News

Trump pushes for Congress to restrict abortions at ‘March for Life’ event

President Donald Trump speaks via a live feed to anti-abortion activists as they rally on the National Mall in Washington, on Jan. 19, 2018, during the annual March for Life. Thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators gather in Washington for an annual march to protest the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision that declared a constitutional right to abortion. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

WASHINGTON (USA Today) — President Trump called on the Senate to pass a bill outlawing abortions after 20 weeks, telling a group of anti-abortion protesters in the Rose Garden that late-term abortions are “wrong and it has to change.”

“Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life,” Trump told anti-abortion activists taking part in the March for Life on Friday (Jan. 29).

Trump addressed the annual rally ahead of the 45th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe. v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, which falls on Monday.

Trump’s speech to marchers gave the protest added visibility, rededicating himself to a conservative base that he sees as the key to his election victory in 2016.

A top priority for those voters: The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which passed the House on a largely party-line vote in October. But the bill appears unlikely to pass the Senate, where Democrats have enough numbers to force a filibuster.

Abortion rights supporters dispute the science behind the proposed law, and say it’s an unconstitutional attempt to restrict a woman’s right to have an abortion.

But the White House said Friday the president would continue to push for the bill’s passage. “We think it’s important for this administration to be on record in support of life,” said White House legislative director Marc Short.

Trump also touted executive action he’s taken on abortion-related issues during his first year in office. He reinstated and expanded President Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy, which forbids U.S. foreign development aid from supporting abortion — a policy critics call the “global gag rule.” And he signed an executive order on religious freedom.

That executive order has resulted in a new policy, announced Thursday, to defend the rights of health care professionals to refuse to perform abortion-related services on religious or conscientious objection grounds.

Greeting marchers at a White House event Thursday night — and again in the Rose Garden Friday — Vice President Pence called Trump “the most pro-life president in American history.”

The Rose Garden event was part of a deliberate strategy to raise the visibility of anti-abortion protesters, who have complained they haven’t gotten as much attention as other Washington protests, including last year’s Women’s March — which specifically excluded women opposed to abortion.

“You know, the press never gives them the credit that they deserve. They’ll have three hundred, four hundred, five hundred, six hundred thousand people, you won’t even read about it,” Trump told ABC News in an interview last year.

(Gregory Korte writes for USA Today.)

About the author

Gregory Korte

278 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Yup, for the religious right crowd, morals and values are for other people, not themselves. 🙂

    “He didn’t mean to pay $130,000 to that p0rn star to shut her up after she spanked him on the a$$ with a Forbes magazine! He really is a good Christian!”

  • Trump and the fetus fetishists deserve one another. Both are great examples of the pervasiveness of evil.

  • Franklin Graham, of course. On the topic:

    Reverend, you just told me that this country has a sin problem and I know you’ve no doubt heard that the president is accused of having his lawyer pay $130,000 to a former porn star allegedly for her silence about his sexual encounter while he’s married,” MSNBC host Alex Witt said. “Does the president have a sin problem?” Witt asked.

    “I can promise you he is not President Perfect,” Graham replied. President Trump I don’t think has admitted to having an affair with this person and so, this is just a news story, I don’t know if it’s accurate,” Graham deflected. Graham then said that even if the report was true, it did not matter, because of Trump’s personal growth during the last decade.

  • I am surprised there was no mention (or any comments) of the creation of the” division for conscience and religious freedom” in the US Health and Human Services Agency which will defend healthcare workers who, on religious grounds, refuse to treat patients or take part in procedures. The division will be part of the agency’s Office for Civil Rights.

  • I would say rather that the killing of human beings in the womb is a great example of the “pervasiveness of evil”.

  • It is both “killing”, they are unique “humans”, and they are “in the womb”. My statement stands. Yours is patently false.

  • But not killing of women by illegal hacks because the medically safe procedure is unavailable. That is perfectly moral to you guys.

    Concern for the unborn never seems to translate into concern for actual people.

  • If a fetus is so unique and distinct. Try to take one into protective custody while it’s gestating. Unless you can protect them that way, you are SOL. Just attacking women for making choices you don’t like. They is some petty, immoral crap.

  • Reworking the headline: “Trump pushes for Congress to protect the unborn at ‘March for Life’ event”

  • The “killing of women by illegal hacks” is also an abominable evil.

    There is no abortion which is “medically safe” for the killed child.

    You know nothing about my concern for what you term “actual people”. I believe women with unwanted pregnancies should receive all required assistance and support from the government, and likewise that adoptive services should be greatly expanded. Those are things I believe a responsible government should be doing. Sadly, I see no party supporting such measures.

    And by the term “actual people” you display your cold hearted willingness to relegate some humans, based on their developmental status, to the category of non-person. God help developmentally disabled people under your kind of rule!

  • Whether one can or cannot be taken into protective custody is irrelevant as to whether or not one is a human being. Or do you believe some law determines whether or not you are human? No government should have the power to do that. No government has the right to do that.

    In none of my posts here have I been “attacking women”. Nice try. What I have been attacking is the dehumanizing of children in the womb. Now THAT is immoral.

  • Unless you support abortion rights and therefore female personhood, and work towards making it less of a needed option, your opinion on the matter is counter productive double talking nonsense.

    That means supporting things like contraception, efforts to support poor families, and not trying to coerce and force others into following your views. I don’t see any of that in the “whole life from birth to death” thing. But I do see people like you wrongfully trying to interfere with the lives of people to impose your will on them by coercion.

    “You know nothing about my concern for what you term “actual people”. I
    believe women with unwanted pregnancies should receive all required
    assistance and support from the government, and likewise that adoptive
    services should be greatly expanded. ”

    Some of that required assistance and support means the ability to terminate a pregnancy. There is still no place for government in the womb. Your whole point rests on the immoral assumption that you have the privilege to make decisions on behalf of others concerning their own bodies. None such thing exists or should.

    “And by the term “actual people” you display your cold hearted
    willingness to relegate some humans, based on their developmental
    status, to the category of non-person.”

    Not even close to part of the topic here. People are born. Not going to follow you down that scripted rabbit hole. Try again.

  • Its only irrelevant if you don’t consider a woman a person. If you consider her nothing more than a biological birthing system with an uppity opinion then it has no bearing on your position.

    Its biology hitting you in the face. Its in her body, it can’t come out. The fiction of treating it as a separate being is undone by the physical reality that it has no separate existence outside of the mother’s body and will.

    Your entire view is attacking women. Positing that their lives, bodies and opinion are of no concern. That you have a privilege to control them and make all important personal decisions for them.

  • “Restrict abortion” is objective. Your headline is not. Do you not believe in restricting abortions?

  • “Restrict abortion” is the most informative possible term. It is currently legal, you want to see it illegal. In contrast, “the unborn” is a subjective term. It is used by forced birthers to attempt to create an equivalency the law does not recognize.

  • How is “unborn” subjective? It’s certainly more objective than the anti-lifers’ attempt to use “fetus” to deny the unborns’ essential humanity.

  • Unborn is subjective because it is an attempt to confer personhood on the fetus, which is a medical term. It is derived from the Latin for “offspring” and is hardly denying anyone’s humanity.

  • “People are born.”

    Yes. People are also conceived, and live for nine months in the womb.

    “Not going to follow you down that scripted rabbit hole.”

    Of course you won’t. Because you would loose.

  • How does “unborn” confer personhood? It can apply from conception to birth. And “fetus” is objective, so long as it is properly used as a technical medical term of a particular stage of a baby’s development — like “gravida” is a technical medical term for a pregnant woman. But it ceases to be objective as soon as it is used in sentences like “It’s a fetus, not a baby.”

  • “Concern for the unborn never seems to translate into concern for actual people.”

    I just love that meaningless buzz phrase.

  • Did he pay for an abortion?

    Is repentance and growth allowable?

    Can we have a little discussion about the morals of John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Baines Johnson?

  • “Its (sic) only irrelevant if you don’t consider a woman a person”. Oh ho, can I believe my ears! What’s that you say? I don’t consider a woman a person? Of course I do! A person who is morally responsible for the life of another, and should not terminate the life of another. It is YOU who deny personhood to another human being solely based on their developmental status. What rank hypocrisy.

    This is not about controlling women. It is about dehumanising another human being so you can then kill them and claim you have done nothing wrong.

    Looks like you missed your calling as a slave trader by a century and a half. They also dehumanised others so they could treat them as non-persons, beat them, rape them, kill them. All of which is just as gruesome as the things you support doing to some humans in the womb.

  • Apparently not. You feel that you know better than all of them when it comes to their most private and intimate decisions. So much so that you feel the compulsion to make such decisions for them. As if they were your chattel property. That is not respect for one as a person. That is just being egomaniacal.

    ” It is YOU who deny personhood to another human being solely based on their developmental status.”

    Which makes perfect sense, because of where and how they exist. It is just being rational as opposed to dishonest and overemotional. Because they are physically attached to a person and can’t exist without them. You apparently regard a mother as nothing more than a birthing machine who has no opinion beyond one that you demand of her. Biology makes your premise laughable. How can a fetus be considered a person with its own rights if it can’t exist without its mother? Obviously the mother here is the only person involved and the only person who has any inherent rights in this subject. Certainly not you, certainly not me.

  • And you demonstrate how appropriate it is every time one of you guys bothers to make a reference to a mother. S1utshaming is inherent in your view as is the ridiculous notion that all women are your property to command.

  • Get back to me when you can figure out how a fetus can have an existence separate from its mother before birth. Facts have nothing to do with your view. Ego drives it entirely.

  • They are not people until they are born. Unless you can separate a fetus from its mother during gestation, you can’t consider it a person. You guys have no concept of autonomy. Mostly because you are so used to arguments where pretend to assert a privilege to commanding others as chattel property.

    An acorn is not a tree. An egg is not a rooster. A bottle of wine and a romcom is not a fetus. Though all can lead to them.

  • “The argument that a fertilized egg or embryo is somehow a prepackaged human destined to be born contradicts all that scientists have learned. Knowledge of human embryology is why biologists use words like “zygote,” “blastula,” “embryo” and “fetus”, not “baby.” Possibly the public’s attitude toward abortions would have been more mature and reasonable if students had learned some basic human embryology in school. But instead, in dozens of states students are only taught that “abortions murder babies” and legislators continue to pass laws based on medieval theologies and pseudoscience that in effect, treat women as obligatory breeding machines. Who is asking the question: when will women, themselves, achieve full personhood?”
    –Charles L. Rulon, Emeritus, Life & Health Sciences

  • Sperm and ova have unique human DNA, too. Save those gametes!

    There is no scientific consensus as to ‘when’ a fertilized egg is a “human being”.

    Forced birthers have the notion that the nanosecond sperm penetrates egg that there’s a “human being”. Most undereducated and/or fundamentalist religious folk hold to that notion, even though upwards of 80% of embryos fail to thrive, and are simply shed from sexually active women. Scientists such as biologists and embryologists, recognize that within 12 days that the fertilized egg may split to generate one or more embryos, so they view gastrulation as the start of new one or more “human being(s)”. Some scientists view viability of the fetus as the start of a new “human being”, especially at the development of EEG waves at around 25-26 weeks, or at the development of thalamocortex connections and higher brain functions at around 29-30 weeks. Others take the start of a new “human being” as being at birth, with the intake of breath to activate the lungs, changes in the circulatory system, heart, and accompanying changes in other organs.

  • It is ALL about controlling women, honey.

    For every successful embryo that manages to implant in a uterine wall, it’s estimated that 5 to 9 early embryos are lost or “miscarry”. Half of these “lost” embryos are perfectly viable. Therefore, “spare” embryos, er, “spare persons” in your vernacular, are produced for almost every pregnancy (Drs. Michael Sandel; John Opitz; Bush era “President’s Council on Bioethics”; Mange and Mange, 1999, “Basic Human Genetics).

    The death of embryos is a natural part of the procreation process in a woman’s reproductive system. Ergo, the high rate of natural embryo loss brings into question the strident views of the force-birthers, who believe that every human embryo deserves equal status with human beings walking this earth. This is how personhood bills come about–attempts to take away a pregnant woman’s human being status–and bestow it on an embryo. If so many embryos die in the natural course of sexual activity, why should embryos merit equal treatment with human children and adults? I don’t think embryos should; wingnuts do

  • It’s obvious you’re not a scientist.

    “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

    “What I’m concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being.”–Dr. Lewis Wolpert, world renowned developmental and evolutionary biologist, author of “Principles of Development” and “Triumph of the Embryo”

    “I’m also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not [a] human [being], either. There’s more to being [a] human [being] than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes.”–Dr. Paul Myers, developmental biologist

    “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.

  • You mean you didn’t begin as a fertilized egg? I know I did, and so did everyone I know. biologists use “zygote,” “blastula,” “embryo” and “fetus” instead of “baby” for the same reason we use “baby,” “infant,” “child,” “teenager,” and “adult” instead of just “human being” — because more precision is called for. That doesn’t mean when they use “fetus” they don’t think they’re talking about a baby, any more than when we use “infant” we don’t think we’re talking about a person. As for whether a fertilized egg is a prepackaged human, if you check the online medical dictionaries for when life begins you will find that most of them have the starting point as conception.

  • “An acorn is not a tree. An egg is not a rooster.”

    Acorns and trees are both oaks.

    Eggs and roosters are both birds.

    A fetus and an adult are both humans.

  • “I’m also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not human either.”

    His confidence is misplaced.

    “There’s more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes.” This is invalid reasoning, in that it assumes as true precisely what is in question. One could just as well posit the contrary, that at a certain stage in its life, a human is indeed “a cell with the right collection of genes.” The good doctor seems to have spent more time studying test tubes than studying sound reasoning.

    Sandel’s observation is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Natural embryo loss is not volitional; abortion is.

  • That embryos are not children is simply an assertion on your part. It already assumes as proven that which is in question.

    As for “common knowledge”, it was once “common knowledge” that the earth is flat. How valid was that “common knowledge”, dear?

  • Yes, there is a lot of disagreement among scientists as to when life as a human being begins.

    I would note that two of the three groups of scientists that you refer to believe that a new human being comes into existence either at gastrulation, or at the development of EEG waves. So according to the majority of the scientists you yourself quote, the killing of those fetuses in the womb would constitute the killing of human beings.

  • Your argument does not hold together.

    In no way does natural embryo loss bring into question the “strident views of force-birthers, who believe that every human embryo deserves equal status with human beings”. Why would natural embryo loss do that? Natural embryo loss is a real tragedy. I have counselled once expectant mothers coping with that loss; in every instance they grieved for their lost child. They would vehemently contest your rejection of equal status for their lost loved ones.

    “If so many embryos die in the natural course of sexual activity, why should embryos merit equal treatment with human children and adults?”

    If so many poor children in third world countries die in the natural course of things, why should they merit equal treatment with affluent children and adults in first world countries? A high mortality rate does not negate one’s right to equal treatment.

    So why should embryos merit equal treatment with human children and adults?

    Because they are all human.

  • Women are people. People have their own lives and bodies. None of which is subject to your approval or opinion.

    It make no difference what you want for a fetus. Unless it is inside your body, your opinion is unnecessary and unwanted. At no point do you have a moral or rational argument for such a privilege over others as to interject in such decisions. All you have is an egotistical phony sense of superiority over others. But in the end you have to show utter disregard for life in pretending you are caring for the unborn.

  • Well the use of exclamation points is usually a sign of departure from objectivity.. but yes, that last sentence would be a subjective judgment.

  • Opposing abortion/standing up for all human life is to “show utter disregard for life”.

    How Orwellian of you!

    I’d put that right up there with:

    “War is peace.”

    “Freedom is slavery”.

    “Ignorance is strength”.

    Give my regards to Winston Smith, won’t you?

  • Get back to me when you can explain the difference between an old person in a nursing home, a comatose patient, and a fetus as far as separate existence. I have no idea what drives your view, but facts certainly do not.

  • The discussion is not about prenatal or postnatal care, which btw you and your friends don’t talk about either.

    If the topic arises, I am sure we’ll hear your thoughts on the matter.

  • Easy

    An old person is not PHYSICALLY ATTACHED TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND DEPENDENT ON THAT PERSON TO SURVIVE.

    An old person has their own existence, rights, and interests separate from any other person. They can even have a proxy defend their rights without ever affecting the personhood or rights of any other person. You never heard of a living will, DNR or medical proxy?

    This is why analogies by fetus worshipers are so ridiculous. Your script is awful. You don’t really understand the arguments against your view because you are so used to an echo chamber,.

  • When you don’t even consider a pregnant woman to be a person, that sort of takes priority over the rest. There is no use in pretending you care about life when you demonstrate such contempt for it.

  • Yes it is utter disregard for life because those fetuses (fetii) are inside women whose existence you have zero regard for. How can one be supportive of the unborn and contemptuous of the born? Easily, when one really has no moral basis to their views. Being consistent, being rational, doesn’t figure into it at all.

    Your entire POV is an expression of contempt for personhood and life in favor of self-aggrandizing egotistical preening. You want control over others and nothing else.

    Orwellian? You are the one who wants to act as Big Brother to all women. Controlling their bodies and their choices in life to suit your opinions and desires. You are the one reducing people to nothing more than property.

    I still don’t see any part of this discussion where you get the idea you have any say in the matter. Its never your body, so your opinion never matters here.

  • Re: “online medical dictionaries”: I use graduate level embryology textbooks myself, but then, I have a master’s background in evolutionary biology.

    “…a biology textbook…shows life as a cycle. There is no start point. Fertilization is just one of the events going around the cycle. This is the essence of sexual reproduction.”–Dr. Robert Wyman, neurobiologist

    Are you unaware that 60-80% of embryos fail to implant in a uterine wall and are flushed from sexually active women during menses (Drs. Michael Sandel, John Opitz, former President’s Council on Bioethics, 2008)? Gynecologists state that half of those embryos, had they imbedded, could have developed into viable fetuses; they just missed a 6-12 day window of favorable implantation. Too many people have this simplistic notion that once a month only one unfertilized egg is ejected from a woman. But no…if a woman is sexually active, embryos are also expelled. March of Dimes estimates that up to half of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Ergo, it seems that a ‘god’ doesn’t particularly care about the ‘unborn’ and aborts millions and millions of ‘potential babies’.

    Abortion is a natural bodily process in a woman’s reproductive system. If you’re okey-dokey with nature, or a god, aborting all those “babees”, but call it murder when a woman chooses to abort at the same gestational stage as a natural abortion, then you’re a hypocrite…and highly illogical.

  • No, dear, it was not “common knowledge” that the earth was flat–that was the notion of a bunch of ignorant literal bible humpers, yammering about firmaments and such–still is today. Ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere.

    Re: “an assertion on your part.”: No, dear, it’s an assertion on many a scientist’s part. The overwhelming majority of scientists are pro-choice in case you’re unaware.

    “What I’m concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being.”–Dr. Lewis Wolpert, world renowned developmental and evolutionary biologist, author of “Principles of Development” and “Triumph of the Embryo”

    “I’m also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not [a] human [being], either. There’s more to being [a] human [being] than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes.”–Dr. Paul Myers, developmental biologist

    “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.

  • Sweetie, recall–most of those zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos will simply be expelled from a sexually active woman. Whoosh! Plop! OMG! There goes the embryo, er, “human being”, that would have cured cancer! Whoosh! Plop! OMG! There goes the embryo, er, “human being”, that would have brought about World Peace! Well darn that middle-east megalomaniac deity for aborting all those embryos.

    Honey, viable fetuses around the developmental stage of EEG waves have protection under federal law. However, genetically abnormal fetuses, incompatible with life, or who pose a threat to the health of the woman, may still be ‘aborted’–in sane states at least, not held hostage by religion.

    These aren’t biblical times, dear. Women are no longer under the boots of men, or clergy. Women are autonomous human beings, 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.

  • Sweetie, as I pointed out, most embryos are never born–being composed of human DNA does not bestow special rights. There is no guarantee that any embryo or fetus will thrive through the reproductive process. Medically it’s known as “fetal wastage”, or “pregnancy wastage”.

    I gather if embryos, er, “human beings” in your vernacular, are “naturally” lost from women, that’s no big deal to you. It’s just when women choose not to gestate a particular embryo that your knickers get in a knot. What irritates the heck out of wannabe pregnancy enforcers is that women can make the decision for themselves whether to parent or not.

    Honey, third world children do not reside inside of a woman’s uterus–they are perfectly ‘safe’ from abortion.

  • Re: “volitional”: Abortion is a routine natural bodily process in a woman’s reproductive system. Since implanted as well as un-implanted perfectly viable embryos are shed from sexually active women, what difference does it make if a woman chooses to un-implant her own embryo? NONE.

    “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

  • Well, honey pot, what irritates me, and any moral person, is the wanton killing of innocent human beings. No one should have the right to kill another individual simply because their existence is a bother to them. But promoting the “right” to kill, to be a death-panel-of-one, is so important to you that you are blind to anything else as you pursue your sick version of autonomy over a mountain of millions of tiny corpses.

  • Odd.

    First you argued that it was independent existence that was the defining line.

    Now you’ve erased that line and claimed being physically attached is the defining line, thus backing into your favored pro-abortion position.

    What, particularly, makes the mode of dependence an excuse to end a life?

    Your script is awful.

  • “Morals” are quite subjective, dear. I think it is immoral to force a woman to give birth against her will.

    There is nothing “magical” about human embryos, sweetie. The “magical thinkers”, however, view an implanted embryo as too “magical” for a woman to be allowed to remove it—and yet you are just fine if the embryo miscarries and loses its “magic” because of nature, or for the religious, the ‘will’ of a “magical” invisible entity. But nooooo, the woman herself is not allowed to perform this “magic”! How illogical of you magical-thinkers.

  • It’s amazing how these wannabe womb regulators blatantly expose their misogyny by totally discounting the woman.

  • Re: “autonomy over a mountain of millions of tiny corpses.”: You’re thinking of your ‘god’, sweetie. Recall: millions upon millions of embryos simply go Whoosh! Plop! every year, as couples try to get pregnant. All those “tiny corpses”, alas, languishing on women’s hygiene products, or swirling away in toilet water. Texas and Indiana want us ladies to hold funerals for those tampons and pads!

    Embryos are not “innocent human beings”. Whoosh! Plop!

    You anti-choice males are so ridiculous. 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?

  • You clearly don’t understand the moral significance of the term “volitional”, my dear.

  • And who said I was just fine if an embryo miscarries? You haven’t been paying much attention, have you?

    I clearly termed it a tragedy. In case you don’t know, that is very different than “just fine”.

  • More lies, eh? Texas and Indiana do not want you to have funeral for tampons and pads.

    Yes, there are millions of spontaneous abortions, for many biological reasons. So? It is a tragedy, one mourned by many. I’m sure they would not find your making fun of their personal tragedies the least bit witty or humorous. How callous to laugh at those women. No feeling of solidarity for women who disagree with you, eh? Don’t even pretend that you speak for those women! I have known many, and they would repudiate you and all that you stand for.

    Thanks for the observation that I don’t have a uterus. Such an amazing insight. But not having a uterus does not mean that I can have no opinion on the propriety of the killing other human beings by those who do.

    You are right that the decision whether or not to carry one’s baby to term is up to the person who is pregnant. They can either choose to nurture their child, or they can choose to kill it. Your error is in thinking that because they have the ability to choose something, both choices are thus morally acceptable. They are not.

  • Your post is merely an assertion, not a statement of fact. It is an empty statement of opinion, uninformed, an emotional exercise not based on fact. It merely identifies you as a crank who believes in nonsense for which evidence does not exist.

  • You clearly don’t understand that there is no difference between an embryo that is naturally shed by a woman’s body, or an embryo that a woman chooses to shed.

    I’m sure that you are one of those who would force women pregnant from a rape, to give birth to a criminal’s spawn whether she wanted to or not.

    You’re a fetal idolator, dear.

    “Opponents of abortion in America have attributed to fetal life a sacredness that is actually idolatry….Fetal idolatry denies a woman’s right to control her body, her life, her destiny, all of which must be sacrificed to an embryo or fetus once she is pregnant… Fetal idolatry is bolstered by two other idolatries. One is patriarchy and the second, akin to it, is religious hierarchy. Both are evident in the subordination of women to men, who have historically made political, economic and religious decisions for women… Fetal idolatry or the denial of reproductive freedom to women is the major battleground issue for both patriarchal and clerical control of women….It is the toleration and even practice of violence by right-to-lifers that is one aspect of idolatry. Fetal life is such a ‘sacred’ value that existing persons who differ are threatened and killed.–Rev. Dr. John M. Swomley, Human Quest

  • Sexually active women are often unaware they have conceived and aborted, and don’t think it unusual if there is a heavy period or clumping on our hygiene products. I repeat: you don’t agonize over the millions and millions of perfectly viable embryos that are shed every year from sexually active women; you are only concerned with an embryo, which may, or may not exist, that a woman may choose not to gestate.

  • Honey, I’m a scientist. I don’t “lie”. I leave that up to bible-humpers.

    Re: “Texas and Indiana”: Sweetie, state anti-abortion laws and laws requiring the funereal burial of aborted fetuses, rather than being treated as medical waste, are constantly challenged by the ACLU. Such laws that require burial for aborted fetuses present regulatory intrusion into doctor/patient relationships and adding non medical rituals. Plus, laws are written to try and prevent women from donating fetal tissue to medical research.

    Texas “rules” for disposal of fetal tissue:
    (v) fetal tissue, regardless of the period of gestation, except as provided by §1.133 of this title (relating to Scope, Covering Exemptions and Minimum Parametric Standards for Waste Treatment Technologies Previously Approved by the Texas Department of State Health Services):
    (I)interment;
    (II)incineration followed by interment; or
    (III)steam disinfection followed by interment.
    (B)The products of spontaneous or induced human abortion shall be subjected to one of the following methods of treatment and disposal:
    (i)fetal tissue, regardless of the period of gestation, except as provided by §1.133 of this title (relating to Scope, Covering Exemptions and Minimum Parametric Standards for Waste Treatment Technologies Previously Approved by the Texas Department of State Health Services):
    (I)incineration followed by interment;
    (II)steam disinfection followed by interment; or
    (III)interment;

    “According to the rules, aborted fetal tissue must be handled like a deceased person and treated “using the process of cremation, entombment, burial, or placement in a niche or by using the process of cremation followed by placement of the ashes in a niche, grave, or scattering of ashes as authorized by law.”–“Texas Will Require Burial of Aborted Fetuses” [note: blocked]

    Both the Indiana and Texas laws demanding funereal burial of aborted fetuses were blocked and deemed as placing an undue burden on women and medical facilities. Abortion by chemical pills, mifepristone and misoprostol, is becoming the norm, wherein a woman ‘miscarries’ at home. Were these women to rush their hygiene products to a local hospital or funeral home for burial? It was ludicrous.

    Re: “I don’t have a uterus”: Your “opinion”, dear, has no power over the physical rights of women.

    Sweetie, a woman can feel however she wishes in a miscarriage. Some women feel a loss; other woman think oh well, better luck next time. My mother has had a miscarriage. I have had a miscarriage. My niece has had 5 miscarriages. None of us are tearing our clothes or rending our hair…or is it rending of clothes and tearing of hair…?…can’t keep it straight.

    As I stated elsewhere, dear, women commonly spontaneously abort without knowing they were pregnant–they just have an unusually heavy period or clumping.

    I feel sorry for women you have “counseled” in miscarriage. I trust you have a degree in “counseling”, and you’re not one of those fake “sidewalk counselors”? I imagine you make women feel less a person because they didn’t produce a successful pregnancy. I don’t know if your particular cult is catholicism? My mother is an escaped catholic, at age 18 when she left home, and she has nothing but disdain for priests who glorify women dying in childbirth as martyrs to the faith. It took a few more years, but my sensible grandmother also left the cult.

  • “But not having a uterus does not mean that I can have no opinion on the propriety of the killing other human beings by those who do.”

    Ignore any and all barbs about not having a uterus. The pro-life movement is primarily driven by women, a fact which matters not at all to pro-abortion zealots.

  • All of my three statements are facts. Perhaps you do not know what a fact is? Or do you simply declare anything you disagree with “nonfactual”?

  • Keep believing your delusion. It would no doubt be too painful to admit the truth, and would undermine the abortion mill business.

  • So long story short, you are just fine with innocent humans being killed. What other human rights abuses to you support?

    Hop along now back to the outback, roo!

  • Are you obtuse? I already said miscarriages are a tragedy, and have personally agonized and mourned over the loss of several of my own children due to them. So don’t even go there with me, honey.

  • Who is “we”? What religious cult do you belong to? Catholics were taught for years that unbaptized babies were in “limbo”…now ‘they’ say unbaptized babies are at the mercy of the invisible deity.

  • Nice try, but your lies are obvious even in your post.

    The laws we not intended to deal with fetuses unknowingly aborted in tampons and pads, but to those aborted with the involvement of a doctor. You let that slip when you noted “Such laws that require burial for aborted fetuses present regulatory intrusion into doctor/patient relationships”. Hoist with your own petard. Your knew that all along it wasn’t intended to address tampons in private bathrooms, but couldn’t help sensationalizing it to score cheap points.

    I am very sorry for your family miscarriages. Also sad to think none of those children were ever mourned.

    I know all about spontaneous abortions, dear, having lost several of my own children that way.

    And, man, your allegations about making “women feel less of a person because they didn’t produce a successful pregnancy” are way off base. A miscarriage is a tragedy for all involved. Women suffering from a miscarriage should be treated with all the love, sympathy, and compassion appropriate to any person loosing a loved one. That anyone would treat a women in that situation in the way you have described is incomprehensible to me.

    And for your information, no, I am not a Catholic. Sorry you had a bad experience with them.

  • You’re certainly obtuse. What an incredible amount of hubris wombsniffers have to think that you have anything to do or say about the pregnancies of total strangers. Why should a woman’s civil rights be dictated over by your personal religious dogma?

    Someone should have informed you long ago that possession of a a penis doesn’t qualify you to make medical decisions for women.

  • Good point. That is an inconvenient truth for pro-abortion zealots who pretend they speak for all women.

  • Pull up your own wombsniffer petard, dear. Sweetie, these types of “laws” are ginned up to discourage women from accessing abortion, plus place burdens on doctors who perform abortions. You’re quite naive, but I think just dishonest, if you don’t know that all these anti-choice “laws” states keep coming up with, are put in place to prevent women from accessing abortion. Doctors keep pointing out to bible-humping politicians, as I keep pointing out to you, that embryos/fetal tissue is commonly expelled from women. If fetal tissue is expelled into the toilet, as happened to my mother, was she to scoop up the bloody indecipherable mass and take it for burial? These ‘laws’ were blocked not only as unconstitutional but as placing undue burden on women.

    Where did you get your ‘counseling’ degree from?

  • Death is a natural bodily process.

    Does that mean if we speed yours up, everything is fine and dandy?

    I mean, speaking of illogical of course.

  • “The first objection to protecting individuals because of their potential is logical: acorns are not oak trees, nor are eggs omelettes. It does not follow from the fact that something has potential to become something different that we must treat it always as if it had achieved that potential…

    Given the moral importance attached to embryos and the fact that embryos are regarded by many as sharing the same moral status with the rest of humankind, it is the tolerated rate of embryo loss that is particularly interesting. Embryo loss in normal sexual reproduction, including unprotected intercourse not directly intended to result in conception, is certainly very high. [note: 60-89%]

    Those who attempt to have children in the light of these facts and indeed those who have unprotected intercourse and those who use contraceptive methods that risk embryo loss are all accepting that what they are doing or trying to do justifies the creation and sacrifice of embryos.”–The Ambiguity Of The Embryo: Ethical Inconsistency In The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate, by Katrien Devolder And John Harris

  • Reduce that down to one actual ethical statement. It begins with a devaluation of the unborn life, then talks about the irrelevant fact that the process has less than 100% success, and finally makes a statement that appears to go both ways.

  • Why should children in the womb be killed on your moloch-god altar of abortion “rights”?

    Someone should have informed YOU long ago that having a womb does not give you the right to kill your own children, Medea.

  • When a couple is trying to get pregnant, for every successful embryo that manages to implant in a uterine wall, it’s estimated that 5 to 9 early embryos are lost or miscarry. Half of these “lost” embryos are perfectly viable. Therefore, “spare” embryos, er, “spare babies” in wombsniffer vernacular, are produced for almost every pregnancy (Drs. Michael Sandel; John Opitz; former President’s Council on Bioethics; Mange and Mange, 1999, “Basic Human Genetics”). Some researchers estimate the loss as high as 11 out of 12 embryos per year.

    Yet, there is no outrage that millions upon millions of embryos are callously being killed in the quest for one child to be born.

    Re: “a statement that appears to go both ways”: What that last statement says, dear, is that people will continue to engage in procreative sex, even though they are willingly slaughtering millions of embryos every year, in order to produce children. Hence, the hypocrisy of declaring every embryo a “baby”, when people destroy vastly more than they make. So, there really is no concern about slaughtering the sonorous “unborn”; the wombsniffer movement is about imposing their ideologies onto all women to control their social behavior, sexuality, and fertility.

  • Embryos are not “children”, not “babies”, not full grown adults with three kids of their own already and a mortgage. “The product of a joined egg and sperm has no independent status, standing, entitlements, or rights that would in any way usurp or supersede the human rights of the woman, which are paramount.”

    Sweetie, just because a woman possesses a womb, does not mean she has to fill it to satisfy your personal dogma. How ridiculous. If YOU believe that every fertilized egg is a “baby”, feel free to conduct YOUR life based on YOUR beliefs. However, other people think differently based on their experience, knowledge, or religious beliefs. You are not entitled to tell women how to run their lives based on YOUR beliefs.

  • “The product…has no independent status, standing, entitlements, or rights…”

    True, because you have defined away their humanity.

    Now where have I heard such reasoning as this before? Oh that’s right, when the slavers denied standing, entitlements, and rights to their slaves. You keep interesting company.

  • To force women to give birth against their will is to make women slaves. If you know any history, honey, you would know that women slaves were forced to breed more slaves.

  • I know plenty of history, dear one, having majored in Classics many, many moons ago.

    Not permitting someone to kill an innocent human being is slavery?

    It is supremely ironic that you would treat children in the womb as cruelly, or worse, than slavers treated their slaves. No rights for either group, no, none at all.

  • If you know history honey you know that muslims are doing that right now, honeybun, huh sugar, you is soo smart huh, can’t expect anything smart from a stupid woman head like yours.

    Tells us about them slave camps huh honeysweety? Tells us all about that scary place that exists only in your big dumb emotional head.

    FACT is those DEMOCRAT American slave camps treated those people orders of magnitude better than the best POSSIBLE life they could have had in Africa.

  • Then you are fine getting NONE of my tax dollars for your abortion ? NO you want my money because you are a stupid COW. Tell me otherwise, tell me how you are fine paying for yourself. NOPE you will reply on how men get this and that and how women NEED this or that you won’t take responsibility for your own actions.

    PROVE me wrong, Tell me how you are happy to unabashedly pay for your own abortions with your own out of pocket dollars for your own actions, not taxes or otherwise, fund the murder from your own purse, straight up.

  • No degree in “counseling”, eh? You just call herself one.

    Sweetie, you have so many wrong-headed notions. Women are not slave brood mares. You do not get to control the reproductive choices of women. The only body you get to control is your own.

    Evanescent non sentient embryos are not “children”, not “human beings”.

    “Biomedical research indicates that, even without including induced abortions, between 50 and 60 percent [Note: Dr. John Opitz estimates 60-80%] of all embryos conceived do not survive to birth (Mange and Mange, 1999, “Basic Human Genetics”). Most of these embryos miscarry prior to the eighth week of pregnancy, and there is no assurance that any given egg, embryo, or fetus will survive to be born. John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics and human genetics, testified to the Presidents Council on Bioethics that our society is not prepared to value a fetus as person.”

  • Show me on the doll where Trump grabbed you sweetie.

    You just want to take what isn’t yours, you think it’s yours because men are so much better than you and thus you are owed something. Your way is failing or you wouldn’t be here, your very presence indicates your fear of 7 more years of Trump.

  • Well, I just found out who you are from your profile picture, and realized you proudly display the planned parenthood logo in your avatar. I’m done with you, hopefully I see you in an rv park one day, enjoy your ban.

  • I certainly do abhor the thought of bible-humping science-deniers continuing to litter our highest government offices, spreading their downright stupidity, embracing numbnuts such as you.

    What do you rant on about? Who is taking what? Sweetie, I have always worked for a living, and I worked my way through university for the doctorate.

    You must be a male with a fragile ego.

  • My dear ignoramus, the Hyde Amendment has been in effect since 1976 to prevent pregnant women from jumping you and ransacking your pockets for spare change for abortions. Women pay for their own abortions, doofus.

  • I’m a priest. We offer spiritual counsel in Confession. Surprised you don’t know that.

    “…our society is not prepared to value a fetus as person.”

    It is there that we, as a society, fail.

  • Let’s restate your argument without all the irrelevant material.

    In the ordinary course of the human life cycle, half or more of concepti do not last until birth.

    This occurs without human intervention, it is simply the process.

    Therefore, people who engage in procreative sex are slaughtering millions of embryos each year.

    In law, and in most moral systems, in order to be responsible – that is to be a moral agent – the individual has to act with knowledge and intent and perform an action or refrain from an action in order to accomplish the intended end.

    But your statement says that it is part of a normal process, apparently occurring in most cases without anyone’s knowledge, and without engaging in procreative sex the race itself will extinguish.

    That is certainly not the description of an act with knowledge and intent to accomplish an intended end of “slaughtering an embryo”. Arguing that is sophistry.

    Now, here is an example of an act with knowledge and intent to accomplish an intended end of “slaughtering an embryo”:

    after 20 weeks of gestation an abortionist using surgical techniques crushes, dismembers and removes a fetal body from a woman’s uterus. In some cases, especially when the fetus is past the stage of viability, the abortion may involve administration of a lethal injection into the fetal heart in utero to ensure that the fetus is not pulled out alive or with the ability to survive.

    See the difference? The first act is simply being human and the second is an abortion.

  • “…a biology textbook…shows life as a cycle. There is no start point.
    Fertilization is just one of the events going around the cycle. This is
    the essence of sexual reproduction.”

    Which means precisely nothing, when looking at the life of a single individual.

    And yes, I’m aware that most embryos fail to implant. The fact that something happens naturally doesn’t give us the moral right to force it. For example, the diseases that killed most of the Amerinds living in the Americas were perfectly natural, Europeans cannot be held accountable for them. The men that deliberately gave the blankets of smallpox victims to Amerinds to spread the disease are quite another matter.

  • Re: “treated those people orders of magnitude better than the best POSSIBLE life they could have had in Africa”: You have a habit of projecting your own bias onto all other people, dear. To be free, to be living in one’s own homeland with family, is the best possible life. No, slaves did NOT have the best possible life in slavery. What an arrogant insane statement.

  • I repeat: Abortion is a routine natural bodily process in a woman’s reproductive system. Since implanted as well as un-implanted perfectly viable embryos are shed from sexually active women, what difference does it make if a woman chooses to un-implant her own embryo? NONE.

    A woman owns her body. A woman owns her ovaries. A woman owns her eggs. A woman owns her uterus. A woman owns her embryos. IVF clinics have demonstrated that embryos are property–a woman may use or discard her embryos; or donate them for medical research. It doesn’t matter whether those embryos are located in a test tube, or in her uterus.

    It’s amazing how many people demand to be petty dictators over women’s lives.

  • I repeat: People die naturally, it happens to everyone sooner or later. That doesn’t give us a moral right to kill them for whatever reason seems good.

    “body … ovaries … eggs … uterus … embryos”: One of these things is not like the others.

  • Honey, a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. You seemed confused as to the meaning of “abortion”. Here–Dr. Keith Moore, an embryologist explains abortion in his text, “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology”:

    -Abortion (Latin, aboiri, to miscarry). A premature stoppage of development and expulsion of a conceptus from the uterus or expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is viable–capable of living outside the uterus. An abortus is the product of an abortion [i.e., the embryo/fetus and its membranes]. There are different types of abortion:

    -Threatened abortion (bleeding with the possibility of abortion) is a complication in approximately 25% of clinically apparent pregnancies. Despite every effort to prevent an abortion, approximately half of these embryos ultimately abort.

    -A spontaneous abortion is one that occurs naturally and is most common during the third week after fertilization. Approximately 15% of recognized pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, usually during the first 12 weeks.

    -A habitual abortion is the spontaneous expulsion of a dead or nonviable embryo or fetus in three or more consecutive pregnancies.

    -An induced abortion is a birth that is medically induced before 20 weeks (i.e. before the fetus is viable).

    -A complete abortion is one in which all the products of conception are expelled from the uterus.

    -A missed abortion is the retention of a conceptus n the uterus after death of the embryo or fetus.

    -A miscarriage is the spontaneous abortion of a fetus and its membranes before the middle of the second trimester (approximately 135 days).
    ————————–
    Note that nowhere in this developmental biology textbook, as well as other advanced level embryology books, are products of abortion referred to as “babies”, “children”, or “human beings”. I see the terms “embryo”, “fetus”, “conceptus” products…but nope…no “baby”, no “child”, no “human being”.

    Sweetie, most abortions occur between 8 and 12 weeks. The abortion looks like any women’s menstrual pad.

    Re: “the abortion may involve administration of a lethal injection into the fetal heart in utero”: So? This is standard medical practice to remove late-term fetuses with genetic anomalies.

    After 24 weeks birth defects that lead to abortion are very severe and typically considered incompatible with life. These procedures are either a traditional induction, just like labor, or something that requires instrumentation. Because of the nonsensical partial birth abortion law women who wish to have a dilation and extraction (a modified technique for more advanced procedures) need to have fetal cardiac activity stopped with an injection into the uterus. Either way it’s a 2 or 3 day or even 4 process to get the cervix to dilate enough. The further along in the pregnancy, the more likely the procedure will be an induction of labor, but a skilled practitoner can do a dilation and extraction at 32 or 34 weeks. I’ve never heard of a dilation and extraction for any other reason than severe birth defects and often it is for a woman who has had two or three c-sections for whom inducing labor might pose other health hazards, like uterine rupture. Are we to force women to have c-sections for a pregnancy that is not compatible with life?

    https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/donald-trump-confuses-birth-with-abortion-and-no-there-are-no-ninth-month-abortions/

  • Sweetie, if you can’t tell the difference between a spontaneous abortion and using a vacuum on fetus in the third trimester, you’re not going to make much headway in the conversation.

    Do get back to me when you can tell the difference.

  • Sweetie, old people and comatose people are free-living–they are born–they are perfectly safe from abortion.

    Fetuses are not free-living, dear.

  • Sweetie dear, many old people are not “free-living”.

    For that they would need income, mobility, consciousness, and reason.

  • So, since dying is a routine natural body process in every human being, if I murder you it’s the moral equivalent of dying of old age?

    Most people would find the formulation “A woman owns her embryos” offensive.

    But I do think it fairly represents your own self-absorbed viewpoint.

  • That’s probably a good thing.

    Multiple studies over the years have demonstrated that people derive as much or better results from talking to laymen as talking to mind mavens of any stripe.

  • That response is entirely odd. You are either illiterate or just didn’t understand what was being said.

    In what what would being physically attached to another human being be independent existence? The two are simply the same argument stated differently.

    “What, particularly, makes the mode of dependence an excuse to end a life?”

    The fact that it involves physical attachment to another person’s life and body. If you can’t tell the difference between a person and a machine, you are a sociopath. It makes your pretension of care for the unborn more laughable.

  • Autonomous independent existence as a human being. There. Done.

    If you have to ask the question, you will never understand the answer.

  • They become people after nine months in the womb. Not before.

    “Of course you won’t. Because you would loose.”

    What would be loose? 🙂

  • I am saying you should probably bow out of the conversation since you do not understand what is being said here. 🙂

    Make it simple because you are neither honest, nor can think conceptually here.

    Her body, her rules.

    It is not up to guys named Bob, Herman or Spuddie to decide here.

  • Funny sitch- scrolling thru comments to one of disqus articles on this perennial subject just noticed that every one was signed by a male name/handle Kept scrolling, for sport. Among 200+ commenters a grand sum of 2 whole women commented and were quickly shut down. (Theoretical) womb experts, damit 😉

  • A woman owns them all, sweetie. Not you. Not clergy. Not the government. A woman may do what she wishes with her own embryo.

  • Get back to me when you can tell the difference between the conscious free-living WOMAN and a gelatinous non sentient evanescent embryo.

  • “Free-living” refers to “unattached”…as in the woman is free-living, walking on this earth; whereas an embryo/fetus has that umbilical cord attachment and is not “free-living”.

  • Why, sweetie, you defined it in your above comment.

    “Support abortion rights” = “Support female personhood”

  • Re: “Most people would find the formulation “A woman owns her embryos” offensive.” Bwahahahahahaha! No more “offensive” than a woman owns her eggs, sweetie, or the clock on her living room wall. Complain to your omniscient, omnipresent deity, dear; I’m sure he’ll get right on it and stop planting embryos in women who don’t want them. Snicker.

  • No. So what? Never said I did. They are not required for Confession. Familiarity with, and training in, the spiritual/ascetical tradition, is. Secular degrees in secular counseling do not teach that, and are of little help with it.

  • Confession? I thought you weren’t catholic. You mean there are other cults that require people to make up nonexistent sins to keep the priest employed?

  • Reworking the headline: “tRump pushes for congress to strip pregnant women of their civil rights and liberties.”

  • If not understanding the topic, not being honest, and not being able to think conceptually were criterion, you’d never post again.

  • That leaves out infants, the comatose, quadraplegics, and a host of others.

    Speaking of never understanding the answer, or the question for that matter.

  • That response is entirely odd. You are either illiterate or just didn’t understand what was being said.

  • OK, so you’ve noted that a fetus has an umbilical cord.

    There is no particular moral or legal significance to that.

    Some humans are attached to IVs.

    Beyond stating the obvious, that you think it’s open season on the fetus, which can be identified by the umbilical cord, what does that add to an argument?

  • As soon as I read your clear explanation of how pulmonary hypertension can be alleviated by an abortion.

  • Your knowledge of Christianity seems rudimentary.

    Hatred, lying, adultery, murder, stealing, gossiping, greed, acts of violence – the kind of things relevant to Confession – are hardly “nonexistent”. They are most real, and harm many people.

  • Not at all. Not even close. You do not know what autonomy means.

    Anyone can represent the interests of any of them without infringing on the personhood of anyone else.

    People can care for them, but they have their own interests separate from those caregivers.

    There is no analogy to a fetus with born people. That’s biology.

  • Re: “nothing worthwhile”: Honey, I have presented science and logic–which obviously has not penetrated the brain of a member of “Your Uterus, Our Business”.

    It’s the 21st Century, dear. You can’t force women to risk their health, safety, well being, and lives to gestate a fetus against their will because that, my dear, is slavery.

  • Even frozen embryos belonging to a woman can’t be given to someone, donated to science, or destroyed without her explicit consent. They are hers. Decision related to implantation process, manner of discarding of unused ones are HERS. Its her property.
    In the body or in a freezer.

  • “Opponents of abortion in America have attributed to fetal life a sacredness that is actually idolatry….Fetal idolatry denies a woman’s right to control her body, her life, her destiny, all of which must be sacrificed to an embryo or fetus once she is pregnant… Fetal idolatry is bolstered by two other idolatries. One is patriarchy and the second, akin to it, is religious hierarchy. Both are evident in the subordination of women to men, who have historically made political, economic and religious decisions for women… Fetal idolatry or the denial of reproductive freedom to women is the major battleground issue for both patriarchal and clerical control of women….It is the toleration and even practice of violence by right-to-lifers that is one aspect of idolatry. Fetal life is such a ‘sacred’ value that existing persons who differ are threatened and killed.–Rev. Dr. John M. Swomley, Human Quest

    Perhaps you should forge a golden idol of a gelatinous 64 cell “blob”.

  • You’ve presented some irrelevant observations from scientific sources (e.g., in the natural process of conception a lot concepti are lost), and have not connected any it in logical connectitude of arguments designed to establish a proposition.

    As a matter of fact, if for the sake of discussion I were to work for and achieve a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, this being the 21st century, I could force women to risk their health, safety, well being, and lives to gestate a fetus against their will.

    We force all sorts of folks to do or refrain from doing things against their will. I am rather sure many of those drafted in WWII did not fancy going to war.

    We all understand the current law. The discussion is about what the law ought to be.

  • There are no laws opposing conscientious objection.

    The area of law which covers conscientious objectors is civil rights law, and that has been the case for a half century.

    In addition the conscientious objectors have recourse to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 that “ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected.”

  • Thank you for another circular argument using “personhood”, which you can’t define, and “autonomy”, which you also cannot define, declaring yourself correct by declaring “(t)here is no analogy to a fetus with born people.”

    That’s an argument?

  • “Opponents of abortion in America have attributed to fetal life a sacredness that is actually idolatry” is the long version of “I, John M. Swomley, stand foursquare for abortion on demand.”

    Well, lah dee dah. The late leftist Methodist John Swomley had zero problems with abortion.

    Yes, we understand that. So what?

  • No, I have not.

    In fact I’m on the record that the term “personhood” is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

  • The question is what possible reason would pulmonary hypertension require an emergency abortion as a life-saving measure. Neither of your articles provide any instance where it would be required.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4556496/

    Let’s consider the recommendations:

    Prepregnancy counseling and contraception

    2. She failed to follow the primary advice – don’t pregnant.

    3. She failed to follow the secondary advice – get an “early referral to an experienced PH center, ideally one with experience in the management of PAH in pregnancy, is an essential part of care of the pregnant patient with PAH (CB).”

    Pregnancy management

    2. She failed to engage “A multidisciplinary approach with high-risk obstetricians, PH physicians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and neonatologists is recommended (CB).”

    4. As a result she wound up in a Catholic hospital when “4. All pregnant PH patients should be offered pregnancy termination. In particular, patients with worsening right heart failure, especially early in their pregnancy, and patients with other high-risk features should be given the option to have their pregnancy terminated. If patients want to continue pregnancy, augmentation of PAH therapy should be considered to improve the chances of a favorable outcome (CB).”

    Oddly the recommendation for “pregnancy termination” (i.e., abortion) is *early* in the pregnancy as backup birth control, not to alleviate any life-threatening complications of a pregnancy.

    Was, by any chance, she under the care of a veterinarian, or the Marx Brothers?

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221745/

    Basically “Don’t get pregnant”.

    Again “When the woman chooses to continue pregnancy, it is important that she is managed by a multidisciplinary team in a centre licensed for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension patients. The team should include a pulmonary hypertension specialist, a cardiologist, obstetrician and anaesthetist specialised in managing high-risk pregnancies, and a neonatologist.”

    which clearly would not have led her to the formerly St. Joseph’s Hospital.

    No condition that would lead to an emergency abortion is described, which is consistent with what experts contemporaneous with the alleged emergency opined.

  • Re: “logical connectitude “: Yes, I have, dear. Over and over. Abortion is a routine natural bodily process in a woman’s reproductive system. Since implanted as well as un-implanted perfectly viable embryos are shed from sexually active women, what difference does it make if a woman chooses to un-implant her own embryo? NONE.

    “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
    ————————-
    Re: “achieve a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion”: Now there’s a dystopian future ala the “The Handmaid’s Tale”. Honey, it’s the 21st Cenury; the U.S. is a secular nation. Women are not going to be declared third class citizens behind a male and a fetus–that is your fevered bible-impaired day dream. Women OWN their bodies, honey.

    Repeat after me: women are not breeding slaves. There is no invisible sky wizard, whose preferences about what women can do with their own bodies, can only be known through the opinions of bible-impaired Internet strangers.
    —————————
    Re: “the law”: “Those in the personhood movement in the United States have let their animus toward abortion blind them to the facts that have emerged about human embryology over the past fifty years. And scientists, sadly, have been unwilling to correct them. Conception is the start of something, but it is more the start of the possible rather than the actual. It is not until a being emerges that has the traits necessary for individual existence that we can and should say that a person has begun. How law and public policy want to handle that fact is debatable. But to ask the law to treat embryos as persons from the moment of conception is to head a path where the facts ought not permit anyone to go.”– Arthur L. Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at New York University.

  • “Woman’s embryos belong to her ” would it be better?
    based on the outcomes of cases you linked to, that’s pretty much it, not even her ex spouse has much say in what happens to them

    But if you disagree, may I ask – who in yoir view owns her embryos/ who should decide what happens to woman’s embryos, in her body or frozen?

  • Honey, I’m poking at you.

    Sweetie, I was dragged to church as a child, Sunday school, and summer bible school, especially by the paternal grandparents. Some of us grow up; some don’t.

    My escaped catholic mother looks back and laughs at the stuff she made up because she was forced to go to confession, when there was nothing to “confess”.

  • Thank you for making the same dishonest brain dead argument over and over. You don’t understand the terms and you are wedded to feigning ignorance of the very distinct differences between the born and unborn.

    No a fetus is not like a baby, coma patient or elderly person. The whole physically attached to another human being to survive thing can’t just be ignored or handwaved. Your whole POV depends on ignoring facts which undermine it.

    It’s telling you chafe at personhood. When you consider others as chattel property, it is an inconvenience. How sociopathic of you.

  • What a load of crap. What you call conscientious objections is more honestly known as denying people rightful access to medical care and information. Religious belief is no excuse for attacking the rights of others. Civil rights laws give you no such privileges. You can’t use them to force others to abide by your beliefs. Didn’t work for court clerks, judges, pharmacists or nuns.

    Being a hypocrite, you would scream bloody murder if you were on the receiving end of such treatment.

  • How about something a little more honest. Instead of telling people how to live and pretending you have moral authority to do so, shut the hell up and keep it to yourself.

    Obviously morals and ethics are for anyone besides yourself or people who you can get things from.

  • I agree with Spuddie.
    We cannot use our freedom of religion or conscious to nullify someone else’s rights. These freedoms do not justify discrimination or other acts that harm others. I am explaining what ought to morally be true.

    As Christian Nationalists take over all three branches of our government, I cannot predict what is, or will become legal. I may be convicted of blasphemy.

  • Re: “No condition that would lead to an emergency abortion is described”: Sweetie, we must have read entirely different articles. Yes, termination of a pregnancy is recommended for severe pulmonary hypertension.

    “Below are recommendations for pregnancy management, separated by trimester and delivery, based in part on the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on pregnancy in cardiovascular disease…

    Therapeutic abortion
    Because of the excessive risk to the mother and fetus discussed in “Basic biology of PH and pregnancy,” when pregnancy occurs in PH patients, termination should be offered regardless of WHO FC or other markers of prognosis…

    If surgical evacuation is not feasible, medical abortion using prostaglandins E1 or E2 or misoprostol [note: an abortion-inducing drug], a synthetic prostaglandin structurally related to prostaglandin E1, can be administered to evacuate the uterus.”–“Statement on pregnancy in pulmonary hypertension from the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute” by Anna R. Hemnes et al.

    On and on…the text states of course, the earlier the better in the PH pregnancy, the better the prognosis for the woman…and of course there are other treatments that may be pursued, sweetie, and abortion is one of those recommended treatments.

    Why you choose to lie to yourself about recommended physician procedures that include abortion, offends either your religious delicate sensibilities, or just underscores a deeply harbored misogyny, or both.

  • You said the same thing to me…and it’s ridiculous. Maybe YOU are offended that embryos are property, but as your links demonstrate, embryos are litigated as property.

  • Re: “The fact that something happens naturally doesn’t give us the moral right to force it.”: Don’t take antibiotics the next time you’re deathly ill then–you wouldn’t want to spoil ‘god’s’ plan for you.

  • Re: “Arthur L Caplan has what particular moral authority? He has an opinion.”

    All you have posted is YOUR opinion.

  • You went too far there, Father. Respect for human life is a quality of humanity. We evolved as species beings. Many people with religious faith cannot except facts that are inconsistent with their interpretation of religious truth. I am aware that trying to change your religious position would be futile. However, though, you have the right to attempt to convince others of your views. You do not have the moral right to attempt to force these views on others by advocating oppressive laws.

  • “Respect for human life is a quality of humanity.”

    I see no evidence to support your optimistic appraisal, rather quite the opposite. I would suggest it is you who cannot accept facts that are inconsistent with your beliefs. I am aware that trying to change your enlightenment based beliefs may well be futile. You do, of course have the right to attempt to convince others of your views. You do not have the moral right to force these views on others (human beings in the womb) by advocating oppressive laws (pro-abortion laws which deny their basic humanity and murder them).

  • Now you’re faking it.

    Both article support (a) not getting pregnant and (b) abortion as backup birth control EARLY in the pregnancy.

    What they don’t provide is a scenario for an “emergency” abortion in the case in Phoenix.

    NEITHER describes such a scenario.

    Btw, here is a list of Phoenix area hospitals:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Phoenix

    Taking your two urls into account, which discourage pregnancy if one suffers from pulmonary hypertension, which describe in detail the risks of being pregnant, and all of that, what sort of competent physician would zero in with this plethora of hospitals on one that was prohibited from doing abortions?

    The allegation that this was an “emergency” fails the smell test.

  • How about something a little more honest? Instead of telling people they can’t choose their own laws, or exercise the democratic process, because you and friends want an open season on human life in the womb, shut the hell up and keep it to yourself.

  • No one has a right to compel another person to violate their conscience by providing or assisting birth control or abortion.

    Apparently as the two Medal of Honor winners who were COs demonstrated, the “Christian Nationalists” took the government over sometime before WWII.

  • What a load of crap. What you call “rightful access to medical care and information” consists of stealing privately owned healthcare facilities, converting them to the use you happen to endorse, jackbooting all over the rights of citizens to act consistent with their consciences, all in the name of an open season on fetuses.

    The individuals who want these services will find facilities and persons at other locations willing to roll up their sleeves and perform the services they desire.

    You can’t use the government to force others to abide by your beliefs.

    Court clerks and judges work for the government.

    In Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, the government was sent off to fix its errors by the Supreme Court when it was forced to admit it had falsified the circumstances stated in its attempt to force the sisters to provide birth control.

  • Thank you for making the same dishonest brain dead argument over and over. You keep parroting “a fetus is not like a baby, coma patient or elderly person”, but every single characteristic you cite involves where it is, not what it is.

    “Personhood”, consciousness, autonomy, one by one they all fall by the logical wayside.

    Your whole POV depends on ignoring facts which undermine it.

  • And legal citations.

    And medical information.

    And arguments connecting the facts provided to establish propositions contrary to your own.

    And arguments showing that some of the facts you present (e.g., natural abortions are frequent) do not establish a basis for the actions you suggest (at will abortion).

    And so on and so forth.

  • Property – horrifying as that may be, but not as the woman’s sole property, which was your contention. In fact Roe v Wade gives society a stake in its life that may override the mother’s.

  • You seem to enjoy making parallels that are not parallel.

    Does an antibiotic end a human life? No? Then your comment is pointless.

    Does an abortion end a human life? Yes.

    Does the fact that abortions occur naturally and frequently justify doing abortions in your mind? If your comments mean anything, yes.

    Does the fact that deaths occur naturally and frequently justify homicide? If your comments mean anything, no.

    Apparently the difference is that you’re not a fetus but you could be the object of a homicide.

    If you planning on winning debate points, you might want to tighten up your logic.

  • So, to summarize, you had a terrible religious upbringing – apparently because your mother didn’t know her own religion and was not the brightest bulb in the package.

  • Oh, oppressive laws like trying to compel conscientious objectors to perform services contrary to their sincerely held beliefs, trying to commandeer facilities owned by organizations with conscientious objections to certain services to perform those services?

    If that is what you mean, we are on the same page.

  • I can’t help it if simple facts don’t follow your script. You are such an immature baby. You can’t come up with an argument so you just pretend it doesn’t exist.

    ” but every single characteristic you cite involves where it is, not what it is.”

    Except the most relevant ones of

    1. not being physically and inevitably attached to another human beings bodily systems.

    2. Having distinct and unique interests from another person

    3. Having unique and distinct existence from another person.

    4. Being capable of being represented by a guardian without affecting the existence of interests of any other human being.

    Come to think of it, there is no part of your analogy which can possibly be considered correct.

    You are hopeless here. You don’t understand personhood. So you pretend it doesn’t exist. Of course if it doesn’t exist then your concern for a fetus is simply greedy desire to possess it and malice against its mother. You take out personhood, you take out respect for all human beings.

  • I don’t think an organizations should be compelled to provide objectionable services, however if they perform the service for some, they should not discriminate among diverse people. A person who has objections to certain types of people is not justified in discriminating against them.

  • You have no clue how health providers operate. Privately owned still needs to be licensed by the public and by doing so have obligations to abide by professional medical ethics and responsibility.

    “Might makes right” is not a moral argument. If you are claiming these are acts of moral.conscience, you are simply lying then. It is just done because it could be done with impunity.

    You are not part of a pregnancy, you have no say about a fetus. A medical provider has an obligation to provide services to an informed patient. Lying or failing to inform a patient puts them at risk. You don’t get a religious excuse the malpractice.

    Little Sisters lost their case. SCOTUS punted and upheld the appeals court ruling.

    “The individuals who want these services will find facilities and persons at other locations willing to roll up their sleeves and perform the services they desire.”

    So they should have the equal and adequate care from separate facilities. “Separate but equal” where have we heard that argument before?

  • Sorry Sparky, but might does not make right. We have civil liberties to keep cretins from using majority rule from attacking the rights of others.

    All discriminatory and unconstitutional laws were passed by a majority vote.

    Any pretension of moral standing and values from you and your crowd is a joke. You have pretty much admitted its all about forcing others to do as you say.

  • Not horrifying at all, dear. Common sense in the 21st Century–women are not the chattel of clergy or men, nor are we chattel to evanescent embryos.

  • Re: legal citations”: Are you referring to the citations that demonstrate that embryos are treated as property? Yet you are offended that embryos are the property of the woman? You full of contradictions, honey.

    Re: “medical information”: You refuse to comprehend that abortion is a medical procedure that can save women lives. Yet I have clearly posted text from medical journals that state as such. But you focus in on: “women with heart problems shouldn’t get pregnant in the first place!” How unhelpful, dear.

    Re: “natural abortions are frequent”: This very much establishes the fact, dear, that human embryos are not sacred objects.

    So, nope, all I see from you is irrational opinion and blindness to the basic fact that abortion is reproductive health care for women.

  • You are in complete denial, honey, that abortion is reproductive medical care for women.

    “Below are recommendations for pregnancy management, separated by trimester and delivery, based in part on the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on pregnancy in cardiovascular disease…

    Again: Therapeutic abortion

    “Because of the excessive risk to the mother and fetus discussed in “Basic biology of PH and pregnancy,” when pregnancy occurs in PH (pulmonary hypertension] patients, termination should be offered regardless of WHO FC or other markers of prognosis…

    If surgical evacuation is not feasible, medical abortion using prostaglandins E1 or E2 or misoprostol [note: an abortion-inducing drug], a synthetic prostaglandin structurally related to prostaglandin E1, can be administered to evacuate the uterus.”–“Statement on pregnancy in pulmonary hypertension from the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute” by Anna R. Hemnes et al.

    On and on…the text states ABORTION IS ONE OF THOSE RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS for pulmonary hypertension in a pregnant woman.

  • Was there an example you had in mind of – say – a Catholic hospital performing abortions for some but not for others?

  • Sorry Solanum tuberosulum, but might does not make right. We have civil liberties to keep crypto-nazis from attacking the rights of others by glomming private property and attempting to force others to do their bidding.

    Any pretension of moral standing and values from you and your crowd is a joke.

  • You have no clue how health providers operate. No “professional medical ethics and responsibility” compel healthcare providers to violate their consciences.

    “Abortion on demand” is not a moral argument. If you are claiming these are acts of moral.conscience, you are simply lying then. It is just done because it could be done with impunity.

    No medical provider has an obligation to provide services contrary to her or his conscience or to provide information on such procedures to a patient.

    No, the Little Sisters of the Poor did not lose anything.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/little-sisters-of-the-poor-home-for-the-aged-v-burwell/

    The lower court’s opinion was vacated:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf

    as a result of the Government admitting it did NOT require the Sisters’ cooperation to accomplish its purpose.

    As pointed out previously you’re conflating “separate but equal” in the provision of government services with cases involving private property, so you have never heard that argument before in this context.

    Get a grip, man.

  • I can’t help it if simple facts don’t follow your script. You are such an immature baby. You can’t come up with an argument so you just pretend it doesn’t exist.

    “1. not being physically and inevitably attached to another human beings bodily systems.”

    Yes, we know a fetus is physically attached to its mother. What the moral significance of this is unknown. Taken at its face it creates on open season on conjoined twins.

    “2. Having distinct and unique interests from another person”

    We can now kill premature infants.

    “3. Having unique and distinct existence from another person.”

    Along with killing premature infants, we can kill the disabled.

    “4. Being capable of being represented by a guardian without affecting the existence of interests of any other human being.”

    Yes, we know you want to back into “fetus”.

    You are hopeless here. You can’t understand personhood, but you keep bandying it about as though it is meaningful. You pretend it exists, but it is just a slogan. Of course your concern is simply to establish on open season on fetuses.

  • It is recommended EARLY IN THE PREGNANCY AS BACKUP BIRTH CONTROL.

    What is not described is a medical condition that would make an abortion an emergency in Phoenix.

    Focus, honey, focus.

  • All I see from you is irrational opinion,“honey”, “sweetie”, “dear” and other terms of attempted belittlement, and more smarm.

    Abortion on demand as birth control is not “healthcare” by any rational definition of healthcare.

  • That is not a very likely example as a Catholic hospital won’t be performing them until the Pope changes his mind. If he does the hospital should perform them without discrimination.

  • **Which means precisely nothing, when looking at the life of a single individual.**
    Really? GASP! Immaculate Conception!!

    **And yes, I’m aware that most embryos fail to implant. The fact that something happens naturally doesn’t give us the moral right to force it. For example, the diseases that killed most of the Amerinds living in the Americas were perfectly natural, Europeans cannot be held accountable for them. The men that deliberately gave the blankets of smallpox victims to Amerinds to spread the disease are quite another matter.**

    But here is the great big elephant in the living room with your whimper:

    While it is true that the fact that something happens naturally doesn’t automatically give us the right to ‘force it’ NEITHER does the fact that something happens naturally mean it is WRONG to force it.

    In almost all cases, except if the person involved is a complete nutjob, if we fail to get upset when something happens ‘naturally’, we generally do not get upset when someone ‘forces’ it to happen, or feel that they don’t have a ‘right’ to ‘force’ it to happen. It is only things that upset us when they happen ‘naturally’ that we feel that there is not a ‘right’ for someone to ‘force’ it to happen.

    Case in point, we generally don’t get frantic and upset when leaves blow out of our yard ‘naturally’. We don’t give a crap about the leaves. Therefore, unless we a nutjob control freaks, we also don’t give a crap if someone ‘forces’ a leaf out of our yard. Say, by picking one up and taking it away for their leaf scrapbook.

    However, we WOULD get upset if the wind blew away, say, a $100 bill. It is BECAUSE we get upset over the loss of $100, regardless of HOW IT HAPPENS, that we feel that people do not have a ‘right’ to ‘force’ a $100 bill out of our wallets, by picking our pockets.

    This is where your whimpery comparison of smallpox to abortion fails.

    You are correct in your assertion that we don’t have a ‘right’ to ‘force’ someone to get smallpox, by giving them contaminated blankets.

    But here’s the thing – when people die of smallpox, NATURALLY, we get upset. We cry and have funerals.

    This is not the case when an embryo dies. We don’t cry, we don’t have a funeral, and we toss it’s ‘precious’ body into the nearest garbage can or sewer.

    Yet you claim we should somehow be frantic and upset if someone ‘forces’ an embryo to die, despite our universal complete failure to care at all, when it happens naturally. That’s like claiming that we should get upset and frantic if someone takes a single leaf out of our yards, even though we don’t care one bit how many the wind blows away.

    There is a name for this: Special Pleading. You want abortion and ONLY abortion to be the only ‘special’ situation where we should get upset over someone ‘forcing’ something to happen, that we otherwise don’t care about.

  • “Back up birth control early in pregnancy?” That doesn’t make any sense, dear. As I stated, honey, you’re in complete denial that an abortion can save women’s lives in a pregnancy complication.

    Do you now want to screech how an abortion isn’t necessary to save a pregnant women from stroke, kidney and liver failure in eclampsia?

  • “Pats Religious Pea Brain On Head”

    Re: “belittlement”: True, dear. I find anti-choice religious males, who lack a vagina, uterus, who don’t gush blood once a month, or who will never endure an unwanted or complicated pregnancy, yet think their nose belongs up my nether regions, dictating my reproductive choices, are quite ridiculous creatures.

    Birth control is very much a part of women’s reproductive care, dear. Women can choose when or if they have children. Women can space out their children, leading to healthier birth weights.

    RE: “Abortion on demand as birth control is not “healthcare”: You have quite the uphill fight against the experiences and wisdom of our major health organizations. Not to mention women and men, who share the same mindset, that women’s medical decisions are none of your effing business.

    Recall: American Medical Association: “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 College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: “Safe, legal abortion is a necessary component of women’s health care.”

    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.”

    etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. If you think you know more than ER physicians, or OBGYNs, you should go to school and get a medical degree.

  • You’re done here. You are reduced to lame mirroring my posts because you have nothing. Now you are just getting boring.

    Go find another thread.

  • There is no act of conscience in denying people access and information to services. It is just being malicious for its own sake. Religious belief being used as excuses to act badly.

    You really have no clue what an act of conscience or moral stands really are. Your religious beliefs are self serving malicious garbage.

    Christian belief is not an excuse for malpractice no matter how hard you guys lobby for it.

  • When YOU go to school and get a medical degree, do let us know.

    Otherwise what you’re armed with is an OPINION.

    It’s value is well summarized:

    “Re: ‘belittlement’: True, dear. I find anti-choice religious males, who lack a vagina, uterus, who don’t gush blood once a month, or who will never endure an unwanted or complicated pregnancy, yet think their nose belongs up my nether regions, dictating my reproductive choices, are quite ridiculous creatures.”

    So, you won’t be participating in any actual discussions except with people – primarily female – who agree with you.

  • Re: “you won’t be participating in any actual discussions”: Why, sweetie, here I am, trying to educate you religious fanatics on basic human reproductive biology, women’s rights in the 21st Century, and modern medical views on women’s reproductive health care.

    Re: “go to school and get a medical degree”: Honey, I not only have a research doctorate in geochemistry/geology, I have a master’s background in biological studies, which includes microbiology, evolutionary biology, mammology, human paleontology, population dynamics, etc. Sweetie, it is not only medical degrees that can confer a knowledge of developmental biology.

    Put down the bible, pick up a science book. Or read a sensible book on the topic of abortion– I enjoyed David Grimes, M.D., “Every Third Woman in America: How Legal Abortion Transformed Our Nation”. You might learn something.

  • Why, Punkinhead, there you are calling people “religious fanatics”, touting irrelevant “basic human reproductive biology”, trying to play a Betty Freidan on “women’s rights in the 21st Century”, and cranking out propaganda on women’s reproductive “health care”.

    As I read it, I think of Germaine Greer’s assessment of Betty Friedan: “…. she would become breathless with outrage if she didn’t get the deference she thought she deserved.”

    I have four degrees and a professional license. That does not place me in any particular position to pontificate. I have to build my arguments, assemble my facts, and connect them in some logical manner just like everyone else.

    Unless your degree is in philosophy, history, particularly with some knowledge and experience in the area of ethics, a research doctorate in geochemistry/geology, master’s “background” in biological studies, including microbiology, evolutionary biology, mammology, human paleontology, and population dynamics, does not place you in any particular position to pontificate, except perhaps on the evolution of fruit flies or the age of some rocks.

    You have to build your arguments, assemble your facts, and connect them in some logical manner just like everyone else. Unless and until you do that, you’re getting all the deference you earned.

    Long lists of people YOU think are swell who agree with you does not accomplish that.

    Science has nothing to contribute on this public policy, and as we saw in the 30s, scientists are more than happy to roll up their sleeves and do dastardly deeds if they are funded.

  • You’re done here. You’re reduced to whining about getting your own medicine because you can’t put together an argument that doesn’t involve assertions of being right and slogans.

  • So a license to practice medicine makes you a serf to the Government and requires you to park your beliefs at home?

    LOL, you are beyond ignorant.

  • Failure to do your bidding is not malpractice. It has been litigated repeatedly.

    There is not a requirement to do or inform people of things which violate your conscience, be it abortion or assisted suicide.

    Hatred for religious belief is being used as an excuse to act like a fascist.

    You really have no clue what an act of conscience or moral stands really are. Your hatred for religious beliefs is self-serving malicious garbage.

  • Wow, that was just plain fevered rambling. I’m sorry, there is no way I am speaking with a remotely intelligent and sane person.

    You are talking about people not willing to do their jobs as given. Who refuse to follow any sense of responsibility for the positions they hold. Excuses for acting badly. It’s not acting in a moral fashion. It’s not an act of conscience to essentially lie to patients or withhold treatment. You use the term, but clearly have no clue what an actual moral stand is.

    The reason they are looking for protection from the executive branch is because litigation has not gone well for such actions.

    Failing to inform patients of available options or refusing treatments on the basis of arbitrary criteria having nothing to do with the patient condition is invitation to malpractice.

    “You really have no clue what an act of conscience or moral stands really are. Your hatred for religious beliefs is self-serving malicious garbage.”

    Aww poor cretin can’t come up with his own phrases so he just tries to rework mine. Only more ridiculous.

    BTW I don’t hate religious belief. I oppose people who use religious belief as an excuse to act badly to others.

  • Yup. The responsibility to the public to provide adequate medical care is more important than your excuses to act like a malicious dbag.

    I must have triggered you something fierce. You can’t do anything but ape my prior statements. I appreciate the homage, but it’s done in such a silly manner.

  • Re: “I have four degrees and a professional license.”: Obviously nothing in science, dear.

    Re: Betty Freidan…”: Honey, my inspiration and role models growing up were the Drs. Margaret Mead and Jane Goodall–scientists. I still have my old beaten-up copy of “Coming of Age in Samoa”.

    Re: “particularly with some knowledge and experience in the area of ethics”: Sweetie, sweetie, sweetie, you know so little of the world of science. Ethic courses are a common requirement for budding scientists. For example, in order to receive National Science Foundation funding, a university has to provide training in the “responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research.” My Alma Mater, the Colorado School of Mines, has always offered ethics courses, and recently our ETHICS ACROSS CAMPUS (EAC) group won the Rocky Mountain Regional Ethics Bowl.

    In Ethics Bowl, teams of three to five students face off to argue and defend moral assessments of the most complex ethical issues facing today’s society. Teams are judged on their ability to demonstrate understanding of the facts, articulate ethical principles, present an effective argument and respond effectively to challenges from the opposing team and judges.

    Well, now, I’d say this ethics activity exactly fits your criteria, honey.

    Re: “Science has nothing to contribute on this public policy”: Are you referring to “abortion” as “public policy”, dear? Abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Religious fanatics and misogynists do their best to make abortion a public issue, but I can assure you that my body is not public property. My uterus is not public property. I am in charge of my body FOREVER. Each woman is in charge of her body–not you, not clergy, not the government. The only body you get to control is your own.

    Sweetie, it is through science that we know that most embryos fail to implant; it is through science that we understand that “fetal wastage” is common; it is through science that effective long-term contraception was and is developed.

    Re: “in the 30s”: *Pats On Head*. Honey, Nazi Germany has nothing to do with an individual woman’s personal medical decision.

  • Re: ” exercise the democratic process”: Honey, you appear to have the mistaken belief that women’s bodies are public property to be voted upon. They are not. I certainly know that my body is not public property. My uterus is certainly not public property. Women are the dictators over their own bodies.

  • Honey, I read and posted text from those peer-review medical journal articles, stating that abortion is one treatment for a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension.

    Do post the reference and text where you pulled this nonsensical phrase of yours “early in the pregnancy as backup birth control”. I repeat–this does not make any sense–I would like to read the context where this strange phrase is from.

  • There is no legal mechanism to compel individuals to violate their consciences to provide what YOU think is “adequate medical care”.

    Of course I ape your ridiculous posts. Ridicule is the best remedy for vacuousness.

  • I knew going in I wasn’t posting to a remotely intelligent and sane person.

    No, they refuse to do what YOU tell them their jobs are.

    Patients have access to numerous healthcare providers that will do as you wish.

    You have yet to provide a single example of litigation going against them – not one.

    You’re a cretin who believes that making erroneous statements will somehow make the baloney true.

    Of course you hate people acting according to their consciences, particularly if they’re motivated by religious beliefs.

    You really have no clue what an act of conscience or moral stands really are. Your hatred for religious beliefs is self-serving malicious garbage.

  • What they both say is DO NOT GET PREGNANT.

    If that occurs, get an abortion to end it, NOT AN EMERGENCY abortion later in the term.

    You seem to be losing the thread.

    You began with the assertion the woman in Phoenix had to have an abortion forthwith because it was life-threatening. Neither of your proffered citations describe that scenario.

    Oh well, no big Diehl.

  • I can’t help it if your position flies in the face of professional medical ethical and legal standards. Obviously being a self righteous dbag is more important to you than providing adequate medical care and avoiding malpractice. Some set of priorities you have there. 🙂

  • Actually there is. It’s called medical licensing standards. The reason they are now running under the skirt of government is because there is a clear liability in such actions without some kind of special dispensation and exception. They want to use religion as an excuse to act badly. You really don’t think anything through.

    It’s amazing what kind of disregard you have for the lives of others. Yet you still cling to a fiction of upholding values and morals. Delusional.

  • What I believe you mean to say is that you can’t help it that professional medical ethical and legal standards don’t demand compliance with your wishes.

    Of course as you’re a self righteous dbag, the rest of us are please as punch.

  • Geology qualifies you as healthcare scientist, an ethics expert? Did you spend a great deal of time caring for rocks and advising them on morality?

    Are you that delusional and self-absorbed?

    My area of expertise is more relevant to the moral analysis than yours.

    Abortion is a moral decision, and a legal decision, and then only if it is legal is it between a woman and her doctor, and then only to the extent the law allows.

    Unless your body has two heads, two brains, four legs, four arms, and two different DNAs, “ I am in charge of my body FOREVER” is a slogan, not science.

    I didn’t mention Nazi Germany. However, I can see why you might be familiar with that regime, given your mindset: Science über alles, Zyklon B forever.

    However consider Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), Walter Jackson Freeman II, M.D., the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male …. ah yes, the benefits of real science. Scientists are not generally associated with high morals.

    The fact that most embryos fail to implant has nothing to do with the morality or legality of the human act of procuring abortion. In fact it has nothing to do with the discussion.

    Once again we see science provides data, not decisions.

  • If you can cite an actual case where “medical licensing standards” were used to compel a hospital, a physician, a nurse, or other practitioner to perform, assist, advise, or otherwise violate its, his, or hers conscientious objections, pass it on.

    Be very specific.

    Otherwise it fair to conclude that you cling to a delusional fiction in which your wishes have become horses, and all must ride.

  • Nonsense request. If the threat of legal liability and malpractice didn’t exist, then the laws would already protect those actions. There would be no need for special dispensation by government. One would not need to rely on talk pick religious privilege to condone the actions. The actions and attitudes of Bible thumpers here speak for themselves.

  • I see someone working on a Spuddie dictionary for reading your posts.

    Here’s an addition:

    “Nonsense request” – you got me there, buddy

    Do get a few facts once in awhile to go with your strong, if odd, opinions.

  • Honey, the most sensible thing for women suffering from heart conditions is not to get pregnant because of the toll pregnancy takes on every organ in our ladies’ bodies–but as Dr. Sadja Greenwood has pointed out: “Women are just as desperate not to have children as they are to have children.” In addition, dear, women commonly do not find out that they have health issues until they do become pregnant.

    Re: “the woman in Phoenix had to have an abortion forthwith because it was life-threatening”: Yep. As determined by multiple physicians and the hospital committee. Yet you, a total stranger to the ER situation, and obviously NOT a medical doctor, proclaim that you know better than these physicians and wildly state that there was no need for an abortion.

    Re: “Neither of your proffered citations describe that scenario.”: You have reading comprehension problems, dear. Sweetie, I posted verbatim text, from the medical journals, which clearly stated that termination of a pregnancy was sometimes called for in cases of pulmonary hypertension. Here is more text, from the “Pregnancy in women with pulmonary hypertension” by Pieper and Hoendermis:

    …sometimes women become pregnant despite being advised against pregnancy, or pulmonary hypertension is newly diagnosed during pregnancy. These women are usually advised to terminate the pregnancy even though termination itself is also associated with maternal risks.

    However, I have not seen a posted text from you as to where your insane statement “Back up birth control early in pregnancy” came from?

    Perhaps you should offer your services to hospital OBGYNS and emergency doctors as to your vast expertise in declaring that women do not need abortions to stay alive in dire pregnancy complications. What a buffoon!

  • Your posts are very informed and highly enlightening. Appreciate that greatly, pleasure to follow them.

    As for the buffoon above, what a perfect example of why majority of young women are pro-choice…

    His ignorant ilk acts as if they were born yesterday. Any adult knows how many things can happen to a human in 9 months. People get diagnosed with cancers, often aggressive forms of it, daily, and require to start treatments immediately to achieve the best possible results.
    ( wait, now he will say ” why don’t they just wait and start treatment later!” or something similarly idiotic)

  • What are your degrees in, dear? I haven’t seen you say what your field of “expertise” is? In the “soft sciences” perhaps? Mine are in the “hard sciences” of geology, geochemistry, and biology. You, my dear, certainly come across as delusional and self-absorbed–how else to describe your desire to be a petty dictator over women’s reproductive lives? As I pointed out above, sweetie, scientists go through ethics programs–we are far more “relevant” than you religious numbnuts in making ‘moral’ decisions. For one example, the hatred directed toward homosexuality, a natural behavior throughout the animal kingdom, is religious driven.

    RE: “I am in charge of my body FOREVER”: Honey, I am always in charge of my body and the expert on my own body. Certainly not you. I make all my medical decisions in consultation with a doctor–not a rabid religious fanatic. Even after death, my body cannot be harvested for organs unless I have given permission beforehand. The only body you get to control is your own.

    RE: “Abortion is a moral decision, and a legal decision”: It’s the 21st Century. Abortion is a medical decision.

    Re: “as we saw in the 30s”: Ah, since your phrase had no context, I assumed that you were referring to Nazi Germany. So many of your kind dote on comparing Hitler’s campaign to wipe out ethnicities with an individual woman making a personal medical decision.

    Re: “Tuskegee Study”: Yes, dear, there have been racist unethical scientists, just as there are racist unethical bible-humpers–“Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

    Re: “The fact that most embryos fail to implant…”: This basic reproductive biological fact, my dear, demonstrates that human embryos are not sacrosanct. Embryos that are frozen in test tubes in IVF clinics demonstrate that human embryos are not sacrosanct. You attribute a sacredness to human embryos that does not exist. I have news for you, honey, women are people with the same fundamental rights as men.

  • Do us all a favor and provide a citation to those “medical licensing standards” so we can all become familiar with them.

    To this point the courts seem to be unable to find them, as the ACLU’s repeated losses show.

  • You ought to provide a citation to those “medical licensing standards” to the ACLU so that it can cite them in its next court battle.

    To this point the courts seem to be unable to find them, at least as you and the ACLU interpret them

  • Honey, what you should be trying to establish is that there was an actual need for an emergency abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital as you alleged.

    Your texts, on the other hand, describe taking every step EXCEPT trying to carry a pregnancy, including aborting if birth control fails, and IF you attempt to carry the pregnancy to term against their advice, having a medical SWAT team of experts taking care of you.

    Clearly, then, either the woman was the victim of medical malpractice, or the “emergency” was not an emergency, or both.

    If you actually read your texts you’d see where “Back up birth control early in pregnancy” came from. You have reading comprehension problems, dear sweetie, if you can’t find abortion immediately following birth control sequentially in both texts in a context which makes it clear that the recommended abortions are backups if the recommended birth control fails.

    What a buffoon!

  • Look up legal standards for malpractice. If what they were doing was perfectly legal and reasonable within medical practices and standards, the law would already protect their actions. But obviously they don’t. The fact that they are looking for exceptions as religious belief tells you they aren’t.

    For irony sake
    “In Malpractice Case, Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Aren’t People”
    126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people

  • So, they haven’t been successfully sued for malpractice.

    Oh those pesky lawyers citing the law which defines a fetus as a non-person in that state because people like you like it that way.

    Well, that pretty wraps up your ungrounded unsupported whacky argument.

  • I am not going to engage in dueling degrees, especially when you’ve made it clear that your degree is both irrelevant and unhelpful in analyzing the moral aspects, your snotty comments such as “religious numbnuts” notwithstanding.

    No, this basic reproductive biological fact doesn’t demonstrate that human embryos are not sacrosanct.

    All it demonstrates is that many, even perhaps most, embryos fail to implant.

    The moral implications of that are outside the competence of science, as you continually demonstrate.

  • Re: “St. Joseph’s Hospital”: You have a bone stuck between your teeth, there, sweetie.

    No one is invoking SWAT teams, dear. Abortion is still a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. …sometimes women become pregnant despite being advised against pregnancy, or pulmonary hypertension is newly diagnosed during pregnancy. These women are usually advised to terminate the pregnancy…

    “Advised” is invoking a SWAT team, sweetie? And you wonder why people laugh at you…

    Re: “an actual need for an emergency abortion”: Honey, multiple physicians and the hospital committee ,including a catholic nun, determined that the pregnant woman was dying from pulmonary hypertension and that her life would be saved by an abortion…and lo!…the woman is walking around, taking care of her other four children.

    Re: “Back up birth control early in pregnancy”: I do not recall reading such an inane statement. Do post which paper it came from and the paragraph.

    *Pats Bloviating Bible-Impaired Male On Head*

  • What a load of evasive drivel.

    Your fourth paragraph simply restates your original still unsupported assertions.

    *Pats Bovine Self_Important Female On Head”

  • I repeat: women are people with the same fundamental rights as men.

    Re: “I am not going to engage in dueling degrees”: Sweetie, unless I’m mistaken, you’ve been espousing that you’re qualified to dictate over women’s reproductive medical decisions…so, what are your credentials besides possession of a penis?

    Re: “…doesn’t demonstrate that human embryos are not sacrosanct.”: Now try to follow carefully here—there is no difference between those viable embryos that our ladies’ bodies naturally abort, or an embryo that a woman may choose to abort. No difference. None. Each is a unique DNA construct. Yet, you have this notion that an embryo that a woman chooses to abort, is more special, more “magical”, than the millions upon millions of embryos that our ladies’ bodies shed. When a woman naturally aborts, well, that’s “nature” or “God” or whathaveyou … no real loss if a woman never knew she was pregnant in the first place. However, if a woman CHOOSES to abort that same embryo, at the same gestational stage as a natural abortion … all of a sudden it’s this damn catastrophe to you and in your “faith”, the woman is evil, going to burn in a mythical hell, and other religious rot. It’s highly illogical.

    Sweetie, we’ve already established that “morals” are highly subjective.

  • Re: “fourth paragraph”: Honey, these are not “my” assertions—these are the assertions of a group of qualified medical personnel…including a catholic medical nun.

    As the woman’s condition deteriorated, a cardiac catherization revealed that she suffered from “very severe pulmonary arterial hypertension with profoundly reduced cardiac output” and “right heart failure” and “cardiogenic shock,” according to report later compiled by the hospital’s ethics committee. In other words, the medical staff believed that both mother and child would die if the present situation were allowed to continue. Thus, termination of the pregnancy was recommended and agreed to by the mother. Because of her serious condition, she could not be moved to another hospital.

    *Pats Spluttering Bible-Impaired Male On Head Who Says: “I’m not a doctor but I do pretend (like little kids love to do) to be one when I arrogantly proclaim from my throne on-high that I know much more than any mere woman what’s better for her.” *

  • Thank you. I’m glad to read other pro-choice comments here, too!

    I agree–that Bob Arnzen is a particular dense idiotic misogynistic buffoon…as is Carioca. These male goons actually think that women should die in pregnancy complications along with the fetus. What utter arrogance.

  • Thank you. I’m glad to read other intelligent comments here, too!

    I agree–that Sharon Diehl is a particularly dense idiotic misandrist. This female doofus actually thinks that because miscarriages occur naturally, the discussion ends. What utter arrogance.

  • Do you have the slightest idea what “a catholic medical nun” might be? The woman was a sister, not a nun, and the “medical” is meaningless.

    Your “As the woman’s condition ….” was lifted from “What Happened In Phoenix”

    https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/741/100/what-happened-phoenix

    by Kevin O’Rourke, a tout for direct sterilization and abortion.

    Fortunately for the hospital’s self-serving summary, privacy issues prevented independent examination of their assertions. We do not even know whether the woman was Christian or why her physician failed to detect “very severe pulmonary arterial hypertension with profoundly reduced cardiac output” which normal pre-natal screening would have detected.

    One hopes she sued her or him for malpractice.

    Once again we see that a geologist/geochemist is not a theologian, a detective, a philosopher, an ethicist, or anything else relevant to her conclusions.

  • i see that bone is still stuck between your teeth, dear. You have a profound anger that the woman lived and the fetus died, instead of them both dying in martyrdom glory for your silly religious beliefs. Thank goodness we’re a secular nation, not ruled over by superstitious beliefs. But we have to work harder to prevent catholic organizations from buying up hospitals and imposing their dogma on sick women.

    I was heartened to read a woman’s comment that she had told her husband in no circumstances was he ever to take her to a catholic hospital if she was unable to speak for herself. So many of us ladies across the nation informed our families of the very same thing in our fertile years. I wonder if this wisdom has been passed onto the younger generation.

    Sweetie, geologists make very good detectives–how else do you think we find mineral and energy resources to keep your life style going. As for “theologian”, thank goodness I’m not a waste on society.

  • Would you mind if we voted on whether you’re “a waste on society”?

    Sweetie, if you happen to know one or more “geologists (who make) make very good detectives”, ask them to assist you, because you ain’t.

    Btw, we’re not a secular nation. France and Mexico are secular nations.

    We are a nation in which religious, irreligious, and fantastic beliefs all commingle in the public square. We do, however, forbid an establishment of religion – e.g., the Church of England, the Church of Sweden – and religious tests for office.

  • Don’t be silly, dear. If I was a “misandrist”, I wouldn’t have married a man.

    Sweetie, I see you have not understood that most embryos simply do not implant in the first place–this is not “miscarriage”, i.e., spontaneous abortion; embryos are simply flushed from women. The CDC estimates that 25% of pregnancies spontaneously abort–miscarry if you prefer; IVF clinics estimate that 35% of pregnancies spontaneously abort; and March of Dimes estimates that 50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort. Goodness, but your deity sure changes its mind a lot about ensouling all those embryos that just go “Whoosh! Plop!”

    The discussion ends, dear, because WOMEN OWN THEIR BODIES.

  • Nope. Twenty-two years was enough to put in. No more wondering where he is, what he is doing, and who he is doing it with. 😉 At this stage of my life, freedom and traveling where I want to go, do what I want to do, and choose who to go with, is awesome.

    So, dear, is “heaven” full of blind non sentient embryos wafting about?

  • Apparently some of your sources are filled with blind non-sentient “experts”.

    Or they just incredibly self-important, like the Lion King life cycle “scientist”.

  • My ‘sources’ are from various scientists, scientific organizations, medical doctors, and medical associations. Nope, no ‘sources’ from “theologians” who pontificate on ensoulment at the contact of sperm and ovum. I don’t do silly stuff.

  • how did your marital status came into discussion? Maybe your debate opponent Jose trying to ask you on a date? I would say ice cream, just to keep forks/knives away from the table 🙂 , sparks will fly for sure

  • Re: how did your marital status came into discussion?”: Who knows…these fundie bible-humpers are strange types. Women are devils to them if we’re not married, waiting on a man hand and foot, and have popped out at least 6 children.

    To me, Carioca and Arnzen represent the worse in patriarchal organized religion. These two actually think they know more than doctors in treating complications in pregnant women! I can only shake my head…and poke fun at such idiocy.

    It’s amazing that these goofballs (and others at this site) actually think that a woman’s uterus is public property.

  • Sometime watch the Tom Baker Dr Who episode, ‘The Underworld” (I think that’s what it’s called.) It’s about a space ship from a destroyed planet that is frantically searching for a lost space ship that held a golden container full of frozen fertilized eggs, intended to colonize a new planet.
    The eventually found it, along with an unpleasant civilization full of masters and slaves descended from the crew of the first ship. The captain of the second ship needed to leave in a hurry (the small planet where they were located was about to be destroyed, and wanted to rush off with the golden container full of the precious fertilized eggs, in order to save ‘his people’, until the Doctor pointed at the slaves and told him: THESE are your people.
    He saved the slaves and left the fertilized eggs. Sad that we’ve gone downhill so far since the 70’s.

  • .
    One solution to nurses opting out of performing their jobs based on personal moral objections would be to change their salaries/personal compensation system to be based on a piece-work system.

    No work-ee, no pay-ee.
    .

ADVERTISEMENTs