When Democracy Wins, Abortion Loses

Despite the very common misconception that the US is mostly pro-choice, the US is in fact majority pro-life (48% pro-life, 45% pro-choice). And probably most shocking to your average American: the youngest generation (you know, the one that just started voting) is most likely to say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Young people don’t just call themselves “pro-life,” a phrase which can have an array of meanings; they explicitly support making abortion illegal.  

Click to enlarge

So it should come as no surprise that the nation leaned more pro-life on November 4th. Most notably, the people of Tennessee removed the right to an abortion from the state’s constitution, finally allowing a democratic approach to abortion legality.

Now Tennessee has three proposals up to bat:

  1. Mandatory waiting period for women seeking abortion
  2. Mandatory counseling (informed consent)
  3. Inspection requirements for abortion facilities

According to Gallup:

  • 60% of pro-choicers and 79% of pro-lifers support waiting periods
  • 86% of pro-choicers and 87% of pro-lifers support informed consent

If Tennessee is anything like the overall nation, these proposals will pass. The fact that TN needed a constitutional “right to abortion” to prevent restrictions from passing may remind you of a similar, yet larger-scale case of short-circuiting democracy: Roe v. Wade. For the past 40 years, the ruling of 7 justices has allowed the killing of preborn human beings at any stage of development based on privacy (oddly, though, women cannot murder their toddlers using the same rationale). And this overreach has not jived with the vast majority of Americans. For example, 79% of pro-choicers and 94% of pro-lifers want third-trimester abortions banned.

Americans have skewed views of how their fellow citizens stand on abortion. Even now, most probably see Tennessee as extremist and unusual. But in truth, TN is fairly representative. It is my hope that young people entering the voting population continue to be strongly pro-life and vote to protect unborn children, and that the population as a whole can understand and embrace the (secret) pro-life norm. 
What do you think: could knowledge of the status quo position affect the extent to which people (particularly political moderates) accept pro-life views?

500 thoughts on “When Democracy Wins, Abortion Loses”

  1. the youngest generation (you know, the one that just started voting) is most likely to say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances

    That's not really surprising: they're also the age cohort least likely to have any direct knowledge of the need for free access to safe legal abortion as an essential human right.

    For the men in that youngest generation, they may never grow out of it: they may only realise when a woman they care for (wife, daughter, grand-daughter) needs an abortion.

    For the women in that youngest generation, I would guess that they are more likely to grow out of it as they learn to value themselves in an adult way: to realise that the prolife ideology is a misogynistic idea of forcing girls and women, and that this is neither good nor healthy.

    Reply
  2. What would be interesting is to see how the answers of the young ones have changed through out the years. Have they ALWAYS been more pro-life, relative to the older generation?

    Also, I remember when I first learned what abortion was, probably when I was 15,6. At the time I thought it was cruel, surely something only the Republicans would favor. Only later when I looked beyond only the fetus and considered the reasons WHY people would have one, did I begin to realize that it was an important right to a procedure that is not always pretty or happy. Also learning my loving and infinitely patient mom had one, and I that she was working herself overtime all the time to make time for me and also her career, showed me first hand that people who have abortions are not horrible people.

    Reply
  3. If the youngest voters are the most pro-life, can pro-lifers support lowering the voting age? A win-win for young humans!

    Reply
  4. Actually, wow, I just made the connection: the youngest voters are the most likely to be pro-life, with the oldest voters coming in second, and the most pro-choice cohort are middle-aged people.

    I'd never realized so bluntly that the amount of age privilege a person has directly correlates to how likely they are to believe there should be an age requirement for the right to life.

    Reply
  5. This is interesting. If the younger people are pro-choice, it's because they're in touch and educated (same reason we see more young people supporting gay rights). If they're pro-life, it's because they're inexperienced. So how do you reconcile this perspective with one like gay rights? If young people are inexperienced and stupid, should we go with the older people on restricting gay rights?

    In any case, I'm not sure how this whole "young people are just inexperienced" can jive with the fact that the oldest generation is also very pro-life. Should we listen to them because they're so experienced?

    Reply
  6. One in three women have hsd an abortion before they're 50.

    Young people tend to be pro-equality for LGBT because they know other LGBT people as friends or the parents of their friends, so gay marriage is, they know, just what's right.

    If young people knew how many of the older women they admired and respected – how many of their friends, sisters, girlfriends, their mothers and their friends' mothers – had hsd abortions, and that those women were able to say – as the vast majority of women who've had abortions do say: "Abortion was the right choice: I don't regret it" – I think it likely they would be as strongly against forcing girls snd women to have babies as they are against banning same-sex couples from getting married.

    Reply
  7. I admit this is quite interesting. Another gallup poll shows people who hold postgraduate degrees are almost 2x as likely to be pro-choice than pro-life, while those who hold only a highschool diploma are almost 2x as likely to be pro-life as pro-choice. Why the young, who are overwhelmingly in favor of progressive policies like marriage equality, seem to be pro-life, a stalwart position for the Religious Right?

    One possible explanation might be that young people have met gay kids. Their friends may be gay, a relative might be gay. Gay people are visible. Abortion, on the other hand, is more a private matter, and older relatives may not be telling younger relatives about their own abortions. In this way, abortion is probably less an everyday part of life as gay people are. In my case, when I first learned what an abortion was, I thought it rather cruel. Only as I got older and realized the reasons people have abortions, and finding out my mom had one, did I accept it as a fundamental human right. I think as younger people experience having to work for a living, they will begin to understand what might go through the mind of a woman who chose abortion for economic reasons.

    Reply
  8. According to the chart that is used with this article, young people aren't the "most likely" in any category. OOPS. Furthermore, there is no part of my life in which I would willingly cede control to an 18 year old. NONE! You people MUST be shrooming.

    Reply
  9. I have been a life-long pro-choice person (even before there was such a thing as choice) for precisely that reason. Abortion became a part of my life at the age of ten when my mother had one to save her life. I didn't fully appreciate the idea at that age, I just couldn't understand why the doctors wouldn't help mom until she was literally at death's door and I was angry about that. I had no care for something that was never going to be a baby. I just wanted my mom back. No child should have to face a crisis like that.

    Reply
  10. Agreed. However, you won't find much support for that on this blog, which I am learning is not really pro-life at all, but a place where pro-abortion types hang around.

    Can you recommend any pro-life blogs that are really pro-life? Thanks in advance.

    Reply
  11. A link would be quite helpful to determine the margin of error in this poll, expressed as +/- x points. It may be statistically non-significant from other groups. And regardless of whether you believe children should be voting or not, there is no reasonable basis on which to believe they should. Your charges of "adultism" notwithstanding. There's a reason we don't allow children to vote, marry, enter contracts, or enter the military. They aren't "cooked enough" yet to make such life-affecting decisions. And there is no benefit to society in allowing them to do so. On the positive side, I ALSO don't think children should be treated as adults in criminal matters, either.

    Reply
  12. No, they shouldn't. For all the talk of 'saving children,' there's little concern for the welfare of a woman's other kids. The only time they're ever mentioned is when someone simpers 'Well, how would they feel knowing their sibling was 'murdered?'

    As usual, you get right to the point: The most important thing in the world to you was that your mother was safe and alive. But hey, you were only one of her 'born' children; why should you have mattered?

    Reply
  13. That's OK. Pro-aborts are just increasing traffic on this web site and getting the site bumped up in the rankings 🙂 RH Reality Check (a pro-abort web-site) has likely seen their traffic slowed.

    Liveactionnews usually bans pro-aborts that resort to insults and vulgarity to try to get their point across. Pretty sure that some pro-aborts on this page have been banned. Here is a recent news article from them: liveactionnews.org/new-jersey-news-cast-reacts-to-graphic-abortion-images/ Hope to see you over there 🙂

    Reply
  14. I would think that the anti-choice young people are this way because they have been raised this way. They have been taught that women are inferior and it is their job to pop out kids.

    Once they get out in the real world and start to understand how things really are a lot of them will switch positions.

    Reply
  15. And then go on to write great blogs about their transformation:

    The spring of my sophomore year of college I was president of my university’s Students for Life chapter. The fall of my junior year of college I cut my ties with the pro-life movement. Five years later I have lost the last shred of faith I had in that movement. This is my story.

    Read more: patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html#ixzz3IxbzL0St

    Reply
  16. Anyone with a brain knows that abortion restrictions aren't about controlling a uterus, they are about protecting vulnerable human beings from being killed. Looks like selfishness ('my terus') often clouds people's judgement.

    Reply
  17. Abortion restrictions are about controlling a woman and her body 100%. It is about punishing her for having sex.
    Abortion restrictions are only there because anti-choicers view women as inferior property and they want to control us.

    Reply
  18. Your last point is valid, but if you look at how many believe "Legal under any circumstances", the youth look like quite pro-choice, as the numbers are more in-line with the middle-aged than the oldest. And as lady_black says, we need Error bars and also a the size of the samples, ie how many people were asked, to determine whether these results are statistically significant.

    Also, how does being a child abuse victim

    Reply
  19. Living kills more than that. I do not see abortion in here anywhere.

    THE TOP THREE CAUSES OF DEATH BY AGE GROUP

    0 to 1 year:
    Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
    Conditions due to premature birth (short gestation)
    Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

    1 to 4 years:
    Accidents
    Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
    Homicide

    5 to 9 years:
    Accidents
    Cancer
    Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth

    10 to 14 years:
    Accidents
    Cancer
    Suicide

    15 to 24 years
    Accidents
    Suicide
    Homicide

    There are almost twice as many deaths in the first year of life as there are in the next 13 years combined. Then, the death rate rises rapidly after puberty because of the large number of accidents, homicides, and suicides in the 15 to 24 age group. These three causes of death in teens should all be preventable.

    Reply
  20. Abortion kills way more unborn children than the number of children that die every year in the U.S.

    And, medical 'procedures' aren't designed to kill born children. So your stats didn't even come close to answering my question.

    Reply
  21. No they aren't. They are about punishing women for having sex. You people do not care about the life of the ZEF once it is born. All you people want to do is force a woman to have a kid she doesn't want and then if she tries to get help she is a sIut who shouldn't of had sex if she can't afford to take care of the kid.

    Reply
  22. Prove it. Abortion does not appear once in child mortality statistics. I will wait until you find the proof that abortion kills children.

    Reply
  23. The 'monster' is the rapist, not the unborn child.

    What if a rape victim has the child and then decides he or she looks too much like the father – can she kill then? Sure there's adoption, but what if the thought of the "devil's spawn" being out there drives the woman towards madness – can she use that as an excuse to kill? Or can she GET HELP so that she can give the child up for adoption and then MOVE ON with her life?

    Rebecca Kessling was born from rape. Want to tell her she never should have been born?

    Reply
  24. My 12 year old gets pregnant from rape and we go straight to the doctor for an abortion. A 12 year old is unlikely to survive a birth.
    What a pukefest you are.
    I discuss public health. Not the ravings of impaired mind. I have made my point.

    Reply
  25. Oh, but you insist that a zygote is the same as an infant. So, why aren't abortions included in the list of child mortality?

    Could it be because ::wait for it:: there is no such thing as an unborn child?

    Reply
  26. I was *profoundly* anti-choice when I was a teen. I always say, flippantly, that this was the case until I got out of high school. What happened was that, for a variety of reasons, I learned that life is not as black-and-white as teens tend to think it is.

    I suspect most of those anti-choice teens will wise up.

    Reply
  27. I think you will find that most anti-choice people are under-educated. It has nothing to do with age and everything to do with information.

    Reply
  28. Of course, you don't ask your sycophant, Plum Dumpling, for a citation. I suspect that is because you are really not interested in knowledge and truth.

    Reply
  29. Never said an unborn child was a child. They are both human beings though.

    Yes, "Unborn child" is a valid term. Want to tell a woman whose boyfriend just poisoned and killed her unborn child that she shouldn't grieve, it was just a 'clump of cells'?

    Want to go to this website and comment that they shouldn't say "baby that dies in the womb"? maybe they can reword the article and call the unborn child a 'clump of cells'.. They accept disqus comments. Go for it. Show the grieving women who go to that website how evil you are: dying.lovetoknow.com/Grieving_Unborn_Baby

    Reply
  30. Postgraduate degree holders are almost 2x more likely to be pro-choice.

    Highschool graduates are almost 2x more likely to be pro-life.

    gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice.aspx

    Reply
  31. You're sick. All you care about are precious brainless zefs, the sanctity of your cunt, and you getting to enjoy as much comfort as possible. You'd force a twelve year old rape victim to give birth, because he head isn't as cute as the widdle embwyo's, you'd kill an innocent man who was being mind controlled by an evil scientist, for violating your precious cunt, and you'd dismember an innocent accident victim, so that you could steal his kidney.

    Do you care about anyone or anything except yourself, your sacred holy cunt, and the widdle embwyos sucking their widdle thumbies?

    Reply
  32. this is laughable, you nuts trying to take away our rights not only read polls the way you want to read them, but you had to go out of your way to find a really old poll that came close to what you nutjobs wanted.. here's a real updated poll.

    go the fk away, shut up and stay out of my and my daughters' uteruses.
    from polling reports.com

    Reply
  33. a fetus is not a human being and you nutjobs trying to demand what we do with our body yet you don't give a damn what happens after a baby is born, aka heathcare, education and child care.. you're all disgusting and vile.

    Reply
  34. She really is one of the darkest, most malignant personalities I've ever had the displeasure to come across online or IRL. I'm not a big believer in 'evil,' per se, but if anyone has ever caused me to rethink that, Mathilde has.

    Reply
  35. So what's your killing of a poor brain controlled man about? Saving the sanctity of your precious genitals? Why are you the only one who gets to kill innocent human beings?

    Reply
  36. If you really wanted to save the lives of the pwecious childwen, like over half a million of them a year, you'd be advocating relegalizing DDT. Oh, wait. You only care about widdle embwyoes, not real children who die of malaria, because once they're born, they've served their real purpose of punishing the mother for sex.

    Reply
  37. The 'youngest generation' thinks abortion should be illegal. In other words, people still living off mommy and daddy's paycheck and have no idea what life is like for those who have to actually work for a living and pay for their own homes, cars, utilities and medical care. And they are supposed to be authorities on the consequences of sticking someone with a $250,000 unwanted child because why? Sad feelies?

    Reply
  38. For most pro-lifers, pro-life laws are about saving the lives of unborn children. For most pro-aborts, abortions are about placing wants and desires above the life of another human being.

    Reply
  39. There have been people that have gone from pro-abortion to pro-life too as they mature and see that an unborn child is, in fact, a human being.

    Reply
  40. An unborn child IS a human being. A 'clump of cells' does not magically transform into a human being on a trip down the birth canal.

    What's "disgusting and vile" is killing a human being for 15 minutes of fame (Emily Letts), killing a unborn child to hide the results of a affair and even killing because a woman cannot afford a child (if she cannot kill her newborn for that reason, she shouldn't be able to kill her unborn child either).

    Most pro-lifers DO care about born children – they donate time and money to help FAMILIES in need, not just pregnant women.

    Reply
  41. Polls also show that most people want abortion generally illegal after 20 weeks and the only one I could find for abortion after 12 weeks showed that 64% want abortion generally illegal after 12 weeks. That means that a majority of people in this country have a fundamental disagreement with Roe V Wade. Overturning Roe V Wade is the first step in giving unborn children a basic right to life.

    Reply
  42. Here's another one. Stanford College Republicans asked Stanford students their stances on various issues. About 12% say they are strictly pro-life, with 20% saying they are pro-life but with restrictions. That brings pro-life and moderate pro-life to about 30% of the undergrad population.

    stanfordreview.org/old_archives/Archive/Volume_XXX/Issue_6/Front_Page/frontpage2.shtml

    Reply
  43. I mentioned being an abuse survivor in the hopes that it might convince lady_black to grow a conscience, but yes, being an abuse survivor most certainly helps one to recognize when attitudes that facilitate abuse are present! Do you actually dispute this?

    Reply
  44. I don't see how not giving children who haven't yet completed their basic elementary education is an attitude that facilitates abuse, but. I think lady black is an individual with a well developed sense of ethics and morals. And her point that the poll results don't clearly show the young being prolife is also quite valid along with her questioning whether the results are statistically significnt.

    Reply
  45. Okay, disclaimer: I realize that to a certain extent I'm dropping Adultism 750 concepts on you before you've even taken Adultism 101. The feeling is similar to trying to explain why infant gender assignment is inherently transphobic to someone who's still going "I don't know if it really makes sense that a woman can become a man if he feels like it". But all that aside:

    Granting all people the right to participate in the democratic process is something that is justified simply by the fact that children are subject to laws and government without the consent of the governed is unjust. But denying suffrage to a whole demographic of people also has obvious detriments in that those people's needs have no voice!

    The juvenile justice system is actually rooted in hatred and fear of young people, and often denies them constitutional rights they would have if tried as adults. Read this article: huffingtonpost.com/dr-robert-epstein/juvenile-injustice-the-sc_b_173495.html Of particular note is Gerard Gault, who was sentenced to six years in detention for a crime that would have resulted in, at the most, two months of jail and a $50 fine had he been an adult.

    Although I don't know how much of this is going to mean anything to you if you don't accept the basic premise that young people are treated unjustly because they are young. Next time you're talking with feminists about how women's speech patterns, interests, trends, etc. are treated as inherently less valuable or meaningful, note how often it is that specifically young women (and often young non-women assigned female) are targeted. Next time you see a list of the warning signs of abuse/behaviors that facilitate abuse, notice how many of them are completely normalized in parent/child relationships. Next time you hear people bring up how the culture and law enforcement make it difficult to escape an abusive domestic relationship, consider the fact that if it's your parent who's abusing you, in most states you can be dragged back by police without your consent.

    Reply
  46. All of the bullshit you spewed in the post to which I was replying. I want to see rigorous, peer-reviewed proof for your claims.

    I also want a flying pony; I figure that it's about the equivalent of your claims being valid.

    Reply
  47. I find anti-choice males particularly despicable; you wave your paws in the air and make demand on the life and health of women that will never affect you. Talk about convenient!

    Reply
  48. Myintx' views are actually fairly representative of most of the pro lifers that I have interacted with. The others are more clever however, and they dress the same talking points up in fancy rhetoric.

    Reply
  49. thats b s. Many pro-lifers do care about families – after the children are born. They donate time and money to help FAMILIES. They also support adoption for women who don't want their children.

    Reply
  50. You have made no points… If a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy she should be able to have an abortion to save her life.

    Most abortions have NOTHING to do with threats to a woman's health. They are done for avoidable reasons like "cannot afford a child" or "not the right time for a child". Those are great reasons for a woman to GET HELP from the many places that can help. They are HORRIBLE reasons to kill an unborn child.

    Reply
  51. I care about all innocent human beings. If an abortion is the only way to save a woman's life, I do support that.

    You're the one who is sick. I think you even admitted it. Are postings like the one you just did a side effect of your condition?

    Reply
  52. It is understandable if you don't see how the two are connected if you haven't spent time trying to understand adultism, although from my perspective it's kind of like believing that women being denied suffrage and women experiencing high rates of domestic abuse are just two random unrelated things. But if you actually want to understand, here are some resources:
    Escape From Childhood by John Holt (book)
    facebook.com/ISupportYouthRights
    youthrights.org/
    adultprivilege.tumblr.com, especially adultprivilege.tumblr.com/tagged/child-abuse

    And lady_black believes intersex children should have their genitals mutilated without their consent in order to force them into the gender binary.

    Reply
  53. That wasn't the point… Fiona said there was no such thing as an "unborn child". I proved there was. Guess you're backing me up too by saying "kid" is a valid term because it's in the dictionary. Thanks 🙂

    Reply
  54. Meanwhile, RHRC loses traffic because you're on this site, lol

    It is good for this site. A pro-life atheist who repeatedly gets lied to that only religious people are against abortion might find this web-site easier to find due to the increased traffic. There is lots of useful information on this site other than the blogs. And, not everyone reads the comments to the articles (if they did, they'd find that many pro-aborts are vulgar and evil though, so that would help too).

    Reply
  55. I have. Many scientists know that an unborn child is a human being too.

    In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held
    hearings where they discussed when human life begins. Internationally-known geneticists and biologists spoke.

    The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

    “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of
    the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human
    species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

    Reply
  56. Spell out what you need proof for. Do you really need proof that more unborn children die from abortion than born children die from all causes in the US every year? We do NOT have 1 million born children (under 18) dying every year in the US. If that's what you want a citation on, I'll find the number of born children that die every year.

    Reply
  57. Laws make demands of parents ALL THE TIME. That they send their kids to school, CARE for them, that they shouldn't KILL them, etc. Nothing wrong with laws protecting unborn children from being killed.

    Reply
  58. As I've said before, I have no desire to tell anyone they should never have been born. That is NOT the same thing as saying no woman should EVER be forced to bear a child, and especially so if the pregnancy resulted from a crime. I can't think of any other crime where the victim is forced to live with the results and would be denied medical treatment.

    Reply
  59. Unless the woman's life is truly endangered from the pregnancy, abortion isn't "medical treatment" – it's the intentional killing of an unborn child.

    Reply
  60. You anti-choicers care about YOUR family. You do not care about the single or married little sIut who had sex because it is fun. You just want her to suffer because she had sex for a reason besides pregnancy.

    If anti-choicers cared about the ZEF after it was born they wouldn't be trying to hard to reduce or eliminate funding for programs that help single women.

    Reply
  61. People need to take responsibility for their own children – born and unborn. If a woman wakes up one morning and decides she doesn't want her newborn and doesn't want to be bothered to call 911 for someone to come get the child, can she just walk out of the house and never look back? NO. She has a responsibility to her offspring. That responsibility should start when that tiny human being is created – at fertilization.

    Reply
  62. Do you really need proof that more unborn children die from abortion than born children die from all causes in the US every year?

    ……….
    YES.

    Reply
  63. You know perfectly well that this is not a citation. ::shrug::

    You also know perfectly well that a) the time of conception *cannot* be determined, and b) that many conceptii leave a woman's body with menses without her ever knowing about them>

    So, you clearly are arguing that all tampons should be inspected to see whether or not they contain "human beings."

    Jesus wept; the schools in Texas should all be sued for malpractice if you're an example of what they turn out.

    Reply
  64. She can call it Adolph is she wants. It is her fetus.
    You can read a fetus mind? Of course you can. All forced birthers are whizzes at telepathy, clairvoyance and remote viewing.

    Reply
  65. The number of children who die every year in the US can be found here: cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf

    PP alone kills more unborn children than the number of born children that die in the US every year.

    Reply
  66. Some people kill their born children and it's illegal… want to make killing born children legal because some people are stupid enough to kill even though it's against the law?

    Reply
  67. lol.. it's you that's comparing her to a Nazi killer…

    I can't read a newborns mind either. Doesn't mean a newborn can be killed if he or she is deemed unwanted or inconvenient. The vulnerable among us – including unborn children, born children and the elderly – need protection against selfish people that would kill them for being inconvenient/

    Reply
  68. You say 'anti-choicer' like it's a bad thing. If the 'choice' is killing a human being that has done nothing wrong, I'm proud to be anti-choice and anti-abortion (against the killing of unborn children). Are you proud to be pro-abortion – for the killing of unborn children?

    Pro-life laws are about PROTECTING unborn children. Not about punishing. Are laws saying a woman or an abortionist cannot kill a newborn born as a result of a botched abortion 'punishing' a woman for waiting too long to have an abortion? Sure she can give the baby up for adoption, but she might be hounded for medical bills and might suffer mentally for giving the baby up for adoption. Can she use those as lame excuses to kill her newborn and say "they are trying to punish me… boo hoo".? NO

    Many pro-lifers do support places that help FAMILIES, not just pregnant women. And many pro-lifers support politicians who want to work to get the economy going so that people can get back to work and support their own families.

    Reply
  69. It's proof of exactly nothing. Of which you are also aware.

    If you had two functioning brain cells and a synapse firing between them, you would realize that life is a continuum.

    Reply
  70. It is a bad thing to be an anti-choicer. You people think women are nothing but worthless baby machines. I am proud to be pro-choice because it means I support women and their right to do what they feel is best for their life. Little myintx doesn't get to decide for them or for me.

    Anti-choice laws are about forcing women into gestational slavery by making an abortion harder to her. No matter how much you try to make it so a newborn is not the same as a ZEF.

    Anti-choicers are about protecting the corporations and the wealthy. They do not care about the "lower classes".

    Reply
  71. No it should not. We don't force women to parent after birth, and we can't force them to parent before birth, either. That is what you are suggesting. When a woman, or couple take the newborn home from the hospital, they are accepting parenthood. They do not suddenly wake up one day and decide they want a mulligan on the whole thing, and walk out never to return. That would be an indication of some sort of mental disorder, and should be looked at on an individual basis. And certainly the child should be placed into foster care if the parents have left it unattended. The thing is, if she doesn't wish to parent, she is never forced to start parenting. She can refuse the infant and leave it at the hospital. Or she can give birth at home and call 911 and the paramedics will respond quickly and take the infant away. She probably needs, at minimum, a check-up for herself to make sure she's ok. Just GIVE IT UP, myintx. You can't force women to remain pregnant, no matter why or for what twisted reasons you wish to. Another woman's pregnancy is none of your affair, and there are federal laws protecting her medical privacy. You are entitled to ZERO information.

    Reply
  72. The Tennessee amendment is under further review. It seems that the votes weren't counted correctly. Voting for a constitutional amendment is subject to also voting for a governor. Meaning those who attempted to "cook the books" by voting for amendment 1 and not voting for governor didn't cast valid votes. We'll wait to see what the outcome will be.

    Reply
  73. Yeah, it doesn't matter what "most people want" when it comes to medical matters. It's none of "most people's" damn business. The tragedy of learning at the 20 week ultrasound that what you're carrying will never be that baby you wanted due to defects incompatible with life shouldn't be compounded by strangers sticking their noses in, ala Terri Schiavo.

    Reply
  74. In between "woman" and "newborn" is a long process, fraught with issues and problems, known as "gestation." You don't get to hand-wave away all other issues, including the quality of life for the woman and her existing children, and indeed their very existence, just because you see gestation as "no problem."

    Reply
  75. There is NEVER "the right time" for a 12 year old rape victim to be forced to have a child. And incidentally, any given pregnant 12 year old has been raped. That's a fact. Deal with it. No 12 year old of mine would ever be forced to gestate. EVER.

    Reply
  76. A human being's life is a continuum – one that starts at fertilization and ends in death – hopefully a natural death after a long life.

    Reply
  77. Anger is a natural reaction to people who would insist that any young girl or woman should be forced to gestate and give birth.

    Reply
  78. I know the number of children who died (it's in the report). The CDC gets data on the number of abortions. Two numbers are easily comparable…. 🙂

    Reply
  79. FYI: it's under Obama, a pro-abort, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. "Under President Obama, the richest 10 percent were the only income group of Americans to see their median incomes rise, according to a survey released this week by the Federal Reserve." (September 2014)

    A newborn is the same human being he or she was before birth – just at a different stage of development. Neither should be killed because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

    Reply
  80. I'm truly sorry you suffered from child abuse. Unfortunately for you there is no direct line between your childhood and either my conscience OR the matter of giving adult rights to children. I don't NEED to grow a conscience. The one I was born with is more than adequate. Neither one contributes to the abuse of children in any way. Children are a special case under the law. They're dependent upon the rest of society to meet their needs. We can't treat them as adult citizens with the same legal rights, because they aren't capable of the adult responsibility that goes along with those rights. I don't care to entertain any of your babbling about the "mutilation" of children through surgery they didn't consent to. Children do not make medical decisions. I (sort of) see your point about the intersex, and I would choose not to alter that if it were my own child. In my mind, there's too much chance of making a mistake. Neither would I consent to gender-reassignment surgery for a trans-gender child, because that's something that s/he can decide for him/herself when she is an adult. You must understand that those parents who do assign sex to their intersex children are doing what they believe is best, with the consultation of doctors. Nobody is perfect. Not parents, and not doctors either. But they're the best thing we have.

    Reply
  81. Ultrasounds have been wrong before. After 16 weeks many women have abortions for the same reasons they have them before 16 weeks. AVOIDABLE ones.

    Reply
  82. Do you really need proof that more unborn children die from abortion than born children die from all causes in the US every year?
    ……….
    YES. But not what you stated above. I limit it to the leading causes of death of children in the material I provided, if you like.

    Reply
  83. "The same human being before birth as after birth"
    *Pictures myintx walking around attached to a huge placenta.* No. Not the same.

    Reply
  84. A woman with just born children could have 'quality of life' issues and be worried about mental stress from putting a child she cannot afford into the system. Doesn't justify killing…. Most issues a woman has while pregnant don't justify killing either.

    Reply
  85. The fact is that she CAN hand off a born child. Nothing about suffering from having done it. One cannot hand off a pregnancy to another.

    Reply
  86. If it were natural, more of the population would feel the way you do. Reality is, they don't. Hence, the above article.

    Reply
  87. She has to take the TIME to hand off a born child… She can take the TIME to give birth and hand off the baby after it's born.

    Reply
  88. I find pro-abortion females particularly despicable. You wave your paws in the air and make demand on the life of unborn children. Talk about convenient.

    Reply
  89. Have you considered taking a remedial logic class? You seem unable to do any independent reasoning; you seem to follow the pro-abortion talking points very closely.

    Reply
  90. I'll consider counseling after you get counseling for your "gaslighting" and 'projection' of

    myintx. Why do you need to do that, pro-abortion troll?

    Reply
  91. Nope. It doesn't take nine months to hand off a newborn. You just walk into any hospital, and hand it to the first staff member you see. It doesn't matter if it's the cleaning lady, or the old lady sitting at the information desk. If they work there, they'll know what to do.

    Reply
  92. I'm pretty sure the majority of people would be angry at anyone who said their raped 12 year old must give birth. That's a really natural parental attitude for the mentally healthy. Of course, there are exceptions to mental clarity. You, for example. You are one sick puppy if you would do that to your daughter, or granddaughter.

    Reply
  93. I never said it took 9 months to hand off a newborn. The point is legally she has to SAFELY hand off her baby – even if she is at home and that takes more than 2 seconds. If she has to wait in other circumstances, a pregnant woman can WAIT until her baby is born so she can SAFELY hand him or her over to someone.

    Reply
  94. Post viability abortion laws PROTECT unborn children. We should be able to have laws to protect unborn children before viability as well.

    Reply
  95. I call my cat "baby." I also call my husband "baby." That doesn't mean they're really babies. My daughter called her fetus "my little parasite." The doctor laughed and told her she was right. The woman in that picture appears to have decided to go through with her pregnancy. She's obviously pro-choice. She also obviously wants a child. I'm delighted for her.

    Reply
  96. Really? Is that why pro lifers have zero qualms about condemning women to death and disability in service of a prenate?

    Reply
  97. Who gives a flying fig? Do you think they don't double-check before scheduling an expensive late term induction? You must be an idiot. Ultrasounds are totes "reliable" when used to convince some poor victim of yours that she should give birth and hand the fruits of her labor over for sale to the highest bidder. But when something is seriously wrong, ultrasounds aren't to be trusted.

    Reply
  98. That isn't the reason I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-choice because I learned really early in life that pregnancy isn't always glitter, sunshine and unicorn farts.

    Reply
  99. Inconvenient enough to omit her head and all her limbs but still have the gall to call her one of the 'people' in this diagram. Meat around the uterus, indeed.

    Reply
  100. Always? Is it ever those things? Terminating things in life (especially a life) because it's not pleasant is an asinine outlook to have.

    Reply
  101. One of my favorite things about protesting is checking out the signs. There is a plethora of creativity out there. I like it. 🙂

    Reply
  102. I'm guessing that you don't score real high on reading comprehension tests.

    Do you want to discuss guesses, or were you just making chit-chat?

    Reply
  103. The key word here, sweetie pie being *IF*. **IF** it could choose, it would choose life. Am I supposed to be sad here, or something? *IF* a rock could choose, it would choose life as well. But guess what? A rock can't 'choose'. Neither can a pwecious zef. The reason they can't choose, is the same reason they don't get a choice and don't have rights. Guess what that reason is? You've been obviously frantically avoiding mentioning it to such an extreme degree that I think we all know that you know what it is.

    Reply
  104. Woman with precisely the same argument. Brace yourself if you do go there. The woman's voice will take the polish off your fingernails. It is myintx or her twin, I swear. You could skip it. The woman is a pukefest.

    Reply
  105. You are too drunk to read it, aren't you? I can remember being the kind of drunk you are. It took six months of not drinking for my eyes to clear up.

    Reply
  106. Polls would probably once have shown that most people wanted slavery to be legal. So, which way do you want it, Myintx? Do you want things to be labelled immoral, despite what people think, as you do when you try to compare people thinking embryos to be nonhuman to people 100 years ago thinking blacks to be nonhuman, or do you want to go with majority=morality, in which case you've negated your objections to people once having thought blacks to be nonhuman.

    Reply
  107. Slicing someone open to remove their internal organs is dismemberment. Don't see you complaining about that. Why do you get to kill innocent human beings, myintx?

    Reply
  108. Why are her values so screwed up? You've made it clear that you're more worried about the sanctity of your genitals than the life of an innocent victim of mind control?

    Reply
  109. **I can't read a newborns mind either. **

    Uh huh. I can't read the mind of a rock. That doesn't prove that a rock has a mind, or should have rights. I can, however, show you an MRI and an EKG of the brain activity of a newborn. Can you show me an MRI and EKG of the brain activity of a zygote?

    Reply
  110. Why don't you have to take the TIME to wait for a poor innocent victim of brain control to finish raping you? Why does everyone have to take TIME except you, myintx? Are you a fetus? Is that why you have special rights? Or are you just a spoiled selfish brat?

    Reply
  111. **An unborn child IS a human being.**

    So what? You still haven't provided me with any good reasons why ANY 'human beings' should have rights.

    Reply
  112. So quit breathing. Bacteria are alive, and you kill thousands of them every time you breath. Terminating all those lives just because it's unpleasant for you not to breath is an asinine outlook.

    Reply
  113. Yes, apparently at least one of us is sick. Pregnancy is far more damaging to the body than rape (assuming the rape is not accompanied by a beating). Neither the embryo or the mind-controlled rapist is doing what they are doing intentionally. But the embryo gets a pass, while you kill the poor man who had a computer chip put in his head. Why is that? Based on action alone, the pregnancy is far worse. Based on intention, neither party is guilty. So I can only assume that your real moral standard is a combination of cuteness and preserving the sanctity of your precious cunt.

    Reply
  114. ** Neither should be killed because they are inconvenient or unwanted.**

    So, why would you kill a poor man who was the victim of mind control, because an evil scientist made him rape you? Just because he's inconvenient and unwanted and you don't want to wait 'only 9 short minutes' for the rape to be over?

    Apparently, according to you, it's not acceptable to kill people because they are inconvenient and unwanted, but just fine to kill them if they violate the sancity of your precious genitals, regardless of whether they actually intended to do so or not. That being the case, since the birth process involves the newborn touching and damaging the genitals, can a woman get an abortion on THAT basis? If not, explain the reason. Is it:

    1. Myintx's genitals are holy and sacred, but no other woman's is.

    2. The embwyo is all widdle and cute, but grown men are not so cute and actually sometimes scary looking.

    Reply
  115. **He said 'unborn children'.**

    So, can I roast an 8 year old human boy in my oven, alongside a young goat? If the all sacred-dictionary defines biological reality, then you should have no problem with that, since they are both 'kids'. Right?

    Reply
  116. So, what you are saying is that you deliberately and knowingly choose to support the 'cause' of trying to save the life of a million pwecious zefs, and deliberately and knowingly choose to NOT support the 'cause' of trying to save the life of 500,000 born children?

    Reply
  117. You should see a psychiatrist about your need to call names. Unless, of course, you haven't made your way out of grade school yet.

    Reply
  118. **They also support adoption for women who don't want their children.**

    Which means absolutely zilch. 'Supporting adoption' is not synonymous with 'The child will be adopted by a nice family within a short period of time'.

    If the child is that elusive, healthy white infant, it will be adopted. If the child is another race, has health problems, or birth defects, it will spend the next 18 years in institutions or several different foster homes.

    Reply
  119. Question here, myintx. And I want a one word 'yes' or 'no' answer from you, not your usual babblings and evasions:

    On the basis of 'kid' being a 'valid term' in the dictionary, would you find it morally acceptable for someone to slaughter, gut, and roast an 8 year old human boy, and eat him for dinner?

    Yes or No?

    Reply
  120. In my state a 13 year old self aborted with a pencil.
    care2.com/causes/13-year-old-performs-abortion-at-home-time-to-rethink-parental-notification-laws.html

    Reply
  121. ** It's about the UNBORN CHILD.**

    So, you're trying to claim that the mother doesn't exist. If that's the case, then problem solved. We'll just remove the zef. If the mother doesn't exist, then there is no need for the zef, or anything else, to be inside a non-existent person, since non-existent people do not have uteri, blood, or anything else that the zef might need for it's 'very life'.

    Reply
  122. So, what you're saying here, is that you'd be just fine with re-instuting the worship of Moloch by burning children under the age of 3 to death, so long as 'the law' said so.

    Or is what you are saying is that you are a special snowflake, and the law should say what you want it to say, and is all sacred providing you agree with it?

    Reply
  123. Hey- Argent. Guess what? I'm also a child abuse survivor. I was abused by other 'children' the same age as me. I was physically tortured and sexually molested. Literally hundreds of times. Starting at age 12, by other 12 year olds.

    Go put that in you pipe and smoke it the next time you want to talk about how 'innocent' widdle childwen are.

    Dumbass.

    Reply
  124. It appears to be in the uterus of a woman. Now, I repeat. WHO DOES THAT UTERUS BELONG TO?
    1) The woman in who's body it's located.
    2) You.
    3) The state.

    Reply
  125. If you think that, then YOU should never have an abortion. A woman isn't obligated to go through unwanted unpleasantness. Or face death, disfigurement, or disability/

    Reply
  126. Nope. She can take it to the nearest hospital, and hand it to any staff member. As for pregnancy, she doesn't have to wait nine months or nine days. She doesn't have to wait. Now you're simply lying.

    Reply
  127. Spontaneous abortion kills a lot of embryos and fetuses. And it doesn't much matter. The human population is still exploding.

    Reply
  128. There have been people who have gotten an IQ higher than that of a chimpanzee and become less self-centered than a spoiled 3 year old as they mature, and see that someone who has had a computer chip put in their brain, controlling their actions, is, IN FACT, not EVIL because of those actions, regardless of how unpleasant they might be.

    Reply
  129. So… what you're saying here is that if I take DNA from a dead person, clone it, put the embryos in the bodies of several women for 8 months and 3 weeks, you'd be fine with my doing an abortion a week before birth, since, in fact, there was no 'fertilization' and the 'life ended' at death.

    Or are you just a babbling idiot?

    Reply
  130. Well, ladyblack, apparently we live in a world where the pwecious embwyo gets a pass on shitting in your blood, injecting you with addictive substances, and causing severe mutilation as it leaves, because it 'can't help it' but a man with a computer chip in his head who is raping myintx, despite doing far less damage for far less time than the pwecious embwyo, a man who also 'can't help it' is EVIL.

    So if we live in a world where whether the excuse of 'can't help it' gets you a pass changes from moment to moment depending on what myintx wants, why shouldn't the reliability of ultrasounds change from moment to moment, depending on what myintx wants?

    Kind of reminds me of when I was 3. I used to think my mother could make Sesame Street come on TV any time I wanted it, and that moral and physical reality otherwise could and should be mallable to my whims. However, I got over that after a few more years. Apparently myintx hasn't.

    Reply
  131. Why is it that when a man purposely rapes a woman, causing an widdle zef to exist inside her, the man is the monster, because he was the one engaging in a deliberate evil act, but the widdle zef gets a pass, because it 'can't help it'.

    But when an evil scientist puts a computer chip inside a man's head, and remote-controls the man, making him rape a woman, the evil scientist is NOT the monster, despite being the one engaging in deliberate evil action. Instead, the man being forced to rape a woman is the evil 'monster' despite the fact that he 'can't help it'?

    What's the standard here? Evil is defined by lack of cuteness, or evil is defined by who is offending myintx's precious genitals?

    Reply
  132. A teen in my state attempted suicide and was left horribly disfigured. Perhaps we should create centers where teens can go without parental consent and have a lethal injection performed by a physician.

    Reply
  133. Yeah, since like all forced gestationers, you specifically handwave and avoid mentioning what qualities OTHER than (gasp) 'life' might be needed to have rights. If 'life' is all that is needed, bacteria are alive.

    Want to add some more qualities? And don't bother with the usual circular game of 'human' unless you want to list what qualities distinguish 'humans' from bacteria, such that 'humans' should have rights.

    Reply
  134. Do you have psychic powers? If so, have you taken that up with the Amazing Randi? If not, how do you know what cases will cause 'death, disfigurement, or disability', for sure, in advance?

    Reply
  135. Wait you were serious with the bacteria analogy? Do your cells have 70s ribosomes? And of course you don't want the whole "human" thing brought in. You people avoid that word like the plague when discussing abortion.

    Reply
  136. Sorry, no. It's irrelevent to me whether the 'human' thing is brought in or not. What I won't do is play 'fill in the blanks' with you, and let you get away with an equivocation fallacy using the word 'human'.

    The word 'human' is not a magic word that makes rights fall out of the sky. If you want to use the word 'human' to grant rights, you need to specify -whenever asked – exactly WHAT quality that human beings possess, that other species do not, that justify granting 'humans' rights.

    If you do not specify what, exactly, this quality is, that 'humans' have, that justify granting them rights, because you want to sneak the widdle zef through as 'human', then I'm not going to play fill in the blanks for you, grant 'humans' rights based on the qualities that *I* think justify granting SOME of them rights, while you try to sneak the zef through when it doesn't have those qualities, and claim that the zef should have 'rights' because it's 'human'.

    In other words – you don't get a free ride, you don't get to use 'human' as a magic word, and either put up or shut up. Explain why 'humans' have rights, or stop claiming that they have rights, that zefs get 'rights' because they're 'human', or else you are just babbling and handwaving like the member of a cargo cult, who thought the image of an airplane made out of bamboo would cause the results of a real airplane to magically appear, despite it not having the qualities that cause a real airplane to function.

    Reply
  137. Are you willing to raise and pay for a severely deformed child, if the woman has it anyways, on the basis of your claim that 'ultrasounds can be wrong'? Are you willing to raise all such children? Put up or shut up. myintx. And sober up for a change, while you're at it.

    Reply
  138. That's an interesting picture. It doesn't show the brain, heart, or lungs of the woman. Can we assume this means that you'll be fine with cutting off the blood and oxygen to the zef?

    Reply
  139. Actually, you have to do a jello shot. Well, there's a strip game, too, just in case you're getting too wasted playing the drinking game. So, a jello shot or a sock – totally up to you.

    Reply
  140. Now now Ann, be nice. Argent is a good person (unlike us). She is an advocate for children – and for that I applaud her. Children are often treated like property

    But, whatever you do, do not ask her if 11 year old rape victims should be permitted to abort their "unborn children". It is, according to her, an " unfair gotcha question" and will get you put on ignore and you will be accused of harassment.

    See, inconvenient questions are off bounds in fairy tale pro life land. Allow them to sit in their ivory towers and wax philosophical about what good people they are, with all of their warm and loving feelies for precious embryos. Don't introduce anything that will actually make them consider the real world implications, the suffering, that their beliefs, if legislated, will cause. Let them live their dream, as that of elite, progressive intellectuals, out to save the world. Don't introduce cognitive dissonance, that just makes you a Nazi.

    Reply
  141. You gonna tell people who want to save birds or whales that they should be worrying about children instead?

    I support many causes that help human beings – born AND unborn. What about you? what causes do you support, other than the killing of unborn children.

    Reply
  142. Your first statement is crazy. You truly have a mental disease… If a rape victim gets pregnant and doesn't realize it until she is in labor can she kill the baby because she thinks the baby is guilty of a crime or evil? Can she call the police and charge the baby with a crime? NO. Should we go find Rebecca Kessling and tell her she is guilty like the rapist?

    Comparing an unborn child to a rapist is horrible. YOU Ann are a horrible person.

    Reply
  143. Got any Gallup poll data from back then? I'm sure the tide turned towards pro-rights for slaves over time. In 1996 more people were pro-abortion than are today, so the tide is turning towards pro-right to life for unborn children.

    Unborn children ARE human beings. They should be protected from being killed. They should have rights.

    Many people think Roe V Wade was a horrible decision – legally and morally. It's time for that p o s to be overturned.

    Reply
  144. In cases where the embryo can't be expelled whole, that's what's necessary to remove the fetus during an abortion. That still doesn't tell me why the woman on the diagram has no head or limbs or organs. The poster purports to contain 'two' people. It's inaccurate.

    Reply
  145. So a woman should be able to do anything she wants to with her newborn if she doesn't want it? How about parents take RESPONSIBILITY for the new life they create? CARE for him or her…. And, no, killing an unborn child is not caring for him or her.

    Reply
  146. Anyone who cares more about the picture that was posted than the life of a human being that has done nothing wrong has screwed up values.

    Reply
  147. Most women don't have abortions for serious health reasons and you know it. They have them for reasons like "cannot afford a child" and "not the right time for a child". Those are great reasons to GET HELP but HORRIBLE reasons to kill.

    I still cannot believe that you think that comparing an unborn child to a rapist is a valid comparison. You truly are sick.

    Reply
  148. That's the same as killing. Killing an unborn child is wrong. It should be illegal and only done if the life of the woman is truly endangered from the pregnancy.

    Reply
  149. "severely deformed child" – so, you're saying that women should not be able to abort mildly deformed unborn children, just "severely" deformed unborn children… That's a small step in the right direction Ann. 🙂

    FYI: There are places that specialize in the adoption of special needs children. There are people stronger than I am (and way stronger than you) that take on the challenge of CARING for disabled children. Unless the woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy she shouldn't be allowed to kill her unborn child – even for a deformity.

    Reply
  150. You are correct. A mindless body is killed. And mindless bodies do not qualify as people, otherwise, we would keep anencephalic babies, parasitic twins, and beating heart cadavers on life support and/or feeding tubes indefinitely.

    Reply
  151. Unborn children are human beings.

    9 months is not forever…

    Are you just trolling this article? seconds after I post a reply to SOMEONE ELSE, you're all on my reply… looks like trolling to me.

    Reply
  152. Huh? Is this another lame attempt to compare a rapist to an unborn child?

    Or is this an attempt for you to justify killing of human beings that have IQs lower than that of a chimpanzee… after all, it's your side that likes to use lack of brain activity as a lame excuse to kill.

    Reply
  153. Yes, there is a need. I want to know what YOU think a person/human being is. List the qualities associated with personhood/human beingness.

    Reply
  154. I think the article expresses it very well. Did you read it? I'd bet they banned you from commenting on the site due to your being rude, but you can still read stuff on their site. Increase their traffic, lol.

    Reply
  155. Nope. Many high risk pregnancies turn out fine. Many low risk pregnancies go horribly wrong. A woman isn't some appliance you get to decide the fate of. And there are no "infants" involved in any pregnancy. It's impossible to know, in advance, which pregnancies will do fine, and which will be life-threatening. That would be like saying you should only drive your car on days where there's no risk of an accident. The only person who can decide if they wish to take any risk at all, is the person being asked to take the risk. And as long as the risk is anything but ZERO, then YOU get to close your mouth.

    Reply
  156. So, more handwaving because you are utterly incapable of describing, in your own words, what a person is?

    Sad. You are not a very good ambassador for the PL movement. You make baseless assertions – that a zygote is a human being – yet you cannot even explain why.

    You are an embarrassment.

    Reply
  157. Scientists can explain why an unborn child is a human being much better than I can. Doesn't mean I'm a bad representative of the PL movement. I don't see you quoting scientists to back up your sides claim that an unborn child isn't a human being.

    Reply
  158. pro-life laws are already linked to reduction in abortions. Cigarette smoking is getting lower among teenagers. I'm sure some people said laws and raising the prices of cigarettes wouldn't help reduce smoking, but it has..

    Reply
  159. Because I think a scientist can explain something better than I can I don't know what I'm talking about? wow.

    I don't see any science backing up your assertions…

    Reply
  160. So you honestly don't know what traits are associated with personhood?

    OK, my big toe is a person, prove me wrong. Bet you can't, because you are unable to list those traits.

    Reply
  161. You just love to misrepresent what others are all about. You also love to DEFLECT.

    Where is that science that backs up your claims that an unborn child isn't a human being? I've got plenty of science to back up the FACT that an unborn child is a human being.

    Reply
  162. More misdirection.

    Where is that science that backs up your claims that an unborn child isn't a human being? I've got plenty of science to back up the FACT that an unborn child is a human being.

    Reply
  163. I just found out something so interesting.
    Republican Party platform supports the rape and breeder slavery of American women.
    And it supports the reproductive freedom and autonomy of Chinese women.
    Chinese women good and American women bad?

    Reply
  164. That's total bull. I'm pro choice and very friendly. Over the past few days I've even made friends with some conservatives I disagree with.

    Reply
  165. tell me this, at how many weeks is a woman able to terminate her unborn child and still be faultless in your eyes? 20 weeks? 26? 30? What's that magic number for you? How about right after birth if the infant is premature or deformed and on life support? I mean should the mother be forced to care for a child that is going to be helpless on its own for its entire life?

    Reply
  166. Your question makes little sense. This isn't a function of "time." And NO, women aren't "forced" to care for children, ever. They can assume that responsibility or not. Life support is not a necessity. It's an option. So is letting nature take it's course.

    Reply
  167. I don't care what science says. I want to hear what YOU think. An original thought please, myintx.

    Why do we value people over bacteria? Cows? Can you please list the differences.

    Reply
  168. What is it a function of then? Doctors are being prosecuted for performing abortions after a certain time. People who assault pregnant women are charged with murder if the "fetus" dies. You are against these laws?

    Reply
  169. The only reason anyone is pro life is because pro lifers have passed the "big lie" that life begins at conception and that the fetus is a "child." Once that lie is fully defeated, hangers on will depart and that will be the end of the movement.
    Youth were drawn to the movement with the lie that Hitler was a pro choice leader, when in fact he was a pro life leader. The movie "360" spread that lie and drew in millions of youth. That lie can easily be shown for what it is.
    With that in mind, the pro life movement is doomed.
    Abortion is controlled by scientific laws that are immutable. Those laws make it clear that pro lifers do not save life, they cause death.

    Reply
  170. Another, futile explanation as to why the word 'human' does not make magic rights fall out of the sky, without any explanation as to what qualities 'humans' possess that grant them rights.

    I am tired of the drunken hooting about the pwecious embwyos that 'They are HUMAN! They aren't cats or dogs! They should have HUMAN RIGHTS! HUMANS should have rights! Because they're (gasp) HUMANS!

    Consider the pictures below. They are all (gasp) AIRPLANES. Yes! I admit they are (gasp) AIRPLANES! They have wings, and a tail, and other parts. They are (gasp) AIRPLANES! They aren't cars or trucks!

    But guess what? 'Airplane' is not a magic word. The english language contains a lot of imprecision and ambiguity. The word 'Airplane' accurately describes what is shown in all four pictures below, but the mere fact that something is an 'airplane' does not magicallly cause the ability to fly to drop out of heaven, any more than the mere fact that something is a 'human being' causes rights to fall out of the sky. Nor is it sensible to say that 'It can fly because it's an airplane!" any more than it is sensible to say that 'It has rights because it's HUMAN!'.

    There are specific QUALITIES, other than being an (gasp) AIRPLANE that are needed for an airplane to have the ability to fly. Two of the airplanes in the pictures have these qualities. The other 2 do not. These qualities include having certain aerodynamic properties and a powered engine. If you don't understand what those properties are, or want to handwave them away in order to pretend that a bamboo 'airplane' built by a member of a cargo cult 'should (sob) be able to fly, because it's an (gasp) AIRPLANE', you are either functioning on the mental level of a completely ignorant tribesman, or are being deliberately deceitful).

    The same thing is true of the word 'HUMAN' or 'HUMAN BEING'. The fact that something is a (gasp) 'HUMAN BEING' does not cause rights to magically fall out of the sky any more than the fact that something is an AIRPLANE causes the ability to fly to fall out of the sky. There are certain qualities that are necessary in order to have rights. If you're too stupid to understand what these qualities are, or want to handwave them away, so that you can pretend that the widdle zef should (sob) have 'human rights', then you are either as ignorant or as deceitful as someone who tries to claim that the bamboo cargo cult airplane should be able to fly.

    Reply
  171. I do love the snow. I know people who have to deal with it all winter get really tired of it, but I don't think we get enough. We just got a shit-ton of snow on Mt. Hood, though, so it's probably time to go up there and get my fix.

    Reply
  172. The grand problem you have is that the whole pro life movement is based upon fraudulent information. Even you cannot defend what you do. There is no person in the pro life movement that can prove their claims to be true when exposed to the light of scientific inquiry.

    Hitler was able to use the "big lie" an to get his pro life bills passed. And your pro life organization is attempting the same thing. Until pro life sites can debate the issue and defend themselves against the scientific laws that control abortion, any gains they make will be temporary.

    Reply
  173. **Unborn children ARE human beings. They should be protected from being killed. They should have rights.**

    By that logic, since the objects below ARE airplanes, they should fly.

    Go back to your extortions, rapes, and murder of innocent people, myintx.

    Reply
  174. **"severely deformed child" – so, you're saying that women should not be able to abort mildly deformed unborn children, just "severely" deformed unborn children…**

    No sweetiepie, that ISN'T what I said. What I said was that since you were sobbing that ultrasounds 'could be wrong' about a woman having a severely deformed embryo or fetus, whether you would be willing to take care of the resultant child, if the woman believed your sobbing about the 'ultrasound being wrong', carried the pregnancy to term, and the ultrasound turned out to be right.

    Go take a remedial reading course, if you ever manage to sober up long enough to do so.

    Reply
  175. Well, why should she make the attempt? You aren't willing to make the attempt to 'get along' with innocent victims of mind control, who only 'want a chance' for a 'productive and fulfilling life' once the computer chip is removed from their brain.

    Or is your criteria about who should be 'gotten along with' based on cuteness?

    Reply
  176. I'm confused here, myintx. You specifically said you 'didn't care' about the uterus. Now you're bitching when I suggest removing the embryo from it. Why would you bitch over removing the embryo from something that you 'don't care' about? Do you care about the uterus or not? If you don't care about it, why are you screaming over my suggestion of removing the embryo from something you 'don't care' about anyways?

    Reply
  177. Wait a minute: If the mother is a 'person' when she has no upper torso, head, or legs, can I assume that myintx will be fine if we remove those parts from the embryo?

    Reply
  178. Friendly to anyone weighing less than 3 lbs, who is inside another person, and has a cute head. It especially helps if they have no brain function.

    Victims of mind control experiments and motorcycle accidents need not apply for the 'friendliness'.

    Reply
  179. Well, no, because the embryo is wee and cute and somehow more specialty-special than any other organism known to man. It's totally science, bitches!

    Reply
  180. It really doesn't matter what the polls say. The whole pro life movement is based upon lies that even you can't maintain indefinitely. Your polling data does not take into account that you cannot disprove the fact that pro lifers murder innocent born babies to save fetuses. When that data is factored in later, there will be an enormous drop in pro life support. You need to come up with some new lies, the old ones are busted.

    Reply
  181. Sorry, no. The 'right to life' is not a blank check. You don't get a 'right to life' at the expense of using someone else's organs without their consent, no matter how many sad feelies there are.

    Reply
  182. **No one is killing women..**

    Do you need a remedial reading course? Sober up and READ YOUR OWN POSTS! You specifically said you would not decline taking a kidney from a brain-dead motorcycle accident victim, if you needed it!

    If you take the organs from a motorcycle accident victim and pull the plug on them, you are KILLING them! They are INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS!

    Why do you want to KILL INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS, myintx?

    Reply
  183. Yet you care more about the purity of your cunt, than the life of an innocent human being, so your bitching is pretty much the pot complaining that the kettle is black.

    Reply
  184. **Comparing an unborn child to a rapist is horrible. YOU Ann are a horrible person.**

    myintx: Sober up and try actually READING what I have been writing instead of panicking over the possible violation of your sacred cunt.

    Let me write it for you slowly.

    I am not comparing the 'embryo' with a 'rapist'.

    I am comparing the 'embryo' with a MIND CONTROLLED rapist.

    A man who has – against his will, had a computer chip put in his brain, and is raping you, not because HE wants to, but because the evil scientist who put the chip there is FORCING him to.

    An embryo has no control over what it is doing.

    A MIND CONTROLLED rapist has no control over what he is doing.

    The evil scientist is controlling his body with a computer chip, like a puppet is controlled with strings.

    Try not to take a drink for the next 6 hours, and read this very slowly, several times, until you think you have grasped the difference between a plain old 'rapist' and a MIND CONTROLLED rapist.

    You keep insisting that the embryo get a pass, on the basis of 'can't help it', but the MIND CONTROLLED rapist, is EVIL, and should be killed.

    Why does one get a pass because 'can't help it' but the other doesn't?

    Because you have a sacred cunt?

    Because the embryo is cute and the man isn't?

    Because you're a drunken idiot and can't comprehend what I am writing, therefore can't compose a rational response to it?

    Reply
  185. Anti-abortion – against the killing of unborn children.

    Pro-abortion – for the killing of unborn children.

    Which one are you?

    Reply
  186. The fraudulent info is coming from you with your killing babies LIE.

    Hitler KILLED millions. Just like abortionists do.

    Reply
  187. You're talking nonsense with your mind control b s… Is this going back to the whole 'lets compare a rapist to an unborn child' b s of yours?

    Reply
  188. If a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy, most pro-lifers would support her having an abortion.

    LAME DEFLECTION though as you very well know that the reasons for most abortions have NOTHING to do with serious health issues.

    Reply
  189. Cristina: Stop drinking bottles of jack daniels with myintx and learn to read what I write, rather than myintx's selectively editted version of what she claims I wrote.

    Reply
  190. Parents are REQUIRED to keep their children safe. The should be required to keep their children safe before they are born… It's a shame that there need to be laws to tell people what they should already know… except, most do know it. Just many are too selfish to care.

    Reply
  191. OK…..

    Since you've acknowledged that you have, in fact, actually grasped the fact that the rapist is 'mind controlled' with your above statement:

    :**You're talking nonsense with your mind control b s**

    Your whiny claim of b s is basically an acknowledgement on your part that you would, in fact, as you stated before, kill a mind controlled rapist, KNOWING that he was mind controlled, and therefore innocent.

    In other words, your entire morality is based on cuteness and the sanctity of your precious sacred cunt.

    Not 'human being'.

    Not 'innocent'

    Not 'just a chance'.

    Not 'a little coexistence'.

    Thank you for making that fact completely and abundantly clear to everyone here. People should know your real moral character.

    Reply
  192. Post viability abortion laws say a woman cannot kill her unborn child, unless she meets one of the states exceptions. Because the state has an interest in protecting the unborn child. They should be able to protect an unborn child before viability as well.

    Reply
  193. I would hope a parent would think very deeply about their daughter and her well being before making such a decision for her. Forcing an abortion on someone unwilling (if the daughter were indeed unwilling) would be as violent as rape.

    Reply
  194. **pro-life laws are already linked to reduction in abortions**

    Actually, they cause an increase in abortions.

    Now go back to your extortion, rape, and murder schemes and pat yourself on the back about how holy you are because you think the widdle zefs are so cute.

    Reply
  195. The dictionary has 2 or more meanings for SEVERAL words, including 'human' and 'child'.

    Why are your equivocation fallacies based on dictionary definitions valid but mine aren't? Is it because my genitals aren't sacred like yours or something?

    Reply
  196. Irrelevent. What I or other people are doing is a seperate topic from the fact that you knowingly choose to support a cause to save 1,000,000 zefs, and knowingly choose to NOT support a cause to save 500,000 born children.

    Reply
  197. 'Child' has multiple definitions.
    'Human' has multiple definitions.

    Why are your equivocation fallacies holy gospel, but mine are wrong? Sad feelies?

    Reply
  198. Mind controlled men are human beings.

    9 minutes is not forever.

    Oh, but your genitals are sacred, and embwyos are cute and widdle. All your 'right to life' is just so much window-dressing for the above two things, which are your real motivation.

    Reply
  199. This Ann Morgan is a wacko. She is talking about evil scientists putting brain chips people and forcing them to rape. She compared killing a fetus to killing bacteria! She uses terms like "widdle zefs". And then she tells people to sober up.

    Reply
  200. Murdering hypocrite: For the killing of innocent victims of mind control because they violate the purity of her genitals, while sobbing that embryos that are no more innocent than the above be spared.

    Would that be you, myintx?

    Reply
  201. Can you show me a dead BABY from an abortion?

    Or just dead embryoes and fetuses.

    Put up or shut up. Show me a picture of a dead BABY from an abortion, or we'll know you're a liar.

    Reply
  202. You have a choice to murder infants or to save them. Your choice is to murder infants. You are a pro life murderer. You are an insult to intelligent people.

    Reply
  203. Myintx supports the rape and murder of innocent babies, do you support that?

    You also have a choice, you can save an innocent baby or you can kill it and save a fetus instead. What is your choice?

    Reply
  204. Your attitude is marked by the belief that you have the duty to tell others what they can and can't do. In order to exercise that right over life and death you want us to ignore your own murders. No thanks.

    Reply
  205. The lie is obvious when one watches the pro life movie "360" and sees the references to Hitler and the link to the pro choice movement. Like Hitler himself, pro lifers have concocted a "big lie" that includes the claim that Hitler was pro choice, when in fact he was the founder of the modern pro life movement. Hitler passed identical laws to those that pro lifers demand today. Hitler passed legislation outlawing abortion and making it a capital offense, where women that aborted were themselves aborted. That is your wish. You wish, like Hitler, to abort women.
    Now you have a choice, like Hitler, you can choose to let innocent born babies die, or you can save them. Your choice, like Hitler, is to let innocent born life die and to force the birth of unwanted fetuses. You treat real life as if it is unwanted and kill it, while claiming that all life is wanted. That, my friend, is insane.

    Reply
  206. "Comparing an unborn child to a rapist is horrible. YOU Ann are a horrible person."

    You compare an unborn child with a born child and then determine the born life is worth less than the fetus. You murder real live babies in an attempt to force the birth of fetuses.

    How do you like yourself? Are you enthused at the prospect of murdering more babies so you can save more fetuses? How is that working for you?

    Reply
  207. You have a choice Ur_the_baggee, you can save innocent born babies or you can murder them and save a fetus instead. Your choice of course is to murder babies, right?

    Reply
  208. Each pro lifer has a choice, they may choose to save innocent born life or they can allow that life to die and save a fetus instead. There are 1.8 born babies, children and adults, 10 wanted fetuses and 1.4 unwanted fetuses that die each second. One has a choice, they can save one of any of that group but they cannot save them all. If one spends one second saving an unwanted fetus, then in that second 1.8 innocent babies will die and 10 wanted fetuses will die. So a choice to "save unborn babies" is a choice to let innocent wanted babies, children and adults die, along with wanted fetuses.

    Pro lifers do not save life, they murder wanted fetuses and babies so they can practice self aggrandizement about the unwanted fetuses they save and the women they murder. They are in fact insane.

    Reply
  209. I am here to save life. Will you "anordinaryguy1" make my day and stop murdering innocent babies and wanted fetuses? Will you stop following the insane path of the pro life movement or will you continue to pursue the same course of murder and discrimination that other pro lifers follow.

    Reply
  210. You are for killing and dismembering born babies. And you are for the rape of women. And you are for the starvation of innocent children.

    But you are pro life.

    Reply
  211. What you need to do is to stop murdering born babies, supporting rape, supporting starving children to death and become really pro life. You already claim to "save life", why not really save life instead of lying about saving life.

    Your statements are really nothing more than justification for "doing nothing." Any idiot can come on the internet and argue that they should be allowed to murder born life. You are that idiot. Now stop your murders and instead join me in saving babies. Will you do that?

    Reply
  212. You really will say anything to spread the "big lie" that you are saving life, when in fact you are murdering life. Why not join me in saving innocent born babies, children and adults, will you do that?

    Reply
  213. I don't know a woman that wants to conceive a child that will suffer and die early. But I do know that you want to force women to give birth to children that will suffer immense pain and live short half day lives of no consequence. You are for letting women die and you are for murdering born babies to force the birth of children that will die with excruciating pain.

    Women that want children do not want to assist those children in suffering and dying. They want to have normal births with normal children. By forcing the birth of the unwanted deformed child that will suffer (I have a deformation, so don't start that BS you normally start) you are denying the woman the opportunity to become pregnant with another child and give birth. Your forced birth causes pain and suffering and denies the woman a chance to have a normal baby.

    Reply
  214. Nope and Nope…

    Should we get rid of infanticide laws…. or are innocent human beings important enough to be protected?

    Reply
  215. Abortions have gone down in Texas due to recent abortion laws.

    From the CDC: "Multiple factors are known to influence the incidence of abortion, including the availability of abortion providers (12,73-75); state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods (76), parental involvement laws (77), and legal restrictions on abortion providers (78); increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing (79,80); shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population (81,82); and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health-care services, including contraception (83,84)."

    Reply
  216. Any smart person could look at a child and figure out which definition of 'kid' matches… Guess you're not that bright.

    Reply
  217. Yours are wrong… If you don't think they are you may end up in jail. I hope you're not stupid enough to kill a child and claim it was a baby goat…. Then again, you're not too bright. You think killing unborn children is ok.

    Reply
  218. Nope… you're grasping at straws.

    The Dictionary properly uses "Unborn child" or "unborn baby".

    Merriam Webster – part of medical definition of "unborn" –
    "unborn children"

    Oxford – (Of a baby) not yet born:

    ‘the sound of an unborn baby’s heartbeat’

    ‘smoking can be harmful to your unborn child’

    Reply
  219. Comparing a rapist to an unborn child AGAIN!?!? I didn't think it was possible for the pro-abort movement to look any worse… but I guess it is.

    Reply
  220. Why don't you ask that question to a woman whose evil boyfriend killed their unborn child? And then yell in her face that it was just a fetus and not a real human being. Oh, and then tell her you don't think her evil boyfriend should be charged with homicide.

    Reply
  221. Nope… If anyone did that, they'd be in jail. Gosnell murdered born babies. Did he save any unborn children by doing that?

    Reply
  222. The same human being – just in a different stage of development. A newborn who is still alive 60 years later is still the same human being – just at a different stage of development.

    Reply
  223. You, Gosnell and Hitler all murder born babies in an effort to save fetuses. Gosnell was just less adept at it than you and Hitler.

    Reply
  224. Everyone here has seen the evidence that you murder innocent babies. You have not offered any evidence that you are innocent of those murders. So you are guilty. You claim to be pro life, but even pro lifers don't stand with you. They offer no proof either of your innocence. So they also make it clear you are a murderer. The evidence I have posted is pretty clear and supports my charge that you commit "Murder by omission". Until you show proof otherwise, you are convicted in the court of public opinion.

    Reply
  225. You are pro abortion, you abort born babies, children, adults and wanted fetuses. You claim to "save babies" but you are a liar, you have never saved a single life.

    Reply
  226. Many of our laws are based on our morals. Post viability abortion laws and infanticide laws are 2 examples. We need more laws to protect unborn children from being killed.

    Reply
  227. You have a choice you cannot defend. You cannot defend the fact that you choose to murder innocent babies and call yourself pro life.

    Come on, lets hear your explanation.

    Reply
  228. You encourage rapists to father children. With you, the woman is of no value, the rapist is more important. You want the rapist to be rewarded with a baby and the woman to be forced to give birth. You are insane.

    Reply
  229. We need laws that put people like you away for life. You murder innocent babies. You are a murderer. You should be incarcerated.
    You make the intentional choice to let innocent babies die.
    You make the intentional choice to reward rapists with babies.
    You make the intentional choice to let wanted fetuses die.

    There is no group that you will not murder to save a fetus.

    Reply
  230. Then what is your choice. You have a choice to save innocent born babies, children and adults and wanted fetuses. Or you can choose to murder them and save an unwanted fetus instead. Which do you choose to save. You can't save them all because more are dying than can be saved. You either murder born life and wanted fetuses or you murder unwanted fetuses, which is it?

    Reply
  231. Gosnell murdered born babies cause he screwed up trying to kill those same human beings just minutes earlier while they were still in the womb. If you're against the killing of a baby that is 1 minute old you should be against the killing of unborn children too – they are the same human being before and after birth – just at a different stage of development.

    Reply
  232. I do not encourage rapists to do anything. You're making up B S to support killing unborn children. There is something wrong with you.

    Reply
  233. She should at least own up to what she's doing. She should be aware of what will happen to the baby and how developed it is. The pro choice movement begun as a eugenics movement and was all about controlling yeh number of black, Native American, disabled and "feeble minded

    Reply
  234. Redirection… we were talking about removing life support. Are you prepared to admit that abortion kills an unborn child?

    Reply
  235. Nope… I've never killed anyone. However, abortion kills about 1 million unborn children every year in the US. You support that killing. sad

    Reply
  236. If you are a pro lifer then the scientific evidence shows you are a murderer of innocent born life. Are you a pro lifer?

    Reply
  237. There is something wrong with one of us. You want to force women to reward rapists with a baby. When one considers that you also murder innocent babies, that is not too surprising. The rapist is actually a higher form of life than you. You murder babies and encourage rape.

    Reply
  238. You are just like Gosnell and Hitler. You murder innocent born life. What Gosnell and Hitler did is nothing compared to what you do. Both of them were opposed to rape, you reward rapists.

    {{{If you're against the killing of a baby that is 1 minute old you should be against the killing of unborn children too – they are the same human being before and after birth – just at a different stage of development}}}

    A fetus is not a baby. Hitler killed women trying to prove a fetus is a baby and failed. You are welcome to continue to murder innocent life or you can stop and save life with me. What is your choice?

    Why not try to prove a fetus is a baby, go ahead, make you best attempt. Just because Hitler failed is no excuse for you not to try.

    Reply
  239. You have a duty to save innocent babies and you choose to let them die.
    That is "Murder by Omission." You might want to look that up before you continue.

    Reply
  240. No, Hitler got away with murder by making murder legal. You also are getting away with murder by claiming to save babies. Your day is coming, murderer. You will be tried and convicted some day.

    Reply
  241. There was a drop in the number of births when abortion was illegal and an increase in the number of births when abortion is legal. So where is your proof that unborn children have been killed. The record shows that there are more children with abortion than without abortion.

    Give me that proof, please.

    Reply
  242. Lara, you are simply brainwashed. Hitler was the founder of the modern pro life movement. It is your side that chooses the life of a fetus over the life of real babies. You have a choice, you can save real babies or you can let them die in a wild eugenic pro life rage. Your choice is to let innocent babies die.

    Reply
  243. Abortion laws are about self aggrandizement. They allow murderers of born children to feel good about the murders they commit. They have no other purpose.

    Reply
  244. There are no laws against killing women through forced birth. 14 women are murdered intentionally for every 100k forced births. Do you deny those murders occur?

    Reply
  245. America is engulfed in a mass pro life rage. It began with religious fundamentalist encouraging pro life zealots to murder doctors, nurses, and clinic workers. And it grew into a system of organized discrimination against women that need abortion. Legally sanctioned abuse and violence is foisted on innocent young girls on a daily basis. Threats are made, photos taken, names called, lies spread, women accosted, men abused and fake clinics set up to torture those who seek abortion.
    All of these pro lifers are supported by courts that encourage abuse of those that attempt to exercise their legal rights. This is an all out war on those that seek to protect their rights and to save the lives of innocent born humans.
    The courts and legislatures have been taken over by religious fanatics. I have not seen such religious intolerance in my life time. The last period in history when such abuse occurred was when the Pro Life Catholic Centre Party sided with Hitler and led Germany into World War II. God save us from the religious fanatics.

    Reply
  246. The "something wrong" is with you. You'd rather see an unborn child that has done nothing wrong die than an evil rapist. No one is being rewarded in your situation. The baby never has to see his or her father if the mother doesn't want the evil father too. Actually, the newborn baby is being rewarded – with the gift of a chance at a full and productive life

    Reply
  247. I never said a fetus was a baby, just like I never said a baby was an elderly person, but if the unborn child lives to be born and to grow to be 80 years old, he or she will be the same human being – just at different stages of development. If you support the killing of an unborn child, you might as well support the killing of a newborn as they both have the same result – that tiny human being will never have the chance to grow up to be an elderly person.

    Reply
  248. And where are the politicians working on laws to put pro-lifers in jail for killing babies -…. There are NONE – not even Obama. Meanwhile, there are politicians working on laws to restrict the senseless killing of unborn children.

    Reply
  249. I'm not letting any babies die. I donate time and money to help families in need. If PETA folks who NEVER donate money to charities that help people aren't guilty of murder, then neither am I.

    Reply
  250. You have had a choice all day today. You could have saved babies, but you choose instead to let babies die. You are a murderer.

    You have a duty to save babies that PETA does not have. You lie about saving babies and claim you save babies when in fact you murder babies. PETA claims to save animals, they in fact do save animals, so they are not lying and are not killing babies.

    Reply
  251. Those aren't murders unless the doctor trying to deliver the baby screwed up. If a man dies of a heart attack due to years of his wife feeding him greasy foods, is she guilty of murder?

    Reply
  252. They are murders because the women would not have died except for the fact that you forced them into a dangerous situation.

    But that is not the only way you murder women, so what is your beef, murderer.

    "If a man dies of a heart attack due to years of his wife feeding him greasy foods, is she guilty of murder?"

    No, no one forced him to eat the greasy food. You murder women by forcing them into a dangerous situation.

    Reply
  253. There were no people opposed to Hitler either. In fact it was the Catholic Centre Party that assisted him in getting the power to set his pro life agenda in motion. He was pro life like you, he murdered born people to save fetuses.

    Reply
  254. You are letting babies die right now, as you read and plot. You have a choice this instant to save babies or let them die, and you are letting them die. You are a cold blooded murderer.

    Reply
  255. Abortion restrictions are about self aggrandizement. They are meant to make pro lifers feel better about themselves as they murder innocent born babies.

    Reply
  256. Sources?

    The 12 year old rape victim is why we need plan b and copay free iuds. That prevents the whole need for abortion.

    Reply
  257. First READ MY POST and answer my question. Why should ANY HUMAN BEINGS HAVE ANY RIGHTS?
    I refuse to play fill in the blanks for you and answer the question regarding infanticide using my definition of the term 'human being' then have you play your equivocation games and try to apply that answer to something that is referred to by a different definition of the term 'human being'.

    Reply
  258. I hate to be the one to break this to you, myintx, one person's mental state does not make another person's mental state any better or worse, any more than the fact that I might have the flu would make another person's cancer any better or worse.
    This being the case, the fact that I may or may not be 'sick' does not alter the fact that YOU have specifically and repeatedly stated that you would kill a mind controlled rapist, KNOWING that he was mind controlled, therefore 'can't help it' while demanding that the widdle embwyo be given a pass for actions far more damaging to a woman's body, on the exact same basis of 'can't help it'.
    Ei, – I may or may not be 'sick'. 'Sick' seems to be your latest irrelevent ad hominem whine about questions that raise issues you don't want to answer. However, you are a demonstrable hypocrite who provably bases her entire morality on cuteness and the sanctity of her genitals, and nothing else, and you are THAT, regardless of whether I am 'sick' or not.

    Reply
  259. "I'm pretty sure the majority of people would be angry at anyone who said their raped 12 year old must give birth."

    Yes, I am tempted to agree with you on this. Of course, if I had a 12 year old son who was the *victim* of de jure rape, then I would certainly be upset if he was forced to pay child support afterwards (which, as far as I know, is a possibility according to the current law in regards to this), and I would think that most people will agree with me on this.

    Reply

Leave a Comment