• kitler

    So many pro lifers repeat the lie that zygotes and embryos have feelings and are rational.


  • StealthGaytheist

    It’s good to have facts, since the opposition only has lies and hysteria.

  • John H


  • BelligerentBruncher

    I thought abortions were just getting rid of a “clump of cells.”

    Why does Marcotte care if it is a zygote, embryo, or a fetus?

    • Chaosfeminist

      Are trolling or seriously ignorant of basic human biology?

      • fiona64

        He’s our resident teenaged dudebro MRA troll. Ignore him.

        • BelligerentBruncher

          flagged for personal insults. Please try to keep this website civil.

          • fiona64

            Cool story, dudebro.

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

            Flagged for being a stone douchebag.

        • Perr5

          Nothing wrong with being a teenager or a dudebro. Nothing necessarily anti-choice either, I don’t think.

          As the existence of Heather Corinna’s columns on this site suggests, I think we want to make teenagers in particular welcome here.

          • fiona64

            This particular teenaged dudebro has been banned five times so far for trolling. You seem to imply that you see nothing wrong with trolling.

          • Perr5

            No, I just don’t think that “dudebro” and especially “teenaged” should be used as terms of disparagement.

            Why not call him simply “our resident [MRA] troll”? (I mean, if you want to go further with this, what does “teenaged dudebro” really add? It’s for the same reasons I oppose using “crazy” as a way of delegitimizing someone’s argument. Do you see what I mean?)

          • fiona64

            I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not take seriously any teenaged male who is trying to dictate the reproductive decisions of adult women … and most especially not one whose sole purpose is to troll.

          • Perr5

            It’s the “who is trying to dictate the reproductive decisions” part that I agree with you in opposing (whether the reproductive decisions of adult women, of girls, of trans men—of anyone who is capable of pregnancy).

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, I don’t think we need to. He’s an idiot.

          • lady_black

            This one has been banned numerous times. He’s not welcome.

          • Perr5

            To return to this, I think I mostly agree with you (plural): there is no need for anyone to be welcoming of behavior that is trolling or harassing, especially when it’s so obvious as what BelligerentBruncher tends to do.

            Where I disagree: I think it’s off-topic and ultimately harmful to aim so widely when calling out trolling behavior. First, it’s irrelevant: BelligerentBruncher isn’t acting like a teenager or a dudebro, he’s acting like an asshole—a troll. And as for the harmfulness, I don’t think insulting someone is worth making the implication, for example, that teenagers, as a class, tend to be harassers. That would be a harmful stereotype that, besides giving teenagers an undeservedly bad name, also excuses the behavior on the understanding that they can’t help it (“teenagers will be teenagers”) and will presumably grow out of it.

            (Same thing with dismissing anti-choicers in general as “crazy,” as I’ve argued on another thread: it gives mentally ill people an undeservedly bad name, and it excuses anti-choice behavior by attributing it to disease rather than to a sense of entitlement over other people.)

      • L-dan

        absolutely trolling.

  • fiona64

    The BBC has been
    criticized for trying to give “both sides” of the climate change debate
    equal coverage, when one of those sides—the one arguing against climate
    change theory—is composed of a bunch of junk scientists making stuff up, while the other side has the force of scientific consensus behind it.

    That was the basis of the Hobby Lobby case, as we all know: a bunch of “junk science” being taken as “sincerely held religious beliefs” … despite reality flying in the face of said junk. It’s past time to stop letting the anti-science nutters have their day in the sun.

  • P. McCoy

    CAF has a post about some ‘right to life’ organization ready to go to war over the challenge to the Hobby Lobby decision. Well, in war quarter is not asked and none is given so we pro choicers can out any anti choicer and call them trolls if we want to.

  • badJim

    Bad Amanda! You are such a careful writer – damned near perfect – and then you do this:

    “Birth control is not abortion”

    Say rather, “Contraception is not abortion.”

    The problem is the old, dishonest slogan, “Abortion should not be used as birth control”, which you’ve written about. Abortion is by its very nature birth control, so the slogan is deceptive by design. Sure, contraception is generally preferable to medical intervention, but that’s not an argument against abortion.

    Apologies for being so pedantic. It’s a great article, as usual.

    • mwdennett

      badJim: Thanks for reiterating this very vital point. It seems to many of us SO blatantly obvious, but it still can’t be said often enough, and is no more “pedantic” than puncturing that other “example” of something thought just too silly for words – “It’s like being a little bit pregnant!” Your point, in fact, is one of the central ones I tried to make in my 1969 analysis “Unfinished Business: Birth Control and Women’s Liberation” [Lucinda Cisler; in the anthology “Sisterhood Is Powerful”; ed. Robin Morgan; Random,1970], even making the implied idea part of the very title! This essay was a pretty early assertion of the “continuum” idea – perhaps the first in print? Take a look at the piece, if you can; horrible but little surprise that way too much of the bad stuff warned against there has come to pass. I’m hoping to be able at last to put together the paradoxical analysis/ chronicle/ history of what really happened in the abortion movement that hasn’t yet appeared, but really should. As with your point, a common thread I see when this tiny movement was Actually Moving Ahead was to steer clear of euphemism (like “choice”) and coyness. Keep on saying what you say! – Cindy Cisler

      [+ see Patricia Miller’s http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/06/06/new-yorks-abortion-rights-bill-now-warning-future/ …+ the comments!]

  • crydiego

    I have no problem with abortion, no matter how or when it happens, or to what.
    However I think it is a “scientific” fact that the argument is over who will pay for it.
    Why doesn’t the government just cover these cost through a small tax on contraceptives. Also allow men a choice of being a parent or not but with a hefty tax to also be used fo contraceptives. That would make for true choice and minimal contraceptive prices.
    No one should be forced to be a parent if they don’t want to be one but there are no free lunches.

    • Jennifer Starr

      No one is talking about ‘paying for abortion’. Contraceptives are not abortion.

      • crydiego

        OK, I can see where it might sound like I’m talking about abortion but I was talking about paying for contraceptives. Let’s call it birth prevention or non-surgical contraception, include everything now and what may be developed in the future, even condoms. This would take any bias by an employer out of the picture. Flow around them because it is important that people are not forced into parenthood.
        The facts are: they don’t want to pay for it, the supreme court sides with them and although we may change the law in the future we need something for today.

Mobile Theme