Mississippi State Rep Brags About Stopping Legal Abortion

Just last month, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed a law that would require doctors who perform abortions in their state to also have admitting privileges in a local hospital — basically, another restriction on abortions.

Mississippi legislators are actively making it impossible to seek out a safe and legal abortion in their state. But what did State Rep. Bubba Carpenter have to say about it? What did he think about the women he would inevitably force into unsafe situations?

The video has since been removed by the GOP but the soundbyte lives on:

(Wait, the video is back up!)

“It’s going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all — but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to… Roe vs. Wade. So we’ve done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They’re like, ‘Well, the poor pitiful women that can’t afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger.’ That’s what we’ve heard over and over and over.

“But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we’ve decided to do.”

Moral values?! Perhaps he should try taking his own advice.

About Lauren Lane

Lauren Lane is the co-founder of Skepticon, the Midwest's largest skeptic student-run conference and remains a lead organizer today. She has not one, but TWO fancy art degrees and is not afraid to use them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509794993 Orson Sedmina

    gad, if anyone ever needed to be aborted…

    • Coyotenose

      I’m torn. Wishing death on people is usually pretty foul, but wishing preemptive nonexistence? I’m not sure where that falls morally.

      • Rwlawoffice

         Wishing death on someone is foul, but actually engaging in it through abortion is morally ok?  Yes that is logic for you.

        • Jim [the other Jim]

           Abortion is NOT “death on someone”.

          • Rwlawoffice

            Of course this depends on how you define life.  I of course define life to include the life of the one inside the womb, thus it is murder.

            • amycas

               Of course you conveniently forget about the life of the woman to whom that womb belongs. Continuing for our other conversation: Fuck off.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 I am defining life for both equally. 

                Continuing our other conversation: Have a great day.

                • amycas

                  No, it’s not equal. You’re giving the fetus the rights to use somebody else’s body without their consent. Nobody else ever has that right. 

                • RebeccaSparks

                  I’m curious, what would you do if those lives were in opposition?  Like a mother had cancer and she needed chemo to live, which would kill her fetus?  (If you’ve answered this, please kindly point me to your comment.  Thank you)

                • Miss_Beara

                  I am also curious of this. 

                  I take antidepressants that can cause birth defects in a fetus if I were to become pregnant. If I were to go off of them, I become severely depressed and anxious with thoughts of suicide. If I stay on them, the fetus can have birth defects. If I chose to have it, I have a very high chance of post partum depression. 

                  So either severe depression and anxiety for 9 months, or chance of birth defects and a high chance of severe postpartum depression. 

                  2 of the  many reasons I will do everything I can not to get pregnant. And 2 of the many reasons RW actually is NOT “defining life for both equally.” 

                • Rwlawoffice

                   My position would be that in this case the mother’s life is at risk so both person’s right to life must be balanced.  As a result, I would advise to try and provide what the mother needs in such a way as to do the least amount of damage to the fetus and be more aggressive with her treatment after the baby is born.

                • RebeccaSparks

                  Thank you for your reply.  Let me make sure I understand your answer. 

                  The problem that I offered up for consideration, is that the expectant mothers condition is deadly left untreated and  deadly to the unborn when treated.   It seems either that you’re rejecting this premise by optimistically believing that there is a way to save both, regardless of evidence to the contrary, or you’re willing to risk letting to gamble both lives before choosing between them.  Is that right?

                • Rwlawoffice

                  My position is that they both have a right to life. That right will have to be balanced medically. As premised it is too abstract to make a more definitive position. 

                • amycas

                   It’s not an abstract situation to the women who have to live it. That’s why i don’t think these types of decisisions should be legislated.

                • Fsq

                  Oh you are so full of self righteous shit.

                  And to say “have a great day” is just the fucked up christian way of saying fuck you.

                  You are a vile turd of a human.

                • amycas

                   “And to say “have a great day” is just the fucked up christian way of saying fuck you.”

                  In all fairness, he only started giving me the Christian “fuck you” once I started signing off every post to him by saying “fuck off.”

                • Fsq

                  So do you also have PhDs in developmental biology, medicine, medical ethics, genetics or neuroscience to go with that crackerjack JD of yours? Whats that you say? You don’t…..well then slappy, tell me why you feel qualified to make a judgement as what is and isnt life, and just how you arrived at your brilliant conclusion.

                  You are the prime example of idiot america. As long as you repeat the lie loud enough and ofteenough, you believe it becomes truth. Well, sorry there Mr. cochrane, this is not an example of saying “if the glove doesnt fit you must acquit” and you do not get to change fact.

                  You are entitled to your own opinions, as retarded they may be, but you do NOT have the right to your own facts.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   The way I define life is the same way human life is defined in all other aspects other than those that want to support the killing of human life in the womb. 

                  In biology, life is defined as by the characteristics that distinguish it from a dead organism, namely the ability to grow, to metabolize and response to stimuli.  The unborn fits this definition.

                  Medically, death is most commonly defined at the lack of a heart beat and brain wave activity. If the human has this, it is still considered to be alive.  The fetus after several weeks of development has both.

                  Even someone as dense as you should recognize this.

  • DG

    Yeah, if we don’t live in a society where a baby can be aborted for any reason at any time, then we just aren’t living in an enlightened society.

    • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

      I do always love it when theists set their hair on fire to prove a point which an atheist never argued.

      • DG

        It would appear a point never argued if when any suggestions on limiting abortion weren’t shot down on arrival by those insisting they’re not making the argument.

        • Coyotenose

           As soon as you can make an actual argument as to how one would go about crafting a law that limits abortion rights without at the same time trampling all over the rights of actual people to their own bodies, we’ll consider taking you Pro-Scared-Girls-Suffering folks a bit more seriously.

          Also: Blastocysts, embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Nice try with the emotional appeal.

          • DG

            Since pro-choice advocates always argue in the rape/life of the mother realm, limit all abortions to medical providers producing evidence that the abortion was for rape or the life of the mother, or similar grave issue. After all, any other medical procedure will need verification of need.  Make abortion the same way. Since, as we all know, it’s all about those extreme cases, not simply selling human life cheap as a way to expand our libidos without consequences.

            • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

               Why is it anyone else’s business why a woman seeks an abortion?

              I don’t need to justify my medical choices to anyone bu the physician or provider  I am asking to help me – that includes Mr/Ms State Senator who wants their head so far up my vagina  I should be able to charge.

              Abortion isn’t about “sex without consequences” – most people that have had them though, are relieved because they were able to finish college or high school,  escape an abusive relationship,  keep food on the table for the children they already have, or – they DONT want to parent, and do not want to face the risks  of carrying a pregnancy to term – which, in the USA – is more dangerous than an early term abortion.

              • DG

                Because some people feel a society does not have the right to arbitrarily define human life, and then allow people to act on it based on their own personal whims or fancies.  That’s like asking why I think it’s my business that someone shouldn’t be able to bully gay kids.  It’s the bully’s business, right?  No, we would say the bully is affecting someone else.  Same with abortion.  From the anti-abortion perspective, that little bugger inside the womb is already a person, and no amount of screaming and calling names has convinced us otherwise.  Therefore it would be as much our business as it would be for the government to come in and, for instance, tell doctors that they can’t treat patients based on the idea that homosexuality can be cured.  I would think that’s between the patient and the doctor, but lo and behold, I’ve notice a whole lot of folks suddenly saying that’s not the most important consideration.  Well, same with abortion, from an abortion regulating perspective.

                • Reginald Selkirk

                  Therefore it would be as much our business as it would be for the
                  government to come in and, for instance, tell doctors that they can’t
                  treat patients based on the idea that homosexuality can be cured.  I
                  would think that’s between the patient and the doctor

                  .
                  That’s a very poor analogy. The reason the government might tell doctors not to treat patients based on the idea that homosexuality can be cured is that it not safe nor effective for the patient. I.e. it doesn’t work.
                  The safety and efficacy of abortion, relative to pregnancy, is well understood.

                • DG

                  Then the argument ‘keep the government out’ is not valid, for it is obvious contingent on other factors.

                • Fsq

                  Jesus ass sniffing Christ, you are an idiot. The thing that is awful about people like you is that you are allowed to vote. You can’t ink outside of a bag, and yet you try and act Ike you have some sort of knowledge. Al you are doing is regurgitating some pamphlets you asshole pastor gave out during the tax free service.

                  You are a hypocrite and turd of a human.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  When the gay kid is INSIDE the bully’s body, then you might have an analogy.

                  And, if you “believe” a brainless clump of cells is a person, you can act on that however you want IN YOUR OWN LIFE. Hey, if you want to believe aliens talk to you through your toaster that’s your right, too. You do NOT, however, have the right to shove that utterly ascientific view down everyone else’s throats.

                • Coyotenose

                   On what basis do you consider an embryo, etc. a person? Until five or six months in, there is no electrical activity at all in the brain, which itself takes most of that time to even become differentiated.

                  A PERSON has thoughts, feelings and memories. No amount of screaming and calling names will make “Human”=”Person”.

                  Bullies harm PEOPLE. People with thoughts, feelings and memories, who are not physical parasites on the bodies of others. Your analogy is garbage.

                  Given that homosexuality is inborn and not harmful, “treating” it is quackery. Patients have a right to try to change that about themselves if they wish to. Doctors do not have a right to promote fake treatments. Generally it isn’t even doctors doing so, it’s clergy and religious shysters. Actual doctors who are interested tend to aware of the medical history of homosexuality.

                  Finally, you’re arbitrarily trying to define human life, guy. Stop projecting.

                • Ndonnan

                  All you have to do is google abortion videos and you will see a 12week old babys heart rate go through the roof and thrash around trying to get away from the suction tool then you will see “electrical activity” before your eyes. Then they crush the head so they can suck that up aswell, what if any thoughts and feeling went through its head , you decide!

                • Ndonnan

                  Perfect reply and example DG

              • ClayJames

                ¨Why is it anyone else´s business why a woman seeks an abortion?¨

                Because both pro life and pro choice advocates (at least a vast majority) hold the same basic premise, that it is ok to abort a fetus unless it is a human life. This is at the heart of a debate that has unfortunately been marketed as a vilification of the opposite point of view, making it about either not letting women chose, vs. wanting to kill a human life.

                Why is it anyone else´s business why a woman seeks to kill her 1 year old baby? Even the most vocal pro choice advocates would be against this. The only basic difference between the vast majority of people on opposite sides of the debate is that they believe life begings at different points.

                • amycas

                  ” Because both pro life and pro choice advocates (at least a vast
                  majority) hold the same basic premise, that it is ok to abort a fetus
                  unless it is a human life.”

                  I’m pro-choice, and that’s not my premise. In fact, I do consider it human life, but I understand that bodily autonomy always trumps right-to-life. It’s why I could never force you to donate a kidney to me, even if you’re the only match and even if you’re the reason I need a new kidney.

                • ClayJames

                  Where would you draw the line and why? According to your logic, if bodily autonomy always trumps right to life, are you ok with aborting a 35 week old fetus? Its perfectly fine if you do, everyone can draw the line where ever they please, this is completely subjective. But you have to acknowledge that most pro choice advocates draw the line way before that and define life to fit within that definition.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  You know, this might amaze you, but very VERY few people want to be pregnant for 35 weeks and then just give up (not to mention that such a late-term abortion is a VERY uncomfortable process for the mother!).  Anything this late-term (and you pretty much NEVER hear of anything this as late as 35 weeks!) are due to catastrophic events–fetal anomalies, HEELP syndrome (and at this stage they’d usually deliver the baby, not abort), oligo/polyhydramnios, brain death, etc., etc. People in this situation have enough heartwrenching shit to go through without people like you feeling entitled to but in on their lives.

                  Also, we’re not talking about where an *individual* would draw their own line, we’re talking about when the law tries to limit access to medical care. And, when the result is the law forcing people to endure painful and dangerous medical complications, the appropriate response to subjective matters is for the law to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF IT.

                • amycas

                   To answer your question: when the fetus is no longer dependent on the mother’s body.

                • Ndonnan

                  Yes and why stop there ,they keep on affecting your “body autonomy” after their born.So what if they are breathing air, they are still a nucence, you should be able to off them then aswell

                • LeftSidePositive

                  No, whether or not a fetus is “a human life” has absolutely no bearing on my right to control my own body.

                  A 1-year old isn’t inside its mother’s body.  It can be cared for by anyone. This is not difficult to understand, unless someone is a pompous, willfully ignorant asshat.

                  Now, that said, there is no evidence whatsoever that a 10-week old embryo has any characteristics that make it a person in any moral or philosophical sense, so I must ALSO say that the idea that abortion ends “a human life” is colossal bullshit, so eminently portrayed by DG here, who claims to care about human life but is really just bitter that women don’t have to suffer as much as he’d like for having sex. But, that is irrelevant to the point that I get to control my own body, and I don’t owe my organs to anyone.

                • ClayJames

                  There is also no evidence that a 20 or 35 week old fetus has any characteristics that make it a person because personhood, in both a moral or philosphical sense, is completely subjective. Scientific evidence cannot tell you when a fetus becomes a human person, it can only tell you when certain developmental stages and characteristics occur. From there, someone can use these developmental characteristics to subjectively define when a fetus becomes a human life, but you have to acknowledge that this is completely subejctive. The belief that a fetus becomes a human life at conception is as valid from a philosophical and moral framework, as a fetus becoming a human life at birth.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  No, the idea that a fetus becomes a person at conception is complete and utter bullshit. Personhood is not COMPLETELY subjective–not even close.  There are abundant criteria that we can use to establish personhood: Does the entity have a sense of self? Can the entity feel pain? Is the entity aware of its surroundings? Can the entity interact with others? Now, what qualifies for each of these criteria requires some judgement (how self-aware is “self-aware”? Is a dog “self-aware” by that definition? Where do you draw the line about “self-awareness”?) but “somewhat” does not in ANY way equal “completely,” or you’d be seriously considering whether or not someone’s belief that vegetables have personhood is a valid philosophical and moral framework. If you’re trying to argue that something has “personhood” when it PHYSICALLY LACKS ANY CAPACITY WHATSOEVER to exhibit or experience any traits we identify with being a person, yeah, we can pretty much say that your worldview is a pathetic cover for other ulterior motives (usually, bitterness at women enjoying their sex lives).

                  But, I hope you enjoy holding about 6 million funerals for the embryos that are estimated to be lost per year before pregnancy is even detected.  I’m sure all those “people” mean a great deal for you, and you’d better mourn them since the women whose uteri so cruelly expelled them didn’t even know they were there, much less gone.  In fact, I even wonder how you have time to comment, since you have to say your personal goodbyes to 16,438 souls every day.  That’s about 11 a minute, barely enough time to reflect on their unique personalities…

                • ClayJames

                  Calm down sweetheart, I am an atheist and pro abortion, so don´t get your panties in a bunch.

                  You are wrong, just because something is subjective does not mean that it has no criteria. The problem is that the criteria is completely subjective and the conclusion from that criteria is also completely subjective. Why is the ability to feel pain a criteria for personhood? Why is the sense of self also a requirement for personhood? There is nothing you can point to in nature to show why this ought to be the case. These criteria are 100% dependent on human minds and are therefore subjective. The idea of personhood is a invention of the human mind and it has not identifiable basis in science or nature. So defining personhood as the ability to feel pain and defining it as the creation of a zygote are both just as valid because they are both completely subjective.

                  Sorry to break it to you, but your idea of personhood is a complete mental construc and therefore, is just as valid as someone else´s mental construct. So I advise you to use logic in your arguments and at the very least, know the definition of words you are using, because you make women look like irrational emotional babbling idiots.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU, you condescending sexist ass!!

                  Your attitude is absolutely un-fucking-acceptable. Don’t you fucking DARE tell me to calm down, you pompous shithead! You have no fucking business demeaning women’s opinions and attacks against our reproductive freedom by telling us how we should behave or how we should react to you.

                  I’ll tell you how I think it’s best to react to you: tell you point-blank what a thoughtless, self-entitled, sexist fucking wanker you are.  Seriously: GO FUCK YOURSELF. You deserve no better for your arrogant and sexist bullshit.

                  Furthermore, I seriously doubt you’re even pro-choice. Like, fucking NO ONE says “pro abortion” to describe their own position–it’s invariably a strawman set up by the forced-pregnancy nutjobs.YOU are wrong, because you said “completely subjective,” and that’s fucking bullshit. Completely subjective means without input from any type of observable reality or evidence, and that is most emphatically not the case.

                  No, it is not completely subjective when something has a brain.  That is a morphological and biochemical fact.  It is not completely subjective when that brain has electrochemical activity. It is not subjective when something shows signs of interacting with its environment. It is not subjective when something is able to communicate. These are all eminently observable to third parties and quantifiable and falsifiable to varying degrees.

                  Furthermore, OF COURSE personhood is an invention of a human mind–that’s what makes us PEOPLE, for fuck’s sake!! Valuing a human mind is an invention of a human mind…no shit, Sherlock!  Yay, tautologies!!  But, let’s also remember that human rights, love, and generosity are also inventions of a human mind and those aren’t “completely subjective” either.  And, it’s also utterly ignorant of you to say that personhood has no basis in science–consider neuroscience, psychology, and social sciences for a start, dumbshit!!

                  Moreover, reacting with disgust to the utter bullshit you have spewed is a perfectly rational response, and one that is necessary to shun such odious views.  Like Greta Christina, I believe anger is a necessary and important part of activism, and so you’d better fucking get used to some righteous indignation, motherfucker!

                  Also, it’s one thing to say that MY logic is lacking (which it isn’t, especially compared to yours!), but for you to act like you’re entitled to extrapolate that to all women shows what a bigoted, stereotype-driven ass you really are.

                • ClayJames

                  Calm down princess, let the men do the thinking and just do as you are told, now, make yourself useful and go make me a sandwich.

                  So Cute, Muah!

                • LeftSidePositive

                  This may shock you, but you are not in fact any more clever than the other thousands of misogynistic jerkwads who try to silence women on the internet. Fuck off.

                • Patterrssonn

                  What a wanking piece of shit you are

                • Ndonnan

                  You havent watched any abortion videos have you?

                • LeftSidePositive

                  I’ve actually been in the room when an abortion was being performed and looked at all the fetal parts under the microscope, you dumbshit.

                • amycas

                   He doesn’t care about what actually happens during an abortion. He believes what he was programmed to believe.

            • LeftSidePositive

              I don’t fucking owe you an explanation why I get to control my own body, shithead.
              And I get to enjoy my libido without turning over my body to an invader, you misogynistic sex-negative patriarchal douche.

              Do you consider indoor heating “a cheap way to live in cold climates without consequences”? Do you consider lung cancer treatments “a cheap way to smoke without consequences”?  Human beings figure out how to avoid consequences AND WE FIX THEM.  Acting like women must suffer consequences for being sexual is a huge naturalistic fallacy, and also shows that you’re a collossally misogynistic wankstain.

              • Coyotenose

                 I love this post so much I can’t even say.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Yes, I’ve recently made a resolution to respond to forced-pregnancy pontifications with exactly the respect they deserve.

                • amycas

                   I started ending every post to RW and Nordog in the last abortion thread with the phrase “fuck off” for this exact reason.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Yeah, by the middle of that thread every one of my replies to them was basically channeling Tim Minchin, vis a vis:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0

                  (not to imply anyone here hasn’t heard this before, but I’m including the link for the convenience of those who are inspired to enjoy it again…)

              • DG

                Then go to a doctor tomorrow and ask him to take off an arm.  It’s your body.  He should.  There should be no regulations against it, right?   Oh, and acting like it’s wrong to be expected to avoid consequences for our actions was once something that the average person outgrew by about the time they were done with diapers.  Nice to see our enlightened post-modern age continues to impress.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  I’ve already addressed this canard about the lungs, so read that and if you still have any questions I’ll deal with them on that thread.

                  Why are you comparing a medical procedure that is so common that 40% of women have it by the time they reach 40, to something only a deranged psych patient could need?  Guess what?  Getting an unwanted embryo out of my body has clear, documented medical, physical, and emotional benefits to me, so you really can’t fucking compare it to a medically unnecessary procedure.

                  And while you’re glorifying “consequences,” I presume you’ll also rail against seatbelts, elevators, antibiotics, vaccines, airbags, air traffic control, fire departments, poison control centers, and so on and so on and so on…

                • amycas

                   Abortion is not avoiding consequences–it’s dealing with those consequences. I would think somebody who views embryos as humans with full person-hood rights would not want to demean the embryo bycharacterizing its existence as a mere “consequence” of another’s actions.

            • Coyotenose

               Ta da! You’ve suggested legislation that makes the embryo more important than the actual person. You’ve therefore suggested taking away womens’ rights to their bodies.

              Again, blastocysts. embryos, and fetuses aren’t babies, and likewise they aren’t humans until pretty late term in any meaningful sense. Talking about “human life” is therefore meaningless, and pretty goddamn hypocritical while trying to make women do with themselves what you want and complaining because many of them like sex because they’re, you know, ACTUAL PEOPLE.

              • DG

                How can you be so sure when other folks are busy saying there’s just no way we can agree on how one defines it?   Oh, and given the body count of the last century, I’m all for talking about human life, since we’ve seen the results of societies that adopt the ‘human life?  It’s all opinion isn’t it?’ approach to the topic.

                Oh, and stop with the making women do this or that argument.  The day I can walk into a doctor’s office and ask him to take out my lung, and he does it without question, and nobody cares, then we can talk. 

                • Coyotenose

                   Resorting to an argumentum ad Hitlerum? Pathetic. Not even worth my time. Jesus, read a book.

                  No, not THAT book. Try one that doesn’t contradict itself while making absurd claims.

                  Taking out a healthy lung endangers the life of the patient. Taking out an embryo actually improves the chances of the patient’s survival, almost regardless of the situation, and can prevent a whole host of other life-diminishing or -altering consequences.

                  You really need to stop trying analogies. They aren’t working. See, one of the neat things about skeptics is that they get experience at dissecting statements. It’s called a “bullshit detection kit”.

                • amycas

                   If the law forces me to remain pregnant, when I do not want to be pregnant, then the law IS forcing women to do things.

                • Ndonnan

                  No they are holding you responsable for your actions

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Holding me “responsible” for being a sexual being is misogyny, pure and simple.  I deserve EXACTLY the same rights to sexual fulfillment as a man, and no one ever marches them off to blood banks and bone marrow donation for the sin of having sex, do they?!

                  Holding me “responsible” by invading my body, putting me through months of pain and suffering and the possibility of deadly medical complications is pure torture, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

                • amycas

                   I say, next time Ndonnan has sex, we just strap him down in his sleep and connect him to another person why needs to use his body as life-support for the next 8 or 9 months. If he tries to disconnect himself, we’ll just say,”hey, letting somebody use your body as life support is just the consequences of having sex.”

                • Miss_Beara

                  Ah yes, the shaming women who have sex with pregnancy excuse. 

                • Tom

                  You can do that today.  Just walk on in there and say “I want to become a lung donor.”

        • schmavery

          Maybe if ‘limiting abortion’ by restricting access to it, or making it illegal were an actual solution to reducing abortion rates, we’d take you guys a bit more seriously.

          • DG

            We’ve had laws against murder and rape for eons, yet I don’t hear people argue that since people continue to rape and murder, there is no reason to have the law.   Like most arguments that can be boiled down to an advocacy for hedonism and narcissism, it sounds good until you think it through.

            • schmavery

              Wait, give me a second to get out my abortion debate Bingo card. I’m pretty certain there’s a ‘equates the removal of a bundle of tissues to rape and murder’ square on there somewhere.

              • DG

                Show me the final scientific proof that it is not a person.

                • Reginald Selkirk

                  That depends on the definition of “person,” doesn’t it?
                  .
                  And even if the fetus is a “person,” what bearing does that have on a woman’s right to control her own body? I want to see your final, scientific proof that women are just baby factories, not “persons.”

                • schmavery

                  The personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. It’s in my body, it’s within my jurisdiction.

                • DG

                  Then let’s all hope you are never elected supreme despot of the country. 

                • schmavery

                  Because wanting to make my own reproductive choices makes me more inclined to, what, become an evil tyrant? Dude, what are you on?

                • Rwlawoffice

                   So, according to you, you have the right to kill another person that you helped create, even is unwittingly, just because that other person is currently inside of your body and because you want to? And your side of this debate tries to take the moral high road.  Pathetic.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Yes.  Because it’s my fucking body.  This is not hard to understand.

                • schmavery

                  Uh, yes? That’s called self-defense. I am not required to risk my life for anyone else, especially not a ‘potential person’.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Self defense is only justified if your life is being threatened.  So this argument is only applicable if the life of the mother is actually at risk, which is not the result of the majority of pregnancies and certainly not the reason the majority of abortions occur.

                • schmavery

                  Pregnancy is incredibly dangerous. At any point in time the woman’s life is at a heightened
                  risk for life-threatening complications. It’s not an experience anyone should be forced to have against their will.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  While that maybe true to an extent,the equally real truth is that for all fetuses abortion is deadly. So who should protect the fetus from this violance? Who is going to help the fetus in its “self defense”? 

                • LeftSidePositive

                  It doesn’t have a fucking brain yet. QED.

                • DG

                  What doesn’t and when?  Abortion is allowed well past the point in which the child has a brain. 

                • LeftSidePositive

                  The fetus doesn’t have anything even resembling a brain at the point when most abortions occur (<12 weeks), and the brain isn't actually connected up until about 30 weeks.

                  And anyway, the point of abortion is not about whether a fetus is a "person"; it's about bodily autonomy.  Just because something is "human" doesn't mean I have to let it hurt me.

                  However, that said, there is no reason whatsoever to feel guilty about terminating a 10-week fetus, because it has absolutely none of the neural architecture that could even allow awareness or any moral or philosophical meaning of "personhood" to be possible. Nor is there any justification to try to pressure women into continuing an unwanted pregnancy for the sake of this mindless thing. Nor is there any justification for cutting off vital avenues of stem-cell research or helping infertile couples have families for the sake of a few cells in a dish.

                • Ndonnan

                  You really need to watch abortion videos,it makes all your post irrelivent and false,look for yourself if you dare

                • LeftSidePositive

                  I have actually witnessed an abortion firsthand, and examined all the fetal parts (as I think I’ve told you TWICE already)…it may interest you to know that those “abortion videos” lie about the age of the fetus, lie about the clinical indication for abortion in that case, and are generally misleading.

                • Coyotenose

                  Human =/= Person. Stop lying and pretending this wasn’t addressed hours ago. You’re changing your argument.

                • http://profile.yahoo.com/SH5Y2EVWTCTIZM4HQSMC2Z4IWQ Nicholas V

                   Do you have any idea what a fucking stupid statement this is, personhood arguments aside.

                  Here’s an illustration. I think that you’re a penguin shit-eating ass spelunker. Prove that you’re not. Keep in mind that you could just be a penguin shit-eating ass spelunker who’s really good at hiding it.

                • DG

                  Well, there you go.  The pro-life argument is that if we can’t come to an agreement that’s verified by science on just what a person is, let’s not abort it.  Sort of like if you’re out hunting and you hear some rustling in the bushes, don’t shoot and then say, “I’m pretty sure it wasn’t another hunter.”  Best to make sure first, before you shoot.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  No, you fucking idiot. The appropriate response is that if you can’t justify your absurd belief (“a brainless clump of cells is really a person”), you need to  STOP FORCING YOUR VIEWS ON OTHERS.

                  You can’t prove to me that there aren’t invisible elves living in my carpet. However, just because that can never be definitively proven DOES NOT mean that it’s rational for me to never vacuum my carpet, nor would I be justified to try to prevent others from vacuuming their carpets.

                  You are the one making the claim. You are the one trying to limit real human being’s rights.  You are the one who has totally failed to understand that your claim isn’t even RELEVANT to said human being’s rights. So, you are the one who either needs to provide evidence or shut the fuck up.

                • Ndonnan

                  Um science proves the point totally

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Yeah….just throwing around the term “science” without any substantiation or citations makes you look *really* educated… *eyeroll*

                • Stev84

                  Personhood is a legal and not a scientific concept. Even someone of your intellect should be able to understand that

                • Fsq

                  Oh for christsake, the data and studies are out there dumbass. You just choose to turn your head and it believe them.

                  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

                  And you are using such juvenile argumentation techniques, it makes me want to go out and abort 100 blastocysts just to make my head stop aching.

                  And let’s get something else out of the way slick, you are not “pro life”. You are anti-choice, and pro oppression.

                • amycas

                  I don’t care if it’s a person. It doesn’t have the right to use my body without my consent. Should I be allowed to use your body as life-support without your consent?

                • Ndonnan

                  Spread your legs Amy you gave your consent darl

                • amycas

                  Do you have something against sex? That’s what all of your arguments boil down to: you had sex so you lose the right to your body. Do men lose the rights to their body after having sex?

                  You were also the one in the last thread who said that rape victims shouldn’t be allowed to abort either. I guess your canard about “spreading your legs” is not really your argument. You really do just want to be able to control women’s bodies. She chooses to have sex, force her to stay pregnant. She gets raped, force her to stay pregnant. Consent really makes no difference to shits like you.

                  Fuck off.

                • Miss_Beara

                  That is all these people want to do, control women’s bodies. Get raped and got pregnant? Too bad, you still had sex and that is your punishment for having sex. And the equally sickening “rape babies are a gift from god.” 

                  Shut the fuck up.

                • Miss_Beara

                  What a disgusting and misogynistic comment. 

            • Coyotenose

               Bad analogy again. Given what we know about abortion rates and safety, your counterargument would only hold true if laws against rape and murder actually INCREASED the dangers of them.

              Accusing people of hedonism and narcissism for demanding natural rights exposes the hollowness of your arguments.

              • DG

                We have laws against murder and murder rates went up.  From the 70s through the 90s, they increased.  Sexual crimes seem to have peaked as well.  The point is, there are plenty of things that ‘people do’ even if laws and society are against those things.  We just don’t suddenly throw up our hands and say ‘let’s make it legal.’  It’s a very weak argument that says nothing about the morality of the act, or the reality of the situation, even though it is one of the main arguments of the pro-choice side.

                • Coyotenose

                   Seriously? Now you’re confusing correlation with causality? God, is this the best the opposition can muster, fudging reality?

                  Just before I read this, I thought my responses were getting too harsh. But either you’re completely ignorant of how logic works, or you’re being willfully dishonest. Pick one.

                • amycas

                   Actually, recent studies have shown that historically we’re living in the least violent time in all recorded history. You are least likely to die aviolent death now, then you would have been if you lived at any other point in history.

      • Stev84

         Just stop feeding the troll. It’s nothing but a gigantic deja vu

    • Cortex_Returns

      I know you’re being sarcastic, but I actually agree with that statement. BOOGA BOOGA!

      • DG

        Sadly, I was merely repeating a growing ideal that I hear all too often.

        • LeftSidePositive

          So what’s your alternative? The state gets to decide what happens to a woman’s body?  People get to sit in judgment as a woman is suffering and deny her medical care?  Mothers with fatal fetal anomalies should just have to suffer through birthing a suffering, dying child just so some people can have the satisfaction of butting in on her choices?

          • DG

            I dont’ know.  The state says all kinds of stuff.  I can’t just walk into a doctor’s office and ask him to  take out a lung.  No doctor in his right mind will do it.  If he did, I could likely throw the books at him and get his ability to practice medicine thrown down the tubes. 

            And I’m all for saying if all we want to talk about is the worst case scenarios (rape, health of mother, etc.), then let’s limit all abortion to those, and go from there.  If that’s all the pro-choice wants, and it really isn’t about a cheap redefining of human life in order for women to jump on every Tom and Harry’s you-know-what without consequences, then that shouldn’t be a bad compromise – abortion only when needed and verified that the need was there.  I’m fine with that.

            • schmavery

              the misogyny is strong in this one.

            • LeftSidePositive

              Abortion is a medically-indicated treatment for a known medical condition (pregnancy). Lungs do not cause people to gain 80 pounds and then get expelled from the body in an hours-long, painful, and potentially deadly process. Lungs don’t cause you to get diabetes. Lungs don’t play havoc with your kidneys. Lungs don’t make you vomit uncontrollably for days. Lungs don’t require 18+ years of financial and emotional support once they’re expelled. Lungs don’t shoot your blood pressure through the roof and try to kill you.  And, if someone’s lung were actually doing that (say, sequelae to cancer), then yes, removing it may be a necessary therapeutic option (it’s called pneumonectomy). Comparing a woman of sound mind who does not wish to be pregnant to a psych patient who wants a functioning lung removed is extremely offensive to women’s abilities to make accurate judgments about what we do and don’t want in our bodies.

              I HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUCK WHOEVER I WANT, WHENEVER I WANT (provided he consents, of course!).  I DO NOT OWE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ANY “CONSEQUENCES” FOR BEING A SEXUAL PERSON.
              And all your fucking tosh about caring about fetuses is fucking bullshit.  You just hate the fact that women can have fulfilling sex lives.  Well, tough shit, motherfucker.

              • Fsq

                Yes!!!!!!

              • Rwlawoffice

                 Let’s apply this same twisted and idiotic logic to the father.  He didn’t ask to become a father even though he did consent to the sex, so why hold him financially responsible? Why change his life? Why does the state hold him responsible for his acts?
                 
                Truth is both parties are responsible for their acts and the innocent victim of their actions should not have to pay the consequences, either before they are born or after.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Holding someone responsible for their MONEY is not at all the same as invading their BODY, and if you had any empathy you’d know that.  Similarly, while a father may be held FINANCIALLY responsible for a child (EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE MOTHER IS, I might remind you–in fact, women pay disproportionately MORE of the child-rearing costs!), but he cannot be forced to donate a kidney to the child.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   It is just the logical extension of your ridiculous contentions.  If a father doesn’t pay the support he is ordered to pay he goes to jail.  So his entire body is affected, not just his kidney.

                  The logic that holds father’s morally and legally responsible for the support of their child, hold true for the reasons why abortion should be illegal and at the least morally reprehensible- both the father and the mother  have created a life, even if unwittingly, and place that life in a vulnerable position.  As philosopher Francis Beckwith has written, “The parents of the fetus are responsible
                  for assisting it because they are in fact responsible for bringing into
                  existence a being that is needy by nature and thus are responsible for
                  its neediness.”  

                   

                • LeftSidePositive

                  But even in jail they can’t invade his body, dumbfuck!  Have you SEEN the rules for medical research on prisoners?!?!

                  Furthermore, in that case he would be held for failing to meet his civil obligation ABOUT THE MONEY, just like any thief or fraudster.

                  And you have still failed to recognize that the financial responsibility toward the child IS SHARED BY THE MOTHER, but you seem to be warped into this man-has-money/woman-has-body trope that is stuck in, like, 1880.  By saying women also have to give up their body (a gross violation of human rights and a blatant category error in pretending that the body is the same as money!), you are actually holding them physically responsible IN ADDITION to their financial obligations, not instead of them.

                  Francis Beckwith is falling into exactly the same trap of 1) failing to define “existence,” 2) ignoring the principle of bodily autonomy, and 3) personifying the fetus against all neurological evidence. In other words, he’s just as idiotic as you are.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  This is not difficult: you are allowed to hold people responsible FINANCIALLY for the harm they do to other LIVING human beings and their property, but you cannot hold people’s BODIES hostage.  This is really, really simple: if you crash into my car, you are financially obligated to pay for the damage to my car, and my medical bills, but you are NOT responsible for giving me a kidney or a blood transfusion. Why is this so hard to understand?!

                  And the fetus cannot be a “victim” because it has no brain or sense of self. It simply doesn’t care if it exists or not, because its sentience simply doesn’t exist. It also doesn’t have to “pay” anything because it has no self and thus no ability to perceive cost or benefit.

                • Miss_Beara

                  Comparing a forced pregnancy of a woman to financial obligations of a man. 

                  One of these things is not like the other. 

                  What a bullshit and insulting comparison. 

                  Also, comparing forced pregnancy to a man being in jail. Bullshit.

                  Us women are in charge of our own bodies. Why the fuck is that so hard to understand? OUR ovaries, OUR uterii, OUR vaginas, OUR everything. Nobody, not anti-choicers, not the right wing and sure as hell not the fucking church, can tell us what to do with OUR bodies. 

                  I cannot believe that this is 2012 and there is still controversy over the reproductive rights of women. It is disgusting. 

                  MY body. MY choice.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   The only reason you don’t see that this is a perfectly appropriate comparison is because you think you are the only person who has any rights in this situation.

                  Lets go through the comparison-

                  Woman- I only consented to sex, not a pregnancy so I should have to care for this baby the rest of my life.

                  Man- I only agreed to have sex with the lady, I never consented to being a father so I should not have to care for this baby the rest of my life.

                  Woman- I do not want to be a mother, so I should be forced to support this baby.

                  Man- I do not want to be a father, so I should not be forced to  support this baby.

                  So using the pro abortion crowd’s logic, if one party should be able to make this decision before the child is born, the father should be able to make that same decision after its born.

                • amycas

                   A woman having an abortion is saying she doesn’t want to be pregnant. She may or may not want to raise a child. The abortion is addressing her bodily autonomy, not whether or not she wants to then raise a child. Nice try though.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   We are not talking about adoption, but abortion.  You seem to be confusing the justification of why you believe you get to make the decision and the reason for that decision. 

                • amycas

                   Yes, and with an abortion a woman is saying she does not wish to remain pregnant. Her choice doesn’t necessarily have to have anything to do with whether or not she wants to raise a child. It is a medical decision.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Really- your position is that a woman having an abortion is not doing it because she doesn’t want to raise a child?

                  Her decision not to remain pregnant is not just a medical decision, it has legal ramifications because the result is neither he or the father will have a legal obligation to raise the child or otherwise give it up for adoption through a legal process so someone else will assume that responsibility. 

                  What you are saying is that under the justification of bodily autonomy  the woman is the person in  this situation that has the sole and exclusive ability to make that decision. So, with this sole right don’t you agree that it should be her sole responsibility?  If you are going to be consistent in your logic, then if the woman has the sole authority to make the decision, if she chose to keep the baby, the father should have no responsibility to raise or support it.  If the woman in exercising her right of bodily autonomy decides to keep the baby she should have the sole responsibility to raise the child.

                  Understand that I don’t think this is the case, but it is the logical extension of your position.

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/SH5Y2EVWTCTIZM4HQSMC2Z4IWQ Nicholas V

              Help me understand. A fetus (‘unborn child’ if you prefer) has a right to life that we must respect, and therefore abortion is wrong.

              But, if the fetus is the product of rape and the mother can prove it, then that right to life can be waived at the mother’s prerogative.

              So, what happened to that right to life that we were supposed to respect?

              • Coyotenose

                 And there you have it. It isn’t about the poor “babies”. It’s about the uppity women.

              • amycas

                 Actually, Rw and Ndonnan were arguing in the other thread that rape victims shouldn’t have the right to an abortion either.

            • amycas

              ” …it really isn’t about a cheap redefining of human life in order for
              women to jump on every Tom and Harry’s you-know-what without
              consequences,”

              Oh, I get it, you’re just a slut-shaming asshole who thinks pregnancy should be used as a weapon against women who dare to enjoy their sexuality. Fuck off then.

            • Coyotenose

               Looking at your overall comments in this thread, you seem to be a little hung up on women having sex there.

              And again, you just suggested telling other actual people that they don’t have dominion over their own bodies.

              And you’re comparing mentally sound women who desire to be treated as independent adults to mental patients.

              The Venn Diagram of those three elements has an intersection that reads “Patriarchal Thinking”… if we’re extremely generous.

              • LeftSidePositive

                Ooh, I’m totally quoting that Venn Diagram of Patriarchy thing!!

    • newavocation

      Just who fights against sex education being taught in schools??? More sex education means less unwanted pregnancies. The only thing enlightening in churches are the candles. 

      • DG

        Few actually fight sex education in schools.  It’s the content of what’s being taught that is typically disputed.

        • Stev84

          Guilt-inducing and lie-ridden abstinence-only sermons isn’t “education”.

          • DG

            Not telling the kids that it’s 100% certain that safe sex will sometimes fail, and someone makes up the stats, isn’t exactly education, either. 

            • LeftSidePositive

              Comprehensive sex education DOES say this, but abstinence education often fails to mention that abstinence has a VERY high failure rate (indeed, its “success” is indistinguishable from kids who are told all about having sex!)

              • DG

                Actually, abstinence has a 0% failure rate.  Failure to follow through with abstinence often leads to problems, but so does attempts to practice safe sex.  Not to mention the myriad influences outside the classroom, and anyone attempting to say one way works, the other doesn’t, is ignoring the complexity of the issue.  For me, my experience was with ‘comprehensive SE’ that tended to water-down the bad results.  My oldest son had the same.  I’ve talked to others that had other experiences, and I’ve talked to folks who experienced abstinence ed. the same variety of ways.  In short, not cut and dried.  I just know that if one does abstain, there is 0% chance of problems.  If one does everything exactly right otherwise, there is still a chance, however slim, of becoming a stat.  And when we’re talking about tens of millions of people, that’s a big stat.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  You know, if you actually knew anything about medicine, you would know that efficacy is more important than effectiveness–how the intervention actually works in the real world is what matters, and if no one will follow your intervention, it won’t do any damn good. And, the data clearly show that kids who were taught to practice abstinence have JUST AS MUCH SEX as those who receive comprehensive sex education, BUT they are much LESS likely to use safe-sex practices.  The 3-5% failure rates with most birth control methods are DRAMATICALLY safer than the dangers of uneducated people having unprotected sex in a shame-filled, misinformed, disempowered way. The VAST majority of pregnancies are the result of people not using birth control, not of birth control failing (and the failures are often the result of people being unable to afford more reliable methods).

                  Moreover, most STDs are treatable, and pregnancy can be treated with abortion.  You act like someone becomes a “statistic” and they’re automatically dead, or something. Well, no.  Ideally, people should protect themselves a priori, but there are also post-hoc solutions so it’s not like being a “statistic” is the end of the world (not to mention, there are a hell of a lot more of those statistics to hypocritical abstinence-only practicers).The stats are completely against you.  States who promote abstinence-only education have higher rates of teen pregnancies and STDs. Abstinence education is completely ineffective at reducing sexual behavior and just hinders healthy risk-management.

            • Callice

              Yeah…. Don’t know where you are getting that information from buddy. I’m 22, high school was not that long ago. In every lecture (and I went to three high schools) on sex education that wasn’t aimed at abstinence only, it was stressed that condoms fail, birth control fails, etc., and that if you were going to have sex then you should be responsible for knowing how to use birth control properly, which would improve the success rate.

              On the other hand, the abstinence only lecture I went to was horrible. To give the gist of it “if you have sex, you WILL get pregnant, get an STD, and be a slut (only if you’re a girl, mind you, they never said anything derogatory about men having sex).

              • DG

                Odd, perhaps they are taught differently in different areas.  Perhaps – gasp! – it’s not just one way/other way, and there are many different ways that it is being taught, sometimes bad on both sides.  But then that would take away the fun of trying to use stats to buttress our arguments, as we realize it’s more complex than one way or the other.

                • Callice

                  Or perhaps you’re completely uninformed as to what is actually going on ;).  But it’d be easier (and would fit better in your world view) to imagine that teenagers are being told to go out and wantonly have sex, right? And what would be the point of saying that birth control methods are infallible? Honestly now, think about what you are saying hun. No doubt things are taught differently in different places — some places emphasize abstinence, some places teach you how to put on condoms, and some places avoid the subject altogether.  And I have never heard someone who has been formally educated about contraceptives say that they are infallible or that they have never heard of abstinence. I’ve heard some wacky shit from people who were subjected to the abstinence-only education though.  (Apparently, double-wrapping condoms means extra safety, didcha know that? :-p)

                  I would also like to bring up, as someone who was put on birth control before I was sexually active for ovarian cysts, that you are informed that no birth control method is 100% effective by either the nurses or the doctor examining your ladybits, even if you are not having sex. 

                  I think the stats are clear. Teenagers who are taught sex education that is worth a damn have fewer STI’s, fewer pregnancies, and less sexual partners.

            • amycas

              Good thing that no decent comprehensive sex-education curriculum does that then.

        • schmavery

          Usually the content is based in reality, so yeah, I can see why the pro-life religious folks might get upset about it.

          • DG

            Actually not.  When we learned sex ed, it was pretty much ‘no sex is for sure, but we know you’ll do it anyway, so here’s how’, with much less emphasis on ‘by the way, there is 100% chance that safe sex is not always safe, so somebody has to make up the stats.  It’s more or less Scrooge’s approach to sexuality – as long as I’m not the stat, let those who are go to the prisons and workhouses (or in this case, medical clinics or funeral homes). 

            • Fsq

              So you are afriad of fucking?

              You believe sex is for procreation only?

              Sex between same sex couples is evil or a sin?

              Tell me numbnuts, are you married? Is your wife post menopasual? If she is, do you still nail her? Has she ever blown you? Have you ever stuck it iner poopchute after a few too many Bartles and James wine coolers and repeats of Hee-Hah?

              Just looking for honest answers here slick.

            • Tom

              Any competent sex-ed teacher will point out that safe sex methods have a small chance of failure, and that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of avoiding STDs and pregnancy.  However, I can’t imagine why they’d ever want to use your bizarre “100% chance of not being 100%” way of putting it – that looks an awful lot like weasel words to me.

              • amycas

                 Weasel words coupled with a poor understanding of statistics. It reminds me of the cologne from Anchor Man:

                “60% of the time, it works every time!”

    • Henryahoy

      I love it when athiests are promoting free speech & rationalist thought with one breath, & then ripping each other apart when they come from different angles on another argument.  When they demonstrate everything they condemn religious people for. I always think it helps develop open conversation & respectful dialogue to just scream at someone that they’re a fucking idiot. I’m only disappointed into escalate into calling each other fucking faggots & then slamming doors. Wonderful, inspiring.  Please – ram some more opinions down my throat.

      • Stev84

        DG is a troll. Period. People have tried to be polite and reasonable with him. It’s completely pointless. By now anyone can predict his responses with near absolute certainty. This “conversation” is really just a repeat of at least two or three others in other comment threads

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/SH5Y2EVWTCTIZM4HQSMC2Z4IWQ Nicholas V

         Henry, all those other posters may be athier, but I’M the athiest.

        But then again spelling aside you don’t seem to be able to produce a coherent thought, so c’est la vie.

      • Coyotenose

         It’s very telling about your ability to comprehend what’s going on that you think refusing to respect misogyny and lies is a flaw.

      • LeftSidePositive

        It doesn’t threaten anyone’s free speech when I call zem a fucking idiot.  Furthermore, if someone is being a fucking idiot, the rational thing to do is identify why ze is being a fucking idiot and exert social pressure to maintain that level of fucking idiocy outside the realm of legitimate debate.

        And, no, I am not obligated to listen with “respect” to anyone who blithely insists I shouldn’t be able control my own body.  That is fucking appalling, and must be exposed as such. Moreover, the sorts of people who have such little regard for my humanity that they blithely insist that I should submit to being an incubator are so devoid of reason and basic human decency that no amount of “respectful dialogue” is going to change their fucking minds.

        You know what? I also don’t have any need for “respectful dialogue” with those who believe black people are inferior, that the crusades were justified, that poisoning public water supplies is acceptable, or who advocate child slavery.  I have a limited time to live, and I’m not going to waste it carefully considering points of view that are prima facie abhorrent.

        And, I’m not “ramming more opinions down your throat.”  I am simply asserting my own human rights, and I don’t need your permission for that, and I don’t need to modulate my tone for that.  I deserve to stand up for my rights without apology.

        For the record, I do not condemn religious people for standing firm for their beliefs; I condemn religious people because their beliefs are BATSHIT INSANE and do great harm.  Standing firm for something batshit insane is a problem, because of the batshit insanity, not the standing firm (for instance, it’s also a problem to be wishy-washily in favor of batshit insanity).  And, being unwavering in support of human rights is a very evidence-based position: do you really need us to rehash what happens when people DON’T stand up for human rights? This is not the same as being unwavering in support of some ramblings in a 2,000 year old book, unless you think it’s unreasonable to be unwavering in your acceptance of gravity or heliocentrism, too…

    • Baby_Raptor

      Nice strawman. 

  • schmavery

    At least he’s honest about the fact that his morals don’t include ensuring the safety and welfare of poor women! These assholes moan and groan about the ‘sanctity of life’ and then go on to say that they genuinely DO. NOT. CARE. that women will suffer and die as a result of their legislation. ‘Pro-life’ my fucking ass.

    • Kevin_Of_Bangor

      They only care about the unborn. Once you are born they give two shits about you.

      • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

        Not entirely true. If you’re terminally ill and vegetative they’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent your grieving loved ones from yanking out the plug. For various definitions of the word ‘care’.

        • Kevin_Of_Bangor

          A good reason for everyone to have a living will.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Patrick/100000027906887 Adam Patrick

          That’s why I have a living will, and I’ve made it clear to my parents that I don’t want to be put on life support if I go into a vegetative state.

      • Stev84

        They give far less than two shits

      • LeftSidePositive

        “If you’re pre-born, great! If you’re pre-school, you’re fucked!” –George Carlin

      • TiltedHorizon

         Giving two shits requires “giving”. They don’t give a shit.

    • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

      What I’ve always wanted to do (and may soon have the chance) is to attend a pro-lifer protest. While they’re marching down the street with their massive banner that has ‘PRO-LIFE’ across it, I’ll be marching next to that banner with my placard held up, a placard that says ‘= PRO-MISOGYNY’

      I’m just hoping I don’t get punched in the head for it.

      • Coyotenose

         Your average bunch of Misogynist Liars For Jesus is far more likely to bump into you and then claim you attacked them. Have a friend bring a camera and stand unobtrusively far enough away to take in the whole scene.

        You can bring it yourself of course, but then they’re sure to see it.

      • Annie

        Well, it depends.  If you are a man, you’d probably be just fine.  If you really want to blend in, I suggest misspelling misogyny.

  • Skjaere

    Well, you know, if you’re going to be the sort of evil, un-maternal woman who would murder your own unborn child, you probably deserve to suffer sepsis, etc… and die from a botched coathanger abortion. Or something.

    • Glasofruix

       A foetus is not a child.

      • LifeInTraffic

        I am pretty sure Skjaere was being sarcastic.

      • RebeccaSparks

        LOL!  Is a foetus an evil-unborn fetus?

        • Glasofruix

           Got 2 languages mixed up.

          • RebeccaSparks

            Apparently it’s an alternate spelling I wasn’t aware of in English as well.  (However, my interpretation of your words made me smile, so thank you :) ).

      • Coyotenose

         Skjaere is being sarcastic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cburschka Christoph Burschka

     Got his coat hanger right here.

    Argh, what a clown.

  • Fsq

    Disgusting.

    But once agin, it’s the durn southeuerners…..thems what Kant spel feer nothin…

    And the dudes name is “Bubba”, I mean, what do we expect from such?

    And I truly feel it is time we organize and begin protesting at churches. Seriously. And be inside. If a preacher or priest tries to push political agendas, record it and turn it over to the IRS. At some point they need to learn what it is to be picketed and protested.

    No more.

    • Coyotenose

       It’s very easy to mock Southerners when these slime are prominent in every state, right?

      • amycas

         I’m Texan. I grew up here. Most of them are like this, so they deserve to be mocked.

  • Tinker

    If there currently is only one clinic in all of MS, I suspect people are already going out of state or doing dangerous abortions on their own. After all, if they live in Biloxi or Tupelo they are closer to AL or LA than the one clinic in MS. I wonder why there is only one? I suspect the legislature has been quietly forcing other clinics to close.

    But this just shows – Mississippi is the most backward of all the Southern states and I think the politicians down there are proud of it.

    • Coyotenose

       You can shut down a lot of businesses by being a group of violent psychos who publicly circulate the names and addresses of physicians who help women along with inciteful rhetoric.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FDGYHBEWVNGUG763L5X4TON3JQ Nazani14

    I’m convinced that “poor” is often a code word for “not white.”  Removing accessible health care of all kinds is a way to try to reduce the non-white birth rate and infant survival rate.

    • Stev84

       Yup, usually these people are also racists who fear that brown people outbreed them

    • Cortex_Returns

      It’s also a great way to keep working class people, regardless of race, from collecting on those pesky retirement benefits, if they’re lucky enough to have even been promised any.

    • Rwlawoffice

       I would suggest you learn about Planned Parenthood and really find out what it is doing to the African American Race.  If anyone is reducing the non white birth rate it is those abortion mills. Four times as many abortions are done by Planned Parenthood on African Americans than on white women.  It is all in keeping with its founder’s eugenics positions.

      • LeftSidePositive

        You do realize that African American women go to Planned Parenthood because THEY THEMSELVES do not wish to be pregnant, right? You do realize that the women getting these abortions are conscious people with agency, right? You do realize that equally the same “eugenics” would be occurring to white women simply because of our greater access to birth control, thus preventing just as many (if not more!) pregnancies.  African American women need Planned Parenthood because they are socially disadvantaged and tend to have less access to birth control, and thus have more unintended pregnancies.

        And Margaret Sanger was very much respected by the African American community in her day, and when a Planned Parenthood opened up in Harlem there was a line around the block to use its services.

        But thanks for definitively showing what a right-wing loon you really are.

        • Rwlawoffice

           It is apparent that you really don’t like the truth to gt in the way of your positions.  Margret Sanger was a racist that believed in eugenics and specifically promoted abortion for the purposes of decreasing the number of black babies and other undesirables in our society.  She even advocated forced sterilization.

          Here is a link to the letter she wrote advocating just that:

          http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zhSYABmTVzsJ:www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/filmmore/ps_letters.html+there+should+be+national+sterilization+for+certain+dysgenic+types+of+our+population+who+are+being+encouraged+to+breed&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

          She was a member of the American Eugenics Society until the mid fifties.  So there is no doubt she was a racist who wanted planned Parenthood to be used to decimate the black population.

          It has even been confirmed by Planned parenthood itself.

          http://blog.ctnews.com/mixingitup/2012/02/07/was-planned-parenthood%E2%80%99s-founder-a-racist/

          • LeftSidePositive

            I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of what were mainstream opinions at that time.  Eugenics, sadly, was considered quite commendable to most of the medical establishment and to national policymakers. You can’t rationally treat people like they were radically monstrous when they comported with the values of their time… Or, do you discount all of the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and indeed our entire country because its founders owned slaves?

            This is called the Genetic Fallacy and is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

            • Rwlawoffice

               I love how you keep moving the goal post when you are confronted with the truth.  I posted that Margret Sanger was a racist and I took from your post that she wasn’t because the people in Harlem stood in line to use Planned Parenthood. Then when give you proof from Sanger and Planned Parenthood that proves she was a racist you now claim that she was not a monster based upon the culture of the times.  I don’t disagree with that idea, however, my point was that Sanger was a racist and she clearly was.  Today, her goal to decrease the African American race is being fulfilled. If you doubt this, go to the website, toomanyaborted.com.   

              • LeftSidePositive

                No, idiot.  First off, read up on what the genetic fallacy means.  Second, you only cited statements on reducing births of the disabled, which, sadly, was a common opinion at the time (and one that Sanger later repudiated, too!).  To condemn an organization based on the common opinions of the time in which it was created is utterly nonsensical, especially when you have no evidence that such attitudes remain in effect.

                The work of Planned Parenthood during Sanger’s lifetime was desperately needed and greatly appreciated in the African American community: you can’t reasonably call public health efforts “racist” when the people receiving them are greatly in favor of them. Whether or not MS internalized much of the prejudice in her time is IRRELEVANT to the fact that the work of the organization was deeply respected and much-needed. When the NAACP, WEB DuBois, Martin Luther King, and the National Association of Colored Graduate Nurses supported the efforts, you’re going to have to think harder about whether you actually care about people’s lived experience, or if you’re just appropriating their lives for your own political ends.

                Furthermore, you did not cite anything about eliminationist stances toward African Americans–if anything, you’ve confused Sanger’s desire to give people the chance to control their pregnancies and thus climb out of poverty with a nefarious plot to eliminate poor people themselves. This is shoddy thinking. You seem to make this same mistake regarding Planned Parenthood today, and you have UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY FAILED to understand that African American women who go to Planned Parenthood are intelligent, sentient beings who want abortions because THEY THEMSELVES do not want to be pregnant.  You are also totally unable to grasp that people who get abortions may indeed wish to have children later, when circumstances are more favorable.

                In short, your entire argument is weapons-grade stupid.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Sorry, I know very well what genetic fallacy is but that is not my argument.  My argument was that Margret Sanger was a racist and she was.   You don’t have to take my word for it, look at her beliefs and her actions.  According to Edwin Black who wrote the book War Against Edwin the Week, a history of the eugenics movement, he described Sanger as follows:

                  “Sanger was an ardent, self confessed eugenicist, and she would
                  turn her otherwise noble birth control organizations into a tool for
                  eugenics, which advocated mass sterilization of so-called
                  defectives, mass incarceration of the unfit, and draconian immigration
                  restrictions.  Like other staunch eugenicists, Sanger
                  vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and
                  deprived, and argued extensively that that it was better that the cold
                  and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior could
                  multiply without competition from “the unfit.”  She referred repeatedly to the lower classes and the unfit as “human waste” not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenics view that human “weeds” should be exterminated. ”

                  African Americans fit into this category and her goal was to reduce their numbers because they were unfit. She even engaged in a project called the “Negro Project” to engage black preachers to talk with African American communities about birth control. She used Negro preachers because she was concerned that her true intent of extermination of the black race would come out if white doctors spread the message. That concern is outlined in her own writings.

                  Today, we see the effects of that work in today’s Planned Parenthood clinics. African Americans make up 12% of the populations but 35% of the abortions. Planned Parenthood performs the vast majority of those and 78% of their clinics are in minority neighborhoods.  That is by design.  In fact, when it comes to  pregnancies the only real service
                  that Planned Parenthood provides is abortions.  according to their own
                  records, in 2010 this murder mill performed over 341,000 abortions, provided prenatal care to only 31,000 women and only referred 841 out for adoption.   It is clear what their agenda is.

                  Further, at the time that people like Martin Luther King  praised planned parenthood  it did not provide abortions like it does now.
                  Now, black leaders are seeing Planned Parenthood for what it really is- genocide of the black race.

                  Support them all you want, it goes step in step with your other opinions.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Yes, you ARE making a genetic fallacy.  Saying Margaret Sanger was racist is not an argument.  It is a statement.  By trying to imply it has any relevance to Planned Parenthood’s policies or current mission is to commit a genetic fallacy.  If you weren’t trying to imply that, you’d have no reason to say it.

                  You have provided absolutely no evidence for your assertion that blacks were considered “unfit,” and her extensive work with African American activists and luminaries completely undercuts your argument.

                  The Negro Project was well-respected and much appreciated by communities of color because those women WANTED to have control over their bodies, just like white women do. And you can’t say the Negro Project was terrible because it supported birth control and then turn around and say that it was okay that MLK supported Planned Parenthood because all they did then was birth control. Margaret Sanger wrote that she was concerned she would be misperceived since she was an outsider, and confided this concern to a black community leader, and this is what you douchebags try to quote out of context. Fuck you and your dishonesty.

                  You have completely failed to understand–or indeed even address!–the facts that I already showed you about the lack of birth control options causing higher abortion rates in African Americans, and how THESE WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS ARE HUMAN BEINGS and they are making their own choices–they’re not being duped into going to Planned Parenthood; they INTEND to terminate their pregnancies because that’s what they WANT and NEED.

                  Furthermore, pregnant women are automatically eligible for Medicaid and so have many more options for getting prenatal care, so they can go to any clinic of any affiliation (and might prefer one where protesters aren’t outside calling them murderers!), whereas Planned Parenthood is often the only abortion service provider in a state, so of course their relative numbers of abortions are going to be higher.  And as for few adoption referrals?  Did it ever occur to you that the women themselves DO NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT?  Did it ever occur to you that some people consider bringing a sentient child into the world and then abandoning it unacceptable and unbearable? EVERY SINGLE POST you have made accusing Planned Parenthood of “genocide” you have NOT ONCE acknowledged that women are human beings who make their own choices and CHOOSE not to be pregnant.  Not once.  It has never even fucking OCCURRED to you that black women have agency and are making their own decisions about their own lives.  That blatant moral failure makes you a paternalistic, misogynistic, illogical jackass.

                • amycas

                   I think I’m in love with you LSP.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Here is the quote from Sanger’s letter regarding the Negro Project-

                  [We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with
                  social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most
                  successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious
                  appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate
                  the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out
                  that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
                  Commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Dr. Clarence
                  Gamble, December 10, 1939. – Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith
                  Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described
                  in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.(Note: There is a different date circulated, e.g. Oct. 19, 1939; but
                  Dec. 10 is the correct date of Mrs. Sanger’s letter to Mr. Gamble.)
                  I am not lying and I am correct, so you can stop your unsupported apologetics for this evil woman.

                  Another quote from the proposal for the Negro Project by a member of its board, W.E.B. DuBois,  is:

                  “the mass of ignorant Negroes still
                  breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes,
                  even more than the increase among Whites, is from that part of the
                  population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their
                  children properly.”

                  Another example, is that she appointed Lothropp Stoddard to her board of the Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood.  He was a devout racist.

                  In other parts of our society, we claim an organization racist because of the disproportionate impact it has on a minority race. That is the same here.  PP is continuing the racist policies of its founder. That is not a genetic fallacy- they are not racist just because she was, they are racist  because they have implanted her racist policies and their current policies are directed disproportionately at the African American race.

                  It is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of prominent Black leaders. These include Dr. Alveda King, Dr. LaVerne Tolbert, Star Parker, Catherine Davis,
                  Arnold Culbreath, Dr Johnny Hunter, Dean Nelson, Walter Hoye, and many
                  more.

                  I do not discount the notion that those African American woman that receive an abortion from PP made that choice.  What I am saying is that PP only encourages that choice and the numbers reflect that policy. 

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Again, that letter you’re quoting is talking about a POTENTIAL MISCONCEPTION, not her position, so fuck off and learn to read.
                  No, in NO OTHER PART OF SOCIETY WHATSOEVER do we call an organization if it disproportionately serves a minority race.  Are South Asian sari tailors racist? Taco carts? Jewish delis? Tanning salons? If one group disproportionately perceives they need a service, and seek out a service, it does not make those providing that service to willing paying customers racist, you miserable dumbfuck.

                  Until you learn about social factors leading to unplanned pregnancy, which you have failed to address EVERY SINGLE TIME it has been explained to you.

                  What do you mean you “do not discount the notion that those African American women that receive an abortion from PP made that choice”??  First off, why the fuck are you calling an assessment of their reproductive choices just a “notion”? Secondly, what POSSIBLE evidence do you have that PP “only encourages” that choice? Thirdly, by acting like the numbers reflect Planned Parenthood’s “agenda” (let’s be clear here–they’d MUCH rather hand out birth control than provide abortions, which represent about 3% of their activities!) instead of the result of social factors and what women actually need when they are unexpectedly pregnant DOES in fact imply that the women involved are mindless, helpless pawns, and that’s disgusting.  Don’t just say you “do not discount the notion” and then proceed to discount it, because we can see right through that fucking bullshit.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Keep ignoring what is right in front of you if you want but my opinion of PP is unshaken. 

                • LeftSidePositive

                  Frankly I don’t think you even have a mind to change.

                • Fsq

                  You are nothing but a programmed parrot of the GOP and the church.

                  You are vile, not really for the classic reasons that you are oppresive and belong ithe fifteenth century, but vile becuse you blindly believe whatever panlum is spoon fed to you from the little clubs you think are your cup of tea.

                  Do yourself a favor and try doing some legitimate research and reading.

                • Fsq

                  Is it maryland or washington?

  • Mandocommando23

    I’m really sick of vilifying people who care about the rights of the unborn. It’s not that they don’t care about the pregnant women, but they just don’t completely discount the rights of the fetus as so many people do. 

    Not all atheists think abortions are okay. I am one of them. Carrying a child to term is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. Being killed is. I believe this life is the only one any of us gets, and to rob someone else of that life without even considering his or her rights is immoral. The rights of adults should not trump those of the unborn. I believe that is a conversation that needs to be addressed in this debate.

    • http://therovingrockhound.myopenid.com/ Rovin’ Rockhound

      I’m not allowed to imprison you, torture you physically and psycologically, and pump you full of substances that affect (and possibly harm) your body for nine months. Likewise, a bunch of cells is not allowed to do that to me. It is my right to remove those cells from my body, just like it would be your right to have me removed from your proximity if I were harming you. If those cells could survive outside my body and develop until they eventually became a person, that would be great. However, if they are not able to survive without physically feeding off another body, my rights trump their rights. I’m a person, with feelings and memories. A bunch of cells are not.

      • Mandocommando23

        First of all, no unborn child ever put itself there, so the comparison to 9 months of torture doesn’t fly. And the unborn person is not just a bunch of cells. It is a HUMAN! Your rights do NOT trump their rights. A newborn baby is not capable of storing memories or speech, and it could not survive physically without the help of another person, and yet is it not still human? Killing a baby who is nearly as dependent on outside care as a fetus is illegal. Hell, killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide.

        • Reginald Selkirk

          It is a HUMAN!
          .
          Of course it is, you blithering idiot. Do think a woman would be carrying a canine fetus? The questions (and I’ll put it in all caps just for you) are whether it is a PERSON, and whether the pregnant woman is also a PERSON with rights.

          • Mandocommando23

            Yes, they both are. You know, you all are really showing me the ugly side of atheists. It’s no wonder so many Christians find us so repugnant.

            • LeftSidePositive

              I call bullshit on Mandocommando’s “atheism.”

              • Reasongal

                 Wow – I have been just a lurker for this thread, but LeftSide, you blew me away – absolute admiration for eloquent use of the word “fuck,” sterling argumentation, and passion that sucks the wind out of the room.  Awesome.  Hope you don’t mind the adulation…I am serious, btw, not sarcasm.  I am so much more clear about my position for choice, after strugging with the “human” angle, etc.  – thanks.

        • LeftSidePositive

          I am perfectly entitled to use deadly force if necessary to protect myself from someone violating my body, whether or not that person/animal/whatever is doing it on purpose or not.

          A baby can be cared for by any person, and is not physically inside another person’s body, so there is no need to use deadly force to defend oneself against it. (Also, a baby is a hell of a lot more developed than a 9-week embryo, when the vast majority of abortions take place!)
          Killing a pregnant woman is (or should be) a crime because of what it does TO THE WOMAN, and comparing her right to bodily autonomy to someone else violating her bodily autonomy is both a non-sequitir and willfully callous to boot.

          • Mandocommando23

            That you would have so little compassion for another human-a helpless one at that, it disgusting. You know, you all are really showing me the ugly side of atheists. It’s no wonder so many Christians find us so repugnant. 

            • LeftSidePositive

              1) There is no evidence a clump of cells is a human

              2) “Compassion” does not, under any circumstances, require me to give up my own body.

              3) A being is not “helpless” when it is harvesting my oxygen and my nutrients and causing me great pain.

              4) Are you a ringer? Seriously?  This “Ooooh, let’s worry about what Christians think!!” sounds like you’re really just a pseudo-atheist trying to tone troll.

        • amycas

          Oh, good, I’m glad that bodily autonomy doesn’t trump right-to-life. Now I can force the one person who is a match to give me a kidney, right? I mean, I am a person, and if I don’t get that kidney I will die. So I’m well within my rights to take somebody else’s kidney.

          p.s. the difference between a newborn and a fetus is that the newborn is no longer using a woman’s body as life support. Once it’s out of your body, you can give it to somebody else.

    • http://twitter.com/the_ewan Ewan

      There is no person here, there is only potential, and once you start arguing that potential shouldn’t be cut off, you’re fast into ‘every sperm is sacred’ territory, and you just wind up looking like a fool.

      • Mandocommando23

        That’s B.S.  “Potential” wouldn’t require anything to stop it from developing into a human. Potential is static. Once the process of life has been started, that embryo/fetus is an unborn human.

        • Coyotenose

           But it is not a PERSON. It’s isn’t even a human for quite some time, just a clump of cells. The mother is both. Her body, her rights, always trump a clump of cells.

          • Mandocommando23

            No, cancer is a clump of cells. An embryo is a being–hence “human” embryo vs. “feline” embryo. It’s a developing human being from the get go.

            • LeftSidePositive

              Define your terms.  WHAT makes an embryo a “being”?  My dictionary defines being as: “a real or imaginary living creature, esp. an intelligent one” and “the nature and essence of a person.”  A fetus has nothing that meets either of those criteria because IT DOES NOT HAVE A FUNCTIONAL BRAIN, and is therefore incapable of experiencing or expressing any of the thoughts and feelings that make us human.  This has been pointed out to you numerous times and you just keep repeating “human being” like the mindless fucking drone that you are.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Great job totally erasing the extraordinary investment of resources, nutrients, and biomass that the pregnant woman has to invest to turn this one-celled zygote into an actual breathing person.  Great job acting like this is just some perfectly benign “process” that proceeds along by itself instead of something that can go wrong at any stage, often causing great harm, pain, and medical risk to the woman making this process possible.  Also, even if this process goes perfectly, it’s still a huge drain on her physically, and one that she doesn’t owe to anyone.

    • http://twitter.com/kaileyverse kaileyverse

       A fetus does not have MORE of a right to life than the person carrying it. A woman CAN die during pregnancy, CAN suffer pain, depression and many other medical, emotional, and psychological side effects from pregnancy. A woman has the right to decide for herself and the family she may already have if she wants to face those risks.

      • Mandocommando23

        You have created a false dichotomy. It’s not that either the mother lives or the baby lives. I’m not saying that the woman’s right to life is any less valuable than the fetus’s right to life. But here’s the difference. If the woman goes through with the pregnancy, she will most likely live as will the fetus. If the woman goes through with an abortion, the fetus dies. Not to mention that abortions are not a risk-free procedure either. Therefore you are the one positing that the mother has more right to life than the unborn child. 

        Also, barring forceful sexual encounters, woman do consent to pregnancy when they have unprotected sex. I’m all for contraception.

        • schmavery

          You are 14 times more likely to die from pregnancy than from a safe, legal abortion.

           Consent is not permanent. If I’m having sex with someone, I should have their constant consent. If they ask me to stop, I will, because they are no longer consenting. If I were allowing someone else access to my body, including a fetus, they are also subject to my consent, and to my removal of that consent, should I decide to do so. 

        • LeftSidePositive

          No, dumbshit, the mother does not just have the right to live, she has the right to CONTROL HER OWN BODY AT ALL TIMES. We, as human beings have the rights not just to life, but to LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (way to go, TJ!). Your “well, as long as you live through it…” attitude is pretty much absurd for a country whose patriots said things like “give me liberty or give me death.”

          Furthermore, if I refuse to donate my kidney, the transplant candidate will die, whereas it is extremely unlikely I will die as a result of donating said kidney. That doesn’t matter, because civilized human beings do not trample each other’s rights just short of the point of killing someone.And FUCK YOU so much for saying women consent to pregnancy when we have unprotected sex. Human beings ONLY consent to things when we make a full, informed uncoerced decision about WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT. Dragging a lot of stipulations onto someone with few or no options does not constitute “consent” to those stipulations. A huge FUCK YOU for women whose insurance companies refuse to cover contraception.  A huge FUCK YOU for every teenager who has been denied information and access to contraception.  A huge FUCK YOU for every woman whose partner pressures her out of insisting on a condom.  A huge FUCK YOU for women whose abusive partners throw away their birth control pills.  A huge FUCK YOU for women who are afraid they will be charged with prostitution if police find them with condoms.

          • Mandocommando23

            Wow, “LeftSidePositive” is not an accurate moniker for someone with such angry rage. I hope you don’t debate theists in such a way because it makes the rest of us look like a-holes.

            • LeftSidePositive

              You know what? You threaten my right to my own body, try to impose absurd, sex-negative, and dehumanizing conditions for “consent,” ignoring the multitudes of real injustices that real women face…damn straight I am going to treat you with the contempt and disgust you have so eminently deserved.

              Oh, and by the way, great job totally failing to even address the plight of actual women who get pregnant…I guess since they’re already born you don’t give a shit about them!

              • Rwlawoffice

                 Here is the cite you requested for the amoral art student who conducted murder for the sake of a mural and like those of your ilk, think is perfectly moral. Pathetic and repugnant.

                http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2008/apr/17/for-senior-abortion-a-medium-for-art-political/

                • LeftSidePositive

                  No, I think she probably has a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, and you’ll notice that the vast majority of the pro-choice people quoted and commenting found her exhibition trivializing and offensive.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Several commentors here on the other posst that we engaged in did support this woman’s actions as being moral including amycas, and others.  But why do you assume she is mentally ill?  She is just engaging in bodily autonomy as you say she has the absolute right to do.

                • LeftSidePositive

                  I don’t think there’s any human “being” that is affected, so I don’t think morality enters into it, and I do respect her right, but I do think it is damn crazy and disrespects the experience of women who don’t choose to be in a desperate situation. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should, and reveling in harming one’s body, causing oneself pain, and taking potent medication without medical supervision is indicative of a disturbed individual.

                • amycas

                  This is pretty much how I feel about it. It really pisses me off that rw would specifically call me out as supporting this woman’s actions, when I never even commented about that particular situation. Fuck off Rw

                • amycas

                   Ummm, I don’t think I even commented about that girl because I was waiting to see if it was true or not. Please provide a quote from me saying I was perfectly ok with what she did if you’re going to use me specifically as an example. Otherwise, fuck off.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  If i confused you with wmdkitty I apologize.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Your argument is flawed. What about men who lie about being sterile? Or men who take a condom off? Also, assumed consent is illegal in most all situations, why are you okaying it for this one?

        • amycas

          It’s not eh mother’s right to life vs. the fetus’ right to life. It’s the mother’s bodily autonomy vs. the fetus’ right to life. In any other situation, bodily autonomy trumps right-to-life. Why is this situation different?

          • Mandocommando23

            Wow…the fact that you think a person’s right to autonomy trumps someone else’s right to LIFE! Just wow…

            • LeftSidePositive

              Have you read up on the “Transplant Problem”?  Have you EVER studied any ethics?  Have you heard of the Nuremberg experiments?

              Yeah–the foundation of all modern ethics is that the individual’s bodily autonomy trumps anyone else’s life.  Deal with it.

            • amycas

              Medical research ethics is built around the belief that bodily autonomy trumps another person’s life. I think I explained that already when I asked if I could force you to give me a kidney. For ignoring comments and being deliberately ignorant, you can fuck off with Rw and Ndonnan now.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Margaret-Whitestone/100001682409207 Margaret Whitestone

          “Also, barring forceful sexual encounters, woman do consent to pregnancy when they have unprotected sex.”

          Do they also consent to STDs or HIV/AIDS? Are you suggesting women not be allowed to treat those because bacteria and viruses are “life”? 

          “I’m all for contraception.”

          Me too, but I’m informed and rational.  I recognize that even under optimal conditions contraception isn’t 100% effective.

          • Mandocommando23

            You’re right to examine the gray nature of the issue, and I’m just pointing out another part of the debate–that once a pregnancy has occurred, the mother’s life is not the only one to consider. Abortion takes a human life, stops a human heart from beating. It’s a fact.

            • LeftSidePositive

              Who gives a shit about stopping a human heart from beating? So does a heart transplant, and I presume you’re not opposed to those!  You may be too stupid to understand, but “humanity” means more than a certain set of chromosomes and a configuration of body parts.  I will respect real human dignity while you can go around glorifying biochemical processes…

    • Tom

      As an atheist, I assume you reject the notion of ensoulment upon conception.  I further assume that you do not hold an undeniably non-sentient just-fertilised egg to be a person.  In that case, at what stage of development, between conception and birth, do you believe an embryo can be considered a person, and thus subject to human rights and, presumably, the point at which abortion should be prohibited?

      • Mandocommando23

        An implanted embryo or fetus that is developing inside a uterus is an unborn HUMAN. What else can you call it? In the same way, a newborn baby is not yet an adult, but it is still human. The baby’s life is no less valuable than the adult’s. Just because a human is still in-utero does not mean it’s life is less valuable than the life of the person carrying it.

        • Reginald Selkirk

           An unfertilized egg is also HUMAN, and a sperm is also HUMAN. And they are unborn. Therefore, by your ‘logic,’ every egg and sperm is an unborn HUMAN, and has rights.
          The question is whether it is a person, not a human. If you would educate yourself better about such basic things, you could either a) make better, more coherent arguments or b) figure out why all of us reject your argument.

          • Mandocommando23

            Are you really that uneducated? Take a biology class.

        • LeftSidePositive

          What exactly do you mean by human? From your definition it seems like you would include cancer cells, placental tissue, and alveolar macrophages.

          And, “valuable” is a totally irrelevant distractor.  This is not a question of “value” of the fetus, it is a question of whether or not that fetus is entitled to use someone else’s body without her consent, and the answer to that is a resounding no.

        • Coyotenose

           Hmm, “valuable”. Shall we then posit to you the famous hypothetical question of whether you would save a one-month-old baby from a burning fertility clinic, or a case containing a hundred fertilized embryos, if you only had time to grab one?

          Aren’t they all humans and equally valuable?

        • Baby_Raptor

          Yeah, it’s a unborn human. It has human DNA. This has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Merely having human DNA does’t make something alive. 

      • amycas

        When it’s no longer using the woman’s body–in other words, when it’s born.

      • Coyotenose

         Although the question wasn’t addressed to me:

        As an atheist, I believe a pregnancy results in a person either when it results in an infant with a basic nervous system that is separate from the mother, or when the mother says it is a person, whichever comes first. As qualifiers, I believe that the mother’s opinion can be implied, and that it can be rescinded as long as either she is mentally sound or the unborn cannot survive on its own. In short, when there’s a breathing baby with a brain, it’s a person with rights. Otherwise, only the mother gets a say, because it’s her one and only body.

        Although I find abortions extremely unpleasant, and would *probably* not choose one if I was female unless the fetus or I had no reasonable chance, I’m adult enough to understand that it’s impossible for any set of rules to cover what is going on with any one pregnant woman, let alone all of them. If my partner needed an abortion, I would be very unhappy, but thanks to human empathy, I can grasp that it wouldn’t be an easy decision for her and she doesn’t deserve scorn or guilt over it. She has to bear much more than I do, so although I hope I’d let her know I was sad at some point, I would damn well deal with it until the worst was over.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      to rob someone else of that life without even considering his or her rights is immoral.
      .
      I think this is a repeat of a thread we had just a few days ago. If I don’t rape someone today and get them pregnant, I am robbing a fetus of a chance at life.

      • Mandocommando23

        False comparison and a stupid one at that.

    • LeftSidePositive

      The unborn have no rights, nor should they.  NO ONE has the right to use someone else’s body without that person’s consent, and the only way the unborn could have “rights” is if someone violated the rights of the actual living pregnant woman to enforce the interest of the fetus.

      So, yeah, in all cases, the individual’s right to their OWN body trumps the interest (NOT “right”) someone else might have in using that individual’s body. And for you to say that carrying a FETUS (not a child) to term “is not the worst thing that can happen to a person” is 1) extraordinarily disrespectful of the thousands of women throughout the world who have died and would rather die than carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, and 2) incredibly stupid, because “not the worst thing” is hardly the standard by which we defend people’s rights to bodily autonomy. After all, being burned alive is not the worst thing that can happen to a person, since you could be raped and THEN burned alive. Being raped and then burned alive is not the worst thing that can happen to a person, because you could be mutilated and then raped and then burned alive. But then we could murder your whole family in front of you, then mutilate you, then rape you, and THEN burn you alive… so I guess there should be no moral outrage at burning people alive, since it’s “not the worst thing that can happen to a person.” 

      In short: when you have to justify your extraordinary apathy toward people’s rights by saying violating a particular right is “not the worst thing that can happen to a person,” this is a very good clue that you should just shut up and enjoy some quality time alone with your douchebaggery.Also, you have to EXIST before being killed is a bad thing. “Robbing someone of life” only makes sense if that person has at least some rudimentary level of awareness, a sense of self, and a personal investment in existing…otherwise there is no moral or philosophical difference from never having been conceived. And I can think of a multitude of situations that are a hell of a lot worse than not existing.

      • Mandocommando23

        You are waaaaay exaggerating, creating false comparisons, and completely missing my point. I am not apathetic toward the plight of pregnant women.  But it’s not as clear cut as you seem to think, and I hardly think it’s fair that you only consider the rights of the woman and not the unborn HUMAN BEING. I find it ironic that the same “black and white” thinking that so many theists have is so prevalent on the liberal side of the abortion debate. The rights of the mother are not the only rights to be considered here. There are two people involved. The plain and simple fact is that an embryo is an independent human life. It’s not just a part of the woman’s body or a blob of cells. It is dependent on the woman for nourishment, yes, but so is a newborn. To completely discount the humanity of the fetus is unfair. This is a very sticky grey area. I’m just saying that the rights of the unborn need to be considered and if at all possible, allow for both the mother and child to live.

        P.S. Also, please stop using the equation of a fetus to some type of oppressive torturer. It didn’t “take over” the woman’s body. It was created and put there through no fault of it’s own–in most cases with the consent of the woman. 

        • Rwlawoffice

           Mando, if you have never engaged in a discussion with Left Side before, get ready for the barrage of illogical rantings and cursed latent insults.  During the course of past discussions she and others of her ilk have called the unborn child a clump of cells, a tick, an acorn, a parasite, an intruder, a terrorist, etc.  All in the name of worshiping at the altar of bodily autonomy.  Some have even argued that it is moral for a woman to intentionally get pregnant for the purpose of aborting the baby to be used in an art project. It is repugnant.

          • LeftSidePositive

            Some have even argued that it is moral for a woman to intentionally get pregnant for the purpose of aborting the baby to be used in an art project.

            Citation fucking needed.

            By the way, it’s “curse-laden,” lot “curse latent” you ignorant buffoon.

            Guess what? An embryo IS a clump of cells, and it DOES in fact meet the definition of a parasite, and it IS intruding on the mother’s body. Learn the definition of basic English words.  On the other hand, “child” is utterly, laughably inaccurate.

            Moreover, you have utterly failed to point to a single flaw in logic, you have just repeated CHILD CHILD CHILD over and over again, which is both argument from assertion and a category error.

        • LeftSidePositive

          WHERE am I making false comparisons? You need to either make an argument or shut the fuck up.

          Yes, it is clear-cut: my body, my choice. Fuck off.

          Yes, you are apathetic toward pregnant women.  Every one of your arguments assumes that you or the state can take over their bodies and force them to submit to the support of another, no matter what pain or suffering it causes them.  You can try to say some nice platitudes after that, but it doesn’t hide the fact that you’re an authoritarian, misogynistic fuckwad.

          You have utterly failed–multiple times!–to rationally defend your contention that the embryo or fetus is a human being.  Capitalizing it does not change the fact that your definition of “human” is hopelessly muddled.

          Furthermore, NO ONE’S rights EVER include the right to use another person’s body. EVER. So the fetus cannot possibly have rights, because its very existence stems from the use of someone else’s body.

          You are failing to distinguish “‘black and white’ thinking” of standing up for human rights, of considering the abundant historical examples of suffering caused by forced pregnancy, and the basic facts of neuroscience, with “‘black and white’ thinking” reflected in a completely unsubstantiated 2000-year-old book.  Fail.

          The newborn IS NOT physically dependent on its mother. It is dependent on ANY potential combinations of humans, any of whom could relinquish care to another.  This is not fucking hard to comprehend, if you weren’t such a willfully ignorant assfuck.

          You have failed to provide any cogent argument as to why the fetus should have any rights AT ALL, nor have you acknowledged that “allowing” for the fetus to live literally requires trampling the mother’s rights. Unless you have a solution that involves transplanting it into your womb, all your whining about “allowing” is really just erasing the experience of the woman and treating her rights as secondary.

          P.S. The fetus IS an oppressive torturer if the woman doesn’t want it there.  It can cause excruciating physical and emotional pain, and literally takes over every physiological process in a woman’s body, all of which change radically with pregnancy (even a benign one), often with considerable pain and sometimes lifelong sequelae.

          “It was created” is religious language, so you can cut that the fuck out. It isn’t any more “created” than a kidney stone, unless you believe some god-bothering bullshit.

          Furthermore, cut the “no fault of it’s [sic] own” bullshit.  Of course it can’t have “faults”–IT DOESN’T HAVE A FUCKING BRAIN YET.  Tigers don’t have “faults” when they maul people, nor do plasmodium parasites when they cause malaria, because faults are a moral judgment and have nothing to do with whether or not I’m obligated to turn my body over to something.

          Also, FUCK YOU about this “consent of the woman.” If she wants an abortion, by definition she is not consenting to pregnancy.  Consent to sex IN NO WAY implies consent to pregnancy, and I’ve already explained this to you, but you are too misogynistic to understand. You’re embodying exactly the same tired bullshit of pretending to care about the pwecious widdle baaaayyyybeeee but really you’re just obsessed with punishing women for sex. Consent is an ONGOING requirement–meaning that I can revoke consent to use my body at any time, for any reason, and it is none of your fucking business. Being a sexual person does not cheapen the value of my body or my autonomy, nor does it give you the right to force your way into decisions about my body.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/SH5Y2EVWTCTIZM4HQSMC2Z4IWQ Nicholas V

      You know what, asshat, if you have a moral problem with abortion, awesome. Don’t ever have one. Donate money to groups that promote proper sex ed to teenagers and provide birth control at low cost. Volunteer your time and money as a foster parent for people who choose to put their kids up for adoption. Doing these things will reduce unwanted pregnancies and also provide an option other than abortion for women who are unable or unwilling to raise a child.

      However, if you spend your time or energy, or if you support others who spend their time and energy depriving women of the right to abortion (and yes, it is a right, according to those damn activist Supreme Court justices), then you’re a giant asshole. This moron didn’t stop abortion–he just made it so that women with money will go out of state for them, and poor women will either risk their lives or else have a kid they aren’t ready for. This is an unmitigated bad thing, and if you don’t utterly repudiate it, then you can go die in a fire.

      • Mandocommando23

        When you call names, you make yourself look uneducated and childish. Please improve your debating skills for the sake of the rest of us in the atheist movement. I won’t even waste my time in further debate with someone who uses such tactics.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Fuck off, you motherfucking idiotic tone troll. If you can’t pay attention to Nicholas’s cogent arguments because you’re just too distracted by the word “asshole,” then YOU are the one who is a thoughtless, childish brat.  Grownups don’t flinch at profanity, and if you actually had a cogent argument you wouldn’t hide behind being “offended” at perfectly appropriate language to describe reasoning, and evidently your character.

          I’d also like to take this moment to say:

          Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits…

        • amycas

           I don’t want to be in the same movement as someone who advocates for forced births. Why don’t all the misogynist atheists go off and form their own movement?

      • http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Joshua Zelinsky

        I think you are being unfair to Mando in this context. There’s a real philosophical difficulty in deciding at what point one should assign moral weight to the entity. Some societies have little problem with infanticide for example (and taboos aside, there are decent arguments for that). It is true that it is extremely hard to make any sort of argument for disallowing abortions at an early stage without some sort of religious basis, but it does become more of a problem as the fetus ages. That’s part of why many people who are secular have issues with very late term abortions.

        The “don’t like abortion, then don’t have one” argument really doesn’t work, although it is commonly repeated. If one does take the moral concern seriously, then it isn’t an issue of personal choice but an issue of saving a human life that has the same ethical/moral weight as another person. To use the obvious example, if someone was ok with infanticide, I’d doubt you’d respond well if they said “don’t like infanticide, then don’t do it.” This is despite the fact that that there are strong arguments for why infanticide should be acceptable, and that most of the arguments against are effectively cultural in nature.  There’s a real issue here, and you’re sidestepping it. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Margaret-Whitestone/100001682409207 Margaret Whitestone

       Nobody minds if you care about the rights of the fetus.  But when your care results in restricting or even eradicating the rights of living women (who can easily end up suffering and dying as a result of your actions) you’re going to far. 

      • Mandocommando23

        When the mother’s life is at risk, I do believe abortion is the lesser of two evils. As for the money, the taxpayers will foot the bill for unaffordable hospital costs. And no one should take the life of a human against it’s will either.

        • schmavery

          During pregnancy, the mother’s life is always at a heightened risk. 

        • amycas

           No one should use a human’s body against their will either. I think we have a word for that: slavery.

    • Baby_Raptor

      Nobody cares if you decide that a bunch of tissue has rights. But not everyone agrees with you that a fetus should have rights, and most people find the idea of those supposed rights trumping a woman’s completely abhorrent. 

      You don’t like abortion? Fine. Don’t have one. Don’t personally support it. But the fact that you want to make your personal beliefs law is wrong on many levels, and also illegal. Get over yourself. 

      • Mandocommando23

        You KNOW an embryo or fetus is as much a bunch of tissue as you are. It’s just at a different stage of human development than you. As for your last line, that’s like saying “Don’t like bullying? Fine, don’t be one.” You might not see the value of an unborn child as a human life, but I do, and that’s why I MUST stand up for it. I’m not saying it’s always black and white and that abortion should never happen, but I’m bringing up the rights of the unborn as I feel they also must have them.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Then you can implant them in your own fucking uterus.

        • LeftSidePositive

          Also, I don’t define myself as a bunch of tissue.  The tissue is a means to an end, but what I AM is my thoughts, motivations, experiences, and goals.  Without those, I wouldn’t be a person, and I wouldn’t give a damn about my remaining tissue (I’d hope my family would see that it gets donated to someone else, though, so THEY can continue to enjoy their thoughts, motivations, experiences, and goals).

  • http://fred5.myopenid.com/ fred5

    When you say the video has been removed do you mean this one?

    It wasn’t really that hard to find though I wish I hadn’t,  it’s absolutely disgusting. >:-(

    Perhaps all those “pitiful poor women” should start sending wire coat hangers to this fucking asshole and Senator Rita Parks as a reminder of the horrors of illegal abortions.

  • http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Joshua Zelinsky

    Presumably this will be helpful to the plaintiffs if this legislation gets to court. He’s basically said outright that he’s trying to effectively violate rights while not doing so explicitly. The courts don’t look on that very kindly. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Margaret-Whitestone/100001682409207 Margaret Whitestone

    “But hey, you have to have moral values.”

    Apparently for him caring about the autonomy and health of women isn’t a moral value.

    • amycas

      To them, autonomy doesn’t mean anything unless we’re talking about a man’s autonomy.

  • amycas
  • amycas

    I could show you videos of septic hospital wards for women, if there had been youtube before Roe V. Wade. But, that’s right, you don’t care about what happens to women.

  • amycas

     Ndonnan, you know that’s not my argument, so why don’t you shut the fuck up and let the grown-ups talk?

  • amycas

     What actions would those be? We already established in the last thread that you think pregnancy should be a punishment for sex, regardeless of whether ornot the woman consented to sex.

    • amycas

       Disqus messed up my last few replies. I believe these were all supposed to be replies to Ndonnan or Rw. I forget which one, they’re both raving forced-birthers, so I get them confused.

      • Fsq

        I am so on your side amy!!!! But you have to stop trying to argue with RWLaw or Ndoodad because they have no capacity for tolerance, morality, caring or empathy. In short, they are pyschopaths that hide behind a thinly disguised veil of religiousity that makes them much more dangerous thathe average pyschopath….

        • amycas

           I argue more for the sake of lurkers than to change the minds of Rw and Ndonnan.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X