Kentucky could become first state without an abortion clinic

In this July 17, 2017, photo, Meg Stern, left, and other escort volunteers lined up outside the EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, Ky. A federal judge issued an order July 21, 2017, to keep protesters away from a "buffer zone" outside Kentucky's only abortion clinic, which is targeted by a national anti-abortion group. U.S. District Judge David J. Hale issued a temporary restraining order sought by federal prosecutors in a pre-emptive move ahead of vigils by Operation Save America. The order is aimed at preventing abortion foes from impeding access to EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville. (AP Photo/Dylan Lovan)

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Both sides in the abortion fight raging in Kentucky agree on one thing: The stakes are as high as ever in a state that could become the first in the nation without an abortion clinic.

Political pressure has intensified since the Kentucky GOP took control of state government and moved quickly to pass new restrictions on abortions. And Republican Gov. Matt Bevin makes no apologies for waging a licensing fight against a Louisville clinic that is the last remaining facility performing abortions in the state.

Another battle-tested participant joins the fight this weekend. Operation Save America, a Christian fundamentalist group, plans to mobilize hundreds of activists to protest against EMW Women’s Surgical Center.

The group’s leaders state their purpose unequivocally: to rid Kentucky of its last abortion clinic. Some of the group’s followers were arrested during a protest outside EMW in the spring. The group has said it won’t use those same tactics in the coming days, but a federal judge on Friday ordered the creation of a “buffer zone” to keep protesters out of an area in front of the clinic. The pre-emptive move was requested by federal prosecutors to prevent protesters from blocking access to the surgical center.

“We have never been under siege like this,” Dr. Ernest Marshall, a co-founder of the clinic open since the early 1980s, recently told The Associated Press. “We have never had any question as to whether we would exist.”

For years, protesters have been a fixture outside Marshall’s clinic, a plain brick building in Louisville’s bustling downtown. Blinds are drawn to keep people from peeking inside.

Volunteers in bright orange vests stand watch near the clinic, walking patients past sign-waving activists. On a recent morning, as a demonstrator held a sign that said: “Abortion an American Holocaust,” a child walking nearby asked a woman what holocaust means.

As a volunteer whisked another woman past a handful of protesters, a demonstrator clutching a rosary told the patient’s male companion: “Men don’t kill their babies. Man up.” The man turned and glared but said nothing.

The demonstrator, Chuck Jones, defended his harsh words.

“This is the last chance we’ll get to talk to them before they go in,” the retired sheet-metal worker from Indiana said. “I just wanted him to think about what he’s doing. If anybody believes in God, they can’t be for abortion, in my opinion.”

The 66-year-old Marshall — the father of three grown children and grandfather of eight — said he attends church every Sunday and is a former Sunday school teacher. He said abortion protesters don’t have a “monopoly on morals.” He condemned their tactics as “very harassing, very judgmental,” taking a toll on patients and staff.

“Some of the things I see out in front of our clinic, to me, by the pro-life people, don’t represent good Christianity,” Marshall said. “I just don’t think Jesus would harass people or name-call people or call doctors murderers.”

The number of protesters is expected to surge this weekend when Texas-based Operation Save America converges on Louisville for a weeklong vigil, with the long-term goal of making Kentucky a national model in its push to end abortion. The group urges state officials to ignore the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion.

Its activists plan to demonstrate outside the clinic, elsewhere downtown and in the neighborhoods where the clinic’s doctors live, organizers said.

The buffer zone in front of the clinic won’t deter those vigils, said Rusty Thomas, the group’s national director.

Brigitte Amiri, an attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said the buffer zone gives patients a “small measure of relief,” ensuring they can enter.

The clinic has been on the defensive since Bevin’s election in 2015 put a social conservative and ardent abortion foe in the governor’s office. Early this year, abortion opponents pushed through two bills signed by Bevin. One measure banned abortions in Kentucky after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless the mother’s life is in danger. The other requires the abortion doctor or a “qualified technician” to perform an ultrasound and then try to show fetal images to the pregnant woman before she consents to an abortion.

The law is being challenged in federal court, along with another case in which abortion rights supporters say Bevin’s administration tried to shut down EMW earlier this year. State officials said the clinic was out of compliance with its hospital and ambulance service agreements. EMW sued, and Bevin’s administration agreed to renew the clinic’s license until after the lawsuit is resolved. A September trial is scheduled.

EMW’s legal team believes the case “falls squarely” within a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas regulations that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery, said Heather Gatnarek, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky.

The Supreme Court has found that access to an abortion must be guaranteed, but it remains to be seen whether eliminating every clinic in a single state would pass that test.

About the author

The Associated Press


Click here to post a comment

  • Kentucky – home of Kim Davis, Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis organization, the Creation Museum and Noah’s Ark.

    The transparent attempts to end abortion have been and will continue to be struck down by the court system. If you don’t approve of abortion preach your opposition publicly and in the pulpit – that’s your right – but don’t trample on the civil rights of others by preventing them from exercising their civil rights.

  • “…calling Dr.s murderers…”
    Well, if it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck…
    Jesus compared the Pharisees to whitewashed sepulchres (Matt. 23:27) full of dead men’s bones. What a fitting description of abortion clinics.

    I hope and pray they shut down the last aboratorium. Forget about the whales; save the babies!

  • The words by Chuck Jones do not rise to the level of “harsh,” as averred by the author. It was a clear succinct statement about personal accountability in a day and age when life is held extremely cheap in any number of constructs, abortion absolutely among them..

  • Personally, I am pro choice but I do not like abortion except for medical reasons. I favor education and access to birth control to lessen the demand. My comments were confined to the legal and constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has decided that women control their own reproductive rights, not you or me.

  • “Kentucky could become first state without an abortion clinic” Hallelujah! Babies will live

  • Harry, there is a billboard outside of Chatham Ontario that I am going to remember to take a picture of one day. It is a puppy talking to a little baby and asking the baby if they have a humane society who protects them. An excellent reminder.

  • agreed

    Exodus 23:7 – Stay far away from a false charge, and don’t kill the innocent or the righteous, because I won’t acquit the guilty

  • There is, to my mind, something grossly inhumane, something mentally unbalanced, some failure of normal cognitive function about anyone with a genuine concern which so excludes compassion and love as to place the non-existent rights of a non-viable (and possibly never viable) proto-being above the rights of the real, live and sentient potential mother, her, if any, other children, and all those whose lives (including the potential child) who may suffer because of an unwanted birth.

    If you genuinely want, and I question whether some who so claim are genuine, to decrease the number of abortions there is a well-proven way to achieve that entirely laudable aim.

    1 – Provide balanced and accurate age-appropriate sex-education throughout childhood and puberty from age 5.

    2 – Provide an environment of empowerment so that girls and boys both learn to respect each other as of equal value, that their bodies are their own responsibility and that no means no.

    3 – Freely provide contraception and the morning-after pill on demand without stigmatising those who seek to act responsibly.

    4 – Stop pretending that there’s a god who gives a stuff about who does what, where, how and with whom.

    5 – Exterminate the slave-owning-like mentality which leads to treating girls as though they are the property of their father* until they marry, they aren’t (this applies to all but seems most common in the more extreme faux Christian and Muslim communities).
    *usually their legal father since, AIUI, in some 10% of cases the biological father and the legal father may be different.
    One of the reasons why religion is to be opposed (another is that it’s rational nonsense) is the ability it creates for wicked people to advance their agendas under the cover of unthinking, fearful and often otherwise decent people.

  • The Supreme Court made their ruling in Roe v Wade 40 years ago. I understand that you don’t agree with it but unless the SCOTUS reverses itself it’s the law.

  • Very interesting. At one time freedom existed on one bank of the Ohio River but not the other, and, if that happens again, it is guaranteed that women seeking medical care will be escorted across it just like in the Underground Railroad days.
    What this news suggests is that in states like Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Tennessee which as recently as 25 and 21 years ago Bill Clinton carried handily in 1992 and 1996, legislatures and the voters who elect them have gone stark raving mad. Similar reports of other christofascist legislative moves are received from those other states and a few others like Iowa and such where Catholicism is not so much a denomination as a form of political correctness, on an almost daily basis.
    One wonders, how did an electorate in such provinces change so rapidly? Economic stagnation, religious fanaticism, the opioid epidemic, and the fact the right-wing media machine has pushed people into becoming tricked into voting against themselves are as always the usual suspects.
    And all for what? This niggling legislation won’t stop any abortions. It will result in some deaths by self-abortion attempts gone wrong, but that is all well as good to the wowsers behind this.

  • It was a vile personal attack made by a sociopath. It was incredibly harsh and shows the terrorists who attack clinics and the patients and their families for the scum that they are.

  • only read your intro Give……what makes you think the babies they are aborting are not alive?

  • For all you dumbasses that quote the bible…
    It also says slavery is ok
    Its alright to kill innocents
    And a bunch of other fucked up shit…

    Your fake god is as evil as they come

  • You make that statement on the basis of a single quoted utterance? I t makes me wonder if you truly understand what the term “terrorist” means. In all the years of protest outside abortion clinics in this country, only a handful of cases have actually risen to the level of terrorism. And in such cases those individuals deserved to be held wholly accountable for their actions.

  • Christofascist demonstrator, quoted: “I just wanted him to think about what he’s doing.” 

    I love how these people actually believe no one who walks by them has any idea what they’re doing, and genuinely thinks none of them has ever heard of their anti-abortion rhetoric before. It’s actually kind of pathetic and childish — not to mention, it reveals how monumentally self-absorbed they are. 

  • Matt Bevin is a scum bucket who detests women and rule of law. Typical Republican governor. With all the troubles KY has, he has plenty of time and resources to devote to attacking the rights of women. KY elects some real cretins to public office.

  • It is meant to harass and demean the women entering the clinic.

    People who talk about abortion in terms of “responsibilities” never acknowledge it is neither their business nor right to enforce such ideas. No women are answerable to Chuck Jones for their intimate personal decisions nor is his input asked for. He wants to trespass upon women’s lives, he deserves whatever scorn that befalls such actions.

  • No, it was a sanctimonious self righteous narcissist attacking women he had no respect for as people.

  • Children are born. These measures main and murder women. You support women being maimed and murdered.

  • They don’t exist. You have to be born to be considered a person with rights.

    What about the pregnant women? They are not people entitled to make personal decisions about their lives?

    You can’t speak of giving rights to the unborn without attacking already existing rights of women.

  • As much as I support babies being murdered.
    Christ had plans for all of those little ones sucked out of the safest place they could be Spud.

  • Says the basic definition of the term. It is a fetus until it is born. then it’s a baby. The inability to use terms honestly is one of many reasons the anti abortion crowd are full of crap.

    It would be nice if you were capable of addressing the lives of pregnant women. But that would make your contempt for their lives and rights too obvious.

  • No babies are bring murdered. Babies are born. Born people can be murdered.

    Don’t ever have to care what Christ says here. This is a matter concerning individual rights.

  • They murder babies Spud.
    Christ is the One causing those babies to grow in their momma’s tummy.

  • fetus is a clinical term used to separate the person from the truth. Kind of like, “Assisted Suicide”. Just a means to cleanse the crime they are committing in their eyes.

  • Those cells are living cells, exactly as the preceding cells of the unfertilized egg and sperm were living cells. Like the unfertilized egg and sperm, the fetus that also cannot survive on its own bodily function, fails the definition of an organism, however. The fail at life processes, and they fail at capability for all that makes humans human: sentience, thought, emotion, and perception.

  • A baby exists outside its mothers body. The inability to distinguish between born and unborn is dishonest claptrap. All designed to deliberately omit the pregnant women and their lives.

    If you can only focus on the fetus and ignore the mother, then I don’t have to care about your views. Because you are not being upfront about your desire to attack the rights and personhood of women.

  • You murder mothers. Babies have to be born. BTW it’s in their bodies. It is their business. Unless it’s your womb, it’s just sanctimonious screeching on your part.

    I wish you actually cared about babies. But you dont. It’s just a matter of telling pregnant women that you want to control their lives. Your concerns are phony.

  • You dont.

    It’s why the same people wh o demand abortion bans also tell poor and working mothers and their children to drop dead.

    Name one thing those hypocritical Christian conservatives do to make the lives of mothers and children less burdensome? I can’t. Neither can you.

  • Are the men are broke back Kentuckians. Is it true that perhaps they have so much inbreading going on, that an abortion could be killing a first cousin from their own sister. That guy looks like it he is saying, who’s gonna help with dishes?

  • Definition of baby at – a human fetus. Yours is a distinction without a difference anyway.

  • Yeah it’s like trying to read all of Marcel Proust’s 7 novels In Search of Lost Time. Painful.

    And his intro was just ONE sentence too!

  • Not what I said.

    Think more “wire hangers and back alleys”. The Kermit Gosnells of the world can only operate in where legal medical abortions are unduly and severely restricted.

  • Handful? Myriads of clinic staff have been stalked. They have received threatening letters. Protestors have showed up at their homes. The license plates of patients have been recorded. Dr. George Tiller was assasinated while serving as an usher at his church. When his assassin was apprehended the contact information of the leader of the protestors, Cheryl Sullenberger, was found on his person. They visit Tiller’s assassin in prison. Protestors knew John Salvi had intent to murder Dr. Bernard Slepian and encouraged him to go ahead with his plans. That’s a freaking dictionary definition of terrorism.

  • 1) until very shortly before birth, weeks after viability, and at a gestation when abortions are not done, there is no structural capacity for it. Your argument is like assertions that it “hasn’t been proven” thst trees don’t feel and perceive, even though they also lack physical capacity.

    2) tell me of your early womb memories. Oh, that’s right, without the neural capacity for experience and memory, there were none.

    Not so smart pup, your Horton Hears a Who fantasies really are not relevant. This especially as justification to force real people harmed.

  • I know of a story in the Bible where the Pharisees brought a duck caught in the very act of being a duck and said the law says we should stone this duck. Jesus said you guys are not worthy of applying the law, whoever don’t have feathers let him wing the first rock. What a fitting description of the outside of an abortion clinic. DH who are you listening to that would have you believe your passion can only be spent on changing a law?

  • It’s funny – if any other group engaged in the tactics that the anti-choice movement engages in, they’d be labeled a “terrorist” organization. The bomb threats, the death threats, the harassment, the actual bombings, the maiming of clinic workers and doctors, and the murder of clinic worker and doctors are all acts of terrorists. For the last 44 years the anti-choice movement has engaged in countless acts of terrorism.

    Remember Dr. Tiller, who was murdered in the middle of a church service by one of these anti-choice terrorists. His life was snuffed out in the name of “pro-life”. How many more doctors and clinic workers have to be murdered and maimed before this nation demands an end to the anti-choice terrorism?

    Well, I do my part – I put my money where my mouth is. I support my local clinic and national organizations that are defending a woman’s right to choose.

  • They may call it pro-life but what they really want is to stop pregnant white women from aborting unwanted pregnancies while ensuring the promotion of anti-contraception practices to artificially boost the birth rate of white women. If minorities were the only group using contraception and abortion none of this political gymnastics would be taking place.

  • Read the rest!

    Depends on what you choose to define as being alive; the initiation of cell division is the automatic response to a chemical event and is sometimes referred to as life, but it does not automatically lead to what is usually defined as life – the time between birth and death. Most people recognise that a fetus is not capable of independent existence before 22 weeks, and the odds of a good outcome are very poor prior to 26 weeks.

    “Miscarriage is defined as the loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks of gestation”
    “Miscarriage occurs in 12-24% of recognised pregnancies; the true rate is probably higher as many may occur before a woman has realised she is pregnant.”

    If you have a religious belief that a collection of cells is an alive person it is inescapable that, in your eyes, God chooses to abort (or fails to prevent the natural abortion of) far more babies than mankind has ever done. If you are consistent in your thinking you have to think that miscarriage is murder by deity – Go and rail at Him.
    It is also often quoted in regard to fertility treatments that somewhere between 20 and 70% of fertilised eggs fail to implant in the womb – presumably you regard these as divinely unsupported people who are condemned to death by God’s inattention.

    So – the answer to your question, the fetus has the potential for life, the mother, and those around her, already have life. Harming actual people to try to avoid harm to a currently non-viable collection of cells, IMO, demonstrates a lack of compassion and a failure to understand the caring prioritisation of what is often the-lesser-of-two-evils. The failure of an act of conception to lead to threescore years and ten is normal and often happens without anyone being aware. It is a natural process which developed as an integral part of the evolution of species – including homo sapiens (a.k.a. pan narrans); that said, it is to be avoided if possible and effective steps, as I outlined, are available but ignored because some people appear to prefer ridiculous religious dogma to effective, caring and proven successful practice.

    As an aside – The Bible doesn’t mention abortion – not surprising really since the method by which new generations came about was imperfectly understood until the work of Gabriele Falloppio (1523-1562). The erroneous understanding was that the man planted his seed in the woman as a gardener plants seed in the ground. They thought that the woman’s role was merely that of the soil, to provide a means of supporting something that was complete (in potential) prior to its insertion. Presumably a creator god would have known better; he just failed to pass the message on in a form that could be understood and let countless generations of women suffer being regarded as property, as an extension of himself, by divinely misled males.

  • Not one response to, nor the admission of have read, the proven way of reducing the tragedy that every abortion is, or represents, in some way. I wonder why not.

  • Sorry to state the obvious, but babies don’t typically arise inside wombs spontaneously. They are conceived as a result of two people who make a decision to have sex, hopefully who also decided to get married before having intercourse. So, unless the child was created from crime (rape), then the child was created from two people’s personal decisions about their lives. Many rights come with responsibilities.

  • Nice try, but the rate of black abortions is already much higher than the rate of white abortions. So the net benefit is a positive from an atheist white nationalists perspective.

  • Then, because of his foreknowledge, Christ must be the one causing their “murder”.

    One of the Class 1 tricks of religious indoctrination is to excuse the deity for it’s culpable behaviour and fix the blame on someone that the deity created knowing full well that the created would behave badly.

    In responsible legal jurisdictions someone who has foreknowledge of a crime and the ability to prevent it is held equally responsible with the perpetrator. Therefore either the God is equally guilty or the perp. is divinely innocent (and cannot morally be punished).

    Simple, basic entry-level logic – the antidote to religion

  • I said minorities. Not just blacks. If you’ve noticed, there’s a growing latin american population that is on pace to exceed whites as the dominant ethnic population which is already having an impact on the political climate.

  • Must be the Duck Revised Standard Version you’re reading from. I never heard of it, but then they keep coming out with new translations all the time. It’s hard to keep up. Hey I always say if the King James was good enough for Peter and Paul it’s good enough for me but they keep cranking out new translations. Go figure.
    So you can read duck? Huh. Never met anyone who could read duck. What’ll they think of next?

  • No. I was part of a fundamentalist religion in my youth. They believe life begins at conception and use Levitical law to support their view that god views a fetus as a person. They are sincere on that. While we may disagree with their position it is not unreasonable. It’s their attempts to foist that on everyone that is the problem.

  • Except for fringe groups and demented individuals, what mainstream anti-abortion groups advocate violence?

  • My problem with this line of thinking is that it is deeply disingenuous and irresponsible. You can’t claim all life is sacred then turn a blind eye to children born and placed in foster homes who end up sexually abused and in either a drug addled life or a life of crime due to poverty and a lack of healthy, focused upbringing. I’d be more inclined to sympathize with their movement if they took an active part in raising and providing for each unwanted child they forced the mothers to carry to term. You don’t get to check out after the baby is born.

  • I’m talking about viewing a fetus as a person. If someone punched a pregnant woman in the stomach causing a miscarriage we would be outraged. But not if she terminates her pregnancy. The difference is about a woman’s reproductive rights.

  • That depends on the point at which the fetus can be viewed as a person but the pro-life movement has been trying to reduce the limits of that benchmark as much as possible. There’s also the issue on whether limits can be placed on a woman’s right to choose. What if a woman wants to abort a pregnancy but the birth father disagrees with the decision?

  • But first they have to be nurtured in the womb.
    Neither Drs. nor women have any right to kill innocent babies.
    I pray one day.That all Drs., and women who kill be labeled MURDERS.
    AND all the Drs. An women and all that help
    to kill unborn babies.
    Have nightmears ever night.
    I pray that they hear the baby crying.Asking why did murder me.

  • Having my organism
    What a lovely way of saying
    How much you love me.
    Having my organism
    What a lovely way of saying
    What you’re thinking of me.
    blah blah blah

    Having my fetii (or is it fetus – dang I never learned latin)…

    or how about this One Act Play – There’s A Fetus (or is it Fetii) Among Us

    “Oh, a top of the morning to you, Mrs. Flannigan.”
    “Oh thank ye. How are you doin’ Father?”
    “Oh blessed more than I deserve. Oh, and I see you are having a baby! Congratulations!”
    “Oh no Father, it’s a fetii (or is it fetus – dang and he’s a priest and knows latin too.)
    “You mean THEY are fetii.) You see Mrs. Flannigan, fetii is the plural noun of fetus and …….”
    “(Oh St. Margaret Sanger, deliver me from this tragedy.”)

  • As you can see from my other posts I support the mother’s reproductive rights, period. Her body, her choice. I like to look at things from both sides but I am not advocating their position.

    My original reply to you tp disagree with your racism theory as a reason for their opposition to abortion. I’d like to know how you derived that and if it is supported by their statements.

  • Because I’ve met people who advocate white supremacy and view the declining birth rate of white women as a harbinger of the death of the white race. Europe’s changing demographics is cited as a possible Doomsday scenario. They view anti-abortion laws and anti-contraception as one of a few methods that can be used to rectify the situation. I’ve even heard some cops congratulate black women coming out of abortion clinics as helping weed out undesirables from America. Just a few days ago there was a report of a Tennessee judge that offered to reduce the sentences of inmates if they underwent a vasectomy. There is a growing sentiment among white supremacists to reduce minority populations while bolstering that of whites. Now that doesn’t mean that all pro-life activists have the same intent. What I’m saying is that the sanctity of life isn’t just the only motive behind this movement. It has huge political implications for the future.

  • That is not the view of the mainstream Christian anti-abortion groups. Just as not advocating violence is the mainstream position. Your original post didn’t make that important distinction.

  • That error’s on my part. I wasn’t criticizing the mainstream Christian group but the more fringe areas.

  • I’m not sure I buy into that argument. The rights we have are determined by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Women now have reproductive rights but they (and we) cannot legal end our own life and the law stipulates what substances we can put in our bodies. If abortion is made illegal in the future and a woman resorts to wire hangers, etc. that is her own choice. Your argument seems to indicate that her right to an abortion is absolute regardless of the law – a similar argument made by anti-abortionists. How am I wrong? I’m (sincerely) interested in this.

  • Now I’m in complete agreement with you. One of my faults is playing Devil’s Advocate but I am always trying to get a better understanding of the issues.

  • They have a right to peacefully protest, off of private property, and to hand out literature or even speak. But not to interfere with their access, touch them or harass them.

  • Where you see heavy abortion restrictions we see the rise of things like dangerous self abortion methods, hacks like Gosnell, rise of maternal deaths, a thriving human trafficking market, systematic abuse of young women and lack of access to effective prenatal care for poor women. It’s not a matter of choices, it’s a matter of what has been known to happen.

    Yes its a woman’s choice to seek such dangerous methods when abortion is banned legally or by denying access. But there is no reason why such choices must be dangerous or lethal in the first place. For here is no legitimate interests in trying to force women to give birth.

    Yes i believe her right to an abortion is absolute barring only one condition I can think of viability of the fetus. It is her body, it is her choice. I have no problem with restrictions, provided there is a rational and legitimate purpose behind it other than just trying to deny women the ability to have an abortion.

  • Your theory is still pretty ludicrous because you want to lump christians and white nationalists in the same box. There are plenty of hispanic catholics who are against abortion. Some polls are showing that blacks and hispanics oppose it at higher rates than whites. I guess you need a different jaded explanation to write off their objections as self-serving lies.

  • It’s amazing how you can go on and on about a fetus, but completely ignore the mother. The born person who has the sole physical burden and ability to keep a fetus alive. Therefore she is the only person with any rights to consider. Unless its your womb, you have no say in the matter at all. As a person, a woman has the inherent right to make decisions concerning her body and her unique physical burdens here. Nobody requires your input or needs your opinion in the matter. To do so would reduce women to your property. So I couldn’t care less what you think about “rape exceptions”. You don’t get to decide in the first place. Having an opinion is not the same as having a say. Nobody has to care if you think a woman is “irresponsible” or a s1ut for considering an abortion. She is not answerable to you.

    Moreover what you refuse to acknowledge is that any rights you want to pretend a fetus has comes directly at the cost of attacking the mothers rights as a person. No born person has such a zero sum existence. No born person can be compelled to give up their physical autonomy for the existence of others. This is why one can’t even consider the rights of a fetus. After its born, it’s a different situation altogether.

  • ” Nobody requires your input or needs your opinion ” … then why are we having this conversation? I could list all the glaring holes in your arguments but apparently I am persona-non-grata to you. Fine by me, let’s block each other and be done with it.

  • Because you need to be rebuked for attacking the rights and personhood of women under the phony pretext of caring about the unborn. Youre shtick is phony and denotes an actual indifference to life.

  • too long to read. The sperm that entered that egg was alive. That baby is alive from that point on.

  • Who made that rule? To a happily expectant mother, it is a baby. To a murderer, it is a fetus. Semantics do not take away from the fact that it is a living person.

  • Oh Spud………Christian conservatives…..bad Christian conservatives….. you are trying to tow the party line with no evidence.

  • Where is the law that babies need to be born to be babies?
    “it’s their bodies” no, these babies have a different blood type
    These people are murdering people separate from themselves with their own body. (edited)

  • Who made that law, Spud. Just because you want to believe something does not make it true.

  • Isaiah 60:12 English Standard Version For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste.

    Abortion is murder.

  • I’d say he is protecting women. Abortion is murder and he’s protecting innumerable amounts of baby girls and boys.

  • they have a really neat programme now, I’ve just learned. You can say the most stupid thing you can think of and it will still type it for you. He’s another example of that.

  • Star, our prayer should be that they meet Jesus, be convicted of their sin and choose to follow Him. God is not a punishing God.

  • Two diametrically opposed groups can support the same cause for completely different reasons.

  • Wrong again Sandi – we behave as decided by our subconscious as directed by our unique mixture of nature and nurture. We can’t change the nature bit (although changes may occur throughout life – read up on epigenetics) but the nurture input can be modified – that’s why teaching facts rather than fiction and respect rather than fear are important.

    Simple fact is that either your god is imperfect or he is non-existent.

  • Based on past experience you will seek to continue to argue about semantics rather than address the underlying problem. Until you accept or produce a rational argument in response to my post about how effectively to reduce the abortion rate you would, were I to permit it simply be wasting my time. Until then – I’m out.

  • So you are saying a murderer will murder forever and ever give? Everything we do is a choice.

  • Most people who claim to be Christians don’t read the Bible – just the bits that their mentors point them too.

    If you pointed out Exodus 21 and 1 Samuel 15 – I suspect they would have no idea as to what they would find – and I’d add Matthew 5,6&7 as well.

  • I kept it short in the hope that you’d read more than the first few words – presumably to no avail.

    No that’s not what I said – don’t believe me – read up on free will, starting with scientifically researched and fully referenced books by professionals such as Sam Harris and David Eagleman.

    As Arthur Schopenhauer put it “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills”

  • Sandi – please stop; a sperm is a sperm – it is not only not a baby it cannot, by itself, ever become one.

  • thanks Give, but Christ’s word is enough for me. He has given us free will.

    James 1:13-16 ESV
    Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.

  • and the sperm did not die when it entered the egg.
    the baby is alive
    abortion is murdering a live person.

  • Protecting them from themselves? From daring to make decisions of a personal nature he not only doesn’t like but has no say in?

    His version of “protection” is a lot like your version of “Christian love”. The one which means the opposite of any reasonable definition of the term and is used to excuse malicious trespasses upon the lives of others.

  • That a baby exists outside of its mother? That’s biology Sandi. It makes your arguments look silly on their face.

  • so, you are trying to say, that on the day of birth, two minutes before coming out of it’s mother, the baby is not a baby because it is not born, but two minutes later – presto chango – it becomes one?

    If the baby is somehow forced out at 20 weeks, and is a baby, why does it need to wait full term to become a baby to you?
    At 20 weeks, do we need to put it back in again until it becomes a baby?

  • They are not decisions of a personal nature. There is a third person who wants to live who they are not listening to. This is trespassing against the rights of the baby. The right to life.

  • Basic definition of the term. I don’t call a baby a fetus so there is no need to call a fetus a baby. Born and unborn are a clear distinction to the honest.

  • Unfortunately for you Spud, your opinion doesn’t necessarily reflect reality, like on this subject.
    You wrote: “Yes i believe her right to an abortion is absolute barring only one condition I can think of viability of the fetus” So, you contradict yourself now, or is an incubator holding a fetus at 23 weeks?

  • Yes, I agree it is also to kill baby boys. Thanks
    You may be interested in the cultures that only kill baby girls if you are concerned about misogyny.

  • Without allowing abortion, the murder rate falls.
    Gosnell was a part of the system that endorsed abortion Spud.
    Also: “Yes i believe her right to an abortion is absolute barring only one condition I can think of viability of the fetus” So, the clump of cells becomes a baby when viable then, Spud. You’re contradicting yourself now.

  • Actually that was your buddy who was arguing semantics. And the way to stop abortion is for the woman to just say “No,” to the abortion doc. Duh.

  • Gosnell could only operate where legal and safe options for abortion were either rare or nonexistent. Where choices exist, women would avoid his kind of hack clinic. Even medical professional organizations representing abortion clinics tried to shut him down. But the fetus worshiping crowd in the state wanted to use him for PR purposes.

    So a women gets no consideration at all in the discussion. Just the fetus attached to her.

    “So, the clump of cells becomes a baby when viable then, Spud. You’re contradicting yourself now.”

    Not at all. The abortion technique typically used on a viable fetus is known as “birth”. I care about the existing rights of the born, rather then the fictional ones you give the unborn. Late term abortions are a rarity done entirely to save the life of the mother for a fetus with no chance to survive.

  • If you can’t tell the difference between born and unborn, it’s too late for me to teach you.

    The majority of abortions are done in under 20 weeks. Viability at 23 weeks is pretty sketchy.

  • Of course they are. Do not the women bear 100% of all the physical burdens of pregnancy? It’s in their bodies exclusively. It is their will which keeps a fetus alive. It is nothing but a personal decision.

    Unless you can take the fetus from her, there is no reason to consider your input here. It’s in her body, she possesses it, she’s a person with rights that exist. Therefore it’s her decision alone which matters.

    There is no third person. People are born. Until it can be born, it has no rights. You can’t talk of a fetus having rights without stripping the mother of hers as a person.

    You are proposing that women lose their personhood and become property by becoming pregnant. That us some nasty garbage.

  • If it can’t come out and be born, it isn’t a person. Your argument presupposes viability doesn’t exist as a medical concept.

    “If the baby is somehow forced out at 20 weeks, and is a baby, why does it need to wait full term to become a baby to you?”

    Because by then, it no longer requires it’s mother to exist. Not a hard concept here. As long as it is entirely dependent on its mothers womb to exist, it’s mother is the only person in the situation.

  • The Bible says God is not the author of evil/sin. You don’t understand what foreknowledge is and your understanding is simplistic at best.

  • Notice the language and how those who abhor the idea of not having an abortion available use words that either detract, neutralize, or soften the meaning to make it more palatable. Organisms, clump of cells, etc. That’s their method, it is cunning and hence the lie is swallowed.

  • I think a rebuke to you is in order, considering everyone else’s view is attacked.

  • If you cannot tell the difference between a baby and your silliness, I’d say you have a problem.

  • Psalm 139:13 You brought my inner parts into being;
    You wove me in my mother’s womb.
    14 I will praise you, for You made me with fear and wonder;
    marvelous are Your works,
    and You know me completely.
    15 My frame was not hidden from You
    when I was made in secret,
    and intricately put together in the lowest parts of the earth.
    16 Your eyes saw me unformed,
    yet in Your book
    all my days were written,
    before any of them came into being.
    17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
    How great is the sum of them!
    18 If I should count them,
    they are more in number than the sand;
    when I awake,
    I am still with You

    Sounds like God has a wonderful plan for every person. Too bad over 55,000,000 million babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade became law. Just think, 2% of that 55 million were gifted or talented. That means 1,100,000 gifted and talented people never saw the light of day because of the abortion doctor. But those others were just as precious as the 2%. But think of all the art that never will be produced or the scientific discoveries that won’t happen – all because of selfish people.

  • They have potential to map the creation of a baby, I agree. This just as the sperm and unfertilized egg carried that exact potential, and were at that point also living cells.

    Where we disagree is in your foolish inability to understand the difference between potential and a human being. Most fertilized eggs have potential only to be tampon waste, as without the life processes and components of the woman’s body they have no potential at all. That is why they do not fit the definition of a being at all, no matter the species origin of their potential.

    There is a vast difference between “alive” (as are the sperm, egg, zygote, skin, liver and blood cells) and a “living being” that can perform the bodily processes for its own survival. This no matter your Horton Hears a Who fantasies of your idolization of potential as more important than real people.

  • It’s failure at life processes, and lack of capability for what makes humans human, refute your opinion that it is a person. (Please revisit 4th grade to refresh on the difference between a fact and an opinion. Your say so simply does not make it so).

  • Good thing no one is killing babies. That is illegal. Removing a fetus from a womb and preventing the creation of a baby is not.

  • While you ur opinion is understood and acknowledged, it has no standing as justification to force injury, indenture, and risk in others. You have no “rights” to their bodies. The unfeeling cells you idolize also have no “rights” to the body of another. The woman has absolute right to evict any occupying bodily threat from her body, for any reason she chooses.

  • Just making sure, you sounded pretty serious. So what do think about the Pharisees causing a seen with a woman caught in adultery? Do you see any parallels? It seems Jesus had compassion for the accused and did not get caught up in the passion of the accusers. Obviously they wanted to influence the people Jesus was teaching. I feel like she, the one caught in adultery, knew he had the kind of character that would make him a man who would stand between a mob and her death. Are you a guy like that? We know what Jesus would do, what would Dirty Harry do? What kind of character would people see in you?

  • Where is the law? That is the entire history of law in the US and international law that “babies” and “people” are such, at birth. Your dislike or ignorance of the facts of law, history, and biology, simply does not change them.

  • It’s an old evangelical joke.
    Jesus didn’t say to the crowd, “Yeah, go ahead and kill her. She’s an adulteress.”
    Jesus didn’t say to the woman:
    “You deserve whatever you get.”
    nor did He say,
    “That’s okay honey. I understand you were lonely and hey we all got needs, right? Just practice safe sex, okay?”
    Jesus DID say to the crowd, ““Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
    Jesus DID say to the woman, ““Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”

  • It’s an old evangelical joke.
    WWDHD? lol

    What do think the story means?
    Jesus didn’t let the crowd off the hook nor did he let the woman off the hook. Both were held accountable for their actions. He spoke truth to power and He spoke truth to a sinful lifestyle.

  • I understand your opinion. Your grade school word definitions and colloquialisms have no use in conversations among people who actually know the difference between the two words you are confusing, and the difference between a grade school dictionary and both the law and the history and precedent of US and international law. Good simplistic try.

  • As I said, your preference for a grade school level dictionary recognition of one coloquial usage does not change either the core meaning of the word or the law. You can just post any simpleton twaddle you want. It does not make it relevant to anyone but you.

    Colloquial usage does not define law. I note the particular acknowledgement to which you so desperately cling falls below the acknowledgement the word is also used to just as loosely to define immuature acting adults (got a mirror?).

    Moreover, by even the most common and simplistic of usage, no one says a baby is a fetus. You got yourself all confused and wrote your attempt at sounding smart backwards, Cletus.

    “DirtyHarry#1 My_turn
    6 minutes ago
    Just quoting a dictioary. To say a baby is not a fetus is incorrect.”

    Thank you for the laugh, and for demonstrating the words are not the same.

  • A baby is not a fetus, dip wad. And a fetus is not a baby. Your backasswsrd screw up well demonstrates that the words certainly do have separate meanings, and are not interchangeable. Thank you for so well demonstrating my point.

  • Your life must be pretty boring. But thank you for your correction. At least YOU knew what I meant.
    And Baby is defined by and the free dictionary as an unborn child, a fetus.

  • No, the definition of the word “baby” is not “fetus or unborn child”. You really are repeatedly failing at reading a grade school dictionary, aren’t you? That is pretty sad.

    But, again, your screw up demonstrates that the words do not have the same meaning, and that it is ludicrous to interchange them. I thank you for inadvertently arguing against your own stupidity so very well.

  • Actually for you to reject the dictionary definition reflects an ignorance that rejects reality. Lol. Look it up. & The Free
    You’re welcome.

  • Your opinion of what is intelligence and ignorance is acknowledged. Given the demonstrated quality of the source, I truly appreciate the comedy. Thank you!

  • No he wasn’t. They were trying to shut him down. The states Republican leadership had a vested interest in ignoring such complaints to use him for PR purposes. If abortion was readily accessible from licensed medical professionals regulated by the state and medical organizations, there would have been alternatives to Gosnell’s clinic.

  • Silliness is speaking of a fetus, but pretending it’s mother doesn’t exist or is just your property to do with as you demand.

  • Inside her own. As is her choice, seeing that she bears all the physical burdens uniquely for its existence,
    If the fetus wants rights, it has to stop freeloading off her biological systems and come out.

  • Nope. Silly is talk of rights for the unborn while ignoring the physical biological reality that they exist inside the bodies of women. People with their own personhood and existence that isn’t answerable to you.

  • Everyone else’s view being that women arent people but a fetus is. A rather silly and dishonest view. Worthy of scorn.

  • When the Nazis entered Poland (a Roman Catholic country) in 1939 abortion for any reason was illegal. The use of contraceptives was also illegal in Poland (because the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to abortion and to contraception as well). The Nazis conquered half the country (the other half went to the Russians), and they immediately did away with the anti-abortion laws. Hitler wanted to limit and reduce all non-Aryan populations. In late 1939 a decree was issued encouraging Polish women to seek abortions. The campaign was called “Auswahlfeiheit” (“Freedom of Choice”).

  • Nope. Nor care to look it up.

    You have to be born first to have a birthright. One cannot give a fetus rights without attacking the rights and personhood of its mother. Being that a fetus exists only at the will and systems of its mother, the idea that it somehow is entirely dependent yet has greater rights than her doesn’t make any kind sense.

  • One only has to look at the policies of the cretins you guys elect. Somehow restricting access to abortion and attacking public benefit programs always seem to be on the agenda from such people. Including yourself.

  • I understand why proaborts don’t want to call an unborn child or a fetus, a baby. If you call the baby a fetus you dehumanize it by calling it another term other than one that connotes personhood. Fetus sounds so much less human. But that’s what slave owners did in the antebellum south. To justify their sin they denied blacks were human and made them property.
    Then: “After all it’s my property and you can’t tell me what to do with my property. Keep your hands off my property.”
    Now: “It’s my body. You can’t tell me what to do with my my body. Keep your hands off my body.”
    That’s what proaborts do: they deny that the unborn baby is a baby, they call it a fetus, or a zygote, or a blastocyst, or an organism, or just cells. They call it anything but a baby because a baby is a person and a person has rights and God forbid that we give an unborn child rights.

    By the way, Mayo Clinic refers to the unborn baby as a baby.

    From Mayo Clinics introduction “Pregnancy Week By Week”

    Fetal development: The 1st trimester
    Fetal development begins soon after conception. Find out how your baby grows and develops during the first trimester.

    You’re pregnant. Congratulations! You’ll undoubtedly spend the months ahead wondering how your baby is growing and developing. What does your baby look like? How big is he or she? When will you feel the first kick?

  • That’s a nice history lesson. What does that have to do with the right for a woman to control her own body in the US in 2017?

  • Agreed. How did he speak though? Did he speak to the woman with his finger in her face? Or did he doodle in the dirt with his his finger?
    People with positions, podiums, platforms, microphones, and access to TV cameras want to convince me angry people bring people to Jesus. I see that example in the story but i don’t see the truth of the story being about being part of the angry mob.

  • As a scientist and medical professional I omly use the colloquial but inaccurate term “baby” for a fetus with expectant mothers who intend to create a baby, or are trying to become pregnant, in recognition of the happy potential. This exactly as does the Mayo Clinic, in recognition of the hopes, expectations, and plans of a pregnant woman of the potential she will soon have an actual baby. I called my children my “babies” from the moment we started trying to conceive them. Again, this did not make those hopes actual “babies” any more after conception than they were before. There was a long but happy and expectant time before each of my children truly were anything more than a potential, and before hey were babies.

    Even if you reject the fact, there is a difference between potential of what may become, a baby, and what actually exists, tissues incapable of basic survival life processes, as well as incapable of perception, experience, emotion, awareness, thought, care, sentience, feeling, and all the makes humans human. Your Horton Hears a Who fantasies, and inability to grasp the difference between reality from not yet actualized (maybe never to be fulfilled) potential and simple hope, does not change the reality that the potential of a fertilized egg is more often to be toilet waste than to map the creation of a baby. The goo on those tampons are not “babies”.

    As I said, I understand your desperate cling to colloquial usage, as hopes it somehow has bearing on law. This is no more accurate than the colloquial use of the word “baby” for a badly behaved and whiny adult, to give him rights and legal protections enjoyed only by minor children. (BTW, this recognized use of the word occurs in your touted source ABOVE your favored recognition. Neither colloquial recognition mean that behaviorally immature older people or fetuses really are “babies”) .

    It is indeed a woman’s body, and hers alone. She has exclusive and full rights to it to determine if she is willing to be injured and put at risk to create a child, or not. A positive pregnancy test does not negate her full humanity and rights. A positive pregnancy test does not transform her into a gestation utensil. I note your disregard for the woman’s humanity, health, life, rights, and body, and your attempt to dehumanize these real people.

    Just as we all do, she retains exclusive rights to donate life saving blood, bone marrow, for infinitesimal risk to herself to save a life. Or she, as we all do, has right to protect herself even from a needle stick, and allow another real person to die, for any reason she chooses. She, just as do you or I, has the right to donate a kidney for about the same risk as the C-section required of 1/3 of pregnancies (but far less disability, life disruption, and cost), or can refuse even if a real suffering person will die. No one has a “right” to make any demand of her body, even to save their own life. Likewise, a woman has the absolute right to refuse to be used and harmed to create a baby. Unfeeling cells do not have superior rights to all breathing feeling thinking people. Not does pregnancy negate the full rights of the actual real person, the woman, to protect herself from harm, to make her own autonomous medical and body decisions, to be free of indenture, to refuse to save a “life” of a “person”- this whether “life” and “person” applies to a real breathing person or the ludicrous fantasies you are applying to the fetus.

    The life process failing, unfeeling, awareness and experience incapable, fetus simply does not fit any legal or logical definition of the word “baby”, even though the word itself has colloquial usages that apply to immature older children and adults, and to the hope and expectations of the potential of a pregnancy. And, yes, logic and decency forbid giving unfeeling cells “rights” superior to that of all living, breathing, feeling, people, especially your favored “rights” to another’s body, for forced usage, indenture, residency, injury, risk and harm, in complete disregard for her own health, life, rights, and life responsibilities. Thankfully, the law and Constitution protects people from hysterical, ignorant, illogical, and callous monsters like you.

  • Exhibit 1 why a fetus is not a baby under the legal definition. If it was, your dream would be true: any abortion doctor, woman who got an abortion, man who drove her to the clinic, etc., would in fact be chargeable as a murderer. That isn’t happening thankfully.
    Maybe you’ll have a nightmare tonight of a woman hemorrhaging to death from a back-alley abortion.

  • I think it more likely she would feel the woman to have deserved to hemorrhage to death, and that her existing children would deserve to be without a mother. It is likely, too, she would spitefully hope any woman who was not willing to be injured for the sake of a pregnancy, or who was so evil as to f*ck for any reason but to procreate, had suffered greatly while dying and will spend eternity being tortured and burning. By all evidence, many of these lunatics are some pretty sick and spiteful people.

  • It shows Ticked Parent has a lot in common with Nazis as both opposed abortion rights.

    More interestingly, there is no credible reference for anything in that post. It seems to be a popular meme across anti-abortion websites. Fetus worshipers 1ying and using nonsense guilt by association with Nazis arguments is nothing surprising.

  • But they aren’t diametrically opposed groups either. White Nationalists are all Christians, but not visa versa. One is a subgroup of the other.

  • You’re not too good at statistics are you? The rate of abortions has nothing to due with total population. If group A aborts at a higher rate than group B, that means all other factors being equal, the ratio of group A to group B will shrink. And the two rates are not even close. Blacks make up only 12% of the population but are having 41% of the abortions.

  • How many words did you waste to simply say a baby is not a baby unless we want to call it a baby. Then it’s a baby.
    LOL! Really, your linguistic gymnastics to marginalize the unborn is remarkable – especially for a so-called medical professional. But some women and you in particular treat the unborn like you do because you are big and they are small. Laugh all you want – at me or at others who love babies from conception onward – but you do not act like a medical professional or write like one.
    And so from your screed I take it that you would probably be in favor of the killing of people who are in a permanent vegetative state? That is the logical conclusion to your Nietzschean worldview. Yes?

  • If doctors are killing babies without sufficient moral justification “murderers” is precisely what they are, in the eyes of God if not men. The fact that Christ’s atonement covers them if they sincerely believe what they are doing isn’t wrong doesn’t change that objective reality.

  • I’m sorry to have overwhelmed your limited attention span and cognitive capabilities. Your false statement of what I wrote is a frank lie, but no different than I expect of someone like you. I’ll keep it very short so you can’t screw it up. Even though you behave immaturely, and your dictionary notes the definition of the word ‘baby’ to be used to describe an immature person, you are not a baby, and will be charged as an adult if you commit a crime. A man-child is not a baby, Likewise, people call a fetus a ‘baby’, and refer to their not yet conceived ‘baby’, in recognition of happy potential there may in the future BE a baby. Their hopes and plans, however, are not a baby. The majority of fertilized eggs that are destined no further than the toilet, tampon, or menstrual pad, are not babies. Zygotes in a freezer are not babies. Your elementary dictionary recognizes many usages of the word baby. This does not give colloquial uses any value in law.

    In response to your hysterical
    lashing out: your Horton Hears a Who fantasies are irrelevant in the lives, healthcare and life decisions, and rights of others.

    I acknowledge your spite and vitriol as a reflection of your character. As noted, I am grateful to live in a country that protects others from the hysterical zealotry of hateful lunatics like you. You are no different than the extremist Muslims that precisely share you dehumanizing view of women as utensils. Perhaps you would be happier in one of the theological cesspools that, like you, have no regard for freedom and rights, and that precisely practice your stated beliefs. Otherwise, get over yourself. You have no standing in this nation to force others indentured and harmed in service to your fantasies.

  • Jesus adjusted his methods to the situation. He spoke truth to power: He literally turned over the moneychangers’ tables in the temple. He called Herod “that old fox”; he said of the pharisees “they were white washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones.” To the woman at the well He showed compassion; to the prodigal son he showed compassion; to the woman caught in adultery he showed compassion. But he never tolerated their sin. He showed them the way out of their sin.
    You’re not willing to call abortion what it is? I am.
    And you can engage the “political powers” any way you want to. I will do it the way I want to.
    The way you restart a stopped heart is by a shock. Figuratively speaking, sometimes people need the same thing applied to their consciences verbally.

  • Doesn’t matter….think about it this way…when a dog is pregnant, she is carrying puppies, when a cat is preg, she is carrying baby kitties, but when a woman is preg everything seems to change and she is carrying something that isn’t a baby? You are reaching too high, my friend.

  • No one is pretending the mother doesn’t exist. We just recognize that the baby does also

  • It has no rights to her body, even if it’s own fails to support its potential. The woman had absolute rights to refuse it occupancy and usage; to refuse to accept risk and inevitable injury to compensate for its physiological life failures, the right to protect herself from the threat and harm it poses, and the right to have it expelled from her body.

  • I’m very willing to call abortion what abortion is. I’m not willing to make the claims about it that you make. Jesus called adultrey adultrey, he wasn’t willing to call it what the Pharisees were calling it. As far as shocking names there is a modern word that “white washed sepulcher full of dead man’s bones” would translate into. Hairy, dirty and full of is the start of a good description for the word.
    2000 years later we still have adultery and Pharisees so maybe the best lesson learned in the story is how to act toward the “adulter” and to wash your finger after engaging with a hairy, dirty, Pharisee.

  • Yes potential, more likely to end in the toilet or on a menstrual pad than map the creation of a baby. You are the only one apparently confused about the cell species origin, hon.

  • You seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension, as you keep answering assertions no one made. I did not say the cells are the woman’s body. I said those unfeeling foreign cells have no “right” to her body, and the woman has absolute right to have then removed from her body.

    The products of conception are in her body, causing risk, harm, and certain injury if not removed. Those foreign cells have no more “right” to her body than do bacteria or cancer cells, or than do you or I, or children and adults dying of leukemia, lymphoma, or kidney failure.

  • Yes the Anti-Abortion Republican Pennsylvania Governor by enabling Gosnell such managed only one known instance of a baby, but several mothers. Evidently your concern for life does not extend to women besides yourself.

  • I disagree with your opinion that what fails to meet the definition of an organism specifically because it does fail to be viable due to its failure of life processes, is a “person”. Potential more likely to be tampon goo than map the creation of a baby is not “a baby”, and is very different than a breathing feeling human being.

    I note you gave up on the silly species confusion deflection.

  • That’s the big Mayo Clinic reveal? I thought it was going to be some scientific insight as to the “personhood” of a fetus. Instead they’re using the exact same language as every baby book I’ve ever seen (yes they are called baby books, no that has no legal significance whatsoever).

  • You certainly are. Hence you talk of the rights of a fetus while forgetting to mention that doing so takes rights and personhood away from its mother. They are attached. Not that you acknowledge that.

  • When you can take it from its mother, then it becomes a relevant point. She uniquely possess it, in her body, therefore her choice.

  • One does not get a dog license for puppies in vitro. One does not declare personhood in a legal fashion until they are born. We issue birth certificates, not conception certificates.

  • I disagree with your opinion and note the mess that is all nations with theological government systems. There are plenty that practice your stated goal. You might be happier if you moved to one of them. In this country, that Constitution protects everyone else from your hubris and desire to force your fantasies on them, and from your disregard of their beliefs.

  • Nope. The fetus that literally fails at life is not the same as a baby performing its own life processes.

    What a patently absurd statement! If your contention were true, you would have no objection to removing them from he womb at all.

  • When I was planning my family, I referred to each of my “babies”, and took dietary, lifestyle, and medication precautions to protect “them”, from the time we planned to conceive them. My hopes and happy expectations of the potential to have a bsby were no more themselves “babies” after conception than before. They were my actual babies when they had completed creation and could survive as independent human beings.

  • Not harsh? To go up to a couple that was probably wrestling with a difficult choice and insult his manhood? Chuck Jones is lucky he still has his teeth.

  • No one is disputing that the cells are foreign to the woman’s body.

    The dispute is with your contention these cells have a “right” to her body, have superior “rights” to those of all breathing feeling people, and your denial of the humanity and rights of the woman, with only partial rights to her own body, without rights to protect herself from risk, injury and a threat to her health, and without rights to have health threatening foreign cells removed from HER body.

  • When you want it to be a baby then it’s a baby. When you want to kill it, it’s an organism, or cells, or fetus. You do linguistic cartwheels depending on what you want.
    But then you are powerful; they are weak; you are big; they are small; you can talk; they can’t speak for themselves.
    I get it.

  • It was very nice. Every woman, as a full human being has the right to decide if it is worth it to her to be injured and accept risk to create a child, as I did, as most women do when they feel the time is right to start or increase their family. Or amy woman can decide she is unwilling to do so, at that time or ever, for any reason that matters to her.

    No one else and nothing else has a right to her body. This includes you; all other busybodies who value potential to create a baby more highly than her own life, humanity, rights and health; government, and unfeeling cells in her abdomen.

  • I am neither powerful nor big, nor need to resort to personal insults or misleading appeals to authority. Calling it a baby has absolutely no legal significance. It does nothing to alter the reality that the fetus, or baby, or pre-born child, or really whatever else someone wants to call it, is a potential life but not equivalent to a born person.

  • Abhor the idea of not having an abortion?? What utter bullshit. I am happy to say I have two beautiful children. I am also happy to say I’m pro-choice.

  • I hope the clinic workers are aware of their Second Amendment rights. These protestors are dangerous people.

  • Do you know what born beings have no control over their bodies and decisions? Property. Slaves.

  • A baby does. Babies are born. A fetus is attached to its mother. Until it can exist without being so, it is not an independent and autonomous being. Its not a person.

  • Your misrepresentative lie of Arbustin’s words is no more valid than your like false allegations of mine. Recognition of people’s hopes and expectations FOR a baby is not the same as your lie they share your belief the fetus is a “baby”.

    Your Horton Hears a Who fantasies are simply not relevant in law or as justification for your attempt to deny the humanity and rights of real people, to indenture them, or to force injury and risk on them. Your fantasies and dogma simply do not negate the Constitution, or the rights of women exactly the same as your own rights.

  • You don’t have to buy those either and you wouldn’t get one until born “BIRTH certificates”…’re really stretching here spud.

  • lolololol….comparing murderers to slaves……I bet they appreciate that in the black community…….lol

  • Actually it does. It is why abortion is legal and you have to find dishonest work-arounds to ban it.

  • The only time the laws ever care about conception is during a paternity lawsuit. Birth is considered the bright line beginning for one’s legal existence as a person.

  • According to the entire history of US and international law it does. Fortunately the free world does not adhere to the theocratic callous misogyny of Sandi.

  • It is why abortion is legal in the rest of the world as well. The idea that a woman is a person with full legal rights to control what goes on in her body without requiring the input of nosybodies or churches.

  • Actually the countries that subscribe to your theocratic oppression are some pretty nasty places. These are the countries that outlaw abortion or only allow it to save a woman’s life:

    Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Angola, Benin, Central African Rep. Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda,Ireland, Malta,
    Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gustamala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nigaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela.

  • I’m sure there’s a Venn diagram where both sides intersect because not all white nationalists are Christians. Some of them are atheists or ascribe to another belief structure.

  • I agree neither women of men have “a right to murder”. Abortion does not, nor has it ever, fit the definitiom of murder in US or international law.

    Women do, however, have every right to refuse to be used and injured to create a baby, and do have a right to protect themselves from risk and injury. The absolutely do have the right to have threatening foreign cells removed from their body. This no matter your opinion. Your opinion simply has no standing to violate the Constitution, deny their humanity, abrogate their rights, or force them injured. Your fantasies and disregard for these women has no legal standing in their life and health decisions.

  • Feel free to disagree. I will fight you if you try to impose your beliefs on others, or if you try to harm them, indenture them, or violate their rights in service to your dogma. The Constitution protects all of us from people like you.

  • Such a bright line, its impossible to determine in most cases when exactly it happened. 🙂

  • The writer of James didn’t have the knowledge, the technology or the education that we have these days . The evidence is glaringly clear – he was (understandably) wrong.

  • So it’s a baby when you want the foreign cells, but it’s foreign cells when you don’t want the baby.
    Got it.

  • Posting just to hear yourself talk? The imagination is all yours. You are the one who thinks tampon goo and frozen zygotes are “people”, and who indulges in Horton Hears a Who fantasy that the potential in unfeeling life failing tissues is the same as imaginary little people. I am indeed laughing at you and your hysterical fantasies.

  • Nope, you are still being obtuse and dishonestly misrepresenting what I wrote. It is potential to create a baby in all cases. In many instances this is planned and that potential is embraced and nurtured for the purpose of willingly creating a baby, despite injury and risk. In other instances the cells, and their potential, are not wanted, and the woman declines the associated injury and risk.

  • Awww “theocratic oppression” lol…..what would you call it if the liberals were fighting for the lives of babies?

  • Liberals ARE fighting for the lives of babies, by supporting healthcare and prenatal care, decent wage and advancement training for their parents, and nutritional support for poor babies and children. I will never embrace YOUR disregard for the health, life, rights, and wellbeing of women as secondary to potential of cells in their abdomen to create a baby they do not want to create. It really is that simple. Free civilized countries don’t marginalize and objectify their women to satisfy the warped priorities of dogma. This is why the US will never tolerate a Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or any other, theocracy. It’s that Constitution thing, that equally rejects Catholic, Lutheran, and Muslim, among others, lunacy.

  • You’ve voiced that opinion. I put higher value the long legal history of all free nations that says you are wrong.

  • You seem to be trying quite hard to be insulting, but once again are a failure.

    I having been tangentially trying to have a logical conversation with you, while recognizing that logic just may not be in your skill set. I also simply enjoy refuting the hysterical talking points of those like you, and have enjoyed writing today on this board to share perspective with a larger audience than just you. Trying too hard would mean I was here for any reason other than my own entertainment.

    If you decide you have something to offer other than childish interjections, let me know. As it is, you are rather a waste of time, and likely oxygen and space as well.

  • I’m posting because I am enjoying myself with a controversial discussion. Your pointless interjections indicate you may be projecting in regard to obsessively posting and being emotionally unable to control your behavior, despite long ago running out of anything to actually say. And yes, I am laughing at the fool you are making of yourself. You even posted two inane comments to this one response of mine. You, nut case, seem to be escalating.

  • It’s not the thing that someone known for defending women against patriarchy would ever do in a gazllion years.

  • The more interesting thing about that meme is the simple thing that there is no clear reference to anything like it. If this was something it would have been made a wiki pretty fast, that being said I do admit that wiki isn’t the most reliable source and as such things can get removed or changed on a whim.
    However i decided to look deeper and I didn’t really have to go that deep to find that this meme is clearly false.
    Hitler was violently anti-choice. Abortion was ILLEGAL during Nazi-germany. Now of course it is possible he allowed it in countries he invaded but if anyone thinks about that for a moment, that doesn’t make any sense.
    Anyone can see how that would not be accepted by locals in the invaded country simply because they where just invaded, their country was taken from them and everything they cherish would likely be stripped away quickly. This is not a group that is going to go out of their way to support Hitler but rather go against him. The polish to this end are no different than people here in Norway where (which was also invaded even though Hitler supposedly thought highly of us here, which most Norwegians hate to think about i might add)

    Of course this is just my words after doing some searches and after looking through about a dozen pages (most of whom use the quote in a self-affirming way and spread the nonsense like wildfire). It is only once you can do a proper search and actually look for citations from historians researching health during the era and looking at political views of Hitler that you can get good cross-references and as far as I can see, this is just propaganda by the anti-abortion movement (big surprise there).

    As for the founder of Planned Parenthood, I am not going to bother getting into that for some simple reasons.
    1. It’s history. Looking back at it is okay
    2. It’s history, of course we all messed up back then, we didn’t know better.
    3. It’s history, Its okay to learn from it, just don’t think that everything that even if it was true then is true now, times change.

    This also applies to this (once again) attempt at placing Hitler as some sort of protagonist figure for the liberal movement.
    The anti-abortion movement will fail time and time again, why? Because they don’t learn from history or check the facts, they simply assume because they heard someone say something who then told someone who then told someone and therefore they assume it is true.

    So the lesson here: Just because it makes a “great” meme, doesn’t mean its factual or in any way true. Want to learn history? Go to a University and get a degree, then you have the starting qualifications to actually look through proper references and find factual evidence for just about whatever you want to find out.

  • Paying no attentions to anti-choice activists because they are mostly fetishists getting their rocks off.

  • Good heavens, people. The right to an abortion is guaranteed by SCOTUS decision.
    Why aren’t we as Americans screaming bloody hell about states and governors who deliberately seek to deny guaranteed protections? Until the law of the land is changed, these groups need to be quashed in their efforts to control women’s rights.

  • Lol! Quit whining and stay on topic. You do not have the moral highground. You lost that when you said a baby is only a baby when you want it – otherwise it is not a baby: an actual baby in contrast, I guess, to “an imaginary baby”. You refer to your own “babies” as babies; but aborted babies are “cells” or fetuses. You and your ilk are Janus-faced. You lie to your patients by telling them they’re having a baby but all the while you are laughing inside knowing that that’s not really a baby in your patient- it’s just a cluster of cells. What is wrong with you? Have you no shame? Are you truly that duplicitous?
    And you call yourself a medical professional – that is if you really are one. Lol. Joseph Mengela was a medical professional too.
    And I never claimed to be the brightest guy around, but the pro-life doctors at AAPLOG believe in the sanctity of life. I’ll trust them over your ilk sny day. Lol.

  • As you persist in telling lies, and meander from there, I did not waste time reading your tantrum. Hateful zealots like you are the reason our forefathers wisely wrote the Constitution to reject religious law, and to protect people from lunatics like you. I am grateful to them, as it means you and your fantasies are irrelevant to any who choose to ignore you. Have as good or rotten of a life as you make for yourself. I actually contribute more to this world than creating urine and turning oxygen into CO2, and have to get up in the morning.

  • LOL. And if your comments are any indication I’d say your contribution to this world is fertilizer. I do feel sorry for your “actual” babies – all joking aside –
    Oh and don’t forget to check out the AAPLOG folks. They may be better at explaining the “facts of life” than I am. They’re doctors you know – who are prolife – like me.

  • Oh yes the Ben Tre dictum: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Thats liberal ideology for you. Your ilk have killed 55+ million babies since Roe v. Wade. And you say you are fighting for the lives of babies. ROFL
    What kind of logic is that?
    And how much $$$$ do abortion docs make in a year? It is a huge money generator. Billions!

  • Good, we don’t need their abortion death chambers here anyway! We will become the first “free state”. (you like how there were free states/slave states? Well we’ll have free states/abortion states).

  • You can bet Hitler/Stalin/etc were more than happy to abort those from their “undesirable” groups of people.

  • I suppose civil rights activists sitting down at whites only lunch counters were pathetic and childish?

  • It is the master’s will that keeps a slave alive and healthy. It is nothing but a personal decision. Unless you are a slave owner yourself, there is no reason to consider your input here. It’s his slave, he possesses it, the master’s a person with rights that exist. Therefore, it’s the slave owner’s decision alone which matters. Slaves have no rights. You can’t talk about the slave having rights without stripping the slave owner of theirs as the lawful property owner.

  • Slavery and segregation was once legal as well. And just like abortion today, it was considered mainstream and politically correct to be pro-slavery and pro-segregation. To advocate people of color having full equal rights consistent with our founding documents made you something of a radical and/or extremist. But as MLK said in his famous letter from Brimingham Jail, extremism doesn’t not have to be a bad thing.

  • Indeed, just like how segregation was once legal. The idea that state/local gov’t’s and school districts have full legal rights to choose how they wish to deal with whether to have segregation or not without requiring the input of nosybodies in the Federal Gov’t.

  • that comparison is a ridiculous example of false equivalence…not that i expect logical argument from religious fundamentalists.

  • yet another fundamentalist Christian giving us a great example of false equivalence and strawman arguments. you guys should teach logic.

  • Nonsense. A slave – a functioning human being able to breath and eat – mosr certainly can survive without a master.

    A new born infant able to breath and eat can survive in the care of other humans.

    A fetus is a parasite that cannot survive without the resources of one specific person. And the rights of that actual person outweigh the rights of the potential person

  • The protesters all genuinely believe that no one other than them have “thought” about what it is they do. That presumption is pathetic and childish, and lays bare their self-centeredness. I base this on what the protesters themselves said. 

    What other kinds of protesters do, or have done, is not relevant here and is not a matter of concern. Only what these particular protesters have said about why they do what they do. Only they are under discussion. Their own words indict them and reveal their psychopathology. 

  • You didn’t read what I said, I said have abortion available. Nice language pro choice person.

  • If my parents had never met, I would not exist.

    If my parents had not conceived children, I would not exist.

    If my mom had gotten pregnant in January I could not have been conceived in February, I would not exist.

    If my mother had tripped over a garden gnome and spent one specific fateful night in the emergency room, I would not exist.

    If one of about six million other sperm had gotten there first, I would not exist.

    If the pregnancy had spontaneously aborted, I would not exist.

    If my mother had determined for any number of reasons that she would not continue the pregnancy, I would not exist.

    Every one of these events is morally identical – I would not exist and I wouldn’t know the difference.

    Because I exist, the other 6 million or so also rans do not. Because I was conceived, millions of people that might have been conceived in later months do not exist.

    I do not have some cosmic right to existence with no concern for the health or wellbeing of anyone else.

    Once a person is born, they exist and other humans can step in to care for the child. Until then, abortion is purely up to the mother. Abortion is no more immoral than not producing a child with a person you never met.

  • That is nonsense. A human who is enslaved can breath and eat and thrive without an owner. A newborn infant can thrive in the care of any number of humans. A fetus is a parasite of one person and is not autonomous.

  • Um, no. So wrong I must doubt your sanity here. You clearly missed the point, we’re unwilling to read what I wrote and gave a crappy canned analogy.

    Nobody had to lose their rights or personhood to desegregation. Your BS about fetal rights misses the point that it automatically means an attack on the mothers existence as a person with inherent human rights over their bodies. The mothers rights are more important because a fetus has no existence without her will.

    When you talk of the rights of the unborn, you really mean reduce women to property. It would be nice if you were more honest here. But honesty is not part of your POV.

  • Slaves and the discriminated were born. To strip the rights of women to give them to a fetus turns a woman into slaves or property of the state. As all born people have an inherent right to control what goes on in their bodies.

  • So you admit that pregnant women are considered slaves to you. After all what is a person whose body is in control of another, your slave. People are born BTW. You demand control over people. Those already born. The slaver is you.

    Your analogy is crap and ironic

  • It’s the FIFTH definition of baby on the site and it even clearly states that (medically speaking, ‘baby’ only refers to infants) down the page:
    baby in Medicine

    baby ba·by (bā’bē)
    A very young child; an infant.

  • You’re right, I read it wrong. But I’m not going to apologize for language when the forced birthers accuse us of lying and murder.

  • Like most words “baby” can have more than one meaning. And I acknowledgde your point. But my point is this: when proaborts want the baby they call it a baby from the outset; when they don’t want the baby they call it a fetus, organism, cluster of cells, anything but “baby.”
    Dehumanize persons and it’s so much easier to despose of them as medical waste in this case.
    Poor little babies – the slaughter of the innocents.

  • Truth sometimes is uncomfortable. Did you not infer the comparisons? Those weren’t insults. Those were realities.
    You are big = you are an adult
    You are powerful = you have legal rights
    You can talk = you can express yourself and object when you are wronged
    In utero babies can do none of that.
    They are helpless.

  • Are you familiar with the dismal track record my state has with children in state custody? 8000 thousand in the foster care system and a governor who can’t get it together enough to take immediate action to protect them. He created a job for an unqualified seminary buddy at $250,000 with benefits to merely “look at” the system and toss out solutions. He put the onus on the thousands of churches within my state to step up and foster a child. I don’t see that happening with in this century. Too many radicalized Christian fundamentalist congregations and they would do considerable harm to innocent babies and children. They aren’t even equipped to mentor children who have aged out of the system. In my western part of the state, families charitable enough to foster catch hell if the baby or child is not white. My VFW officer was castigated for adopting two black girls…even by the wealthy bible thumpers.

  • But what about the “born” infants who struggle in state custody? What’s happening to help them?

  • “sufficient moral justification” is subjective.
    How would you define sufficient moral justification and can it be applied objectively?

  • I live in Kentucky. Bevin is not protecting women by attempting to close this clinic. Where it’s located allows for women of all economic access to professional reproductive health services. By services I mean birth control that suits their individual medical requirements, pre-natal care, post natal care, …etc. This clinic is needed within this area of the large city of Louisville. Stripping access to prenatal care, in my opinion, is tantamount to murder of the mother and fetus.

  • No, it isn’t. Yes, the question of whether their actions are transgressions or sins is subjective, depending on their own level of understanding. But when we stand before the judgment seat of God there will be only one standard by which the question of whether we violated God’s Law will be answered and that is God’s.

  • Message to grown women: you are not as important as the little bundle of cells in your uterus.
    Got a degree? Accomplished artist? Volunteer in your community?
    None of that matters. The only thing that matters is the embryo that hasn’t accomplished anything.

  • You’re really trying to compare civil rights activists with the civil right to manage your own body? You have no sense of irony, do you.

  • I’m talking about the civil rights of the unborn of course. And back then the store owners and such insisted they have the civil right to manage their own businesses.

  • The unborn aren’t people. They don’t count. Have you ever seen a picture of a first-trimester embryo? You could mistake it for a lizard, or chicken embryo.

    Civil rights? Hey, nobody forces them to die after uterine eviction. It’s their choice to dry up like a slug in salt. If they wanted to live, they should have grown lungs and gotten jobs.

  • Well it is not a Lizard is it. You know I will pray for you as you have a serious problem.

  • How on earth do you think the Human race has survived thus far. In your argument someone I presume your Mother lost her personhood to you, going on your opinions you are very right That is some nasty garbage.

  • Why, thanks! I will do nothing for you as well.
    (it’s not a lizard, but I bet you couldn’t tell at that stage.)

  • fetus
    [fee-tuh s]
    Spell Syllables
    Examples Word Origin
    See more synonyms on
    noun, plural fetuses. Embryology.
    (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

    ****Enough, this is from your 1st definition as you can see if you choose to actually look where your pointing. Maybe if we could stop trying to drag our country back to times when more narrow minded mentalities needed to be fought against and defeated, continually forced to defend the small steps forward, again and again, we could move on. Questions involving these human rights were decided half a century ago. It sure keeps voters too busy to worry about any current issues. Also, think I read a little something about that KY jewel of a Gov Bevin (who lied and said he wouldn’t to get elected, btw) cutting $650 million right off the top in his first couple months, $41 million in education funding, recently this month cutting 9,000 more people from medicaid, just a few examples of why this would be a really bad idea. Not sure why anyone would believe or back this mans play ever, but say you do. Life doesn’t stop at birth. What will happen to all these new unplanned pregnancies in this mans state?

  • Hmm. Maybe my mother along with millions of women in the developed world CHOSE to have me? That doesn’t factor into your thoughts at all here? (Notions of consent never register with Conservative Christian types)

    I am not advocating forcing women to give birth for their own self aggrandizement. You didn’t bother to read my opinions or just didn’t understand it. Take you aspirations of moral superiority and shove them.

  • They are speaking out for the silent victim. There is no such thing as a “christofascist.” Those who walk by DON’T really know how far developed their baby is, and what they are really doing. They are just being told that it’s a blob of tissue. There is nothing pathetic or childish about trying to save the life of an unborn child. What IS pathetic is that a woman wants to kill her own flesh and blood, and doesn’t consider herself responsible. Self-absorbed? No, “other absorbed.” You just don’t get it.

  • You are just either a fool or a science denier. That unborn baby IS a person, has all of its DNA, has all it needs to grow and be born. You have lived with a bag over your head for too long.

  • You are a bonehead, and it’s not worth arguing with someone born without a brain.

  • All they have to do is view an ultrasound, and see and hear their baby’s heart beating, and watch it move.

  • It is not HER body. It’s her baby’s body, a distinct human being developing and preparing for birth.

  • Oh, so because the Governor is not in favor of the willful slaughter of the unborn, he detests women? He’s a great governor. He knows that the truest value in the world is the right to LIFE. The real war on women is assuming that women cannot handle their lives, and deal with uncertainty or unplanned developments. They should merely remove them. Life is not that way. And no unborn child should be sucked out, dismembered or burned alive in a womb for someone’s inconvenience. You notice that only people already born advocate for abortion.Without life, all other rights don’t exist.

  • Do you know the definition of “fetus”? Little human. A parasite is something that attacks and is unhealthy. Pregnancy is one of the most natural functions of a woman’s body. Autonomous? It’s DNA is distinct from its mother’s. It is a unique person developing in the womb.

  • Very few are born without a brain – some just use religion as an excuse not to use theirs…

  • It’s not a body at all. It’s a collection of cells that can’t survive outside of the womb. So obsessed with something that can’t even survive and yet blind to the plight of actual living children in war zones because they have brown skin. You people are incredible.

  • You pretend your cutesy sound byte means you have a clue of what is science, while pretending “science” takes your philosophical stance. There is much more science in support of the position that unfeeling cells more likely to be tampon goo than map the creation of a baby are not babies, than your assertion they are.

    You have parroted a few scientific facts that the cells are living cells, human origin, and have DNA. Where your argument fails is where you ignore all of the rest that contradicts your opinion, and pretend your fantasies and dogma are elevated to “science”. You ignore that the egg was just as alive before fertilization as after. You ignore that DNA is nothing more than a chemical blueprint, useless without life processes. You ignore that it is the exception rather than the rule that a fertilized egg will result in a baby being born. You ignore that the unfeeling, experience incapable fetus lacks all that makes humans unique and fails the definition of a being. You ignore the bulk of what science shows, pretending you can pick and choose which tidbits fit your fantasies.

    This all because you read the claim on the internet written by someone as ignorant as are you. An education would be of great benefit to you.

  • Re: “They are speaking out for the silent victim.” 

    There is no “victim” to be spoken for. All they’re doing is indulging their impulse to control others’ lives because they think their dour metaphysics entitles them to do so. 

    Re: “There is no such thing as a ‘christofascist.'” 

    Of course there is! 

    Re: “Those who walk by DON’T really know how far developed their baby is, and what they are really doing.” 

    You’re assuming ignorance on the part of others, that you have no way to verify. That’s presumption of the highest order. 

    Re: “There is nothing pathetic or childish about trying to save the life of an unborn child.” 

    It’s pathetic and childish to assume ignorance on the part of others, that one has no way ever to verify. 

    Re: “What IS pathetic is that a woman wants to kill her own flesh and blood, and doesn’t consider herself responsible.” 

    It’s pathetic not to allow others the ability to control their own lives. It is — instead — a fascistic impulse. Pursuing that impulse in the name of Christ makes one a “Christofascist.” 

    Re: “Self-absorbed? No, ‘other absorbed.'” 

    It is, in fact, “self-absorbed” to leap headlong into the minds of others and decide — for them — what they’re thinking, based upon one’s own dour metaphysics. It’s incredibly self-absorbed! 

    Re: “You just don’t get it.” 

    Actually, I do “get it,” much more than you, or they, could ever possibly know. You see, I’ve been a fundie Christian who believed as they believed. I’ve been there. I know what their game is and I understand their juvenile impulse to use their own dour metaphysics as a bludgeon, to beat others into submission and force them to capitulate. 

    I abso-freaking-lutlely do “get it”! 

  • You lie. “Science” says no such thing. You say it, and dishonestly are putting this conclusion into the mouth of “science.” But I know how fiercely dishonest you and your ilk are — so you can’t fool me with your “science says it” B.S. 

  • Re: “You are a bonehead …” 

    Says the Christofascist. I consider it an honor, and a privilege, to be childishly insulted by you. 

  • If it had “all it needs to grow and be born” you wouldn’t be here throwing your little hissy fit. The fact is the non-viable fetus is woefully deficient of life capability, and will not grow without another’s body carrying out the necessary life processes. It demonstrably lacks almost everything it needs to create a baby.

    The potential of the DNA to map the creation of a baby is NOT a person, and it has no “rights” to someone else’s body. By all means, if it is a life capable person and the woman doesn’t want to gestate it, celebrate its immediate birth! RU486 will allow it to be born and show what a life capable person it is. If God wants it to continue growing, He is plenty capable of making it happen.

    Considering the enormous percentage of “babies” God discards on menstrual pads, He is either a monstrous vile murderer, He doesn’t share your Horton Hears A Who fantasies and those cells ain’t babies, or he just seriously fvcks up a lot.

  • It depends, I suppose, how one defines manhood. I can think of few things less selfish and cowardly than failing to take responsibility for one’s own acts.

  • It absolutely is her body! HER body to which you, your fantasies, other lunatic Chritofascists like you, and unfeeling tissues that, as you point out, are NOT her body, have NO “right” and no say. She has the absolute right to have injurious things that are not her body removed from her body if she doesn’t want them there. This whether the injurious foreign cells are bacteria, a cancer, or the unwanted products of conception.

  • You give good reason why no one should waste time with a science ignorant fool like you.

    You seem to like to indulge in silly name calling. I appreciate the irony of your claims to be scientifically literate, then stating childish idiocy like that living people have no brains. See dumbkins, all you have to do is open your mouth or start to write and your ignorance announces itself. It demonstrably is you who had never bothered to learn how to use much more than thr primitively emotional parts of your little used brain.

  • A newborn is not autonomous, and is necessarily a parasite of someone. Your argument presupposes the existence of someone willing to act as a host to the newborn — which may not be the case. If there happens to be no such person, does a newborn’s lack of autonomy preclude its right to life?

  • Yep, he detests women having control over their personal intimate decisions. If you don’t like abortions dont have them.

    The governor is a turd who cannot abide rule of law nor people making personal decisions without his unwarranted and unwanted say in the matter.

    You talk of the unborn because you are too spineless and dishonest to discuss the born women a fetus is attached to. A woman with her inherent rights and personhood you want to strip away. You assume they cannot make decisions without your approval. As if it’s required. So they have to be forced to do do by foul dishonest means.

    Why don’t you say what you really want about the women who CHOOSE to have abortions. Really go into why you have any say in what goes on in their bodies and how they have no rights or personhood beyond your say so.

    “You notice that only people already born advocate for abortion.”

    Because a fetus isn’t a person. A living being yes, but it has no existence beyond its mothers in a physically attached way.

  • All you have to do is respect the lives and choices of others.

    Which includes not for one them to undergo medically unnecessary procedure which add to the burdens of poor and working class people, so you can coerce them into doing as you demand.

  • She isn’t a person, just a walking incubator to you.

    Unless you can take possession of a fetus, or somehow get it out of a womb before its viable, your opinion has no bearing on the decisions of women about their pregnancies.

  • It’s telling you won’t discuss the women who make such decisions. You focus on a fetus as if it exists in a vat and not a person with their own lives opinions or choices. Talk about science denial here!

  • Autonomous meaning distinct and capable of independent existence. Something which happens at birth.

    Until you can physically separate a fetus from its mother, all you are saying is that women cease being people once they get pregnant and they become your property or property of the state.

  • “What IS pathetic is that a woman wants to kill her own flesh and blood, and doesn’t consider herself responsible’

    And here is the s1ut shaming inherent in the fetus worshiping point of view. Women somehow are answerable to you for their personal decisions as if your approval was even necessary. Those women being so “immoral” and unwilling to take you seriously that they must be forced to do as you command. Any trespass upon their lives is acceptable because you are their superiors and all must obey you in such matters.

    If you can’t even respect the lives of the born, your concern for the unborn is just self important narcissistic BS.

  • Fine. Then flop it out on the sidewalk and tell it to get a job. Oh, it can’t breathe? But people BREATHE, they don’t dry up on the pavement like a salted slug.

  • Everything about your post was great except that one part

    “As for the founder of Planned Parenthood, I am not going to bother getting into that for some simple reasons.
    1. It’s history. Looking back at it is okay
    2. It’s history, of course we all messed up back then, we didn’t know better.
    3.It’s history, Its okay to learn from it, just don’t think that
    everything that even if it was true then is true now, times change.”

    Actually most of it is untrue and based on quote mining (taking a quote out of context and editing it so it stands for a negative position of the speaker) Margret Sanger out of context.

  • In my view he was taking responsibility. Going up to someone in a time of their great distress is what’s selfish and cowardly. I’m sure you have a different view.

  • Wrong on the first two statements. “Fetus” does not mean “little human”. The word comes from the meaning “bearing offspring”, and applies to, generally, viviparous organisms–not limited to humans.

    And a parasite does not “attack”, it uses the resources of a host organism in order to survive, usually in a non-mutual relationship, and the use of “unhealthy” is subjective and not necessarily true.

    Seems science and accuracy are not your strong points. You have resorted to liberal tactics, deliberately misapplying words that can be twisted to your meaning.

  • “Considering the enormous percentage of “babies” God discards on menstrual pads, He is either a monstrous vile murderer, He doesn’t share your Horton Hears A Who fantasies and those cells ain’t babies, or he just seriously …. . up a lot.”
    That whole diatribe shows your own ignorance on the subject of fetal development. When a women has her cycle, the only thing that is potential for human life is her oocyte, which is not united to a sperm.. It isn’t a human, it only has 23 chromosomes, So her natural cycle has nothing to do with destroying a life. women have about thirty years of reproductive maturity, and hundreds of oocytes mature and are released in what you call ovulation, hence the monthly cycle.

  • You demonstrate your own ignorance when you indulge an inapplicable rambling based on you erroneous assumption that I was talking about the oocyte discarded monthly in menses.

    While it is true that all unfertilized eggs are under discarded, so too are The majority of FERTILIZED eggs which do not implant and are discarded in menstruation. These are not “people”, and are apparently you God’s garbage or fvck ups.

    I disagree with your opinion that the potential of the chromosomes is a “person”. Moreover, your fantasies have no standing in the life and health decisions of others.

  • It’s always a person, it has the potential to grow bigger and develop. A human at the very early stages of life, looking as it is supposed to look at that particular stage

  • Not at all. You simply do not understand personhood.

    A person has to have autonomous existence. Be able to exist as a distinct being from a person. As long as a fetus is inside a woman, it has no such existence. It exists only because the mother does. No person has such a unique physical dependence on another person.

    “it has the potential to grow bigger and develop”

    But it hasn’t reached at that stage. So you can’t consider it the equivalent of one who has.
    An egg is not an omelette
    An acorn is not a tree
    A bottle of cheap booze and a rom-com video is not a pregnancy

    The most dishonest part of your view is the complete and utter unwillingness to address the woman bearing the pregnancy. As if talking about the fetus makes her no longer exist or no longer matter in the conversation.

    But in all the yattering about “a fetus is a person with rights” is the argument you make but refuse to acknowledge in public, but is integral to it. That a woman’s existence and personhood is of no concern for you. That you have to attack her in order to support your view.

    No person’s existence is dependent on attacking the personhood of others. So we can’t consider a fetus as one.

    Unless you are going to be upfront and honest here and address why you think women are not people and somehow must be made subject to your whims and opinion, then I don’t have to give a crap what you think of a fetus.

  • I don’t like liars who misrepresent what I wrote, but did welcome the opportunity to repeat my point. If you can refute my argument, please do so. If all you or he can do is lie about what I wrote in a deceitful effort to try to undermine my points, you simply demonstrate the weakness of your own position.

    The same is true of your pointless interjections. Are you capable of making a substantiated argument? Or are empty one liners the limit of capability for thoughtful discussion?

  • You comment and criticise… Without you, it seems, nothing is done properly.

    —Don’t be angry if I tell you that you are behaving like an arrogant despot

  • Right, we certainly won’t agree because that is not an opinion. It is scientifically found evidence. Go do your homework about sperm and egg unions. Of course I do agree that fertilize eggs do not always implant. That would be considered a miscarriage and that can happen in any stage of fetal development. I think you are very bitter, you have a gripe about human rights. Anyone with a defense of a human being at its earliest stages has become your arch enemy. I feel bad for you. People that are so defensive like you , usually have had an encounter with the process and try justifying at all costs. Even to the point of being rude and vulgar. I hope that’s not the case. But I do wish you a the best, take care.

  • Of course, we are both familiar with each other’s differing perspectives on some specific social and spiritual issues, but you have my respect and I suspect we can still maintain our cordiality as well as our individual principles.

  • The discussion doesn’t seem thoughtful at all. I can discuss all day long it seems a waste of time though, and one liners are what I do best. Why do you think you must be right?
    This is what I think at the end of the day:

    While you continue to interpret in bad faith the intentions of your neighbour, you have no right to demand that people should be understanding with you. St JmE

  • Does who I am make what I am saying correct or incorrect? Nope.

    Btw my posting history is all there for anyone to see. I am not a deplorable turd who feels the need to hide my views from the public. I give hints about my personal life. If you stick around long enough you will learn them. If you were looking for an ad hominem opportunity, tough luck. Not biting.

  • You certainly have a bizzare perspective that your declaration of your opinion as “science” changes the definition, scope, and core of what is science. That’s either astounding hubris or true stupidity – perhaps a bit of both. In my medical education, we well covered science in general, and fetal development in particular, thank you. We also well covered the difference between breathing feeling women, whose humanity and human rights you disregard, and unfeeling, life failing, experience incapable, cells and tissues. The only “gripe with human rights” i have, is when hysterical fools attempt to violate the human rights of real people, to force them indentured, objectified. and injured, in service to said hysterical fools’ fantasies.

    You can save your condescending claptrap about feeling bad for any who refuse to be sacrificed to your dogma, as we and our children generally fare far better in life do those who breed indiscriminately. If I had not been well educated and successful when I had my children, or if I had popped them out in litters like rats, it is unlikely they would now be able to be pursuing the advanced degrees and enjoying the successful positions they are. Early parenthood and the associated poor education, and large families that overtax family resources, both are associated with poverty and low rates of success. My children did not suffer from such.

    In your vitriol, you seem to projecting your defensiveness. Or maybe you are just lashing out with shots in the dark, hoping I feel guilty about something associated with abortion. Sorry, hon, no such luck. You demonstrate yourself an expert at being rude and vulgar, as well as simply childish (bone head? No brain?). That said, No matter what label you choose, I do indeed fight efforts to harm, objectify, and indenture women as nothing more than gestation utensils. And I do oppose any efforts to subjugate their humanity and rights to your birth fetishes. You simply do not have standing to sacrifice others in service to you breeding priorities. I have daughters, sisters, nieces, cousins, and women friends who all are valuable in their own right, not for their potential to breed, and not secondary to a potential accidental pregnancy any of them may not be willing to be injured to create. I’ll fight your agenda to potentially harm them.

  • I agree one liners seem the limit of your capabilities. Hmmm, why do I think I am right to defend real feeling people against your efforts to force servitude and injury on them, in complete disregard to their humanity, rights, autonomy? Why do I think I am right to be on the side of the entire history of law of all free countries? Why do I think I am right to oppose the theocratic policy you idolize that is the basis of government if some of the most repressive and horrible nations in the world? Why do I think I am right to fight your attempts to force everyone else to subscribe to your dogma, in sacrifice to their own health, life responsibilities, and wellbeing? Why do I think I am right to respect the beliefs of others for their own life over your attempt to control everyone to YOUR beliefs?

    The answer is simple. I have no respect for people like you who are willing to force yourself and your beliefs on others, and whose hubris is so profound that you would force others harmed in service to your beliefs. I find that frankly appalling and very worth fighting.

  • “Poor little babies – the slaughter of the innocents.”
    If someone chooses not to abort, are you going to take in their newborn if they don’t want it? Oh, that’s right, you people only care about the thing before it’s born, you don’t give a damn what happens afterward, if you did, there wouldn’t be any kids without homes. If you are so dead set on ‘saving the babies’ go out and adopt a bunch of children right now.

  • LOL, yes the tiny “alternative opinion” organization. ‘Nuff said. Thank you for verifying that this is indeed an outlier position of those actually educated.

  • Yes, I do. I get it, because I’ve been there, done that, and I know what their game is … from an insider’s perspective. 

    I also get that you don’t like my having said so, and likely disagree … but no amount of disagreement on your part can change that. I do, in fact, “get” what these folk are up to. 

  • Re: “Christofascist is actually an oxymoron …” 

    It is, but only if one looks at the original presumed teachings of Christ and assumes Christians follow them. They don’t, and haven’t done so for centuries. 

    You’re right that people who actually abide by Jesus’ instruction to “turn the other cheek” — among many other instructions (many of them reported in the Sermon on the Mount) — couldn’t be fascists. But … Christians historically haven’t obeyed those instructions, and generally don’t want to. What they do, instead, is cherry-pick through their scripture, following only little bits of them, and twisting other portions to their own personal advantage. 

    It’s a really clever game, and one they’ve been up to for close to two millennia. But that’s what they do. Hence, it’s quite possible for “Christians” to also be fascists … or even worse. 

  • Separate DNA? Separate organs? Separate thoughts? Ability to feel pain? Whatever your feelings on the legality of abortion, you’d be anti-science to say it’s not a separate human organism.

  • Yes, it is dictators that protect people from wannabe theocrats like you. You really do just spout words with no clue of their meaning don’t you, child?

    Please review that lovely list of nations that practice your aim (that I know you saw because you commented on it). Notice how many are dictatorships. You really are rather ludicrous.

  • Really? Dictators protect? Maybe you are in the wrong country. And to consider everyone whom you dissagree with as a child is fine, children are sincere and uncomplicated, easy to like. I really would like to know what sex you are. Because it really does make a difference. My intuition is that you are a female who has had an abortion. That you are defending your position after finding out exactly what happened. Then to protect your nagging conscience you defend the undefendable, I look at the people who stand in front of abortion mills as heros. They want to save lives, children and their mothers. You think that those who defend the babies in the womb are the only ones that they consider, you cannot even know how untrue that is. The mothers are equally important, having a buffer zone is pathetic. The laws concerning abortion need to be repealed. All human life is valuable, even yours. Thank you for your insults, I feel blessed by them. I hope you receive all the help you need to heal, take care.

  • Yes, being a man or woman makes a ton of difference. Sorry I have to wait around. If you are a man, you haven’t a maternal sense, you are fighting a battle which has practically nothing to do with you or your body. Now if you are a woman, demanding respect of your body, you’ve got it, but that isn’t the whole issue here, is it? We are really trying to get to a point where we discover if the person within the woman is human or not? So is a human zygote human? Is it a human at its earliest stage of life? Is it developed at each stage where it is supposed to be, much like a toddler is around three, or an adolescent is around 11 and an elderly person can be around 65+. Each stage of a person from beginning to end has as stage proper to it. To deny that, well you were saying something about personhood, isn’t a person in every age a person? Aren’t they all important? Or do they only become human according to you when they aren’t dependant? If that’s the case even a newborn, who is dependent upon its mother for food and shelter isn’t a human. That would also mean an elderly person who became dependent again because of an illness or accident or something would no longer be a person. That’s how your logic plays out. So please explain.

  • “Yes, being a man or woman makes a ton of difference.”

    For an ad hominem argument? Nope. The whole point is that you are sanctimonious and narcissistic enough to claim that people should not have personhood unless you say so.

    “you are fighting a battle which has practically nothing to do with you or your body.”

    One need not be part of the group being attacked to speak in support of them.

    “Now if you are a woman, demanding respect of your body, you’ve got it, but that isn’t the whole issue here, is it?”

    Respect for one’s body is what you are attacking. You are claiming ownership and control over it for your own agenda. So no, you don’t “got it” according to your view.

    “We are really trying to get to a point where we discover if the person within the woman is human or not?”

    Nope. You have not been reading my posts. Never was relevant to the topic because no matter what you think of it, it is still living inside a woman’s womb at her will. Its dependent existence is the reason its not a person. It may be human, but its not actually relevant without acknowledging that attachment. (Something you have been avoiding in your spiel in a very obviously dishonest way)

    It could be the next messiah, speak 4 languages in vitro, have the secret to world peace and enlightenment and it makes no difference. As long as it lives inside its mother’s womb, using her biological systems to exist, she always has the choice as to whether it should be kept.

    “To deny that, well you were saying something about personhood, isn’t a person in every age a person?”

    Once they are born they are people

    “If that’s the case even a newborn, who is dependent upon its mother for food and shelter isn’t a human.”

    BS argument. A newborn’s survival is not dependent uniquely on its mother. Pretty much any other human being other than the mother. Hence we have maternity wards, orphans, adoption at birth. Born and unborn are distinct physical states of existence you can’t just handwave away. A mother can leave a newborn in another room while she eats, sleeps, defecates, goes to work. A pregnant woman has to take her fetus with her at all times.

    Its telling you focus only on a fetus and not its mother who you want to strip of personhood.

  • Wow. Excuse certainty are way above my meager lowly life. You are right I am all of the above, plus the insults and condescending remarks. I am a poor woman who has had more than my share of children, more than 2. Gosh, I think I am taxing the whole of the US, draining it of all its social welfare.
    Do you think you are successful? Well as far as self satisfaction and putting on airs, yes you are very successful. I feel sorry for your family, you sound very depressing . people are utilitarian in your circle, nothing more. Congrats. PS Now you sound like an abortionist with all of your medical education

  • If a newborn is dependent upon anyone, in your logic it wouldn’t be a person. A newborn cannot survive without being looked after. So you a guy who want abortion yo be legal at all costs. I see.
    By the way, I think women who go into abortion mills are very important and I have never implied that her “personhood” was worthless. You are trying to argue that those who care and support all human life at all stages care a less about a pregnant woman . that doesn’t make sense.

  • “f a newborn is dependent upon anyone, in your logic it wouldn’t be a person.”

    Nope. You are being dishonest and deliberately obtuse.

    In what way is a newborn physically attached to another person so much that they cannot be separated? They aren’t. They have independent existence. Even though a newborn needs another human being to survive, it can be any human being. A fetus requires its mother uniquely in a way no born person can be. Your dishonest unwillingness to acknowledge the basic biological difference between born and unborn typifies your POV.

    Much like the dishonest unwillingness to discuss the mother’s lives and bodies in your arguments as well. Avoiding the inherent and implied argument that a fetus is a person but a woman is not. That her rights have to be attacked to grant it to the fetus.

    “By the way, I think women who go into abortion mills are very important ”

    Women making decisions you do not like, therefore you feel the need to control their lives.

    “and I have never implied that her “personhood” was worthless. ”

    You certainly have, you just don’t do so directly. Your whole POV is based on declaring the woman’s personhood null and void in favor of the fetus and your opinion as to her life.

    ” You are trying to argue that those who care and support all human life at all stages care a less about a pregnant woman .”

    But you clearly don’t care about all human life or at all stages. You only care about a fetus. Hence you are unwilling to discuss born people. So much so that you essentially declare a pregnant woman to be a non-person. Subject to your will on all personal and intimate decisions. Decisions you have no regard or respect for.

    ” that doesn’t make sense.”

    It helps when one actually bothers to address the arguments made instead of making up your own version of them.

  • This from the one who sees women and girls as disposable gestational utensils, of less value than the unfeeling cells in their bellies. Your projection and dulusional state is remarkable. You are correct, your words as they portray you indicate you are indeed a morally inferior low life, who has no regard for others and is intent on forcing others to subscribe to your fantasy life.

    I acknowledge your spiteful attacks on me and my family as representative of your poor character. I am also thankful that those in my social and professional circle (oncology, BTW) do not show the callousness and hostility you display, and my life does not often involve your hateful ilk. My circle are, by every measure, far better people than your words indicate are you. Hey, but I bet you breed well. At least you have the same qualifications in life as a prize hog or Golden Retriever. Congratulations, bitch.

  • Intellectual without a heart. I’ve seen it all, mothers bringing their daughters, fathers bringing their daughters, boyfriends bringing their girlfriends, husbands bringing their wives, friends bringing their friends. Some girls are blindfolded others are crying, still others have a stoney look , eyes without any emotion, just blocking out what is coming within an hour. Block out the memory, but how can that happen, today it’s raining, or snowing, or bright and sunny. Perhaps it’s just cloudy, and a little chilly. Or its
    2days before Easter, or perhaps 2 days before Chrtistmas. Maybe mothers day is this coming Sunday or maybe dads birthday is tomorrow. Who can block out the day or the time. It’ll be forever etched into the girls heart. Something is missing all that just so she can have a full life. What does that mean? So grandchildren don’t get to interfere with the granddaughters life, or children don’t put an obstacle in the way of an education, because it is really important that the girl gets her diploma, that way she can get a good job and make money…..Oh the mistake that needs to be righted, the timing is off. But the misery of the moment will stick. Even if has been 20 years or more. No less painful, could’ve been yesterday. Felt like the whole world closing in, with the guilt and the sorrow. Then the blame on the one who pressured the girl, Grandma, mom, dad, friend(some friend, I never see herhim). So the ache is still there and is continues. The only time it doesn’t hurt is when there is something to distract, noise, frivolous pleasures, selfish whims, smoking, drinking, drugs, more self destruction so the pain of that awful moment is suspended, even if it’s for a moment. So what kind of life does it end up to be in the end. Big deal, a diploma! Big deal a bunch of money, big deal I have a giant house with no joy or peace. So that is what is going to make it all better, yeah , right.

  • Do you read what you write?
    In one move, you have tried to appropriate the “honesty” of the true opinion and the ignoble “advantages” of the opposite opinion…

    —That, in any language, is called duplicity. St.JmE

  • Ah, yeah the first few lines indicate you have indulged in a diatribe not worth my time to read. I will simply note in regard to “heart” that very few people devote their lives to saving lives, and caring for the terminally ill for any reason but “heart”. It is a good bet that I and my coworkers contribute far more to this world and the lives of others than you ever will. Your “heart” seems entirely reserved for your fantasies, with no room for anyone who can actually feel.

    Feel free to indulge yourself in any fantasies about your spiteful hopes for me and mine, if they make you feel better about your obviously wretched and bitter self. Your fantasies do nothing to detract from my or their happiness, and may soothe your wretchedness. Have as nice or wretched a life as you have created for yourself.

  • Not surprising. I support the safety net for those incapable of supporting themselves. I also support education, healthcare, and nutrition for your children as well, to give them a chance to find something more in life than the bitterness oozing off you. I wish them well, and hope my tax dollars bring them the tools they need to be happy and contributing to the world.

  • Well I am not the one who is delusional enough to talk about the life of a fetus, but omit entirely the human being it attached to. The one unwilling to own up to the full implications of their own view, not feigns concern for lives of they are so contemptuous of they act as if they don’t exist in the discussion.

    That is full scale dishonesty in your part.

    Moreover you have deliberately misconstrued arguments I made to fit your canned narrative. Most importantly you make ridiculous arguments which fly in the face of good faith honest discussion. Such as deliberately ignoring the physical distinction between a fetus and newborn.

    If anti abortion people were honest and respected the lives of people, this story would not exist. They would not be using such foul means to attack the access to the procedures. They would respect the lives and choices of others without using chicanery and coercion as in here.

  • You apparently missed the sarcasm, and the point of why your word spew was simply stupid. No points for reading comprehension.

    Your intuition is as faulty as is your education. I am a woman, yes. I never had need for an abortion, but I would have had one without question if I had been unintentionally pregnant. I would have had an abortion when my period was late due to stress following being raped at 19. BTW, that is when I met my first forced birth zealots, who demonstrated the profound callousness of your ilk. I would also have gotten an abortion if my contraception had failed while I was a student, as neither my husband or I wanted a family then. And I would have had an abortion if I had become pregnant again following my last pregnancy that threatened my life and made it very risky for me to ever be pregnant again. Of my friends and family who have had abortions, none have felt the guilt and remorse you hope for. Nor do I question their reasons for refusing to be pregnant.

    You see, it really is very, very simple. I don’t share your fantasies. Moreover, I am unwilling to let your indulgence of emotion and fantasy be an excuse to injure, violate, enslave, and hurt women exactly like those I love, and potentially even one of them. I also note the horrible dictator based countries that indulge your dogma based control of others’ lives, and am unwilling to allow your ill to turn this free nation into a like fascist cesspool.

    Your words paint you as one of the most bitter and superficially pious people I have ever encountered. Your mistakes and regrets are your own, hon. But no matter what decisions you have made I your life, and no matter how you feel about them, you have no standing to impose your beliefs on others, harm them in service to your ow regrets or defensiveness.

  • Nope, as a voter I support the safety net for your children. As a taxpayer I am glad that they are supported, have health care, and are educated even if you are unable to provide for them on your own. Everyone who pays taxes deserves credit for picking up where you failed.

  • Well then thanks, I owe you an apology. I am not on welfare, I have never been. I apologize for making you loose your peace too. You have much passion which if used for saving lives across the board would be a great asset to your character. I have family and friends who have killed their children and see the suffering they have and are going through, so my “job” is the comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Some women/friends have died, because of the effects of the act. That is a fact.
    I won’t talk to you again if I can resist that temptation. I hope you leave others who have a job to do saving lives in their capacity even if you cannot agree that is important. I have seen the other side of the abortion mill, the girl who comes out to thank us for being there. Where I live there are different avenues for aiding these girls/young women. There are generous people who give from their own livelihood to help, especially where they need the most help, being mentored and given the medical and material nessesities…..even jobs.So I believe that is noble, and its all worthwhile. Take care.

  • Amazing that people all deride the Third Reich, and yet millions have accepted its ethic of “life not worthy of life.” What happened to conscience?

  • Re: “Whatever your feelings on the legality of abortion, you’d be anti-science to say it’s not a separate human organism.” 

    I understand that’s how you subjectively interpret the science. But that’s all it is: Your interpretation. Since it’s subjective, it has no power over me, or anyone else. And it’s not “science” that says it; rather, it’s you who says it. 

  • By your logic, all science is worthless and subjective, since all science is viewed through the interpretation of the individual.

    What’s really telling, though, is your statement, “it has no power over me.” Facts are facts, regardless of who says them. Their power rests not in the speaker, but in whether or not they are true. You’re welcome to argue what we should do about the facts and what constitutes right and wrong in light of them, but trying to undermine the science is just silly!

  • Considering how very rare injury, much less death, is at all from abortion, (death is 20 times more likely to occur from pregnancy than abortion), I’ll take with a very large grain of salt, your statistically impossible claims that you have had friends (especially the plural you state) die due to abortion.

    The grief and guilt you cite is also very rare, but maybe more common when their circle of friends includes judgemental zealots. In fact, medical study shows post partum depression and psychosis far more prevalent than depression or mental illness developing after abortion. Additionally, overall, women who have abortion are no more likely to develop new depression or other mental illness than women who have given birth – all women who have been pregnant, whether the had abortion or given birth, are more likely to develop new mental illness than those who have not been pregnant. Women who have abortion are more likely to have pre-existing depression, chemical abuse, or other mental illness: I disagree forcing the physical harm of pregnancy on them against their will would be of benefit to their mental health. No matter their CHOICE in the face of an unintended pregnancy, or even following a wanted pregnancy, women with pre existing mental health disorders need close follow up and care.

    No, I will not accept your harassment of pregnant women at abortion clinics, or your attempt to objectify and indenture them through legislation. I am proud of and thankful to the volunteers, including two (currently, others previously) of my family members, who protect women from harassment at women’s health centers, by you and those like you, who are blinded by your zealotry to your profound callousness. I am thankful to the judges who give buffer zones to protect these women from you. Your false sympathy and flat lies you tell yourself about the “good” you are doing for these women for whom you show no regard is disgusting. Your hostility to these women at an already stressful time is repulsive.

    We agree on the need to support women who want to continue a pregnancy. And I applaud the services you note. Where we disagree is in regard to your assault on women who don’t share your beliefs, and your zealotry to disregard their beliefs, rights, humanity, health, and control over their own bodies and life decisions. I endorse and contribute to both family and health care support that allows women to choose to continue a pregnancy without it being life destroying. I support womens’ rights to choose to end a pregnancy for any reason that suits them. And I support healthcare and contraception availability to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

    I thank you for our conversation, as it makes me deeply appreciate the two of my family members who volunteer as escorts, and gives me reason to make sure to devote time to do the same. Maybe I’ll see you there. ? I’ll be inside the buffer zone protecting women from you.

  • Re: “By your logic, all science is worthless and subjective, since all science is viewed through the interpretation of the individual.” 

    Wrong. A lot of science is objective in nature. Things like the speed of light in a vacuum are very testable. 

    Re: “What’s really telling, though, is your statement, ‘it has no power over me.'” 

    What’s “telling” is that you object to me having pointed out that I am not required to knuckle under to your subjective interpretations. Hmm. I wonder why that would bother you so much … ? Could it be because my defiance flies in the face of your presumption that everyone is required to adopt your own subjective interpretations? If so, how is that not a fascistic impulse? 

    Re: “Facts are facts, regardless of who says them.” 

    That’s true. However, your subjective interpretations are not “facts,” no matter how convinced you are that they’re true. 

    Re: “Their power rests not in the speaker, but in whether or not they are true.” 

    That also is true, but again, your subjective interpretations are not verifiable and thus have no objective reality. 

    Re: “You’re welcome to argue what we should do about the facts and what constitutes right and wrong in light of them, but trying to undermine the science is just silly!” 

    Now I know you’re being disingenuous. You know full well that we’re talking morals and ethics here (or, as you put it, “what constitutes right and wrong”). Yet, you insist on casting it — instead! — as scientific fact. By purposely papering over your moral beliefs with a veneer of “science,” you exposed yourself as dishonest. 

    I have no use for dissemblers and liars. Tell me, does your Jesus approve of you lying in his name? It’s fine if you think he does … just go ahead and say so, if you’re convinced of it. 

  • I don’t think it’s me you’re angry at man.

    Bottom line: it’s obective science that a fetus is a separate human by the very definitions used by science. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.

  • Re: “I don’t think it’s me you’re angry at man.” 

    Calling me “angry” is another of your subjective value judgements which has no relation to reality. I am not “angry” … with you, or with any other Christofascist. I can’t be “angry” with people I consider childish, pathetic, and pathologically infantile. If I have any feelings about you people at all, it’s that I feel sorry for you. You have brains, and (theoretically) the capacity to use them, but you refuse to do so. As the United Negro College Fund famously says, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” And you people waste yours. 

    Re: “Bottom line: it’s obective science that a fetus is a separate human by the very definitions used by science.” 

    Bottom line: There’s not one freaking thing “objective” about your “bottom line.” It is your subjective interpretation of the “science.” It’s not what “science” itself says. I’m not sure how much clearer I could have been about it, but that’s just how it is. 

    Either you’re mature enough to understand that, and admit it, or you’re not. Given your dishonesty, though (having lampshaded the moral/ethical, rather than scientific, nature of your contention) I doubt you have much maturity. But hey, you might actually surprise me and not live down to all my expectations of your ilk. 

  • I’m not even a person to you, am I? That’s sad that our common humanity is overshadowed by your hatred.

  • Tanya, don’t argue with my_turn. The guy has 6000 comments in a little over a year on Disqus. That’s 20 comments PER DAY. Pretty sure he’s a troll full time.

  • When the demand dries up, so goes the supply as well. Give better options and people will stop having abortions.

  • Relax dude, I think you’re so used to seeing everyone as a – what’s the term, ‘Christofacist’? – that you’ve lost perspective.

  • Yes, it’s ironic that you keep claiming to be “objective,” when everything you say spews “subjectivity.” 

    Please, by all means, keep it up. You’re living proof of what’s wrong with your fierce, dour religionism … and everything you say just adds to the already-towering pile of evidence of how irrational it all is. 

  • I don’t see “everyone” as Christofascists. Just people who use their Christian beliefs as a bludgeon to beat everyone else into submission and force them to live according to their own unrelenting metaphysics. 

    That is a fascistic impulse, and as I’ve noted already, when people act out on that impulse in the name of Christ, by definition, it makes them “Christofascists.” 

    So long as you keep demanding everyone live according to your primitive and irrational Christian metaphysics, that makes you a Christofascist. 

    Oh, and don’t forget your disingenuousness … I’ve caught you lampshading the moral/ethical nature of your beliefs and calling them “objective” and “scientific” when in reality they’re “subjective” and “metaphysical.” 

  • Thank you. I do feel sorry for so many like that. One has to wonder if they have a heart.