Abortion as a social good?

On October
13, Slate published a piece by Hannah Rosin called “Abortion is Great,” in which Rosin discusses the views of pro-choice author Katha
Pollitt and explains why more pro-choicers should embrace abortion as a social
good. My blog post here is my initial reactions as I read Rosin’s piece.
Rosin points
out that 6 out of 10 American women who have abortions are already mothers. In
my experience, many pro-lifers don’t seem to realize this, as I’ve heard so
many of us talk as if pro-choice people inherently dislike kids and would be
incapable of parenting. Something to think about. 

“…any woman
who’s reading this piece and has had an abortion, or any man who has supported
one, should go in the comments section and [tell their story], until there are
so many accounts that the statement [‘I had an abortion’] loses its shock value.”

She seems to
neglect the many post-abortive women and men who became pro-life because of their abortion experiences. 

“…we have
all essentially been brainwashed by a small minority of pro-life activists.
Only 7 to 20 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want to totally ban
abortion…”

Most of the
pro-lifers I know, including many pro-life activists, don’t believe abortion
should be totally banned. For example, nearly every pro-lifer I’ve ever
interacted with agrees abortion should be legal to save the life of the mother,
and a majority of self-described pro-lifers believe abortion should be legal in
cases of rape. It’s a misconception to suggest that pro-life activists are only
those who think all abortions in every circumstance should be illegal.
Pro-lifers
may disagree on the legality of abortion in the harsher cases: when a woman’s
physical health is endangered, when she was raped, when the fetus has a severe,
possibly life-threatening condition, etc. But if I had to describe the common
thread that pulls together most people who call themselves “pro-life,” I’d say
it’s the agreement that abortion is immoral and should be illegal at minimum when
it is done on healthy fetuses resulting from consensual sex and carried by
healthy mothers. And the great majority of abortions today are done in such
cases. Rosin alludes to as much herself: 

“Three in 10
American women have abortions by the time they hit menopause. They are not
generally victims of rape or incest, or in any pitiable situation from which
they need to be rescued.”

Rosin
continues: 

“They are making a reasonable and even admirable decision that they
can’t raise a child at the moment. Is that so hard to say? As Pollitt puts it, ‘This
is not the right time for me’ should be reason enough. And saying that aloud
would help push back against the lingering notion that it’s unnatural for a
woman to choose herself over others.”

Rosin is
asking people to be more direct about abortion, yet she describes a woman’s
choice to abort as merely “choosing herself over others.” That description is not
direct at all. Abortion kills a human. That’s direct. Many people don’t
consider that human worth much moral consideration, and so some of them are pro-abortion,
as Rosin clearly is. Fine. But pretending that a death isn’t happening means
ignoring why the entire subject continues to divide Americans. Rosin wants to believe this is about being aghast that
a woman would choose herself over others, but it’s not about that at all.
Consider
this: if a woman feels it’s not the right time for her to have children, she
can choose not to have sex, or choose to only participate in non-procreative
sex, or choose to use contraception, or choose to give a child up for adoption.
She could also choose to abort. All of these choices may reflect her position
that she isn’t prepared to or doesn’t want to raise children, yet one of these choices
is far, far more controversial and contentious than the others.
If this were
really about us being upset that a woman would want to choose herself over
others, we’d be against any decision
that puts her education, career, or other aspects of her life above
procreation. Yet, for example, the vast majority of Americans, including the majority of pro-lifers, believe contraception is morally acceptable. Rosin says there is a “fog of regret” surrounding abortion, but we
simply don’t see that same “fog” surrounding
these other decisions. There’s a clear distinction between abortion and other choices not to raise children, and Rosin, and so many
pro-choice activists, skip this distinction entirely. Abortion is not simply about reproductive
freedom, healthcare decisions, or a woman choosing herself over others.
Abortion is about having a very young, less developed human killed. That’s the
difference.
Rosin digs
in with her gender-based theory by saying we don’t apply the same standard to
men. “We would never expect a man to drop everything and accept a life of ‘dimmed
hope’ because of a single ejaculation.” I expect the many men who (rightfully) have to pay child support for single ejaculations would beg to differ.
Rosin also elaborates
on some of Pollitt’s explanations of alleged pro-life contradictions: 

“[Pollitt]
cites one poll for example showing that 38 percent of people say abortion is as
‘bad as killing a person already born.’ But in the same poll 84 percent say
it’s fine to save the life of a mother. If you really think about it, this
position is untenable. No one would say it was fine to kill a toddler if the
mother needed its heart.”

What a
strange comparison. When is abortion about the mother needing the fetus’s
heart? The proper analogy would be if somehow a toddler’s very presence was
actively killing the mother (akin to an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy) and the
only way for the mother to save her own life was to remove the toddler, and the only way
to remove the toddler resulted in the toddler’s death. 
I can’t think of a
scenario where that would be true – which goes to a point Rosin and I agree on:
the fetus and the mother have a complicated relationship. But if there was an
analogous situation with a born human, I think many people would defend the
right to kill as self-defense. This isn’t about killing someone else to use
their heart (when would a mother ever be able to use a toddler’s heart anyway?)
This is about killing someone else to prevent them from actively killing you. Most
people, and our own history of self-defense laws, see the two scenarios
entirely differently.
Rosin goes
on to discuss how the left and pro-choicers should advocate for abortion,
especially for poor women, as part of an effort to urge women to wait to have
children until they are in stable relationships. She believes promoting
abortion as an extension of birth control is part of “a new era of family
values.” She agrees with Pollitt, who believes “the moral high ground is in
reclaiming the right to have an abortion, regardless of the circumstances.”

But I’m not sure “reclaiming” is the correct verb here. Was there ever a time
when people who promote abortion regardless of circumstances had the moral
high ground?

Rosin seems to think her side has descended to defensiveness by saying
abortion should be safe, legal, and rare and by focusing on abortion in the
extreme cases of maternal health and life or of incest and rape. But (to my
knowledge) this isn’t a descent – it’s where many abortion defenders have been from
the beginning. Perhaps they focus on the extreme cases and act defensive about abortion in general because polls suggest most Americans think abortion as birth control – the kind of remorseless abortion
culture Rosin promotes – should be
illegal.

Rosin’s
piece is not the first to push back against pro-choice defensiveness, but I suspect this
aggressive strategy will ultimately backfire. From what I’ve seen, the
average American finds abortion problematic but sees it as a “necessary evil,”
at least for the extreme cases we so often focus on. I’m dubious our society is
willing to instead embrace abortion as an unapologetic good.

500 thoughts on “Abortion as a social good?”

  1. So one can't use lethal force in self defense to prevent permanent disability or injury? It always has to be perfectly binary? Life vs life? But if it is life vs disability, life always wins in the hierarchy of rights?

    Reply
  2. "Many people don’t
    consider that human worth much moral consideration, and so some of them are pro-abortion,
    as Rosin clearly is. Fine. But pretending that a death isn’t happening means
    ignoring why the entire subject continues to divide Americans."

    I'm trying to put myself in Rosin's shoes here. Because if I believed that human beings before birth were essentially body parts, I would obviously want to see women/people assigned female granted control of their own body parts with no stigma or shame. I would guess that people like Rosin genuinely believe that the only reason to believe human beings before birth are equal to those after is if one had overt or internalized beliefs that women should be punished for sex. Despite the obvious difference in the contraception and abortion debates. :/

    I don't know how I would express my belief that abortion should exist without restrictions or stigma while acknowledging that my main beef is with those who think human beings before birth have rights. It seems difficult.

    Reply
  3. Every child a wanted child, and if not, kill them.

    Every child a healthy child, and if not, kill them.

    If that makes sense… most pro-choicers don't believe in the quantity of life.

    Reply
  4. The funny thing about this is that even though an article was published that literally says "abortion is great", I'm still going to see on a daily basis people claiming that NOBODY is pro-abortion. I can't help but wonder why they don't just say very few people are pro-abortion as opposed to merely pro-choice. Then they would be at least making a claim that can't be refuted with an individual example.

    Reply
  5. You know, I was pro choice for many years. "Safe, legal, and rare" was an idea that resonated with me. Keep women safe by preventing the back alley abortions, and make abortion as rare as it can possibly be. Because I am a very left-leaning liberal, the majority of my friends are pro choice, and my experience is that the overwhelming majority of pro choice individuals view abortion as a necessary evil. They hate it. If they had their way no one would choose it. But for a number of reasons ranging from "it's not my business" to "women will have them anyway so they might as well be safe", they support legal abortion. Several of my most outspoken pro choice friends are still very quick to say that they are pro choice but absolutely not pro abortion. So when I see these articles pushing abortion as a positive thing, it makes me glad.
    When I see commenters here and elsewhere on the internet say things about how it doesn't matter that abortion takes a life because it's the mother's choice and there is nothing wrong with it, or how lack of access to abortion is slavery or rape, or discussing the embryo or fetus as a monster or a parasite, I want to thank those commenters. I truly believe that those extreme positions do not resonate with the large majority of pro choice people who strongly view abortion as a necessary but awful thing. The majority of people in this country do not like abortion. So I say, keep it up. The pro-abortion rhetoric is only hurting their cause – most people in this country support at least some restriction of abortion. They are not going to get behind the idea that abortion is a happy positive thing for women to go through.

    Reply
  6. She seems to
    neglect the many post-abortive women and men

    I was unaware that men could get pregnant. What a fascinating concept.

    But if I had to describe the common
    thread that pulls together most people who call themselves “pro-life,” I’d say
    it’s the agreement that abortion is immoral and should be illegal at minimum when
    it is done on healthy fetuses resulting from consensual sex and carried by
    healthy mothers.

    Actually, I disagree. It's about pregnancy as a punishment for daring to have sex without planning to procreate. It's also about being so filled with hubris that you think you know what is best for total strangers, without having the vaguest idea of what their circumstances are.

    I used to be profoundly anti-choice. Then, at the risk of sounding flippant, I got out of high school. I discovered that life was not as black-and-white as I thought. I started to apply critical thinking to my "sincerely held beliefs" and recognized how wrong-headed they were.

    I know what the position is because I held it. I tried to sugar-coat it like you did in the paragraph I quoted, but the reality at the bottom of it is just what I said.

    Reply
  7. I ask this in all sincerity; do you believe it is better to have a crappy life than never to have been born?

    I remain puzzled at the high level of existential angst I see amongst the anti-choice, so I am hopeful that you will actually respond as to why a crappy life is better than never having existed at all and not knowing the difference as a result.

    Reply
  8. Consider
    this: if a woman feels it’s not the right time for her to have children, she
    can choose not to have sex, or choose to only participate in non-procreative
    sex, or choose to use contraception, or choose to give a child up for adoption.

    You are aware that all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilizations, can and do fail, right?

    Insisting that people be abstinent, or behave only in ways that you deem appropriate, makes you look more than a little prurient.

    Reply
  9. Pro lifers have told me that this is preferable to aborting a mindless embryo
    wgntv.com/2014/08/19/california-boy-forced-to-eat-cat-feces-own-vomit-before-allegedly-being-beaten-to-death-by-mom-boyfriend-testimony/

    Starvation. Beating. Forced to eat shit and vomit. Locked up in a dark closet. Torture. All more humane than abortion at 5 weeks.

    Reply
  10. Just touching on a couple things you mentioned and not everything…

    "First, the mere claim that abortion is immoral, regardless of how many "agree" with the claim, means nothing without evidence. And you-all abortion opponents have no such evidence!"

    There are numerous and exhaustive arguments given for this on the SPL blog, as well as many other pro-life groups, articles, papers, blogs, etc. Just because this particular blog doesn't go into it, doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

    "Sex does not force a sperm to fertilize an ovum; they are independently-acting entities. Sex does not force a blastocyst to implant into a womb; it is also an independently-acting entity."

    Sperm and ovum aren't entities. They're not organisms; they're parts, not wholes. They're only obeying the genetic programming of the organism to which they belong.

    Placing responsibility on them makes as much sense as pricking someone with a needle contaminated with harmful bacteria and then defending yourself from an assault charge by claiming that you didn't make them sick, the bacteria did. It's not your fault, you just pricked them with a needle.

    The blastocysts is an organism/entity, you're right, but it has no responsibility for implantation, or any control over the situation whatsoever. It exists, and implants, because of the parents' actions.

    Blaming the embryo for implanting is like throwing a baby out the window and blaming it for crushing your flower beds when it lands.

    Reply
  11. So the woman forces the blastocyst to implant on her fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy?

    She also forces the sperm to penetrate her ovum? I guess that this is why IVF is never necessary, right? Women can just magically will fertilization and implantation?

    Reply
  12. This is a horrific, inhumane tragedy. But I'm not sure how it connects to abortion, as abortion was never mentioned in the article. We don't know if the mother would have aborted him; she had other children, and certainly abortion was accessible, so we can assume she chose not to.

    At any rate, I'm not certain what your connection is here. Should she have been forced to abort? Should abortion be illegal, would women who do not want a particular pregnancy treat their unwanted offspring this way if they were "forced to gestate"?

    As a prolifer, I do not know a single pro-life person who would support this as preferable to abortion. But I cannot imagine that most women would treat the children borne of unplanned pregnancies in this way, so I just don't see the connection.

    Reply
  13. Unwanted children have historically been abused, starved and killed through infanticide. The pro life country of Brazil has a huge problem with abandoned street children. Also, historically, unwanted children are sold into prostitution – this still happens today, in the third world.

    Reply
  14. "Women can just magically will fertilization and implantation?"

    Obviously not, but that doesn't mean that responsibility for those events lies with anyone other than the mother and father, or sometimes doctor, who caused them to occur.

    Reply
  15. I would suspect you may not have understood the full implications of being pro life at the time you were in high school (i can only assume you mean literally; otherwise you are indeed being flippant). A lot of pro lifers have not fully thought them through. On the other hand, a lot of pro-life people have thought through the implications (as have people who were once anti-life and then thought them through, some to then become pro-life).

    You may believe that pro lifers view pregnancy as punishment. Some perhaps do. I find that a very simplistic and immature understanding of the pro life position and not even a little bit accurate.

    (I call pro-choice anti-life in this particular post because calling someone anti-choice when they are anti-abortion is incorrect. I believe everyone of us is anti-choice in some arena or another. Including you.).

    Reply
  16. Yes, I did mean it literally. I was a bible-thumping anti-choicer with what I thought were clever arguments, such as "it's not a choice, it's a child," and "abortion is murder" … much as one sees here every single day.

    When you are telling a woman that she does not have the right to make her own medical decisions, you are against choice (hence anti-choice).

    I no longer possess the hubris to pretend that I know what is best for some total stranger to do when it comes to pregnancy. I don't know her health situation. I don't know her financial situation. I. Don't. Know. And neither do you. You don't get to decide for me, and vice versa.

    Let me put it very simply: I personally believe that Michelle Duggar is an overbreeding nitwit. However, you don't see me out there trying to legislate away her right to have children until her uterus prolapses. Her reproductive choices are *hers,* and I support them whether or not I personally agree with them. That is the largest difference between you and me: you think you have the right to make my reproductive decisions for me, which is something I would never do to you.

    PS: If you don't think that the bottom line of the anti-choice position is pregnancy as punishment, I suggest you look at how often your fellow travelers refer to it as "paying the consequences."

    Reply
  17. The person to whom I responded said that "pro-choice do not believe in quantity of life." I was asking xir whether they really meant that quality of life was irrelevant and that quantity was what mattered. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

    Reply
  18. Just because this particular blog doesn't go into it, doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

    There is no evidence that abortion is "immoral." None. It is no more "immoral" than any other medical or surgical procedure. Your dislike of something does not render it immoral.

    The blastocysts is an organism/entity, you're right, but it has no
    responsibility for implantation, or any control over the situation
    whatsoever. It exists, and implants, because of the parents' actions.

    Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to gestate, no matter how you try to dress it up.

    Reply
  19. Nope, not unless you think that ovulation itself is a crime that must be punished with denial of bodily rights and the infliction of bodily harm and sometimes even death.

    Reply
  20. Sex whilst ovulating leads naturally to the creation of a new living being. I never said ovulating (or conceiving) was a crime, any more than giving birth is a crime. But creating a new human being does mean that you are responsible for it. If the mother's life is in imminent danger, then the pregnancy can justifiably be ended if ending it is necessary to save her. Prior to viability, the mother dying would mean the child died too. Post viability, the child can be delivered by c-section.

    Reply
  21. Other medical procedures don't kill individual, living humans. I don't "dislike" abortion, I consider it a grave moral injustice. I "dislike" bean soup.

    If you have sex and get pregnant, then you have knowingly and willingly created a child, put it in a condition of responsibility, and placed it in your own womb. So yes, you are responsible for it. If you create a helpless person who needs you, then you have a responsibility to that person.

    Reply
  22. OK, so in the case when you didn't consent, ie were raped, are you still responsible? Should a woman or girl who is raped be exempted and allowed to abort?

    Reply
  23. There are numerous and exhaustive arguments given for this [the notion that abortion is immoral] on the SPL blog, as well as many other pro-life groups, articles, papers, blogs, etc. Just because this particular blog doesn't go into it, doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.
    —–
    WRONG. All the "arguments" you mention are based on Prejudice and/or Hypocrisy and/or Bad Data, in the form of lies and/or distortions of fact and/or denials of fact and/or incomplete truths. I've worked my way through every one of them that I could find, at the wordpress blog named "fightforsense". None are actually based on valid evidence supporting the notion that an unwanted unborn human animal organism is somehow inherently worthy of being treated differently than any other unwanted animal/pest.
    =====

    Sperm and ovum aren't entities.
    —–
    THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE. Look up the definition of the word!
    =====

    They're not organisms; they're parts, not wholes.
    —–
    An entity is not always the same thing as an organism. If I thought sperm and ovum qualified as organisms, I would have used that word instead of "entity".
    =====

    They're only obeying the genetic programming of the organism to which they belong.
    —–
    FALSE. They are obeying built-in genetic programming. Look up the phrase "fire and forget" sometime.
    =====

    Placing responsibility on them makes as much sense as pricking someone with a needle contaminated with harmful bacteria and then defending yourself from an assault charge by claiming that you didn't make them sick, the bacteria did. It's not your fault, you just pricked them with a needle.
    —–
    YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION VERY WELL. Remember, when a wanted pregnancy does not happen, sperm and ovum very often receive the blame! You cannot have it both ways without being a Stupid Hypocrite!
    =====

    The blastocysts is an organism/entity, you're right,
    —–
    OF COURSE.
    =====

    but it has no responsibility for implantation, or any control over the situation whatsoever.
    —–
    FALSE. It's built-in DNA tells it to implant. Else an ectopic pregnancy, inside a Fallopian tube, would never happen. Only if its DNA is defective would it fail to attempt to implant. (Even in the womb, it might still fail, for reasons outside its control. The womb has a coating of mucus that protects it from bacteria; if the coating is too thick, the blastocyst can fail to implant. And if there is scar tissue in the womb, say from a previous pregnancy, the blastocyst would fail to implant if it randomly happens to try to do it into the scar tissue.)
    =====

    It exists, and implants, because of the parents' actions.
    —–
    MISCHARACTERIZATION. The parents' actions can set a sequence of events in motion. Those events still involve independently-acting entities. The statistics are, about 50% of the time a conception fails to yield a confirmed pregnancy, at least partly because one of those independently-acting entities failed to function in a successful way.
    =====

    Blaming the embryo for implanting is like throwing a baby out the window and blaming it for crushing your flower beds when it lands.
    —–
    FALSE. Blaming it for implanting is exactly like blaming it for implanting, nothing more, and nothing less. Remember, if it fails to implant when you want it to implant, you DO blame it! To say you can't blame it for implanting when you don't want it to implant is Stupid Hypocrisy.

    Reply
  24. If you have sex and get pregnant, then you have knowingly and willingly
    created a child, put it in a condition of responsibility, and placed it
    in your own womb. So yes, you are responsible for it.

    I nearly died gestating a wanted pregnancy. I have a tubal ligation. You are perhaps unaware that even surgical sterilizations can fail, but they can. Should that occur, there WILL be an abortion. I am not risking my life again.

    Just because *you* consider something to be a "grave moral injustice" does not make your belief universal. I consider it a "grave moral injustice" to pretend that you know the medical and financial situation of complete strangers and thus have the right to make their reproductive decisions for them.

    Reply
  25. Honestly, I think bodily autonomy to justify killing the unborn child is a terrible, awful, morally and logically bankrupt argument, except in the case of rape, in which case I think it's probably the strongest pro-choice argument. But what would we do if a woman had a newborn child who was conceived from rape, who could not transfer care immediately? Would she be responsible for the child's welfare, if the child would die without her care? I'm believe so, but I'l admit it's a bit murkier. She would definitely not be justified in outright killing the child, which most abortion procedures do. There's also the consideration that the child may have greater bodily rights to the uterus than to the mother's other body parts, because the uterus, unlike all the mother's body parts, is not actually there for her use, but rather is designed specifically shelter and care for unborn children, and humanity could not have survived unless we were all able to be in the womb during our most vulnerable months.

    Reply
  26. "The United States legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, in part because of the clear evidence that restrictive laws were not ending abortion but were exacting a significant public health toll, notably on lower-income women who could not travel or pay for safe services. Almost immediately afterward, pregnancy-related deaths and hospitalizations due to complications of unsafe abortion effectively ended." – From Facts and Consequences: Legality, Incidence and Safety of Abortion Worldwide, Guttmacher

    Reply
  27. The first part of your reply, I applaud you. This question I think is a litmus test for whether a pro-life position is held purely for humanitarian reasons (and I accept those as valid, though I might disagree) rather than due to religious or other dogmatic reasons, for which I think the person is not only a lazy thinker, but also doesn't actually care about the woman. You come across as a thoughtful individual who cares about humanity, and your pro-life position is based on that, and I respect your position. I'm personally pro-life, in that I can't ever imagine suggesting an abortion to anyone I know, but I do think that it is in the end the woman's decision, and recognize that in certain situations, abortion is just the best solution in a world of compromises.

    Reply
  28. I'm glad to hear you were okay and you and you baby made it through. Abortion in cases where the mother's life is at grave risk are not the same as the majority which do not present such a risk. If the mother is not going to survive and the baby is not viable, and ending the pregnancy is necessary to save the mother's life, doing so is justified (although it should be done in the most humane manner possible and preferable without direct harm). The loss of one life is preferable to the loss of two. If the baby is viable, the pregnancy can be ended by c-section.

    I never said that, just because I think something, it makes that a universal belief. I think dog fighting and stealing TVs is wrong, but not everyone agrees. We all force our moral beliefs onto others in certain instances, yourself included. I don't presume to know the financial and medical situation of every pregnant person, and I don't presume to know the situation of every person with a newborn either, but that doesn't mean I think we should remove infanticide laws and allow wanton killing of newborn babies.

    Reply
  29. Thanks, and likewise thanks for being willing to discuss this thoughtfully. You seem like you've given your position thought. If you don't mind my asking, why are you personally pro-life? Why wouldn't you have an abortion?

    Reply
  30. Because I think abortion has the potential to be traumatic, not for all mind you, and if you have the means and resources, I don't see why you wouldn't have the kid, unless you really don't want children. I personally love kids, love my own, and want a reasonably large family. All the things I say about how one fetus is as good as another is me thinking rationally. But emotionally, I would think of the fetus as a great gift, and personally could not bear to see it aborted. I also understand that I am fortunate with resources and a stable family life right now, and most of my friends and family are in a similar situation. To such people, I see no reason to ever suggest an abortion, and even if its a minor financial hardship, they are all in good enough shape that I think they'd be able to work it out. I am personally pro-life because I am fortunate. I realize not everyone is, and sometimes in life one has to prioritize. It is sometimes not possible to have everything. In those situations, I just believe the woman and family going through such an ordeal is the only one qualified to make difficult decisions, and that a one-size fits all pro-life stance is not sufficient.

    Reply
  31. Of what did I "accuse you" with regard to adoption?

    It's okay to admit that you can't answer the question, sweetie. Actual critical thought is hard, after all.

    Reply
  32. Um, no. I actually answered your question by telling you how I would improve it if it were up to me. If you think that was "lashing out at you," I suggest that you rethink your position.

    Reply
  33. If I recall correctly, you have a disability and crappy life, you have no reason to live. Normal people always come first, as it seems so…

    Reply
  34. Then why were you anger at me about the cost on children with special needs? I get that you believe they should be aborted. If birth parents want to keep a child, I just thought it'd be nice to help them out…

    Reply
  35. You quoted a passage listing multiple options besides abstinence, and then claimed I was insisting people be abstinent. It's almost as if you're trying to assign me a perspective I don't hold, rather than understand my actual perspective.

    Reply
  36. I guess you missed the second clause of the sentence: or behave only in ways that you deem appropriate,

    You are trying to dictate behaviors that are none of your business whatsoever.

    Reply
  37. If you strip a woman of her right to bodily autonomy, torture her, and possibly disable and even kill her by forcing her to remu pregnant against her will, without due process, you are effectively treating her as you would a criminal.

    And life of the mother abortion exceptions are not always successful, and won't prevent a woman from dying during or after birth

    Reply
  38. The fetus is not entitled to the woman's whole body. If she chooses to shut off the blood supply to her lower body that is her right.

    BTW, your argument fails because it could be used to justify rape – vaginas are designed expressly for penises, therefore, penises are automatically entitled to women's vaginas, whether women want them there or not.

    Reply
  39. I grew up Catholic and attended Catholic school k-12. I was sourounded by antichoicers. Seeing how Women were treated in the Catholic Church is a big reason why pro-choice.

    Reply
  40. I see…

    By the way, one of my comments is not really angst but true. Most pro-choicers said it's better to be nonexistent than living. Also, they often said about every child should be wanted and healthy. You did ask me the question why I think 'having a crappy life is better than nonexistent.' So, do you believe that people with disabilities are better off nonexistent because they have a poor quality of life, right?

    Reply
  41. Unwanted pregnancy is not a happy positive thing under any circumstances. All the choices you have suck big time. You make the best choice for your life at the time, just like you do in any crisis situation.

    Reply
  42. Very well put. It's the "consent to sex equals consent to gestation" mentality that makes me blow my cookies. I would react the same way to an argument that consent to skiing equals consent to a broken leg.

    Reply
  43. I think you need to look up the definition of "individual." And no, I have no bodily responsibility to a fetus or anyone else. Even you. Go pound sand. You use your OWN body to "assist" 'needy persons.' You have no authority to use mine.

    Reply
  44. ALL pregnancies are potentially risky, and things can get very ugly, very fast. I know this as well as anyone. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. And in spite of your delusions of grandeur, you are NOT going to be forcing your moral beliefs on me, at any time, under any circumstances. EVER. I don't bow to you. Piss off. I'm an adult. I will do as I SEE FIT. Not as you see fit.

    Reply
  45. Well see, that's just the thing! I won't be HAVING any "newborn child conceived from rape." I'll keep that from ever happening. You get to BUTT OUT.

    Reply
  46. LOL @ "quantity of life." NO I guess I DON'T value "quantity" over "quality." So sue me. If I had the choice between 1 more year of relative good health and happiness versus 5 years of misery… I'd take the one great year. But then I have a lot of experience with those who are suffering. And I'll be honest with you. I would administer as much morphine as it takes to keep someone comfortable… even if it shortens their life a bit. I've already awoken a doctor three times overnight because the patient was still writhing in pain. When he stopped writhing, I stopped calling. You see, I didn't want that to be the last thing his family saw. The man's family came by the next morning to say goodbye, and he passed away in peace later that morning. I felt good about that.

    Reply
  47. *shrugs*

    That's fine if you value best quality of lives, which I stand correct that most pro-choicers do agree with you. You said it yourself now.

    What do you think of non life-threatening disabilities? Do they not matter too, are they?

    Reply
  48. I would argue that this is 100% at odds with the new pro-abortion line that this book is trying to promote, though. Abortion is a horrible option that women chose in the middle of a crisis. It is not positive. It is not the moral high ground.

    I am pro-life. For many, many years I was pro-choice, because of exactly what you just said. I saw abortion as a terrible option, but one that should be available in a crisis. Eventually I just couldn't dismiss the humanity of the fetus any more, and I couldn't continue to support an increasingly extremist position that paints the fetus as a malignant parasite that is trying to kill its host and argues that the taking of a unique human life is absolutely fine 100% of the time.

    Reply
  49. "I would argue that this is 100% at odds with the new pro-abortion line that this book is trying to promote, though. Abortion is a horrible option that women chose in the middle of a crisis. It is not positive. It is not the moral high ground."
    This isn't an argument. This you proclaiming your opinion with no evidence behind it. Other people have different opinions on the matter, and their position is just as valid as yours. Women aren't obligated to allow their lives to be derailed by a single sperm. It just isn't all that important. We're not short on people, by any means. That means not every pregnancy has to come to term. Nobody thinks a fetus is "a malignant parasite." It's human, it's alive, it may be unwanted. But it's not a person. Pregnancy is 1) expensive, 2) inherently dangerous, and 3) life-altering to the degree that gestation can't be forced upon anyone. Even with all these abortions, population isn't declining. For over forty years women have been able to legally have children only when they want them. i.e. planning and spacing their families. The sky hasn't caved in. Women can be trusted to handle this themselves. They've been handling it themselves for many thousands of years. I see no evidence that you ought to stop trusting them suddenly.

    Reply
  50. She seems to neglect the many post-abortive women and men who became pro-life because of their abortion experiences.

    Well, a woman who's hypocritical enough to think other women should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, after she herself got to make the decision to have a safe legal abortion, is hardly a typical prolifer. And no man can ever have an "abortion experience" – well, except for some trans men.

    Reply
  51. Most of the pro-lifers I know, including many pro-life activists, don’t believe abortion should be totally banned. For example, nearly every pro-lifer I’ve ever interacted with agrees abortion should be legal to save the life of the mother, and a majority of self-described pro-lifers believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape. It’s a misconception to suggest that pro-life activists are only those who think all abortions in every circumstance should be illegal.

    But how many of you actually spend any time campaigning for safe legal late-term abortion – since late-term abortions are the most likely ones performed either to save the woman's life, or in cases of child rape where the child was not even aware she was pregnant?

    Where are the prolifers who openly supported Doctor Tiller, whose medical speciality was performing abortions to save a life and abortions on teenage rape victims? Until a prolife assassin murdered Doctor Tiller, I am not aware of any significant prolife support for Doctor Tiller's work – proving that prolife claims to support abortion in cases of rape and in cases of a threat to the woman's life are all lies.

    Reply
  52. But the basic view of prolifers is the extreme position that girls and women should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against our will, because we can be made to gestate unwanted babies. In the US there are over hundred thousand children who wait for adoption for over three years – yet prolifers want to force more unwanted babies to be born? Forced use of other human bodies is an extreme,. anti-human rights position.

    Reply
  53. No decent man would ever want to force a girl or a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

    Ergo, no decent man is ever prolife.

    Reply
  54. Safe legal abortion, accessible on demand by any girl or woman who's decided she needs it, is an obvious social good, since all the consequences of opposition to this are social evils.

    But no one except fantasising prolifers supposes that a girl or a woman who decides she needs an abortion does so because she thinks of abortion as a fun Disneyland ride.

    Reply
  55. Do you think that girls and women with non-life-threatening disabilities should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth?

    Reply
  56. Honestly, I think bodily autonomy to justify killing the unborn child is a terrible, awful, morally and logically bankrupt argument

    You think you have the right to make use of another human being's body against her will, and if she says no, her justification for saying no is "terrible, awful, morally and logically bankrupt"?

    Reply
  57. So, do you believe that people with disabilities are better off nonexistent because they have a poor quality of life, right?

    Perhaps you need to ask that of some people with disabilities, or of some abused children (do you think children are aware when they are unwanted)? I'm not in the business of speculating about what other people think about their own situations. I happen to know a good many people with disabilities who would rather not have been born. I know an equally good number of people who were abused as kids who would rather not have been born.

    Each situation is different, despite your best attempts to cram everything into little boxes that fit your personal comprehension. If there is one thing I have noticed that unifies the anti-choice, it is the black-and-white thinking that you folks tend to apply.

    You still haven't answered my question, though; all you've done is deflect it. Why is that?

    Reply
  58. What? I'm not. Look at you, you said it yourself again. I'm not nitpicked your words. Most pro-choice people tend to just say people with disabilities should not be existed. Sure, they tend to say that they wish they're not here. I'm not ignored them. I pointed out that a lot of people like you do say about disabilities.

    I'm sorry that you believe disability is less valueless than healthy. I have my terrible life and my disability, hearing, yet I don’t wish to be not here. Yeah, I am soo "wrong" to say it. I refuse to allow myself to teach me that I'm not matter just because I have disability. I consider both abled and disabled equally matter. *shrugs*

    That's why I don't need to owe you an answer, otherwise you'd hate to read my answer would say. You'd dismiss it, anyway.

    Reply
  59. What about the humanity of the already born woman, doesn't she count for anything? By definition a fetus is a parasite, existing off a host. However, few women will give that as a reason for an abortion and aren't thinking like that at all when they make a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

    Reply
  60. At some point during discussions about abortion at least one pro-lifer will start talking about "keeping her legs closed", not wanting to pay for s55ts sex lives, etc., etc. There is no denying that a significant number of anti-abortion people do indeed think poorly of women, all women, do want to control other people's sex lives.

    Reply
  61. They would all be pro-choice or really pro-abortion and abortion would be available for free on every corner with some good coffee afterwards.

    Reply
  62. Waiting until a woman's life is in immediate danger is waiting too long, she will most likely die and if she's in such critical condition performing a C-section might kill her. Women absolutely should have the legal (and moral) right to terminate a pregnancy when her health is severely impacted. My aunt died from complications of pregnancy, an abortion does not help a woman who has kidney failure.

    Reply
  63. I'm sorry that you believe disability is less valueless than healthy.

    Since I never said any such thing, I am calling bullshit once again.

    I have my terrible life and my disability, hearing, yet I don’t wish to be not here.

    And I'm glad for you. That doesn't mean your experience is universal, which is why I said that Each. Case. Is. Different.

    Jesus wept. Can you not read?

    it is okay to admit that you cannot answer the question; that's become blatantly obvious anyway at this point.

    Reply
  64. Once a child has actually been born most forced birthers loose interest, do not really care about quality of life — only that it exists.

    Reply
  65. It should always be the decision of the woman and whoever she chooses to involve in that decision making (husband/partner). Not yours, you aren't going to be taking care of a child with a disability or supporting it or risking your marriage over it.

    Reply
  66. that is trying to kill its host

    You really have no idea of the biological realities of pregnancy, do you? The zygote starts to suppress the pregnant woman's immune system the minute that it implants. It takes nutrition away from her body. It uses her kidneys to cycle its waste. It quite literally *does not care* whether its host dies; it is as opportunistic as any parasite.

    Every single pregnancy is risky; what risks will manifest are not apparent until a woman is already pregnant. When a potentially fatal complication arises during pregnancy for you, the chances of it happening then become 100 percent. My source on this is primary; I nearly died gestating a wanted pregnancy.

    You talk about the humanity of the fetus, but I notice that there is not one single, solitary mention of the humanity of the pregnant woman. Why is that?

    Reply
  67. No, you kept a lot of people do not want to be here. I pointed out that it is not in that case. I'm not one of them who want to die or don't want to be here, anyway. I read just fine, thanks.

    it is okay to admit that you cannot answer the question; that's become blatantly obvious anyway at this point.

    Please! That's easy for you to say that. You will dismiss and mock my answer, so no, it's not worthy.

    Reply
  68. I said each case is different but that I personally know a good many people who wish they had not been born. Seriously, I think you just cannot read.

    You haven't answered jack shit, just sidestepped the question i keep asking. The same applies to this most recent non-response. So, I can only continue to surmise that you have no answer. ::shrug::

    Reply
  69. There is no 'unborn child' any more than there is an 'unborn senior citizen.

    **But what would we do if a woman had a newborn child who was conceived from rape, who could not transfer care immediately? Would she be responsible for the child's welfare, if the child would die without her care?**

    One person is not responsible for being enslaved because another person can't sustain their own life. There is no special pleading for people of a certain age to be able to enslave others for their 'very lives'.

    **humanity could not have survived unless we were all able to be in the womb during our most vulnerable months.**

    Humanity ALSO could not have survived if the eggs were not able to be in the ovaries, during their 'most vulnerable months', and if they had not been fertilized. Does the egg have a 'right' to be fertilized base on this? Or do cells only get 'rights' in order to punish the parents for having sex.

    Reply
  70. “You really have no idea of the biological realities of pregnancy, do you?”

    I know quite a bit more than you give me credit for. However, this is the internet, and a pro-life blog at that, and I do not need to submit my credentials for your approval in order to voice my position here. I have spent the past decade working in women’s health and absolutely understand the physiology and “biological realities” of pregnancy. Which is why I understand that your gloom-and-doom picture of pregnancy is inaccurate. I respect that you had a life-threatening pregnancy. I am very glad that you and your child are okay after what you both went through, and I recognize that your experience understandably affects your view of pregnancy and its risks. That said, anecdotes are not accurate data upon which to base policy and procedure. You are correct that pregnancy CAN be life threatening, but most of the time women’s bodies are perfectly capable of adjusting to and recovering from pregnancy. Unless you respond to any and all pregnancy announcements in the same way that you would respond to a diagnosis of cancer, I suspect that you are perfectly aware that pregnancy is not the life threatening ordeal you make it out to be.

    "You talk about the humanity of the fetus, but I notice that there is not one single, solitary mention of the humanity of the pregnant woman. Why is that?"

    Because the last time I checked there is no movement in the United States advocating for the termination of inconvenient or unwanted pregnant women. There are about 800 maternal deaths annually in this country out of nearly 4 million births. In the same year, there are just over 1 million documented abortions. To look at those numbers another way, you would need to count the maternal deaths over nearly 4 years to equal the abortion deaths that occur in just one day. To equal the abortion deaths in a year, you would need to count 1,250 YEARS of maternal deaths. If pregnant women were losing their lives at the rate of thousands per day because someone else decided they were inconvenient non-persons based on their level of development, I would absolutely oppose that in every way that I could think of.

    This maternal mortality rate is in no way acceptable or dismissible. It is horrifying that 800 women per year lose their lives while bringing their children into the world. Many of the causes of maternal deaths are related to preexisting chronic conditions such as diabetes or hypertension, which tells me that we as a nation need to improve our overall health through prevention and access to care. The fact that there are incredible race disparities in the death rates between white women and women of color, particularly Black women, tells me that white privilege and societal racial inequality have a major impact on women’s health and maternal mortality. None of these issues, however, negate or excuse the fact that a million lives a year are lost to abortion. ALL of these deaths are tragic.

    Reply
  71. Well, "only" 800 women die per year from pregnancy, so it really isn't a big deal. And I am sure that those 800 women and their families don't mind then being dead, since it is ONLY 800 worthless female lives.

    Reply
  72. Reproduction is not complete when a man ejaculates. It takes 9 months to make a baby, not one lucky sperm penetrating an egg

    Reply
  73. And they lose interest if it is a disabled child/woman forced to gestate,or threatened with certain disability from pregnancy.

    Reply
  74. If a woman will 100% become permanently paralyzed from the waist down from pregnancy, should she still be forced to gestate against her will?

    Reply
  75. "Would you oppose abortion if "only" 800 prenates were aborted per year?"

    Yes, I would. As I said in the post you're responding to, 800 deaths per year is in no way acceptable or dismissible. However, a decrease from 1 million to 800 lives lost to abortion every year would be an amazing improvement in the state of affairs. Also, 800 abortions per year may more accurately reflect the exceedingly rare situations in which women actually need an abortion to save their lives. I don't know offhand what the rate of ectopic pregnancy per year is, but that is one example of a pregnancy that is indeed life-threatening to the mother and in which an abortion is indicated to save her life. While the embryo in an ectopic pregnancy is no less valuable than an embryo implanted in its mothers uterus, the ectopic location is almost always lethal for both the mother and the embryo and given the choice between losing one life or two, I would always choose to lose fewer lives.

    Reply
  76. Right, so you are saying that women do not have an inalienable right to life because, according to you, a single cell is more valuable.

    Reply
  77. And there went the point, right over your head. You are far more concerned about the loss of embryos than you are about the loss of pregnant women.

    If what you claim is true, then you should already be aware that every single pregnancy causes permanent physiological changes to a woman's body. A forensic anthropologist can tell how many times a woman has been pregnant by looking at striations on the pubic symphysis, for example. Your argument that pregnancy is somehow a state of wellness is 100 percent nonsensical. Pregnancy suppresses women's immune systems and makes them susceptible to any number of conditions that might not previously have existed, *including* the hypertension and diabetes that you mention.

    Your argument that women should be forced to assume medical risks that, if your claims are true, you should already know are NOT predictable until she is already pregnant is absurd and reduces a woman to nothing but the walking equivalent of an EasyBake Oven. The oven's job is to make cakes, and a woman's job is to make babies, regardless of risk to life and health.

    Your argument that the death of an embryo is equal to the death of a woman is one of the most misogynistic things I've ever read.

    Reply
  78. Do you have problems with reading comprehension? That is not even remotely close to what I said. I very clearly stated that in situation where pregnancy actually threatens a woman's life, such as ectopic pregnancy, I support the termination of that pregnancy because the choice is to lose only the embryo, or to lose them both. I would always chose to lose fewer lives.

    I'm not sure how you're reading "the single cell is more valuable" into my post. Talking specifically about ectopic pregnancies, most are discovered and aborted between 5-10 weeks of pregnancy, vastly beyond the single cell stage, and even then I would opt to save the mother because I understand that she can survive past the end of the pregnancy, and the fetus (while no less important) is not yet developed enough to do so.

    Reply
  79. It is impossible to predict which women will die from pregnancy. It is also impossible to prevent it, especially as a life saving abortion wont save a woman who dies during or after birth.
    I assume that you consider zygotes to be people? So, by your reasoning, a single cell brainless zygote has an inalienable right to life, but millions of random women do NOT. By forcing all pregnant women to gestate, you are in effect playing Russian Roulette with their lives, and by implication, denying all fertile women the right to life. Which is apparently not morally problematic as far as you are concerned, since zygotes, in aggregate, are more valuable than women.

    Pure misogyny.

    Would I also be correct in guessing that you put the "right to life" of a zygote above a woman's right not to be permanently disabled?

    Reply
  80. Check this out: m.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29594304

    If they're okay with killing imprefect unborn ZEFs, then they are probably all right with killing born kids with disabilities.

    Reply
  81. My ex-husband is a 'post-abortive man'. No, he didn't have an abortion, obviously, but his girlfriend at the time did. It was his child. He didn't pressure her into it, but he definitely supported the abortion. He said it took him him about 20 years to get over the guilt he felt later. He's not religious and no one ever told him that he should feel guilty. But, he did. Yes, there are men who regret abortions.

    Reply
  82. There are men who regret marriages, too. Regret is a normal human reaction to being in a bad situation, even when you know you're doing the right thing.

    Reply
  83. I regret that I ever even said hello to the guy I was engaged to at age 18. If it seriously took him 20 years to get over doing what was the right thing at the time, he should seek counseling.

    Reply
  84. Well, I found the news on Tumblr, and most people said they understood her action and not all disabilities are equal. Do you agree that death is solution to everything, right?

    I'll quote someone's quote ( realchoice.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html?m=1):

    Would it not be better to be looking for an option that allows the child — and the family — to have the good while mitigating the bad as much as possible? Would it not be better to provide families with love and support that would enable them to cherish every possible moment of love and happiness? Would it not be better to strive for treatments and cures? And for the families who simply can not cope with the ordeal, would it not be better to place the child in a setting where his or her daunting needs can be met? Would it not be better to offer adoption, foster care, and hospice care?

    Even with the best of help, Tay-Sachs is a hellish disease. I can not stand in judgment of the parents who fled to the abortionist.

    That's example of why people with disabilities should have some real assistances rather than killing them. I can't see how the killing can "help", but I let pro-choicers think what's best for the disability, anyway.

    I stated my words on the other blog: "If she still wants abortion, there is nothing I can do."

    *shrugs*

    Reply
  85. That's strange. I'm sure that I replied to your comment, but it seems it's not there anymore. O.o

    Did you see my other comment? Well, it's in a case if you don't see the comment. Here. (Noted: I kinda forget what I originally said, but I tried to do my best to memorize everything I had said.)

    Well, I found the news on Tumblr, and most people said they understood her action and not all disabilities are equal. Do you agree that the death is solution to disabilities, right?

    I'll quote someone's quote ( realchoice.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-viral-tay-sachs-story.html?m=1 ): "Would it not be better to be looking for an option that allows the child — and the family — to have the good while mitigating the bad as much as possible? Would it not be better to provide families with love and support that would enable them to cherish every possible moment of love and happiness? Would it not be better to strive for treatments and cures? And for the families who simply can not cope with the ordeal, would it not be better to place the child in a setting where his or her daunting needs can be met? Would it not be better to offer adoption, foster care, and hospice care?

    Even with the best of help, Tay-Sachs is a hellish disease. I can not stand in judgment of the parents who fled to the abortionist."

    That's an example of why people with disabilities should have real assistances. I can't see how the killing can " help ", but I will let pro-choicers think what right things for those disabled people, anyway. As I stated my words on the other blog: "If she still wants to have an abortion, then there is nothing I can do."

    *shrugs*

    Reply
  86. I gave up. I'm pretty positive that I did reply to your comment, but I don't see my two comments. I'm not sure what's wrong with this comments section.

    So, nevermind..

    Reply
  87. And what you said makes you seem incredibly irresponsible and beyond selfish. Here's your point of view: 'It's worth it to me to kill someone so that I can have vaginal intercourse. Yay! Look at me be free! Who cares if abortion is a violent and aggressive attack on an innocent life! I'm having fun! Weee!' So sad that people like you exist.

    Reply
  88. Do you drive a car? Are you aware that thousands of americans die in car accidents every year? So basically, your point of view is: "its worth it to me to kill someone so that I can drive a car, because I'm too lazy to walk! Yay! Look at me be free! Who cares of people die violently in car accidents every year! I get to drive! Weeee!!"

    So terribly sad that people as stupid as you exist.

    Here, because you're so stupid, I'm going to connect the dots for you. People who choose to drive, knowing that they could get into an accident that could injure someone, are not selfishly choosing to injure others just so they can drive, correct? Surely, you cannot disagree with this premise.

    Likewise, women who engage in intercourse are not killing "people" in exchange for the privilege of doing so. Admit it.

    I reiterate, it is so terribly tragic that people as stupid as you exist.

    Reply
  89. "It exists, and implants, because of the parents' actions."

    False. The parents do not control whether or not the blastocyst comes into being after sex or whether the blastocyst implants after coming into being.

    Please PLEASE explain how you think the parents POSSIBLY are responsible for implantation. You stupid fool.

    If it is your proposition that the parents are responsible for implantation, then every parent—especially those who are practising natural family planning- are also responsible for the failure of blastocysts to implant and their subsequent deaths.

    So tell me, why are you not going after all of those sinful catholic women who are practising natural family planning for causing the blastocysts to fail to implant?

    Reply
  90. My mantra = I – ME – MY – MINE.
    Who else should I be concerned about? YOU?
    You skeeve me.
    When I take the very best care of myself that I can, I find that I have taken good care of all around me for the most part.

    Reply
  91. Well, they have argued here that it does not matter if the abortive sloots injure themselves with unsafe abortion, because after all, you wouldn't legalize murder just to protect the health of killers, right?

    Reply
  92. You know, you have made a lot of asinine assumptions (not surprising, since that is the entire basis of the anti-choice position). I am a married woman who nearly died gestating a wanted pregnancy. I will not risk my life again should my tubal ligation fail.

    You need to get out into RealityLand; life is not as black-and-white as you think.

    Your hubris is astonishing; you presume to know the situations of total strangers and to dictate that they behave according to *your* lights. It's sad that people like YOU exist.

    Reply
  93. I had my tubes tied 29 years ago. Are you claiming that if the tubal ligation failed (and they DO fail) that I have "willingly" created "new life?" Screeeeeeeeeech! It seems to me that using sterilization, or an IUD, or birth control pills, patches, vaginal rings, shots, and even so-called NFP or FAM is the explicit hanging out of a "NO FETUS WELCOME" sign. I never "placed" anything in my womb, as I've never used an IUD(not that I oppose their use… just never had one), and that's the only instance that I know of where anything is EVER intentionally placed in a womb. "Helplessness" has never created a right to the use of a body that isn't yours. It never WILL create such a right.

    Reply
  94. NOPE. It's a random biological occurrence. 50-70% of all embryos fail to implant, and the woman's body can be expected to reject 25% of those that do implant. That's just how we have evolved to handle reproduction. Not all embryos will result in pregnancy. Not all pregnancies will result in a live birth.

    Reply
  95. Yeah, I have my account but I don't use it very much. I finally see two comments of mine and your replies, but I'll let this discussion move on, anyway. To avoid a glitch..

    Reply
  96. This is the summary of a WHO report that asserts that abortion and contraception are human rights. The entire report is available at the link.
    un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/254

    Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of
    everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
    standard of physical and mental health

    Summary
    In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health considers the interaction between criminal laws and other legal restrictions relating to sexual and reproductive health and the right to health. The right to sexual and reproductive health is a fundamental part of the right to health. States must therefore ensure that this aspect of the right to health is fully realized.

    The Special Rapporteur considers the impact of criminal and other legal restrictions on abortion; conduct during pregnancy; contraception and family planning; and the provision of sexual and reproductive education and information.

    Some criminal and other legal restrictions in each of those areas, which are often discriminatory in nature, violate the right to health by restricting access to quality goods, services and information. They infringe human dignity by restricting the freedoms to which individuals are entitled under the right to health, particularly in respect of decision-making and bodily integrity. Moreover, the application of such
    laws as a means to achieving certain public health outcomes is often ineffective and disproportionate.

    Realization of the right to health requires the removal of barriers that interfere with individual decision-making on health-related issues and with access to health services, education and information, in particular on health conditions that only affect women and girls. In cases where a barrier is created by a criminal law or other legal restriction, it is the obligation of the State to remove it. The removal of such laws and legal restrictions is not subject to resource constraints and can thus not be seen as requiring only progressive realization. Barriers arising from criminal laws and other laws and policies affecting sexual and reproductive health must therefore be immediately removed in order to ensure full enjoyment of the right to health.

    Reply
  97. And I'm a woman that went through a horrific miscarriage that Novasure and Essure had to fix and even then it wasn't enough to stop the chronic bleeding, so I have an IUD to prevent a pregnancy and if I was to get pregnant, I would have to abort due to life threatening complications for both me and the baby. Yet, I lean pro-life. Most that are pro-life are not advocating to put women's lives at risk. Most support women having an abortion for medically health and life-threatening reasons. So, let's drop the red herring.

    Reply
  98. Dear women and future women of today, let us take a united stance and curse mother nature for our ability to get pregnant. In fact, let us all unite and take a pack in not ever allowing another woman to give birth again. Since the embryo is a parasite and since pregnancy and birth is so life threatening and since the only way we can show the world how women are not worthless is by abortion then abortion should be ENFORCED and BIRTH OF CHILDREN OUTLAWED. That will teach the world the worth of women – are you fuqing kidding me? I am being sarcastic but seriously that is the message your post implies. Do YOU hate women and yourself for our reproductive powers?

    Reply
  99. An abortion isn't gonna save a woman who dies during or after birth is it?

    And I guess you think it is morally acceptable to permanently disable a woman for the life of a frtus?

    Reply
  100. Are we humans slaves to nature? You use an IUD, do you not? Why do you hate nature and your biology? Pregnancy is natural and wonderful, you should always embrace it even if it can kill and disable you. In fact, nature made you specifically for pregnancy, so why should you have a CHOICE in the matter?

    Reply
  101. Yeah! And my medical decision to have boob and butt implants should also be paid for by tax dollars, along with any other unnecessary medical procedure; screw silicone poisoning because it is more important to live up to societal standards of beauty and please them than it is to be healthy. My body, no one else's business. Oh, I think perhaps I will go South Park style and have a dolphin fin sewn on my back because it is my body and my right.

    Reply
  102. Another fucking red herring. Should I not go drive my car because of assholes on the road that don't know how to drive? Should I not take a flight because of plane crashes? Should I starve myself because people choke on food? Should I not go swimming because people drown? What the fuck kind of argument is "oh, women should have abortions because they can die in childbirth and permanently disfigures women"?!?

    Reply
  103. Do you know what the word "choice" means?

    Abortion opponents want to force women to gestate, which does in fact put women's lives and health at risk.

    Last I checked, no one is forcing you to swim, to drive, to fly, or to eat.

    Reply
  104. Hey! I know a dummy who needs to look up the Hyde Amendment and see why no tax dollars ever pay for abortion! Yeah, that's you, Star Seed!

    Reply
  105. There is no red herring, sweetie. You need to look around at your fellow travelers and see how many of them think that no abortions should be permitted at all because it hurts their feelings. Right on this blog, I was told that since "only" 800 women a year die in the United States due to gestational complications, it isn't that big a deal.

    Never mind that gestational complications are the number one cause of death among women world-wide. Never mind that the US maternal mortality rate is on a par with *Afghanistan.* Never mind any of that and save the embryos!

    Reply
  106. I'm not the one advocating an extreme opposite. There is nothing wrong with menstruating, with conceiving, with being pregnant and with giving birth. There is no shame in it and women should not be degraded for it or be mislead to fear it or be ashamed of it. I love being a woman. You should too.

    Reply
  107. And I suggest you look up the red herring fallacy
    nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

    The fact that pregnancy is a medical condition is true. It is a FACT that pregnancy can maim kill and injure. It is also a FACT that abortion can't always save a woman's life when pregnancy goes wrong. A red herring is an irrelevant distraction. My rebuttal was no such thing and is completely FACTUAL.

    Reply
  108. In fact, let us all unite and take a pack in not ever allowing another woman to give birth again.

    No. That would be as anti-choice as forcing every woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Two sides, but the same coin.

    Reply
  109. Yes, I do love being a woman. It doesn't mean that I must have children or love and desire motherhood and pregnancy.

    Reply
  110. Note the word "most". "Gestational complications are the number one cause of death among women worldwide" Really? What about cancer, heart attacks, and domestic violence to name a few?

    Reply
  111. Oh, I know a female that seems to be ashamed of her own vagina. In fact, I came across two today! What' next? Are the two of you going to claim consensual sex is rape?

    Reply
  112. No one said that you must love motherhood and children and pregnancy but neither should it be degraded and feared and encouraged as something to be ashamed.

    Reply
  113. I think motherhood and children are fantastic, for women who choose that route. Nothing wrong with it at all. But it should be a choice.

    Reply
  114. Considering the risks. LIFE is all about risks. A woman has more risk of dying from cancer and heart disease than giving birth. You shouldn't live your life in fear.

    Reply
  115. Yes, life is about risk. That's why we should leave the decisions to the person who would actually be assuming that risk–the woman who is actually pregnant

    Reply
  116. Aww. So it would be morally acceptable to FORCE you to eat trans fats and inhale cigarette smoke 24/7, since life is risky?

    Would it also be morally acceptable to force you to go skydiving? Swimming with sharks? Testing pharmaceuticals?

    After all, life is so full of risks that you should have no CHOICE in regards to which risks you face, right?

    Reply
  117. I can't believe that you are so afraid to live your life because you are so afraid of dying and even at that seem to disregard other factors because you are so focused on "killer pregnancies" and "killer births". I was going to toy with you but I now can't help but feel the deepest empathy for you. Why are you so afraid, hon?

    Reply
  118. Unless you can be pregnant for someone else, you don't get a say in how much risk they should be willing to assume.

    Reply
  119. Uhm…it's a fact that pregnancy is a medical condition. It is a fact that birth is painful. It is a fact thay pregnancy can maim and kill.

    What is so wrong about being honest in regards to the risks?

    If a woman wants to take the risk, I say, great for her. But thay does NOT mean that women should be forced to gestate against their will.

    Reply
  120. WTF are you even talking about? I point out that no tax dollars are used for abortions because of the Hyde Amendment and you go off about my vagina?

    Seek help for whatever the hell is wrong with you.

    Reply
  121. Are you seriously comparing second hand smoke with being pregnant? Why do you despise children and the female reproductive system so much?

    Reply
  122. Actually, I just don't like think that I should have my bodily integrity violated on behalf of another. Also, the risks, the pain, make it even less desirable.

    Now what is objectively wrong with that?

    Reply
  123. What about them? I'm sorry you don't understand data, but here it is anyway: data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

    You're welcome.

    Reply
  124. Jennifer, this is an intelligent counterpoint that would normally enjoy discussing but right now, I think I stepped into the Twilight Zone. There is a difference between advocating for choice and advocating for women to be ashamed of their bodies.

    Reply
  125. Okay. I'm going to get some more coffee, because I don't even know what the hell you're babbling on about. The only one who's been talking about being ashamed of their bodies is you. Perhaps in future discussions you might actually try addressing my point instead of sidestepping?

    Reply
  126. The fuck it is, you are the one coming off like a doomsday prophet by preaching to women that because 800 women a year die from birth then women shouldn't get pregnant or give birth.

    Reply
  127. Do you think it's okay to scare women with bogus statistics and bad science into not getting pregnant or giving birth?

    Reply
  128. I wasn't the one who failed to give a straight answer to fairly simple question. I fail to see why that's such an imposition. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

    Reply
  129. Oh, where does it state that maternal conditions are the number one cause of death for women in the world? Where? Because the leading cause for death for women in the world is Heart disease.

    Reply
  130. In AFRICA and maternal conditions ARE NOT the NUMBER ONE cause of death. But yeah, keep twisting it. You seem to be talented at that.

    Reply
  131. There's nothing wrong with a woman choosing to get pregnant and give birth. No one ever said there was, as long as it's a freely-made choice.

    Reply
  132. Oh, now you are back to being nice? Sorry, I fell for it the first time and tried to have a discussion with you. You mistook it for weakness.

    Reply
  133. And this is supposed to support fear mongering? Please. At least I don't try to make women afraid to have an abortion with manipulated and twisted data.

    Reply
  134. Nice? Personally, I think that refusing to give straight answers and misrepresenting someone else's position is not nice at all. But that's what you've been doing here. In fact, that's all you've been doing. You haven't been trying to have a discussion.

    Reply
  135. Non-responsive? How about this sweet pea? Instead of playing cheesy cat and mouse games with you, let's get to the bottom line. WOMEN are powerful creatures with BEAUTIFUL bodies both within and without with NOTHING to be ashamed of and the quicker we stop playing the victim card, and take control and responsibility of our bodies the sooner we can actually rise against patriarchal tyranny.

    Reply
  136. Playing the shame to be pregnant and give birth game comes from negative MALE centric view of female bodes. Wake the fuck up.

    Reply
  137. The two biggest things wrong with your post are these:

    (1)Most that are pro-life

    (2)are not advocating to put women's lives at risk

    With respect to #1, the "wrong" thing is the label "pro-life". They are not actually "pro life", not when they care nothing about all the OTHER life being killed all over the Earth, due to human overpopulation –the current estimates are that 3 species are being made extinct every hour –and those self-called "pro life" people want to help that happen, by insisting ever-more human mouths-to-feed must be born? What they actually are: "Liars Stupidly Prejudiced In Favor Of Human Life Uber Alles, Calling Themselves 'Pro Life' When They Are Actually Liars Stupidly Prejudiced In Favor Of Human Life Uber Alles". But that's quite a mouthful, so I usually just call them "abortion opponents".

    With respect to #2, the "wrong" thing is what they actually adovcate: Demoting women from "person" status to "life support system for a mere animal organism" status, a lesser status than demoting women to mere-animal status. It should be obvious that someone must be psychologically defective, who thinks a person should be enslaved to servicing a mere animal.

    Reply
  138. Having an abortion is one way of taking control and responsibility. The fact that you disagree with it is immaterial.

    Reply
  139. That's not what we at all did. All we said was that pregnancy carries risk, and the decision about whether to assume that risk should be made by the woman who is actually pregnant. So you can stop lying now.

    Reply
  140. Forced childbearing? Hon, you advocated fear of giving birth and being pregnant. Is that not just as wrong as forced childbearing?

    Reply
  141. Nope. Its medical reality. Pro lifers lie and pretend that pregnancy is equivalent to eating doritos on a couch, or to a light cold (I've heard both excuses here).

    They pretend that pregnancy is all fairy farts and unicorns in order to gaslight women as "selfish baby killing sluts who wont put up with a minor inconvenience."

    Reply
  142. What I advocate is for pregnancy decisions to be made by the woman who is actually pregnant. So stop lying, stop misrepresenting my position and answer the question.

    Reply
  143. Yeah, you have some pro-lifers that are like that. There are even pro-lifers that use their stance because they don't care about neither the baby or mom. But pro-choicers do fantastic job of slut-shaming themselves and now, are even going so far as to promote fear with manipulated medical data. What these pro-lifers chose to do is no excuse for promoting fear of one's body. Why do you think men were able to take power from women? Now it's not enough for men to fear our bodies but we must fear our bodies too? GTFOH.

    Reply
  144. Stop misrepresenting me, Porter. You are the one that threw in forced abortions like a wild card in order to trump the conversation and deflect from your advocating for women to fear their bodies. Keep trying back pedal.

    Reply
  145. A …look who is pouting. You decided to jump in and support manipulation of data over the leading cause of death for women worldwide that was used to inspire fear in women over their own bodies and thus, justify abortions. Of all the very valid pro-abortion arguments out there, the three of you chose fear mongering. That's on you. Not on me.

    Reply
  146. The only one who has been talking about forced abortions is you. Is it possible for you to have a debate without lying about what the other person represents?

    Reply
  147. No, it's on you. Because apparently you only know how to debate by lying about the other person's position. We haven't misrepresented you.

    Reply
  148. Bullshit. Porter brought it up. It's a very effective guilt inducing tactic and one that was attempted to be used against me. Nice try though.

    Reply
  149. No, Porter never brought it up. But you have. And you've just confirmed that you're not able to have a debate without lying.

    Reply
  150. Do you really want me to flood you with copied and pasted messages that you wrote? Instead of getting your feelings hurt, next time bring up a valid counterargument without attacking someone and then you might be amazed how a healthy discussion can be achieved. Would you like me to give you some valid pro-abortion arguments? I'm all about helping others out.

    Reply
  151. All that I've ever advocated for is for pregnancy decisions to be made by the woman who is actually pregnant. And if a woman has a risky pregnancy, only she can decide whether or not to assume that risk. I have brought up many valid counterarguments and you either ignore or sidestep them. You are a dishonest individual and I don't believe that you have ever had any intention of having a healthy discussion with any of us.

    Reply
  152. I'm sorry you're so stupid, sweetie. washingtonpost.com/local/maternal-deaths-in-childbirth-rise-in-the-us/2014/05/02/abf7df96-d229-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html

    No love, someone who nearly died due to gestational complications.

    Now, GFY.

    Reply
  153. I did acknowledge but YOU chose to act like a bitch about it and tried to turn that acknowledgement into an attack. Now you want to play victim? Sweetie, the three of you are better than this. Women are better than this.

    Reply
  154. Wrong. You didn't acknowledge anything. What you did was refuse to answer my question and instead throw in some blather about the Twilight Zone and 'fear of vaginas'. All of which had nothing to do with my post.

    Reply
  155. Actually what I disagree with is teaching women to fear their bodies. I disagree with using abortions as a societal Band-Aid instead of addressing issues like domestic violence, educational and employment opportunities and the advertisement of abortion as a fucking cure all for women's issues with primarily male owned clinics that make mad profits off of the bodies of women and their unborn children. I'm disagree with women being so ashamed of their bodies and themselves that they falsely believe that adopting male behavioral traits promotes equality for women. It's time to stand up against the bullshit. It's time to stand against assholes making mad money off of our bodies like some kind of medical form of prostitution. It's time for women to have REAL CHOICES instead of option one -carry the baby and risk baby taken away by violent spouse, or lose educational opportunities, or lose employment, or be slut shamed to option two- just kill the baby and be slut shamed anyway and fool ourselves into thinking that we shafted male domination by having an abortion.

    Reply
  156. Abortion is a real choice. Just like the choice to have a child and either raise that child or give them up for adoption. Nothing to do with 'adopting male behavioral traits' or 'shafting male domination'. If a woman is pregnant and she doesn't want to be, she should have the choice to end that pregnancy.

    Reply
  157. It's time to stand against assholes making mad money off of our bodies like some kind of medical form of prostitution.

    Irrelevant. The vast majority of doctors charge for their services.

    Reply
  158. Right. Let's just cling to that and ignore all the women out there that have been through this and are going through this. Well, you can. I choose to fight for women because women do deserve better than this nonsense.

    Reply
  159. Let's just cling to that and ignore all the women out there that have been through this and are going through this.

    I'm completely in support of making it easier for women to have and raise their children, both economically and socially. Countries that have a strong social safety net and a good healthcare system tend to have lower abortion rates. But the fact remains that some women are still going to want or need to end their pregnancies.

    Reply
  160. No one is teaching women to fear their bodies you dishonest twit.

    As has been repeatedly explained to you, pro-lifers like to pretend that abortion is the greatest of all evils, and that pregnancy is the best thing that can happen to a woman – that a woman isn't a 'real woman' until she's given birth, and that pregnancy cures cancer, diabetes and auto-immune diseases. All bullshit. What we are doing is countering that, and simply saying that pregnancy is a medical condition, and that ONLY the person facing the risk should decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. No one else can make that decision for them.

    Reply
  161. Right. Because even though the earth has enough for everyone's need but not greed, the solution is not to fight greed and corruption but prevent life.

    Reply
  162. Human greed includes the utterly selfish desire to reproduce. And the total biomass on the planet is finite. That means the more biomass that gets tied up in the form of human bodies and human food sources, the less biomass is available for everything else, trees, flowers, birds, whales, etc. THAT is why 3 species are going extinct every hour, a direct consequence of human greed/selfishness/overpopulation. What right do humans have to do that? "Might makes right?" Ego? Stupid Prejudice? I greatly doubt you can present ANY valid reason for forcing more human mouths-to-feed to get born!

    Reply
  163. I don't have to. You're the one screaming about 800 maternal deaths and using their blood to validate your opinion that the number one cause of death for women is pregnancy and child birth.

    thinkprogress.org/health/2014/05/06/3434509/us-maternal-mortality/

    washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101102165.html

    Even with maternal deaths at an all time high in the US alone, it is still a little over 18 deaths per 100.000 births. According to the CDC, maternal related deaths are not even in the top ten causes of death for women. A woman is more likely to die of an accident, murder, HIV, PIV, and cancer than she is from maternal death.

    cdc.gov/Women/lcod/2010/index.htm

    And in both the US and globally, the primary reason women die in childbirth or pregnancy complications IS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ADEQUATE HEALTHCARE and NOT because she had the audacity not to abort a pregnancy and give birth. Your argument is ridiculous, despite your insistence on manipulating facts.

    Reply
  164. What complete and utter bullshit. You do not get to decide how much medical risk anyone other than yourself is going to take. Please feel free to gestate any pregnancies you so desire, regardless of their risk. That's your choice. Another woman need not do the same.

    Reply
  165. No, dummy. No one did any such thing. Everyone has pointed out ACCURATELY that every pregnancy is risky, and that those risks cannot be predicted until the woman is actually pregnant.

    Jesus wept. Were you homeschooled by imbeciles?

    Reply
  166. Wrong. You just mistook kindness for weakness and are still trying to validate your support for one of the weakest and dumbest pro-abortion arguments I have ever seen.

    Reply
  167. Twist it all you want but childbirth and pregnancy ARE NOT THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR WOMEN. I have never seen so many people fight for the most retarded argument I have ever seen.

    Reply
  168. primarily male owned clinics that make mad profits off of the bodies of women and their unborn children.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    The typical fee for an abortion is around $500. The typical fee for L&D is around $42K (source: aattp.org/hospital-bill-horror-story-shows-deficiency-of-us-healthcare-system/). The same OB/GYN presides over either procedure. On which one do you think that MD is making the most profit?

    You are really not very well-informed.

    Reply
  169. Kindness? Please. Dishonest and disingenuous, yes, but trust me, I never thought of you as 'kind'. And no one here is 'pro-abortion'. We are pro-choice and you are anti-choice.

    Reply
  170. Bullshit. If you want to falsely believe that pregnancy and childbirth is the leading cause of maternal death, then go ahead. There really is no fighting with stupid.

    Reply
  171. No. What you did is ignore the fact that not only inadequate healthcare is the primary reason why we have maternal deaths but also refused to acknowledge other very serious conditions cause the deaths of more women than pregnancy and childbirth. And your solution for maternal deaths that do happen? Abortion instead of access to healthcare for these women. Yet another way of using abortion as a Band-Aid instead of actually finding real solutions for women.

    Reply
  172. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

    Gestational complications ARE the leading cause of death for women world-wide. Those complications include diabetes, hypertension, etc., that were NOT present before the woman got pregnant.

    Stop doubling down on the stupid.

    Or, you know what? Don't. Keep right on keepin' on. It just goes to show that the basis of the anti-choice movement is nothing but pure ignorance.

    Reply
  173. Oh. So force women to give birth instead of letting them decide for themselves whether or not to carry to term?

    How magnanimous of you.

    Reply
  174. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Just feeding your own face qualifies you as "selfish" –why shouldn't some other organism have that food, eh?

    It is to be noted that the preceding means every life-form is equal with respect to being selfish –neither you nor any other living thing (me, too!) is superior even to a virus, in that respect. However, that just means that, Logically, selfishness per seis not an inherently bad thing. It is "too much" selfishness that always qualifies as a bad thing.

    The fact that biomass is finite leads, basically, to War between life-forms. Each one "wants" the biomass that others are using, in order to reproduce. That's the environment in which humans evolved. It is possible that's the only excuse we need, to justify breeding. On the other hand, it still remains a Truth that Too Much Selfishness Is A Bad Thing.

    Naturally, different folks have different perceptions of what qualifies as "too much". Nevertheless, it should be obvious that the more total humans there are in the world, the more total human selfishness exists. Current consequences of human overpopulation include Global Warming, overfishing, deforestation, aquifer depletion, mass production of pollutants, farmland encroachment by cities (go ahead; I dare you to tell me that that trend is indefinitely sustainable!), and hourly species-extinctions.

    At what point can it be Objectively stated that humanity has reached or passed the "too much" mark? And how many other species must DIE before we recognize it?

    Reply
  175. What if Jennifer can't earn it? Should she give it up? Hand it over to someone who can handle the awesome responsibility of owning a vagina?

    Perhaps Jennifer should start out with a training vagina:

    youtube.com/watch?v=DqAjWoToDPo

    Do you think she can handle the responsibility?

    Reply
  176. It's not selfish in itself to have a child and nor does it contribute to greed. Do you consider infants and children to be vile? Do you believe that only the rich are those that have money are the only ones that should be allowed to procreate? Now poor people are greedy for having the nerve to give birth to a child? Especially when it's the poor that are enslaved by the rich and powerful. How about fighting for humane causes and against greedy corporations and those in power that feed off the poor? They are the ones that are the parasites. Not the poor.

    Reply
  177. No. Childbirth and pregnancy is not the leading cause of death for women. I know it's hard for you to accept and would rather call me a liar than accept that but it does not make it any less true.

    Reply
  178. Do you have issues with women promoting vaginas? Do you have issues with being proud of vaginas? Everyone woman should be proud of their vagina. Alas, not everyone woman deserves to have one.

    Reply
  179. Yeah. You sure showed me! A video of a training vagina is "proof" that you are right about childbirth and pregnancy kills more women than anything else and in no way do you look like a retard.

    Reply
  180. And as long as we're going to be talking about who's courageous here, might I point out that you've already said that if you got pregnant again that you would abort to preserve your health. Or would your abortion be more 'moral' than others?

    Reply
  181. So, you can't answer the question then?

    What a bizarre individual you are. I really don't get too concerned with what other people do with their genitalia, so I cannot comprehend your obsession.

    Reply
  182. Probably, but I still think vaginas are awesome and tired of the way people treat vaginas like it's something to be ashamed of – in fact there is no reason for any woman to be ashamed or fearful of any part of her body. There is no reason for women to resent their bodies. There are different reasons why people support or do not support abortions, some valid. Some not. And most people on either side of the coin even share similar views if the could just sit down and talk without allowing irrelevant and divisive rhetoric to stand in their way. Fact is that abortion is legal and a constitutionally protected right within the United States. Fact is other countries that have practiced zero tolerance for abortion and banned it have contributed to easily preventable deaths. Fact is that extremists on the pro-life side have gone as far as to try to make miscarriage itself as validation to hold women as murder suspects. However, many pro-lifers do not endorse that kind of extremism. I may personally despise abortion and because I despise it I will advocate for alternate solutions to abortions, which many pro-choicers also do but I would never vote to make abortion illegal, judge a woman for having an abortion, slut-shame a woman for having an abortion, rally outside an abortion clinic or stand by or agree to a woman's medical records (or anyone else's) and/or treatment plan to be violated . I consider an unborn child to be a life but mom's emotional, mental and physical health come first. Still, it doesn't change the fact that abortions aren't always the best solutions for women and in some cases have harmed women more than it has helped them. If women are to make a true choice, whether it's to keep her unborn child or abort, then women deserve all the facts, without fallacies, without bad science, without emotional and mental manipulation from either side. She can not undo either decision once she is pregnant. Society owes it to women to help her make the best choice for herself and her child and not force political agendas on her.

    Reply
  183. This is not about not trusting women or negating their deaths. This is about not promoting fear. The primary reason that women die in childbirth or pregnancy related deaths is due lack of access to decent medical care.

    Reply
  184. Choosing to engage in sexual activity without using protection. At sixteen, though I was staunchly pro-choice, I bought my own birth control because I knew that at sixteen I did not want to get pregnant (my guardian refused to take me to Planned Parenthood or a doctor to obtain birth control) and abortion was not an option for me (my guardian would never have consented to an abortion either). When birth control fails and sometimes it does, okay, got it. But there is no excuse not to be responsible (unless of course a woman or young lady was not educated in the birds and bees).

    Reply
  185. The fact that pregnancy is not risk free is not 'fearmongering' sweetie. It's called 'reality'.

    And no, the reason that women, at least in the developed world, still die from pregnancy is because it is utterly impossible, even with the BEST medical care, to either predict or prevent every death. It's just not possible. Even Joan Rivers, with the BEST medical care that money could buy, died because her doctor messed up.

    Reply
  186. How is supporting health care for women denying them a choice? How is refusing to bow down to data manipulation forcing women to give birth? How is refusing to remain silent while someone writes a post that basically advocates fear of childbirth and pregnancy?

    Reply
  187. With abstinence-only education being promoted in schools for the past decade or so over comprehensive sex-ed, that might very well be true.

    Reply
  188. First there is denial of endorsing women to fear their bodies and now you go back to it? Which is it? Can you make up your mind? You think calling me stupid and your refusal to stop manipulating facts is going to make you right? Yes women develop such conditions while pregnant but guess what? Women also develop these conditions without being pregnant! And the data is separate from women that have these conditions without being pregnant from those that developed these conditions while being pregnant, did not have access to medical care to treat these conditions and in this country it's more likely to happen to a woman of color than a white mom; and lack of medical care for treatable conditions is causing the deaths of these women and NOT BECAUSE SHE "FOOLISHLY" HAD A BABY. In fact, a friend of mine was rejected by North Carolina Medicaid though she was pregnant, a very much wanted pregnancy because she was planning on allowing her gay sister and her partner to adopt the baby. The state kept "losing" her paper work. She had no access to medical care and unknowingly developed gestational diabetes. She gave vaginal birth to a 19lb stillborn because the doctors wouldn't listen to her in the emergency room to go ahead and deliver the baby before the baby died. Then she was denied pain medication after losing the baby because they mistakenly believed her to be an addict – just because she is black. And guess what? Cape Fear Hospital is so well connected that no lawyer would touch the case and ironically, the state came through after the baby died. There are many women like her and promoting fear with glorifying abortion as an answer to maternal deaths is not a solution. Making sure that women have healthcare is the solution. And please leave the slut-shaming out of any response you may have. I really don't want to read how she asked for it by deciding to have a baby while being poor because she didn't.

    Reply
  189. Lying about what, Jennifer? Pregnancy and childbirth is not the leading cause of death for women. Saying that it is the leading cause of death promotes fear.

    Reply
  190. Did you forget about the bodies of aborted fetuses being sold to medical schools? Or even how some artists have made gory works of "art" out of aborted fetuses?

    Reply
  191. You will be carrying one in your fleshlight, because you haven't yet earned the right to carry a fetus in your win.allbestsoft.com/scr/391/free-pussy-cat-screensaver-big-2.jpg

    Reply
  192. Speaking personally, if I was going to carry a pregnancy I would want to hear actual facts, not candy-coated drivel because some 'pro-lifer' is worried that I might get an abortion. .

    Reply
  193. "Gestational complications ARE the leading cause of death for women world-wide". No it is not. And your words, not mine.

    Reply
  194. This isn't a matter over medical risk. Hell, take a pill and you could risk an allergic reaction, death, vomiting, dizziness and other side effects and complications but it doesn't mean that one should be afraid of taking the fucking pill. Pregnancy and childbirth can be frightening as is, why add to the fucking fear?

    Reply
  195. Or even how some artists have made gory works of "art" out of aborted fetuses?

    Do you mean people responsible for the photos that anti-choicers love to brandish?

    Reply
  196. Yes, you beef-witted pox-plow. Gestational complications are the leading cause of death for women world-wide. The information has been provided to you repeatedly.

    What is up with your aversion to facts? How are facts 'fear-mongering'?

    Do you have some sort of issue for which medication might be helpful? Because I'm beginning to think that's the case.

    Reply
  197. Okay, now I know you're a nutter. You can provide an unbiased source for that assertion, or admit that you're a liar. There is no middle ground.

    Reply
  198. I'll concede your point. It does seem that way but on the other hand, not a single one of you offered an original point except the person that seems to have ancient middle eastern beliefs that giving birth is selfish.

    Reply
  199. Pregnancy and childbirth can be frightening as is, why add to the fucking fear?

    Oh, I get it. You're one of those people who thinks that pregnancy should only be spoken of as all fairy farts and chocolate ice cream.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but fuck that noise.

    When the complication happens to *you,* the odds have just become 100 percent. Do you understand that?

    And yes, it is a matter of medical risk. Telling the truth is NOT fear-mongering. Every pregnancy is risky, and whether or not the risks will or will not manifest cannot be determined until AFTER the woman is pregnant. Every pregnancy causes permanent physiological changes to a woman's body, such that a forensic anthropologist (which just happens to be my background) can tell from skeletal remains how many times a woman has been pregnant.

    You may choose to gestate as many risky pregnancies as you wish. I will not do so again (do you see that word, again? That means my experience with this is PRIMARY. Should my tubal ligation fail, there will be an abortion scheduled immediately. And guess what? There's not a goddamned thing you can do about it.

    I now understand that you don't like truth to be spoken, just like so many of your fellow anti-choicers.

    Suck it up, Buttercup.

    Reply
  200. "Gestational complications ARE the leading cause of death for women world-wide". Your words. False information. Promotes fear.

    Reply
  201. IIC is correct. Having chlidren CAN be selfish. Abortion is green.

    youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

    Planetary resources are not finite, sweety, and one reason that people are killing each other over in Africa and the Middle East is that too many people are fighting over too few resources. Drought leads to famine leads to war.

    Reply
  202. You and me both, sister. I'm embarrassed to have ever been part of that idiotic movement. Perhaps she will grow up some day.

    Reply
  203. Because even though the earth has enough for everyone's need

    You really do need to get out into RealityLand … resources are NOT infinite.

    Reply
  204. Of course it would; hers would be a "case of need" (just like it is every time an anti-choicer has an abortion). Everyone else is just Slutty McSlutterpants, partying down and wanting to "avoid the consequences."

    Reply
  205. It's not selfish in itself to have a child
    —–
    FALSE. It absolutely is selfish, passing your genes on to the next generation, consuming resources that others might use, instead. The only Question is, is doing so excessively selfish or not? Note that in Nature, generally speaking, if the parents can't properly support their offspring, the offspring usually die. Humans, being among the most social of animals, have created ways to involve a group to make it easier for offspring to be supported. However, that doesn't change the basic fact that breeding is an inherently selfish act, nor does it change the public perception that if your breeding requires others to pay for it (see "welfare mom", or, better, "the octomom"), then you are being excessively selfish, even if it the result is the only child you ever have.
    =====

    and nor does it contribute to greed.
    —–
    IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES. Every extra human mouth-to-feed represents an increase in the total greed of humanity, with respect to the limited biomass of the world.
    =====

    Do you consider infants and children to be vile?
    —–
    IRRELEVANT. Greed may be vile, but sources of greed are not necessarily vile. Like I previously wrote, selfishness itself is not an inherently bad thing; it is excess selfishness that is the bad thing. In this case, overpopulation very-simply equals excess selfishness.
    =====

    Do you believe that only the rich are those that have money are the only ones that should be allowed to procreate?
    —–
    LOGIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BELIEF. Nor is it necessary to be rich to be able to afford offspring. (However, the rich can of course afford more offspring than those who are merely "comfortable" financially speaking.)
    =====

    Now poor people are greedy for having the nerve to give birth to a child?
    —–
    EVERYONE IS GREEDY who selfishly passes their genes on. Period. By definition, even! You are making the mistake of thinking that all greed/selfishness is inherently bad, when it isn't. Only in excess is it bad. And "excess" in this case can be defined in terms of expecting others to pay for your selfish desire to breed.
    =====

    Especially when it's the poor that are enslaved by the rich and powerful.
    —–
    IRRELEVANT, except in the long term. Think about it! If the poor stop breeding, who can the rich enslave?
    =====

    How about fighting for humane causes and against greedy corporations and those in power that feed off the poor?
    —–
    ALL SORTS OF EXCESS SELFISHNESS DESERVE ATTACK. But don't let your focus on certain types blind you to the existence of other types!
    =====

    They are the ones that are the parasites. Not the poor.
    —–
    The biggest cause of poverty is overpopulation, and there is a simple proof of it –just divide your income by an increasing number X of your children, and see how much each of you ends up with. Why should your boss give you a pay raise just because you selfishly had another child? What did you do to earn that child? As mentioned in different words above, generally in Nature, if the parents can't earn their offspring, the offspring typically die.

    Reply
  206. The other girl who claimed to be black or something, and told us that she believed in the intrinsic worth of fetuses, however, fetuses could be killed provided the woman used birth control – but if the slut had unprotected sex, the fetus suddenly had a right to life.

    She impressed us with her superior knowledge by throwing around the word 'eroteme' a lot.

    Reply
  207. investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2451/fetal-body-parts-used-for-reseach/

    nytimes.com/1991/11/24/nyregion/abortion-mills-thriving-behind-secrecy-and-fear.html?src=pm&pagewanted=2

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3031800.stm

    nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fetal-tissue-used-generate-electricity-oregon-n88716

    Here's a little extra article on forced pregnancies: bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/11148

    Not sure about this site but it is an interesting article: thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

    Reply
  208. Oh, the CDC are nothing but a bunch of liars, too? Any other organization that is a threat to your beliefs are liars too? Lady you are just as crazy as far righters.

    Reply
  209. Actually, Hitler was anti-choice – he banned contraception and abortion and strongly encouraged aryan women to breed like rabbits.

    Reply
  210. Yes. Of course we do. I mean, fiona almost died to give birth to her much loved child, clearly she hates children. In fact, the majority of pro-choice women that I know chose to have kids, often multiples, I guess they hate children too eh?

    Reply
  211. You are right. Women should fear their bodies. Fear pregnancy. Fear birth. Fear chicken little falling out of the sky. Fear the bogey man under the bed. Be good humans and not procreate so that big industry and corporations can rake in profits and the rich can inherit the earth.

    Reply
  212. I don't have to get people to believe anything when the people who took the photos admit it. Though they generally misrepresent stillbirths as late-term abortions, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.

    Reply
  213. Well that's taking ego to whole another level. How ironic that people that are supposed to be pro-choice and normally align themselves with GLBTs are engaging in homosexual shaming. Tsk. Tsk.

    Reply
  214. Who said it wasn't risk free? Being alive itself is a risk for dying. Once your dead there is no longer a risk to die. Wow. You ladies are really pissed, lmao.

    Reply
  215. Oh, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with rejecting societal degradation of women and their body parts. But if you are okay with that……

    Reply
  216. Worry about your own and let others worry about theirs. That generally works best. It works for pregnancies as well.

    Reply
  217. It's not a red herring because not everyone thinks this. I've heard conservative law makers debate what constitutes a health exception. No one knows unless they are in that situation. This should be a private decision between a woman and her doctor.

    Reply
  218. Overconsumption of the planet's resources. Humans are using at least two earths worth of resources right now. We can't sustain the population we have now. Add to that climate change and we have mass starvation and war.

    Reply
  219. No one is ganging up on you. You've been throwing out insults. If one replys to an insult or discussion then that's part of the discussion/debate.

    Reply
  220. If that was the case you wouldn't be defending false information. Even my pro-choice friends are wondering "WTF?" after I told them that you ladies actually believe that child birth and pregnancy are the leading cause of death for women and how you ladies were advocating abortion as a solution for this. Oh and how I am supposedly directly responsible for these women's deaths because I and people like me "lie" about how childbirth and pregnancy is nothing but fairy farts and chocolate ice cream.

    Reply
  221. Considering I wasn't talking about you and just the four people I have been having this ridiculous argument since this morning and you just decided to pop your head in, I would say that I'm not the one making assumptions, dear.

    Reply
  222. Right. Of course, ignore the actions of the side you choose and point the finger at the other side. They have been insulting me and I them all day long. What's your point?

    Reply
  223. Well I generally keep my body parts clean and I hope you do as well. I don't know how that translates to 'hating them'. What else should I be doing with my vagina?

    Reply
  224. In other words, enough for every one's need but not greed. I have this "crazy" thought that mass starvation and war eliminates the population.

    Reply
  225. While ignoring a whole paragraph that I wrote on it. I'm not going to write that again. Find it and read it if you want an answer.

    Reply
  226. I did read it. And nothing makes your decision more moral than anyone else's, but I support your right to make that choice.

    Reply
  227. I agree that it is a private decision between a woman and her doctor. What I don't agree with is the nonsense that childbearing is the leading cause of death for women and that abortion is the solution.

    Reply
  228. Oh. So when women are raped. Be silent about it. When women are abused. Be silent about it. When women are sexually harassed in the work place, school or rape victims are slut-shamed, be silent about it. In fact it seems that the only thing you think women should stand up for is abortion.

    Reply
  229. Yes, he wanted aryan women to breed for the motherland or the homeland. I get confused with the Bush era terminology of the "homeland."

    Reply
  230. Yes, because I actually believe the CDC and WHO when they say that childbearing is not the leading cause of death for women and that I disagree that abortion is the solution to prevent maternal deaths instead of access to healthcare for women. You are so right, that is just so crazy. I mean who the fuck is the CDC and WHO and what do they know? And what was I thinking for not worshipping at the altar of abortion?

    Reply
  231. Oh, because I don't support your panic campaign. I didn't support the Eubola panic campaign either. Yes, I know, it's crazy.

    Reply
  232. No one said anything about panic. But only the woman who is pregnant gets to decide what risks she is willing to take. Just like you.

    Reply
  233. On the contrary, your friend was the one preaching for the 800 women that die from childbirth and that abortion is the solution for those issues and promoting it is the leading cause of death, when it isn't.

    Reply
  234. Oh, I'm sorry. You and your friends were accusing me of being obsessed with your vagina because you bore me good will and intentions and of course, no one has ever used such an analogy to convey that someone else is a homosexual. Nope. Not at all.

    Reply
  235. Bullshit, happens to be my coin phrase on this particular forum. Can't you be more creative and come up with something different? While you're at it, perhaps if you are really that concerned about my reply then actually stop being lazy and look for it yourself? That's not to much to ask, is it? I'm not actually risking injuring your brain by asking you to do your own work, am I?

    Reply
  236. No. Falsely claiming that childbearing is the leading cause of death for women is a straw man. Actually, it is just intellectually dishonest because I have hard time believing that you are truly that stupid. If anything, I believe you know it's not true but like to influence others to believe as such. I have to admit, it works well.

    Reply
  237. Which is why I made sure not to include biased sources. That did take awhile. Extremists from both sides seem to dominate the internet with bullshit. But hey, if rejecting the truth makes the clouds a little more pink and fluffy on your planet, then so be it.

    Reply
  238. Right. Because rejecting your panic, chicken little campaign automatically says "oh look how easy childbirth and pregnancy is". I have given birth to six children and while it's no piece a cake, I wasn't fearful for my life either.

    Reply
  239. Look at maternal deaths worldwide. Abortion is legal in the U.S., therefore lower maternal death rates in the U.S. Look at maternal death rates in countries where abortion is illegal.

    Reply
  240. I don't think that lesbians share the level of obsession. I have several lesbian friends and strangely enough, the subject of our vaginas never enters the discussion.

    Reply
  241. Maybe I have a better appreciation of female anatomy than you. I'm not obsessed with your vagina sweetie. Supporting vaginas is not a bad thing. However, if it builds your self-esteem to believe that I am obsessed with your vagina, then go ahead, sweet pea, believe that.

    Reply
  242. Um. Abortion is illegal in Ireland and they have a lower rate of maternal deaths. In fact, Saudi Arabia has better healthcare for women then we do and they have a much lower rate of maternal deaths. Also, maternal deaths are increasing in our country due to lack of healthcare. Globally, it is lack of access to healthcare that is the primary cause of maternal deaths. I have only repeated this like a broken record, even after providing resources. I just don't get why people want to hold on to that fallacy. I would think people would be relieved and at least try to advocate for healthcare for women.

    Reply
  243. What do you think manipulating data to mislead women into thinking that if they get pregnant then they have a greater risk of death than an accident, being murdered, congenital diseases and cancer to name a few; does to women that have never been pregnant or given birth? If I did not know better and had I never given birth then I would be terrified. And abortion is not a savior. It is a Band-Aid on a gaping wound of issues that will never heal unless it is properly addressed.

    Reply
  244. I told you to earn the vagina you were born with and you are the one that ran with it from there. You said you don't give speeches but you don't need to. You are a natural drama queen.

    Reply
  245. I tell you what. Research it yourself, then come back. I have had enough of posting valid sources for people that are not looking for a discussion and would rather accuse well-reputed organizations of being liars because it doesn't suit their agenda.

    Reply
  246. If you read it then you would know that I never said or even implied that my decision is more moral than anyone else's.

    Reply
  247. The thread or the source. The source only provides data on maternal deaths but does not say that maternal deaths are the leading cause of death for women because it isn't. This is ridiculous but it's your choice to disregard WHO and CDC statistics.

    Reply
  248. Why are you asking me? You won't believe that maternal deaths are not the leading cause of death for women, so why would you listen to anything else I said? Just grab a mirror and explore for yourself. Have fun! No need to share details.

    Reply
  249. Never said you owe me an explanation. Just asking you to back up what you said. I'm trying to be civil and have a discussion not a shouting match.

    Reply
  250. NOPE. But I see you didn't provide any data indicating that there were factual or logical flaws in my post. There is a Conclusion that can be drawn from my post: There Is No Such Thing As A Right To Breed; It Is Actually A Privilege That Must Be Earned. And here is a nice picture for you: fightforsense.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/foodquestion2.png?w=869

    Reply
  251. By the way, I notice you still haven't attempted to offer a valid reason for forcing more human mouths-to-feed to get born. Well?

    Reply
  252. There is another aspect to the "greedy corporations" thing that I should have mentioned, and you are not going to like it one bit.

    Per The Law Of Supply And Demand, businesses know that if they can restrict production of Resources, then they can increase their profits. Therefore, despite claiming to embrace competition, businesses generally strive to put each other out of business (thereby reducing Supply while Demand is unchanged, and thus prices and profits go up).

    But there is another way that businesses can profit. If they can increase Demand without increasing Supply, that works for them, too. The most common way to attempt to increase Demand is through advertising. But that's not the only way.

    Note that "political conservatives" are very often associated with businesses –you can be sure they know all about The Law Of Supply And Demand. The association of political conservatives with businesses is such that if Demand can be increased, the politicos will personally profit from it.

    And most of those political conservatives oppose abortion! By seeking to force extra people to be born, they plan on directly profiting from increased Demand!

    So, if you want to lash out at greedy corporations causing people to become poor, look no further than your colleagues in the Overall Abortion Debate!

    Reply
  253. Actually, you're the ones who want the rich, corporations and big industry to profit while the earth starves and dies and women are no longer able to feed their children and the poor just keep getting poorer..

    Reply
  254. Awwww, Fiona hurt your darling precious feelings. Good. I hope your butt hurts for a week from the ass kicking Fiona just gave you. It was a thing of beauty. I look forward to more of your tears.

    Reply
  255. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide.
    guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/2/gpr140224.html

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

    Reply
  256. That? I've done that ages ago. Not exactly groundbreaking. Incidentally, you do know that not everything down there is called a vagina, right?

    Reply
  257. Yeah and Anglel tried to claim that women carried babies in their vaginas–and when corrected she admitted that she just liked calling everything a vagina. *snort*

    Reply
  258. I don't think you have a better appreciation of anything. I just think you're basically a flake who's obsessed with other women's reproductive lives and choices.

    Reply
  259. Quote: Other medical procedures don't kill individual, living humans.
    …………..
    This is outright FANTASY. Joan Rivers? Separating conjoined twins? Assisted suicide? In vitro fertilization? etc.

    FORCED BIRTHERS ARE DELUSIONAL. And they shame, maim and kill folks who do not agree with them because they are MORAL and they have God/Good on their side.

    Most recent example of the depravity that results from these kind of 'morals:' I have lots more examples.
    independent.ie/irish-news/news/baby-deaths-now-gardai-probe-the-tuam-mass-grave-30337463.html

    Reply
  260. Obsessing about other women's vaginas is a bizarre way to deal with "societal degradation of women and their body parts," if you ask me.

    I think of women as whole people, not just the meat around a vagina. But if it rocks your socks to behave otherwise, keep on keepin' on.

    Reply
  261. That's rich, coming from the ignorant bint who thinks that discussing the realities of pregnancies constitutes "fear-mongering."

    Reply
  262. You're funny. You claim not to be about "degrading women's body parts" and what's the biggest insult you can think of in your tiny brain? The Anglo-Saxon word for vagina.

    Your lack of education is showing, and there's spittle running down your chin to boot. Pitiful little beef-wit …

    Reply
  263. Because when logic hurts, then throw out constant name calling.

    Said the woman who, despite claiming that a vagina was a thing of power, just called me a cunt.

    You broke my irony meter, sweetie.

    Reply

Leave a Comment