Kermit Gosnell – Baby Killer or Public Servant?

Because he was brought up today in a comment on an older post, let’s talk about Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

Gosnell is the doctor currently on trial in Pennsylvania on murder charges (among others)  because of  practices at his abortion clinic. In January 2011, Gosnell charged with eight counts of murder resulting from gross medical malpractice in treatment of patients at his clinics. The eight victims of his alleged murders were seven infants said to have been killed after being born alive during attempted abortions, and one adult patient who was administered an overdose of painkillers during an abortion.

Medical malpractice is the action of medical providers that intentionally or negligently injure or kill a person in that medical professional’s care. From all accounts I have found and read, Dr. Gosnell is at the very least guilty of egregious and frequent medical malpractice.

However, the comment invoked him in the context, apparently, of a discussion on abortion. Happy Madison said,

Kermit Gosnell is:

A) An American horror story, worthy to be counted amongst the most brutal of serial killers,

- OR -

B) A good doctor doing his job for the poor and helpless who is being treated unfairly by the anti-choice zealots.

Discuss.

Glodson pointed out that an abortion can’t happen once there has been a live birth. If Dr. Gosnell and his staff failed at an abortion and delivered a living baby, then killed it, the charge is not “illegal abortion,” it’s “murder.”

Delighted, Happy Madison posted:

Score!

Now: What’s the difference between a late-term abortion, performed one hour before the “thing” passes through the vagina (being “born”), and snipping the spinal cord after it has entered into the world” What difference does it make?

Where is the line that separates an ethical abortion from an unethical one? Why should Kermie be considered “unethical?”

With his exclamation of “Score!” Happy Madison blatantly identified himself as a troll. Lovely. I can see the point of having this debate if there is truly a question. In fact, the only reason I am willing to bring this topic to a new post rather than allowing it to remain buried in last week’s comments is because I can see that some people may not really see the difference in Gosnell’s conduct and that of any other abortion services provider.  We sometimes forget that there are freethinking, rational people who do not see the difference. It’s a topic worth discussion.

Gosnell is a horror story.

The mistreatment and maltreatment reported by patients and even his own staff is hair-raising. Patients who change their minds about having an abortion, even if their feet are already in the stirrups, must be respected and treated with dignity. Unless the procedure has already progressed beyond a point of no return, it should stop immediately. This is true of any elective procedure, whether it is wart removal, plastic surgery, abortion, or hip replacement.

My stomach lurches to think of a 15 year old girl who changes her mind on the table being physically restrained and the abortion performed anyway.

When I hear of bags of aborted fetuses stuffed into a refrigerator, I want to vomit.

When I hear of patients infected with STDs because a doctor used unsterilized instruments on them, I want to rage.

When I think of a live baby’s spine snipped with a pair of scissors, I am furious.

Dr. Gosnell has been accused of all of these things. If they are true, he should never be allowed to practice medicine again. Ever. And he should go to jail.

Gosnell provided necessary services to the poor and homeless.

Why should only the rich be entitled to health services? Why should abortion be available to wealthy patients, but not to poor ones? In this respect, Dr. Gosnell did indeed provide a necessary and desirable service. His method of purveying it, though, apparently left a lot to be desired.

Women determined to abort the fetuses they are carrying will do so, one way or another. They should be able to do it in a safe, sterile environment that will prevent their own death or incapacity. This was where Dr. Gosnell failed. The women who sought treatment from him got rid of their unwanted pregnancies, but apparently often did so at the cost of their own health and safety.

Gosnell is a symptom of a broken health care system. He is the poster child for why abortion services need to be safe, sterile, and sensibly regulated – not over-regulated so that only wealthy women can afford them.

Late Term Abortions for the Poor

When abortion is too expensive for a woman to be able to afford early in her pregnancy – when it takes her too much time to come up with the expense of resolving the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, she is forced to wait to abort the pregnancy. The longer she has to wait, the closer to viability or even to term she must have that abortion. By making abortion difficult to come by and expensive, we ensure that poor women must wait longer than wealthy ones to have abortions. We create the problem that a viper like Gosnell can take advantage of.

Elective late term abortions are not unheard of, even if they are rare. If a woman has to wait beyond the point of viability, but is still determined to end her pregnancy, she will still do so. And as long as it remains difficult and illegal for her to do so, she will accomplish her goal illegally. Outlawing late term abortions will not stop them. They are rare even without the legal restrictions. Women who are able to end unwanted pregnancies as soon as they can. They don’t wait for the opportunity to kill a baby.

When a “Baby” is not a Baby

Viability – the ability of the fetus to live outside the womb – is the measure the Supreme Court uses to determine the point at which the states may restrict abortions. Prior to viability the fetus cannot survive without its natural life support system – a woman. The point of viability is not a clear, bright line for every developing fetus. Some fetuses delivered earlier may live, while some delivered later may not. Medical advances have made it more likely that younger, smaller fetuses can live if their families choose to exercise those so-called heroic measures.

Furthermore, after a fetus is born alive – that is, after it becomes a baby at the magic moment of birth – certain rules go into effect. Those rules allow us to remove terminally ill, dying, doomed, and comatose from the medical interventions keeping them alive. There is no legal requirement that heroic measures be taken for anyone, regardless of how long they have been breathing.

Why should there be a legal requirement that life support systems must stay in place simply because of the short length of time since conception?

A fetus does not become a baby until it is separated from its mother and living on its own, even if “living on its own” means that some degree of medical intervention is necessary. No one condones severing the spinal cord of an already-born baby who otherwise is healthy and able to survive. If the news reports of the testimony at Kermit Gosnell’s trial is accurate, he may have killed healthy babies – not fetuses.

There is a difference.

 

  • Glodson

    What pisses me off to no end about this is that the idoitic troll tried to link a legal medical procedure to the act of a profiteering butcher who got by because women didn’t have free access to a medical procedure. People suffered because of this man’s illegal activities and this somehow makes a point about abortion? Only if one is truly stupid.

    • http://www.aramink.com Anne

      I was annoyed that he thought he was clever.

      • Glodson

        Given the ‘nym selection, I had a low bar for his cleverness.

        But sorry for being a little… angry in my reply. I should have been more measured in your thread. His blatant dishonesty, disingenuous posing, and the use of human suffering to make his point which would cause more human suffering was too much for me to even have the veneer of civility.

        • http://www.aramink.com Anne

          Glodson, seriously – no apology necessary. You saved me some work. You made most excellent points, as did Nate Frein and M. I didn’t repeat them all because you guys did such a good job. I hope readers of this post go there to see them in full and in context.

          • Glodson

            They usually do.

            Next thing you know, there’s going to be over 100 posts in the thread. And someone will quote Jeremiah 1:5, and then we’ll get all the tired and worn out rationalizations for anti-choice and no one will provide any evidence for the evils of late term abortions done legally but rather try and conflate the illegal acts of a profiteer of human misery with medical procedures.

            And thanks. But M and Nate did a better job than I. I was just quicker.

  • Jdog

    What pisses you off to no end is that he proved you were wrong… about an essential moral point of valuing human life and dignity. It inherently is a point/matter about abortion, duh… and spatial location relative to a vagina to you and many apparently as he shows. “His blatant dishonesty”…where? Too bad pro-choicers and abortion itself force us to use “distasteful” methods and “capitalize” on human suffering. Have you witnessed an abortion or seen an ultrasound? Guess what? The fetal human being suffers. Making his point will some day reduce human suffering. Government is by no means required to make it easier to do something wrong so that it is safer to do it. DON’T DO IT. “legal medical procedure to the act of a profiteering butcher” is a statistical fact regarding abortion facilities, and saying “legal medical procedure” is a “nice” euphemism for the murder. The legal standard of viability is nonsense. Leave a 2 yr. old alone on an island and it will die without parental nurturing—not viable. Is it now ok to kill 2 yr.-olds? What is this, the Roman Empire 200 AD?

    • Glodson

      You are a fucking idiot. There, that will save time.

      Look, this is what happens when abortion access is restricted by laws or the availability of the service to lower income people.

      The legal standard of viability is nonsense. Leave a 2 yr. old alone on an island and it will die without parental nurturing—not viable. Is it now ok to kill 2 yr.-olds? What is this, the Roman Empire 200 AD?

      Hey, dumbass, there’s a world of fucking difference between a fucking fetus, which is gestating, and a year old child. People don’t typically make that argument as it is really fucking stupid.

      Further, studies show that women who are denied access to abortion fare worse off then women who seek an abortion and are able to get it. And if you are so fucking concerned about this, why not take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

      In short, facts or get the fuck out. You have nothing but empty words.

      • http://SkeptimusPrime.com Dylan Walker

        I wrote a post about this just the other day.

        Abortion rates are actually higher in countries where abortion is illegal or heavily restricted. Pro-choice advocates are actually better and being pro-life than the pro-life movement.

        • http://www.aramink.com Anne

          You made several good points in your article, too – that what Gosnell was doing was already illegal and should be no matter what you think about abortion; that clinics like his are the very reason abortion services need to be available and accessible to poor women early in their pregnancies; and that the very act of outlawing abortions makes them unsafe.

        • Glodson

          That is something that cannot be hammered on enough. The restriction of abortion rights doesn’t end abortion. It just drives it underground, it stigmatizes it, it makes people less apt to talk and think about the decision but rather just do it.

          I suspect we see the same dynamic with drugs when they are illegal.

    • hotshoe

      Have you witnessed an abortion or seen an ultrasound? Guess what? The fetal human being suffers.

      Yes. I have.
      Guess what, you’re a goddamned liar. The fetus doesn’t suffer in an abortion.
      You’re in favor of enslaving women and that makes you a vile immoral human. Fuck off, slaver.

      • http://www.theologyweb.com/ Challenger Grim

        “You’re in favor of murdering children and that makes you a vile immoral human.
        Fuck off, killer.”

        See, we can play that game all day and what does it get us?

        Though logically speaking, pro-lifers do have the Darwinian advantage over pro-choicers. First law of nature: they who breed, win.

        • Nate Frein

          First law of nature: they who breed, win.

          Someone doesn’t understand natural selection.

          • Theodore Seeber

            Alright- they who breed and raise successful children to adulthood, win.

            Better?

          • Nate Frein

            Still massively oversimplified.

            Just look at rabbits. They breed like, well, rabbits.

            And yet when resources are scarce, the rabbit will absorb the gestating young and reincorporate the resources so that she can survive and bear young when more resources are available.

            Nor are rabbits the only animals that will deliberately abort their pregnancies in response to stress or limited resources.

            So from a naturalistic standpoint, a mother choosing to abort a pregnancy because she lacks either the mental or financial resources to raise the child makes perfect sense.

          • http://www.theologyweb.com/ Challenger Grim

            Ah yes, rabbits. The species on the verge of extinction while pandas are poised to become one of earth’s dominant life forms. (also, want to talk about oversimplification, rabbits cannot so easily produce additional resources like man can – as the saying goes: each child is +1 mouth to feed and +2 hands to work)

            You made a deflection. That does not address the point that pro-lifers will, by definition, outbreed pro-choicers.

          • Nate Frein

            You made a deflection. That does not address the point that pro-lifers will, by definition, outbreed pro-choicers.

            In the short term.

          • http://www.theologyweb.com/ Challenger Grim

            In the short term.

            As you lot like to say: Citation needed.

            Unless resources become scarce enough, you really think the “pro-life” heirs then won’t go to war against the “pro-choice” heirs? (which, with their superior numbers, would logically lead to victory)

            I am intrigued by what scenario you envision that would give the “pc” tribe any advantage which would be denied to the “pl” tribe.

        • ButchKitties

          Except pro-life and pro-choice are not reliably heritable traits.

          Ex: My pro-life parents produced two pro-choice offspring.

    • http://www.aramink.com Anne

      Jdog, valuing human life and dignity takes many forms. Personally, I value the life in existence more than the potential life. I certainly value the dignity of an existing person capable of feeling indignity more than that of a theoretical one.

      The inherent point about abortion is that a woman who is determined to end her pregnancy will do so, no matter how much it costs, no matter what lengths she has to go to, and no matter if it may kill her.

      I have witnessed an abortion. The life, health, and future of my friend having that abortion while I held her hand was more important than the potential life that was then unable to live outside her womb. To this day, nearly 32 years later, she does not regret her choice, and I do not regret making sure she was able to have that abortion safely. I called home from college and asked my dad for the money. She couldn’t ask her parents, but my father gave it to me without hesitation. I don’t know if he believed me when I said it was for a friend, but it did not make any difference to him. A young girl’s future was on the line.

      I have also seen ultrasounds. I’ve seen different stages of healthy fetal development, and I have seen a severely malformed fetus in an ultrasound after 20 weeks. That fetus was also aborted. Less than a year later, performing that abortion would have made a felon out of the humanitarian doctor who performed it.

      I submit that the fetal human being suffers no more and considerably less than the animals we humans routinely slaughter to eat, and does so with significantly less fear and trauma. It suffers less than a living human being whose artificial life support must be withdrawn because of health care directives. It suffers for a shorter period of time, too, and its abortion in safe, sterile surroundings does not compromise anyone else’s life or quality of life.

    • BabyRaptor

      He didn’t prove anything on any basis of fact or reason. He moved goal posts, much like you did in your comment. Nobody is talking about killing two year olds, but you had to claim that’s what we were saying to make us sound bad.

      A newly conceived clump of cells does not have human life or human dignity. The only life and dignity involved are that of the woman’s, a point pro-forced birthers repeatedly ignore. Every argument of theirs completely strips the woman, her life and her dignity from the equation.

      The government is required to protect the rights of ALL its citizens…Not just the rights of people you approve of. If you think abortion is wrong, more power to you. Don’t ever have one. Do everything you can to prevent the need for it–In a safe, respectful manner that actually solves the problem. Otherwise, shut the Fuck up and stay out of other peoples’ decisions. You aren’t God, you don’t know everything. No matter how convinced you are you’re right, you cannot prove it. And even if you could, you still have no business dictating other peoples’ lives to them.

    • John Horstman

      Have you witnessed an abortion or seen an ultrasound? Guess what? The fetal human being suffers.

      This is entirely irrelevant. Ever see a cop subdue someone who has pulled a gun on hir? The gun-wielding person definitely suffers. It doesn’t matter because the person was threatening to contravene the bodily agency of the cop by shooting hir. In the case of a pregnancy when a woman does not wish to be pregnant, that fetus is already violating the woman’s bodily agency (despite the fact that the fetus lacks agency itself, not actually being a person). That the fetus suffers or dies matters not at all because the woman has the right to bodily agency, even in cases where someone else might die if that person is not entitled to her body (this is why we don’t have mandatory blood, marrow, organ, or gamete donation – even in cases of life and death, we consider bodily agency to be the paramount human right).

      You’re also, as others have noted, misusing the concept of viability. Google it.

  • Jdog

    wow, as if profanity makes a point. hotshoe…what? Maybe I should have said ultrasound video of an abortion being performed…or you had an anomalous experience atypical of the many that do show this. I’m not lying. — Who says I’m not taking steps to prevent unplanned pregnancies, besides you, Glodson? not true. You have made no points/argument, so I’ll just repeat the point, that the differences between a fetus and a born infant do not constitute a difference of living non-human mass (that somehow becomes human) from living human. Both have human life. & this is what happens when abortion is legal (and people are evil), since, you know, it is legal, not when abortion is illegal. Access won’t help but that’s an argument you’ll probably not want to hear. P.S. I love you.

    • hotshoe

      No, you don’t love me, you stupid liar. You don’t even know me.

      You’re a creep and a slaver. Yes, profanity makes a point of how much I detest your vile kind. If I could say even worse things about you, I would, and gladly. You deserve every bad thing that anyone could ever possibly say or do to you for your desire to enslave women.

      Get the fuck off humanity’s planet. If you can’t do that, then shut your creepy mouth.

    • Rosie

      The difference between a fetus and an infant is that the former requires an ongoing donation of organs and nutrients from a living, breathing person (not interchangeable with anyone else) and the latter can be cared for by any willing adult (or even older child) and non-sentient machines. Even if you consider a fetus to be a person, it has no legal right to the use of another’s organs to survive (McFall v. Shimp). Unless you can make a case that a woman is not actually a person, or that the womb is not in fact an organ.

      • http://www.aramink.com Anne

        I’m impressed with the McFall v. Shimp reference! I wish I had thought of using it.

        For those of you who don’t know about that case, McFall needed a bone marrow transplant and Shimp was the only suitable donor found. When Shimp refused to donate bone marrow, McFall sued. The court famously found that while Shimp’s refusal was morally indefensible, the court had no authority to order him to submit to harm in order to save McFall’s life.

        A pregnant woman unwilling to sustain the developing life within her own body is analogous. A woman may be under a moral obligation to provide healthy conditions for the tissue in her womb that has the potential to develop into a human being; however, she is under no legal compulsion to do so.

        That is why women who use drugs and alcohol during their pregnancies are not incarcerated.

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

          Well, not often. Several states have started using child endangerment laws to prosecute women who used drugs during their pregnancies. Some states have used fetal murder laws (designed to punish people who murdered/assaulted a pregnant woman and killed her fetus) to prosecute women who miscarried or had stillbirths, even when their drug use could not be shown to have caused the miscarriage/stillbirth.

          It’s pretty horrifying.

        • ButchKitties

          A key aspect of McFall v. Shimp is that McFall only knew that Shimp was a match because Shimp VOLUNTEERED for the compatibility testing. He volunteered to be a donor, then changed his mind, and the courts allowed this.

          I think this pretty well demolishes the “she volunteered to be an organ donor when she consented to esx” argument. Uh no. If volunteering for HLA testing isn’t legally considered to be consent to the actual donation procedure (even though there is literally no other reason to consent to this testing other than to become a donor) then consenting to a multipurpose activity like sex is not consent to pregnancy.

          • Nate Frein

            Nice. I’ll need to remember this.

    • BabyRaptor

      Only small minded idiots with no argument think that someone else using words they don’t like says anything about them. You don’t like “bad” words. Good for you. Don’t use them. But the fact that other people do says nothing about them other than that they don’t hold the same opinions as you. You seem to have real issues with that.

  • Jdog

    It’s not simply a potential life if you have to kill it.

    • hotshoe

      It’s not simply a potential life if you have to kill it.

      Yeah, you probably think you’re clever because you can equivocate between two different meanings of the word “life”. Still as stupid and dishonest as ever, though; no surprise because slavers like you are not capable of anything better.

      The fetus is alive as tissue but it’s merely a “potential life” as a person until – if/when – it gets born and becomes independent of the human life which has sustained it with her oxygen, her blood, her nutrition.

      Of course, to your vile kind, no woman counts as a “life” at all. Only as a “baby-incubator” with legs.

      Slaver scum.

    • http://anthrozine.com Cubist

      sez jdog:

      It’s not simply a potential life if you have to kill it.

      “potential life”? Interesting. All this time, I thought it was human life—not just any old life in general, but human life in specific—that all you pro-forced-birth activists were so gosh-darned concerned about! I don’t think anybody would dispute that an unborn fetus is, indeed, a living thing, but at the same time, the question of whether or not that unborn fetus is a living thing which possesses the full suite of rights of any member in human society… let’s just say that proposition is “very disputable indeed”.

    • Nate Frein

      Cancer is “human life”. I’m sure you don’t have a problem killing that.

      • http://www.aramink.com Anne

        HeLa – the Captain Jack Harkness of cancer. Has anyone read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks? Excellent book. Immortal cells, definitely worth killing over and over again.

        • Little Magpie

          Absolutely fascinating book. Shame about how she was treated.

    • Glodson

      Jdog, I don’t have a point, but I have something for you.

      It is called the goddamned reply button. If you are going to lie to us and say stupid shit, at least use that.

    • BabyRaptor

      You kill skin cells merely by existing. You eat animals that were killed. You kill bugs that decide to waltz into your house. What’s the difference between any of this and your typical first trimester abortion?

      • Stogoe

        The arthropods and livestock we kill en masse (for …reasons) have more sentience and agency than the first trimester fetus?

        • http://www.aramink.com Anne

          Yes. They are aware of death and fear it, as evidenced by their attempts to flee threats. While a fetus reacts to direct stimuli, I am not aware of anything that indicates a fetus is capable of experiencing fear.

  • http://creativefidelity.wordpress.com Dan F.

    Anne writes: “… after it becomes a baby at the magic moment of birth…” as part of a larger point and paragraph. My question is: What is the magic moment and what about that moment confers “babyness” on the fetus (i.e. what about that fetus is now different that makes it a baby?)

    Forget about all of the other invective and anger for a moment and see if you can answer that question in a non-arbitrary way.

    • http://www.aramink.com Anne

      A fetus becomes a baby when it is born – when the umbilical cord is cut and it takes its first breath of air. At that moment, it is no longer dependent upon another creature’s continued life in order for it to exist. (If the pregnant woman dies, the nonviable fetus inside her also dies – as does a viable fetus not immediately removed surgically.)

      Too often the terms “fetus” and “baby” are used interchangeably. I’m guilty of this, too. It’s the colloquial vernacular. These are not interchangeable terms, though. One means a creature that has not yet been born; the other means a creature that has been born.

    • http://smingleigh.wordpress.com Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

      There is no non-arbitrary way. Therefore, we support the right of women to answer that question for themselves, based on their circumstances, their opinions, their beliefs, and their health.

      • http://smingleigh.wordpress.com Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

        After reading, updating opinion: Birth is a very definitive line. But I stand by my previous statement that further lines, if any, should be drawn by the woman involved, according to her decision.

    • hotshoe

      God bless you idiots. You slavers sure are a bunch of dumb bunnies.

      What makes the difference? Live birth, dummy. That’s non-arbitrary. It’s a bright line that all can witness and all can agree makes the difference between the fetus – which depends solely on the tissues of its human host for its oxygen and nourishment – and a baby – who can be cared for by any capable human, including but not limited to its mother.

      But you dummies want to pretend that the fetus is somehow more important than a breathing; living fully-human woman with her own hopes dreams and memories. So you lie and deflect and ask dishonest questions and lie some more.

      Don’t be a slaver. Don’t be that guy.

    • invivoMark

      Why does there have to be “a moment”? Biology does not conform to the rigid framework of our vocabulary.

      • Loqi

        This. In fact, the birth process is about as hard and fast as biology gets.

    • Nate Frein

      Forget about all of the other invective and anger for a moment

      Very easy for a man to say. Very easy for you to sit back and try to think about the fetus in a vacuum and completely forget the person carrying that fetus, and all the individual rights attached to said person.

      • Glodson

        Part of the anger is that nothing they say is new. It is just unfounded opinion, JAQing off, and Point Refuted a Thousand Times. Sometimes with a bit of Holy Book spice mixed in to get the Holier Than Thou Flavor just right where you gag.

        • Nate Frein

          Exactly…how can you ask for respect when you don’t even have the common courtesy to ask a new question?

    • BabyRaptor

      Even if your trick question were answerable, what does it have to do with my rights to my own body?

      Oh, wait. Nothing. Because pro-forced birthers assume that I don’t HAVE any right to my own body.

  • Steve

    Late term abortions usually don’t happen because women change their minds, but because of medical reasons such as severe disabilities or deformities that are only discovered further along a pregnancy.

  • Azkyroth

    Oh for fuck’s sake, this is like insisting that the existence of serial rapists proves that premarital sex is immoral, deliberately ignoring the distincti…

    ….oh, right.

  • Ray

    Wow. Such vitriolic ad hominem. Aren’t we better than this?

    I’m a pro-life atheist (we do exist), though admittedly more on the fence recently, and I gotta say, I’m honestly disappointed. I was hoping for real arguments from the pro-choice side instead of pointless invective. Are you trying to change minds, or just convince yourself that you’re right?

    • Nate Frein

      Oh do fuck off. Really. Go away if all you can do is equivocate.

      There has been no new argument, no new information, no new anything from the anti-choicers in this thread. What the hell is the point of trying to convince someone who can’t even be bothered to do enough research to see that their arguments have been rebutted over and over and over again?

      The point of the “invective” is to make it clear just how bloody disrespectful to try to discuss abortion while completely ignoring the women involved. To try to co-opt a tragedy like Gosnell and make it about just the babies that were hurt and completely forgetting that women were hurt.

      So fuck off. Go tone troll somewhere else. Go pester the articles that try to paint Gosnell as operating legally.

    • Nate Frein

      And for fucks sake CITE WHERE YOU SAW ANY AD HOMINEM.

      Learn to use the fucking fallacies correctly.

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

      At this point, and after the other thread, people are just angry and frustrated that the same crappy arguments are being brought up over and over and over and over again.

      I mean, really, it comes down to one thing. Women are people. We don’t make people donate blood, organs, or tissue, ever, even when someone will die if you don’t. The only exception to bodily autonomy trumping life is *surprise surprise* the situation that men don’t have to worry about. So it’s never OK to take men’s body parts without their consent, but women can be forced to literally grow a person out of their own flesh and blood, then risk their lives forcing that new person out of their vaginas (or getting abdominal surgery, which is also not without risk)? I don’t think so.

      Say it with me now: women are people too. We are not walking uteruses. We are people.

    • hotshoe

      I’m a pro-life atheist (we do exist)

      So turns out there are atheistic slavers as well as theocratic slavers. That’s nothing to be proud of, you know.

      You – a supposed atheist – are still confounded about the non-existence of gods, spirits, souls, and magic, and you still think there is something so special about a fetus that it somehow deserves to destroy a woman’s fully-human life. Well, hot damn, I finally met a person more stupid than the typical Catholic. At least they’re consistent within their own beliefs about god and souls. You, though, don’t even have that.

      What you have is a failure to be rational, coupled with – surprise, surprise – a typical male point of view that women’s lives count for nothing.

      You’re not pro-life, really, that’s a lie. If you were really pro-life you’d be pro women’s life, since they are the persons in the abortion equation who are fully human and alive. No, what you really are is pro-slavery. As long as the slaves are pregnant women, not your kind.

      Yeah, I think your vile attitude calls for a little vitriolic ad hominem. Read closely; this is a genuine example of ad hominem: We can’t trust anything Ray tells us because Ray is a despicable slavery-promoting douchebag.

      Now, Ray, do be a decent human for once in your life and fuck off away from all women until you mature to the point where you accept that women are people, too. Just like you, boyo.

      • Theodore Seeber

        Funny, to me it seems that it is the people who poison women to remove motherhood who think that females, precisely mothers, count for nothing. After all, in an abortion, it isn’t just the fetus who is destroyed- it is also the mother.

        • Nate Frein

          Humanity has been divorcing sex from procreation for just about all of recorded history. Different methods of contraception have been researched, discussed, and implemented since pretty much mesopotamia.

          Your view of the woman as being only worth her ability to bear young is, frankly, misogynistic in the extreme. We are not experiencing a dearth of new human life in this world, and modern medicine has largely removed the need to try to outproduce the infant mortality rate. If anything, modern medicine has allowed those women who want to be mothers to focus on mothering instead of being ambulatory incubation units.

        • David Hart

          How exactly? How is the woman who has an abortion ‘destroyed’? Note that you can’t say anything like ‘she’ll regret it later’, or even ‘she’ll have a higher risk of [insert hypothesized condition] later’, because, even if those sorts of claim turn out to be true, they only represent a risk incurred, not a woman destroyed.

    • Azkyroth

      One cannot demand calm reflection in the face of an upturned knife.

  • Ray

    Tone troll. Funny. Never heard that one before. Is all criticism trolling now?

    If you don’t see a point in trying to convince anyone of anything, what are you doing here in the first place? An argument that’s not intending to be convincing is one that’s only intending to annoy–which is the definition of trolling.

    When the other side is being relatively civil and you’re spouting off insults, you’re not doing yourself–or your argument–any favors. So, with all due respect, calm the fuck down.

  • Ray

    The problem with the abortion debate is that both sides argue past each other. If pro-lifers are guilty of forgetting the woman’s role in the issue, then pro-choicers are just as guilty of forgetting the role of the fetus. That’s why it’s a difficult issue–we have to weigh the impact on the two against each other.

    By brushing off the pro-life argument like you would the argument that Jesus rose from dead, you are guilty of the same insensitivity as that to which you are opposed. You can be pro-choice, you can make that argument, just don’t claim it’s a no-brainer, because that is disrespectful, both to the pro-lifers and to the women who are in this situation and struggling with the decision.

    • Nate Frein

      Reply button. learn to fucking use it.

      If pro-lifers are guilty of forgetting the woman’s role in the issue, then pro-choicers are just as guilty of forgetting the role of the fetus.

      What pro-choice argument here has neglected the role of the fetus? What, for that matter, justifies giving the fetus more individual rights than the mother?

      By brushing off the pro-life argument…

      The argument has not been brushed off. It has been rebutted. No counter-argument has been offered. Simply repeats of the same, rebutted argument.

      You can be pro-choice, you can make that argument, just don’t claim it’s a no-brainer,

      No one here has claimed it to be a no-brainer. You’re creating a strawman. Cite the arguments given here and respond to them, not what you think the arguments are.

      You haven’t offered any argument, any rebuttal. Just false equivocation, straw men, and tone trolling.

    • Nate Frein

      And again, you made the claim of ad hominem being committed here.

      Put up cites or admit you were wrong in that accusation. You’re gonna accuse us of having no respect, then either cite where the ad hom was committed or own up to your disrespectful false accusations.

      • hotshoe

        Hey, Nate,
        Since you made these comments, I’ve added an example of a gen-yoo-wine adhom to Ray (in reply above).

        Here, I’ll even repeat it:
        We can’t trust anything Ray tells us because Ray is a despicable slavery-promoting douchebag

        See how helpful I am? I’m just giving him an example so next time he talks shit about “ad hominem” he’ll actually have something to talk about.

        • Nate Frein

          I saw. Excellent takedown! Posts like that make me wish there was a way to “upvote” posts.

    • Glodson

      You can be pro-choice, you can make that argument, just don’t claim it’s a no-brainer, because that is disrespectful, both to the pro-lifers and to the women who are in this situation and struggling with the decision.

      Bullshit.

      It all comes down to her fucking choice. That’s what pro-choice means. This isn’t an argument with two sides with valid points. This is an argument with one side that has a valid argument, and the other side that thinks they have the right to dictate terms over what happens inside the bodies of others.

      I respect a woman’s right to chose. I know it is a struggle. And when we add in stupid questions about when her right to choose should be limited, we make it worse. When we act like all women strive for motherhood, we make it worse. The woman should be left to make the decision, seek out guidance when needed, and people should accept that decision has hers and hers alone.

      So don’t give me this Balance Fallacy bullshit. We dismiss Jesus for lack of evidence, we dismiss Jesus because the Bible doesn’t hold up under the light of the truth, we dismiss Jesus because the claim a man rose for the dead 2000 years ago isn’t supported with reason and evidence.

      Make a cogent argument as to why anyone should have the right to deny a woman the right to an abortion. If I am going to supersede her right to choose, I need a damn good reason.

  • Ray

    I don’t type fast enough for the Internet.

    So “respectful” is “agreeing with me?” Sounds closed-minded to me. I respect those with opposing views, or at least I try to. I guess that’s “condescending.” I appreciate your passion, but anger clouds reason. That’s all for now. I have class in the morning. Until next time.

    • Nate Frein

      So “respectful” is “agreeing with me?”

      Where did I say that? Respectful is not making unsupported accusations. Respectful is responding to the arguments instead of whinging over tone.

      I appreciate your passion, but anger clouds reason.

      [Citation needed]

      Until next time.

      While you’re away, look up how to use a reply button. And when you come back, bring some cites for that ad hominem accusation.

      Seriously. Put up or shut the fuck up.

    • Glodson

      You don’t think fast enough to contribute anything meaningful.

      You’ve said nothing of value, and haven’t even stated a case other than you are “pro-life.” No reason given. And we are supposed to what? Just okay, we’ll live and let live?

      Fuck that. Make your argument as to why you get a say in the bodily autonomy of another person or shut the fuck up.

  • Ray

    Dude, I just joined the site. I don’t ecen know where the reply button is. Simmer down, internet warrior.

    • Glodson

      Dude, if you cannot even be bothered to read the page, why should we even be bothered to deal with you?

    • Nate Frein

      There’s this big blue “reply” button at the bottom of every post in response to you. How fucking obtuse do you have to be?

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

    Hey, Nate Frein, Glodson, and hotshoe:

    I get that you’re really frustrated. I am too. I get that Ray made really shitty ‘arguments’. But taking out your frustration on him for what is really a pretty minor Internet offense isn’t cool. Your responses are disproportionate to what he’s said.

    People’s minds can change, and he’s said he’s moving towards pro-choice, so his mind isn’t totally closed. Yes, he was tone-trolling, but just because we’ve seen it all a bajillion times doesn’t make it not-new to the new guy. Ray really seems to want to engage, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until such time as he proves my trust to be misplaced. Of course, I’m sort of an eternal optimist on this issue, and I’ve been suckered a great many times, but I keep hoping!

    • Nate Frein

      I disagree that he seems interested in engaging. He started with false accusations (that he’s made no response to). He’s given no reasons for his positions, merely made false equivocations and strawmen.

      I’m sorry, but I see no real or honest attempt to engage anyone. I’ll admit, getting frustrated over the reply button was over-the-top, but I stand by the rest of my comments.

    • Rain
    • Azkyroth

      I get that you’re really frustrated. I am too. I get that Ray made really shitty ‘arguments’. But taking out your frustration on him for what is really a pretty minor Internet offense isn’t cool. Your responses are disproportionate to what he’s said.

      You’re very fortunate to be able to pretend those things he said exist in a vacuum and don’t feed into attitudes or policies that actually affect anyone’s lives. One might even say “privileged.”

      Of course, I’m sort of an eternal optimist on this issue, and I’ve been suckered a great many times, but I keep hoping!

      Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

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

        Um, Azkyroth, as a female who might someday get pregnant and who was sexually active in college and had a pregnancy scare (in a Southern state, no less!), I definitely do not pretend that statements take place in a vacuum or don’t have the potential to alter people’s lives. I’m privileged in many ways, but gender is not one of them, and if you’d read any of my other comments on this issue you’d know that.

        I prefer to be optimistic about engaging people because sometimes, it works. Because if I’m polite and give people the benefit of the doubt while pressing them on the harmful things they say, while engaging their arguments instead of just telling them to fuck off, they see that. The lurkers see that. It gets my arguments out there AND gives me a moral high ground, which makes me more effective in arguing pro-choice.

        So basically, back the fuck off. We may have different methods, but we’re working towards the same goal, and jumping on me isn’t helping our case.

        • Azkyroth

          Oh, sorry.

          Although, why the fuck are you apparently going out of your way to pattern-match to a mansplaining tone troll, then?

        • Azkyroth

          Also:

          So basically, back the fuck off. We may have different methods, but we’re working towards the same goal, and jumping on me isn’t helping our case.

          Then why did you jump on everyone in the thread for using different methods here? Isn’t this a little brazenly hypocritical?

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

            I thought those methods, while appropriate sometimes, were inappropriate at that particular moment. Given what’s happened since (Ray’s complete lack of actual, you know, arguments), I no longer agree with past-me. I care about being effective, and I honestly don’t think that cursing at people is usually effective. Since Ray hasn’t indicated good-faith efforts to engage, though, effectiveness becomes less important as nothing will be effective anyways.

            Causticness can be effective, but total dismissal complete with insults isn’t. It’s appropriate only when nothing will be effective, and at the time I genuinely wasn’t sure that was the case. Does that make sense?

          • Stogoe

            Then why did you jump on everyone in the thread for using different methods here? Isn’t this a little brazenly hypocritical?

            It’s part of the standard accomodationist argument package. “There are many different methods that work for different people, such as tolerating evil, and rolling your eyes while tolerating evil, and having tea with evil while it burns children to death for being witches, AND EVERYONE HAS TO USE MY METHOD BECAUSE IT’S THE ONLY ONE THAT WORKS!!!”

    • Glodson

      My problem is the arrogance to come in here and just drop his opinion without bothering to read the entire thread, or the linked thread. Any point he wanted to see made has been made. We did our work. The least anyone can do is read what has already been written.

      And I agree with Nate. Maybe we’re wrong and have a hair trigger, but I saw nothing to indicate he was arguing in good faith. Ignoring the reply button seems to be a clue. I don’t know why, but many of those who argue in bad faith ignore it. It isn’t a one-to-one occurrence, but it is a common theme. I suspect it has to do more with the want of attention rather than the need to actually read the discussions prior to posting.

  • Ray

    Stay classy, folks. The world is not the Internet. Much as I don’t want to be “that guy,” some of us have lives, and can’t read every comment on a message board. I can’t reply to all fifty of you, so let me clarify a few things, and then you can get back to burning me in effigy.

    First, some of you are asking me to prove claims I never made. I never put forth a pro-life argument, so any comment claiming the contrary is strawmanning in the most literal sense.

    My argument is that we, the supposedly reasonable atheist community, should not resort to insults and emotionally charged arguments. If your goal is to convince others of the validity of your position, invective is not the way to do so. Respect your opponent, attack the belief. It’s why Martin Luther King is widely beloved and Malcolm X is not.

    As for ad hominem, Hotshoe was helpful enough to provide, although any of his posts would have sufficed. Asking for evidence when it’s right in front of you doesn’t contribute much.

    Don’t worry about fee-fees; I’m an Atheist Republican, so I’m used to taking shit from all sides. But the longer you crucify me by way of internet, the deeper you dig the hole for yourself.

    No hard feelings, though. Ain’t nobody got time for that. But please, carry on.

    • Nate Frein

      The world is not the Internet. Much as I don’t want to be “that guy,” some of us have lives,

      Implying, of course, that the people responding to you don’t. Very respectful, that.

      First, some of you are asking me to prove claims I never made. I never put forth a pro-life argument, so any comment claiming the contrary is strawmanning in the most literal sense.

      Yeah. Learn to read for comprehension. Cite one person who said you put forth any pro-life argument.

      What was stated (multiple times) was that you made the assertion that you were pro-life in a post on abortion issues without actually offering any argument at all for that position.

      My argument

      If you want to call it that

      is that we, the supposedly reasonable atheist community, should not resort to insults and emotionally charged arguments.

      And what evidence have you put forward supporting that argument?

      If your goal is to convince others of the validity of your position, invective is not the way to do so.

      Tell that to Stonewall

      Respect your opponent, attack the belief

      At what point was a belief left unchallenged?

      It’s why Martin Luther King is widely beloved and Malcolm X is not.

      MLK also knew when to get mad. MLK said some not very nice things.

      As for ad hominem, Hotshoe was helpful enough to provide

      Hotshoe created one deliberate example of ad hominem after you made the accusation to demonstrate, for you, true ad hom. Cite any other example from this thread. If the evidence is so obvious, I’m sure you’ll have no problem pointing to it.

      although any of his posts would have sufficed

      Why do you assume Hotshoe is a “he”? Male privilege much?

      Asking for evidence when it’s right in front of you doesn’t contribute much.

      Asking for examples of what you consider to be ad hominem in the thread allows us to directly rebut the false accusation. See above: If the evidence is so obvious you should have no problem pointing directly to it.

      Don’t worry about fee-fees; I’m an Atheist Republican, so I’m used to taking shit from all sides. But the longer you crucify me by way of internet, the deeper you dig the hole for yourself.

      Oh, get off your cross and stop martyrbating. You got criticized, that’s all. All you’ve done is prove that just because a person is an atheist doesn’t mean they know how to think or argue intelligently.

      Ain’t nobody got time for that

      And you finish off with a racist meme. You’re a real class act.

      • ButchKitties

        martyrbating

        I’m so stealing this.

        • Nate Frein

          I can’t take credit for it. I think it was BabyRaptor who came up with it on FriendlyAtheist.

          • ButchKitties

            +1 for citing your sources. :)

    • hotshoe

      Stay classy, folks.

      Yeah, you too, you supercilious fake-humble arse.

      I never put forth a pro-life argument, so any comment claiming the contrary is strawmanning in the most literal sense.

      Stupid, stupid. You’re the one who entered this discussion by stating “I’m a pro-life atheist”. What do you expect, to be treated as if you’re too stupid to have any (implied) pro-life arguments? You’re saying we give you too much credit by assuming that you do have some argument for your own stated position? You’re really that stupid?
      Fine. I agree with you. You admit you’re that stupid, and I agree.

      If your goal is to convince others of the validity of your position, invective is not the way to do so. Respect your opponent, attack the belief. It’s why Martin Luther King is widely beloved and Malcolm X is not.

      But you’re flat-out wrong in your perception of that history. (No surprise, since the Rethuglicans have been lying to themselves and all other Americans since the 1950s) MLK would never have made progress in his own time were it not for the contrast with the more-militant Malcolm X. No white racist was ever persuaded out of his racism by MLK’s sweet sermons. The only reason racist people ever became less racist is because the social cost of staying racist got too high.
      Treating people who have bad beliefs with “respect” never changes their beliefs. You have no evidence that strategy ever works. You have no citations other than a misty-eyed fairy tale about how beloved King was when he was doing his work.
      You may want to believe it personally, so you can continue to justify your pitiful attempts to shame atheists for being too militant, or too whatever. Fine, keep believing in something that’s factually wrong. Your life, your choice. Just don’t do it in public, or we’ll mock you for it as much as you deserve.

      As for ad hominem, Hotshoe was helpful enough to provide, although any of his posts would have sufficed.

      Damn, another dumbdumb who is too stubborn to learn what “ad hominem” means, even when given a helpful example in living color.
      Yo dummy, the only ad hominem I made (against anyone, not just against you) is the specific example I pointed out. None of the rest of my posts would suffice, because there aren’t any ad homs in the rest of them. Insults, yes, ad homs, no.
      When will you pretentious asses learn the difference!

      But the longer you crucify me by way of internet, the deeper you dig the hole for yourself.

      And now he’s not just a poor little misunderstood straw-manned and ad-hommed atheist, he’s Jesus Christ in person! Crucify him! Crucify him!
      Goddamn, you are one special little turdblossom, aren’t you?
      We expect that kind of behavior from the typical sack-of-shit christian who whines about persecution. I must say, you’ve given me quite a challenge to my pro-atheist prejudices to see you – a supposed atheist – behaving exactly as badly as they do.
      I mean, I knew at some level that being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re a good or a rational person, but it is a shock to have you prove that so vividly.

    • hotshoe

      Thanks, Nate Frein. Well said. And especially, good call on that last line “Ain’t nobody got time for that” – you put your finger on what was bugging me about that.
      Makes me want to spit.

      Gotta run – some of us have lives, you know. ;) Catch ya later!

    • Glodson

      I would reply, but Nate and Hotshoe beat me to it. Pretty much what they said.

      You’ve said nothing of value, you’ve not made your case, and you show that you haven’t even bothered to read up on the subject. You are just wasting everyone’s time with tone trolling bullshit. Even the nicest person here said you were tone trolling. She was far more charitable than you deserved.

    • Azkyroth

      Respect your opponent, attack the belief. It’s why Martin Luther King is widely beloved and Malcolm X is not.

      Ahem.

      must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

      I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

      • Glodson

        Ha!

      • Nate Frein

        Ah, Letter from a Birmingham Jail. The side of MLK that conservative revisionists want to white-wash.

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

        Oh nicely done Azkyroth. I was just looking for this, but you beat me to it.

        • Glodson

          Yes, they like the mythic version of Martin Luther King Jr, who was a Civil Rights leader, but not a confrontational protester. They seem to think that nonviolence = quietly objection.

          • Stogoe

            I had heard the 16th was the anniversary of that letter, but I didn’t actually think I’d see it used in an actual argument 50 years to the day it was written.

  • Ray

    If you guys think I’m a troll, then I must be a damn good one, seeing as I’ve gotten under your skin. Seeing as you ignore my argument and claim I have nothing to offer, I think we’re just about through here. Before I go, I’d like to say one more thing.

    This is what’s wrong with the atheist community. By demonizing and insulting those who disagree with you, you stoop to the level of the most ardent religious fundamentalists. We may have evidence and logic on our side, but it doesn’t mean a thing if we drive away our would-be converts. I thought atheism required an open mind, but it turns out a pessimistic and contrarian worldview works just as well. Like it or not, you represent your belief. Think about how you make it look.

    That’s all. Don’t expect a response–I think my point has been proven already. Divisive discourse only increases division, and I think we’re all already up against the wall.

    See you all in hell. ; )

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

      What is your argument? I still can’t find one.

    • Nate Frein

      *snort*

      Citation needed.

    • Nate Frein

      Seriously. Tell that to fucking Stonewall. Tell that to fucking MLK. Tell that to the fucking Suffragettes. Your words fly in the face of the history of all successful civil rights movements.

      And don’t try to make this about fucking atheists. It’s about women’s bodily autonomy, and the “pro-life” people who seem to think that a women’s fundamental rights are worth less than a clump of tissue that has yet to achieve anything except the potential of humanity.

    • Glodson

      If you guys think I’m a troll, then I must be a damn good one, seeing as I’ve gotten under your skin. Seeing as you ignore my argument and claim I have nothing to offer, I think we’re just about through here. Before I go, I’d like to say one more thing.

      Glad you think this issue of a woman’s bodily autonomy is a joke. And we’ve not evens started. We can’t start. You’ve not made an argument, just tone trolled. This is not something to be proud of.

      This is what’s wrong with the atheist community. By demonizing and insulting those who disagree with you, you stoop to the level of the most ardent religious fundamentalists.

      Fuck you. You really didn’t read the threads. It is one thing to disagree, it is another thing to treat a dishonest fuck like a dishonest fuck. The comment that sparked this whole thing was a disingenuous example of JAQing off in the worst way, full of fearmongering hyperbole. Before you open your mouth, or post a comment, why not find out about what, exactly, you are commenting on.

      We may have evidence and logic on our side, but it doesn’t mean a thing if we drive away our would-be converts.

      Atheism != Pro Choice. You are conflating the two. Some of us argue that there’s a link between atheism and social justice. Some don’t. Some atheists strive for intellectual honesty, some don’t care. In fact, my reaction to a person varies, and it is often based on them. I’m not going to afford anyone the respect of civility who doesn’t deserve it.

      I thought atheism required an open mind, but it turns out a pessimistic and contrarian worldview works just as well. Like it or not, you represent your belief. Think about how you make it look.

      This is tone trolling out of control. Chiding us because you cannot make a competent argument for your point of view is hardly a winning strategy.

      That’s all. Don’t expect a response–I think my point has been proven already. Divisive discourse only increases division, and I think we’re all already up against the wall.

      You know what leads to divisive discourse? Not addressing the points laid before you, not making your case. Fuck, at least the Happy Madison jackass laid out his stupid argument. It was dishonest and worthless, but at least he did that much. You’ve not backed up of your assertions.

      So, yeah. If you want to claim you are rational, show it. Don’t tell us you are. If you think something is a fallacy, quote the passage and explain why. If you have evidence to support your position of “pro-life,” make your fucking argument. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone’s time.

      See you all in hell. ; )

      More concerned with being cute than saying anything of substance. You will not be missed.

  • Anonymous Atheist

    The line for a birth to hypothetically be ‘viable’ moves earlier as medical technology improves, but the more premature a birth is, and often with serious birth defects as well, the more expensive it is to take advantage of that advanced medical care (‘heroic measures’). This could be tens of thousands of dollars, or as much as millions of dollars: http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/02/the-cost-of-premature-birth-for-one-u-s-family-it-was-more-than-2-million/ . If the birth was unwanted – only occurring due to a failed attempt at a desired abortion, or the lack of availability of providers to even attempt a desired abortion – then the issue of who will bear that cost, and how, can’t be ignored (in addition to the next 18 years of costs even under normal circumstances). Are the pro-lifers are lining up to sponsor unwanted would-be ‘million-dollar babies’?

  • Theodore Seeber

    So, I take it from this, that you take exception to Planned Parenthood’s opposition to “Born alive” laws?

    Can we also agree that Gosnell was allowed to continue precisely because pro-choicers want abortion clinics to be exempted from the same rules that hospitals have to follow?

    I agree that abortion done in a non-sterile environment is, in short, always wrong.

    I disagree with you on the number of patients involved. Abortion is designed to do one thing- always kill at least 50% of the patients on the table. Sterile is possible, safe is not, under those circumstances. There will always be the possibility of error.

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

      No parent has the obligation to provide NICU care to infants likely to die- parents “pull the plug” on wanted infants on a regular basis, or hold them while they die instead of subjecting them to medical interventions unlikely to work. We don’t force any parent to provide super-expensive medical care to extremely premature infants. Why should the only exception be abortions? Planned Parenthood’s opposition is to laws that make “abortion survivors” more special than wanted super-preemies.

      We can not agree that Gosnell was allowed to continue because people want abortion clinics exempted from hospital rules. Abortion clinics should be treated like free-standing surgical centers, not hospitals, which is what they are. And, surprise surprise, they meet those standards. You know what would thrill me? If medical abortions were performed in doctor’s offices or at home while surgical abortions were performed at hospitals as outpatient surgery, like any other medical procedure, but alas doctors and hospitals refuse to do their jobs. Also, Gosnell was ignored by authorities because his victims were “only” poor women of color, not “important” people (read, middle-class whites). This country is classist and racist and misogynist: combine all that together, and you get official indifference to someone like Gosnell. Pro-choice blogs and newsletters went apeshit in 2011 when Gosnell was indicted; here was the bad old days of illegal abortion, come back to haunt us, because safe, legal abortion was unavailable to these women. Here was a shining example of why we needed to fight harder for reproductive rights, to prevent people like Gosnell from being the only providers. The rest of the media, including the conservative blogs and newsletters? *crickets* The most ardently feminist, pro-choice people on the Internet rightly condemned Gosnell. They also looked at why he existed- why was there a market for his services? That, Theodore, that is the question. Why did he exist? The answer is people like you. People who don’t like abortion, and restrict it and nibble away at it and make it just that little bit more out of reach, until desperate women do desperate things. And then you’re shocked, shocked I say! that unethical people take advantage of desperate people. To which I respond, no shit, Sherlock.

      Pregnant women are not two people. Period. There’s been laws about this: pregnant women are not allowed in HOV lanes, they only need purchase one ticket at concerts, etc. That means there is only one patient involved in abortions, and it is the woman.

      Safe abortion is not possible? I call bullshit. 100% error-free abortion is not possible, but neither is 100% error-free heart surgery, or vasectomy, or tumor biopsy, or massage, or chewing, or breathing, or walking. We go for minimized risk, but nothing is ever perfect. Abortion is still hugely, immensely safer than pregnancy and labor. Why hold this one medical procedure above all the rest in safety requirements? Because you don’t happen to like this one? That’s not a valid argument.

      • Theodore Seeber

        “No parent has the obligation to provide NICU care to infants likely to die- parents “pull the plug” on wanted infants on a regular basis, or hold them while they die instead of subjecting them to medical interventions unlikely to work. ”

        Let’s stop right there, because in that case, you don’t have a right to life even after birth. You can be killed any time the cost of keeping you alive is greater than the economic value of your work.

        Are you SURE you want to follow this philosophy to it’s logical conclusion? Because to me, the logical conclusion is *anybody who willfully doesn’t have children, is not contributing to the future of the human race and should be killed*.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

          Oh, IC wut u did thar. You took my argument about what is current law and practice and conflated it with a slippery slope that could happen if we … did what’s already happening.

          We let people with low chances of survival choose to forgo medical treatment, because a lot of medical treatment can be painful and reduce quality of life for uncertain outcomes. We let their medical proxies make that decision for people if they are incapable of deciding for themselves- children, the severely mentally ill, people in comas, people in delirium, and people with dementia among others. That’s standard practice and widely considered ethical- while it’s unethical to kill people by withholding care, it’s equally unethical to force treatment on people who don’t want it. It comes down to the choice of the person (or their medical proxy). You know, that bodily autonomy thing we keep going on about?

          So parents of super-premature infants have hard choices to make about what medical interventions, if any, they want for their fragile, likely-to-die child. The point is they have that choice. The laws that Planned Parenthood opposes would say that the parents of live-born aborted fetuses (which, yes, are also called babies) would be denied that choice. So parents of a wanted child can choose to let their child die, but parents of unwanted children can’t make that choice? And are you willing to pay for it? NICU care for super-preemies can easily go over $1 million dollars; would you pay for that, but not the food and diapers and clothing and housing and schooling and specialized medical care and learning disability treatment that child will need for the rest of their life? Or is the baby no longer your problem, now that you can no longer steal a woman’s choices and autonomy from her?

  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

    After Gosnell was indicted, Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini were published in the Journal of Medical Ethics advocating for the concept of “after birth abortion”. Talk about media bias, nobody mentioned Gosnell and asked the authors how their theory would apply to his case. The paper is titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”

    So far as I can tell, even now, nobody is pursuing this angle, putting the two stories together. You’d think that the pro-choice side would be at least belatedly interested in propping up their anti-infanticide credentials these days. Nope.

  • Guest

    “When I think of a live baby’s spine snipped with a pair of scissors, I am furious.
    Dr. Gosnell has been accused of all of these things. If they are true, he should never be allowed to practice medicine again. Ever. And he should go to jail.”

    Why? What’s up with that little piece of hypocrisy when apparently you’re just fine with killing it 2 minutes before it’s born? Do you really think it isn’t the same “live baby” when the mother and her abortionist are trying to kill it in utero? What outrages you more: killing a viable baby or doing it in a nasty dirty clinic?

    As far as women having late-term abortions by the likes of Gosnell BECAUSE they are poor – hardly good logic there. Abortions get more costly the farther along they are. No, most women get late term abortions because their circumstances have changed, like the sperm donor/baby daddy walks out on them.

    • Loqi

      Abortions get more costly the farther along they are.

      Which is why they’re having them done by the likes of Gosnell. Real medical care is expensive. Some quack with a steak knife is cheap. Logic isn’t your strong suit, is it?

      No, most women get late term abortions because their circumstances have changed, like the sperm donor/baby daddy walks out on them.

      Nice assertion there. I assume you have some evidence to provide? Also nice misogyny there. You’ve already provided enough evidence, no need to go further there.

      • Guest

        Nice dodge on the real issue. Why is it OK to kill a baby in utero but not to snip it’s spine 2 minutes later?

        • Nate Frein

          Why is it okay to kill in self defense but not after the threat is gone?

          • Guest

            None of the pregnancies in question at Gosnell’s clinic have been reported to have endangered the mother’s life, so by YOUR definition of self defense I would be perfectly justified to brutally off you just because I found you inconvenient or annoying. Got it.

            I’m on my way over to my neighbor’s house to tell him he can either move (threat gone) or I’ll be back over to kill him the next time he wakes me up in the middle of the night and threatens my well-being.

          • Nate Frein

            Even a healthy pregnancy risks the life of the mother. It’s far more than “inconvenient or annoying”. That you would say so reeks of male privilege.

          • Guest

            So, even if I accepted your premise that healthy pregnancies are risky enough to the life of the mother to justify abortion – which I don’t – what possible justification is there for waiting until the last trimester to kill it, when the baby is viable, if it’s a healthy pregnancy?

          • Nate Frein

            Because they couldn’t get one earlier so they have to save up the money and find someone (like Gosnell) willing to do the deed illegally and “on the cheap”?

            Gosnell is the face of increasingly restricted abortions. Think of him every time you vote to reduce the window in which a woman can have an early abortion. Think of him every time you vote to defund planned parenthood. Think of him every time you vote to allow companies to deny insurance coverage for contraception to their employees.

          • Drakk

            >> I’m on my way over to my neighbor’s house to tell him he can either move (threat gone) or I’ll be back over to kill him the next time he wakes me up in the middle of the night and threatens my well-being.

            Your neighbour isn’t leeching his nutrients directly off your body, dipshit.

            >> So, even if I accepted your premise that healthy pregnancies are risky enough to the life of the mother to justify abortion [...]

            You don’t get to decide what risks other people have to take, especially when it’s not something that’s ever going to happen to you.

            >> what possible justification is there for waiting until the last trimester to kill it, when the baby is viable, if it’s a healthy pregnancy?

            Childbirth is a dangerous process with room for many things to go wrong.

          • Guest

            Gosnell wasn’t killing on the cheap. He was charging big bucks because he was doing it illegally – try reading the facts of the case. There is no justification for aborting viable babies – ever – and then pretending it isn’t the same kind of murder as what he was doing to the one’s that lived. Gosnell just slapped a little more dirt on what is already a horror freak show whether it’s done in a clean PP clinic or not.

            Keep trying, and failing, to make it about restricting abortion instead of the obvious murder of late term abortion. It’s clear why you want to avoid the real issue.

          • Nate Frein

            So if you woke up one day strapped to another person because that person needed your blood…there would be no justification for you to walk away?

          • Guest

            LOL Nate. Look at how ridiculous your ‘logic’ and scenarios have to get in your attempt to find some justification. The babies Gosnell murdered were the same age as babies the law allows (in many states) to be aborted on demand for any reason or NO reason. There is no sane biological or moral explanation why the same baby can be legally aborted one minute but killing it on the table the next is murder. Or why failure to provide all emergency resuscitative care to a baby aborted alive is medical malpractice but attempting to end the same baby’s life just a minute before it’s born is OK. And if snipping a born-alive baby’s spinal cord bothers you but you support legal abortion of the same baby then you have a serious cognitive/emotional/moral dissonance problem you are ignoring. You want to make up ridiculous scenarios and justifications to deny what is patently obvious. A baby that can be murdered at 1 minute post-birth is a baby who is being murdered even in the womb.

            btw Nate, do you really think pregnancy involves just waking up one day with a parasite in your womb? If that’s what you think pregnancy is then I suggest you find a good sex education manual and read it.

          • Glodson

            The babies Gosnell murdered were the same age as babies the law allows (in many states) to be aborted on demand for any reason or NO reason.

            Citation needed.

            Fuck it. I’ll do it.

            Prosecutors said Gosnell made millions of dollars over three decades performing thousands of dangerous abortions, many of them illegal late-term procedures. His clinic had no trained nurses or medical staff other than Gosnell, a family physician not certified in obstetrics or gynecology, yet authorities say many administered anesthesia, painkillers and labor-inducing drugs.

            Source.

            Already, you are a liar. The abortions he performed were illegal.

            He is also charged with violating Pennsylvania abortion law by performing abortions after 24 weeks, operating a corrupt organization and other crimes.

            This is illegal. Unless there’s a threat to a woman’s health, in every state as far as I know. So, no, you cannot get an abortion past the 24th week for “no reason” in the US. So, you are, in fact wrong. Now was this because of ignorance or wanton dishonesty?

            There is no sane biological or moral explanation why the same baby can be legally aborted one minute but killing it on the table the next is murder.

            More of this idiocy. If you cannot understand what birth is, and where a woman’s bodily autonomy ends, you are not smart enough to have this conversation. A fetus is inside a woman’s body, a baby is not. That’s the distinction.

            Prosecutors estimated Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies by inducing labor and cutting the babies’ spinal cords, and caused scores of women to suffer infections and permanent internal injuries, but they said they couldn’t prosecute more cases because he destroyed files.

            Eight clinic workers charged with Gosnell have pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including his wife, a beautician accused of helping him perform illegal third-term abortions. Three of Gosnell’s staffers — including an unlicensed medical school graduate and a woman with a sixth-grade education — pleaded guilty to third-degree murder for their roles in the woman’s overdose death or for cutting babies in the back of the neck to ensure their demise.

            Hmm, why would any woman deal with this? Why this risk when abortion should be legal? Why risk suffering an illegal procedure? Why wait so late into term?

            btw Nate, do you really think pregnancy involves just waking up one day with a parasite in your womb? If that’s what you think pregnancy is then I suggest you find a good sex education manual and read it.

            Yea, if only people would talk about teaching sex ed and making sure people got free access to contraception. I wonder which group tends to lean towards that as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies. It would be nice if some people would talk more about that and the dangers of “abstinence only sex-ed” which is related to higher rates of teen pregnancies. It is funny how the areas with the least restrictive abortion laws tend to have a lower rate of abortion. It is almost like if one removes the stigma of being pregnant out of wedlock, talk openly about sex, and allow women to make a decision that is best for them, abortion rates drop.

            Funny that.

          • Nate Frein

            btw Nate, do you really think pregnancy involves just waking up one day with a parasite in your womb? If that’s what you think pregnancy is then I suggest you find a good sex education manual and read it.

            So pregnancy is a punishment for sex?

  • JoFro

    I’m not pro-life or pro-choice! My philosophy is simple – “I believe the woman is free to go and abort her baby! And I believe I am free to abort the abortionist!” – it’s a simple philosophy but hey, at least I don’t believe in murder! :D

    • Nate Frein

      Is the abortionist using your blood and tissue?

    • Glodson

      That’s not blisteringly stupid at all. Nice that you think you seem to have the right to kill someone for doing a medical procedure.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

      You are free to abort the abortionist at the time the abortionist begins stealing your blood and organs for hir own benefit. When the abortionist behaves the same way a fetus does, feel free to treat it the same.

      • Theodore Seeber

        You mean, kind of like Kermit Gosnell did?

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

          Gosnell didn’t steal any blood or organs. He killed people (two women for sure, unknown how many in total. Also at least seven babies). He didn’t steal their organs or their blood to keep himself alive or to sell. Thus, Gosnell is a murderer but unquestionably not a fetus. It confuses me quite a lot, Theodore, that you can’t see the difference.

    • IslandBrewer

      And I ought to have a right to abort you preemptively if I think any of my doctor friends are in danger from you, right?

    • BabyRaptor

      You are a profound idiot. And Fuck you with a rusty spork for making so light of the agonizing decisions that I, and millions of other women, have had to make.

  • Guest

    Glodson,
    “So, no, you cannot get an abortion past the 24th week for “no reason” in the US. So, you are, in fact wrong. Now was this because of ignorance or wanton dishonesty?”

    You’re pretty quick to call someone a liar. YOU are also clearly ignorant of the laws around abortion. Is this because of your ‘wanton dishonesty’?

    Here is (never met an abortionist they didn’t like) Guttmacher’s own list:
    Alaska
    Colorado
    Mississippi
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Oregon
    Vermont
    West Virginia
    District of Columbia

    Where it’s A-OK legal to kill ‘em for any reason right up until delivery. And for all of you so concerned about keeping it safe for women – in several of those states the abortionist doesn’t have to even be a licensed doctor or perform the late-term abortion in a hospital.

    • Glodson

      Where it’s A-OK legal to kill ‘em for any reason right up until delivery. And for all of you so concerned about keeping it safe for women – in several of those states the abortionist doesn’t have to even be a licensed doctor or perform the late-term abortion in a hospital.

      You are a dishonest fuck. Notice you didn’t address anything else.

      Let’s go through your list and show the actual laws.

      Actually, we don’t even need to do that. Let me introduce you to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. This is a federal law. Which means that all states comply with this.

      Guess what that means? It means you are, again, a liar. A fucking dishonest little fuck. Nice try. Maybe you want to dig a little deeper next time.

      You are wrong. Those are laws on top of the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. Further, not just anyone can perform an abortion. In California, for example, they are exploring allowing non-physicians to perform abortions. This means nurses, midwives, and physician assistants. All of which would have proper training.
      And this law would require a physician to be present during the procedure. Four states already have similar laws, and a few allow for a drug induced abortion to be carried out by said people above.

      Notice that these individuals have medical training. Nurses, midwives or physician assistants. Note that Gosnell’s staff had none of these.

      Way to address the other points. Let’s review. You thought you had me with your list, all the while ignoring the Federal Law. Then you crowed about doctors not preforming abortions, ignoring that only 4 states allow for this and in those states, one still has to be a qualified practitioner of medicine to perform the duty. This standard was not met in the Gosnell case where people with no medical training preformed abortions. Finally, the hospital bit is a non-sequitur. You have to at least preform the procedure in a clinic. There’s rules for practicing medicine.

      Nice try. Not really, you’re actually really stupid.

      • No So Fast

        Allowing a non physician to do an abortion would be insane, and asking for a lawsuit.

        • Glodson

          Tell that to Oregan, Montana, Vermont and New Hampshire.

          I would have to research it, but I am certain that qualified non-physicians can perform certain low risk procedures. This would help supply more practitioners, as one problem women face when seeking an abortion is the lack of a safe place in which to get one. Given the very low risk, and the overall low rate of negative outcomes for women in a professional setting providing abortion, this is likely a non-issue and covered by normal malpractice insurance in those states.

          Again, these are professional and licensed medical providers, not just random people with a weekend of training. As far as I know, one has to meet the qualifications to be licensed as a nurse(or physician’s assistant) and be trained on the procedure as well.

          • Theodore Seeber

            Oregon. And here, we also abort adult human beings with less than six months left to live!

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

            No, we allow them to commit suicide. That is, choose to kill themselves. You know, choice? That word you simply don’t understand?

      • Guest

        Glodson,
        Let’s see, if we take all your F-words out do we have anything left? My granny always used to tell me that people use cuss words when they don’t have enough intelligence to articulate their thoughts. So let’s see if she’s right again.

        “You are a dishonest fuck. Notice you didn’t address anything else. Let’s go through your list and show the actual laws.”

        I addressed the fact that you called me a liar and then proved you didn’t know squat about abortion law.

        “Let me introduce you to Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. This is a federal law. Which means that all states comply with this. Guess what that means? It means you are, again, a liar. A fucking dishonest little fuck. Nice try. Maybe you want to dig a little deeper next time.”

        Your ignorance is showing again. Partial birth abortion is not the only method of killing viable babies in the womb and is not the method Gosnell used. The ban means nothing to doctors willing to scald the babies to death by saline abortion or use drugs to stop the heart in the womb like Gosnell did. You really need to do some research before you prove yourself so stupid again.

        “You are wrong. Those are laws on top of the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. Further, not just anyone can perform an abortion. In California, for example, they are exploring allowing non-physicians to perform abortions. This means nurses, midwives, and physician assistants. All of which would have proper training. And this law would require a physician to be present during the procedure. Four states already have similar laws, and a few allow for a drug induced abortion to be carried out by said people above.Notice that these individuals have medical training. Nurses, midwives or physician assistants. Note that Gosnell’s staff had none of these.”

        You clearly have no idea about the level of education and training of medical personnel either do you? Abortion, other than by RU486, is surgery. Always has been. There is nothing in the training of RNs, NPs, PAs, or Midwives OR the state laws that regulate their practice that allows them to do invasive surgery. Unless the CA Board of Nursing is run by a bunch of radical feminists, which it may well be, the state of CA is going to have a very hard time getting them to approve nurses doing abortions. It’s likely that physicians won’t allow it either because they will recognize the slippery slope of opening up their exclusive turf to nurses. The problem PP is having in CA is that most doctors are so disgusted by the thought of actually doing abortions that PP can’t find enough to do all the dirty wet work.

        “Way to address the other points. Let’s review. You thought you had me with your list, all the while ignoring the Federal Law. Then you crowed about doctors not preforming abortions, ignoring that only 4 states allow for this and in those states, one still has to be a qualified practitioner of medicine to perform the duty. This standard was not met in the Gosnell case where people with no medical training preformed abortions. Finally, the hospital bit is a non-sequitur. You have to at least preform the procedure in a clinic. There’s rules for practicing medicine. Nice try. Not really, you’re actually really stupid.”

        This is all about your ego isn’t it? Too bad you picked a topic you are so uninformed about to hang your ego on. If hospitals aren’t necessary, how do you explain those recent cases where women who are injured and dying from botched abortions in free-standing clinics are going by ambulance to hospitals? Do you really not understand what abortionists do? How they blindly scrape and poke and probe and dismember with really sharp instruments and how easy it is to cut an artery or the bowel or the bladder or the uterus instead of the little limbs they are trying for? Again, you’re wrong and just plain ignorant on all counts. You’re actually just wasting my time now.

        • Guest

          You know what else abortionists do and yet another reason why they are the pariahs of medicine, shunned by other doctors? They dump their mistakes on ER doctors and surgeons that actually have hospital privileges which most abortionists don’t. Somebody else always has to clean up and pay for their botched procedures. Every abortion related maternal death and complication ends up in the hospital’s statistics.

        • Glodson

          Your ignorance is showing again. Partial birth abortion is not the only method of killing viable babies in the womb and is not the method Gosnell used. The ban means nothing to doctors willing to scald the babies to death by saline abortion or use drugs to stop the heart in the womb like Gosnell did. You really need to do some research before you prove yourself so stupid again.

          Citation need, fuckface.

          Let me make this clear. It is illegal in the US to have an abortion in the third trimester, except in cases where the woman’s life is in danger. I have found nothing to contradict this. And some states don’t even allow for that exception. Cite the fucking laws that contradict this or shut the fuck up.

          If hospitals aren’t necessary, how do you explain those recent cases where women who are injured and dying from botched abortions in free-standing clinics are going by ambulance to hospitals?

          Jesus fucking Christ, you are stupid. It is legal to have an abortion, even late term, in a clinic. Sometimes, there’s complications. Which is why, some states do require late term abortions do be done in a hospital. There can be complications with any medical procedure, and it can be problematic if this procedure is done in an outpatient facility. Again, no citation. Just an assertion.

          You clearly have no idea about the level of education and training of medical personnel either do you? Abortion, other than by RU486, is surgery. Always has been. There is nothing in the training of RNs, NPs, PAs, or Midwives OR the state laws that regulate their practice that allows them to do invasive surgery. Unless the CA Board of Nursing is run by a bunch of radical feminists, which it may well be, the state of CA is going to have a very hard time getting them to approve nurses doing abortions. It’s likely that physicians won’t allow it either because they will recognize the slippery slope of opening up their exclusive turf to nurses. The problem PP is having in CA is that most doctors are so disgusted by the thought of actually doing abortions that PP can’t find enough to do all the dirty wet work.

          Hey, idiot, you should read the fucking articles. Those are called citations. They are evidence. You’ve linked to one, which didn’t prove your point. I linked to one about a new law California is researching, and pointed to 4 states that already allow for this. Further, there are other states which allow specific abortions to be carried by nurses and the like if they only involve medication.

          Do you really not understand what abortionists do? How they blindly scrape and poke and probe and dismember with really sharp instruments and how easy it is to cut an artery or the bowel or the bladder or the uterus instead of the little limbs they are trying for? Again, you’re wrong and just plain ignorant on all counts. You’re actually just wasting my time now.

          Citation needed. Further, abortions are safer than giving birth. This I will cite. Like in this case.

          Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.

          Experts say the findings, though not unexpected, contradict some state laws that suggest abortions are high-risk procedures.

          And…

          Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.

          That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.

          Yea. Let’s move on to your next batch of stupidity.

          You know what else abortionists do and yet another reason why they are the pariahs of medicine, shunned by other doctors? They dump their mistakes on ER doctors and surgeons that actually have hospital privileges which most abortionists don’t. Somebody else always has to clean up and pay for their botched procedures. Every abortion related maternal death and complication ends up in the hospital’s statistics.

          You mean like that one in 167,000 women who have died from a legal abortion? You know, that very low risk procedure that is safer than giving birth? Hmm, sounds like another lie.

          Again, citation needed. And even if this is correct, that the medical community doesn’t like it, that is an argument ad populum. Dismissed as stupidity. That whole bit is stupid as you make it sound like women are dying left and right from legally preformed abortions, yet the evidence directly contradicts that.

          Funny how evidence works.

        • BabyRaptor

          No, your granny was a stupid woman with her underwear too tight.

          Here’s a crash course in reality for you: Some people use words you don’t like. All this says about this person is that they use combinations of letters that you happen to disapprove of. Your dislike for them in no way affects the person’s IQ, their reasoning, their logic, ETC. And if you honestly think that a person is dumb, or otherwise mentally lacking, because they use words that hurt your fee-fees, YOU are the one with the mental issue. Not the person using the “bad” words.

  • Guest

    Nate,
    “So pregnancy is a punishment for sex?”

    Pro-aborts certainly seem to think pregnancy is a punishment.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

      Well, pregnancy is always life and health threatening. Always. Even if everything goes perfectly, a woman still gains a lot of weight, has to buy new clothes, and has to take at least a few weeks off work. She also has to push a multi-pound being out her vagina, which takes somewhere between 6 and 60 hours of agonizing pain. If it’s a longer time, add in sleep deprivation and dehydration to the pain. Of course, since her whole uterus and vagina become one giant open wound, she’s risking hemorrhage and infection as well. She’s also had to go to the hospital, which is expensive.

      All of that is only if nothing goes wrong. Morning sickness is a thing- imagine feeling like you have the flu, only every day for three months. If it’s mild. If it’s severe, imagine being nauseous nonstop for 3-6 months and hospitalized on IV fluids because you can’t even keep down water. Gestational diabetes is a fairly common complication as well, and we all know that periods of high blood sugar are unhealthy and do long-term damage to the heart, veins and arteries, pancreas, and liver. Another common complication is pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, which is high blood pressure. Not just a little elevated, oh no, but so high that you’re risking stroke with every heartbeat. Even short periods of blood pressure that high can do long-term damage. And these are the milder, more controllable complications of pregnancy. I won’t even start in the more sudden to arise, deadlier, rarer complications.

      Women decide to risk all this when they want a baby. When they don’t, it’s straight-up torture to force them to do it.

      • No So Fast

        If pregnancy is always life and health threatening…Always…then having sex, which risks pregnancy, is always life and heath threatening. Always.

        • Glodson

          Which is why M said…

          Women decide to risk all this when they want a baby. When they don’t, it’s straight-up torture to force them to do it.

          It is about consent to be pregnant. If the woman wants the baby, she is consenting to the dangers of the pregnancy.

          And sex can be a risk. Which is why safe sex is important. This includes the use of contraception, which can prevent pregnancies in women who don’t want to be pregnant at the time. Which will prevent abortion, if that’s your problem.

          Now, are you done with your hyperbolic nonsense? Having sex and not getting pregnant is possible. And we have measures that greatly reduce the odds of pregnancy. Methods that some demonize.

          • Theodore Seeber

            What ever happened to “the only safe sex is no sex”?

          • Nate Frein

            Because people are going to have sex. Just like people are going to ride bikes, climb mountains, drive to work, or use heat to cook food.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

            @Theodore: we don’t live in the Dark Ages anymore?

          • Glodson

            Whatever happened to minding your own damn business and not trying to dictate terms in the bedroom, or what medical procedures a woman uses?

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

          Nope! Because we can prevent pregnancies pretty well. We can also abort them, if that prevention fails. Consent to sex != consent to pregnancy. Your extension of risk is absurd. Overeating causes obesity, and obesity is a pretty big health problem. The solution is not to say that eating is a big health problem …

        • BabyRaptor

          Having sex can be decoupled from potentially producing a baby. Its the same pro-forced birth crowd that is demanding that all pregnancies be forced to come to term that is doing everything possible to not allow this. Sex doesn’t have to be dangerous, but you and your lot are actively trying to make it so.

          And further, keep your Fucked up notions of consent to yourself. YOU might be agreeing to get pregnant every time you have sex, but that’s solely on YOU. Anyone who would force that on any other woman deserves a place in that eternal torture pit that doesn’t actually exist.

      • sg

        I have had two kids, no pain drugs. Not everyone has long agonizing labor. I know because I didn’t. The second one was induced, so it was about 4 hours boredom and 20 minutes of pain. Neither time did my doctor come in time, so someone close at hand caught the babies. So, no, I didn’t have any of the problems listed as being always present with pregnancy and childbirth. Have you had a baby?

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

          You got lucky. I haven’t had babies yet, but since I’m like my mom in many physiological things (irregular and extremely painful menstruation for one), I expect my labors will be similar to hers. They weren’t super long- I think 5-10 hours. I know she had an epidural on at least one of them, though, which can definitely speed things up.

          So no, I didn’t account for the (extremely rare) women who don’t have pain, or who orgasm during birth, or who gain less than 10 lbs. What, exactly, was your point again? That we should force women to be pregnant on the off chance that it won’t suck horribly for them?

    • Nate Frein

      Pro-aborts certainly seem to think pregnancy is a punishment.

      No. It’s an observation that anti-choicers appear to want to use pregnancy as a cudgel to enforce their religious views on other women by attempting to force them to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term.

      Eating ice-cream is not a punishment in itself. Now, imagine me being forced to eat a flavor of ice cream I don’t like until I get sick and then continuing to force-feed me ice cream because of some religious notion that you should only buy ice-cream if you’re going to eat it and I wasn’t paying as much attention at the freezer section at the store. That would be a punishment, yes.

  • IslandBrewer

    Ok, anti-choicers and pregnancy enslavers, what would you do with this woman?

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/18/critically_ill_woman_faces_jail_time_if_she_goes_forward_with_life_saving_abortion/

    Force her to die, would you? Maybe pray for magic to happen and let her live?

    • Theodore Seeber

      In Oregon, the pro-choicers would just give her 9 grams of poison to choke down.

      • Nate Frein

        [Citation needed]

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

        Actually, she’d have to ask for them. And then be evaluated by at least two psychiatrists to make sure she wasn’t depressed. And also be evaluated by at least two physicians who would confirm that she had a terminal illness (going to kill her in less than 6 months). Not be in a life-threatening situation, but have an incurable illness that would definitely kill her. She would have to sign a gazillion forms, then take the pills herself with no help from anyone.

        I see no evidence that this woman wants to die. On the contrary, she very much wants to live, which is why she’s seeking an abortion. You really have no idea what “choice” means, do you?

        • sg

          Dr. Kevorkian helped people commit suicide because they were depressed.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

            He also operated entirely outside the law and was eventually convicted of murder. Oregon’s assisted suicide laws are designed to prevent people like Dr. Kevorkian. I assume you have a point somewhere?

      • IslandBrewer

        My question, Ted, Defender of the Mother Church, was what YOU would do to her. Two choices: (1)Save her life, (2) let her die. Be honest, you’d let her die, wouldn’t you? Why can’t you just say that you’d let her die, horribly and painfully, because you think that’s what Jesus wants?

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M
  • http://www.theologyweb.com/ Challenger Grim

    Query: If we’re all pro-choice here, then I trust everyone is on board with my hope to put “paper abortions” into law?

  • http://www.theologyweb.com/ Challenger Grim

    (Nate – down here because the nesting is subpar)

    Because they couldn’t get one earlier so they have to save up the money and find someone (like Gosnell) willing to do the deed illegally and “on the cheap”?

    Last few times I was in the hospital (on either side of the treatment) or any doctor’s office, they had this policy that I believe is termed “billing”. Do you have any… what’s the term I’m looking for… evidence that this was the case?

    The best I can find is:

    Many charts had notations concerning the cost of the second trimester procedures. Prices ranged from $830-1,665. Many women who did not have the full amount were aided by an abortion fund that raises money to pay for portions of an abortion bill that patients cannot cover. However, more women signed promissory notes and were put on a payment plan for the balance. Lewis testified it was not unusual for women to disappear and never pay their balances.

    Of course that is lifenews so I am interested if you can find other sources, because so far, the above disproves your first theory.

    Gosnell is the face of increasingly restricted abortions. Think of him every time you vote to reduce the window in which a woman can have an early abortion.

    Again, evidence? Best I can find, Philadelphia permits abortion for the first 6 months (aka 2/3rds of the duration). So… not sure what you mean by increasing restrictions. The next closest law seems to be Act 122 which (in response to Gosnell) requires abortion clincs to… well be as regulated as any other doctor’s office or outpatient center.

    We go for minimized risk, but nothing is ever perfect. Abortion is still hugely, immensely safer than pregnancy and labor.

    Current evidence of this? And does the above hold true for all times and situations (on average)? Also, query: Suppose a hypothetical calculation wherein it was determined that in the last third of gestation, there was less risk for the birthing member to go through the expelling process of the offspring (whether by default or via another method, doesn’t matter) and then have the offspring eliminated than for the offspring to be eliminated prior to the exit stage. Your moral calculation for the proper act?

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com M

      Permits but does not pay for, as the Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used to pay for abortions except for rape or incest. Increased restrictions include but are not limited to: mandatory waiting periods (have to take two days off work instead of one), shutting down Planned Parenthood so that there’s a smaller number of clinics, mandatory unnecessary medical procedures that add to the cost (eg intravaginal ultrasounds), and other laws designed to decrease access to abortion. All this makes abortions fairly expensive, such that a woman may be constantly chasing the money she needs for an abortion until it’s too late and her only choice is someone like Gosnell. If Medicaid paid for elective abortions, Gosnell wouldn’t exist. If pro-lifers didn’t protest and slut-shame and threaten and bomb and shoot, Gosnell wouldn’t exist.

      Current evidence of the safety of abortion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271. This only links to the abstract, but it contains the relevant information. The US maternal mortality rate is 8.8/100,000. The mortality rate for legal abortions is 0.6/100,000. Morbidity, or rate of injury, was also higher for childbirth than induced abortion. Now I think this does include all legal abortions, not just late-term ones. However, in 1973 before Roe v. Wade, the abortion death rate in the US was 3.4/100,000: still significantly less unsafe than childbirth today, which is safer than it was in 1973 (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/hs/pubhealth/modules/reproductiveHealth/abortion.html).

      So what it comes down to is women who want (biologically-related) babies are willing to risk their lives and health to get them. Women who do not want babies should never be forced carry them, because pregnancy has significant risk. The earlier an abortion is performed, the safer it is for a woman’s health, so we should make sure that all women who want abortions can access them early. Your hypothetical makes no sense; what we know of biology suggests that it’s simply not possible, so I shan’t answer your trap that pretends biology doesn’t exist.

    • Glodson

      Here.

      The price list at Women’s Medical Society, listed in the Grand jury report, shows that in 2005, a first trimester procedure was $330.00, while the average price nationally then was about one hundred dollars higher. For a 23-24 week procedure, Gosnell charged $1,625.00, while the relatively few other facilities in the Northeast offering such abortions would have charged at least one thousand more.

      While expensive, it is cheaper than the safe places, and it was available. Women desperate enough for what amounts to a back-alley abortion aren’t likely to have the means to go far enough, or the time. So they have to take what is cheaper and available to them.

      And compared to a birth, the cost of the procedure is about one-ninth the average cost of a vaginal birth with no complications. So, it wasn’t “cheap.” But Gosnell offered the services cheaper than those of a legal provider, and he was close at hand for the women.

      Another relevant passage:

      What’s worse is that the cost of the abortion, $300, would break Ashley’s budget. There was no such thing as an extra $300 in Ashley’s world. If she was going to go through with it, could she raise the money, and could she do it in time? I was concerned that if she paid for the abortion she would get behind on rent, and wind up back on the streets. If welfare medical assistance provided funds for women to have abortions, she could have very quickly and safely had the procedure done. Instead, the clock was quickly ticking as she explored every avenue for getting the money together. The longer it ticked, the more expensive the procedure would become, until ultimately it would become illegal and she would have to bring the baby to term. Or, if she was that desperate, she might have turned to Kermit Gosnell, who allegedly exploited exactly this scenario of poor women past the term limit for a legal abortion, maybe because while they were struggling to get the money together for it the clock ticked too long, maybe because they were ignorant of other, better resources for the service.”

      The women felt trapped. They were in trouble. They were desperate. This is why some went to Gosnell. He took advantage of them. This is what happens in the face of restrictions on abortion. Making them illegal is one way, but making it so women can’t afford them is another. Instead of having the baby and incurring the major debt and risk becoming homeless, they get desperate. Which is what a bottom-feeder like Gosnell thrives on.

      Current evidence of this? And does the above hold true for all times and situations (on average)?

      I cited this in above statement. Studies show that women die at a rate of about 1 in 11,000 in cases of child birth. In abortions, it is about 1 in 167,000. Abortions are safer, in general. Specific circumstances may vary, which might be impossible to tell.

      Suppose a hypothetical calculation wherein it was determined that in the last third of gestation, there was less risk for the birthing member to go through the expelling process of the offspring (whether by default or via another method, doesn’t matter) and then have the offspring eliminated than for the offspring to be eliminated prior to the exit stage. Your moral calculation for the proper act?

      Yes, let’s treat a woman’s bodily autonomy like a thought experiment. Look, it is pretty clear. When the fetus is in the woman’s body, you can abort. It is her body, her call. Once the fetus is born, she doesn’t have the right to make that call. Because this is no longer a question of her bodily autonomy.

      Now, why do you think some women, the vast minority who get abortions, seek them past week 16, which is what defines “late term abortions?”

      • http://theologyweb.com/ Challenger Grim

        While expensive, it is cheaper than the safe places, and it was available. Women desperate enough for what amounts to a back-alley abortion aren’t likely to have the means to go far enough, or the time. So they have to take what is cheaper and available to them.

        Illogical. You yourself established that was it must cheaper at the start than late. So why did they not take the early procedure with billing options (like many do)?

        And compared to a birth, the cost of the procedure is about one-ninth the average cost of a vaginal birth with no complications. So, it wasn’t “cheap.” But Gosnell offered the services cheaper than those of a legal provider, and he was close at hand for the women.

        Incorrect. As quoted here from the report:

        As a result, Gosnell began to rely much more on referrals from other areas where abortions as late as 24 weeks are unavailable. More and more of his patients came from out of state and were late second-trimester patients. Many of them were well beyond 24 weeks. Gosnell was known as a doctor who would perform abortions at any stage, without regard for legal limits. His patients came from several states, including Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, as well as from Pennsylvania cities outside the Philadelphia area, such as Allentown. He also had many late-term Philadelphia patients because most other local clinics would not perform procedures past 20 weeks.

        In fact, the murder victim he is on trial for was from Virginia so he was not “close at hand” for many of them.

        The women felt trapped. They were in trouble. They were desperate. This is why some went to Gosnell. He took advantage of them. This is what happens in the face of restrictions on abortion. Making them illegal is one way, but making it so women can’t afford them is another. Instead of having the baby and incurring the major debt and risk becoming homeless, they get desperate. Which is what a bottom-feeder like Gosnell thrives on.

        What restrictions specifically led to the economic situation of Gosnell flourishing? Your proposal for making them cheaper? (supposing some grasp of basic economics)

        I cited this in above statement. Studies show that women die at a rate of about 1 in 11,000 in cases of child birth. In abortions, it is about 1 in 167,000. Abortions are safer, in general. Specific circumstances may vary, which might be impossible to tell.

        I hope to consult M’s links above to see if any of the sources break down abortion risks by trimester.

        Yes, let’s treat a woman’s bodily autonomy like a thought experiment. Look, it is pretty clear. When the fetus is in the woman’s body, you can abort. It is her body, her call. Once the fetus is born, she doesn’t have the right to make that call. Because this is no longer a question of her bodily autonomy.

        1) Such does not matter if we are to look at the matter with pure logic and reason. (unless you are a zealot prosecuting a heretic)
        2) Then I trust you are also opposed to child support and neglect laws which hinder the autonomy of women and men alike?

        • Glodson

          Illogical. You yourself established that was it must cheaper at the start than late. So why did they not take the early procedure with billing options (like many do)?

          You aren’t desperate. Your back isn’t against the wall. And again, why do you think women elected to head into this clinic and pay this money? For fun? Or was it because the alternatives were even worse for them?

          In fact, the murder victim he is on trial for was from Virginia so he was not “close at hand” for many of them.

          Cherry picking. I didn’t say all. Every report I’ve read states that the majority of his customers were from the area. Now, why would a woman come from Virginia? Why not get one locally, if available? Why would women pay this man money despite the risks? Why would they do that?

          What restrictions specifically led to the economic situation of Gosnell flourishing? Your proposal for making them cheaper? (supposing some grasp of basic economics)

          No, I want them to be free. I want all medical procedures to be free. I hate the for-profit healthcare system. It is broken. We pay more for our healthcare than most of the first world, and we get less for our investment than most of the first world. Our healthcare system is broken. This is just one facet.

          I hope to consult M’s links above to see if any of the sources break down abortion risks by trimester.

          Irrelevant. These were women who were forced to wait, by various circumstances. They wanted abortions. If they could have afforded it earlier, why would they wait? If the alternatives were paying an extra 1000 dollars or having a baby which would cost close to 10,000 for the birthing alone, is it not surprising that women came to Gosnell? If we fixed it so that women could easily get abortions earlier and more easily, people like Gosnell wouldn’t have a practice. He charged less than the alternative, was willing to preform them later than the law allowed, had a staff paid minimum wage, and was able to do so thanks to restrictive access to abortion.

          Having safe abortion freely available eliminates the niche in which he could occupy.

          1) Such does not matter if we are to look at the matter with pure logic and reason. (unless you are a zealot prosecuting a heretic)
          2) Then I trust you are also opposed to child support and neglect laws which hinder the autonomy of women and men alike?

          1) Subject does matter. This effects people. This causes real problems for real people. Treating it like a game of logic diminishes this.
          2) That is idiotic, at best. It is nonsense. You left out a word. That word is important. Leaving out that word makes your counter a strawman. The word is bodily. This is about a woman’s bodily autonomy, and her deciding how to take responsibility for her pregnancy. Getting an abortion is taking care of that. If she consents to being pregnant and gestating the child, then figuring out what to do after the birth is her responsibility as well. Keep the child, and one assumes certain duties. Give the child up for adoption will allow for her to forgo those. Men should be held accountable for their part in this as well.

          Maybe if men where held more accountable, if more men took responsibility for their parts in all this, there would be a lower rate of abortion as well.

          But a woman gets to decide what happens in her body, as anyone should be allowed to decide. To conflate that with child support is a ridiculous non sequitur. The debate is over bodily autonomy, not an anarchistic system in which people have no legal responsibility for the finical welfare of their children. How you thought that was a good point is a mystery.

          • http://theologyweb.com/ Challenger Grim

            You aren’t desperate. Your back isn’t against the wall. And again, why do you think women elected to head into this clinic and pay this money? For fun? Or was it because the alternatives were even worse for them?

            Conjecture. Irrelevant. What are the facts, evidence and testimony at hand?

            Cherry picking. I didn’t say all. Every report I’ve read states that the majority of his customers were from the area. Now, why would a woman come from Virginia? Why not get one locally, if available? Why would women pay this man money despite the risks? Why would they do that?

            Actually I was reading from the grand jury report:

            As a result, Gosnell began to rely much more on referrals from other areas where abortions as late as 24 weeks are unavailable. More and more of his patients came from out of state and were late second-trimester patients. Many of them were well beyond 24 weeks. Gosnell was known as a doctor who would perform abortions at any stage, without regard for legal limits. His patients came from several states, including Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, as well as from Pennsylvania cities outside the Philadelphia area, such as Allentown. He also had many late-term Philadelphia patients because most other local clinics would not perform procedures past 20 weeks.

            Currently investigating what the laws are on those states. However, there is a fascinating what if: What if, while it was legal in those states, there were just no volunteers for the procedure? Whether for moral or medical reasons, what if no one else would do the job? There could be a conundrum that quality doctors (as a majority) do not perform these procedures. Hmmm… how to solve.

            No, I want them to be free. I want all medical procedures to be free. I hate the for-profit healthcare system. It is broken. We pay more for our healthcare than most of the first world, and we get less for our investment than most of the first world. Our healthcare system is broken. This is just one facet.

            Irrelevant. If we are to insist on living in reality and being rational, then the first and most basic law is that of limited resources, aka “there is no such thing as a free lunch”. Payment must be made somewhere, somehow.

            Now, it is a rather obvious premise that money is a strongly correlated proxy for autonomy (unless someone really wants to argue that a poor person has more or equal autonomy as a rich individual). If you design to provide for healthcare by taxation, then you are – by definition – remove autonomy from a large number of people. All in the name for preserving the “autonomy” of one individual (who you had previously also removed some autonomy so I guess she at least profits). At which point, this is all just an argument over who gets their autonomy. Your case for why one individual should have their preserved at the cost of everyone else?

            Irrelevant. These were women who were forced to wait, by various circumstances. They wanted abortions. If they could have afforded it earlier, why would they wait?

            That is what I am attempting to determine. Do you have any evidence for this reason?

            If the alternatives were paying an extra 1000 dollars or having a baby which would cost close to 10,000 for the birthing alone, is it not surprising that women came to Gosnell? If we fixed it so that women could easily get abortions earlier and more easily, people like Gosnell wouldn’t have a practice. He charged less than the alternative, was willing to preform them later than the law allowed, had a staff paid minimum wage, and was able to do so thanks to restrictive access to abortion.

            Conjecture, no facts or evidence present. Let us use math to examine the numbers. Earlier here it was quoted:
            first trimester procedure was $330.00, while the average price nationally then was about one hundred dollars higher. For a 23-24 week procedure, Gosnell charged $1,625.00,
            So, let’s assume $430 for a first trimester procedure. To save that much by week 22 would mean that someone has to set aside $19.55 a week. To save up Gosnell’s late term procedure by 24 weeks would mean you’d have to set aside $67.71. If you stretch it out to 40 weeks it comes out to $40.63. (and that’s not even getting into that Gosnell charged more depending on weight)
            Thus, it comes out that, even under the higher price, it is STILL cheaper to do the earlier procedure than Gosnell’s later one. Do you have stronger evidence for your conjecture?

            Having safe abortion freely available eliminates the niche in which he could occupy.

            Highly unlikely given known economic factors. Even if you could pay doctors infinite money, that does not mean that you will have enough of them of sufficient skill to cover wide enough areas “safely”. Unless we can finally get cloning up and running. Then we just need 1 good doctor.

            1) Subject does matter. This effects people. This causes real problems for real people. Treating it like a game of logic diminishes this.

            I thought this was a place devoted to logic and reason. It seems you are allowing things beyond it (either belief or ‘a priori’) into the discussion. At which point, I only see an argument between religions of different sects, fighting for who gets to be in control. Best of luck to both of you.

            2) That is idiotic, at best. It is nonsense. You left out a word. That word is important. Leaving out that word makes your counter a strawman. The word is bodily. This is about a woman’s bodily autonomy, and her deciding how to take responsibility for her pregnancy. Getting an abortion is taking care of that. If she consents to being pregnant and gestating the child, then figuring out what to do after the birth is her responsibility as well. Keep the child, and one assumes certain duties. Give the child up for adoption will allow for her to forgo those. Men should be held accountable for their part in this as well.

            Is not money a proxy for resources & labor? What people call “produced by blood, sweat and tears”? Not to mention, what are the men held accountable for? You just established that the offspring’s gestation is up to the woman’s will. How is it fair for men to be robbed of their autonomy (especially those thrown into jail for lack of payment for child support) purely because of a woman’s whim? I do not see the fairness in robbing/reducing one person’s autonomy for 18 years while insisting that autonomy be preserved for another person for 9 months. Logically, you are working at odds for your own stated goals.

            Maybe if men where held more accountable, if more men took responsibility for their parts in all this, there would be a lower rate of abortion as well.

            What is their part in this? You have established that the only factor leading to offspring production is the female’s decision. Earlier on this board it was established that males have no say so in this so therefore, they have no responsibility. You would thus appear to be as much of a slaver as the religious folks railed against.

            But a woman gets to decide what happens in her body, as anyone should be allowed to decide. To conflate that with child support is a ridiculous non sequitur. The debate is over bodily autonomy, not an anarchistic system in which people have no legal responsibility for the finical welfare of their children. How you thought that was a good point is a mystery.

            So… performing an action does not count as deciding what happens in an individual’s body? Sorry, your logic/reasoning is deeply flawed. How can say… preparing a bottle or changing a diaper not involve things happening with your body? Are you one of those who believe in astral projection?

            If you do not believe a law should mandate the action of gestating offspring, why then have a law that mandates caring for said offspring? Both hinder individuals’ autonomy.

          • IslandBrewer

            If you do not believe a law should mandate the action of gestating offspring, why then have a law that mandates caring for said offspring? Both hinder individuals’ autonomy.

            Jesus H. Cthulhu on a pogo stick!

            Are you actually saying that you don’t see the difference between the two?!?! Fucking really?!?!

            You really and truly don’t?

  • hotshoe

    How is it fair for men to be robbed of their autonomy (especially those thrown into jail for lack of payment for child support) purely because of a woman’s whim? I do not see the fairness in robbing/reducing one person’s autonomy for 18 years while insisting that autonomy be preserved for another person for 9 months.

    Jesus fuck, Challenger. You’re a maggot for trying to pretend that having to pay child support is just as bad as slavery – or is anything like being forced to build a parasite’s body inside your own body against your will using components from your own blood.
    I’ve got news for you, dude, you are not your wallet. Yes, I know money is more important than the actual flesh-and-blood lives of actual human beings to many dudes like you, but that still does not make money identical to your body.
    And without knowing anything else about you than your posts here, I lay 100:1 odds that you work in an airconditioned office. Don’t talk to me about “produced by blood, sweat, and tears” you fucking baby. You’ve never produced anything worthwhile in your life. You’ve never bled to put food on the table for your family like I have. Pissant whiners – who act superior but don’t step up to make any contributions to their society – like you make me sick.
    God willing, no child will ever have the misfortune of having to call you father.

  • Loqi

    I’m amused by this post. It’s a gigantic willful misunderstanding or misrepresentation of everything that has been said.

    Glodson, I sit in awe of your patience.

    • Loqi

      (That was to Challenger Grim earlier. My phone likes to reload pages randomly, and if it reloads while responding, it forgets that it was a reply.)

  • sg

    If abortions were free at anytime to anyone and there were plenty of providers so women never had to wait or pay, then would Philadelphia’s health department be willing to inspect and shut down Gosnell? Because they weren’t even willing to go over there and look at his office and send him a letter with a list of stuff to fix. They could have done that without shutting him down, but they didn’t. So, what about the Philadelphia health dept.? What is their excuse? They should be on trial as well.

  • Pingback: Fake Oakley Sunglasses 3Ln8A


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X