaming, not providing services, or condemning people from the pulpit. Creative community- and institutional-level interventions can address these norms, and measure whether targeted attitude change around abortion leads to different behavior at the polls.

Deconstruct myths and misperceptions. This might include misperceptions about the acceptability of judgmental attitudes toward abortion, or myths about the way abortion is provided. In some communities, the public perception is that most people are anti-abortion, but the reality is that, when asked, most people say they would support a friend or family member who needed an abortion. What would happen if you exposed this misperception? If we let people know that they are not alone in their beliefs? What kind of policy change would be possible if we asked questions such as, “How do you think a person who’s had an abortion should be treated?” instead of asking if abortion should be legal? If we stopped asking people to judge the morality or legality of the decisions of their friends and family members and instead asked them to provide support? How many people could we welcome into the pro-choice and reproductive justice communities and activate to create policy change?

Culture change is distinct from policy change and health-care access, but it’s just as important. It’s difficult to imagine long-term policy gains without doing the hard work to change norms, beliefs, and behavior. We’ve seen first-hand that without culture change, no policy change will be long lasting. We have Roe v. Wade, yet that certainly hasn’t guaranteed the right to accessing an abortion in the United States. As we get ready to gear up for another presidential election, we have to remember to prioritize culture change. It’s time to make shift happen.

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

Follow Steph Herold on twitter: @StephHerold

  • Rita, Canberra

    You have sketched out an awesome strategy, but I doubt it can be successful.

    It was exactly the 60’s and 70’s strategy adopted by the original
    ‘pro-choice’ feminists.

    And as we know a soufflé never rises twice.

    The original success can be attributed to the religious zeal with which women were coached to deny the humanity of the “bunch of cells” being aborted.

    But 50 years of advancement in women’s education has brought more objective and independent critical thinking. Education has brought us to recognition of the scientifically verifiable humanity of the victims of abortion. Biology, embryology, fetal surgery, ultrasound
    technology, and examination of the human remains of an abortion all tell us that the “contents of the uterus”, selected to be aborted, is a human being, belonging to the human family, a human being who even at the earliest stages can be identified as a daughter or son, a ‘who’ not a generic ‘thing’.

    It is the crazy mixed-up anti-scientific reconstruction of the fetus by an aging ideology that is now being rejected by growing numbers of educated women and girls all around the
    world.

    • Shan

      “The original success can be attributed to the religious zeal with which women were coached to deny the humanity of the “bunch of cells” being aborted.”

      No, it can’t. If you were there at the time and that’s what you took away from it, you either got the wrong message or you were with the wrong people and you’ve been deaf and blind to the happenings over the past 40 years.

      Also? What you’ve said has nothing to do with the article.

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

        Correct. The original success was in part created by clergy working for reproductive justice. Clergy took out an ad in the NYT announcing they were going to help women access safe abortions though they were still illegal.

    • purrtriarchy

      Nope.

    • lady_black

      You DO realize that the humanity of the fetus is 1) not in dispute, nor was it ever in dispute, and 2) is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Right?

      • Shan

        “I’m having an abortion because I’m worried it might be a platypus.”

        Said no woman, ever.

        • lady_black

          Outside of the movie “The Fly” that never happened.

          • Shan

            LOL! Ack, I forgot about that. Except, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a platypus…

      • Rita, Canberra

        Wrong. The humanity of the fetus is critically relevant to the legality of abortion.
        The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has “recognized” that all children are entitled to “legal protection before as well as after birth” (See UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child; also UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).

        “Every human being has the inherent right to life…” International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6 (1). To be eligible for membership of the human family, one has only to be human.

        • Jennifer Starr

          More non-binding UN resolution chatter. This has always been a silly argument, Rita.

          • Rita, Canberra

            The US ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 8th June 1992.

            There was no reservation to the ICCPR, Article 6 (1) “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”.

            There was certainly no reservation to the effect that the US Constitution precludes legal protection and legal recognition as human beings of unborn children at risk of elective abortion. Indeed, one of the reservations that were made by the US formally excepted “a pregnant woman” (and implicitly her unborn child) from capital punishment. Reservation No.2 , in reference to Article 6(5) reads: “The United States reserves the right, subject to its constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.” (Apr 2, 1992).

          • Jennifer Starr

            And yet abortion is legal, Rita. Not just in the US but in many other countries. And since the UN has not imposed any sanctions upon us or any other country where abortion is legal, they would appear to disagree with your ‘interpretation’. Why is that?

          • Rita, Canberra

            Part of the answer lies in the distortion wrought by a new ideology, a feminist revolution, that rebelled against the historical fact that the whole architecture of modern international human rights law is deontologically based on human rights principles that are inalienable.

            The drafters of the Universal Declaration built the whole structure of international human rights law on the agreed premise that
            human rights are logically antecedent to the rights enumerated in various systems of positive law and are held independent of the state.They established that human rights “constitute a law anterior and superior to the positive law of civil society”.

            They looked at the Nazi’s dehumanization of Jews and other “undesirable” groups such as gypsies, and the “mentally deficient” and children of “inferior” physical or mental status.

            They looked at the Nazi abortion programs to eradicate Jewish children and the children of migrant workers, and Aryan children not “racially perfect”, they saw that these children were condemned as having “negative value”.

            They saw in Nazi Germany and the Occupied territories the abysmal failure of law courts to protect the
            “unwanted”. At the Nuremberg Trials, the utilitarianism of the Nazi’s positivist laws that clothed atrocities in “lawfulness” was rejected and condemned.
            The drafters of the Universal Declaration too rejected the legal positivism that had emerged in the 20thcentury. They saw clearly that legal positivism had proved hopelessly inadequate to protect vulnerable human beings from shifting laws newly coined to advance popular new ideologies.
            For western governments like the US, one hand didn’t know what the other hand was doing. While the lawyers on the US delegation to the UN had negotiated language and agreed on the
            international human rights obligations of their governments, no one, it seems, had briefed the US Supreme Court justices who on privacy grounds withdrew legal protection from unborn children at risk of arbitrary deprivation of life. [Privacy cannot be invoked to conceal human right abuses on children, including violations of their rights to prenatal care, survival and development.]
            Regrettably, despite the solemn promise of ‘never again’, ideologues have reverted to more accommodating positivist law.

          • purrtriarchy

            The UN declaration of human rights is only concerned with those who are born. Sorry, you lose.
            And in fact, you ignorant shit, the UN considers abortion and contraception access to b a human right because millions of girls are subjugated to fetuses by sick fucks such as yourself who only see women as breeding machines and nothing more.

          • Cactus_Wren

            “All human beings are BORN free and equal in dignity and rights.”

            http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

          • Rita, Canberra

            You are right to urge us to note the word “born” in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

            The background to the use of the word ‘born’ is fascinating. The drafting records show that before this word was introduced it had already been agreed that unborn children were entitled to human rights protection.

            The true historical context for retaining the word ‘born’ in the final text was a fierce philosophical debate on another issue altogether that had been conducted over many sessions. The real debate was about whether rights are granted by governments or are ‘endowed’ and ‘inherent’ by ‘nature’.

            This great debate was resolved with the adoption of the inherency view of human rights and this was confirmed in very clear terms by Charles Malik, who was chairman of ECOSOC and of the Third Committee that steered the Universal Declaration to its conclusion:

            “Then in Article I human beings are said to be ‘born free and equal in dignity and rights.’ Certainly the word ‘born’ means that our freedom, dignity and rights are natural to our being and are not the generous grant of some external power. Finally, Article I goes on to say that human beings ‘are endowed with reason and conscience.’ Obviously, the word ‘endowed’ can only mean that our nature is such that we originally possess those rights and freedoms.”

            In other words, there is no permission in Article 1 to pretend that children have to be born to be entitled to human rights protection.

            On the contrary, it is being human that confers human rights–not the act of being born.

          • purrtriarchy

            It isn’t being human that confers human rights, otherwise we would never disconnect the braindead from life support or let anencephalic babies die.

          • Cactus_Wren

            Are you always this good at providing citations?

          • purrtriarchy

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisella_Perl

            Was Gisella pearl a Nazi in your opinion? Should she have hung at nurnberg? Is she a mass murderer in your estimation? Is she guilty of human rights abuses?

          • cjvg

            No it was agreed that the women carrying these unborn “children” were entitled to human protection, and that that protection extended to their wanted pregnancies!

            Big difference, regardless of your perceptions and beliefs women are human beings entitled to full human rights and that includes the ownership of their own bodies to do with as they see fit, as well as to have full and sole say over their reproductive rights

          • cjvg

            So they looked at a history of treating human beings horrible.
            Human beings who were already born and concluded that that must stop, and you conclude that that is why they are against abortion?
            Never mind that the UN has, in no uncertain words, stated that access to abortion is a human right, this is your conclusion?
            Children are humans who are already born, before that science medical knowledge and reality calls them zygotes embryo’s fetus’s depending on level of development.
            Sigh,
            logic, reason, reading comprehension, ears, who needs that if you can just conclude what you want.

          • Rita, Canberra

            At Niremberg, condemnation of abortion was not simply limited to the practice of forced abortions but extended to voluntary abortions as well. James McHaney, the prosecutor of the RuSHA/Greifelt Case, in his summation called abortion an “inhumane act” and an “act of extermination” and stated that even if a woman’s request for abortion was “voluntary’, abortion was still “a crime against humanity”. It is part of the Nuremberg record of the trial testimony that the unborn are considered as human beings subject to the protection of the law: “…protection of the law was denied to the unborn children…” In addition, the Nazi record of decriminalizing abortion in Poland and the Eastern Territories was singled out at the Nuremberg Trials for severe censure.

            The crime of “encouraging abortions” was widely condemned by the international community. The British Medical Association’s June 1947 submission War Crimes and Medicine reaffirmed, under the “Ethics” heading, “the duty of curing, the greatest crime being co-operation in the destruction of life by murder, suicide and abortion”. The World Medical Association’s Geneva Declaration 1948 proclaims:

            ‘ will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat; I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity’.

            Regarding the term “compelling abortions”, it is important to note that it is the abortion itself that is an atrocity against human life from the time of conception. Compulsion is an additional factor of rights violation but it is clear from the Nuremberg records that it does not constitute the whole violation.

          • purrtriarchy

            Tell us Rita, were the Jewish women in the concentration camps also evil Nazis? Because they routinely aborted their rape pregnancies. They were raped and impregnated by the SS. These women aborted the unwanted pregnancies.

            So, were pregnant Jewish women of the holocaust also Nazis according to you? Should they too have been executed for war crimes? Yes or no?

          • Rita, Canberra

            The pregnancies were even more unwanted by the SS. Routine practice in the camps required that as soon as a pregnancy was detected by the authorities, an abortion was immediately forced upon each and every pregnant women. The camp physicians were employed to ensure that no woman could hide her pregnancy or protect her unborn child.

            Dr. Tessa Chelouche, in a recent article “Doctors, Pregnancy, Childbirth and Abortion during the Third Reich” (Israel Medical Association Journal), addresses this terrible situation in the extermination camps. Yet she expresses some ambivalence
            about the morality of abortion today:

            “Abortion may or may not be a morally defensible act, but it is a different act from that of doctors purposely killing fetuses and newborn babies in order to preserve Nazi racial purity. I will show how pregnancy, childbirth and abortion were used as weapons of mass destruction by physicians, who had been supposedly trained to
            heal, in their zeal to unquestionably comply with the political paradigm of the time.”

          • purrtriarchy

            Wrong. If the SS was really so concerned about ending every pregnancy the woman would not have had to self induce abortions.

            And you did not answer the question. Were the concentration camp victims who aborted as evil as the Nazis? Yes or no???

            Answer. Please. No more evasions.

          • cjvg

            Wait you just told me these women had choices and could voluntary choose an abortion?!

            From your reply;”even if a woman’s request for abortion was “voluntary’, abortion” Now you tell me that all pregnancies were forced! Can’t have it both ways!

          • Rita, Canberra

            No, you are confusing two entirely different situations:1. women in concentration camps where abortions were mandated and performed by the camp’s doctors (some of whom were themselves Jewish); 2. the situation of women of Poland and the Eastern Territories both at home and as women workers in Germany.

            “Abortions on Polish women in the General Government were also encouraged by the withdrawal of abortion case from the jurisdiction of the Polish courts. The defendants Greifelt, Creutz, Meyer-Hetling, Schwarzenberger, Hofmann, Hildebrandt, Schwalm, Huebner, Lorenz, and Brueckner are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes” (Nuremberg Trials Record)

            At the Nuremberg Trials, Prosecutor McHaney stated:
            “The Nazi theories of race led logically to a concern with pregnancies among Eastern women working in Germany and the incorporated Polish territories. As a means of biologically weakening the Eastern nations and of keeping the women
            available as labor, an abortion program was decided upon.”

            The fact that the Nazi authorities had removed abortion from Polish domestic law did not nullify the fact that abortion was still judged “a crime against humanity”. This was in accord with the working
            definition:

            “Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination…and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war… whether or not in violation of the
            domestic law of the country where perpetrated.”
            This fundamental principle of international human rights law is being violated today in those countries where routine widespread abortion is ‘lawful’ but profoundly inhumane and unjust.

          • purrtriarchy

            So every woman who has EVER had an abortion is a Nazi, according to you?

            Is that the point you are trying to make?

          • Rita, Canberra

            No, of course not.

            I am saying that both Nazi abortion programs and today’s abortion
            programs are predicated on ideologically based political paradigms that deny legal protection to selected unborn children.

          • purrtriarchy

            Women have been ending pregnancies for thousands of years.

          • Rita, Canberra

            And men have been ending the lives of women for thousands of years.

            That’s why we need to strive so hard to get the rule of law right.

          • purrtriarchy

            Forced pregnancy = subjugation of women,for thousands of years

            Which is what you support. Enslaving women.

          • goatini

            Women have already been born.

          • cjvg

            Women and girls lives count for more then potentials is ideologically wrong according to you?
            Glad we do not live in your ideal world.

            Do you even realize that women are real existing aware sentient lives that are here NOW. Your claim of respect for every life rings especially false and disingenuous when you deliberately discount women’s and girls lives by placing any potential lives that might NEVER actualize above theirs. How can you claim that is respecting life with a straight face

          • Rita, Canberra

            A woman’s little daughter in her womb also already exists here NOW. She is not a potential human being, but already a human being with potential.

            With astonishing accuracy, we can locate the child within definite co-ordinates of space and time.

            A mother is able as never before to see her child through an ultrasound window to the womb. Her child is already here; she sees a lively and purposeful presence; she can hear a heartbeat that is not her own.

          • purrtriarchy

            Rita, explain to us the difference between ‘human’ and ‘human being’.

          • cjvg

            You are completely insane. Until the gestational age of 26-29 weeks is reached the cerebral cortex is not fully functional so in effect the lights are on but no one is home.

            The cerebral cortex houses the consciousness of a human being, without consciousness we are merely a sack of meat and bones with involuntary reflexes (if far enough developed) Exactly like a beating heart cadaver these fetuses do not exhibit the brain activity needed to be considered alive like the woman in question is alive!

            It is perfectly legal and acceptable to disconnect life support for being in that condition from life support this brain dead organism will die! it is also perfectly legal and acceptable to use humans in that condition for organ harvesting if that human gave permission for that when he/she was alive!

            However because a human being in that condition is no longer alive, a living relative can countermand their previously expressed wish. Why, well because the beating hearth cadaver is dead and as such the wishes of the living supersede those of the dead! Much like the wishes of the living women supersede those non existing wishes of a fetus that is not even alive yet!

            Obviously you still have not produced any of the links I requested or even produced one single answer to the questions I posed to you.

            Are you completely unable to respond in a coherent and logical manner? If so (and you certainly do an excellent job of making it look like that) do not bother posting any more of your irrelevant unproven and unsupported gooblegook. I have no intention wasting time on someone who is barely above the intelligence of my bunny, and not nearly as cute

          • goatini

            NOT a person, NOT a citizen, and has NO rights.

            Rights accrue to persons at birth.

          • goatini

            Research Gisela Perl with the same zeal with which you research the minutiae of embryology.

          • JamieHaman

            goatini, thanks for sharing Gisela Perl. I had no idea. Fascinating, and heartbreaking.

          • Arekushieru

            So, the women who would have died if their forced pregnancies had not been terminated, are meaningless to people like you. So unsurprising. Do look up Dr. Perl, please and thanks.

          • cjvg

            Link please. I would like to read that for my self.

            And just a little reminder, protection of the law was also non existent for all born human beings, including pregnant women therefor automatically there is no protection for the fetus!

            As for your assertions, there where no voluntary abortions in concentration camps. The people in those camps did not have any human rights or voluntary medical procedures they could chose to have! They were treated like cattle, cattle does not chose to have abortions or pregnancies!

            You are deliberately and dishonestly trying to conflate war crimes with legally available and voluntary made medical choices! Disgusting and quite frankly desperate tactic that only serves to highlight the lows you are willing to sink to!

            Forced birth and forced pregnancy was also strongly condemned during those trails look up the section on lebensborn (forced breeding camps) That is exactly what you are advocating minus the racial selection component

            http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/europe/07nazi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
            http://www.spiegel.de/international/nazi-program-to-breed-master-race-lebensborn-children-break-silence-a-446978.html

          • Rita, Canberra

            The term “forced pregnancy” as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002) does not have any bearing on ordinary pregnancies and abortion. Under Article 8 entitled Crimes Against Humanity, it is defined as follows:

            2 (f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy.

          • cjvg

            Forced pregnancy is any pregnancy that the women did not consent to! If you do not want to be pregnant and do not want to give birth but some one like you takes the choice to terminate that pregnancy away and forces her to stay pregnant against her wishes what do you call that?
            I’m exceptionally interested to hear your explanation for how forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes is NOT a forced pregnancy?
            What you are talking about is not only a forced pregnancy and forced childbirth but ALSO forced insemination/sexual intercourse which is also known as rape. So you believe it only counts if there are three major violations of a woman? If a woman has voluntary sex she can no longer object to a pregnancy and childbirth?
            Seriously consent for one thing does not mean automatic consent to other things, there are major and very significant differences between sex, pregnancy and child birth! Obviously if you consent to one that does not mean you are consenting to all three!
            If you consent to having vaginal sex that does not mean you can not refuse to have anal or oral sex! When you consent to have vaginal sex and your partner proceeds to have oral or anal sex with you against your wishes it is still rape!

          • Arekushieru

            “In fact if you consent to sex and pregnancy that in no way implies you consent to childbirth, you have every right to change your mind and choose an abortion before the point of viability.”

            Precisely. To do so. meaning, to imply that it means that very thing, is to enforce a biological standard that is unique to women, without their consent (something Rita, herself, implied was unconscionable) which is also… misogyny.

          • cjvg

            Somehow Rita does not see it that way when it only concerns women’s rights. Probably she is just another victim of RIFDS (religion induced fetus derangement syndrome) and is completely incapable of seeing the glaring inconsistencies in her own beliefs.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Regrettably, it is fifty years of ideological conditioning that has induced an hostility to fundamental human rights principles.

            When, for example, we attempt to expand our reproductive ‘rights’ and use that expansion to obliterate the rights of children put at risk by our ‘choices’, we violate the principle of indivisibility.

            Indivisibility means that the rights of one set of human beings cannot be sacrificed for the rights of another set. Everywhere, human rights law must seek to protect, with equal vigor and determination, the lives of both the mother AND her unborn child.
            Re the other principles:
            Inclusion – human rights protection applies to absolutely everyone, including the child “before as well as after birth”.

            Genuine medicine does no lethal harm to a mother or her unborn baby, who both have an inalienable right to life.

            No one may destroy that right, nor deprive any human being of that right, nor transfer that right, nor renounce it—that’s what inalienable means.

            Inherency – rights are inherent in each human being. The child’s rights pre-exist birth – they “inhere” in the child’s humanity.

            Equality – some human beings cannot be “more equal” than others – thus the child at risk of abortion has the same right to life as every other member of the human family.

          • lady_black

            Any human has a right to life outside my body. Inside, not so much.

          • Suba gunawardana

            “Indivisibility means that the rights of one set of human beings cannot be sacrificed for the rights of another set.”

            Exactly. The presumed right of a fetus to occupy another person’s body does NOT override a woman’s right to protect her body against non-consensual invasion.

            NO individual has an inherent “right” occupy another person’s body. It is only a privilege some individuals get with the CONSENT of the host.

          • Rita, Canberra

            And the equality principle requires that some human beings cannot be “more equal” than others–that the child at risk of abortion has the same right to life as every other member of the human family.

            And the inclusion principle insists that no human being is to be excluded from human rights protection no matter how small, or needy or troublesome or ‘unwanted’.

          • Suba gunawardana

            There’s no such thing as “more equal”. It’s a simple matter of protecting your body. Anyone else’s rights should not supersede your right to protect your own body.

            EVEN IF a fetus were a person (I am not saying they are), they give up their rights by occupying another person’s body. As long as they live inside another person’s body (thereby violating the other person’s rights), the host’s right to protect her body supersedes any and all rights of the invader.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            It’s called motherhood and pregnancy. It is a natural result of having sex.

            Maybe you’ve heard of it.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Motherhood, like any other job involving the care of vulnerable individuals, should be consensual, NEVER forced. Otherwise it’s the children who end up suffering,

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Was the mother raped against her will? Because that’s the only situation where “forced” would even be applicable.

            We don’t allow women to kill their 1-week old infants because the infant is still dependent on the mother to live. Why should we allow the destruction of human existence of a 20-week old fetus?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Taking the option of abortion away means a woman is FORCED to carry the pregnancy by default.

            The difference is, unlike a fetus, an infant is no longer invading the mother’s body.

            Furthermore, by deciding to carry the pregnancy instead of terminating, the mother made a VOLUNTARY commitment to the future child, to protect & care for them. (which I think should be considered a legal contract). Killing an infant violates that contract.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            If a woman knows that having sex can cause pregnancy, then she is never forced into it. There are, in fact, options to keep from become pregnant without the abortion option on the table.

            But you knew that.

            And how can you continue to call it an invasion when it was the mother who invited the fetus in?

          • Suba gunawardana

            You are not getting the point. Of course there are options and people should use them. However:

            EVEN IF it was your own actions that led to the invasion of your body by someone (leaving the door open; walking in a dangerous neighborhood; unprotected sex), that does NOT diminish your right to protect your body.

            Your right to protect your body ALWAYS remains intact, no matter how stupid or irresponsible you may behave. (Unless you invade someone else’s body)

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Pregnancy is not something that needs to be extinguished because mommy didn’t feel like using birth control.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Certainly a more responsible option than spitting out a baby you are unable/unwilling to care for as long as it takes. A CHILD should not suffer for your irresponsibility.

          • Arekushieru

            Pregnancy will never happen in your body. Telling a woman what she must and should endure with something that will never occur in you is not only misogyny but mansplaining.

          • Arekushieru

            How can a woman invite something in that doesn’t exist, yet? Ass, can you tell me WHY you’re so illogical?

            Some women are allergic to latex and have adverse reactions to hormonal contraception (which includes, at least some, IUDs, and in many cases can’t have them inserted because their uterus is too small) and yet others have limited knowledge of contraceptive use and/or sex, because your ilk is generally anti-contraceptive and anti-comprehensive sex ed. It is YOUR ilks policies that are more often enforced. Oops.

            Telling women not to have sex because of an involuntary presence of an organ and its function is an EXTREME example of misogyny. Also, involuntary actions must have consent before they can be unforced, misogynist (even when it comes to women, after all). Oopsies, again?

          • purrtriarchy

            Do 1 week old infants live inside another persons body?

            No, they don’t. There is no violation, and thus no need for abortion.

          • lady_black

            No, a one week old infant is not dependent upon the mother to live. Anyone can care for a one week old infant. Even a dullard like yourself.

          • Arekushieru

            Rita says that a fetus can neither obtain nor reject the consent of another (which kinda makes our point that a fetus is not a human being, but whatever…) therefore pregnancy cannot be forced. However, if a rapist cannot obtain or reject the consent of another, does that not mean that forced sex did not occur? Which means that, as usual, you are arguing by faulty logic. Force is something that occurs without or in a VACUUM of consent, Oops.

          • Arekushieru

            Pregnancy is not motherhood. Appeal to nature fallacy and misogyny. Enforcing a biological standard unique only to women, after all. Pregnancy IS an invasion. A vagina and uterus are different, after all. Maybe you need to learn2biology, again? A fetus IS parasitic. It is not ‘a human/human being/person’. It is simply human.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Again you miss the point. There is no invasion

          • Suba gunawardana

            Someone living inside your body (or merely entering your body) without your consent IS an invasion.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Exempt the mother invited the pregnancy in by having sex.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Again, consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy. Just like opening your door is not an invitation to burglars, squatters or rapists who might walk in.

            If a rapist walks in through the door you left open, are you supposed to let him rape you because “it was your fault for leaving the door open”?

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Are you honestly going to sit there and act like you didn’t know that getting pregnant is a natural result of having sex?

          • Suba gunawardana

            I already responded to your point in my previous post. Let me try to clarify.

            Knowledge of possible consequences does not automatically BIND you to submit to those consequences.

            As I said above, you KNOW that leaving the door open can allow all kinds of crazies to walk in. If a rapist walks in through the door you left open, are you supposed to let him rape you because “it was your fault for leaving the door open”?

          • ChrisFunguy79

            It’s like this.

            You create a life…you are responsible for it. Not extinguishing it because mommy didn’t want to get fat or it might be expensive or mommy is just irresponsible and didn’t use birth control correctly.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That responsibility does not end at birth. Spitting out a baby does NOT make you a parent. If you make the commitment you better be prepared to ALWAYS put the child first, and protect & care for that child for as long as necessary, from neglect/abuse from your own self as well as anyone else.

            If for any reason you are unable/unwilling to take on this huge responsibility, you have NO business spitting out a baby. Abortion IS the responsible option in that situation.

          • lady_black

            NOPE.

          • Arekushieru

            Abortion is being responsible, for one’s already existing children as well as the potential. Since YOU will never have to face the possibility of a pregnancy as a result of sex, YOU do not get a say in how pregnancy should or should not affect the woman. Compassion for women with self-image issues? Zilch. Pregnancy is expensive and for women who are suddenly divorced (like Lady-Black whom you admonished for having a tubal ligation while on Medicaid that she does not intend to pay back, which is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy) and on their own, you expect them to pay the tab? Misogynist. MOST women who had abortions used some form of birth control. Finally, pregnancy is the third leading cause of death for women, WORLDWIDE. It is a HELL of a lot more than a mere ‘inconvenience’. Ass.

          • Shan

            But it’s perfectly okay to extinguish that life if you’re NOT responsible for creating it?

          • cjvg

            Are you honestly going to sit there and claim that every act of sex leads to a pregnancy? You obviously do not know how human biology works.
            Let me explain 99% of the time sex does not lead to pregnancy. For 27 days of a woman’s 30 day cycle it is impossible for sex to lead to a pregnancy. Obviously the human capacity and want to have sex on days that there is absolutely no chance for pregnancy clearly proves(and multiple research whole heartedly confirms this) that human sex serves other functions then reproduction. In fact even people who are way past their reproductive age have sex as do people who are infertile, clearly they are NOT having sex to make a baby
            So again (since you have proven over and over that you have trouble with comprehension) Pregnancy can ONLY occur on 3 days of a woman’s 30 day cycle. If you have one time unprotected sex on one of these 3 days you have at best only a 20% chance of a pregnancy ensuing. Clearly a very inefficient system if it was only meant for reproduction.
            Since we have now established that sex is not just meant for reproduction it is clearly nonsense to argue that every pregnancy is consented to if you consented to the sex!

          • lady_black

            NO it is NOT. It is a possible result. And abortion is a possible result to an unwanted pregnancy.

          • Arekushieru

            Appeal to nature fallacy. Take that away and you’re asking someone if they didn’t know that leaving their door open wouldn’t invite undesirables such as rapists into their home. See how sickening you are, now?

            Besides, women aren’t born pregnant. Nor is pregnancy a result of similarly naturalized evolution. Meaning that pregnancy is not a direct result of evolution passed on by genetics. It is a result of redesigned transcriptors.

          • lady_black

            Nope. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

          • Arekushieru

            Enforcing a biological standard unique to women is misogyny.

          • goatini

            It is illegal gender-based discrimination.

          • Arekushieru

            Or to be more precise, it is phenotype-based sex discrimination. This is why, while I support the rights of transwomen who were born with the male-associated phenotypes, I believe anti-choice positions on the issue directly affect cisfemales more than they would transwomen. I know there are some women who are born without a uterus, just as (most) transwomen are, but the fact that uterine replacement has been effective for ciswomen, but not vice versa, kinda dispels that theory, too, I THINK…?

          • purrtriarchy

            If it is there, and you do not want it there, it is an invader and can be evicted.

          • lady_black

            Um… NO.

          • goatini

            NO female US citizen has ANY duty to gestate an unwanted pregnancy against her will. ALL female US citizens have the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights to reproductive justice.

          • purrtriarchy

            You are giving fetuses more rights than any born person. No person has the right to force another to provide biological bodily life support. I can’t use your body to keep myself alive and neither can a fetus.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Do you and a stranger have the same relationship that a mother does to her offspring?

            Is that what you really think?

          • cjvg

            You are not a mother until you give birth to a child. The point is that you do not want to , so your answer is yes that clump of cells has no relationship with the woman

          • lady_black

            Fair enough. A MOTHER cannot be forced to provide biological bodily support to keep “offspring” alive. By the way, “offspring” must be “sprung off” to be actual offspring.

          • Arekushieru

            A fetus is no less a stranger to its maternal host than some random person off the street is to you.

          • purrtriarchy

            Parents cannot be forced to donate blood tissue or organs to their children. A parent cannot even be forced to donate a teaspoon of blood to their day old infant if that would save the infants life.

          • goatini

            I, along with every other living, breathing woman, am inarguably FAR more important than a diploid cell, of which over half will be sloughed off as bodily waste and flushed down the toilet. Your specious position equates female US citizens with waste flushed down the toilet. Sick.

          • cjvg

            See all previous post. I have explained ad nauseate that a fetus is not a baby, that a potential is not actuality and that a potential life certainly never trumps the rights of an actual life.

            Reality is that the majority of human beings clearly value a woman’s actual life above the potential life of a fertilized egg. Abortion rights will never be revoked regardless of the lying cajoling you and the other women haters do.

            Person hood amendments fail every time when put to the voters, anti abortion laws fail every time when put to the voters, the Komen foundation got their a$$ handed to them when they went after planned parenthood.

            The only way this anti-choice and anti- scientific fact and anti-standard of best medical care and anti- women health misogynistic BS gets through is when these women hating legislators in office push it through without putting it to the voters! But we have a solution for that too, these misogynistic anti-choice legislators come up for reelection too, and guess who gets to decide if they are leaving….. the voters!

            Other than that, gods are you boring can you please come up with an actual scientific medically correct logic based argument other then ITS A BABEEEE

          • cjvg

            A dead human does not have rights that supersede those of a living human. A fetus is living tissue but not alive!

          • Arekushieru

            It was a woman’s ‘choice’ to inherit a uterus as part of the female biology? Really? Wonder why THAT was never covered in my biology classes, then?

            A woman’s choice to have sex for non-procreative purposes can not obliterate the rights of something if it does not exist. In most cases where pregnancy does occur, fertilization isn’t even initiated immediately after sex. So there is no zygote, blastocyst OR embryo in existence, yet. Therefore the woman committed no crime against a zygote, blastocyst or embryo that removed either stage of development’s rights. Even in the case of superfetation (where a woman already has one developing unborn human, but a second egg is fertilized anywhere up to four weeks after the first one), though, the woman committed no crime against the first developing ZBEF by forming the second. Furthermore, pregnancy is not a crime, either, that removes the rights of a zygote or blastocyst, let ALONE a fetus that isn’t in existence, yet. If pregnancy IS a crime, however, the fetus is the one that committed the crime. Even IF the woman caused the pregnancy and it was a crime, forcing one to continue it removes the rights of the other, NOT ending it. Oops.

            A woman’s CHOICE to have sex for non-procreative purposes can not obliterate her right to decide who uses a completely separate organ and when and how it is used via ongoing, informed and explicit consent. To do otherwise would venture into the murky grounds of misogyny.

            If a woman cannot remove a pregnancy to save her life, you just claimed that a fetus is more equal than a woman. If a woman can remove a pregnancy that threatens her life, you just claimed that a woman’s right to life is ‘more equal’ than the fetus’.

            Abortion does no harm to the PATIENT nor the fetus. Since a fetus can not request medical treatment, it is not a patient unless the woman carrying it REQUESTS medical treatment for the fetus. Since harm consists of deliberate injury against one’s will, the fetus is not harmed, ever, during abortion. It has no will, after all. Genuine medicine, on the other hand, is medicine that returns one (or as near as possible) to their former state of health. Abortion does that, so it IS genuine medicine.

            Finally, the right to life IS inalienable. After all, it only exists when another person’s bodily autonomy is not being violated. Therefore, a fetus has no right to life that can BE ‘alienable’ OR ‘inalienable’, *just like every other human* that violates someone’s bodily autonomy. In other words, YOU want to grant a fetus a right to life that *exists nowhere else*.

          • goatini

            More BS “natural law” crap.

            Hate speech against the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice will not be tolerated here.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I live in the United States, which is not ruled by Rome, the ICC or anyone’s church.

          • Rita, Canberra

            You are perfectly right of course.
            Nevertheless, the splendid lawyers on the United States delegation to all the preparatory meetings for the UN ‘s Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court were very active and helpful in negotiating this particular text.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Please correct me if I’m wrong, but are you trying to say that international law, the UN and the ICC should supersede American law and American sovereignty? Because I imagine that most American conservatives would take issue with that, even if they are opposed to abortion.

          • Rita, Canberra

            The US is a signatory to the Universal Declaration.
            Right from the first drafting of the Universal Declaration principles, through all the drafting sessions of all the human rights conventions that codified these principles in modern international human rights law, the US lawyers on the US delegation to the UN have been fully (and I would say from a careful reading of the travaux préparatoires dominantly) engaged in negotiation of the agreed texts.

            These are not principles arbitrarily imposed on the US (including the US Supreme Court) but principles negotiated and drafted and freely agreed by successive US delegations with full authority of US governments and citizens to do so.

            I understand that under US domestic law, treaties – like statutes – must meet the requirements of the Constitution; no treaty provision may have force of law in the United States if it conflicts with the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

            But vice versa I would understand that all the treaty provisions must have met the requirements of the US Constitution since no reservations to the effect of excluding a child before birth from legal protections on the grounds that such protections conflicted with the US Constitution, were lodged either by the competent US delegation’s lawyers at the UN who drafted the provisions of these treaties before the US became a signatory to them, or by the US government lawyers who examined these treaties before they were ratified.

            There is a real need for liaison work between the US Supreme Court and the government authorities on US treaties. I understand the separation of powers but this should not mean that one hand doesn’t need to know what the other hand’s doing. Logical consistency, legal coherence and fidelity to the same human rights principles underlying the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration are extremely important to a genuine rule of law.

          • goatini

            Gestational slavery has been declared by the United Nations to be cruel and inhuman torture.

            Rights accrue to persons at birth.

            Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are NOT persons, NOT citizens, and have NO rights.

            Stop your hate speech against the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice.

          • lady_black

            Forced abortion in 1947 has nothing to do with women’s rights in 2014. Why don’t you just grow up and admit you’re wrong. No UN documents provide any basis for forced gestation, and you know it.

          • lady_black

            In response to your comment in moderation, your appeal to nature is a logical fallacy, and as such is not to be taken seriously. The fact that my mother gave birth to me doesn’t extend to me giving birth at every available opportunity. Pregnancy may not be a disease, but it’s a medical condition that is 1) expensive, 2) inherently dangerous (to the point of being deadly), and 3) unwanted for the great majority of most women’s fertile years. You will not force me, or any woman to remain pregnant against her will, regardless of how “natural” it is. Heart attacks, cancer and pneumonia are natural too. If they happen to me, I’m not stuck with them.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Since my comment was censored by the moderators, it’s hard for readers to judge whether your response is adequate or pertinent..

            Two points in reply.

            1. Adequate nutrition, the protective environment of the mother’s womb, and benign medical care are “basic rights” and because of their fundamental necessity to the nurturing of life, they are the unborn child’s minimum. ordinary and reasonable demands on the child’s mother.

            Now in regards to rights, both the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establish in law the human rights duties of individuals towards other individuals.

            2. Your point that pregnancy is a medical condition is invalid.
            In general, pregnancy is a natural normal condition. Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is not a sickness.
            Complications can arise that require medical assistance.
            But in general pregnancy is not ‘a medical condition’.

          • purrtriarchy

            Pregnancy and birth can be torture. The right to life does not include the right to torture in order to live.

            Furthermore, pregnancy may be natural but that does not mean it is a state of wellness. A woman who is not pregnant is healthier than one who is. All of the usual side effects of pregnancy are 100% not healthy.

          • cjvg

            Then why is there one medical specialty that specifically and only deals what that “condition” ? I’ll give you a hint, it is called an obstetrician!
            If birth and pregnancy was so natural then not so many women would die from it. Besides death is also a perfectly natural, logical and unavoidable condition, but people still try to avoid it. In fact for that natural condition there is not even a medical specialty, so obviously we should make laws that forbid people the attempts at avoiding it

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Obstetricians are also gynecologists.

            FYI.

            “then not so many women would die from it.”

            The maternal death rate in the US is 0.02%. Pretty rare actually.

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

            There is no right to life. If there were, the States could not execute prisoners.

            A fetus is not “individual” until it survives birth. No human has a right to even one drop of my blood though s/he may die.

            Childbirth is the leading cause of death of young women ages 15-19 in Africa where all is natural.

            All human beings in our system of government have Equal Individual Rights. You wish to maintain Equal Individual Rights to the inseminator and the fetus but compel the pregnant woman to experience excruciating pain and the possibility of death by law because you say she must give birth once pregnant.

            Women have the same number of abortions, legal or illegal. Illegal abortion and childbirth are the leading causes of maternal death worldwide. You will never stop abortion. All you will do is kill and maim women by force of law.

          • Rita, Canberra

            No.

            The vast majority of maternal deaths according to the World Health Organization (WHO) are not attributable to “illegal abortions” but rather the disturbing lack of prenatal care, vaccines, trained midwives, centers equipped for obstetric complications, and lack of transportation to those centers. In the aggressive obsession to expand abortion services for the poorest women, the fundamentals of prenatal and post-natal care—the fact that the vast majority (87%, WHO) of maternal deaths are directly attributable to four major causes: hemorrhage, infection, hypertension and obstructed labor—are being short-changed.

            Abortion advocates ignore, for example, the grave fact that “…tuberculosis kills more women than all the combined causes of maternal mortality.” (WHO) Nor have they considered the women’s lives that can be saved by assigning more Aid to immunization and clean delivery practices for the prevention of neo-natal tetanus. In the year 2000, neonatal tetanus resulted in 200,000 deaths (WHO). Yet fourteen years later, maternal and neonatal tetanus continues to be a massive public health problem in 57 developing countries.

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

            Yes.
            I am quoting directly from a WHO position paper. Why are you ignoring what I said? CHILDBIRTH and ILLEGAL ABORTION are leading causes of maternal death worldwide. And I agree that a full spectrum of reproductive care is a human right.

          • Rita, Canberra

            There’s quite a difference between “leading causes” and “the leading cause”, which is what you said originally.

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

            Nitpicker. The exact quote is:
            “Unsafe abortion is one of the three leading causes of maternal mortality, along with hemorrhage and sepsis from childbirth.”
            Now nitpick away. That seems to be all the “thinking” you are capable of.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Hardly a leading cause at 13%!
            And even that figure is less than accurate as the WHO statisticians admit quite openly that estimates are unable to be verified in many countries.

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

            Non sequitur. And “Nuh uh” is crappy argument. Now who do I believe? A fetus freak pervert on a message board or a major report by the WHO. No contest.

          • Shan

            “Hardly a leading cause at 13%!”

            So that means it’s okay to legally require every pregnant woman to give birth whether she wants to or not?

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

            Where did 13% come from?

          • goatini

            Childbirth and illegal, unsafe pregnancy termination are the leading causes of maternal death worldwide. FACT.

          • lady_black

            Lady, access to my uterus or any other of my organs is NOBODY’S “right.” You got that??? The fetus HAS no rights that I don’t choose to give it. And as I already explained to you, pregnancy IS a medical condition that has an entire medical specialty devoted to it. Your fallacious appeals to nature notwithstanding! Have someone explain to you what an appeal to nature fallacy is, since you have comprehension problems.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Interesting that you’re acting like the you had zero part in the events that led to the development of that fetus that is growing inside of you.

          • lady_black

            Irrelevant.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If you got assaulted due to walking in a dangerous neighborhood, does that diminish your right to protect yourself?

          • Arekushieru

            Pregnancy is not ‘normal’. If it were, women and men would be pregnant all the time, and to not be pregnant would be a rare circumstance. Oops.

            Where is it declared that the ‘protective environment’ of the woman’s (not mother’s) uterus, adequate nutrition and benign medical care are ‘basic rights’ for the fetus? It’s funny that you can provide ‘data’ for any points that you make opposite to your own, but cannot accomplish the same thing with your own self-initiated claims. Secondly, you DO know why the woman’s uterus is considered a ‘protective’ environment, right? Because a fetus suppresses a woman’s adverse immune response to it. Also, why does someone receive medical care for something that is not a medical condition? You mean a fetus is experiencing a medical condition but the maternal host is not? You just proved how LITTLE you care for women. Ugh,. Sick.

          • lady_black

            You are a pompous, pseudo-intellectual fool. Since I addressed your comment in my response, it can in no way be considered irrelevant or inadequate. Unlike yourself, everyone here knows exactly what an appeal to nature is. Here’s an appeal to nature: “The uterus was made to house a fetus and the fetus is exactly where it’s supposed to be.” That isn’t quite the same claim you make repeatedly, but it’s pretty close, and it’s false logic. The vagina was made to receive a penis during intercourse. That doesn’t make it ok to rape someone. Both intercourse and pregnancy need ongoing consent from the person who’s body is involved. Pregnancy is in fact, NOT the default condition of the female body. It is NOT the norm, and it is most definitely a medical condition.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Flagged for harassment and violating TOS.

          • expect_resistance

            No and no.

          • goatini

            Pregnancy is a very dangerous, very risky health condition that has the potential to maim and kill. It is in no way a “normal condition”.

          • goatini

            As the child of a survivor, I find your revisionism amoral and abhorrent.

          • Rita, Canberra

            I find that surprising.

            It was one of the chief drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, René Cassin, who enumerated the guiding principles of recognition of human rights for every human being under the new international rule of law. Cassin was an eminent French jurist and Zionist who himself had suffered the loss of thirty-nine family members in Nazi concentration camps, and it was he who convinced the Drafting Committee that they must start with “the fundamental principle of the unity of the human race” precisely because Hitler had started his pogroms “by asserting the inequality” of human beings.

            In the 1947-8 negotiations of the Universal Declaration, one of the first things agreed by the international community was that the “innocent unborn child” was to be legally protected under human rights law which is founded on the truth that every human being has an equal and inalienable dignity and worth.

          • Arekushieru

            Abortion illegal? Means women do not have inherent dignity and worth. A fetus cannot be either innocent or guilty. It is not a child, either. Besides, legal protection under human rights laws infers that a fetus shall be protected from forced abortions (which is just as anti-choice as you, btw) as performed during the time of the Nazis.

            Tell me, what do you think of the bill that introduced a motion to allow women to sue others for unlawful termination of their pregnancies, after all, that is PRECISELY what the negotiations of the Universal Declaration refer to.

            Also, please do look up Dr. Morgentaler. He was a Jewish survivor of the holocaust. And a prominent Canadian abortion provider prior to his death.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to persons at birth – FACT.

            Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are NOT persons, NOT citizens, and have NO rights.

            As the child of a survivor, I find your revisionism amoral and abhorrent. My Father taught me, from his experiences, to constantly be on guard against enemies that would attempt to erase my rights. Radical misogynist forced-birthers are enemies that would attempt to erase my rights.

          • cjvg

            Really?

            The Vatican rectified the UN’s 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Conveniently you forgot that this specifically deals with the RIGHT to contraception and abortion.

            Here are the pertinent facts;

            ” the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a long report on the Vatican that has gotten attention for its sharp criticism of the Catholic Church’s response to clergy sex-abuse scandals. But perhaps more remarkably, the study also critiqued the Church’s stance on abortion and birth control.

            Specifically, it recommended that the Holy See “overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality that hinder their access to sexual and reproductive information, including on family planning and contraceptives,” and suggested the Vatican “review its position on abortion … with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted.” The committee also made broad criticisms of the Church’s posture toward LGBTQ families and children. The Holy See has responded with a statement defending the Church’s right to define its own religious beliefs and teachings.

            The Vatican, which has “permanent observer” status at the UN, is a signatory to the UN’s 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child along with 193 countries and two island nations. Notably, the United States is one of three countries that haven’t ratified the treaty; the other two, Somalia and South Sudan, have both pledged to ratify the agreement soon.

            The UN committee finds Church teachings to violate the human rights of children!”
            Care to explain that ?
            The UN defined human beings as born!

          • Rita, Canberra

            No, the UN human rights instruments (the foundation of modern international human rights law) has never defined human beings as [only] ‘born’.
            On the contrary.

          • cjvg

            Well then show me that contrary!
            In the mean time the UN does specifically and clearly defines contraceptives and abortion as a human right and clearly and concisely designates forced pregnancy and birth as an international crime AND a violation of the woman or girls human right!

          • lady_black

            Legal protection has never included conscription of women’s bodies to further that purpose, Rita. You are CLEARLY taking something out of context here, because otherwise the UN would be contradicting itself by declaring that women have a right to contraception and abortion. UN documents aren’t your Bible. You can’t “pick and choose” which items are valid and which aren’t, and the entire body of UN declarations must be taken in context, as a whole.

          • terafied

            “Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration
            of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and
            mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including
            appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”,”

            You realize this applies only to gestations that are voluntarily commenced, right?

          • lady_black

            You do realize that capital punishment has since been found unconstitutional for minors, and even life imprisonment is unconstitutional for minors. So much for the UN. We aren’t beholden to them. Abortion is legal here and in all civilized countries. It will remain legal, and where it doesn’t remain legal, will still be done illegally. You can cross that right off your list. It’s never happened and will never happen.

        • lady_black

          Well, every ‘human being’ doesn’t have an inherent right to life that comes at the expense of someone else’s body against their will, Rita. Stop being ridiculous. You’re taking things out of context. “Legal protection before and after birth” doesn’t include forced access to some other human’s organs. That would be ABSURD.

        • terafied

          HUMAN and HUMAN BEING are not the same things.

        • Cactus_Wren

          In which specific article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that stated?

          http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

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

          Liar liar pants on fire.
          WHO, an arm of the UN, states that abortion/contraception is a human right. Why? Because ILLEGAL ABORTION and sepsis and hemorrhage in CHILDBIRTH are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide.
          http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/2/gpr140224.html#1
          http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501118_eng.pdf

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Good thing maternal death in the United States is pretty rare.

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

            The USA has a rising rate of maternal deaths. We are last among the developed nations in caring for pregnant women.
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/us-maternal-mortality-rate_n_5340648.html

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Oh no…it went from 0.018% to 0.024%

            It’s still rare. 99.98% of pregnancies don’t result in death.

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

            Do the math you stupid fart. Flagged for callous BS. Working on getting thrown out of here again?

          • Jennifer Starr

            It doesn’t know how.

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

            It is pea picking corn snorting stupid. And twice as callous.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Flagged for insulting.

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

            I am shaking in my boots, you dumb twat.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            flagged for violating TOS

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

            Which would you prefer: me going back to ignoring your dumb rude comments or getting my honest response? Either way I am going to flag you for your egregious insults and not your language. I am not a pissant cowardly prude like you.

          • expect_resistance

            Oh grow up.

          • goatini

            You came to this website for the express and specific purpose of violating TOS. What a whiner you are.

          • purrtriarchy

            You are an idiot.

          • goatini

            BS, you whiner, you deliberately came to a reproductive justice website with the specific purpose of insulting the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice. You were the instigator and you have a hell of a nerve whining about “insulting”.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Flagged for harassment.

          • expect_resistance

            How do you make it through life? Do you just flag everyone?

          • Arekushieru

            You do not know what harassment is. Engage in harassment, you can not then claim harassment in reverse.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It only had ‘some college’, remember. Apparently it wasn’t able to make it all the way through, but still tries to call itself an ‘intellectual’.

          • fiona64

            He claimed to have “some college”? What a liar.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, on a dating website where he also posted two selfies. One of him brushing his teeth (?) and another one of himself with money on his lap. I’m assuming the money pic means that he’s desperate enough to pay for it if he has to.

          • fiona64

            I’m sure that the *only* way he’ll ever experience it is via exchange of commerce … because he sure as hell lacks the charm to get there in any other fashion.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            What math? The numbers are right there.

            Maternal death is rare. I was correct.

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

            You have no math skills. “Rare” as you assert it is, abortion is still 14 times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. And “rare” does not matter to a dead woman and her grieving family.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Ahh…moving the goalposts I see.

          • lady_black

            Nobody moved the goalposts. Maternal morbidity and mortality is this country are a disgrace, and moving in the wrong direction. That’s unacceptable, and so is forcing anyone to undergo those risks, no matter how low the odds.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            The risk is very, very low.

            0.02%

          • lady_black

            IRRELEVANT.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            I know the truth is irrelevant to you.

          • lady_black

            Well, if risk likelihood is of any relevance, then shouldn’t we be forcing women (especially those at high risk) into aborting their pregnancies? After all, first trimester abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy and birth, and abortion at any stage is less risky. I don’t understand why it’s relevant when she wants an abortion and NOT relevant if she wants to give birth. If it’s relevant, then it’s ALWAYS relevant, right? We don’t force women into abortions, and we shouldn’t. Neither should we force them to give birth. It’s HER CALL, not yours. Therefore, your post is IRRELEVANT.

          • goatini

            You don’t even have a nodding acquaintance with the truth.

          • goatini

            ANY reason to safely and legally terminate a pregnancy is NONE of your, or anyone else’s, business.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What does it matter if the risk is low or high? Possible danger to one’s life is NOT the only reason for abortion. A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason (or just because she feels like it).

          • goatini

            And 100% of those pregnancies, should the woman elect a safe, legal pregnancy termination, are NONE of your or anyone else’s business.

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

      In your dreams, WhackJob. The antichoice laws passed in the states will make all the culture change necessary. Women are going to die and be maimed in droves in every state that passed draconian antirights laws. All we have to do is sit back and report on the carnage.

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

      I just came out bigtime on #ihadanabortion. In your face, WhackJob.

    • terafied

      What?

      • Cactus_Wren

        “It’s a BAYYBEEEE, do you hear, a precious unborn BAYYYYBEEEEE! You’re killing your BAAAAYYYYYBEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

        • BJ Survivor

          Meh. As far as I’m concerned, abortion stops a beating. On demand and without apology!

        • cjvg

          Wow, that is a really good interpretation. I like it!

      • cjvg

        Goobeldeegook, just ignore it

  • Suba gunawardana

    In response to the whole argument below: EVEN IF every human had the right to life, that right does not extend to occupying another human’s body without their consent.

    • Rita, Canberra

      There is a serious problem with this argument.
      It presumes the culpability of the innocent unborn child:
      1. that the tiny dependent human being in her mother’s human body has deliberately and with malicious intent ‘occupied’ her mother’s womb; and
      2. that this little human being has deliberately and knowingly or negligently failed to obtain consent for her lively presence in her mother’s womb.

      • purrtriarchy

        You cannot remove the guinea worm from your body because, like a fetus, it is not acting with intent.

        You cannot stop the sleepwalker from raping you, because zie is not acting with malicious intent

        You cannot stop the cognitively disabled individual from assaulting you because zie is not consciously intending to hurt you.

        Rita, your logic is flawed. People have the right to protect their body from violation whether or not their attacker intends to hurt them. If a woman does not want a zef inside her body she is free to evict it. As long as it is there without consent it is violating her

        • Rita, Canberra

          The little daughter in your womb is not “a guinea worm”; she is not “a sleepwalker raping you “, she is not “a cognitively disabled individual assaulting you”. She is your daughter and you have the capacity and the duty as her mother to love and protect and cherish her as your mother loved and protected and cherished you.

          • purrtriarchy

            Your rebuttal is invalid. Appeal to nature. Try again.

          • purrtriarchy

            Oh, and special pleading.

            That’s two fallacies, dipshit.

            You have clearly fetishized fetuses and its more than a little creepy

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Flagged for insulting.

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

            It is very creepy.

          • cjvg

            It is not my daughter until I choose to gestate her and birth her. Before 26 weeks it is a developing potential that slowly attains the attributes needed to become a person

          • Rita, Canberra

            No. There is no such thing in international human rights law as ‘person’ rights–there are only human rights.
            In the formal legal language of founding international human rights instruments: “‘person’ means every human being”.
            The State has no authority to divide the human
            race into ‘persons’ and ‘non-persons’, while deeming the privileged group only to be worthy of human rights protection.

            Human rights are not predicated on or scaled according to size or seniority or maturity or stage of development or decline.

            They are inherent human rights which apply equally and inalienably to every human being, no matter how small or dependent or troublesome or ‘unwanted”.

          • purrtriarchy

            No, moron. There are only person rights, and those rights apply only to sentient human beings. Zef’s are not sentient, and neither are anencephalic babies and beating heart cadavers. No brain = no person. Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, brainless babies and beating heart cadavers are all non sentient. They do not qualify as persons. You are wrong.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            flagged for insulting

          • expect_resistance

            Go ahead and flag everyone but you that why you can be all alone. Boo hoo.

          • fiona64

            He already is all alone, poor thing.

          • cjvg

            The stupid is strong in you, please learn to read the actual UN records instead of the interpretations of someone with a very specific agenda that suits your personal delusions

          • expect_resistance

            If you’re going to cut and paste at least reformat your text. And for your post you haven’t the foggiest idea about human rights.

          • cjvg

            You completely and spectacularly missed the whole argument
            At least have the courtesy to read responses to you, whatever you wrote here does nor even remotely address the point.

          • goatini

            Rghts accrue to citizens at birth – FACT.

            Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are not persons, not citizens, and have NO rights – FACT.

            Repeating your ludicrous BS over and over again does NOT make it fact.

          • lady_black

            It’s not a daughter, either.

          • Rita, Canberra

            She is as matter of biological fact a daughter.

            With astonishing accuracy, science can locate your daughter within definite co-ordinates of pace and time (for sex is determined from the beginning). Your daughter is not a generic, anonymous ‘it’ . Science can identify you as her mother and can also identify her father. Science can ascertain long before birth that your daughter is a unique member of the human family, biologically, genetically, and genealogically.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope. Daughters are born. You can only be a mother if you have a CHILD (meaning a newborn that has survived birth) passed into your care. Same holds true for fathers.

            Sex is not determined from the beginning. There are people with certain conditions that are assigned female at birth even though they had one X and one Y chromosome. Also, distinguishing of sex characteristics does NOT begin immediately after fertilization has been initiated.

            It doesn’t matter whether or not a fetus can be located within the uterus. That is irrelevant.

            A woman is a unique member of the human family. If she is not, then her offspring cannot be unique, either. After all, in order for one to be unique, they have to be distinguishable from another. Oops.

          • Rita, Canberra

            The sex of an embryonic human being can be identified at the very earliest stage of existence. See, for example, the research on 3-day-old human embryos in Hardy K., Martin K.L., Leese H.J., Winston R.M., Handyside A.H., “Human preimplantation development in vitro is not adversely affected by biopsy at the 8-cell stage”, Human Reproduction, Vol. 5, No. 6, 1990, pp. 708-714.

          • Arekushieru

            You are ignorant. You do not understand the difference between phenotype and genotype and how they BOTH determine sex? You do not understand the intersex ‘condition’?

          • Rita, Canberra

            It’s funny that in all the years of ultrasounds on pregnant women there doesn’t appear to be many records of the technician telling the parents who want to know the sex of their baby that the baby has been identified as “intersex”!

          • Arekushieru

            Yes, because there is still discrimination against those who have intersex characteristics. You certainly do need to read up on ‘corrective’ genital surgeries performed on infants, don’t you?

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Like you sir?

          • expect_resistance

            What’s you point?

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s not intelligent enough to refute Arekushieru’s excellent points, so it resorts to attacks on her appearance.

          • expect_resistance

            Yep he’s a jackass.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            I think Arekushieru is intersex. Look at his picture. Yet he claims to be a woman. I think that’s why he’s so adamant about this topic. Just my theory….

          • lady_black

            Genetic blueprints (DNA) are just that. Blueprints. The quality, appearance and functionality of the end product depends upon proper development. Genes can exist without being expressed in the final product because they have been switched off or on, or because they are dominated by other genes. That’s the difference between genotype and phenotype. That’s the simple part of the story. Developmental influences are impossible to control. That’s why some people are gay and some are straight, and some are born with ambiguous genitalia. Perhaps a penis and ovaries. Ultrasound technology depends upon what can be visualized and doesn’t always tell the full story. So your little anecdotal story about no parent being told their child is inter-sexed is really silly.

          • goatini

            Oh, right, because you have ALL those records and you validated each and every one of them. Keep up the idiotic BS, you just make yourself look more ridiculous every time you post.

          • cjvg

            Never mind the reality of all these BORN people who identify as such.

            Reality really is a nebulous concept in your world. The unborn are of utmost importance, the born neh who cares what they say/feel/happens to them.

            I guess that is why you appointed yourself as the fetal wants interpreter, fetuses can not contradict you like living humans can.
            And those living humans certainly do not want or need you to tell them what they are thinking or want

          • fiona64

            For a self-described “expert,” your ignorance is pretty woeful.

            Most of the time what is said is “we can’t really tell,” because one of the markers of the intersex condition is ambiguous external genitalia. You need to read up on this. Here is a good place to start: http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex

          • goatini

            Oh, great, another radical misogynistic forced-birther who’s a self-appointed embryonic “expert”, said bogus status conferred only by an ability to press Control-C and Control-V.

          • fiona64

            The sex of an embryonic human being can be identified at the very earliest stage of existence.

            Actually, no. At that state *all* zygotes (which is what a 3-day-old embryo is) are technically female. So, I can only give you half for that.

          • Shan

            We’ve gone through the Nazi thing with her and now we’re at the “Every sperm is sacred” part.

          • lady_black

            I have a daughter. She has been born. Prior to her birth, I had no daughter. If she had been miscarried, I would have no daughter.

          • goatini

            RIghts accrue to persons at birth.

          • Rita, Canberra

            No. To claim that “rights accrue to persons at birth’ is to intimate that we have broken with the original commitment in the International Bill of Rights to protect the unborn child, that we have broken this commitment in order to resurrect and reinstate Nazi concepts condemned by the international community at Nuremberg: “…protection of the law was denied to the unborn children…Abortion was encouraged…” Such a regression would be reprehensible.

            Human rights for the unborn children, having been recognized right from the beginning of modern international human rights law cannot now be de-recognized. They certainly can’t be de-recognized by re-interpretation through a 21st Century ideological bias seeking to justify current laws that accommodate the appalling notion that mothers have ownership and disposal rights over their unborn children.

          • Jennifer Starr

            There’s only one Bill of Rights that matters in the United States, and that’s in the US Constitution.

          • Rita, Canberra

            See my previous post where I explained that universal human rights principles are not arbitrarily imposed on the US (including the US Supreme Court) but principles negotiated and drafted and freely agreed by successive US delegations with full authority of US governments and citizens to do so.

            Logical consistency, legal coherence and fidelity to the same human
            rights principles underlying the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration are extremely important to a genuine rule of law.

          • lady_black

            And yet, abortion is and will remain legal. It sucks to be you, doesn’t it? No fetus (or any other human) has any right to the organs of another human, regardless of how “natural” you believe it to be, or how much you blather.

          • Arekushieru

            Therefore, abortion must and should remain legal according trio principles agreed upon by successive US delegations AND the Universal Declaration. By making abortion illegal, you are saying that rights are NOT universal. Oopsies.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to persons at birth. FACT.

            Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are NOT persons, NOT citizens, and have NO rights. FACT.

          • cjvg

            Irrelevant troll

          • Arekushieru

            The Nazis were just as anti-choice as you. You believe women are owned by the fetuses and that fetuses have disposal rights over women.

            With abortion legal, the rights of *fetuses* ARE recognized. With abortion illegal, extra rights are granted to fetuses. International human rights laws do NOT recognize that. Oops.

          • goatini

            Wrong. Rights accrue to citizens and persons at birth. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are NOT persons, NOT citizens, and have NO rights. Stop your filthy lying anti-American hate speech against the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice, Hate speech will NOT be tolerated here.

          • cjvg

            You should really invest in some more education. The fact that mothers can dispose of their “unborn” offspring all the way until quickening is a very old and historically easily confirmed concept. In fact the RC church and other churches wholeheartedly agreed with that concept.

            In actuality this every pregnancy must be birthed BS is a most recent interpretation. Not surprisingly you fail again, have you even finished high school, or barring that do you ever read ?

            Various church authorities and popes did not have a problem with abortion until after a specific gestational time was reached. This time has varied but it is very obvious that religion and society at large never considered conception the moment of live. Different gestational stages used by the different (Christian) churches and even the same church at different historical times are 40 days, 80 days, 116 days, or Quickening (when the woman first feels the fetus move) During those times the word of the church was the law of society so obviously this was the law of the land

            354-430 CE St. Augustines
            The concept of “ensoulment”. He wrote the a human soul cannot live in an unformed body, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed

            1161-1216 Pope Innocent III
            He declared a monk who arranged an abortion for his mistress, was not guilty of murder since the fetus was not “animated” at the time. he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” Before that time, abortion terminates only potential human person, not an actual human person.

            1591 Pope Gregory XIV
            Confirmed abortion was acceptable until quickening.

            So there was plenty of debate until women started to get some influence and started to object to having pregnancy after pregnancy until they died in child birth. This so alarmed the church that Pope Pius XI and his 1930 Casti Connubii suddenly determined that all pregnancies must be continued regardless if it would result in the death of a woman

          • fiona64

            I love how she keeps referring to the zygote as “your daughter,” as though somehow this absurd emotional appeal and constant feminine references makes her position non-misogynist.

          • Arekushieru

            My mother CHOSE to have me. Just like she CHOSE to have an abortion. You are saying that just because my mother chose to have me that I should be forced to gestate any pregnancy I may have. Tell me, do you have ANY acquaintance with logic, whatsoever?

          • Suba gunawardana

            How is a fetus functionally different from a parasite, sleepwalker raping you, or a cognitively disabled individual assaulting you? ALL these individuals are invading your body without your consent, and without malicious intent on their part.

            Also curious. You keep saying “daughter”. Does it mean you have no objection to killing a male fetus?

          • expect_resistance

            She says “daughter” because she thinks feminists would listen to her warped reasoning if she says “daughter” = future feminist. I don’t think she realizes men are feminists too. Her wording sounds weird to me.

          • purrtriarchy

            Whenever anti choicers try to pass themselves off as “feminist”, hilarity ensues.

          • expect_resistance

            Motherhood duty? What?

            Do you realize some women do not want to have children? I for one don’t buy into your argument of a “duty” to a fetus. My rights as a woman trump those of a fetus.

          • goatini

            A female US citizen has NO duty whatsoever to gestate an unwanted pregnancy against her will. Pregnant women are NOT the property of the State.

          • Rita, Canberra

            No human being is the ‘property’ of another human being.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The uterus is not just a location.

          • Rita, Canberra

            And woman’s uterus has a natural function–to nurture and protect her unborn child.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If that’s what a woman chooses, then yes.

          • Suba gunawardana

            NO natural function should be forced on anyone against their will just because it’s natural.

            Sex is natural. That doesn’t mean rape is acceptable.

          • purrtriarchy

            Your vagina has a natural function – to accept a penis. Therefore, any man that wants to raoe you can, because your vagina was made for his penis.

            The above is your logic and its asinine.

          • expect_resistance

            Nice.

          • lady_black

            I already went there. Apparently she believes rape is acceptable.

          • lady_black

            Appeal to nature fallacy. Stop repeating.

          • Arekushieru

            And a woman is not her uterus. Thanks for essentially saying that a woman has no more worth than her uterus. You people ARE sick.

          • Arekushieru

            You’re also saying that women are no more than a location and are useless if the uterus isn’t functioning as it ‘naturally’ should.

          • fiona64

            So, if a woman is infertile, or post-fertile, she’s useless?

            That’s very nice, Rita. Very nice indeed. Thanks for such a fabulous demonstration of a) your misogyny and b) the fact that you believe the (long-ago dismissed) homunculus theory of human development, in which the woman is merely a container for the miniature infant that never changes in shape or form, only size, so long as it sits there and grows.

            How dimwitted can one person possibly be? Really, Rita, you are straining credulity here.

          • Rdzkz

            Yes, if the woman chooses to do so –within her capabilities and determination.

          • goatini

            Women are not livestock to be exploited.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Therefore the fetus has no inherent right to use another human being as their incubator, WITHOUT express consent.

          • expect_resistance

            A woman’s uterus is not public property.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Of course not. Indeed there are few places more intimate than the a mother’s womb where her tiny daughter is being nurtured and protected so very beautifully.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Or sucked out through a vacuum or having it’s limbs chopped off and brain scooped out so some mother doesn’t have to be burdened by a baby.

          • Suba gunawardana

            The METHOD of death is irrelevant when it comes to non-sentient beings such as fetuses.

            Whereas the suffering of neglect/abuse matters very much when it comes to unwanted CHILDREN forced into birth against the mothers’ will.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Under the rule of law, the METHOD of death is always relevant.

            Lethal violence against children is never ‘necessary’. All
            violence against children is preventable. Before as well as after birth,
            children should never receive less protection than adults.

            Their mothers’personal and social needs can and should be met by non-violent means.

          • Suba gunawardana

            The key word is “CHILDREN”, who are sentient. The killing in this case applies to fetuses, who are NOT children, and NOT sentient.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Biologically, genetically and genealogically a fetus is the human child of identifiable human parents. Her humanity is not predicated on sentience To be entitled to human rights one has only to be a human being.

          • cjvg

            And therefore a woman , just like every other human, has the right to hold her body inviolate. No one has more rights to the use of her body then she does, most certainly not a developing mass they might never even become a living human being

          • expect_resistance

            Why do you keep saying “her?”

          • fiona64

            Rita apparently believes that an appeal to sentimentality is an argument.

          • colleen2

            It is a naked attempt to emotionally manipulate her audience. Some of the ‘pro-life’ folks believe that pro-choice women are so shallow that we’re incapable of empathy unless the z/e/f is female.

          • Shan

            It also goes to the “War on Women” place. Because if you’re aborting your “unborn daughter” you’re obvs against all women, everywhere.

          • lady_black

            Your problem, as you have already been told numerous times, is that “human rights” never involve the use of another human body.

          • Arekushieru

            A fetus is not a human being. Even if it were, that’s irrelevant.

          • purrtriarchy

            Wrong. Mindless humans don’t have rights. Fetuses are mindless.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You are confusing “offspring” with “child”.
            Every living being is the offspring of another living being/s. Every offspring is not a child. A CHILD is a specific stage of human development, distinct from zygote/embryo/fetus, teenager or adult.
            UNLIKE a zef, a child is sentient, therefore requires consideration in every aspect of their life to prevent undue suffering. A zef, being non-sentient, does not need such consideration even when it is being killed.

          • cjvg

            I certainly hope you are pregnant non stop with all the “orphan” embryos fertility clinics, embryos that will be destroyed unless you do your duty

            So how many “orphan” embryos have you gestated? None, you madam are a hypocritical killer who is shirking her duty to those tiny humans, why is your womb empty?

            Where is your agitating and protesting in front of fertility clinics that deliberately and with full knowledge and intent create excess human lives that they deliberately destroy.

            These clinics are obviously much more culpable then a woman who unintentionally gets pregnant where are the laws stopping these killings where is your outrage? I guess if it does not involve using and abusing a woman you are just not interested!

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens and persons at birth. FACT. All nations agree on this FACT.

          • cjvg

            Ugh, stop with the lying already.
            No one her is that uneducated that they are buying your unborn children BS. All children everywhere are already born

          • expect_resistance

            Birth control and abortion have existed for thousands of years. Women have always strived to control their fertility, or space pregnancies. Forced birth legislation will not change this.

          • purrtriarchy

            Should parents be forced by the law to donate organs to their born children?

          • Arekushieru

            But you want to grant FETUSES more protection than ANYONE born.

            How do you meet the personal needs of a woman who simply does not want to be pregnant (at that time)? THAT is the reason why woman have the RIGHT to choose termination or maintenance of a pregnancy. TBSFS.

          • Rdzkz

            Yes, and when we hear stories of those ‘precious babies’ who are bought and sold because people cannot feed them, other wise killed and abused in their lives for the same reasons, the disabled chained to bus stops, mother poking eyes out so their children can become better beggars, live in areas of no running water and sewers, with no furniture or education possiblilites, no shoes or chothes, where girls stay home from school on their menstrual days –what is the beauty in adding to that. So maybe you can only afford to responsibly take one child to adulthood and that is not a crime.

          • fiona64

            Learn the difference between a fetus and a child. Then we can have a conversation.

          • cjvg

            Wouldn’t that be nice, I’m just so fed up with her ridiculous attempt at painting embryo’s as identical to a child! What the h*ll, why does she think a pregnancy is 40 weeks

          • Shan

            So you think medication abortion is better?

          • Rdzkz

            Many abortions are for medical reasons, some not as much, on the other hand ‘beautiful babies’ did not make any difference for the Yates boys. Perhaps, if Andrea had had some choice, she MAY have had an/or more abortion, definitety better planning, and no deaths of FIVE full-children. Actually this happens quite frequently where women believe this ‘try to be a parent’ and it does not work and kill their children. You need to respect the ENTIRE woman. MYOB.

          • Arekushieru

            EXACTLY. Mrs. Yates (or at least her husband) was Pro-Life. It was also determined that she suffered from postpartum depression, I believe. The antis are directly responsible for creating the situation where giving birth is directly related to rainbows and unicorn farts and being unable to be happy means something is wrong with you. In other words, that you are a heartless woman. Which meant that any ill feelings that Mrs. Yates DID have would probably be hidden away making it less likely for it to be discovered. But, of course, all the sympathy goes towards her husband and none towards the woman they forced into that position in the first place. Antis make me so EFFING sick!

          • goatini

            Children have been born. Rights accrue to persons and citizens at birth. These are immutable and incontrovertible facts that all your deliberately deceptive treacly sentimental nonsense blather cannot and will not change.

          • Ramanusia

            Fetuses are not children.

          • Rita, Canberra

            ‘foetus’ is the medical term but the legal and social term is “unborn child’—a human being who can already be identified as a child, the son or daughter of a particular mother and a particular father, a child intimately related to his/her parents ( and to forbears, uncles, aunts, siblings, cousins) genetically, biologically, genealogically

            The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has “recognized” that all children are entitled to “legal protection before as well as after birth” (See UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child; also UN Convention on the Rights of the Child).

            Right from the first drafting of the international human rights instruments, the legal language of human rights included repeatedly and consistently the terms ‘unborn children’ and ‘the child before as well as after birth’.

            It is not valid to replace these international human rights legal terms with ‘the foetus’ and then claim that the child has no right to legal protection.

          • Ramanusia

            Fetus is the medical term and the correct spelling. The legal and social term is also the same. The legal and social terms don’t in any way agree that a developing fetus is a child. You’re just making up things to pretend that you’re not spouting utter nonsense and failing miserably.

            Fetal tissue is not a “human being” any more than a tumor is, the law and society don’t equate them, nor do the fields of biology, genetics or genology.

            The Universal Declaration of Humans Rights does not recognize any such thing, since it declares that all human being are BORN. You might want to actually read it since it does actually declare that a woman has rights even if she’s pregnant nor does it ever state that she loses those rights at any point.

            Um, no. You’re either lying or you’re truly ignorant.

            It’s not valid to make up nonsense not found in easily found texts to support your idiotic point that fetal tissue is somehow equivalent to a “child” or that a woman’s legal rights that are attested to in the document that you lie about, are somehow negated to protect fetal tissue. None of the things you say are true.

            Why do you promote rape, the intimate violation of a body of an an individual by another (per your claim) without consent?

          • expect_resistance

            The majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. I suggest you look up what that procedure is.

          • purrtriarchy

            The gorier the better, don’t you agree?

          • fiona64

            How much do you want to bet that he’s fapping … right this minute.

          • Arekushieru

            STILL need your hand held on this subject, too. Unable to understand abortion procedures does NOT make you an authority, ignoramus. In fact, it makes you the opposite.

            When there ARE limbs to speak of and the method to remove a fetus by collapsing its skull is used, it’s a LATE-TERM ABORTION. Which means a fetus is doomed anyways or the woman’s life and health are in danger. It means it’s a WANTED PREGNANCY that has gone terribly wrong. And, since most women who have abortions, have children already, your assumption that women just don’t want to be ‘burdened by a baby’ is GROSS and insulting, just like you have been to me. Unsurprising, however.

            A woman who terminates a pregnancy simply does not want to be pregnant. If she doesn’t want to be ‘burdened with a baby’ she can choose adoption. Since pregnancy is the third leading cause of death worldwide and you will never have to put your life at risk in such a manner, you should keep your ignorant comments about ‘inconvenience’ to yourself.

            Btw, my previous comment still holds true, yes. If you don’t want your hand held don’t respond to anything that shows how much you still need your hand held. Oops.

          • fiona64

            Is *that* what happened to you? Your brain was scooped out?

            That would explain a lot.

          • purrtriarchy

            is that what happened to you?

          • purrtriarchy

            Fetuses maim kill and torture their hosts. There is nothing beautiful about an unwanted pregnancy you sick fetal idolatar.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            flagged for harassment

          • expect_resistance

            Again, grow up. Flag me for that.

          • Arekushieru

            So, you’re flagging purr for harassing someone who’s harassing others, telling them they do not deserve the same rights as anyone else, because they should just be slaves to their uterus? Yeah, only in the minds of the sick would that make any sense. Oops. Flag me, and you’ll prove the above applies to you, btw. Don’t turn around and complain that I was the one that exposed you. Because that is SO not true.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Thank you sir for your contribution.

          • Arekushieru

            Quit proving what a fucking BIGOT you are, jackass.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Sir, why am I bigot? I want to know so I can change my ways.

          • Arekushieru

            I have already explained it to you, bigot. Just because I am a woman does NOT mean that I am here to hold your hand and teach you every time you ask me to just because YOU are a man. BIGOT.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            I don’t want to hold hands.

            Sir, don’t be mad.

          • Arekushieru

            Then stop acting like a kid who needs his hand held all the time and shut the f*ck up.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            I’m sorry Carl…

            Sir, don’t stay angry. Are the curse words really necessary?

          • Arekushieru

            Still need your hand held, I guess. If not, just shut your trap, jackass.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Canadians sure are angry.

          • Arekushieru

            You mean US people wouldn’t be angry if someone tried to enslave populations that they consider inferior (like you do to women) and if they encountered bigots like you all over the place? Wow, didn’t know the US people were considered the polite people of North America. Oh… wait….

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Didn’t you just tell me to “shut the f*ck up”

            Hmm….

          • Arekushieru

            Yeah. So why are you responding to obviously rhetorical questions if you don’t want your hand held, apparently?

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’d have to explain to it what rhetorical means, which would probably take all day.

          • fiona64

            You could explain it to that stupid POS all day long, but you still can’t understand it for him.

          • expect_resistance

            You should listen to her and shut the fuck up! You’re a jerk.

          • Jennifer Starr

            She’s a much better person than you’ll ever be.

          • fiona64

            And you wonder why you can’t get a date to the homeschool prom …

          • expect_resistance

            So in other words what is going on in my uterus is none of your business. If I want to not be pregnant I will have an abortion. End of story.

          • Arekushieru

            Other than the uterus, there are few places that are more intimate than a vagina. If penis in vagina sex can still be considered rape if it’s non-consensual that holds even MORE true for something that delves even closer to vital organs and is, as a result, even MORE risky.

            Daughters are born. Mothers occur only when a newborn (or older child – someone who is already born) is released into their care.

            You want to make pregnancy nothing more than a duty and forced. There’s NOTHING beautiful about that. SFS.

          • goatini

            What a load of sentimental bullshit, to try and hide its vile, foul hate speech against the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice. Women are not just a giant uterus to be controlled by the State.

          • Rdzkz

            You live in a dream world. How many real children do you have now?
            Plan on at least 13 or 17 within your lifetime.

          • Jennifer Starr

            According to her biography, she’s had eleven.

          • Rdzkz

            Thanks. Then she can keep going. Who pays for all this?

          • fiona64

            Oh, so she’s one of those poor, pathetic Quiverfull types who doesn’t even realize she’s a victim. That certainly does explain a lot.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah. And strangely enough, the April Showers poster claimed to also have eleven last time she posted here.

          • fiona64

            Hmm. Coincidence? Maybe … but I doubt it now.

          • purrtriarchy

            Valerie Finnegan? DianaG2?

            They fetishize fetuses and pregnancy to justify their own life choices. The fact that we believe differently is very threatening to them.

          • Shan

            I did the Ancestry.com thing and found that the women in my family, up my grandfather’s side, regularly had that many BORN children, sometimes starting in their early teens. Crazy. They must have been pregnant and/or nursing for 25-30 years at a stretch.

          • Ramanusia

            And her “tiny daughter” nor her “tiny son” get to so intimately “nurture” and “protect” themselves by so “very beautifully” raping the woman upon whom they are feeding and dumping their waste into.

            Invading a woman’s body intimately against her will is only beautiful if you find rape so very beautiful.

          • purrtriarchy

            Really? Is that why you are advancing the position that womens bodies are the property of fetuses?

          • fiona64

            And a zygote is not a human being; it is a *potential* human being. Learn to reality, please …

          • lady_black

            But every human being can be ejected from the “property” of other human beings who do not want them there.

          • Rdzkz

            Is not that a GOOD point –you get thrown on the street and then jail!

          • goatini

            Female US citizens between menarche and menopause are NOT the property of the State. Stop your vicious filthy hate speech against the reproductive rights of women. It is NOT tolerated here.

          • Rdzkz

            Nor are they the property of any church or cultural belief.

          • purrtriarchy

            And goalpost moving. I suggest you try to argue honestly if you want to be taken seriously.

            You sound like a fool.

          • fiona64

            There is no “little daughter” in my womb. “Little daughters” are born individuals.

          • redlemon

            So my mother didn’t really want kids and treated me as trash. She didn’t cherish me. She “loved” me only because she felt obligated. I now get to live with the rest of my life knowing that I ruined my mother’s chances of living her own life on her own terms. I was the reason she didn’t seek her dreams.

            I’d be a heartless person to subject any child of mine to that. I have one very wanted daughter and there will be one daughter. I love her too much to subject her to such things, when knowing full well I can only handle one child.

          • lady_black

            Some women do not want children. They should do all of us a favor and not have any. Giving birth doesn’t make someone who is not maternal, too immature, or stuggling with an addiction a good mother. I know you wish it were so. It is not, and never will be.

      • lady_black

        Who cares whether it was “knowing” or not? That assumes some sort of blame is being applied. There is no blame being applied. If I don’t want to supply blood and the use of my organs to another, you cannot force me to do so, even if it means they die. There’s a name for what you are advocating. It’s slavery. And it’s ugly. Do not debate me on this. A fetus is not “an individual.” I AM AN INDIVIDUAL. I will have children when, and with whom I wish, IF I wish. I do not need your permission. And I do not care what you think.

        • Arekushieru

          Exactly. I think forced-birthers are so confused that they think everyone else must be trying to punish someone else via their own closely held opinions. In effect, they want to punish every woman who consents to sex for non-procreative purposes with forced birth so they believe that we want to punish (never mind that it is inherently impossible to do that very thing when it comes to fetuses) fetuses for malicious intent by ending pregnancies.

          • cjvg

            Absolutely true, you are so right in that assessment.
            She has inadvertently ousted herself already by declaring that forced pregnancy is only a true forced pregnancy if the women was impregnated against her will!

            She is just one of those who belief that women must be punished by pregnancy if they dare to enjoy a healthy sex life on their terms.

        • Rita, Canberra

          I’m glad you raise the evil of slavery. Roe v.Wade which ruled in effect that the fetus is a being of an inferior order and has no rights which the woman was bound to respect has a curious affinity with the Dred Scott ruling that blacks were “beings of an inferior order, and … that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect”.

          The pseudo-right to abortion stands in direct contradiction to the long, hard-won tradition of human rights and freedoms, a tradition forbidding that any one human being should have ownership and disposal rights over any other human being, no matter how small or dependent or troublesome or unwanted.

          • Arekushieru

            Wrong. It is YOUR ilk that supports slavery. We do not argue for the right to choose to terminate or MAINTAIN a pregnancy based on the fetus being inferior or that it does not ‘deserve’ the same rights as everyone else. We argue for that right based on the fact that WOMEN are NOT inferior and deserve the same rights as everyone else, Slave-owners argued that black people were inferior because they believed that they did not deserve the same rights as everyone else (INCLUDING forced gestation. it seems that it would behoove you to actually read up on the history of slaves in the US, as well. Although not unsurprising), the same way your ilk argues against women having equal rights.

            Btw, you are getting VERY close to appropriating someone else’ work and using it in a context that they have requested others not to use it, specifically, Dr. Seuss?

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Flagged for insulting someone.

            Sir, don’t do that.

          • lady_black

            And Dr. Suess was irritated with anti-choicers using his work.

          • purrtriarchy

            Equal rights under the law = no human has the right to use another humans body as life support without consent. To treat fetuses equally, they too must be denied this right. If born children cannot use their parents bodies without consent then neither can fetuses. To argue that fetuses should have a right that born children do not is to give them EXTRA rights that no human has.

          • lady_black

            You have NO IDEA about slavery. Slaves were used as breeding stock, the same way you think women ought to be used. Slaves were not occupying the bodies of others and demanding that someone else breathe for them. You don’t get it Rita. You are making yourself look like a fool. A woman is not a slave. She owns her own body, and it is not the property of a man, the state, or a fetus. This isn’t about “pecking order.” No one has any inherent “right” to depend upon my bodily functions to sustain their bodily functions. Not for nine months. Not for nine minutes. You want a fetus to have rights that my born children do not have, and I find that highly offensive.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to persons at birth.

            Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses have NO rights, are NOT citizens, and are NOT persons.

            The ONLY entity with rights in this scenario is the living, breathing WOMAN.

          • expect_resistance

            It’s not a “pseudo-right” to abortion, women (in the US) have a constitutional right to abortion. Even if abortion is outlawed women will still have abortions. You can’t force gestational slavery on women.

          • cjvg

            No person exist other then the woman, who are you talking about what is their name, what preferences do they have ?

            If you and any one else in this world are incapable to answer that, you clearly are not dealing with a person

          • fiona64

            Rita, are you a yogini? I’m just curious, because that’s a pretty incredible stretch right there.

            You are the one advocating slavery, you silly bint. You want to make women slaves to biology by abrogating their rights to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

      • Arekushieru

        Stop changing goal posts. Your requirements in this post were malicious intent and obtaining consent. If you want to then argue based on some arbitrary value that you assign to fetuses do NOT claim to be arguing from scientific and evidence-based FACT. Purr SHOWED you that one does not have to be acting against you with malicious intent or must have the capacity to obtain consent in order for you to defend yourself from someone. If you want to argue based on science and evidence-based fact, address the actual points being made BY yourself and others, next time. Kthx.

      • Suba gunawardana

        When it comes to protecting your body, the intent of the invader is completely irrelevant. (Their intent matters only if you consider pressing charges or punishing the invader.)

        Your right to protect your body is NOT diminished by the fact that the invader was innocent or lacked malicious intent.

      • Shan

        Thanks for copy/paste quoting so extensively throughout this thread. Now we don’t actually have to pay to read the book.

        http://www.amazon.com/Human-Rights-Unborn-Child-Joseph/dp/9004175601

        • lady_black

          Unless she wrote this dreck, it’s also plagiarism.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh she wrote it–to her it’s the ultimate ‘gotcha’ argument. No need for additional laws, overturning Roe v. Wade, etc–we just have to agree with her unique ‘interpretation’ of this non-binding UN Resolution, and agree that it overrules the laws and court judgments of every country. It doesn’t, of course,but she keeps arguing in the hopes of making everyone think that it does.

          • lady_black

            If she wrote it, then she doesn’t understand logic, and probably never will, until it hits somewhere close to home.

        • purrtriarchy
          • expect_resistance

            Ah, cute.

        • purrtriarchy

          So Rita Canberra also goes by the nym Rita Joseph. She has been spouting the same crap on Salon.com and everyone makes fun of her because she is a fucking fruitbat.

      • Shan

        “There is a serious problem with this argument.
        It presumes the culpability of the innocent unborn child”

        No, it doesn’t. An embryo can be neither culpable nor innocent.

        • expect_resistance

          Great point!

        • Rita, Canberra

          Then why are these tiny human beings subjected to capital punishment?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Removing an invader/parasite from your body is NOT a punishment to them, merely protecting your body.

            It’s about YOUR BODY, not about the invader/parasite.

          • purrtriarchy

            Its not capital punishment. Its self defense. Fetuses maim and kill their hosts.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            They kill 0.02% of their hosts.

          • purrtriarchy

            Irrelevant.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Yes, to you, I know the facts are irrelevant.

          • purrtriarchy

            300k per year worldwide.

            800 per year in the USA and rising. You would not be laughing about maternal mortality if you or a loved one were dead or dying from pregnancy.

            Pregnancy maims and kills and this a FACT.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Yes, 800.

            Meaning you are roughly 60X more likely to die in a car crash.

            So, yeah, I’ll take your figure with a grain of salt.

          • expect_resistance

            Do you take women’s healthcare with a grain of salt too?

          • ChrisFunguy79

            I take women’s healthcare very seriously.

            And I know that a 0.02% chance of maternal death is pretty rare. Something maybe I thought you’d be able to grasp.

          • expect_resistance

            Do not lecture me about women’s healthcare. You can’t grasp that there are complications even with the most healthy pregnancies and planned pregnancies there can be many health complications.

            In the US the maternal mortality rate has risen to the equivalency to that of “developing” countries. If we are such a “first” world country then why has the maternal death rate risen?

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Yes, it has risen from 0.018% to 0.024%

            Oh no, stop the presses.

            You realize that means that 99.976% of women who go through childbirth live, right?

          • purrtriarchy

            30k narrowly escape death. Millions are permanently injured.

            And no, we don’t force people to risk life and limb to save others. Your chances of dying from a shark attack are lower than dying from pregnancy, yet no one can force you into the ocean to save a life.

          • expect_resistance

            You didn’t read my post.

          • lady_black

            Compared to other modern countries, that’s unacceptable.

          • Arekushieru

            So uncaring about the women who DO die from pregnancy complications? Wow. Why am I NOT surprised? Perhaps, because you will never have to face the risk and since men are the only important ones in your little world, you can just laugh it off?

          • fiona64

            You know what, dumbass? You need to stop. Right now. There are women on this board (me among them) whose wanted pregnancies almost killed them. Pregnancy is not a state of wellness. It is a dangerous condition, and complications are *common.* It leaves permanent physiological changes on every single woman who experiences it … even if the pregnancy is relatively *uncomplicated.* The fact that not every woman dies is irrelevant. Many women’s health is permanently compromised.

            Not that you give a shit.

          • lady_black

            You know what? That means less than nothing to women like me who have experienced life-threatening pregnancy complications. It’s terrifying. And even scarier is the fact that I could have been killed outright by a doctor if I had not questioned him about inducing labor with a complete placenta previa. My son and I would both be dead right now if I believed doctors always know what they’re talking about, when sometimes they don’t even bother looking at the chart in their hands.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Well, if your son was dead you could just write it off as another abortion.

          • lady_black

            Right. Abortions are not done as a part of birth, dumbass. That’s a stillborn.

          • Shan

            Just report him. He’s not worth your time.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’ve already reported him and I encourage others to do so as well. That last remark was truly beyond the pale.

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

            Flagging every shitty remark it makes. And downrating them.

          • fiona64

            I’ve been flagging and down-voting, but after that last little sally to Lady_Black? I’ve sent a note to the editor-in-chief of RHRC.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah I did that too. This can’t be allowed to continue.

          • Shan

            And how it treated Arekushieru was revolting. We need a better way of getting rid of the harassers before they drag us down to their level with the personal attacks. I say just report them to RHRC as soon as they show up.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Very good idea. We don’t have to tolerate behavior like that.

          • fiona64

            I don’t think we’ll have to worry about him for long …

          • fiona64

            You know what, you ignorant POS? My wanted pregnancy almost killed me. And you know what else? I will NOT go through that again. Should my tubal ligation fail, there will be an abortion so fast that your stupid, misogynistic head will spin right off.

          • cjvg

            Since you are not risking your life it is not your right to decide if a woman must do so!

          • lady_black

            And she gets to decide whether or not to take that risk. Not you.

          • fiona64

            And since you’re a dumbassed teenaged boy who will never have to worry about having his life or health damaged by pregnancy, you need to STFU. Something maybe I thought you’d be able to grasp.

          • purrtriarchy

            I’m right.

            You’re wrong.

            Deal with it, cupcake.

          • lady_black

            That’s also irrelevant. And doesn’t apply only to women, thus doubly irrelevant. STILL, a person gets to decide whether to take the risk of driving or traveling by car. No one will force them to do so.

          • expect_resistance

            Can you post the link to the story by Robert Reich about the rise in maternal mortality rates in the US? I’m using a phone to post and can’t cut and paste. Thanks

          • purrtriarchy

            http://robertreich.org/post/85556159055

            I’m on my phone as well haha.

          • expect_resistance

            Thank you.

          • expect_resistance

            The “facts” that you cherry picked are irrelevant.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Sorry, no cherry picking….it is what it is.

          • expect_resistance

            You haven’t made a valid argument yet.

          • expect_resistance

            There are health complications from pregnancy that don’t result in death immediately, but may shorten a woman’s life.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            There’s a health complication to the fetus from abortion….called 100% guarantee of death.

            I’d call that “shortening a life.”

          • expect_resistance

            That’s the purpose of an abortion to remove an embryo or fetus.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            To extinguish a human existence.

          • expect_resistance

            To end the existence of a embryo/fetus is not killing a born person.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            But it is ending a human existence.

          • expect_resistance

            No.

          • fiona64

            In that sense, so is taking a shower. It kills cells.

            Oh, a shower? That’s what normal teenaged boys do instead of coating themselves with Axe body spray before they leave their mommy’s basements to dry to get a date to homeschool prom.

          • P. McCoy

            So is excising cancer cells human but not a human being.

          • purrtriarchy

            Boo hoo.

          • cjvg

            Can not extinguish what does not exist

          • ChrisFunguy79

            A human fetus doesn’t exist?

          • cjvg

            Re read your own statement if you can not figure it out you are just not capable enough to debate.

          • purrtriarchy

            It only exists as a fetus, nothing more.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope. You REALLY need to understand terms before you start arguing, again. The purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. The fact that a fetus dies due to incompatibility with life upon separation from the uterus is NOT the responsibility of the woman. To enforce that as a responsibility is sexist and misogynistic. Oops.

          • expect_resistance

            Well said! Thank you.

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

            I do not become two people the moment the sperm hits the ovum. Only one human being exists = me. If I allow the pregnancy to continue, there may be a birth. When the fetus survives to and through birth, the fetus is then a exists as a neonate.

          • ChrisFunguy79

            Different DNA, different human.

          • purrtriarchy

            So?

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

            Simplistic. Look up “chimera.” And your assertion is significant because … ?
            You are a different human with a different DNA. Does that mean I must donate one of my organs or my blood to you by law. No.

          • goatini

            Butt out of the responsible and moral decisions of innocent female US citizens to exercise their reproductive justice rights. The only uterus that is any of your business is your own.

          • purrtriarchy

            Good.

            A fetus has no right to life.

          • lady_black

            Now what does that tell you? It tells me the fetus isn’t viable. It’s unable to live without an external organic life support system. That’s the entire point.

          • fiona64

            Too bad it never occurred to your mother …

          • BJ Survivor

            And drastically reduce the quality of a woman’s life, as well, even if they don’t shorten it.

          • cjvg

            And NO ONE is able to predict who will die from being pregnancy and/or giving birth until it actually happens! For this reason alone it should the choice of the woman who is risking her life and health to decide if she is willing and able to do so.

            NOT ONE single doctor is willing to guarantee that you will be alive after a pregnancy and giving birth, not one regardless of how healthy you are and how unremarkable your pregnancy is progressing!

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

            A pregnancy is 14 times more dangerous than a safe legal abortioin. Do math you dumbass.

          • lady_black

            Irrelevant.

          • expect_resistance

            They are not.

          • lady_black

            Yeah. Capital punishment doesn’t mean what you think it means. Capital punishment is 1) only available to the government, not to you and me. It is also, as the wording implies, a punishment for a crime. Zefs by definition cannot commit crimes, thus cannot be “subjected to capital punishment.” Abortion is not capital punishment. It’s not punishment at all. It’s the removal of unviable human tissue from the womb of an unwilling host. That’s ALL abortion is. Now you are getting REALLY ridiculous. Just stop.

          • Arekushieru

            Punishment means tools used to modify behaviour. Since fetal behaviour can’t be modified and abortion does not ‘teach’ fetuses to stop implanting into women’s uteri, by extension abortion is NOT punishment.

            However, if you want to claim fetuses are human beings (especially human beings exactly like their maternal host), you HAVE to convict them of malicious intent for causing (since it is fetuses that cause it) a risky, ofttimes DEADLY, condition in a woman that does not want to be pregnant (at that time).

          • Rita, Canberra

            Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political
            Rights Article 6(5) and the American Convention Article 4(5) made explicit the very important connection between protecting unborn children and capital punishment. Sentence of death shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

            There is a long history of association between the death
            penalty and protection for the unborn child. The maternal reprieve was an ancient rule of common law and recognized that the child in the womb had a right to life even when the child’s mother had forfeited through a capital offence her own right to life.

            The US has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 6 (1) says “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”. There was certainly no reservation to the effect that the US Constitution precludes legal protection and legal recognition as human beings of unborn children at risk of abortion.

            Indeed, one of the reservations that were made by the US formally excepted “a pregnant woman” (and implicitly her unborn child) from capital punishment. Reservation No.2 , in reference to Article 6(5) reads: “The United States reserves the right, subject to its constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.” US Reservations, Declarations, and Understandings, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 102nd Congress, 2nd Session in 138 Cong Rec S 4781 (Apr 2, 1992).

          • Arekushieru

            That has nothing to do with what I said.

            In any case, when a violation of bodily autonomy is not occurring, one has a right to life, until then, one only has a right to life if the person whose bodily autonomy is being violated grants it. Therefore, the right to life of a fetus whose maternal host forfeited her right to life does NOT preclude abortion. It only protects the fetus from having its life forcibly extinguished by those whose bodily autonomy it is NOT violating. After all, the crime the maternal host committed was NOT committed by the fetus. It would be tantamount to punishing ACTUAL children for the sins of their parents. This is also why I do not believe in the death penalty: Once one is imprisoned any violation of rights they have committed have been terminated, therefore, the death penalty is a violation of the right to life, UNLIKE abortion.

            A fetus has the same legal protections as everyone else WITH abortion legal. Kthx.

          • fiona64

            And none of that has a single thing to do with abortion. But thanks for the fabulous cut-and-paste version of logorrhea.

          • lady_black

            What “right to life” does the fetus have if she dies by some other means? Natural, accidental, suicide, or homicide? By the way, capital punishment is classified as homicide in every case. That’s right, the fetus has NO “right to life.” What you are talking about is a restraint on *state power* and has nothing whatsoever to do with the power a woman has over her own body.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to persons and citizens at birth.

          • BJ Survivor

            Since fetal behaviour can’t be modified and abortion does not ‘teach’ fetuses to stop implanting into women’s uteri, by extension abortion is NOT punishment.

            Great point!

          • Rita, Canberra

            Aborting a little daughter or son is sure not tender loving care!

          • BJ Survivor

            Since the mindless parasite is not wanted, so what? It is not “tender, loving care” to bring a child into existence that you don’t want or that you know you cannot care for.

          • Shan

            And being required by the state to gestate and give birth against one’s will is NOT either corporal or – if it results in women’s deaths – capital punishment? For what crime?

          • cjvg

            Having sex. Don’t you know that these sluts deserve any form of punishment conceivable (pun intended)

            A woman who voluntarily has sex and enjoys it should absolutely be punished for taking those liberties that by right only belong to men. If she has a difficult pregnancy or dies, that is even better.

          • Shan

            I rather suspect Rita wouldn’t agree that there should be rape exception, though. So really, the only “crime” is having a functioning uterus.

            “There’s a BABY in there! You MUST give birth to it, no matter how it got there! That’s what you’re FOR!”

          • cjvg

            I agree, I’m pretty sure Rita does not give a crap about any living woman involved, s/he is a disgusting semblance of a human being.

            Furthermore she is apparently incapable of actually defending the crap she spouts since she never ever does anything other then spouting additional unsupported garbage as a response.

            And the worst thing about it is that it is just so illogical and BORING.
            At least if someone has thoughtful well reasoned arguments you can respect their position while disagreeing with the premises, this is just dumb as a rock because the babeez blather

          • purrtriarchy

            If a woman dies as a result of the pregnancy that you would force her to gestate have you not sentenced her to death? As shan said, for what crime? Having a uterus?

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

            A fetus does not begin to meet the definition of human being until it survives birth.
            hu·man be·ing
            noun
            a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

          • goatini

            Capital punishment is done upon persons. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are NOT persons, NOT citizens, and have NO rights.

      • expect_resistance

        Are you saying a fetus has more rights to a woman’s body than she does?

      • goatini

        No problem with Suba’s factual argument at all. However, your lying BS is one big serious problem, with reality, morality, and autonomy.

        Fetuses cannot, by necessity, be either “innocent” or “guilty”. Either requires sentience in order to exist. If we were to buy your specious BS, then you would have to agree that a fetus that compromises the health of the pregnant woman is GUILTY of malicious intent and physical assault. We both know that’s impossible – and the direct corollary is that the fetus also CANNOT be “innocent”.

        Facts have a liberal bias.

      • fiona64

        It presumes the culpability of the innocent unborn child:

        Zygotes, embryos and fetii are incapable of being either innocent or guilty. They are not conscious, and thus have the inability to have a conscience.

        Plus, when you state that a fetus is “innocent,” you are perforce accusing the pregnant woman of being “guilty” or something … most likely daring to have sex without the intent to procreate.

        Your anthropomorphizing of zygotes is entertaining as hell, though.

        • Shan

          “Your anthropomorphizing of zygotes is entertaining as hell, though.”

          I know, right? Except that there needs to be a new word for it besides anthropomorphizing but I can’t even begin to make up something like that.

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

            Voodoo.

          • BJ Survivor

            I call it “Fetus Magick.” You know, obviously it’s a person ’cause daddy shot his wad. Don’t you know all the hard work of creating a child is done by men? How dare those silly wimmens think they have a right to reject a man’s baby batter! Complications, you say? Death? Permanent disability? Damage? The agony of labor? Pfft! Nothing but minor inconveniences, surely you can see that!!!

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

            Well said.

          • Shan

            LOL! It’s been a long time since I heard the term “baby batter”!

        • goatini

          I know, right? The ranty antis drag in all this treacly sentimental nonsense in their reprehensible efforts to violate the inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice… as if we are so stupid (like their sheeple followers are) that we can be manipulated by intentionally deceptive LYING language.

      • Nicko Thime

        No it doesn’t. That’s you trying to force your worldview on everyone else.
        I have just one question. Who put you in charge?

      • Rdzkz

        That is correct. For every child born several do die. That is the law of nature.If a woman knows she cannot pursue this, then SHE MAY KNOW SOMETHING YOU DO NOT, which is not your business. Maybe there is a later child to be born?

        • Shan

          ” Maybe there is a later child to be born?”

          Exactly. Every woman I know who has had an abortion has gone on to have a child (sometimes more than one) later that she would NOT have otherwise had.

          • Arekushieru

            Like my mother. If she had not had an abortion it would have been physically impossible for her to have my sibling. Hmm.

      • goatini

        What a steaming load of treacly sentimental nonsense about scientific facts! The FACTS are that a fetus can be neither innocent NOR guilty – both innocence and guilt require sentience to be present. If a fetus puts the woman’s life at risk, we all know the fetus is not “guilty”. So stop the “innocent” nonsense, as well as all of the treacly sentimental nonsense around it. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are NOT persons, NOT citizens, and have NO rights. The ONLY entity with rights in the equation is the living, breathing WOMAN.

        • Arekushieru

          EXACTLY goatini. I do not claim a fetus is guilty of anything in order to make my case. Why do THEY need to use such tactics to make theirs? Probably because they wouldn’t HAVE a point, otherwise, I know….

      • Ramanusia

        The serious problem is with your understand of a simple argument and it seems be based on some points of ignorance on your part.

        1. unborn fetuses are not children, and no one, not a mass of tissue, a child or anyone else has the right to occupy the body of another individual without their consent.

        2. The tiny dependent tissue that might someday become a human being has indeed deliberately occupied the womb, and it doesn’t care what harm it does, and apparently neither do you.

        3. Your second point is absolute nonsense, and you’re deliberately, knowingly and negligently granting consent for “lively” rape of a woman by advocating that anything at all has the right to enter her body and feed of her blood without her consent.

  • Kris Weibel

    This discisoun is insane: it is MY BODY MY VOCE AND MY VAGINA. I have had an abprtion. Ever hear of Roe vs. Wade, it’s legal. MOVE ON .

  • purrtriarchy

    I do wonder how long its going to take the crackpots to blame Elliot Rodgers killing spree on abortion.

    • redlemon

      It’s already happened. I’ve seen a few comments sprinkled around various articles blaming feminists and their right to abortion but not have sex with every guy who asks.

      • lady_black

        OMG. How sick.

        • redlemon

          Yeah, truly sickening. It’s the sole reason I’ve been actively trying to avoid comment sections on the killing spree. The general gist seems to be that, if women have a right to abort, then it’s no problem for them to put out for any man that comes along, but feminists are selfish because they want abortion AND they wont put out for any man who wants them.

          • lady_black

            On what forum?

          • redlemon

            I don’t actually remember. It was on an article about the shooting that was linked on my facebook and after I read the comments, I just closed it, disgusted. It was some local newspaper or something, not a large publication.

      • Shan

        Yeah. Apparently he wasn’t “hot” enough to attract the “hot” chicks because they were all busy too being sexually soiled by all the “hot” guys. That’s why all the “hot” ones had to die, male or female.

        http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/25/anti-woman-website-predicts-more-elliott-rogers-if-society-doesnt-provide-them-with-sex/

        Of course, the “nice guy” geek dude (either Roosh or Rogers) couldn’t be bothered with any of the “nice gal” shy geek girls. Because they weren’t “hot” enough. But notice how many mass shootings “nice gals” have done because they weren’t “hot” enough to get the “hot” guys.

  • Nicko Thime

    Stop allowing alleged “pro-lifers” to frame the conversation. I refer to them as forced gestationists.

    • Suba gunawardana

      Actually I find these arguments with forced-birthers quite entertaining. Without them these threads would be rather boring… :)

      • Nicko Thime

        I wasn’t saying that, just don’t allow them to pose as “pro-life”. They aren’t.

        • Suba gunawardana

          They certainly couldn’t be farther from pro-life, considering their callous disregard for life outside the uterus.

          On a SPL thread I had a long argument with a forced-birth nut & pointed out specific reasons why there’s no such thing as “pro-life”. All he could come back with were insults.

    • BJ Survivor

      Believe me, I never do, at least not without quotes. I usually call them “forced-birthers” or “panty-sniffers.” Also “domestic terrorists” and “misogynist dumfucks.” I despise forced-gestation ideology with the fire of a trillion supernovae, so I have a really hard time being nice to them. Their policies make life an unnecessary hell for millions of women and children.

  • Rdzkz

    Yes, and then there is ToniBraxton and her book saying god is punishing her for an abortion so her present child has autism! Remind people that every woman’s reproductive life can easily yield 13-17 pregnancies, and pregnancy one can yield several births. So how many people REALLY have 13-17 children as women –or as men, care for 13-17 children from birth to age 18?

  • goatini

    “Natural law” is a steaming load of BS, that deliberate deceivers with a vicious misogynist agenda like to trot out when they have nothing left of their hate speech against women and their rights.

  • goatini

    Being compelled to gestate an unwanted pregnancy to term, against one’s will, is forced pregnancy and gestational slavery.

  • Arekushieru

    No such thing as natural rights and even you anti-choicers agree. Because you do not enforce so-called natural rights anywhere else but when it comes to pregnancy. Misogynistic hypocrites. How sick you are. I’m talking about my human rights as a WOMAN. I deserve the same rights as anyone else. YOU believe I do not. And you do not equate my mother having a choice with equal rights. That’s YOUR problem not mine.

    See MY earlier point about how biology is forced since women can no more choose the presence of organs and their functions within their bodies than men can. Enforcing that biological standard is sexism, misogyny and, yes, FORCE.

    Btw, I DO read your comments, however, unlike me, you do not read and respond to the ones that prove you wrong because you simply cannot HANDLE being wrong like most anti-choicers.

  • Arekushieru

    As I stated earlier, in a point that COMPLETELY flew over your head, my mother CHOSE to have me, that’s why it was not forced. Telling women that pregnancy is a natural biological process equates women with their uterus function and is HIGHLY insulting. SFS.

  • Arekushieru

    By HER logic, abortion cannot be forced either because it’s NACHREL.

  • JamieHaman

    Heart attacks are a natural biological process. Want one? Why ever not? It’s natural.

  • BJ Survivor

    It is highly irresponsible to birth children one doesn’t want or hasn’t the means to properly care for. It is the height of irresponsibility to force unwilling women to create unwanted children. Having a child only to resent or neglect or malnourish or starve or browbeat or beat or rape or murder that child is unconscionably evil. The expulsion of a mindless cluster of barely-differentiated human tissue is just not a big deal. In fact, it is the default outcome of the imperfect process of reproduction. In other words, the abortions wrought by God/Nature exponentially dwarf those that are induced. So, contrary to the bloviating of forced-birth proponents, abortion is entirely natural.

    Bringing a new human being into the world is an awesome responsibility and if women/couples feel they are not up to the task, for whatever reason, who are you or anyone else to pressure or force them to do so against their will? Why do you hate actual children so much that you would want them to be inflicted upon unwilling/unprepared parents? I truly do not get that mindset.

    • Rita, Canberra

      Re two errors you make: 1. A tiny daughter or son should not be arbitrarily deprived of life because his or her parents might have a inclination to child abuse. Parents with criminal inclinations must be deterred by giving children at risk of abuse (including lethal child abuse that is abortion). That’s what the law is for–to protect the most vulnerable.

      2. The just way to deal with unwilling/unprepared parents is to provide education and practical support; the unjust way is to facilitate aborting their defenseless child. The fault is in the parents not the their child.
      3. You confuse abortion and miscarriage. That’s like equating a child’s death through a naturally occurring deadly virus and a child’s death through a deliberate lethal injection of the deadly virus.

      • Arekushieru

        Again, what is so difficult to grasp about the f*cking point that daughters or sons are BORN? A fetus is not ‘arbitrarily’ deprived of life. If they violate someone’s body, meaning the usage of their host person’s body is UNWANTED, that person may use as much force as is necessary, up to and INCLUDING lethal, to remove the one who violates their body, just like in the case of rape, that deals with inarguable PERSONS. Oops..

        Forcing someone to give birth and then relinquish the resulting child is EXTREME psychological and MENTAL abuse.

        There are no children in abortion unless you are referring to people like Lina Medina. Abortion is not child abuse. Forced gestation IS abuse of women, however.

        A fetus is not vulnerable like a woman is vulnerable, during pregnancy, ESPECIALLY since a fetus suppresses a woman’s immune system. it leeches nutrients from the woman’s body, etc… AND considering that assault on a pregnant women is deemed aggravated for a REASON????

        The ‘practical’ and educational support that you offer, is most often tendered by Pro-CHOICERS rather than Pro-‘Lifers’. (Hmm… I wonder why that is…?)

        As I pointed out above, the fetus is not defenseless. A fetus is not being accused of fault when a woman terminates a pregnancy. SFS. What ‘fault’ are you accusing the egg and sperm donor of making? It can’t be the fact that the woman got pregnant. After all, you claim it is ‘nachurel’. If it’s natural, then getting pregnant is not a ‘fault’, after all. A man and woman having sex? That’s not a fault, either. Being unable or unwilling to parent is not a fault, either. Because the reverse assumption requires that one believe that being unwilling or unprepared to parent is a ‘fault’ that can be ‘cured’. Which is just sickening.

        No, the fault lies with people like you. The people who oppose contraception judge, the people who stigmatize, shame and bully women for bei

      • purrtriarchy

        Abortion is self defense, regardless of whether or not pregnancy is natural. Cancer is natural too, and we defend ourselves from it.

        Embryos are not unjustly deprived of life because the right to not be intimately violated and tortured overrides the right to maybe develop into a person.

  • Suba gunawardana

    And what about the rights of the CHILD once it is out of the uterus?

    Who is going to protect unwanted children from neglect/abuse? You? If not, what right do you have force them into life and abandon them in a hostile world?

    • Rita, Canberra

      I agree with you that we need to improve legal protections for every child, before as well as after birth. We are all working at helping these children and their mothers in their many needs.
      We must never give up trying. We should never settle for discrimination and for disposing of these little ones before they are born.

      • Suba gunawardana

        If there comes a day when every single child can be GUARANTEED a good life free from abuse/neglect (and complete with love, care and all resources), then you might have an ETHICAL argument against abortion. Not a legal one though.

        That day is not today. “Trying” is hardly a solution when so many children are being neglected/abused as we speak. To force unwanted children to birth without the resources to care for them, is to knowingly promote child abuse.