An Abortion Access Crisis Behind East Texas’ ‘Pine Curtain’


On the evening of March 5, Texans gathered to mark the closure of abortion clinics in two Texas cities—one a public vigil, another a private gathering, both befitting the particular politics of two Texas communities that, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, are without a legal abortion provider.

The Whole Woman’s Health clinic in McAllen had been the last operating abortion clinic in the sprawling and largely rural Rio Grande Valley, while in Beaumont, another Whole Woman’s clinic served East Texas and an area known as the “Golden Triangle,” a swath of Gulf-bordering land where about 20 percent of the population lives below the federal poverty line.

At Whole Woman’s Health in McAllen, bordering Reynosa, Mexico, clinic owner Amy Hagstrom Miller hosted a candlelight vigil for her employees and their supporters. They took turns reading, often through tears, snippets of stories from the thousands of Whole Woman’s patients treated over the years.

“This is very similar to my actual story,” read one young woman, quoting her anonymous patient: “I am 23 years old. I live in McAllen. I’m a single mother, with one child.” Another: “I’m from Mercedes, I’m 33 years old, a mother of two, and I’m living with my parents.” And another: “I just turned 18 years old. I am unemployed and a full-time college student. I cannot afford to have a child.”

But in Beaumont, about an hour east of Houston and a world away from its snarled traffic and high-rise towers, Hagstrom Miller decided to do something more private, inviting her employees there to gather at their clinic behind closed doors.

Abortion just isn’t something folks in East Texas talk about with company—let alone gather in public to support. If abortion makes a public appearance at all, it’s in the form of the sun-faded anti-choice billboards that dot the landscape between clusters of pine trees and rolling farm and ranchland, featuring toddlers in biker gear who are “Born to Ride!” Others show grinning infants excited about heartbeats that began either at 18 or 24 days after conception—the consensus seems to vary from one two-lane highway to another.

And so Hagstrom Miller’s Beaumont staffers joined their McAllen colleagues and supporters at a virtual vigil, linking in by video conference, their voices broken both by tears and an occasionally spotty Internet connection.

“Personally, I’m simply devastated,” said Marva Sadler, surrounded by a handful of her former Beaumont colleagues as the crowd in McAllen shaded their eyes from the setting sun to see their East Texas counterparts on a projection screen.

“I am so very worried about the women and their families in Beaumont, the Golden Triangle, and the southwest region of Louisiana,” she continued.

The stories of East Texans who seek abortion care—many of whom call the Lilith Fund, a hotline that provides financial assistance for Texans who need help funding their procedures—are as varied as the folks who live there: there’s the woman left “high and dry” by an ex who “didn’t really care” about her pregnancy, the newly pregnant woman already raising a 10-month-old, the woman whose partner “disappeared as soon as she told him about the pregnancy,” the woman who went in for a prenatal check-up only to find her baby had no cranial structure.

And the one refrain that seems to tie them together: “This was the best decision she could make for her and her family.”

And so the number of legal abortion providers in Texas dropped once again in the wake of the passage of Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law, HB 2. Its four provisions—restricting medication abortions, banning abortion after 20 weeks, requiring doctors who provide abortions to obtain hospital admitting privileges, and mandating that abortion clinics operate as ambulatory surgical centers—are expected to eventually leave Texas with just six legal abortion providers come September.

The Valley’s clinic mourners closed their vigil with a somber candlelight walk, their chants of “We will not forget!” echoing off the buildings of downtown McAllen as a handful of anti-choice protesters stood on a nearby street corner, praying in celebration.

In Beaumont, the closure was similarly marked with candlelight, but quietly—no public mourning or protests—with a handful of clinic workers gathered in just one small room in a small Texas town where residents have been left without safe, legal abortion care for the first time in 40 years.

Behind the Pine Curtain

Cross an unfamiliar threshold in East Texas—anywhere in the 200-mile or so stretch from the eastern borders of Dallas, Waco, and Houston all the way to the Louisiana state line—and you won’t know whether to expect the warmest reception of your life, or the coolest. I once spent an hour and a half trying to strike up idle conversation over Jell-O shots and tallboys at a Beaumont dive, to no avail, but have also met gas station attendants who wanted to tell me their life stories—and hear mine—before handing over the bathroom keys.

My parents, and their people going back five or maybe even six generations, hail from the smattering of tiny towns between Dallas and Texarkana and Shreveport—towns charmingly twanged and, in some cases, aspirationally named: Annona (Ann-OWN-uh), Avery (EH-v’ry), Detroit (DEE-trawt), Paris (Pairse). Northeast Texas tends to be more white and Hispanic; southeast Texas has more Black folks, especially out toward southern Louisiana.

It is a geographically beautiful place, as anyone who has seen the “pine curtain” first-hand will attest. It is a place where neighbors get together to fry frog legs and eat hundreds of pounds of crawfish on Sunday afternoons. A place where a stranded motorist can depend on the next passing car to pull over with a helping hand, where folks poking down backroads on tractors never fail to give a wave or a tip of their hats.

A lot of East Texans work in the oil fields out in the Gulf of Mexico. A lot of people work farms and ranches. And a lot of people can’t find decent-paying work at all—especially not when the plant and factory jobs dry up. People drink. People make, deal, and use a fair amount of methamphetamine. Sometimes even the police chief gets in on the drug game.

One East Texan I talked to described their experience spending 30 minutes trying to work—at a state-funded institution—while a fellow employee “laid hands” on them, praying to Jesus Christ for the swift recovery of their sick parent. Unpaved beer-joint parking lots—usually set off to the sides of the two-lane blue highways that snake through East Texas farmland and into the piney woods—quickly get full up with oversized trucks and gargling motorcycles come 7 p.m.

Dallas and Houston, the westernmost metropolitan gateways to northeast and southeast Texas, tend to lean blue—both cities have, for example, non-discrimination ordinances that protect people on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

But outside of these urban loops, things get redder. Much redder. The kind of red where gay couples are called “f*gs” by restaurant employees. The kind of red where a woman can lose her substitute teaching job because she is transgender. The kind of red where it’s weirder if a roadside stand selling sweet tea, decrepit lawnmowers, and “We Don’t Dial 911” signs doesn’t have a prominently displayed confederate flag on the premises.

And indeed, race relations in East Texas are particularly complicated; the area is home to Jasper, where in 1998 three white men dragged a Black man named James Byrd to his death, behind a pick-up truck. Last fall, in nearby Hemphill, a Black man named Alfred Wright was found dead in a field after local law enforcement leaders—all white men—appeared to delay an investigation into his disappearance, bringing up simmering tensions between a Black community hoping to have, at last, a serious conversation about racism, and a white community that would rather pretend those tensions didn’t exist in the first place.

And somewhere on the road between Beaumont and Orange, Texas, this last spring, a Ford F-250 gunned past me on a two-lane highway, boasting an “I <3 BIG OIL” bumper sticker on its back window.

Red.

While the Rio Grande Valley has seen national and international coverage of the impact of Texas’ new abortion restrictions and family planning budget cuts there, a similarly serious situation exists in East Texas—though its manifestation differs somewhat from the reproductive health-care crisis unfolding in the blue-tinted Valley.

Cultural taboos around having sex—and around talking about sex—are especially strong in rural and suburban East Texas, and the extreme right-wing Tea Party has a firm—and strengthening—hold on voters and public officials in an already deeply socially, politically, and fiscally conservative area. A decade ago, redistricting turned East Texas’ once-Democratic First Congressional District into an easy-win playground for native son Rep. Louie Gohmert, a now five-time congressman who believes the Obama administration is teeming with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and that terrorists are birthing babies on U.S. soil to create a secret army of future spies. East Texas is also home to Texas A&M University, a proudly conservative stronghold in the Texas public university system.

Budget cuts championed by conservative state legislators have forced Planned Parenthood to shutter three East Texas clinics, none of which provided abortion care, in 2013. That reproductive health-care organization has been able to keep only one of its East Texas clinics, in Tyler, open thanks to a federal Title X grant that also helped it re-open a facility in the Rio Grande Valley last fall. (Full disclosure: I have a friendly relationship with Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which operates clinics in Southeast Texas and Louisiana, and have spoken at the group’s annual Roe v. Wade anniversary luncheon.)

Abortion providers in Waco, Bryan, and Beaumont—two Planned Parenthood locations, and that Whole Woman’s Health clinic—have all either shuttered or ended abortion care in the last year. Today, East Texans must travel hundreds of miles roundtrip to Houston, Dallas, or Shreveport for legal abortion care. And unlike in the Rio Grande Valley, where health-care professionals worry about pregnant people crossing the border to and from Mexico to buy the abortion-inducing drugs that can be purchased over-the-counter at pharmacies there, there is no easy access to the drugs that, while illegal, may be the safest, and one of the most common, methods that Texans choose to self-induce abortions when they cannot access a legal provider hundreds of miles away.

Marva Sadler at Whole Woman’s Health estimated that their Beaumont clinic alone saw about 3,000 patients per year. She now works at the Whole Woman’s Health in Fort Worth, which will close in September along with all but six of Texas’ existing abortion providers. Then Texans will need to travel to one clinic in San Antonio, one in Fort Worth, one in Dallas, one in Austin, or two clinics in Houston for legal abortion care inside state lines. But some of them are already heading to Louisiana, because as one anonymous Dallas abortion provider wrote in Women’s eNews in May, providers in Texas are “swamped,” often working through the night to see desperate patients.


Abortion access in East Texas and western Louisiana. Red pins represent a shuttered site, green pins are sites that remain open for now, and the orange pin represents a reproductive health clinic that is open but does not provide abortion care.

“We are getting calls from [Texas] women who can’t get into any of the available clinics without a waiting period,” said Kathaleen Pittman at the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport. At Hope, Pittman can get clients in the next day for patients early in their pregnancies. In Dallas and Houston, patients now often have to wait a week or more for their first appointment—the one that precedes Texas’ mandated 24-hour waiting period unless a patient can prove they live more than 100 miles from any legal abortion provider—and many Texas providers have stopped prescribing medication abortions altogether due to the provision of HB 2 that mandates patients visit the clinic four separate times to take two abortion-inducing pills.

For now, at least, Hope can see patients quickly, though they still must obey a mandated 24-hour waiting period law, just as Texas providers must. And soon, Hope’s abortion providers—indeed, all Louisiana abortion providers—will be forced to obtain hospital admitting privileges, thanks to a Texas-style omnibus anti-abortion access bill that passed the Louisiana legislature 88-5 in late May. When that law goes into effect, Hope is expected to become one of two remaining legal abortion providers in Louisiana, with the other located just a few miles away in nearby Bossier City—300 miles from New Orleans. The last abortion clinic in Mississippi, in Jackson, is 200 miles from Shreveport and New Orleans.

There isn’t a looming reproductive health-care crisis in the South. It has already arrived.

“We Don’t Even Talk About Good Sex Here”

2010: “The sexually transmitted disease syphilis is on the rise in East Texas.”

2012: “Houston’s health department reported a near doubling in the number of new infectious syphilis cases during the first eight months of 2012 compared to the same period last year.”

2013: “Worst syphilis outbreak in 60 years.”

2014: Primary and secondary syphilis “concentrated primarily along the I-35 corridor and eastward.”

In terms of common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) like gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis, Texas is the eighth most infected state in the country, with its highest concentration of STD outbreaks located in East Texas. Neighboring Louisiana ranks number one. Trailing Louisiana: Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama.

Sex education for public school students is wholly optional in Texas, where the vast majority of districts choose abstinence-only programs; in Louisiana, sex education is also optional, but when it is included in curricula, it must be abstinence-only, and it may not be provided by any abortion-affiliated person or group. In May, Louisiana legislators also rejected a proposal that would have let the state’s Department of Education ask students questions about “risk behavior associated with chronic health conditions, including those related to sexual health.”

It’s no wonder, then, that along the porous border between rural East Texas and western Louisiana, folks really don’t like talking about abortion.

“If there wasn’t a stigma attached to abortion, people here could talk about it all day long,” joked Kathaleen Pittman when I met with her and her colleagues at Hope Medical Group in Shreveport this May. Folks in her neck of the woods can talk—and talk, and talk—but they get quiet when the subject of reproductive health care comes up.

Hoping to speak with supporters of women’s health care in East Texas, I reached out to the Temple Foundation, a philanthropic organization that in 2006 made a “generous lead donation” to a new $1.5 million Planned Parenthood facility in Lufkin, a two-hour drive northeast of Houston. Previously, the Planned Parenthood facility there had been operating out of a Junior League-provided location since 1977.

Today, that $1.5 million facility has shuttered, and Lufkin’s Junior League declined to talk to me about their involvement with Planned Parenthood. The Temple Foundation eventually began hanging up on my calls when I telephoned hoping for an interview with its leadership. Other private citizens who’ve done fundraising and reproductive health-care outreach in East Texas backed off of interview asks—one demurring because their spouse is a public official in a rural county, and they feared it would have negative political repercussions.

So I turned to East Texans and Louisianans who talk about taboos for a living. People like Brooke King, the director of programs and services at the Women’s Center of East Texas, a domestic violence shelter and rape crisis center with several locations in the area.

“We don’t even talk about good sex here,” she cracked, laughing in her cozy, dimly lit office in the back of a Tyler strip mall. Bad sex? Negative consequences of sex? Rape? Out of the question.

King says she especially walks a fine line when she does healthy relationship education in schools, because parents are especially wary of outsiders giving their children “permission” to have sex outside of marriage.

“Our parents aren’t talking to their kids about it,” she told me. “It’s this idea that if we talk to our kids about it, it’s only giving them permission. We only believe in abstinence. Which is fine! And abstinence is the safest way to be, hands down. We get that. But we also get that when we have, continuously have, 13-year-olds who are in school who are pregnant, abstinence is not something you can force.”

But in particular spaces, like university classrooms, abortion clinics, and King’s domestic violence shelters, the walls come down—for East Texans of all ages.

King says she often works with her shelter clients who are especially burdened by religious mandates to obey their spouses and partners, who feel as though they cannot, biblically, say no to sex or say yes to planning their families.

“Religion.” King sighed.

“God love religion. It serves such a great purpose, but it’s twisted so much. It makes it really easy for abusers to get their point of view across.”

King keeps a special book in her office, a kind of Bible study guide to help battered women better understand the scriptures that are so often used to keep them silent and submissive. Rarely, said King, does she meet women who have been explicitly told not to take birth control, or whose husbands have outright taken it away from them. Instead, the pressure to bear children, and to submit to coerced sex, is more subtle.

“We see reproductive coercion,” said King, but she says it’s frequently “masked” by religion. “People don’t recognize it as such,” she said, until they get to talking with someone like her, usually in the aftermath of a domestic violence call or visit to a SANE—Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.

Before the Whole Woman’s Health clinic in Beaumont closed, Marva Sadler told me, they were the unofficial health-care “navigators” for the Golden Triangle area. When Sadler would work on clinic scheduling, she would always make sure to block out extra phone time for callers—once they got on the phone with a Whole Woman’s receptionist, they would unburden themselves of their entire back-stories, or explain complicated health situations that might have had nothing to do with abortion, but which they hoped Whole Woman’s could provide answers to.

“When [clients] called on the phone, from the moment they call and make their appointment, you nine times out of ten know their life story,” remembered Sadler. “You have to allot extra time on the phone, because she is going to tell you everything from the moment she got pregnant. You develop that relationship from the beginning.”

“If I close my eyes,” said Sadler, “I still remember their faces.”

When people couldn’t get information about sex and contraception from their families—”If you get pregnant or you’re having sex and you need contraceptives, you ask grandma, and if she can’t tell you, you just don’t get it,” said Sadler—they turned to Whole Woman’s Health.

And low-income East Texans also once turned to the now-shuttered Planned Parenthood facilities in Lufkin, Huntsville, and Bryan. Today, those Texans must wait weeks, or sometimes months, for Pap smear and contraception appointments at county health clinics when they find themselves uninsured. And about half of working-age, low-income adults in East Texas are uninsured.

Now that East Texans have lost so many of the resources that were available to them in recent years, some residents are particularly trying to open up conversations about health and sex that start before that phone call to Planned Parenthood or Whole Woman’s Health. Often, those conversations start on college campuses.


“I Feel Like I’m on Another Planet Sometimes”

“It’s almost like it’s the 1950s out here,” Savannah Anderson-Bledsoe, a student at Lamar University in Beaumont and one of the founders of the school’s nascent feminist club, told me. Driving through the campus to meet her, I pass a crisis pregnancy center adjacent to a sand volleyball court filled with undergraduates in tank tops and bikinis.

One of the very first things that Anderson-Bledsoe explains is that “the gender norms down here are so rigid.” That’s not something she’s necessarily used to.

A Georgia native and child of a single mother who spent her high school years in Austin, 20-year-old Anderson-Bledsoe said she loves Beaumont, and she loves her college, but “coming from Austin, I feel like I’m on another planet sometimes.”

With her group, Feminists of Lamar, she says she’s trying to “change things one day at a time” by starting small conversations with her fellow students—students who, she says, feel immense pressure to find a spouse in college, and to marry soon after, if not during, the course of their schooling. Her club’s hosted screenings of Miss Representation, the documentary that examines the objectification of women in popular media, have hosted clothing drives for local women’s shelters, and they’re hoping this year to work with young teens in middle school on a self-empowerment project.

Anderson-Bledsoe told me she hates to see her fellow students—many of them, like her, “Black women who are empowered, strong”—put such an emphasis on finding a (heterosexual) relationship to avoid single motherhood, and she feels for the men in her community who she says are pressured to fulfill an unattainable version of masculinity, unable to hug their brothers or cry when they are upset.

“Women, a lot of them out here feel like they should want to take care of a man and a family,” explained Anderson-Bledsoe, from a booth in the comfortable, cool-toned common room of her campus dorm. And the guys? “The men out here are helpless,” she jokes.

But what really gets her, she says, is her fellow students’ difficulty separating the sin from the sinner when it comes to topics like premarital sex and abortion.

Almost everyone I talked to in East Texas stressed the importance of Christianity in their and their neighbors’ lives—for better and for worse. Church is inextricably entwined with a broader, socially enforced mandate to avoid premarital sex—or at least avoid letting anyone know you’re having it—to marry early, and to, ideally, settle down to have children, with “Dad” going to work and “Mom” staying home with the kids, in the same town you grew up in.

And of course all of this is drowned in mandated heteronormativity and traditional gender roles, within a social system that is set up not for prevention, but for punishment.

“When someone has an abortion, it’s an abomination,” said Anderson-Bledsoe. But if you don’t have an abortion, and you’re a single mom working to support your family, “you’re judged.”

Anderson-Bledsoe’s fellow Feminists of Lamar founder, Shelby Murphy, echoed her classmate’s concerns. A 20-year-old who’s lived her entire life in her parents’ home in Beaumont, Murphy said that while East Texans her age are especially taking “baby steps” toward more open-minded thinking, “it’s hard.”

Murphy said she was “scared” when she heard that the Beaumont Whole Woman’s Health clinic had closed, though as she was growing up, she didn’t even know Beaumont had an abortion clinic at all. It simply wasn’t discussed. Now, she worries that in a community that can be as tight-lipped about social issues as Beaumont can be, “they won’t see the after-effects” of diminishing access to abortion care.

Talking to these norm-defying college feminists, the thing that stuck with me the most was a casual joke that Anderson-Bledsoe made near the end of our chat.

“When it’s 2020 in the rest of the world, in Beaumont it’ll be 1992.”

Planned Parenthood: Texas’ Only Abortion Provider?

But willful blindness and ignorance to the consequences of bad health policy is certainly not unique to East Texas—it’s a statewide affliction, particularly among the conservative, Republican, and anti-choice Democrat legislators who have spent the past several years finding new ways to restrict abortion and to cut family planning funds.

The particular target of their ire has been Planned Parenthood, an organization which they have relentlessly tried to force out of the state. But Texas’ restrictive abortion laws may have had an unforeseen side effect—at least one unforeseen by the state lawmakers who have been saying for years that they hope to regulate the provider out of business. It’s a side effect that has to do with the choice within a choice—or perhaps, that very limited choice within a very limited choice: where Texans can go for their legal abortion care.

When the ambulatory surgical center provision of HB 2 is put into effect on September 1, half of the six remaining abortion providers in Texas will be Planned Parenthood facilities. If Planned Parenthood is able to open another projected San Antonio ambulatory surgical center by that deadline, it will then run four of the state’s seven existing legal abortion providers.

Instead of ushering Planned Parenthood out the door, conservative and anti-choice lawmakers have ensured that patients who seek legal abortion care are more likely than ever to get it—if they can make it to a legal provider at all—at Planned Parenthood. And it’s important to remember that legislators simultaneously slashed family planning funds and dismantled, then relaunched, a low-income contraception program—now called the Texas Women’s Health program—that today sees a fraction of the clients it served at its peak.

The bright new Planned Parenthood Center for Choice ambulatory surgical center in Houston will likely become the de facto destination for East Texans who might otherwise have chosen care at a smaller, more local provider like Whole Woman’s Health. Depending on the legislative situation in Louisiana, and whether doctors there are able to secure admitting privileges in their home communities, it may also become the only option for pregnant folks from Baton Rouge and Lake Charles who would otherwise have chosen Whole Woman’s Beaumont, or even Hope Medical, with their hot tea service in recovery rooms and clinic-style procedure facilities.

Because while the Planned Parenthood Center for Choice is a beautiful medical facility, it feels like a hospital—just as ambulatory surgical centers are meant to be. The hallways are wide enough for two large gurneys, and procedure rooms must be maintained for temperature and humidity at all times, making them chilly and also hard to regulate with the Texas sun pouring through the former bank building’s windows.

Before their procedures, says Tram Nguyen, the director of the Center for Choice ASC, “Patients stop in the doorways. ‘I thought you told me it was minor,’ she says they tell her. ‘This is an operating room.’”

Nguyen has worked at Planned Parenthood for years, the most tenured member of the staff in Houston. She told me that she complies with the ASC regulations because, legally, she has to—but she, and a number of mainstream medical professionals and organizations, see the ASC regulations as totally medically unnecessary. She fondly recalls days in Planned Parenthood’s smaller, homier abortion clinic, but is dedicated to defying legislators’ efforts to shut down legal abortion care in Texas.

“We’re not going anywhere,” she said, after walking me through the facility, peppering her tour with stories: the patient from the South Texas oyster fields who traveled hundreds of miles for her procedure, the sobbing, screaming patients she couldn’t help after Texas passed its 20-week abortion ban, the woman who drove all night from Mississippi and slept in the parking lot.

“We’ll figure it out,” Nguyen told me. They have to. “It’s kind of a kick to prove that to the state.”

But while Planned Parenthood in Houston—and other urban-area abortion providers who can afford to rent or build ambulatory surgical centers—may have the resources to keep their doors open in the coming months, a larger question looms: whether any but the wealthiest abortion-seeking Texans, with access to cars and time off work and child care for the children they already have, will be able to walk through those few remaining doors.

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

Follow Andrea Grimes on Twitter: @andreagrimes

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

  • pateriot

    Only to the sick and twisted abortion crowd would women not killing their “fetuses” (developing babies) be considered a crisis!!! Evil manifest!

    • Jennifer Starr

      No one’s talking about killing anything.

      • pateriot

        THANK GOD! There for a minute I thought that this discussion was about abortion… where a developing unborn baby is killed and then removed from the “Mother’s” womb!!

        • Jennifer Starr

          Babies are born. If you know of anyone who is killing babies, call the police.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          This is about the fact that pro lifers kill babies to save fetuses. A country that kills its babies to save its fetuses cannot survive.

          • pateriot

            “This is about the fact that pro lifers kill babies to save fetuses.”
            What in the *&^% are you talking about? Is this something that you read on “RHReality Check” by any chance? Lay off the crack pipe!

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            This is pretty clear and an accepted fact: You have a choice, you may choose to save innocent born babies, children and adults or you may choose to let them die and save a fetus instead.

            This is entirely up to you. You may save babies and let fetuses die or you may save fetuses and let babies die. I choose to save babies.

            You cannot save both the fetus and born life because born life is continually dying at a rate faster than it can be saved. So spending even one second saving a fetus causes the death of a born life.

            I hope you will stop letting innocent babies die and join me is saving life.

          • pateriot

            WHO is choosing to save fetuses and causing the deaths of babies as the result? Either you are a class “A” nut or I am really missing something here because you are making NO sense!!!

          • LoneVoice1

            He’s terrified of squirrels. Of course he’s a nut.

    • purrtriarchy

      Prove that a fetus is a baby.

      • pateriot

        Could be anything, right? A kitten, calf, a fish, a giraffe, a toaster oven, a Liberal, a…
        Dehumanizing a developing, unborn human baby does NOT change the fact that it is just that! What percent human would you consider it to be; 3/5th human, perhaps?

        • purrtriarchy

          Human is not synonymous with baby. Try again.

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

          A woman has total authority over what goes into or comes out of her body. All this moral indignation and references to slavery are a cover for the fact that you are a slaver and a rapist.

          The USA moral base is the principle of equal individual rights. There is no way to give rights to a fetus without removing equal individual rights from the living woman.

          • LoneVoice1

            Please! You wouldn’t know anything about actual morality.
            Your “morality” has no basis in anything.

          • purrtriarchy

            Where does morality come from. Tell us.

          • LoneVoice1

            Morality comes from God, but you don’t believe in God. So morality is a meaningless concept to you. Maybe you believe some form of “ethics,” to form an ersatz version of morality.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Which god would that be, then? In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t live in a theocracy.

          • purrtriarchy

            Which of the 30,000 gods would that be?

          • LoneVoice1

            I’m quite sure you think of yourself as your own goddess. Right and wrong is whatever you say it is.

          • purrtriarchy

            Answer the question. Debate like an adult. Please.

          • LoneVoice1

            Since when has a comment board ever been an honest debate? I happen to be on a site that has an overwhelming majority of feminist, pro-abortion commenters. Anything I say will just be used against me, and “prove” your argument. The majority’s opinion will validate the group opinion that abortion is just perfectly fine and anybody disagreeing must be stupid or evil.

            BTW I used the capital letter, G, to refer to God. You’re just playing dumb that you don’t know the answer. However, just in case you need another clue he has a book out that’s been a worldwide best seller for nearly 2000 years.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Meaning that you don’t have an argument, and this is just more evasion. And you still haven’t answered the question. Which God?

          • LoneVoice1

            Are you really that dense? Do they not sell the Bible in your universe?

            I’m not arguing with you, at least not in the sense of trying to persuade. We don’t even agree on the very meaning of words.

            Take the word fetus for example. You would probably say it’s the scientific term for that thing inside of a pregnant woman’s uterus after the zygote stage up to the point of birth. You would also emphatically say it’s not a baby.
            On the other hand the word fetus comes from latin. It means baby or child. That’s how the Roman’s saw it.
            Try asking a pregnant woman who intends to bring her pregnancy to term what she has inside of her. Is it a fetus, or is it a baby?

            Yes, the term, fetus, is correct, but so is the term, baby. Unless the intention is to abort the baby the word fetus isn’t used outside of a medical context. It’s easier to kill a baby if you first convince yourself that it’s not really a baby.

            Again, this isn’t a valid argument to you. To you and other commenters on this site science has “proven” that it isn’t a baby. Plus the US Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is a “right.”

            Human beings have decided to make a stone out of their hearts and then claim to be on the side of right.

          • goatini

            And a fetus is not a baby.

          • purrtriarchy

            I am interested in honest debate and the exchange of ideas.

            Apparently you just want to sling feces. How sad.

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

            Yeah but you do not read the book nor follow its precepts one iota. If you followed the OT rules faithfully, you would go to jail. If you faithfully followed Jesus, you would not be sneering at others. By your own standards, you are going to burn in Hell brightly.

          • LoneVoice1

            By your lack of standards you can sneer all you want and pick apart Christians with impunity.
            Of course if I am going to Hell I’m going to be your supervisor. Won’t that be fun?

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

            I am a Christian. In fact, I spent ten years in Christian ministry. Stop pretending all Christians are opposed to reproductive justice for women. That is an untruth.

          • lady_black

            The capitalization of the word “God” is indication of using the word as a title. Just like you capitalize President when using it as a title. Now to which “god” do you refer to? “God” is not a name.

          • 711247

            That they (deities aren’t necessarily binary) relied on ghostwriters for. Hmm…

          • goatini

            Men wrote the bible, not “God”.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Wow. It must be lovely, way high up on that judgmental pedestal that you’ve placed yourself on. Be careful not to fall.

          • LoneVoice1

            It must be lovely to be childless and cold blooded.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I pity any children that you’ve spawned.

          • cjvg

            Does it comfort you to make unsupportable and unwarranted assumptions about people you know nothing about.
            It is the last refuge of the ignorant to excuse their insatiable need to usurp the rights of others so they feel less insignificant

          • goatini

            Since it’s utterly and completely cold-blooded to advocate for the forcible erasure of the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens to reproductive justice, the cold-blooded one here would be you. Nothing “cold blooded” about wanting, and having, the power to control one’s own destiny… except to those who want to control it FOR you, against your will.

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

            Why do all fetus freaks think they can read minds? They all can tell me what I think without asking me. What a delusion.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            As a Christian, I can tell you that you don’t know if morality comes from God. You are just spouting your own worthless personal belief. To you, murdering innocent babies to save fetuses is moral.

          • LoneVoice1

            What gave you the idea that you’re a Christian?

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

            Jesus was a devout Jew. These are the rules Jesus followed:

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

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

          • LoneVoice1

            Did you read the parts where Jesus contradicted Jewish law on many occasions? The Talmud is not the Bible. It is the collected opinions of Jewish priests and scholars, you know, the Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus compared them to a tomb, whitewashed and beautiful on the outside, cold and dead on the inside.

            You know that abortion in this country is rarely done to save a mother’s life. Your argument looks nice and beautiful, and even looks biblical. But the truth is that abortion is a cold blooded soul deadening act.

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

            What Talmudic Law did Jesus break or contradict? The Talmud is the chief Jewish scripture. Jesus compared men to whitewashed tombs, not the body of Jewish Law. Jesus was a devout Jew and what he taught was simple Judaism. You are telling disrespectful lies.

            Abortion was endorsed by Jehovah in the Bible. Hosea 13:16 where it was used as a tool of genocidal war. And the Sotah in Numbers 5:3-11 where abortion is a trial by ordeal because a husband suspects adultery.

            Given that abortion is 14 times safer than gestating to term, and that women who have abortions most likely have other children to feed, abortion is always life saving. You probably should not have an abortion.

          • goatini

            But since the truth is that safe, legal pregnancy termination is a minor outpatient medical procedure that is 13X safer than any full-term pregnancy, and is the civil, human and Constitutional right of every female US citizen, you would be wrong.

          • lady_black

            What gave you the idea that YOU are? “Christian” is not interchangeable with “moral.”

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Grace

          • cjvg

            Are you now appropriating onto yourself the judgment that d proclaimed is only his?! You do realize that you are now committing a grave sin!

          • goatini

            Who are you to judge?

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

            Which God? The God of the Bible uses abortion as a tool of genocidal war and civil control. Hosea 13:16 and the Sotah in Numbers. The Jews knew about and practiced abortion.
            You might want to read the book you are thumping.

          • lady_black

            No morality does NOT come from “god.” Try again.

          • LoneVoice1

            I’d Love to read your explanation of where morality come from.

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

            Morality comes from men. God is not “moral.” It is all God. You must actually read the Bible before you try to “teach” it.
            “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7.

          • LoneVoice1

            You quoted a verse out of the Bible. So now you’re a Bible scholar.
            Congratulations.

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

            Nothing you have to say about me is relevant. You asked a question and I answered it. Do you have a relevant response or refutation?

          • expect_resistance

            No, try again.

          • goatini

            Morality most emphatically does not come from “God”.

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

            Incorrect. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemmorhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Safe abortion and contraception are human rights.

            Anthropologically speaking, Homo sapiens has three strategies for unwanted reproduction (births): contraception, abortion and infanticide. All three strategies are practiced in every culture around the world currently and historically. Those who restrict contraception and abortion make infanticide inevitable. You do not occupy the moral high ground.

            The latest discovery of unmarked mass graves full of babies in Ireland is one of the latest in vitro examples of such.
            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/claim-of-800-childrens-bodies-buried-at-irish-home-for-unwed-mothers

          • LoneVoice1

            In comparison to you almost everyone else has the “moral high ground.”

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

            So do not just insult me. That is just stupid.
            Refute my facts if you can. Do you have an intelligent reply that speaks to facts provided?

            Confess, you cannot read for comprehension well enough to understand what I wrote.
            But you want to be in charge of my sexual/family life never the less.

            Forced birthers are neither sane nor intelligent IMO.
            Surprise me, make an reasonable response.

          • cjvg

            That’s all you got?

            Wow, your point is just so rational and logical, and the flood of supporting data is really convincing me

            It is an astoundingly convincing argument, mind blowing really. I especially love the scientific and medically sound supporting facts you offer!

            Do you mind if I use your argument here to counter you?
            So in response to that I would like to say that every one else does have the moral high ground, no parenthesis needed.

          • expect_resistance

            You certainly don’t get to dictate other people’s morality. Sorry but Plum is correct a woman has total authority over what goes into or comes out of her body.

          • LoneVoice1

            You are so right that I don’t get to dictate other people’s morality. You are also correct that “a woman has total (legal) authority over what goes into or comes out of her body.”

            OTH I still have a 1st amendment right to “speak the truth to power.” I am here to remind women that aborting your own child is the most evil thing you can do. There is no further line you can cross. Whatever rationalization you use to justify the act doesn’t change this simple fact.

            There, that’s the most terrible thing I have to say. My words have no dictatorial powers. Every woman in this country can legally terminate her pregnancy. I have no power to stop that from happening, except that my words might get through to some woman who’s heart hasn’t yet been turned to stone.

          • goatini

            Considering that you and Mister Patriarchal “Patriot” are utterly amoral, that’s pretty funny.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          70 percent of conceptions die in the first trimester and of those that die 60 percent are not human enough to live as humans. So, no, there are no kittens born by humans but there are products of conception that are not human life and could never be human life. In fact 70 percent of life dies.

          • pateriot

            That 70% figure is a gross exaggeration! As long as you are only aborting the fetuses that would die anyways before birth you might have some point. As It stands…

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually it’s not an exaggeration. It’s scientific fact. Most eggs that are fertilized fail to implant and are simply washed out with the menstrual flow without anyone even knowing they were there.

          • fiona64

            Look at his comment history; he’s a Teabircher, a birther, a racist and a misogynist. Zero credibility on anything. Quelle surprise.

          • Jennifer Starr

            He also seems to have a love affair with exclamation points.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            It doesn’t matter if it is 1 percent or 70. If you consent to sex, you have consented to abortion

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            The 70 percent loss is the best estimate that science an provide.

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

            Citation needed.
            And you did not answer my question. Here it is again:
            So it is okay to kill the “child” of a rapist but not okay to kill the “child” of a player? Why is that?

          • lady_black

            No that is not a gross exaggeration. 50-70% of fertilized eggs never implant. Of those that do, 30% will abort. Often before the woman is aware she was ever pregnant.

          • 711247

            Okay, so unviable fetuses and those conceived in rape are fair game to abort?

            Tell me, O Wise Pateriot; what is the difference between a fetus conceived in love and a fetus conceived in rape?

          • pateriot

            At the earliest stages of development abortion (morning after pills) is simply unsavory. As the baby continues to develop it becomes increasingly wrong. At some point it passes the threshold of simply wrong and enters the realm of murdering unborn babies. I don’t know were you wish to be on that line but I want to be WELL short of it!!

            When someone chooses to have sex they take on certain risks. One of these is that it may result in pregnancy. When a rape occurs, the choice, and thus the tacit acceptance of its risks, has been stripped away. Therefore if a rape has resulted in a pregnancy the woman should be allowed to end the results if she choses to. However it should be ended as soon as possible and well before the fetal stage.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The morning after pill (Plan B), does not cause an abortion.

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

            Murder again? Flagged.

          • expect_resistance

            And he calls the morning after pill “unsavory.” Eyeroll. I would say forcing a woman to give birth is unsavory.

          • lady_black

            Morning after pills prevent pregnancy. They do not cause abortion. You actually need to be pregnant to have an abortion. Imagine that!

          • cjvg

            So it is all about punishing women for having sex and not wanting babies!, Glad you cleared that up.
            By the way until viability there is no “baby”, only a potential.
            Living babies do not need intra uterine life support to exist

          • expect_resistance

            It is all about punishing a women for having sex.

    • cjvg

      Only to a very sick and twisted mind would forcing the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy and forced childbirth sound like something to celebrate!

      Are you aware that women who are forced in to gestation and childbirth against their will are already living aware sentient and sapient human beings and do not even need to develop to claim that status ?!

      Discounting their lives, needs and wants for potential shows an appalling and very disturbing respect for life.

      • pateriot

        There is a cause and affect with pregnancy. Women do NOT spontaneously become impregnated! Self determination and responsibility are two notions that Liberals find completely foreign.

        • purrtriarchy

          So you offer a rape exception then?

          • pateriot

            Yes, as long as it takes place within a very limited time after the rape occured,

          • purrtriarchy

            Why do you offer a rape exception at all? And why the time limit?

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

            So it is okay to kill the “child” of a rapist but not okay to kill the “child” of a player? Why is that?

          • Feemster

            What do you think a father who has been having sex with his own daughter….does when she gets pregnant?? I have seen very young girls walked into abortion clinics by the men who impregnated them. I suspect that even the women who were running the clinics knew what was going on.They probably on some level wanted to do something about it.

            But they could not because the greatest thing that feminism has done for woman kind…..is to give women the right, to conceive babies they don’t want, for men who could care less, and then kill them.

            No one can be allowed to interfere with the sacraments of the left. These children must be sacrificed to the God of Self. Baal will have his sacrifices…..even from this generation.

            Go to Google Images….Google Late term abortions. See the TRUTH for yourself.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You think that an incest victim should be forced to give birth?

          • purrtriarchy

            Scholarly citations needed for all of the above.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Feemster, if you had been saving the little girl from her father there would have been no problem. You have a choice, you may save innocent young girls from rape by their fathers, or you can spend your time here attempting to save a fetus you cannot even prove will live to birth.
            Your choice is always to murder the born.

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

            Liar liar pants on fire.

          • Feemster

            You talk about masturbation a lot. Maybe you should try another website. I don’t think that’s what’s going on HERE.

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

            Fap, fap, fap, fap …..

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

            You did not answer my question. So here it is again for the third time. I wonder if you will answer it without the fap, fap, fap ….: and the murder porn and incest fantasy.
            Question:
            “So it is okay to kill the “child” of a rapist but not okay to kill the “child” of a player? Why is that?”

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

            I think you are whacking off while typing this sick stuff. I bet you came when you typed “Baal will have his …”

          • Feemster

            Sorry honey but so far…..you’ve mentioned porn and masturbation…..first. I certainly didn’t bring them into the conversation. Old Chinese Proverb…..”the guilty dog always speaks first.” Say what you want in public…..but just between you and me….honestly….you know you are the one with these proclivities. Even if everyone reading decided to pick your side over mine….you will still be the sickie. Good luck with that.

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

            I bet you keep the KY and the kleenex right by the computer for ease of clean up. Fap, fap, fap … come here at look at these pics ladies … fap, fap, fap, ….

          • goatini

            Fetus fetishism and dehumanization of living, breathing females is what IS sick.

          • cjvg

            Sure

            You are aware that there is a mandatory reporting requirement for suspected child abuse (and abortion centers follow it, pregnancy and birth centers not so much)and in many states parental consent laws aren’t you?

            Here is the law governing mandatory child abuse reporting (that includes statutory rape) laws;
            “child abuse reporting statutes as mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse. All states require that persons named by statute (eg parents, physicians, teachers, etc) who suspect child abuse report the case to the particular social welfare agency charged with protecting children. In every state”
            It is very clear you are making stuff up, please stop lying sio much it really underlines how pitiful and weak your “arguments” for not allowing choice really are. Or on second thought, keep at it so everyone sees your group for what thet really are;” dishonest lying hypocrites”

            If an abortion center encounters an underage pregnant girl coming in for a termination and they suspect abuse they report that to the state agency for investigation and in most states they will need parental consent to do an abortion.
            So please explain how forcing these girls to have those “babies” they don’t want makes their lives so much better?

          • goatini

            But since none of that faked-up propaganda is “truth”, you have nothing.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You understand that if you have ever consented to sex, you have consented to late term abortion, right?

          • cjvg

            Then you are deliberately being dishonest and your “taking responsibility = forced pregnancy and childbirth” stance is solely about punishing women for having sex!

          • goatini

            Of course. That’s all it’s ever about.

        • Jennifer Starr

          And ending the pregnancy via abortion is taking responsibility. The fact that you disapprove is immaterial.

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

          I hate it when I agree with Ayn Rand. She cannot be described as liberal.

          An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

          Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?“Of Living Death”

          Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate apotential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . .

          Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

          • cjvg

            Even a broken clock is right twice a day

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

            LOL. Too true.

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

          A woman who has had sex has committed no crime. You wish to force on her excruciating pain and possible death because she had sex? What should or will happen to the man who impregnated her?

          • pateriot

            A woman who has had sex has committed no crime. However she has committed an act that might result in consequences (pregnancy, VD, emotional entanglements, etc). If this is about “fairness” in your mind, the man will have to pay child support for the next 18 years.

          • Jennifer Starr

            The man is allowed to make any decisions over any pregnancies that gestate inside his body. That’s fair enough. Having to pay money isn’t even comparable to pregnancy.

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

            Not fairness. You are a slaver and a rapist. You want to force single women and married couples to give birth to children they do not want and/or cannot care for by force of law. That is evil and immoral. And in the USA it is illegal.

          • fiona64

            Oh, look .. an MRA *and* a forced birther. What a charming combination.

            Not.

          • cjvg

            So being forced to risk your life and health as well as your financial security, your career advancement as well as your retirement prospects and your social standing is the same as maybe paying child support? (it is not as if there are not thousands of dead beat dads out there)

            Your logic is remarkable, in fact some would say it is virtually non existent

          • lady_black

            Pregnancy will result in consequences, one of which may be abortion.

          • 711247

            Unless he relinquishes parental rights and walks away, which is totally legal and absolves him of all responsibility.

          • pateriot

            NOWHERE in the US can a guy simply give up his parental rights, walk away, and NOT still have to pay the Mother child support… unless the Mother wishes it and agrees to it. Even then at a latter date she, or the state if the Mother is on assistance, can have this reversed.

          • 711247
          • lady_black

            No, you CANNOT. That refers to voluntary relinquishment for adoption or termination of parental rights by a court of law. As much as I hate to admit it, pateriot is correct. Either both parents relinquish a child for adoption (or have their rights severed by a court), or they BOTH support the child. There is no one-way free ticket out of supporting a child. The child has a right to be supported.

          • lady_black

            It isn’t legal here, and to be honest, I don’t know of anywhere where that’s legal. Here’s why. It’s not about “his rights.” Child support is the CHILD’S right. That right cannot be swept away by adult action, no matter how much you wish it could. The custodial parent can choose not to exercise that right on behalf of the child. He or she can also change his or her mind and seek child support. It WILL be awarded.

          • Ella Warnock

            Perhaps men who don’t want to find themselves in a position to have to pay child support should . . . keep their legs closed? Better safe than sorry, eh?

          • lady_black

            So what?

          • Suba gunawardana

            A person who walks in a dangerous neighborhood has committed no crime. However they committed an act that might result in consequences (assault, rape, mugging, etc).

            If a woman is obligated to carry a pregnancy as a consequence of having sex, is any person who walks in a dangerous area obligated to ALLOW rape/assault/mugging because they should have known better than to walk there? i.e. do they have no right to defend themselves against attack?

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          The default position with sex is abortion. 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally. So any consent to sex is consent to abort, not consent to be pregnant. As a pro lifer, if you have ever consented to sex you have consented to abort 70 percent of your conceptions.

        • cjvg

          Dishonest and irrelevant argument.
          Consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy, if that was the case there would be no unwanted pregnancies!

          Human sex can only lead to pregnancy on 3 days out of a 30 day cycle. If you have unprotected sex on any of these 3 fertile days you have only a 20 percent change of becoming pregnant. Obviously this is NOT a system merely meant for procreation.

          Choosing an abortion IS taking responsibility, just not in a way YOU approve of. Luckily for you this country is pro-choice and you do not have to choose an abortion if you do not want one. Your attempt to take choices from others is deplorable, you have no right to dictate which form taking responsibility must take to satisfy YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS.

          Women can not control when those 3 fertile days are, they can merely attempt to protect themselves as best as possible. Like every human endeavor there is the possibility of failure and a subsequent unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is the last means available to terminate unwanted pregnancy and childbirth.

          Clearly consent to sex is NOT consent to unwanted pregnancy

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Well said.

          • cjvg

            Thank you.
            These ignoramuses irk me. No scientific facts involved but they are sure they are right!

          • pateriot

            Consent to have sex most certainly IS taking on the risk that they may become pregnant. Unless no one has ever had that little chat with you! If you don’t want to risk pregnancy than get yourself fixed (as I did) or keep your legs firmly closed!

          • cjvg

            Do you ever read the reply’s to your inane claims?
            Why would consent to sex imply consent to pregnancy if there is only a chance for pregnancy on 3 days of a 30 day cycle?

            Apparently you are very confused about what consent means.
            Obviously if a woman consents to getting pregnant she would not need an abortion. Unwanted pregnancies are a possible and unfortunate side effect from sex, just like a car accident is an unwanted and unfortunate side effect from driving a car

            You are a sexist piece of work aren’t you, do you belief all pregnancies are immaculate conceptions or what? Are you even aware that a pregnancy is only half the result of a woman’s actions?
            How about men keeping their d*ck in their pants instead?

          • lady_black

            Keeping your legs together will not keep you from getting pregnant.

          • 711247

            Because eating food or getting into a car is consent to food poisoning or a car accident, right?

            Consent to one act is not consent to any or all others.

            “Keeping your legs firmly closed” doesn’t do shit if someone forces themselves on you. Sorry.

            Also getting “yourself fixed” isn’t a feasible option for everyone, especially those who cannot afford it. Or those who don’t have children or are young, whom doctors do not trust to make reproductive decisions for themselves.

          • Arekushieru

            Yeah, and most anti-choice ignoramuses would like to keep everyone (women, especially) just as ignorant as they (the women, especially) are of sex and contraception. After all, they generally oppose sex-ed and contraception. Leaving the knowledge of sex education for children to chance and uneducated parents.

            If you are a woman, you would KNOW that a woman ‘getting herself fixed’ is much more difficult than it is for men, especially when you don’t already have two or more children. Kthx.

          • pateriot

            Getting pregnant and then aborting your would-be child is easier? Get yourself sterilized if you don’t want to have children for God’s sake! Medicaid or insurance (if you have it) will even pay 100% of it.

          • Arekushieru

            You are so ignorant it’s fucking laughable. Yes, it is FAR more difficult to have an abortion than it is for women to get sterilized. But, in either case, revoking a woman’s right to medical privacy before you will ‘consent’ to her having sex for purposes other than procreation is an egregious form of phenotype-based sex discrimination. Ugh,

          • goatini

            Just because a woman does not want to carry a pregnancy to term doesn’t mean that she never wants to have children.

          • Shan

            Exactly. 2/3 of women having an abortion already HAVE at least one child. And even if they don’t, as you say, that doesn’t preclude them having any in future. Every woman I know who’s had an abortion went on to have at least one or more children that they wouldn’t otherwise have had.

          • Ella Warnock

            Childfree women have a notoriously difficult time finding gynos who will perform tubal ligations. It took nine years AND going out of state to get mine, as all of the patriarchal gynos (some of them women) assured me I’d “change my mind” and “regret it when I got older.”
            I didn’t change my mind, and I’m older – not a scintilla of regret.

            I should have, of course, gotten what I asked for when I asked for it. Let’s not forget that many of these people – the ones who don’t think I should have the right to choose sterilization – are your fellow travelers. So, “oh, just get sterilized !!1eleventy!!1!” looks great on paper, but the reality is something else altogether.

          • pateriot

            I totally agree that getting sterilized should NOT be that difficult to get! I’m happy that you persevered. I truly wish that more who do not wish to have children would do this… female and male. It is a sad situation when abortions are readily available but preventing them by getting sterilized is difficult! See, we CAN find common ground.

          • expect_resistance

            Ha, you can have sex with your legs firmly closed. I’ve tried it and it’s fun.

          • Ella Warnock

            You seem to only be familiar with one sexual position. That’s unfortunate.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Consent to sex results in natural abortion 70 percent of the time. So consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, it is consent to abortion. Any pro lifer that has consented to sex has in fact consented to aborting 70 percent of all conceptions.

          • pateriot

            That would be true if abortion was synonymous with miscarriage, which it is NOT… although it MAY be in you warped mind! One is intentionally killing, the other is a death by natural causes.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually, a miscarriage is also called an abortion.

          • pateriot

            A SPONTANEOUS abortion.

          • lady_black

            An abortion happens any time a pregnancy terminates (including naturally) prior to viability. In fact, a spontaneous abortion often ends in a surgical abortion where the body is unable to completely expel the products of conception. Your “miscarriage” is not a medical term.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You know that each time you choose to have sex you will cause the death of 70 percent of the conceptions that occur. If abortion kills innocent babies then you are setting up babies for murder. You have the ability to stop your sexual participation in murder. You could do that at no cost. Until you do stop having sex, your protestations about murder, your photos of aborted fetuses and your rants that allow you to continue to murder are reflections of your own actions. You are a murderer of the innocent life you created. You are guilty of the crimes you believe are so evil.
            Your only hope is to face that fact that you have the grace of God on your side, as we all do. I hope you will soon come to your senses and stop your pro life farce.
            You remain with the choice to save innocent babies or to let them die. By grace alone will you be forgiven for what you have wrought so far.

          • lady_black

            Abortion IS synonymous medically with the layman’s term “miscarriage.” Either spontaneous or induced. Either one results in death, NOT because it’s “intentional killing” but because the embryo or fetus is unsuitable for life. You’re getting dangerously close to the Catholic doctrine of “double effect” that maims and murders millions of women, unfortunate enough to suffer a complicated pregnancy and seek healthcare at a “Catholic” hospital.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            All pro lifers know that if they have sex, they will create a baby that most likely will abort in the first trimester. You can say that is not synonymous and that is true, it is much worse than what pro choice women do. You believe abortion is murder, yet you have sex knowing you will murder a child. A pro choice person only aborts when she does not want a child and she does not believe the fetus is a baby.
            Do you see the difference there? You believe abortion is murder and you choose to murder. She believes abortion is not murder and only aborts when necessary. What you do is far worse. —–Come on, you know that you have sex for fun and don’t care if the fetus dies.

          • P. McCoy

            Hey, playing with your johnson alone or keeping it in your pants will assuredly prevent pregnancy too- not so eager for those solutions, eh?

        • Arekushieru

          Nope, conservative fascists are the ones who oppose self-determination and responsibility. No welfare except for corporations or themselves. No bodily autonomy except for rich white men. Forcing others to take responsibility in the way YOU determine is correct for a SPECIFIC group of people that does NOT include you is not ‘taking responsibility’. Ass.

          • pateriot

            I have never been on Welfare, food stamps or any other Social Welfare program. I’m guessing that you could not boast the same!!!
            Grow up and stop blaming everyone and everything else for your own failures!!

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

            Reading minds again? Thinking you can do that is a symptom of mental illness. You are delusional.
            But that does not stop you from wanting to be in charge of my sexual/family life, does it? Not one of you forced birth fruitbats is sane. Not one.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Are you planning on using your Medicare or Social Security?

          • goatini

            Me neither. You and the rest of your fetus fetish pals are no special snowflakes.

          • expect_resistance

            Do you understand what corporate welfare is?

          • 711247

            I’m not on welfare or any other government assistance program and I still think you’re full of crap.

        • Dawn9476

          Yeah. We find those foreign. That must be why we encourage women to use birth control while you Conservative preach birth control is also murder like abortion when it isn’t.

          • pateriot

            I have no problem with birth control. I have two children and got “fixed” so I wont have more. Prevention is the responsible way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Guess what, keeping your legs firmly together works very well too… not that THAT is too likely to happen!

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

            I like to do IT with my legs firmly together, lying on my belly, the man entering from behind. I always have a great orgasm and I can put pressure on the penis that men seem to enjoy. YOU CAN GET PREGNANT THAT WAY.
            If you are going to give sexual advice to the public, give good advice. Otherwise you just look dumb and as though you have NO SEX LIFE OF YOUR OWN. Is that really the impression you are trying to create?

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

      You stupids closed the women’s clinics and now a wave of antibiotic resistant syphilis is washing across the State of Texas. Texas is burning and the forced birth cultists like you lit the match. Enjoy.

      • ldwendy

        Citation please . . where did you hear this from? Thanks in advance!

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          Here is a quote from the State:

          There were 494 cases of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis diagnosed among PLWH in 2012. The incidence rate of 677 per 100,000 is more than 100 times higher than the reported syphilis rate among the general population in 2012.
          https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=8589986062

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            That is from page 33

          • Feemster

            Go to Google images….Google late term abortions. See what science does for children and mothers.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Are you telling us you’re anti-science?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            By all means view the prono that Feemster wants you to see. As you look at the fetus parts just think how much more horrible it must be to be a born human and to be left to die by the pro life movement. A nation that murders its born babies to save its fetuses is a nation that cannot stand.

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

            Forced birther pervert has brought its murderporn for show-and-tell. It expects to be seen as sane, informed and caring. That is the chief delusion of the antichoice.

          • Feemster

            Oh…certainly don’t take the word of anyone. Go see with your own eyes what the pro death people consider…(in Plumb Dumpling’s own words) to be porn.

            Go to Google Images and Google late term abortion….and see if what “Plumb” calls porn is porn.

            I think it’s murder pure and simple. It takes a pretty sick mind to deny the obvious. It would take a pretty sick mind to think anyone would call THAT porn. It’s no MY show and tell. It’s Google’s show and tell.

          • purrtriarchy

            Why do you only talk about late term abortion?

            Is this because you are too feeble minded to make a good argument against the abortion of embryos?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            No one intentionally gets pregnant to murder babies. But you intentionally choose to let innocent born babies die. A woman that aborts is forced to abort by nature and circumstance. Your choice to let babies die is an intentional choice to let human life die.

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

            Late term abortions are morally acceptable. Here are the rules Jesus followed. I have seen forced birther murderporn from the fetus cult before.

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

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

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

            Flagged for egregious abuse of prochoice men and women. Abortion is not murder and was not murder when it was illegal.

          • Feemster

            Go to Google Images…..Google late term abortion.

            You can change the definition…..you can not change the results. Murder is Murder.

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

            Flagged again.

          • goatini
          • Jennifer Starr

            Science helps women end much-wanted pregnancies gone terribly wrong, which is when late-term abortions happen. And science also keeps mothers and children alive.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Feemster you remain with a choice, you may save innocent babies or you may choose to let them die and attempt to save a fetus instead. Your choice is to murder innocent babies and deflect attention by posting pornographic photos of dead fetuses.

          • expect_resistance

            A lot of those photos are fake and staged.

            http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/truth_about_photos.html

            Misrepresentation A considerable number of anti-abortion visuals feature an almost fully developed fetus. Abortions preformed at this stage via hysterectomy or D&X abortions are rare. Only about 1.5% of abortions are performed at 21-weeks or older, according to according to a 2000 study conducted by the Nation Center for Chronic Disease (CDC). A July 1992 LIFE magazine article, The Great Divide, reported that Reverend Robert Schenk, member of anti-choice coalition Operation rescue, attended a demonstration outside an abortion clinic in Buffalo, NY, with “Baby Tia”, a 7-inch, gray-tinted and formaldehyde-soaked dead fetus. In the escalating madness of the crowd, the fetus was dropped onto the sneaker-trodden street. Authorities arrested Schenk and confiscated the fetus, which was taken to a coroner, only to be identified as an approximately 20-week-old stillborn. The article reads, “Many pro-choice supporters in Buffalo are angry about the distance between their reality-what they see in the clinics-and the images the anti-abortionists present as fact. ‘What they are showing to the public is a lie,’ says Joni Ladowski, a nurse at a nearby clinic, as she unfolds a length of gauze. In the center lies what appears to be a clot the size of a peanut. It is a fetus, nine weeks old. ‘This is an abortion,’ she says.”

          • purrtriarchy

            Great link!

          • goatini

            Thank you for the detailed description of their fetus pr0n.

          • expect_resistance

            Happy to be of service.

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

          Gonorrhea and syphilis are on the rise in the United States, according to a new report from the centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The largest increases are among bisexual men and young adults 15-24 years old.
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536846/Syphilis-gonorrhea-rise-U-S-especially-gay-men-young-people.html

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

        Good people have nothing to worry about. I only sleep with my wife…..the woman I am married to. She only sleeps with me. I live with an absolute certainty that neither of us will ever be exposed to this alleged (you pro-death people are such liars) new syphilis. People who can not control their sexual appetites…..feral human beings…..should probably worry a lot. What a shame to have to live life fearing…..virtually everything. Hopefully some day your journey will lead you to the foot of the CROSS. THERE…you can lay those fears down….and walk away from then forever.

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

          I am so good. Knew you were a man by the sound. Fap, fap, fap, fap ….

        • goatini

          More lurid fap fantasies. Was it good for you? Want a cigarette?

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

          Does your wife know you are on here trying to get women to look at filthy pictures and “convert” them?

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      All pro lifers have a choice, they can choose to save an innocent born baby or they can make the intentional choice to let that baby die and instead save a fetus. I assume you are a pro lifer and make the choice to let babies die.
      The twisted pro life crowd thinks killing innocent babies to save fetuses is wise.

      • pateriot

        Fortunately we are not faced with that decision…ever! The scenario is a contrived one with an invented answer in an attempt to smear those you disagree with. You are an abortion fanatic!!

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          Unfortunately for you, you are faced with that decision. 1.8 born babies children and adults are dying each second. You could save them is you wished. Instead you make the intentional choice to let them die. You simply murder real babies to save pretend babies.

          • pateriot

            Are you RETARDED? How, in the alternate fantasy World that you live in, am I in any way choosing to save the life of an unborn baby over the life of one that is already born? There is NOT a situation where a person must die because one has been born! If that WAS the case, I would encourage everyone to get sterilized. I did after my second child because I feel that the World is populated enough. THAT is what is called taking responsibility. AND I paid for it MYSELF!

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

            I am not going to maim myself to get your approval. I had a baby at 19. I was sure I never wanted another baby ever. If I had been sterilized, i would not have given birth at 43 and 45 years old to my beautiful 2nd and 3rd daughters.
            You are a sick freak.

          • 711247

            Wow, did you really need to use a slur?

            You could take in a homeless family and feed their children at the same table where yours eat. That would be a good start. All the money that goes towards March for Life could probably pay the medical bills of many pregnant people and probably feed and clothe the child that anti-choice zealots forced them to carry. You are not helping by claiming a moral high ground of supporting life when people are starving and you aren’t caring for them. That’s the point Russell is trying to make.

            Also, what is your deal with making reproductive choices for everyone? “You can’t have an abortion unless I say so” “You have to get sterilized because I said so” Who pissed in your cheerios?

          • pateriot

            Using that same sound and crystal clear illogical logic, if you spend money on ANYTHING other than actively feeding starving people you are murdering babies, children, and adults. Donate money to pro-abortion groups and you are both murdering unborn babies AND post-birth babies. So where does this put you and your fellow logically impaired fanatics!!!
            Also, when is the last time that ANYONE in America literally starved to death, unless they were locked in a cellar somewhere? Even the homeless live many years on the streets, usually until their liver gives up or they OD on drugs.
            Conservatives OVERWHELMING give more to charities that help the poor, destitute, needy, hungry, addicted, and ill than Liberals!! You just live of the fruits of our labor, complain that we don’t do enough… and vote Democrat!!

          • cjvg

            Except that red states consistently take more government money then blue states, it is just so inconvenient if reality gets in the way isn’t it.

            http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/09/18/obama-supporters-subsidize-romney-supporters-with-their-taxes-

            http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

            http://www.policymic.com/articles/14007/food-stamp-use-is-highest-in-red-states-the-truth-republicans-do-not-want-you-to-know

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/

            Of course “conservatives” immediately start crowing that this is not true, however when looking at the absolute numbers of population and money received, red states indeed receive MORE government money per person!

          • goatini

            //Conservatives OVERWHELMING give more to charities//

            Wrong. Progressives actually give MORE to actual non-sectarian charities that really do help the indigent.

            Conservatives give to enrich some pastor and his lifestyle.

          • lady_black

            They give to their churches. I often say that doesn’t count, because churches are free to spend their offerings how they wish. Bigger buildings, bigger parking lots, bigger Cadillac for the pastor. Some churches do great things, others not so much.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            There is no Biblical justification to make churches tax exempt. When Jesus was born, Mary did not immediately become tax exempt and no where in the Bible does it say Jesus was tax exempt.

          • 711247

            A living person will have greater needs than a potential person. A starving child in front of you is very different from a fetus. However, you’re still wrong and you’re still a hypocrite. I donate to PP every time I see a comment like yours, so thanks for donating a dollar to Planned Parenthood!

            http://healthland.time.com/2013/03/01/hungry-in-america-documentary-exposes-the-growing-problem-of-starvation-amid-plenty/

            As far as your classist comment on the homeless, a lot of homeless people have jobs and a lot of them have families, which you’re clearly not giving half a fuck about.

            And fun fact: I’m not a liberal.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Guess what? There won’t BE so many “poor, destitute, needy, hungry, addicted” people in need of help if you just stop breeding so much and forcing others to breed so much just for the sake of breeding.

            Putting a few (questionable) band-aids on the problem YOU created does not win you brownie points.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            “Are you RETARDED?”

            Ad hominem

            “How, in the alternate fantasy World that you live in, am I in any way choosing to save the life of an unborn baby over the life of one that is already born?”

            There is a never ending list of babies that are dying and fetuses that will die. You have a choice of which to save and you choose to let the babies die and save the fetus. You choose the fetus over the baby.

            ” There is NOT a situation where a person must die because one has been born!”

            You need to learn to read. I have never said that one must die because the other has been born. Both are dying. Both can be saved. You may choose which you will save. Your choice is to let the babies die so that you can save a fetus.

            ” If that WAS the case, I would encourage everyone to get sterilized.”

            The “case” is that you choose to save fetuses and let babies die.

            ” I did after my second child because I feel that the World is populated enough. THAT is what is called taking responsibility. AND I paid for it MYSELF!”

            You made a choice to end the life of any future children you could conceive. That was a wise choice to kill your future eggs so that they would not become unwanted children. You simply pre aborted your babies.

          • pateriot

            “You made a choice to end the life of any future children you could conceive. That was a wise choice to kill your future eggs so that they would not become unwanted children. You simply pre aborted your babies.”

            How can anyone counter that brilliant argument? I’ll stand by my ad hominem attack!!!

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I was being being facetious.

          • pateriot

            “There is a never ending list of babies that are dying and fetuses that will die. You have a choice of which to save and you choose to let the babies die and save the fetus. You choose the fetus over the baby.”
            And when I ask for an explanation about what you’re blabbing on about you simply repeat the inane nonsense!! Honestly, that is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying na-na-na-na-na-na! It certainly demonstrates the same maturity level!

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You might want to get someone to explain to you what I wrote.
            You have a choice, you may choose to save one of the born babies, children or adults that are dying right now or you may choose to let that born person die and save a fetus instead.
            I suggest that you ask someone that understands what the word “choice” means to explain the phrase to you.

          • Feemster

            There is NO logic in your thinking. You can never choose the lesser of two evils unless the evil is right in front of you and even then…..a wise man would wait on God.

            Go to Google Images. Google late term abortion. See for yourself.

            Russel would rather grind up a child than risk the hypothetical death of a child that will never be conceived. Excellent logic Russell. I’m surprised you’re not baffled by shoe laces.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Go to Google Images. Google late term abortion. See for yourself.

            I’ve seen the images. And I know the situations in which late-term abortions occur. Your point? Are you aware of the fact that the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            The two evils are right in front of your face. You may save a baby or you may save a fetus. Your choice is to let the baby die. My choice is to save the baby.

          • cjvg

            Reading comprehension is NOT a luxury !
            He is explaining to you how anti-choicers like you are willing and in fact are causing the death of real already living children, children that are no longer potential but HERE and living NOW.
            Children whose lives and deaths you ignore in favor of a potential that is not realized yet and incapable of suffering like those existing children. Existing children you are dismissing as irrelevant since you do not have to force their birth anymore.

          • fiona64

            Once again, I say unto you: before you waste any more of our time, go to Google and look up the actual percentage of late-term abortions (fewer than 1 percent … and always on pregnancies that have gone horribly wrong for a number of reasons).

            Reality speaks for itself. Here is what the typical abortion looks like: http://www.thisismyabortion.com/ – indistinguishable from menses.

          • goatini

            Obtaining a safe, legal pregnancy termination, when one has an unwanted pregnancy, IS taking responsibility. Fetuses are NOT persons, NOT citizens, and have NO rights.

        • cjvg

          Pro-choice fanatic is more accurate, but not nearly as sensational isn’t it?!

          It is very hard to make a realistic argument that people who want to leave, very personal and far reaching reproductive and medical, choices up to the person who has to suffer the consequences are fanatics that force others to live by their decrees. That is in actuality more your neck of the woods.

          That is why you are deliberately and dishonestly changing the label to something opposite of the fact so you can have a semblance of logic in your statements. However any form of minimal thought process will easily disassemble the “logic” in your claims

        • LoneVoice1

          Have you noticed most of these commenters live in a parallel universe where good is evil and evil is good?

          • purrtriarchy

            I have an idea. Why not present a rational argument. If you are even capable of it.

          • LoneVoice1

            How would a “rational argument” work in your bizarro universe?

          • purrtriarchy

            I have an idea. Why dont you try instead of appealing to whatever the fuck…

            You don’t have a logical argument at all do you? Just baseless assertions about good and evil?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Do you actually have a rational argument to make?

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            In the real world, I would point out that you have a choice to save innocent babies or to let them die and save a fetus instead. And in my world you would stop your murders. In your world you continue to murder the babies.

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

            It is not capable of rational argument. It can barely read. Serious issues with reading comprehension.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I haven’t noticed that at all.

          • LoneVoice1

            You live in a universe where you believe it’s perfectly OK to murder your own children. That’s why you didn’t notice.

            Don’t worry, it won’t even cross your mind years later what your child would have looked like, or what the sound of your son or daughter’s laugh would have sounded like. You’ll sleep easy knowing you did the “right thing.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            All children, everywhere, have been born, and murdering children is a crime. If you know anyone who is murdering children, please call the police.

            And thanks so much for the completely asinine assumptions about my personal life, but actually I’ve never been pregnant.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            The whole world is in danger. Pro lifers murder innocent babies, children and adults. We know you by your actions.

          • LoneVoice1

            Rod Serling could have made a whole season of Twilight Zone episodes just on you.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            ad hominem

          • cjvg

            Personal attacks are not scientific arguments or supportable facts. That you have to revert to personal attacks to have anything to say at all, exposes the paucity of your “arguments” .

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

            Murder is illegal.
            Abortion is legal.
            That which is legal cannot also be illegal.
            Therefore abortion cannot be murder.
            Refute me if you can.
            And I flagged you for egregious abuse of prochoice men and women.

          • LoneVoice1

            In 1800 slavery was legal in this country.
            How can something that was legal then not be legal now.
            Was it right then and wrong now?
            Does right and wrong change based on the opinion of human beings?

            BTW you poor child. Did the big bad commenter egregiously abuse you and you fellow baby murderers with words? How dare someone express an opinion that might hurt your feelings! You should have all these posts deleted because it’s offensive to be reminded of [message redacted].

          • Dez

            Oh please you “pro-lifers” like to use black women as pawns to take away our reproductive rights while at the same time demonizing us as welfare quirks. Plus you’re clearly ignorant of history or you would be aware that slave women were used as brood mares to produce more slaves. We did not have bodily autonomy or the choice to terminate the pregnancy. And who was behind all this? Christians!! Like they are behind the current “pro-life” movement. Despite what ” pro- lifers” think, black women and women in general are not idiots. We can fact check your bs. Sorry if that puts your dent in your ignorant rantings.

          • cjvg

            Great comment, I would like to see him come back from that

          • Dez

            Thanks. I hate when “pro-lifers” try to compare abortion to slavery and the horrific treatment of black slave women. Black women did not have a choice to be pregnant since they were considered property. Slave owners just used our bodies to make more slaves for profit. The parallels to the current “pro-life” movement’s opposition to choice, consent, and bodily autonomy to the American slave era is obvious.

          • lady_black

            I hate it too, and I’m white. But aware of slavery’s reproductive consequences, and the use of religion to perpetuate the institution. Bible thumpers would love to return women to the condition of slavery. And consequently, male slaves were given the vote long before women of any race.

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

            Well said.

          • Dez

            Thanks.

          • expect_resistance

            Applause!!!

          • Ella Warnock

            Bravo, Dez!

          • Dez

            Thank you.

          • purrtriarchy

            Very. It bothers me to no end when WHITE GUYS will seek to 1) deny black women reproductive agency while simultaneously 2) preaching that they and they alone care about saving the black race

            They do the same shit with the holocaust, American Indians, and any other minority. They seek to deny these groups their rights while pretending that they are saving them from those evil, libruhl racists.

          • cjvg

            Fortunately the America evolved and slavery is now illegal. Forced pregnancy and forced birth is gestational slavery and removes from the woman the very basic human to ownership of her own body.

            Women now have the right to determine who and what gets to use her body, and that is why we have also done away with gestational slavery. You do not own the right to make reproductive choices for woman, and that is what you are fighting to regain, your goal is to once again legalize gestational slavery

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

            Slavery is an immoral economic practice. Many people preached from the Bible that slavery was moral. We fought a war to correct that. Are you asserting an immoral law cannot be made and then repealed?

            Yes, right and wrong are subjective, that is particular to the individual, that is why we need laws that are not based on morality. When we slip and make “moral” laws, hell breaks loose every time. Prohibiition?

            I flagged you again for egregious insult to prochoice men and women. I rarely flag. Accusations of murder are beyond the pale, however. Abortion was not murder when it was illegal.

          • cjvg

            Ridiculous hyperbole is not an argument, no children are murdered during an abortion. All children everywhere are already born, before viability it is merely a potential that was terminated

          • Dez

            Since murder is illegal I hope you called the cops on the person that killed their children. I hope you sleep okay knowing you contributed to the death of many women and left their children motherless. I know you’ll sleep ” easy” knowing children won’t have a mother because she had a back alley abortion so she can feed her existing ones. You’re “love” will replace their mother right?

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

            Flagged again for abuse of prochoice men and women.

          • LoneVoice1

            If not for me this comment board would be pretty much a boring group of like minded people in mind numbing agreement. So flag me if you want, but none of your replies and other commenters replies to me will make any sense if my comments are deleted.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, I’m sure we’ll survive just fine….

          • fiona64

            You do know that there are pro-choce people who have never had an abortion, right?

            Well, now you do.

            Idiot.

          • LoneVoice1

            You know there were Nazis who never personally killed a Jew. By your logic they were innocent, right?

            Of course I realize you don’t have to personally have an abortion to support abortion.

            Thank you Captain Obvious.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Care to engage in a philosophical debate?

            Your opposition to abortion is that it “kills your own children”. Why should “your own children” be more important than anyone else’s children, or members of any other species?

            To keep every human alive, thousands/millions of animals (and plants) have to be killed. Each of them are the offspring of some other individual. According to your logic it is fine to kill the offspring of others to keep your own offspring alive. What is ethical about that stance again?

          • LoneVoice1

            Oh goody, am I correct in thinking that you believe human beings have no greater value than any other species on this planet. If you believe that then it’s not too far a stretch to suppose that you believe human beings have overpopulated this planet?

            If so, then you would be logically consistent in wanting a drastic reduction in the world’s human population. If so, then birth control and abortions alone would be an inadequate means to address the problem. You’ll need to take much more drastic measures to stop the human infestation won’t you?

            Tell me all about your own “Ethical Stance.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’re assuming a lot with absolutely no basis in fact. Not that this is new behavior for you, but I just thought I’d point that out.

          • goatini

            Or, as in the vast majority of cases, the woman will go on with her life, uninterrupted by an unwanted pregnancy, and bear her wanted children when she chooses to. Having one’s children when, and with whom one chooses, is the ultimate dignity that all women deserve.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Yes I have noticed that you believe killing innocent babies too save zygotes is moral. That is proof you believe good is evil and evil is good.

          • pateriot

            OK I’ll bite, moron. Who and how is anyone advocating killing babies to save zygotes?!! I have seen several comments making this absurd allegation and have no clue what any of you are referring to. I’m guessing it was some made up crap posted on this site, that you abortion Nazis latched onto for some unknown and unknowable reason!

          • cjvg

            Hitler was anti abortion and anti choice. He even had forced breeding programs and had all his troops outfitted with a belt buckle inscribed with “Gott Mit Uns” (god is with us)

            He also firmly believed that he was one of the good guys and doing gods work, read mein kampf

          • LoneVoice1

            And he dehumanized whole groups people in order to justify their wholesale murder.

            Just like you pro-abortion zealots do with unborn babies. So Hitler thinks Gott mit dir.

          • cjvg

            There is no group of people, there is only a potential to become a person.

            For you to claim with a straight face that denying the only actual life involved (the woman) the basic right to decide who gets to use her body for the benefit of a potential life, is beyond disrespectful of life!

            Potential life does not trump actual life for those who are truly respectful of life

          • LoneVoice1

            Yea “potential life” not really life. not really human, disposable.
            See how easy it is to murder when you play games with words?

          • cjvg

            So you are claiming that a fetus before viability is alive like the woman is?

            You belief that a petri dish of embryo’s in a burning building deserves to be rescued before a living woman can be?

            You belief that fetuses should have SS numbers and can apply for passports at the point of conception?

            You belief that a woman should receive child support as soon as it is confirmed she is pregnant?

            Then you clearly subscribe to the notion that make belief trumps reality

          • goatini

            We know you think that women are not really human and that they are disposable. The Catholic Church thinks that women should die when a safe, legal medical procedure could save their lives. But to them, women don’t really matter anyway – if your cow dies, get a new cow.

          • LoneVoice1

            I can play the “we know (what) you think game” too.
            I “know you think” sex is fun and there should never be any inconvenient consequences.

          • goatini

            Why should there be “consequences”? Sex is not dirty, bad, or a sin.

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

            We have laws about the disposal of corpses in the US. Where are the death and burial certificates of these “unborn babies?” And there is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder. Where are the trials and convictions of the murderers?
            Flagged again for abuse of prochoice men and women.

          • LoneVoice1

            Those unborn babies are disposed as medical waste. That “Medical Waste” is almost always incinerated. There is no evidence left behind and no records. Pretty convenient isn’t it?

            I have made it clear that I understand that aborted babies aren’t legally considered people. Jews weren’t legally people in Nazi occupied Europe either. It’s not murder if the law gives no rights to the people being murdered. It’s just the disposal of a biohazard.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Those unborn babies are disposed as medical waste. That “Medical Waste” is almost always incinerated. There is no evidence left behind and no records. Pretty convenient isn’t it?

            Pretty sure that women who receive abortions have medical records just like everyone else.

          • goatini

            But since in reality, the forced-birthers dehumanize all females down to the level of chattel property livestock to be exploited, that would be just another example, of the millions of examples, of Forced-Birther Projection 101.

          • LoneVoice1

            You keep making this insane claim that abortion saves babies. How is it that you don’t know that you are living in Bizzarro World?

          • cjvg

            Reading helps

          • LoneVoice1

            Reading the works of Margret Sanger?

          • cjvg

            Ignorant and working hard to stay that way I see!

          • goatini

            You should try it sometimes. You’d learn that all the forced-birther propaganda about this great humanitarian is completely false.

            http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/

          • goatini

            Because the woman who freely and without interference exercises her rights to reproductive justice, and obtains a safe, legal pregnancy termination, can continue with her life, education, and/or career – and have wanted children when she is ready.

          • LoneVoice1

            Children are such a hindrance to a (social) life. Aren’t they?

          • purrtriarchy

            Are you stating, as objective fact, that women only ever have abortions so that they can go back to partying?

          • pateriot

            You and I are the LoneVoices on this loony Leftist website!!!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Nice alliteration followed by eleventy. But you need to up the histrionics just a tad–you’re not nearly hysterical enough to be interesting.

          • pateriot

            WTF? A little more “medical” marijuana perhaps? I’m sure it made sense at the level of stoned that you’re currently at!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Nope. Never even smoked a cigarette, let alone anything else. Get your mother to explain alliteration and histrionics to you–I’m sure she’d be happy to oblige.

          • Ella Warnock

            What’s wrong with medical marijuana? Some of my fellow breast cancer survivors used it during chemotherapy as it was superior at relieving nausea that the strongest Big Pharma drugs couldn’t control. Being able to sustain nourishment is very important when you’re fighting cancer. It can make all the difference in recovery and remission. Beating cancer is very pro-life.

          • LoneVoice1

            Hold on a minute. In this universe We are the evil ones. They are the good “rational ones.”
            Look up fun boy three’s song The Lunatics (have taken over the Asylum) on youtube.

          • 711247

            Except RHRealityCheck is a progressive site and isn’t actually communist. They appear to be just as capitalist as you.

          • cjvg

            Imagine that, you belief you are the good guy, so did Elliot roger, the Unabomber, Osama bin laden, Hitler, Stalin and a host of other self proclaimed good guys!

            Hmm, what a coincidence

          • goatini

            Yes, “pateriot” lives in a parallel universe, where good (reproductive justice) is evil, and evil (gestational slavery) is good. I’ve noticed.

    • fiona64

      Only to the sick and twisted would forcing women to gestate unwanted or doomed pregnancies be considered acceptable. Evil manifest!

      I must admit, I always laugh at how offended the anti-choice are by correct medical terminology …

  • Just Sayin’

    I think your definition of East Texas is much larger geographically than most people would define it. And, yes, I was raised there.

  • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

    The impact of abortion follows the dictates of scientific laws. There are 1,8 born persons dying each second. There are more people dying than can be saved. Therefore one must choose whom to save. They may choose to save an innocent baby or they may choose to let that baby die and instead save a fetus. If a pro lifer spends even one second saving a fetus, then in that second 1.8 born babies, children or adults die. Pro lifers do not save life they let babies die to save fetuses. Search Google for “Scientific Abortion Laws.”

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

      I went there and I registered. Thank you.

      • Arekushieru

        Yeah, Russell is a pretty good guy. I disagree with some of his positions, but this is one I completely agree with..

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

          I am going to read through his stuff carefully. I am always looking for a good argument.

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

    Read it. It will turn your stomach.

    • lady_black

      I did read it, and the story of how the Home babies were segregated and mistreated by the nuns. All I could think of is “This is pro-life?”

      • purrtriarchy

        Yes and Christians are splitting hairs, pulling the ‘no true scotsman fallacy’.

        One well known asshat on The Friendly Atheist – rwlawoffice, was complaining about how unfair it all is:( And another even said that hey! the children were malnourished, which didn’t mean they starved to death, therefore, no harm was done! Life was tough back then!

        Don’t you love the lengths they will go to to defend their faith when horrible things happen? But if a woman wants to use contraception omfg end of the world!!!

        • Dez

          The mentality is sick. They value their religion over quality of life. A brief life of knowing nothing but abuse and starvation, like those children experienced, is not a life.

        • Ella Warnock

          I suppose the wealthy Vatican just didn’t have enough liquid cash on hand to support their poorer children’s homes with food and medical care. Oh well, as long as the pope didn’t go to bed hungry, sick, and cold each night then it’s all good.

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

        The RCC is objectively disordered around the issue of sex. Sex is to the RCC as food is to bulimics. 16 RC churches have been closed in Philly with their schools if they had any. A direct result of the child abuse scandal. So the RCC will now concentrate on South America and Africa where the people are relatively undeducated and torture them and their children for awhile.

  • pateriot

    To all those who take exception with my using the term developing unborn baby to describe a “fetus”. If a woman is pregnant do you say, “I see that you have a fetus growing in you”? If the lady miscarries do you tell her that you are sorry that her fetus died? Yet, rather than face what abortion, especially after the first trimester, is, you dehumanize the victim by terming it anything but a developing unborn baby!
    If someone murders a pregnant woman they are rightfully charged with a double homicide. They are not charged with one homicide and one count of practicing medicine without a license! So what is the difference, the Mother’s (or do you call this “the host”) intent to go full-term and to deliver a baby? The Mother’s intent to deliver does not make the unborn a baby anymore than her intent to kill it would make it any less than a developing unborn baby.
    At the earliest stages of development abortion is simply unsavory. As the baby continues to develop it becomes increasingly wrong. At some point it passes the threshold of simply wrong and enters the realm of murdering unborn babies. I don’t know were you wish to be on that line but I want to be WELL short of it!!
    To say that suddenly. at the point of exiting the birth canal a baby goes from a group a non-descript cells to a beautiful living human baby is not only self-serving and intellectually lazy… it is DELUSIONAL!!

    • purrtriarchy

      Your post is full of strawmen.

      And no one is arguing for abortions at 30 seconds before birth. BTW, late term abortion is induced birth in a majority of cases. If the fetus is viable it will not be killed.

      As for language, I refer to my cat as my BABY. By your logic, that makes her an actual baby because that’s how I choose to describe her. Fuckwit.

      • pateriot

        And I call developing unborn human babies, developing unborn human babies. Learn what a strawman is before you go throwing the term about, Fuckwit!

        • purrtriarchy

          Your straw man is that we are arguing that viable fetuses a minute before birth are mere clumps of cells. Doby be a fucking idiot if you don’t want to be treated like one.

          • pateriot

            That is NOT a strawman, that is an argument. “Doby be a fucking idiot”… obviously MENSA material here!!

          • purrtriarchy

            It is not an argument because no pro choicer, especially here at RHRC has actually said that a fetus a minute before birth is a clump of cells. You are the only one making that argument.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t think he knows what a strawman is.

          • fiona64

            I don’t think he knows much of anything.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            I am stating a scientific fact when I say that until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype there is not human life. And the point at which human life can be proved to exist is at birth. Prior to that point, the fetus may in fact be a clump of cells in the shape of a human baby and with human characteristics, but not enough human DNA. Human life cannot be —proved— until birth.

            However there is a huge possibility that most late term fetuses will become born babies.

          • Arekushieru

            And this is one point where you and I always seem to disagree. I believe a fetus is human life, I do not however disagree that a woman’s rights should be denied based simply on how developed the other human is. Otherwise, we would agree that rapists should be allowed to rape women.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Your belief is your opinion, what I state is scientific fact. Until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype one cannot prove there is human life. That is a scientific fact, your “belief” cannot counter the fact. The fact is that until at least 4 processes successfully occur at the moment of birth, one cannot tell if the life is in fact human enough to live as a human. I do admit that a substantial number of late term fetuses will in fact become babies, but there is no way to tell which will be born alive until they in fact are born alive.

          • Arekushieru

            No, cells are human life, but we cannot observe them and prove that they are human life, either, without using extensive technology to do so, which, in that case, is practically no different from using technology to determine the status of a fetus.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            There is no difference in the test for life in a cell and the test for human life. If the cell lives, it is a living cell, if not it is not. Until the cell “proves” it has the right DNA to live as a cell, it cannot be proved to be a cell. The DNA has a property called “expression”. Expression is time dependent and not structurally visible. Therefore it cannot be determined by tests that rely on phenotype.

          • Arekushieru

            The *tests*, however, for life and for identifying type are practically similar. I was one of the first ones to use the word phenotype on this site. I know what it is.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            The only “test” that is possible is to see if the cell will live and function as required. One cannot tell if a structure that is hiding information contains the correct information. And the DNA of the cell is a closed structure that contains the information to build the correct phenotype. Because the “expression” of the DNA is time dependent one cannot know what follows in the code until it has been expressed.
            For example if I write computer code that you cannot see and you run the program, you cannot know what I have instructed the computer to do until the program has run –in real time– the code.
            One cannot know what DNA will express until it has in fact expressed in real time the object of the code.

      • cjvg

        Legal abortion is only available until 24 weeks, what other lies do you have?

        • purrtriarchy

          wrong person

          • cjvg

            Oops, was meant for pateriot

    • Jennifer Starr

      I’m sorry that proper medical terms upset you so much, but zygote, embryo and fetus are correct terms. .

    • fiona64

      I’m sorry that you’re offended by correct medical terminology. I suggest you take that up with whoever educated you so poorly.

      And that you do not understand that fetal homicide laws attach as special circumstances because an actual person (the woman, whom you seem to enjoy erasing from the picture) has been harmed. Rights accrue at birth.

    • Shan

      It’s a baby when the woman who’s pregnant with it WANTS it to be. In my case, it was right after the “+” sign showed up on the HPT stick I peed on.

    • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

      “To all those who take exception with my using the term developing unborn baby to describe a “fetus”.”

      If it were not for the scientific fact that you must murder a baby to force the birth of a fetus, I wouldn’t care what you called the zygote/embryo/fetus. But the confusion you cause by using the wrong name causes pro lifers to murder babies

      ” If a woman is pregnant do you say, “I see that you have a fetus growing in you”? If the lady miscarries do you tell her that you are sorry that her fetus died?”

      Most southern pro lifers used to call blacks “N—-” but that was not right either. So using the wrong terminology is just not bright, especially when it leads pro lifers to murder or racial inequality. .

      ” Yet, rather than face what abortion, especially after the first trimester, is, you dehumanize the victim by terming it anything but a developing unborn baby! ”

      By calling the fetus a baby, you are setting up your excuse to murder innocent babies to save fetuses.

      “If someone murders a pregnant woman they are rightfully charged with a double homicide.”

      No, if a pro lifer enters an abortion clinic and bombs it, killing the woman when the fetus is being aborted, there is no double murder.

      ” They are not charged with one homicide and one count of practicing medicine without a license! So what is the difference, the Mother’s (or do you call this “the host”) intent to go full-term and to deliver a baby?”

      The difference is that abortion is not murder.

      “The Mother’s intent to deliver does not make the unborn a baby anymore than her intent to kill it would make it any less than a developing unborn baby.”

      Actually until the DNA of the genotype expresses the correct phenotype, there is no baby.

      “At the earliest stages of development abortion is simply unsavory.”

      Legal abortion forces pro lifers to save real born humans and leave the fetuses alone. so abortion saves life while pro life ideas cause death.

      ” As the baby continues to develop it becomes increasingly wrong. At some point it passes the threshold of simply wrong and enters the realm of murdering unborn babies. I don’t know were you wish to be on that line but I want to be WELL short of it!! ”

      Because the only way to save a fetus is by killing a baby, abortion is always a moral option. You should never murder babies to save fetuses.

      “To say that suddenly. at the point of exiting the birth canal a baby goes from a group a non-descript cells to a beautiful living human baby is not only self-serving and intellectually lazy… it is DELUSIONAL!!”

      Several changes take place at birth that transforms the fetus into a baby. Until those processes occur, there is no human life. Therefore you cannot kill born life to force the test that would determine if there is a baby. Killing real babies to save fantasy babies is insane.

    • cjvg

      So all medical professional dehumanize unborn “babies” by using the correct terminology?

      Also if you murder a pregnant woman you are not charged with a double homicide unless the fetus was past viability. Straight out of the unborn victims of violence act; “If both the woman and the child were killed and it can be proven the child was killed due to the actions of the perpetrator, then we charge both”

      Obviously when a fetus is harmed during an act of violence perpetrated against its mother then it becomes a criminal act! Attempting to leave the harm to the mother out of the equation will not result in murder charges

      • purrtriarchy

        So all medical professional dehumanize unborn “babies” by using the correct terminology?

        I guess vets and evolutionary biologists ‘defelinize’ cat embryos, and ‘decaninize’ dog embryos when they speak of them!!!!!!!

        • pateriot

          Yet, if I said that the cat had little kittens inside her you would not object. It is not until I say that a pregnant woman has a baby inside her do you object… because it highlights the fact you are advocating the killing of an unborn HUMAN baby! Ironically, and sadly, if someone was performing cat and dog abortions many of you would be the first to protest the gruesome and inhumane treatment of unborn animals!!!

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

            i am always astounded by the telepathic and clairvoyant talent of fetus freaks. How do they know my thoughts without asking me? /snark.

          • cjvg

            So you explain to me why medical professional ( you know those people who spends years studying this exact thing in medical school)use different terms to record the “baby’s” progress during gestation?

          • 711247

            I would suggest you read up on the Bruce Effect, which describes female animals (in captivity and in nature) aborting in the presence of an unfamiliar male. This has been observed in rats, domestic horses, and baboons.

            If a cat or a dog needed an abortion, I would certainly not object if it saves the life of said animal.

          • pateriot

            What if the owner simply didn’t want to he have any more pets but was too irresponsible or lazy to get their pet sterilized or to keep it from breeding?

          • Arekushieru

            Not the same. Because the animal isn’t consenting to the abortion like the pregnant woman can and does. Oops. You people keep saying that humans are more precious than livestock, but then turn around and treat women as if they were worth LESS than a broodmare.

          • lady_black

            I don’t know what your point is. I did some research into the matter and found out that yes, abortion is available for pets. It’s generally used only in the case of an accidental mismating in purebreds. It’s not really a treatment for a pet. The treatment for an unwanted pet pregnancy would be spaying. This both removes the unwanted puppies or kittens and prevents the animal from future breeding. I have no problem with this. There are too many unwanted animals. Humans are not cats or dogs, and there is no human equivalent to spaying and neutering. Humans are far sexually different than pets. A pet only engages in sex for reproductive purposes, and if that drive is removed, the dog or cat will not miss sex. Humans are different. We engage in sex for psycho-social reasons, not merely for reproduction.

          • fiona64

            So, you are saying that any woman who doesn’t want to have children “right now” should be sterilized, and is automatically lazy?

            What a misogynistic POS.

            Once again, feline and canine pregnancies are regularly terminated – - sometimes during a spay surgery, sometimes not. Your idiotic straw man is dismissed.

          • cjvg

            Should you punish the animal for that? You advocate letting an animal die from a failing pregnancy or health conditions that will prevent a healthy birth?

            Are women now the same as animals? then you should have no problem with abortions.

          • lady_black

            Off topic but here’s my cat story. Back when I was breeding purebred Siamese and Munchkin kittens, I was dismayed to find a pregnant queen having vaginal discharge. I rushed her to the vet for spaying because of pyometria. Cats have naturally bicornuate uteri. When the vet did the surgery, he found infection in one uterine horn, and in the other was a beautiful full-term Munchkin kitten which he delivered and handed over to me. I placed her with another nursing queen for feeding. She became a beloved pet, as I couldn’t stand the thought of giving her up after all she went through. Sadly, she passed away two years ago at the age of 12. I still have her mother.

          • cjvg

            What a sweet story, how old is the mom now? I just found an abandoned stray kitten 2 weeks ago, that i’m fostering it now. I’m not a breeder but somehow I end up with plenty of animals all the time

          • lady_black

            The mom is 16 now and in great health, and I also have the 18 year old grand dam, but she’s been in failing health lately.

          • cjvg

            I always heard that purebred Siamese get older than other cats ( I never had a pure breed anything,) all my animals are found, walked in the house, got adopted or someone needs a “temporary” home. I never had the room to look for one but I always wanted Siamese cat , I love those blue eyes and the way a lot of them look crooked eyed

          • lady_black

            Genetics have a great deal to do with it. The oldest Siamese I’ve had so far was 15 when he had to be put down (which is on the long end of “average”). The Munchkins I got from one particular breeder have amazing life-spans. As a breed, Siamese have a reputation for long lifespans. I just think they’re beautiful and very personable kitties.

          • purrtriarchy

            My old kitty lasted until the age of 16. She died of organ failure – her thyroid went. I blame myself because I fed her some old yogurt and I think it made her sick:( she lasted a year from the original diagnosis and then just got so sick that she died at the vets. She used to purr like a pigeon cooing.

            My current kitty is an Abyssinian and she is incredibly annoying but I love how she likes to be a part of everything.

            Your kitties sound amazing! Those breeds sound like an interesting combo. Me want one!!

          • lady_black

            16 is pretty old for a cat, and I don’t think yogurt is harmful to cats (old or not). I often have to remind my husband that outside cats eat out of garbage cans when he’s fretting about feeding a cat something that he himself wouldn’t eat. Even the most pampered pet won’t hesitate to drink from a toilet (given the opportunity). I don’t think you’re guilty of anything, so just bask in the memories of the 16 years of unconditional love she gave you.

          • expect_resistance

            Don’t blame yourself. My vet recommended yogurt for my cats. Thyroid issues in cats are difficult to treat and deal with. My cat died at the ripe old age of 22. He loved drinking milk, although in his later years I switched to lactose free milk. He had lots of health problems. When he was 11 he had avascular necrosis of the femoral head and had surgery for a femoral head and neck excision. After surgery he recovered and although he had one leg that was shorter than the other he could run and play like any other cat. He also had hyperthyroidism, and in his later years he had a heart murmur. He never weighed over 9 pounds and when he died he was about 4 pounds. I lost him about 2 years ago and still miss him incredibly. He died in my arms on a sunny summer day in the garden.

            I love Abyssinian cats. My little guy was a tabby mutt but acted like an Abyssinian. He talked all of the time non-stop.

          • Arekushieru

            Here’s my story of four very different animals.

            When I was growing up my family had an English Springer Spaniel/Border Collie cross that was named Sniffy (don’t ask!). She was a medium sized dog. At about the age of seven months, she had seven puppies, one of which went to a neighbour in the town I was raised and another that went to my (late) uncle and his second wife, who both lived in the city in which I now currently reside. However, she never quite got the knack for raising her own puppies, probably due mostly to her age. She was the sweetest dog I have ever seen. In fact, my best friend’s (at the time) mother stated that she had never seen an animal so loving and well-loved (considering that this woman lived on farms most of her life and raised a number of animals on them, that’s saying a LOT). She was so tolerant and gentle that there was only ever one incident where she bit one of our neighbours (from the town I had lived in previously). From what I witnessed, I believe she had VERY good reason to do so. She was also VERY smart. She figured out how to open a door even when she had to jump to reach the handle and very rarely saw us go in and out of that door, specifically. She was also a great escape artist. She managed to leap over fences more than twice her height. She lived for a good seventeen years and died in this city, which occurred about one year after I moved here, and my family made a mutual decision to put her to sleep due to advancing arthritis and her age. Relatively recently, I’ve also put up a profile picture of her on my Facebook account.

            The second animal, also a dog, was a male Border Collie/German Shepherd rescue dog named Icarus or Icky for short (for a short time before I had to move out of the apartment I had a roommate and she was the one who gave him the name Icarus. You see, she happened to have two cats that she named Loki and Isis. In keeping with the theme and my boy’s personality, he was given the name Icarus). He was quite a bit larger than his ‘canine aunt’. ;) I got him from the Humane Society in the city while I was living in my first apartment, here. But he was also very smart. He learned to understand hand signals very quickly. I think I’ve mentioned this in relation to myself, before, but, actually, due to several circumstances we both ended up living on the streets. I tried my best to take care of both him and myself. But, eventually, I realized that he was in more potential danger if I kept him than if I took him back to the shelter. However, on the very day that I made that decision someone called the Animal Protection agency and they came and picked him up at the local Wal-Mart. I have not seen him since, mostly because I’m too afraid to ask about him and learn that he, too, was put down. I’m pretty ashamed of myself for that.

            The third animal is the third, and final, dog. She is a Siberian Husky/German Shepherd rescue dog. She was abandoned on the side of the road along with her siblings. So she does have separation anxiety. Her name is Sabine. The name comes from the book series Sabine and Griffin. Also a very smart dog. And very cuddly and affectionate. To this day, if you hug her she will turn her face into your neck as if to nuzzle it. She is at this house, right now, along with my own sibling, due to some circumstances occurring in her own family.

            The last and final animal is, of course, a cat. He’s a Russian Blue/Lynx cross. When we got him his name was Winston and subsequently renamed to Shadow (because that’s what my cousin wanted to name him). The reason we got him was because my thirteen-year-old cousin’s parents (mom’s brother and his wife) finally agreed that she could have a cat as a pet and decided to give one to her for Christmas. But the cat needed to be hypoallergenic due to the fact that my aunt has slight allergies. The only place that had such a cat left was one here in the city. And it needed to be picked up, immediately. So my own parents agreed to take the cat in for the few weeks left up until Christmas. The cat happened to be male, totally adorable and with the biggest paws and purr I’ve ever seen and heard. Also very affectionate and cuddly. For example, overnight he was put in a cage and when he was let out he would meow and brush up against you until you picked him up and gave him his morning cuddles. He wouldn’t eat either until you did that. After my cousin and her family took him home, we’ve only seen him once, since then. At Easter time. He was MUCH bigger, his paws still as outsized as ever, but still just as affectionate and cuddly. We also think that he thinks he’s a dog. When you bounce a ball towards him he’ll leap up and catch it in his mouth in midair!

          • expect_resistance

            I love the name Sniffy. Interesting mix for a dog. And no wonder why she was smart she was part Border Collie. I’m sure someone adopted Icarus because a Border Collie/ Shepard mix has to be a very smart and beautiful dog. And your Siberian Husky/German Shepard sounds like heaven. I love those breeds. My first friend when I was was growing up was a German Shepard. Shadow sounds beautiful. I’ve never heard of a Russian Blue/Lynx cross mix before. Is it the “wild” lynx?

            Thanks for sharing your animal stories. What would we do without our furry friends? I would be lost without my two kitties. I would love to get a dog but just can’t afford it now. :)

          • Arekushieru

            Yup, it is indeed the ‘wild’ Lynx. Now that he’s gotten older, the Lynx stripes stand out a lot more, too!

            Funny thing about Sniffy’s name. It doesn’t show up as an incorrect spelling on Google Chrome. :D I believe I read once that Border Collie’s were, if not THE, at least ONE of the very smartest dogs around. The interesting thing, however, was that she didn’t have the herding instincts of the Border Collie (as witnessed with her pups) but she DID catch birds quite a bit, so like her English Springer Spaniel heritage she was a very good bird dog. I think the birds were more afraid of her than the neighbourhood cats!

            As for Icarus, I forgot to explain that his name was changed. too, from the one he had when he was rescued. It was Kilo, pronounced Kai-low, but most likely referring to the fact that his former owners were either drug dealers or addicts, as in a kilogram of a substance/drug/etc…. And he had some behavioural issues as a result. But, all in all, yes, a VERY smart dog.

            I would feel very lost without my furry friends to tell you the truth!

          • lady_black

            Bless you for caring for animals. I hope your kitty finds a good home with you or someone else.

          • cjvg

            Mostly they tend to stay around, that is how I ended up with a wild pig as a pet to. We were trapping them to remove them from our land and there she was about 4 months old and she managed to “laught” at me (she looks at you and opens her mouth if she likes something, it looks just like she is laughing and through experience we learned that she is expressing joy or happiness when she does it)

            Of course she now walks around lose and managed to get herself pregnant and delivered 6 piglets. She is still trying to climb in the back seat of my truck just like my dog but she is 300lbs now so we try to keep her out. I’ll have to do something about her breeding soon.

          • purrtriarchy

            So your pig is pro life…unlike her murderous mom!!!

            I remember when you first introduced her. You explained how she always has something very important to say, especially when you are preparing food:p

          • cjvg

            She is the funniest thing.
            I don’t know about the pro life though, she is not above biting them to discipline them or launching her piglets into the air when they get in the way.

            Her favorite are screaming hot jalapeno slim jims, she’ll definitely run you over for those

          • lady_black

            I love pigs. They’re supposed to be just as intelligent as dogs. I saw some pigs at a rescue event, and they all knew their names and responded when they were called.

          • cjvg

            She learned her name pretty quick and she has figured out she was my favorite real fast to.
            They are really smart, for instance she taught herself to sit when begging for a snack since she saw that my dog would get snacks when she sat down.

          • fiona64

            Are women now the same as animals?

            In his mind, we quite obviously are. We’re just a bunch of brood sows, y’all.

          • 711247

            Then that’s their business. Not yours, nor mine. However, a domestic cat is not similar to a human. So your point falls short there, regardless.

          • goatini

            Since a cat can produce 3 litters a year, the very idea that some “irresponsible” or “lazy” owner is going to bring Kitty in for an abortion 3 times a year, instead of just getting her spayed, is probably one of the most ridiculous hypotheses I’ve ever seen presented by a ranty anti.

          • someone45

            I can tell you that most vets would spay a pet that was brought in for an abortion. At least from my experience it is pretty much required that if an owner wants an abortion for their pet they have to spay them too.

          • Arekushieru

            The correct terminology is fetus. Surprising that you cannot grasp that… not.

          • pateriot

            I totally get that the scientific term for an unborn baby as it begins to take on outward characteristics of humans until it is fully developed, yet prior to birth, is termed, “fetus”. What you still do not get, or at least won’t admit to getting, is that the fetus is none-the-less an unborn and developing human baby. With what your advocating (it’s killing) I’m NOT surprised that you can’t or won’t grasp that!!
            The proper name for a car is “automobile”, yet it is still a car. Calling it an automobile does not change that fact. Not a tough concept or notion unless someone is willfully ignorant!

          • Arekushieru

            Again, your ignorance is laughable. Baby is a SLANG term for a neonate/newborn/infant (a stage of development OUTSIDE of the uterus). Therefore, calling a neonate/newborn/infant a baby is the COMPARABLE analogy to calling an automobile a car. Calling a FETUS a baby is like calling a middle-aged person an old man/woman. They both use SLANG terms for a different stage of human development. OOPS.

            Abortion isn’t killing. And I am advocating for a woman’s right to CHOOSE termination OR continuation of her PREGNANCY. Of course, for someone who advocates for slavery, I’m not surprised that you can’t grasp that, either.

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

            My fundamentalist Christian Sister just surprised me recently by telling me that she thinks abortion is killing a baby and, nevertheless, she still supports a woman’s right to choose abortion/contraception. We did not get to discuss it further but we will. I am sure am interested in her perspective.

          • purrtriarchy

            Human and person are not the same thing. Not all human life is a person. Human bodies without minds are not people. Your ‘developing unborn baby’ does not have a mind. It is just a body. Mindless bodies have no rights.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Are you claiming that killing is wrong under any circumstances?

          • fiona64

            What you still do not get, or at least won’t admit to getting, is that the fetus is none-the-less an unborn and developing human baby.

            I ask this in all sincerity; were you home-schooled?

            Because Every. Single. Viviparous. Vertebrate. carries a fetus at some point during gestation. You need to educate yourself.

          • cjvg

            Calling a car on the assembly line a car is also correct, however NO ONE is going to claim that the car on the assembly line is the same as a fully functional car and has the same value as a fully functional and complete car.

            In fact even if the car can drive (which is highly unlikely) you will not be allowed on the road with it. Oh and good luck trying to get ANYONE placing the same value on the incomplete care versus the complete car

            Not a tough concept or notion unless someone is willfully ignorant!

          • goatini

            Words have meanings, and you don’t get to make up your own meanings. A fetus is not a baby.

          • 711247

            A fetus is a developing human, yes. It certainly isn’t a basking shark. However, that does not mean that its needs supersede mine.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Only 30 percent of zygotes produce babies. 70 percent do not live past the first trimester. So you really don’t know what you are talking about. And of the 70 percent 60 percent of those die from genetic flaws that make it clear they could never have been human life.
            A fetus may or may not be capable of being a human life. Most at the fetal stage will in fact become human babies. But many will die. And there is no way to know which will live and which will die. So you are simply wrong when you claim that a fetus is a unborn developing baby. The fetus may or may not be human enough to live as a human and it may or may not live to birth.
            You may think that is immaterial. However, one must choose whom to save in this world. If you make the choice to save a fetus, you may or may not be making a choice to save a human life and you may or may not be capable of saving the fetus before it self aborts. However, you can choose to save an already born baby and you can be certain that it is in fact human and is a living human.
            So you have a choice, you can save real human life or you can let it die. What is your choice?

          • purrtriarchy

            I use the same terminology for kitties that I use for humans. And no, when my kitty was a zygote she was only a potential kitty, nothing more.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You advocate for killing innocent babies. So what is your beef?

          • Suba gunawardana

            EVEN IF it’s a baby, why shouldn’t a woman have the right to get rid of a “baby” who lives inside her body without her consent?

          • fiona64

            News flash: feilne and canine pregnancies are terminated regularly.

            You need to get out more.

          • goatini

            But since all babies, ever, have already been born, you would just be full of BS.

            I say that a pregnant woman is a pregnant woman. She’s NOT two people. She’s NOT a non-person, and she’s NOT subordinate to a fetus that is NOT a person, NOT a citizen, and has NO rights.

          • expect_resistance

            Nicely said.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            You are correct in the sense that the mtDNA of the male is destroyed during fertilization and the major control of the zygote is with the female. Every atom of the zygote from that point to birth is a product of the female body. The female must furnish every atom at the correct time and controls the delivery of the use of her body to attain that goal. The entirety of the fetus from that point is comprised of the mothers elemental storehouse and the zygote itself is controlled by the mothers mtDNA. The determination of the use of the materials that make up the zygote is entirely determined by the mother.
            The DNA of the new zygote was created from 50% of the DNA of the mother and the mtDNA of the zygote is entirely the product of the mother. The mtDNA controls the needs of the DNA and therefore the control of the zygote falls on the mother. Concluding, the mother controls the DNA with the mtDNA and she controls the production and delivery of every atom that will become the future baby. So when all factors are considered, the fetus is a part of the mothers body.

          • goatini

            If the owner doesn’t know that little Fifi or Cleo is pregnant when they’re brought in for a spay, poochie or kitty gets an abortion along with the spay. Happens quite often, and it’s quite routine.

        • cjvg

          Oh yes dem there darn professionals (not very good redneck impression) hate their patients with a passion, that is why they went into that line of work

    • Arekushieru

      Your opinion about babies being beautiful is subjective. I think babies are more often less attractive than not. That opinion, too, is subjective, but at least I recognize that.

      Abortion is never murder. Mothers only occur once a neonate or child (humans that are born) has been released into their care. That you refuse to call a woman a host but then turn around and call her an incubator is just further proof of the contradictory stance of ALL antis.

      I know a woman who called her fetus a parasite in front of her doctor. You know what the doctor did? He laughed and agreed with her! At least he agreed that a fetus was more like a parasite than a baby. Oops.

      A fetus is not a victim. However, the woman who is being forced to remain pregnant IS.

      A woman who has an abortion does not intend to ‘kill’ the fetus. They merely intend to terminate a pregnancy. So fucking sorry.

      That you call the usage of correct medical terminology dehumanizing means that you consider fetuses non-human. Hmm. I’d say that that means that YOU are the ones dehumanizing fetuses. Oops.

      • pateriot

        Babies are not beautiful, in fact are parasites, and women are punished by being pregnant. And Conservatives are uncaring and lack compassion?

        “A woman who has an abortion does not intend to ‘kill’ the fetus. They merely intend to terminate a pregnancy. So fucking sorry.”
        You certainly should be (“So fucking sorry”). The womans twisted intent does not change the fact that she IS killing a human fetus! YOU ARE A HOT, PERVERTED MESS!!!

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

          A fetus is human, it is alive like my liver is alive, it may be unwanted. So sad.

          A perversion is sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable. One in every three women will have an induced abortion in her lifetime. Most women experience spontaneous abortion. That which is legal and normal for women cannot be called a perversion.

          There are a number of situations in which killing is both legal and acceptable: assisted suicide, defense of self or others, execution, war and abortion for example.

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          The fact is that 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally. So any choice to have sex is consent to abort 70 percent of all that are conceived. You, as a mother, consented to killing 2.33 “babies” for each baby that lived. You as a human can do no better no matter what you do. Abortion is a natural fact of life, you “must” consent to abortion in order to procreate. The dangerous fact we who must observe your actions see is that you kill your own, you kill the babies of others, yet you want to stop the death of products of conception that you cannot prove are capable of life. That is a really difficult position for us. And our main obstacle is your inability to understand science.

        • Arekushieru

          So, defending myself from rape is twisted if it ends up killing my rapist. There is no way you can disagree or agree with the statement and come out smelling like a rose, while STILL supporting violations of a woman’s body. Thanks for proving your MISOGYNY.

          Thanks for proving your lack of compassion.

          ASSuming that all women want to be pregnant, because, if not, you are ASSuming, instead, that women are no more than incubators and containers for the fetus, unable to wish to not be pregnant. THAT is dehumanizing to women, women who have FAR more value than a non-sentient, non-sapient, non-breathing, non-thinking, non-feeling human. Essentially, a woman has FAR more value than something that is everything she is NOT. It means that, if you believe otherwise, that a fetus DOES have all the things that a woman has, she has no feelings, wants, wishes, desires, dreams or hopes of her own. Because that is precisely the way you equate a fetus with personhood. Not by raising the value of the fetus but restricting the value of the woman. How can you care for women, after all, if you don’t believe they are persons OR humans the way men are persons or humans?

          Otherwise, you are equating apples and oranges, deliberately. After all, do you equate forced sex with sex? I bet that you don’t. However, you DO compare forced pregnancy and childbirth with a blanket statement such as childbirth and pregnancy, though. Just stop being so obtuse and misogynistic. The reason why you don’t do the same in BOTH situations is OBVIOUS. Because one affects BOTH men and women, while the other only affects WOMEN. Sick.

          So, forcing a woman to remain pregnant is compassionate? Wow, up is down and down is up to you people,

          And, seriously, is lack of reading comprehension a disease inherent only to anti-choicers?

          I never SAID that a baby could not be beautiful. That you think EVERY baby is beautiful is simply a subjective opinion. And that’s ALL I said. It’s also irrelevant. And erasure of the woman. Because you are implying that ‘beauty’ is the one true measure of whether one ‘deserves’ life or not. Since you don’t think a woman ‘deserves’ life by very virtue of the FACT that you want to force her to undergo the third most deadly condition for women worldwide you are admitting that, along with the implied assumption that women are not beautiful, it IS a subjective opinion. Oops.

          A fetus IS parasitic. However, not only does that NOT address anything more than the relationship between the host and fetus, it ALSO proves your lack of reading comprehension, I was MERELY pointing out that your assertion that calling a fetus a baby makes it so AND that when a fetus is wanted it is a baby to Pro-Choicers and when it is unwanted it is not, are BOTH incorrect. One, because you do not agree that calling a fetus a parasite makes it a parasite, therefore the opposite can NOT hold true. And two, because the woman who CALLED it a parasite, was… wait for it… wait for it… PRO-CHOICE and WANTED the pregnancy. AW. So sorry for proving you wrong, yet again. Oh… wait…. I’m not….

          Finally, what do you think forced gestation IS? If it modifies the behaviour of women so that they only have sex for purposes of procreation (which would indeed be the most LIKELY consequence) you ARE punishing the woman. SFS.

          • cjvg

            Yes, yes and yes

          • pateriot

            When you want to have a baby YOU have no problems calling a fetus a developing baby. However when it is grist for the abortion mill it is strictly termed a “fetus”!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Well, when you birth a baby yourself, then you get to call it whatever you like.

          • lady_black

            Whether she wants it or not, it’s still a fetus. Calling a fetus a baby is like calling your dog your baby. Neither are actually babies. It’s a term of endearment.

          • Dez

            Nicely put. I call my niece a little munchkin butt. She’s not actually one, but “pro-lifers” do not seem to get that distinction between pet names and the literal names.

        • fiona64

          The real “hot, perverted mess” here is the anti-choice male who demands that women gestate unwanted and/or doomed pregnancies, thus risking their life and health. You, sirrah, will never have to worry about your life being endangered by pregnancy … which is why it’s so easy for you to wave your big dumb paw and make such demands.

          My wanted pregnancy nearly killed me; should my tubal ligation fail (they can, and do), there will be an abortion so fast that your ignorant, misogynistic head will spin right off. I will NOT go through that again.

        • lady_black

          In fact, my daughter (while pregnant with her own daughter) referred to her fetus as “my little parasite.” It was a wanted pregnancy, by the way. At least she understood that the fetus wasn’t just occupying space in her uterus, and was having a profound impact on her body. At least she had a choice.

          • Shan

            My 2nd, I referred to as “&etc”

        • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

          You have a choice pateriot, you may save innocent babies or you may choose to murder them and attempt to save a fetus instead. Your intentional choice is to let born babies die.
          Pro choice people do not simply become pregnant so that they can have an abortion. However, you and other pro lifers intentionally choose to let innocent babies die. The hot perverted mess is you.

        • goatini

          Yes, women who are forced to gestate unwanted pregnancies to term, against their will, ARE being punished.

        • someone45

          A woman having an abortion isn’t killing anything. She is removing an unwanted fetus from her body.

    • Suba gunawardana

      Take the emotion away for a moment.
      -What is wrong with removing an unwanted invader from your body?
      -What obligates a person to accommodate an uninvited parasite/invader at the expense of her body?

      • pateriot

        What can you say to a person that equates a growing human life to a cancerous parasite!

        • purrtriarchy

          Its mindless, just like cancer. And functionally it behaves like a parasite.

          And its value is purely subjective

        • Suba gunawardana

          Again that ad hominem attack didn’t answer my question at all.

          I take it you have no answer?

        • lady_black

          Whether it is a “growing human life” is not in dispute. You seem to be in dispute over whether or not a woman (who is a complete human life with actual feelings) can be obligated to host a “growing human life.” She cannot. Women are not subordinate to fetal life, whether you choose to call it a fetus or a baby. Having had three actual babies of my own, I can tell you there is a difference. No baby can endanger my life by the mere fact of it’s existence. And if that were possible, I would still have the right to defend myself.

    • lady_black

      There is no such thing as a birth canal. I see you have some problem with using actual correct terms to describe the human body. I’m surprised you don’t make reference to your “peepee” or “hoohoo.”

      • fiona64

        Those terms are probably too specific: “man’s thing” or “woman’s thing” are more likely in this case.

      • expect_resistance

        When I hear “birth canal” I automatically think Panama Canal. My vagina is no where near that size.

        • lady_black

          I have a vagina. I do NOT have a “birth canal.” That term grates on my nerves for some reason.

          • purrtriarchy

            Birth canal renders you insignificant. Like a robot. A baby factory. Assembly line.

          • Ella Warnock

            All the pearl-clutching hysteria over using the (scientifically correct) term “fetus,” insisting that it’s “dehumanizing.” But it’s not a vagina (belonging to an actual living, breathing woman), it’s a “birth canal.”

            Riiiight.

          • pateriot

            The birth canal is the scientific term for the natural path that an unborn baby takes in the process of being born. includes the cervix, vagina, and vulva. Try opening a dictionary, or medical book before making a complete vagina of yourself!!!

          • lady_black

            I went to nursing school and never heard “birth canal” even once. We were taught the actual names of all the anatomical structures, along with their physiological function. You reduce their complexity to a single passage with a single function, implying that women exist to give birth, I understand you don’t “get it.” Maybe you would understand if people started referring to your penis as a “urine tube.”

          • Shan

            Sometimes I refer to mine in the third person, as in “Maggie just LOVES breakfast sausage!”

          • fiona64

            Well, I suppose “urine tube” would be kinder (if less accurate) than “Tiny.”

          • Ella Warnock

            Undergraduate degree in biology. Nobody ever called it a “birth canal.” Nice try, though.

          • cjvg

            But you have issues using correct scientific terms. Using the correct scientific terms is dehumanizing.. Or is it only dehumanizing when you are discussing a fetus, and not when you reduce a womans organs to simply being a birth canal?

            Besides it is only a birth canal when you are in the process of giving birth or when the baby has entered said canal, before that it is most certainly NOT a birth canal

          • pateriot

            My significance to you aside… you DO have a birth canal. You really should get your information from something other than the “Planned Parenthood” website!!!

          • purrtriarchy

            And I have ‘tomatoes’ on my chest. That does not mean it is correct medical terminology.

          • fiona64

            And that’s just how Pateridiot sees us: baby factories.

          • pateriot

            Unless you have had your cervix, vagina, and vulva removed you DO have a birth canal… regardless of how much it “grates” on you!

          • lady_black

            It’s called the vagina.

          • cjvg

            So you refer to these organs as the birth canal when discussion a girl child? Are you in all seriousness claiming that that is the word pediatricians use when discussing a little girls sex organs?

            You know the answer is no, you and that pediatrician use the correct scientific terms when talking about a girl child. The only time birth canal is used is, is when you are discussing adult women you want to reduce to nothing but birth organs!

      • pateriot

        The Birth Canal is the general path that includes the Vagina.
        birth canal
        noun
        the passage through which the young of mammals pass during birth, formed by the cervix, vagina, and vulva.
        Medical Dictionary
        birth canal n.
        The passage through which the fetus is expelled during parturition, leading from the uterus through the cervix, vagina, and vulva. Also called parturient canal .
        Who’s ignorant now… or perhaps you simply wanted to say the word, “vagina”… or possibly because you are willfully ignorant that fetuses are unborn, developing babies!!!

        • Jennifer Starr

          You need more exclamation points. That wasn’t nearly as emphatic as it could’ve been.

    • goatini

      When my friends were/are pregnant, I ask them, “How are YOU?” Because there’s no baby till birth. And because my friends are the entities that are persons and citizens, and the entities that have civil, human and Constitutional rights. The only one dehumanizing anyone here is you – dehumanizing the living, breathing woman.

    • expect_resistance

      Birth canal, you mean the vagina? *snort laugh snort laugh*

      • lady_black

        Exactly. It’s a vagina. Not a “birth canal.”

        • pateriot

          Exactly, the Birth Canal is the general path that INCLUDES the Vagina.

          birth canal

          noun

          the passage through which the young of mammals pass during birth, formed by the cervix, vagina, and vulva.

          Medical Dictionary

          birth canal n.
          The passage through which the fetus is expelled during parturition, leading from the uterus through the cervix, vagina, and vulva. Also called parturient canal .

          Who’s ignorant now… or perhaps you simply wanted to say the word, “vagina”. More likely it is because you are willfully ignorant and in denial that fetuses ARE unborn, developing babies!!!

          • fiona64

            More likely it is because you are willfully ignorant and in denial that fetuses ARE unborn, developing babies!!!

            You will look less histrionic if you use only one exclamation point, just so you know.

            So, you think all fetii are human infants? Go back to biology class. That’s all I have to say.

            But before you go, try your hand at this quiz: http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html . It’s the embryos of viviparous vertrebrates at similar stages of gestation. So, go on, Sparky. Wow us with your genius at proving “it’s a baby.”

            (BTW, most honest people will confess that the image they chose? Is the skink.)

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh dear, I picked the chicken. Worked late last night– I think I need more coffee. :)

          • fiona64

            Interestingly enough, most people do pick the skink (few pick the zebra fish) … and very few get the actual human embryo at all. I think you’re one of a handful of “I got the chicken” folks I’ve seen in the (literally) decades that I’ve been sharing this.

          • purrtriarchy

            Which is why I always laugh when they accuse us of dehumanizing the ‘unborn’. How can you dehumanize something that has zero human characteristics? If they can’t tell a human zygote from a chicken zygote does this make them Nazis?

          • Ella Warnock

            Bu . . . but . . . DNA! It’s magickul!

          • lady_black

            Actually I picked the dog. They all looked pretty much alike to me.

          • lady_black

            Yes, I wanted to say he word vagina. Because that’s what it is. “Birth canal” implies that the vagina has a singular purpose in giving birth. It’s an antiquated term and a euphemism.

      • fiona64

        Shh! We can’t use that word.

        It’s a woman’s “thing.” ;-)

        • pateriot

          Technically the last part of a woman’s body a baby passes through is the Vulva

          • fiona64

            Ooh, he can be taught.

            Now if he could only be taught that women are not EasyBake Ovens …

            And yes, that’s how you see us. The EasyBake’s job is to make tiny cakes and, in your mind, it is the job of women to gestate. We serve no purpose, in your mind, except as incubators.

            Feh.

        • expect_resistance

          OMG he said “Vulva.”

      • pateriot

        The Birth Canal is the general path that includes the Vagina.

        birth canal

        noun

        the passage through which the young of mammals pass during birth, formed by the cervix, vagina, and vulva.

        Medical Dictionary

        birth canal n.
        The passage through which the fetus is expelled during parturition, leading from the uterus through the cervix, vagina, and vulva. Also called parturient canal .

        Who’s ignorant now… or perhaps you simply wanted to say the word, “vagina”. More likely it is because you are willfully ignorant and in denial that fetuses ARE unborn, developing babies!!!

        • expect_resistance

          You’re still ignorant.

          • pateriot

            I guess you’ve pretty well demonstrated your own gross ignorance… of your own body even!!

          • expect_resistance

            I own the equipment I’m well aware of it. I don’t plan on using my equipment to gestate a fetus.

            I also know what a fetus is and it is not a person it doesn’t have a right to be born. A woman has autonomy over a fetus and can decide when and if to gestate a pregnancy. This has occurred for thousands of years. Women have been using birth control and abortion for thousands of years. (http://jezebel.com/umich-exhibit-celebrates-4000-years-of-reproductive-cho-1552914229)

  • Dawn9476

    If only pro-lifers were as passionate about saving infants as they were about saving fetuses, then maybe areas of this country wouldn’t have infant mortality rates that are in line with those of developing countries.

    • Feemster

      Maybe if the people that live in those areas….had the same dignity of human beings in other areas of the country ….they wouldn’t be having children they’re not ready to provide for. All my children came into this world just as God and I planned it. Right on time. They had everything they needed…they always will. You can’t blame me or God for the feral behavior of human beings who reject good advice and wisdom. Life is and endless series of rewards or consequences based on the choices you make. We reap only what we sow. No worldly philosophy or progressive government can ever change that. It’s the way God made it. At best…..man can only make things worse.

      • Shan

        What, so if these “feral” people get any outside help, their bad behavior is encouraged rather than punished so they’ll never change. Did I get that right?

      • lady_black

        Oh PLEASE. Unwanted children are as old as time, and the same methods have always been used to deal with the problem. Contraception, abortion, and abandonment and/or infanticide. Making the first two unavailable guarantees more of the last two. With the first wave of abortion restrictions came a wave of dumpster babies that forced governments to enact safe haven laws. I’m very opposed to the mistreatment of children. I’m pro-life, so naturally I’m pro-choice (thanks to Plum Dumpling for this great quote). It isn’t as simple as “trusting in ‘god’.” Some people don’t want to be parents or don’t want to be parents NOW. I’d much rather they didn’t have children they aren’t ready for, and to that end, abortion is now (and always has been) one of the answers to that dilemma.

      • Jennifer Starr

        So you not only want to force women to give birth to children they can’t afford, but you want the right to sneer at and judge them for not being as fortunate and privileged as you, and for failing to be as ‘perfect’ as you imagine yourself to be. And on top of it all I’m betting you’re anti-contraception as well. Lovely.

      • fiona64

        More privilege-blind stupidity from you … and I’m not even surprised anymore.

      • goatini

        That old “God will provide” BS didn’t fly 50 years ago, and it’s invalid now. Family planning and reproductive justice ensure healthier, happier families – FACT.

      • Suba gunawardana

        The way god made it? Why did god create viruses; bacteria; parasites; cancer; metabolic disease; congenital abnormalities etc.? Does god enjoy watching the suffering of sentient beings?

        • pateriot

          and of course YOU are greater than “GOD”.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Which one?

          • pateriot

            Take your pick. It is evidence of your arrogance, condescending attitude, and egocentric view of the World.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Why? Because I know that the word god can be applied to thousands? In case you weren’t aware, there is more than one religion in this world.

          • pateriot

            I’m well aware of that and I’m not religious at all. It was more of a metaphorical statement, pointing out your belief In your own supremacy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Even though you failed to point out any such belief.

          • pateriot

            True, it was a bit of an assumption yet based on a seeming attack on other’s belief of a Supreme being and not man kinds own supremacy. If I was wrong I apologize… if I was not, the metaphor stands.

          • Suba gunawardana

            It is the same believers of an imaginary god who use that belief to establish the supremacy of mankind, i.e. to use & abuse all non-humans for the propagation of humankind.

            Why is it wrong to kill a human fetus, but perfectly fine to kill thousands of non-human animals/plants to sustain that new human had it not been aborted? Why is a human fetus more important than a thousand fully-grown non-humans? In your own words, “man kinds own supremacy”

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I pointed out in response to your other post, belief in your own supremacy is to believe that all non-humans are here for us to use & abuse; to consider a human fetus more important than a million fully-grown sentient non-humans; to claim it’s wrong to kill a human fetus while deeming it perfectly fine to kill a million non-humans to sustain that one human life.

          • http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com/ Russell Crawford

            Very well said.

          • fiona64

            pointing out your belief In your own supremacy.

            Why, look! You’ve described yourself to the proverbial tee!

          • expect_resistance

            A little projection? You come across as a snot-nosed brat who has a “know it all” condescending attitude.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That didn’t answer my question at all. It is YOU who admires god “the creator”. Why did your god create all these horrible things?

          • lady_black

            God who?

  • Jennifer Starr

    I read–it’s horrific.

    • P. McCoy

      Catholic Answers Forums posters says it’s all lies; if that is so, why is an Archbishop of Dublin investigating the matter as well as warning that there might be more of these abominations underground in other parts of the country? Of course, the cult members obfusticate and deny or rationalize any atrocities committed by the Catholic church by saying: ” the church is a hospital for sinners, not saints.”

  • TheBrett

    whether any but the wealthiest abortion-seeking Texans, with access to cars and time off work and child care for the children they already have, will be able to walk through those few remaining doors.

    That’s a good one. The wealthiest Texan women who need abortions won’t go there. They’ll go out of state to one of the states with a sane abortion policy (New Mexico, California), or more likely have their personal doctors prescribe them the pills necessary to do a self-induced abortion.

  • Kris Weibel

    Abortion is still legal, according to the constitution. If you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t have one. Just leave the “choice” on the table.

  • wildthang

    The strange thing is pre-Rowe v Wade Colorado had an law allowing abortions of a woman’s life was in jeopardy or cases of rape or incest with a doctors statement even if mental health was in jeopardy. Given that a woman’s life and mental health is always in jeopardy in pregnancy and childbirth it allowed more choice then, At that time some may have been afraid of voters, not that is should a matter of vote. It should be a matter of constitutional right in the manner in which Colorado’s law was meant.