Christian Doctor Openly Boasts of Breaking Australian Law, Says That Women Who Have An Abortion ‘Deserve to Die’

Five years ago, abortion became legal in Victoria, Australia. The law is carefully written to allow women to undergo the procedure without compelling doctors to perform it. Medical professionals who are morally opposed to abortion may refuse (except, as I understand it, in exceedingly rare circumstances where the patient’s life is imminently at risk). They are obligated, under the law, to advise women where to go instead, and the answer can’t be “to hell.” The patient has to be referred to another doctor, one who can help her.

In the words of Daniel Mathews, a pro-choice mathematics lecturer and blogger Down Under,

The law thus balances rights of women, on the one hand — rights to autonomous control of their own bodies, self-determination of their own lives, freedom of conscience, and religion — with the rights of doctors to freedom of conscience and religion, on the other.

And as a practical matter, physicians certainly need not engage patients in uncomfortable, unwelcome discussions:

[They] can simply notify patients of any objection in advance, through a notice in the waiting room or on their website. The Australian Medical Association has even provided templates for this purpose.

In 2011, Dan Mathews’ Facebook feed lit up with a discussion that got his attention. The most noteworthy participant was a suburban Australian medical doctor he didn’t even know, a fervent Christian named Jereth Kok. In response to a post about abortion, Kok wrote that

I get a request for abortion referral about once every 3 or 4 months. I tell the woman politely that it is against my moral principles to advise on this issue, and they need to find someone else to help them. (In a few instances I have attempted to talk them out of it.) Yes, I’m breaking Victoria’s new abortion laws, but I don’t give a stuff – I am not going to soil my conscience by being complicit in the slaughter of children.

Another Facebook commenter reminded Kok of the dangers of back-alley abortions, and the doctor gleefully ran with it, saying that if a woman dies on a quack abortionist’s table,

That’s exactly what she deserved for trying to kill her own child.

I have a 3-month-old baby. If someone snuck into his room with a knife and tried to kill him, but accidentally slipped over and stabbed themselves through the heart, that would be exactly what they deserve. …

“He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword.” — Jesus Christ, Matthew 26:52

Actually, with that verse, Jesus advocated non-violence, but such a charitable reading of scripture apparently didn’t appeal to Kok.

In any case, one of the Facebook correspondents or lurkers — not Mathews himself, he says — was sufficiently alarmed by Kok’s boasts of his repeated law-breaking that he or she notified the AHPRA, the National Medical Board. That got Kok in trouble, though not dramatically so. The AHPRA panel gave him a “caution,” the lightest possible slap on the wrist.

It isn’t quite clear to me why this episode is surfacing only now, but it is. (I just saw this news article about it in the U.K. Guardian newspaper.)

Although I frankly find abortion tragic and unsettling, making or keeping the procedure legal sure beats the alternative in my book. And for the record, I consider few things more repulsive than a doctor illicitly foisting his religious views on his patients. Quoth Mathews:

When a patient sees a doctor, the doctor is not supposed to judge the patient’s moral, religious or political beliefs. The doctor is there to help and care for the patient, respecting the patient’s autonomy and agency; certainly not allowing the doctor’s own moral judgments of their patient to affect treatment. If a Jehovah’s Witness refuses a blood transfusion because of a religious belief, the doctor may find the refusal unfounded, ignorant, even stupid; but the patient’s own judgment must prevail.

The Medical Board of Australia’s Code of Conduct states that a medical professional’s conscientious objection may not lead to impeding a patient’s access to treatments that are legal. Ten bucks says that Jereth Kok, who doesn’t “give a stuff,” is doing exactly that to this very day.

(Image via Shutterstock)

About Terry Firma

Terry Firma, though born and Journalism-school-educated in Europe, has lived in the U.S. for the past 20-odd years. Stateside, his feature articles have been published in the New York Times, Reason, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Wired. Terry is the founder and Main Mischief Maker of Moral Compass, a site that pokes fun at the delusional claim by people of faith that a belief in God equips them with superior moral standards.

  • The Captain

    Finally an anti-abortionist who I think actually believes their own bullshit!

    If you actually think “babies’ are being “murdered” then yes, the death of the person who “kills” them or is trying to “kill” them is acceptable and (depending on your beliefs of capital punishment and using deadly force to stop a “murder”) preferable.

    The rest of the anti-abortionist however either need to admit that all these “murderers” running around freely should be locked up and even executed, or they can stop acting like hissy fit drama queens and stop using words like “murder” and “baby” since they in no way act like that’s what they think is happening.

    • Sven2547

      It’s the kind of thinking that leads to the Scott Roeders of the world. If you think your actions are literally preventing mass-murder, then you can justify anything to yourself.

      • The Captain

        Oh absolutely. Thinking that abortion is “mass-murder” not only “can” lead people to justify murdering doctors and women, but frankly it should.

        That’s why it’s the Scott Roeders of the world that are the only ones that I think really believe the crap they spew. Now it’s a good thing most anti-abortionist don’t act like these monsters, but then they need to stop using words like “mass-murder” when they clearly don’t believe that’s whats happening.

      • paulalovescats

        Boy, I wish people would stop misusing “literally”. It’s only for metaphors and figures of speech coming to life, like someone’s jaw literally dropping to the floor in a zombie movie. “Preventing mass murder” isn’t a metaphor.

        • Sven2547

          I’m not misusing “literally” here. It’s actually central to my point.

    • Wren

      Finally, someone who agrees with me. How can anyone think “That woman over there kills babies for a living, but I’m just going to give her nasty looks.”

    • marshmallow

      I wish more anti-choicers would just come out and say that they want women who procure abortions to die.

      • Jim Jones

        ISTM more that they want women who have sex (and presumably enjoy it) to be punished with babies.

        Men? Not so much.

  • busterggi

    A doctor who chooses to violate one law will have no problem violating others – strip him of his right to practise.

  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    I’m pro-life, dammit! And anybody who disagrees with me deserves to die!

    • Steve

      It’s a shame that the misleading “pro-life” label has stuck. OK, “anti-choice” isn’t going to work for them, but “pro-birth” would be a more honest description.

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

        Pro-forced-birth. You really have to get the element of lack of consent in there.

        • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

          And an element of “pro-forced-pregnancy”, as well. I honestly don’t think many of these people care all that much about the natural loss of a fetus, or even the loss of the mother due to complications. God’s will, you know.

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

            Indeed.

      • Glasofruix

        More like pro-not-giving-a-shit-after-birth.

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

        What about the men?

        Why are you only targeting women with your hate and shame?

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

          That’s exactly what I’m talking about — targeting women.

          They wouldn’t be seeking abortions if it weren’t for MEN.

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

            They wouldn’t be pregnant without male participation.

  • Jeff

    I am not a fan of abortion, but not having a uterus pretty much makes me realize I should keep my mouth shut. However, I do find the careful crafting of their law very well done.

    • joey_in_NC

      I am not a fan of abortion…

      Why not?

      • allein

        Is anyone really a “fan” of medical procedures? Most people tend to only utilize them when necessary. (Plastic surgery junkies and Munchausen syndrome sufferers aside.)

        • Vaugham

          I’m a fan of medical procedures and medical sciences for the lives they help every single day, but that’s just me.

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

            I’m a huge fan that they exist. I’d prefer not to need them, though- many medical procedures are uncomfortable or downright painful. So I’m a fan of their existence and availability, but I’m not a personal fan of partaking.

            • allein

              That’s pretty much what I meant..

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

                I figured.

              • paulalovescats

                That’s also what Jeff meant.

                • allein

                  I wasn’t responding to Jeff.

      • Jeff

        I believe it is a situation of last resort. There are too many ways to prevent pregnancy that either men or woman can take, and I’m not arguing the stupid “keep your legs closed” approach. There is a responsibility factor if for no other reason than economics. The cost of prevention is a fraction of the cost of the abortion. It IS unhealthy for a woman (yes, much healthier than giving birth, but LESS healthy than not getting pregnant) to have an abortion. I think it should ALWAYS be an option, and one with few, if any, restrictions. But if you were able to ask every woman who is having an abortion the circumstances of how they got pregnant and why they are having an abortion, the rape, incest, health of woman, and even birth control failure, would be a minority compared to “this could have been prevented”. I have had lots of young women family members in my life, and it was easily obvious that simply education on the MECHANICS of pregnancy were seriously lacking.

        • skeptical_inquirer

          I think it would help if there was decent sex ed in school and in the home. I had to ask my brother how the damn sperm got to the egg because they didn’t bother to explain the mechanics. It’s a good thing I like to actually look things up because my parents clammed up even when I did bother to ask them some questions.

        • GeorgiaPeach23

          As the resident Planned Parenthood volunteer, I have to disagree with you that abortion is “unhealthy for a woman”. The vast majority of legal abortions performed by medical professionals are perfectly safe and pose few if any health risks. So your statement that abortion is unhealthy needs either a big qualification or a much better justification.

          • Jeff

            Please read my comment again. I said that abortion is unhealthy when compared to NOT GETTING PREGNANT. Now, if you have good documented medical evidence to disprove that, I would like to see it, because I would change my comment immediately. There is a difference between ‘few if any health risks’ and NO health risks by not having the procedure at all.

  • Mike

    I have mixed feelings about this one. No law should force someone to violate their conscience. If he sincerely believes abortion is murder I am not sure he should be forced to refer someone to someone that can provide an abortion.

    Surely if a doctor in the South in the 50′s had treated an african-american in a white-only hospital people would think that would have been an OK breach of the law.

    However, he certainly goes off the deep end when he says a women deserves to die for wanting/needing an abortion. That is certainly atrocious.

    • The Captain

      “No law should force someone to violate their conscience.” Actually we do, all the time. Hell you contradict that statement with your own example. Why is there not any whites only hospitals anymore? Because we used the law to force people who thought it was a “violation of their conscience” to mix with blacks to use the same hospital.

      • FTP_LTR

        Indeed.

        Surely one of the reasons we have laws because conscience isn’t sufficient?

    • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

      It seems absolutely acceptable to me for laws to force people to “violate their conscience” when public safety or the safety of others in involved. You don’t get to just set up shop as a doctor. You have to be trained and licensed, and you operate with the permission of society, which requires agreeing to follow a certain code of conduct.

      If your conscience is so delicate that you can’t even refer somebody to a different doctor because you have problems with a procedure, you should not be allowed to practice medicine. It’s that simple.

      • smrnda

        Totally agreed. It’s even worse with counselors since hey, if you can’t counsel people whose lifestyles you disagree with, go to clown college and get your “Xtian counseling” degree and then you won’t have to.

        I mean, imagine coming out to a therapist after a year of meeting with them and then having them *suddenly* need to refer you elsewhere. If your conscience doesn’t allow you to do the job, get out of the job.

      • Todd Heath

        “It seems absolutely acceptable to me for laws to force people to “violate their conscience” when public safety or the safety of others in involved. ”

        I totally agree with this statement.

        Many religious people don’t “want” to comprehend that their religious rights end when it violates the rights of others. This is why they are losing the same sex marriage debate and are seeing the young fleeing in record numbers from the church.

        They even ignore Jesus when he references when King David ate the consecrated bread. (Mark 2:25-26) Jesus beautifully illustrates putting people before the letter of the law. They could care less about the hardships they are imposing on others by their legalistic standards and they always seem to find exceptions for themselves when their legalism affects them in an overly negative way.

    • smrnda

      I once confronted an Xtian with the ‘conscience’ thing with the following dilemma. Let’s say the Xtian is walking around on a Friday afternoon. A person walking up asks “Can you tell me how I can get to {this address} I’m going to the mosque and can’t quite find it.” Is the Xtian going to be an ass and say “No, I can’t give you directions, that would send you to a competing religion I think is false! Get lost and *stay* lost!’

      Xtians just pull the conscience thing when convenient. If conscience was an issue, then no Xtian could ever sell a gun, knife, or anything else that would be used as a weapon.

    • marshmallow

      No law should force someone to violate their conscience

      I am a JW and I can’t in good conscience advise a patient to get a blood transfusion.

      • islandbrewer

        JW phlebotomists are extra useless.

        • marshmallow

          I am also a dance commander, and I cannot in good conscience advise people NOT TO DANCE!!11!!

    • skeptical_inquirer

      I have to disagree. If I need a blood transfusion, i don’t want someone to withhold it from me because it’s against their religion & they think they’re doing some kind of supernatural favor.

      If you can’t serve people outside your religion, don’t do the job. After all, a lot of religions are very much against women exposing themselves to strange men, which is something that happens during routine examinations.

  • joey_in_NC

    They are obligated, under the law, to advise women where to go instead…

    This is a relatively new Australian law. As far as I know, there are no such laws here in the US that require a doctor to advise women where to go for an abortion.

    …was sufficiently alarmed by Kok’s boasts of his repeated law-breaking that he or she notified the AHPRA, the National Medical Board.

    And if there were such laws here in the states, you’ll find many more doctors who would be willing to break those laws. Here in the states, there are still conscience clauses for doctors, but this administration is quickly trying to eliminate any and all such conscience clauses.

    Although I frankly find abortion tragic and unsettling…

    Why?

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

      And good for removing conscience clauses. My health care should not be subject to your conscience. Or my doctor’s, or my pharmacist’s, or anyone’s but mine.

      I mean, what if you really honestly truly think Asian people don’t deserve to live? Should you still be obligated to treat a Chinese-American man who came in with life-threatening injuries? Or should you be exempted by conscience clauses and just let him die instead? Why are doctors forced to treat Chinese-American people even if they don’t want to, but not all women?

      The fact that doctors aren’t required to perform abortions is more than enough protection for their consciences, and sometimes leads to women dying or having near-death experiences because the doctor’s conscience is apparently more important than a woman’s life. Requiring them to refer to someone who will perform an abortion is the least the law can require, because a woman’s health and bodily autonomy are actually important. Really. I promise.

      • joey_in_NC

        And good for removing conscience clauses. My health care should not be subject to your conscience. Or my doctor’s, or my pharmacist’s, or anyone’s but mine.

        Are you suggesting that you’re in favor of all doctors being required to perform late third trimester abortions on demand, no questions asked?

        • http://boldquestions.wordpress.com/ Ubi Dubium

          All obstetricians do that anyway. We just call it a “birth”.

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

          Late third trimester abortions are always induced, which means giving birth, unless it’s a total emergency in which case a C-section occurs. Either way, third trimester abortions are exceptionally rare and only occur for life or health reasons, or in those terrible situations where a woman or girl was unable to obtain an abortion earlier thanks to jackasses like you preventing her from getting access to early abortion.

          Can we leave your fantasy world where women just up and end a pregnancy at 32 weeks for funsies, and go to the real world now?

          • joey_in_NC

            Obviously, the point is if an obstetrician can’t in good conscience perform a late term abortion of a healthy fetus (directly resulting in the fetus’ death), he/she shouldn’t be required to do so by law, even if the woman so desperately wants it out…like now. Wouldn’t you agree?

            I’ll be charitable and simply assume that would agree. So your claim that “your health care should not be subjected to anyone’s else conscience but your own” is not as absolute as you make it out to be.

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

              No, I wouldn’t agree. And that doesn’t happen, anyways, so it’s an irrelevant point to make.

              A 32 week abortion is dangerous to the woman. If the fetus and woman are in good health, an obstetrician is ethically correct to counsel just waiting until natural birth occurs because it’s best medical practice to do so for the woman’s health.

              • joey_in_NC

                No, I wouldn’t agree.

                Again, scary. “Pro-choice” for the woman, but apparently no “pro-choice” for the doctor.

                And that doesn’t happen, anyways, so it’s an irrelevant point to make.

                A 32 week abortion is dangerous to the woman. If the fetus and woman are in good health, an obstetrician is ethically correct to counsel just waiting until natural birth occurs because it’s best medical practice to do so for the woman’s health.

                But whatever is “ethically correct”, according to the doctor, should be of no relevance, right? I thought it has everything to do with the choice of the woman, and not at all what the doctor thinks? After all, following your conscience and doing what you think is ethically correct are usually the same thing.

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

                  A doctor has taken an oath to do the best ze can for hir patients.

                  The woman is the doctor’s patient. Not the fetus. If the woman’s health, physical or mental, requires an abortion, yes the doctor is obligated to provide it. If one can’t do one’s job, one shouldn’t get into that job in the first place. What is ethically correct is the option that is in the best interest of the patient. The patient is the woman.

                  So no, I am not “pro-choice” a doctor taking away someone’s rights. Nopety nope nope nope. I am intolerant of intolerance in the same way, in fact, that I am not in favor of choices that enslave and dehumanize other people. Patient autonomy and informed consent are real, important concepts that trump any individual physician’s personal preferences.

                • smrnda

                  “Again, scary. “Pro-choice” for the woman, but apparently no “pro-choice” for the doctor.”

                  Yes, and that’s how it should be. By becoming a doctor in a particular specialty you agree to perform certain procedures. If you cannot do them in good conscience, nobody is forcing anyone to spend years in medical school and in residency. The doctor makes the choice by going into practice. If there is choice for both, it just means no choice for patients since they will eventually conflict.

                  Should a pacifist join the military and then start complaining that they’re expected to shoot and carry a gun?

              • Anat

                Birth is also dangerous to women. Is a 32 week abortion more dangerous than full-term birth? IIRC D&X was made illegal a few years ago, but in that procedure the fetus’ head is much reduced, so there is need for very little dilation. That should increase the safety. Though I don’t know which way the infection risk goes.

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

                  Well, for a fetus that old, there’s also injection of anesthetic and/or something to stop the fetus’s heart. That’s not a risk-free procedure either, since you have to ensure whatever the fetus gets doesn’t get into the woman’s bloodstream.

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

              “Obviously, the point is if an obstetrician can’t in good conscience perform a late term abortion of a healthy fetus (directly resulting in the fetus’ death), he/she shouldn’t be required to do so by law, even if the woman so desperately wants it out…like now. Wouldn’t you agree?”

              LOL no.

              If he’s so opposed to it, he should find another damn occupation, where he can’t hurt anyone.

              • joey_in_NC

                LOL no.

                Wow, scary.

                If he’s so opposed to it, he should find another damn occupation, where he can’t hurt anyone.

                Why not the woman try to find another doctor willing to perform a third trimester abortion of a healthy fetus?

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

                  *raises one furry brow*

                  *points at Feminerd’s post*

                  What she said.

                • skeptical_inquirer

                  1. Often people are in places where medical care is sparse. Are you expecting someone drive around for days and use a tank of gas to go look and that’s not counting having to make an appointment which makes things more dangerous for the woman because of the delay.

                  2. If a clerk lives in a county that’s OK with gay marriage but refuses to give out certificates because it’s against his/her religion then that person should be fired. Remember a lot of people would love to be able to deny interracial couples certificates or people they just don’t like.

                  3. Doctors should know this procedures because you never know if you have to do this as an emergency procedure.

                  4. I feel creeped out by this insistence that the woman is just a wrapper around the more important life. Good grief, you sound just like Henry the 8th who chopped heads off his wives or dumped them in his quest for the baby with the right gender.

              • Karen Milton

                That’s the thing. They don’t even have to find another occupation, they just need to choose better specialties in the first place. If you are opposed to a certain portion of the job requirements why would you become an OB-GYN? Become a nephrologist or an orthopaedic surgeon or a dermatologist. Abortion is not even part of the equation in those specialties. Proctologists are never required to perform abortions. Or, if babies/children are truly that important to you, be a paediatrician. Given that an actual baby is right there in front of you, being alive and breathing air and doing whatever else it is that babies are meant to do, it removes any pointless discussion or doubt regarding whether that baby is or is not actually alive and/or a baby. There’s nothing to argue. There it is. It’s right there. It’s wearing a hat.

                Doctors who are anti-abortion are of course allowed to feel that way privately (what we think does not have to line up with what we do), but they should have noticed that about themselves early on and arranged their education accordingly. To choose that exact specialty, the one where abortion is an actual thing you full well know is part of the job makes no sense to me. If you protest deforestation you probably wouldn’t consider becoming a logger. Become a paediatrician! There are still lovely “BABIES ARE GREAT” times all over the place there. You can hold them and help them and make sure they stay well, especially since you’re so adamant that alive is the way you want said babies to be. How it that not common sense? If it’s your inclination that all babies should have to happen, then in the very least, providing those babies consistently high quality health care when they’re in that state of born-ness you’re so adamant about might made a tad bit more sense.

            • GCBill

              “Here, I’ll charitably assume you believe something that I think can be used to refute your argument.”
              I mean if that’s what you call charity, I’m a little worried about what your “uncharitable” looks like.

            • skeptical_inquirer

              Oh good grief. Did you not hear about that non-Christian woman who died in Ireland because they wouldn’t give her an abortion even though her life was at stake & the baby was non-viable? That’s the kind of situation no woman should ever have to face.

    • baal

      “, but this administration is quickly trying to eliminate any and all such conscience clauses.”
      Bullshit. This administration has been filing briefs on the side of the religious in most cases and Obamacare only focused on getting equal access to treatment options for all insured. I’ve been more than a litle annoyed with how this administration has bent over backwards for you ungrateful religious types.

      • joey_in_NC

        I’ve been more than a litle annoyed with how this administration has bent over backwards for you ungrateful religious types.

        Bent over backwards? How is it “bending over backwards” when we “ungrateful religious types” simply want to keep things the way they have been regarding conscience clauses? They’re the ones attempting to change the status quo.

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

          The status quo that occurred because you religious types have ungodly numbers of lobbyists to make it so, and only in the past 20 years or so have conscience clauses even been a thing. That’s not that long of a status quo, sir, and besides, who cares? If the status quo is messed up, change it. Tradition is meaningless if it’s bad tradition. This is so obvious I shouldn’t even have to say it.

          And if you want to claim long tradition of it, you don’t have it. Conscience clauses are a new thing and they should be removed ASAP before they get even more entrenched.

        • baal

          As Feminerd says, in the U.S. at least, the idea that you get to skip doing your job (saving lives in the case of doctors and pharmacists) is pretty new and only exploded since it was a 2010 talking point from republicants.

          • joey_in_NC

            As Feminerd says, in the U.S. at least, the idea that you get to skip doing your job (saving lives in the case of doctors and pharmacists) is pretty new and only exploded since it was a 2010 talking point from republicants.

            I’m not sure about pharmacists, but conscience clauses for doctors providing abortions have been around since immediately after Roe vs. Wade. And keep in mind Roe vs. Wade was a ruling that interrupted the status quo. So no, conscience clauses pertaining to abortion aren’t a new fad.

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

              Abortion in the US wasn’t illegal until the 1920s at the earliest. You see a lot of old newspapers advertising medicines to “unblock the womb”, which were abortifacients. Women went to doctors to get abortions too- they called it starting their menses or unblocking the womb, but those were just convenient euphemisms.

              So anti-abortion laws are less than 100 years old in this country. The Supreme Court ruling saying that you can’t illegalize abortion is 40 years old. Conscience clauses for birth control are less than 20 years old. Which status quo should we go back to, Joey? The oldest one is the one with no abortion restrictions whatsoever.

              And I’ll repeat it again. Tradition is a terrible reason to do stupid or bad things. If it’s a bad tradition, just ditch it. Argue the issue on the merits, not on how old it is.

              • joey_in_NC

                Which status quo should we go back to, Joey?

                Obviously the most recent ones are the most relevant. Otherwise, why not revert back to the status quo when black people were legally considered as property?

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

                  Why are the recent ones the most relevant ones? Arguments from tradition always seem to like the oldest ones, except when they don’t like the oldest ones, in which case they pick whatever tradition they like. Arguments from tradition are thus completely worthless. I mean, the status quo right now is that abortion is legal. Do you want to change that? But it’s in the status quo, so obviously it must forever remain there, right? No. The fact that conscience clauses are in the status quo right now is completely inconsequential.

                  Let me repeat that for emphasis. What is status quo is entirely irrelevant. What matters is if conscience clauses are a good idea or not. I think they are not, obviously, because they interfere with people’s health care and put undue burdens on women, which is entirely unjust. You think conscience clauses are a good idea because _______?

                • joey_in_NC

                  Let me repeat that for emphasis. What is status quo is entirely irrelevant. What matters is if conscience clauses are a good idea or not.

                  Keep in mind that I brought up the status quo topic because I was responding to baal’s comment about “bending over backwards”. My point was to ask how it be considered bending over backwards when you simply want to keep the most current status quo? It would be bending over backwards if you’re required to drastically change what you’ve been doing (or not doing) all along.

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

                  Keeping a status quo that is bad counts as bending over backwards, if you have the power to change it. It is bending over backwards to keep bad policies in place to placate people.

                • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

                  When the status quo disadvantages one minority underprivileged class of people based on race or gender or even religion to the advantage of another majority privileged class of people based on race or gender or religion, then maintaining that status quo is immoral.

                  Examples of immoral status quos include keeping black peopłe as slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclaimation, denying women the right to vote prior to womens suffrage and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

                • Oswald Carnes

                  People like you are why I’m donating to Planned Parenthood through the United Way this year. I hope my contributions help kill thousands of little Christian mutants like you.

                • joey_in_NC

                  I hope my contributions help kill thousands of little Christian mutants like you.

                  Nice.

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

                Hmm. How about we sterilize all men, and they must undergo a procedure to undo it if they ever want to breed? That seems far less invasive- after all, it’s only an outpatient procedure.

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

                  After all, no pregnancy would happen if it weren’t for the men…

        • James Stevenson

          I’m sure there’s an example out there somewhere. But can someone point me to an ACTUAL conscience clause? Ie one that lets you opt out of anything purely because you think it is wrong, for whatever reason.

          Not simply ‘I belong to an established religion so I get to have special treatment that others wouldn’t get’. Because that’s seriously all a conscience clause is, special treatment and is seriously misappropriating the word.

          I highly doubt that religious people who are inclined towards conscience clauses would actually want conscience clauses that applied to everyone. Because eventually that would impinge on their ‘religious freedom’ sorry I meant privilege. And that would be the end of the world because once the other side gets that exemption is the sign of a failing society.

    • ansuz

      “Although I frankly find abortion tragic and unsettling…
      Why?”

      Maybe because abortion is often the result of tragic circumstances? And because it’s more stressful and emotionally (financially, etc.) difficult to have an unwanted pregnancy aborted than it is to not have an unwanted pregnancy? And because some people have had (or known someone who has had) difficulty becoming pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term and it upsets them for personal reasons related to that? And because anti-choicers have been waving around those gruesome and misleading pictures and they’ve given people unpleasant associations? Or all the conflating of five-week embryos and toddlers with cute bows in their hair? Or an understanding of the spectrum argument and being unsure about where they should start to feel something for the fetuses? Or, you know, feeling something for the fetuses?
      Nobody has to like abortion or even consider it a morally neutral thing (in a vacuum) to be pro-choice; note the famous ‘safe, legal, and rare’ thing.
      You just have to recognize that
      a) a society that allows consent to an ongoing use of one’s body to be a thing that cannot be revoked at any time over the duration is frankly horrifying, and/or
      b) allowing abortion is cheaper and generally better for society than not doing so*, and/or
      c) making sure that both effective contraception and safe abortion and are accessible while educating people on safe sex, sexuality, and contraceptive practices actually does more to reduce abortion than banning it or restricting its legal availability.

      *yeah, yeah, this is terribly phrased. I’m tired.

    • Carmelita Spats

      Abortion is tragic and unsettling? I asked the same question, “Why”? Perhaps watching your child raped and impregnated is enough to take the “ick” factor away from a gynecological procedure that might save her life, her mental health in shambles. Abortion was neither tragic nor unsettling to the mother of a nine-year-old Brazilian third grader who was raped and impregnated. The third grader could have been LEGALLY obligated to squat and squirt out her attacker’s semen demon. Gross. Pregnancy is developmentally INAPPROPRIATE for a nine-year-old and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves nothing short of a lubricated grappling hook shoved into their nether parts. Frankly, I find false teeth, comb-overs, overstuffed preachers, creepy cat ladies who spend their postmenopausal years hoarding feral cats to the point where they finally reach a grand total of 100 diseased and inbred felines all flopped like used rags around the house, gullible and slightly narcotized religionists and chronic Banana Republic catalog shoppers to be both tragic and unsettling. Abortion? LOL! I’m plumb puckered out from all the fake crying I do in public over miscarriages.

      • FTP_LTR

        As someone biologically qualified to be no more than an onlooker, I found myself agreeing that “Abortion is tragic and unsettling”…. with the caveat that the word “Abortion” in my personal interpretation being more appropriately:

        “The circumstances leading to an abortion being the only appropriate course of action can be…”

        In the undeniably tragic and unsettling case of the nine-year-old Brazilian girl, the “rape and impregnation of the girl, leading to her requiring an abortion” is unsettling and tragic.

        Comb-overs are tragic and unsettling. No question there.

        False teeth? Not so much. If we’re talking about a young person needing false teeth… “The circumstances leading to false teeth being the only appropriate course of action can be…”

        (Don’t ask me to define young… and nor am I equating needing false teeth with needing an abortion)

        As an aside, thank you, Carmelita, for your posts – I am, as always, in awe of the balance of bluntness and elegant phrasing that you bring.

  • A3Kr0n

    Doctors don’t wish anybody to die, so he’s not really a doctor. he’s a fraud.

    • divergence

      No true doctor? ;-)

      • Bob the Lunatic

        Well called Divergence.

        And what a crock of shit. Most doctors I’ve met, and I’ve spent many hours volunteering in hospitals, seem to be self absorbed assholes that don’t even see patients as people, but file numbers.

        Doctors are IRS agents in white coats. It wasn’t that long ago that they were just barbers with leeches. And they really haven’t come that far since then in their bedside manner.

        • Bob the Lunatic

          Another example-they impede on rights every chance they get. Like with genital mutilation. They pretend it’s not, they claim it’s necessary despite our 100,000+ year history without them, and further-ignore the risk of death, of accidental gender reassignment, of cutting too much off (ever seen one with a bit too much hair up the shaft?… they cut too much off) and most of all ; ASSAULTING A PERSON IN THE MOST SENSITIVE PLACE WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION…. it doesn’t even require a judge to do it.

          And it has nothing to do with health and everything to do with christianity, fear of pleasure and the curbing of masturbation. The RCC also loses $600 for every intact penis, that isn’t mutilated. Same reason they’re against euthenasia, abortion, and stem cell research-because they own the hospitals, they would lose hundreds of billions.

          Explain the health benefits of genital mutilation to the Japanese. They have an incident of genital mutilation of around 2%. In the US, ours is around 75% (the highest anywhere except for Africa… hmm maybe it has to do with the US being 80% crazos) Yet…. the incidence of HIV is much lower in Japan, despite the US hacking up 37x more penises.. the argument of late (it changes every couple decades) is “AIDS/HIV”…. but it’s bullshit.

          And ladies, next time you eat Kellogg’s cereal, know that not only is he and a few like him the reason for this psychotic obsession with destroying male sexuality, but all his foods are in perfect accord with the same ideas-all bran foods, designed to lower libido.

          Quit smiling, you’ll make Jesus spin in his grave!

          • Bob the Lunatic

            lol i forgot to make my point: Doctors nearly always lie about circumcision. Not only claiming health benefits that are a lie due to catholic church influence, but lying about the pain.

            It’s just recently they started giving the baby something to numb the pain. And that was no accident-it was on purpose so they’d shy from sex, and from masturbation. To make their first sexual experience at 2-4 days old, horrific. That was the GOAL.

            And they are just as slimy today. They’ll say “Oh, it’s just like getting his ears pierced. Funny, I don’t think any nerves are severed in an ear piercing. 20,000 are removed in a circumcision, of 30,000 total.

            And to anyone doubting the “first sexual experience” claim-you haven’t researched it then. They force the baby to have an erection in order to do a circumcision, which is obvious if you think about it, a flaccid penis is pretty hard to work with.

  • Jasper

    So it’s not just the snakes, scorpions, sharks, trees, and other assorted everything else down in Australia that’s deadly..

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

      Everything in Australia will try to kill you.

      • islandbrewer

        Even Tim Minchin, if you cross him.

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

        Even the sea crabs. They found poisonous crabs. In Australia.

        Seriously, what is it with that place and the poisons?

        • Jim Jones

          Trying to keep the foreigners out.

          • islandbrewer

            Oh yeah? Well, prickly pears and cane toads. So there.

  • Tim

    Abortion became somewhat legal in Victoria in 1969, long before being formalised in 2007.

    This ended backyard abortions and associated police corruption.

    It was due to this man:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertram_Wainer

    • Anna

      I thought 2007 sounded incredibly late! Funny, I just assumed Australia was more sensible about reproductive rights than the United States, but it doesn’t sound like that’s the case at all.

      • Jim Jones

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_bathing

        “In New South Wales and other parts of Australia, bathing in the sea was banned during daylight between 1838 and 1902, because women’s swimming costumes were considered indecent despite being neck to knee and men often swam nude, as was mixed swimming.

        In the 20th century, restrictions on sea bathing were gradually eased throughout the world. In 1903, Australian bathers were allowed to use public beaches in daylight hours. Then the prohibition to Sunday, Christmas and Easter bathing was revoked in the 1920s, and mixed bathing commenced to be permitted in the 1940s

        In the 1950s, beach inspectors banned women wearing shortish bikinis from Bondi Beach in Sydney”.

        Australia isn’t always at the forefront.

    • wright1

      Thanks for the education. We can never have enough Bertram Wainers.

  • Dekker Van Wyk

    Judging by his surname, this doctor is a white, Afrikaans speaking (an Afrikaner like myself) immigrant from South Africa. My people can get a “bit” serious when it comes to their religion, usually Dutch Reformed. Don’t be to bummed though, atheism/skepticism is growing by leaps and bounds among the younger generation of the Afrikaner community.

  • God’s Starship

    Christian conservative logic: Gay marriage is a slippery slope, but conscience clauses are not.

    • smrnda

      They don’t mind if the slope slips the other way.

  • Nat

    I’m not a fan of euthanasia either, but I’d rather than than have my organs rot away slowly whilst I die a slow death from cancer… And I’m certainly not a fan of Christian bullshit.

  • JA

    You want to preach to people? Go become a priest.

    Doctors have no business dispensing religious advice or instruction.

  • http://www.religiouscriticism.com/ Religious Critic

    My girlfriend went to a doctor here in Brisbane, Australia, and the doctor had a moral objection to the contraceptive pill. Doctor wouldn’t write a script, so my girlfriend had to make another appointment with another doctor and come back later. I put a complaint in writing, and this is the reply I got:

    “The Australian Medical Association (AMA) developed a Code of Ethics to guide medical practitioners (https://ama.com.au/codeofethics)

    “You’ll see from 1.1.16 the situation you have described is covered:

    “When a personal moral judgement or religious belief alone prevents you from recommending some form of therapy, inform your patient so that they may seek care elsewhere.”

  • EvidenceBasedDecisions

    The pharmacists in Australia are likewise morally bankrupt. The very first code in the code of ethics states emphatically that the care of the customer is NUMBER ONE. There is NO qualification about “subject to..”.

    Yet when a pharmacist routinely denies a “morning after” pill (that PREVENTS pregnancy, not terminate one), the PSA (Pharmaceutical Society of Australia) responds that “Pharmacists may refuse if it violates their personal beliefs”.

    This is pure hypocrisy, why dont they just state the reality that the Pharmacist’s beliefs are #1, and the patient’s #2.

  • Good,Bad and Ugly

    If you base your opinion on a religion, then you have no basis for an opinion as it depends on a false and fraudulent premise – ie the unproven existence of a fictitious entity called a god which has written consistent rules for real humans on this observable earth. (Is there some reason why all the mono-theist religions have different ‘rules’ from the supposed same god?)
    If your opinions are based on humanist ethics and intelligent thought and logic then you have a legitimate debate and worthy of attention.

  • Anna

    Although I frankly find abortion tragic and unsettling

    I’m actually rather curious why people have these extreme emotional reactions to abortion. Where does it come from? In many cases, I imagine it comes from a religious upbringing, but that can’t be the case for everyone. I grew up atheist and can’t remember ever having a strong feeling about abortion. I knew what it was by the time I was 12. I remember watching the movie Parenthood and seeing two characters discuss abortion. I don’t remember feeling horrified or upset or thinking it was tragic or unsettling. I knew women often had unwanted pregnancies, and I knew that many of them chose to end those pregnancies. That’s basically it. As soon as I came across examples of people trying to stop abortion, harassing doctors, bombing clinics (there was a lot of that in the early 90s), it was those people I found unsettling, not the women seeking abortion.

    • BlueMage

      There are non-religious people that are of the opinion that a human’s right of choice does not override another’s right of life. These people have rarely had a religious upbringing.

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

        The right to life does not override the right to bodily autonomy and integrity.

        • BlueMage

          Interesting notion, given that one is derived from the other, and you declare the subsequent being of greater priority than the preceding.

          Please don’t misunderstand – there is certainly a hierarchy to human rights. But the right to have one’s life not interfered with by the action of another is fundamental.

          • RonPaul2012

            Which is why abortion should remain legal. The fetus interferes with the woman’s life and health.

          • RonPaul2012

            Liberty or death.

          • Anat

            Right to life – starts after birth, when one has acquired bodily autonomy. So maybe one is derived from the other, but not quite the way you seem to think.

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

        I need your hemological factors please- blood type, Rh positive or negative, things like that. I know some people who need organs, you see, and your unwilling donation will save their lives.

        What is this I hear? An objection? Based on your right to control your own body and decide who gets to use it, and when, and how? Your right to control your body overrides my friends’ rights to life? Well why didn’t you say that to start with? Congratulations, you have just joined the pro-choice club.

        • BlueMage

          Most peculiar – what actions did I take that necessitate this donation?

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

            Your very existence and belief that bodily autonomy is not a greater right than another’s right to life. Since you believe that, you clearly think that my friend’s life is more important than your control over your body. Thus, I need your address and hemological factors to ensure compatibility, if not for hir, then for another person who needs an organ.

            And since you are leading up to arguing that consensual sex is consent to pregnancy, allow me to preempt that terrible and incorrect argument here.

            • BlueMage

              Ah. So you don’t understand the actual meaning of the right to life. Let’s explore.

              The right to life is more accurately expressed as the right to your life not being interfered with by the actions of another. So while that’s a fine strawman you’ve made…

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

                Here we go again….

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

                  I know. It’s always the same arguments. And yet, somehow, they all try to wriggle out of donating their bodies to other people. It’s almost like they think women should be forced to donate bodies and they shouldn’t for some reason.

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

                  Ugh. And it’s always (or almost always) men taking that line of argument.

                • RonPaul2012

                  Forcing men to donate a bit of blood, even, to save a fetus during a pregnancy, would be to treat men as commodities!!!!!

              • Njen

                Then I assume you would be totally fine with at least donating a kidney to Feminerd’s friend then? Your life isn’t being interfered as you can live perfectly well with a single kidney, and Feminerd’s friend’s right to life should not be interfered with by your action of not providing a kidney.

                • BlueMage

                  We can discuss compensation separately but fundamentally I’m not opposed to this.

                  Edit: Whoops, misread that. I’m not opposed to donating. But to frame not doing so as actively interfering with the recipient… well, that’s a bit dishonest now isn’t it?

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

                  no more dishonest than your claim. You are actively interfering with the recipient’s right to life, just like a woman is “actively interfering with [a fetus'] right to life”.

                  It’s the exact same thing. You’re requiring that women “donate” their uteri (which is an organ); you can’t then say that standards for men should not require mandatory organ donation.

                • BlueMage

                  False. Terminating a fetus is precisely that – terminating a fetus. What you suggest is that actions and non-actions are equivalent – they are not.

                  If I’m drowning, morally reprehensible though others may find it, you are not obliged to save me. If you’re holding me down with your foot however, you would be obliged to remove it.

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

                  Wrong. I am not obligated to act as a life-support system. It is my body. I choose how it is used, by whom, and under what terms.

                • BlueMage

                  Then you are also culpable for the outcome. I’m glad we’ve reached an agreement.

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

                  I’m sure wmdkitty is perfectly happy to be culpable for the legal and moral and ethical act of ridding her body of an unwanted parasite.

                • BlueMage

                  Ah. And now the source of your position becomes clear. Good day.

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

                  That fetuses are parasites, and welcome ones in wanted pregnancies but horrible ones if unwanted? That women are people who get to control their own bodies? Yeah, that is indeed my position.

                • Cake

                  Translation: “OMG she thinks women are people!”

                • RonPaul2012

                  Fetii act, biologically, as parasites. This is why women menstruate. Self-defense.

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

                  Yup. And I am fully prepared to rip the thing out with my own paws if necessary.

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

                  *Shudder* Which is why safe, legal, accessible abortion is necessary. Because that would be a terribly unsafe and traumatic thing to have to do to oneself (ow ow ow).

                  It’s far better to have a professional safely remove it in sterile conditions.

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

                  LOL wrong.

                  Under FEDERAL LAW, I do indeed have every right to determine when, how, for how long, and for what purposes my body may be used.

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

                  Fortunately, terminating a fetus merely removes it from a woman’s body. It doesn’t die from the removal- it dies from the lack of oxygen, blood, nutrients, and uterus space it received (as an involuntary donation) from the woman’s body. A person dying of kidney failure and a fetus dying of deprivation die from the exact same cause- lack of donor organs.

                  I find death in both scenarios far more ethically acceptable than forcing anyone to donate organs to either a person or a fetus.

                • BlueMage

                  Again, if you have your foot on my head, kindly remove it. But if you’re just a bystander you have no obligation.

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

                  True. And as a bystander who rather enjoys controlling my own body, kindly take your hand off my wrist and stop pulling me under with you.

                  The removal of a fetus is the removal of your hand from my wrist. I have no obligation whatsoever to you as a bystander, to the point of actually causing you harm or death should you invade my personal space or, even worse, attempt to use my body against my will.

                • RonPaul2012

                  The fetus is the one with it’s foot on the woman’s head and she has the right to remove it.

                • Anat

                  It is not the fetus that is being terminated, it is the pregnancy. The death of the fetus is a side effect.

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

                Oh. Well then. A fetus has no right to interfere with my life and can be disposed of as an invader at will. Glad we agree.

                • BlueMage

                  Whoops. The fetus does not yet have agency and therefore cannot carry out actions. You do and you can.

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

                  Is it unethical to kill the mice in my house? The ants in my yard? The wasps in my light fixtures? Is it unethical to kill the Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria causing me to fall ill?

                  They, too, lack agency. Something doesn’t have to have agency to invade my space or threaten my life or hurt me. A fetus is a perfect example of that, in fact. And since a fetus doesn’t have agency, why does it matter if I cause it to die? It doesn’t know the difference between existence and nonexistence, so causing it nonexistence does no harm to anything.

                • BlueMage

                  Hence they are referred to as human rights.

                  Yes, I’m aware of the issue that wording presents if/when alien civilisations are encountered

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

                  Which accrue at birth, as I’m sure you know. Birth is the time when a fetus becomes a person, with the accrual of all human rights thereto. Before that, it’s not a person and has no rights not arrogated to it by its host (the woman).

                  If people have the right to others’ organs, then all people have the right to all other people’s organs. That means your body is just as vulnerable as mine to being taken and used without your consent. If, however, bodily autonomy trumps life, then no one may be forced to donate organs against hir will even if the lack of donation causes people to die. All I ask is some minor consistency on your part.

                  Are you just going to keep jumping from argument to argument with no connection between them as I shoot them down one by one?

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

                  *Blink* That made no sense. Would you like to try again, in English instead of gibberish this time?

                  I think you’re trying to insult me, but I can’t be sure.

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

                  Living in Japan did that, though it was mostly at a squat, because they don’t have Western style toilets everywhere.

                  See, I have this thing called a vagina. My urethra doesn’t run through my genitals. I don’t really aim to pee most of the time. Do I need to send you to Wikipedia so you can learn what female anatomy looks like?

                • baal

                  Any time you’d like to add something of merit and not just an offensive pointless comment would be great. Go crawl back under whatever rock you normally in habit.

                • baal

                  What? Sentence fail. Please try again with understandable language usage.

                • fiona64

                  Could someone parse this hot mess into English for me?

                • fiona64

                  So many presumptions, so much stupidity from Daddybigcat … so little time on my part to be bothered.

                • fiona64

                  Don’t flatter yourself, Daddydumbshit.

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

                  Did you know that the same hospitals that perform angioplasties and perform open heart surgeries are the same hospitals that treat STD’s. do you know why that is? i’ll tell you – these people, to which I assume you are one, are dirty little bacon fuckers. parasites! And are actually spreading like bacteria like rats and ants, except for ants don’t spread bacteria, they have this gland that release a fluid that has anti-bacteria and anti-fungal properties so that the colony doesn’t get over run with infections…… where was I? Oh yeah, in conclusion, stop fucking bacon you misogynistic little twat.

                  Edit:
                  (It looks like daddybigcat has left the building. So to future readers, let me make this clear, people who have open heart surgeries are not bacon fuckers. However, whomever was the commenter that went by daddybigcat, clearly was a bacon fucker.)

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

                  Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. And sometimes, women don’t consent to sex. Do you consider abortion acceptable if a woman was raped?

                  Also, what do your taxpayer dollars have to do with anything? I don’t want my taxpayer dollars paying for your prostate exam or Viagra either, but it’s health care and thus, since you are clearly too stupid and/or uneducated to hold a job and have health insurance outside of Medicaid, I help pay for it. Oh, and there is absolutely zero federal money that goes to abortions. It’s actually illegal. There’s this thing called the Hyde amendment- you should look it up.

                • skeptical_inquirer

                  If a fetus was implanted within you against your will, your own argument would make sure that you’d have to carry it to term.

                  Let’s just say that I seriously doubt that even if the technology existed, too many men would take over carrying said fetus even if they had said wanted it to be carried to term. So I side-eye a lot of people who insist WOMEN have to do the whole nine months no matter what especially those who would scoff and flap their hands at the idea of EVER having to take it on themselves.

                • BlueMage

                  A responsibility is a responsibility. And though I may rail against it, I will not shirk a responsibility.

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

                  Good for you. But should you be legally obligated to take on that life-threatening, straight-up unhealthy, immensely painful responsibility? And yes, I’m only talking about the physical features of pregnancy here.

                • skeptical_inquirer

                  You may say that now because it’s in the land of science fiction. it’s
                  easy to say if you are sure that it can’t happen.

                  There are many people who hiss at pro-choice people
                  but when a disaster happens to them, it’s somehow different. There was a
                  “pro-life” politician who badgered his mistress to abort his kid
                  because he wanted to save his marriage.

                  And frankly there’s this unproven idea that somehow the baby is born and everything is A-OK. Not so. It’s not just popping it out. It’s also being legally bound for 18 years to the result, often alone.

                  The same people who insist that the baby be born no matter what are the very SAME people who mock single mothers for a whole multitude of reasons and continually vote against the policies that actually help mothers in other more advanced countries.

                • BlueMage

                  You refer I believe to a Republican politician. Despite their airs and graces they are hardly paragons of virtue. I am never surprised when they engage in morally reprehensible behaviour (hypocrisy from a member of the faithful? Whoddathunkit?)

                  Single mothers are unfairly disadvantaged, especially the young ones, and they should receive more assistance in raising their children. Appropriate welfare for the disadvantaged is a hallmark of civilised society.

                • skeptical_inquirer

                  Yet the movement that claims to be pro-life do squat in regards to helping them. So then people shrug their shoulders “Eh, so they’re up a creek, let them eat cake.”

                  It’s not all about you, especially since you’re not the one having to do the whole sleepless nights, budgeting and being told by their own kid from time to time who much you suck. And that’s the normal stuff.

                  Also, in 31 states, one’s rapist can sue for visitation. http://www.alternet.org/gender/number-states-which-rapists-can-sue-custody-and-visitation-rights-31-and-other-shocking-rape Egads, I’d like these so-called pro-life people who pretend to care about women do something about THAT!

                  I say that the people who have to shoulder the burden get to be the primary choosers about whether or not they take it on. Especially if actually taking it on = has the possible twist that they may be legally tied to said rapist through that kid for the rest of her life.

                  http://www.businessinsider.com/rape-victim-sues-state-of-massachusetts-2013-8 is proof that what I’m talking about happens.

                • BlueMage

                  As I said – hypocrisy from one of the faithful? Is anyone surprised?

                  Those laws are unjust and should be changed. It otherwise changes nothing.

                • fiona64

                  Yep. It’s easy to be an anti-choice male. Nothing to do but wave one’s paw and make pronouncements that affect women’s life and limb … oh, and pretend to be on the moral high ground.

                • fiona64

                  Wow! You managed to put every moronic anti-choice stereotype of pro-choice women into one paragraph! Congratulations! That’s quite an accomplishment.

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

                  Oh, look, slut-shaming.

                  Funny how they never say shit like this to the men

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

                  Oh you should read this whole thread. Laugh so you don’t weep at the slut-shaming, incoherence, terrible grammar, and worship of men going on.

                • ansuz

                  I’m having a pretty good time. I’m feeling a bit like [see pic], which is a very good feeling for me. The euthanasia comment nearly killed the feeling, but I got it back.

                  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TRrhbuN3kzc/T3VYSF7qvXI/AAAAAAAACSc/wRJjkc-UV4M/s1600/cheshire-cat-grin.jpg

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

                  I have done — this guy is one of the biggest fucking tools I’ve ever had the displeasure to encounter.

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

                  Oh, Freud would love you, cupcake…

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

                  If she wasn’t sober, she couldn’t give meaningful consent — you’d rather she be further punished than to go after the rapists?

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

                  My mum, well, both my mums, really, are entirely sober.

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

                  Doubtful, as a woman wouldn’t be prattling on about penis envy or pulling the “you’re arguing with me ‘cuz you think I’m hot shit” card.

                  You’re a sexist dude-bro who can’t even get his own hand to fuck him.

                • Anat

                  And what makes risking one’s life and health against one’s wishes a responsibility?

                • RonPaul2012

                  Intent is immaterial. If it is infringing on your rights that is all that matters.

                • fiona64

                  Yep. And if a given woman doesn’t want to remain pregnant, she can use her agency and action to arrange an abortion.

              • Discordia

                So my right to MY life not being interfered with by a parasite growing within my womb without my expressed written consent is to be overlooked?

                Shall I assume you will spend the next 18 years of your life helping me (or another woman) raise the child I did not want to bear? You will be there for that child to change the diapers and feed and teach morals to and take to school and help with homework and give advice on friends and dating and buy food for and buy clothes for and give up your nights and weekends for?

                Can you tell me why it seems that so many people who are screaming ABORTION = MURDER are the same ones who want to cut welfare and food stamps and who also are against any sort of national health care? They cannot have it both ways.

                • BlueMage

                  I will not defend their actions as they are morally reprehensible. I expect no less from the faithful however.

                  And yes, I would stand by you – the mother alone is not responsible. I would be equally responsible, and I do not shirk my responsibilities.

                • RonPaul2012

                  then I hope that you are pro-forced blood/bone marrow/organ donation for the father to the fetus/child during and after pregnancy

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

                  Really? You’ll help pay for every unwanted child? You’ll diaper it, clothe it, feed it? You’ll get it board books and rattles and chew toys? Later on, you’ll pay for food and clothes and school “donation drives” and shoes and field trips? You’ll set aside money for college? You’ll pay doctor visits and specialist visits and ophthalmologist visits and millions in ICU or NICU care if something goes awry? You’ll pay for the intensive therapy for the autistic child, the therapists and medications for the bipolar child, the blood test strips for the diabetic child, the medications and wheelchair and hospitalizations for the child with cystic fibrosis, and so on, and so on.

                  No offense, but you can’t. You don’t have the money. You probably can’t pay for even three of them, let alone the millions you want to create. Since you aren’t capable of taking responsibility, why not back off and let women do what they feel is best for their situation without your judgment and without you trying to interfere with their lives?

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

                  By its biological maternal parent, obviously. Did you think all women wanted all their pregnancies? Because if you did, you’d be sadly mistaken.

                  If and when I get pregnant, it’ll be a wanted baby because I’m in a place, financially and emotionally and physically and career-wise, to be pregnant and take care of said child. Not every woman can say the same.

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

                  Don’t I wish! Unfortunately, I don’t control my ovulation cycle.* I don’t control if a fertilized ovule implants, and I don’t control if it lives or dies at that early stage.** I don’t control if my birth control works (like it ought to 99.98% of the time, and oh yeah that is helping control if I get pregnant or not). I don’t control if I get raped or not. Unfortunately, it really isn’t that simple. What I control is if, once I know I’m pregnant, I continue that pregnancy or not.

                  And since you’re going in the direction of “well then just keep your legs shut”, you can stop now. Sex is often an important part of life, and condemning women for partaking is a really stupid and disgusting thing for you to do. Furthermore, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

                  *What kind of shitty god would design a fertility process not under the gestating partner’s conscious control? Seriously! Intelligent design we obviously ain’t.

                  **Up to 80% of concepti/blastocysts/zygotes die and are washed out at that point. Oh look, God*** kills more “babies” than any human could ever dream of!

                  ***Only if you believe in a god, of course. Since you do, bigdaddycat, and you think that concepti are people, then obviously you aren’t happy at God for killing them, right? I, not being burdened with such belief, know that shit happens and the human conception process is rife with flaws. It works well enough, enough of the time, for the species to continue, but it’s not anywhere close to perfect. That’s why a lot of blastocysts are so genetically flawed they die and are expelled before a woman even knows she’s pregnant.

                • baal

                  ” Grow up and stop being a fool-”

                  pot…kettle yadda yadda

                • baal

                  As I’m a male, It’d be very difficult for me to get pregnant.

                  You’ve devolved into being the parody commenter of a prototypical 12-year-old on the internet (with apologies to actual 12 year olds, you all are infinitely better than dbc).

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

                  You’re funny.

                  Would it break your world to know that I am monogamously married to a man?

                • King Rat

                  Hyde amendment dumbass.

                • King Rat

                  Yeah, sometimes in the case of rape.

                  But hey, if you think that an 8 year old rape victim is a dirty slut who should be forced to give birth then more power to you eh?

                • King Rat

                  the funds that PP uses for abortion are separate from the funds for condoms and cancer screening

                  and no, the funds are NOT mixed

                  PP has been investigated numerous times, and found to be in the clear

                • King Rat

                  citation needed

                  and not from a pro-life site

                • baal

                  PP saves tax money by providing health care and condoms (Oh noes not birth control!). Texas had a budget short fall due to an increase in teen pregnancy once they slashed PP funding.

                • baal

                  Shocking to know but I’m not having sex with nor impregnating teens…. Your other choice is teens dying after someone like you dbc got her drunk and raped. Most sane folks care enough about their fellow humans to not want them to suffer and then die (and maybe their fetuses and babies with them).

                • King Rat

                  So?

                  Do you not care about ALL aborted ‘babies’?

                • King Rat

                  and then using my tax money to have a surgeon commit infanticide all to make their degenerate life easier-

                  Doesn’t happen.

                  Hyde Amendment.

                  Learn to read.

                  The ONLY medicaid funded abortions are for life of the mother and rape. And that is not across the board.

                  Poor women still have to pay out of pocket.

                • King Rat

                  citation needed then

                  prove your claim that state’s pay for all ‘recreational’ abortions

                  and not form a pro-life site

                  something mainstream please

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

                  “mentally defective” — ableist

                  “and then using my tax money to have a surgeon commit infanticide all to make their degenerate life easier” — LIES.

                  Followed up with more misogyny and general dehumanising of women.

                  Oh yeah, this tool-shed is a real catch…

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

                  Only degenerate here is you. FACT.

                • baal

                  Are you ted kord? He too likes to tag his comments with the same last few words.

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

                  There was nothing “imaginary” about my repeated rapes…

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

                  Not in the slightest! I am all for using tax money to remove mindless parasites who are irresponsibly using people’s bodies. It’s called protecting human rights and providing basic health care, two of the preeminent functions of government. In fact, I advocate strongly for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment and the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions through Medicare and Medicaid as well as overseas.

                • King Rat

                  Even sterilization fails btw.

                  You’re the dumbfuck if you don’t realise that.

                  The only way to avoid pregnancy is a complete hysterectomy.

                  Tell us, at what age should all girls have their uterii removed so that they won’t make a mistake or heaven forbid get raped and end up pregnant as a result?

                • King Rat

                  Aw, but what if the rape victim *asked for it*

                  8 year olds can be awfully slutty you know

                • King Rat

                  It isn’t imaginary you ignorant fuckwit:

                  This is a list of known biological mothers under 11 years of age.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

                • King Rat

                  What if they are fundamentally screwed up by the rape and become promiscuous later in life as a result?

                  Are they stupid sluts who deserve to be sterilized then?

                • King Rat

                  So you are going to tell me, with a straight face, that children who are molested don’t grow up with severe mental and emotional problems?

                  Fuck you.

                • King Rat

                  Everything.

                  You are saying that sluts who get pregnant should be sterilized.

                  I am pointing out that people who are sexually abused often become promiscuous adults.

                  So, do you recommend sterilization for them?

                • King Rat

                  Ok. So you want to punish victims of rape and abuse.

                  How charming.

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

                  You’re a senseless waste.

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

                  Your mother should have swallowed.

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

                  You know what? That’s a shitty thing to say to an adoptee.

                • ansuz

                  I’m pretty sure you can still have ectopic pregnancies with hysterectomies. Oophorectomies would work, but they have the unfortunate side effect of removing a lot of the hormones that regulate various bodily processes. And if you remove the ovaries before puberty is complete, you’ll have people who are chronologically adults but physically pubescent — basically, you’ll have castrati.

                • King Rat

                  Fascinating.

                • King Rat

                  Hey, by that logic, could you implant an embryo into a man’s abdomen? Attach it to one of his intestines perhaps?

                • ansuz

                  Probably, if you give them the right hormone soup; I’m reasonably sure that there are cases of ectopic pregnancies attaching to women’s intestines.

                  Quoth Wikipedia:

                  “Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-calledtubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen.”

                  “While a fetus of ectopic pregnancy is typically not viable, very rarely, a live baby has been delivered from an abdominal pregnancy. In such a situation the placenta sits on the intraabdominal organs or the peritoneum and has found sufficient blood supply. This is generally bowel or mesentery, but other sites, such as the renal (kidney), liver or hepatic (liver) artery or even aorta have been described.”

                  Huh.

                • King Rat

                  A pro-life male should try. for the baybeez

                • ansuz

                  Yup. Just think of all the poor, freezing zygotes in their petri dishes.

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

                  Attach it to his liver — it has a rich blood supply.

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

                  Ah, no, sterilization if you advocate it should be for the men. It’s a much less invasive procedure for them, much more easily reversible, and it means that women wouldn’t become pregnant even in cases of rape. It also ensures that men who wish to have sex but not deal with the “consequences” don’t have to, and since the burden of pregnancy lies with women it makes sense to spread the fertility burden and make sure men carry the burden of nonfertiliity. And really, retrieving sperm for artificial insemination if the sterilization reversal doesn’t work is also much easier and safer than egg retrieval and/or surrogate.

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

                  I’m sorry, did you miss how fertilization actually works? It takes two. The man is rather involved in the process- why should one party bear all the blame and burden, when both were equally involved? Sterilizing men splits the burden. It’s the only fair way.

                  Besides, sterilizing men is far more effective, because of that pesky rape problem.

                • King Rat

                  Wrong.

                  Female sterilization is surgery.

                  Male sterilization is an outpatient procedure.

                • King Rat
                • King Rat

                  That isn’t a chemical sterilisation

                  And, it is significantly more dangerous than a vasectomy.

                • King Rat

                  Once again, medicaid funded abortions are for 1) rape 2) life of mother

                • King Rat

                  That doesn’t even make any sense.

                • King Rat

                  I just told you…

                  And the abortion money is from *donations*

                  And in Texas, the PP centers that do abortion have been SHUT DOWN Because of the new laws

                  However, the birth control/cancer screening PP’s are STILL UP

                  Taxpayer funds cannot be used for abortion that is against the law.

                • King Rat

                  Hitler.

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

                  Stalin.

                • ansuz

                  What, you mean the tax waste of subsidized food for starving children? Don’t worry, they’re cutting that.

                • ansuz

                  So did I. I mean, just think of all those children who weren’t aborted! Didn’t their mothers realize that they couldn’t feed them? How could they be so very irresponsible? And they probably had the state subsidize the cost of their spawning, too. Disgusting. *sniff*

                  /Idon’tevenknow

                • ansuz

                  The hungry children being fed by your taxes are also the result of unprotected sex, and they are, in fact, costing you a great deal more money than abortions are.

                  EDIT: Also, giving birth can be really, really expensive. If the person doing so is poor, the gov’t almost certainly* picks up the tab.
                  *I’m Canadian, so IDK

                • ansuz

                  Now we’re getting somewhere. So it’s not just about responsibility and money to you — if it were, you’d be agreeing with me*. (Or maybe you are agreeing with me? Your grammar is dreadful, so it’s hard to tell.) Do you consider wilfully bringing into the world a child which one cannot care for a worse offence than obtaining an abortion?
                  Do you think women whose children receive government food supplementation should be forcibly sterilized as well as women who seek abortions? What about women who given up a child for adoption?

                  And… now you’re scaring me. What legislative progress has been made on the subject of forced sterilizations?

                  *which would pretty much make you Ebenezer Scrooge.

                • ansuz

                  Uhm… what?

                  My comment was written making the assumption (for the sake of argument) that your taxes are going both toward abortion and toward food supplementation for poor children. Food supplementation for all those children costs more than aborting those same children would have even assuming that you personally are paying for them both.
                  It is unquestionably more of a burden to the public to pay for adequate food for poor children than it is to pay for abortions for anyone who wants them.
                  I am quite alright with both of those burdens. You have stated very clearly that you are not okay with government subsidized abortions, and you have said that this is because you don’t want to pay for other people’s irresponsibility. I am saying that it is exactly the same sort of irresponsibility that puts children on food stamps (I know it’s a debatable claim, but you’re not debating it, so let’s assume it for now), and asking you whether or not the irresponsibility of giving birth to an infant that one can’t afford to feed or that one can’t/won’t parent constitute big enough violations of ‘the public trust’ to warrant mandatory sterilization for those who do that, too.

                  Here is your argument:
                  Premise 1: Women have a responsibility to only have sex when they are prepared to make a baby or when they are 100% sure that they will not make a baby.
                  Premise 2: Having sex outside of these conditions is a violation of the public trust because money.
                  Premise 3: Having sex outside of the conditions outlined in premise 1 often leads to an abortion — an example of how it costs everyone money.
                  Conclusion: If a woman seeks an abortion, it shows that she is irresponsible and has violated the public trust to such a great extend that she forfeits her bodily autonomy; she can and must be ethically sterilized to prevent her from costing the public more.

                  Here is my argument:
                  Premise 1: Women have a responsibility to only have sex when they are prepared to make a baby or when they are 100% sure that they will not make a baby.
                  Premise 2: Having sex outside of these conditions is a violation of the public trust because money.
                  Conclusion: If a woman demonstrates that she was not prepared to make a baby by a) seeking an abortion, b) giving her child up for adoption or having it removed by child services, or c) using any public money to pay for the child’s basic necessities (e.g., food, healthcare); it shows that she is irresponsible and has violated the public trust to such a great extend that she forfeits her bodily autonomy; she can and must be ethically sterilized to prevent her from costing the public more.

                  “As far as your fear and references to the movies and what comic books you’ve been reading lately- I don’t care-”
                  more ‘…whut?’
                  I said you were starting to scare me because you said this: “I’ve seen progress in the way they legislature will accomplish this noble task-”
                  And I made no references to movies or comic books.. The only reference I made was to Charles Dickens. . . *realization* …do you not know who created the character Ebenezer Scrooge? Or when he was created?

                  “as far as your personal attacks go-”
                  What personal attacks? Unless you mean the Scrooge thing, which… if you agreed with me on this comment that I made (“I mean, just think of all those children who weren’taborted! Didn’t their mothers realize that they couldn’t feed them? How could they be so very irresponsible? And they probably had the state subsidize the cost of their spawning, too. Disgusting. *sniff*”), then you would pretty clearly deserve it.

                  “You remind me a word that starts with a C- and ents with a UNT-”

                  Lovely.

                • King Rat

                  *bravo*

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

                  That’s funny, I’ve never met a woman who willfully procreated and then aborted because she didn’t love her fetus. Never ever not once.

                  You keep shifting around. Why do you dislike abortion? Is it because you don’t want taxpayers to pay for it? They don’t, and even if they did it’d be cheaper. Is it because you think fetuses are babies? They’re not, and even if they were we don’t force anyone to donate blood or organs to another. Is it because you think women are slutty sluts who slut around and you want to punish them for daring to have sex? You’re a misogynist and an asshole, on top of being inaccurate.

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

                  You mean the Planned Parenthood that provides over $1 billion in services per year in contraception, STD testing and treatment, prenatal care, and sexual education, saving the US tens of billions of dollars of social safety net spending? The one that takes in less than 10% of its revenue from abortions, which are only 3% of its services? The one that provides care on a sliding scale, so that if you can’t afford care, you get it anyways?

                  Clearly, a disgraceful blight indeed. Why, they actually do good work and help people without any strings attached! How dare they?

                  Also, please answer the question. Why do you dislike abortion? Is it because you don’t want taxpayers to pay for it? They don’t, and even if they did it’d be cheaper. Is it because you think fetuses are babies? They’re not, and even if they were we don’t force anyone to donate blood or organs to another. Is it because you think women are slutty sluts who slut around and you want to punish them for daring to have sex? You’re a misogynist and an asshole, on top of being inaccurate.

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

                  It’s only propaganda if it’s not true. You can find PP’s official financial disclosure (required from non-profit organizations) here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm

                  Also, please answer the question. Why do you dislike abortion? Is it because you don’t want taxpayers to pay for it? They don’t, and even if they did it’d be cheaper. Is it because you think fetuses are babies? They’re not, and even if they were we don’t force anyone to donate blood or organs to another. Is it because you think women are slutty sluts who slut around and you want to punish them for daring to have sex? You’re a misogynist and an asshole, on top of being inaccurate.

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

                  You don’t like abortion because sterilization? That doesn’t make sense. Try again.

                  Why do you dislike abortion? Is it because you don’t want taxpayers to pay for it? They don’t, and even if they did it’d be cheaper. Is it because you think fetuses are babies? They’re not, and even if they were we don’t force anyone to donate blood or organs to another. Is it because you think women are slutty sluts who slut around and you want to punish them for daring to have sex? You’re a misogynist and an asshole, on top of being inaccurate.

                  I think the robot’s logic circuits are breaking down. It appears to be caught in a loop whereby it can only regurgitate key words.

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

                  Random insults are the last resort of the one who has lost the argument. Thanks for the concession.

                • Carmelita Spats

                  Yer a shit salesman with a mouthful of samples…Texas back tracks on family planning clinics…Them righteous,
                  wide-eyed, Christoholics, in Austin, calculated a looming tax nightmare, a godawful swelling of poor children, an erosion of the tax base, a demand on social services, and they quietly went behind the scenes…for
                  the children…Overstuffed Christians on Bud Light are graciously allowing poor women access to IUDs and the pill because it’s what Jesus-On-A-Stick would have wanted…Glory!http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/texas-may-restore-some-family-planning-budget-cuts.html?_r=0

                  Incidentally,
                  Al Mohler, former head of the Southern Baptist Convention believes
                  that CHEMICAL contraception kills babies and should be outlawed…Ditto for the Roman Criminal Church…Watch out ladies, Homeland Security will police your moist vulva and yank out your IUD since it kills babies…Oh, wait, Georgia Republicans will put you to death for miscarriages. Glory be to the Lard Jeebus…When he comes back, I’ll have the sticky IUD shaped like a crucifix and in place…Mmmm, there’s nothing sexier than a 2.000-year-old virgin carpenter! Although if Jesus impregnates me, I would definitely abort. Since the Father and Son are One, Jesus impregnated his own mother with himself so as to sacrifice himself to himself. Gross. I would abort so as to avoid starting yet another world religion. Praise!

                • King Rat

                  citation needed.

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

                  Quite.

                • Carmelita Spats

                  So rape victims are excluded since they in NO WAY willfully procreated? A nine-year-old in Brazil was viciously raped and impregnated…

                  http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

                  Fortunately, she was allowed to abort her attacker’s semen demon and ANYONE who feels otherwise needs to have a rusty grappling hook shoved up their nether parts…According to you,the nine-year-old should have exuded maternal smooches all over her attacker’s crotch dropping. So the moral of the story is “Punish All Sluts? Fuck you.

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

                  On behalf of my birthmum, FUCK YOU.

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

                  Well played!

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

                  Yeah, and putting that “extra” money towards MOAR TOYS for the military.

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

                  Pffft. Wrong.

                • King Rat

                  Provide us with a citation, fuckface.

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

                  I did. Check yours — the implant does not, and cannot, cause permanent sterility.

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

                  Nope! I say sterilize the men instead. Leave the women alone. It’s far cheaper and safer than sterilizing women, and we can make it a requirement for every 12 or 13 year old boy.

                • King Rat

                  No but they impregnate girls.

                • King Rat

                  They do meet the criteria, since we all know that men are horndogs who pressure girls into sex..right?

                  Yeah.

                • King Rat

                  Abstinence only education.

                  Teens are lied to.

                  Told that they can only get pregnant if married.

                  Told that condoms pass on HIV and have holes.

                  both boys AND girls fall for this

                  Yep, looks like stupid boys will have to be sterilized as well.

                • King Rat

                  So as long as the abortion seeker isn’t a teen they can get a free abortion?

                  Is what what you’re saying now? That only the *average* seekers matter?

                • King Rat

                  An illogical fallacy!

                  You are a rhetorical assassin sir!

                  So you have no problem with taxpayer funded abortions for victims of rape and teenagers?

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

                  Let’s do, then; and start with the military, as it’s the largest recipient of these wasted funds.

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

                  Who wouldn’t need an abortion if you MEN were more responsible.

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

                  Correction: If MEN knew how to control themselves.

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

                  Oh, we could be even more wrong — we could be YOU.

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

                  Exactly — and you’re wrong on a reality-breaking level of wrongness.

                • King Rat

                  ze isn’t a fuckface like you

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

                  They could cause it, though. Isn’t it better to solve the problem by never letting it get as far as an unwanted pregnancy? Just prevent it from occurring in the first place by sterilizing all the boys, instead of waiting for them to impregnate someone and then double-penalizing her by saying she must have major, invasive surgery in top of an abortion. That’s not fair at all.

                  Really, it’s like you think men shouldn’t have any responsibility at all for their actions.

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

                  1) Lesbian isn’t an insult, dumbass, but I’m actually mostly straight and married to a man.

                  2) Just using your logic. I am actually rather fond of bodily autonomy in general and would never advocate for forced sterilization of anybody. However, if you want to sterilize people to stop abortions, the only logical recourse is to sterilize the men.

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

                  What Quis ut Deus said. They can impregnate girls. If what you want is to stop all abortions and you see nothing wrong with forced sterilization, sterilizing men and boys is the way to go. Then when they want to breed, they and the intended mother would go together to a doctor (the woman would have to sign off that she consents to the sterilization reversal of the man), and it could be reversed.

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

                  Nopety nope! They’re clearly already responsible enough to ensure they aren’t having an unwanted child. Now, the men and boys who impregnated them- those are the people you want to sterilize. Imagine, having sex with someone without thinking about the massive bodily invasion you might be causing!

                  You seem to think that women get pregnant alone and that men bear absolutely zero responsibility for their actions. You can’t seriously be that stupid, can you?

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

                  Takes two to tango. If you get someone pregnant who doesn’t want to be, it’s only fair you bear the price. She pays by needing to get an abortion, you pay by being sterilized. Splits the burden nicely, wouldn’t you say?

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

                  It’s not “[your] tax money,” cupcake. Once it’s out of your hands and in the government coffers, it’s out of your control.

                • ansuz

                  Lords, ladies, and distinguished humans of various genders, I present to you: misogyny, illuminated in neon.

                • King Rat

                  You don’t know a thing about tsara.

                  Asshat.

                • ansuz

                  ‘She’ is not in the habit of responding to that pronoun.

                • ansuz

                  We (that’s the imperial ‘we’) like to hold out for more impressive things like ‘Lord Queen God’. But ‘they’, ‘zie’, ‘xe’, ‘e’ — those all work.

                • ansuz

                  On the off chance that this is serious: Thank you!

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

                  Who the fuck are you to declare something is “silly” when all you’ve posted is inane misogynist drivel that even a 5 year old could see through?

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

                  Eat shit and die in a fire.

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

                  Flagged

                • ansuz

                  *snicker*
                  Yes, I am so very irresponsible about sex and pregnancy. So much sex, so little protection… ALL the abortions. And daddybigcat (…really?) being a Texan — which I also am — is paying for all of them.
                  (except no not really)

                • King Rat

                  I’ve had at least 500 abortions.

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

                  That’s just insulting.

                  To women and cats.

                  D’you want me to go all pointy-ends on you, little boy? Because I have no problem using your pasty white ass as a scratch-post.

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

                  *polishing claws*

                • King Rat

                  Even though he is saying offensive things, he might not actually want women to die from lack of access to abortion.

                  Let’s not mischaracterize this gentleman.

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

                  *snicker*

                  *continues polishing, sharpening*

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

                  Flagged.

                • King Rat

                  You’re funny.

                • King Rat

                  Hyde Amendment = abortion, even in case of rape, as in the military, is not covered by taxpayer money

                  So you can kindly stfu and stop perpetuating that lie you ignorant sack of shit

                  Furthermore, if you are really serious, the only sane answer is to sterilize men and boys until they are ready to start a family.

                • baal

                  Nothing says you’re winning like all caps. Also, good job on erasing men from responsibility. in your hurry to blame ‘foolish women.’ It’s not like humans do parthenogenesis.

                • King Rat

                  He’s so over the top I suspect he might just be a troll.

                  I mean, look at the ‘nym.

                  But then again, there are many men who are just like this so…

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

                  Can’t say I’ve met any of them. Oh, I’ve met FtM trans*people, but they’re actually men.

                • King Rat

                  No, it isn’t more cost effective.

                  Male sterilization is an easy fast outpatient procedure and easily reversible.

                  A tubal ligation not so much.

                • King Rat
                • baal

                  Dear god you’re nuts.

                • King Rat

                  You are giving him too much credit.

                  Imbecile is more apt.

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

                  Absolutely right. Abortions cost way less taxpayer money than children, though, so really taxpayers should love the cost savings of freely accessible, cheap or free abortions.

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

                  No it doesn’t. See, sterilizations are rather expensive because they are reasonably major surgery that requires hospital stays. Monetarily, taxpayers should love the cost savings of freely accessible, cheap or free abortions. They’re very cheap.

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

                  And never mind the men who are out there impregnating multiple women, they’re totes responsible, amirite?

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

                  It doesn’t work that way.

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

                  No, it doesn’t, and I know more about work than you ever will, you basement-dwelling sub-human shit-stain.

                • King Rat

                  Prove it.

                • baal

                  Bad reading again dbc – I said men bear responsibility for the pregnancies. And yet you ignore them over and over. I said nothing suggesting men should be sterilized and am 100% against forced sterilization.

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

                  We all are, baal. No one actually thinks sterilizing anyone against their will is a good or ethical plan. Just laying bare how little dbc thinks about women’s rights and bodies, but god forbid we ever do anything to infringe upon men’s bodies and bodily autonomy and ability to do whatever they want!

                • King Rat

                  I just want to point out that, overall, you’re pretty boring.

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

                  Oh look, another bigoted stereotype! Obviously all pro-choice women have had lots of abortions. It’s not a principled stand for bodily autonomy. It could never be that.

                  If I did have five children (theoretically), you would have to pay so much more than for five abortions (also entirely theoretical). Taxpayers would have to pay for their schooling. If I were in the average American monetary position, you would also have to pay some of their food, clothes, housing, and health care. That comes to tens of thousands of dollars per kid, as opposed to ~$300-700 per abortion. If all you care about is saving money, you should really be in favor of abortion for anyone who wants it.

                • fiona64

                  Right, because all forms of contraception are 100 percent effective.

                  Oh, wait …

                • fiona64

                  Even surgical sterilizations can, and do, fail. No form of contraception is 100 percent effective. Period.

                  Of course, that’s probably not a problem for you; I rather imagine that any thinking woman in your vicinity takes one look at your attitude and says “Not with him, I won’t …”

                • fiona64

                  I’m sorry to disappoint, little boy; I’m only attracted to men … such as my husband.

                  Anti-choice males don’t qualify as men.

                • baal

                  “Anti-choice males don’t qualify as men.”
                  I’m torn. I generally find gender essentialist arguments or belittlement based on not living up to gender standards unacceptable but I’m also finding daddybigcat in my mental bucket that includes Rush, Cheney and other harm maximizing asshats that deserve pretty much anything that happens to them.

                • baal

                  Even you dbc can tell when I’m replying to you or fiona64? Your reading skills are on a par with your ability to draft normal English sentences.

                • fiona64

                  Please understand that I agree with your position … even as I stand by my statement.

                  Anti-choice males have it easy; they just wave their ridiculous paws and make pronouncements that will Never Affect Them. It’s never their life and health impacted by a pregnancy, wanted or not. It’s never about the fetus, really; it’s always about controlling women. Look at Bubba up there and his presumptions that all women who seek abortions are disease-ridden sluts. No basis whatsoever in reality (the majority of women, 60%, who have abortions are married with two or more children) … but he can’t handle that reality since it gets in the way of his misogynistic narrative.

                  He may be male, but IMO he’s not a man.

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

                  Dude, not even a pro would touch this guy…

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

                  I will clarify wmdkitty’s insult.

                  Not even a professional (that is, a person who is paid to have sex with others; a prostitute) would have sex with you. Your attitudes toward women are that vile and despicable.

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

                  Yeah, yeah. You’re whining about not being able to get laid, and you’re projecting onto random people you’ve never met. Got anything that’s actually new?

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

                  Oh, ick, why do they always go for that “you really want me” shit?

                  I need a shower.

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

                  That’s why. So we feel icky. It’s all about power over women to them.

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

                  When manly-men like you go off on rants about slutty sluts and how horrible and slutty they are, then follows it up with an asinine comment about how the people calling him out on his crap “must be fantasizing about [him]“…

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

                  Don’t flatter yourself, precious — neither one of us is fantasising about you.

                  I, for one, am quite happily mated.

                  Even if I weren’t, I’d stay far, far away from YOU.

                • fiona64

                  I concur. There isn’t enough money, or enough condoms, to make that one tempting …

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

                  I’d rather fuck a cactus…

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

                  You missed the point, which was:

                  YOU ARE SO REPULSIVE THAT NOT EVEN A 5-DOLLAR CRACK WHORE WOULD GO NEAR YOU.

                  Protected or not, cupcake.

                • fiona64

                  Oh, wait. I’m sorry. You’re from Texas. I need to use smaller words, don’t I?

                  Sometimes shit don’t work, Bubba.

                • fiona64

                  Oh, silly little man. My 27-year-old son would be very amused by your imbecility.

                  Yes, that means we are laughing at you. And pointing.

                • fiona64

                  Keep it up, Bubba; you’re just proving everything we’ve ever said about the stupidity of the anti-choice male …

                • Ella Warnock

                  Whom.

                • Discordia

                  Parasite
                  1. Biology: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

                  Yes, a baby most certainly IS a parasite. You obviously don’t understand basic biological science.

                  And lots of women get pregnant when they didn’t want to. That is why we have children up for adoption, why we have the term unplanned pregnancy and why we have organizations like Planned Parenthood. People like me advocate for sex education and not just some dipshittery involving abstinence only, which doesn’t work, by the way. What I am upset about is fanatical religious assholes pushing for laws that make abortions almost impossible to get whenever condoms break or pills fail.

                • Discordia

                  A child is NOT a clone. In that case, males would not be needed because females would be reproducing by way of parthenogenesis.

                  LOL! You call me uneducated while you cannot even differentiate between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’.

                  I am greatly amused by how you are calling me ignorant when the very basics of grammar and spelling have obviously escaped your grasp. Even funnier is how you are projecting all of your own abysmal lack of education onto me. If sex is only for procreation then why are there even prostitutes? Should not men not even HAVE a sex drive unless the female is fertile and willing? That works pretty well in among non-human animals. However, among humans, lots of males like you are fucking your fists while watching porn on a daily basis while wishing you could get into any pair of panties without having to pay up front. One would think that if God has such a problem with sex then maybe He should have toned it back on the sex drive He gave to humanity… or made it so that no one would even have a sex drive until after marriage.

                  And never mind how God and Jesus ignore the cries and prayers of children being raped in houses of worship or in their own homes by their abusers. How the pleas of those not wishing to have sex at all are unanswered.

                • baal

                  ” sex is for reproduction poor child”
                  Humans are evolved to have sex for fun and social bonding reasons. Or, if you like, we’re designed for fun sex. Having children is something that happens too. You could look at deer reproduction for an example of a mammal who mostly has sex for reproduction only.

                  Also, stop using the “poor child” language. You haven’t established that you’re an ‘adult’ and starting with the assumption that other adults are children makes you an ass.

                  If you want to show us the correctness and compelling morality of your view, you shouldn’t need to push emotional buttons to convince us. Being emotionally manipulative is something I’d expect from folks influenced by the Deceiver.

                • baal

                  So you’re one of those child rearing via child abuse people? I so want you tried in the court of law and in due course legally punished.

                  The gratuitous “poor child” at the end shows you’ve read my comment to the contrary and decided to be petulant. It’s very mature of you.

                • baal

                  You need a personality replacement if you think this post of yours is acceptable.

                • baal

                  “I advocate forced sterilization as a preemptive and permanent solution ”
                  Yep, and you are a horrible person for it. I’d also never use “permanent solution” type language. It makes it look like you’re unaware of history. We also did have forced sterilization by the State in the US in the early 1900′s. It was a racist travesty like so many other totalitarian/authoritarian ‘solutions’. You can keep your horrors for yourself please.

                  “- the sex addicts who needlessly become impregnated-”
                  Or humans beings being human in a no information (abstinance only) environment. The relevant scientists are split on whether or not “sex addition” is possible as it’s own thing or if certain behaviours are related to a different mental disorder. Regardless, that’s the rare case and this discussion is about policy for the majority.

                  You’re also entirely bereft of nuiance and understanding. Hint, not all sex is fully consentual. It’s a problem but not one of slutty slutty women going all slut.

                • baal

                  “Feral humans”
                  Careful, it’s playing with fire to suggest people are not humans. There is a not so small chance that the label could be applied to you. There is a long history of ‘feral (or some other ‘not human’ category) humans’ being subjected to the worst immoral treatment.

                  I strongly suspect that most of the folks here are in fact harboring such thoughts about you and your blatantly ignorant, harmful and hurtful views.

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

                  “I strongly suspect that most of the folks here are in fact harboring such thoughts about you and your blatantly ignorant, harmful and hurtful views.”

                  Confirmed. Some of us are feeling a touch…. pointy… today.

                • ansuz

                  Is English not your first language? Saying that one is feeling a touch [emotion/figurative expression of feeling] just means that one is feeling a little [feeling]. It doesn’t have anything to do with touching.

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

                  Does your mother know what you’re doing with her panties, perv?

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

                  …says the douche-bro who has now followed me to other posts on other blogs.

                • ansuz

                  Are abortion professors hurtful?

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

                  You still haven’t told us why you think it isn’t acceptable, though.

                  Why do you dislike abortion? Is it because you don’t want taxpayers to pay for it? They don’t, and even if they did it’d be cheaper. Is it because you think fetuses are babies? They’re not, and even if they were we don’t force anyone to donate blood or organs to another. Is it because you think women are slutty sluts who slut around and you want to punish them for daring to have sex? You’re a misogynist and an asshole, on top of being inaccurate.

                  Why is killing a fetus in utero unacceptable?

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

                  XC is not a cult. It’s a community for people who used to be in cults.

          • Niemand

            If feminerd knows that xe needs your blood or marrow then at some point you were tested and your blood/tissue type determined. Since no one gets drunk and accidentally registers with the national marrow registry and blood donor centers would reject anyone trying to donate while altered, this implies an act on your part: at some time you voluntarily decided to allow someone to find out what your blood or tissue type was. An act. A much more deliberate act than simply having sex.

          • fiona64

            You opine that the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy. If you are a donor match, someone else has a greater right to life than you do to self-determination.

            Fair’s fair, right?

            • BlueMage

              As with all the others asking this, you do not understand what the right to life is. Come back when you do.

              • fiona64

                Oh, I understand it far more clearly than you do. Rights are conferred with *birth* and correspondent personhood under the law. The only person involved in a pregnancy is the born, sapient, sentient woman — who also has a right to liberty.

                When you assign a fictitious “right to life” to a zygote/embryo/fetus, you are necessarily abrogating the rights of a born, sapient, sentient woman (a person under the law). You are taking away her right to *liberty.*

                In essence, you are enslaving her.

                I’m surprised that this has (so obviously) never occurred to you.

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

          Because an 11-year-old who needs an abortion is clearly never going to make a good parent.

          On the other hand, your misogyny shines through bright and clear. The fact that you think women are on par with pets in terms of bodily autonomy is telling. So there is that- I don’t have to tease it out with you. You’ve done all my work for me.

        • King Rat

          Do you believe that abortion is murder?

        • ansuz

          “I propose euthanasia for the abortion seeker or mandatory sterilizations”

          Whut. Please learn something, grow some empathy, and we’ll be back to test you for readmission to the human race in six months. I don’t wanna share a species with you.

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

            Species, nothing — I don’t wanna share a galaxy with this… person.

      • Anat

        So do such people demand forced organ donations too? We are constantly denying other people’s right of life by not donating organs to them. Even harvesting organs from dead bodies needs prior permission.

      • Anna

        I’d be curious to know how many anti-abortion atheists had non-religious upbringings. Not to say that there couldn’t be some. There probably are. But I would imagine most were heavily influenced by religious ideas in their youth.

        • BlueMage

          I had a similar debate as has played by below with an objectivist. I was firmly pro-choice and had been to that point, raised in a non-religious household. The objectivist – famously selfish as they are – demonstrated the flaw in my logic. Hers was consistent.

          • Anna

            I’m not sure what that has to do with what I wrote. If you’re an anti-abortion atheist who came from a non-religious family, I would imagine you are part of an extreme minority. I don’t understand what you mean by “objectivist” here, either. Are you talking about Ayn Rand? What does that have do with abortion?

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

            Perhaps you would share this flaw in your logic? Just saying she found one is rather unpersuasive when we don’t know what that flaw is.

            • RonPaul2012

              Do you get the impression that BM is rather impressed with ze’s own intellect?

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

                Maybe. Ze is ignoring me now. I called a fetus a parasite and that offended BlueMage so much ze stopped responding to me. *shrug*

                • BlueMage

                  Simply waiting to have a proper keyboard in front of me.

              • RonPaul2012

                Yeah, they are always looking for a reason to /ignore their opponents.

            • BlueMage

              Life, Liberty, Property – these three rights, in that order of primacy, are the basis of a just society.
              Bodily autonomy is derived from Liberty – that you have the freedom to live that which is your first right, your Life. But just as you may not deprive another of their first right, Life, for an infringement of your third right, Property, so too may you not infringe another’s first right by exercising your second. You may only take another’s life when they would take yours. That is one instance I would countance an abortion – when the mother’s life is medically determined to be in immediate danger should she not terminate. Luckily, medicine in the developed world is of a standard where this is rarely the case.
              Human rights are predicated upon one thing – you are human. They cease after death because the entity that is you no longer exists – you are no longer human, you are no longer. They are not rights granted if you’re human and meet another condition of time or autonomy. They are based on you being human and nothing else.
              Your argument of the fetus being a parasite or lacking autonomy – both arguments I have used in the past – ignore the simple fact that the fetus is human. It does not become human at birth, it is human. It is composed of human genetic tissue. To deny its rights, and consequently its humanity, is to ignore reality. To claim that the action of terminating the pregnancy does not cause the death of the fetus is dishonest – you may as well claim it wasn’t that you shot a person that they died, but rather the trauma they suffered as a result of the bullet you fired impacting that caused their death and you are therefore blameless.

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

                If life is the fundamental right, then as I pointed out above, you must be in favor of mandatory organ transplants to save other people. If you believe bodily autonomy is fundamentally less important than life, you must believe this for all situations. Period. You must believe that Do Not Resuscitate orders are not valid. You must believe that you can, at any time, be snatched off the street and forcibly taken to a hospital, there to undergo potentially life-threatening surgery to save the life of another. You must believe that people can be forcibly compelled to save other people- in other words, bystanders do have the requirement to intervene. You must believe that Life, being of utmost importance, justifies many crimes (theft to survive, mugging to survive, slavery instead of death, etc).

                If the only time you think life is more important than bodily autonomy is when women are forcibly reduced to life-support systems, you are just a misogynist.

                Please do define human for me. If you mean “has unique human DNA”, then please tell me why killing tumors, hydatidiform moles, and teratomas is not murder. Additionally, please describe your position on the humanity of identical twins- are they one person or two? I also require your position on chimaeric persons, who have two unique sets of DNA in one body. Are chimaeras one person or two? Human rights accrue to human beings, or persons. They do not accrue to all entities with human DNA or we’d be fighting for the right of a cancer to leech nutrients from a person as well as mourning all the human intestinal cells our bodies discard every day when we defecate.

                Given the high status libertarians give to the phrase “Give me liberty or give me death”, I highly doubt your libertarian friend truly espouses enslavement for some because of life concerns for others. Her premises are so flawed (fetuses are not people) that her logic is irrelevant, and she has clearly rejected the conclusions her logic comes to (she does not support forced organ transplants nor slavery). Thus, you may safely reject her flawed conclusions.

                • BlueMage

                  You still don’t understand rights.

                  Actions are the key. Rights are protections from actions. They do not constitute an entitlement to actions.

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

                  You are incorrect. Rights are divided into negative rights (things governments/people may not do to you) and positive rights (things governments/people must do for you). However, it gets slippery in action.

                  If life is the paramount right, all other rights are subsumed into it, and people may be compelled to take actions to prevent another from dying. This is the most basic logical conclusion one can draw from that statement. In abstract terms, negative rights can compel positive actions from others in order to avoid violating the negative right. For this specific example, if people can be compelled to maintain a pregnancy, they may be compelled to donate other organs as well. If you make this weird action/inaction distinction, then if someone attaches an IV to your vein you may not remove it as they remove your blood against your will. According to your premises, just because you didn’t consent to give life-saving blood doesn’t mean you can choose to stop after it’s begun. In fact, you may only remove the IV if you begin to to suffer life-threatening blood loss as determined by someone who is not you- “minor” complications from blood loss such as dizziness, missing your final exam, inability to drive to work, permanent vein collapse, brain damage from blood loss, anemia, etc are irrelevant once that IV has been inserted into your body. Are you really sure you want to live in that world?

                  You also neglected to answer why you think fetuses have any rights at all.

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

                One more thing.

                Women with heart conditions are at severe risk during pregnancy. What counts as “immediate risk of death”? She’s probably going to die, but not early. The risk of death mounts every day she stays pregnant, but the early abortions (which are the safest) occur at a time when her life is not in immediate danger.

                In your considered opinion, when does this woman “deserve” an abortion? And why do you get to decide for her what her own personal risk tolerance is?

                • BlueMage

                  The doctor says “you will die if you carry this child to term”, that’s sufficient justification. I would think that obvious?

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

                  No it was not obvious. You said immediate danger. A woman with a heart condition who is 8 weeks pregnant is in no immediate danger. I can only read your words, not your mind.

                  So how much danger is enough, then? 90% chance of death? 50% chance of death? 25% chance of death? 4% chance of death, as for controlled sickle-cell anemia? 10% chance of death and 85% chance of permanent injury if death doesn’t occur? How imminent does death have to be? A stalled miscarriage is almost always going to lead to septicemia, but many doctors won’t abort until the fetal heartbeat stops or the woman is in “immediate danger” of death. That means women die avoidable deaths of septicemia (a horrible way to die, by the way) and if they don’t die, are very very sick and rack up giant hospital bills for no goddamned reason except someone decided that their lives just weren’t as important as the doomed fetus inside them.

                  Why do you get to make that decision? Why can’t a woman decide for herself? And if a woman decides that the 21/100,000 maternal mortality rate here in the US is too dangerous for her to risk it, who are you to tell her she must risk her life?

      • Niemand

        It’s been brought up before, but…If you believe that a person’s right to life automatically trumps another person’s right to liberty, are you in favor of forcing people to register as potential bone marrow donors and seizing their stem cells if they refuse to donate to a person in need? There is often only one matched donor and the potential recipient will die without it.

    • RonPaul2012

      They think it’s gross and unsettling because they identify with the microscopic embryo and think about how empty the world would be if they did not exist.

      • Anna

        I think so. Either that, or they compare the embryo to a child. They think of specific children they know and think of how awful it would be if they didn’t exist, and then think how awful it is for a woman to prevent a child from coming into the world.

    • Neko

      In many cases, I imagine it comes from a religious upbringing, but that can’t be the case for everyone.

      I’ve always had a visceral reaction to abortion (“unsettling” describes it well; “horrified” does not), but I certainly don’t attribute that to my religious upbringing. I left the Roman Catholic Church due in large part to its patriarchal primitivism and have been pro-choice my entire life. It isn’t mysterious why people are ambivalent about abortion, though; they tend to be solicitous toward babies. It’s not a religious thing, it’s just human.

      • Anna

        But I wonder why some people have a visceral reaction while others do not? I just never thought abortion was something to get up in arms about. Of course people love and care about babies, but the early termination of a pregnancy doesn’t involve a baby. Even when I was 12, I don’t believe I ever thought of abortion as having to do with an actual baby.

        I never thought it made any sense for women to feel like they had to give birth if they found themselves unhappily pregnant. Granted, I had a particular horror of unplanned pregnancy. I saw a series of influential movies and television shows between the ages of 11 and 14 that made quite the impression on me. In my eyes, having an unplanned pregnancy (as a teenager) would have been one of the worst things on earth.

        Not that I would have chosen abortion, mind you. In my mind, I had always pictured myself placing a baby for adoption if I found myself in that tragic (to me, at the time) situation. But I never had any bad feelings about abortion or felt there was something wrong with a woman who chose that option instead.

        I guess it just confuses me how people can be so extreme about abortion. If it’s not religion causing it, then it seems like it’s misplaced sentimentality or the conflation of an early-stage embryo/fetus with an actual baby. At the point at which 99% of abortions take place, there’s nothing even remotely recognizable as a baby. It can’t think or feel. It doesn’t have any sense of self.

        To the extent that many people feel ambivalent about abortion, it’s because they know that abortion means terminating the possibility of a baby, and they have to weigh whether or not to become a parent. I can understand the woman and her partner being ambivalent. I can’t understand the interest of outsiders in the fate of a stranger’s embryo.

        • RonPaul2012

          If it’s not religion causing it,then it seems like it’s misplaced
          sentimentality or the conflation of an early-stage embryo/fetus with an
          actual baby

          This. And they work backwards from their own lives and the people they know, and they imagine their own brains or their sister’s brains being ‘sucked out’ and their limbs being ‘ripped off’ and they recoil in horror.

        • Neko

          Very well said! I agree with you. As for why some people have a visceral reaction and others don’t, I don’t know. Visceral reactions aren’t necessarily extreme, but certainly the most extreme opponents of abortion are usually religious. Orthodox Roman Catholics, anyway, believe that a fertilized egg is a product of divine will. In that case (I can’t remember who said this), since miscarriages far outnumber abortions, God is the biggest abortionist of them all.

          • Anna

            It’s also interesting that religious opponents of abortion seem not at all concerned with preventing miscarriages. I don’t think their objection to abortion really has to do with ending a pregnancy, but with who is ending the pregnancy. They think it’s fine for their god to end a pregnancy and therefore don’t equate miscarriage with murder.

            I think it all boils down to what religious people believe about human beings. They don’t seem to believe that our bodies actually belong to us. They believe our bodies belong to their god, and since we’re all property of their god, we’re not allowed to do certain things or make certain decisions about our bodies. That applies not only to abortion, but sex in general.

            • Neko

              You’re right about the who terminating a pregnancy, at least for the Roman Catholic Church, for whom it involves playing God with a potential soul that has yet no agency to determine its fate. Also, a miscarriage comes about in the course of the “natural law” so while it it somehow expresses the divine plan I’m not sure that God is thought to micromanage who lives and dies in utero. In addition, the Church maintains that sex as divinely instituted must be oriented toward procreation, which is one reason for its woeful position on homosexuality. (Fortunately a majority of Americans Catholics ignore this nonsense.)

              I don’t know about the thousands of other Christian denominations and other religions, however. Not all of them may be dogmatically opposed to abortion. But you’re right on the money about the Christian tenet that the bodies of believers, anyway, belong in some way to God:

              1Cor 6:19

              Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?

  • krisya0507

    I generally agree with the article, but I really wish you would substitute the image. Why do articles about abortion frequently feature smiling, heavily pregnant women? The woman in that picture is at least six months pregnant. Abortion at that point is exceptionally rare. Associating abortion with women in late pregnancy contributes to the anti-choice narrative that loads of women spend months being pregnant and just up and change their minds and want to abort.

    • Gehennah

      Of course it does. But if they took a picture of the “normal” person having an abortion then a) nobody would be able to imagine a full grown child inside the belly, and b) nobody would know that she’s pregnant.

      So pretty much trying to play the whole abortion is murder thing.

      • krisya0507

        Right, that’s what anti-abortionists do. I think this author is pro-choice and wasn’t trying to send this message, and just picked a random image of a pregnant woman because why not? I hope he’ll sub it out or at least avoid doing that in the future.

      • paulalovescats

        They should show a woman with an abusive boyfriend and no money looking down at her belly in anguish.

  • Robster

    There’s only one reason that those tainted with religious belief are against abortion and that is that every termination reduces by one, a potential victim for whatever cult he’s with. They are not doing out of some sort of misguided compassion, they are doing it for baby jesus and the church and the clerics with peculiar tastes. They are increasingly desperate for new victims so they’ll get more shrill about abortions as their power ebbs away.

  • Soop

    if a physician is morally opposed to abortion, why don’t they just not getting any training to perform it? You can’t be obligated under the law in any circumstances to perform an abortion if you don’t have any training or experience in doing so.

    • joey_in_NC

      Well, according to many here (see some of the posts below), if one wants to be an obstetrician, then they must be forced to undergo training for each and every type of abortion known to medicine, or cease practicing obstetrics altogether. No joke, that’s what people here believe.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Even if a physician does not agree with abortion there are times when they may have to perform those procedures, like in a situation where a woman has miscarried or the fetus has died inside her. So yes, they should be familiar with them and have training in how they are performed.

      • allein

        Of course they should have the training. No one is calling for forcing them to offer abortion as a standard part of their private practice, but they should be prepared for emergencies they are likely to encounter in their specialty.

        • joey_in_NC

          No one is calling for forcing them to offer abortion as a standard part of their private practice…

          Actually, there are at least three posters (Feminerd, smrnda, wmdkitty…see discussion well below) who advocate this very thing.

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

            Actually, we said that ethically they were obligated to do so, and legally having to refer to someone else was the very least the law could require. If forcing someone to go elsewhere would in any way endanger her, then yes, the doctor is obligated to perform the abortion, because the OB/GYN is the woman’s doctor.

            Please to stop twisting our words, kthxbai.

            • joey_in_NC

              Nice for you to shift the goal posts. Alright, I’ll ask you this straight out…

              Should an obstetrician be required by law to offer abortion services even if he/she is morally opposed to it?

              Yes or no?

              If you answer no, then you believe in legal conscience clauses.

              If you answer yes (they should be required by law to offer abortion), then you just contradicted yourself and you disagree with allein.

              So, which is it?

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

                Usually yes, within the dictates of good medical practice. If they personally won’t, they must find someone within close range to refer a woman to, and if they are the only convenient OB/GYN (say, within 20-30 miles) they must provide the service. They must also advertise up-front that they do not perform abortions. Or, I suppose, pay for the woman’s gas and time at whatever hourly wage she earns, find her a new job if she loses her current one all while paying her wages, watch her children while she’s gone, etc. Pay for motel room if it’s far enough away she has to stay overnight. If the OB was personally liable for all the costs of hir refusal to perform abortions, including the costs of the unwanted children born because of hir refusal and the medical costs of the pregnancies borne because of hir refusal, I might be okay with unrestricted conscience clauses.

                If a woman in a medical emergency shows up, of course ze must be mandated by law to provide an abortion if medically indicated. Substandard treatment for pregnant women is not acceptable.

                The answer is a lot more complicated than yes-or-no, joey.

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

                  Sterilization of the parasites doesn’t solve any problems. The woman is still pregnant and the embryo/fetus is likely too undeveloped for that to even be possible.

                • King Rat

                  People who have abortions often go on to have children, you know.

                  It’s about choosing *when* to start a family.

                  That whole family planning thing.

                  And as Feminerd suggested, it would be a lot easier to sterilize all men and boys until they are ready to start a family. Sterilization in men is easily reversible. Not so for women.

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

                  Reversal should, of course, only occur with the written, signed, witnessed-by-six-lawyers permission of the wife — after all, men are known to deliberately get women pregnant as an attempt to further control and abuse.

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

                  Now, now, wmdkitty. Six lawyers is excessive. Two should be sufficient.

                  I mean, really, you wouldn’t want to be accused of being controlling.

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

                  Ha! Okay, how about four? It’s a nice, even number.

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

                  Lets go down to three. That way if there is uncertainty as to the validity of the permission, they can vote on it and avoid a big trial.

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

                  Works for me.

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

                  That’s another slut-shaming lie. Contraceptive sabotage and “oops” pregnancies are predominantly used BY MEN as a tool to CONTROL WOMEN.

              • Richard Thomas

                Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

              • fiona64

                That’s right, Joey. Reduce women’s health to a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

                Thanks for proving once again how easy it is to be an anti-choice male. Which of your healthcare decisions should be determined that way, Joey?

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

        Oh, it’s just so horrid, expecting a doctor to do their damn job.

        Twit.

    • allein

      If you are in certain specialties, you should know how to perform the procedures in the event of an emergency, even if it’s not part of your every day practice. Obstetrics/Gynecology, obviously, but also those who specialize in emergency medicine and probably also general surgeons who work in a hospital, at the very least, should be able to perform an abortion if a patient needs one.

  • Paul Little

    I’m not sure I like the way this law is drafted. If the law allows a doctor to refuse to perform a procedure on conscientious grounds, it seems to me that requiring them to provide a referral forces them to go against that conscientious stance. I would prefer a law that requires the doctor to openly advertise up front that he or she will not provide those services and allow the patient to decide whether or not to take their health care elsewhere.

    • RonPaul2012

      In many catholic hospitals, if a woman is dying from pregnancy related complications, the hospital will often refuse to even tell the woman or her family that she can go elsewhere let alone transport her there by ambulance. They prefer that the woman simply die or become disabled than let her choose alternative care. Just something to think about.

      • Paul Little

        Well, that’s called ‘criminal negligence,’ and should be prosecuted as such. But that’s not what I’m talking about, nor is it what the Australian law was drafted to control. Abortion as an emergency procedure in the event of danger to the life of the mother is very different from elective abortion, for whatever reason it is being considered. The Australian law makes elective abortion legal, but protects doctors who have a conscientious objection from having to perform the procedure. All I’m asking is, morally, to the doctor in question, is there an ethical difference between performing the procedure, and counselling the patient about where they can go to have the procedure performed? I don’t believe there is. I’m not anti-abortion, but I think the way this law is drafted, puts objecting doctors in a difficult position, and a rewording of it, in the manner I suggested, might be better for all involved.

    • joey_in_NC

      Sounds like a reasonable, not to mention very ethically sound, position. But alas, you are in the minority here.

    • Jennifer Starr

      There have actually been cases in the US where a pharamacist has not only refused to fill a woman’s prescription for birth control, but actually refuses to return the prescription so that the woman can go somewhere else and have it filled. Doctors and pharmacists should not be allowed to impose their ‘consciences’ on women to this degree.

      • Paul Little

        Non sequitur. I agree with you that those pharmacists are wrong in their stance. But we were talking about non-emergency abortions, and the specific law in Australia that allows doctors to refuse to perform the procedure on conscientious grounds. My point is the law is wishy-washy. It excuses doctors from performing a legal medical procedure if they morally object to it, but requires them to assist the patient in finding another doctor willing to do it. I think that portion of the law does not allow the doctors to legally follow their conscience, though it is purported to do so. The law needs to either prohibit conscientious objection, or allow it. This one provides half measures.

  • SluttyMary

    The power of christ compels Kok to be a dick.

    • Socialist Troll

      Troll Alert.

  • Lawrence Belich

    I’m pro choice, my personal choice is life however I can’t in my own belief oppress others by my own personal standings.

  • Sapphire Possible

    Was this Dr. also referring to aboriginal genocide?

  • GeorgiaPeach23

    Thanks for this post. I’m wondering if you could explain why you find abortion “tragic and unsettling”? In some cases, where wanted pregnancies have gone awry, I can certainly see the tragedy. But in most cases, women are relieved to get rid of the clump of cells, and I see no reason whatsoever for this to be upsetting to anyone who doesn’t ascribe a soul or humanity to the tissue. I don’t think pro-choicers should pay lip service to the anti-choice framing of elective abortion by mourning abortions when they happen.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X