Michigan Lawmakers Propose ‘Heartbeat’ Abortion Ban


This month, lawmakers in Michigan introduced a series of bills that would ban abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which can occur as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The legislation would also severely criminalize doctors by making it a felony to perform such a procedure.

The legislative package mandates that doctors search for a fetal heartbeat before performing an abortion, and makes the abortion illegal if a heartbeat is found. HB 5643, the first of the three bills, also states that if no heartbeat is found, a doctor must give the pregnant woman “the option of hearing or seeing the evidence of the fetal heartbeat” and inform her of the likelihood that her pregnancy can be carried to term.

On top of the ban, the legislation makes it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion even after no heartbeat is detected. According to one of the bills, instead of allowing the woman to get the abortion she wants after failing to find a heartbeat, the doctor should either suggest that further tests be performed or “delay until a later date performing a diagnostic procedure to determine if the fetus is physically developing.” Shelli Weisberg, the legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, says that the delay is intended to put off the procedure until a heartbeat can be found. “The catch there is to force the woman to continue to delay her decision, and of course if there’s a heartbeat once she comes back to her doctor she won’t be able to get the abortion she wanted,” Weisberg told RH Reality Check.

The bills makes it a felony to perform an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is found. According to HB 5644, the second in the series, a physician convicted of such a crime would face up to four years in prison and a fine of $50,000. Weisberg says that this criminalization of post-heartbeat abortions puts an unfair burden on doctors and could affect the quality of their care. “It’s simply not fair because doctors’ provision of medical care is colored by the possibility that they may end up facing prison time,” she told RH Reality Check.

Introduced by state Rep. Thomas Hooker (R-Byron Center), along with 16 co-sponsors, the package of legislation has already elicited an outcry from Michigan’s pro-choice advocates, including Rep. Marcia Hovey-Wright (D-Muskegon), who in a statement condemned the proposed legislation. “One of the new bills is so extreme that similar bills have routinely been ruled unconstitutional when they have been passed in other states,” she said in the statement. “The other insults women by second-guessing their ability to make reasoned and informed health care decisions on their own by pressuring them to listen to a fetal heartbeat before having a medical procedure. Women don’t want the government interfering with their health care decisions, and this must stop.”

So-called fetal heartbeat bans, which have popped up across the country since 2011, are widely seen as some of the most radical and severe anti-choice legislation in the United States. Because a heartbeat can be found as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant, fetal heartbeat abortion bans essentially make illegal the vast majority of abortions. “These bills are absolutely designed to outlaw most abortions,” said Weisberg. “It’s an end run around trying to outlaw abortion outright by putting these ridiculous edicts in place.”

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

  • Rita, Canberra

    It’s very confronting to recognize in a heartbeat that is not my own that there is another tiny human being alive and active, being nurtured and protected in my womb.

    For over 50 years, the abortion industry has been telling pregnant women that their pregnancy is a childless phenomenon–”only a bunch of cells”.

    Biology, embryology, fetal surgery, ultrasound technology, and examination of the human remains of an abortion all tell us that the “contents of the uterus”, selected to be aborted, is a human being, belonging to the human family, a human being who even at the earliest stages can be identified as a daughter or son, a ‘who’ not a generic ‘thing’.

    It is the crazy mixed-up anti-scientific reconstruction of the fetus by an aging ideology that is now being rejected by growing numbers of better educated women and girls who can listen to the heartbeat of their little ones and recognize their very real presence and their inimitable potential to love and to be loved.

    • Shan

      Rita, scientists can create beating heart cells in petri dish. Not everybody is as maudlin-driven as you are by the romantic idea of a heartbeat.

      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/02/stem-cell-research-heart-disease-long-qt

      “Biology, embryology, fetal surgery, ultrasound technology, and examination of the human remains of an abortion all tell us that the “contents of the uterus”, selected to be aborted, is a human being, belonging to the human family, a human being who even at the earliest stages can be identified as a daughter or son, a ‘who’ not a generic ‘thing’.”

      Um, no. Every woman who has ever been pregnant or ever will be understands perfectly well that she is not pregnant with a freaking toaster or an armadillo or iPod, but another human being. And that’s the very reason she wants to have an abortion in the first place: because – for whatever reason – she does not want to carry to term and giving birth to one.

      Women are NOT stupid, Rita. They know what they’re doing when they have an abortion.

      • TheBrett

        They have to pretend that pregnant women seeking abortions are stupid or deluded, otherwise they’d be forced to face the fact that they’re actually criminalizing women and treating them as nothing more than wombs – something the most extreme of the anti-choice crowd no doubt believes, but many of them prefer not to.

        • Shan

          “They have to pretend that pregnant women seeking abortions are stupid or deluded,”

          And yet women magically become smarter and full-on responsible if they give birth instead.

          • L-dan

            Except that they’ll complain of ‘those women’ having kids they ‘obviously’ can’t take care of too. It really comes down to them wanting to police sex. In their world, women don’t get to have sex unless they’re willing to be mothers.

            Of course, they also feel that women owe their husbands sex, and that women are responsible for tempting men into rape…so it’s not as if being willing to be a mother even has anything to do with it. Women are *made* to be mothers and that’s all there is to it. Those who don’t want to be are pulling against their very nature and should be shunned as unnatural freaks.

            At least that’s my takeaway of most of these folks.

          • purrtriarchy

            Hahaha. Over on another thread, there is a religious whackjob who is arguing that contraception is a lie, and that women who have sex without intent to procreate are ‘cheating’ nature, or some shit.

            IE, women are the reproductive property of their husbands.

          • L-dan

            I mean, really. Does he feel that men are cheating if they have sex without intent to procreate too? Because that’s pretty much been the double standard since forever. Men get to fuck around, and are expected to…they’re just not supposed to ‘ruin’ ‘nice girls’ while they’re at it.

          • Shan

            “they’re just not supposed to ‘ruin’ ‘nice girls’ while they’re at it.”

            About that…I’ve always wondered…What’s so wrong with men that having sex with them “ruins” us? ;)

          • lady_black

            Is that Thomas somebody? Sounds like him. The “seed” guy.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yeppers.

            Jfc we have been bombarded with misogynist “women are easy bake ovens” fuckers lately.

          • lady_black

            Thomas Sharp.

      • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

        Love the “pregnant with a freaking toaster…” etc paragraph! LFMAO

    • TheBrett

      Not a human being, just a collection of cells that might eventually become one at six weeks. Something whose “rights” do not in any way override the rights of the women carrying it to determine whether or not she wants to finish the pregnancy.

      For over 50 years, the abortion industry has been telling pregnant women that their pregnancy is a childless phenomenon–”only a bunch of cells”.

      For over 100 years religious nuts such as yourself have been telling pregnant women that they have no rights over their own bodies except as vessels for the next generation, even when it costs them their lives. Fortunately, most Americans reject this, and the states that have been able to pass abortion restrictions have only been able to do so because anti-choice activists dominate Republican primaries and most of the rest of the population does not care as much about the issue.

    • redlemon

      At 7 weeks, when I had my first ultrasound, I didn’t think “baby”. I thought of it as a collection of cells that I truly wanted to eventually become a baby. I called it my little embryo. I wasn’t deluded.

    • P. McCoy

      So what? If it has a heartbeat if I don’t want it or it threatens my life, it’s still akin to a cancer a parasite and I want it excised from my body! Such sanguine, mawkish sentiements are typical of brainwashed body part worshipping idol worshippers who insanely fetishize the heart of Jesus, the wounds of Jesus, unleavened bread (false azyme delusions) etc;.Forced birth is SLAVERY!

    • lady_black

      You know what, Rita? That “heartbeat” doesn’t mean ANYTHING. The most important intra-uterine organ the fetus possesses is the placenta. Everything the fetus needs is taken out of the mother’s blood. Oh, and by the way… I schooled another dullard like yourself about sex and gender being carved in stone at conception. It isn’t. Go to your embryology textbook and do some research on intersex humans. I know in your universe, that doesn’t exist, because… DNA. But there’s much more involved than X and Y chromosomes, and there are various types of humans who aren’t fully male or fully female. You’re welcome.

    • goatini

      Corrected it for you:

      Ever since the beginnings of the vicious and amoral criminalization of pregnancy termination, the billion-dollar global human trafficking ADOPTION industry has been lying to women with unwanted pregnancies, lying to them that their pregnancy is a “person” with “rights”, that ERASES their OWN civil and human rights, and renders them nothing more than gestation containers with NO rights, to be horrifically exploited in gestational slavery for the benefit of selfish, greedy, barren vultures who will pay vast sums (of which the slave receives ZERO) for the product.

      It is the crazy mixed-up anti-scientific reconstruction of the fetus by these radical theocratic misogynist slavers and exploiters that has been resoundingly rejected by the VAST majority of better educated women worldwide, who (thanks to contraception and safe, legal pregnancy termination) NOW recognize their OWN very real presence as fully realized human beings of equality, and their inimitable potential to achieve ANYTHING they set their brilliant minds upon, without fear and worry that all their dreams and plans will be utterly destroyed by an unwanted random event of fertilization.

    • purrtriarchy

      The FACT is, an embryo really is just a mindless clump of cells.

      Why do you have a problem with facts, Rita?

      • afishcalledsid

        Rita is right and you are wrong. The pro-abortion stranglehold on our laws has only just started slipping and, as Rita alluded to, science and technology, rather than religion, are increasingly the reason. They are revealing the weakness of the pro-choice argument.

        Review all the responses/attacks she faced after her last comment. You’ll see nothing but emotion, not science, in all those comments. There is INSISTENCE regarding the scientific viability of the pro-choice position, but not solid or well-argued. I am reminded of Dark Helmet, in the movie “Space Balls”, insisting that Mr. Radar was malfunctioning b/c he was unaware that he was actually looking at Mr. Coffee.

        Inability to debate w/o becoming viciously insulting also says more about the aggressor than the target. One of the people who slammed Rita stated in another thread that she has a 27-year old son, yet she remains a bona fide potty mouth in (at least) middle age.

        Rita also addressed the issue dealt with in the article. What about this legislation in Michigan? And how does it compare to similar legislation in other states? What is the aim of the new legislation and what are some of the unforeseen impacts that are possible? The response in here has been nothing but, “It all f***ing sucks and so does Rita because she’s pro-life!”

        Review the comments and see for yourself.

        • Shan

          No. Rita’s anti-abortion spin is still emotional. Just because she said “science” doesn’t make it any less so.

        • goatini

          More forced-birther projection, since Rita’s steaming load of treacly codswallop was nothing BUT emotion, with a soupçon of amateur “embryologist” psuedo-”science”. My response to that feeble and poorly argued attempt to exploit and manipulate emotions WAS based in FACT.

          This is a reproductive justice website. We are NOT interested in ANY advocacy of the forcible stripping away of our inalienable civil, human and Constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive justice. Such advocacy is hate speech and is anti-American at its core.

        • Ella Warnock

          Oooh, a “potty mouth.” Well, I never.

          • goatini

            I know, really. Because when someone is arguing that female citizens should have their 14th Amendment rights erased, I should swoon and utter “My stars and garters!”

          • Shan

            LOL! “My stars and garters!” Wherever did you get that?!

          • goatini
          • Ella Warnock

            Just more tone trolling. We’ll tell you how you should think and feel about this subject and we’ll bloody well tell ya how you’ll speak about it, too.

          • lady_black

            I’m not a potty mouth. I’m THE Pottymouth, and that’s MS. Pottymouth to Sid.

          • Ella Warnock

            You go, girl!

        • Jennifer Starr

          You know, if indelicate language upsets you so, perhaps a G-rated board would be more to your liking,

        • Jennifer Starr

          It’s also kind of ironic that this tone-trolling is coming from someone who specializes in histrionic all-caps, substance-free RANTS. Maybe you want to look at the tone of your own posts before you criticize others. Just a thought.

          • fiona64

            Oh, God. Sid is still here posting his fact-free walls of text. Heaven help us all.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I also enjoy its whiny rants on other boards about how ‘we ladies pushed it too far’ with making our own reproductive choices. How dare we make decisions without Sid’s approval.

        • fiona64

          One of the people who slammed Rita stated in another thread that she has
          a 27-year old son, yet she remains a bona fide potty mouth in (at
          least) middle age.

          That was probably me.

          Fuck you, Sid.

          • lady_black

            I concur.

        • lady_black

          Rita is perfectly free to be “pro-life” and to manage her own life as she sees fit. She doesn’t get to manage mine. She is less about “science” and more about mawkish sentimentality. She has seriously posted that pregnancy is just like breathing. She is certain that gender is etched in stone at conception. She claims that pregnancy isn’t a medical condition. Good thing she isn’t running the reimbursement department at *your* insurance company, huh? You’d be paying the whole thing out of pocket because your medical condition is imaginary. It’s all in your head. Science? Give me a freaking break.

        • Ineedacoffee

          Weakness in pro choice argument?
          There is no weakness, a woman has every right to control her own body, full stop. We don’t need middle age sexist pigs attempting to control.our bodies
          If you don’t believe a woman should have the right to say what happens to her own body, your a monster.

        • purrtriarchy

          Rita is wrong. Embryos are mindless. Scientific FACT.

        • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

          Ritas point at the end of her nonsense remark is that if pregnant women will see their foetuses on a picture or listen to their heartbeat, they will change their minds and not have an abortion they might need for a number of reasons, no matter which. Her words implicate that seeing/hearing these things she will become a “real” woman, set everything else aside and enjoy the pregnancy she ten minutes earlier wanted to terminate. This is nothing but an insult to women, just as the whole “pro life” movement is an insult. They probably enjoy spitting in the faces of women too.

    • Ella Warnock

      Heartbeat. Whooooop-tee-doooo.

      I mean, really.

    • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

      The forced ultrasounds that I guess you are referring to in your final paragraph is just one more version of forced birthers and anti-womens groups to display that they think women are stupid. “Oh, look/listen, there is a baby in there, you did not know that really, did you?” How nice of them to help you get hormones going so you want to keep a child that you up until then knew that you afor a variety of reasons could not keep. I hate “pro lifers” for a number of reasons, one of them is that they so obviously show that they think women are stupid. They are not.
      And better educated women? The level of education is higher in the cities, the cities are almost entirely blue on the map. Check this one:

      http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813
      If it was not for those living in trailer parks or sleeping in the corn fields of the midwest, “pro life” would be a mere nothing.

    • tigalily

      And before it was legalized…abortions happened for 4000 years. Women will do whatever it takes to maintain their bodily autonomy.

      And stop being a sexist idiot. just as fatherhood does NOT define a man, motherhood does NOT define a woman. this innate bond you speak of is not immediate and in some women will NEVER develop.

      • almond_bubble_tea

        Exactly. It look a very long time for me to bond with my first daughter . . . almost six months.

        Where do anti-abortion people get the idea that motherhood is all rainbows and unicorns? it is is sometimes a very thankless job.

    • fiona64

      Take your psychosis elsewhere, Rita. Abortion has been going on since the beginning of time, and will continue to go on — legal or not. The only difference is that women will be dying again.

      Not that you give a shit.

    • purrtriarchy

      Rita, you are fond of saying that pregnancy is just like breathing…

      Then explain this..

      Considering that “the historical level of maternal deaths is probably around 1 in 100 births”, I would think that giving birth might be construed as something far more dangerous than simply breathing. Which, based on the estimate that there have been some 100 billion humans on earth since we could lay claim to the term, works out to about one billion women who have died in childbirth since then.

      • Rita, Canberra

        And how many women do you estimate have died of complications with our respiratory systems?
        Neither statistic proves that our respiratory and reproductive systems are not designed in general for normal healthy human functioning.

        • purrtriarchy

          Breathing is not a medical condition that can kill and maim.

          Pregnancy is. Even “normal” pregnancy takes a tremendous toll on the body and there is always the risk of maiming and injury. And death. If a woman is not pregnant, she is not in danger of death or illness from pregnancy.

          Pregnancy is not the default state of women. If it was, you could have a baby every year from the age of 12 to 45 and suffer zero side effects. Breathing, by comparison, is not a medical condition that wears your body out and eventually kills you.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Normal pregnancy is not “a medical condition” and neither is normal breathing. Problems can develop with both respiratory and reproductive systems and both may “wear your body out and eventually kill you”.

          • purrtriarchy

            Still wrong. Breathing is not physically dangerous. Pregnancy is

          • Jennifer Starr

            So if I get pregnant, I don’t need to do anything special, right? I don’t need to go to the doctor, get a blood test or an ultrasound or change anything about my habits because it’s just like breathing–something that happens without any special effort on my part. Correct?

          • Rita, Canberra

            The learned consensus in mainstream medical circles remains that pregnancy is not be characterized or treated as a disease or sickness, even if the mother and baby may both benefit from medical care.

            If your doctor is telling you that your pregnancy is “a medical condition”, I would suggest you change your doctor.

          • Ella Warnock

            Quite frankly, I’ll be the one to decide what is or is not, for me, a medical condition. Since it’s my body and all.

          • purrtriarchy

            Benefit from medical care = medical condition.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you are telling me that if I’m pregnant I don’t have to do or change anything, right? I don’t even need to go see a doctor or change anything about the way I eat, drink, or anything. That is the advice you give to pregnant women?

          • Ella Warnock

            Is it a medical condition for the fetus? So, if I as a woman don’t really need medical care during pregnancy, then the fetus doesn’t either?

          • purrtriarchy

            If pregnancy is just like breathing, and doctors suggest medical care throughout the duration of the pregnancy, then why don’t doctors also suggest nonstop medical care for the entire lifetime that you spend breathing? Regular checkups and continual monitoring of your respiratory system?

          • fiona64

            The learned consensus in mainstream medical circles remains that
            pregnancy is not be characterized or treated as a disease or sickness,
            even if the mother and baby may both benefit from medical care.

            Citation needed.

            If your doctor is telling you that your pregnancy is “a medical condition”, I would suggest you change your doctor.

            No thanks; I’d rather have a doctor who knows what s/he is talking about.

          • lady_black

            Nobody said “disease or illness.” It is a medical condition. Medically speaking, you are pregnant. It changes the way your body normally functions. For some people, pregnancy results in illness and disease. You do not understand the terms you’re using, so just STOP, Rita.

          • Rita, Canberra

            I’m afraid it is you yourself who need to do a good introductory course in the philosophy of the language of medicine. Your current understanding of the term ‘pregnancy’ appears to be heavily influenced by a errant ideology that claims pregnancy is always and everywhere to be treated as a most terribly, terribly dangerous “medical condition” which can be treated only by elective “safe abortion” services covered by universal medical insurance.
            Ideological claptrap.

          • lady_black

            Pregnancy is treated how it’s treated, Rita. The fact is nobody needs to be pregnant in the first place. But if they choose to gestate, the treatment will depend upon the individual pregnancy. Sometimes abortion will be necessary. Most of the time, things will go smoothly and only require monitoring. Sometimes extremely aggressive intervention will be needed to get the woman and her fetus through the process safely. I’ve been down this road a few times. Needing to leave your job to stay on bedrest, and leave your home to relocate closer to the hospital can’t be waved away with your big dumb paw as “minor inconveniences” and aren’t an option for everyone, either. Those things are less “minor inconveniences” and more “major life disruptions.”

          • Jennifer Starr

            Your current understanding of the term ‘pregnancy’ appears to be heavily influenced by a errant ideology that claims pregnancy is always and everywhere to be treated as a most terribly, terribly dangerous “medical condition” which can be treated only by elective “safe abortion” services covered by universal medical insurance

            Bullshit. I could carry a pregnancy to term–and I would if I found out I was pregnant–and it would still be a medical condition.

          • purrtriarchy

            The ACOG the RCOG the AMA and the CDC all disagree with you ignorant ass.

          • fiona64

            Your current understanding of the term ‘pregnancy’ appears to be heavily
            influenced by a errant ideology that claims pregnancy is always and
            everywhere to be treated as a most terribly, terribly dangerous “medical
            condition” which can be treated only by elective “safe abortion”
            services covered by universal medical insurance.

            This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a straw man.

            I don’t see anywhere that LB has advocated for mandatory abortion … only for a given woman to decide how much medical risk she is willing to take.

            You, OTOH, are a Quiverful nutjob who clearly believes that your wish to give birth until you experience uterine prolapse should be forced upon complete strangers.

            Sucks to be you, doesn’t it?

          • lady_black

            I don’t know. I’m not her. But if I WERE her, I would think it sucks to be her ;)

          • fiona64

            If my phrasing was confusing, I apologize …

          • lady_black

            I was teasing. She probably really does believe the nonsense she spews.

          • Shan

            ‘”Your current understanding of the term ‘pregnancy’ appears to be heavily influenced by a errant ideology that claims pregnancy is always and everywhere to be treated as a most terribly, terribly dangerous “medical condition” which can be treated only by elective “safe abortion” services covered by universal medical insurance”

            Yeah, no. The pro-choice ideal isn’t that every pregnancy should end in abortion. Or the rest of your weird rant. Wow.

          • lady_black

            Rita, I have three children. I’ve been pregnant three times that I know of. So don’t condescend to me. Don’t tell me what my understanding of ANYTHING is. You have no fucking idea what my understanding is, blabbermouth.

          • goatini

            Oh, please, the nitwit amateur “embryologist” pontificating (pun intended) on “the philosophy of the language of medicine” is just too, too rich.

            I don’t know what’s more ridiculous in the Ranty Anti Idiocy Championship Competition – the illiterate bible literalists, or the narcissistic psuedo-Mensa types who think that liberal applications of psuedo-legalese and psuedo-medicalese to their BS nonsense endows it with some iota of credibility.

          • Ella Warnock

            Your current understanding of the term ‘pregnancy’ seems to be that you think it’s mandatory for all women. You’re wrong, natch.

          • Jennifer Starr

            In Rita’s world pregnancy is not a choice, but a mandate.

          • lady_black

            Oh and I took medical terminology in nursing school. It wasn’t required, but I took it anyway. That’s what it’s called, by the way. There are no courses in “the philosophy of the language of medicine” because it doesn’t exist. Philosophy is much different than Medical Terminology. The philosophy course I chose was Logic 101.

          • goatini

            If my doctor told me that pregnancy was NOT a medical condition, I’d report him/her to the State Board Of Health.

          • fiona64

            Normal pregnancy is not “a medical condition”

            Yes, actually, it is. That’s why women are advised to see OBs regularly during their pregnancies … medical conditions need to be monitored against complications.

          • purrtriarchy

            Are any of the below the expected and normal side effects of breathing:

            Suppressed immune system
            Calcium taken from bones and teeth
            High blood pressure
            Anemia
            Messed up blood sugar that can lead to permanent diabetes
            Swelling
            Loose joints
            Excruciating pain

            ?

          • Ella Warnock

            Pffft, minor inconveniences, doncha know.

          • afishcalledsid

            What a CRAP argument. Dramatic “side effects” including some that are similar to some you listed also come into play when you have an orgasm. You will have NO opposition should you “choose” to never have one of those again & I suspect it shouldn’t be too difficult to abide by that decision.

            Again, however, your use of the term “side effects” is scientifically and grammatically incorrect. Side effects are found where there is an illness. You haven’t the authority to re-define the term “side effect”, or to stigmatize pregnancy as an illness.

            Some people will say that diving on a hand grenade to save others is “foolishness” rather than heroism. Some people will say that the “greatest” arts/culture is the stuff that generates the most revenue. THAT kind of thing is subjective BS and nothing but games with semantics, but strong opinion doesn’t change the facts. Unborn babies are not just clumps of cells and pregnancy is not an illness, even if courts and victims of political lobby groups aren’t quite up to speed on the latest findings yet.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Suppressed immune system
            Calcium taken from bones and teeth
            High blood pressure
            Anemia
            Messed up blood sugar that can lead to permanent diabetes
            Swelling
            Loose joints
            Excruciating pain
            Toxic biowastes in the blood
            Addictive hormones in the blood

          • lady_black

            I just deconstructed his definition of “side effect.” He has no idea what he’s talking about, but he won’t let that stop him.

          • afishcalledsid

            You “deconstructed” nothing. You are delusional in your perceived grasp of these issues and level of success in this debate (if it can even be called such).

            Since it’s been difficult for you to follow so far:

            Yes, MEDS have side effects – that’s not news to anyone who has reached high school age. I didn’t think that needed to be spelled out since even a bottle of cough syrup says, “May cause drowsiness.”

            Meds are often taken for mild or severe illnesses, or medical conditions. READ CAREFULLY: Not every physical state that brings about physiological changes in our bodies can properly be designated a “medical condition” & you can not define it as such. Duration of those changes is also not what determines whether they’re symptoms of an illness.

            When you’re rowing a boat and your breathing quickens, there are physiological changes, but that’s not a medical condition. When you eat or drink something, digestion brings about physiological changes but is NOT a medical condition. When you overeat something a bit funky, you might get indigestion & that is a (minor) medical condition. DURATION (length of time) that the physiological changes persist is not the decisive factor in whether something is designated as a medical condition.

            Morning sickness, swelling of the feet, even pre-eclampsia are not “symptoms” b/c pregnancy is not an “illness.” In fact, someone endured those and other uncomfortable physiological states in order for you to be there reading and typing.

          • Shan

            “In fact, someone endured those and other uncomfortable physiological states in order for you to be there reading and typing.”

            LOL! Talk about emotional appeals.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I think I’ll take the advice of actual doctors and medical professionals who refer to the ‘symptoms’ of pregnancy over an unqualified individual who claims to be a teacher (*snort*) and apparently doesn’t even realize that pre-eclampsia is extremely serious. Stay out of the medical profession, Sid–they’re much better off without you.

          • lady_black

            I’m a nurse, and fully aware of what a medical condition is, and what a side effect is. Illnesses or medical conditions do NOT have side effects. They have symptoms. Pregnancy has symptoms. A temporary elevation in pulse is not the same as tachycardia. A temporary elevation in blood pressure is NOT the same thing as hypertension. Pregnancy causes actual hypertension because of the effects on the kidneys. Pregnancy lowers immune function. It can maim and kill. By any definition, THAT’S a medical condition.

          • afishcalledsid

            The side effect/symptom thing was answered and dealt with quite thoroughly, thanks. Games with semantics again.

            Sorry, honey, pregnancy does not have “symptoms”; ILLNESSES have symptoms and pregnancy is NOT an illness. You are attempting to re-define physiological states as symptoms to suit your own belief system and agenda.

            Another user attacked me with attacks that I think I’m “some kind of (*snort*) teacher” and that I don’t realize that pre-eclampsia is serious. So, let me tell Jenny something too. My wife and I are BOTH professionals, with 5 degrees between us and she endured pre-eclampsia just 3 years ago right before our son was born. It is a condition that can emerge, for a variety of reasons, during pregnancy, not “a SYMPTOM of the ILLNESS of pregnancy.”

            It could as easily be argued that a mother having a genetic/congenital predisposition to developing pre-eclampsia is a threat to the health and well-being of the BABY. Maybe s/he would consider his mother a threat if he were old enough to understand the situation.

            She just read this thread and she and I BOTH think that most of you need a somewhat less selfish perspective on the abortion issue. Get a …LIFE. SOCIETY appears to be starting to develop that mindset too. If you want to counter that it was those selfish, self-serving, bastard men who are to “blame” for the pregnancy, then don’t get involved with men like that. Rape accounts for a very low % of pregnancies, so it alone is not a sweeping justification for your stance on the issue (or even close to being such).

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, what’s selfish is you and your wife demanding that other women carry unwanted or physically dangerous pregnancies in order to satisfy you. Your wife is free to make decisions about what risks she’s willing to take in order to bring her pregnancy to term. But neither you nor she is allowed to make that decision for any other woman. Period. So take your ‘perspective’ and shove it.

          • lady_black

            The baby??? The “BABY”??? Look buddy, if there is pre-eclampsia, that’s life-threatening, and the pregnancy has to go, no if, ands, or buts. If the “baby” is close to term, it will survive. If not, well, too bad. The only treatment is ending the pregnancy. If not, then both die. There is no “right” to use the body of another to support one’s own life. That always falls under the category of a gift. Consent can be withdrawn. Pre-eclampsia doesn’t always happen at a convenient time, where both lives can be saved.

          • fiona64

            Then you and your wife can go fuck yourselves. The selfish ones are those who (like you) demand that women you’ve never even met put their life and health at risk to gestate pregnancies in order to satisfied your forced-birth belief system.

          • Ella Warnock

            And we’d give a flying fuck what your wife thinks of this thread . . . oh, why, again?

            Oh dear, I dropped the f-bomb. Hope you have your smelling salts handy. Wouldn’t want you to succumb to the vapors.

          • goatini

            He doesn’t have a “wife”. Just Rosie.

          • goatini

            //It could as easily be argued that a mother having a genetic/congenital predisposition to developing pre-eclampsia is a threat to the health and well-being of the BABY. Maybe s/he would consider his mother a threat if he were old enough to understand the situation.//

            Okay, you’re insane.

          • lady_black

            Yeah, like who is invading who’s body? He is completely nuts.

          • lady_black

            Doctors disagree with you. They know possible pregnancy symptoms and which are normal, and which mean something is very wrong. Doctors say pregnancy does have symptoms. They are educated in medicine. You’re an egregious mansplainer who isn’t a healthcare professional of any type. I’ll rely on my own fine education, my 28 years of nursing experience, and the advice of doctors over your sophistry and ignorance. I’m happy for you that your wife and baby both survived a life-threatening pregnancy complication. Luckily for you two, it happened at near term. If it had happened at 18 weeks instead, I guarantee it wouldn’t have worked out for you, because your fetus wouldn’t be viable. You would have just been another statistic of doomed pregnancy.

          • almond_bubble_tea

            Pregnancy may not be an illness, but it is NOT certainly a state of wellness. Preeclampis is a COMPLICATION of pregnancy.

            My oldest daughter had to be delivered at 29 weeks when I developed
            preeclampsia. After that experience I was never able to consider
            pregnancy as a natural state for women.

            Your wife decided that enduring preeclampsia was worth having a child . . but NOT ALL WOMEN DO. I was already ambivalent about being pregnant and facing all the things I would have to give up because of impending motherhood.

            Women have the right to decide how much they are willing to sacrifice in order to gestate and raise children. You don’t get a say in how I should make my reproductive decisions.

          • Jennifer Starr

            When you’re rowing a boat and your breathing quickens, there are physiological changes, but that’s not a medical condition. When you eat or drink something, digestion brings about physiological changes but is NOT a medical condition. When you overeat something a bit funky, you might get indigestion & that is a (minor) medical condition.

            And how often are people told to go to the doctor because of these physiological changes? Not very often would be my guess, although sometimes indigestion can be mistaken for a heart attack. But I would guess the incidence is low. And yet if you suspect you might be pregnant, you’re advised to go to the doctor as soon as possible. Now if it wasn’t a medical condition and comparable to the ‘physiological changes’ you mentioned, why would you need to go to the doctor?

          • lady_black

            “In fact, someone endured those and other uncomfortable physiological states in order for you to be there reading and typing.”
            Mawkish appeal to emotion. Your degrees might be worth something in some other field. Not in this one.

          • fiona64

            I’d be willing to bet a shiny, new nickel that the only degrees Sid has ever seen are printed on a thermometer.

          • fiona64

            Morning sickness, swelling of the feet, even pre-eclampsia are not “symptoms” b/c pregnancy is not an “illness.”

            You are a complete and utter dumbfuck.

          • purrtriarchy

            I went for a 4 hour bike ride today. I pedaled pretty fast up a hill. I did not get hypertension. Just a temporary fast pulse from exertion.

            Hypertension during pregnancy, or at any time, can kill.

            My exercise was healthy.

          • goatini

            Medical conditions have side effects and symptoms. Pregnancy is a medical condition.

          • lady_black

            Please dude, I’ve forgotten more than you’ll know about pregnancy on your best day. I studied maternal/fetal nursing fulltime, five days a week for a solid four month semester. Two classroom days and three clinical days per week in nursing school. And when I say “fulltime” I don’t mean the college version of fulltime. I mean 8 hours per day, every day.

          • purrtriarchy

            Really? Can an orgasm give you osteoperosis? Eclampsia? Dental loss? Diabetes?

            Can an orgasm give you these side effects listed below:

            Normal, frequent
            or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

            exhaustion (weariness
            common from first weeks)

            altered appetite
            and senses of taste and smell

            nausea and vomiting
            (50% of women, first trimester)

            heartburn and indigestion

            constipation

            weight gain

            dizziness and light-headedness

            bloating, swelling,
            fluid retention

            hemmorhoids

            abdominal cramps

            yeast infections

            congested, bloody
            nose

            acne and mild skin
            disorders

            skin discoloration
            (chloasma, face and abdomen)

            mild to severe backache
            and strain

            increased headaches

            difficulty sleeping,
            and discomfort while sleeping

            increased urination
            and incontinence

            bleeding gums

            pica

            breast pain and
            discharge

            swelling of joints,
            leg cramps, joint pain

            difficulty sitting,
            standing in later pregnancy

            inability to take
            regular medications

            shortness of breath

            higher blood pressure

            hair loss

            tendency to anemia

            curtailment of ability
            to participate in some sports and activities

            infection
            including from serious and potentially fatal disease

            (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with
            non-pregnant women, and
            are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

            extreme pain on
            delivery

            hormonal mood changes,
            including normal post-partum depression

            continued post-partum
            exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section
            – major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
            fully recover)

            Normal, expectable,
            or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

            stretch marks (worse
            in younger women)

            loose skin

            permanent weight
            gain or redistribution

            abdominal and vaginal
            muscle weakness

            pelvic floor disorder
            (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers
            and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal
            incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus,
            the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

            changes to breasts

            varicose veins

            scarring from episiotomy
            or c-section

            other permanent
            aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed
            by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

            increased proclivity
            for hemmorhoids

            loss of dental and
            bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

            higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

            newer research indicates
            microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and
            mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

            Occasional complications
            and side effects:

            complications of episiotomy

            spousal/partner
            abuse

            hyperemesis gravidarum

            temporary and permanent
            injury to back

            severe
            scarring
            requiring later surgery
            (especially after additional pregnancies)

            dropped (prolapsed)
            uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
            pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
            and enterocele)

            pre-eclampsia
            (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated
            with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

            eclampsia (convulsions,
            coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

            gestational diabetes

            placenta previa

            anemia (which
            can be life-threatening)

            thrombocytopenic
            purpura

            severe cramping

            embolism
            (blood clots)

            medical disability
            requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
            many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
            or baby)

            diastasis recti,
            also torn abdominal muscles

            mitral valve stenosis
            (most common cardiac complication)

            serious infection
            and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

            hormonal imbalance

            ectopic pregnancy
            (risk of death)

            broken bones (ribcage,
            “tail bone”)

            hemorrhage
            and

            numerous other complications
            of delivery

            refractory gastroesophageal
            reflux disease

            aggravation of pre-pregnancy
            diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5%
            of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment
            prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

            severe post-partum
            depression and psychosis

            research now indicates
            a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments,
            including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors

            research also now
            indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity
            in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

            research also indicates
            a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary
            and cardiovascular disease

            Less common (but
            serious) complications:

            peripartum cardiomyopathy

            cardiopulmonary
            arrest

            magnesium toxicity

            severe hypoxemia/acidosis

            massive embolism

            increased intracranial
            pressure, brainstem infarction

            molar pregnancy,
            gestational trophoblastic disease
            (like a pregnancy-induced
            cancer)

            malignant arrhythmia

            circulatory collapse

            placental abruption

            obstetric fistula

            More
            permanent side effects:

            future infertility

            permanent disability

            death.

          • purrtriarchy

            Unborn babies are not just clumps of cells

            http://www.stemedical.de/uploads/pics/zygote_.jpg

            What’s that, Einstein?

          • fiona64

            Dramatic “side effects” including some that are similar to some you listed also come into play when you have an orgasm.

            Not once have I experienced hyperemesis gravidarum as the result of an orgasm … nor have I experienced pubic symphysis diastasis, anemia, loss of bone density, or any of the other things on that list. Somehow, I think you’re talking out your ass.

            Again.

            Side effects are found where there is an illness.

            They are also found with a good many medications, and medical conditions (which pregnancy just happens to be).

            The aforementioned hyperemesis gravidarum? Almost killed me.

            And you know what, Sid? I wish you could experience it for just an hour or two … and then try to extrapolate that to 40 weeks. Because you are demanding that women assume all kinds of risks that *you will never have to.* And maybe, just maybe, if you could experience some of the (yes) side effects of pregnancy, you would STFU.

          • lady_black

            No, “side effects” are not a function of illness. They are just side effects. Did you have a headache and swallow an aspirin tablet? Your stomach just bled a teaspoon from that aspirin. When you took that aspirin, did you intend for your stomach to bleed? No, you did not. Side effect. Did your headache go away? Yes? Good. That was the intended result. That doesn’t make the side effect any less real.

          • goatini

            Medical conditions have side effects. Pregnancy is a medical condition.

          • Ella Warnock

            Are you a PROFESSIONAL, goatini? Do you have DEGREES? Only PROFESSIONAL people with DEGREES know what constitutes a medical condition. I mean, OBVIOUSLY!

          • Shan

            “Only PROFESSIONAL people with DEGREES know what constitutes a medical condition.”

            Five. You have to have five. Between yourself and your lawfully wedded spouse. Otherwise you’re an idiot jackwagon.

          • Ella Warnock

            Yes, well, since I could choose to not get pregnant, then that’s that much less wear and tear I had to worry about, wasn’t it? And you could certainly choose not to seek any prenatal medical care and birth your brood at home, I suppose, but repeated pregnancies do give rise to related medical conditions – tearing of the perineum, anal fissures, prolapses, rectocele and cystocele, etc. Like it or not, pregnancy is one of the most common causes of these conditions.

          • Ineedacoffee

            It is a medical condition, Dr want you in for monitoring onfe you are pregnant. Why? Hmm maybe cos so many things can go medically wrong and kill you and at very least screw you up mentally and physically

          • purrtriarchy

            Does ‘normal breathing’ cause problems like this:

            Women are at increased risk of being seriously injured during a motor vehicle accident during the second trimester of pregnancy, according to a new study from Canada.

            Pregnant women were 42 percent more likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident that sent them to an emergency room, compared to when they weren’t carrying a child, researchers found.

            “A normal pregnancy is usually accompanied by a lot of fatigue, nausea,mood fluctuations, anxieties and distractions which may all contribute to distracted driving,” Dr. Donald Redelmeier, the study’s lead author from the University of Toronto, told Reuters Health.

            While the study can’t say why the women’s risk of car crashes increased during the middle of their pregnancies, Redelmeier said it may have something to do with the symptoms that result from wide fluctuations in hormones.

            “That’s what the factor is for the neurological changes, which are
            usually minor, but these minor changes can catch up to you when you’re operating a motor vehicle,” he said.

            ————-

            Does ‘normal breathing’ cause hormonal fluctuations Rita? Hormonal fluctuations that put your life in danger?

            http://news.yahoo.com/pregnancy-linked-car-crash-risk-study-231406091.html

          • lady_black

            You must breathe. You need not BREED. That’s one less form of wearing out to be concerned with… isn’t it????

          • goatini

            ANY pregnancy is indeed a medical condition.

          • Ella Warnock

            She thinks if she just keeps saying ‘neener, neener’ it will, inexplicably, shut everyone up.

          • Shan

            “Normal pregnancy is not “a medical condition” and neither is normal breathing.”

            How many of your own pregnancies were as “normal” as breathing to the point you were comfortable enough to just stay at home and give birth alone? You know, the way you breathe. Every day. Naturally.

          • Rita, Canberra

            What nonsense is this? That because a woman needs some assistance in birthing her baby, you argue that having a baby is abnormal or unnatural?

          • purrtriarchy

            Does regular, ordinary breathing require a doctors assistance? NO.

            Yet birth does, you dishonest dumbfuck.

          • Shan

            LOL! No, Of course I’m not arguing that. Don’t be silly. My point is that you know perfectly well that pregnancy can go from “normal” to “deadly” in less time than it takes to get to a hospital, which is why that’s where you did/would choose to give birth yourself. And which is why women must ALWAYS be the only ones who can make the decision to take on the risk.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Flawed argument.

            Crossing the street can go from “normal” to “deadly” in less time than it takes to get to a hospital.
            Eating a meal and choking can go from “normal” to “deadly” in less time than it takes to get to a hospital.

          • Shan

            Flawed argument? LOL! It’s exactly the same one you’re making. by arguing all over the place that pregnancy is normal and natural and declaring that every woman who ends up pregnant – no mater how she got that way – should LEGALLY be required to take that pregnancy to its “natural” conclusion (birth) whether she wants to take on all the associated risks.

            And, really. Street-crossing and meal-eating? Nobody ANYWHERE is trying to make either of those things mandatory. Talk about flawed arguments.

          • purrtriarchy

            I’m totally gonna make street crossing mandatory.

            WHO’S WITH ME?????

          • Shan

            RIGHT ON!!! We are the worst nightmare of the anti-street-crossers!!!

          • purrtriarchy

            Hey sweetie, if pregnancy is just like breathing, then why do women’s joints and tendons loosen? Why do they get morning sickness? Why doe they lose calcium form their bones? Why are their immune systems suppressed? Why do they have toxic biowastes in their blood from the fetus? Why can’t they run a marathon at 9 months? Why must they increase their water intake? Why can’t they engage in heavy lifting?

            If pregnancy = breathing, then the woman should be able TO DO WHATEVER SHE DID BEFORE SHE WAS PREGNANT WITH NO CHANGE

            Refute that.

          • fiona64

            Normal pregnancy is not “a medical condition”

            You continue to repeat this idiocy as though it were true. Why do you insist on telling such lies, Rita?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Breathing is necessary to live. Pregnancy is not.

          • purrtriarchy

            Hey Rita, it is well known that labour and birth can take anywhere from 6-72 hours, and be *extremely* painful.

            Is regular, normal breathing EXTREMELY FUCKING PAINFUL?

            yes or no?

        • lady_black

          Yeah Rita. We all have to breathe. We don’t all need to breed. Get real.

  • lady_black

    Michigan again. Is there something in the water there causing insanity?

    • redlemon

      As a Michigan resident, I have no idea. We have pockets of sanity but our insanity pockets are growing among the rural-ish and suburban areas. Other then that, the only thing I can think of is that people are unhappy with “liberal” Detroit and so they swing to the complete opposite side.

      • lady_black

        I’ve been to Detroit a few times. I saw good things and bad things. My overall opinion was that it was dirty, and there is too much blight. Like half the town suddenly shut down and rolled up the sidewalks and gave no thought to what to do with all those abandoned buildings. No offense meant. I grew up in Amish country, and our area has it’s own special brand of conservative hell. Like my eyeballs get quite a workout reading letters written by citizens who can’t understand why a federal judge might consider the Constitution more important than their holy book of delusions of choice, and grant equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian citizens. I live in PA, the most recent state to have it’s version of DOMA struck down. They are angry that gays are now getting married, like that affects them in any way. I don’t get it.

        • redlemon

          I live in a suburb of Detroit and the city has its good and bad. The blight is bad, the trash is bad, and the administration is corrupt to the core. However, the suburbs want to pretend that they’re all sunshine and unicorn farts, so everyone fights over everything and everyone points fingers politically (and racially). So nothing gets done and the suburbs still haven’t figured out that, if Detroit goes under, so do we.

          That said, some of the best restaurants and craft beer is located downtown and I love my university.

          • lady_black

            Yep. I went to some outstanding Middle Eastern restaurants while I was there. Out of this world. And there’s nothing like it around here.

          • lady_black

            Oh and Belle Isle is gorgeous, and I enjoyed the Detroit zoo a lot too.

          • Sydney

            I miss Greektown.

      • Sydney

        I used to live in Michigan years ago, for a long while. Maybe it never changed and was always this way, but it seems very different now.
        I moved to NC years ago, heartened by the progress it had made in economic and educational policies over the years, only to see it crumble with the infestation of TP in 2010.

  • purrtriarchy

    Dumbfuck forced birthers think that a heartbeat and arms and legs and OMFG fingers = a person.

    So ignorant.

  • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

    There is no limit to their insanity. “Pro lifers” are sick people.

  • tigalily

    Sad. So sad. It has nothing to do with life. But preventing a woman from controlling her body. If they are for forced gestation, I hope Michigan will mandate forced blood and bone marrow donations. Hah…who am I kidding. It has nothing to do with ‘life’.

  • fiona64

    inform her of the likelihood that her pregnancy can be carried to term.

    Which, of course, is pure speculation at 6 week’s gestation. There is absolutely no way to know.

    This war on women by right-wing politicians is beyond ridiculous.

  • Mindy McIndy

    Fetal heartbeat bans my foot. Most women don’t even know they’re pregnant by that point. I especially love the people who push for the mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds. I had one yesterday as a routine procedure because I need to have an endometrial ablation done. Even under sedation, that procedure hurt like a bitch. I can only imagine how it would feel if I were a pregnant woman. These people are fecking idiots.

  • Ineedacoffee

    Simply disgusting
    These monster don’t give a fuck about women, they only want ultimate power and control

  • Suba gunawardana

    “Every 3.6 seconds one person dies of starvation. Usually it is a child under the age of 5.” -UNICEF data

    How many of these children could have been helped with all the resources wasted on idiotic legislation aimed at breeding MORE children into poverty, neglect & abuse?

    • Rita, Canberra

      You are right to draw attention to the comprehensive nature of our human rights
      duties.
      Protecting human lives of children before and after birth is not an either/or
      option.
      Indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has “recognized”
      that every child is entitled to “legal protection before as well as after
      birth”. (See UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child and Convention on
      the Rights of the Child.)
      We must be careful here not to set up a false choice between meeting our
      obligations to children before birth and meeting our obligations to children
      after birth. We must do both.
      This is the human rights principle of indivisibility, a foundation principle of
      human rights law. According to this principle, governments (and individuals)
      may not deny legal protection of the rights of one set of human beings with the
      excuse that they are attending to the rights of another set of human beings.
      Our solemn obligations are to take care of both.

      • Ella Warnock

        What obligation do you think you would have had to my (non-existent) unwanted fetus? Surely you don’t think heartbeats and ultrasounds of bean-sized blobs would have made any difference in any choice I made, do you? Are you arrogant enough to think you or society would have had any influence at all?

        • Rita, Canberra

          I have the same human rights obligations as you have to protect all members of the human family irrespective of size, dependency or ‘wantedness’.

          Calling a small human being an “unwanted fetus” or a “bean-sized blob” does not excuse us from treating this human being justly and compassionately. This tactic of dehumanizing the most vulnerable members of the human family by changing the terms by which they are to be referred is a very old, very cruel ploy.

          In the 30’s, dehumanizing language paved the way for medicalized killing. This is still confronting. Small Jewish children were called “Jew-dogs” and “parasites”, children who were disabled were disparaged as “life unworthy of life”, and the unborn children of Polish and Eastern workers were labelled “racially inferior offspring”.

          Always the dehumanizing language comes first, then come the exterminations, the aborting of human lives ideologically reclassified as less than human, and totally expendable.

          True justice requires that elective abortions be recognized and treated not as idiosyncratic, personal ‘choices’ but as abusive practices, as human rights violations perpetrated by individuals and involving the complicity of politicians, judges and others.

          I

          • Ella Warnock

            I called it exactly what it would have been: unwanted. I’m describing exactly what I would have seen: a bean-sized blob. I believe in using accurate and appropriate descriptors to illustrate exactly what I’m talking about. The fact that you may find it “dehumanizing language” doesn’t change the fact that it would have been unwanted or a bean-sized blob.

          • afishcalledsid

            This argument is a textbook example of sophistry. It’s presented in the manner of this-is-obviously-common-sense-so-why-dispute-it(?) when it’s facile and fallacious. I will now employ your approach in a way you can understand;

            Penicillin: a miniature weed of slimy guck that can ruin ur sandwich

            Gasoline: stinky, stale peepee-smelling stuff that ruins my appetite

            diamonds: real dumb, shiny junk that’s a bitch to dig out & can cut ya

            the Sun: annoying, shiny thing that hurts my eyes & skin & is, apparently, afraid of the dark ‘cuz it runs away every night

            petroleum products distribution engineer: a person who MUST be an A-list careerist ‘cuz s/he has an impressive title

            As you can see, your attempt to discredit all pro-life objections involves not the “common sense” we know and love, but the kind of thought that is labeled “common” because it is of little value.

          • Ella Warnock

            Was I attempting to discredit ‘all’ pro-life objections, or just Rita’s narrowly defined ones? In any case, I’m not certain you’d know the difference.

            Yes, your notion that I don’t get to define what’s personally unwanted or describe what looks to me like a bean-sized blob is duly noted. And rejected.

            Any other ill-advised and sloppily thought-out comparisons you’d like to make? Feel free. And remember, when in doubt, just throw in a ‘facile and fallacious.’ That always makes it sound like you actually know what you’re talking about.

          • Ella Warnock

            Diamonds are shiny junk. I’m surprised you’re not aware how over-rated and overvalued they actually are.

          • Jennifer Starr

            All you’ve managed to illustrate is that you don’t actually know what sophistry is and that you’re not even half as witty as you imagine you are.

          • Ella Warnock

            Using ‘sophistry’ and ‘facile and fallacious’ both is rather egregious redundancy.

          • purrtriarchy

            I love when they accuse us of logical fallacies when they don’t even understand the fallacy…

            Like the idiot on alternet who said that a case study was the anecdotal fallacy.

          • lady_black

            Sophistry is Rita’s specialty, as she doctors her personal opinions up to appear “scientific” (they aren’t), and attempts to tell free, adult female US citizens what their rights of choice are (she’s wrong, and very limited).

          • fiona64

            Looks like Sid has no idea what sophistry is, gang …

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, the tripe up above reads like it’s from a particularly dim teenager who may have taken one philosophy course and thinks it knows everything.

          • Ella Warnock

            Why OF COURSE he does! He’s a PROFESSIONAL! With DEGREES! And something something both he and his wife are rilly, rilly SMART and stuff!

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            True justice require that women are allowed to decide 1 If they want to become a mother or not, 2 when they want this to happen and 3 how many times they want this to happen. This is the true meaning of the word choice, an expression I guess you find totally repulsive since it gives women the same freedom that us men has always had.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Certainly women, no less than men, are creatures of intellect and free will, and as such have the right and the responsibility to decide when they want to have sexual intercourse; and they have the intellect to understand that sexual intercourse is directly related to the possibility of motherhood, the timing of pregnancies and the number of pregnancies.

            But this is very different from what you are arguing above. Indeed, women do not have a right to use abortion as family planning.

            When it comes to ‘choices’, we have every right to choose what political party we will vote for, what job we will do, what friends we will make, what we will have for breakfast.

            But none of us has a right to abuse another human being, no matter how small, or dependent, or ‘unwanted’.

            No human being has ownership and disposal rights over another human being, no matter how small or dependent or ‘unwanted’.

            “Choice” is never a valid excuse for deliberately submitting another human being to a lethal medical ‘procedure’.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            And you know as well as I do that accidents will happen, pills does not work, condoms break, or the woman simply regret her decision. And in that case it is not a matter of family planning, it is her decision to live her life the way she wants to, and that is something that is none of your business. Sorry, but your opinions are history and has killed women through centuries, still does where you have it your way and would start doing so again in the countries that has come so far in decelopment as to seeing women as citizens and humans in their own right, not merely as someone destined to carry the next generation, regardless of if she wants to or not. Chocie is not an excues, it is a human right. And you know (?), women are human

          • purrtriarchy

            But none of us has a right to abuse another human being, no matter how small, or dependent, or ‘unwanted’.

            Indeed. Fetuses have no right to abuse women and use them as easy bake ovens.

            No human being has ownership and disposal rights over another

            Indeed. Fetuses do not have the right to own women, to treat them as property, and to maim and kill them.

            Glad we agree

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            The comment of a true genius! Love it

          • Rita, Canberra

            You’ve got to be joking! How can a fully grown woman argue that it’s all the fault of her tiny daughter who deserves to be killed because through no fault of her own she is now dependent on her mother’s nurturing and protection? Her little daughter is there only and precisely because her own mother had freely and knowingly engaged in what she knew and fully understood to be a potentially procreative act?
            Or do you really not yet know what makes babies?

          • purrtriarchy

            Try to make an argument that isn’t emotional.

          • Ramanusia

            By “emotional”, you mean moronic, right?

          • Shan

            Rita, you know you support making ALL abortion illegal so don’t try to make your anti-choice position sound less extremist by focusing solely on women who had sex on purpose.

            How about you tell us why abortion should be illegal for ALL pregnant women, including those who were raped or know they’re carrying unviable fetuses?

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            Rita does not seem to be around, so I can reply for her. Because she does not think womens value are decided if they are mothers or not, if they choose not to at a certain point, they go against nature, and they are not full worthy human beings since women are in her demented views only human when they are pregnant or mothers.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to persons and citizens at birth. The above load of treacly codswallop dehumanizes living, breathing WOMEN.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Again you keep saying “daughter”. I assume you are fine with killing a male fetus?

            The invader’s intent or their guilt/innocence are totally IRRELEVANT when it comes to protecting your body.
            Animals are innocent. If a bear attacks you, are you supposed to shut up & let it kill you? If you happened to be walking in bear territory, it was your own fault, right?
            Parasites are innocent. If you ate unwashed food & got parasites, are you supposed to let them eat away your body, since “you should have known better than to eat unwashed food”?

            I have asked you similar questions before. Funny you can NEVER give a yes or no answer.

          • Rita, Canberra

            You know that there is no truth in the disgusting claim that the child in her mother’s womb is some kind of gross parasite deliberately violating her mother’s bodily integrity. The only purpose of such claims is to misrepresent pregnancy as an unjust imposition that can be alleviated only by ‘legal abortion services’ that offer each mother the ‘choice’ to have her unborn child exterminated. Such an ideologically driven view of pregnancy is extremely negative and can be made to work only by deliberately dehumanizing the unborn
            child at risk of abortion.

            As I have pointed out elsewhere, in the 30’s, dehumanizing language paved the way for medicalized killing. This is still confronting. Small Jewish children were called “Jew-dogs” and “parasites”, children who were disabled were disparaged as “life unworthy of life”, and the unborn children of Polish and Eastern workers were labelled “racially inferior offspring”.

            Always the dehumanizing language comes first, then come the exterminations, the aborting of human lives ideologically reclassified as less than human, and totally expendable.

          • purrtriarchy

            Yet Jewish people practiced abortion during the holocaust and are mostly Pro choice today.

            TELL US RITA, ARE JEWISH PEOPLE ALL NAZI KILLING MACHINES??? because that is what you are implying…

          • afishcalledsid

            Hi again, Catwoman. Thanks for the good laugh. I’m Jewish. NO ONE in my family, my wife’s family, or our community supports abortion on demand – ABSOLUTELY no one. Even a lesbian cousin in Europe who is more liberal than most doesn’t favour abortion w/o limits.

            Mainstream Judaism and Jewish culture allow for abortion when an expectant mother can not survive carrying the pregnancy to term. The Talmud even explicitly mentions this exception, so some radical femi-not-sees, mostly non-Jewish, have blurted that out when challenged to make it sound as though Christianity is the only world religion that doesn’t condemn abortion on demand.

            While we’re occasionally uncomfortable with pro-lifers using extensive comparisons between the abortion issue and the holocaust, it’s a lot less uncomfortable than having pro-borts using it for their own agenda. While it’s preferable that a serious historical crime like the holocaust be looked at in its own right, rather than as a basis for comparison to other injustices, we can’t always get the “buffer zone” we want.

            You wanna go around saying, “Jews support abortion!” because the culture only condemns 98-99% of abortions rather than 100%, like Catholics and other Christians? Go ahead, baby. And I’m Mickey Mantle.

          • purrtriarchy

            Answer the question.

            Are the Jews who have aborted their pregnancies all little Hitler s?

          • fiona64

            NO ONE in my family, my wife’s family, or our community supports abortion on demand – ABSOLUTELY no one.

            Who appointed you spokestwit for all Jews, everywhere?

          • afishcalledsid

            Who appointed Purr to be such, or you for that matter?

            Shit, man, that was easy.

          • purrtriarchy
          • fiona64

            Oh, look at this. Sid is full of shit about what ABSOLUTELY all Jews think! Who saw that coming?

            Quote, ibid.: Essentially regardless of denominational affiliation or demographics, American Jews think abortion should be legal in all (49%) or almost all (44%) cases. That is, fully 93% of all American Jews support legalized abortion in some fashion. Even political leanings, while influential, are not determinative. Among Jewish Democrats support is 95%, but 77% of Jewish Republicans also favor legalized abortion in all or most cases,
            far exceeding the rate of other groups studied.

            Oh, and this (also ibid.): The Torah itself, indeed the entire Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), is silent on the topic of abortion. A passage in the Torah, however, does reflect a biblical view of a fetus. The passage concerns an injury to a pregnant woman which causes a miscarriage of her fetus. The Torah states that such conduct warrants financial compensation but nothing greater, specifically not the same penalty that would be imposed for murder. (See Ex. 21:22-23.) In other words, this passage considers the fetus as not fully a nefesh, a person, and more akin to personal property.

            Yep, Sid can suck it.

          • afishcalledsid

            Sorry, you lose again.

            All you’ve done is confirm what I said, that the Jewish community would not outright BAN abortion b/c of the few, limited situations in which it could save the life of the mother. That might mean, for example, that 1% of abortions are justified rather than the Catholic position which stipulates that abortion is NEVER okay.

            Who said “absolutely all” Jews hold the traditional CATHOLIC position on abortion? You’re being ridiculous. There are a ton of people with Latino, Irish, Italian, French and other Catholic backgrounds who don’t hold the traditional Catholic view, so who SAID all Jews hold that view? And that every Jew in Tel Aviv, Moscow, New York, London, Toronto, Brussels would have the EXACT same position?

            The Jewish Journal, which I just learned is out of Los Angeles, wouldn’t know either. I can’t remember anyone I know ever reading, or even mentioning that publication. Their survey or questionnaire on the subject must have missed this community. That being the case, I doubt they could even answer whether any particular person, in any municipality, is Democrat or Republican b/c they haven’t surveyed all of Jewry. In the movie “Joe” (1970), Joe claimed, “42% of all liberals are queer! That’s a fact!” It wasn’t clear whether he’d polled the entire world or only the U.S. Swallowing “stats” wholesale is for suckers. California, man – some funky peeps out there with odd beliefs too.

            Your next challenge is even easier. Yes, the Torah IS silent on the issue of abortion and why is that? BECAUSE IT’S THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD AND ABORTION DIDN’T EXIST, WISEASS! Or maybe the Babylonian abortion techniques, equipment and stats were lost when Babylon fell, right? This, regrettably, makes you unable to present their surveys/polls here.

            One of the first things I was told when I first commented at this site was that posting LINKS was frowned upon. I respected the rules & was more than happy to oblige b/c posting links is a teen/young adult chat hobby yielding intellectually/factually unsound sources. Since you & purrtriarchy are posting links, I might actually click on one that lists female/feminist writings on the abortion issue from 2000, or 3000, or 4000 years. In fact, I would love to see them, so please do post them.

            BTW, Sid can suck “what”? Your schlong?

          • purrtriarchy
          • Jennifer Starr

            No, posting links is not frowned upon. But because of our spam filters, some posts with links might not get through, particularly if you are a new poster to the site. After months and months, I just learned that I am now able to post links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_5J1csi1AU

          • purrtriarchy

            You passed the 10 abortions threshold. Grants!

          • Jennifer Starr

            I just knew I could if I really tried :)

          • fiona64

            I can’t remember anyone I know ever reading, or even mentioning that publication.

            Oh, so because no one you know has never read the publication, it must not exist?

            . Yes, the Torah IS silent on the issue of abortion and why is that?
            BECAUSE IT’S THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD AND ABORTION DIDN’T EXIST, WISEASS!

            Is anyone really this stupid? http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/When-Did-Abortion-Begin.htm

            Abortion has been going on since before recorded history, Sid. Don’t be an idiot.

            PS: Thanks for the invitation Sid, but I’m a happily married woman who is only attracted to men. You clearly do not qualify.

          • Jennifer Starr

            For as long as pregnancy has existed, there have been attempts to either prevent pregnancies or end them once they have begun. The Hippocratic oath even makes a reference to it. Did you think it only began some forty-odd years ago? Please tell me that one of your supposed ‘degrees’ is not in History, Sid.

          • fiona64

            Well, Sid, since I wasn’t claiming to speak for “ABSOLUTELY” all members of any given group (as you did, above), I guess you’re full of shit.

            Again.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            No apparently it was not. Since Purrtriarchy wants to give that right to every single woman to decide, which means that no spokestwit is needed. While you who want to force women to give birth clearly need one, since you are dehumanising women.

          • Shan

            “Even a lesbian cousin in Europe who is more liberal than most doesn’t favour abortion w/o limits.”

            Wow, lots to unpack there with the lesbian and liberal and Europe references all in one go. Someone else can take that on.

            However, I’m gonna stick with asking this: Who exactly is pushing for actual legislation that’s in favor of making “abortion w/o limits”, or “abortion on demand” the law of the land in the US?

          • Suba gunawardana

            You keep avoiding my repeated question. Emotional drivel won’t work. Please address the point.

            Does the *lack of malicious intent* on the part of the invader negate your right to protect your body?

            In other words, when an innocent individual invades your body, are you OBLIGATED to endure the invasion at the expense of your body? (For example, if a mentally disabled man is raping you, are you obligated to allow the rape to go on?)

            Yes or No? This is a simple question.

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            By Rita’s tortured illogic, I should welcome any malignant growths in my body as those growths certainly must have a ‘right to life”

          • redlemon

            Please stop using my ancestors as your petty justifications for untruths. Besides your emotional appeals and Godwin’s Law violations, forced pregnancy and forced birth was used against Jewish women as punishments, to humiliate and dehumanize them.

          • Rita, Canberra

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

            In the 1947-8 negotiations of the Universal Declaration, one of the first things agreed by the international community was that the “innocent unborn child” was to be legally protected.

            you may need to read once again Godwin’s original research paper. Godwin makes it clear in this and subsequent papers that he does not intend for anyone to be prevented from what he acknowledges is a duty and a right to ensure that Nazi atrocities are not forgotten (Never again!) and that genuine analogies should continue to be drawn between these atrocities and current human rights violations.

            In other words where genuine analogies are drawn and substantiated, Godwin’s law should not be invoked.

            A truly ‘fascist’ abortion law, introduced into Nazi Germany, removed legal protection from all Jewish children in utero and from all unborn children in Poland and the Eastern Territories.

            Instructions by Nazi authorities issuing directives to decriminalize abortion were furnished as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials for the count of crimes against humanity.

            Procured abortion constitutes arbitrary deprivation of life in breach of international human rights law, as established via the Nuremberg judgments and their codification in the International Bill of Rights. “…the unborn children were denied legal protection” (Nuremberg Trials Record).

          • Jennifer Starr

            Procured abortion constitutes arbitrary deprivation of life in breach of international human rights law,

            And still abortion remains legal in the US, and Israel, and in many other parts of the world. Apparently your interpretation isn’t accepted as being valid.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Violations of the right to life (arbitrary deprivation of life) cannot be condoned on the grounds that routine elective abortion is now a widespread culturally and socially accepted practice in the US, Israel and other parts of the world.
            Human rights for the unborn children, having been recognized as a foundation principle of modern international human rights architecture, cannot now be de-recognized. They certainly can’t be de-recognized by re-interpretation through a 21st Century ideological bias seeking to justify current laws that accommodate the appalling notion that mothers have ownership and disposal rights over their unborn children.

            It should be remembered that slavery was once a widespread socially accepted “lawful” practice.

            Decriminalization of abortion was judged and condemned at Nuremberg as “encouraging abortions”. The fact that the Nazi authorities had removed abortion from Polish domestic law did not nullify the fact that abortion was still judged “an inhuman act” and “a crime against humanity” and this criminality pertained “whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.”

            The principle of inherency is one of the founding principles of the
            architecture of modern human rights law. This consensus principle requires that human rights are recognized as inherent in each human being, not granted by external government or domestic judicial decisions. The child’s rights pre-exist birth –
            they “inhere” in the child’s humanity.

          • Suba gunawardana

            None of your lengthy posts on the fetuses’ “right to life” can work UNLESS you address this basic point first (which you repeatedly avoid):

            No individual (human or not) has the right to invade/occupy/use the body of another person without their consent.

            The moment a human being invades the body of another human being, they LOSE their innate “right to life” (if they ever had it). Whether the invader gets to live is now totally upto the person whose body was invaded.

          • Jennifer Starr

            But you keep touting your interpretation as if it’s legally valid and enforceable when it’s clearly just your opinion.

          • purrtriarchy

            Female slaves were treated like livestock, raped, and forced to give birth until they dropped dead.

            Rita supports forced gestation of slaves.

            Rita has no moral high ground to stand upon

            Rita stands with the rapist slavers in her treatment of women.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            In short: Rita is evil

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            Rita is a willing apologist for a misogynistic and patriachal institution. She is complicit in the suffering of all women who are hurt by anti-choice legislation and policies.

          • fiona64

            It should be remembered that slavery was once a widespread socially accepted “lawful” practice.

            And one to which you would like to see all women returned …

          • goatini

            But since there is no “right to life”, but rather, civil, human and Constitutional rights that are conferred AT BIRTH, you are full of psuedo-”intellectual” BS.

          • Shan

            You have already said that you think all abortion should be illegal, even in the case of rape. So all these paragraphs of blah blah Universal Declaration blah blah Godwin blah blah mean nothing.

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            Rita believes in the almighty zygote and cares nothing about living, breathing women, except as incubators for her beloved blastocysts.

          • Shan

            Yeah, I’ve seen her copy paste the same pseudo-intellectual claptrap on several different discussion boards.

          • kitler

            What I dislike about Rita, and some of the other prolife posters here, is that if you refute a point of theirs, or ask an inconvenient question, they pretend it never happened. And if they DO respond, it’s with a talking point that they got from a prolife website. It doesn’t feel like you’re talking to a REAL person. It feels like you’re talking to a sloganeering machine.

          • Shan

            “It feels like you’re talking to a sloganeering machine.”

            LOL! I was just thinking of posting something like “Sounds like a shill for the patriarchy!”

            To be fair, both sides can resort to bumper-sticker responses.

          • kitler

            Yep, both sides do resort to bumper sticker responses. And I also tend to re-use the same citations (cut and paste makes it easier than having to retype it every time).

            The difference however..is that when we try to make an analogy, or ask a question, and we expect an honest response, we get bumper sticker responses instead.

            “Hey, how do you feel about unauthorized use of your body? Don’t you realise that this is quite similar to rape and/or slavery. Think about it…here are the similarities…” <–is how many of our commentariat will phrase a question. The typical responses run anything from 'you are a heartless baby killer ' 'you are the most selfish person I have ever met' 'life is sacred and you just want to create a culture of death'

            Like many Christians, they are incapable of debating *honestly*. I have respect for the rare prolifer who wants to debate honestly. But, I am sick and tired of the people who just come here to proselytize. Which is all that Rita has been doing.

          • redlemon

            See, this is where your analogy fails. Nazi’s also OUTLAWED abortion for their own citizens. So, by using the tactic of “Well, Nazis aborted Jews, so you’re no better then Nazis!” you’re essentially also saying that, since Nazis outlawed abortion, then you’re no better then a Nazi either. Your analogy fails in a spectacular fashion.

            So seriously, please stop talking about what you know nothing about. I’ve looked into this Universal Declaration that you keep yammering about and I’ve found absolutely zilch on what you’re blathering about in it. Also, you know diddly about the complexities of what the Holocaust and Nazism entailed. So quit with the emotional pleading of “my ancestors”.

          • lady_black

            Of COURSE we know what causes babies. That’s why we use IUDs, pills, rings, diaphragms, implants, injections and sterilizations. We’re trying NOT to make babies.

          • Rita, Canberra

            And abortion “unmakes” babies??

          • lady_black

            Answer my question, Rita. DO YOU, or DO YOU NOT believe contraception and sterilization are acceptable? And yes. If you have an abortion you will not have a baby.

          • goatini

            Safe, legal pregnancy terminations prevents babies from existing. Zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are NOT “babies”.

          • Shan

            “And abortion “unmakes” babies??”

            Sure, if you need to put it that way. Having an abortion keeps a baby from being born, every time. That’s why women HAVE abortions. Because they don’t want a to have a baby however many months hence. Maybe they never want to have babies, maybe they want to have one or two or however many a few years later. It’s not very complicated.

          • lady_black

            Free your mind and your ass will follow. For most of my life, and certainly since my tubal ligation at age 26, sex had nothing to do with motherhood. Sex NEVER needs to have anything to do with motherhood, unless you want, at that particular time, to be a mother. Simply because YOU say so, the rest of us are not going to stop having sex. It’s laughable to even suggest such a thing!

          • Rita, Canberra

            Ah, so now you are reconstructing the purpose of the human reproductive system, and rewriting the human biology textbooks.
            That’s a good one!

          • Shan

            “Ah, so now you are reconstructing the purpose of the human reproductive system, and rewriting the human biology textbooks.”

            She’s not doing that because there’s no need for her to do it. Because *of course* the purpose of the human reproductive system is to reproduce more humans. But if you take a closer at it, you’d realize that reproduction – especially for humans – involves SO much more than just the desire to have sex and the presence of functioning genital organs.

            Because the human reproductive system just doesn’t function very well, what with all the implantation failures, spontaneous abortions, miscarriages and stillbirths. If its purpose is to make a baby every single time we have sex, it fails spectacularly the vast majority of the time. I mean, if that were its sole purpose, women would have estrus cycles and nobody would be interested in sex if we weren’t in season. And there would be no such thing as homosexuality. Or adoption. Or post-menopausal women (and their partners) or infertile couples who still like to have sex.

          • lady_black

            Exactly. My kittehz are fixed and they don’t give a fig about sex. No estrus, no interest. Humans are a bit more advanced. Rita hasn’t caught on to that yet.

          • Shan

            “Rita hasn’t caught on to that yet.”

            Yeah, she and her ilk are still stuck on the “biology is destiny” thing and haven’t got up to speed with the whole idea of “Wait, whose idea of destiny for whom are we talking about, here?”

          • lady_black

            Why, her 2000 year old invisible friend of course!

          • P. McCoy

            Well all those Aryan babies they want White Women to have to rebuild the ‘master race’ and reestablish White Supremacy as well as a theocracy which will set off a wave of persecutions that will make Hitler look like a piker.

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh, Rita, just cop to it already. You’re just as upset about the fact that women can choose when, and if, they become pregnant as you are that they can have legal abortions. You don’t think women should be able to opt out of motherhood at all, that’s just the kind of control freak you are. The only one who was going to decide what the purpose of my particular reproductive system would be was me. I gladly had a tubal slash & burn; you’d gladly make it illegal for women to make that choice. I wonder if you’d be so quick to make vasectomy illegal as well. All those men ‘enabling’ their wives’ non-procreative disobedience. Snork.

            To the uninitiated you might sound scientifically knowledgeable, but all your screeds lay bare the truth of the matter that you’re simply anti-women-having-any-reproductive choice; and all your arguments boil down to nothing more than treacly emotion and mawkish sentimentality. The only one who doesn’t recognize that is, well . . . you.

          • lady_black

            You don’t get to dictate the purpose of my reproductive system, Rita. It doesn’t belong to you.Take your bottom lip, pull it up over your head, and swallow.

          • goatini

            These amateur “embryologists” have mental health issues.

          • purrtriarchy

            Can your kidney be forcibly taken to save a life?

          • goatini

            RIghts accrue to citizens and persons at birth.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Not so.

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

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

            It is not valid to replace these international human rights legal terms with the medical term ‘the fetus’ and then claim that the child has no right to legal protection.
            It was agreed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that:
            •“it is essential…that human rights be protected by the rule of law” (Preamble)
            •“Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law” (Article 6).

            Neither domestic governments nor judiciaries have any authority to
            withhold human rights protection from any “members of the human family”. Under the universal human rights principle of inherency, the child’s rights pre-exist birth – they inhere in the child’s humanity. “Every human being has the inherent right to life…” International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6(1).

            To be eligible for membership of the human family, one has only to be a human.
            It is not age or size or independence that confers human rights, it is just being a human.
            This is the irrevocable legal basis of all human rights.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What part of this don’t you get? No human being has the right to invade/occupy/use the body of another human being without their consent.

            The moment a human being invades the body of another human being, they LOSE their innate “right to life”. Whether the invader gets to live is now totally upto the person whose body was invaded.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And yet abortion laws are still in place in many countries, and the UN is making no moves to change that. So it would seem that people don’t agree with your interpretation, Rita.

          • fiona64

            Stop quoting your bullshit, self-published book, Rita. No one is impressed.

          • Ramanusia

            She’s not quoting bullshit, she’s misquoting actual things and then quoting the talking points of the day, given to her gullible self and parroting ideas that are not her own, and which she does not understand.

          • fiona64

            She’s quoting her own book … which is filled with misquoted actual things. :-/

          • Ramanusia

            Really? I recently heard the same babble emitting from another entity (verbatim), you’re sure it’s “her” book and not one she was issued by whoever does her thinking for her?

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, it’s her book, unfortunately–she is Rita Joseph.

          • Ramanusia

            Someone printed this? Shocking.

          • fiona64
          • Ramanusia

            yikes.

          • kitler

            http://www.wf-f.org/bd-rjoseph.html

            All of Rita’s articles.

            She opposes contraception and equal individual rights for women.

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            So Rita doesn’t like contraception either? Well, she’s an even bigger hypocrite.

          • Ramanusia

            I wonder if she applies this to herself?

          • Suba gunawardana

            BTW Rita, I just noticed you had vehemently opposed the UN women’s rights protocol. What’s up with that? :)

            Looks like your policy is “USE the fetuses to victimize women. After they are born, who cares? ” (as it is with all misogynists)

          • goatini

            Wrong. Rights accrue to citizens and persons at birth. Not before.

            Rights have nothing to do with age, and age is counted FROM BIRTH.

            The rights of living, breathing WOMEN are not superseded by a product of conception that is NOT a person, NOT a citizen, NOT a certainty, and has NO rights.

          • Ramanusia

            This seems to be the popular talking point at the moment, but you seem to ignore the text of the document you misquote and the universal declaration of human rights which asserts these rights at birth and doesn’t pause them or deny them when a woman becomes pregnant. The document you quote doesn’t assert the rights of a fetus over the rights of a woman, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does state that “all human beings are born…”

            It also asserts that these born human beings have the right to life, liberty and security of person, you and your fellow anti-choicers wish to violate these basic rights of women in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You thus violate Article 3 and Article 4.

            Article 5 states that no one should be “subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, which forced gestation regardless of the circumstances most certainly is to reasonable people.

            The position of the anti-choicers actually violates many of these basic articles that you so dishonestly hide behind as you attempt to violate the human rights of women everywhere.

          • goatini

            Wrong. You keep posting the same lying deceptive BS each and every time I assert facts. I can assure you that posting lies over and over again does not make them “fact”, no matter how much you may magically wish it to be so.

            Again: Rights accrue to citizens and persons at birth. Fetuses are NOT citizens, NOT persons, and have NO rights. FACT.

          • Suba gunawardana

            As you said, “none of us has a right to abuse another human being”.

            Exactly! No human being has the right to invade/occupy/use the body of another human being without their consent.

            You just justified abortion.

          • Rita, Canberra

            Your argument is nonsensical. 1. Your small daughter or son being nurtured and protected in your womb had no say in the pro-creative act that you yourself chose to partake in and that has brought your child into existence in your womb; and 2. your small daughter or son is in a position of utter powerlessness, entirely unable to “abuse” you who are in an unassailable position of power over your little one.

          • purrtriarchy

            Emotional arguments are nonsensical.

            Try to stick to logic, if you can.

          • http://batman-news.com Mummel18000

            Demanding logic from a “pro lifer”? That was a good one

          • Suba gunawardana

            Addressed this in detail elsewhere, which you never countered. Here’s a copy & paste:

            The invader’s intent or their guilt/innocence are totally IRRELEVANT when it comes to protecting your body. Animals are innocent. If a bear attacks you, are you supposed to shut up & let it kill you? If you happened to be walking in bear territory, it was your own fault, right?
            Parasites are innocent. If you ate unwashed food & got parasites, are you supposed to let them eat away your body, since “you should have known better than to eat unwashed food”?

            In other words, does the invader’s innocence, or your own culpability in creating the situation, somehow NEGATE your right to protect your body?

            I have asked you similar questions before. Funny you can NEVER give a yes or no answer.

          • redlemon

            “2. your small daughter or son is in a position of utter powerlessness,
            entirely unable to “abuse” you who are in an unassailable position of
            power over your little one.”

            Oh, but the fetus can abuse my body. I don’t care if the fetus has intent or not, that little fetus had power over what it did to my body and I will never have that happen again.

          • P. McCoy

            Parasites usually have no say in anything; they just exploit the host body. Just because you’re a brainwashed anti sex Catholic cultist who doesn’t accept that humans are not like other animals who have mating seasons and have little to do with the adult opposite sex outside of those seasons doesn’t make It less a fact that humans have and want sex for pleasure. Obsess and keep track of your own sex organs and leave others’ alone. If you’re too obsessed to do this put your energies into getting justice for the youth and child victims grievously damaged by your predatory priests, who are neither Communists nor “homo-sexuals”.

          • lady_black

            Point blank. Do you believe in contraception and sterilization?

          • Ella Warnock

            Their fatal mistake will be attempting to limit or deny contraception and sterilization choice. Women who want kids want the number they desire and when it’s, yes, the rightwing nutjobs’ new favorite boogey-man term “convenient” for them and their families. Even conservative women will not want to surrender their choice in family size and spacing to the looney-tunes anti-contraceptive-choicers.

            Keep it up, Rita and her ilk. The more exposure you get among sane people, the more insane they’ll realize you are.

          • Ramanusia

            And yet you’re claiming that you have ownership and disposal rights over the women you’re sentencing to forced gestation, because you have decided that you and your priests have some right to force your choice onto a woman despite the fact that the “procedure” you’re forcing has historically been pretty lethal to women. Deliberately forcing a woman to gestate against her will and her doctor’s recommendation is never excusable no matter how one might lie about the tissue one is deifying at the expense of a living, breathing person you don’t believe is a human being. There is never a valid reason to lie like you do to enforce your lethal delusions upon women. Choice is not an excuse, and you do not appear to understand what word means.

          • purrtriarchy

            I have the same human rights obligations as you have to protect all
            members of the human family irrespective of size, dependency or
            ‘wantedness’.

            So you’re not gonna complain if someone forcibly takes your kidney and gives it to a dying child, right-o? You have an obligation to save them..right?

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            Well, that would require action, and it’s so much simpler for the anti-choicers to voice their “concern” for those twinkles in everyones’ eyes than to actually help children who are neglected, starving, abused, or poor. Don’t ever ask them to take action. They’re just hypocrites of the first order.

          • goatini

            As a child of a survivor, I’m repelled by your hate speech, and find it ironic that your inane blather’s SOLE purpose is the dehumanization of living, breathing WOMEN.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Being forced into life as an unwanted child is a far worse fate than being killed as a zef.

          • fiona64

            I cannot believe that you *dare* to compare an insensate, unconscious embryo with a born, sapient, sentient person with your asinine discussion of the Holocaust.

            True justice requires that you mind your own fucking business if it isn’t your pregnancy. You do NOT know anyone’s circumstances but your own. Breed until your uterus prolapses if that’s what floats your boat; I may think you’re an idiot, but I won’t be out there trying to stop you. Other women do not have to make the same choice.

      • lady_black

        Oh blah, blah, blah Rita. Here… take care of this. ..|..

        • Shan

          Why does she think copy/pasting the same thing over and over again is going to give her different results?

          • Jennifer Starr

            All she knows how to do is copy and paste from her various speeches and her sad excuse for a book. To call her repetitive would be an understatement.

          • P. McCoy

            Repetition is all that cretins like Rita know what to do as well as anthromorphilize blobs of non sentient tissues in a paracitical relationship with a host (the woman’s) body.

          • purrtriarchy

            She’s a dumbfuck.

          • Ella Warnock

            Ooo, ooo, I know! Insanity!

      • Suba gunawardana

        You conveniently ignore the fact that children are vulnerable individuals who need far more than just “life”.

        Every child needs a responsible caring adult able and willing to PROTECT and care for them for as long as necessary. Pointedly ignoring the fact that the numbers of such caregivers are far fewer than the numbers of children in this world, you keep adding MORE children to an overburdened system. What happens to those children? How many end up starved/beaten/raped/abandoned/killed? Do you care?

        Forcing unwanted children to life against the mothers’ will and abandoning them in a hostile world does NOT count as “protecting children”.

      • fiona64

        Rights are afforded to the born, m’dear. If a woman chooses to remain pregnant, she has the right to all necessary care for her to get through the pregnancy in a healthy fashion — that is the closest thing to caring for the “unborn” (most of us prefer to use correct terms, such as fetus) that the Declaration actually comes.

        You are misquoting deliberately.

        Not that anyone is surprised at this point.

      • thedancingbag

        You bury your head in the dense sand of denial that refuses to deal with the fact that some women, for a myriad of reasons, some of them seem more culturally acceptable than others, will be forced, against their will, to give birth to a baby that was merely a cluster of disorganized cells in the earliest phases of its development. And you are choosing a cluster of unconscious cells over the rights of a fully developed human being with consciousness because you cannot deal with moral ambiguity. But the fact that you can’t deal with life’s ambiguities does not mean they don’t exist. Fuck you and your self righteous demand that women accept their fate whether raped, whether they have 5 other children with mouths to feed and have to choose to allow the family to go bankrupt or have a child with anencephaly, because you can’t deal with the ambiguity of that choice.

  • Ella Warnock

    Are you “morally and/or scientifically literate?” I’ve seen no evidence of such a thing.

  • Ella Warnock

    I’ve no doubt you’re well acquainted with narcissism. You’re a textbook case, after all; and they do tend to point accusatory fingers at everyone else. Oh no, when the problem is ‘everyone else’ then surely the narcissist is NEVER at fault! No small amount of projection going for you, sadly enough.

    • Ella Warnock

      Replying to your comment in moderation:

      An ‘ad hominem argument’ is simply one which you don’t care to address. Cowardly, but there you are.

  • Ramanusia

    Wasn’t it laws exactly like these that resulted in the death of that lady in Ireland? Just how many women must die before they stop these attacks on common sense and human decency?

  • afishcalledsid

    You wouldn’t win – in court or in hand-to-hand combat, sugar lumps.

    BTW, I Googled you. You’re not that cute. If you find it objectionable, remember that “Cute” was your word to describe yourself, not mine.

  • afishcalledsid

    If the laws and political bodies are ever completely stacked against your side on the issue, if you ever have rude, spoiled people screaming obscenities at you any time you try to hold a little meeting, go ahead. If you ever have to fund all your own events and ad campaigns rather than having the taxpayers look after you and risk bratty, cowardly people of the opposing viewpoint wrecking the events because they know police/security will do nothing to make THEIR side behave, then go ahead. If the number of unwilling mothers who die from botched abortions ever adds up to the populations of New York, L.A., Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami, Seattle and couple more cities combined, then by all means, you go ahead and PAY FOR THAT AD CAMPAIGN yourselves as pro-lifers do currently.

    • fiona64

      Shorter Sid: You slutty bitches get back to makin’ babies and staying in the kitchen where you belong. If you’re good, I’ll let you have shoes.

      f you ever have rude, spoiled people screaming obscenities

      Sounds like every group of “sidewalk counselors” I’ve ever seen …

  • Shan

    Ugh. Myintx is a flaming idiot.

  • fiona64

    Myintx is so stupid that she couldn’t pour water from a boot if instructions were written on the heel.

    Something to keep in mind: she works for a CPC that is connected to a religiously-based adoption syndicate. She gets paid to talk pregnant white women into surrendering infants for adoption by “good Christian families.” This article mentions the facility by name. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/07/15/wrong-door/