“Pro Life” = Preventable death.

I’ve long been of the opinion that “Pro Life” and “Pro Choice” are entirely inaccurate labels for the positions they purport to describe. In fact, the suspicious bastard that lurks very close to the surface of my mind thinks that both labels were probably invented by those who want to deny women reproductive rights. Think about it. “Choice” versus “life”? Which one sounds like it should have priority? Exactly. Hence my extreme distaste for both labels; I really believe that facile people (and the world is chock full of facile people) who only look at the headlines and never read the content are easily swayed by such school debate society tactics.

Anyway, moving this post forward.

It’s time for another one of those stories which religious anti reproductive rights people have two possible responses to: Ignore it or reveal how disgusting and immoral their position really is.

Savita Halappanavar was a 31 year old Indian emigre, living in Ireland. She was a dentist, a medical professional. And she was seventeen weeks pregnant when she died.

Savita presented to a University Hospital Galway on October 21st with severe back pain. Her doctors quickly established that she was having a miscarriage; her cervix was fully dilated, her amniotic sac had broken, and the foetus was dying.

Dying. Not dead.

Even though doctors knew that the foetus would not survive, and even though Savita (a woman with a medical degree who knew exactly what she was asking for) requested it, they refused to terminate the pregnancy artificially. Instead, they made her lay in bed in severe pain for two days, leaking body fluids with her cervix open. For non medical folks, in terms of risk that pretty much translates as opening a gaping wound in your flesh down to the bone and leaving it uncovered in a large building full of sick people. For two full days.

The justification offered by Savita’s doctors? “This is a Catholic country”. The foetus still had a heartbeat. Therefore they would not end the pregnancy, because that would “kill” the foetus. The foetus which was dying anyway.

Would anybody care to take a guess what happened next? Savita, having been exposed to a huge risk of infection by her religiously motivated doctors, got an infection. In fact, she got sepsis, went to intensive care, and eventually died on the 28th of October.

Cases like this are the ones that the religious right, reproductive rights deniers want to pretend don’t exist. And that means that cases like this are that ones that we should be screaming from the rooftops, shoving in their sanctimonious faces and ramming down their ignorant, judgmental throats.

What’s grinding my gears in this particular case is that University Hospital Galway is now under investigation by the Irish authorities for the events leading to Savita’s death. The reason that grinds my gears is that if the investigation is honest, it can only draw one conclusion: The doctors and the hospital acted in accordance with Irish law. I’m hopeful that it will be a catalyst for a change in that law, but realistically I think it’s far more likely that the Irish government will try to scapegoat either a doctor or the hospital, so that they can pretend that there is no problem.

  • Tiffany

    “It’s time for another one of those stories which religious anti reproductive rights people have two possible responses to: Ignore it or reveal how disgusting and immoral their position really is.” Well, it appears the ‘pro-life’ groups are choosing door #2. http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2012/november14

    • Custador

      Shocker.

    • Michael

      Of course. The proper course of action wasn’t to abort the fetus to prevent sepsis, it was to wait for sepsis to occur and then treat it with antibiotics.

      • Custador

        Uh… My sarcasm detector might need recalibrating, but just in case it doesn’t: Sepsis kills. Quickly. You go into septic shock, your blood vessels all relax, your blood pressure falls through the floor, and you die. Antibiotics work. Slowly. And you have to know which antibiotic to use, because a given antibiotic will only work on a given set of infections. Finding out which is the right one is often a case of trial and error, since a lot of the time it’s quicker to just try several and keep an eye on what the patient’s C-Reactive Protein (an infection marker) levels are doing than it is to culture organisms from their blood. Either way, it takes time to get right unless you luck out and hit the bullseye the first time. The first cardiac arrest I ever saw was due to sepsis. I’ve seen a few because of it since.

        • Noelle

          Sepsis scares the hell out of me.

          I detected sarcasm in Michael’s comment.

        • Michael

          >My sarcasm detector might need recalibrating
          Yes.

          Prevention is almost always the best course. Claiming that we should allow people to get fatally ill before treating them is absurd in itself.

  • Helen

    SPUC make me feel sick.

  • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

    To my eternal shame, I was actually a volunteer at SPUC for the summer after my escape from Catholic high school. I was still somewhat in the thrall of self-righteous piety and feeling like I was such a good boy because I knew a cripple like me would be on the chopping block if we let the country slide further down the slippery slope of abortion.

    The jobs I had were twofold. First I was to reorganise their library, which was literally a pile of books in an old bedroom of what was once a tenement apartment the group used for their office at the time. There were a lot of self-published titles (some allegedly published by foetuses, with sickly titles like “I only wanted to be held”) and personal stories from America lamenting about the sadness of abortion or describing the epic joy of raising a child whose brain was pea soup, and the occasional black cover with red font talking about the dire depths to which evil liberals will go to fuel their blood for foetus blood. Even in the depths of my Deeply Held Belief (TM) I found it a mixture of too much schmaltz and too much alarmism. Maybe it was because I had pro-choice friends and I thought of them as more misguided than pure, palpating evil.

    My second job was to go online and trawl the Internet for any story from anywhere on Earth (local preferred, but it was the Net) to which SPUC might wish to publish a reaction. In the office other workers there generally made a mixture of personal calls and calls looking for donations. The entire time I was there, I believe there was one sole incident where anybody did anything practical to help a pregnant woman, and it amounted to somebody running out and buying some Pampers for a desperate mother who had been talked into keeping her baby a few months earlier. My contributions largely went ignored because I looked for interesting, complex cases where I felt SPUC would have a chance to show philosophical maturity as they tried to justify their position, or compassion, but that wasn’t what they were looking for. They only wanted to pontificate and paint all reproductive rights issues as black and white, with the Catholic view the only reasonable and humane course of action no matter what (and no matter where it was occuring on Earth). Eventually it got to the point I was just sort of sitting there, twiddling my thumbs, while middle aged men and women wandered about talking about football and trying to think of ways to make money. That was the key, even though that money seemed to mostly go on renting the nice downtown office and keeping them in books nobody ever looked at, and as far as I saw very little ever went to helping women (even for their own particular definition of ‘help’).

    Given that the library contained not a single medical textbook (I’m not kidding, even as a believer I thought that was a bit rich), it does not surprise me to hear SPUC say “Abortion is not medicine – it does not treat or cure any pathology.” This blind, willful ignorance is the hallmark of their pig-headedness and complete disinterest in anything but a pure, cold principle. They are anti-abortion fanatics, and they simply do not care about women. All that matters is the cause as an intellectual exercise, and they certainly don’t want it to be a vigorous one.

    This incident in Ireland is tantamount to murder. Medical staff with a duty of care decided to watch a woman die because they would rather indulge their piety than do their duty. Certainly if it were not a pregnant woman involved there would be charges of negligence and probably culpable homicide on the way, but even with Ireland’s rather stringent abortion laws, I can’t help but think letting a patient lie there until they contract sepsis and die is not at all acceptable. I may be wrong, and Custador certainly seems to think the whole thing was in keeping with Irish law, but I thought there were requirements for at least some level of care even in cases like this. Is there an original source for the story?

    Also, is anybody at all surprised that SPUC are against the Children’s Referendum in Ireland? It is a defining Catholic attitude that children and pregnant women simply do not matter. Why else would a doctor respond to a patient’s unnecessary death at their hands with “This is a Catholic country”? Even their own members understand that Catholicism demands an extreme disinterest in the lives and rights of women and children, for the sake of propping up the supposed rights of foetuses.

    • Yoav

      What I understand from reading about this incident is that a major problem was that, while technically containing a life of the mother exception, the Irish anti abortion law is warded in a way that make it nearly impossible to apply it except retroactively which make hospitals too scared to terminate a pregnancy even in cases like this out of fear of being prosecuted later and have to prove that there was absolutely no chance of the woman surviving if they didn’t terminate.

  • http://www.missionchurch.name Manny

    It is a tragedy that this happened, I do not think that anyone is feeling great about this.
    The issue is life. Whom do you save? Do you toss a coin?

    Why stop at a foetus? why not wait till the foetus gets a name and then kill it, heck , why not wait until 12 – 15 yrs what would you call it then?
    Whether there be laws for or against…it will always happen…what to do????

    • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

      Before everybody jumps on you and points out what a terrible being you are and how little conscience you actually have, you might want to reread the story and comprehend that killing a teenager for no reason is not remotely connected to a situation where a definitively non-viable foetus is in the process of miscarriage and is simply left to rot in a woman so that she winds up dead too. You don’t toss a coin. Haven’t you heard of triage?

    • TrickQuestion

      I bet the people who “protected the unborn” are feeling pretty good about upholding their murderous beliefs.

    • Kodie

      If she came in with a flesh-eating bacteria, they would not think twice about killing what was killing her. If she got bit by a dog and was losing a lot of blood, they would not only sew her up but find that dog and have it put down. We can’t interfere, we have to let god make the call, and then we comfort ourselves that he knows better than we do? You may be right that nobody “feels great about this,” but the rationalization is delicious! This is not “common sense” at work here. A 17-week dying fetus is a gaping infectious wound, OBVIOUSLY.

    • Custador

      The foetus was effectively already dead. The mother could have been saved. Take your blinders off – That coin-toss you just described is NOT a choice between the foetus and the mother. It’s between allowing a foetus to die and allowing BOTH the foetus AND the mother to die. The rest of your anecdote is retarded.

    • phantomreader42

      As always, fetus-fetishists are willfully ignorant lying sociopaths. Manny, since it is obvious that you have not bothered to make even the slightest effort to inform yourself on this issue, why should anyone listen to the delusional ravings of the voices in your head?

    • Isilzha

      For one thing, it’s the WOMAN’S body and she has a right to make medical decisions for herself.

    • ender
    • LRA

      Whose life do you save? The person. A fetus is not a person. It has neither sentience nor sapience at 17 weeks. So you save the PERSON who has both sentience and sapience.

      Moran.

  • Frank

    Each week over 21,000 innocent unborn children are killed, only 3% due to rape, incest or the life of the mother. Lets focus on saving the 97% killed due to reasons of convenience.

    • TrickQuestion

      What’s say we teach sufficient birth control and make it more available to the people that would be most likely to get abortions in the first place.

    • Yoav

      Let’s focus on the fact that you’re a piece of shit who put the rights of a clump of cells ahead of that of an actual human being (in case you’re unaware of it, women are actual persons and do not lose this status when becoming pregnant).

      • Liberated Liberal

        I have become convinced that people like this truly do not believe that women are human beings.

        • Johan

          Justify your opinion. Unless you do, you are just spouting bullshit.

          • Yoav

            Have you been living under a rock for the last century? Just listen to the rhetoric used by the pro-forced pregnancy crowd when they’re pushing one of their personhood bills. It’s seem that both sides agree that there is only one person involved in a pregnancy the difference is that people like Paul Ryan, Mike Hakabee or the poop think that person is the fertilized egg not the woman carrying it.

          • Custador

            Justify your needlessly aggressive response. Until you do, you’re just being a twunt.

          • Liberated Liberal

            This article itself proves this. Any pro-life rant that doesn’t even bother to consider the physical body, mind and emotions of the woman who is actually carrying the fetus doesn’t care about women and reduces them to a person-less incubator. As far as I am concerned, any person (man or woman) who does not think that women should have any control over what happens to her own body does not consider that woman to be an actual person. Until you prove otherwise, my stance remains. Solid as stone.

            And said more eloquently and thoroughly than I could:
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/09/dear-pro-lifers-stop-erasing-women.html

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              It may seem like a sweeping generalisation and a form of vilifying and dehumanising the other side, but as Liberated Liberal has pointed out, there is a real foundation to the charge that the anti-abortion lobby do not see women as fully realised human beings. You cannot hold that women are as important as a foetus if you aren’t willing to let that woman determine what happens to her own body. You particularly cannot hold that women are as important as a foetus if you are going to insist that they mortally imperil themselves for the sake of a non-viable foetus that is already dying, or if you compel them to imperil themselves for a foetus at all. This is a point that anti-abortion people tend to dodge in the most reprehensible manner, usually by trivialising and denying the issues and dangers a pregnant woman faces (see several comments here and SPUC’s outright lie), as well as the reasons they may have got pregnant in the first place. They simply refuse to accept that a woman could be pregnant through no fault of her own, could be sick through no fault of her own, and could be at risk of morbidity or mortality through no fault of her own. At every juncture, a woman is presumed to be at fault, and a pregnancy is required to be carried through to the bitter end by people who tend not to even offer lip service to any semblance of compassion for these women. Not to mention that even if it were the woman’s fault she were pregnant, that ‘sin’ does not warrant their life being put in danger, their mental health destroyed or their family lives ruined.

              I can understand that people get emotionally invested in the concept that a foetus is a human being. It’s not true, but it’s at least something that can be argued to be true and can feel right. Drawing the line is difficult, generally we have it at around 6 months gestation but even that is somewhat arbitrary – obviously a 6 month, 1 day foetus isn’t magically endowed with a soul while a 5 month, 29 day foetus is merely a growth of human tissue. It’s a complicated issue and it’s reasonable that it doesn’t sit well with some people that foetuses are terminated at whatever stage. But that complexity is completely ignored by anti-abortion groups. They do not recognise any shades of grey, they will not brook any discussion about how and when terminations might take place. To them it is a black and white, crystal clear evil, and they will fight it. They don’t even see the women they’re trying to control – they do not care about them. They simply refuse to acknowledge that somebody might make a different decision from them for a justifiable reason. That’s why they smear women who get abortions as sluts, as lazy, as greedy and doing it for convenience. It’s always because they are a career woman who didn’t want to be slowed down, as if that’s an evil in itself – again, a demonstration that women are not recognised as actualised human beings with their own lives and desires and priorities. It’s never because they have four children already who are almost starving every night and there’s no such thing as maternity leave for a waitress.

              If anybody is pro-life and still reading, you have a choice. Either respond with a whining rant that you are being tarred with the same brush, mischaracterised, and continue to cling to your sense of privilege to tell women what to do… or demonstrate you actually give a crap about women as well as foetuses and try advocating for an environment that is far less hostile to women of child-bearing age. That means proper sex education, access to contraception, a push-back against rape culture, a pro-breastfeeding, pro-mother working environment, paid maternity leave, reasonable child-care costs, access to health care, and a secure social safety net that doesn’t let people fall through the cracks and provides a reasonably healthy standard of living for all. Try loving your neighbour and not judging them.

    • Kodie

      Yeah, stay the course, focus on what really matters – sex-policing women!

      If she didn’t want to die of a miscarrying fetus, then she never should have been pregnant in Ireland!

    • Custador

      Bullshit statistic is bullshit, and a deflection besides. The issue here is a woman who needed a life-saving procedure was denied it because of people just as full of shit as you, using a foetus that was already dead as an excuse.

    • vasaroti

      Prove that any abortion was chosen for “convenience.”

    • Isilzha

      Anyone who uses the “convenience” argument with abortion is a misogynist who also hates children.

    • RowanVT

      Approximately 4 million babies are born in the US each year. That is 76,923 babies born each week. Up to 20% of pregnancies miscarry. That means there are approximately 1 million miscarriages each year. That is 19,230 miscarriages each week.

      Of the 21,000 abortions each week (only a little more than miscarriages), up to 4,200 of them would have ended up as miscarriages anyway. That leaves us with a little under 17,000 likely viable fetuses a week. 75% of women who get an abortion cite financial inability to raise a/another child. That is 12,750 of them. That leaves barely over 4,000 a week where the main constraint wasn’t financial. Some of those remaining 4,000 will be because of birth control failure (half of women who get abortions do so because a form of birth control failed), some will be because they are emotionally not ready/able, some will be because the person simply doesn’t desire children (and why should we make a kid grow up with someone who didn’t want them?).

    • LRA

      Frank– It’s none of your f*cking business what I do with MY BODY. You (as a male given that you have a man’s name) can’t get pregnant. So, who cares what your opinion is?

      • Nox

        Hey Custy, you remember when I said Norm might be annoying but hadn’t done anything to deserve being banned?

        He deserves being banned now.

        • Custador

          Indeed. Are you ready, Norm? It makes me feel soiled to know how much you’re going to get off on this; I know you’ll never see it as it is: A perfectly reasonable response to your trolling and your shitty, horrible behaviour. No, in your mind, the fact that I’m about to deny a platform for the filth that you call your thoughts, that’s me persecuting you because you’re a Christian, right? Just ignore the rest of the Christians who regularly comment here and coexist with us atheists quite happily, okay? It’s easier to pretend it’s not your fault if you do that. Norm, you actually disgust me, and you are banned.

          • Troutbane

            Crap, I missed the drama. What did he post?

            • UrsaMinor

              The usual sixth-grade petulance. He had long since abandoned any pretense of defending his views or trying to engage in a dialog and was just needling people that he didn’t like. Did a rather crude job of it, too.

              It’s all still out there if you care to go hunting for his posts. Nobody has censored him.

            • Custador

              Actually I spammed his last three posts. They read like drunken verbal abuse, and one was an attack on a poster who he seems to think had an abortion.

            • UrsaMinor

              The ones with even less spelling, punctuation and grammar than usual, you mean? Well, then, if you’re right, he should be grateful for the deletions after he sobers up.

          • Kodie

            Something tells me nobody else takes him seriously either. I know he said his kids don’t.

  • Noelle

    This case is horribly tragic and heartbreaking. Absolutely, the physicians and hospital should be punished for this. Absolutely, Ireland needs to understand the real world consequences to their laws and change them accordingly. Most of the “pro-life” people I know in the US would agree wholeheartedly that cases like this are not what they mean by outlawing elective abortion. Most would tell you the procedure she required wasn’t elective, but medically necessary and should not have been subject to regulation. They do mean for physicians to use their skills properly to treat these cases. Her treatment should’ve been fairly strait forward. Establish an IV, draw labs, start antibiotics, take to the OR. This should’ve all happened so quickly and seamlessly that she would’ve been waking up in recovery and planning on return to work in a week or so. Sure, it would’ve been disappointing to lose the fetus, but this stuff happens. Somewhere around 20% of women miscarry at some point in there lives. Some require medical intervention. No one I know calls this medical intervention an abortion. Most people would also not call appropriate intervention for an ectopic pregnancy an abortion. Most would not call induced delivery prior to viability for severe pre-eclampsia or other dangerous conditions an abortion. But these appropriate medical procedures happen every day.

    What many “pro-life except” folks don’t quite grasp is how that “except” plays out in practice. They assume their physicians will know and act appropriately. But there are doctors and hospitals who are both afraid of legal ramifications, and those who truly believe a woman should sit there and bleed to death, that they’ll interpret those laws to a patient’s detriment. If you keep the law out of it entirely, and allow physicians groups and hospitals and experts to decide what is medically appropriate and the expected standard of care in all medical situations, this shouldn’t happen.

  • Nox

    “In fact, the suspicious bastard that lurks very close to the surface of my mind thinks that both labels were probably invented by those who want to deny women reproductive rights.”

    Not exactly invented. But heavily influenced. Those who wanted to make sure women were punished for disobeying the catholic church’s rules (denying reproductive rights would have been considered an afterthought) (remember the church that started the anti-abortion movement also started the anti-contraception movement) coined the terms “pro-abortion” (or sometimes “pro-death”) and “pro-life”.

    The term “pro-choice” was a defensive term. The idea was ‘we’re not pro-abortion. No one is saying there should be more abortions. What we are saying is that women should be free to make their own reproductive choices. Pro-abortion is a deceptive label. What we are is pro-choice.’

  • grumpygirl

    How awful. This reminds me of the guy who was drowning and the 1st responders on the beach watched him for over an hour while he drowned: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43233984/ns/us_news-life/t/handcuffed-policy-fire-crews-watch-man-die/#.UKWYG-RlGSo.

    They just watched the woman die. It’s also possible, though, that they didn’t have the techniques to do the D&E procedure, which was warranted, because it’s an advanced procedure done only by docs with special skills. But they could have at least induced the birth of the baby.

    I would like a good explanation from the forced-birth/conservative crowd about why they don’t support better contraception? We hear a**hats acting like women who use contraception are sluts so we shouldn’t give them contraception. This group is also the first group to tell you all about how “bad” contraception is, and how it will cause cancer.

    There was a great study done in St. Louis about when you give women free contraception, they pick the most effective contraception. And guess what! The abortion rates plummet, the teen pregnancy rates plummet! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57526550/study-free-birth-control-leads-to-way-fewer-abortions/.

    I personally would LOVE to use my tax dollars to give out free contraception. It’s better than forcing women to have unwanted children, having poor moms on the dole because they can’t afford to support their children and the fathers won’t pay child support, and women feeling guilty to have an abortion.

    • Noelle

      I’m guessing they’d call an induction prior to viability abortion, no matter what the technique. I was under the impression meds like misoprostol and pitocin are available in most areas of the world, as well as the tools and training for a D&C. Most normal people would not consider these appropriate medical treatments an abortion.

      • grumpygirl

        You are right, terminating a non-viable pregnancy is still an abortion in medical terms. I had a patient with a nutty husband who needed a D&E for a fetal demise. He insisted I take the word “abortion” off the consent form.

        This poor woman was too far along for a D&C, she would have needed a D&E. The uterus has very few oxytocin receptors at the earlier gestational ages, so the only recourse is misoprostol or prostaglandins. The problem with these options is that they may take hours or days to work.

        • Noelle

          I didn’t know that about the pitocin early in pregnancy. Learn something new every day. Thanks.

  • Norm

    This is one of the few times that I would have agreed the baby should have been aborted. If the child was as good as dead then whats the point.

    • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

      I’m sure Ms. Halappanavar is thrilled that she would have at least had your permission to stay alive.

    • Theory_of_I

      Norm-

      The *point* is that for millions of unreasonably inculcated religious, Ms. Halappanavar was nothing but a baby factory, who if she couldn’t deliver the foetus she carried, didn’t deserve to live. Her death made their point, and considering comments you’ve made in previous threads, I suspect you are being disingenuous now.

  • Hitchslapper

    The Euphemism ‘Pro-life’ is a misnomer….. what these people really wish to express is: ‘Unwillingness to relinquish control’ Taught to them by their controlling religions….

    • Noelle

      This has to be the sanest and most well-balanced comment I’ve seen from ya, HS. I appologize for my previous concern and unsolicited psychoanalysis. Carry on.

  • Hitchslapper

    These horrible ‘ANTI-LIFERS’ would rather see a vital young woman die, than to see a blob of flesh be aborted. This is NOT pro-life…. this is anti-life and anti-human….

    • Norm

      No hes still talking crap.No one ever wants to see anyone die,ever,and a 17wo fetus is vertually a fully developed baby,not a”blob of flesh”.

      • Custador

        1) “Vertually” [sic] is not the same as “actual”.

        2) You’re wrong. Pro forced birthers invariably are about this point; just like the rest of them, you make statements about foetal development without first pausing to consider that it’s a subject you know nothing about. Just like the rest of them, you sell yourself (and every other arsehole with an opinion) on the lie that “outwardly shaped a bit like a baby” is the same thing as “it’s a baby”. And you’re wrong.

        • Norm

          Put a 17wo fetus on the table and ask a 5yo what is it and they will say a baby.This is no opinion but fact.The lie you sell yourself is it carnt survive on its own,even though I created it I shouldnt have to be responsible for it,and your wrong.

          • Custador

            Well done for completely proving my point, you facile, brainless little shit. Look at the avatar. I DO know what I’m talking about. Whereas you’re such a stupid fuckstick that you parade your ignorance like it’s a virtue. I could build a convincing fetus out of papier macher that a five year old would call a baby, but that doesn’t make it a baby. Frankly, Norm, you’re a moron, and I for one am sick of your bullshit.

            • Norm

              Justify your needlessly aggressive response,until then your the” twunt” (sic).Then go and have a good nights sleep dopey.

            • Custador

              The difference being, my agression to you is entirely justified. As you just keep on proving. Nice evasion, though.

            • Sunny Day

              Wow its almost as if you forget everything you do here. Fortunately google can keep track of all your purposeful idiocy.

              https://www.google.com/search?q=unreasonable+faith+“norm+says
              http://www.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/topic.php?id=3693&page=1

            • Kodie

              Hey Norm – weren’t you banned from “Friendly Atheist” for being a troll?

            • Custador

              There’s a surprise.

            • Jabster

              @Norm

              If Custy had called you a complete cunt, a fucking waste of eight pints of blood or he wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire then maybe you could say that was a “needlessly aggressive response”. As it was, the reply was not only justified but required.

              Personally I think you are a complete and utter cunt and that has nothing to do with you being a Christian. The fact is you’d be a complete and utter cunt even if you were an atheist. It just the way some people are born and you’re one of the them. Combined with being, how should I put this, well just thick, life has dealt you a poor hand indeed.

              Anyway, next time you donate blood ask them to take a few more pints … I’m sure they’ll be only to willing to help out.

          • Kodie

            5 year olds aren’t doctors. They think cows say “MOO”. They think stuffed animals are alive. Count 5 year olds in the category of people who really don’t know what they’re talking about, and pro-forced-birthers in the category of people who can’t think more complex thoughts than a 5 year old.

            It’s a stupid trick – yeah, even a 5 year old “knows”. Think about the development stage of a 5 year old, you wouldn’t let one operate on you, you wouldn’t let one drive your car.

  • John C

    Hey guys, just ‘checkin in’ with you, appreciate you.

    All my very best, always.

    • UrsaMinor

      Have a great Thanksgiving!

  • Troutbane

    He had an amazing ability to change subjects/threads/forums in order to avoid tough questions or good counter points to his sheltered world view and act like everything was fine and all his beliefs were good and valid. I said it in another post, he is the worst kind of troll. Its one thing to get angry, grab your ball, and go home, but its a whole other level of crazy to switch to another game you dont think you can lose every five minutes.

  • Sunny Day

    Awww, poor little Normy!

  • John

    Abortion denies the unborn child is most basic right, the right to life. There are plenty of other good reasons to oppose abortion. Here are some. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/abortion/10-reasons-why-abortion-is-evil.html

    • Kodie

      10. The slippery slope

      Yesterday it was contraception. Today it’s abortion and same-sex “marriage.” Will it be widespread euthanasia tomorrow? Then what…? Once abortion is universally accepted, what logical arguments will stop euthanasia and other forms of murder and brutality?

      You’re deluded and you obviously didn’t read or comprehend the article you responded to or say anything pertinent. Your “list” are zero good reasons to oppose abortion. It reeks of ignorance and no respect for a woman’s life, as you oh-so-properly refer to the wife’s egg and the husband’s sperm, and you suppose we’ve never seen or knocked down your arguments before – this is the wrong thread for your brand of proselytizing, drive-by John.

    • Sunny Day

      Women are people.
      Your list of 10 reasons mentions women only in the sense of their use as an incubator.
      Forced Birth deprives an actual human being of the most basic right of all, bodily autonomy.

      If you disagree with me, I know several people who can use that spare kidney of yours.

    • Yoav

      1. Abortion Offends God
      Prove god exist and is offended by abortion and then we can talk whether anyone should give a rodent’s backside.
      2. The Unnoticed War
      This already presuppose a fetus is a person something you have not established.
      3. Life starts at the moment of conception
      The medical text you cite doesn’t say what you think it does. It talk about a technical definition not about personhood.
      4. Mankind must protect life whenever possible
      And yet you don’t see the pro forced birth crowd protesting against the death penalty or demanding that once they’re born all these babies they supposedly care about have access to healthcare and food.
      5. Abortion is an unsafe
      The reason it’s unsafe is because you and your buddies pushed it out of hospitals where it belong, like any other surgical treatment, and into clinics which are poorly regulated. Oh, by the way, the breast cancer link is a lie told by the pro forced birthers not a medical fact.
      6. A biogenetic Tower of Babel
      Ha????
      7. Breaking the abortion cycle
      This one is just a word salad.
      8. Roe v. Wade: 40 Years of Lies
      I’m surprised it took so long to play the Hitler card.
      9. Addressing an abortionist
      That’s not an argument it’s just a bullsh*t appeal based on your imaginary friend’s feelings.
      10. The slippery slope
      This only make sense if you’re a complete piece of immoral turd who can’t tell the difference between a clump of cells and an actual person.

    • Nox

      If you honestly cared at all about “the right to life” you wouldn’t be defending the murder of Savita Halappanavar by pro-lifers.

      If that were not an obvious enough indicator that you were just feigning concern for life to promote the subjugation of women, the contraception thing would still be a automatic giveaway.

      If someone really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, the single most effective thing they could do is reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. It would make absolutely no sense for someone opposed to abortion to complain about contraception (let alone opposing marriage or adoption for people who can only have children by consciously deciding to), unless their goal wasn’t really about preserving life or even stopping abortions, but denying people the option to engage in sex without the risk of pregnancy, because the ringleaders of the “pro-life” movement (by which I mean a church that has murdered millions of people and treated countless children in such a way as to permanently destroy any credibility to their claimed concern for children) had decided the risk of pregnancy was a good way to punish women for not obeying the church.

      If you want to preserve life, maybe you should start by trying to prevent preventable deaths. Like the woman who just died because the beliefs you are trying to defend here convinced people who were supposed to be doctors that it was better to stand there and watch her die than abort an already dead fetus.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X