New Laws Restricting Abortion Take Effect in Mississippi and Florida


New laws that will further restrict access to abortion care later in pregnancy went into effect Tuesday in Mississippi and Florida.

Mississippi’s new law bans abortion at 20 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period. Often referred to as a 20-week ban, the new law actually bans abortion after 18 weeks’ gestation. The original language of the legislation would have banned abortion at 20 weeks, but lawmakers amended the bill to push back the cutoff.

Mississippi joins 21 other states that have passed similar laws. However, Mississippi’s version of the legislation contains no exceptions for rape or incest, and only a limited exception for the health of the pregnant person or for fatal abnormalities in the fetus.

There is currently only one clinic in the state that provides abortion care, and it only provides abortion up to 16 weeks’ gestation. Like in Missouri, Mississippi’s governor and state lawmakers have been targeting the state’s lone abortion clinic with restrictions and regulations. Republican Gov. Phil Bryant said that it is his goal to “end abortion in Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Florida’s new law creates additional restrictions on abortions performed in the third trimester, and bans abortions at any point in a pregnancy if a doctor determines the fetus could survive outside the pregnant person’s body.

Current Florida law bans abortions after 24 weeks’ gestation, unless the life or health of the pregnant person is threatened; the new law narrows those exceptions and removes mental health conditions from being considered among the exceptions.

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

Follow Teddy Wilson on twitter: @txindyjourno

  • fiona64

    These pre-viability bans are heinous. The majority of tests for fetal anomalies cannot even be performed before 20 weeks’ gestation … which means that these idiot lawmakers who want to practice medicine without licenses are forcing women to carry doomed pregnancies to term — unless they can afford to travel.

    • kitler

      I love how in theory these anomalies can be detected early.. Antis always focus on that

      Of course, they ignore reality, which is that women wont be getting expensive, invasive tests every fucking week

    • prolifemama

      By “doomed pregnancies” do you refer to babies with Down Syndrome or spina bifida, or other genetic anomalies?
      The pregnancy – read “baby” – is only “doomed” in the minds of folks like yourself who only accept perfect babies conceived under perfect circumstances. Call the Spina Bifida and Down Syndrome Associations and ask them how long their waiting lists are, of prospective parents longing to adopt such “imperfect” children into their loving families.

      • CJ99

        It’s people like you who force women to carry pregnancies to term and raise children with such incurable conditions. The children suffer a lifetime of disability & the parents who care for them do as well. It’s people like who through your idiotic hateful beliefs who want the rest of us to forced to live in a society that is diseased cause of your choices. The sick irony is in doing so you remove choice from everyone else. You are disgusting.

      • fiona64

        By “doomed pregnancies” do you refer to babies with Down Syndrome or spina bifida, or other genetic anomalies?

        Not necessarily. However, I lack the hubris to tell strangers what kind of medical and financial risk they should assume in such cases and figure that they are smart enough to decide for themselves.

        Things like anencephaly and other conditions incompatible with life ex utero are what I was talking about. Which you knew.

        Which reminds me, you were going to tell us all about the “positive aspects” of gestating an anencephalic fetus …

  • Suba gunawardana

    Slavery is alive & well in Mississippi. The targets are all women & children, particularly the low-income ones.

  • http://www.friv4gaming.com/ Friv 4

    it says so many things for us to think about ethical profession.
    http://www.kizi10game.com | http://www.friv10game.org

  • J.D.

    Try not losing sight of the fact that a woman doesn’t become less a person when the stick turns color. No ‘life’ has the right to physically sustain itself at another’s bodily expense without their consent. Just say NO to gestational slavery.

    • Mr. Conservative

      Well, when the woman has sex and gets pregnant as a result, it’s a done deal. We must refrain from deliberately taking innocent life.

      • J.D.

        You, as a Mister, can refrain all you like. Especially since, as a Mister, you aren’t really affected since you lack the capacity for pregnancy. I as a possessor of a uterus will decide what to do with my bodily organs and allow you the respect of not demanding you hand yours over to support someone else against your will. Kindly allow me the same.

        P.S. Sex (voluntary or otherwise) isn’t consent to be forced into being an incubator against one’s will.

        • Mr. Conservative

          Likewise, being born isn’t consent to experience the world you’ve just been brought into.

          • J.D.

            So Mr. Conservative, you don’t want a fetus to just hijack an unwilling woman’s uterus for 9 months, but to hijack it for the rest of forever and her to just, I don’t know, send up milk and cookies (pizza and sodas for those teen years) so it doesn’t have to be born.
            You know, there’s a far simpler way, called abortion, to avoid the whole being traumatically born thing and it avoids enslaving an INNOCENT woman in the process. WIN!

          • Mr. Conservative

            Just because someone’s life might be bad doesn’t give us the right to commit homicide. We must not play God.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Forcing other people’s unwanted children into life against the mother’s will and abandoning them in a hostile world is not only “playing god” but willful premeditated child abuse. Such indirect child abuse should be punishable by law just like any direct act of child abuse.

          • Mr. Conservative

            By that logic, why not let abusive parents kill their children? They would no longer have to live in a hostile world.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Several reasons.
            -Unlike zefs, children have the legal right not to be killed.
            -Unlike zefs, children don’t live inside other people thereby violating their rights.
            -Unlike zefs, children are living breathing SENTIENT individuals with the capacity to suffer. Killing or abusing a child is an act of cruelty.

          • J.D.

            I’ll stop playing god when the religio-fascists stop trying to play doctor, lawyer, indian chief with regard to my body. If I incorporated my uterus maybe then you’d all stop trying so hard to regulate it.

          • fiona64

            We must not play God.

            You mean, the way you want to do with the lives of total strangers, by demanding that every single pregnancy be gestated?

          • lady_black

            God who? I’ll play anything I want. Just try to stop me.

          • CJ99

            since you just admitted people shouldn’t play god then you should immediately cease doing so.

          • P. McCoy

            Hey don’t like it here? Get citizenship at the Vatican and worry about your male young relatives get raped by an Alter Christus or a “Prince of the Church!,”

          • CJ99

            Saw documentary on that subject just last night on frontline (pbs) of what happened from John Paul 2 through Ratzinger (benedict) up until francis (who looks like he’s starting to do something). Revolting stuff. Shows how typical it is to find wealth & power in religion taking precedence over human life.

          • P. McCoy

            When this Pope starts sending perps back to their own countries or the countries where crimes have been committed as well as telling the clergy entire to cooperate with law enforcement up and including what has been said in confession related to child abuse (google priest confession problem in Louisiana right now for a current situation- you see the Catholic cultists would rather this priest do prison time and be a “faithful holy man” rather than reveal info that would help law enforcement catch a molester of a female minor), rather than utter vain apologies, then I will believe he wants to solve the problems- actions talk , apologies without action are bs that runs the marathon!

          • lady_black

            Is that supposed to make sense?

      • P. McCoy

        Non sentient entities are not innoccent- they are in a parasitic relationship with the host body, the woman’s body. Want to live in a theocracy? Get citizenship at.the Vatican where child molesters are lacicized and the evil they do is blamed by the cult members on Communists or ‘homo-sexuals’ both false boogie men!

        • Mr. Conservative

          If something is not guilty, then it’s innocent. It’s dehumanizing to call a zygote a parasite. I don’t to live in a theocracy. I just want to take America back.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So what if a zef IS human? As I said, no individual (human or not) has a right to invade/occupy/use the body of another person without their consent.

          • Mr. Conservative

            Don’t forget the zef is there because of the woman’s actions.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If you walk in a dangerous neighborhood & get mugged/assaulted/raped, are you OBLIGATED to let the attack go on at the expense of your body because “you should have known better than to walk there”?

            If you eat unwashed/uncooked food & get internal parasites, are you not allowed to get treatment for it since “it was your own actions that led to the infestation”?

          • lady_black

            No it is not.

          • CJ99

            Dear idiot, women do not get pregnant on their own. so shut the hell up lest your empty head gets rung like the gong show.

          • kitler

            Guinea worms are innocent after you drink the eggs in dirty water and they hatch in your intestines.

            Don’t take antibiotic to kill an innocent worm that is just trying to live

          • Arachne646

            Yea! Animal rights are not just for furry ones. Newborn humans are fugly, too!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Back to what? A ‘golden age’ that never existed outside of rose-colored nostalgia?

          • Mr. Conservative

            To the good old days when this nation of ours was filled with stable, church-attending families that had a father and a mother. The days before the rise of single parenthood, abortion, the gay agenda, rap music, and illegal immigration. The days when everyone knew that Father knows best.

          • kitler

            A fantasy that never existed.

          • Suba gunawardana

            In other words, the days when misogynistic men could run roughshod over everyone else & never get called on. Hopefully THOSE days are past.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Ye gods, Father Knows Best was a terrible sitcom. Dreck. Try the Jack Benny Show or Burns and Allen. Leave it to Beaver, even. Have some taste. And actually, you’d better stick to old TV, because that’s the only place you’ll ever find the fantasyland you’re searching for.

          • P. McCoy

            You are longing for Jim Crow and White heterosexual supremacy. You DO know that the KKK would burn you as an idol worshipping Catholic, don’t you? Down with White homophobe misogynistic supremacists and their accursed Christian Taliban!

          • Ineedacoffee

            You mean when ‘men’ had free reign to abuse and rape women and pedo priests were protected and not called out?
            When women died from backyard abortions cos these so called ‘men’ would rape them
            Your a foul excuse for a human

          • Dez

            Ahh the good ole times with Jim Crow laws, women could not vote, wives could be raped by their husbands, and I could not marry my husband of another race. Those good ole days?

          • lady_black

            There was never such a time. It never existed. And I will never set foot in your church, and neither will my stable husband of 28 years.

          • Arachne646

            See, when you go too far in your character of Mr. C is when I suspect that you are Plum Dumpling’s sock puppet!

          • CJ99

            that world never existed, if it did you’d still be an ASS.

          • fiona64

            He wants to take it back to the good old days when women didn’t get uppity, straight white men were in charge of everything, and Pres. Obama would have had to sit in the back of the bus.

          • fiona64

            If the zygote is innocent (and I do not think it is, since it is unconscious and therefore lacks the ability to have a conscience), I must ask you this: of what is the pregnant woman guilty?

          • lady_black

            You can’t take back what was never yours in the first place. The bodies of women for example. They aren’t yours. You don’t own them. You have no rights over them. And I want nothing to do with your “god.” And you can’t do thing one about it. You have no right. You never had a right. What you get to “take back” is yourself, and ONLY yourself.

          • Arachne646

            I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but a zygote, embryo, or fetus fits the scientific and medical definition of a parasite. You can’t dehumanize something that’s only human in the personal value system of individual religions or persons or pregnancies.

          • fiona64

            I just want to take America back.

            … to a mythical moment in history when women didn’t get uppity, n*****s knew their place (and that wasn’t in the Oval Office), and straight white men ran the whole show. There. I finished your dog-whistle sentence for you.

          • CJ99

            take america back for what? yeah for your wet dream theocracy.

      • Suba gunawardana

        Innocent life? How many innocent lives of animals and plants are taken daily for the necessity & convenience of humans on this planet? Trillions?

        To sustain every new human life, it requires the killing of several thousands of non-humans. i.e. Creating one life means KILLING many other other lives.

        If you have no problem with killing innocent individuals for your own necessity and convenience, you have no right to oppose others doing the same thing for their own necessity and convenience.

        • Mr. Conservative

          Animals and plants don’t have souls.

          • Suba gunawardana

            -So what? They are still alive, sentient, and INNOCENT. You stated “We must refrain from deliberately taking innocent life”. Abide by your own words and starve to death. Otherwise you are just a hypocritical control freak who tries to make others do what you won’t.

            -There’s no law that favors individuals based on “having souls”. If there were, it would be impossible to enforce such laws because no one knows how to detect the presence of a “soul”.

          • Mr. Conservative

            Well, let me rephrase what I said then: We must refrain from deliberately taking innocent life that has a soul. Plants definitely aren’t sentient. God gave us dominion over animals.

          • Suba gunawardana

            -Everyone doesn’t believe in your god, and we don’t live in a theocracy. It would be extremely unfair to force imaginary biblical laws on real people.

            -All studies done on the subject show that plants ARE sentient. I know believers find that hard to grasp, so let’s stick with animals. I am sure even you can see that animals are sentient & innocent. If it’s wrong to kill zefs who are innocent but NOT sentient, it should be far more wrong to kill animals who are innocent AND sentient.

            -What do you mean by “God gave us dominion over animals.”? That you may use & abuse animals as you please? Now if god is loving, why would he create SENTIENT animals and give people permission to abuse them? Doesn’t sound very loving to me.

            -I can use your own logic and say “god gave us dominion over everything weaker than us”. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses being weaker than us, we can kill them at our whim.

          • Mr. Conservative

            “-Everyone doesn’t believe in your god, and we don’t live in a theocracy. It would be extremely unfair to force imaginary biblical laws on real people.”
            We must stop people from forcing their ways on zefs.

            “-All studies done on the subject show that plants ARE sentient.”
            Citation needed.

            “I am sure even you can see that animals are sentient & innocent. If it’s wrong to kill zefs who are innocent but NOT sentient, it should be far more wrong to kill animals who are innocent AND sentient.”
            Well, by that logic, why have laws against killing humans but not animals?

            “-What do you mean by ‘God gave us dominion over animals.’? That you may use & abuse animals as you please? Now if god is loving, why would he create SENTIENT animals and give people permission to abuse them? Doesn’t sound very loving to me.”
            Why did God allow the Holocaust to happen? He is beyond our understanding.

            “-I can use your own logic and say ‘god gave us dominion over everything weaker than us’. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses being weaker than us, we can kill them at our whim.”

            Cite a Bible passage that says that.

          • Suba gunawardana

            “We must stop people from forcing their ways on zefs.”

            Why? Because they are innocent? Then you must stop forcing your ways on ALL innocent individuals including animals, plants, and children.

            “Citation needed.”
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688289/
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634129/
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=plant+sentientce
            http://www.linv.org/linv_books2.php?ID=2

            There’s more if you want.

            “Well, by that logic, why have laws against killing humans but not animals?”

            There are many situations where it’s perfectly legal to kill humans. There are some situations where it’s illegal to kill animals. It’s all about what’s best for us all as a society.

            I am not the one saying it’s wrong to kill innocent individuals, YOU are. I merely refuted your logic.
            I say it’s fine to kill the innocent, i.e. BOTH animals and zefs, as long as there’s no cruelty or suffering involved. There’s no difference between animals and zefs. We may kill all of them for our necessity & convenience.

            “Why did God allow the Holocaust to happen? He is beyond our understanding”

            You are making my case for me. That’s yet another example why god is NOT loving. Why do you kowtow to a cruel individual?

            “Cite a Bible passage that says that.”

            Bible was written by men for their own convenience. My point was: I can make up rules for my convenience, just like they did. In other words, whatever it says in the bible, DOESN’T COUNT.

          • kitler

            Hawt citations

          • Mr. Conservative

            Well, OK. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to kill you for my convenience? Why shouldn’t we be allowed to kill babies for our convenience? As for God and the Bible, the Bible is God’s Word whether a godless heathen like you acknowledges it or not. The Book of Job addresses the suffering of the righteous: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?”

            http://biblehub.com/kjv/job/38.htm

          • Suba gunawardana

            Because of ETHICS, which gives consideration to living beings capable of suffering, including both humans and animals; Because of man-made law, which is based on those ethics.

            NOT because of a stone-age text written BY misogynistic men FOR the benefit of misogynistic men, condoning the subjugation of all other individuals for the benefit of men alone; condoning any and all atrocities including rape, torture, child abuse, slavery, and on & on.

            Human law has a long way to go, but it’s light years ahead of your stone-age text.

            What about the suffering of the INNOCENT? That includes children, animals, and the mentally disabled. i.e. those who have no control. Why do they suffer constantly, and why doesn’t your “lord” ever lift a finger to help them?

          • kitler

            Pregnancy maims kills and injures millions of women. It is not a minor inconvenience, dumbass

          • lady_black

            I don’t know your god, and it’s “words” are yours. And you already know how highly I regard you… /s

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

            “Cite a Bible passage that says that.’
            …………..
            Hosea 13:16
            Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

          • CJ99

            exactly why old “holy books” should not be taken seriously.

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

            Yes, that is the point.

          • lady_black

            How convenient for you. You cite an authority you cannot produce, and state that we “must” live by what YOU say this invisible entity says. Then you tell us (in the absence of any evidence) that this invisible entity gives special privileges to zygotes that women are required to submit to. And then you ask us to prove you wrong by using a book of fiction. For the love of logic, do you ever actually THINK about the crap you write???

          • kitler

            There is no god.

          • Mr. Conservative

            Prove it.

          • J.D.

            You’re the one maintaining there is one and that he/she/it gave you special rights. You prove it.

          • Mr. Conservative

            I openly admit I accept His existence on faith. I therefore feel no compulsion to prove His existence.

          • lady_black

            And therefore I feel no compulsion to live by the dictates of your invisible friend and your notion of invisible “souls.”

          • Suba gunawardana

            If there IS a god, it is a cruel sadistic prick who tortures the innocent and allows the powerful to torture the weak at their whim & never intervenes.

            Why would you worship such a horrible individual (instead of fight it) UNLESS you are also a sadistic prick?

          • CJ99

            what “mr conservative” worships isn’t god at all, more like his polar opposite.

          • Ineedacoffee

            prove there is one? oh wait you cant, as we dont live in your fantasy land and see your daydreams

          • CJ99

            that’s why despite thinking there’s a creator out there I don’t believe whats in the bible, quran, or another very old “holy book”. they just don’t hold up as being anything other than incoherent & inconsistant with reality

          • CJ99

            I’m of a different mind, that being there is a creator, but that him / her is cringing at the shit your flinging in his / her name. Fact is the person who’s making the best cause for the lack of god is you with your moronic garbage.

          • fiona64

            Plants definitely aren’t sentient.

            I think the jury is out on that one, to be honest. Ever seen any Kirilian (sp?) photography?

          • lady_black

            I don’t know your “god.” Produce this “god” so that I can ask for myself, because frankly, I don’t trust you enough to take your word for it.

          • CJ99

            So you’re claiming other humans, including all women are animals. I have no doubt you’ll be horribly shocked if you ever met the creator.

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

            Hold up a soul so I can see and feel it.

          • fiona64

            Animals and plants don’t have souls.

            For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that you’re right on the above point (I can’t speak for plants, but I absolutely believe animals have souls).

            Zygotes don’t have souls, either. Since you want to drag in religious philosophy, I hasten to point out that Adam was not ensouled until he was able to breathe.

            You’re welcome.

          • lady_black

            What the hell is that?

          • CJ99

            So you can add dominionism to your long list of idiocy.

      • Dez

        Then use your own advice for your life only. Why do you think you have the right to impose yourself in my life? Do I know you?

        • CJ99

          I sure hope he doesn’t know anybody else here. If he showed up at my front door pulling that crap he’d find his smacketh laid down either before or after the cops arrive.

      • kitler

        Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

        • Mr. Conservative

          Indeed, but actions have consequences. And if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, not only must she have the baby, but the two families involved must rush to make an honest woman out of her.

          • kitler

            Next time you get in a car accident, you should not be treated, because actions have consequences.

          • Mr. Conservative

            Getting treated wouldn’t kill anyone, though.

          • kitler

            Stop moving the goalposts.

            My point stands.

          • Mr. Conservative

            Nonsense. My point stands.

          • kitler

            Nope.

            You said that if you do something you must live with the consequences of your actions.

            That means no treatment for you if you hurt yourself. Take responsibility and live with the injuries

          • Mr. Conservative

            The reason you must live with the consequences of sex is because abortion involves harming someone. Getting treated for an auto accident doesn’t.

          • kitler

            Fallacy of special pleading for embryos and discrimination against women.

            Surely you agree then that fathers should also be forced to donate blood, organs and tissue to sustain the lives of their unborn children? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

          • Mr. Conservative

            Huh? How would that work?

          • kitler

            Medical technology, dumbfuck.

          • Mr. Conservative

            But the unborn child gets all its need from the mother.

          • kitler

            Not necessarily, no. If it did no woman or fetus would ever die you ignorant shitstain.

            So how would you feel about donating a portion of your liver to your unborn child? Forced by law. Of course

          • CJ99

            he doesn’t believe in medicine, its part of science which he thinks is a demonic practice invented by “godless athiests”.

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

            I do not become two people the moment the sperm hits the ovum. Ridiculous.

          • lady_black

            No one is harmed in a safe, legal pregnancy termination.

          • CJ99

            so the next time you drive drunk you expect to go blameless? you really are quite the ignorant douche.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That would matter ONLY if killing were wrong, unacceptable and illegal under any and all circumstances. Is it? As we discussed before, killing is a NECESSITY, a part of life.

            You have no right to bitch about others killing for their necessity & convenience while you are doing the same.

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

            AnyONE can get me a cup of coffee. AnyONE can stand behind me in the checkout line. Words have meaning.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You are aware that we’re no longer living in the nineteenth century anymore, correct?

          • CJ99

            Even that would be optimistic.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Are you for real? Define “honest woman”.

            Actions have consequences. That doesn’t mean you are BOUND by every consequence. As I said to you in response to another post:

            If you walk in a dangerous neighborhood & get mugged/assaulted/raped, are you OBLIGATED to let the attack go on at the expense of your body because “you should have known better than to walkthere”?

            If you eat unwashed/uncooked food & get internal parasites, are you not allowed to get treatment for it since “it was your own actions that led to the infestation”?

          • Jennifer Starr

            ‘Honest woman’ is code for ‘shotgun wedding’.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I know, and it’s an extremely offensive term…

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes it is–and it is, and always was, an extremely bad idea.

          • CJ99

            it’s also code for a guy couldn’t control his testosterone and hopes nobody will notice.

          • P. McCoy

            She was never dis honest and if you believe in the Catholic church they would consider such a marriage invalid because both parties were forced into it.

          • Ineedacoffee

            what century are you in?

            Just to make you squirm
            *happily unmarried, but with father of my child, no plans to marry, its a waste of paper*

          • Suba gunawardana

            Exactly. If anything marriage is just a piece of paper for legal conveniences, such as insurance.

          • Ineedacoffee

            and in some places not even needed for that

          • CJ99

            he didn’t get the memo about the Weird Al Yankovic song “Amish Paradise” being satire.

            Note: its likely real Amish people can have more sense than he does.

          • fiona64

            The only “must” here is that you must pull your head out of your bunghole and enter the 21st century.

          • lady_black

            No I would say the only “must” in that situation is YOU… minding your own fucking business.

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

        A fetus cannot be innocent or guilty as it has no agency. Drama Queen.

      • lady_black

        No, it is by no means “a done deal.” The use of my body is required, and I don’t have to fork it over simply because I had sex. That isn’t consent to breathe, metabolize and eliminate for another, BUCKO.

      • CJ99

        A fertilized ovum isn’t an innocent life, its tissue. Yet you willfully ignore the consequences to the woman, especially if raped or otherwise forced. You also ignore the lifetime of suffering of children born with disabilities. yet you’d gladly force those to suffer a lifetime of living with any 1 of a myriad of medical problems to satisfy your idiotic religious dogma. You are quite disgusting.

  • Suba gunawardana

    Regardless of when life begins, no individual has a right to invade/occupy/use the body of another person without their consent.

    Do I have the right to use your organs to sustain my life without your consent? No. If I tried to do that, you have the legal right to kill me to protect your body. A pregnant woman has the exact same legal right to protect HER body.

    • Mr. Conservative

      “Do I have the right to use your organs to sustain my life without your consent?”
      You’re confusing an act of omission with an act of commission.

      • Suba gunawardana

        Another person using your organs is an act of COMMISSION. Every person has a right to refuse that, in order to protect their body.

        • Mr. Conservative

          Abortion actively kills the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. If you don’t donate your organs, you’re just letting someone die.

          • J.D.

            You want to demand a fetus be allowed to use a woman’s body for its support, then step right up and be the first in line for LIVE organ donation instead of waiting until you’re dead and don’t need ‘em anymore. You don’t need all your blood, or all your marrow, or all your skin or bone. You certainly don’t need BOTH lungs or kidneys…don’t be selfish. And your liver, well, you can give a lobe or two of that AND it will grow back so you can donate again. While you’re at it, how about anteing up a cornea…a little partial blindness never killed anyone, right?
            So sure, it’ll be painful and messy and traumatic and expensive. So sure, it’ll keep you from doing activities you want very much to do. So it may screw up your relationships with others. So sure, you may lose your job and your livelihood and your home. So sure, it may physically and mentally scar you. But you’ll be saving SO many lives. Sure you may think, “Screw this! I refuse want to do this anymore!”
            Well suck it up buttercup…you made the decision to leap on the forced live organ donation bandwagon. Not us.

          • Mr. Conservative

            Please refer to my earlier post regarding organ donation.

          • J.D.

            Pish…be a man! Lead by example, bucko! You want me to ante up my organs, you ante up yours first. What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.

          • fiona64

            Pish…be a man!

            I know, right? He earlier opined that a “real woman” would be willing to die of pregnancy complications to “give her baby a chance.” But this lazy POS won’t even do a live-donor kidney or bone marrow donation when there are real, born, sapient, sentient people in need.

          • CJ99

            Like so many evangelicals he quickly crosses the street when he spots a homeless person.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m sure you have a kidney you could stand to lose–someone could use that kidney.

          • J.D.

            Mr. Conservative is being a greedy selfish organ hog concerning himself. But he’s oh so generous with other people’s bodies.

          • lady_black

            Yes. And in light of your argument, I refuse to donate the use of all my organs to anyone, as is my right. I hung out the “No fetus welcome” sign long ago.

          • CJ99

            Unless your doing the same you’ll never be more than an arrogant hypocrite. No your brain donation doesn’t count,

          • Suba gunawardana

            I said nothing about DONATING organs, but someone using your body/organs by FORCE against your will, or without your consent. If someone does that, you have a legal right to kill them to protect your body.

            The same principle applies to a zef who uses a woman’s body without her consent. She has a legal right to kill the zef to protect her body, just like YOU have a legal right to kill anyone who tries to use your body without your consent.

          • Mr. Conservative

            You have to keep in mind the zef is there because of the woman’s actions.

          • J.D.

            So you believe women never EVER get pregnant because of rape (ie: actions taken AGAINST HER WILL)? Bet you believe their body has a, ‘way of shutting that whole thing down,” too.

          • Ineedacoffee

            Ah yes, all the womans fault
            I sense a forced birthing rapist here, ‘she asked for it’ ‘she was dressed like a’
            Neanderthal, get out of my uterus

          • Ella Warnock

            How could science have possibly missed that women reproduce asexually? This is astounding, mind-blowing news!

          • kitler

            Dumbass Drew Hymer told me that

            1) twinning is a form of asexual reproduction

            2) chimerism is a form of cannibalism

          • Ella Warnock

            How does such a simple-minded dolt find his way out of his house every day?

          • kitler

            He says that since pregnancy is a “reasonable foreseeable consequence of sex” that women should be forced to gestate because they have put someone in a place of need.

            I asked him if men should be forced to donate tissue to save fetal life since they are equally guilty.

            He said no, men should not be forced to donate any tissue to their fetuses because:

            Women were made for pregnancy, men weren’t

            Bodily donation is not a “reasonable foreseeable consequence for men”

            I pointed out the numerous and obvious logical fallacies here, and he said that I was a misogynist and a moron.

            He also said that Unicorn Farm is clueless about the law (cuz reasonable etetc ) and that cjvg doesn’t know neuroscience.

          • Ella Warnock

            If you have the power to ‘put someone in place of need,’ then you have the power remove someone from that place of need. Then it’s no longer in need of anything. Simples.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ohhhhhhhhhhh goodness. Tell him Unicorn Farm’s law practice is 60% tort law and can suck an egg. :D

          • lady_black

            Yes, pregnancy can be said to be reasonably foreseeable as a result of sex. However, 1) what duty does the woman have to the zygote that she breaches by conceiving the zygote? 2) And how has she breached this duty 3) How has the zygote been harmed by being conceived? 4) And in tort law, the only duty of the tortfeaser is to restore the “damaged” party to his previous condition, called “making the victim whole again.” Not in a better condition, as that constitutes unjust enrichment. And the previous condition of the zygote was… what? Non-existent. Gee! It seems like NONE of the conditions of a tort are present here! There is no duty, the non-existent “duty” by definition cannot be breached, there has been no harm done to the zygote, and in order to restore the zygote to it’s former condition is to cease gestating it. But since his tort argument fails of all four necessary elements of a tort, she is free to do as she dam pleases.

          • CJ99

            I got 1 word for that guy: Condoms.

          • feminista

            I sent out another bat signal, and have invited Defensor Vitae to SPL to defend Thomas and the RCC :)

            I sure hope Christine heeds the call!

          • lady_black

            Yeah, he’s not too bright.

          • CJ99

            Only in the twilight zone, then only in the 80’s remake.

          • fiona64

            Interesting. Where is the man in all of this? Doesn’t he bear some responsibility for the zygote showing up in utero? I mean, he doesn’t have to bear the physical risks of gestation and all, but I do notice that you have given him a pass in your silly slut-shaming sentence.

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

            Men have nothing to do with pregnancy? Forced birther cultists are all nuts.

          • lady_black

            No it is not there because of the woman’s actions. Women do not conceive through spontaneous generation. And even if it WERE there, solely by the action of the woman, if she no longer wants it there, it doesn’t get to stay. If I invite a salesman inside my home, and he proceeds to become destructive, or just plain gets on my nerves, I have the right to force him to leave. At that point, he becomes a trespasser.

          • JamieHaman

            Um, NO. That zef was not Immaculately conceived. That fertilized egg was not created by magic, but by biology requiring two people.

            That woman will carry that pregnancy ALL BY HERSELF.
            You don’t have any idea how the act of biology was done. Not a clue.

          • CJ99

            Nope, she’s pregnant cause a selfish perv like you impregnated her.

          • fiona64

            And that’s just how abortion works; the embryo is no longer allowed to use the organ, and it dies. I’m glad you got the picture.

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

            A fetus is not someONE until it survives to and through birth. Words have meaning.

          • lady_black

            If I don’t donate my entire body to the z/e/f, I’m letting it die. It will die because it’s unfit for survival without the use of my organs. In other words, it’s a natural consequence of giving the z/e/f the keys to the street.

          • JamieHaman

            Letting someone die because you have failed to take action to prevent that death is just as real as actively shooting that person with a gun.

            Since you refuse to donate your organs, that would effectively make a murderer of you.
            Abortion quickly kills that embryo, fetus, and does not make it suffer waiting for an organ transplant.

      • lady_black

        Yep. Allowing someone the use of my organs and blood to remain alive is an act of commission, because that requires my ongoing consent. Denying someone the use of my organs an blood is an act of omission. I refuse to continue the donation and omit the pregnancy.

      • CJ99

        You’re confusing your own willful stupidity for facts. You are not a man.

    • CJ99

      He & his ilk always trot out that line verbatim. It’s not proven nor will it ever be proven. Medical knowledge has already surpassed the point where its known that its impossible for quite some time after conception. I know theres regulars here on this site who know the medical details quite well. What I’ve never seen is what they base that assertion on. Even when they run back to the bible / quran / torah / flying sphaghetti monster manual there’s nothing they say that can stand up any more than a candle in a hurricane.

  • Dez

    That’s your opinion and you should keep it in your life only.

    • Mr. Conservative

      No, it’s an observable fact. A zygote grows. Therefore, it’s alive.

      • P. McCoy

        It grows because like a parasite it feeds off of its host body akin to.cancer. Nothing foreign in me gets to exist without my consent-now lets see you bray when you get forced to give up a kidney to keep someone else alive , you’ll be the first screaming for religious rights.

      • Ineedacoffee

        so does a tumor
        so does a virus

      • Dez

        Alive, but not life.

      • lady_black

        So what? It requires the use of a woman’s organs to remain alive. And she doesn’t have to fork them over.

      • CJ99

        a zygote is part of a woman. a genius however you clearly are not.

  • Ineedacoffee

    your belief has no right to infringe of the right a woman has to her own body or what she does with it

  • Ineedacoffee

    Foul, women are not incubators. The state has no right to tell them what they can do with their own body
    My heart goes out to all the women who will have their lives torn apart from these archaic laws

  • Anita Schreuder

    Great idea! Why don’t all the people who don’t have money to feed themselves all go get sterilized? Tax money well spent. And how about calling it PRO-ABORTION instead of ‘Pro-Choice’? ANTI-ABORTION is much more accurate because there are sooooooo many choices we Anti-Abortionists are lobbying for, where as you are lobbying for only ONE :)

    • kitler

      No, you lie.

      We support a woman’s right to give birth and we oppose those who would force abortion on her.

      And PP gives away free diapers and formula to new moms.

      You are an ignorant dishonest moron.
      .

      • Anita Schreuder

        So why oh why are you treating the symptoms of the problem when you can treat the problem directly? I would too call you an ignorant moron but because I don’t know you at all.. I won’t! People who cannot take care of themselves are getting pregnant and opt for abortions mostly after having a few kids already. Be logical.

        • Jennifer Starr

          I think the word moron describes you fairly accurately.

          • Anita Schreuder

            coming from someone who doesn’t know the difference between birth control and contraception

          • kitler

            Crack is whack

          • Jennifer Starr

            They’re the same thing, idiot, The ramblings about some of them being abortion pills is nothing but the product of your own demented ramblings. Sorry, but it’s true.

          • Anita Schreuder

            If you had any truth in your ramblings the court would have ruled quite differently huh?

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, the court did not rule they were abortion pills.

          • Anita Schreuder

            Because it’s not even in dispute! It’s already a clear fact.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Nope, it’s not a fact at all. Sorry.

          • Anita Schreuder
          • Jennifer Starr

            From the article you just linked to : the company’s owners believe that emergency contraception and IUDs are actually forms of abortion. Medical studies have debunked this claim.

            The abortion drugs referred to in the article are not Plan B or IUDs. It’s probably RU486, which is actually an abortion pill and not covered by the mandate. It’s not contraception or birth control But Hobby Lobby apparently invests in a company which makes this, which really makes them look like hypocrites.

          • kitler

            The idiot can’t even comprehend her own source

          • Jennifer Starr

            She can’t comprehend her way past a pair of shoelaces.

          • Anita Schreuder

            That’s the ‘slippery slope’ paying for the pills is wrong because it takes one new clause to introduce all those nice abortion pills. Remember that part about birth contoll and contraception in the same basket?

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you think Hobby Lobby wants to sell RU486? After all, they invest in the company–maybe they’re part of your ‘slippery slope’.

          • Anita Schreuder

            I don’t know what they want but I know that sex leads to babies and sex is for married couples and abortion is a preventable mistake and that the court ruled against forcing Christians to pay for the messes of careless people. Do you want to go have an abortion?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Thanks for the offer, but I think I have to be pregnant first.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And again : Plan B and IUDs don’t cause abortions. They prevent pregnancy. And didn’t the article you linked to pretty much prove that the ‘Christians’ in this case are hypocrites?

          • Anita Schreuder

            The IUD prevents both fertilization and implantation, but generally does
            not prevent ovulation. Most medical organizations define pregnancy as
            beginning with implantation. By this definition the IUD is still
            considered contraception. However, life begins when fertilization
            occurs, so many Christians would consider the IUD an unacceptable
            method of birth control as it poses a risk to pre-born life, i.e. the
            potential to cause a very early abortion.

          • Anita Schreuder

            Sure, they would be hypocrites if they were having sex without being married and having abortions or forcing other people to conform to their beliefs. There are better ways to prevent pregnancy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What about claiming to oppose something while investing your money in it like Hobby Lobby does? Is that hypocritical?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Once again what does marriage have to do with sex or being a fit parent?

          • Anita Schreuder

            Who are you going to trust- your own mind or that of God. Jesus and a few of the apostles raised the dead, healed the ‘unhealable’. I’ll take their word above any other.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Not to mention that there’s something serious wrong with the inability to trust your own mind,
            If you cannot trust your own mind how do you know your trust in god or Jesus is correct? Isn’t it your mind telling you to believe in them? How do you know your mind is not misleading you? You cannot trust your mind after all :)

          • lady_black

            LOL. Why I trust SCIENCE, silly rabbit. I don’t even acknowledge the existence of any gods, and I sure as hell do not trust in gods OR those who believe in them. Your Bible was written by MEN, sweetheart. Of course, you’re dumb enough to believe that men living 1600 or more years ago had the best interest of women at heart. And that Saul of Tarsus, who NEVER knew Jesus, and certainly never heard the man speak knows what was in the mind of Jesus.

          • lady_black

            The best ways to prevent pregnancy are 1) surgical sterilization 2) IUDs 3) hormonal implants. The reason why these particular methods are the best ways of preventing pregnancy is that they do not have a built in human error factor. It’s set and forget. ALL other methods are pretty darn effective with “perfect use” but are much less effective with “typical use.” Again, that built-in potential for human error. Forgetting to ingest pills at the same time every day, neglecting to change skin patches and vaginal rings on the proper day, faulty technique in placing a diaphragm, sloppy and improper use of condoms by men, and let’s not forget about the pitfalls of NFP, formerly known as the rhythm method, periodic abstinence, and Vatican Roulette. Too many opportunities for human failure to list individually here.

          • kitler

            Copper kills sperm

            That is how IUDs work

          • Unicorn Farm

            “risk to pre-born life”
            So does your precious rhythm method. Keep your bigoted beliefs out of my life.

          • lady_black

            NO. The normal function of the female body does the work of rejecting implantations, and in some cases, the normal results of fertilized eggs that are fatally flawed and cease proper development. An embryo that fails to implant is not an abortion. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A fertile ovum that fails to implant is a menstrual period, NOT an abortion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Taxpayers have been paying for people to BREED for many many years now, and that’s far more expensive than both birth control & abortion.

            And marriage does not magically make people fit parents. There are plenty of married deadbeats just like single deadbeats.

          • Ella Warnock

            I pay for the results of everyone else’s ‘responsible’ AND ‘irresponsible’ sex lives all the time. It’s called school taxes and earned income tax credits. I’m not complaining about sharing in the cost of these things, but let’s not be disingenuous about paying for ‘others’ messes.’

            The only way you’re going to get out of directly or indirectly participating in sharing of costs is to go completely off the grid. Don’t think I haven’t seriously considered it, especially in respect to the bullshit wars I’ve had to help finance.

          • lady_black

            Sex doesn’t lead to babies for me, and hasn’t since I was 26 years old. What leads to babies is only women having sex with MEN. Women who sleep with women, and men who sleep with men does NOT lead to babies Your opinion that sex is for married couples is just that… YOUR opinion, which you already know I am obliged to give absolutely no respect for. If Christians really want to reduce abortions (and who doesn’t, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.) Christians would be all for providing effective birth control for all women, without regard to cost. Here are the facts for the USA. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Of those unplanned pregnancies, 40% end in abortion. Now if you increase the numbers of unplanned pregnancies, you are by definition, increasing the numbers of abortions. The percentage of unplanned pregnancy that ends in abortion will probably remain at 40%, but the sheer numbers of both will increase. So in fact, there are “messes being made by careless people.” But those careless people making the messes are the anti-contraception “Christians.” This is entirely on your head. Much as you might *wish* that people will not have sex outside of marriage, that’s not going to happen. It’s never happened. The ONLY relevant question is what *realistic* options are in the best interest of society?

          • Anita Schreuder

            How about increasing the number of adoptions and sterilizations(for women who don’t want any more children) and decreasing reckless sex? If you want to choose to smoke crack it’s your choice whatever so why must it be legal if it is a terrible, unhealthy and traumatic thing to do?

          • Jennifer Starr

            How about letting the woman who’s pregnant make up her own mind about what to do?

          • lady_black

            You cannot “increase the number of adoptions.” The only thing you can increase is the number of children in the foster care system. You also cannot increase sterilizations, as that is a totally voluntary procedure. You CERTAINLY CANNOT criminalize private sexual behavior. Don’t even try it. The Supreme Court has smacked down every attempt. It’s not *all about you* Anita. In fact, other people’s sexual and health decisions are absolutely none of your business. BUTT OUT!

          • Anita Schreuder

            As long as stupid abortion is legally available, some people will think it’s OK to make the mistake of using the facility instead of all the other better options. Yeah, not my business but shouldn’t be legal and make up 50% of planned parenthood’s income.
            http://www.christianpost.com/news/planned-parenthood-employees-are-salesmen-for-abortion-says-former-clinic-director-122701/

          • Suba gunawardana

            -Abortion is for unwanted pregnancies. How are other options “better” when all those options involve CARRYING the pregnancy?

            -How is it a “better” option to force more unwanted children into the system, when the numbers of existing children in the system are FAR GREATER than the numbers of responsible caring adults willing to adopt them?

            -EVEN IF a few women might find the other options better and their unwanted children do end up in a good situation, what about the thousands for whom the “other” is not an option?

          • Ella Warnock

            Nope, doesn’t lead to babies in the presence of a tubal slash & burn plus vasectomy. I’ve been having baby-free sex for, oh, about 20 years now.

          • Anita Schreuder

            Yes, that’s great, I am all for sterilization. After the birth of our 2nd child, my husband went in for vasectomy. If more women would opt for tubal slash and burn they wouldn’t need to face the trauma of crisis pregnancy.

          • Jennifer Starr

            For someone who claims to be a teacher, your reading comprehension is very poor.

          • Anita Schreuder

            Scoping me out?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Clicked once on your name. Did you forget what you wrote in your profile?

          • fiona64

            Heh. I just did the same thing. She’s an Afrikaaner … I wonder how angry she is that apartheid ended? (My guess? Big-time.)

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, yeah, I bet she’s plenty angry–some of her posts have been more that a little racist.

          • lady_black

            Birth control and contraception are not only in the same basket. They are EXACTLY the same thing. What they AREN’T are abortifacient.

          • lady_black

            Yes, Hobby Lobby does invest in companies that manufacture abortion drugs. REAL abortion drugs that will terminate an existing pregnancy. No contraceptives will terminate any existing pregnancy, but they also invest in companies that make those, too. What a shame you did not read your link, or didn’t understand what you were reading.

          • lady_black

            No Anita. “Clear facts” must of necessity be scientifically and/or logically provable. Now medical science plainly says that abortion is not possible in the absence of pregnancy. Pregnancy begins when the embryo successfully implants, and (now pay attention here, because it’s the single most important factor) some of the cells in the blastocyst split off from the rest and form a placenta. This placenta will be the single most important organ the embryo/fetus has during gestation. If the placenta doesn’t form, or doesn’t form correctly, the blastocyst will be flushed away along with the mother’s menses. It is hormones produced by the normal fetal placenta that ceases the mother’s menstrual cycle. If these milestones are not achieved because it’s too late in the woman’s cycle, or the embryo is fatally flawed and ceases to function properly, pregnancy is not possible. None of the disputed drugs and devices cause abortion. They cause a pregnancy not to be able to happen in the first place. Rejection of the embryo is something the woman’s body does naturally, and often, and it’s totally normal. However, such an occurrence is not an abortion because she was never gestating to begin with.

          • Unicorn Farm

            You don’t understand anything about this ruling, huh? The Court did not make an inquiry into — much less a determination regarding–the function of the birth control devices at issue.
            The Court SHOULD have, but it did not.

          • Anita Schreuder

            If they should have done it- they would have.

          • Unicorn Farm

            How dumb are you? Do you really think the court is infallible? Do you really mean by this statement that you think the court always does what it should? I take it then that you think Roe v. wade and Dred Scott were correctly decided?

          • lady_black

            Yes, because SCOTUS has never made wrong decisions. Cough, cough, Dred Scott. Cough, cough, Plessy v. Ferguson. Cough, cough, Bowers v. Hardwick. That is ONLY a partial list of decisions that were later overturned. So please… Don’t insult the intelligence of those of us with at least some legal education by insisting the SCOTUS always does what they should do. They don’t.

          • lady_black

            Umm they ruled NO SUCH THING. Nice try, but we gotcha. In fact, what they said was that according to the FDA, the items are contraceptives, not abortifacient. The majority then goes on to state that the science being against them is NOT THE POINT. The only “point” that matters is what the plaintiffs believed about them, and that the fact that they are wrong is immaterial.

          • lady_black

            There is no difference. Contraception and birth control are synonymous. They describe any method, drug, or device designed to prevent pregnancy.

        • kitler

          Citations needed.

        • Anita Schreuder

          BTW, back in high school I had a 17 year old friend who got pregnant in a loving relationship with her longtime bf but her family forced abortion on her anyway to ‘save’ her future. 5 years on- SHE IS STILL SUICIDAL over that trauma.

          • Jennifer Starr

            We don’t support forced abortions, any more than we support forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

          • Anita Schreuder

            You support the facility my friend’s parents paid to terminate her child.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I do? Is it in Virginia?

          • Anita Schreuder

            No, sorry for misleading you, I was generalizing.

          • P. McCoy

            Your friend should have gone to a social worker, school counsellor or the police; the law is there to protect one from being forced to have an abortion. Pro choice is against forced abortion while you cretins would take the right away from every one- Forced Birth is SLAVERY!

          • Anita Schreuder

            No it’s not. Slavery is slavery. Getting pregnant is something else.

          • kitler

            Forced pregnancy is a form of slavery.

          • Anita Schreuder

            Go tell it to a slave.

          • kitler

            Forced pregnancy was part of slavery. An integral part. Female slaves were traded like cows.

          • fiona64

            Oh, I’m so glad you brought that up. Slaves were *bred like animals,* whether they wanted to be or not.

            You need to crack a frigging book before you come back here.

          • lady_black

            Yes, because a woman who actually was a slave would tell you that you are wrong. Read my other reply about how slave women were used as brood mares to line the master’s pocket. You want all women to be forced into that situation. Being forced to hand over, without compensation, the product of her hard work to be sold to the highest bidder by the criminal international organization of peddlers of human flesh, aka the adoption industry to line their pockets.

          • P. McCoy

            Neither people nor non entities have the right to exist at the expense of another’s personal goods. Read further about the illegality of forcing one person to donate their blood or other organs to keep someone else alive.

          • lady_black

            What do you think was done with the bodies of slave women… hmmm? You either aren’t very bright, or are very ignorant. Pregnancy was forced upon the bodies of female slaves (who had no rights to either their own bodies, nor the children that they bore) in order to line the master’s pockets. What you want to do to the bodies of ALL female U.S. citizens is no different from slavery. You want them to have no options for pregnancies they do not want, other than to pad the pockets of the modern day slaver, greedy, worldwide adoption criminal enterprise who engage in selling human flesh to the highest bidder. And they operate with your blessing. They care about neither “product”… not the woman or the child, who they expect to be handed over to them without compensation, to sell to the highest bidder for no reason other than their own profit. Shame on you. What on earth makes you any better, no, any DIFFERENT than a slaver? You say potato, I say po-tah-to. Calling slavery something different doesn’t change the definition, and if the shoe fits, you’ll WEAR IT, sweetie.

          • Anita Schreuder

            That entire rant is applicable on babies as slaves to evil mother-slave masters. You are a dog chasing your tail. Would you rather a baby be killed than a woman be fat for 9 months?

          • kitler

            Pregnancy is more than just being fat. Stop being so fucking dishonest. Pregnancy maims kills and injures. Abortion is self defense

          • lady_black

            No it is not. You didn’t even bother reading for comprehension. Slaves do not live within the bodies of slave masters. If they did, the master would be perfectly justified in defending his own body. Slavery was about controlling the body of another born human being. Fetuses didn’t count. Fetuses still don’t count. There is no “right” to demand that someone else breathe for you or provide you access to their bloodstream.

          • Suba gunawardana

            So what? It’s not the facility’s fault every time some parents (or any other individual) forces abortion on a woman.

            Just like it’s not the hospital’s fault when you force childbirth on any woman. They just do their job.

          • Anita Schreuder

            Like the SWAT team guy who tossed the light grenade in to the child’s cot- just doing their job. You support that bad choice too?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Accident and choice–these words mean two different things, Anita.

          • Anita Schreuder

            The bad choice to do that job, the bad decision of allowing those weapons to be used.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah you kind of suck at analogies too. Hope you’re not an English teacher.

          • lady_black

            I don’t think that was an accident.

          • kitler

            You must hate Nelson Mandela. He was pro choice as well.

          • kitler

            Women forced into pregnancy by shitheads like you suicide all the time.

          • Anita Schreuder

            applause, for your relevance!

          • Suba gunawardana

            Exactly why forced abortion is just as wrong as forced birth. It’s about CHOICE. Get it now?

          • prolifemama

            Elective abortion inflicts severe trauma on post-abortive women too. It’s not whether or not a woman chooses freely, it’s whether or not she receives every scrap of pertinent information before making this irreversible decision.
            Unfortunately, the prochoice crowd isn’t willing for young mama to have all the info she needs to make a truly informed choice.

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

            Liar.

          • Ella Warnock

            Let’s say she gets all the information possible and chooses abortion. Would you think that to choose abortion, she must not really be knowledgeable and perhaps needs even more information? At what point in her decision – that you don’t agree with – do you concede that she’s truly making an informed choice?

          • prolifemama

            It’s not just cold facts I would want to impart, but to try to find out what her doubts and fears are about giving birth and parenting, making an adoption plan, and whatever else is of concern to her.

            I would want to thoroughly share with her all plausible options, all help available for her specific needs, such as completing her education, continuing her career, exploring open or closed adoption, and anything else that would make her choice of life for her baby, more accommodating of her needs and desires.

            Finally, I would give her my promise to be there for her should she choose to parent, in any and every way I could.

            Once all this was discussed and explored, she would be better equipped to make the decision that is, after all, hers and hers alone. I just don’t want any woman to FEEL that she is all alone in seeking assistance and exploring all avenues, all possibilities.

            I have known dear friends who before we became friends, decided in panic, and in desperation, to abort their babies. They never go through a day without thinking about it, without searing regret, even those who have had healing counseling, other children, and successful marriages and careers. I sincerely want to spare anyone that pain and remorse, if I possibly can.

            Knowing one friend in particular, who torments herself with the knowledge that if just one person had asked what she could do for her, how she could help, she would have chosen life for her baby, I want more than anything to be that person for someone in crisis pregnancy, or to steer her towards the help they’re seeking.

          • P. McCoy

            How many non Aryan mothers to be have YOU made these promises to ? Money talks, bs walks the boulevard!

          • Unicorn Farm

            “the decision that is, after all, hers and hers alone”
            There you go. Stop right there. Everything else you’ve written is irrelevant.

          • Ella Warnock

            “decision that is, after all, hers and hers alone”

            Quite.

          • lady_black

            You DO realize that none of that is any of your damn business, right? And she can tell you so, and tell you where to get off at. Women actually CAN make decisions without discussing it with you first.

          • fiona64

            She “works” at a CPC. She isn’t about cold facts; she’s about big fat lies. She’s not about making informed decisions at all.

          • lady_black

            The information she wants them to have is her opinion, of course. I mean how can a woman possibly make a rational decision about a pregnancy without prolifemama’s input? The horror!

          • fiona64

            Elective abortion inflicts severe trauma on post-abortive women too.

            Liar.

            90 percent of post-abortive women felt nothing but relief. The remaining cohort included women whose wanted pregnancies had gone horribly wrong. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/06/2418181/study-abortion-emotions/

          • prolifemama

            Yes, a great article on Guttmacher checked post-abortive women at one week – one week!!! – and found that most felt only relief.
            If this is true though, of most women after their abortions, then there’s no need for the post-abortion counseling services that help women through their guilt, suicidal ideations, and post-abortion stress disorder symptoms.
            Yes, I know what you’re going to say, that prolifers cause women to feel these things by heaping guilt trips on them. Then you must think we’re extremely powerful, to be able to affect women we don’t even know, have never seen, and don’t talk to, by just being prolife.
            If you would read other things besides left-wing lies, you would learn that even the most prepared women regret their abortions, and live with that regret every day.
            What would YOU do for these women? Tell them to just get over it, and to stop being big whiny crybabies? In fact, when they come to us, this is exactly what they tell us they’ve been told by folks who supposedly “support” them in whatever decision they would make.

          • Suba gunawardana

            From all evidence available, genuine “abortion regret” is a huge lie.

            There are no independent studies demonstrating it exists, and in real life I have met no one who regrets abortion, as opposed to many who are happy & relieved about their abortion (even many years later.)

            The only “abortion-regretters” are to be found on forced-birth functions and websites, and I am not sure if they ever had an abortion. They are either lying for the cause, or have been brainwashed to feel what they are TOLD to feel.

          • prolifemama

            Suba, provide links to this so-called “evidence” ….. I strongly doubt the existence of any proper or verifiable research findings that back up your statement, “genuine abortion regret is a huge lie.”

            I likewise find it appalling that you would accuse a woman of lying about having an abortion, or claim that her regret results from being “brainwashed” – what incredible arrogance and insensitivity! How dare you call yourself pro-woman!

            You display unbelievable condescension towards post-abortive women by invalidating their abortion experiences with your callous, unsympathetic attitude.

          • fiona64

            Your constant demands that others provide evidence when YOU NEVER DO SO are ironic in the extreme.

            But that’s okay, because I just gave you a whole slew of links that prove that your so-called PAS is a lie. I’ll even repeat one of them here: http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/GeneralOBGYN/12043

            Quote: But on the basis of their current findings, the researchers said that the weight of the highest-quality evidence refutes the notion that abortion is causally linked to mental health problems for most women.

            They concluded that “making policy recommendations such as the enforcement of so-called “informed consent” laws (which often provide misinformation regarding mental health risks of abortion) is unwarranted based on the current state of the evidence.”

            You’re welcome.

          • prolifemama

            Yes. And I responded to that post.
            The problem with your sources, and your pro-abort mindset, is that it doesn’t have any room at all for grieving women, because that reality blows the “positive image” of abortion and its aftermath completely out of the water.
            A woman, unhappy years after we got rid of her little problem for her? How ungrateful of her! Abortion not the key to freedom for women enslaved to the normal functioning of their reproductive systems? How dare even one of them claim such a thing!

          • Suba gunawardana

            As usual you IGNORE the sources that contradict your opinion, while failing to provide any sources to back up your opinion.
            Isn’t that alone enough to seriously doubt your credibility?

            Anyway, here’s yet another independent study showing that abortion regret is very rare, and when it occurs it’s usually due to parallel causes unrelated to the abortion.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24364878

            Now EVEN IF a few women end up genuinely regretting abortion, how does that ever justify forcing birth on ALL pregnant women who want abortion? Can you answer that instead of hiding your head in the sand as usual? What about the majority who DON’T regret abortion? What are they, chopped liver?

            Who are you to make their decisions? Regret or not, it’s their OWN decision, not yours. Funny you are sooo concerned about the few who MIGHT regret abortion, yet don’t give a rats behind about the millions who regret childbirth, and the CHILDREN who suffer as a consequence.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I don’t deny that some women feel pain and regret. I’m sorry that they feel that way and I’m sure their pain is real. What I do deny, however, is that every woman is going to feel that way (most do not), or that laws have to change because some women regret that decision.

          • prolifemama

            Abortion has to be outlawed, primarily because it is the taking of an innocent, defenseless, voiceless human being’s life.

          • kitler

            Abortion is self defense

            And unborn humans are guilty of assaulting and torturing their hosts. None of which would be tolerable if done by one person to another. So why the special rules for unborn humans?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Once again: When any individual invades your body, you have a right to kill them to protect your body.

            Your right to protect your body is NOT negated or diminished by however innocent, defenseless or voiceless the invader may be. (That matters ONLY if you wish to prosecute them. Do you?)

          • fiona64

            Abortion has to be outlawed

            Even in the highly unlikely event that this were to happen, abortions will still occur.

            Your fantasy of forcing women to have unwanted children is sick and disgusting.

          • kitler

            The problem with your mindset is that you have ZERO sympathy for a woman who just might not want to be forcibly mutilated and have her fertility negatively impacted by a forced fallopian tube removal.

            Just who the fuck do you think you are?

          • prolifemama

            You draw the most amazing conclusions based on stale negative stereotypes of prolifers. Do you actually have any friends who are prolife?
            Do you actually have any friends, period?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Excuse me, but I’m one of those women who wouldn’t want to be subjected to an invasive and unnecessary surgery just because of someone else’s ‘conscience’. After all, I would be the patient–surely my conscience should come first.

          • kitler

            Well…seeing as how you keep saying that forced fallopian tube removal is the most moral choice as treatment for an ectopic pregnancy I would have to say that I am spot on.

            For example, it would be beyond cruel to subject Jennifer Starr to fallopian tube mutilation for a doomed embryo. I can see that. I have empathy for her, and thus, would let her make her own decisions regarding treatment. You would deny her choice.

          • lady_black

            Mutilating women to punish them for a pregnancy complication. That’s even creepier. I just threw up in my mouth a little. Screw these people. Who cares what they want?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I wonder if I would have grounds for a lawsuit in a case like that. Either way, I would sure as hell try, and make a lot of noise doing so.

          • kitler

            Notice how she never denied the accusation that she would *force* women to undergo this mutilation….yeah.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You have yet to explain why you think it’s better to let the embryo die instead of intentionally kill it, when the final outcome for the embryo is the same while the negative effects on the woman are far worse with the former.

            And that’s just one of the MAY points you failed to address .

          • lady_black

            I could never have any so-called “pro-life” people as friends, because they skeeve me. Too many of them are nosy little toads like yourself who attempt to shame women for being responsible and having their tubes tied when they are done having children, instead choosing to be creepy about “consequence free sex.” They oppose contraception that doesn’t involve not having sex. That’s just terribly creepy, sorry. I am pro-life, so naturally I am PRO-CHOICE.

          • Rainbow Walker

            As a psychologist I can tell you the so called post abortion syndrome doesn’t exist. Here are some studies.

            Research studies indicate that emotional responses to legally induced abortion are largely positive. They also indicate that emotional problems resulting from abortion are rare and less frequent than those following childbirth (Adler, 1989; Kero et al., 2004).

            Anti-family planning activists, however, circulate unfounded claims that a majority of the 29 percent of pregnant American women who choose to terminate their pregnancies (Henshaw & Van Vort, 1990) suffer severe and long-lasting emotional trauma as a result. They call this nonexistent phenomenon “post-abortion trauma” or “post-abortion syndrome.” They hope that terms like these will gain wide currency and credibility despite the fact that neither the American
            Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recognizes the existence of these phenomena.

            The truth is that most studies in the last 25 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect — except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated, such as after diagnostic genetic testing (Adler, 1989; Adler et al., 1990; Russo & Denious, 2001).

            For most women who have had abortions, the procedure represents a maturing experience, a successful coping with a personal crisis situation (DeVeber et al., 1991; Kero et al., 2004;
            Lazarus, 1985; Russo & Zierk, 1992; Zabin et al., 1989). In fact, the most prominent emotional response of most women to first-trimester abortions is relief (Adler et al., 1990; Armsworth, 1991; Kero et al., 2004; Lazarus, 1985; Miller, 1996).

            Up to 98 percent of the women who have abortions have no regrets and would make the same choice again in similar circumstances (Dagg, 1991).

            More than 70 percent of women who have abortions express a desire for children in the future (Torres & Forrest, 1988). There is no evidence that women who have had abortions make less loving or suitable parents (Bradley, 1984).

            Women who have had one abortion do not suffer adverse psychological effects. In fact, as a group, they have higher self-esteem, greater feelings of worth and capableness, and fewer feelings of failure than do women who have had no abortions or who have had repeat abortions (Russo & Zierk, 1992; Zabin et al., 1989). A recent two-year study of the psychological effects of abortion confirmed that most women do not experience psychological problems or regrets two years after their abortion. (Major et al., 2000).

            The positive relationship of abortion to well-being may be due in part to abortion’s role in controlling fertility and its relationship to coping resources (Russo & Dabul, 1997; Russo & Zierk, 1992).

            Mild, transient, immediately postabortion depressive symptoms that quickly pass occur in less than 20 percent of all women who have had abortions (Adler et al., 1990; Zabin et al., 1989). Similar symptoms occur in up to 70 percent of women immediately following childbirth (Ziporyn, 1984). This is due to the same hormonal response during gestation.

            Up to 10 percent of women who have abortions experience depressive symptoms of a lingering nature (Adler, 1989). Similar symptoms occur in up to 10 percent of women after childbirth (Sachdev, 1993; Ziporyn, 1984; Zolese & Blacker, 1992).

            The experience of an unwanted pregnancy, rather than the abortion itself, may be the cause of any guilt or depression that exists (Adler et al., 1990; Zolese & Blacker, 1992).

            Also one must understand about 10% of the general population suffers from depression and anxiety so these are most likely preexisting conditions. Pre-existing psychiatric illnesses — depression and psychosis — often predict post-pregnancy mental health difficulties regardless of pregnancy outcome (Gilchrist et al., 1995; Schmiege & Russo, 2005; Zabin et al., 1989; Zolese & Blacker, 1992). The research showed that among women without pre-existing psychiatric conditions, those that gave birth were significantly more likely to have a psychotic episode than women who had an abortion (Gilchrist et al., 1995).

            While not generalizable, a Japanese study found that a negative personal and cultural opinion of abortion was the most significant predictor of postabortion anxiety (Kishida, 2001).

            Studies that have concluded that terminating a pregnancy leads to an increased risk of anxiety or depression are often methodologically flawed. Their study populations are often at an
            increased risk for anxiety or depression before the abortion procedure — due to either individual or cultural risk factors (Broen et al., 2005; Fergusson et al., 2006; Gissler et al., 1996; Gissler et al., 2005; Reardon et al., 2004).

            Serious psychological disturbances after abortion are less frequent than after childbirth (Brewer, 1977; Gilchrist et al., 1995). For example, rates of “postpartum psychosis” are reported as high as 40 per 10,000 and as low as 11 per 10,000 — 0.4-0.11
            percent. Reports of the rates of severe psychological disturbance after abortion range from 18 per 10,000 to as low as two per 10,000 — 0.18-0.02 percent (David et al., 1985; Gaynes et al., 2005; Robinson & Stewart, 1993).

            The psychological responses to abortion are far less serious than those experienced by women bringing their unwanted pregnancy to term and relinquishing the child for adoption (Sachdev, 1993).

            While first-trimester abortion does not affect most women adversely, and nearly all women assimilate the abortion experience by six months to one year after the procedure (Sachdev,
            1993), one study indicates that 95 percent of birth mothers report grief and loss after they have signed their consent to adoption, and two-thirds continued to experience these feelings five to 15 years after relinquishment (Sachdev, 1989).

            Of pregnant women who considered other options before choosing abortion, none considered having a baby and giving it up for adoption. Nearly all of the women believed that relinquishing
            a baby would cause even greater emotional trauma than abortion. They believed they would develop a deep emotional attachment to the baby that would be extremely painful to sever (Sachdev, 1993).

            Believed to be a direct result of hormonal withdrawal at birth, postpartum depression is defined by the APA as a diagnosis of either major depression, manic or mixed episode of major bipolar
            disorder, or a brief psychotic disorder that occurs within four weeks of birth (APA, 1994; Munk-Olsen et al., 2006; Wisner et al., 2006). Postpartum depression can lead to adverse effects on the mother-child relationship and can have numerous negative effects on the development of the child — including impaired mental or motor development, low self-esteem, and behavioral difficulties (Wisner et al., 2006).

            Mothers with unwanted or unintended pregnancies and births are substantially more depressed and less happy than mothers without unwanted or unintended pregnancies and births (Hardee et al., 2003). Possible mental health consequences of unwanted childbearing also include less shared leisure time with children and more physical punishment, such as spanking (Barber et al., 1999).

            The negative effects of unwanted childbearing persist across the life course — mothers with unwanted births have lower quality relationships with their children from late adolescence
            throughout early adulthood (Barber et al., 1999).

            The mental health of women faced with unwanted pregnancy is at greater risk when they are compelled to deliver than when they are allowed to choose abortion. According to one study, 34 percent of women who were denied abortions reported one to three years later that the child was a burden that they frequently resented (Dagg, 1991).

            Children of women denied abortion have more genetic malformations than average; have insecure, divorce-fraught
            childhoods; perform worse at school; have more psychosomatic symptoms; are often registered with welfare officials; and often need psychiatric treatment (Dagg, 1991; David, 1986).

            Abortion is not seen by women who elect it as a preferred, or desired, form of contraception (Henshaw & Silverman, 1988).

            In 1989, a panel of experts assembled by the American Psychological Association concluded unanimously that legal abortion “does not create psychological hazards for most women
            undergoing the procedure.” The panel noted that, since approximately 21 percent of all U.S. women have had an abortion, if severe emotional reactions were common there would be an epidemic of women seeking psychological treatment. There is no evidence of such an epidemic (Adler, 1989). Since 1989, there has been no significant change in this point of view.

            Fact is childbirth and giving up a child to adoption is very traumatic, abortion is not. Furthermore it is far more traumatic DENYING a woman an abortion. They often take their frustration
            out on that child and abuse or neglect them.

          • Jennifer Starr

            And incidentally, who is denying anyone the right to mourn? Someone who wants to mourn doesn’t require anyone’s permission, at least last time I checked.

          • kitler
          • fiona64

            You are a liar. You have yet to provide any sources for your assertions, just a bunch of emotion-laden (I’m going to say it) BULLSHIT that flies in the faces of reality.

            I have every confidence that you are absolutely invested in getting the right* kind of woman to believe this bullshit at your CPC, because then you can get her to sell an infant to the right** kind of family. We know what kind of crap CPCs pull. They tell lies like this all day long to women whom they have pulled a bait-and-switch on by pretending to offer actual services. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caitlin-bancroft/crisis-pregnancy-center_b_3763196.html

            * White
            ** Evangelical Christian

          • lady_black

            Someone like that had issues that pre-dated the abortion. I never claimed it wasn’t “real.” Certainly post-partum depression and psychosis are real enough, and much more common than your so-called “post-abortion syndrome.” Anyone who experiences a severe emotional disturbance after a pregnancy (regardless of outcome) should probably avoid future pregnancies, as they tend to get worse, not better, with each pregnancy. Then before you know it, you have an Andrea Yates problem.

          • prolifemama

            And you studied psychology and received your degree from…??

          • lady_black

            A degree in psychology is not needed to know that post-partum depression and psychosis is real, and gets worse with repeated pregnancies. Only the ability to read and understand. It also doesn’t take a psychology degree to know that women with emotional problems seek abortions. Or that abortion has no association with increased risk of mental health issues. Again, studies are done and published in various journals, including nursing journals. Don’t you dare condescend to me again. You aren’t a health professional of any kind.

          • prolifemama

            That’s rather arrogant of you, don’t you think, to claim “someone like that had issues that pre-dated the abortion” about someone – many someones, in fact, whom you have never met?

            As for “severe emotional disturbances” getting worse with each pregnancy, what are your sources for that little nugget?

            Again, I ask you – how many psychology degrees have you earned, and from where?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Except that studies done on the subject show exactly that, i.e. the small percentage of women who do express regret have issues pre-dating the abortion.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Looks like Fiona beat me to it with the sources, Thanks Fiona!

            As I already mentioned, the LACK of independent studies demonstrating the concept of abortion regret is just as telling.

            A bunch of forced-birthers claiming abortion-regret exists is absolutely not good enough, why? Because as you know, they are KNOWN to lie & sink to any low in their quest to punish women. You have to do better than just saying “it exists”.

            BTW you have yet to address several rebuttals I posted to you on other threads, more than once.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I did actually encounter a poster on another board who claimed to be a post-abortive woman. Turned out that he was a male anti-choice activist who liked to play at being female–and was not at all happy about being exposed as such.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I also recall someone who claimed to be a woman with abortion regret, either on Mother Jones or Rolling stone. At first we were quite sympathetic, but some things she said didn’t add up & started sounding increasingly fake (too scripted). I’m wondering if it’s the same person. It’s been a while & I can’t remember her name or the thread…

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, I’ve been down this road before. If you simply say that you’re sorry that they’re feeling pain and that maybe they should talk to someone you’re accused of being unsympathetic. Apparently in their world sympathetic=agreeing with their views about abortion, which I do not. And it’s at that point that it starts to feel like emotional blackmail.

          • fiona64

            If this is true though, of most women after their abortions, then
            there’s no need for the post-abortion counseling services that help
            women through their guilt, suicidal ideations, and post-abortion stress
            disorder symptoms.

            What a funny old thing you are. I’m sure you remember the notoriously anti-choice former surgeon-general C. Everett Koop, right? Well, he was tasked by the notoriously anti-choice former president Ronald Reagan to find evidence for your so-called post-abortion stress disorder. And do you know what he discovered? IT DOESN’T EXIST.

            Just a few sources:
            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/c
            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html

            http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-mythical-post-abortion-syndrome.pdf

            http://books.google.com/books?id=pul5SmZjmIsC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=c.+everett+koop+post-abortion+syndrome&source=bl&ots=okBp8vdcro&sig=jrm2Foe5M0H9AfdSKxSS_zBWUQM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Dwi4U6fKOIO9oQTPoICQDw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=c.%20everett%20koop%20post-abortion%20syndrome&f=false

            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/02/28/c-everett-koop-the-surgeon-general-who-put-science-before-personal-ideology/

            http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/GeneralOBGYN/12043

            STOP TELLING DANGEROUS LIES, YOU MISERABLE CREATURE.

            Oh, one more source: http//www.imnotsorry.net

          • prolifemama

            Just reading down the list of “sources” you so kindly provided, I can see at a glance none that would be sympathetic toward a post-abortive grieving woman. In fact, Guttmacher and RHRC and MSNBC would all be prejudiced against her due to their liberal social agenda.
            Have you yourself, dear fiona, ever spoken one-on-one with a post-abortive woman who is grieving the loss of her child years after her abortion?

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I stated in detail below: EVEN IF a few women may end up regretting abortion, how does that ever justify forcing birth on the majority of women who want abortion and would never regret it? The choice is HERS, not yours.

          • prolifemama

            Suba, not one of the sources fiona gave – and I have read each of them, not just the list, the actual books/articles – even remotely cares about women who regret their abortions. That’s because abortion is the Left’s sacred cow. No words can be spoken against it, even by a deeply hurting post-abortive woman – that would be heresy. When women by the thousands express regret, they are ignored, or told that someone guilted them into feeling regret.

            You aren’t pro-woman, only pro-some-women, the right women – you know, the ones who support abortion for any reason/for no reason, who ridicule their hurting sisters who dare to say abortion was the worst mistake they ever made.

            That’s all right. Fortunately, there is the prolife movement, whose adherents truly care about women who have aborted, and men
            who have lost children through abortion. Unfortunately, many of these hurting parents of aborted children have to put up with pro-abort ridicule before they end up on our pregnancy center doorsteps.
            But once they find us, we’ll listen to them, care for them, help them find comfort and healing.

          • Suba gunawardana

            -That’s your subjective OPINION.

            -Did you read the pubmed article I linked? What about the 50 or so studies Rainbow W. referenced? Are you now trying to claim that not a single independent researcher who is not rabidly forced-birth “even remotely cares about women who regret their abortions”.

            -Remember, studies are NOT about emotional drivel but about gathering actual data, and the results contradict your opinion. So far you have failed to provide ANY independent studies corroborating your opinion.

            -And please answer my question from above: EVEN IF a few women may end up regretting abortion, how does that ever justify forcing birth on the majority of women who want abortion and would never regret it? The choice is HERS, not yours.
            Many many people regret marriage, as is obvious by the numbers of divorce. Does that mean marriage should be banned?

          • Unicorn Farm

            Good god, just shut up.

            “No words can be spoken against it, even by a deeply hurting post-abortive woman – that would be heresy. When women by the thousands express regret, they are ignored, or told that someone guilted them into feeling regret.”

            If a woman is depressed after having an abortion, she needs psychological help. She should seek therapy. I hope that helps her feel better. She’s more than welcome to speak against abortion on her own time, to her own therapist, and to her own willing audience of friends or whomever will listen to her. What she, and the pro-life movement, should NOT do is use her poor experience with abortion to take away that right from OTHER women.

            The reason these women are not being welcomed with open arms by the pro-choice movement is because they are using their personal regret to infringe on MY rights. Not acceptable.

          • fiona64

            and I have read each of them

            Liar.

            there is the prolife movement, whose adherents truly care about women who have aborted

            Liar.

          • kitler

            Well thank god lifesitenews and the RCC are never ever biased
            *rolleyes*

          • lady_black

            If I REALLY didn’t want to be pregnant, and I was suddenly NOT pregnant, the last thing I would feel is grief. In fact, I’d be doing the happy dance. Now let’s talk about regrets. Life is full of them. It’s the normal reaction to a situation where a tough choice needs to be made. EVEN when you know it’s the correct decision, and having the opportunity to do it again, you would do no different. Someone who is grieving and needs help working through the stages of grief to acceptance, needs a qualified therapist. NOT YOU! Someone who can help them accept that they did what they thought was best, and move on to acceptance, and get on with their lives. You people are NOT HELPING. You are pimping misery.

          • fiona64

            Shorter AntiChoiceMama: I couldn’t be bothered to read your sources … because they prove me wrong, and I can’t handle it.

          • prolifemama

            fiona – I did read them, every one. It’s as if you folks get together in the middle of the night (or the middle of Manhattan) and all agree on what you believe, and what you deny.

          • kitler

            No. Its just that we all see through your bullshit.

            You think we are idiots or something? We’ve spent months, even years, debating the subject of abortion with people who are far far more intellectually sophisticated than you could ever hope to be.

            All of your arguments are either outright easily disprovable lies or mawkish sentimentality.

            You are milquetoast, and frankly, I am embarrassed for you.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Manhattan? Why Manhattan?

          • prolifemama

            Seriously?

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, really. Why do you think we get together in the middle of Manhattan?

          • fiona64

            Apparently, AntiChoiceMama thinks that Manhattan is where all the sinners go. ;-)

          • Jennifer Starr

            Apparently. The last time I was in Manhattan was in 1990 when I was 17–I’ve been to other cities since then, but not NYC. One of these days I’ll make it back there.

          • fiona64

            I haven’t been to NYC since I was an infant, myself, so it’s just another piece of proof that AntiChoiceMama is a nutter.

          • fiona64

            You’re funny. If you’d read the sources, you wouldn’t have made such an idiotic response.

          • lady_black

            The only thing you have “proved” to me is that unstable women sometimes have abortions. I am shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you! What I would do for such a person is listen to them. And I would advise them to seek therapy. They may need help dealing with their emotional issues which were NOT caused by the abortion. And I would advise them that if they ever did decide to have a baby, they are at high risk of post partum depression or psychosis and should be monitored closely.

          • prolifemama

            Does abortion itself ever cause psychological problems?

          • lady_black

            No.

          • fiona64

            Nope. But post-partum depression and post-partum psychosis are real things caused by pregnancy.

          • Suba gunawardana

            And what about the severe trauma faced by those who chose BIRTH, not to mention those on whom birth was forced?
            While forced-birthers are very careful to avoid that subject, I am sure that number is far higher considering all the problems that occur within families (ranging from just not getting along, through child abuse/neglect, all the way to suicide & murder).

          • kitler
          • lady_black

            What exactly do you think women who have abortions should know, that they aren’t being told? Your opinions?? No thanks. They don’t need to know that.

          • Ella Warnock

            A woman who in the face of all the info decides to abort does not, apparently, really have all the info. The only proof that she has ‘enough’ information is if she chooses to carry to term. And does *she* get to decide what constitutes enough information? I don’t know; doesn’t really sound like it, though, does it?

        • lady_black

          Logically, I do not want people who can’t take care of themselves giving birth. That makes zero sense to me.

      • Xadian

        What about all the abortion clinics that got shut down because they were giving abortions to girls that weren’t pregnant to collect the money.
        An easy fix would be to show the girls that come in their ultrasound, and have them listen to the heartbeat of their baby. Why not do that?
        Oh, right; because they are 80% less likely to kill their baby if you do that. Gotta get that money! Who cares about a few dead babies?
        $$$

        • kitler

          All medical procedures cost money.

          Idiot

        • Jennifer Starr

          What about all the abortion clinics that got shut down because they were giving abortions to girls that weren’t pregnant to collect the money.

          Didn’t happen.

        • fiona64

          What about all the abortion clinics that got shut down because they were
          giving abortions to girls that weren’t pregnant to collect the money.

          One of two things is needed here: either a citation, or an admission that you’re a goddamned liar. Either one will work.

          • Xadian

            Actually I was incorrect, none of the baby murder factories were shut down.

            Source: numerous friends that have worked in the abortion field. Some of whom actually helped get some abortion clinics shut down for other reasons. (Yay!)

          • fiona64

            So, in other words, you’re admitting that you’re a goddamned liar. That’s pretty much what I thought.

        • lady_black

          OK, I’m calling bullshit. One cannot have an abortion unless one is actually pregnant.

        • lady_black

          What if they don’t WANT to see the ultrasound or listen to the heartbeat of their “baby?”

          • Xadian

            What if I don’t WANT to wait in line at the dmv, or drive the speed limit, or anything else minorly inconvenient? How does showing the woman her child and having her listen to it’s heartbeat before she kills it infringe on her right to control her body?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think if the woman wants to listen and see the ultrasound, there is no reason why she can’t. If she wants to.

          • lady_black

            Women are not facing the denial of being able to see their ultrasounds or hear the fetal heart tones. He wants them forced to do so.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I know–and it’s completely wrong to try and force anyone to do that.

          • lady_black

            Because if I don’t want to pay any attention to you, I will squeeze my eyes shut, and put earplugs in my ears. Just because YOU want to say something, or show me something, doesn’t entitle you to a millisecond of my time. And if you dare to put your hands on me, I’ll put you in the hospital. And that’s MY right.

          • fiona64

            So easy to be an anti-choice male, arguing about what or is not “inconvenient” when it comes to things that will never affect you …

    • Jennifer Starr

      Why don’t you go away and come back when you’ve actually know something about what we support? Then you won’t sound like a complete idiot.

    • Ella Warnock

      No one just skips off to the gyno to get sterilized. It’s often difficult to obtain even for women with kids, much less those without who are sure they don’t want them. No one questioned my husband’s desire for a vasectomy. I had to fight for nine years for my tubal slash & burn.

      So you see, anti-choice attitudes toward women extend even into allowing them to decide what birth control methods are best for them. If you’re against abortion, fine. Pro-lifers should be very much FOR those of us who take that level of responsibility. Many of them aren’t though, especially within the ob/gyn field. It’s weird.

      • Anita Schreuder

        Is sterilization more drastic than abortion? Is adoption more drastic than abortion? As far as I’m concerned- everything is less drastic than abortion. I do have a ‘personal chip on my shoulder’ about this. So as long as people keep supporting abortion I will keep opposing abortion and promoting all the other choices.

        • Ella Warnock

          The point I’m trying to make is that many in the gyno field categorically do not respect responsible choices in birth control. If you do, great. Now why don’t you try to get those fellow travelers of yours on board? Because the ones who think biology is destiny aren’t helping your cause at all.

          • Xadian

            So you would rather force them to act against their moral conscience? Who’s tolerant now?

          • Ella Warnock
          • Ella Warnock

            Why should I be “tolerant” of doctors who don’t even pretend to consider what’s in my, the patient’s, best interest? Time has borne out that I was correct, after all, which wouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who was halfway paying attention. Why should anyone tolerate doctors who refuse to consider that respecting responsible contraceptive choices now might just prevent an abortion later?

            I’d think anyone with that squeamish of a ‘moral conscience’ would realize the pragmatism in securing the lesser of two “evils.” Anti-abortion AND anti-sterilization is part of the larger anti-choice problem. Their arguments relied heavily on emotional manipulation; if moral conscience is going to be their hill to die on, they’d better have some kind of reasoning other than, “Well, I just don’t like it.” For those of us who have given the matter much more thought than that, it’s simply insulting.

          • Xadian

            Sterilization is counter to the diginity of a human person. Likewise there are those that believe that rampant and indiscriminate sex in a population is counter to the greater good. Finally if a young person gets sterilized in order to have as much indiscriminate sex as they want then that individual will have a greater than average chance of spreading disease.

            Boy, that’s a whole bunch of reasons other than “It’s icky I don’t like it.” Maybe you should come down from your high horse and realize that doctors are allowed to deny non-curative treatments that they know would be detrimental to their patients and society as a whole.

          • fiona64

            Wow. So much complete and utter bullshit in so little space.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Looks like it’s all about you being jealous of other people having sex :)

          • Ella Warnock

            Well allrighty then.

            Nah, I think I’ll stay up here on my high horse. The view is fabulous!

          • kitler

            You belong in the 14th century.

          • Ella Warnock

            Ze rather missed the whole point that none of the gynos actually articulated or proposed ANY of the reasons listed in zis first paragraph. The reasons they did give were nothing but mawkish sentimentality and hysterical fear-mongering.

          • lady_black

            I don’t care what their reasons are. It’s not their decision to make. The competent patient decides what’s best for the patient. So long as there is no medical contraindication (and there is none for tubal ligation) it’s not the doctor’s place to decide what’s best. Only SHE knows that.

          • prolifemama

            Truth is timeless.

          • kitler

            Iron age fantasies are just that…fantasies

          • Jennifer Starr

            And nothing you’ve said is truth. Just opinion.

          • lady_black

            No sterilization is NOT counter to the dignity of a human person. Walking around with diapers on and/or your uterus falling out is undignified. So is dying in agony. If you don’t agree with sterilization, by all means don’t have it done! But you keep your grubby paws off my body and your nose out of my bedroom, you nosy little toad. Your opinion means less than NOTHING to me. And stay away from my daughter and granddaughters!

          • prolifemama

            The need for disposable undergarments does not negate the dignity of the human wearer, nor does dying in agony, as our dignity is innate to us as human beings.

            But sterilization and contraceptives do undermine our human dignity as, unlike cats or dogs, we have the ability to say no to our physical drives when it is prudent to do so.

            We are capable, as animals are not, both of understanding the need to wait – a spouse’s illness, perhaps, precludes sexual intimacy – and of choosing to wait.

            This choosing to wait will not work any great hardship upon us; it will strengthen our relationship as exercising compassion for another always does; and it is in itself, an act of love – selfless love.

          • kitler

            Casual sex is healthy.

            If people want to get sterilized and fuck like rabbits more power to them I say.

          • prolifemama

            Casual sex is counter to the dignity of human beings, for the reasons I listed regarding our ability to say no to our passions, and understanding why we should.

            Casual sex also causes the spread of disease, and results in people using others for personal gratification.

            We can’t emulate rabbits, because we have human hearts, and consciences. We can so easily, be so deeply hurt, and so easily, deeply hurt others.

          • kitler

            Humans evolved to be promiscuous as well as monogomous.

            There is more dignity in having a healthy sex life than being uptight and ashamed of human sexuality as you are.

          • prolifemama

            This must be some new definition of the word “dignity” of which I have heretofore been unaware…

          • kitler

            Sex is a positive thing. And without the threat of unwanted pregnancy – thanks to birth control and abortion – there are no real downsides.

          • prolifemama

            It can be. Abortion and contraceptives bring their own downsides.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What’s wrong with contraceptives? Not that there’s anything wrong with abortion, but you keep refusing to address my points

          • prolifemama

            If a couple are striving for a truly loving, lasting, transparent, trusting relationship, contraceptives undermine this goal. They say to the couple “It’s all right to love your partner only partially – go ahead and reject his/her fertility if you don’t want to welcome a child right now. Don’t cherish his/her ability to create new life with you. Just go for the pleasure. Plenty of time to go for the kid thing.”
            Contraceptives help destroy the image of the man or woman as being completely lovable – his or her fertility is looked upon as a negative.

          • kitler

            A couple can deeply love one another without having to produce a child.

          • prolifemama

            Of course they can.
            But if they deliberately sterilize their union time after time for no other reason than “we don’t want kids,” how deep can their love be?
            This will take a toll on their relationship.

          • kitler

            Unwanted children can destroy a relationship too.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A man and woman can love each other without ever wanting to conceive a child. This doesn’t mean their love isn’t deep. Contrary to your belief, not every woman wants to be a mommy and not every couple wants a child. If they want to ‘deliberately’ sterilize, what business is it of yours or mine? Different strokes.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Again, your subjective opinion backed by nothing . Children are NOT a mandatory part of relationship. Not even a necessary part.

            The strength of a relationship is determined by the partners’ love & commitment to each other; their connection with each other. NOT by procreation. (It’s rather obscene to define a relationship by procreation).

          • fiona64

            You know, Ann Landers did an (unadmittedly unscientific) study amongst her readership. She invited readers to send in a postcard if they wished, with a single word answer to the question “If you had it to do over again, would you still have children.” Now, the reason that the study is not scientific is that participants could self-select, there was no control group, etc.

            However … an overwhelming 70 percent of respondents said that they would NOT have kids if they had it to do over again.

            I find that telling, don’t you?

            Just one of many articles about the survey:

            http://www.thecheers.org/Opinion/article_1027_Parents-Regretting-Parenthood–More-Common-Than-You-Think.html

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’ve been accusing Ella of putting words in your mouth, but you’ve basically defined any relationship or marriage that doesn’t agree with your narrow worldview as somehow invalid and not as loving. Do you have any idea how insulting that is?

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh, I think she’s perfectly aware of how insulting she is. It’s a feature, not a bug.

          • Jennifer Starr

            What if ‘I’ don’t want a child? What if I don’t want someone to ‘create new life’ within me? Wouldn’t it be disrespectful to me if my partner didn’t respect that? This is possibly the most ridiculous stuff I’ve ever heard.

          • fiona64

            How dare you reject your biological destiny … how dare you refuse to be the human equivalent of an EasyBake Oven? /snark

          • Suba gunawardana

            Let’s use your own logic. If one or both partners in a loving couple DON’T want children, by withholding contraception or refraining from sex aren’t they REJECTING the part of them that doesn’t wish to procreate? Aren’t they denying/undermining part of their mind?

            Oh, what about single people who don’t wish to procreate?

          • kitler

            Better than unwanted pregnancy.

          • prolifemama

            If pregnancy is not welcomed, then the couple has the option to abstain. (Read reply to Suba’s question “What’s wrong with contraceptives?” below.)

          • kitler

            They can use contraception. Birth control is great. So is uninhibited sex.

          • prolifemama

            Only it’s not uninhibited. The couple have already decided there’s a problem with it – a baby could result. So, they’ve got to use some kind of “protection” against that outcome. Condoms and other barrier methods can leak, fail. Hormonal contraceptives cause the woman negative side effects. Even if everything goes as planned, the worry about pregnancy is always there. Not as uninhibited as it sounds, even if both partners claim not to be worried about such hindrances.

          • kitler

            There is a risk to every activity.

          • prolifemama

            True. And this activity presents more than just the immediate possibility of pregnancy.

            Treating sexual intimacy as a recreational activity undermines the relationship, if indeed there is one between the two who engage in it.

            Interesting article – not a study – by a guy named Garrett M. Lam, October 29, 2012, in the Harvard Crimson opinion section – It’s Not Just Sex. Let me know what you think.

          • kitler

            Sex is a recreational activity. Deal with it.

          • prolifemama

            It is more accurate to say that sex is treated as a recreational activity.
            And, I am “dealing” with it by talking with you about it.

          • kitler

            You want to control the sex lives of people who are not you.

          • prolifemama

            I am simply stating facts

          • kitler

            You are not stating facts. You are repeating uptight rcc dogma.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, you’re stating opinions. And you’re entitled to those opinions, and you have every right to live your life by them. But others do not have to be like you.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What facts? Every single thing you stated so far was your subjective opinion.

          • fiona64

            You state your *opinions* as though they are facts. It’s not the same thing, m’dear.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What wrong with sex being a recreational activity, or it being treated as a recreational activity?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think he’s very young and quite naive, and I suspect he’s overdosed on the dreck they teach in abstinence-only courses these days.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, there are more options than that. You might like to pretend otherwise, but it isn’t true. You do realize that not all people are bound by the rules of your religion, right? As a matter of fact, most Catholic women actually use contraception.

          • fiona64

            So, the childfree should abstain permanently?

            BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • prolifemama

            Do you know people wishing to remain child-free, who are in a constant state of fertility?
            That would make it tough for them to practice abstinence…

          • fiona64

            Oh, well, thank you for clarifying. Those who wish to remain childfree should just remain celibate until menopause.

            Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

          • CJ99

            He / She / It just doesn’t care how idiotic it sounds (no surprise there) as long as he / she has a snowballs chance in hell of achieving their goals, that like all other sanctimonius religious wackadoodles is controlling everyone else. It’s typical dominionist dogma, they claim they’ve been given absolute power by god (but only in their imagination) to control all of the earth and all life on it including other humans. Those fundamentalists are easiest to spot since they fall almost exclusively on the powerhungry side of the unholity trinity.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Why should people abstain just because you say so? You haven’t provided a single legitimate reason (except that “I’m a control freak who can’t stand to see others enjoy themselves” which is absolutely NOT a valid reason).

          • prolifemama

            Suba, carefully re-read my post, and you’ll find a complete absence of my dictating others’ behavior. Since I have no idea what you do with your hands from moment to moment, please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

          • CJ99

            so if somebody raped you then you’d clam up because you didn’t abstain.

            Yeah I thought not, hypocrite.

          • prolifemama

            CJ99 – not quite sure what you’re asking here…
            Do you wonder what I personally would do if I found myself in a rape/pregnancy situation? I would bring my baby to term and parent him/her.

            Also, if I were raped while abstaining from non-marital intercourse, I couldn’t be said to have jumped off the abstinence wagon, as rape is always coerced sexual activity.

          • CJ99

            its a statement of fact not a question you ignorant dolt. and if that did happen to you’re saying makes no sense. If you were raped you’d quickly be singing out the other side of your mouth especially when your religiously delusional ilk started berating you for “sex out of wedlock” like you’ve been doing to everyone else. Thats what makes you a hypocrite, you don’t practice what you preach and then lie about it. I like so many others here see right through your pretentious act for what it really is.

          • prolifemama

            CJ99, your posts are incoherent at times. I am simply asking you to clarify, please. Could you please restate the following:

            so if somebody raped you then you’d clam up because you didn’t abstain.

          • CJ99

            Lets review,

            you came in here making wildly innacurate (to the point of raving) claims about how sex that isn’t approved by god only for procreation is abuse, damaging, contraception is damaging & causes illness, abortion is murder. Yet you ciaim its me (and you’ve said the same of others) who is incoherent.

            Wow, just wow, that’s some raging & quilte delusional ego you have. And to repeatedly refuse to back up any of your idiotic musings with anything other than “cause I said so”. yet you also play the victim (rather poorly at that) when your ignorant ass is handed back with a side of mint sauce.

            Now heres the part that gets right to it. Feel free to sound out the words if you must. My (and others) responses only sound incoherent to you, not anyone else. Everyone else here understands exactly whats going on for the reason that it is you who is willfully being ignorant beyond words. This is also the reason for the ascii butt kickings you’ve been recieving, such is whats dished out to those who instead of being adult behave in a manner of a schoolyard bully with a god complex (that being yourself).

          • fiona64

            The childfree need not abstain to satisfy your creepy opinion.

          • CJ99

            Proof?

            Oh silly me of course you cant prove bullshit ;P

          • prolifemama

            Hey, CJ99 – To you, what constitutes proof? This isn’t a combative question my part, just wondering… some folks will accept personal/anecdotal, others want medical studies.

          • CJ99

            Proof would stand up to scientific & medical methodologies, as it would also stand up in the legal system. Thats why your hysterical bullshit will never be proven or taken as proof. And since you’re so blisfully ignorant, personal say so does not constitute proof. I’ve seen better anecdotal evidence for UFO or Bigfoot sightings than I’ve seen from you.

            Its long past time you face facts, you’re full of it, you know it, everyone else here knows it. Your fanatical tirades do nothing but contribute to noise pollution. If you had proof that contraceptives have negatives effects you’d have put it on display by now, your unwillingness to do so proves you the liar and that you’re fully aware of it.

          • Suba gunawardana

            What’s wrong with casual sex again? It doesn’t spread disease if you use condoms, and there’s no “using” others as long as it’s consensual.

            So there’s no “using’ in forcing women to be incubators agaisnt their will?

          • prolifemama

            See second reason given above, and second paragraph…

          • Suba gunawardana

            Already replied to that

          • prolifemama

            Refresh my memory, if you would be so kind…

          • Suba gunawardana

            Here’s my response verbatim:
            What’s wrong with casual sex again? It doesn’t spread disease if you
            use condoms, and there’s no “using” others as long as it’s consensual.

            So there’s no “using’ in forcing women to be incubators agaisnt their will?

          • prolifemama

            Suba, the topic is casual sex. Condoms can prevent the spread of disease, but they are not 100% effective, even if all the “rules” of usage are followed to the letter.
            But disease isn’t the only risk persons take when engaging in casual sex. Even when consensual, casual sex carries negative psychological aftereffects due to its impersonal nature.

          • Suba gunawardana

            No preventive measure is 100% effective for any situation. Not a reason to live in fear and give up things you want to do.

            For example, you want to breed breed & breed. There’s no 100% guarantee that your children won’t turn out to be serial killers, no method to prevent that possibility by100%. Does that mean you would stop breeding or forcing others to breed? My guess is NO :)

            “Even when consensual, casual sex carries negative psychological aftereffects due to its impersonal nature.”

            Wrong again! As I said, you are confusing sex & love. They can occur together, or separately. Negative psychological effects occur ONLY if someone expected love from a strictly casual sex encounter. Then it would be their own fault wouldn’t it?

            Now if you are so quick to punish women (and children) with forced childbirth for having sex, why don’t you think some psychological distress is a just punishment for expecting too much?

          • prolifemama

            It’s quite likely that someone claiming they’re seeking a “strictly casual sex encounter” is unfamiliar with your “Keep Love and Sex Separate” rule, and secretly hopes against hope that this one is Mr./Ms. Right.

            If that someone is a friend or family member, and is subsequently dumped by said “Right,” would “That’s your own fault” be your soothing words?

          • Suba gunawardana

            What are you, an advocate of rape? In the real world NO means NO and Yes means Yes.

            “NO” doesn’t mean “I secretly want you to rape me” i.e. the quintessential excuse used by rapists.

            Similarly, “I want casual sex” does NOT mean “I secretly expect love”. Have you heard of something called being honest at all times?

            As I said, ALL the problems you mentioned stem from dishonesty and lying. Please don’t blame sex or anything else for people’s lies.

          • kitler

            Prolifemama does not understand the concept of honesty- only authoritarian dogma.

          • Jennifer Starr

            To be very honest, casual sex is not and never was my thing. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else is like me or should live like me. You seem to be demanding that everyone else follow the dictates of your faith–a faith they might not even be a part of.

          • fiona64

            And what is so bad about sex for personal gratification?

          • CJ99

            you have no freakin idea of how life works or what human dignity is. you haven’t experienced the former and try at every turn to deny the latter to everyone else. You are disgusting.

          • CJ99

            Personally I don’t go for it myself but I’m not stopping others. I’ve long ago realized everyone has a mind of their own and nobody has the right to enforce idiotic religious crap on anybody else.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Sterilization and contraception enables people to have sex without reproduction. How is that less dignified than being sexually frustrated, or reproducing by mistake?

            Preventive measures such as vaccinations & antiseptics (or just washing hands) enable people to have healthy lives in a disease-ridden world. Are you opposed to all these things, and consider it “undignified” to be healthy?

            According to your logic are the only dignified women those who are constantly pregnant and disease-ridden, surrounded by disease-ridden screaming children?

          • prolifemama

            Sterilization and contraception of human beings treats them us as if we are incapable of saying no to the urge to merge; in other words, as if we are animals.

            Vaccines and hand-washing prevent disease. Pregnancy is not a disease, and reproduction not a mistake. Pregnancy is when everything actually works correctly. It can be avoided by choosing to not engage in sexual intercourse.

            We have that capability, to respect another’s dignity as a human being, not just a warm body with which to gratify our sex drive.

            A dignified woman appreciates and respects her own fertility, and admires the man who does too, and who appreciates and respects his own ability to father a child. Rather than surgically altering their healthy bodies, or chemically causing them to work differently, with negative side effects and their results, they choose to work with their bodies’ healthy functioning, each exercising self-control during fertile times, so as to bring no negatives to their lovemaking.

          • kitler

            Pregnancy is most definitely a mistake if one does not want children. Or more children than one can feed.

            We demonstrate that we are above animals by fucking as often as we damn well please, and by using technology to override mindless biology.

          • prolifemama

            So the only difference between human beings’ lovemaking and animals’ breeding is our ability to utilize technology to render our couplings … sterile.
            If one has decided one does not want children, even temporarily, then engages in artificially sterilized sexual intimacy with one’s partner, even if married, then s/he is still using the other as a means to sexual gratification.
            By referring to lovemaking as… you do, you’ve already reduced it to a biological function. By “using technology” rather than yourselves to control yourselves, you’ve agreed with and proven my point.

          • kitler

            Sex = social and pair bonding.

            There is nothing wrong with that.

          • prolifemama

            Human beings, using one another for self-pleasuring, does not allow such relationships to grow and deepen, and will eventually harm one or both persons involved. Wrong or right aside, this is simple fact.

          • kitler

            No. You are wrong.

            Sex = pair bonding. People can be intimate and express love without procreation.

          • Jennifer Starr

            My parents used contraception after their third child in 1977, 42 years of marriage and they still are deeply in love and have always had a good sex life as well.

          • lady_black

            Yeah, I don’t recall my parents having issues after dad’s vasectomy either. And witness my own 28 year procreation-free marriage.

          • Suba gunawardana

            As I asked before, what’s wrong with giving and receiving pleasure as long as it’s consensual?

            Now if you consider consensual sex “using one another”, how is it NOT blatantly “using someone” to force them to be an incubator against their will?

          • fiona64

            It is not a fact, whether simple or complicated. It is your *opinion,* and has no basis in reality.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You claiming something doesn’t make it so.

            For the tenth time:
            -What’s wrong with sexual gratification?
            -How is it “using” someone when its consensual?

            You are confusing love, sex, and procreation. These are three INDEPENDENT things. They can occur together or separately. It’s totally upto the people who are involved, NOT YOU.

          • prolifemama

            There is nothing is wrong with sexual gratification in and of itself. When it is sought for self alone, and at the expense of another, it becomes a destructive form of using persons, rather than loving them.
            Consensual sex involves a unique intimacy and vulnerability; it leaves both parties open to profound hurt, the effects of which can last a lifetime, and if not resolved through counseling, will severely limit the person’s ability to ever again trust another human being, even in non-sexual relationships.

          • Suba gunawardana

            “There is nothing is wrong with sexual gratification in and of itself.”
            Agreed.

            “When it is sought for self alone, and at the expense of another,”

            Then it’s called rape, or LYING. The opposite of that is CONSENSUAL sex with complete honesty. What’s wrong with that?

            “Consensual sex involves a unique intimacy and vulnerability; it leaves both parties open to profound hurt, the effects of which can last a lifetime, and if not resolved through counseling, will severely limit the person’s ability to ever again trust another human being, even in non-sexual relationships.”

            Once again, you are confusing sex and love, and refusing to acknowledge that the two are independent. Those emotional problems occur only if the encounter was DISHONEST (i.e. one person lied about love when it wasn’t there) or when one person expected something that was never promised.

            So let me rephrase again: What’s wrong with casual sex, as long as its consensual and HONEST?

          • prolifemama

            “Then it’s called rape, or LYING. The opposite of that is CONSENSUAL sex with complete honesty.”

            The law doesn’t require “complete honesty” for consensual sex to be legal; all that is necessary is each party agreeing to have sex, as long as each party is of minimum age of consent or older, which varies from state to state in the U.S. Even the laws requiring disclosure of one’s HIV/Aids status, and resulting penalties for failure to comply, vary from state to state.

            Seeking sexual gratification at another’s expense needn’t involve rape, either. It can be consensual, with one party saying all the right words, implying it’s “something very special” all the while knowing that once s/he comes, s/he’s goin’.

          • Suba gunawardana

            The law doesn’t require complete honesty in anything (except in court testimony), and even if it did, such a law would be impossible to enforce. People have an ethical responsibility not to lie, and they owe it to themselves not to fall for lies others tell them.

            ALL the problems you listed stem from DISHONESTY, not from sex. You are putting blame where it doesn’t belong.

            DISHONESTY leads to heartache, physical & financial loss, and emotional problems, regardless of what the lie was about. Sex has nothing to do with it.

            A perfect example are the lies told by CPCs, such as “just give birth, your child will go to a good home”, and when a gullible woman believes the lie & gives birth, either she finds herself & child penniless on the street, or worse, years later finds out that her child has been raped abused & murdered by those who “adopted” them. Yes, dishonesty does indeed have far-reaching effects.

            Bottom line, LYING is bad; Sex is good. Please don’t confuse the two.

          • kitler

            So your feelings get hurt. Big deal. That’s a given in the game of love and attraction.

            Its a part of life and hardly a tragedy. Peoples feelings get hurt all the time over a variety of issues.

          • prolifemama

            Wow.

            That you refer to love as a game… that you reduce the pain from broken relationships, betrayed trusts, to “hurt feelings”… and dismiss the risk of disease and lifelong regret as a mere nothing…

            How old are you? Emotionally, I mean…

          • fiona64

            You’re the one who wants to police how often, with whom, etc., total strangers have sex. How old are YOU? Emotionally, I mean … because that’s some serious, junior-high level nosy-parker *bullshit.*

            Keep your nose out of other people’s bedrooms.

          • prolifemama

            “Your grip on reality is fragile, human…”

            Look back through my posts, without those special glasses you use that help you see things that aren’t/never were there…

          • kitler

            You expect married people to remain abstinent for 30+ years of marriage unless they plan to have procreative sex.

            That’s not realistic. That’s fucking LA LA land.

          • fiona64

            ::yawn::

            I suggest YOU look back at your posts, because they are rife with *exactly what I described.*

          • kitler

            You and your passive aggressive hate filled attacks.

            How charming.

            Yeah, mating is largely a game people play. To be more precise, there are mating strategies.

            Humans are partly a tournament species, and partly a long term pair bonding species. We are at some points, monogamous, at others, promiscuous.

            I suggest you educate yourself, and learn a little about human behavioural genetics and evolution:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

            You can also edumacate your ignorant self here:

            http://trendingsideways.com/index.php/the-biology-of-human-behavior-robert-sapolskys-key-insights/

            Scroll down to the part about

            3. Why Human Courtship is So Damn Confusing

            Have a nice day, you ignorant little child.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh honestly. You seem to see women as delicate china dolls who will be irreperably smashed by a breakup or heartbreak. How old is Kitler? Apparently old enough to know that women are strong enough to navigate sexual and romantic relationships, including their ending, without falling apart and running to a bloody therapist every ten minutes. We learn, we love, we win and sometimes we lose. But we always get back on again. It is a part of life.

          • kitler

            The funny thing is…I am abstinent. Practised it for most of my life. But, I could care less if the rest of the world wants to have recreational sex 6 times a day.

            However, she has to assume, that because I am pro choice and pro sex that I must be childish and..we all know what she is thinking…that I (and everyone here) am a total s1ut.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s apparently why she thinks we need to be lectured.

          • prolifemama

            I specifically refer to relationships where sex is a factor. And my comments are gender-neutral; both sexes can be harmed by casual sex.

          • Jennifer Starr

            How do you define casual sex, incidentally? I think of it in terms of one-night stands, which I haven’t had. I have been involved with a couple of longer-term relationships where sex was a factor and I’m still here, without counseling and still fine and dandy. And the men involved are actually still friends of mine, though I was mildly annoyed that one was transferred (military) and didn’t return my Sex Pistols CD. It’s all right, though–I bought another :)

            The one man that I actually could’ve seen myself marrying, though–we never actually had sex but the relationship went very deep. But he had issues–severe insecurity, a horrible upbringing with fundamentalist parents who abused him and those eventually drove a deep wedge between us because I wanted to help and he wouldn’t let me. And I’ll tell you right now–that breakup hurt a hell of a lot more than the two above. And it took a while to get over it, but I didn’t need counseling and after a period of time I dusted myself off and got back up on the horse again.

          • fiona64

            How do you define casual sex, incidentally?

            I’ll lay down my bet: any intercourse outside of m/w marriage that is not intended for procreation, and any intercourse inside m/w marriage that is not intended for procreation.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think you’re right about that.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I have a question: what kind of sex do you consider appropriate? Any sex as long as procreation is guaranteed? Or are their additional requirements?

            What kind of sex do you consider inappropriate? My guess is “Any sex that won’t (or may not) lead to procreation”

          • prolifemama

            I believe that appropriate sexual intercourse is inseparable from a loving, marital relationship between a man and a woman.

            For it to be truly loving, their marriage must meet the following four criteria: They must love one another freely, faithfully, fully (unconditionally) and fruitfully.

            Each act of love must be open to the transmission of life. If they have serious reason to avoid or postpone pregnancy, they have the right to refrain from sexual intercourse during the wife’s fertile time.

            No sexual activity is inappropriate for a married couple except that which intentionally hurts, degrades, uses, or sterilizes (either surgically or chemically) one or both partners.

            Procreation can never be “guaranteed.” Sexual intercourse “may not lead” to procreation for a number of reasons. But intentional thwarting of the reproductive aspect of sexual intercourse is counter to its free, faithful, full (unconditional) and fruitful nature and purpose.

          • fiona64

            Well, I guess I win the pool … because you took a whole lot of time to write exactly what I predicted you would.

          • Suba gunawardana

            I have met quite a few misogynistic control freaks on these threads, but this post has to be the most elitist, condescending, discriminatory & subjugatory post I have yet seen (or at least in the top 1%). Actually it needs more adjectives. I’m not in the habit of using them, maybe someone can help out with some appropriate descriptors. :)

            Sex is a biological function that all human adults have a right to enjoy. You offhandedly dismiss that right for the VAST MAJORITY of humankind, for no legitimate reason at all.

            Your position in summary: “Sex should be limited to MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL couples, for PROCREATION purposes ONLY”.

            Thus in one fell swoop you manage to discriminate against all people who are either unmarried; or homosexual; or child-free; or temporarily don’t wish to procreate; or use birth control for whatever medical reason; and a bunch of others too. Basically “the vast majority of humankind should NOT be having sex”. And why? You still fail to provide a valid reason why all these people are supposed to thwart a biological urge and live in misery.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Every relationship, whether sex is involved or not, leaves both parties open to profound hurt. This is a risk you take by getting involved in any relationship. And despite your fear-mongering, the majority of people manage to pick themselves up and go on without requiring counseling.

          • prolifemama

            As another poster on RHRC noted, sexual intimacy creates a bond between those involved that other relationships lack. Casual sex forms the same bond, but without the commitment that allows the bond to deepen through time and shared experiences.

            One can only give one’s self away this way, once. And the bits and pieces of a person’s heart become irretrievably scattered throughout the many sexual encounters they allow themselves to have.

            Even without the added dimension of pregnancy, these temporary relationships are most damaging to women.

            Platonic friendships don’t put people at risk for that kind of brokenness. Those who do experience it, fill the appointment books of counselors – both psychological and legal – every year.

          • fiona64

            I’m guessing you read a whole lot of Debi Pearl … because this crap is right out of her “Created to be a Help Meet” hot mess of a book.

            When, how often, and with how many partners, someone has sex is none of your business. Keep your nose out of other people’s bedrooms.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I suspect that we’re getting some of the same sermons and talking points that she inflicts upon people coming to visit the CPC where she ‘works’.

          • fiona64

            I have no doubt of it; her “information” has the air of being well-rehearsed.

          • CJ99

            I’ve suspected its an organized effort that goes beyond just CPC’s & internet sockpuppetry. The constant stream of buttsmoke being blown is much too consistant to be accidental.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No. I know that’s a popular meme with the Duggars and purity movement fanatics, ‘giving pieces of your heart away’, etc–but it’s really just so much crap. Sorry.

          • fiona64

            *That’s* where I’ve seen that bee-ess before … there was an article on LJF that talked about the Duggar girls writing a book on “courtship” and positioning themselves as experts on relationships. Considering that the children of those grifters have never had an independent thought in their lives, there were many lulz to be had.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Furthermore, I wasn’t talking about platonic friendships. I was talking about dating relationships where PIV intercourse isn’t necessarily involved, though other acts might be.

          • prolifemama

            Neither was I speaking of platonic friendships – my point was explaining the difference between the two, and that one does not risk forming, then breaking that close physical bond, while the other one does.
            If any sexual activity is involved in a relationship, a connection is formed, whether either party intends it to, or not.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah. This makes me glad that I attended High School in the ’80s and got comprehensive sex-ed instead of this stuff. I pity kids who grew up with this. No offense intended, but you seem to view adult women on this site as wayward teens in need of a lecture–perhaps that isn’t your intent, but it comes across as more than a little patronizing.

          • fiona64

            She thinks that grown women are so stupid that we don’t know the difference between a sexual and a non-sexual relationship. And yes, it is more than a little patronizing.

          • prolifemama

            Jennifer, no offense taken. I don’t mean at all to patronize, and apologize that I am coming across that way.
            I simply want to explain a view of human sexuality different from most posters on this site, and invite discussion rather than accusation.

          • fiona64

            I don’t mean at all to patronize

            Liar.

          • fiona64

            Adults do not need lectures about platonic vs. sexual relationships. Once one gets past that day in 6th grade when the boys go out to play ball and the girls watch a movie sponsored by Kotex, most of us already know.

          • lady_black

            Oh fiddle-faddle.

          • kitler

            Non procreative sex can = love, intimacy and
            only strengthen a relationship.

          • CJ99

            I’ve heard this before and its credible. I’ve even heard there’s psychological evidence that backs it up.

          • lady_black

            Well THANK YOU. That’s right, there is nothing wrong with sexual gratification as an end in itself. What PART of “mutual and consensual” is confusing to you? You cannot argue, with a straight face, that sex with my husband is in any way “meaningless” because my tubes are tied and I won’t conceive. You simply have NO IDEA what you are talking about, because you yourself have never given thought to the idea of sex, simply for the sake of sex, as being mutually gratifying. So much the sadder for you. Just because you risked another screaming brat with every act of marital love doesn’t mean the rest of us need to follow in your example.

          • lady_black

            Yes, NOW you finally “get it.” Well almost. There is no “using” involved. We are mutually, consensually, agreeing to engage in sexual intercourse with each other for pleasure and pair-bonding without the strain of fearing an unwanted pregnancy hampering either of us. And ESPECIALLY when married. We don’t HAVE to abstain, and you have provided no good reason why we should. We didn’t get married to abstain.

          • prolifemama

            kitler, in answer to a later post, here’s one of your replies to me that is not what I would define as “nice” – which you claim you’ve always been – as it includes profanity, which is offensive to me, as sarcasm is apparently offensive to you.

            Could we agree not to offend the other, and have a civil conversation?

          • kitler

            Grasping at straws I see

          • prolifemama

            Not at all. You stated you’ve been “nice” the whole time.

            Some people, including myself, don’t consider the F-bomb particularly “nice.”

            If you want to continue a conversation, then please refrain from using that word and other profanity.

            You may make a similar request of me about something I do that bugs you, if you’re serious about continuing with me.

          • kitler

            I find it to be interesting that you ignored every one of my factual, scientific posts, and instead are resorting to tone trolling. I guess that’s what losers do when their arguments are devoid of facts and logic and are only opinion.

            And gee, we should all be so lucky that you would lower yourself to preach at us.

          • fiona64

            You may make a similar request of me about something I do that bugs you

            Stop delivering your fucking smarmy lectures to adults, just for one thing.

          • kitler

            Tone trolling is all about control. For cowards and liars who are incapable of defending their ideas with a sound argument.

          • fiona64

            You can take your tone-policing and shove it up your bunghole.

            How other people choose to express themselves is just one more call you *don’t* get to make.

          • Suba gunawardana

            That YOU may want to reproduce as much as possible, all the time, doesn’t mean everyone else does. That YOU find it desirable doesn’t mean everyone else does.

            We have technology to prevent UNDESIRABLE outcomes of daily activities. When you take advantage of technology yourself to prevent what you don’t like, but try to prevent others from doing the same, that’s the height of hypocrisy.

            You are free to be a slave to fertility, but you are NOT free to force such slavery on others.

          • prolifemama

            Suba, I’m curious … what technology do I use while preventing others’ use of it?
            And once again (yeah, right – “once”), you are drawing conclusions based on your own antipathy of my views rather than from anything I’ve actually said. Nowhere will you find my demand that others follow a certain lifestyle; I merely mention options not often seen or discussed here.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Not often seen or discussed? Have you actually looked at our message boards? There have been quite a few people sharing the same views that you have–practically word for word. You aren’t exactly being original.

          • fiona64

            I know, right? She appears to think she’s the first CPC volunteer to ever show up here with those smarmy speeches.

          • fiona64

            Nowhere will you find my demand that others follow a certain lifestyle;

            Liar.

          • prolifemama

            That’s your crushing response? Incessant name-calling? Sheesh.

            Seriously, how’s about you go back to high school and finally graduate?

          • kitler

            How about you stop

            1) pretending that your subjective opinions are scientific fact

            2) passively aggressively insulting people you disagree with

          • fiona64

            Casse-toi, chienne.

          • fiona64

            A dignified woman would not demand that women she’s never even met risk their life and health to gestate.

          • prolifemama

            Again, fiona, I make no demands of others. I simply present options not commonly discussed on RHRC.

          • fiona64

            Again, fiona, I make no demands of others.

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            I simply present options not commonly discussed on RHRC.

            Right. Because no anti-choicer has ever said on this board that women should not use contraception until your sorry self showed up.

          • prolifemama

            Such a delicate laugh.

            There’s a difference between dissing and discussing.

            And if you’ll look carefully at my posts instead of going into HATING MODE, you’ll see that I haven’t said women shouldn’t use contraceptives. I simply mention the results of contraceptive use on relationships.

          • Suba gunawardana

            The problem is, plm, you are utterly completely totally WRONG in your assertions on “the results of contraceptive use on relationships”.

            The strength of a relationship depends entirely on the how much the two people LOVE and care about each other, not on some shallow physical function such as reproduction (or lack thereof). If the success of a relationship is dependent on fertility there’s something seriously lacking there to begin with.

            To imply that contraceptives have anything to do with the strength/success of a relationship, is a huge personal INSULT to many loving couples who have been together & child-free for decades. It’s also an insult to children. Children should be wanted & loved for themselves, NOT as a crutch for their parent’s weak relationship.

          • prolifemama

            You have expressed your opinion.

            Can you provide any studies that will back it up?

          • fiona64

            That’s rich, coming from a woman who hasn’t provided jack diddly-shit when asked for sources to back up her affirmative claims that contraception ruins relationships …

            So, why don’t you put up some peer-reviewed studies that prove your position to be correct? As you’ve been asked to dozens of times already …

          • lady_black

            There are certainly no (reputable, scholarly, scientific, peer-reviewed) studies that back up YOUR nonsense either. Only condescending nonsense that is offensive to men AND women that unless a couple is breeding at every available opportunity, the man will view the woman as an object. This is total bunk. If your marital relationship depends on being receptive to pregnancy at all times, you haven’t got much of a marriage.

          • prolifemama

            Jen, I know that not all women and men want to be parents. And it would indeed be disrespectful for someone to disregard your
            decision on this.

            Look, though, at the damage that removing sexual intimacy from marriage and treating it as recreation has wrought on the
            human community. It has created the bizarre mindset that a healthy functioning reproductive system, whether male or female, is a detriment, a disability, which must be “treated” with chemicals (contraceptives) or even more drastic, surgery.

            Life in non-marital sexual relationships has created an entitlement attitude toward sexual intercourse – I have a right to have sex whenever I want, and a right to be “protected” from the consequences – sexually-transmitted disease, expectations from my partner(s), the ‘trap’ of long-term commitments, and … parenthood.

            Yet sexual intimacy, even between persons who vow to one another NEVER to pressure one another for a commitment, who solemnly agree that sex is just for enjoyment, with no strings attached, still experience the bonding that sexual intimacy creates, and all the positives and negatives that result from trying to change or ignore the nature of the marital embrace when engaged in, outside of marriage.

          • fiona64

            have a right to have sex whenever I want, and a right to be “protected” from the consequences

            Thanks for admitting that you view children as punishment for having had sex.

          • Ella Warnock

            ‘Punishments,’ ‘consequences,’ ‘inconveniences, ‘ burdens.’

            Vocabulary is illuminating.

          • Suba gunawardana

            You still operate under false assumption that sexual intimacy cannot occur without reproduction. They are two entirely different things, INDEPENDENT of each other.

            All your assumptions are subjective. What you call “damage” is not perceived as damage by everyone.

            ” It has created the bizarre mindset that a healthy functioning
            reproductive system, whether male or female, is a detriment, a
            disability, which must be “treated” with chemicals (contraceptives) or
            even more drastic, surgery.”

            Nothing “bizarre” about it at all. For those who don’t desire procreation, unwanted pregnancy is a disability indeed, which needs to be prevented.
            Wasn’t it you who said sex without marriage is wrong? According to your own logic here, isn’t it BIZARRE to force abstinence on the healthy sexual desires of young people just due to lack of marriage?

            And exactly what is wrong with having sex whenever you want, and being protected from the consequences? You still haven’t explained that.

            Sex is a GOOD thing, not something people must be punished for. Some people experience sexual intimacy, some experience love along with it, and form long term relationships. Others may not experience any of the latter things but still enjoy JUST sex. What’s wrong with that?

          • kitler

            You’ve done nothing but ‘dis’ people. Every time you get a response you don’t like, you make a condescending comment about that persons age or education. Or, alternatively, you accuse them of leading hateful, empty lives. All because they, unlike you, don’t believe that recreational sex is immoral and unhealthy

          • Jennifer Starr

            She takes passive-aggressive to new heights.

          • prolifemama

            kitler, If I have offended anyone here, I most sincerely apologize.

            However, you and other commenters here do precisely what you’ve accused me of doing – diss me and other commenters who express beliefs different from yours – and in much more aggressive language. There’s a difference between inquiring about someone’s mental age or education/experience, and dropping the F-bomb or other profanity (bullsh*t), calling someone a liar, and walking away from the forum.

            I seek to challenge personally-held convictions, and people’s comfort zones, not simply bait them and then upbraid them for their predictable response.

            I would like my comments to engage us in conversation. Simply because I disagree with others on sexuality, abortion, contraception and other life issues is no reason to villanize me.

          • kitler

            You talked down to us from the very start.

          • prolifemama

            How so, please?

          • kitler

            Thinly veiled insults about our age. I’ve been nice to you this entire time, yet you had to make passive aggressive jabs about my age because I disagreed with you about casual sex.

          • prolifemama

            Nice, hmmm… I don’t know how to access past conversations, but I seem to remember many of your comments being less than “nice.”

            Your profile states your activity is private – I assume this means I cannot check back for our back-and-forth.

          • kitler

            I pointed out that you are ignorant. Which is true. You like to pretend that your opinions are factual.

            BTW, suba has been great. Why did you ignore all of xer rebuttals?

          • prolifemama

            Calling me ignorant without stats or other proof to back up your accusation, simply reveals that you disagree with my points.

            Suba’s comments tend to be rather lengthy, and I don’t always have the time to reply in depth.

            I am currently caregiving for an elderly relative in dementia, which requires a lot of my time. I will check to see if Suba’s profile is private; if not, I will do my best to find those rebuttals, and respond.

            I did respond to an older post of yours, in which you use profanity in reply to me, which doesn’t constitute being “nice” in my opinion.

            I’ll await a reply from you.

          • kitler

            I’ll amend it then.

            You’re not ignorant – you’re a liar.

          • prolifemama

            Yeah. Real “nice.”
            Buh-bye.

          • kitler

            Its a fact that you are a liar. You lied about contraception and you lied about sexuality.

            Anyways, good. I hope that you ignore everyone but suba so that you can finally answer the 20+ replies of hers that you dishonestly ignored.

          • fiona64

            Calling me ignorant without stats or other proof to back up your accusation,

            Attempts have been made by many, myself included, to rectify your ignorance by provision of sourced, scientific material. Your response is to double down with your smarmy lectures and to provide nothing of relevance.

            When your ignorance is not curable by suitable applications of information, there are only two other conclusions that may be reached: you are either stupid, or a liar. Which one is it?

          • Suba gunawardana

            Come on now, I rebutted every single point you made (that I saw), more than once, without insults or aggressive language. You have pointedly avoided the majority of them. The responses you did make contained far more emotion & opinion than logic or fact.

            If you really wish to “engage in conversation”, why don’t you address some rebuttals point by point?

          • prolifemama

            As I just told kitler on another post, I caregive for an elderly relative in dementia, and don’t always have the time to reply at length.
            If your prolife is not private, I will try to locate your comment and reply in depth, as soon as I am able.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Thanks, and there are MANY comments of mine you never addressed, dating back quite some time. (Not just about casual sex but the whole issue of abortion) I look forward to your responses.

            P.S. My husband & I took care of my mother for many years, & know how it is…

          • CJ99

            your faux apology runs hollow for you are still lying to us all. You indeed are the one who came here solely to harass. Indeed your only purpose here is to enforce your insane religious rules on everyone else. The agressive language to you is in this case an acceptable response for what you’ve been posting is a non stop stream of bullshit. If that bothers you to freakin bad, you knew exactly what you were planning when you 1st came on here & you still know it. Your idea of “conversation” is thumping your bible with 1 hand (extremely disrespectful in of itself) and shaking your other fist while you howl at everybody else for now cowtowing to your absurd and very very old rules which have no basis in real world. Yet you play the victim when you’re told to fuck off. It is nobody else here who villainizes you. you’re doing it to yourself and blaming everybody else with a loud “screw you”. But it is you who should either grow up or get out as it is you, and only you in this moment pulling the spoiled brat routine.

          • fiona64

            kitler, If I have offended anyone here, I most sincerely apologize.

            “I’m sorry you were upset” is not an apology.

            But you know that.

          • fiona64

            I simply mention the results of contraceptive use on relationships.

            No, you don’t. You say a bunch of nonsense that has no basis in reality.

          • lady_black

            I can tell you the results of contraceptive use on relationships using much less unnecessary wordiness. Positive to neutral. That’s what removing unnecessary tensions does to relationships. It improves their quality.

          • lady_black

            Your options suck donkey dick.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m sorry, this doesn’t even begin to make sense. And sterilization and contraceptives don’t undermine anyone’s dignity when they are freely chosen.

          • fiona64

            But sterilization and contraceptives do undermine our human dignity

            So, in your mind, the only truly dignified thing for a woman to do is be a broodmare?

            Sick.

          • prolifemama

            fiona dear, I would ask of you the same favor I requested of dear Suba, that you resist the temptation to place your words into my mouth, even if you don nitrile gloves… Perhaps if you re-read my post – and I fervently hope you do – what I actually said will sink in this time.

            (I do get the odd feeling that were I to wish you a good morning, you would instantly conclude that I am a lifelong and ardent fan of Adolf Hitler, who was also a Catholic, and that I light candles under a gilt-framed image of him hanging in my breakfast nook at each dawning…)

          • fiona64

            I quoted you *directly,* you ignorant sow.

          • lady_black

            Yes she is sick.

          • lady_black

            Cats and dogs experience estrus seasons where only during this time is the female receptive to sex. We humans and some other primates are always receptive to sex. It’s not a matter of cats and dogs being “unable to wait” as you so ignorantly state. It’s the complete, total disinterest in sex other than during fertile periods. It is YOU who want to reduce humans to the level of lower animals, not I. For we humans, our sexual experience is different. We engage in sex for pleasure. We engage in sex for bonding. We don’t WANT to abstain, and you offer no good reason why we should. There is nothing about the ability to plan one’s family (even extending to planning NOT to have children), that “undermines our human dignity.” To the contrary, our human dignity is enhanced when we can choose to live our lives as we wish, plan our families as we wish, and engage in sex with our partners if, when, and HOW we wish without the threat of an unwanted pregnancy. YOU choose to wait if that’s what floats your boat. Your opinion means less than nothing to me. There’s much more to me than a uterus with a container around it.

          • kitler

            Hey LB,will an 8 year old only suffer birth complications (fistulas, tearing, death) not due to her immature reproductive system, but because of malnutrition?

          • prolifemama

            There exist those who have given abortion and sterilization much thought, but have reached a different conclusion than your own. This does not relegate our arguments’ foundations to uber-sentimentality
            and melodrama.

            We do have ‘other reasoning,’ but none with which you would probably ever agree, this evidenced by your terming our deeply-held convictions “notions.”

            It appears that you respect only those comments that exactly mirror your own. Impossible to have an exchange of ideas, when one
            persuasion pre-excoriates the other.

            And the lesser of two evils is, still, an evil.

          • Ella Warnock

            Nothing evil about voluntary sterilization. Of course, your statement tells me that it’s not about ‘saving babies’ at all. It’s about women being restricted in taking responsible steps to opt out of motherhood just because others are queasy that they’re ‘allowed’ to make that decision in the first place.

            Opting out of motherhood is, apparently, something that should be limited and discouraged as much as possible. You’re right, I don’t respect that ‘notion’ in the least.

          • prolifemama

            Perhaps you should try the approach of reading what is posted and considering its face value, instead of reading into the posts things that are not actually there.

            You make an assumption, then attack a poster’s point of view, based on your extreme intolerance of views that differ from yours. Your unwillingness to objectively contemplate a point of view makes intelligent discourse with you impossible. The conversation inevitably devolves into you throwing insults at your “foe,” while s/he either attempts to explain, or simply ignores your attacks.

          • Ella Warnock

            Have you ever ‘objectively contemplated’ the POV that individual women can decide for themselves whether they want to procreate or not?

            At any rate, ignore away if it makes you feel better.

          • fiona64

            There’s not a lot of subtext in your forced-birth, sex for procreation-only, no contraception, nonsense, madame.

          • Ella Warnock

            “when one persuasion pre-excoriates the other.”

            Elsewhere you have opined that it’s impossible for couples who contracept or opt out of parenthood altogether to have strong, intimate, loving marriages. You would look my 27-year marriage to my beloved and proclaim it void of devotion and fidelity, and dismiss it as meaningless for no other reason than we didn’t have kids.

            Even though you’ve no clue about our union and what it means to us, I’m certain that degree of dismissal couldn’t or wouldn’t be classified as ‘pre-excoriating.’

            Or would it?

          • fiona64

            You would look my 27-year marriage to my beloved and proclaim it void of
            devotion and fidelity, and dismiss it as meaningless for no other
            reason than we didn’t have kids.

            And that’s because she’s a fucking nutter.

          • Ella Warnock

            Yup, the super crunchy kind.

          • Suba gunawardana

            Doctors are supposed at in the best interest of their patients, NOT assuage their belief/conscience at the EXPENSE of patients.

          • lady_black

            My reproductive decisions don’t have a damn thing to do with anyone’s conscience but my own.

          • CJ99

            its not about the doctors body dimwit.

        • Ineedacoffee

          Personal chip on YOUR shoulder, not mine,
          Funnily enough, I will keep fighting for CHOICE, the belief a woman has rights to her own body, not some politition

          Even funnier, Anita, female, I presume, I will fight for your right to control your body, even if you hate other women having choice and control of their lives
          that means, you can choose not to abort, fine whatevs YOUR CHOICE but when your not used as a living incubator, I along with thousands of other expect a thankyou and sorry for being so against bodily autonomy
          we are what will save you and your daughters, nieces and friends from losing their choice

          • Anita Schreuder

            Abortion for the fun of it should be illegal just like drunk-driving. I don’t want my daughter to be subjected to a society where girls can have sex like it’s no big deal, get pregnant like no big deal and then abort like no big deal. Making abortions nice and accessible isn’t doing any good. Have the baby, sign him/her up for adoption. Much better. Abortion is no choice it’s a mistake with no positive consequences.

          • kitler

            What if she constantly gets pregnant and gives multiple babies up for adoption? Year after year after year..

          • Jennifer Starr
          • lady_black

            I get a free pedicure with every ten abortions.

          • lady_black

            Ah, the eighties.

          • fiona64

            Abortion for the fun of it should be illegal

            I don’t think anyone has medical procedures “for the fun of it.” There is something seriously wrong with you.

            Have the baby, sign him/her up for adoption. Much better.

            Yes, it’s always “much better” to add yet another unwanted child to the hundreds of thousands currently awaiting adoption — most of which will “Age out” of the system without ever having a permanent home. /sarcasm

            You are one cruel bitch.

          • CJ99

            As usual she doesn’t give a crap about those already born. Hypocrisy at its finest.

          • Suba gunawardana

            If you truly wish to prevent abortion, you should be putting all your energy into promoting CONTRACEPTION and SEX-ED.

            I don’t know about you, but 99% of the forced-birthers I met on these threads OPPOSE those very things that would reduce abortions, as evidenced by the huge applause following the HL decision.

            So how can we take any forced-birthers seriously? Their real purpose is not by any means to “protect babies” but just to create as many children as possible (into substandard lives), and to punish women for having sex.

          • Ineedacoffee

            No positive outcomes my ass
            Saving the mothers life, not signing her up to sever mental anguish that could lead to suicide, saving a child from a short, painfilled life on machines cos they are not compatible with life

            Oh that’s right the living breathing woman is nothing to you, neither is the baby who lives in pain for a few hours, as long as they born right?

            Forced birth is taking away a woman’s rights no matter what way you try and twist it, I have the right to do as I please with my own body, not have it dictated by people like you, who are stuck in the ‘women are pieces of shit’ age
            Btw, just like men, women are allowed to have sex for fun and not only babies

          • Ella Warnock

            “women are allowed to have sex for fun and not only babies”

            Nope, if our most recent visitors had their druthers, sex for fun (even between married folk) would be a crime.

          • Ineedacoffee

            Sadlytis true, how dare people do it for fun lol

          • lady_black

            Who said that????

          • Anita Schreuder

            According to abort73.com, only 12% of women include a “physical problem” and I am not against that kind of abortion which will save a mother or a baby from disease or disability. How about the 36.7 % of women who have had 1 or 2 prior abortions? And the 13.8% who have had 3 or more abortions? You worry about forcing a woman to give birth but not about forcing a baby to die.

          • lady_black

            You do not know the reasons why someone would have more than one abortion, because it’s none of your damn business. A woman doesn’t have to report physical problems or any other reason for having an abortion because it’s none of your damn business. Whatever gave you the impression it was? Whatever gives you the idea that someone must justify ending a pregnancy to you, and furthermore, you must approve of the reason? Who do you think you are??? There’s no “baby” involved. 90% of the time, there’s a piece of human tissue the size of a kidney bean. Seriously, Anita! This is none of your concern.

          • Ineedacoffee

            I don’t care how many a woman has its her choice
            not all medical grounds are physical health, mental heath is the same
            I’m only worried about the women who will forced against their will to birth and deal.with the lifelong effects from it, blocking acfess does nothing but disadvantage people more, its put financially out of reach, what will another baby do you think? Don’t matter though baby born is all that does to you lot, but no feel proud you condem children to poverty and abuse through your trying to ban abortion

            No babies die in abortions, fetuses are removed though
            Just so you know even when abortion was illegal, it didn’t stop it, just made more women die painfully or you care to ignore that fact too

          • Anita Schreuder

            I work very hard to support my local orphanage and the amazing mothers who live there and love and raise those brilliant children. They motivate me to argue with you nice people! Make some other arrangement if you don’t want to get pregnant.. there are many other arrangements to be made just don’t abort. Had my mother aborted- I wouldn’t have a sister. Had my mother’s cousin aborted- she wouldn’t have killed herself. If you would like to believe that killing your child is easier to live with than knowing your baby is loved and well taken care of- go ahead. It just makes you clueless. I don’t want to criminalize cluelessness, just abortion.

          • Ineedacoffee

            Contraception is not 100% effective
            Well taken care of in the foster system or an orphanage?, you have got to be kidding yourself. The people Ive known bounced from house to house, hardly want to be alive after the crap they experiance
            I find it sad your willing to commit some women to extreme mental anguish and physical deformaties over your belief a clump of cells has more right to life over a woman
            You want to kill women with banning abortion, they will still happen, just in a backyard

          • lady_black

            There is no such thing as abortion for the fun of it. Fess up. You’re a male, posing as a female, aren’t you? Because anyone saying something that absurd is an ignorant male who has no clue.

          • CJ99

            Planet earth is not your theocratic bollocks fantasy world. Get over yourself.

        • Suba gunawardana

          Adoption is certainly worse than abortion, considering all the religious nut vultures waiting to snatch newborns to abuse, molest & brainwash. I wouldn’t wish that fate on my worst enemy, let alone my child.

          Sterilization is not more drastic than abortion, EXCEPT that a woman may wish to have children later, not now.

        • lady_black

          Madam, sterilization is ONLY for people who don’t want any more children, EVER. So yes, it is quite a bit more drastic than abortion. Look at it this way, there is a chance that any pregnancy won’t result in a child for whatever reason, independent of whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. In fact, way more pregnancies abort spontaneously than are ended by induced abortion. Often before the woman realized she was pregnant. This is why many women do not announce their pregnancies until those first tricky 12 weeks are over. They do not want to get people’s hopes up. The end of a pregnancy is disappointing if you wanted one, but you can always try again in a few months. If you get sterilized, it should always be considered permanent.

      • Maxine Shaw

        I’ve had three different gynos flat out refuse to sterilize me because I was younger than 35. Apparently, that’s normal.

        • Ella Warnock

          It’s pathetic and uncivilized.

        • fiona64

          I not only had to doctor-shop, but had to have my husband sign a form granting permission. I am not kidding.

          • Ineedacoffee

            Sign permission, what the duck

          • fiona64

            Yep. I also had to wait 30 days from the time of signing the informed consent form, and my husband signing the “permission slip” before the surgery could be done. There were a helluva lot of hoops to jump through.

          • Ineedacoffee

            That is so sad and completely insain, I mean to bad if you were with some abusive ads who said no

          • lady_black

            I would file for DIVORCE and have my tubes tied. Yes, it really WAS THAT IMPORTANT to me to have it done.

          • Ella Warnock

            Like after all that time and effort and thought you’d suddenly have a baybee-rabies attack during that 30 days. Puhlease.

          • fiona64

            It was a requirement of the informed consent process in the state where I live. Why? Because some idiot women apparently did not understand that tubal ligation = “no more babies” and sued when they couldn’t have the procedure readily reversed. That’s the reason for all of the hoop-jumping we all have to go through. :-/

          • lady_black

            Oh baloney. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Winning is a different story. I have the feeling that’s only what they told you. I don’t believe there IS any such “law.”

          • Ella Warnock

            I don’t doubt that there are some women who change their minds and have a tendency towards melodrama and blaming everyone else rather than take the responsibility for their regrets themselves. The fact that other women who didn’t think it through as thoroughly as, say, I did is no reason to make women like us jump through their ridiculous, overly emotionally wrought hoops.

            The gynos were the ones who brought all the syrupy sentimentality to the situation; I was always cool and clear-headed about it. If anyone ever needed any counseling, it was those jokers who deliberately refused to put the patient’s best interest before their wants and desires.

          • lady_black

            Yeah. I made it very plain that I did not want to hear the mawkish sentimentality, that I was very sure I would never regret it, and that even if I lost all my children in a tragic accident, I STILL never wanted to give birth again, EVER and that’s the only thing that matters. I think I said children are not goldfish that you can replace with another goldfish if the one you have dies.

          • Ella Warnock

            Even though I didn’t want kids, I still found that ‘well, if one of your kids dies you can have another’ pretty insulting and callous towards mothers. My grandmother had eight kids and lost two. I can assure anyone who’s curious that her other six children did not ‘replace’ the two that died. How absurd.

            Childfree women, especially early articulators, don’t regret sterilization anyway. We’ve always been sure, and that’s what sets us apart. We’re also such an infinitesimal part of the population
            that – really, everybody – you won’t miss kids we didn’t have. The only thing that’s going to happen is that they’ll be pissed off that we, to put it in their vernacular, ‘got away with something.’

            If you’re really happy being a parent and are really enjoying your life, why would you think people without kids got away with something? That’s always been a curious turn of phrase and it telegraphs something counter to what they’d have us believe.

          • lady_black

            Well it IS insulting. We aren’t talking about a car that gets wrecked. That can be replaced. A child can never be replaced. Over the years. I’ve also come to realize that even a beloved dog or cat can never be replaced. You can get another puppy or kitten, but it’s never going to be the companion you lost. These soulful animals have their own distinct personalities, and I’ve loved them all, but for different reasons. And some more than others,

          • Ella Warnock

            Oh, yeah, the pets. Every little furry we’ve ever had has been its own little ‘person.’ The feline love of my life I’ll probably never experience again, but I still enjoy getting to know each one as they come along and none of them will ever replace any of the others.

          • fiona64

            No, it really is part of informed consent for sterilization procedures (or at least it was in 1993, when I had the procedure). The doctor told me, when I asked, that it was due to a number of lawsuits by women who apparently did not understand the informed consent information they were given. I’m attaching a link here; it turns out that the 30-day waiting period is a Federal requirement. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x690.htm

          • lady_black

            That only applies to sterilization done as part of Federal programs. And no spousal consent is required.

          • fiona64

            I had Federal employee health benefits at the time …

          • lady_black

            What if you didn’t have one?

          • Suba gunawardana

            I bet single women would be asked to “wait until they got married, then come back with permission from husband” :)

          • lady_black

            I’ll bet not.

          • CJ99

            I been reading this conversation and the idea a husbands approval is needed is really really idiotic in the extreme. Nobody’s sending men to the knackers yard when a woman gets that procedure for herself.

          • fiona64

            I don’t know what they would have done if I were unmarried; refuse the procedure entirely, I would guess.

          • lady_black

            That would be a violation of your rights.

        • lady_black

          Try seeing a resident at a teaching hospital. They are younger and less judgmental.

      • Anita Schreuder

        Sterilization is more drastic than abortion?

        • Ella Warnock

          The point has flown over your head several times at this point. Just move on.

      • lady_black

        I had no problem getting my tubes tied at 26. A resident did it, no problem. That’s how it SHOULD be. Sterilization on demand.

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

      I should maim myself in order to make you psychologically comfortable?
      Pazzo.

  • lady_black

    Wrong. Life begins with coffee.

    • CJ99

      if you can pardon the pun, amen sister. If we could travel the universe I sure hope theres coffee involved :P

  • Ella Warnock

    I can’t find the post, so it must have been deleted.

  • fiona64

    Studies are not about “caring.” Studies are about REALITY.

  • CJ99

    Go find some proof before continuing to run your mouth.

    yeah that means you won’t be back.

  • CJ99

    Could just cover them in a giant condom. Think of it as a cone of silence, so the rest of us won’t be subjected to idiocy.

  • Ella Warnock

    Actually, look up “prolifemama’s” posting history. Marriages like yours and mine simply don’t exist in her little bubble because we’re sterilized, and she clearly believes we should never have been “allowed” to make that decision in the first place. Sterilization is “evil,” you see. Even though she dismisses unions like ours as meaningless and worthless, we’re the ones who “pre-excoriate” others.