Four Decades and 20,000 Abortions Later, Anne Nicol Gaylor’s Organization is Still Going Strong

Anne Nicol Gaylor is an 86-year-old abortion provider with no medical training of her own. Her “office supplies” consist of little more than a pen, paper, checkbook, and a telephone. On a Tuesday morning this past July, in a retirement home just outside of Madison, Wisconsin, I sat in her living room as we waited for calls from women who needed (or wanted) to obtain abortions but just didn’t have the ability to pay for them. She is their last hope for a handout.

As the founder of Women’s Medical Fund, Inc., a non-profit group she formed in 1976, Gaylor asks intimate questions of strangers without the slightest hesitation. There’s no time for emotion. There’s work to be done.

Are you single or married?

How much money do you make?

Did you use contraception?

Is the man involved helping you?

How much will your procedure cost?

Did you see a doctor yet?

Have you had an ultrasound?

Gaylor has answered the phone like this more than 20,000 times. Since 1995, WMF has raised and spent nearly $3,000,000 to help women, with most of the money — just over $200, on average, per caller — going to a small handful of providers like Planned Parenthood. The funding comes mostly from individual donors, though about a quarter of the funding last year came from foundation grants. Its mission is to make sure that a woman’s right to reproductive choice is not denied because she doesn’t have enough money, regardless of whether the pregnancy is unintended or unwanted. The organization has no paid staffers, only dedicated volunteers. And, for the moment, Gaylor is just sitting in her recliner, waiting for the next caller, waiting to write her next check.

Anne Gaylor at her 80th birthday party (via Annie Laurie Gaylor)

Depending on who you ask, I’m sitting in front of a sweet woman in the final years of her life or someone who will dread meeting her Maker; a modern-day savior or a prolific serial killer; one of the great feminist activists of the past several decades or, as one newspaper columnist put it, “Granny Blood-Money.”

There are only a few prerequisites that must be met before a check can be written: the caller must live in (or plan to obtain the abortion from a shortlist of clinics in) Wisconsin, she must be more than eight weeks pregnant, and she must visit a clinic to confirm her pregnancy. Once Gaylor can verify that information, she writes out a check for up to $400 directly to the hospital, clinic, or physician performing the procedure. She also refers the callers to another national organization that may be able to write out an additional check, allowing the women to pay as little out of pocket as possible. Gaylor used to give out some of the money as a loan, hoping to get paid back eventually, but she knows better now. The women are just too poor. Still, she tries to get them to put up a little money of their own, even if it’s only $25, so that they don’t see her fund as a form of free birth control.

When I ask Gaylor how young her callers are, she opens up a nearby nightstand and pulls out a folder containing a stack of papers, all records of her phone conversations over the past few days. A sheet near the top documents a phone call she received the day before my visit, concerning a 13-year-old girl who had been raped by her 17-year-old brother.

How is anyone even supposed to process information like that?

I’m not sure whether to follow up with a question about the incest, the rape, or their ages. All crimes are reported to the police by the clinics, so Gaylor doesn’t deal with those issues. Her primary concern is whether the caller (in this case, the girl’s older sister) can pay for the procedure.

She’s immune to the horror stories by now. While it’s the first time I’ve ever heard such an awful story, she hears them on a regular basis. The youngest caller this year, she tells me, was only 11.

Gaylor knows the trends, too. While she hears from women all throughout the month, the calls tend to come near the end of the week, when some of the women receive a paycheck, and around the first of the month, when the welfare checks arrive. They don’t cry as much as they used to. They all cried when abortions were harder to come by, she recalls, but now only some shed tears. Most are just nervous. Emotional. Worried about how to pay for it. Wondering how they’ll reconcile their religious faith with their decision. Wondering if they can keep this a secret from their immediate and extended families.

Do you ever hear back from the women who call for help? She shakes her head. Few of them ever want to talk about the procedure after it’s happened. Gaylor herself has never had an abortion. In 1958, a few years after giving birth to her fourth child, she had a tubal ligation (something she highly recommends to women who’ll listen).

I wonder if there’s anything that could help make things better for her organization. More donations? Paid staffers? Nope. None of that. She just wishes women had easier access to birth control. She wishes young women could more easily report instances of rape and get immediate help. But “as long as men keep attacking women, you’re going to have a need” for abortion services.

Women’s Medical Fund, Inc. unofficially began in March of 1970, just after Wisconsin’s anti-abortion laws were declared unconstitutional by a district court. The ruling effectively made first-trimester abortions legal in the state. (It wasn’t until 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, took a similar position.)

Gaylor was already a vocal abortion-rights advocate at the time. In 1967, she wrote an editorial (she believes it to be the first of its kind) in favor of an overhaul of the state’s abortion laws. In the years to follow, she joined the Association for the Study of Abortion and the Wisconsin Committee to Legalize Abortion, spoke about the issue on radio and TV shows, and wrote a number of letters-to-the-editor of local newspapers. But in 1970, building off a program launched by scientist Paul Ehrlich, Gaylor began the Zero Population Growth Referral Service (ZPG), where she could direct women to cities where abortion services were readily available. After the Wisconsin court’s ruling, her phone began ringing — women knew they could get abortions now, but they weren’t sure from where, and they believed the outspoken Gaylor would have the answers.

On August 12, 1970, Gaylor placed an ad in two local newspapers that included ZPG’s post office box and her personal phone number. The ad urged women to contact her if their doctors weren’t helping them obtain an abortion. In the weeks to follow, nearly 100 women contacted her. Playboy magazine later mentioned her as a resource for women who needed such help, which only ramped up the number of phone calls. (“Contrary to popular opinion,” she later wrote, “Playboy readers rarely went to bed.”)

Unfortunately, local hospitals were expensive, often had long waiting periods, and required getting through all sorts of bureaucratic red tape (including, in one hospital’s case, letters from two physicians confirming that the procedure was required to save the life of the woman). One provider in Madison, Dr. Alfred Kennan, opened up an outpatient clinic for women who needed abortions, but he was limited to seeing about 100 patients a week. It wasn’t long before Gaylor began referring her callers to sites in Mexico, where the total cost for the flight, procedure, and hotel room was still less than a trip to the expensive hospital next door. (Abortions were illegal in Mexico, and still are in many parts of the country, but bribes to police officers allowed some doctors to practice without problem.) Referrals to New York soon followed.

With the help of University of Wisconsin professor Robert West, Gaylor began Women’s Medical Fund, Inc. in 1972 as an outgrowth of the service she was already providing. It was incorporated as a non-profit in 1976 and is now said to be the country’s largest and oldest independent, all-volunteer abortion fund.

The Hyde Amendment, passed by Congress in 1976 and still in effect today, resulted in an even greater demand for Gaylor’s service. The legislation bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, with exceptions made only for rape, incest, and to save the life of the woman. Because Medicaid funds are included in this ban, poor women are disproportionately affected and they frequently need financial help to go through with the procedure. According to the National Network of Abortion Funds, which WMF is a member of, “[t]here are 15 states that use their own money to pay for abortion care as part of their Medicaid programs, but there are 35 that do not.” Wisconsin is one of the 35.

WMF no longer advertises as it once did, but local clinics are aware of it and they frequently refer clients who need financial assistance to Gaylor’s organization. It’s not hard to see why: the non-profit has virtually no overhead costs and, as the group’s financial records show, more than 99% of its income goes right back to paying for abortion care.

If you called WMF today, using information available on some older websites, you might reach the offices of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), another organization Gaylor founded in the late 1970s. FFRF is a church/state separation watchdog, writing letters of complaint to those who appear to be violating the First Amendment and filing lawsuits against them if needed. Gaylor officially retired from the organization in 2004, though she still holds the title of “president emerita.” Staffers at FFRF screen the callers and only then give them Gaylor’s direct line — to the phone in her living room — offering her an additional layer of security. (Most clinics, after screening the women, give them Gaylor’s number directly.)

After 61 years of marriage, Gaylor’s husband Paul died of brain cancer in 2011 and she moved into the retirement home where she now lives in the summer of 2012. Gaylor herself suffers from macular degeneration and glaucoma, but her voice, while frail, is still strong enough to answer the calls. (Her son-in-law, Dan Barker, said about her in a 2004 tribute, “She may be losing her eyesight, but she is not losing her vision.”)

Gaylor’s only daughter inherited her mother’s activist streak. Annie Laurie Gaylor is one of the co-presidents of the FFRF, along with Barker, and she’s also no stranger to anger from the opposition. At FFRF’s headquarters in Madison, they even have a system in place for dealing with all the hate-mail they receive: Serious threats go in one pile, angry letters go in another.

According to Annie Laurie, fighting for church/state separation is similar to fighting for abortion rights, but “they want to kill you more” when you do abortion work.

The elder Gaylor is used to that kind of hostility, too. When I asked how she responded to threats, her voice became a little stronger, a little more confident.

“I ignore them.”

Anne Nicol Gaylor and daughter Annie Laurie stand near the family tombstone (via Annie Laurie Gaylor)

Just as I’m leaving Gaylor’s apartment, with my computer packed up and my keys in hand, the phone rings. Gaylor answers it while instinctively picking up a pen and a form. She listens quietly for a few seconds while jotting down some basic information about the caller. Gaylor asks where she’s from. And how much the provider is charging. And if she’s visited the clinic for her first appointment. There’s an extended pause after that question, after which I hear Gaylor gently cut in: “You have to have that appointment before I can take your application, because at that point, they will do the ultrasound which will confirm exactly how far you are, and then they’ll be able to tell you exactly what the cost will be.”

The call lasts only two minutes before Gaylor hangs up the phone and smiles at me. “Ordinarily, they’re more interesting to listen to,” she jokes.

WMF won’t last — can’t last — much longer in its current form. Gaylor won’t always be around to answer the phone. But a contingency plan has already been drawn up. When the time comes, the group’s board of directors and additional volunteers will take over the phone calls and other menial tasks that Gaylor has been doing for decades now. They haven’t worked out all the logistics yet, but thankfully, they haven’t had to. They’re considering getting a dedicated cell phone that is assigned to volunteers during shifts or getting a phone number that goes straight to voicemail and having volunteers call the women back. For now, Gaylor is able to answer all the calls herself on a landline without leaving her home.

One of WMF’s board members, Nora Cusack, wrote to me that if abortion services were covered by health insurance providers or Medicaid the same way as other medical procedures, the phone might just stop ringing. Or at least not ring as much. That, too, would ease the succession problem.

Gaylor’s mission when she began WMF was to help women obtain legal abortions even if they couldn’t afford them. That mission hasn’t changed, but as she sits back down to wait for the next call, she reflects on the grander vision she has for the future: “It would be nice to not be needed.”

You can donate to the Women’s Medical Fund, Inc. by clicking here.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I wish I’d have known about this when I needed my abortion…Coming up with 400 dollars in ~two days wasn’t easy.

  • Mara

    Wow, what a woman! It sure would be nice if her services for this weren’t needed, though. What if we, I don’t know, let women get abortions when they need them? Crazy idea, I know.

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      That’s crazy talk. Next thing you know is you’ll want woman to have easy access to birth-control. And have health insurance companies cover reproductive health services. And lord knows, your probably one of those lunatics who think that white old men in distant rooms, who will provide neither materialistically nor emotionally to raising the child, should have no say in what a woman does with her own uterus. I’m not sure what the world is becoming.

    • Randay

      $200 to $400 minimum for an abortion. In most European Union countries it would be free as it should in the U.S. In France, high school and junior high school nurses can provide free condoms, and I think other forms of birth control, but I haven’t checked the law recently. Minors can get an abortion without informing their parents.

  • idahogie

    What a hero. BTW, we liberals need to stop with the “safe, legal, and rare” framing. We need to treat abortion as what it is: a form of birth control, and a responsible way to deal with pregnancy.

    • Artor

      Yes, but it’s still a last option after other safer methods of birth control have failed. I wouldn’t mind keeping it rare, by better practice rather than litigation.

      • idahogie

        No real argument with you, Artor. Of course a surgical procedure is less desirable when there are prophylactic measures available.

        My only point is that when we admit that abortion should be rare, we have given abortion opponents the victory. From that point on, we will just be arguing about methods to make it rare.

        • Artor

          I don’t think that taking measures to avoid an invasive surgical procedure in favor of less invasive preventative measures concedes anything to the anti-choice crowd. I think making things easier and healthier for women is a good goal in it’s own right, and people who want to prevent women from dealing with their own bodily processes should just fuck right off.

          • idahogie

            Again, no real argument. Just don’t emphasize that abortion should be rare. It is one option available to women, and they get to choose when it suits them.

            Abortion should be safe, legal, and as plentiful as desired.

      • 7Footpiper

        And by this I assume you’re saying “Stop trying to deny women equal and cost effective access to sexual and reproductive health services”.

      • Niemand

        On a population level, barrier protection with abortion as a backup is the safest method of birth control available. Of course, the best choice for any individual will vary, but why not use barrier + (early) abortion as the first line default?

      • Kodie

        It’s a last option chronologically.

        • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

          Is that like how you always find the car keys in the last place you look?

          …I shouldn’t be giggling like this…

  • cryofly

    Thanks for bringing to our attention someone like Mrs. Ann Gaylor who has spent most of her life time in service to her fellow beings. And did I say thanks for the wonderfully written article? Cheers!

  • KMR

    I remember being staunchly pro-life years ago. It was before I had children and understood how much you love them, how they overcame your life and conversely how much it cost emotionally and physically to care for them in the ways they deserve to be cared for. I look at my children now and think how lucky they are. They have every opportunity in life. I also think every child should have every opportunity just they same as my beloved children do. Which is why I am now staunchly pro-choice.
    She is to be commended. Her opinion now is commonplace but when she established her foundation it was anything but and she had the courage to do what she felt was right anyway. How remarkable she is.

    • CassandraJK

      Indeed, around 72% of women seeking an abortion already have at least one child according to the National Abortion Federation. The number one reason they give for wanting to terminate their pregnancy is to protect the child(ren) they have from suffering because whatever resources the family has will be spread too thin.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        Perhaps those opposed to abortion might look at the latest information on who is having abortions and why and decide to do something about rising cost of living expenses and stagnant wages? Oh, well. Nevermind.

        • CassandraJK

          Oh, yeah. To the probirth crowd, fetuses should be protected, but a living poor child is just shit outta luck.

          • allein

            Well they shoulda got their shit together and been ready to support themselves by the time they were born. I mean, seriously, they had 9 whole months.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            If you’re pre-born, you’re fine.

            If you’re pre-school, you’re fucked.

    • C Peterson

      It is important to remember that one can be both “pro-life” in the sense of being morally opposed to abortion, and at the same time be “pro-choice”, in the sense of being opposed to using the law to control access to abortions.

      • WallofSleep

        The accurately describes where I was ~25 years ago. I wanted people to stop having abortions, but was against using the force of gov’t to achieve this. Persuasion, not legislation.

        Interestingly, in my effort to persuade, I learned a great deal about women’s health issues that I was completely oblivious to, and the many reasons women seek safe, legal abortions (SPOILER ALERT: It’s not just another form of birth control). Long story short, I was the one who ended up being persuaded.

      • KMR

        Sure. Similar to how there are Christians supportive of gay marriage despite being morally opposed to practicing homosexuality.

        • C Peterson

          Exactly. There is nothing ethically wrong with maintaining a personal viewpoint about matters which cannot be decided on fact, which includes the morality of both abortion and homosexuality.

          I’d argue that it is ethically wrong to attempt to force your own morality on others, however. If you can’t persuade them with argument, the law is a poor solution.

          • KMR

            Yep.

          • joey_in_NC

            I’d argue that it is ethically wrong to attempt to force your own morality on others, however.

            I think rape is morally wrong. You think it would be ethically wrong if I “force” people to not commit rape through my public support of laws criminalizing rape?

            Again, the difference is if you or I feel an innocent party is being harmed.

            • C Peterson

              If societal consensus considered rape to be normal and moral, yes, I’d consider it ethically wrong to work for laws against rape.

              • 3lemenope

                Say what?

                At one time slavery was the consensus position in many societies. Are you saying that abolitionist movements were ethically wrong to participate in?

                • C Peterson

                  I would also consider it ethically wrong to attempt to make a law against slavery in a society that accepted slavery as the norm.

                  What is an “abolitionist movement”, and in what context does it exist? If the goal of the movement is to change the attitudes of society, so that slavery is no longer considered normal, than that’s great. If it is to outlaw slavery when there is no consensus that slavery is wrong, then I’d disagree with their aims, just as I disagree with those who seek to outlaw abortion.

                  As I’ve said before, I don’t consider slavery to be unethical in some intrinsic way. I don’t consider there to be any “natural” ethical standards at all (except, possibly, the few that are somewhat built into our psychology). The only way I know to evaluate ethics is in the context of a society, in terms of what that society defines as right or wrong.

                • 3lemenope

                  Sometimes law follows norms, but sometimes norms follow law. The Southern US was unprepared to accept desegregation in 1954, but it was forced upon them, and the norms later adjusted to fit the dictat. If we had waited for them to be ready, through moral suasion and the like, we (or more accurately, black people) would still be waiting.

                  As I’ve said before, I don’t consider slavery to be unethical in some intrinsic way. I don’t consider there to be any “natural” ethical standards at all (except, possibly, the few that are somewhat built into our psychology). The only way I know to evaluate ethics is in the context of a society, in terms of what that society defines as right or wrong.

                  I’m well aware. It’s cases like this that should be a pretty big clue you’re wrong. An act that harms a person is harmful whether everyone agrees it’s wrong or everyone agrees it’s right. People’s opinions are separate from the consequences of the act.

                  One of the main reasons why simply accepting the social consensus as dispositive leads to error is that people’s motivations for their defending a social norm are often at odds with the values that they claim compel the norm. People in the South who were fans of racial segregation had a panoply of reasons for why segregation was a good thing, not just for white people but for black people as well. None of those reasons describe why the norm persisted, which had to do pretty much exclusively with maintaining power and privilege. Notably none of the reasons corresponded with facts of the matter–a main reason why the students prevailed in Brown v. Board–white people can claim all they like that separate but equal was fine, but social research found contrariwise that separation caused developmental harm.

                  In short, social norms exist and perpetuate themselves for a whole host of stupid reasons that are at best morally insensible. It is lazy to just take the result of social norm formation at face value, and basically contrary to everything known about social change to isolate the ethically permissible zone of forceable action to those things upon which everyone already agrees.

                • C Peterson

                  I think all this proves is that you and I have different opinions about what constitutes the basis of morality.

                • 3lemenope

                  Yeah, not so fast.

                  A difference in meta-ethics is no big deal, but what you’re arguing is a difference in applied ethics. Whether, given whatever private moral theory one has, it is proper or improper for people to advocate for legal action on minority viewpoints.

                  You can get away with being a moral social relativist–certainly nobody has the “right” or “wrong” answers in the sense that we can prove–but it’s a tougher sell to say, as you have, that it is wrong to advocate for social change through the mechanism of the law. That cashes out in practical, material differences, which can be judged as more or less effective at generating the ends of a particular moral theory. Your way would have us ending segregation by winning hearts and minds, which is an historical loser. Minority positions, in whatever form they take, represent valid concerns to which the law ought to be responsive.

                  Do you also consider things like the Bill of Rights an ethical affront, as they constrain the majority in several profound ways from writing their norms into law?

                • C Peterson

                  I don’t believe that the law ever defines norms, except in a defective society. I don’t think the law is what eliminated slavery in the U.S., and I don’t think the law has increased civil rights. The law changed because the norms changed. Segregation did change because hearts and minds changed. A minority (Southern politicians) became moral outcasts.

                  Meta-ethics, applied ethics… just so much philosophical babble, IMO. To me, there is simply ethics, which can be personal, or can be societal. In the latter case, they define what is right or wrong by the standards of that society, and have nothing to do with whether or not people suffer harm. I judge them only by how well they work for that society.

        • joey_in_NC

          Similar to how there are Christians supportive of gay marriage despite being morally opposed to practicing homosexuality.

          No, it’s not similar at all. Practicing homosexuality doesn’t involve the deliberate death of an innocent third party.

          A similar situation would be someone from China or India (or anywhere) who thinks female infanticide is morally wrong but is supportive to make infanticide legal.

          • C Peterson

            It is the same. For people who have no moral objection to abortion, a fetus is no more a “third party” than your kidney is. Just because something is living doesn’t mean it is a person.

            Again, whether or not a fetus is a person is not a matter of fact, but of legal definition. When we choose to consider a human to be a being is not a matter of fact, but a matter of opinion.

            • joey_in_NC

              It is the same. For people who have no moral objection to abortion, a fetus is no more a “third party” than your kidney is. Just because something is living doesn’t mean it is a person.

              But your claim is that someone who is pro-life can also be pro-choice. Obviously most pro-lifers have a “moral objection to abortion”. Why exactly do you think that is so?

              • C Peterson

                Why do you think many Buddhists have a moral objection to stepping on an ant?

                People who are morally opposed to abortion presumably base their views on the belief that a new person comes into existence at an earlier time in the development process than a person not opposed to abortion does. The point being, that timing is not a matter of fact, but of philosophy, opinion, and law. Neither side can claim any sort of rational moral superiority.

              • Oswald Carnes

                Most pro-lifers have a moral objection to abortion because they are morons with very little education.

          • allein

            I’m honestly surprised it took this long for this kind of comment to come up. I was pleasantly surprised to see that almost all the comments so far were supportive of the work they do (advanced atheist’s inanity aside).

            • joey_in_NC

              I’m honestly surprised it took this long for this kind of comment to come up.

              What “kind of comment”? I’m simply dissecting C Peterson’s claim that one can be both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. Again, such a person would be similar to being morally against infanticide while at the same time wanting to keep infanticide legal. Do you not agree?

              Of course pro-choicers don’t equate abortion to infanticide, but pretty much all pro-lifers do. That is why I think Peterson’s claim is kind of absurd.

              • allein

                The comments claiming abortion = murder.
                There is a very big difference between early abortion and infanticide.
                People can feel that abortion is wrong while at the same time realizing it is not their place to make that decision for another person who believes differently.

              • 3lemenope

                Of course pro-choicers don’t equate abortion to infanticide, but pretty much all pro-lifers do. That is why I think Peterson’s claim is kind of absurd.

                A person could easily believe that a fetus has some sort of moral weight associated with its well-being, but simply think that the moral weight, while a positive quantity, is far less than that which would be normally associated with a human life, and when weighed against other implicated values comes up short. Perhaps analogous with killing a pet animal; something that should not be done casually or with no moral regard, but is sometimes necessary and proper and is not murder.

          • Carmelita Spats

            So using the IUD or the pill is child endangerment since chemical contraception is considered by some to be an abortifacient/abortifactant. The Catholic Church considers the use of the pill or the IUD to be the equivalent of creating a concentration camp in your uterus…If the chemical contraception fails to prevent ovulation, it has a second “trigger effect” in that it affects the lining of the uterus and disallows implantation. It’s not just Catholics who feel this way…Al Mohler, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention, believes that chemical contraception SHOULD be outlawed since it kills tiny people…Mohler states that pro-life people who use chemical contraception are “all Harry Blackmun”…In order to be “pro-life”, I would have to consult a gynecologist not just about birth control options that affect MY health but also about choices that would generate a hostile environment for POTENTIAL “people”…Frankly, I am plumb puckered out from all the fake crying I do in public over my dead children since I started using the IUD…The little semen demons end up flushed out with so much menstrual waste…

            The Pill Kills:
            http://thepillkills.com/

            Al Mohler…”We are all Harry Blackmun”
            http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/11/17/were-all-harry-blackmun-now-the-lessons-of-mississippi/

            Rep. Bobby Franklin of Georgia wants miscarriages investigated as homicides…Watch out ladies, he’ll dig deep…
            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/22/georgia-anti-abortion-bill-would-require-investigations-of-miscarriages/

            Women in El Salvador are jailed for miscarriages… Pro-lifers have this in store for you:
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/10/18/el_salvador_abortion_ban_women_are_showing_up_at_public_hospitals_while.html

          • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

            Thankfully, neither does abortion, so we’re all in the clear.

          • Quis ut Deus

            The zygote/embryo/fetus is not innocent.

      • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

        Well, only if pro-life is just a euphemism for anti-abortion. There are some inflated numbers when people are asked if they are pro-life or not. In the current political sense I wouldn’t want to same I’m “pro-life” but I wouldn’t consider myself ANTI-life. It’s a nonsense terms and it’s a shame that we allow the term to be used by people who want abortion to be illegal and criminalized.

        • C Peterson

          I find the term “pro-life” rather offensive. That’s why I was careful in my comment to qualify the the term with a specific meaning- basically what you call anti-abortion.

          I absolutely understand that the majority of people using that term are not actually “pro-life” at all, but are most certainly anti-choice.

    • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

      My mom was also very pro-choice. She loved her kids, but she knew how tough parenthood is and how important it is that all children be loved and wanted. It’s okay to personally value fetuses very highly but respect that not everybody values them the same way. It’s all about *choice*. You sound awesome and I bet you’re a great parent.

  • Tainda

    She’s amazing!

  • Lina Baker

    What an amazing woman. Wow. I now feel like I do *so little*. What an amazing legacy she’s created – will we continue her work, or just hope someone else does it?

  • blasphemous_kansan

    It’s ironic that you routinely fantasize about freezing your brain and emerging into a glorious future (maybe one where those pesky wimmin-folks have learned their place, right?), because most of your thoughts seem to emerge from a mind that has been thawed from an age that humanity will be glad to leave behind for good.

    Dismissed.

  • blasphemous_kansan

    This person is awesome.

  • RowanVT

    So you deplore women’s sexual freedom, then regularly complain that no women will have sex with you?

    How does your brain not implode from the hypocrisy?

  • baal

    7 billion humans AA. Google, “human population global” and then click images. Most graphs look like this. We could have 6/7 humans die tomorrow (and economic disruption aside) and the the species would still number 1 billion. It would be a good thing to scale back. There are some decent arguments that the current environmental forcing we’re doing will be (if it isn’t already) as bad for the biosphere as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

    Also, linking to a nut job page with the page title “slutology” doesn’t count as scientific evidence in my book. It looks like asshat marketing / special interest group BS.

    • WallofSleep

      “… We could have 6/7 humans die tomorrow (and economic disruption aside)…”

      Whoa. That’s a handful of really fucking important people there, I guess. :P

      • baal

        I’m not advocating mass death of humans so much as pointing out that we’re nowhere near having to ” [keep] the human species in business.” We do not need ever increasing populations and could have declining populations for a very long time. Our risk as a species is more from over population than underpopulation. Dropping the population too fast does cause problems with the economy whereas slowly is ok.

        • WallofSleep

          I know where you’re coming from, I just thought I’d have a little fun with my initial interpretation.

          At first I read “6/7″ as “6 or 7″ rather than “six-sevenths”. I assume you meant the latter.

    • aaa

      Wait a minute, this graph can’t be right. Where is the part where the world population is reduced to 8 people?

  • C Peterson

    It is ignorant, emotion-driven, irrational humans such as yourself who represent the greatest danger to our species. For most of history, you merely kept us backwards and miserable. But with modern technology, thinking like yours actually has the potential to eliminate us completely.

  • Scott

    Gee… “advancedatheist,” so-called, really has an independent agenda to impose a patriarchal system on women under the claim that it has kept the human species in business since time immemorial… unless you count the 10′s of thousands of years we did fine without it. Spoils them? Damages their development? Sounds like women are a commodity to you with a limited value based on being chaste and pliable by predatory males.

    • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

      We don’t know any of those, either, do we? (ETA: In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m talking about AA.)

  • C.L. Honeycutt

    Your trash can full of used tissues is not “scientific data”.

    • Tainda

      I snort laughed!

  • WallofSleep

    The fuck did I just read?

    • RowanVT

      The rantings of a man who deplores women having control over their own sex lives, who deplores feminine promiscuity…. and whines bitterly that he can’t pick up women for casual sex at atheist conferences.

      He apparently doesn’t realise that the problem isn’t with the women… his problem is *him*. To quote my boyfriend, my male friends, and my brother “He’s the reason he can’t have sex.”

      • WallofSleep

        He can’t be serious, can he? This is some kind of deep cover satire, right? Like a bizarre exercise in some kind of misogynist Poe.

      • Miss_Beara

        He also hates gays and immigrants. Real winner this one is .

        • Pepe

          I’m imagining him meeting a lesbian, immigrant.

        • RowanVT

          Don’t forget non-whites as well. He hates anyone who isn’t pasty.

        • Cristina Guenther

          so if he meets a bi, there are zero chances of a threesome.
          wow this one is smart *sarcasm*

      • Ella Warnock

        Which lives next door to “this is why we can’t have nice things.”

    • invivoMark

      You stole the words from my keyboard!

    • DougI

      I think it was a combination of a guy having his head up his ass and explosive diarrhea.

  • WallofSleep

    “Granny Blood-Money.”

    That kind of shit never gets tiresome. Yeah, that’s precisely how a rational, grown adult talks. Besides that, it’s a lot of work. Do you know how many “Fatty, Fatty, Two-By-Four”s you have to recite before they let you move on to more advanced maneuvers like “Granny Blood-Money”?

  • Tainda

    Anyone else think this douchenozzle is a theist in disguise and just comes on here and makes comments to see us rant?

    • baal

      I’ve never run into a real life atheist who is this bugnutty.

    • NG

      My immediate thought was douchecanoe, but douchenozzle works just as well.

      • Arakasi_99

        I’ve found that the word “douchecanoe” is significantly funnier if pronounced so as to rhyme with “volcano”

    • allein

      Unfortunately, it obviously works…

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Nope, just your run-of-the-mill MRA.

  • WallofSleep

    “… where she now lives in the summer of 2012.”

    *ugh*
    Worst. Summer. Ever.
    Why she’d want to live there is beyond me.

  • God’s Starship

    Yes, ladies! This one’s single!

    • Tainda

      I’m first in line!

      First in line to kick his ass but that’s the only line he’s going to get.

      • WallofSleep

        Don’t bother. You’ll ruin your shoes.

        • Tainda

          You have a point. I wear a 4.5 size shoe. Not easy finding cheap shoes in that size!

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      Really, really!! Well, I’m male, straight and married, but now that I know such a lovable cuddled-buddy like advancedatheist is single, well I just might have to reconsider my current standing. Just imagine the exciting dates! He picks up you in his 1986 toyota. You listen to Paul Harvey on your way to one of the classier McDonald’s in the area, where he gives you a three hour lecture on why Women’s sexual freedom is to blame for the double cheeseburger not being on the dollar menu. (Spoiler alert, it’s because women are sluts.) And then he takes you home, and calls you a whore for not sleeping with him on the first date.

  • invivoMark

    We’ve got some real heroes here in Madison.

    … I might see if I can volunteer for them.

  • Miss_Beara

    Oh hey AA! We missed your sexist presense here so much!

    Have a fabulous day!

  • Matt D

    “Empirical evidence” from a site with the moniker, “sluttology”?

    Do you think it’s not transparently obvious that you are deliberately finding fault in the opposite sex in order to dismiss their reasons for smartly rejecting a creeper persona like yours?

    • allein

      yes.

  • Adam

    I’m an atheist and I’m pretty disgusted by this, even if you are pro-choice (I would never try to illegalize abortion), I don’t think abortion is something to be glorified in this manner. Many atheist philosophers have strong arguments for the immorality of abortion.

    • Matt D

      I’m sure this statement will make most people feel better about themselves, but it also shows they have no concern about the consequences of their decisions, such as overpopulation, starvation, etc.

      • Adam

        Either your point is irrelevant to the discussion or you think we should kill human beings to deal with overpopulation and starvation.

        • Matt D

          “you think we should kill human beings to deal with overpopulation and starvation.”

          I assume you think abortion is immoral, then?

          • Adam

            abortion is the killing of an unborn member of the human species (definition of fetus). I don’t see how the process of birth confers a human being with value and inalienable rights and beforehand while still being genetically the same and the same species doesn’t have any value. So yes I believe it is immoral to kill any member of the human race.

            • baal

              Even the bible doesn’t recognize a person until the first breath of life (i.e. birth).

              You’re also guilty of playing word games rather than dealing maturely with the issue. In specific, we don’t usually refer to fetus’s as human beings nor does genetics or species of ‘human’ enter into the ethics analysis.

              • Adam

                I’m an atheist, I don’t give a fuck what the Bible says. I am talking about secular ethical philosophy, The Deprivation Argument by atheist philosopher Don Marquis is an example of a strong argument for the immorality of abortion.

                I’m a biology major, and actually yes we do, we don’t believe a different species is growing inside a female womb but another member of that same species. It is a member of the Homo homo sapiens and we commonly refer to our species as human beings.

                • 3lemenope

                  I think you meant Homo sapiens sapiens, but otherwise yes. The Deprivation Argument is probably the strongest secular argument against abortion. While I don’t find it dispositive by any means (I’m pro-abortion rights) it does deserve to be taken seriously.

                • Anat

                  Even so, there is the question of where the potential for consciousness falls compared to the bodily autonomy of the very conscious person who is being required to support said potential consciousness at the expense of her health, physical and mental.

                • 3lemenope

                  Quite so. The Violinist Argument also deserves to be taken seriously, and the Violinist Argument (IMO) beats the Deprivation Argument for the very reason you outline.

                • RowanVT

                  Do you think abort spays on cats and dogs are also immoral?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  It is a member of the Homo homo sapiens and we commonly refer to our species as human beings.

                  PROPAGANDA, a distortion and/or mis-use of the language. The word “being” has a number of definitions, one of which relates to “existence”. So, in that sense, because an unborn human exists, it would qualify as a “human being”. However, likewise so would a radish plant qualify as a “radish being”. But since that latter phrase is not normally used in casual conversations, it logically follows that in those conversations, which so frequently include the phrase “human being”, the word “being” refers to something other than “existence”. The actual relevant definition can be inferred from other phrases that are used from time to time: “intelligent being”, “extraterrestrial being”, “alien being”. The word “being” is simply a synonym for “person”.

                  Since a radish plant is not a person, that is why the phrase “radish being” does not get used in ordinary conversations. The propaganda is now obvious; abortion opponents are claiming that an unborn human qualifies as a person, without offering any evidence other than the label “being”. Note that because ordinary animals are also nonpersons, we don’t use phrases like “rabbit being” in typical conversations, either. And, measurably animal-level are the minds that unborn humans do have! (How often do you encounter the phrase “fetus being”?)

                  Meanwhile, True Artificial Intelligences, when they eventually begin to exist, will qualify as “machine beings”, even though their offspring, those small “growing” electronic machines, won’t qualify as persons until after many months of acquiring parts. Abortion opponents had better start getting used to the concept of “machine beings”!

                • baal

                  I left my developmental biology PhD program and they gave me a Masters as a door prize. Would you like cookie?

                  “I’m a biology major, and actually yes we do, we don’t believe a
                  different species is growing inside a female womb but another member of that same species”

                  I have no idea where you’re getting this noise from. I’m fully aware that a human fetus is of the human species. It’s not a person (legal thing, ethical thing, not a biology thing) until it’s born (or if you push me really hard, at reasonable viability not with all the medical support in the world viability).

                  I’m seriously confused why you consider “The Deprivation Argument” compelling. It’s a bad argument. Being a fetus doesn’t entitle you to a future existence. Additionally, I’m flatly unwilling to consider a position moral or ethical unless it explicitly discusses all of the impacted parties and talks about their harms. You don’t get to erase the woman from the argument nor others dependent on that woman.

                  Under the deprivation argument, why would we allow anyone to ever willingly be neutered? (tubes tied, vas deference cut)

              • Matt D

                I’m curious, do you apply this compassion to animals as well, or just humans?

                • Adam

                  I’m actually planning on writing a master’s in philosophy (apparently all you need is a minor in philosophy to write one) on my ethical theory which is based on the value of consciousness (and the value of the potential for consciousness). While animals have a lesser level of consciousness than humans I still believe they have value. I have tried going vegan, but due to being forced to get a meal plan with no vegan options, I’ve had to take a break until I’m out of this university.

                • Matt D

                  Redacted

                • Niemand

                  my ethical theory which is based on the value of consciousness

                  Embryos are not conscious. They don’t have the neural equipment for consciousness. The majority of abortions occur in the embryonic period. The early fetus is certainly not conscious. Again, the neurons, while now there, are not connected in a way that could even in principle lead to consciousness. The vast majority of abortions and virtually all elective abortions occur in the embryonic or early fetal period. There is a possibility of consciousness in the late fetal period, but given the intrauterine hypoxia, the chances of consciousness are slim. In short, if you base your value on consciousness, you should support abortion on demand through at least the 24th week and probably all the way through pregnancy.

                  The pregnant woman, unless something bad has happened to her, like, say, a pregnancy induced stroke, is conscious. She suffers from an undesired pregnancy. Your lack of concern for her welfare is noted.

                • Adam

                  you might have missed the part about me including the potential for consciousness. Making your whole criticism go down the drain.

                • Niemand

                  Heck, everything has the potential for consciousness. What about your poor sperm? Why aren’t you out looking for someone to have sex with instead of sitting around here? They’re potentially conscious cells and you’re murdering them! Somatic cells have the potential to become independent humans. Ok, we need a little more tech to make that work, but they have potential. Why aren’t you at least out there researching cloning if you’re too lazy to have sex? Mice have the potential to develop sentience if we knock in the right genes. Why aren’t you funding intelligent mouse research? There’s a reasonable chance that AIs could develop sentience with enough work. Throwing away your old cell phone is murder! (And bad for the environment.) Random dust in space has the potential to collapse graviationally and become part of a planet and eventually part of a conscious being. Quick-demand that we send no more space probes that could interrupt the process out there!

                  You see how silly it gets when you follow the logic out? Why not worry about the actual, existing conscious beings we have instead of worrying about “potential”?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Potentiality is not actuality.

                  You will be a corpse someday, yet we don’t treat you as one now.

                  A 5 year old will be able to drive someday, yet we don’t give them the keys to the car.

                • enuma

                  Yeah, I’d be really careful about arguing that we should treat things that have the potential to be another thing as if they actually are that other thing. You are not only a potential corpse, you are a potential corpse with 100% certainty of being a corpse someday. Those blastocysts have only a roughly 50% shot of becoming conscious entities. Many of them will naturally fail to implant or spontaneously miscarry and never develop into anything remotely capable of consciousness.

                  You’re basically arguing that it would be okay for us to start treating you like you’re already a dead body, based on your potential for corpsehood.

                • RowanVT

                  Every fetus has a small chance of becoming a murderer, and 100% of murderers were fetuses, so to prevent more death all babies need to be incarcerated.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Can’t… stop… laughing…

                • enuma

                  “No, Mom. Playpen, baby-cage is not like tomato, tomahto.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sWMm0UE1AU

                • NG

                  “I’m actually planning on writing a master’s in philosophy”

                  Uh oh! He’s toting out his degrees! Sure sign the argument isn’t going his way. (‘Look, I’m smarter because I have these letters behind my name!’)

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  So your veganism was short-circuited because it was inconvenient? That’s absolutely hilarious. I guess it’s true–the only moral non-veganism is your non-veganism.

                  And no offense, but if you’re trying to equate consciousness with a forced-birth position, you’re going to get your ass handed to you pretty handily, considering that fetal consciousness, such as it might be, has nothing to do with abortion rights.

                • baal

                  I don’t understand the question.

              • Adam

                Also Baal if you ever care to research bioethics you’d realize the species is very important, there is a reason we use rats for certain experiments and not humans because the species of the test subject is important for the morality of the experiment.

                • baal

                  We aren’t comparing human women gestating rat-fetuses to human women gestating human-fetuses.

                • Kodie

                  Humans are important because we say we are? I thought you were supposed to be going to write a master’s thesis in philosophy.

            • enuma

              They’re living human cells, but I’m not sure it follows that those human cells constitute a human person. Unique human DNA isn’t sufficient criteria. If we use unique DNA as our sole criteria, then dicephalic conjoined twins would be one person, and a chimera like Lydia Fairchild would be two people. That’s obviously nonsense, so we can discard DNA as our metric.

              Maybe it would be useful to look at how we define death. If we can declare people dead because their brains have died, then it follows that we aren’t really alive until our brains have formed. That would rule out all embryos, which means the majority of abortions are taking place at a stage which is definitely prior to the emergence of the person.

              • Adam

                Interesting criticism, but unlike your average human cells used in experiments, these ones are duplicating and following a genetic plan that slowly builds the human body that hosts their DNA. A study of embryology shows that even very early on in development the ‘cells’ as you call them already greatly resemble a human being and have many of their organs beginning formation as the plan is worked on.

                A fetus is a stage of development that every human being goes through, which you would not reject, but you simultaneously believe it is not a human being. Well what is it then?

                You use the term Human person which is a term used in the Tri-distinction of human life, human being and human person argument that argues only human persons have value. The definition of human person has been used to discriminate different human beings for quite some time (African-Americans not being humans so slaves are fine, or Jews are not persons so killing them is fine). I reject the human person criteria because it is simply a legal term with no substance it just changes however we want to define it at a given period of time.

                The two things that remain constant are that it is a human life and that it is a human being. Those alone give a fetus value. I use the DNA point to show that it is obviously a member of our species, not some sort of alien growing in the womb as some pro-choice advocates seem to think. I don’t believe the DNA gives it the value, but the fact of it being alive (since it is growing) and the fact that it is a human being.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  A fetus is a stage of development that every human being goes through,
                  which you would not reject, but you simultaneously believe it is not a
                  human being. Well what is it then?

                  Answerable with a question: Do you believe an acorn is a tree, and that burning a bag of acorns is equivalent to burning down a grove?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  I love that analogy.

                  You can always replant thousands of acorns. You can’t as easily replace thousands of hectares of burned forest with 100+ year old trees.

                • enuma

                  Also answerable with another question: You’re in a fertility clinic that is burning down. Before you are two doors, each blocked by burning debris. You can shift the debris to unblock one of the doors, but doing so will permanently block the other door. Only one of the doors can be opened.

                  Behind Door A is a portable cooler containing ten frozen embryos, all of which are scheduled to be implanted. Behind Door B is a single infant.

                  Which do you rescue?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  1)Biologist Johnathan M Sullivan MD PhD writes: You and I contain much, much more information, both genetic and otherwise, than a blastocyst. That’s why I can write this column and you can read it, whereas a blastocyst just.. .sits there. Indeed, that is the exactly the point of stem cell research: the stem cells in the blastocyst have not yet acquired the molecular programming required for differentiation, and so they remain pluripotent, awaiting the necessary molecular signals (the information) that will tell them whether to become nerve or muscle, skin or bone.

                  Yes, once upon a time we were blastocysts, too. Nothing more than a little clump of cells, each of them a snippet of DNA surrounded by cytoplasm. But that DNA was later transcribed into RNA, and that RNA was translated into proteins. And some of those proteins were transcriptionfactors that told other cells in the blastocyst what to do, when to divide, where to migrate. Transcription factors regulated the expression of still other transcription factors. Genes were turned on and off with clockwork precision. Some genes were methylated, so they could never be turned on again.

                  In other words, the genome and the proteome of the blastocyst were changed as the embryo accumulated molecular information that the blastocyst did not have.

                  The embryo became a fetus, with complex orientations of
                  tissues–loaded with spatial, genetic, biochemical and mechanical information that simply did not exist in the embryo.

                  The fetus became a child with a nervous system, and that nervous system sucked up information about the world, hard-wiring pathways for vision and movement, learning to make subtle distinctions between this and that, accumulating information that simply did not exist in the
                  fetus.

                  In other words, the blastocyst launched a genetic program that both extracted and acquired information. It didn’t start out as a human being. It became a human being, with a personality, feelings, attitudes and memories, by accumulating information that was not there before.

                  Equating a blastocyst with a human being is like equating a brand new copy of an inexpensive spreadsheet program with the priceless databases that you’ll eventually build up with that program. It’s no less ridiculous than saying that a blueprint has the same value as a skyscraper–that it is the skycraper.

                  No. They are not the same.

                  2) Biologist Scott Gilbert writes:

                  Genetics

                  This view states that a genetically unique person begins at conception – a fertilized egg now hosts a complete genome, making it distinct from the sex cells that came before it. This definition has the advantage of saying that a new individual has been created that can be distinct from its parents, but is still limited by the fact that this embryo is still in an early stage of development and far from viable as an individual.

                  This view also causes a funny paradox in the case of monozygotic (identical) twins: each twin does not exist as an individual when “its life begins” – that is, when it is conceived as the embryo doesn’t split into two parts until later. This paradox could possibly be resolved by
                  considering the pre-twinning embryo as a disparate entity
                  from either of the resulting embryos. This is why viewing the formation of life as a continuous process rather than a single event is beneficial.

                  Instructions for Development and Heredity are NOT all in the Fertilised egg. The view that we are genetically determined by the combination of parental DNA has been shown to fall far short of the complete story. How the DNA is interpreted can vary greatly affected by things such as the maternal diet. Similarly some development requires
                  certain bacteria to be present. Thirdly, and most surprisingly, the level of maternal care can determine which areas of DNA are ‘methylated’ which radically alters
                  how they are interpreted. As such the view that we are ‘complete but unformed’ at conception is far from accurate.

                  The Embryo is NOT Safe Within the Womb. Modern research shows that 30% or fewer fertilised eggs will go on to become foetuses. Many of these early miscarriages
                  are because of abnormal numbers of chromosomes. The view that every fertilised egg is a potential human being is wrong in around 70% of cases.

                  There is NOT a Moment of Fertilisation when the passive egg receives the active sperm.Again recent research has shown that the previous commonly held view that the fastest sperm races towards the egg and, bingo, we’re up and running is wrong on many levels. Fertilisation is a
                  process taking up to four days. As such there is no magic moment, rather there is a process.

                  There is NO consensus amongst scientists that life begins at conception.There isn’t even consensus amongst scientists as to whether there’s consensus. However, Scott Gilbert’s paper lists embryologists who support each of the major view points belying the common and oft
                  repeated assertion that there is consensus amongst embryologists, let alone scientists.

                  Neurology

                  Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.

                  The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view.

                  3) I use the DNA point to show that it is obviously a member of our species, not some sort of alien growing in the womb as some pro-choice advocates seem to think

                  So you would argue that a clinically braindead corpse on life support is a human being that should be kept alive, and argue that a SENTIENT and SAPIENT alien being should be killed because it lacks human DNA?

                • enuma

                  Did anyone else picture osiote dropping the mic after reading this?

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  I sure did. Adam got his ass SCHOOLED. Damn fine job. Wish I could like it twice.

                  I guess that’s what happens when someone gets all his biological info from forced-birther materials rather than the real world.

                • Kodie

                  So if a woman found out the DNA in her tummy was going to grow into a bald eagle or a black rhino, would it be ok if she got an abortion?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Dude, if it was kittens, I’d keep ‘em.

                • RowanVT

                  Agreed! I’d birth puppies or kittens. They’re smaller, cuter, become independent faster and are less likely to grow up to be assholes. :P

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Eh, I’ve met some cats who are complete assholes. It happens, just far less often than it does with humans.

                • RowanVT

                  Hence less likely. :P

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  True

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  I once had a kitten on me who found a mole under my breast, through the shirt, and mistook it for a nipple, and holy god the pain.

                  This is why you should always think twice before consenting to sex with toms, or something, I don’t know. Because consequences.

                • RowanVT

                  Well… tomcats have barbs on their penises. That might be a good way to wipe out most of our species.

                  I’d take one look at that and go “Oh HELL no” and merely masturbate for the rest of my life. :P

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  If I remember right, said barbs are made of keratin. You know, like fingernails and horns. Gah!

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  So this would be where I link to bad dragon dot com right?

                • RowanVT

                  XD But those are soft ‘spines’. Cat penis barbs are like *horns*.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Ermm… is it wrong that I think that just might be kinda fun? (Masochist? Me? …well… maybe just a little…)

                • RowanVT

                  D: *mildly horrified*

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Curiosity, cats, you know the drill…

                • RowanVT

                  I’m never going to be able to look at an intact male cat the same again. XD

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  It’s not like I’m ever gonna, like, molest a cat or something. (I love kitties, just… not like that.)

                  I’d totally go for the silicone (or plastic, or whatever) version, though.

                  (Limits, I haz them.)

                • RowanVT

                  I know, but I will see tomcat, think of baddragon, think of the silicone spines being made to be ‘ow’, and then my brain will fizzle out.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  I don’t… know what that is, but…

                  *brief pause*

                  …nevermind, I remember it now.

                • RowanVT

                  The interesting thing is they are there because of testosterone. When you neuter a cat, the barbs vanish.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I did not know that!

            • allein

              No, I just believe the born, grown woman’s right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over a non-viable entity (as an early fetus is) that is entirely dependent on her body and her body alone. If that child was born, the mother couldn’t be legally forced to donate her organs against her will even if the baby would die; she shouldn’t be forced to do so before, even temporarily, either.

    • allein

      How is abortion being “glorified” here?

      • Adam

        We are calling this woman a hero for providing abortion money for woman? If you think abortion is immoral then she is providing the means to do immoral acts.

        • allein

          Well, I don’t think it’s immoral, for starters. Furthermore, the women the WMF helps are women for whom having a baby (or another baby) is a serious hardship in their lives (and the lives of their other children, if they have them). Not just, “this will really derail my social life” but “how am I going to feed and clothe this child?” If you think that someone who believes helping these women is a good thing is “glorifying” a needed (and legal) medical procedure, I can’t help but think you don’t care at all what happens to the woman who ends up with a pregnancy that she absolutely cannot afford, let alone the child that results from it.

          • Adam

            There is this thing called giving a child up for adoption, while due to issues with funding in the adoption program this is not a perfect option however most people I know would rather live in a foster home than be dead (I have an adopted sister and she would rather be alive than aborted).

            Abortion might have certain circumstances where it is less immoral but the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, and a human life is worth more than an inconvenience on a family.

            • baal

              If you’re aborted, there is no “you” to lament your non-existence.

              Giving birth and pregnancy is not risk free. Getting an abortion – especially one early on, is much safer for the woman or girl. Many are also medically necessary.

              I also think you’re over emphasizing ‘mere inconvenience’ but the other reasons you skipped are critical so your argument “no biggie to ban abortion since it’s weighing murder vs inconvenience” is wrongful on both sides of the scale.

              • Adam

                If you are murdered there is no “you” to lament your non-existence either, but I assume we both agree that murder is immoral?

                Death rates from pregnancy are exceedingly low due to current medical technology and the complications resulting from abortions are potentially problematic for a woman as well. I would need statistics to show that pregnancy is far more dangerous than abortion.

                I say I won’t illegalize abortion because it won’t end the problem. People will just go back to back alley abortions and the result will only be more death (as many more woman would die as well). I say most abortions are inconvenience because after 9 months you can just give the child up for adoption, murder seems unnecessary.

                Philosophical arguments showing the immorality of abortion and trying to change the minds of the populace is the only correct pro-life solution to limit the amount of death.

                • allein

                  I don’t have time to find them right now, but the statistics are out there. I’m sure if you looked you’d find them easily.

                  There are also statistics on how the US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world.

                • Adam

                  I feel like the high rate is due to the US health care system not a lack of technology able to make nearly every pregnancy in the first world not death inducing.

                  I have looked before and the mortality rates of abortion and pregnancy both vary from country to country, there is no objective stat that shows pregnancy must be more fatal than abortion. The result of abortion is always at least one death anyways so i don’t see how the two can be compared.

                • allein

                  I agree, the high rate is mostly due to our healthcare system, which is an extra disadvantage for poor women. I would hazard a guess that the poor are disproportionately represented in those statistics.

                  Early term abortion, done in a proper medical setting by a properly trained practitioner, is one of the safest medical procedures out there. The more advanced a pregnancy is, the higher the risk of complications (whether you are seeking to abort or carry to term). A developing fetus puts ever-increasing demands on the mother’s system until it is born, and childbirth itself is physically traumatic even in the best of circumstances. I know two people who had their babies 10 weeks early because of the stress on their system. Both ended up with dangerously high blood pressure, and one was in danger of kidney failure, as a direct result of the pregnancy. Carrying to term would likely have killed them both. These were both wanted pregnancies. Requiring women to risk their lives because you think a not-yet-viable fetus is equivalent to a born child is unconscionable in my view.

                • Adam

                  I think you are exaggerating the actual risk of carrying a pregnancy to term using a couple anecdotal cases. If pregnancy was really such a great risk to a female, the human species would not have survived. While there are almost always side-effects caused by a pregnancy (commonly vomiting, overeating, cravings, nausea, migraines, random pains, stiffness of joints). The vast majority of pregnancies are not life-threatening and are mostly inconvenient (very inconvenient in some cases), but I still don’t see how that out weighs an innocent human life.

                  Unless >50% of pregnancies resulted in death of both the fetus and the mother would having an abortion become the more moral option, however that is clearly not the case.

                  I believe all human beings have worth, and viability doesn’t really determine it (human infants are certainly not viable without much effort, care and protection, when a human being actually becomes self-sustainable might not be until their teens or young adulthood).

                • allein

                  You’re right, the vast majority don’t end in the mother’s death. My ultimate point is that it is the woman who should be deciding how much risk she is willing to take on, not lawmakers or religious leaders or anyone else.
                  I also believe all people have worth, including pregnant women. I’m not willing to reduce them to nothing more than baby-vessels who no longer have any rights to control of their bodies the second they get pregnant.

                • Adam

                  I agree it is the woman’s choice but I believe the moral decision for the woman is to take the pregnancy to term, and I think the secular arguments on this subject show that. Therefore if the number of abortions is reduced we are doing less immoral acts, so I am pro-life. Just like it would be moral if more people donated to charity (I’m pro-charity too).

                • allein

                  And I believe the moral thing is to let women make their own decisions without heaping extra burdens of waiting periods and unnecessary ultrasounds and guilt trips on them. And also to enourage education on and use of birth control and other things that will actually help reduce the abortion rate.

                • RowanVT

                  I have no desire to die before I have to. There is a small, but significant risk I could die by becoming pregnant. I am, therefor, not exactly wanting to become pregnant. If my birth control method fails, you think it is ethical to FORCE ME TO FACE DEATH. Odds I wouldn’t die… but I *might*. And you want to make me have to take that risk.

                  YOU are the moral monster here, not those of us who understand that the extant entity takes precedence over a potential one.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  I agree it is the woman’s choice but I believe the moral decision for the woman is to take the pregnancy to term

                  I would rather kill myself than go through birth. I can’t really imagine anything worse or more painful than having to give birth, other than being burned alive, which is my other great fear.

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  I really don’t think it’s very moral of you to tell another human being how much medical risk she should assume to make you feel better about her private, personal decisions (I notice you’re curiously silent about her financial, emotional, relationship, and employment risks as well. Or did you have some grand plan to help her with all of that, or is she up shit creek, the slutty slut, for having had sex?). Abortion itself is neither moral nor immoral. But the violation of another human being’s autonomy and self-ownership is very immoral. I think you ought to reframe your worldview to consider the issue from the consent standpoint. An unwanted fetus is violating its host’s body without that host’s consent. As with any violation, the person being violated has the right to withdraw consent to that violation at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. It’s not your body, so you don’t own it, so you don’t get to decide what is and isn’t moral for that person to endure in terms of violations. Nor do you get to force your “morality” on others after having come to a studied conclusion about just how risky their medical situation is–mighty white of you, I must say. You might as well be arguing in favor of marital rape.

                  I neither know nor care if a fetus is a “person” or not. But I do know what it feels like to be intimately violated and forced to endure the loss of my bodily consent. I would rather die than go through that ever again. Forced-birthers, however, see no trouble at all with forcing such a fate upon me.

                  I own me. You do not own me. A fetus does not own me. I get to decide who enters me, for how long, why, and under what circumstances. You’re damn right it is the woman’s choice. And if you ever get pregnant or find yourself forced to endure some other intimate violation (as in the court case of McFall v. Shimp), you’ll figure out very quickly how much men *and* women have to lose if someone else’s sense of “morality” is ever again allowed to trump another person’s bodily sovereignty.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  No, no she isn’t really exaggerating the risk at all.

                  ~600-700 women die in the US each year from childbirth- that’s one or two women per day. ~30,000 per year will nearly die (with concomitant PTSD risk, permanent physical harm, sky-high medical bills, job loss from absenteeism, etc), and millions will be permanently injured. Every. Year. They will suffer from organ prolapse, pelvic floor damage, tears, fistulas, stretched or broken pelvises, diabetes, high blood pressure and all that entails, auto-immune disorders, mental illnesses, and other things that were brought on by or exacerbated by pregnancy. It is legal to fire a woman for being pregnant. We have no paid maternity leave, and many women work for places that don’t even have to offer unpaid leave.

                  Why won’t you donate your organ to someone? They’ll die without it. There is a huge list of people waiting for kidneys and livers. It’s only a major surgery- a minor inconvenience, really. If you were really pro-life, you’d support mandatory organ transplants at any time to save a life. You wouldn’t care about jobs, existing children, or existing medical conditions. It’s to save a life, after all, so it must be done no matter the consequences to the “donor”! Lose your job, your house, fall behind on your debt? Whatever. It’s to save a life, man. Don’t whine about your convenience to me. The transplant and aftercare would all be at your expense, of course, and don’t worry about the death or complication rate. Why, it’s tiny! Donating a kidney is 3-4 times safer than pregnancy, so why should any man worry about it?

                  EDIT: gender pronoun

                • allein

                  No, no he isn’t really exaggerating the risk at all.

                  (btw, I’m a she) :)

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Sorry! I’ll try to remember that in the future. I’ve been trying to remember to use gender neutral pronouns on people whose gender I don’t know, but I slipped up. Again, my apologies.

                • allein

                  Don’t worry, I’m not offended. :p

                  On a side note, when I clicked on the reply link in my email notification for this comment, it had the date in the url as 10/17…I think that’s the biggest discrepancy I’ve seen yet (at least since I figured out what was causing the page not found error)…usually it’s off by a day.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  You figured out what was causing the page not found error!? Please share this and any solutions you have found. It’s really frustrating to try to reply to a comment or read something and get that message.

                • allein

                  Someone made a comment in a thread a month or so ago that made me realize what was doing it. If you look at the url, you can see where it includes the date of the blog post (this one from my reply link is …/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/17/four-decades…). But this one was posted yesterday, so I changed the 17 in the url to 28. Usually when I’ve seen it it’s been a day or two off, not a week and a half…! It’s annoying but if you can check the actual date of the post you can get to the comment. (What causes the wrong date, I have no idea.)

                  (As for what’s causing that weird line break up there, *shrug*)

                • baal

                  I think it’s the initial post date vs the initial display date and maybe depends on the last edit by host date. It’s clearly a date mapping error regardless.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Cool. Thank you.

                • allein

                  No problem :)

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I’ve been manually correcting the URL. Please tell me there’s an easier fix!

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  I don’t think so. I’m just manually correcting the URL too now. allein just told me how to fix it at all!

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  You’re getting that, too?

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  Mighty cavalier of him, though, to tell women what medical risks they will be undergoing. I don’t care how risky or risk-free HE thinks something is. What matters is how risky or risk-free the person undergoing that procedure thinks it is.

                  And even if Adam could dictate what medical risks another human being would be undergoing, even if Adam could put a quantifier on just how much risk is okay to force on another human being against that person’s consent, he’s also not in a position to dictate how much other trauma a person will be undergoing in the name of his superior “morality.” And yes, I use scare quotes. It’s morally indefensible to force another human being into slavery, even if he does say so himself that it isn’t that risky or that bad. He thinks he’s defending “life”–but he pointedly doesn’t mention the life of the mother that he is proposing to destroy in the name of his “morality.”

                  Is Adam going to be ensuring that the financial constraints that spark most abortions will be made to vanish? Is Adam going to ensure that pregnant women who don’t qualify for FMLA will be able to keep their jobs? And of the women who get their asses fired, is he going to pay their bills for them while they labor in his slave gestation-camp? (BTW: I *personally* know of a woman who miscarried because she had to work through a difficult pregnancy–she wanted that baby, but couldn’t afford not to work and hadn’t been there long enough for FMLA anyway, so she’d have been fired. Instead, she worked, and she almost died along with her fetus.) Is Adam going to make sure that women who can’t even afford healthcare co-pays will be able to afford all their prenatal checkups? Is Adam going to ensure these women will be getting their prenatal vitamins and all that other stuff pregnant women get? Is Adam going to ensure these women are monitored for psychological health so they don’t experience postpartum psychosis or depression (a remarkably common risk)? Is Adam going to help pay for these women to recuperate from their birth? Is he going to pay for the funerals for the ones his chirpy risk assessment fails for who die because sometimes, dammit, women just need to be enslaved? Is he going to ensure that the women who need lifelong care for the serious complications get it?

                  No?

                  Oh, so he’s just going for the forced gestation and enslavement?

                  Yeah.

                  Very moral.

                • Niemand

                  So, Adam, how would you make a case of HELLP syndrome not “death inducing” without abortion? Or an AML in early pregnancy? Or PPH? Do tell…

                • Quis ut Deus

                  I feel like the high rate is due to the US health care system not a lack
                  of technology able to make nearly every pregnancy in the first world
                  not death inducing.

                  1.2 million women are permanently disabled from pregnancy per year. In the USA alone.

                  We do not require that people risk disability in order to save the lives of BORN PEOPLE.

                  Why do you want to give a microscopic cell more rights than a born child?

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  It seems clear that Adam hasn’t really thought this thing through very well. He’s got a lot of forced-birther talking points and a horrible case of ignorance under his belt, and then there’s that total lack of human empathy he suffers from and his clear conviction that women aren’t really people with rights or anything, and lastly his apparent inability to understand exactly why the forced-birth position even exists in the first place (spoiler: it has nothing to do with saving babies).

                  It blows my mind when I run across atheist forced-birthers, especially the ones who use the EXACT SAME TALKING POINTS and pants-on-fire lies that religious forced-birthers use even down to their terminology and rhetoric, like Adam does. I’ve got to admit that. It’s like they looked across the panoply of abuses and overreach that the Religious Right is so rightly infamous for committing; like they saw all these right-wingers’ debunked lies and their utterly untenable, hypocritical, failed, and inhuman social positions. And I think to myself that they surely know that the entire position itself stems from a desire for shrewd politicians to win votes from once-overly-privileged Christians who’ve been manipulated and goaded into wanting their religion injected more into society and to roll back women’s rights. And yet despite all the information out there about the position’s origins, its leaders’ motivations, its total lack of efficacy and failure to do what it ostensibly says it wants to do, despite the utter mismatch between its proponents’ tactics and its goals, and despite the very existence of its unstated goals, these atheists nodded smartly to themselves and said “Yep! THIS is the one platform they are totally right about!” and signed off on female enslavement. How the hell does that even happen?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  There are atheists who believe in ghosts. And Bigfoot.

                  Karl Rove is an atheist :P

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  True dat. And if atheist forced-birthers wanna be taken seriously, they maybe should find arguments that aren’t word for word what the religious zealots use. All they’re missing is a big invisible friend authorizing their argument–though they substitute other big invisible concepts for that friend.

                  I didn’t know Rove was an atheist though. Dang. Something new every day, ’round here.

                • JohnnieCanuck

                  So you weren’t aware that the US has one of the highest maternal death rates in the developed countries?

                  I see allein types faster. Well then:

                  maternal mortality link

                  Check out the rates for African-American women and you may see that it also has something to do with discrimination.

                • Adam

                  And I’m against that as well, medical technology is at a level where pregnancy should almost never lead to death and when it does it is a tragedy, but again the vast majority of pregnancies result in zero deaths, while every abortion has at least one casualty.

                • JohnnieCanuck

                  You assume your argument when you declare a blastocyst a casualty. Every day you shed thousands of cells and give not a single thought to their deaths. Cells just as alive as a fertilised ovum and potentially even capable of being cloned.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Not your place to decide how much risk a person should accept. Only the person in danger can decide, asshole.

                • Kodie

                  Things should be different, and if things were different, maybe fewer women would consider abortion to be the least worst thing they can do, but things are how they are. How is someone supposed to make a rational decision on how they would prefer things be if they are not?

                  Nobody has to grow a human being inside them. Consider the movie Innerspace. I think there are other movies like this, but anyway, Dennis Quaid shrinks himself so that he can explore human anatomy up close. So he accidentally is injected in Martin Short and eventually passed to Meg Ryan. That looks really inconvenient. If someone is inside of you and messing up your life royally, do you have some obligation to put up with it? I mean, Martin Short was only accidentally involved in the first place. Due to the hilarious situation, he was put out of his way dozens of times with the only goal being to eject Dennis Quaid alive. Had he been injected into the rabbit as originally planned, they would have easily just killed the rabbit to get Quaid’s character out at the end of his research mission. Anyway, is it ok for Martin Short to take medicine that poisons Quaid so that his own personal nightmare could end, or does he have to endure it at great cost to himself? In case you are wondering, Short seems to allow the situation because otherwise he wouldn’t be in a movie in 1987, except the other one nobody saw called Cross My Heart.

                  If Dennis Quaid is causing agony to your insides, is it ok to try to drown him so he comes out in your pee?

                • Niemand

                  Just to note, these numbers are undercounts. They don’t include, for example, women whose bodies are damaged by pregnancy but die more than a year after the pregnancy (i.e. congestive heart failure, diabetes, autoimmune disease, etc induced by pregnancy). The real number is likely much higher, even without taking into account pregnancy related violence.

                • Niemand

                  If you are murdered there is no “you” to lament your non-existence either

                  Why do “pro-life” people always end up suggesting that their opponents be murdered?

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  Because misleading, loaded, inaccurate words are how they manipulate people. Very likely this exact form of manipulation is what worked on Adam and continues to work on him, and so he uses it on others. It’s important we not allow Adam to get away with misusing big words he doesn’t understand.

                • Anna

                  I say most abortions are inconvenience because after 9 months you can just give the child up for adoption

                  Just? You clearly do not understand why adoption rates are so low in the first place. It’s because placing a baby for adoption after you have carried it for nine months is exceedingly difficult. Few women make that choice. Even those who know intellectually that they do not have the emotional or financial resources to take proper care of a child are often unable to make that decision shortly after giving birth. This is not made easier by a culture which shames adoption and considers adoptive families less legitimate than biological ones. Simply put, adoption is not a viable choice for most women.

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  I don’t know if it’s just my age showing here or not, but there was a string of TV movies and books out in the 80s and 90s about adopted kids who found their birth parents and the trauma that sometimes resulted in. Sounds very painful to me. I know of an adopted child, a friend of mine, who in adulthood tracked down his birth parents; neither were very happy about being found.

                • Anna

                  Oh, it’s constant. Not just the 80s and 90s, but anytime adoption is depicted in the media, the biological family eventually comes into it. I’m hard pressed to think of any movies or television shows with adult adoptees that didn’t involve that person meeting his or her birth parents, or at least wanting to. In real life, I’ve read that fewer than half of adoptees do a search, but you’d never know it from how adoption is portrayed.

                  Not only do all “reunion” stories not end happily (as in your friend’s case), many people are not interested in tracking down their birth parents, and many birth parents are not interested in being found. Yet this is the ultimate go-to story about adoption, because the culture simply does not consider adoptive families as valid as biological ones. The media will mention if someone was adopted regardless if it is relevant to the situation. Most recently, I’ve been annoyed to notice Beyond Scared Straight falling into this pattern, not only bringing up a child’s status, but qualifying the parent-child relationship as “adoptive” every time their names appear on screen.

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  Oh, you know, there’s this cult of parenthood in this country that we’re still dealing with that fetishizes babies and children. This fetish, this cult, tells us every chance it gets that all parents secretly really want their kids and adoptive parents are inferior to the “real thing” and birth parents are the “real” parents and obviously all birth parents will be THRILLED to discover how their given-up babies are doing nowadays. Pfft. That’s a hell of a lot of false hopes to get risen up in an adopted kid. So yeah, when I hear some forced-birther chirping “oh just GIVE IT UP FOR ADOPTION!” like that’s the perfect answer, I’ve got to ask: “who for, exactly?”

                • Niemand

                  placing a baby for adoption after you have carried it for nine months is exceedingly difficult

                  Yeah. A problem with unwanted pregnancies is not that you won’t love the baby when it’s born. It’s that you will love the baby. But love is not enough. You still need food, clothing, housing, time, health, emotional stability, and help. So you get in a situation where you can either give the baby up, which will hurt like crazy and spend the rest of your life wondering if the baby is ok, if s/he is being treated well or being abused like Hanna Williams, if s/he wonders about you, etc or try to raise a child when you simply don’t have the things you need to do so. It’s not a nice dilemma.

                • Anna

                  This is also an argument for more legal protections for birth mothers. It is very uncommon these days to have a completely closed adoption. Most birth mothers pick the adoptive parents and are promised an open or semi-open arrangement, with pictures and visits. The problem is that this is not legally enforceable in the vast majority of states. So you have situations where women are basically convinced to place their babies with the promise of continued contact, only to have the adoptive parents back out of the agreement when the child gets older. I’ve read that this is more traumatic for women than the initial placement.

                • RedGreenInBlue

                  Thank you Anna for saying that. I was trying to frame a reply to the same comment and was glad to see you’d already done so, and better than my attempt anyway :)

                • Quis ut Deus

                  If you are murdered there is no “you” to lament your non-existence either, but I assume we both agree that murder is immoral?

                  No. When abortions occur, there is no ‘you’ either because the embryo is incomplete and partially formed. The PERSONALITY, what will make ‘you’ you’ is not yet even formed. A clump of undifferentiated tissue has no ‘soul’, if you will.

                  The clump of cells does not yet have a’ life’ – it is not yet a human being. It is nothing more than potential. And potentiality is not actuality.

                  Death rates from pregnancy are exceedingly low due to current medical technology and the complications resulting from abortions are potentially problematic for a woman as well. I would need statistics to show that pregnancy is far more dangerous than abortion.

                  Abortion is 14x safer than pregnancy. And you are forgetting one very important thing. Birth. Birth = torture. Try up to 72 hours of intense pain, that can result in vaginal tearing and permanent disability, including death. Or a c-section, which involves the cutting of tissue, and can result in months of healing, and may never properly heal.

                  Approximately 4% of women in developed countries suffer from obstetric fistulas as a result of giving birth. This is when the vaginal wall is rubbed away and urine and feces run down the leg uncontrollably. Some women have to wear a colostomy bag for the rest of their lives. Or diapers. To avoid pissing and shitting all over the place.

                  But only an asshole would consider all of the above to be a ‘minor inconvenience’.

                  No, it is not up to you and misogynist assholes like you to make medical decisions for people who are NOT YOU. You don’t get to decide how much RISK a person should take on.

                • tsara

                  “I say most abortions are inconvenience because after 9 months you can just give the child up for adoption, murder seems unnecessary.”
                  Oh, fuck you. I’d kill myself rather than go through a whole pregnancy and childbirth. Granted, I have some mental health issues, but I’m not alone on that; pregnancy is a Big Fucking Deal.

            • allein

              Do you think giving a child up for adoption is a simple thing? Oh, just give it up and everything will be fine. That’s just cruel to tell someone that. Again, it tells me you don’t give a shit about the living, breathing, thinking, feeling woman that is already here. Women who choose adoption (especially when they would otherwise want to have kids if finances weren’t an issue) have much higher levels of psychological problems as a result than women who choose early abortion.

              And I used the word pregnancy for a reason. Before you have a child to give up for adoption, you have a pregnant woman facing nine months of medical expenses, time off of work, and potentially serious health risks, some of which can lead to permanent disability or worse. Adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy.

            • enuma

              There’s no such thing as an abortion of convenience. Pregnancy, child birth, child-rearing, or giving up a child for adoption are not matters of convenience. They are each in their own right major, permanently life-altering (and in the case of pregnancy and birth, potentially life-ending) processes or events.

            • The Captain

              ” human life is worth more than an inconvenience on a family” O.k. Mr Anti-abortion atheist… you need to first give a secular definition of “human life” and when it begins and why you think you can force others to follow it before you can even claim abortion is immoral.

              So please tell me why you consider a zygote to be a “human life” and try to keep it logically consistent with how you view other things.

            • Mikko

              Adopted children are nearly 4 times more likely to attempt suicide

              • Anna

                Citation? If true, I think this is yet another indication of how anti-adoption our culture is. When non-biological families are routinely considered less valid and less ideal than biological families, it’s no wonder that might lead to insecurity.

                However, I really hate to see the pro-choice crowd fall into the same pattern of negating adoptive families and promoting the idea that there is something wrong or lesser about being adopted.

                • Mikko
                • Anna

                  Interesting. I wonder if these were children adopted at birth or at later ages through the foster care system?

                  It’s difficult to tell from this snippet:

                  Participants were drawn from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study, which included 692 adopted and 540 nonadopted offspring and was conducted at the University of Minnesota from 1998 to 2008. Adoptees were systematically ascertained from records of 3 large Minnesota adoption agencies; nonadoptees were ascertained from Minnesota birth records.

                  In any case, it would be interesting to find out what leads to increased suicide risk. I would guess it unlikely to be wholly from social stigma related to adoption, although it I suppose it’s possible if the surrounding culture is sufficiently anti-adoption and the parents similarly display a preference for biological over non-biological offspring. But it could also well be related to the fact that lower-income women are more likely to place for adoption, and that those women may also be plagued by higher rates of mental illness or substance abuse. That would certainly be relevant if any of the children in the study were removed by the state and adopted from the foster care system.

                • Niemand

                  The study did correct for known confounders (factors associated with increased risk of suicide), with a continued relative risk of 3.7 after correction. This doesn’t, of course, prove that adoption was causative in any way, only that there was a correlation.

                • Anna

                  It is interesting. I wonder about some of these studies. I saw one that claimed adopted children are much happier and doing much better in life than donor-conceived children, and it was funded by a conservative group opposing donor insemination.

                  That’s not to say it’s the case here. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a correlation, but I’d really want to look into the causes of that. For example, did they look at whether mental illness or substance abuse ran in the child’s biological family, or was that information even available? Were these same-race adoptions or transracial ones, the latter of which come with even more social stigma? Did the adoptive parents only choose adoption because they were unable to get pregnant? Did they have biological offpring which they preferred to the adopted child? I’d think there would be many, many potential factors that could be involved.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  THIS. I’d love to see more love for adoption.

                  Unfortunately, it all seems to come from the anti-woman side, saying, “just give it up for adoption” like that somehow negates the 9-10 months of suffering through a pregnancy.

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  It’s very easy to chirp that for a forced-birther. It negates entirely the nine months of pain, humiliation, trauma, and medical risk that the woman must undergo, as well as the life-altering violation and usurpation of her body against her consent. Like women are just carrying these fetuses in shopping bags or something.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  And I don’t see many of these forced-birthers volunteering to adopt…

                • Kodie

                  What they do is point you in the direction of a crisis pregnancy center to find a couple who are on a waiting list for your baby. They don’t want to adopt, they want a newborn that looks like them.

                • enuma

                  The forced-birthers who say “just give it up for adoption” will rail against Planned Parenthood as being some money-grubbing monster, but fail to mention that many private adoption agencies are for-profit businesses.

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  Let’s not forget about the various Catholic adoption businesses that got out of the business when state law in their area was about to force them to let kids go to loving gay homes. Let’s also not forget about how hard it is for minority or challenged kids to find homes. But these guys use adoption as if the primary problem here is what happens after the pregnancy is over, which might well be true for many women, but definitely not all.

                • Anna

                  It also doesn’t take into account the fact that not all women are able to place their babies for adoption. Their male partners have to consent, and if a woman has an unwilling partner, that leads to a situation where she is on the hook (financially, at least) for helping to raise that child. And if she chooses not to participate on an emotional level, she’s seen as a monster who has abandoned her child.

                  I saw this happen on an episode of True Life once. The woman was extremely gung-ho about placing, and the baby’s father didn’t want her to place. He ended up getting custody, and she couldn’t handle the pressure and is only inconsistently involved in her daughter’s life. That’s a traumatic situation not only for her, but also for the child in question.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  That’s why the male partner shouldn’t have a right to object.

                • Anna

                  I wouldn’t go that far. It’s his biological child. I believe a father has the right to raise his own child. Men (quite rightly) don’t have a say in a woman’s abortion decision. But once a baby is born, I don’t think it should be legal for a woman to give the baby to another couple without his consent.

                  This, of course, makes it difficult for women who want to place, which is one of the reasons adoption is not the simple solution that many anti-choicers think it is.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I disagree. If the male partner wants the child, he can apply to adopt it. Of course, he’d have to prove he’s fit to be a parent, first.

                  Rapists and abusers use “father’s rights” as excuses to keep traumatizing and terrorizing their victims.

                • Anna

                  What rationale is that? It’s his child. Why should women automatically be granted the right to raise their biological children if men aren’t allowed the same? Why should men have to prove their fitness as parents if women don’t?

                  A mother shouldn’t simply be able to remove a child from its father without his consent, just as a father shouldn’t be able to do so from the mother. If there is abuse, the court system should get involved. But if there is no reason to assume that either person would be a bad parent, they should have equal access to the child they created.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I still disagree, for the reasons I stated above. If he wants to keep the kid, he can apply to adopt it.

                  He should NEVER have the right to force parenthood, in any capacity, upon a woman.

                • Anna

                  He can’t force her to have physical custody of or visit the child. However, the law says that both parties are financially responsible. That’s why men who don’t want to have anything to do with their biological children are required to pay child support.

                  I’m a strict egalitarian, so I believe the law should treat men and women equally. If women are given different rights when it comes to child custody and financial responsibility, then that’s simply unfair. If women were to be allowed to “opt out” of all aspects of parenthood without their partner’s consent, then men should be allowed the same. We don’t allow that because it’s not good for children or society.

                  There’s also no reason to treat all men as potential criminals. If a man has a history of violent domestic abuse, that’s one thing. But female criminals don’t have their rights to their children terminated without due process. Even a woman who has been in prison for a violent offense will not have her right to raise her child removed unless there is a reason to think she will harm the child.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Sorry, I still disagree. If a man or woman wants to sign away their parental rights and responsibilities, LET THEM. The parent who wants the kid should take full responsibility instead of demanding the other parent pitch in, and thus forcing contact.

                • Anna

                  I wouldn’t be opposed to that personally, since it is fair to allow both men and women to sign away parental rights and responsibilities before (or when) the child is born. But I don’t think you are going to find too many people on board with that, since deadbeat dads are reviled by the public, and society considers it a duty of both parents to provide for the children they created. When a parent doesn’t do that, the state has to step in, and the state has a vested interest in parents supporting their own children, so that the children don’t grow up in poverty, have rely on government assistance, etc.

                  What seems to me incredibly problematic is the treatment of a born baby as the personal property of the woman. Once a child is born, it’s not a matter of bodily autonomy anymore. The child has two parents. There is no sense in forcing men to apply to “adopt” their own biological children. People would scream bloody murder if fathers were allowed to take babies away from mothers and place them with other couples without consent, as well they should. We don’t remove children from their parents without permission.

                  If the state started colluding with women in treating babies as their sole property and discriminating against one parent based on sex, then that could easily lead to the government doing so on other grounds, such as race, religion, income, marital status, etc. If a woman is allowed to remove her child from its other parent based on the fact that the other parent is male, what’s to stop her from doing so for other reasons, and how would people be able to justify it not being done to her right back?

                • RowanVT

                  I think that, provided the parents are not married, that the man should *potentially* have a say… and that the woman should be able to sign an agreement giving up all parental rights and responsibilities to the child. I wonder how many men would back off from that stated desire if they were to be truly the sole caretakers of an infant…

                • Anna

                  I think very few, which is probably why society doesn’t allow one party to sign away their rights and responsibilities without the other doing the same. It would lead to a huge imbalance, since there are a lot more men who (for whatever reason) are comfortable walking away from their biological offspring. Allowing this to happen would have a disproportionate negative effect on women, since 99% of the time, it’s the man who refuses to pay child support.

                  A man dealing with an unwanted pregnancy has few options. He (quite rightly) has no say in a woman’s abortion decision, yet he also can’t place the baby for adoption or refuse to pay for the child once it’s born. Allowing him to do the latter would make things more fair to him as an individual, but more unfair to society as a whole, since the government has to step in when one parent shirks responsibility.

                  The only situations where biological parents are routinely allowed to terminate rights are in cases of sperm donation, egg donation, or surrogacy. According to the law, intent prior to conception and lack of sexual contact between the two parties is the only grounds for automatic termination.

                • Persia

                  And the permanent physical changes. And, and….

                • Niemand

                  Adoption can be a lovely option. If and ONLY if it is truly an option, not something that women are forced or coerced into. And only if the women choosing to put their children up for adoption understand the risks-to both themselves and their children. I’d love to see more support, both physically and emotionally, for relinquishing mothers and families adopting children (not to mention an end to this “how many real children do you have” nonsense-ugh!), but only in the context of a complete set of choices, not because we’re making the best of the fact that women are enslaved during pregnancy and forced to give birth against their will.

                • Anna

                  It’s a hard situation. On one side, you have the forced birthers who blithely suggest adoption as the answer to an unwanted pregnancy, and on the other side you have a lot of adoption shaming, the idea that there is something wrong with a woman who chooses to place her child (I’ve seen suggestions that she is merely a tool of the religious right), and the continued societal perception that an adopted child is not quite as real as a biological one, and not only that, is likely damaged in some fundamental way.

                  On one side, you have anti-choicers pressuring girls and women into placing their babies for adoption. If they had their way, I’m sure you’d see adoption rates rise to the levels they were in the 1950s, when social stigma made it almost impossible for an unmarried woman to keep her baby. And on other side, if you watch shows like I’m Having Their Baby you’ll see many women shamed and pressured by their own families into keeping a child that they know they are not able to parent effectively. It’s terrible that these women can’t rely on support from their families because adoption is seen in such a negative light, as either abandonment or as not taking responsibility for your actions.

                • Kodie

                  I don’t think there is anything wrong at all with being adopted. What I do think is that adoptive parents who are open about it to their child do so in gentle comforting terms that actually leave out a lot of pertinent information.

                  From what I can gather, children who are the biological offspring of their parents are never, ever let in on a little secret about how expensive and needy they are, how much work they are. They take their whole existence for granted, it seems. Now try to explain to an adopted kid why their biological mother had to give them away. You can explain that she was doing what she thought was best, yadda yadda yadda, and we love you and are glad you came into our home and made us a happy family, etc., but the truth is still missing. They might not be old enough to really understand about sex, like, you can’t tell them the particulars of how they came to be alive accidentally, or how a person can love someone but not have enough money or time to take care of them.

                  I think they take it personally. I think they think it’s because when they were born, their mother must have took one look and instantly hated the poor baby and have some kind of complex. Whether or not they grow out of it is a different matter. Most people seem to have some kind of issue stemming from a childhood trauma or something. The trauma of believing (even if you’re wrong) that your mother simply hated you or sold you for money is not insignificant. I can imagine adoptees not wanting to be found. They’ve gotten used to the idea and maybe not for many years really get the message that it’s a financial decision or a bad timing decision, because they were a needy infant, and that’s all. They didn’t look ugly or cry too much or have anything wrong with them – although in case of rape, an anti-abortion woman might not stomach the look of her own kid, and that’s kind of sad. Like, if you wanted a kid, but not that way, and not from him, and you have burdened yourself with carrying it to term and giving it up because you don’t think you can love it. Or whatever.

                  Mothers are told that they’re doing the best for their child from a small zygote that this thing must live and go to a good home, and they’re supposed to feel noble all the time because this is what is expected of them. Abortions are the regrettable choice, and adoption is wonderful! Right…. Children have imaginations that fill in the gaps of missing information. These are two people with completely different perspectives of the transaction. Adoption is the big sell because there are not enough newborns to go around, and everyone is supposed to feel best about it – the biological mother and the adopted child is a conflicted relationship.

                • Anna

                  I think it’s because society sees adoption as rejection. I don’t think there is anything inherently within people that makes them want to be raised by their biological parents. We have examples of other cultures where adoption is routine. What happens in our culture is that biological families are held up as the ideal, and if a woman does not choose to raise her own baby, it’s seen as abandonment in a sense. The belief is that she should want to raise the baby and do anything in her power to keep the baby. So placing the baby of her own free will is seen as a rejection, by society and by the resulting child.

                  Very young children often don’t have negative feelings about adoption because they haven’t yet learned that it’s supposed to be bad, that their biological mother was “supposed” to have kept them, because 99% of their peers had biological mothers who kept them, and if their mother didn’t, what does that say about them? A child who becomes aware of the status quo may be likely to feel insecure or rejected, but I don’t think it’s natural. I don’t think it’s inborn. I think it’s a matter of the culture telling a child what he or she is supposed to want.

                  Now, granted, I was not “fully” adopted. I’m only half adopted, raised by my biological mom and my non-biological mom. I don’t know what it’s like not to be raised by your biological mother, but I do know what it’s like not to have a relationship with one biological parent, and I feel pretty strongly that it’s not something children feel insecure about unless (or until) society teaches them otherwise.

                  With society the way it is, I’m not surprised fully adopted children can be a lightning rod for issues, although I think it’s also wrong to assume that every adopted person feels bad about being adopted. That’s what the media tells us, but I don’t think it’s reality. I believe there are a lot more happy, well-adjusted adoptees out there than you’d think from watching television talk shows. People who are happy about being adopted usually don’t write books or blog about adoption or go on public searches to track down their biological relatives.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              dude, my health and well-being, both physical and mental, are not “a matter of convenience”.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              If you wish to separate yourself from religionists arguing against womens’ rights, a good place to start would be to avoid using their arguments and words.

            • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

              Oh, so you’re totally fine with forcing a woman to undergo literally hundreds and hundreds of complications, many life-altering and some lethal, against her consent and will. Sorry, but no. And what kind of monster would even accept life on such terms? I wouldn’t. You’d actually be okay with enslaving another human being and forcing them to undergo massive pain and trauma on your behalf so you could live? Your life matters more than hers? Wow, what a narcissist.

              Also, you might want to brush up on the definition of “convenience.” Something that threatens someone’s life, lasts almost a year, and is massively painful and potentially horrifically traumatic is not a “convenience.” A microwave burrito is a convenience. A pregnancy is not. But hey, it won’t ever happen to you, so what would you care?

            • Quis ut Deus

              Your ignorance is astounding.

              Here are some of the minor inconveniences of pregnancy, asshole:

              Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

              exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

              altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

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

              heartburn and indigestion

              constipation

              weight gain

              dizziness and light-headedness

              bloating, swelling, fluid retention

              hemmorhoids

              abdominal cramps

              yeast infections

              congested, bloody nose

              acne and mild skin disorders

              skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

              mild to severe backache and strain

              increased headaches

              difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

              increased urination and incontinence

              bleeding gums

              pica

              breast pain and discharge

              swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

              difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

              inability to take regular medications

              shortness of breath

              higher blood pressure

              hair loss

              tendency to anemia

              curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

              infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

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

              extreme pain on delivery

              hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

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

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

              stretch marks (worse in younger women)

              loose skin

              permanent weight gain or redistribution

              abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

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

              changes to breasts

              varicose veins

              scarring from episiotomy or c-section

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

              increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

              loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

              higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

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

              Occasional complications and side effects:

              complications of episiotomy

              spousal/partner abuse

              hyperemesis gravidarum

              temporary and permanent injury to back

              severe scarring requiring later surgery

              (especially after additional pregnancies)

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

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

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

              gestational diabetes

              placenta previa

              anemia (which can be life-threatening)

              thrombocytopenic purpura

              severe cramping

              embolism (blood clots)

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

              diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

              mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

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

              hormonal imbalance

              ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

              broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)

              hemorrhage and

              numerous other complications of delivery

              refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

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

              severe post-partum depression and psychosis

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

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

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

              Less common (but serious) complications:

              peripartum cardiomyopathy

              cardiopulmonary arrest

              magnesium toxicity

              severe hypoxemia/acidosis

              massive embolism

              increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

              molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease

              (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

              malignant arrhythmia

              circulatory collapse

              placental abruption

              obstetric fistula

              More permanent side effects:

              future infertility

              permanent disability

              death.

            • Kodie

              Anecdotal. I can’t believe you think the main problem with adoption is the funding. It’s that people don’t want children, they want newborns that look like them.

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                aka, “healthy white infants”.

        • Oswald Carnes

          If you think abortion is immoral then you are not someone worth paying attention to.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    {puts on tin foil hat….Actually aluminium foil hat, tin foil is too expensive}

    If you rearrange the letters in advancedatheist’s post, it spells out “The Grand Mason Gloria Steinem killed John Kennedy, and Susan B. Anthony faked the moon landing.”

    • islandbrewer

      Can you even buy actual tin foil any more? I’m sure aluminum doesn’t work as well … which means that they’re phasing out tin for aluminum as part of a big conspiracy!

      • Kodie

        You can.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Your… bed made of tin? Cause otherwise that ain’t gonna work.

  • rwlawoffice

    Put me down on the side of calling her an accomplice to serial killing. What a sad legacy to leave, spending her life paying for other people to end the lives of the unborn.

    • baal

      Are you “Adam” RW?

    • JohnnieCanuck

      Where legal abortions are made unavailable, the number of women getting unsafe illegal abortions will increase.

      You’re fine with their risking infections or bleeding to death because they really, really deserve to be punished, right? Why don’t you leave the punishments to your god? It’s not really for you to judge.

      Where’s all that vaunted Christian compassion we hear about so much?

      • rwlawoffice

        Why do you think that the only way to protect women is to allow them to kill their unborn? Why do you think that it is okay to extract the ultimate punishment on the innocent life that is the result of another person’s actions?

        If you want to portray her as a hero or a saint when her claim to fame is assisting in the killing of 20,000 innocent lives, then I believe you have lost the right to try to claim the moral high ground or talk about compassion.

        I see nothing noble about encouraging or assisting with the killing of the innocent. I also don’t see that trying to eliminate abortion as inconsistent with Christian compassion. In fact it is entirely consistent. Because unlike the pro abortion crowd, we on the pro life side believe that you can have compassion for both the woman and the unborn child. We believe that one does not need to die to show compassion or care for the other.

        I also don’t see it as punishing the woman who is unfortunately pregnant when she doesn’t want to be. It is not a no sum game that the only way to help a woman who is in this position is to allow her easy access to end her pregnancy. That is a fallacy portrayed by the pro abortion side of this issue. Given other options, these woman do not always turn to abortion. The problem is that the abortion mill that this woman is supporting doesn’t want these women to know there are other options.

        • JohnnieCanuck

          It may be that you will someday have a potentially immortal lump of tissue growing in your body and using you as its life support. I doubt all your philosophising will prevent you from trying to kill it.

          A lump of cells is a lump of cells. You are using a loaded term when you refer to a blastocyst as ‘innocent’. So is a plasmodium.

          Humans think themselves better than animals, privileged and with rights, the centre of all we survey. We’re not, though our drive to dominate the environment to our selfish benefit is going to exterminate a lot of species before we’re finished.

          • rwlawoffice

            This is the illogical stance of the pro abortion crowd that the embryo is something other than human life. Its size, or the number of its cells does not change what it is. At all times it is a developing human being. If you put that at the same level as a nonviable group of cells that will never grow into a full grown human being, than I say again, do not try to take the moral high road.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              A developing human being. That is, it will become a human being when it is born.

              It doesn’t even really matter, because human being or not, it doesn’t have the right to use a woman’s body without her continuous consent.

              • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                Ah, the reddest of the red herrings raises its ugly head once again. It doesn’t matter if a fetus is a “life” or not. It matters if it’s inside a human body against the owner of that body’s consent. If I didn’t consent to the presence of whatever is proposing to invade my body and violate me, then it doesn’t matter if that “whatever” is a penis or a fetus. I really can’t stand it when forced-birthers talk about “life” because the status of the invader and violator is the very least of the concerns here. At heart we’re looking at an issue of consent.

                • Leah

                  Rape is another situation, but whenever you have consensual sex, you, as a woman, are consenting to the possibility of your becoming pregnant, even if you use protection. That’s what happens when humans have sex. New humans are formed. Protection usually works, but there is always the chance it will fail, and I’m sure you as a responsible, educated adult are aware of that. So what is all this “violation” and “invasion” talk? It is a natural, biological process that you have a significant measure of control over.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Consent to sex is no more consent to pregnancy than consent to eating is consent to choking.

                • tsara

                  “New humans are formed.”
                  Homunculus theory has been disproven, FYI. New humans aren’t formed immediately; it’s a long, slow process, and the point at which a new human is there is up for debate.
                  (Not to mention, the ‘new person’ is completely irrelevant to the issue of abortion. If I tell a person to get out of my body and they don’t, that’s called ‘rape’. If I cause their death in taking actions reasonably proportioned to end the rape, that’s just too bad.)

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  Nope, sorry. Beyond your abysmal understanding of biology, you really don’t get what this “consent” thing is all about either, do you? Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. They are two different processes, each requiring its own continuous consent to take place in a valid context. There is no such thing as implied consent when it comes to bodily violation. Just as you have the right to withdraw consent to sex AT ANY POINT during the sex, you have the right to withdraw the use of your body to a fetus, someone’s fingers, a penis, a surgical tool, or anything else AT ANY POINT during those violations.

                  Rape is a natural process too. So is injury. So is tooth decay. Natural doesn’t mean we put up with it because we must. We have means in place to deal with things we don’t want in our bodies. If birth control fails, or even if I didn’t use any at all, then the responsible thing for me to do is assess how much value I give to the fetus now growing inside me and decide if it’s there by my consent or not. If the answer is “no,” then there simply is no implied consent going on that would force me to endure a violation against my will. And whether you’re happy with this fact or not, I don’t even have to have a reason you approve of while withdrawing my consent.

                  Rape is NOT another situation. It doesn’t really matter how the fetus got there. What matters is whether or not its carrier is okay with it being there. You’re one of those tedious sorts who punish women for having consensual sex by stripping them of their self-sovereignty, aren’t you? How strange that forced-birthers so often fall back on trying to regulate other people’s sex lives and dictate who does and doesn’t deserve bodily autonomy. It’s not very moral of you. I give *all* women the right to decide who is going to crawl up inside them, why, for how long, and under what circumstances. You only give it to the ones you think deserve it. That’s disgusting.

                • tsara

                  “whenever you have consensual sex, you, as a woman, are consenting to the possibility of your becoming pregnant, even if you use protection.”
                  …what about those of us who aren’t women? I’m pretty sure I’m capable of becoming pregnant, but I’m not a woman. Am I allowed abortions?

                  “That’s what happens when humans have sex.”

                  Not really; the chances are actually pretty low.

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  I’m actually more disgusted by Leah’s disingenuous surprise at the words “violation” and “invasion” and her chirpy suggestion that I not use such words. I’m not apologizing. That’s what an unwanted pregnancy is to me. I forgot I’m not allowed to call an unwanted pregnancy by what it actually is to me but rather let Leah dictate the terms I use and the way I see things. I’m supposed to use pretty words and talk about how natural it is and how every woman should be able to deal with this because REASONS and LEAH HAS THEM YOU SEE. Jesus, that is so paternalistic and controlling.

                  And yes, Leah is damned right about one thing. I not only have significant control over pregnancy, I have absolute control over it. And I exercise it without caring what she thinks.

                • tsara

                  Sorry, more disgusted as compared to what? I’m with you on the rest, though.

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  Compared to her general attitude about the bodily rights of women who have consensual sex. Nothing against you. I actually meant that to reply to myself.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Yeah, tapeworms, guinea worms, and bot flies are natural, too…

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  HEY, you went swimming, you’ll just have to put up with that intestinal parasite now. No medicine for you, missy! It’s NATURAL! You’re not even allowed to call it a parasite. It’s a precious little gift, don’t you see.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Swimming just might net you a lovely naegleria infection. Too bad your brain is turning to jelly, you should have thought about that before you went in to the water…

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  Unless she was pushed. Then we might get her to the ER. The slutty slutty swimmer.

                • enuma

                  There’s only one reason to begin the bone marrow donation process: to become a bone marrow donor. And yet the courts have allowed people to back out after volunteering for this process, even though their change of hearts meant death for their intended recipient. These would-be recipients were, unlike embryos or fetuses, fully conscious PEOPLE able to not just to feel pain but to suffer physically and emotionally.

                  And again, because I think it bears repeating: there is only one reason to consent to this process. We can be reasonably sure of a person’s intent. This is not something they will do on a drunken whim. Lives are literally on the line every time. And yet consent is not irrevocable.

                  There are lots of reasons to consent to sex that have nothing to do with procreation. Consenting to sex only consenting to the risk of the pregnancy. It is not committing to any particular course of action afterwars, if a pregnancy should occur.

                • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

                  And we don’t force corpses to give up their organs either if the dead person didn’t sign a consent form to do so. Hey, that slutty slutty corpse surely consented to organ harvesting by dying. That implied consent! There’s not even a risk of a single complication. And yet we don’t force corpses to donate their bodies to anybody.

                  Not Leah though. She’s very progressive. She gives women who have consensual sex even fewer rights than our culture gives dead people. That’s saying something there, isn’t it?

                • enuma

                  Heck, people throw fits at the mere suggestion of making cadaver donations an opt-out system instead of opt-in. Because, you know, tyranny.

                  But slutty sluts? They should know their legs work like a shrink wrap software license agreements. They’ve agreed to terms they haven’t even seen yet just by opening them.

                • enuma

                  If it’s not okay to shoot a two year old who was conceived in rape, why is it okay to abort one?

                  If you’re willing to grant an abortion exception for rape, you’ve already admitted you don’t actually believe that “new human” is a human person. Which kinda makes your unwillingness to grant the same for other women who, for example, had consensual sex but will be locked into poverty if they have another child less like concern for human life and more like a bizarre, puritanical attempt to punish other women for having sex.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  word

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  No. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. This is simply a lie, and won’t be treated as anything better.

                • Kodie

                  Getting an abortion is a measure of control also. I see no reason to be sentimental over something that isn’t anything yet. If you don’t want to be pregnant, undoing it should be simple, convenient, and trauma-free. And it can be if it weren’t for you propagandists trying to make people feel guilty and judging them. You’re not them, you don’t have their circumstances, so it’s not up to you what they do.

                • Anat

                  Do people who cross streets consent to possibly being run over? Do people who take a ride in a vehicle consent to being injured in an accident? These are risks we take, but if the undesirable event happens nobody tells us ‘hey, you took that risk, no remedy for that, no medical treatment for you’. Yes, we take the risk of pregnancy. And if an unwanted pregnancy occurs abortion is a remedy for that. Even if a pregnancy that was originally desirable becomes undesirable for some reason, abortion is a remedy for that.

              • rwlawoffice

                Since when does the value of life and the right to continue living depend upon the continuous consent of another person? What a dangerous way to view the value of life. And you call those that are pro life immoral. In essence all that you are doing is being selfish and placing your own desires above the innocent life that you helped create. Trying to diminish that life by de-humanizing it for your own desires is truly sad.

                • allein

                  When that life depends on the continued use of another person’s body.

                • RowanVT

                  You seem to forget that the embryo/fetus must *steal* resources from the woman’s body. It lowers her immune system to dangerous levels so that the woman’s body doesn’t KILL IT as being the invader it is.

                • rwlawoffice

                  So what. Once a baby is born it is also dependent on others for survival. Are you saying that because a vulnerable human being who is dependent on others for survival has no right to live?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  A born baby doesn’t cause any of these side effects, you ignorant fuckwit:

                  Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

                  exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

                  altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

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

                  heartburn and indigestion

                  constipation

                  weight gain

                  dizziness and light-headedness

                  bloating, swelling, fluid retention

                  hemmorhoids

                  abdominal cramps

                  yeast infections

                  congested, bloody nose

                  acne and mild skin disorders

                  skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

                  mild to severe backache and strain

                  increased headaches

                  difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

                  increased urination and incontinence

                  bleeding gums

                  pica

                  breast pain and discharge

                  swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

                  difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

                  inability to take regular medications

                  shortness of breath

                  higher blood pressure

                  hair loss

                  tendency to anemia

                  curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

                  infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

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

                  extreme pain on delivery

                  hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

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

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

                  stretch marks (worse in younger women)

                  loose skin

                  permanent weight gain or redistribution

                  abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

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

                  changes to breasts

                  varicose veins

                  scarring from episiotomy or c-section

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

                  increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

                  loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

                  higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

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

                  Occasional complications and side effects:

                  complications of episiotomy

                  spousal/partner abuse

                  hyperemesis gravidarum

                  temporary and permanent injury to back

                  severe scarring requiring later surgery

                  (especially after additional pregnancies)

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

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

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

                  gestational diabetes

                  placenta previa

                  anemia (which can be life-threatening)

                  thrombocytopenic purpura

                  severe cramping

                  embolism (blood clots)

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

                  diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

                  mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

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

                  hormonal imbalance

                  ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

                  broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)

                  hemorrhage and

                  numerous other complications of delivery

                  refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

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

                  severe post-partum depression and psychosis

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

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

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

                  Less common (but serious) complications:

                  peripartum cardiomyopathy

                  cardiopulmonary arrest

                  magnesium toxicity

                  severe hypoxemia/acidosis

                  massive embolism

                  increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

                  molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease

                  (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

                  malignant arrhythmia

                  circulatory collapse

                  placental abruption

                  obstetric fistula

                  More permanent side effects:

                  future infertility

                  permanent disability

                  death.

                • RowanVT

                  I’ll take “disingenousness” for $300 Alex!

                  There is dependent upon (such as infants) and then there is outright stealing from/harming.

                  Which dangerously lowers your immune system, an infant or a fetus?
                  Which directly takes oxygen from your blood, an infant or a fetus?
                  Which directly absorbs nutrients from your blood, an infant or a fetus?
                  Which is physically attached to you, an infant or a fetus?

                  So the correct analogy for a fetus is that a stranger has hooked themselves up to you intravenously and is pumping you full of immunosuppressants, and relying on your heart, kidneys, and lungs to keep them alive.

                  You want us women to be forced to remain attached to that stranger who has taken over our lives and our body.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  So I should assume that you’d be totes ok with someone stealing your kidney blood and bone marrow to prolong their lives.

                  I also assume that you would be in favour of a law that forces FATHERS to donate their blood/bone marrow/organs in order to preserve fetal life and the life of the child once it is born.

                • rwlawoffice

                  Not the same situation at all and a horrible analogy. If you play a part in putting someone in the vulnerable position of to rely upon you for survival for a short period of time don’t you think you have the responsibility to provide that? The unborn child didn’t ask to be here. They played no part in their creation. The fact that two people decided to have sex, knowing that this was a possibility, makes them responsible for creating this life and does not give them the right to end it.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  “f you play a part in putting someone in the vulnerable position of to rely upon you for survival for a short period of time don’t you think you have the responsibility to provide that?”

                  NOPE.

                • rwlawoffice

                  Well than you are amoral

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Morals are overrated. Ethics are what matter anyways. Morals are stupid- don’t sex because … I said so, don’t worship other gods because I said so, don’t do this or that because I said so. Morals are completely arbitrary and often nonsensical.

                  wmdkitty is highly ethical. That’s a high compliment. Her morals (or lack thereof) is inconsequential to whether she is a good person or not.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Im not the one who is forcing women to gestate.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  So are you, considering the fact that you think ONLY women should risk death and disability for the crime of having sex and not men.

                  You don’t give two shits about saving babies.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  So if you ever offer to donate bone marrow, and then back out, you aren’t allowed to back out? The Supreme Court disagrees with you- McFall v. Shimp.

                  If you sign up for a donor registry on a whim, you can never ever back out ever?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  If you play a part in putting someone in the vulnerable position of to
                  rely upon you for survival for a short period of time don’t you think
                  you have the responsibility to provide that?

                  So you agree that fathers should be legally obligated to donate blood/bonemarrow/organs to preserve the life of the fetus during the pregnancy SINCE THEY HELPED TO CREATE IT

                  Right?

                  Any other answer would make you a slut-shaming HYPOCRITE

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Irrelevant, as once again, it does not have the right to use a woman’s body without her clear, continuous consent.

                • baal

                  “placing your own desires above the innocent life that you helped create.”
                  Your own desire to not die? To care for your existing children? Your desire to not bring a child into an abusive circumstance?

                  Helped create? You mean via non-conscious biochemical processes? Like growing more fat cells in response to eating a stack of cheeseburgers?

                  Or do you mean helped create by engaging in consensual sex? How can you assert that all sex was with consent or that we should intrude into someone’s life to figure that out?

                • Kodie

                  It is already dehumanized. It is a sack of cells with no cognition or anything. It is not innocent. It is just like a tumor or a toenail or a dead person – a vegetable, literally – no brain, no brain function. You don’t suggest a tumor is innocent and has a right to exist, do you? It has living cells that intend to stay alive, but it doesn’t know, it’s not aware that that’s what it’s doing. What a dangerous way to view the value of life, to dehumanize your tumors and feel no sentimental value toward them! I mean, in essence, all that you are doing is wanting to be alive, even if you have to do everything you can to destroy your tumor. Trying to diminish that life by making a ridiculous exception for another kind of tumor is what is truly sad.

                • rwlawoffice

                  Kodie, no matter how many examples you give, you can never equate a growing fetus with something that never has the chance to grow to a full grown human being. The only thing stopping that from happening in a woman who does not want it, is her decision to end it.

                  What is said is that in your effort to support the right for another woman to end a life, you jump through illogical hoops to try and call the unborn anything other than what it is.

                • Kodie

                  I can never? I just did. You don’t agree, because you assign things arbitrary sentimental value. Are you depriving your tumor the opportunity to live its life? No, it bothers you and endangers your health. You feel nothing for it. You feel nothing for a carrot as you pull it out of the ground, chop it up and put it next to your chicken. An embryo is more like a carrot than a chicken, and you can’t argue that a chicken doesn’t have a nervous system, doesn’t want to live, and doesn’t feel the pain of the hatchet when it’s slaughtered, can you?

                • rwlawoffice

                  Show me a tumor that with enough time it will grow into a separate human being from the woman and you will have an analogy. You calling a fetus a tumor doesn’t make it so.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  You calling a fetus is a person doesn’t make it so.

                • Kodie

                  It has all the moral quality of a tumor. I don’t care what it will turn out to be; if I can stop it before, then there is no moral dilemma, and it is equivalent in value to a tumor – it will harm my body, it will be painful, it will also cost a lot of money and need all my attention for the next 20 years or more. So, wishing to prevent that foreseeable outcome, I have no emotional or sentimental reasons to hang onto it. It is a blob. You saying it’s not a blob doesn’t make it so.

                • Anat

                  And why is having the capacity to grow into a separate human being morally significant?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Any of your skin cells can have the chance to grow into a human being.

                  The technology exists.

                • RowanVT

                  The only thing stopping it? You think all fetus grow without any potential for abnormalities? Go look up mermaid syndrome or anencephalus.

                • Ella Warnock

                  “The only thing stopping that from happening in a woman” is her decision?

                  Really? No such thing as miscarriages or zygotes that don’t implant or ectopic pregnancies, I suppose.

            • RowanVT

              Ah, but the embryo IS a non-viable group of cells. It cannot survive without stealing resources from its host, the woman it has implanted into. And it remains non-viable for a long time. In fact, about 20% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, that is miscarried, because the developing embryo/fetus was… not viable.

              The fetus can *potentially* become a human being. It is not fated or destined to. A huge number of things can go wrong with it. And it is 100% dependent on nutrients and oxygen stolen from the woman who is harboring it. And if she doesn’t want to be harboring an entity inside her, it is her right to not have it there.

            • Anat

              Even if the fetus were the same as an adult human being, even if it were a genius capable of solving all of humanity’s problems, it would be up to the choice of the pregnant person whether to let it use their body to sustain itself. Bodily autonomy trumps any rights to life.

              • rwlawoffice

                Bodily autonomy trumps the life of an innocent being that you helped create only in the eyes of those that want the right to kill that life.

                • tsara

                  I still don’t understand what innocence has to do with it; it’s not about the z/e/f. It’s about ending the immediate and ongoing violation of my body.

                • RowanVT

                  What if I didn’t “help” create it… but it was an unwanted side effect of a physical act that is both pleasurable and a way of bonding to my boyfriend, especially as we use birth control? I’ve never been pregnant, and I don’t want to be. I have absolutely no desire to face the complications of pregnancy. Are you suggesting I remain celibate for the rest of my life?

                • rwlawoffice

                  No. I am suggesting that if you engage in behavior that could result in a pregnancy, no matter how careful you are, the innocent life you create should not pay the price of inconveniencing your life with ending his.

                • Kodie

                  It’s not innocent life, it’s a parasite. It doesn’t mean to be, but it’s not exactly a precious bundle of joy laying asleep in a bassinet. It’s a voracious feeder. In order to grow into a baby, it mindlessly absorbs nutrients and materials from another human body. Cannibals is what they are.

                • rwlawoffice

                  Wow. What a callous view you have just to justify a woman’s right to end that life arbitrarily.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  The zygote actually overpowers the woman’s immune system in the same way a parasite does. Isn’t that interesting!?

                  Here are some scientific findings:

                  Further investigation revealed that placental NKB contained the molecule phosphocholine, which is used by the parasitic nematode worm to avoid attack by the immune system of the host in which it lives.

                  During implantation, fetally derived cells (trophoblast) invade the maternal endometrium and remodel the endometrial spiral arteries into low-resistance vessels that are unable to constrict. This invasion has three consequences. First, the fetus gains direct access to its mother’s arterial blood. Therefore, a mother cannot reduce the nutrient content of blood reaching the placenta without reducing the nutrient supply to
                  her own tissues. Second, the volume of blood reaching the placenta becomes largely independent of control by the local maternal vasculature. Third, the placenta is able to release hormones and other substances directly into the maternal circulation. Placental hormones,
                  including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and human placental lactogen (hPL), are predicted to manipulate maternal physiology for fetal benefit.

                  The host-parasite relationship during pregnancy is a fascinating interaction and research in this area will improve understanding of disease pathogenesis and the various consequences of the host immune response, being host-protective, parasite protective and contributing to disease pathology. Pregnancy poses an interesting problem for the immune system of the dam as she is essentially carrying a semi-allogeneic tissue graft (the foetus) without immunological rejection taking place.

                  Another role for foetal transferrin receptors on trophoblasts could be to bind maternal transferrin at the materno-foetal interface, thus frustrating maternal immunosurveillance. This is similar to a mechahism
                  used by schistosomes in the host-parasite relation where host proteins are bound by the parasite to escape immunological recognition.

                • Kodie

                  Wow. Because I’m not a sentimental hoarder, it’s really easy to be rational and call it what it is. It’s not arbitrarily – I’m sure she has her reasons. Even just saying “arbitrarily” erases that woman from the equation, so now who is callous?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Slut-shaming

                • baal

                  The argument is slightly different. The pregnant women is in the best position to understand her circumstances. A doctor and other trusted (by the women) advisor(s) should answer her questions but that’s it. Other people aren’t well situated to answer her specific life circumstances. Of all the people who could make the decision on her behalf, the legislatures are some of the worst situated people.

                  My experience with even pro-life conservative women is that the moment one of them knows they have an anencephalic fetus, they abort (but just don’t call it that). I personally know one of the staunchest pro-life political nut job activists who was faced with that situation and who did abort.

                  Not to mention Rick Santorum’s wife….

                • BoredNow

                  If you really thought that, why aren’t you for compulsory blood donation? Compulsory essential organ donation upon death? Compulsory non-essential organ/bone marrow donation while living?

                  Simply by not donating my kidney or bone marrow, things I could do without, I may be killing somebody. Hell, millions of people aren’t organ donors because they want bodily autonomy after it matters. They don’t want their organs in somebody else after they’re dead, and that trumps the living people who need the organs.

                  Surely if you’re not comfortable with invasive surgery with serious aftereffects you just want to murder the people who could be helped by your organs.

                  If somebody knocked on your door tomorrow and said ‘you’re a perfect match to such-and-such, that means you now have to go donate your kidney to them’ you’d probably be unhappy with that. Because you should have the choice whether or not to donate a kidney to a total stranger. You might play a sport which would be much more dangerous if you only had one kidney. You might not be able to afford adequate medical care afterwards if something goes wrong. It might be very dangerous for you to donate a kidney.

                  Likewise you should have a choice whether or not you want to spend nine months housing an organism which will spend its time inside you taking nourishment from you, which will alter your body and your emotions, which may have serious consequence for your quality of life and then go through serious pain or dangerous surgery to remove it.

                  If it were anything other than the unborn, would you be so quick to defend it?

                • Anat

                  Whether one helped create it or not, is irrelevant. We never force people to risk their health, let alone lives, to save another, even if that other is one’s born child, let alone a fetus. People may choose the risk for themselves, but if they don’t they are allowed their choice.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Slut-shaming. Veiled, yes, but it’s there.

                • Anat

                  Agreed. ‘helped create’ is a dead giveaway.

                • rwlawoffice

                  What you call it when a woman and a man engage in behavior that creates a new life? Didn’t they participate? Or did this new fetus simply drop out of the sky and jam itself in the woman’s uterus without any involvement of her own?

                • Anat

                  What is it called when people use contraception and it fails? It is called an accident.

            • baal

              “This is the illogical stance of the pro abortion crowd that the embryo is something other than human life.”

              This is the illogical stance of the pro life crowd that the embryo is something like a adult human but in tiny tiny form.

              The complexity, size, and number of cells is a relevant concern to the ethics of abortion. Harming a unthinking, unfeeling mass of cells is fundamentally different from infanticide or murder.

              • rwlawoffice

                So we know now that very early on in the development process, as early as ten weeks or so, there are brain waves. At twenty weeks, there are pain receptors and the baby feels pain. So at what point would your ethics say the baby is developed enough to justify the right to be saved from the arbitrary choice of the mother?

                • Kodie

                  I want to ask you what you think there is worth saving before 20 weeks or 10 weeks.

                • rwlawoffice

                  A baby that is at this stage of its development.

                • Quis ut Deus
                • baal

                  It’s not arbitrary. I think i was clear in this comment section that viable with mere nutrition would be the point. That’s somewhat after the viability point of full medical intervention. Your fetal pain point is in dispute or more clearly, the science is suggesting subjective pain experience doesn’t happen until the 29th week or so.

                  Again, you cannot erase the woman from the decisions and it’s wrongful to only talk about the fetus.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Fetuses begin to develop a minimal brain stem at 7 weeks, but are not capable of consciousness until the third trimester and most likely remain unconscious until birth. As one brain scientist puts it: “the fetus and neonate appears incapable of … experiencing or generating ‘true’ emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity.”

                • Anat

                  There is no capacity for consciousness in the 20 week old embryo. And you are wrong about pain perception too, the circuitry necessary to transmit pain isn’t there yet. Also, don’t forget the effect of low oxygen levels in the womb.

            • RedGreenInBlue

              Please tell me how an embryo which has no functional nervous system, let alone any current or previous sentience, counts as a human life.

              If it is because a human embryo is identifiably genetically human, then am I a murderer for having frequently disposed of human cell cultures in the lab by killing them with sodium hypochlorite?

              If it is because of the embryo’s potential to develop into a human being, then is my friend who had an ectopic pregnancy terminated a murderer?

        • http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/ YankeeCynic

          …except in your preferred course of action the mother and the child die, since its been shown that in countries that ban abortion the rate of abortions do not go down, but rather the amount of unsafe abortions skyrocket.

          • rwlawoffice

            BS. This is a lie and propaganda by the abortion industry. There is no credible evidence that the number of abortions stays the same.

            • 3lemenope

              Well, we know the birth rate stayed pretty much the same. In 1972 (the year before Roe), the US birth rate was 2.01 live births per adult female. In 1992, it was 2.05. (The domain boundaries for the whole period 1972-present are 1976 [1.74] and 2007 [2.12].)

              Awfully hard to account for this if you are right and it’s all one big lie of the abortion “industry”. Unless you believe that sexual practices changed so much in that short interval that there would have been a large difference in births but for legalized abortion, which is a proposition for which there actually is “no credible evidence”. The far more likely, more parsimonious explanation, is that the raw number of abortions likely remained about the same per capita pre- and post-Roe.

              • rwlawoffice

                If you have evidence that there were 50 million abortions Pre Roe I would like to see it. I seriously doubt it.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Quite the crybaby response there. Can’t argue with facts, so you stomp your foot.

                • rwlawoffice

                  So asking someone to support their allegation with proof is being a cry baby. Too funny.

            • http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/ YankeeCynic
              • rwlawoffice

                That article hardly proves your point. It is simply the opinions of a pro abortion advocate. It is not a study of numbers.

                • http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/ YankeeCynic

                  If you think those studies are merely “opinions” then either you don’t understand how studies work due to a lack of proper education or due to willful ignorance to maintain your irrational positions. I’ll let you guess which I think is most probable.

                  Its okay, though. I counteract the ignorant by taking a chunk of my Combined Federal Campaign donation and pass it along to women’s health advocates like Planned Parenthood.

                • rwlawoffice

                  I read the article. It doesn’t mention one study. Only opinions.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              Thanks for exposing yourself as a conspiracy theorist. It took a while, but was not unexpected, really.

            • Kodie

              There’s no credible evidence for a lot of things. This is the one you’re going to pick on?

        • Patricia Magicia

          Banning abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancies is like banning chemotherapy and then saying “We did it, guys! We cured cancer!”

          • rwlawoffice

            Where did I say that banning abortions stopped unwanted pregnancies?

            • http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/ YankeeCynic

              I’m just waiting for you to acknowledge the blood on your hands for advocating a policy that vastly degrades women’s health based on the scientifically unfounded assertion that a fetus is a “life.”

              Have you no shame? Or do these poor women have it coming because they “sinned” by having the audacity to take control of their own bodies in spite of what a 21st Century reading of Bronze Age savagery asserts?

              • rwlawoffice

                I do not shame these women, why do you? You are wrong that an unborn child is not a life. Under every scientific classification, it is a life separate and distinct from the life of the woman carrying that new life. The only time it is not considered a life is for those who want to justify ending that life for their own reasons.

                • Niemand

                  I do not shame these women

                  Wait…you think that they’re murderers and you DON’T shame them? That’s…strange.

                  Under every scientific classification, it is a life separate and distinct from the life of the woman carrying that new life.

                  Nope. Nope. Nope. Not at all. The “scientific” (medical) definition of what a living person is depends on brain activity. Not cells. Not DNA. Not heartbeat, but brain. There is no living person until brain activity exists. The majority of abortions and even more elective abortions occur in the first 8 weeks, before the brain even develops stationary neurons.

                  “Separate” is a bit of a stretch too for a thing attached to the body and completely dependent on the host body for all necessities (food, oxygen, etc.)

                  Finally, if your criteria are “alive” and “distinct”, well, cancer has different DNA from the host. And it’s certainly alive. Frighteningly so, in fact. Is chemotherapy murder?

                • rwlawoffice

                  Calling the intentional killing of another human being is murder. Right now in this context it is legalized murder, but it is murder nonetheless.

                  You are wrong about the definition of life. But even if you use brain waves as the standard, unborn babies have those at the fortieth day detected by EEG. This is about week 5. So are you now going to try and say this isn’t enough brain activity to change the definition?

                  Show me the cancer that has developed into a separate and distinct human being given enough time to grow and your analogy will have some merit. until then it is an attempt to simply dehumanize the unborn child.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Calling the intentional killing of another human being is murder.

                  Remember, folks, he says he’s a LAWYER.

                  I didn’t even bother to read the rest after snerking sadly at that statement.

                • rwlawoffice

                  Here you go Einstein:

                  Murder Legal Definition:

                  Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation.

                • baal

                  PERSON is not “human being”.
                  diaf

                • TiltedHorizon

                  Now please define ‘person’ or ‘life’ under the law.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Well, person is easy. You don’t get to be a legal person until you’re born right now. Even the Constitution only extends rights to persons “born or naturalized” in the United States- being conceived is fairly meaningless, as is place of conception.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  Thank you Feminerd, however I was hoping RW would answer since he was hoping to hide behind the ambiguity of the “Murder Legal” Definition.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Yeah, I know :) He won’t, though.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  So aborting mothers should be charged with Murder I and also conspiracy (they hire others to do their killing for them!), while doctors should be charged with Murder I.

                  Is that what I hear? That abortion should be a capital crime, punishable by the death penalty?

                • Niemand

                  without legal justification or provocation.

                  If being in someone’s house without permission is legal justification for homicide, as it is in many places, how is being in someone’s body without their permission not also justification?

                • Kodie

                  They can’t be dehumanized because they haven’t been humanized yet. They are the physical equivalent of an invasive tumor, except when wanted, and then they are a sentimental projection. People who want a baby allow the continued presence of a parasite, which they see as “worth it.” Knowing what we know now, some people may decide that it is NOT “worth it.” But you can’t dehumanize a lump of cells that takes over and feeds off the body’s blood, nutrients, and organs to the physical detriment of its host any more than you can dehumanize your toenails. Do you think your toenails are deprived when you clip them?

                • rwlawoffice

                  So its life when its wanted a tumor when it is not wanted. And you claim to be rational. How horrific to define life by the wants and desires of another person instead of the intrinsic value of life itself.

                  You do realize that the Federal government defines the unborn as life and you can go to jail if you kill that life, unless you are the woman having an abortion. It is the Unborn Victims of Violence ACt of 2004.

                • baal

                  And there isn’t a difference if you choose to end your pregnancy that is killing you vs having some third party kill a perfectly viable pregnancy you did want?

                  Also, you can’t boot strap morality for your position by pointing to congress let alone by showing the affirmation by your brethren who passed it.

                • Quis ut Deus
                • Kodie

                  You’re a terrible fake lawyer. It varies by state and not all states count any amount of pregnancy as “life” as applies to a homicide or manslaughter charges, while many only count past viability. Less than half the states will charge a homicide or manslaughter charge for the full duration of the pregnancy, and homicide is a very slim and particular crime. If you murder a pregnant woman, your intent matters. It’s not murder if you didn’t know she was pregnant or the death of the fetus was incidental.

                  And yes, it’s a tumor when it’s not wanted, it’s a wad of cells. If someone wants it, then it’s a projection.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Have you ever seen a teratoma? They often have human features…

                • baal

                  including teeth

                • islandbrewer

                  Hell I hear-tell of one teratoma who went to law school in Texas, and now trolls atheist blogs!

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Actually, embryos have undifferentiated brain waves at about week 8. You know what we call people with brain waves that look like that? Brain-dead. Beating heart cadavers. Corpses. In other words, dead. Not alive. If a born person with brain wave functions like that is not alive, why would an embryo somehow be alive with the exact same lack of brain activity?

                • Niemand

                  But even if you use brain waves as the standard, unborn babies have
                  those at the fortieth day detected by EEG. This is about week 5.

                  Leaving aside everything else, 40/7 is about 6, not 5. Also, please provide evidence for brain activity in a 6 week old embryo. Quite remarkable given that stationary neurons develop around day 56 (week 8, in case you’re still having trouble with the math).

                  Show me the cancer that has developed into a separate and distinct human being given enough time to grow

                  Ah, so it’s not just “life” that you value. You consider humans to have a particular value. Ok, why are humans more important than cancer? Cancers can certainly, given enough time and the right circumstances, grow into independent beings. Just ask Helen Lacks’ family. Why are people more important than (independently growing, genetically unique) cancers?

                • Quis ut Deus

                  Just proved you wrong on that, you ignoramus.

                  Calling the intentional killing of another human being is murder.

                  So if you intentionally kill the person who is raping you, you are guilty of murder?

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              That’s the only possible defense for your position, so yeah, it’s implicit, intellectual coward.

            • Anat

              So how is forcing pregnancy on people not wanting to be pregnant, forcing parenthood on people not prepared to be parents (or not prepared to be parents of yet another child) and forcing growing up as an unwanted child going to make the world a better place? If your moral system creates more misery what worth is it?

        • b s

          “Why do you think that it is okay to extract the ultimate punishment on the innocent life that is the result of another person’s actions?”

          Hmmm, inflicting punishment on an innocent person because of somebody else’s actions. Isn’t that a major tenet of your religion?

          • rwlawoffice

            no. The innocent life was willing and knowingly made that choice, unlike the innocent unborn that has no say.

            • Quis ut Deus

              Yet you would force an 11 year old victim of rape to give birth.

              No doubt as punishment for being raped, amirite?

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                Well, duh. She probably seduced the poor guy!

                *gag*

            • Arakasi_99

              The term “innocent” in regards to a fetus is completely meaningless. It makes as much sense as talking about an “innocent” earthworm or an “innocent” cockroach.

              We as humans tend not to value life, per se. The chicken sandwich I had for lunch stopped a beating heart; I stepped on a beetle while getting out of my car. Neither of which caused me any grief.

              What we do value is consciousness and self awareness – it is why a person is declared dead when the higher functions of the brain stop. The body may still be breathing, the heart may be beating, but once the brain goes, the person that the body used to be is gone – without a certain level of consciousness, there is no person to be protected

              So with this in mind, what do we condemn? Not death itself, since we know that every one of us is going to die. We condemn the loss that we feel when a person we know dies and we condemn the fear and pain that the soon to be deceased is facing.

              When an abortion is performed, the sense of loss tends to be primarily felt by the pregnant woman. The actual level of loss varies tremendously; from overwhelming to nonexistant, with a side order of relief. Since this is so dependant upon the woman involved and her particular situation, then it is right that the decision belongs to her and her alone, with as much advice as she chooses to seek. By denying her this decision, you are substituting your judgement for hers and you are missing the crucial point: the decision may be an easy one, or it may be an excruciating one, but it is always a big one. How can it be otherwise? She has a couple of weeks to decide the rough outline of the rest of her life is going. I see no moral course other than allowing her to make that decision without interference

              For those of us not directly involved, our concern tends to lie in reducing fear and pain. The fetus cannot feel fear, it cannot feel hunger, it cannot feel pain, it cannot feel heat or cold or thirst. It cannot suffer, because without consciousness, there is no being there to suffer. There is less trauma to the fetus than there is to a chicken or a cow slaughtered for meat, or a fish pulled out of the water – in most cases, the fetus is simply separated from uterine lining, and the cells die from a lack of nutrition and oxygen, long before the structures that define personhood are functional

              Too many on the anti-choice side paint a picture of a fetus that is simply a smaller version of a newborn desperately wiggling away from the suction tip. The reality is that the fetus has about as much awareness of its surroundings as an intestinal polyp. Near the end of the pregnancy, the fetus gains some measure of reflex action in response to external stimuli, but this is a far cry from actual consciousness.
              (Might I just add that I envy those people who can knock out these mini-essays in a few minutes. I’ve been working on this for an hour and I still haven’t managed to say exactly what I intended)

              • baal

                ” I’ve been working on this for an hour”

                I found you compelling.

                One of the tricks and abuses from the pro-life crowd is that they have a tool-set of canned arguments and talking points that they can just binge-paste all over the place. If we don’t want to let those go unrefuted, we need to unpack all the carefully piled in errors and language misuses. That takes a lot of time and some skill to point out where the pro-lifers are shifting the meanings of words mid sentence.

                In the military, they call this type of strategy ‘asymmetric warfare’. In argument and discourse, it’s fundamentally unfair and shitty to push so much of the burden of proof and persuasion to your opponent and take so little for yourself. Noticing this unfairness was one of the first signs to me that the pro-lifers were a dishonest bunch who don’t have right on their side.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  BUT IT’S A BABY!!!!!!!!!!!

                  that is their #1 canned argument

                  and it’s so easy to make too!

                  every time your opponent makes a good point, just type BUT YOU WANT TO KILL BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  EDIT: followed closely by ‘consent to sex is consent to pregnancy’

                  Both of the above, incidentally, are the arguments that Adam is using. He’s just a lil’ bit more sophisticated.

                • 3lemenope
                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  I don’t know why he bothered hitting the car at all. He could have just chewed it up and spit it out like the rest of the scenery.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Num num num!

              • rwlawoffice

                So people in comas can be killed because they have no consciousness? Infants can be killed because they have no self awareness until about age two? So can they be killed?

                Once you start to try and delineate how much brain activity is needed or how much self awareness is needed in order for a person’s life to be valued, you are really just trying to justify ending it based upon your own desires. It is called rationalization.

                • baal

                  Brain dead is dead. Terri Schiavo died a long slow death and her body was kept alive well beyond that point with no hope of ever rising from the dead.

                • Quis ut Deus

                  A brain-dead person with a functioning heart/lungs/brain stem
                  will still show electrical activity in the brain, but they won’t show the
                  particular “brainwaves” that are characteristic of the higher
                  cortical functions of cognition. So the whole EEG isn’t “flat”, just
                  the part of the EEG profile that shows a thinking person is using that brain tissue.

                  (A better description would be the more scientific exactitude of “clinical significant electrical brain activity” to avoid confusion.)

                  At this point no “person” with sentience or awareness is present in
                  the body, and it is legal to discontinue life support, and harvest organs for transplant, as without a functioning brain the body is just a collection of tissue.

                  People who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead are routinely disconnected from life support and used to provide the organs for transplantations (no murder charges have ever been filled for this and none ever will be)
                  A fetus does not have the bilaterally synchronous electroencephalographic patterns in the cortical area of the brain
                  to be considered alive until 26-30 weeks of gestation, exactly like those who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead by physicians.

                  People who are considered clinically brain-dead, have brainwaves (and sometimes even a beating heart), just not in the part of the brain that means that they are still alive.
                  At this point doctors can start organ harvesting or turn off life support, no murder charges have ever, or will ever be been filed.

                  A fetus younger then 26-30 weeks does not have all the brain structure (cortex) or the synapse, neurons etc in place to show more brain activity then a person who is clinically brain dead, as measured with the same machine (EEG)
                  The heart might beat, but nobody is home.

                  No embryo or fetus has ever been found to have “brain
                  waves,” before 26-30 weeks gestation, although extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies.

                  In fact a fetus does not have a functional cortex before
                  20-24 weeks gestation, no neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them are physically present.
                  (Pretty hard to show activity in a structure that is not even present yet)

                  Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record the clinical significant electrical brain activity indicative of any form sentience and awareness prior to 20-24 weeks. (at that point the cerebral cortex can display some small intermittent non synchronous activity (“stutter”)
                  This is not surprising since it is pretty hard to show activity in a brain structure that is not even present yet.

                  Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, bilaterally synchronous
                  electroencephalograpic are ONLY seen at a minimum of 26 to 29 weeks gestation.

                  Studies used are;
                  -Hamlin,H. (1964), “Life or Death by EEG,”Journal of the American
                  Medical Association, October 12,113
                  -J. Goldenring, “Development of the Fetal Brain,” New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
                  -K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM

                  So until the fetus has the same level of clinical brain activity
                  (first seen at 26-29 weeks gestation, well after abortion becomes unavailable) as the woman in question, it is very dishonest (to say the least) to award the fetus more human rights then the woman.

                • RowanVT

                  Infants are self aware. They are sentient. They may not be *sapient* yet, but they have a sense of self, just as newborn kittens and puppies have a sense of self.

                  That sense of self is not present in a fetus, and definitely not present in an embryo.

                • Niemand

                  Once you start to try and delineate how much brain activity is needed or
                  how much self awareness is needed in order for a person’s life to be
                  valued…

                  …you have acknowledged reality. Every day people make decisions about friends and relatives who have been damaged in ways that are beyond repair and who have little or no hope of recovering consciousness. These decisions include questions like, “Should we withdraw life support?” “Should we keep treating infections?” “Should we keep up tube feedings?” Teri Schiavo was one famous case, but most occur quietly, allowing the living and dying some degree of dignity. For example, Tom DeLay’s father who suffered severe traumatic brain injury, but not complete brain death. His family decided to withdraw care and he died, quietly and peacefully. Did they murder him? I don’t see how one could claim that they did. Yet DeLay later claimed that Schiavo’s husband was planning to murder her when he wished to withdraw care in the same way…People are illogical.

            • aaa

              No, I did not willingly choose to be born “imperfect” or with “original sin” or whatever. I had no say. I am being punished for the actions for two imaginary figures.

              Who are you talking about?

        • tsara

          “Because unlike the pro abortion crowd, we on the pro life side believe that you can have compassion for both the woman and the unborn child. We believe that one does not need to die to show compassion or care for the other.”
          You may believe that, but you completely fail at translating that into compassionate actions and policies that actually help.

        • baal

          ” Given other options, these woman do not always turn to abortion.”
          We are already seeing the horror show that is un-professional abortion in Texas and other places that have in effect banned all legal abortions. It’s a travesty and the blood of those women is upon you.

    • God’s Starship

      Okay, I’ll put that down in my rwlaworifice notebook.

    • The Captain

      Bullshit! You don’t even belive this crap.

      First, If abortion is murder (serial killings) as you say, and a “child” is “killed” doesn’t that make the mother and doctor a “murderer” and
      “killers”. And if so what should happen to them under the law.
      Now not what CAN, but what SHOULD. What would you like to see happen
      to all these “murderers” as a form of punishment. Or do you not
      think murder should be punished? And please do not tell me it’s not
      your place to judge them. You do that when you call them “murderers”
      in the first place. And I think you have an opinion on murder in all
      other cases too. And isn’t the “murder” of a fetus the same as
      a “murder” of a 3 year old child? Should they have the same
      punishments? Just tell me what you would like to see happen to these
      “serial killers”, should they be treated like we treat all other
      “murders”? Jail? Death penalty? What? And DON’T forget the woman… she hired the “serial killer” and just like hiring a hit man we punish that too. Step up and actually say it, or admit you don’t really think abortion is “murder” yourself and stop acting like drama queens when talking about it!

      Second, Why are you such a pussy????? I mean you know where these “serial killers” are, you know where they do the killing, yet all you people do is whine about it on the internet, or stand around with signs. You mean to tell me if you anti-abortionist pussies saw a serial killer standing in front of a school lopping of kids heads as they got off the bus all you would do is hold up a sign to stop them???? Fucking really? I don’t buy it. I’m the supposed “immoral atheist” yet I would do anything, regardless of law, to protect the life of my neighbors kid. Hell all kids for that matter, so in such a scenario
      as mentioned above, I would grab my gun and stop that guy before next child got beheaded and killed no matter what. But antiabortionist, apparently wouldn’t.

      That’s why I have a hard time believing any of you actually
      believe the crap you spew about abortion “killing” “children”,
      since if you did, you would be either complete cowards, or just
      terrible people for not stopping the killings of “children”. It
      seems though that even antiabortionist know that a fetus is not the
      same as a 5-year-old child deep down, but continue to say otherwise.
      Or you’re just cowards.

      • rwlawoffice

        You don’t believe a bit of this nonsense. You question the sincerity of the pro life side because they don’t commit more murder in their efforts to stop abortion. I guess Martin Luther King, Ghandi or Nelson Mandela were also insincere because they worked to change the law instead of leading armed resistance to their oppressors.

        • 3lemenope

          While I agree it is crass and unrevealing to speculate on the motivations of one’s opponents under most circumstances (including this one), it is problematic that people who oppose abortion rights generally happily tolerate the sorts of legal contradictions that The Captain described. If killing a third trimester fetus is the same in every conceivable metaphysical sense as killing a one-year-old infant, as you tend to argue, why the blithe acceptance of the massive legal distinctions that, even if abortion were made illegal, will never treat abortion as the same as murder?

          It’s enough to raise an eyebrow, is all I’m saying.

          • The Captain

            Actually I think you can question the motives. Well it’s not so much the motives as the true beliefs. Motives are a different story I guess. Beliefs generally have real life actions and consequences, and the beliefs that are claimed by the anti-abortionis don’t match their actions.

        • The Captain

          Yes, I certainly do question the sincerity of you guys. Frankly ( and thankfully) at this point the only ones I think truly thing believe the rap yo spew is the monsters that murder doctors.

          “Martin Luther King, Ghandi or Nelson Mandela” all fought against evil that was on an order of magnitude less than what ya’ll are claiming. How dare you say that anyone in the anti-abortion movement is as brave as those guys. First off, all those leaders where fighting for “civil rights” and risked their lives, but what you claim is happened is not a civil rights violation, like not being able to vote on the regional governor. No it’s much worse. You’re saying wholesale mass killings are happening everyday and you aren’t even sitting in front of the bullets like the great Indian would have just to make salt? Yea, I question your beliefs.

        • DougI

          You just named two guys who were pro-choice. As for Gandhi, well, it’s not like he had a favorable view of women in general, so that’s something you share in common with him.

        • Quis ut Deus

          so you don’t think that women who ‘murder’ their unborn children should receive any punishment at all?

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Weird how you dodged every question, intellectual coward. You aren’t even willing to say what you think SHOULD be done, and instead just whine. Keep trembling while the world moves forward.

        • RedGreenInBlue

          “I guess Martin Luther King, Ghandi [sic] or Nelson Mandela were also insincere because they worked to change the law instead of leading armed resistance to their oppressors.”

          History FAIL. I suggest you look up Umkhonto we Sizwe and then get back to us.

    • ShoeUnited

      ELEVEN

      AND

      THIRTEEN

      YEARS

      OLD

      YOUR ARGUMENT IS OVER AT ELEVEN AND THIRTEEN YEARS OLD.

      https://lh3.ggpht.com/-i_8XFS48X38/TrsmtiznnYI/AAAAAAAACyk/2KZGGfxB480/s1600/11Number.png

      http://www.verbumsapsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/NUMBER-13.png

      CASE DISMISSED. YES, I AM CAPSLOCK MAD. (ノಥ益ಥ)ノ ┻━┻

    • BoredNow

      What, exactly, would humanity gain from forcing an eleven year old to go through with a pregnancy? From forcing a thirteen year old rape victim to have her brother’s child?

      Even if you say ‘adoption’ you’re conveniently forgetting the nine months (ish) of pregnancy that they have to go through. The health risks and the potential lasting consequences. Not to mention the judging or the social isolation which can wreck havoc on somebody’s psyche.

      If it’s a choice between ending something with the potential for life (I think it’s something like 1/5th of pregnancies end in miscarriage) and forcing somebody to unwillingly give up their body for nine months to go through childbirth, I’d take the first one.

      • rwlawoffice

        So abortion on demand is justified by the very rare cases of 11 year olds getting raped?

        So you think that it is better for you to create a 100% chance of death of the unborn so that you won’t be pregnant for nine months? That is hardly the high moral ground.

        • Niemand

          In other words, yes, you want to force an 11 year old to bear a child at risk of her life and health. Nice.

          • rwlawoffice

            No I am saying that using that extreme example does not justify abortion on demand like you think it does.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              So where do you draw the line? A 12 year old rape victim? A 15 year old rape victim? A 22 year old rape victim?

              A 12 year old victim of birth control sabotage? A 15 year old victim of birth control sabotage? A 22 year old victim of birth control sabotage?

              A 12 year old victim of coercive sexual contact that isn’t technically rape because she technically consented? A 15 year old victim of coercive sexual contact that isn’t technically rape because she technically consented? A 22 year old victim of coercive sexual contact that isn’t technically rape because she technically consented?

              A 12 year old victim of birth control failure? A 15 year old victim of birth control failure? A 22 year old victim of birth control failure?

              Which example victim is “too extreme” to use as an example, and which example victim should be denied an abortion? Where do you draw that line? Why do you get to draw it and not the girl or woman actually affected?

            • Niemand

              Fine, but you still have to deal with the extreme example. So far you’ve been dodging like a politician. Would you in your infinite wisdom and mercy allow a pregnant 11 year old to have an abortion or not?

        • Quis ut Deus

          so you only care for children as long as they are microscopic embryos?

          but as soon as they are born, and pregnant from rape, you’re pro-torture?

        • God’s Starship

          Can we just take a moment to take in how stupid the phrase “abortion of demand” is. I just don’t want that one to slip by.

          I’m going to go take a shower. On demand.

          • RowanVT

            I’m going to go eat soup. On demand.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              I’m going to call rwlawoffice a documented bigot and intellectual coward. On demand.

    • Oswald Carnes

      A couple of weeks ago I had some extra money to blow. One of your fellow ignorant goons on another site inspired me to donate $200 to my local abortion clinic. I wish I had more to give now. I hope any woman you impregnate gets an abortion.

      • baal

        I would tell my local ultraconservatives about every time I sent a donation to PP in response to seeing the ‘pro-life’ gory body parts banner flying over the fair grounds or other major even.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Pffft. Like that weasel will ever get close enough to a woman to mate.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          People like that are very good at such things. What they lack is the ability to maintain a relationship. They’ll dump their own parents and kids if they’re inconvenient to the heroic internal narrative.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Anything to boost their egos, huh?

    • DougI

      Can you name one person that she’s been responsible for killing or are you just talking out of your ass?

    • Niemand

      If zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are all the moral equivalent of babies, then abortion is the least of our problems. As many as 80% of conceptions fail, most of them not producing any clinical signs of pregnancy at all. So, if there were an epidemic in the country (whatever country you’re in–I’m going to use the US for this example since that’s the country I’m in), in which 80% of babies died, most in the first two weeks of life, I’d consider that to be a major public health issue! Not “oh, yeah, maybe we should work on that”, but this is a disaster–as it would be. That’s a pandemic, potentially humanity threatening, certainly causing untold suffering! And if there are also a few infanticide cases at the same time, well, that’s angering and tragic and all, but the bigger threat is clearly the “natural” deaths of 80% of babies!

      Yet somehow it’s rare to see a “pro-life” person even endorse the idea that we should spend a little money on research into the causes and treatment of miscarriage. I’ve never seen ANY advocate more funding of research into causes and treatment of miscarriage spontaneously, before I brought it up. I know of no branches of “pro-life” organizations dedicated to raising funds for miscarriage research. They don’t seem to care that, according to them, 80% of babies are dying, many before they reach the second week of life. I can’t see how this is possible unless either “pro-life” people are complete monsters and don’t care if babies die or they don’t really believe that embryos are babies.

      Finally, think about what this means in terms of the overall “pro-life” world view. “Pro-life” people say that an embryo has the same worth as you. And they don’t care if embryos die as long as that death is “natural”. What sort of views must they take of public health, disease prevention, and life saving treatment of disease? They must think it a bad idea. They don’t advocate it for embryos and they say embryos have the same worth as you.

    • Quis ut Deus

      In your view, is an abortion that occurs at 6 weeks the equivalent of shooting a 5 year old in the head?

    • Matt D

      The “Lawyer” is slandering someone else’s occupation? And I thought I wasn’t going to laugh today!

      • baal

        RW’s attorney occupation or his religious zealotry occupation?

        • Matt D

          Since he’s using one to define the other, I’d say both.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Funny how the alleged lawyer doesn’t know what libel is.

    • Matt D

      I suspect religious coercion and conditioning has you practically leaping at opportunities to throw your voice behind anything that cannot speak for itself, creating an echo chamber for your own opinions. If you’re not speaking for “god”, than you’re speaking for the unborn, or those long dead, etc.

      So, prove me wrong. Show that you reached your opinion without prior bias by listing as many negatives about your position (that abortion is wrong) as you can, and the reasons you’ve rejected those considerations.

  • A3Kr0n

    Where did all the creepy people come from that aren’t sounding like atheists?
    Besides that, I read the entire article. It was great, and she’s great, and so is everybody at FFRF!

    • LizBert

      Nothing like abortion to bring out the crazies.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Yeup.

  • http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/ YankeeCynic

    Ugh. Yet again AA swoops in, makes an over-the-top argument, and never responds again.

    How cowardly.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty
  • http://rolltodisbelieve.wordpress.com/ Captain Cassidy

    What a wonderful, wonderful person. The human race is lucky to have her.

  • ShoeUnited

    And here I had almost given up on humanity. Everything was looking roses and there was no insane discourse visible in atheism. Thankfully, AA is back in form. Enjoy those downvotes AA, you earned them like you always do.

  • Kodie

    Why did you post a cached page and not the actual linked page? That’s not something an honest person does.

  • DougI

    If you’re not pro-choice then you can’t be pro-life. All those kooks protesting abortion are merely anti-choice and pro-slavery.

  • Niemand

    I have a thought experiment for the “pro-life” movement: Suppose there were a registry of people who opposed abortion but were not at risk of pregnancy (cis-men, post-menopausal or otherwise infertile women, trans-women, post-op trans-men, whatever else). Enrollment on the registry would be voluntary, but if more than 50% of eligible people in a jurisdiction (state, province, country, etc) enrolled then abortion would be illegal in that jurisdiction. However, if any pregnant woman suffered any complication of pregnancy, from morning sickness to death, except for consequences of an abortion but including any acts of violence that occur during pregnancy, a random person enrolled in the registry would have the same complication artificially performed on their body. Any person can de-enroll themselves up to the moment when they are chosen to be the one to suffer the consequences of pregnancy. If the number of people enrolled drops below 50% of eligible, abortion becomes legal again.

    How many of you “pro-life” people out there would join such a registry? Refusing to enroll would endanger “innocent” fetuses and embryos, so you would now be equally morally responsible–and equally in danger.

    • baal

      Not realistic but I love the idea of people being made to acutely feel the impacts of their decisions for other people them selves. Harms are much more impactful when you’re the one taking the hit.

    • Antinomian

      Or, just require them to crap out a basketball..

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        Make it a watermelon.

    • islandbrewer

      Wait, why make it merely one random person on the registry? Why not make all of them suffer? I like that one better.

      • Niemand

        One for one seems fairer to me. That way they’re not being asked to take any risk they’re not demanding from others.

    • Niemand

      I am shocked and disappointed that the people arguing the “pro-life” position haven’t come back and said, “Sure, sign me up!”

      • Quis ut Deus

        I routinely ask pro-life males if they would support forced organ/blood/bone marrow donation DURING the pregnancy and after – in order to preserve fetal/newborn life.

        I say ‘you use the argument that the woman created it, therefore, she should be responsible for it – well, that should also apply to the man’

        They uh, usually say that: 1) death of the fetus/newborn is ‘natural’ and not premeditated murder as is the case with abortion and 2) forcing men to donate body parts to save fetus/newborn IS TO TREAT MEN AS COMMODITIES AND THAT WOULD BE SLAVERY

        Next up, try asking them if a woman, during birth, should be forced to undergo a c-section if the fetus is going to be harmed and/or die from birth. They usually say ‘yes, force the woman to get the c-section in order to save the baby’. But, you say, the death of the fetus during birth is NATURAL.

        Of course, they try to get out of all of the above by using the argument that the woman ACCEPTED all of these risks when she chose to engage in consensual sex. Therefore, it is all on her, all her responsiblity etc, because nature designed her to have babies. Natural law etc.

      • Niemand

        RWLaw has shown up in the comments so we know he’s still reading. Yet he has not said, “Sure, I’ll put my body on the line”. How cowardly and hypocritical can you get? It’s a thought experiment. It’s not like anyone’s even going to hold you to your promise.

  • Quis ut Deus

    All crimes are reported to the police by the clinics, so Gaylor doesn’t deal with those issues

    Ayup. Which is why pro-liars are full of shit when they say the baby needs to be born in order to prove that a rape occurred.

  • Susan_G1

    “She just wishes women had easier access to birth control. She wishes
    young women could more easily report instances of rape and get immediate
    help.”

    amen.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X