The most disgusting thing you will read all day.

From some “bro-choicers” — a cheat sheet with four reasons why Texas guys should oppose #HB2.

These males — I can’t bring myself to call them “men” — shed a few crocodile tears over the health and safety of women, should — horror of horrors — abortion clinics who perform surgery be forced to adhere to the same health and safety standards of your typical LASIK eye clinic.

Because, as we know, women will only be safe once abortionists are free to shove sharp tools into their insides without having to bother with petty stuff like getting hospital privileges, or making halls wide enough for a gurney to pass through when someone made an oopsie and a bowel or uterus got perforated, or if some pesky lady is hemorrhaging again.

But then we get down to what’s really at risk, should late term abortions become harder to come by.  The bro-choicers warn:

Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by.

Vomit.  Vomit, vomit, vomit.  That’s all I have to say.  I know the protestors were just trolling when they chanted “Hail, Satan,” but Satan is not fussy.  Trolls make excellent fodder for the mouth of Hell.

"Can The Jerk have this space now that you're done with it? I mean, it's ..."

I’m moving!
"Wonderful Ideas for newborn baby and their parents also, its good to give them handmade ..."

Welcome, baby! 12 gifts that new ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Men who call themselves “bro”-anything are not men but children dressed in a grown man’s visage. They reveal themselves quite clearly as not concerned with women at all but with their own self pleasure. This is the face of pro-choice: Making women into objects for 40 years.

    • Jordan J

      Agree 99.9%… But me and my friends call each other bro… Haha, but it’s more of a tongue and cheek way, and a veiled criticism of bro “culture.” Then there’s “C3PBr0,” “Broseidon,” etc.”

      • Madeline Witherow

        like the majority of people on the planet you mean?

  • They aren’t men. They ought to be horse whipped.

  • Sherry

    Let us hope that casual sex outside relationships will become far more difficult to come by for said males at the very least.

  • 2RC2

    20 years ago a pro-life lobbyist friend of mine wanted to run an ad in all the campus magazines. It would have featured Alfred E. Newman saying, “What, me worry? My girlfriend’s pro-choice.” Then I think it would have stung. Now I have seen hipsters wearing t-shirts that say as much.

    • Jordan J

      I actually really like it. I’d wear it as a t-shirt as a pro-lifer, I think it would get people talking. Put a ball-cap on him and an Xbox controller in one hand and a can of Natty Ice in the other.

    • Trish Coate

      You assume they can be stung; I know a few pro-choicers who’d think that was funny. Let me put it this way: I know a guy who went to a Democrat caucus in a “Chappaquiddick High Varsity Swim Team” T-shirt. Nothing is sacred to them…except abortion, I think.

  • I can’t think of anything that “kills the vibe” faster than the idea that once I make the choice to commit to a woman and her children forever, she can back out of that commitment.

    Luckily I have a wife who IS committed, unlike these so-called bros who clearly think responsibility is a four letter word.

    • Spectrall

      Wait, what? The idea that a woman can back out of a commitment kills the vibe for you? Are you actually under the impression that if you’ve committed to someone, they no longer have personal autonomy?

      • I am under the impression that one I am committed, I no longer have personal autonomy- and I expect my spouse to be the same. That’s why the ideal of marriage is “And the two shall be as one”. My spouse and I don’t do anything without checking with the other- unless of course the subject falls under specific professions (I wouldn’t be much help with daycare stuff, she wouldn’t be much help with SQL programming) but even then for anything big, we check with each other (she isn’t about to close the daycare without checking with me, I’m not about to move to another city in pursuit of a better job without checking with her).

        A huge part of marriage is indeed giving up personal autonomy- and I’d say if you aren’t ready to do that, you’re missing out on the best part of sex.

        • $1028912

          You “wouldn’t be much help with daycare stuff?”

          • Not on solving the sort of problems my wife is expert at (running a daycare out of our house). Especially not from 15 miles away.

          • $1028912

            Got it! (I’m not much help with daycare stuff, either.)

      • Emily Katherine

        Eh, this author seems to be under the impression that a woman only gets bodily autonomy if she has relational value to YOU as a girlfriend, sister, potential hook-up, etc.

        “Most of us have female friends, mothers, sisters, roommates that we care about, and who we think know better what to do with their reproductive health than a bunch of legislators. Obviously we should stand up for them.” …But only because they are of worth in relation to YOU, not because women deserve autonomy for their own sake.

        Again, the woman is under submission to the opinion of the male counterpart rather than her own person- the only reason her rights have worth are because she’s something to you. I’ll repeat that: the only reason her rights have worth is because she’s someTHING to YOU. So that isn’t even standing for true autonomy.

        His whole post REEKS of total selfishness. It’s not even about women, it’s about having an easy lay and walking away from responsibility because you don’t want to man up and be a father. Rather than cherishing women for their life-giving nature, let’s reduce them to something to screw without consequence.

        Feminism, you’re doing it wrong.

  • Burnt Orange Report? BOR? More like “boor”!
    Ha! I have bested the rogues! Huzzah!

  • rozdieterich

    Legal abortion: Enabling men to use women without consequence since 1973.

  • Katharine Memole

    Sex Life>Life

    • Jordan J

      Life=Sex Life.

      Trust me, I learned it in college!


    • Trish Coate

      Got to have a sex life to make life, but if your priorities are right, your sex life is rich because of an openness to life, not to its exclusion.

      • Katharine Memole

        I hope you know I was being sarcastic. 🙂

  • Julie

    Oh heaven forbid they contemplate something besides their own genitalia for any length of time.

    • Jordan J

      “Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.”

  • richard

    Thanks for this post. I was unaware of “bro-choicers”.

  • Spectrall

    Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys.

    For the pro-life movement, this is a feature, not a bug. I’m not sure why that even needs to be pointed out at this point.

    • Trish Coate

      You know which people really enjoy sex??? Pro-lifers. 😉

      • Spectrall

        [citation needed]

        • simchafisher

          Brandon, I’ve been thinking about your original comment for the whole 18 hours since you wrote it, and I’m genuinely confused. You’re saying that pro-lifers don’t enjoy sex and don’t want other people to enjoy sex. Why do you think so?

          • Spectrall

            More frequently than not, I view people’s intentions through the prisms of the effects of their actions; if someone undertakes actions that have a clear result of adding substantial anxiety and stripping the joy out of something, I’m typically going to conclude that they desire to add anxiety.

            In this case, people who desire children may simply be unable to relate to the idea that the idea of having children causes enormous anxiety for others. I don’t think so though, I think that it’s fairly easy to understand. For my partner and I, having an unwanted pregnancy would be an overwhelmingly miserable experience; we don’t enjoy children, we’re in no position to be able to support a child (living far apart presently, her in graduate school), and it would largely be a life-shattering occurrence. Of course, we take precautions to avoid pregnancy, but it’s certainly a non-zero chance of happening.

            Thinking about someone’s motivations behind a pro-life position, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that increasing our anxiety is a desired outcome; the ages old creation of shame and anxiety is a feature of policies intended to discourage people from having recreational sex lives.

            Note that I’m not saying pro-life people don’t enjoy sex. If you were fundamentally fine with the idea of having a child, there’d be nothing to be particularly anxious about, or not enjoy.

            Of course, there’s this massive fundamental disconnect that’s essentially impassable wherein Catholics view any abortion at all as an intrinsic evil, and I simply don’t. An embryo, in my opinion, is nothing at all like a person. From that stems the rest of the disagreement.

          • simchafisher

            Yep, it’s a fundamental disconnect all right.

            I feel like you’re saying, “People like you want me to have so much anxiety about food! All I want to do is enjoy it by squishing it in my arm pit, and just because YOU think it’s for putting it in my mouth, YOU want to ruin my fun.” And I’m like, “Buddy, do what you want, but that’s really not what food is for.”

            But of course, as you acknowledge, that’s only one part of it. I think you’re missing the point of sex by ruling out children. But the only reason I have anything to say about it is because lives are at stake.

            It’s good that you can see, at least, that our concern is about the preservation of a life, even if you don’t consider it a life. Maybe you’d like to retract your statement that we just want to go pissing on your sexy sex parade.

          • Spectrall

            But of course, as you acknowledge, that’s only one part of it. I think you’re missing the point of sex by ruling out children.

            Honestly, that just sounds bizarre to me, bordering on creepy.

            Maybe you’d like to retract your statement that we just want to go pissing on your sexy sex parade.

            I never stated that it’s the only intent, I stated that it’s a feature rather than a bug of laws against abortion (and objections to contraception). Sure the primary intent has to do with intrinsic evils and saving a “person”, but if it also causes people that don’t want kids to feel anxiety, all the better.

          • erin

            “Honestly, that just sounds bizarre to me, bordering on creepy.”

            And therein lies the root of the modern demand for abortion: much of the world thinks it’s bizarre and CREEPY to think that SEX IS FOR PROCREATION. When the reality is that when sex works correctly, a child is the result. You have to break or distort something healthy about your body, or your partner’s, to get the sex you want without the appropriate consequence (generally speaking).

            Of course, there is that great unitive aspect, or even just a couple seconds of pleasure if you’re not that into your “partner”; but it’s not rocket science to understand that the natural function of sex is for babies.

          • Spectrall

            When the reality is that when sex works correctly, a child is the result.

            So, sex only works correctly perhaps 1% of the time or so? That seems a high failure rate. It’s almost like it’s an activity that has more than one purpose for humans.

          • Julie

            “So, sex only works correctly perhaps 1% of the time or so?”

            And yet it’s the process by which you came to be here writing comments.

            “It’s almost like it’s an activity that has more than one purpose for humans.”

            A fact which has been acknowledged repeatedly. I don’t see pro-lifers freaking out that sex brings unity, pleasure, and joy. I do see people freaking out that it brings babies – to the point where they actually kill them. That’s creepy and bizarre.

          • simchafisher

            It’s creepy and bizarre that sex is, in part, for making babies?

            Re: pro-lifers wanting people to have anxiety: You’re simply wrong. You don’t have to believe me, but I think I know a lot more pro-lifers than you do! I’m 38 years old, and I’ve never come across a pro-lifer who wishes pro-choicers would enjoy sex less. That’s just . . . well, creepy and bizarre.

            We don’t want anyone to have anxiety. We don’t believe that the path to peace and joy is through recreational sex. I haven’t noticed that the last few generations are especially peaceful and joyful.

          • Spectrall

            It’s creepy and bizarre that sex is, in part, for making babies?

            No, it’s creepy and bizarre to assert that it’s the the point of sex. That seems so obviously false that it’s remarkable; the typical human will have sex thousands of times in their life, yet have two or three kids (typically). Seems rather inefficient if that’s the point, as you assert above. Everything we know about human pair-bonding and sexual behavior suggests that sex is absolutely crucial to it; for most incidents of sex, this seems plainly to be “the point” more than reproduction.

            Re: pro-lifers wanting people to have anxiety: You’re simply wrong. You don’t have to believe me, but I think I know a lot more pro-lifers than you do!

            Oh, I believe you that you don’t want people to feel anxious. You’d like them to wholesale scrap the idea that they gain happiness from a childless partnership, and thus the anxiety falls away. This ignores that this is not your decision to make for others, and simply insisting that people would be better off if they knocked it off with the non-procreative sex isn’t a message that works for everyone.

            In a world where different people have different goals, I’m telling you that the end outcome of your desired policies is increased anxiety for people that don’t want children. If you support those policies, you are advocating for that anxiety, whether you feel like you are or not. Saying, “I don’t want you to be anxious, I just want you to think the same things as me, and then you won’t be anxious” doesn’t cut it.

            We don’t believe that the path to peace and joy is through recreational sex.

            You don’t seem to understand that this doesn’t grant you any valid basis to make that decision for others.

            I haven’t noticed that the last few generations are especially peaceful and joyful.

            Compared to what?

          • simchafisher

            Okay, I have a bunch of stuff to do today, so I don’t really have the energy to continue going around and around here. Listen, I have nine kids. I have had sex more than nine times. So I understand that it’s “inefficient” as a baby-maker. And so I never said that sex was only for making babies. As you’ve probably heard, the Church teaches that sex has two purposes: it’s unitive, and procreative. The “unitive” part includes pleasure, and also makes the couple spiritually and emotionally “one flesh.”. The procreative part is baby’-making. So, no, it’s not just for making babies. Usually it doesn’t.

            But if you’re gonna talk about inefficient systems, I’m looking at what you describe: you do something which is, as any farmer will tell you, designed to make babies. You do it in such a way that you probably won’t make a baby. If you do accidentally make a baby, you kill it. And then you gasp and squirm when someone says, “You know, sex makes babies.”

          • simchafisher

            And you acknowledge that sex binds people together, but you bristle at the idea that only people who actually ARE bound together should do it. You don’t have a problem with me or my worldview, Brandon. You have a problem with biology and human psychology.

          • “it’s creepy and bizarre to assert that it’s the the point of sex.”

            But it *is* the point of sex. Let’s set aside morality for the moment; the whole reason why we have sex from an evolutionary standpoint is for reproduction. (In fact, it’s why we call it the reproductive system, not the entertainment system, har har.) Neither the fact that it doesn’t always work, nor the fact that sex has *other* points too, nor the fact that humans have sex for all sorts of reasons good and bad, changes that at all.

          • The original Mr. X

            “That seems so obviously false that it’s remarkable; the typical human will have sex thousands of times in their life, yet have two or three kids (typically). Seems rather inefficient if that’s the point, as you assert above.”

            The typical human (by which I assume you mean the typical 21st-century Westerner) will use contraception most of the time, and is quite likely to have an abortion if that doesn’t work. So yes, somebody who regularly takes steps to ensure that having sex doesn’t result in babies won’t have many babies even if they do have lots of sex. Your point is?

            “Everything we know about human pair-bonding and sexual behavior suggests that sex is absolutely crucial to it;”

            And why do you think we evolved pair-bonding, if not to further the nurturing of our offspring? Nobody’s denying that sex has a unitive function; but that function presupposes the procreative one, since it wouldn’t have arisen without it.

          • $1028912

            There are comments on this thread that would support the view that pro-lifers are glad a ban on abortion would lead to less of a certain kind of sex (“Let us hope that casual sex outside relationships will become far more difficult to come by for said males at the very least,” etc.).
            Not all people think that casual sex between consenting adults is a problem, so we would tend view this effect as a negative rather than a positive.

          • Julie

            Children are a perfectly natural result of sexual intercourse. There is nothing unnatural or disordered or unusual in sex resulting in pregnancy. The overwhelming desire to have sex without those very natural consequences – to the point of killing the resulting children – is just as disordered and problematic as having sex for the sole purpose of procreation without love, pleasure or joy. Enjoy the sex, but don’t kill the babies.

  • Ryan Hite

    It’s not just the men making women into objects, the women are objectifying themselves too. Both are at fault if they decide to have sex unless it is rape or something like that.

  • BigBlueWave

    Bro-choice is bro-murder.

  • Leila Miller

    Yep, our culture will definitely kill for sex. I have had people tell me that they cannot live without sex. So, others must die so that these selfish hedonists can live, as the thinking goes. It’s vomit-inducing.

    • Trish Coate

      Sex addiction is a pretty terrible affliction.

  • Kim

    Those “bros” sound like they are about 17 years old. And not particularly *smart* teenagers, either. Hope they grow up and get a clue!

  • $1028912

    Just as one woman’s blessing is another woman’s curse, one woman’s vomit is another woman’s joke.

    Approaching it from a pro-abortion rights viewpoint, I have to say, I think this campaign is pretty funny. The reference to casual sex struck me as sarcastic — or perhaps something calculated to get a rise out of conservatives, which it clearly did.

    It is indeed very true for some of us, men and women alike, that “making abortion essentially inaccessible… would add an anxiety to sex that would drastically undercut its joys” — that part is serious.

    (From the commenter formerly known as “L.”)

    • simchafisher

      So, it’s funny because it’s true? And sex is no fun unless there might be death following close behind? Now I don’t want to puke, I want to cry.

      Probably you’re not following this case, because it’s American politics, but it’s not actually about “making abortion essentially inaccessible.” It’s about making abortion safer for women. Pro-choice demonstrators were paid by Planned Parenthood to descend on the state house and howl and scream (I’m not exaggerating – you can see videos) to run out the clock and block passage on a bill that would require abortion facilities to have the same health and safety standards of any other medical facility. It would require them to do things like have halls wide enough to get a gurney through. This is what the pro-choicers were outraged about.

      But what do I know? Maybe knowing that women are more likely to die from an abortion makes sex sexier, too.

      • $1028912

        Yes, it’s funny because there’s a grain of truth to it. Yes, sex would be no fun if I had to worry that it might lead to an unwanted baby — not all of us are open to life (but fortunately, there are many ways that those of us who feel this way can avoid pregnancy).

        I’m following the Texas case very closely, from afar. I know exactly what’s at stake. You know as well as I do that it’s not about “safer” abortions — it’s about closing clinics, so that abortions don’t happen.

        And I will say again, I wish people on both sides would devote as much energy to preventing unwanted pregnancies as they do to passing/opposing abortion legislation.

        • simchafisher

          But Lisa, this case deals with abortions after 20 weeks. Are you saying that sex can be super fun only if you knew you could get pregnant, wait twenty weeks, and then get an abortion in a facility where the abortionist doesn’t have hospital privileges?

          You know as well as I do that I hate abortions. I am very tired of being told that I only care about the baby. I care about women’s safety. I don’t want women dying in abortion clinics. If I had a choice between a woman getting an abortion and dying, and a woman getting an abortion and not dying, I would choose the second. The pro-choicers in this case are pushing for a situation which makes the first more likely. That’s simply a fact: they are fighting against the health and safety of women.

          People on our side DO devote energy to preventing unwanted pregnancies. In the last forty years, we’ve seen the country flooded with more and more and more contraception. Have you noticed that there are fewer and fewer and fewer unwanted pregnancies in that time?

          When something doesn’t work, and continues to not work the more you do it, only a crazy person thinks the solution is to try the same thing even harder.

          • Simcha! There are a couple of crucial typos in your second paragraph; I would hate for anyone to misunderstand you and give credence to the belief that we value the life of the baby over that of the mother.

          • simchafisher

            Oh crap! Thanks. Fixing. Yes, obviously justa typo.

          • $1028912

            Yes, I see fewer unwanted pregnancies among people who use contraception correctly and consistently — though not everyone does. I see just as many unwanted pregnancies among people who have unprotected sex. There’s still a long way to go.

            The bill requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital no farther than 30 miles away from their clinic. The number of clinics in Texas will drop from 42 to 5. That’s what it’s all about: fewer clinics = fewer abortions.

          • simchafisher

            I’m not talking about anecdotal evidence, though, I’m talking about culture-wide numbers. Our country, as a whole, has better and better access to free and cheap and socially acceptable contraception; and our country, as a whole, has more and more unwanted pregnancies. I will agree that we have a long way to go.

            The bill is about fewer abortions after 20 weeks, because babies that age feel pain and many of them are viable. AND it’s about the safety of women. It’s both.

            If this were any other type of medical clinic that did major, invasive surgery, you wouldn’t say, “This is about restricting people’s access to gall bladder surgery” or “How shocking that Simcha wants to make it harder to get good renal health care!” It would be common sense that the doctors who perform that kind of surgery need to do it safely. The onus is, as it should be, on abortionists. This bill will save lives.

          • $1028912

            Abortions are not “major, invasive surgery.” Removing a gall bladder is more complex — you can’t compare. And why should the arbitrary 20 weeks even matter? Why not immediately after conception? Admit it — that’s what pro-life people really want: That every embryo be allowed to implant, and get carried to term.

            U.S. teenage birth rate are dropping — that’s a very good sign, but there’s still a long way to go. The overall unintended pregnancy rate is still too high, and I do think more contraception would help those people who want to use it (of course, it wouldn’t help those people who don’t want to use it consistently,or at all).

          • simchafisher

            Of course I admit it! Of course that’s what pro-lifers want. Who’s denying that? I’m not ashamed to say that I would like all babies to live.

            I wish you would extend me the courtesy of acknowledging that I care about the health and safety of women. I have two motivations: to protect unborn children, and to protect women. I like this bill because at least it protects SOME unborn babies, which is better than none; and because it makes abortion safer for women.

            The teen birth rate is dropping. The unintended pregnancy rate is not dropping. I understand that you think more contraception will help, and that more abortion will sweep up the untidy extras, but obviously I don’t agree with the first part because of statistics, and with the second part because I’m pro-life. Probably we’re at a dead end discussing this aspect.

          • simchafisher

            And a late term abortion most certainly is major surgery. It is far more dangerous for a woman than an abortion before 20 weeks. Complications and accidents are common, which is why abortionists should at very least have hospital privileges, and should do their work close enough to a hospital so that women have a chance of surviving when something goes (even more) wrong.

          • $1028912

            My reply to this one appeared ABOVE it, for some reason.

          • $1028912

            Late-term abortions are minor surgery. I’ve never had a late-term abortion, but I know many women who have, both in the US and Japan — and all of them were done as out-patient procedures. Yes, they are more complex than early abortions. (I did research late-term abortions pretty thoroughly, because I had prenatal testing in all of my pregnancies, and would have had one — past 20 weeks — if I decided the situation warranted it.)

            And doctors don’t need admitting privileges — that point is a classic red herring. In an emergency, an ambulance is called and takes patients to the closest hospital for treatment, and they’re admitted to the ER. That requirement is just another loophole being used to close clinics.

            You’re right, too, in that we’re never going to agree. You will always favor laws that protect life from the moment of conception, and I will always favor laws that allow women like me to end our unwanted pregnancies (which are best prevented in the first place).

      • Spectrall

        And sex is no fun unless there might be death following close behind?

        No, sex is much less enjoyable when the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy follows close behind.

        edit – Lisa covered this much better, please ignore my short comment.

        • Barbara Fryman

          Buddy, you do realize you have zero say in that pregnancy’s future, right? How is that not a kill joy for casual hookups?

  • Jens Sweet Plantains

    Ugh! This makes me so annoyed and frustrated that I can’t piece together a coherent thought for a comment beyond a continual “ARGH!!!”. So disgusting.

  • Maura Shea

    Simcha, thank you so much for your articulate and persistent defense in the comments section. It’s frightening to read but we need patient and loving voices like yours insisting on human dignity– the dignity of unborn babies, born babies, mothers, fathers, everyone.

    Prayers for you

  • anna lisa

    Sociopathy. This is the dawning of the age of a widespread, society-wide phenomenon of sociopathy.
    Lisa Twaronite told me that she showed her young daughter pictures of late term abortions on The Priests For Life website. She told me that she was unmoved by the sight of their burnt and mangled bodies.
    Kermit Gosnell kept baby feet pickled in jars like war booty. He dispassionately instructed his clinic workers to saw through the spines of crying, gasping babies. So what phenomenon are we witnessing? The same phenomenon which allowed for humans to make lampshades out of human skin–a kind of masochism that feeds on horror and the grotesque. For the sexually bored sociopath, moving to the next level of depravity is required to feel *anything*.at. all.
    If women asserted their right to make pate out of the hearts and livers of their aborted children, I would imagine that the Lisa Twaronites of this world would do more than shrug;, they will add little details like, “animals eat their young,why shouldn’t we? That heart was so big, it made three appetizers worth–It’s former owner could have walked me to the bus stop!”–But she would roll the pulse insighting idea of murder and torture around in her head, as only a sociopath would–and then blog and post about it–extensively, as “L” has, and does.

    • $1028912

      Hi, Anna Lisa. I don’t remember ever saying I was “unmoved by the sight of their mangled and pickled bodies” — in fact, the photos I showed my kids were pretty gross, and I showed them because I think abortion is worth avoiding. I’ve never had one myself, and I hope my daughter (or sons’ girlfriends/partners) don’t ever have one.
      I think anyone who accuses a total stranger on the Internet of being a “sexually bored sociopath,” and puts words in her mouth as you just did, must be a very angry and disturbed person herself. I hope you find peace from whatever demons are tormenting you.

      • anna lisa

        Lisa, go back and read our exchange on the Register. It speaks for itself. It’s simply crazy to discuss the dismembering of infants as if there is any sanity involved in allowing it You made it very clear that you believe a woman should be able to abort her baby through the ninth month. Thank goodness Corita alerted me to your extensive posts all over the internet advocating for abortion. You are evasive when it is argued in plain language that women are dying because abortion doctors and clinics are held to such low standards. Why?

        I’m sure you know that Kermit Gosnell wasn’t stupid for delivering those babies alive. He knows the risks of septicemia and the jutting bone fragments of D&E’s have even worse outcomes. Dismembering a child on the inside so it can come out legally dead is insane.
        So do you think pictures of gassed human beings, or lampshades made of human skin are “gross” as well? Wow. What an emotionally stunted term for something that sick and demonic.
        Your blithe admission that your IUD could be causing a monthly abortion is emotionally stunted as well. You exhibit a detachment from the moral value of your actions that would be fascinating if it wasn’t so disturbing. God help us if such words leave the average human being with *peace*. Lord have mercy.


        • $1028912

          I remember that exchange.

          I have no “detachment from the moral value” of my actions — I just don’t share your morals. I think preventing unwanted pregnancies is responsible and positive, but I know that not everyone wants what I want out of life — nor should they.

          I’m “evasive when it is argued in plain language that women are dying because abortion doctors and clinics are held to such low standards?” No, I just don’t think the answer is to impose regulations that will close down the clinics entirely, which is the aim of the Texas legislation.

          And I have “extensive posts all over the Internet” advocating for far more than abortion — it’s a cause about which I am passionate, but it’s not the only one. I probably post more about my support for same-sex marriage. (I also post lots of recipes, and comment on running blogs.)

          But you know….I noticed that whenever people are at a loss for words in an argument, they say that the other viewpoint is “simply crazy,” and the other party is “emotionally stunted.” There is no point in continuing to argue with someone who dismisses me and my opinions this way. I might as well just go howl at the moon.

  • anna lisa

    pulse * inciting*.–sorry–
    juggling six kids here–one nine year old with a fever and a seventeen year old who is leaving for Europe on Wednesday–and has an expired passport.
    Two are begging for gum.

  • Noah_Vaile

    I agree completely.

  • anna lisa

    Cutting off an infants feet and putting them in jars is INSANE. Throwing them in a garbage disposal is equally insane. Do the math Lisa. History will indict your barbarism, even if you feel cool and collected about your sociopathic point of view.
    –And yes, contracepted marriages are basically the same as same sex marriages. No argument there. I can cry for my right to flap my wings and fly, but it will never make me an eagle. If the next best thing was to “marry” and eagle, no government in the world could pass a law to make this marriage authentic. Good luck with the reality you have created for yourself.

    • $1028912

      Excuse me, but perhaps you’ve gotten me confused with someone who defended Gosnell? Or someone else who put infant feet in jars? Or are you trying to make the point that everyone who supports legal abortion is depraved & insane, even if they think abortion is worth avoiding?
      And yes, I do prefer my reality to yours, thank you.

  • anna lisa

    Lisa, why are you playing innocent? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. In Texas they are trying to eliminate late term abortions. Gosnell performed late term abortions. Simcha tried to help you to see that shoddy clinics with hack doctors that don’t have hospital privileges are NOT better than nothing. But you’re so blind to your abortion dogma that you can’t put it all together.
    On the fourth of July, I heard something from our sweet yoga instructor that made me almost laugh out loud. She was trying to express a noble idea. She said, “let’s take time for a moment to feel gratitude for all the brave men and women who have given their lives so we could be free”…but then she really went off the rails saying: “it doesn’t matter what you think is right or wrong, because there is no such thing as right or wrong..”
    Really. You know what? That whole “your truth is not my truth” is a load of crap.
    There is objective truth in the universe. Sawing the spinal cords of infants in half is EVIL no matter WHICH hack does it. Your ideas are monstrous Lisa.

    • $1028912

      Anna Lisa, I think we’re going to have to disagree. I agree it would be monstrous to perform late-term abortions for kicks, but I see valid reasons for performing them (and again, while I’ve never had one myself, I know women who have, and I know in my heart I would have, under certain circumstances). I think we would probably agree on the vast majority of examples about whether something is “monstrous” or not, but abortion is never going to be one of them.
      As for “playing innocent,” I couldn’t if I tried.

  • Barbara Fryman

    So restrictions on late term abortions are a kill joy, but not the fact that these boys are essentially powerless should they impregnate a girl? What if your having casual sex with a girl who won’t have an abortion? Do you ask beforehand? That’s sexy pillow talk right there! Not to mention people change their minds sometimes. These poor dummies have zero ability to reason out that sex, regardless of access to abortion has lasting consequences.

  • Victor

    (((We need to stand with women in their fight to control their own bodies.)))

    Simcha, this is my first visit to your blog and truth be known, I only came here because The Anchoress recommended you and after having finished reading her first born, “I” mean her first book and long story short, “I” won’t be able to tell you and your readers what me, myself and i really think about all of this and longer story short, “IT” probably won’t be allowed so “I’M” simply going to say:
    First of all. our kingdom is not of this world.
    Secondly: Mother, Father, Son and The Holy Spirit are still in our corner and have been for more than the last two thousand thirteen years which is but a moment for “The Father”.
    I could go on and on but instead, I’ll wait until I start my third blog and simply close now by telling you to keep UP the good words and works and please say a little prayer for sinner vic also and who knows, he might even allow me to retitle “IT” “Undergo” so what do you think of this so far? 🙂

  • Anna Sparkman

    Kind of off topic (but kind of on, and I’m not on FB anymore or I’d just write it on your wall), on the 4th of July this year, we were at a friend’s beach house, and my 2 yr old daughter had found a couple of can cozies that she put on her hands like gloves. I thought all was cute until she came close and I noticed one of them was from Planned Parenthood. I immediately took it off of her (much to her innocent chagrin) and attempted to hide it. She eventually found it and put it on again, and this time I pointed it out to my hubby that I didn’t want her “wearing” it. He agreed with me and eventually we caught her and put it out of her reach.

    When my (a bit of a liberal) mother-in-law asked why, and I explained, she dismissed me as silly (kind of odd since we get along so well). She didn’t understand why I was adamant that my daughter not “wear” anything associated with PP. I guess I’m not very good at explaining 😛