‘Pro-life’ must encompass more than opposition to abortion

The view from the stage before the March for Life rally began in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 27, 2017. RNS photo by Adelle M. Banks

(RNS) — If being “pro-life” only means opposing abortion, we need a better conversation about the myriad ways human life is threatened today.

On Friday (Jan. 19) the March for Life will bring together thousands of anti-abortion activists and conservative political leaders in Washington, as it does every year in the week before the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The gathering offers an opportunity to reflect on what it means to defend life, especially at a time when the Trump administration is pushing policies that break up immigrant families, exacerbate inequality and poison our environment. 

It’s understandable that abortion remains a foundational issue for millions of Americans. Debates over when life begins, whether a fetus can feel pain and at what stage a pregnancy can be terminated raise profound moral and medical questions.

While interest groups on both sides of this contentious issue often use absolute claims and polarizing rhetoric to make their case, many Americans recognize the complexity of abortion should not be reduced to talking points or bumper stickers. In fact, a poll from Public Religion Research Institute found that 43 percent of respondents identified as both “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” a sign that binary categories are insufficient.

A more productive national discussion could start with acknowledging that the way we talk about abortion can’t begin with a culture-war approach, and finally recognizing the limits of single-issue politics. 

There is nothing “pro-life” about defending life in the womb while walking away from our collective obligations to care for the child once that baby is born. This is exactly what President Trump and many politicians such as Speaker Paul Ryan, who will speak at the march, do when they shred social safety nets, fail to fund health insurance programs for low-income children, and put tax cuts for the wealthiest few before the needs of those in poverty.

Trump will address the rally by live video feed from the Rose Garden.

The president has won over many political and religious conservatives with his appointment of anti-abortion judges, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. His administration pushed for expanded conscience exemptions to contraception coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act, and like every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, he reinstated the so-called Mexico City policy, which forbids U.S. aid money going to any international group that funds or promotes abortion.

For some voters and political leaders, these checks on the scorecard are a sign that Trump passes the test.

President Trump stands next to Pope Francis during a private audience at the Vatican on May 24, 2017. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Evan Vucci/Pool

There are signs that a more expansive understanding of what constitutes a “life issue” is challenging that narrow vision. Pope Francis, the world’s most influential religious leader, is driving that conversation.

The pope strongly opposes abortion, but has also elevated what he calls an “economy of exclusion and inequality” that “kills,” the death penalty, climate change and the treatment of immigrants as central pro-life concerns.

When asked by reporters about President Trump’s decision to rescind an Obama-era program that protected some 800,000 young immigrants brought to the United States as children, Francis didn’t equivocate. “The President of the United States presents himself as pro-life,” the pope said, “and if he is a good pro-lifer, he understands that family is the cradle of life and its unity must be protected.”

Climate change is “one of the the principal challenges facing humanity,” according to the pope, a stark difference from a president who pulled out of the Paris climate agreement and who once called global warming a hoax invented by the Chinese. 

Francis also helpfully rejects the kind of simple categorizations that limit American political debates. “Everything is connected,” he writes in “Laudato Si,” the first encyclical in the church’s history to address environmental themes and climate change. Francis understands that climate change caused by human activity is already killing people in the poorest countries, and it contributes to a migrant crisis also exacerbated by war and economic exclusion.

When Pope Francis visited the United States in 2015, he linked the need to protect life in the womb with “children who die of hunger or from bombings, immigrants who drown in the search for a better tomorrow … and the environment devastated by man’s predatory nature.”   

Cardinal Blase Cupich led the Good Friday Walk for Peace on April 14, 2017, through Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood, a community that has been scarred by gun violence. He was joined by more than 1,500 neighbors and interfaith and civic leaders as he walked the traditional Stations of the Cross. RNS photo by Emily McFarlan Miller

Several U.S. Catholic bishops are taking the pope’s lead.

Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, an influential adviser to the pope, calls immigration “another pro-life issue.” Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich views gun violence as an urgent pro-life concern, and is a leader who forges alliances with progressives and Democratic politicians who disagree with the church’s position on abortion. In a speech to the Chicago Federation of Labor, the cardinal spoke of “feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, protecting the unborn, caring for the sick and welcoming immigrants” as part of a “consistent ethic of solidarity.”

The language echoed the message of a previous Chicago cardinal, Joseph Bernardin, who in the 1980s became the most prominent American church leader. “Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us, must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker,” Bernardin said in a 1983 speech at Fordham University.

Debates over abortion shouldn’t stop. But let’s make sure the conversation about protecting life and human dignity doesn’t end there. 

(John Gehring is Catholic program director at Faith in Public Life, and author of “The Francis Effect: A Radical Pope’s Challenge to the American Catholic Church.” The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.) 

About the author

John Gehring


Click here to post a comment

  • Pro-Life is just a slogan, and not one I made up. Issues are dealt with separately in the courts and legislatures, so essays such as this are just blather. The effectiveness of “social safety nets” to help the poor is indirect and debatable; in contrast, the effectiveness of abortion to kill the unborn is indisputable. In addition, voting to support social safety nets and voting to protect the unborn often are mutually exclusive. Therefore, I’ll vote to save — actually save — the lives of babies over lining the pockets of government workers. So, accuse me of not being “pro-life”. I can live with that…so more babies will, well, live.

  • The same-old-same-old “seamless garment” smoke bomb, timed for the March for Life. Time for some clarity, instead.

    First of all, the term “pro-life” is not a term of art in moral theology. It is the chosen name of the movement in the U.S. that opposes “legalized” murder.

    Anyone attempting to hijack the term “pro-life” for issues other than murder is a–hijacker.

    Abortion in the U.S. alone has killed 63,000,000 babies.

    The Catholic Church teaches that it is a duty, an obligation, of the state to proscribe and punish abortion. Anyone who supports in thought, word, or deed the “legal” status of murder commits a grave sin. For Catholics who are publicly known to be of that kind, denial of Holy Communion is mandated by Canon 915. MANDATED.

    There is NOTHING in the teaching of the Catholic Church that requires a Catholic to hold that the federal government has any legitimate role to play in “fighting poverty” or providing pseudo-charity to the poor, or that such-and-such a level of such spending is “moral” and some lower level of such spending is “immoral.” Cf. the Principle of Subsidiarity. Nothing in the teaching of the Catholic Church requires Catholics to support the Pope’s and the bishops’ sky-is-the-limit policy on immigration–which is more accurately called “immigration jihad.”

    And NOBODY is “shredding” the poverty programs and government-run pseudo-charity activities that do exist.

  • P.S.: The Pope “strongly opposes abortion.”

    As shown by his effusive praise for “one of Italy’s forgotten ‘greats,'” Emma Bonino, a woman who killed over 10,000 babies with her own hands (and a modified bicycle pump) in the 1970’s, and later was the leader of the successful effort to legalize abortion in Italy, and is still vociferously pro-abortion.

    As shown by the award of a medal and rank as a Commander in the Equestrian Order of Pope Saint Gregory the Great to Lilianne Ploumen, a woman who has raised several hundreds of millions of dollars to replace abortion funding cut off by President Trump, called for the disruption of the Sacrifice of the Mass by LGBT thugs, and other contemptible activism.

    As shown by the endless line of pro-abortion activists and politicians invited to speak at Vatican conferences promoting the U.N.’s pro-abortion “Sustainability Goals,” the climate hoax, and other objectionable and/or fraudulent causes.

  • The problem with expanding pro-life concerns with other life issue concerns other than abortion is that it complicates things. It reveals that not only do our political parties have mixed records regarding being pro-life, so do all of us as individuals. And that complication is disturbing to many.

  • The real problem is that it spreads confusion about the bottom line: voting.

    Cardinals O’Malley and Cupich, and other bishops, busily form these “alliances” with pro-abortion politicians. Oooh! Ahhh! “Reaching across the aisle!” “Finding common ground!”

    Have you EVER heard Cardinals O’Malley and Cupich, or very many other bishops, declaring clearly, unequivocally, that a vote for a pro-abortion politician is a grave sin? (One exception: when all the other candidates are more fanatically pro-abortion.)

    No. You haven’t. But you HAVE seen them giving pro-abortion politicians Communion, and lots of grinning handshakes, and medals, and Catholic funerals.

    Note that Mr. Gehring says the “debate” about abortion should continue. Note that he never says pro-life people need to increase their efforts to defeat pro-abortion politicians.

  • The problem with calling it “pro-life” was that it never had to do with concern for life or people. It has always been a cover for a position of demanding control over others. Of disregarding the personhood of women.

  • The problem with pro-life is its really a scam to get poor and middle class people to vote for politicians who attack their economic interests. Abortion rights are not going to be rescinded by fair legal means. Not by the courts, not in the legislature, not by amendment to the constitution.

    But people who oppose it will keep contributing money to politicians who make empty promises about it. Its a grift for the naive and malicious. Those with such a disdain for the rights and personhood for women that they will support any manner of miscreant for public office on such promises.

  • “The effectiveness of “social safety nets” to help the poor is indirect and debatable;”

    Except in every country which has such things. Their quality of life metrics are much higher than the US.

    Healthcare is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy and financial stress for people in the US, but it is not a problem for Canadians, Japanese or Western Europeans.

    “In addition, voting to support social safety nets and voting to protect the unborn often are mutually exclusive.”

    Both the anti-abortion position and opposition to public benefits are both borne of malice indifference to people anyway. The two are congruent. So you are correct here. 🙂

    “so more babies will, well, live.”

    No, they wont. It will just be more hazardous for women who seek to terminate their pregnancies. Abortion bans don’t work anywhere. They won’t happen either. You are simply being grifted into supporting attacks on the middle class.

  • Half of the people killed by abortionists are women. How do they affirm the “personhood” of women by killing them?

  • When a journalist asked Pope Francis why he was praising Bonino when she was an unrepentant abortionist and abortion rights activist — she had performed thousands of abortions before abortion was legal in Italy — Pope Francis replied, “Well, we have to look at people, at what they do”, implying Bonino’s work on behalf of migrants made her work on behalf of abortion irrelevant. Not only did Pope Francis then go on to praise Emma Bonino as “one of the greats”; he literally and publicly embraced her, and a photo of that embrace was flashed around Italy, and then across the world, thanks to the internet. A few weeks later, Bonino was invited to speak at several Catholic churches in Italy, and the brave and horrified Catholics who objected were ignored. From those days on, I knew for sure that Pope Francis was not naïve or addled or misguided or crazy. I had come to believe Pope Francis is an atheist who is determined to wreck the Church and destroy the Catholic faith of as many people as possible in the time he has left before he dies.

  • Spuddie,
    The point of my comment is to show that both pro-choice and pro-life advocates have mixed records. And for one side to accuse the other side without acknowledging its own failures keeps us from having viable debates and discussions about all that is involved in what should be labeled as pro-life.

    Yes, there is a certain scam run by politicians and they have help from some of their supporters. But not all whom we would call pro-life contribute or are complicit with the scam. And there is also a similar scam by those some who are pro-choice advocates.

    You seem to demonize one side as you selectively define the issues, and thus you interfere with viable debates and discussion on the subject.

  • No babies have ever been killed by abortion. Babies are born.

    No abortion ban has ever been effective in preventing abortion. They only make the procedure more dangerous.

    Nobody ever asked you nor ever needs your input as to what women should do about their personal and intimate decisions concerning what goes on in their bodies. As you will never get pregnant, nobody has to care what you think on the subject. Their bodies, their choices.

  • Mahony is a leftist and O’Malley is weak, but Cupich…Cupich is truly evil. In fact — and this is 100% conjecture, obviously — I suspect that Cupich makes Mahony and O’Malley feel guilty about all the compromises they have made. When you watch Cupich in action, you don’t see cowardice or weakness or compromise…you see evil.

  • “Pro-life” is a position which is inherently immoral. It posits that people like yourself have a privilege to interfere with the personal decisions of women as to what goes on in their bodies.

    No debate is necessary because you have no rightful say on the matter. You are welcome to your opinion as to what women should do, there is just no reason that should become a privilege to involve yourself there. At no point do you have a valid argument that abortion must be banned.

    Pro-life is a scam. Pure and simple. There is no way you are going to be capable of voting for someone who will roll back such rights. At best they can put up some illegal onerous restriction which will be rolled back by courts. But in the end you are just voting for someone who is using you to attack your personal interests

  • You preach despair. You tell pro-life people: “Give up. You will never win. So vote socialist!”

    Your economic claims are bogus. Black unemployment doubled under Obama. Under Trump, black unemployment is at its lowest level ever. Of all time.

  • Not a single anti-abortion pundit has regard for the personhood of women. They all use dishonest language and emotional appeals because they can’t rationally justify their position.

    Virtually no person dies in an abortion where it is legal. A fetus is not a person. It is a human being and a life, but one has to be born to be a person.

    You don’t care about people, your concern for the unborn is phony. Its all a matter of controlling the lives of women.

  • Socialism works everywhere else in the world. The US is at the bottom of most quality of life stats for the developed world. Neo-Feudal policies aren’t helping our nation one bit.

    You are an easy mark who votes against their own economic interests for a chance to attack the personhood of others.

    “Under Trump, black unemployment is at its lowest level ever. Of all time”

    I have yet to see an honest or well informed Trump supporter. Please back up your claim from an objectively credible source. Under Trump the nation is heading into a sewer.

  • No law is ever 100% successful. But the claim that outlawing abortion accomplishes nothing is a fat lie.

    It SHOULD be dangerous to murder your baby. In any civilized society, it would be dangerous.

    I was once a fetus. I can’t imagine being more intimately involved in the issue of abortion than that. Half the people murdered by abortionists are women, and half are men.

    You say that abortion is about “their bodies.” I.e., the bodies of women.

    How is it possible for a “woman’s body” to have a penis, and testicles, and X chromosomes, and a different blood type, and two heartbeats?

  • A law which is completely ineffective and leads to unnecessary harm is of no use at all. There is no interest in the government to attack the personhood of women here. Your opinion as to what women must do is not the same as having a say in such decisions.

    Her body, her rules. If you don’t like it, tough luck. Unless you can take possession of the fetus prior to birth, her will and her will alone is all that matters in keeping a pregnancy. Your input is neither desired nor necessary.

    “It SHOULD be dangerous to murder your baby. In any civilized society, it would be dangerous.”

    Thank you for showing me how little you regard the lives of people. Its all about your malicious desire to attack the rights and personhood of women. Its good to know that s1utshaming is the essential basis of your position. You are an immoral piece of garbage.

    “How is it possible for a “woman’s body” to have a penis, and testicles, and X chromosomes, and a different blood type, and two heartbeats?”

    Unless you can remove that fetus from her, you are SOL. Its inside her body, her systems are the only thing keeping it alive and you can’t get it out until birth. Which means her choice at all times. Your opinion doesn’t mean anything here.

  • Why is there never any discussion about the methods the really work to reduce abortions – easy access to free and low cost contraception, paid family leave, medically accurate sex education, and child care? Answer: Because it’s not about reducing abortions. Its about controlling women and punishing them for having sex.

  • The enjoyment of slut-shaming is all it’s ever been about. The rest of this baloney is just concealment,

  • “The problem with pro-life is its really a scam to get poor and middle class people to vote for politicians who attack their economic interests.” I am working class. You are a patronizing s.o.b. for assuming I don’t understand what my own economic interests are. You also assume my values are as shallow as yours in valuing only my own economic interests, anyway. Securing my country’s borders; defending this country from being overrun by more Muslims — who believe Sharia Law trumps the US Constitution; and protecting the unborn are all priorities for me. Stop claiming to know what is best for little old working class me, you pompous troll.

  • Venezuela isn’t socialist. Its an outright oligarchy. Public resources divided up among a small clique of political cronies running them into the ground.

    Its Trump on steroids.

    By all means tell me how Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and Western Europe are all like Venezuela. I need a laugh.

  • Cupich is the guy who says being aborted is no worse than being “undocumented” or unemployed. And that sodomites should be given Communion.

    The next Pope is a Catholic ONLY if he retires Cupich immediately.

  • Spuddie,
    The kind of debate you want doesn’t foster conversation, it assumes moral superiority.

    You selectively pick criteria for defines human life so that you can stand on the pedestal you have built for yourself and look down at others. You claimed that your position represents a biological reality and yet backed away from providing documentation supporting that position. Then you excused your failure to provide documentation. All you want to do is similar to what some pro-life advocates want to do: demonize the other side by being selective in what counts as fact.

    What you miss is that the criteria you use to determine what is human life starts to reduce the human status of some who are born.

    So you can write what you want, I am not going to continue a discussion with someone who begs the question of the truth of his position, which is what you did when you failed to provide documentation supporting your view of what is biologically real.

  • You would really prefer to get treated for cancer in, say, Taiwan, than in the USA? Even in the UK, you’re not going to get cancer screenings that are routine here unless you can document family history. Single-payer health care funding is a zero-sum game: the pizza has to be sliced into ever-thinner slices for an ever-growing number of people. Oh, and Canada will be happy to help you kill yourself now as soon as you grow weary of fighting cancer. There’s a reason uber-rich people in all the countries you mentioned high-tail it to the US when they get very sick. I’d rather be poor and sick in the USA than upper middle class and sick in any country you just listed. Oh, and Venezuela started out as socialist, then spiraled down into oligarchy. “Trump on steroids?” Sure…eight years of Trump as Presidency will lead to people nearly killing each other in the street for stale bread. You must be one of the people who believed in the 70s that the world would be ending about now on account of overpopulation. Oh, that didn’t pan out? Oh, let’s change the subject to Climate Change. Did you know that in 2006, Al Gore went on Oprah and predicted, “Beijing will be under water in 15 years [on account of Global Warming]”. (It was still called Global Warming then. Hey, we’re only three years away from that now…and the ground is still dry in Beijing. But you focus on that while the rest of us focus on saving babies’ lives. Yet, you’re the “true” Pro-Lifer. TROLL is what you are, Sir.

  • No, you don’t know what your economic interests are. You made that abundantly clear in your tirade against the poor and government benefits. You seem hell bent on supporting things which attack your economic health and existence.

    Like predatory lending? Well so do conservatives? Like affordable access to healthcare, living wages, the ability to retire comfortably? Well conservatives don’t.

    I am not assuming your values are shallow, you just proved they are!

    “Securing my country’s borders”

    Which aren’t being done by Trump. The wall is a pipedream that nobody is going to fund. You are being grifted here out of panic. Attacking immigration isn’t securing our borders.

    “defending this country from being overrun by more Muslim”

    You are an ignorant sectarian bigot who is easily panicked. Religious freedom is for all faiths. Not just yours. The greater threat to our nation has always been homegrown terror. But it is very easy to whip people into an easily controlled panic with a foreign enemy.

    “who believe Sharia Law trumps the US Constitution”

    That would be people like you who hate our 1st Amendment religious rights and want to impose Christian Fundamentalist garbage on our nation.

    ” protecting the unborn are all priorities for me.”

    Which you don’t do at all, just attack the personhood of women.

    I DO know better than you. You have made it clear that you are easily led, not well informed and support self-destructive behavior. But the worst thing is cretins like you want to destroy not just your own lives, but mine as well.

  • “It posits that people like yourself have a privilege to interfere with the personal decisions of women as to what goes on in their bodies.” Abortion involves not just the woman’s body and life; another body and life is involved. You area fake Catholic, in spite of what you may call yourself. (You may even be a Jesuit, these days, the strongest evidence you are a fake Catholic.)

  • “A fetus is not a person. It is a human being and a life, but one has to be born to be a person.” You are not Catholic. You are not Pro-Life. Go back to your NARAL meeting…

  • Cancer in this country means bankruptcy to many. You are full of crap on single payer healthcare. It has been successful in most developed countries.

    “Oh, and Canada will be happy to help you kill yourself now as soon as you grow weary of fighting cancer.”

    Where do you get this garbage from?

    Let me tell you a first hand story here.

    My in-laws are both cancer survivors, fairly poor, retired and Japanese. Neither of them ever had to pay for radiation, surgery or chemotherapy. Nobody in that country ever does. Even corporate employer based insurance there covers everything by law.

    My mother was hospitalized for COPD. If not for my father being a retired civil servant. she would be staring down a hospital bill larger than the mortgage of her home and value of her car.

    Thanks to the Chucklehead in Chief, my healthcare costs jumped 50% I am well off enough to deal with the paycut, but those less economically secure are not.

    “There’s a reason uber-rich people in all the countries you mentioned high-tail it to the US when they get very sick. “

    Neither of us are uber-rich. They don’t need health insurance. The system serves them well. Not us.

    “Sure…eight years of Trump as Presidency will lead to people nearly killing each other in the street for stale bread.”

    If not for the laziness and incompetence of the president and cronies, that is the outcome they are looking for. A cabinet of cronies, a tax plan which robs people who work for a living to give to the idle rich, privatization schemes which amount to looting public coffers. Its exactly what Venezuela did except on a much bigger scale. You are a real ignoramus here.

    “Oh, let’s change the subject to Climate Change”

    OK you are ignorant enough to pretend the entire consensus of the scientific community on the subject is fake. Al Gore is not a scientist. Nobody has to give a crap what he says on the subject. The people whose expert opinion on the subject do matter say its very real. Our Secretary of Defense is even studying it and how it has exacerbated world conflicts. He thinks his boss is a m0r0n.

    “who believed in the 70s that the world would be ending about now on account of overpopulation.”

    Which was curbed by the growth of abortion rights, increased access to birth control and the end of state sponsored churches in the developed world. Stuff you oppose. BTW the fact that China and India are now industrial powers and not constantly wracked by famine is due to the work of a God denying atheist.

    Thank you for proving the old Mark Twain adage. “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt” You have left no doubt here.


  • I am not looking to treat this with polite conversation nor do I feel like following the irrelevant script anti-abortion people set out for themselves.

    I don’t believe personal liberties are subject to compromise. A woman’s right to control her body is the most essential right she has. More important than your opinion. Your alleged concern for a fetus is never going to be greater than that. Your alleged concern for the unborn translates to contempt for the lives of the born. So I cannot take it seriously with the kind of genteel respect you want. It is not worthy of such respect. I find it dishonest, narcissistic and deep down malicious.

  • utahhagen,
    I appreciate the support, thank you. But I wouldn’t say that Spuddie is not sincere. Perhaps out of emotion or a perceived need to overcompesate in defending women, he has embraced an all-or-nothing thinking regarding this issue. Hopefully, he doesn’t do that with other issues. That is why, for him, he cannot consider the human status of the unborn child.

    I don’t want to tell people to ignore others, to not consider their views. But there is a difference in not conversing with and ignoring people. If we want people to listen to us, we have to listen to them. That is called respect. We can disagree, but we should listen to or read those who have a different view of the abortion issue than we do.

  • Arthur,
    Since none of the President’s agenda is enacted during the first year of being office, what you have seen in 2017 comes from what Obama did–btw, I never voted for him. And let’s assume your stats are correct, when was black unemployment at its highest point under Obama?

  • How is it not all or nothing? Either you respect the personhood of women or you believe you have a right to impose your will on their personal decisions.

  • Spuddie,
    While agreeing with your view of Trump, I just want to note that there is no nation that follows socialism from the Marxist tradition. The most basic tenet of Marx’s Socialism is the proletariat dictatorship, and there are no nations that follow that.

    There are some European nations that are employing partial Marxist/Capitalist hybrid by employing codetermination. Outside of that, workers have not been given voice adequate in the affairs of any nation. Codetermination is a partial attempt to rectify that.

  • Until you can separate a fetus from its mother, it is a distinction without a difference. You do not protect the unborn, you attack the mother. Abortion is a decision which is only made by the woman and concerns her body. Unless its your body, your opinion or input is of no consequence. You have no rightful say in the matter.

  • The problem with the use of the word socialist and typical criticism is that it must also be coupled with acknowledging whether a country is a dictatorship or democracy.

    No economic policy works in a dictatorship, free market or socialist are always corrupt and wasteful. However socialism in a democracy has a decent track record. Far better than “pure free market” alternatives. One has only to look at our healthcare system and compare them to a place like Japan (which has a mixed system similar in concept to the ACA). We pay the most to get the least.

  • Spuddie,
    YOu only recognize one side as being human. And the criteria you use for defining one’s human status is selectively chosen rather than objectively chosen. All-or-nothing arguments reduce problems and the answers to questions to one factor. And if that factor’s criteria is not met by a position, then that position is regarded as being only evil, as having nothing to contribute. That is how you look at the abortion issue. And all you are doing when you demonize all pro-lifers is simply following the example of that subset of pro-lifers who look at pro-choice advocates the way you look at pro-life advocates.

    Because I recognize the unborn child as being human and thus having rights to consider, you claim that I am imposing my will on them. But if the unborn child is human, then the woman getting an elective abortion is imposing her will on the unborn child. So what we need to discuss in a side-by-side fashion are the rights of the woman and the human status of the unborn child along with it rights if is a human being.

  • Only one is a person. Only one has the right and power to make the decision. It isn’t you. It isn’t a fetus.

    Unless you can separate a fetus from its mother, nobody has to consider its existence except her. You and I have no say in the matter.

    You deny a woman as a person, human being. You seek the ultimate control over others, the power to control their bodies. That is not respect.

    “then the woman getting an elective abortion is imposing her will on the unborn child”

    As is her right since her body is the only thing keeping it alive. There are no rights for a fetus which are separate from its mother. Your claim is a fiction. It can’t exist. I don’t need to discuss it because it is a physical impossibility. An intellectual dishonesty played to pretend you are not attacking the mother’s personhood. Separate rights come from personhood, physical separation of birth.

    You want me to follow your script. Your script is ridiculous.

  • Spuddie,
    I’ve made a distinction in the kind of revolution we need between a structural revolution and a moral revolution. No kind of government structure can survive a nation where the society value things more than people.

    Some government structures provide fewer inhibitors to being thing oriented than others. Some government structures distribute political power and others consolidate it. Out current structure provides few if any inhibitors to being thing-oriented and because it allows for the consolidation of capital, it also allows for power to consolidate. That is because in Capitalism, power follows wealth.

    The above is how I say these things and I think that we have some partial agreement on this subject though we say things differently.

  • Spuddie,
    No, both are persons. Both interact with their environments. Both have their major structures. Again, the issue is what criteria are we going to use to determine the human status of an unborn child.

  • Nope. A person has to be born. People have autonomy and an independent existence from any other people. A fetus has neither. This makes a fetus different from a baby, a person on life support, a slave, or any other kinds of people you can think of.

    As I keep saying, unless you can physically separate a fetus from its mother, you can’t conceptually do it either in terms of rights. A fetus has none because it has no separate and autonomous distinction outside of its mother’s prior to birth. I don’t have to recognize it. I don’t have to pretend it can be protected in a way divorced from the mother’s existence.

    You are arguing a fiction.

    “Again, the issue is what criteria are we going to use to determine the human status of an unborn child.”

    You are trying to pretend you have authority here over the mother’s existence. The real issue is whether you have any say in that criteria at all. The only person capable of that determination is the mother and her alone. Not you, not me.

  • Spuddie,
    You are begging the question with your criteria if you are not willing to discuss what criteria we should use to determine the human status of an unborn child. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. And that means not that your point is false, but that you haven’t shown it to be true.

    There is no sense in our discussing this issue unless both of us are willing to examine what criteria we should use to determine the human status of an unborn child.

  • See, Spuddle is right: you don’t care about people. You only have a slogan and a non-thinking response. Your pro-life stance is a one-issue fraud. If it wasn’t you’d be looking at the whole picture, not one tiny part of it.

    You owe it to yourself to try to understand this.

  • The Pope understands that life is not about punishment; it’s about the balance on one’s actions. This is the real Christianity, not the fake human-designed Christianity of false Christians.

  • o Bottom Line #1:

    The failures of the widely used birth “control” methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the
    large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and STDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. References available upon request.

    Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or
    condoms properly and/or use other more effective methods in order to reduce the epidemics of
    abortion and STDs.

    Bottom line #2-

    Currently, a perfect pregnancy/ STD barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one! In the meantime, monomasturbation or mutual masturbation are highly recommended for heterosexuals who need a contraceptive. Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the sex drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said

  • If it is legalized it isn’t “murder”!

    I think it is the “pro-lifers” that hijacked the term. They did so purely to contrast themselves with Planned Parenthood, that promotes a positive conception of responsible behavior, and compassionate care. They needed a way to make themselves standout, and chose an emotional filled word that implies Planned Parenthood are pro-death. It was a con job from the start!

    There may be NOTHING in your version of Catholocism that calls for showing compassion to those that are in need BUT there is something in being HUMAN, that calls for it.

  • If you attack abortion rights, it’s a contradiction. Respect for a fetus and disdain for its mother. It is not pro life, it is anti-person.

    If you work to create conditions where the motivation for abortion is unnecessary, then you are actually pro life. You respect personhood and seek to improve the quality of it.

  • Some reality:

    The price of condom? About 50 cents (the only protection against STD transfer for the sexually active) and birth control pills? About $20 to $50 a month (67 cents to $1.67 per day without insurance or support from a government program or Planned Parenthood. And an IUD? 24 cents/day.

    If you cannot afford this small price to pay for pregnancy and STD protection, should you be having sex?

    Maybe insurance companies, i.e. again we the premium payers, should cover the cost of toothpaste, tooth brushes, bandages, sunscreens and over-the-counter pain relievers.

  • Not at all. The anti abortion rights position is an attack on an existing right. The right to control your own body is fundamental to all others. What separates one from chattel property. You have no legitimate interests or say in the matter. Her body is not subject to your opinion.

    As for the rest, we met halfway here. Good enough for me. 🙂

  • No pro abortion advocate ever considered the woman’s personhood as something to be respected. None of them ever refer to women except when forced to, and never in positive terms.

    It is all about pretending you have some say in the personal and intimate decisions of others. Arrogant assumptions of authority which don’t exist and are repugnant to contemplate.

    You are entitled to your opinion, you have no right to interfere with the decisions of others about their own bodies. Your concern about the unborn is duly noted, but ultimately nobody has to care. It’s none of your business and never will be.

  • I identify as pro-life but not anti-abortion. In my perfect world you have abortion on demand and zero demand. If that were the case this would be just a philosophical debate with no real consequences. It’s not a perfect world. I understand and agree with your arguments about the personhood of women. I’m not interested in making abortion illegal I don’t see that as a fix for anything.
    But birth being the legal “benchmark” for establishing the personhood of a human being is a hard pill for me swallow. Some, very few, but some consider two to three days after birth to be a better benchmark. I have this fear that two sides make personhood arguements so blindly that we forget we are even arguing with people.

  • Not at all. It’s still not in your body. You bear 0% of the physical burden of a pregnancy. Your will isn’t keeping it alive. She bears 100% of the burden with her body alone. She has 100% of the say in the matter.

    “Also, people who make up a society have a right to determine what culture they live in. ”

    Tempered by the recognition of fundamental rights of people. Might does not make right. There are limits to what your society can dictate to others.

    “And some of us don’t want to live in a culture that values personal autonomy over human life”

    If you do not value personal autonomy you don’t value human life. You are declaring human life is your property to command.

    “You can argue ’til the cows come home about “personhood.”

    If you can’t understand or recognize personhood, you have no genuine concern for life. You are merely preening in arrogant disdain for people and life.

    “The one thing that’s clear is that when the genetic code is complete, it’s a separate “human” and therefore ***not*** “her” body”

    Nonsense canned argument. Unless you can physically separate a fetus from its mother, it is an irrelevance. It is inside her body and can’t come out. So it is always her choice, until it can be separated.

    Your disdain for personhood is also a disdain for rights of others. It shows how little concern you have for life beyond what you agree with.

    I am at least honest enough to know my opinion is not relevant here, it’s always the mother’s. You are merely arrogantly placing yourself where you do not belong.

  • No, your view is utterly disdainful of personhood. Borne of an arrogant belief that you have a right to arbitrarily intervene into the personal and intimate decisions of others and what goes on in their bodies. It is not respect for life, it is desire to control life.

    “In fact, society has 100% every right to interfere with what you do with your body.”

    There is not one that does. Your examples are crap because they are all attacks on people. Attacks on people are closer to your view than mine. People use analogy here because they can’t honestly deal with facts as given. A fetus does nor exist like a person. Thus is why you guys use dishonest terms like baby or unborn person to describe a fetus. A purposeful ignoring of physical distinctions of born and unborn. Conceptual erasing the mother from discussion and consideration.

    “I think the people’s who’s wallets you want to get into in order to pay for those abortions might have a different outlook”

    You are ignorant as to how such services are funded. It’s a derpy response to the effect of “might makes right, so nyahhh”

  • It must be nice not to know anyone who can’t afford another $50 a month. The ability to have sex should not be dependent on one’s finances.

  • In answer to the title: The pro life movement DOES encompass more than a contrast to abortion. Life Outreach and Pregnancy Crisis Centers centers which are spreading like wildfire. In our small town, the Life Outreach has so much support that it is buying an ultrasound. That alone makes it more equiped than nearly all planned parenthoods. Even with government oppression against Christian adoption agencies and Womens centers, that do not conform to secular ideologies, the coercion by government has not prevented these from pringing up all over the place.
    I guess my thought is that the author (like most) dont really know all the elements of the pro-life movement and therefore dwell in the same ignorance most of our culture does. Perhaps the suppression by government and silence by media is working. Perhaps it is because we do not spend hundreds of millions on lobbying like PP has done over the years. I dont know, but pro-life supporters do an enormous amount of work to support women and children.

  • “Coulda sworn that somebody was footing the bill for her”

    If they were, she would not be considering an abortion. 🙂
    I don’t see where your life or health is at risk here. I get it, my argument does not follow your script.

    Fact of the matter is, unless you can take possession of a fetus from the mother. Every decision here lies with her. She bears all physical burdens and risks and no other person does

    “Individual rights are not always the highest good.”

    They are here. Empty self centered claims of moral superiority still do not mean you have a right or say in decisions such as this. Nothing good has ever done from abortion bans. Nothing good has ever come from attacking personal rights for arbitrary and irrational motives.

    You don’t recognize personhood so you can’t recognize the value of human life. Your concern here is a sham.

    “not being able to separate the two would still not make the baby “her” body.”

    Because it gestates in a mason jar? It’s inside her body and can’t come out. So nobody has to care how distinct you think it is. Her body keeps it alive, so its her choice. You don’t enter the picture at all. It’s just that simple.

    If you don’t like it blame the designer or figure out how to keep a fetus alive without a mother.

    “where someone else could have a legit concern”

    Concern is not a say in the matter. Someone else bears no physical burden or responsibility for a pregnancy like the mother. So nobody has even close to anything of a say.

  • Spuddie has stated several times that the fetus is a human fetus. The question here is personhood, not species identification. You talk a good game about listening to both sides and fostering conversation, yet this is the second time I’ve seen you ignore what people are very clearly saying.

  • Less than one year of Trump has led to your fellow Trump supporters killing their opponents in the street.

  • Either utahagen knows that Spuddie has said neither or he is deluded.

    IMO, whichever scenario is accurate his interventions are worthless.

  • I’ve been saying this for years. If you are against abortion yet support the US war machine and capital punishment you are NOT pro-life. You are simply against women’s right to control their own bodies. The anti-abortion crowd is also populated with people who want to reduce government control over our lives, yet want to regulate the most personal and intimate parts of our lives. In a nutshell they are hypocrites of the most extreme.

  • Spuddie you are right on target and Kevin Wayne is a hold over from when women & children were simply property in the eyes of (white) men.

  • Your posts only prove your ignorance and arrogance regarding the subject matter. You should return to 1600’s Salem Massachusetts to help run their theocracy. Bottom line you are a Dominionist who wants to control everyone else through an extremist and warped interpretation of the King James Bible. An interpretation which turns it into an idol placing it above God.

  • Condoms have a rather large failure rate as many young men are never taught how to choose the correct size, how to put them one, and not to use them more than once. Trtust me, I sent many young sailors to corpsmen for sex ed.
    You “price per day” logic is flawed as evangelical extremists are determined to reduce access to affordable reproductive healthcare. The US is now rising on the charts for pregnancy related deaths. Pence, Jindal, Perry, and all other religious radicals are crippling access to care for women on a grand scale.
    Women that can safely take the $20 pill are very lucky. Hopefully that can pay for the $50 to $100 office visit. Office visits for PCO and endometriosis are costly yet common.
    Birth control pills are considerably more expensive than you’re implying. They also treat a variety of reproductive disorders in women that require office visits and expensive procedures.

  • A litany of clichés.

    Contraception is evil. Therefore, not a legitimate option. And it doesn’t “reduce abortion.”

    Anyone who wants “paid family leave” should discuss it with his potential employers before accepting a job.

    Sex education increases fornication, and thus pregnancy and abortion.

    “Child care” causes brain damage, and a child who spends 20 hours a week in “child care” suffers as much brain damage as a child who is TOTALLY ABANDONED by his parents.

  • “In our small town, the Life Outreach has so much support that it is buying an ultrasound. That alone makes it more equiped than nearly all planned parenthoods.”

    That means your center was probably doing nothing more than handing out diapers, bottles, and probably baby bucks for listening to some church lady drone on about abstinence. The one in my small southern town now has a fancy new building but does little to no outreach for affordable housing and childcare. I’ve had too many dealings with them while trying to keep roofs over expectant mothers’ heads. I have more resources for spousal abuse than pregnancy.

  • Have you ever noticed the presence of foster and adopt families on the stages of these events? Just genuinely curious. The event last year was put on the spot for a lack of adoption information agencies. A lack of info on how to adopt special needs infants and children. A lack of how to improve child protection systems within their states.

  • You really went out of your way to dodge the point the author makes in the article, didn’t you?

    One of the biggest criticisms of the so-called ‘pro-life’ movement is its narrow focus on abortion, to the exclusion of supporting the lives of women & children after birth, not to mention immigration and poverty, war, etc.. In fact, there’s no shortage of ‘pro-life’ boosters who wail and gnash their teeth over abortion but glibly advocate for refusing entry to or sending refugee children back to the war zones and poverty they left behind. I know some of these types personally.

    As for government oppression, if you live in a Western nation, you are lying through your teeth. Stop it.

  • Arbustin,
    But Spuddie hasn’t even given a mixed message here. He has called the fetus a biological growth that is part of the woman. So what if he calls it human fetus, we are talking about a human being. Though he doesn’t use that lanugage, he has basically said that the fetus is not a human being worthy of rights until it is born.

    And yes, I do listen to both sides. But I won’t be engaged in conversation with someone who begs the question his claims while demonizing my side on a consistent basis.

    What is human life or a human being or a person? What are the criteria we use to determine what is human life? Why is being born one of the criteria Spuddies gives besides that he thing that the fetus is biological growth that is part of the woman? Why does the location of the child determine whether it is human? See if Spuddie would start explaining why he thinks the way he does, we could have conversation. But instead, he begs the question of his claims.

  • Again:

    o Bottom Line #1:

    The failures of the widely used birth “control” methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the
    large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and STDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. If that were not the case, there probably would not be a March for Life.

    Let us start with the male condom because it is inexpensive:

    Amazon’s Choice

    Trojan Condom ENZ Lubricated, 36 Count
    by Trojan

    $13.27 ($0.37/each)

    And the condom gives protection from both pregnancy and STD protection.

    How to use?




    and at least another five YouTube instructions along with some smart phone apps so there should be no problem using them properly. But are they being used?

    Using Guttmacher Institute data on birth control method failure rates, one is able to calculate the number of unplanned pregnancies resulting from the current use of male condoms (condom in the pocket or billfold but not used). It is a horrific number of 1.2 million/yr. Even perfect use of would result in 138,000 unplanned pregnancies (improper training i.e. did not watch any of the free instructions as noted above or they leaked) but still results in an 88% reduction in unplanned pregnancies and one assumes STDs. There are the 19 million cases of STDs as reported by the CDC basically due to not using a condom or a lack of education.

    And some added commentary from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

    “Bill Gates is putting out a call to inventors, but he’s not looking for software, or the latest high-tech gadget. This time he’s in search of a better condom.

    On its Grand Challenges website, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is offering a $100,000 startup grant to the person who designs “the next generation condom that significantly preserves or enhances pleasure” and promotes “regular use.”

    It may sound like the setup for a joke, but the goal is deadly serious. While researchers call condoms one of the best ways to stop the spread of HIV (added: or unplanned pregnancies or STDs), the virus that causes AIDS, getting people to use them is another story.”

  • The argument presented in this article is so perverse. It is like saying that we are wrong to outlaw grand theft auto unless we are willing to give a car, gratis, to everyone who wants one.

  • You want to promote easy access to free and low cost contraception? Paid family leave? Child care? Fine. But have enough self-respect to not lie about the motivations of those who are opposed to abortions. It has NOTHING to do with punishing women for having sex.

  • “Perhaps it is because we do not spend hundreds of millions on lobbying like PP has done over the years. ”
    That’s pretty silly, and pretty obtuse. The anti-aportion movment has been going strong for nearly 50 years, raking in the cash and the political power, but actually not really doing much at all about abortions. It’s almost as if they know what side their bread is buttered on, and really don’t want to butter themselves out of their bread, so to speak.
    Even a first year sociology student can see that like the anti-drug industry, and the anti-alcohol industry before it, they have a vested interest in keeping things illegal.

  • Sex education increases fornication, and thus pregnancy and abortion. Contraception is evil. Therefore, not a legitimate option. And it doesn’t “reduce abortion.”

    And there you have the stupidity, the evil, the bad intentions, and the desire to control of the so-called “pro-life” people, wrapped up in two lines of small type..

    Whatever misgivings I might have about abortion are more than spectacularly outweighed by the misgivings I have about the “pro-life” people.

  • Pro-life is an ideology and theology that needs to die. It becomes an obsession and the fanatics who march and try to block abortion clinics are some of the nastiest people ever: spitting on people, screaming hate at women. They are self-deluded into thinking they are doing god’s work. Jesus said nothing about abortion so they have no scriptural justification. If they were really pro-life they’d care about the people who are already here, like the millions of children about to lose their healthcare coverage. Or the people with cancer who will die because Trumpcare cruelly cuts them off.

  • R U Serious. Now you don’t want people to have sex, when there are ways to prevent pregnancies??? You re irrational.

  • IUD’s a far more effective for birth control than condoms. The anti-abortion freakouts insist that IUD’s are abortifacients. They have no proof but they claim it — year after year. Just like they say that having abortion “causes” breast cancer. Completely bogus.

  • The Paramount Right Amendment says that a fertilized egg MUST be allowed to grow to term and the woman who’s uterus this egg MAY implant (or may be flushed out of the uterus during the woman’s next period). The egg and then the zygote that implants, if it is lucky, has more rights than the woman, a Paramount Right. The woman is, according to the anti-abortionists, JUST the vessel for the fetish fetish.
    I’ve got news for them. The fetus is a parasite and the woman is like a landlord. If she doesn’t want this little visitor, she can evict said parasite if she chooses.

  • you are a loony. We have separation of church and state and the Catholic cannot write its hoary old doctrines into US law and policy.

  • bogus…
    and you show your hatred of women by calling RM a ‘cow’….wow. Watch out, your misogyny is showing.

  • Go Ahead!! The anti-abortionists have been ruthless in hating and being against simple birth control. You want your cake and eat it, too. You want to hate and deny women choices and give them NO alternatives.

  • well said…First they come for the women and then they came for the GLB. And then they went on a Crusade against the Transgender people. Then they came for the Jews, Muslims, and Hindu’s. Then these ne0o-purtian/Dominionists came for those in mainline churches.
    These neo-Puritans are as bad as the Boston Puritans, the theocracy where the officials of the city prosecuted people who did not attend church. Church and state were fused. They even killed a Quaker woman who dared to show up in the city.

  • Ban abortion and more and more women will die. Force or domination will not stop abortion. They will stop safe, legal abortions. Women will keep seeking them. The more women can’t get birth control, the more women will become desperate. Who knows best whether or not to get an abortion. Hint: it’s not lawyers, legislators, judges, politicians, priests or clergy. In truth it’s the pregnant woman who knows best what to do for her life, her relationships, her pre-existing children. The living, breathing woman is the ONLY one who has the right.
    “You have no power over my body”.

  • I guess words fail you and you have to resort to name calling. Spuddie is a clergy person as am I. I don’t know about Spuddie, but I am part of the state of Massachusetts’ Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. This group is made up of people from all different religions. Catholics can do on their merry way and seek to make women into breed mares but more and more Catholic women get abortions on a par with other women who get them. One third of American women have had an abortion. And nothing the fetus fetish crowd has done has stopped this.

  • hey, fella. The number of abortions keeps going down. What world do you live in?
    And condoms are the least effective ways of preventing conception. They are good for preventing STDs, but then you zealots don’t care about STDs.

  • it’s just another lousy CPC (“Crisis pregnancy center”) which has NO clinical staff on site and prevents women from leaving until they agree NOT to have an abortion. This is bait and switch in my state the Atty. General is investigating them for fraud. That’s what it is, Fraud.

  • You people on the right have a hard time with parallel statements. This is one of the more ludicrous I’ve seen.

  • Clergy person? Church of Baal? Which corrupt denomination “ordained” you? You undoubtedly are too far from believing what Martin Luther believed to qualify as a heretic. Agnostics disguised as Christians to spread lies.

  • “There is nothing ‘pro-life’ about defending life in the womb while walking away from our collective obligations to care for the child once that baby is born.”

    That’s like saying “There is nothing ‘abolitionist’ about calling for an end to slavery while not caring about what happens to the former slaves after they are freed.” Yes, taking care of the poor and destitute is important, but that doesn’t change the need for a movement focused on ending our ongoing holocaust. William Wilberforce wasn’t an immoral hypocrite because he focused so sharply on ending the slave trade.

  • I didn’t say I was Christian, though I’m close to the early church before the Paul ruined what were good, decent, ethical teachings and the Roman Church corrupted what Jesus taught.
    As for you, Ms. your judgmentalism and insults remind me that ‘by their fruits ye shall know them.” And your fruits are hate.

  • No, its a pretty bright line. Once a it can survive separate from its mothers biological systems, it it a person.

    It has autonomy. It has interests and rights which have nothing to do with the body of its mother.

  • The foundational argument of the article that “There is nothing ‘pro-life’ about defending life in the womb while walking away from our collective obligations to care for the child once that baby is born.” is a political one which begins with a false premise.

    In fact it IS the false premise.

    John Gehring aptly cites the late Joseph Cardinal Bernadin, the misinterpretation of whose “seamless garment” statement underpins most of his position.

    Bernardin himself spent years afterwards explaining that he did not mean what the author is saying.

  • It is striking how in every conversation the introduction of morality as a possible guide in making decisions on what one ought or ought not do results in your equation of it with “the desire to control”.

    Kleptomaniacs should take notes on your arguments.

  • A second gold star for more of the same.

    Unless a pregnant women has two heads, two hearts, four legs, and four arms the notion that what is involved is solely “decisions of others about their own bodies” is logical silliness.

  • At such point as a fetus murders someone, stands trial, is convicted, and then executed I will consider agreeing with you.

    At such point as an army of fetuses attacks the USA, I will consider agreeing with you.

    But you did handily demonstrate the logical error in the author’s argument.

    Of course one can take your basic argument the other direction: unless you can explain why a mass murderer has more intrinsic value to society than a fetus, you cannot support abortion and yet oppose war and capital punishment.

  • “Massachusetts’ Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights” has a ring of “Bavarian Religious Coalition for the Holocaust”.

    Abortion as a sacrament.

  • “If it is legalized it isn’t ‘murder’!”

    Some Germans tried that defense at Nuremberg.

    It failed.

  • Exactly.

    There is a hierarchy of moral rights and duties. They do not all exist at the same level – some are absolutes, others are contingent.

    That is precisely the author’s error and as a Catholic he has had it pointed out to him many many times by his own folks.

  • That is almost amusing coming from someone who belongs to the “Massachusetts’ Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights”, speaking of ideologies of course.

  • Nicely conflated.

    The pro-life movement is separable from the greedy politicians who use worthy causes to their own ends, or as in California use unworthy causes to their own ends.

    The solution is to bypass politics and use the amendment process to return jurisdiction on abortion to the states where we can settle these issues locally.

    California can remain in LaLa Land, and Iowa can return to sanity.

  • Gehring was formerly associate director for media relations at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

    He was a major advocate of the approach you decry, and is currently featured at publications such as National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, Huffington Post.

    That seems to explain his viewpoint, which could be fairly called the “Neville Chamberlain” approach.

  • It was not “put on the spot”.

    These are marches to bring attention to an issue, not informational gatherings.

    At the local level there is vast network of prenatal, natal, and postnatal facilities supporting a non-abortion approach.

    In addition many of the marchers are survivors of abortion attempts, adoptive parents, an adopted children.

  • Unless you can remove a fetus from its mothers biological systems you are not saying anything relevant.

    You guys act as if a mother is nothing more than a life support machine.

    Let me put it to you this way, since rational discussion is out of the question for your crowd. You are arguing against the most basic features and realities of being a sentient placental mammal. If we were sentient platypuses (platypii?) Then there would be no abortions. You, as a concerned outsider, wanting to protect the unborn could simply take the eggs out of a nest and take custody of it while gestating.

    But we aren’t. The unborn live inside living people with their own minds, rights and bodies. None of which is subject to your opinion or approval. Just like yours aren’t subject to mine.

  • If you really want to expand the pro-life movement, there are a few logical things you can do given the movement’s clear contempt for the concept of bodily autonomy.

    For one, you can make organ donation mandatory upon death. Plenty of people die waiting on organ transplant lists. This would solve that problem overnight, and you’d only be taking away the rights of a corpse, so it’s less invasive than pregnancy. So what if some religions think their god won’t accept them unless their body is buried intact?

    You can also advocate mandatory blood donations. People could get notices in the mail that they have to show up to a hospital and get blood taken or else they face jail time. That will prevent the deaths caused by inadequate blood supply. If done by trained medical professionals, there’s no risk of death, making it far safer and less invasive than pregnancy.

    Both save lives and disregard people’s right to say what happens to their own bodies. Isn’t that the pro-life raison d’etre?

  • That is actually a good comeback. BUT there is a BIG difference between what Nazi Germany was doing and The Right to Choose, which may include the right to have an abortion! If you can’t grasp the difference then I feel sorry for you.

  • exactly. the same people who are against abortion are against birth control, they interfere with ‘god’s plan’. They have to make pre marital sex more penalizing and risky to stop it.

    according to the bible ‘god’s plan’ for women is staying home and having babies, never turning away the husband for sex.

  • It is equally striking that what some people call morality is simply their desire to control the lives and decisions of other people and attribute it to the desires of of a mythical being in the sky, much to the harm of other people who don’t share their beliefs.

    fascists and authoritarians for centuries have taken note of your arguments, and done exactly that.

  • You are nothing but willfully ignorant thus committing sin by dismissing God’s command to learn about reality.

  • “I identify as pro-life but not anti-abortion. In my perfect world you have abortion on demand and zero demand.”

    I have never heard it put so succinctly or so aptly before. Even if a bit unrealistic, I think that captures so well how most people (assuming the majority of people are moderate on the topic) would like to think of it.

  • You dispute that? The woman’s body provides everything for the child until birth, which leads to consequences for her body which may be detrimental to her. When women has one child after another, women would lose calcium from their bones and the saying was “for every baby, a tooth” was lost. We were not meant to be brood mares.

    Worst yet is a woman with diabetes or with cancer who postpones treatment or with diabetes, risks losing the pregnancy or her own health thereafter. There is risk i pregnancy and an early abortion is safe (very low rates of adverse effects) and the woman recovers quickly.
    All told the religionists and dominionists, think women are a resource for males to exploit at a whim. And their blasted ignorance of women’s reproduction (‘there’s no need for abortion after a rape. “The body has ways to take care of that.” Well, no–and that kind of ignorant fool should not be making laws restricting women’s rights.

  • here is how the anti-abortion goons took over the GOP and Dominionists.
    It all started with racism.

    “The next year, in 1979, fundagelicals bombarded America with anti-abortion movies, leaflets, and more. Abortion was painted in gruesome, inhuman terms; women who chose abortion care were vilified; abortion providers were painted as murderers. Pro-choice sentiments were painted as “secular humanism” to make Christians even more horrified about it. Christians were taught to believe that voting against abortion rights was the only properly Christian way to vote, and that anyone who did not vote this way was not being a TRUE CHRISTIAN. (I even heard preachers tell Christians in the 1980s that anyone who even felt sympathy toward abortion rights was totally going to Hell.)”


  • I certainly agree that . . . if being “pro-life” only means opposing abortion, we need a better conversation about the myriad ways human life is threatened today.”

    I’m both pro-life and pro-choice. Being pro-life to me means that I’m both committed and a champion of obtaining all the things necessary to sustain a life, and not just keeping a fetus alive so that the developing child stands a big chance of suffering poverty from growing up with a single mother who lacks the means to adequately care for her child.

    Being pro-choice to me means getting the government and the religious ayutollahs out of our bedrooms. If there is NO choice in the matter of how to deal with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, there is no integrity to a choice forced upon a single mother who lacks the support necessary to raise her child and provide it the best chance possible for a successful life that’s free from the misery of life-stifling poverty.

    That’s my two cents worth.

  • Pro-life folks believe that abortion (like stealing cars) is inherently wrong and that there should be laws against it. No one expects society to provide a would-be car thief with a free car because he was so noble as to not actually steal a car. He doesn’t deserve to be compensated for simply doing as he ought. But the left thinks that because pro-life folks are opposed to abortion they should be willing to provide financial remuneration to women who allow their children to live — children which by any reasonable standard she and her partner should provide for. To assert that an argument is illogical does not make it so, by the way.

  • The Southern Baptist Cult is a bigger concern than the Roman Catholic Church. Overwhelming majority of American RC’s support birth control.

  • A human zygote is not a human person, but a fetus born naturally (roughly 39 weeks after conception) is a human person. So, when in the course of development in the womb does the fetus become a human person? I believe that the best answer to this question is “when the fetus has acquired the capacity for consciousness at approximately the end of the 24th week after conception.” This is the point at which the fetus should be assigned rights which must then be balanced with the rights of the host woman. Prior to that point the zygote, embryo, or fetus is not a person and should not be assigned any rights. The woman should be able to get an abortion for any reason whatsoever prior to the personhood of the fetus.

    And so I hold a “pro-person” rather than a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” position. Join me.

  • “About Cassidy McGillicuddy – Cassidy was raised Catholic, converted to Pentecostalism in her mid-teens, married a preacher, and deconverted after college. She blogs about religion, deconversion, video and tabletop p gaming, psychology, modern culture, and other such topics”

    Great source. Totally credible. Super credentials.

  • By definition a fetus is not a “parasite” unless the woman is carrying something placed there by another species feeding at her biological expense.

    In biology parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

    The fetus is a stage in the human life cycle, the stage of gestation.

    You provide a good set of arguments to avoid sex if you’re female, but nothing you wrote has a great deal to do with abortion, which is used primarily in lieu of abstinence and proper contraception.

    “Religionist” seems odd coming from a member of the “Massachusetts’ Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights”.

  • “Spuddie is a clergy person as am I. I don’t know about Spuddie, but I am part of the state of Massachusetts’ Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights.”

    Church of the Ongoing Anti-Catholicism? First Apostolic I Am Right Temple?

  • During gestation every mammalian mother is a life support machine.

    Your argument seems to be that if I choose to kill you using my own mind, rights, and body, you’re toast.

    Or does being in a society ever enter into it?

  • More striking is your desire to characterize pandering to base desires, harmful to society, as “liberty” and calling all who oppose that fascists.

    Opposition to the introduction of morality as a possible guide in making decisions in favor of something a bit baser has been one of your leitmotifs. Kleptomaniacs rejoice at “what is natural cannot be immoral”.

    Another leitmotif has been a preference for judicial edicts over democratic processes and a fascist authoritarian attitude towards democratic opposition.

  • Perhaps you can delineate what the BIG difference is between what Nazi Germany was doing and The Right to Choose, beyond your supporting one and not the other?

  • What you call pandering to base desires, I would call living my life authentically, as I am made, without harm to anyone. The harm that you people have inflicted on us for millennia has been incalculable. The harm we have inflicted on anyone is entirely in the fiction section.

    If the brown shirt fits, Mr. Uber Christian, wear it. You lost. Get over it.

  • Good to know you have no regard for a woman as a person with their own lives. They are nothing more than biological machines for your command.

    Saves us the trouble of pretending you have a moral basis to your views.

    “Your argument seems to be that if I choose to kill you using my own mind, rights, and body, you’re toast.”

    Am I a fetus growing in your body? Then how come I am able to type?

  • NO! YOU JOIN ME! ?

    I think we are probably already joined we’re just not recognized. I’m pro-contraception, I’m pro- safe sex, I’m anti-unhealthy sex, using a condom though, does not provide protection from emotionally unhealthy sex.
    Sex creates a person or an abortion. Emotionally healthy people make healthy personal decisions. Emotionally unhealthy people make poor personal decisions. The emotionally unhealthy make, among other things also, unhealthy decisions based on religion, either a belief in or non belief in. If you and I get a pro-person position perfect but some emotional health on both sides is not addressed you create two enemies for your self. I think we would need to do work ‘upstream’ from where you say join me. I’m a Christian believer, I would primarily fit the definitions that describe evangelical. Add emotionally unhappy to that label I become either a match or gasoline but it’s not both.

    That comment is about 90% thought and 10% statement. Does it make since, because yours does.

  • Its all about pretending a fetus is a person and a woman is not. About pretending that men named Doug or Bob have some say over women’s lives and decisions because they supposedly know better than all of them.

  • You are absolutely right. My experience, though is in the north where the Catholic hierarchy/Cardinal Timothy Dolan has suborned the GOP and important people like SCOTUS justice Neil Gorsuch. There are several Catholic Justices and the night before the SCOTUS starts its sessions in Oct. there’s a “Red Mass” that all of them attend and it’s an incursion of the Church into what should be separate.

    I think different parts of the country need to press local anti-abortionists and Catholic leaders.

  • Nazis opposed abortion for its citizens, just like you do.

    Like Nazis you don’t believe people have the right to control over their bodies. That people are your chattel property to command for the good of the state.

    You don’t support life in any way. You don’t have concern for life in any way. Its all about exerting control over others. So very Nazi.

  • There’s been increasing attacks on types of birth control which the Right calls “abortifacients”. They have zero proof but this propaganda circulates, particularly around the IUD which is highly effective in preventing pregnancy, esp. with young women for whom taking a pill most days can be problematic. Besides, BC should be easy to use.

  • So cars are attached physically to people?
    There is an inherent right to own a car integral to your personhood?

    I am sure the preacher you cribbed this argument thought it made sense. I am sure you nodded along with them as if it did.

    But it is stupid analogy. Analogy is a terrible argument to employ except in small doses because you spend more time justifying why its apt rather than getting to a specific point.

    Nice to know you can’t argue the issue on its own facts.

  • At such point as a fetus murders someone, stands trial, is convicted, and then executed I will consider agreeing with you.

    At such point as an army of fetuses attacks the USA, I will consider agreeing with you”
    so, in short, you seem to be arguing that a fetus is not actually a person.

  • Pregnancy Crisis Centers which are known for lying to women to cajole them out of abortion. They are under fire for being dishonest and misrepresenting themselves to the public. They aren’t even licensed as medical facilities.

    Christian adoption centers aren’t being oppressed. They just don’t deserve tax money to discriminate. Your God doesn’t ever need my money.

    The anti-abortion movement hasn’t an honest bone in its body. Its all about lying and self-important preening.

  • People vote for the most atrocious and unfit political candidates in the Republican party on the basis of being anti-abortion. (See Roy Moore, and Donald Trump).

    People are supporting Trump’s wildly unqualified judicial pics on the promise of attacking abortion rights.

    You guys are dupes being grifted.

  • My son tells me folks on the left are averse to actually engaging in reasoned debate; I guess he’s right.

    Here’s what you might say in response to me: “You’re right — there is no logical reason, per se, why you must support social welfare programs for children and their mothers just because you are opposed to abortion. But if your aim is to further the greater good, why WOULDN’T you support such social welfare programs?”

    That’s a fair question. Speaking as a Christian, the Bible is all about helping others. But there are two countervailing factors. First, there is the question of personal responsibility. God expects all of us — not just Christians — to be living responsible lives. People who behave foolishly, over time, usually suffer the consequences. See the book of Proverbs. Second, while we are to exercise compassion towards the poor, that doesn’t necessarily entail forcing others to pay through taxes. I don’t think it is unchristian to support a welfare state; perhaps some Christians think that is the best way to obey Christ. But being opposed to it is also a legitimate stance.

    The interesting thing about the left and the secularist agenda that they promote is that it is founded on nothing except majority rule and peer pressure. I can point to 2000 years of Christian tradition and the Bible itself in support of my views. But when you try to foist your moral dictates on me, the support for them is simply, “Because I said so!”

    You will counter, though: “How is the foundation of your belief system any different? You appeal to the Bible as the ‘Word of God’, but I completely reject that as a basis for moral principles.” Yeah, we’re in a pickle. And when we don’t have a common framework for what is right and wrong, we as a people are in sad shape.

  • I also note that your username refers to a plant that has traditionally been used to induce miscarriages. I guess you really are all about abortion.

  • For better or worse, it is my own argument. And it seems that you have no answer to it apart from assuming what it is you are trying to prove; namely, that there is an inherent right of a woman to do what she wants with her body. (Your line of reasoning is rather murky, but I think that’s what you are getting at.)

    My analogy is not a stupid analogy, and you can only belittle it by being disingenuous. Or perhaps you haven’t expended the mental energy required to understand it.

    Let me try to explain the analogy using small words, for your benefit.

    It’s very simple, really: Society should not feel compelled to compensate someone for refraining from evil. You mock the logic of my argument not because you disagree with the logic, but because you don’t like where the argument leads.

    Let’s come up with a form of the argument that we can both agree on. Suppose that there is a man who has it in his mind to have sex with a woman against her will. The wrong act in this case is forcible rape. But the man hesitates. He says to the woman, “I could rape you if I wanted to. But because I am so good as to NOT rape you, you should reward me with consensual sex.” We would agree, I think, that the man’s thinking is twisted and wrong. The woman has no obligation to give him consensual sex — or anything else — simply because he was “so good” as to not rape her.

    But, you say, this is not a good comparison — rape is an undisputed evil, but a woman having an abortion is not. Oh, but you can’t take that approach. The argument being made is that the pro-lifer is being inconsistent, a hypocrite. The structure of the argument is: “If abortion really is an evil…” That is, the argument essentially stipulates, if only momentarily, the truth of the claim that abortion is wrong.

    The honest response on your part would be: “Yes, there is no logical reason to think that a pro-lifer is being hypocritical in not being supportive of social welfare programs for children and their mothers, but I still think they’re wrong to be opposed to these programs”

  • The problem with calling it “pro-choice” is that it never had anything to do with concern for individual freedom. The left chooses heavy handed government control for ALL things even what happens in a woman’s womb. They want me to pay for the abortions of others and I get no choice about that. The left loves government control over my free speech, my private property, my rights to own a gun, my right to go where I want with who I want and to express my religious views as I want. When it comes to disregarding personhood, the personhood of the unborn is being denied and they have no voice to protest.

  • I guess you believe it should be like cannibalism, which is not illegal but is highly taboo. Regulation by conscience is always better than by the state. But where conscience fails to protect the lives of others, the state must act because it’s most important role is in the protection of life. In the context of 600,000+ abortions in 2017 alone, I’d say we are well past the point where individual conscience is working.

  • I have lots of regard for persons and their own lives.

    I don’t have a lot of regard for pseudo-scientific drivel.

    Or for slogans.

  • Kleptomaniacs should adopt “living my life authentically” as their motto.

    What you call “living my life authentically” damages society. A good example of where it leads is Berlin during the Weimar Republic, and it is no surprise that one of the architects of that disaster was Magnus Hirschfeld, who wrote the “Bible” from which you quote.

    The Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor a blueprint for a Libertarian utopia. It is a compact to form a commonwealth for the common good consistent with certain principles, almost all of which you oppose, using a democratic process, which you also oppose.

    That puts you in the brown shirt.

    Historically pendulums swing, and this one has begun swinging the other way.

  • I seem to be arguing that opposition to abortion, opposition to war, and opposition to capital punishment are completely separable since there is a difference in a quality of the subjects of each- a fetus cannot wage a war, nor commit a capital offense – it is not a moral actor.

    I do understand the word “moral” gives you hives.

    Stan was making the argument that a fetus is actually a person by equating abortion, war, and capital punishment.

    Apparently that went right past you.

  • Nazis drank water, excreted urine, and breathed air, just like you do.

    The argument is not over control over their own bodies – although it is worth pointing out that in most jurisdictions attempted suicide is illegal and once was in every jurisdiction.

    The argument is whether a fetus IS the woman’s body. Biologically it is not.

  • A fetus is certainly human.

    Perhaps in your mind a “person” is a “born human”, although at least a substantial portion of your side of the argument believes otherwise if the fetus arrives with certain defects, or within a certain period of time.

    I’d ask what you think a person is, but I’m afraid that would lead to an answer filled with additional logical inconsistencies and non-facts and I have only so much time.

  • This is why the last person I would ever ask for an opinion on morals and morality is someone who claims to be a bible believing Christian. My “morality” you simply mean authority— yours, over the lives of people who do not share your beliefs. By democracy, you mean “might makes right.”

  • Its telling that you don’t address anything relevant.

    A fetus is not a person. It does not have an individual existence or rights. A woman does. You pretend the rights of a fetus exist but deny the obvious ones that a woman has. Somehow a fetus is more worthy of consideration than its mother.

    Because lippy narcissistic people named Bob naturally assume they know better about what women need or the decisions they make than they do.

    A person is a human being who has independent autonomous existence. A fetus has no existence beyond what its mother wills it so until it can no longer be a fetus. So it can’t be considered a person until birth. When it is finally physically separated from its mother.

    There is no such thing as an unborn person, unborn baby, unborn child. It is a fetus. A life gestating but not a child/baby/person yet (or possibly ever).

  • LOL! All I have to do is see comments from regular right wing posters to see how correct I am. In fact
    Your denial is feeble.

  • Obviously not. Not after that last post, where your contempt was so very obvious.

    When have you stopped lying?

  • GJ1: Sex creates a person or an abortion.

    GW1: That is a false claim. Sex leads to either no pregnancy or a pregnancy which ends in miscarriage, birth, or abortion.

    GJ1: If you and I get a pro-person position perfect but some emotional health on both sides is not addressed you create two enemies for your self.

    GW1: This is very unclear. Please explain and defend this idea.

    GJ1: I’m a Christian believer, I would primarily fit the definitions that describe evangelical.

    GW1: Why don’t all Christians agree with the pro-person position, as I described it? Don’t you?

  • “They want me to pay for the abortions of others and I get no choice about that.”

    Doug, you ignorant turd. The Hyde Amendment has been in place for a few decades right now. Your tax money doesn’t go to abortions, period. Any claim to the contrary is just dishonest crap.

    “When it comes to disregarding personhood, the personhood of the unborn is being denied and they have no voice to protest.”

    WOW, that was supremely stupid on all levels. Who the heck taught you that bit?
    Until you can separate a fetus from its mother, it has no personhood. It can’t. You want everyone to keep their mitts of your body and stuff, but you can’t seem to do so with a womb. Hypocritical fool.

  • It is your own. It needs a boatload of work. Bad analogy is what people use because they can’t deal with an issue on its own rather unique facts.

    My reasoning here is pretty simple and rational. A fetus exists inside a woman’s body and can’t be separated until birth/personhood. A woman is already person with rights to control her body and what goes on inside. YOU are not part of the equation at all.

    The problem with your crowd is blatant dishonesty and overemotionalism. You want to equate a fetus with a baby, but the physical realities don’t allow for it. You want to pretend a woman’s existence is of no consequence to your opinion. You want to pretend she loses her personhood at pregnancy.

    “My analogy is not a stupid analogy, and you can only belittle it by being disingenuous.”

    You go an entire paragraph defending the analogy rather than discuss the subject. Waste of time.

    “Suppose that there is a man who has it in his mind to have sex with a woman against her will. ”

    More bad analogy. The existence of a fetus, as inside the body of a person is unlike the existence of any born person. Making more examples you are throwing up complete garbage.

  • Read the questions allow me answer a little later, have some commitments to attend to at present time. Thanks.

  • Yes, you believe that a woman is a person with rights to control her body, and that it’s no one else’s business. I understand what you’re saying. You seem not to understand what I’m saying or what I’m arguing — I’m pretty sure you don’t think it worth your while to divert your thinking to the side point I’m addressing. So be it.

  • “Yes, you believe that a woman is a person with rights to control her body, and that it’s no one else’s business”

    Then you support abortion rights, even if it is an anathema to you personally. You support cheap and available access to contraception. You support efforts to help poor parents support their families. If those aren’t in the cards then your statement has no meaning. 🙂

  • GJ1: I’m a Christian believer, I would primarily fit the definitions that describe evangelical.
    GW1: Why don’t all Christians agree with the pro-person position, as I described it? Don’t you?

    Don’t you question first. I don’t agree, I don’t disagree, that answer is above my pay grade. I believe that what has developed after one week is very different than what has developed after 39 weeks.
    Why don’t all Christians agree with the pro-person position.—The only people who are going to agree with the pro-person position are pro-person people. Christians will have different reasons for not agreeing, atheist will have different reasons for disagreeing.

    GJ1: If you and I get a pro-person position perfect but some emotional health on both sides is not addressed you create two enemies for your self.

    It is a very emotional debate. Answers just ratchet up emotions, people need to get better at understanding emotions, theirs and others, both sides.

    GJ1: Sex creates a person or an abortion.

    GW1: That is a false claim. Sex leads to either no pregnancy or a pregnancy which ends in miscarriage, birth, or abortion.

    Or a #hashtag…I guess we both got that one wrong.

  • GJ1: I’m a Christian believer, I would primarily fit the definitions that describe evangelical.

    GW1: Why don’t all Christians agree with the pro-person position, as I described it? Don’t you?

    GJ2: Don’t you question first. I don’t agree, I don’t disagree, that answer is above my pay grade.

    GW2: Pay grade is irrelevant to this discussion. You do know your own position. Does it agree with mine? If not, why not?

    GJ2: I believe that what has developed after one week is very different than what has developed after 39 weeks.

    GW2: Well, of course. Then surely you are not one of those Christians who think that a zygote is a person.

    GJ2: Why don’t all Christians agree with the pro-person position.-The only people who are going to agree with the pro-person position are pro-person people. Christians will have different reasons for not agreeing, atheist will have different reasons for disagreeing.

    GW2: You claim to be one Christian, so instead of thinking about most or all Christians, let’s just focus on your position. In you opinion, when in the course of development of the human organism in the womb does the fetus become a person? And why do you think so?

    GJ1: Sex creates a person or an abortion.

    GW1: That is a false claim. Sex leads to either no pregnancy or a pregnancy which ends in miscarriage, birth, or abortion.

    GJ2: I guess we both got that one wrong.

    GW2: No; only you got it wrong. You seem very confused. I am not sure that you are up to having this discussion about personhood and abortion. Are you under 18 years of age? Are you having medical problems? Is English your first language? Have you completed at least nine grade?

  • I have a relevant story – my friend, who is, incidentally, a neonatal nurse, donated a kidney to her husband and father of her 3 kids, something that surely prolonged his life by a little over a decade.

    Despite the risks and difficulties of the procedure she sincerely states that was a piece of cake in comparison with risks and pains of pregnancies, childbearing and raising a baby to adulthood.
    Wonder what one of the bible thumpers would say to mandatory kidney donations…

  • A stolen car can’t just appear in my garage, I must have made a decision to steal it if it did. A pregnancy that a woman wishes to terminate is never a result of getting pregnant with a purpose of getting an abortion.
    Better analogy would be “I am having a gun to my head held by a criminal demanding I steal a car”
    Circumstances force a woman to abort.

    But anyway, would you mind telling me your view on what abortion laws should be? When and for what reasons would you be comfortable with termination of pregnancy? I am conducting a small personal survey of anti- choice people so to speak

  • I totally agree with you that consciousness should determine when human rights begin. We don’t know for certain when that occurs. I believe that 24 weeks is a safe guess, but science may be able to determine this more exactly in the future. Each fetus does not develop at the same rate making this determination more difficult. The state of Delaware passed a law last year that allows the woman and her doctor to make that decision which I agree with.

  • You are correct. At the time of Roe vs Wade the Southern Baptist Coalition was pleased with the decision. In the late 70’s a coalition of wealthy and powerful industrialists and prominent evangelical Christians joined forces to popularize evangelicalism and uncontrolled capitalism, Feeling they needed an issue for this campaign they decided on anti-abortion on a conference call. A fundamentalist who mentored many of the prominent evangelical leaders , the late Francis Schaeffer, was mainly responsible for selling this to evangelical pastors. He created propaganda movies and books that were read or shown in churches across the country. This was very successful and has powered the Republican Party and our current administration.

  • You have a perfect right to be a Christian and proselytize for it. In spite of what Donald and his gang claim, this is not a Christian Nation under God. This country was formed as secular and the First Amendment protects your right to your belief. And also the rest of us to ours. Your interpretation of that 2000 year old book can not be the source for determining the justice of our laws.

  • How can a fetus choose when it has no consciousness? The woman gets to choose. Under Nazi Germany very few were allowed to make choices.

  • I’m sure they would bend over backwards to say they aren’t the same thing, that people should still have to give consent for an organ to be taken from them, etc. They’ll say that a woman having sex is the same as giving consent to doing something more risky and painful than donating an organ, and that if they don’t want that to happen, they shouldn’t have sex. Because that’s what then entire movement is ultimately about.

  • yes, one humanoid on another blog just said he was against ANY reason for termination of pregnancy, and for abortion being fully illegal. Even after I asked him “what about in case of a 13 year old pregnant victim of incest /rape? Or to save the life of a mother?”
    I am afraid I accidentally ventured into debates with really dark and evil minds, so I better stop . (And I thought discussions on fiscal policies were bad 🙂

  • It tells me that I didn’t address anything you wanted to talk about.

    It’s a bit difficult reading yours to tell whether we’re having conversation about the law as it exists, in which case a fetus is not a legal person, or the law as it ought to exist.

    In either case the fetus is human.

    So we can refer to fetal life, and note that the State’s interest, the State being society not the mother, may go so far as to proscribe abortion at some point in gestation. So apparently even as the law exist a mother does not have absolute rights.

    Children in the hospital in the 1950s on iron lungs suffering from polio did not have an “independent autonomous existence”. Your logic would have allowed us to turn off the iron lung.

    Obviously that line of thought, from a lippy narcissistic person who styles himself a diminutive potato, goes nowhere.

    Your demand that we call the fetus this or that is meaningless – labels are just labels.

  • On the other hand most of us would consider the last person we would ever ask for an opinion on the morality of stealing is a kleptomaniac.

    By “morality” I mean what Thomas Jefferson – hardly a “a bible believing Christian” – meant, a society in which the common good outweighs the individual good, based on right reason, which to a large extent is consistent with Christian morality not because it is based on it but because right reason leads rational people to the same conclusions.

    Yes, laws exercise authority over the lives of people who disagree with the laws.

    By democracy, I mean majority rule.

    Given the choice more people would choose to live in the moral order of Dubuque, Iowa, than the moral order of Berlin in 1925 or Rome in 100 CE.

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092726


    There is debate over whether even some newborn infants have “consciousness”.

    A minority of folks on your side of the debate argue that some of all infants, and all pre-term infants, should be treated as you would like to treat the fetus.

    I don’t think you want to go with “consciousness” as a dividing line anymore than you want to go with “legal” as the dividing line.

    Of course, if you don’t mind us dealing with you and your drain on resources in old age, senility, or prolonged unconsciousness, have at it. You can call it Operation T4.

  • You already made it clear you have no regard for the woman as a person, making your concern for fetal life suspect in its alleged moral underpinnings. The mother has absolute rights over her body that you can’t just ignore or handwave as if they do not exist. Simply declaring otherwise doesn’t change the basics of human existence as people.

    Your example of iron lungs is also ridiculous as they are not people. They are machines. Not analogous to gestation, except to people with zero regard for the born. To human life in existence. A child, even in an iron lung has separate and distinct rights and existence from any other human being in a way a fetus isn’t until birth.

  • Nonsense! Being pro-life is to support the right to life from conception to natural death, without minimizing the abortion question.

  • But not the lives of women to be people. Everything is about commanding others to abide by your opinion. It is not about rights of life, but privilege to impose on others.

  • Thanks for the canned response. Science is on the side of pro-life. No physician or scientists has any doubt when life begins. Time for you pro-abortionists to be honest and simply declare that you dont mind killing a growing life rather than YOUR deceptions of a ‘blob of tissue’ That worked 50 years ago. Science has proven you wrong. That is honesty! Try some!

  • no. I simply am very involved and others in our parish are very involved in pro-life movement which consists of a conception to natural death mindfulness. I simply don’t see this narrow focus. I think when people examine the resources in their community they see what is really going on. You watch fox news and cnn and you know what they tell you – which isnt the truth and arent the facts. So get engaged in the community, we could use your help even if you have no religious preference.

  • If you didn’t have canned responses, you would have none at all.

    I can’t help it if being denied government money to discriminate is not anyone’s good faith definition of oppression. Nor can I help it if Crisis Pregnancy Centers are generally more honestly called ministries than health care providers.

    Honesty is not part of the anti-abortion POV. But a need to control others is.

    I have no problem with the idea that women are people and fully capable of making decisions concerning their bodies. Nor do I have a problem with the idea that people like you or me have no say in such matters being that they aren’t our bodies.

    You are more than welcome to think of the unborn as something to be praised and worshiped. But unless you can physically separate one from its mother and protect it yourself, nobody ever has to care about your opinions on such matters. You have no say in such things, ever.

    “Science has proven you wrong.”

    So a fetus doesn’t grow inside a woman and depend on her bodily systems in a way no other person or machine possibly can during a pregnancy?

    News to us all.

  • I disagree. You are evading. You are not presenting good evidence, reasons, or arguments to explain, support, or defend you position. You are wasting our time. Are you going to say anything now relevant to the ongoing topic of abortion, personhood, and rights or are you just going to spin your wheels?

  • dates back to Saint Ronnie Reagan, our first Evangelist-in-Chief. Braindead for most of his presidency. Started a war with Grenada (full scale invasion of a tiny island) in his pajamas because he couldn’t get it up that night. Despicable moral eunuchs all of them.

  • No one seems to understand my analogy — or admit to understanding it, anyway — so I’ll let that dog lie.

    I think abortion should be illegal except for rape, incest, or an imminent threat to the life of the mother. But my advice to anyone who asked would be to bring the baby to term (except for the third reason above).

  • I understand it, and it’s an extremely poor analogy. It just doesn’t work on any level, sorry.
    I applaud you honesty in answering my questions.
    See, this is were the argument of anti choicers is very weak. You value the life of a mother and mental and emotional, I presume, health of a rape victim over the life of a baby. So you agree it is more valuable to preserve.

  • Do you understand my analogy? If you really do, you should be able to defend it the way I would, and then say how you would tweak it to represent what you believe to be the right way of looking at things.

  • Sorry about that Gary. I was just picking up where your last comment on the topic ended. Obviously your opinions have been no match for my ignorance thus far. I believe it is you sir who has spun his wheels, do try to catch-up.

  • The problem with it is as you said yourself ” Pro-life folks believe that abortion (like stealing cars) is inherently wrong and that there should be laws against it.” Pro choice folks don’t – there is no universal consensus regarding abortions. That kind of throws it off. Illegality of grand theft auto is not disputed, but abortion is, legally, a very grey area.

    (If both sides agreed that abortion was a wrong thing similar to theft, then you would be absolutely correct, its silly to demand a reward for just obeying the law. Drivers that break the speed limit get fined, drivers that obey the speed limit don’t get a reward from police)

    Otherwise the moral of it is good and I fully agree with it, responsible people should have children only when they can provide for them. I won’t buy a car if i cant pay for the maintenance, let alone have a child if I can’t provide for it.

  • That is not a fact Gary. But now that you have talked about healthy emotions I’ll answer some of your questions. I’m not going to agree with your pro-person position at this time and will instead be agreeing with angry feminist. As a man you have no say in this arguement. Until you can prove, as fact, the exact time of consciousness in the womb, the fact that you are male overrides your personhood opinions toward medical human beings within a womb.

  • GJ1: As a man you have no say in this arguement.

    GW1: Sure I do! I already had my say. What are you talking about?

    GJ1: Until you can prove, as fact, the exact time of consciousness in the womb, the fact that you are male overrides your personhood opinions toward medical human beings within a womb.

    GW1: You present two different ideas here which appear to have no connection. Based on current neuroscience research and theory, we can be almost certain that no fetus has acquired the capacity for consciousness before the end of the 24th week. “Proof” is not required, but sufficient evidence of rational inference is required, and that standard is met. Gender has nothing to do with whether your, my, or anyone else’s opinion on abortion is correct or incorrect. Your position is incorrect, I don’t know your gender, and your gender is irrelevant. “Medical human beings”? That’s an odd phrase. Have never heard it before. I think you better find a better position than “angry feminist.”

  • So the misunderstanding of my analogy is that the pro-choice people (before you) have thought that my analogy was supposed to prove to them that abortion is wrong. That wasn’t the point of it at all. What I was objecting to is the logic, “If you really believe that abortion is wrong, you should be willing to fund social programs for children.” What the pro-choice folks are saying is, “If we assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right that abortion is wrong, THEN you should be willing to fund social programs for mothers and children.” But my point is that if we assume for the sake of argument that abortion is wrong, we shouldn’t have to reward mothers for not doing the wrong thing.

    Perhaps you still don’t understand my reasoning, but you have definitely made a good faith effort, which I appreciate.

  • Gary I’m going to do you a solid here, dude to dude. If a feminist ever ask you why you think she’s angry, tell her it’s hormones. She won’t mind laughing at herself a little bit, she’ll enjoy laughing at yourself a lot, but she probably won’t hurt you. If you tell her a lack of intelligence is making her angry she may abort your babies with her foot. If the pro-personhood position is one hand on hip and the other hand finger pointing, you, might want to think about a new position.

  • If you’re saying that when the Supreme Court goes about ruling on points of the law they don’t consult Paul Dulaney to see what the Bible says on the matter, you are correct. But if you’re saying that when I go into the ballot box I need to put on my Johnny Secular hat and vote the way I think a secular person would, you are entirely wrong. Each of us is a multifaceted person and we bring our whole beings to bear on our participation in the public square.

  • You are presenting no good evidence, reasons, or arguments to defend your position. Heck, you aren’t even being clear in explaining your own position.

    Also, your advice sounds worthless to me.

  • Now I do, that was an excellent way to explain it, appreciate it, Paul.

    Still disagree with the premise, and agree with pro choice folks you quoted. De-legalizing something doesn’t make it automatically economically possible for people to obey that law. This is the weak point of the analogy- it’s not hard to refrain from stealing a car, it’s probably never a life saving measure for anyone to resort to.
    It can be impossible for a pregnant woman to afford a child.

    May I give an example with the same principle.
    Chicago, the city where I work, years ago tried to implement the law against garbage can fires that homeless were lighting to warm up. Even cops were usually humane enough not to enforce it in negative F Chicago wind chills. Homelessness is still a problem, but what helped? Allocating more of city budget to additional shelters.

    Are people responsible to provide for their kids? Sure. Yet there is an energy assistance fund low income families apply for in winters in most midwest cities. Even working people, for they simply can’t afford the bills.

    Same with abortions, most are done by women for economic reasons. Yes, you have to provide them with the means to do right if you want to forbid them the alternative (abortion), because how else can they be able to afford to do this right?

  • Trust me, my advice is sound…it’s worth it’s weight jewels.

    Gary my “position” is not a fixed position for someone else. If someone pregnant considering abortion asked for my advice, my advice would be what I would do. My advice would be based on my past, my present, my view of my future and informed by biology. I don’t have to live out my advice that is taken by other people.

  • GJ: Trust me, my advice is sound…it’s worth it’s weight jewels.

    GW: No, I don’t trust you. I believe your advice is unsound.

    GJ: Gary my “position” is not a fixed position for someone else. If someone pregnant considering abortion asked for my advice, my advice would be what I would do. My advice would be based on my past, my present, my view of my future and informed by biology. I don’t have to live out my advice that is taken by other people.

    GW: But your advice can still be mistaken, and I think it is.

  • GW: But your advice can still be mistaken, and I think it is.

    How you frame advice is very important. I’m going to give someone “pro-life” type advice. If I felt they were leaning that way already I would want them to think about the future they are committing to by going forward with the pregnancy. I would want to reassure them then because their will probably be a day when think what if. Leaning towards ending a pregnancy, I would give the same advice knowing that they probably are not going to take it. My goal would be for that person to consider what a different future might mean.
    My advice has personal bias, I would want that known.
    I’m curious as how you see mistaken, because I would want to prevent that.

  • If a woman is considering abortion and you are advising her to continue her pregnancy, e.g. pro-life advice, then you are giving her the wrong advice. For her to get the abortion is in the best interests of her and the human community. Any reason she gives for wanting the abortion in the first two trimesters is a good one.

  • GW-Any reason she gives for wanting the abortion in the first two trimesters is a good one.

    GJ-Any reason she gives for seeking advice while considering abortion in the first two trimesters would not be in her best interest or the best interest of the human community is what you are saying. That’s my first thought.

    My second thought-Every woman who considered abortion early and changed her mind has harmed herself and humanity.

    Can anyone see your data?

  • Of course you have the right to vote any way you want. You can also ignore all positions that disagree with your faith. This is what happens in countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The eventual result is a theocracy run by the dominate religion.

    A working democracy with diverse beliefs requires that citizens discuss issues using secular logic. To make laws that control the actions of those with differing conscience removes the inalienable right to freedom of conscience.

    This is becoming a real danger for our democracy. Evangelicals, who live in an alternate reality, intend to accomplish just this end.

  • GW1: Any reason she gives for wanting the abortion in the first two trimesters is a good one.

    GJ2: Any reason she gives for seeking advice while considering abortion in the first two trimesters would not be in her best interest or the best interest of the human community is what you are saying. That’s my first thought.

    GW2: She should seek advice. It is an important decision.

    GJ2: My second thought-Every woman who considered abortion early and changed her mind has harmed herself and humanity.

    GW2: I agree. Ring the bell!

    GJ2: Can anyone see your data?

    GW2: If I have it, anyone can see it. Can anyone see your data?

  • GW2: If I have it, anyone can see it. Can anyone see your data?

    Go find ten moms who considered an abortion and ask if their lives or humanity was harmed.

  • you should probably take a basic physiology course. I can try to explain these things, but if you understand so little that your response isnt even directed against what I said, then I have no idea what to say to you. Please educate yourself. I will wait.

  • Your yattering doesn’t change the basic fact that a fetus gestates inside a person’s body. All pretenses of fetal rights and interests apart from the mother fail because they ignore such things or worse pretend they are irrelevant, for ….reasons.

    Your posts fall under the basic script of wild declarations of personal moral superiority and an assumption of privilege over the lived of others. You don’t offer any new perspective that hasn’t been trodden tons of times.

  • whats wrong with PP? They do enormous amount of hard work, providing services to women, especially low income and without ( or with inadequate ) insurance.

  • “(T)he basic fact that a fetus gestates inside a person’s body” simply confirms we’re talking about a fetus.

    It adds nothing at all to discussing fetal rights and interests, or the state’s interests in fetal life.

    You don’t offer any new perspective that hasn’t been trodden tons of times.

  • You may have noted that I said a fetus is human, homo sapiens.

    Certainly a fertilized chicken egg is gallus gallus domesticus, not meleagris gallopavo, not anas platyrhynchos.

  • Seriously? Thanks, that’s interesting info…
    I am not American born ( lived here for a while though) and since I remember, SBC was a bunch of hypocritical intolerable haters of women and sell outs. I presumed that’s how they always were, considering their history of being proslavery, pro KKK , etc.
    So they actually have gotten worse?

  • They’re not only worse, they are now the largest protestant denomination and are the enabling power for this administration. I mistakenly called them the SB Coalition which should have been Convention. Christian Nationals which includes the SBC and other evangelicals live in an alternative world that is only 6000 years old. Their project is to rule this country for Jesus. They have no concern for global warming, resource depletion, the suffering in foreign nations, with the exception of Israel, They are convinced the end times are coming and all that matters is accepting Jesus and receiving grace. They alone will be saved.

  • Well, I guess I had better hope that when theocracy comes to the United States, it’s my flavor of theocracy that is at the reins!

  • Fetal rights is like unicorn rights and interests. We can discuss them until we are blue in the face. It still doesn’t mean they exist or can exist. Mother’s rights and interests exist, but you pretend they don’t. Reality just simply does not conform to your narrative.

    The state has no interest in fetal life because exercising such interests involve attacking the mother’s personhood. Her interests are greater than the state here. Its already established there are a few court cases which already do so. You are simply trying to argue by stipulation and exclamation and not bothering to support your statements.

    “You don’t offer any new perspective that hasn’t been trodden tons of times.”

    Obviously it is new to you because you can’t even seem to address them properly. You are relying on canned points which make little sense in comparison.

  • A chicken egg is the egg of the same species as a chicken. That does not make it a chicken until it hatches. A fetus is from the species Homo sapien but is not yet a human person.

    The definition of personhood is controversial. The earliest it could be meaningful is after the fetus becomes conscious. This is most likely, as Spuddie says, after birth.

    The children on the iron lungs would have been conscious and therefore persons. A person does not loose personhood if for some reason it becomes unconscious. A human who has been conscious remains a person.

  • So, your argument is that fetal rights are like unicorn rights and interests, or an actual cogent argument connecting a series of acts in a logical progression to establish a proposition by Spuddie – nonexistent.

    Society (the state) actually has an interest in fetal life. Here’s the part of the opinion in Roe v Wade you apparently skipped:

    “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

    That has to hurt.

  • Fetal rights can’t actually exist. Because no person’s rights and personhood is contingent on another’s. You can’t grant them to a fetus without attacking it’s mother’s. You can’t take them away from the mother without doing it for any person.

    Most importantly you can’t do anything here because you have no privilege or authority to be granting or taking away personhood rights of anyone. You have no rightful say in the matter.

    Your quote actually supports my view. “Viability” means can live outside the womb, be born. An abortion at that point is referred to by the medical profession as “birth”. It is precisely what I am talking about. It can be separated from the mother. You really stepped in it. I can’t believe you don’t know what viability meant there. Thank you for demonstrating your average fetus worshiper rails against Roe v. Wade but has usually never read it or understood the arguments in it.

    BTW late term abortions are invariably done by mothers intending to keep their pregnancies but can’t for medical reasons. The state has no interest in protecting a fetus at the cost of its mothers life.

  • It is hard to believe that you are actually going to attempt to advance an argument based on “chickenhood”.

    Did the Chicken Supreme Court rule on “chickenhood” in the case “Chicken vs Egg”, ruling that in fact the egg preceded the chicken?

    Chickens have a life cycle from conception to KFC, or some other conclusion.

    A chicken at any point in that cycle is still a chicken. In fact when it’s fried extra crispy it’s still chicken, as the menu in any KFC demonstrates.

    The reason why the “definition of personhood is controversial”, just as apparently in your mind the “definition of chickenhood is controversial”, is that Justice Blackmun in his “smartest man in the room” shtick wrote a decision which made distinctions without coherence so that he could back into the decision he already in mind.

    Among his inventions were trimesters, viability, and so on, all from thin air.

    At best we can argue that a legal definition of personhood, not based on any particular rational distinctions but an arbitrary one we’ve adopted for legal purposes, involves being born.

    Since the definition is inherently arbitrary, we could adopt a different definition. We could pass a constitutional amendment and declare every fetus a person.

    So, the dependence of the children in the iron lungs is irrelevant, as is consciousness, and so on. As was pointed out to Susan Humphreys there is a scientific opinion that children born prematurely are not conscious, and that some children may not achieve consciousness in the first year.

    So, all of these characteristics are irrelevant because they are arbitrary.

    It is being human that is the constant.

  • Actually we don’t need a legal definition. This question is not up to us or the government. It is the responsibility of individual women. It is they, if they desire, that can consult with medical, scientific, or religious opinions.

  • It is only up to individual women to the extent the law permits, no more, no less.

    The current extent is not the result of a democratic process but of five persons based on their personal feelings and opinions.

  • “Personhood” is an arbitrary legal construct.

    What it means depends 100% on how you define it.

    That eliminates every reference to “personhood” from your argument.

    Since people unable to care for themselves’ existence is completely dependent on another who owes them care, to which they have a right, there are numerous situations where one person’s rights are contingent on another’s.

    So, you really stepped in it. Your argument basically boils down to you know what you like and what you don’t.

  • Hardly arbitrary. Fairly well defined. Easy to understand. You just don’t like the term because it doesn’t go by your script. Autonomous independent existence defines personhood.

    Concern for a fetus but contempt for its mother is entirely arbitrary.

    “That eliminates every reference to “personhood” from your argument.”

    Aww poor little baby, can’t understand or come up with a rational argument in response. So he just pretends it doesn’t exist. That is too funny.

    Of course if you can’t be bothered understanding or appreciating personhood, you can’t be bothered to understand the nature of rights.

    “there are numerous situations where one person’s rights are contingent on another’s.”

    Of course you couldn’t even name an example of those “situations”. How pathetic.

    There are no situations where one person’s existence is contingent on another’s. Where a person is physically attached to another person and dependent on their bodily systems.

    “So, you really stepped in it.”

    You are just sore that you didn’t understand the Roe v. Wade quote you used. That it actually
    described my position, not yours. Seriously you shot yourself in the foot with the last post.

    You are struggling here. So your effort was to just pretend my argument didn’t exist at all. How infantile.

  • Good.

    Give us the official, concrete, legally enforceable Solanum tuberosulum definition of “personhood”.

    If you don’t have one, read Blackmun’s tapdance around the issue before throwing in the towel.

    I am not struggling, I’m pointing you don’t have an argument, you have a self-serving definition.

    You were provided with the unconscious, the old and enfeebled, the infant, and then have the chutzpah to write “Of course you couldn’t even name an example of those ‘situations”.

    Pathetic. Juvenile.

  • I already gave it to you in the last post. I gave it to you several times previously. You are acting like a big whinybaby. You have no argument to speak of so you want to pretend it just never happened.

    Your examples are not people who are physically attached to the bodily systems of other people. No other human being’s rights or personhood is attacked when asserting rights for the unconscious, old, enfeebled, or infants. One can have a guardian ad litem for all of them or assert rights for them independent of any other person. In fact ANY human being can care for such PEOPLE at no risk to their own existence as people. As I already pointed out. They are in no way an analogue to gestation. Your script needs work.

    You really don’t understand the arguments being posed here.

    My definition has not been changing or self-serving. Its even simpler than Blackmun’s. It took Sandra Day O’Connor to cut through some of the nonsense of Roe v. Wade to make abortion rights much clearer to understand in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

    A human being with independent autonomous existence.

    If you have to argue that personhood doesn’t exist, then you are arguing no human rights exist. The government can appropriate the bodies of its citizens at will. You seek to appropriate the bodies of women as if they were your personal chattel property. That is in no way moral, rational or logical.

  • You gave me a joke which I immediately pointed out covered, among others, infants.

    You really don’t understand the arguments being posed here.

    You’re posting platitudes and slogans, not fully considered arguments.

  • Your posts are a joke. Your examples are the definition of crap because they are in no way analogous to gestation.

    Its telling you have to constantly ignore the major difference of PHYSICAL ATTACHMENT TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING in persisting in your silly argument. Facts are just clearly not your strong point.

    “You really don’t understand the arguments being posed here.”

    Really? Yours all comes down to three sentences:

    1. I, Jose, declare a fetus to be the focus of attention, more than any born being.
    2. I, Jose, declare a pregnant woman is nothing of value.
    3. I, Jose, declare she must do as I command

    Everything else is just elaboration of those very immoral points of contention.

    Mine is really simple, moral and respects the rights of people:

    A pregnancy happens inside a woman’s body, so she is the only one with a say in the matter.

  • I am not discussing what is legal but what ought to be. The laws in a just society must be just.
    I am saying that a pregnant women has a right to privacy and choice. No law is necessary for this. To be just our society should provide medical care for all. This should include reproductive care for all regardless of their economic status. This is necessary for all to have “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

  • Abortion is not reproductive care, nor is contraception.

    They would anti-reproductive care and anti-contraception respectively.

    No non-pagan society has taken the position that a pregnant women has a right to privacy and choice to mean that abortion at will should be legal until the late 20th century in Europe and North America.

    I do not believe you can make your case that is what the law ought to be, but I believe it is your opinion, chickenhood, personhood, and so on.

  • You are right using the phrase reproductive care was not appropriate. I should have said health care for all including prevention or termination of un-wanted pregnancy.

    I don’t know what you mean by the derogatory word pagan. Its most common meaning is non-believers in the Abrahamic religions. In that case, since this is a secular nation, you might say we are pagan and would qualify for free womens rights.

  • Your posts are not a joke, they are sad and they insult the other readers.

    Yes, we know what physical attachment to another human being means. What seems to be lacking is that, other than conveniently fitting your views on abortion, it doesn’t seem to have any intrinsic value in weighing anything of moral significance.

    All you’ve stated is that a fetus is inside its mother. Really? Stop the presses!

    You keep attempting to find something to distinguish a fetus from another human that’s coherently tied to a moral difference beyond the obvious: small, unborn, and in your opinion worthless.

    Mine is really simple, act moral and respects human rights.

    Yes, a pregnancy happens inside a woman’s body, but no, that in of itself does not mean she is the only one with a say in the matter.

  • You clearly don’t know what that attachment means or more dishonestly pretend like it doesn’t matter.

    That is the case with all your arguments. Ignore relevant facts and proceed according to your script.

    Your entire last post amounted to the written equivalent of putting fingers in your ears and going “lalalala”.

    Grow up. You do not get to ignore or handwave facts which you don’t like to hear.

    “Yes, a pregnancy happens inside a woman’s body, but no, that in of itself does not mean she is the only one with a say in the matter.”

    Because you don’t consider her a person. Only your property to command.

    There is nothing moral in your view because you presume a power to dominate others and make decisions for them which does not exist. It presumes contempt for the lives of people whose decisions you presume to make for them.

  • Grow up, take your hands off your hips, and make an argument.

    All attachment represents is your effort to say “fetus” in a way to make it look like an actual distinction beyond that.

    This blah blah blah about “nothing moral in your view”, “presume a power to dominate others”, “presumes contempt”, and other nonsense are invective, not an argument.

  • Abortion at will and “health care” are not synonyms.

    Pagan – noun

    1 A person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

    1.1 derogatory, dated – A non-Christian.

    1.2 A member of a modern religious movement which seeks to incorporate beliefs or practices from outside the main world religions, especially nature worship.

    Fun fact: It is also a town in Burma, situated on the River Irrawaddy south-east of Mandalay.

    This is not a secular nation. France is a secular nation. Mexico is a secular nation.

  • “Given the choice more people would choose to live in the moral order of Dubuque, Iowa, than the moral order of Berlin in 1925 or Rome in 100 CE”

    Yet you guys openly support a leader who is by all accounts a moral sewer. A modern day Caligula. An adulterer, sexual predator, cheat, bigot, and compulsive liar. Making any Conservative Christians who claim that the morals of society are important to them is a lying sack of crap.

  • You certainly made the case for NOT relying on Wikipedia.

    I assume the article you relied on is:


    It begins with Dr. John T. S. Madeley’s rather eccentric definition of “secular state”:

    “A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.”

    A more accurate definition can be found at the Wikipedia article:


    components of which include the absence of religious involvement in government affairs, the prohibition of religious influence in the determination of state policies, the absence of government involvement in religious affairs, the prohibition of government influence in the determination of religion.

    It includes, as in Mexico and France, prohibitions against religious displays, the wearing of religious garb outside of church, synagogue, or mosques, and restrictions on religious publications and media.

    In other words, it’s what you and Spuddie think the USA should adopt.

    The founders of the United States considered religion a public good, and so there is no prohibition of religious influence in the determination of state policies, and the only prohibition is that the government may not establish a church.

    The only situation where an abortion is arguably “health care” is in the case of saving a pregnant woman’s life.

  • “Given the choice more states went to ‘a leader who is by all accounts a moral sewer. A modern day Caligula. An adulterer, sexual predator, cheat, bigot, and compulsive liar’” then to Hillary Clinton, an untalented, dishonest, serial liar whose inability to work with others and tell the truth – in common with her husband – turned off a good portion of the electorate except in the fringes on both coasts.

    Better luck next time. Personally I’d find someone other than Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to be spokespersons and alter the Democratic Party’s platform on abortion.

  • Well, the choice was between “a leader who is by all accounts a moral sewer. A modern day Caligula. An adulterer, sexual predator, cheat, bigot, and compulsive liar” and a woman that made him look good.

  • Whatever you tell yourself to feel better about your horrifically bad judgment. Rationalization is pretty heavy with your crowd. .

  • Whatever makes you feel better about your obvious lack of morals, values or self respect. Keep finding ways to rationalize such horrifically bad judgment

    I doubt Clinton would have been as wildly incompetent as Cheeto. It’s telling that he has essentially been “kiddie tabled” by our allies and a laughingstock to China and Russia.

    It’s funny the crap you will support if a politician makes empty promises to you guys about abortion. Not only are you easy marks for grifters, you are immoral scum who put such importance on attacking the personhood of women.

  • Re: “The only situation where an abortion is arguably “health care” is in the case of saving a pregnant woman’s life.”: Hundreds of thousands of medical personnel disagree with you, dear.

    American Medical Association: “[We] oppose legislative interference with the practice of medicine and a woman’s relationship with her doctor… Access to safe and legal abortion is an important aspect of women’s health care. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States.”
    “”The American Medical Women’s Association [AMWA] will oppose efforts to overturn or weaken Roe v. Wade, either directly or indirectly, as in the case of legislation which burdens access to the abortion procedure. AMWA considers all such laws and court rulings to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and thus to violate medical autonomy and pose threats to the individual as well as the public health.”
    “Safe, legal abortion is a necessary component of women’s health care. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the availability of high-quality reproductive health services for all women and is committed to improving access to abortion….Induced abortion is an essential component of women’s health care. Like all medical matters, decisions regarding abortion should be made by patients in consultation with their health care providers and without undue interference by outside parties. Like all patients, women obtaining abortion are entitled to privacy, dignity, respect, and support.”
    Association of Reproductive Health Care Professionals: “Abortion care is a critical component of comprehensive reproductive health care, and ARHP supports a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. The decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy belongs to the pregnant woman. ARHP opposes any judicial, legislative, or administrative attempt at the local, state, or federal levels to ban any abortion procedure or medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy.”
    Academy of Family Physicians:
    “RESOLVED, That the American Academy of Family Physicians support chapter efforts that oppose legislation that imposes on abortion providers unnecessary requirements that infringe on the practice of evidence-based medicine, and be it further

    RESOLVED, That the American Academy of Family Physicians oppose national legislation that imposes unnecessary requirements on abortion providers, reducing doctors’ ability to provide evidence-based and patient-centered care…”
    “…[World Health Organization] WHO, with support from an international consensus and prompted by human rights obligations, has responded to a major neglected public health need of women…until abortion is decriminalized, the tragedy of unsafe abortion will continue to haunt us and to threaten the life, health and rights of women. Furthermore, research aimed at developing simpler, improved methods for performing induced abortion has the potential to save the lives of millions of women globally.”
    The WMA (World Medical Association) recognizes the benefits for women who are able to control their fertility…The ability to do so by choice and not chance is a principal component of women’s physical and mental health and social well being.”

  • Spuddie is quite right. A WOMAN is the only one with a say about HER pregnancy. It is the WOMAN’s body that takes on the medical risks associated with pregnancy. A WOMAN owns her body–something catholics seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around–especially males.

  • Whatever you tell yourself to feel better about your horrifically bad judgment. Rationalization is pretty heavy with your crowd.

  • That’s your script. The “why” of your script is a bit thinner on the ground.

    According to Roe v Wade the state has an interest in her pregnancy. I take it you missed that part.

    Oh, and you’re an anti-Catholic? That really puts the icing on the whole package, eh?

  • Thank for sharing (cranking out) your amalgamated compendium of people who agree with you from your archived propaganda files.

    Using abortion as birth control is not healthcare unless using Zyklon B was healthcare.

  • Whatever makes you feel better about your obvious defective morals, values and lack of respect for human life. Keep finding ways to rationalize such horrifically bad judgment

    Our allies and China and Russia don’t get votes in our elections, nor do their militaries taken together match our own.

    It’s funny the crap you will support if a politician promises unlimited abortions, supports commandeering private property to accomplish it, and want to continue Obama’s attacks on religious freedom. Not only are you easy marks for grifters, you are immoral scum who put such importance on getting what you want, when you want, how you want.

  • Sweetie, like many a scientist, I am against any religious nutter, who irrationally demands that the rest of the nation should kowtow to their personal dogma.

    “I’m only against religion when it starts to interfere with other things, like telling people they can’t use contraception, or banning abortion, or stopping euthanasia. These bloody religious nuts in Parliament! Nobody else, other than the Catholic Church, ever went around saying a fertilized egg was a human being, and now people are starting to believe it. Authority plays a big role in our beliefs.”–Dr. Lewis Wolpert, evolutionary biologist, author of “The Triumph of the Embryo”

    Honey, despite bible-humping states attempts to block access to abortion, such as Texas HB2, under the “guise” of “women’s health”, such restrictions are being struck down because they place an undue burden on women to obtain abortions–states can only go so far to prevent women from abortion.

  • Rre: “Thank for sharing”: That was a small list, honey. I repeat: All our major mainstream medical associations regard abortion as reproductive health care. Who do you think writes the amicus briefs in court cases such as the recent defeat of Texas HB2 at the supreme court level? Or the defeat of forced ultrasounds in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Kentucky? Health organizations, sweetie, such as the aforementioned, as well as the American Osteopathic Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Physicians Alliance, American Academy of Nursing, Center for American Progress D/B/A Doctors for America, American Nurses Association, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, Public Health Deans, Department Chairs, Faculty, the American Public Health Association, Society of Hospital Medicine and Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists, Medical Staff Professionals, Social Science Researchers, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and on and on and on….institutions that are not religious based, but science based.

    Feel free to gestate every single pregnancy that takes place in your body. When you get pregnant, then you get to make decisions about your pregnancy. Oh, you don’t have a uterus? Then the decision whether to gestate or not is up to the person who is actually pregnant. See how that works?

  • Lame. You can’t do anything other than mirror my posts.

    You don’t value human life at all. You consider people to be your property to command. You have no respect for others. You made it clear your only argument in this regard is “might makes right” and “because I declare it”. You have no morals only ego.

    I respect life, you can’t even bring yourself to recognizing personhood.

    The only attacks on religious freedom going around are the ones done by hysterical malicious Bible thumping dbags. You have no religious freedom to attack the rights of others in the name of your faith. Acts of conscience are personal sacrifices. Not forcing others to do as you wish. Your last line was classic projection

  • Yes I get it. You had no morals or values from the outset. So supporting an incompetent bigoted malicious man child for public office is no big deal for you. Whatever.

  • Honey, sweetie, dear, pookie, punkin, doofa – so, if all the of the “major mainstream medical associations” regard euthanasia as healthcare, it’s healthcare? And if they all jump off a bridge, so will you? You don’t have to answer that, it’s obvious.

    Explain, if you will, what the American Osteopathic Association’s relevance is to abortion. How about the American Academy of Pediatrics? Lots of children getting abortions?

    And who the h-ll is the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health?

    So, morality up for a vote?

    Among the physician groups opposed to abortion:

    American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists
    American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds)
    Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
    Physicians for Life

    And so on.

    If you continue to regurgitate your lists of pro-abortion groups, a number of which are mere fronts, I can match you group for group ad infinitum.

    What would actually advance a discussion is some “why” to go with these opinions.

    You also might want to talk to some of the members of these groups, who are really getting tired of their organizations trying to speak for them. And they are working through state laws and courts to resist being compelled to perform “healthcare” which violates their consciences.

  • Sweetie pie, honey poo, dearie me, and pookie punkin, there are a lot of scientists who take issue with your views on abortion, religion, and whole lot else.

    Yes, Lewis Wolpert – who suffers from among other things major depression – is a curmudgeon with a loud mouth and a bad attitude.

    Unfortunately for him – and for you – a doctorate in biology does not make one a philosopher, a legislator, a pundit on morality, or coherent.

  • Yes, I get it. You had no facts or thoughts other than your bald-faced contempt for those who disagree with you. So the fact that there were only two choices, bad and worse, doesn’t hamper your advocacy for worse. Whatever.

  • LOL! No original thoughts. You must repeat my posting style and add your own cretinous nonsense to it. Troll better Sparky.

  • LOL!

    No original thoughts, just the same errors, Planned Parenthood, and ACLU propaganda rehashed for the nth time.

    Troll better, Solanum tuberosulum.

  • Sweetie, there are far, far many more scientists who are pro-choice. In my immediate sphere, the geoscientists I work with are pro-choice. I’ve already pointed out that there isn’t a single scientific organization such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, or National Academy of Sciences calling for an end to abortion. Nope. Because these organizations support science-based medicine.

    Re: “philosopher…morality…coherent”: Honey, morals are subjective. You might be one of those bible-humping Xtians, who “believes” homosexuality is a “sin”, living together before marriage is a “sin”, or pre-marital sex is a “sin”. Yet these are all accepted in modern civilized society. No one in enlightened Western Civilization is being stoned to death for leading a normal life.

    Incoherency, my dear, is left to the religious. Goodess, do you know that there are people who actually “believe” that a woman was made from the rib of a man?! What a bunch of loons!

    Let’s hear from more scientists!

    “The idea that “life begins at conception” is not a scientific one. Since the disproof of ‘spontaneous generation’ (1668-1859), we have known that life only derives from life. Life arose billions of years ago and has continued since as a cycle. Assigning a beginning to a cycle (like the year) is arbitrary.”–Dr. Robert Wyman, neurobiologist

    “The claim that the embryo is the moral equivalent of a human person is implicitly rejected by everyone. One important fact about embryonic development that is often overlooked is that between two-thirds and four-fifths of all embryos that are generated through standard sexual reproduction are spontaneously aborted. If embryos have the same status as human persons, this is a horrible tragedy and public health crisis that requires immediate and sustained attention.”–Ronald A. Lindsay, Center for Inquiry

    “If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined,” declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.

    “Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg. ” – Carl Sagan, astrophysicist, astrobiologist

    “No family planning advocate in the world is trying to force you to take birth control or have an abortion if you do not want those things. Why? Because it is your body and you get to choose. Not me, not a group of legislators who have no medical training, not the president. Just you.”–Dr. Anne Toledo

  • Sweetie, you cite groups in the radical rightwing fringe.

    Re: “I can match you group for group ad infinitum”: No, dear, you can’t. Look at the numbers, honey. The American Medical Association has around 240,000 members.Your rightwing Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has a membership of about 5,000. The AAPS, mainly known for ranting about the Affordable Care Act, is derided in mainstream medical associations for their non-science support of anti-vaxxers.

    The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has about 58,000 members. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists has a membership around 2,500–here are your religious “physicians”, who will willingly let a woman die from pregnancy and childbirth complications, because for them the fetus is the first patient, not the woman.

    Your American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), numbering 500 members, is a bible-humping anti-gay hate group, held in poor standing with the US National Institutes of Health. The ACPeds promote the fake link between breast cancer and abortion. In comparison, the American Academy of Pediatrics has 64,000 members. You asked for their relevancy, yet you cite a “pediatrics” group of your own bible-humping persuasion. Typical. To inform you, dear, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports the right of teenagers to private medical care, which includes abortion.

    Re: “Physicians for Life”: This is a tiny group of bible-humpers, less than 200, who promote abstinence sex education, are against pre-maritial sex, are pretty much against everything–stem cell research, abortion, and birth control. They’re a bunch of religious loons in other words.

    You and your “healthcare” hate groups are outnumbered, sweetie.

    In the words of Dr. Susan Wicklund: “The amazing thing, I think as I close the door, is that they [women] still come. After hearing all that terrible propaganda and lies and being shown inaccurate pictures by the places calling themselves some version of a pregnancy counseling center, they still come. They are desperate to end an unwanted pregnancy”
    ― Dr. Susan Wicklund, “This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor”

  • Pookie Dear, you EXIST in the radical fringe.

    I asked for relevance, you provide some carping. You also note that the American Academy of Pediatrics opposes parental rights, rights which have been found to be constitutional and require due process – cause and a court hearing – to override.

    Radical fringe – Susan Wicklund is an anti-Christian, particularly anti-Catholic, abortion on whim advocate.

    The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists freely admits there is disagreement in its ranks, and that the position you’re touting was the result of a committee of the ACOG, not the membership itself.

    And the various state organizations of ACOG have been caught “cooking the science books” to lobby for pro-abortion laws.


    The public does not support abortion on demand or abortion as birth control, so your “overwhelming support” is imaginary.


    I will admit, though, if there is a pro-abortion nutjob, you’ve got her or him in your propaganda database.

  • Honey, The Federalist is a rightwing rag, full of loons–as bad as the so-called “medical” organizations you listed–and as bad as Breitfart. Sweetie, you’re a victim of–GASP!–the Dunning-Kruger effect! Alas, you appear too far gone for a cure by reading actual science.

    Re: “polls”: Townhall.com is a website that allows wingnuts to rant about anything too liberal for them, which is nearly everything. It is further to the right than the National Review Online.

    The public very much supports abortion access, dear–especially the non religious and well-educated.

    PerryUndem Research Communication poll:

    Key findings include:
    • Large majorities of voters say they want the experience of abortion to be
    safe, legal, respectful, supportive, affordable, accessible, and without shame.
    • Since January of 2010, states across the country have passed 318 laws
    restricting access to abortion.1 Slightly more than half of voters (55 percent)
    are unaware of this recent trend. Once informed, a majority says these laws
    are going in the wrong direction. Voters are less likely to vote to re-elect an
    official who favors these restrictions.
    • A majority of voters support proposals for laws that help ensure safe and
    affordable access to abortion care that is driven by standard medical
    practices and medically proven data.

    So many polls:

    A NBC poll states that 70% of the American populace want to see Roe v Wade stay in place.

    “What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989. “These are profound changes,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and his colleagues….McInturff adds that the abortion-related events and rhetoric over the past year – which included controversial remarks on abortion and rape by two Republican Senate as well as a highly charged debate over contraception – helped shaped these changing poll numbers.”

    From Mark Murray: NBC/WSJ poll: “Majority, for first time, want abortion to be legal”.

  • Yes, I know, anyone who doesn’t agree with you Betty … uh Sharon …. is a “rightwing …. loon”, speaking, of course, from your extreme left wing perspective, which calls search and destroy missions on fetuses “standard medical practices”.

    Yes, we know Ms and Mother Jones are the reliable sources.

    Detailed polls have repeatedly shown that the public supports abortion to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape, and for minors of tender years.

    Where they go from there is correlated to what they actually know about how abortions are done. If they are familiar with the procedures, they wish more restrictions. If they are unfamiliar, thanks to the “Final Solution” propaganda which you and your friends disseminate, they are less concerned about restrictions.

    Careful structuring of questions moves the results all over the place.

    In general almost no one supports unrestricted abortions through the entire term of the pregnancy for convenience and birth control.

  • Lame. You can’t do anything but whine about getting yours handed back to you.

    You don’t value any human life except your own and those you happen to favor.

    You can’t even define “personhood” in a coherent logical manner.

    If not forcing others to do as you wish were your script, 95% of what you posted would not have been posted.

  • Re: “propaganda database”: Honey, the American Academy of Pediatrics enjoys a strong pro-science politically-unbiased reputation. Whereas your “American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds)” is classified as a ‘hate group’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center, with “a history of propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people”. (4/15/2017)

    Honey, I’m pro-science–you have the silly notion that understanding science equates to “radical fringe”.

    Dr. Susan Wicklund is a brave woman, who provided reproductive health care to women, despite constant death threats by religious loons. Wicklund states that women should be free to make medical decisions on their own. I concur.

    If YOU think abortion is murder and that a woman shouldn’t have non procreative sex–If YOU believe you know what an invisible supernatural deity wants–If YOU have control issues–if You presume that complete strangers should change their lifestyles because YOU have a problem with it, then it is YOUR problem. Go see a psychologist for these delusions of yours to be a petty dictator over women’s lives.

  • I look forward to your citations proving that the American Academy of Pediatrics enjoys a strong pro-science politically-unbiased reputation.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has devolved into a LBGT lobby group with a strong animus towards orthodox Jews and traditional Christians which no one takes seriously.



    Basically if you oppose the LBGT agenda, or abortion, you’ll wind up on their naughty list.

    Technically you’re not pro-science, you’re pro-scientism.

    I stand behind my criticism of Wicklund – she’s an ideologue with a medical degree. She describes becoming a doctor specifically to perform abortions:


    In her own story she describes the remarkably dangerous and unethical practice of receiving a patient after hours where she worked – which did not permit abortions – and inserting laminaria into the victim’s cervix, inducing a miscarriage that would necessitate a therapeutic dilation and curettage in the hospital emergency room the next day. Whether any of those emergencies went south and the patient wound up dead or sterile she doesn’t say, probably because she doesn’t care.

    To gain some perspective on just how science works out in your deal, at no time have I ever claimed “abortion is murder and that a woman shouldn’t have non procreative sex”.

    All my posts are on-line:


    A real scientist begins by getting her or his facts straight.

  • Talk about your radical fringe elements! Honey, the CBN–christian broadcasting network is classified as a conspiracy-pseudoscience site.

    “The Christian Broadcasting Network was founded by Christian televangelist Pat Robertson in 1961. Its best known for the show called the The 700 Club, which features Pat Robertson making extreme right wing and conspiratorial claims. For example, Pat Robertson claims that natural disasters occur due to gay immoral acts. The actual news broadcast on CBN has a very far right bias in reporting and also delves into right wing conspiracies. Anything heard on the CBN or the 700 Club needs to be fact checked. This source is a borderline hate group.”


    Compare that nutty CBN religious site to the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose policies are supported by the National Institutes of Health:

    These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles.


    Re: “Wicklund”: Honey, spread your hate for doctors who perform abortions around–there are even more famous doctors, such as Dr. Willie Parker, or Dr. David Grimes. Wicklund describes helping women patients despite obstacles. Doctors performed abortions and helped women before Roe Vs Wade, dear.

    “Let me be clear: abortion is health care. Where I practice in the South, my patients suffer when they can’t afford the abortion care that they need. My patients need to be able to make decisions based on what’s best for them and their families. They need to be able to afford their care. No woman should be denied the ability to make this personal health decision because she is poor.”–Dr. Willie Parker, OBGYN

    “Early pregnancy loss is important for our species. As many as 70% of human conceptions may never develop, and a third of recognized pregnancies terminate spontaneously through miscarriage…From a biological perspective, induced abortion is an extension of miscarriage—a continued winnowing designed to ensure that children are well born….healthy, wanted, and loved.”― David A. Grimes, M.D., Every Third Woman In America: How Legal Abortion Transformed Our Nation

    As for your “national catholic register”, this rag promotes the stalking and harassment of patients entering medical facilities. Folks at the “national catholic register” just can’t imagine why they are called “extremist” when all they do is promote biblical nonsense, er, principles, such as no contraception, that homosexuality is a sin, and that abortion is a sin–and that non-catholics should be subject to their personal religious dogma because celibate men in long funny dresses, er, bishops, said so.

    Re: “at no time have I ever claimed “abortion is murder….”: Fact, dear–you post links to the most awful, non science-based, nutty religious and radical right groups, who screech that abortion is murder.

  • The fact that you propose Wicklund for abortion sainthood seems to support the conclusion that you’re part of t he most awful, non-science-based, nutty radical fringe groups.

    Honey, of course.

  • “It” has EVERYTHING to do with punishing women. “It” has EVERYTHING to do with controlling women’s social behavior, sexuality, and fertility.

    …and there are those of us who are not putting up with it.

  • I admire all doctors who bravely perform abortions, knowing that 11 of their colleagues have been murdered by christian terrorists, in addition families have been kidnapped, clinics fire bombed and set fire to, murder attempts, stalking and harassment at their homes, threats to their families. Doctors, who provide reproductive medical care in the face of such life-threatening obstacles, are a brave group of people.

    So, sweetie, you seem to think that homosexuality and abortion causes hurricanes. Snicker.

  • If you “admire all doctors who bravely perform abortions”, you would have loved many of the physicians of the Third Reich.

    You really don’t think before you post, do you. Snicker.

  • I repeat, sweetie, I admire all our doctors who perform abortions in the face of christian terrorism.

    Re: “Third Reich”: FYI, several Jewish organizations have weighed in on how they are affronted by the trivialization of the Holocaust by comparing it to personal political agendas.

    “Holocaust trivialization also manifests itself partly in the growing use of comparisons of disparate events to elements bearing no resemblance to the Holocaust…among the better-known ideological or political causes of the trivializers are, for instance, environmentalism, animal rights, or PRO-LIFE ACTIVISM…”


  • Think globally, Doug. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that upwards to 56 MILLION WOMEN PER YEAR WORLDWIDE obtain abortions. Undeveloped country or developed, illegal or legal, if a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, she doesn’t want to be pregnant.

    Upwards of 80% of embryos fail to implant within 6 to 12 days after fertilization and are shed from sexually active women. The CDC, IVF clinics, and organizations such as the March of Dimes estimate that anywhere from 25 to 35 to 50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort.

    It’s quite silly to rant on and on and on about how every embryo is a baby, child, human being, person, whatever, when every year, millions upon millions of viable implanted as well as un-implanted embryos are routinely shed from sexually active women–what difference does it make if a woman chooses to un-implant an embryo herself? NONE.

  • A “parasite” is “an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant and feeds from it”.

    “That is what an embryo and fetus does in biological terms – unlike, say, egg-laying creatures that exist in, and feed from, the nutrients in the egg. If a human embryo or foetus cannot exist without its host, then it is therefore parasitic. That is a biological term, used by scientists, and I make no excuses for that. The chances of a human foetus or embryo, below 24 weeks gestation (the current abortion cut-off figure) is microscopic at best as the embryo or foetus simply is unable to survive without the woman’s body which is giving it life.

    You cannot put the rights of the embryo or foetus above those of the body which sustains it, when it cannot survive without that host. Those are the biological and scientific consideration.”–a pro-choice U.K. nurse

  • The Arnzen and Carioca characters on this thread are totally into a woman dying along with her fetus, rather than ‘allowing’ the woman a life-saving abortion. Arnzen dismisses the medical evidence in journals that I have put in front of his eyes that state abortion saves the lives of women suffering from pregnancy complications. Talk about your ignorant bible-humping misogynists!

  • Obviously your background is in geology, not biology.

    Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

    Since the mother and the fetus are the same species, and the fetus carries forward the mother’s DNA, the relationship is mutual and beneficial to both. That is, it does not meet the definition of parasitism.

    All your “pro-choice U.K. nurse” tell us is what we can or cannot do, but it has nothing at all to do with “biological and scientific consideration”. It has to do with her personal views and wishes. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

    Thank you for reminding me why I stopped reading your stuff.

  • Re: “five persons”: Nope. Progressive states in the 1960’s such as Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, New York, and Colorado were revising antiquated abortion laws. Women could obtain abortions in scattered states before Roe vs Wade–which insured a women’s right to abortion and medical privacy no matter her zip code.

  • Contraception does reduce abortion. For example–this study in Colorado.

    IUD program leads to big decline in teen pregnancies; abortions in Colorado
    State avoided spending nearly $70 million to care for babies of low-income teens, study says.

    The steep drop in teen pregnancies and abortions in Colorado since 2009 is mainly due to one thing: free, low-cost access to IUDs.


    Sex education does NOT increase “fornication”. Where did you get such a daffy idea?

  • Those are scary types. I am thinking , what happened to them that made them so heartlessly anti-women? Don’t people like that have mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces, female friends??what devil possesses them to be so full of hate?

  • Hillary Clinton–a very talented woman, an effective Secretary of State, who still enjoys a positive global reputation. Based on her experience as a senator and Secretary of State, Clinton is well-qualified to lead this country. She is scientifically literate, as opposed to the current science-denier in the White House.

  • i could not agree with you more. My view of this issue is exactly like yours. i have always thought if we don’t have a right to control our bodies we have nothing, the person doing the gestating has the final say. No matter what anyone says, uterus owner has the right to refuse to gestate. I have been called all kinds of names for saying that.

  • Hyde Amendment. The majority of women pay for their own abortions. Quit whining.

    Re: “they have no voice to protest”: “They” have no larynxes. They have no brain, no EEG waves until around 25 weeks, no thalamocortex connections until around 29 to 30 weeks, no consciousness. But, oh look! The WOMAN has a functioning brain. The WOMAN has consciousness. The WOMAN possesses that “individual freedom” you speak of.

    Your litany of self-perceived persecutions is downright silly. No one is breaking down your door to confiscate your guns. As for free speech, you are freely expressing your ignorance to all at this website.

    You are free to espouse your religious beliefs, and the rest of us are free to reject your superstitions.

    I know I am free to move to wherever I want to, with whomever I wish. What is possibly stopping you?

  • “Here are some examples on how pregnancy is a parasitic relationship:

    The Z/E/F sucks the nutrients from the mother.
    The “relationship” only benefits the fetus.
    The mother’s organs and body parts become damaged.
    The fetus controls the mother.
    The fetus doesn’t give anything “back”.”

    Recall that “pregnancy has an injury rate of 100%,and a hospitalization rate that approaches 100%. Almost 1/3 require major abdominal surgery (yes that is harmful, even if you are dismissive of harm to another’s body). 22% are hospitalized prior to delivery due to dangerous complications. 20% are put on bed rest and cannot work, care for their children, or meet their other responsibilities. 85% of women having a vaginal birth sustain some form of perineal trauma, 60-70% receive stitches, up to 3% have tears that involve the rectal canal. 15% have episiotomy. 6% of post partum women develop infection. 18 women die in the US for every 100,000 live births (in Texas it is over 30 women die for every 100,000 live births). Pregnancy is the leading cause of pelvic floor injury, and incontinence. 10% develop postpartum depression, a small percentage develop psychosis. 50,000 pregnant women in the US each year suffer from one of the 25 life threatening complications that define severe maternal morbidty. These include MI (heart attack), cardiac arrest, stroke, pulmonary embolism, amniotic fluid embolism, eclampsia, kidney failure, respiratory failure,congestive heart failure, DIC (causes severe hemorrhage), damage to abdominal organs, Sepsis, shock, and hemorrhage requiring transfusion.”

  • Scary, indeed. They’re incredibly irrational.

    Yes, they likely have female relatives–who are also brainwashed diehard catholics, who likely were brought up to believe that they are less than men and just put on earth to pop out more catholic babies. Sigh.

  • The bible is just a book, one of many religious tomes around the world. No more or less than the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao-te-ching, the Talmud, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Dasam Granth, the Tripiṭaka, the Book of Mormon, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Quran, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Religion is cultural.

  • Since you’re all about science, by definition pregnancy is not a parasitic relationship.

    If you think pregnancy is dangerous, don’t get pregnant.

  • Hillary might be an improvement over Trump, but that’s a very low standard.
    She is a neo-liberal corporate supporter.

    We don’t need a scientifically literate person with a good international reputation who would still favor an imperialist foreign policy and domestic financial inequality as a president.

    She did what she did for financial and political gain, One example is creating a deal between Boeing and Saudi Arabia. Saudi got fighter aircraft and Hillary’s foundation received from Saudi $10 million. She arranged weapon deals for many authoritarian regimes who donated large sums to her foundation.

    Her,, and Obama’s, favoring of corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class is a large cause of the Republican victory. They will accelerate these policies.

  • I think (unless you are extremely arrogant) you meant to say, “In my opinion the bible is just a book…”

  • Re: “Pro-life folks believe that abortion (like stealing cars) is inherently wrong and that there should be laws against it.”: Nope. Let me rephrase your statement as a pro-choicer views it: “Wannabe womb regulators believe that women do not have bodily autonomy, and that women’s uteri are public property to be voted over”.

    “We” understand that women own their bodies. Women own their ovaries. Women own their eggs. Women own their uterus. Women own their embryos.

    Re: “she and her partner should provide for”: Such a different attitude between wannabe pregnancy enforcers and pro-choice. I support a woman in whatever choices she makes, whether to gestate or not. I also support SNAP and other programs that feed and care for low-income women and children. I am fine with my tax dollars going to food and shelter for people who have been less fortunate in this world than I have. My pro-choice family and friends have this same attitude–because it’s good for our society and citizens–because we don’t want to see children neglected and hungry.

  • In ancient Rome the paterfamilias owned his children the same way you say women own their embryos. The father could leave a child he did not want to die on a mountain top no questions asked. Likewise, in your view, the woman can do whatever she likes with the fetus. I understand the claim, of the paterfamilias on the one hand and of the feminist embryo-bearer on the other. I just don’t think the claim is morally valid.
    You’re in favor of your tax dollars going to help low-income women and their children? Good for you; that’s your right.

  • Re: “the paterfamilias owned his children”: Embryos, of which upwards of 80% fail to implant within 6 to 12 days after fertilization and are simply shed from sexually active women, are not “children”. Nor are these Roman times; it is the 21st Century wherein women are acknowledged as full human beings. Women are full citizens of the United States of America, entitled to the same civil rights and liberties as males, which includes bodily autonomy, medical privacy, and the right to make one’s own medical decisions.

    Re: “the woman can do whatever she likes with the fetus”: There is a massive cognitive dissonance with wannabe womb regulators in that embryos residing in test tubes in IVF clinics are a woman’s legal property, yet once that very same embryo in the IVF clinic is transferred into the woman’s, i.e., owner’s, body, the embryo is POOF! magically no longer her property. This is irrational and illogical; but so it goes with magical thinkers.

  • Why should my civil rights be dictated over by your interpretation of the parts of the buybull, er, bible, that you choose to believe in?

  • Religion is cultural, largely influenced by the religion of one’s parents. You would be a rabid Muslim had you been born in the middle-east; a rabid Hindu had you been born in India; Jewish had you been born in Israel; an Animist had you been born in the hill tribes of Thailand.

  • Your comment is entirely orthogonal to what I wrote.

    Also, my father was an atheist, my mother was a Catholic, and I am neither.