New Stanek WND column, "The copycat who stopped live tweeting her abortion"

WND%20logo.gif

Last week I wrote about Angie Jackson, who began live tweeting her RU-486 abortion on Feb. 18 to "demystify" us, thinking it would be a "4 hour bleed out."

We learned together Jackson was grossly uninformed about the medical abortion process.

For 9 days Jackson tweeted about recurring headaches, nausea, vomiting, bleeding, pelvic pain, backaches, and cramping so bothersome she went through an entire bottle of 20 Tylenol with codeine in a week and had to ask for more (which she was apparently denied, tweeting Feb. 27, "This is definitely the most pain so far. It's distracting & makes me unhappy... Ibuprofin is a joke, ya'll")....

Next Thursday logo, abortion.jpg

Meanwhile, a copycat named Next Thursday, inspired by Jackson, decided to begin tweeting her RU-486 abortion on Feb. 25....

When the day came for Next Thursday to begin her RU-486 abortion, it had first to be determined whether she was too far along....

That the abortion mill qualified Next Thursday for an RU-486 abortion by ultrasound tells me it may have fudged on dates.... a red flag for events to follow....

Three days into Next Thursday's RU-486 abortion, something bad happened. Her second-to-last tweet ominously reads: "I've been bleeding like a stuffed pig all day."...

Continue reading my column today, "The copycat who stopped live tweeting her abortion," on WorldNetDaily.com...


Comments:

I pray she is okay.

Posted by: Cristy at March 10, 2010 8:34 AM


"Three days into Next Thursday's RU-486 abortion, something bad happened"

And how do you know something bad happened? You don't. You're taking guesses. For all we know, it could be a medical emergency, a family emergency, her computer could be broken, she's just sick of Twitter, etc. You must be hoping that something bad happened to her. You obviously don't care about her (you bash her, and then you pretend to care about her? That's not caring), you care about advancing the anti-choice agenda. You want something bad to happen to her so you can say "Ha! I told you so! RU486 is dangerous!", while going on to deny the fact that far more women die in childbirth. Anyone who sincerely thinks that you care about anyone but yourself has been fooled.

The only real compassion I've seen for nextthurs so far has been coming from pro-choicers. We're not taking random guesses as to what happened, and we're not going to use her experiences to advance an agenda. We want to know what happened to her because we want to know if she's okay. Antis want to know what happened to her because they want to know if they can use her experience for a political gain. Pro-choicers aren't the ones that are bashing her and calling her names. Antis are. Compassion isn't so common on the anti-choice side.

PS- Before you say "Of course something bad happened! She said she was bleeding!", yeah, that was supposed to happen. You're supposed to bleed after you take RU486. Pretty pathetic that you haven't figured that out yet.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 9:07 AM


Prochoice gal, you aren't supposed to "bleed like a stuffed pig" or go through more than one pad an hour. From her tweets, it's clear that she was doing both. I was instructed to go immediately to the hospital if either occured during my last miscarriage.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 9:21 AM


Lauren: Mind posting where she said that she was going through more than on pad an hour?

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 9:26 AM


"Inserted" pills?! I distinctly remember the abortion businesses claiming that they stopped telling people to do that when they saw how dangerous it was, and started telling moms to take it orally instead. So much for women's health.

And yeah, what Lauren said. We aren't HOPING that something bad happened to her, but we do think it likely that that's what happened. Jill has extended a compassionate offer of help, not "bashing her."

Posted by: Kelsey at March 10, 2010 9:30 AM


And live tweeting an abortion is not about pushing an agenda? Puleeeeze!

First of all, NO ONE wants something bad to happen to her.

Second of all you pro-choicers keep insisting we don't care about the women. That could not be farther from the truth. We care about women far more deeply than do the people pushing women into abortion clinics. We see abortion as a tragic symptom that the system has failed women, so we try to step into that gap. I work with two local crisis pregnancy centers that help women make the "choice" that they really want to make. Not the "choice" that their circumstances seem to dictate to them. These CPC's empower women to believe in themselves that they CAN finish school, pursue a career and live the lives they desire to live. All this without having to kill the child growing within them.

People pushing abortion are telling women, "no, you really CAN'T do this. You are not strong enough. And no we won't help you. It's better to swallow your fears as well as your maternal instincts and be rid of this baby. Then all will return to normal." Guess what? All will NOT return to normal.

I realllllly wish you pro-aborts would stop this mantra about pro-lifers not caring about women, it's simply not true.

Posted by: Peg at March 10, 2010 9:35 AM


PCG,

Why would there be any concern as to whether or not she is OK? Isn't RU486 simple and harmless? That's apparently what Angie had been told and expected.

Let's see, Angie only had 9 days of nausea, bleeding, pelvic pain, backaches, and intense cramping. She only went through 20 tyelenols/codeine and was apparently denied a renewal on her prescription. Ibuprofen didn't appear to offer much relief.

Nah, no cause for any concern. A computer breakdown would be the first likelihood to cross my mind as well, PCG.

Posted by: Mary at March 10, 2010 9:38 AM


Peg- Nope. People who support abortion rights just don't support the assault of women. We don't support forcing women through pregnancies, forcing them to have abortions, forcing them to give their children up for adoption, etc. We're not telling women that they CAN'T go through the pregnancy, we're telling them that we're not going to force them to if they don't want to. Antis are telling women that they know what's best for the woman's live. They believe that women are too stupid to make their own decisions, and therefore must be forced through the pregnancy. Forcing people through pregnancies is NOT caring about them. Anyone who claims not to hate women and who supports laws that restrict abortion access is either 1) a liar or 2) very, very misguided.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 9:40 AM


Mary-

As if we didn't know that RU486 (like ANY OTHER drug) has less than pleasant side effects? Death from RU486 is very rare. That's why pro-choicers aren't going to randomly guess that that's what happened to her.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 9:44 AM


or telling them its okay to stay with men that treat them as sex objects? Or telling them that they can't raise a child and have a career/go to school? Or telling them abortion is safer than giving birth? Or telling them that their child is just a blood clot or a piece or tissue?


Women are stronger than that and they DON'T need to be told by society that ABORTION IS THE ONLY solution. Sex begets babies. GO back to biology class and learn a simple scientific fact.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2010 9:46 AM


PCG,

You don't support forcing women to have abortions? Really? Well, I know accounts of any number of women threatened, coerced, and intimidated into legal abortions by men determined to get themselves off the hook. Legal abortion made it a lot easier. I worked with pregnant women and mothers who were abandoned by men who felt their obligation to a pregnant partner began and ended with the offer to pay for an abortion. This often left women with few options and choices.
That's when we saw them at the CPC where they got the help they needed from PL people.

Posted by: Mary at March 10, 2010 9:47 AM


LizFromNebraska-

"or telling them its okay to stay with men that treat them as sex objects? Or telling them that they can't raise a child and have a career/go to school? Or telling them abortion is safer than giving birth? Or telling them that their child is just a blood clot or a piece or tissue?"

I don't tell women ANY of those things, other than "abortion is safer than childbirth" (because it is).

Mary-

I don't support coercion, either. It should be the woman's CHOICE, 100%. For her to have a choice, abortion has to be an option. If it's not an option, then she's just being forced through the pregnancy (which is JUST as bad as forcing someone to have an abortion).

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 9:51 AM


PCG,

Less than pleasant side effects? That is certainly charitable. I did not get the impression that anyone advised Angie of these "side effects".

Any other drug you can name, and that you would willingly take, that causes similar "side effects".

Posted by: Mary at March 10, 2010 9:54 AM


PCG,

If you support "choice" then why are pro-aborts sooo vehemently opposed to crisis pregnancy centers?? Shouldn't that be viewed as a valid choice?

Oh, and by the way, neither CPC's nor prolife people ever FORCE a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. It is always the woman's choice, a harder choice in today's society. That's why the CPC's are there, to make THAT choice easier.

Posted by: Peg at March 10, 2010 9:57 AM


Also, abortion is NOT safer than childbirth. That's just another PP lie that so many like to swallow....

Posted by: Peg at March 10, 2010 9:59 AM


PCG,

How do you feel about abortion as birth control?

Also, do you know of any CPCs run by PCs? Certainly they would want to do everything possible to truly give women choices. I know the CPCs volunteered for never got any donations of money or materiel from the PC community.

Posted by: Mary at March 10, 2010 10:06 AM


PCG:

She said "I do know that one pad is not enough" and that she needed the industrial size pads they give you after you have a baby. That's way too much blood.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 10:08 AM


Lauren,

Imagine if you were having this kind of bleeding, as well as cramping, pain, and nausea after surgery and your doctor just brushed this off as "side effects"? As a medical professional I would tell you to get to an emergency room and fast.

Posted by: Mary at March 10, 2010 10:15 AM


PCG, there is no evidence that abortion is safer than childbirth.

Illnesses and deaths resulting from abortion are not reported on medical records or death certificates as "resulting from induced abortion." Doctors know the shame associated with abortion, so they omit that information to protect patients and families.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 10, 2010 10:18 AM


"Peg- Nope. People who support abortion rights just don't support the assault of women."


Sure, they do. Abortion is probably the biggest killer of women worldwide. Gets which gender gets targeted by families for birth control purposes usually worldwide? Females.

And guess who are the ones protesting this crimes against humanity over one's gender? Pro-lifers.

Your side may at times complain or bemoan that, but hard to do with looking hypocritical since you want to pretend the unborn are lumps of tissues and not real humans.


Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 10:20 AM


I just checked on an OB's site about managing miscarriages. They say that you need to get in contact with your doctor if you have heavy bleeding for more than 2 HOURS. Nextthurs was bleeding heavily for days. I really hope she got medical treatment.

http://www.bostonobgyn.org/miscarriage.htm

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 10:24 AM


PCG,

Let's just say that if one of my daughters or a friend had the bleeding Lauren described and I suddenly stopped hearing from her, my first thought would not be that she has a problem with her phone. I would be concerned that

1. She wound up in the hospital for emergency care.

2. She collapsed at home from blood loss and is in need of immediate help.

Posted by: Mary at March 10, 2010 10:24 AM


"At the abortion clinic I was given more information on the risks of childbirth, including what those risks are and what the chances for each risk,than I was given by professionals during any of my pregnancies."

That post made my skin crawl as I remembered that liveaction clip http://liveaction.org/index.php/projects/rosaacuna of the abortion doc attempting to scare the young woman out of childbirth by being very graphic about the risks (after the non-medical staff lied to her about the development of her child.)

I question why they gave Nextthurs more information about the risks of childbirth than the risks of abortion--the procedure they were actually going to do. Could it be to "manipulatively counsel" her into an abortion?

Posted by: Scott at March 10, 2010 10:25 AM


"We don't support forcing women through pregnancies"

Very asinine claim to make. NO one on the pro-life side believe women should be forced to bear children or be forced to become pregnant. But once by their OWN CHOICE to have sex, they are pregnant and have UNBORN CHILDREN, they should not be INFRINGING on the rights to live of others.


"forcing them to have abortions"

No, your side look the other way, if women chooses to have abortions as result of PRESSURE from hedonious would-be boyfriends or husbands (who in these cases BENEFIT from abortions FAR MORE than the women who did the abortions and REGRET doing so).

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 10:26 AM


"forcing them to give their children up for adoption, etc"


Which speaks volumes about your position. You complain pro-lifers try to argue women to give their children for adoptions rather than abort them.

No one is saying women should be forced to give their children up for adoption. We believe that should be real alternative to just murdering their children. We oppose murder, period.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 10:30 AM


PCGAL,
Hi! Nice to see you back here! Bring your friends!


Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 10:31 AM


"We're not telling women that they CAN'T go through the pregnancy, we're telling them that we're not going to force them to if they don't want to. Antis are telling women that they know what's best for the woman's live."

No, we are telling that it is wrong to murder.

Slaveowners made the same complaint you did- that abolitionists knew what was best for slaveowners and what to do with their property. Just like you are saying that women believe they know what's best not only for their bodies but for their children to point of killing them before they are born, and no one can tell you otherwise. That's pure narcissism or self-centeredness.

It is no different than men complaining your side knows what's best for them, if your side say they can't abuse their children sexually or physically.

Guess what? Those things are also based on CHOICES they make.

Just because people make CHOICES do not mean we should support those choices if those choices infringe on the rights of OTHERS.

By your logic, if we make illegal mothers killing their babies one second after they are born, we are telling them that we know what's best for their lives.

No, it is saying that some choices should be ILLEGAL, be it murder, rape, assault, etc., if those infringe on basic human rights of others.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 10:37 AM


"They believe that women are too stupid to make their own decisions, and therefore must be forced through the pregnancy."

Hypocrisy 101.

Your side are so against laws for women to be shown ultrasounds, so as not to guide them to have all the facts to make own decisions, and you accuse our side of treating women like they are stupid? It's your side who say that the Tebow ad will cause women to get themselved killed in pregnancies since they will choose based on some ad to ignore doctor's advice to abort given health situation. Who is treating women like they are stupid there 100 times over? You and your side is.

On the contrary, it is because we believe all men and women are made in the image of God, we believe that they do have a higher standard to live by.

It is not thinking women are stupid. It is holding them to a higher standard than your side will allow!

And your argument there is also so asinine for another reason.

Even your side is in favor of making laws that restrict choices of others if those choices infringe on what you feel are your rights.

By your logic, you believe that those folks whose choices you have laws restricting are too stupid to make their own decisions.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 10:44 AM


"Forcing people through pregnancies is NOT caring about them."

Making abortion as some invented fundamental right, that folks like Susan B. Anthony see as crimes against humanity (by your logic, she must not care about women!), is not caring about women in general. It is just your way of wanting to have control over life and death over others.


"Anyone who claims not to hate women and who supports laws that restrict abortion access is either 1) a liar or 2) very, very misguided."

I guess when you can't make valid arguments, play the "we hate women" card as if it has some validity. Of course, when the rest of your posts are based on lies and misrepresentations of the pro-life position, it only shows how much more suspect your statement really is.

But let's take your logic and standard of what bigotry is and turn it around against you.

By your logic and standard, you must really hate men since you believe if the woman chooses to keep the baby, the man has no choice to decide to be a father or not. IN your view, women can choose to be or not be mothers, where men have no choice, and to take those rights away mean to hate women. So using that logic, by saying men have no rights to choose to or not be fathers after pregnancy occurs, then that must mean you hate men, and to deny that means you are either a liar or very, very misguided.

Using your own logic and standard, that must mean you hate unborn babies. After all, you deny choices for them to be alive or not, and by your logic, that mean you don't care about unborn babies. And given if we state a person should have right to CHOOSE to kill an Asian, black, women, etc., then folks would RIGHTFULLY call that person a bigot. So why should not your statement a woman should be able to ABORT UNBORN BABIES be treated any different USING YOUR LOGIC AND STANDARD? By your rhetoric applied to you, you HATE unborn babies, and to deny that makes you either a liar or very, very MISGUIDED.

And applying your logic and rhetoric, you must really hate women, since you are for right to choose for any reason abortion that KILLED SO MANY WOULD-BE WOMEN WORLDWIDE and in this COUNTRY. And given many families choose to do this WILLINGLY by their own CHOICES, including those of the MOTHERS, you are abetting in this crime against humanity, against WOMEN SPECIFICALLY. Given that this does not allow for right of women to even live (so any rights are meaningless without right to LIVE) if their mothers choose to kill them before they are born, then that must mean you HATE women, and to deny that, you are either a LIAR or very, very MISGUIDED.

Your rhetoric, standard, and logic, NOT MINE, applied to your own POV.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 10:56 AM


Punisher-

"Your side are so against laws for women to be shown ultrasounds,"

No, I'm against laws that force women to be shown ultrasounds.

"By your logic, if we make illegal mothers killing their babies one second after they are born, we are telling them that we know what's best for their lives."

The difference between killing a baby and having an abortion is that, with abortion, the fetus is inside of the woman. As long as the fetus is physically dependent on the woman, she has the right to end the pregnancy. Forcing the woman through the pregnancy is just anti-liberty and pro-rape.

Yes, my anti-kidnapping stance speaks volumes about my position. I'm sorry you think being anti-kidnapping is a bad thing.

"Very asinine claim to make. NO one on the pro-life side believe women should be forced to bear children or be forced to become pregnant. But once by their OWN CHOICE to have sex, they are pregnant and have UNBORN CHILDREN, they should not be INFRINGING on the rights to live of others. "

If you support laws that make abortion illegal, then you support forcing women through pregnancies. I never said ANYTHING about forcing people to become pregnant. Forcing someone THROUGH a pregnancy and forcing someone to BECOME pregnant are two completely different things. It doesn't matter that you think women should be punished for having sex, and it doesn't matter if the fetus has a "right to life". Either way, the fetus does not have the right to use a person's body against her will.

If you support forcing women through pregnancies, you support the (physical and emotional) assault of women. Forcing a woman through a pregnancy is no different than rape.


Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 10:57 AM


As for the rest of what you've said, Punisher, I have no idea what you're talking about. Try being.. less hysterical, maybe?

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:02 AM


"No, I'm against laws that force women to be shown ultrasounds."

Meaning you are the one treating women like stupid saying that ultrasounds would somehow make them less intelligent.

You somehow consider that women being forced to be shown ultrasounds? Rich.

By your logic, since you support birth control ed, you are for forcing women to be taught birth control or be shown how to do so.

"The difference between killing a baby and having an abortion is that, with abortion, the fetus is inside of the woman. As long as the fetus is physically dependent on the woman, she has the right to end the pregnancy. Forcing the woman through the pregnancy is just anti-liberty and pro-rape."

So by your logic, you are anti-life, anti-liberty, pro-rape, since you support right to take away of human life inside the woman, you support right to take away liberty of that human life against bodily harm, and you support right to destroy that human life, which often is FEMALE HUMAN LIFE.

You don't offer anything other than that baby is inside the woman so she has right to get rid of that baby. That's not an argument but basically begging the question and circular argumentation you engaged in. All for the purpose of self-righteously and self-servingly call everyone who disagree with you as those hating women.

No, your side don't have any respect for yourselves when making these arguments.

If the fetus is a real human being, which basic science states that's the case, it is still MURDER no matter what you want to argue where the baby exists at.

And guess what? Newborn babies are still DEPENDENT on their mothers, as well!

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:04 AM


"As for the rest of what you've said, Punisher, I have no idea what you're talking about."

Maybe because you can't refute points made so you hide behind that statement?


"Try being.. less hysterical, maybe?"

Rich given all your talking points in all your posts here are pure hysterical rantings of someone who sees everyone you disagree with on this issue as motivated by hatred of women. Try being less hysterical or paranoid maybe.

My posts basically expose why your talking points are really silly, illogical, fallacious, and can be used against your side of the debate.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:07 AM


Prochoicegal says "Either way, the fetus does not have the right to use a person's body against her will."

Yes, it does. Like all minors the fetus has the right to not be neglected. This means that the fetus' right to life is protected, even if it must infringe upon its mother's rights in order to obtain that protection.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 11:08 AM


"Yes, my anti-kidnapping stance speaks volumes about my position. I'm sorry you think being anti-kidnapping is a bad thing."


I guess when you can't refute, just plain out lie about the other side which is what your posts did in the first place.

NO, I was showing how your argument of it is woman's choice so it must be legalized is so silly.

Kidnapping others is also CHOICE made by those doing it. It does not mean we should legalize it just because it's CHOICE.

Choices are NOT all created equal.

Even your side supports laws against certain choices.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:09 AM


"Meaning you are the one treating women like stupid saying that ultrasounds would somehow make them less intelligent."

Noo.. Meaning that I think women should have a CHOICE.

"By your logic, since you support birth control ed, you are for forcing women to be taught birth control or be shown how to do so."

No one's forcing people to be taught about BC. You are aware that you can opt out of sex education classes, correct?

"So by your logic, you are anti-life, anti-liberty, pro-rape, since you support right to take away of human life inside the woman, you support right to take away liberty of that human life against bodily harm, and you support right to destroy that human life, which often is FEMALE HUMAN LIFE."

Nope, I'm pro-liberty and anti-rape. Look at it this way, I support someone's right to self defense if s/he is being attacked by a rapist. If killing the rapist is the only way to end the attack, then I support that. Because I support killing the rapist, does that mean I'm anti-life and anti-liberty? Nope, it means I'm against the rapist using a person's body against hir consent.

"You don't offer anything other than that baby is inside the woman so she has right to get rid of that baby."

Yes, the fetus is inside of the woman so she has the right to get rid of it. It doesn't matter if the fetus has ALL of the rights that we do. No one has the right to use a person's body against his or her consent.

"If the fetus is a real human being, which basic science states that's the case, it is still MURDER no matter what you want to argue where the baby exists at."

It doesn't matter if it's a human being or not (and yes, I think it's a human being). No human being has the right to use a person's body against hir consent. Why is that so difficult for antis to understand?

"And guess what? Newborn babies are still DEPENDENT on their mothers, as well!"

The difference? Babies can be given up for adoption. Please don't try and tell me that fetuses can be given up for adoption, too. You know very well that you have to wait until birth before you can give a kid up for adoption.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:10 AM


Lauren,

You know by PCG's logic, we should no longer punish women for doing hardcore illegal drugs then giving birth to deformed babies. By PCG's logic, the double homicide convictions against Scott Peterson is unjust. By PCG's logic, we should repeal laws against drinking while super drunk.

Or repeal laws against all forms of murder, kidnapping, rape, etc., since all of them involve CHOICES and all of them involve people doing what they want with their OWN BODIES, even if infringes on rights of others.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:12 AM


Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 9:40 AM
-------

Your entire argument only works if the unborn aren't human. You're forgetting what makes a woman a mother - that she's carrying a child - a human child.

If over a half-million grown women a year were sliced and diced or starved to death, or subjected to brutal chemical torture, you'd be outraged if someone suggested it was okay to do that "by choice". Yet, the only difference between the grown mother and her child is time to grow, nourishment and a secure environment.

We're all for choice - but not when it comes to killing innocent human beings.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 11:13 AM


No, not all choices should be legal (when did I ever said that??), but all choices that have to do with a person's bodily autonomy should be legal. Forcing a woman through a pregnancy is unjust. There's absolutely no way around that.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:14 AM


"If you support forcing women through pregnancies, you support the (physical and emotional) assault of women. Forcing a woman through a pregnancy is no different than rape."


So by your logic, you believe in right to support those who are would be women if they are unborn, to be abused physically to the point of killing them, and so your stance is FAR WORSE than rape.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:14 AM


"It doesn't matter if it's a human being or not (and yes, I think it's a human being). No human being has the right to use a person's body against hir consent. Why is that so difficult for antis to understand?"


By admitting that the unborn is human, you just confess that you support child abuse, murder, infanticide, and assault on infants. And given that the majority of abortions are done on females, what does that make you?

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:16 AM


"By admitting that the unborn is human, you just confess that you support child abuse, murder, infanticide, and assault on infants. And given that the majority of abortions are done on females, what does that make you?"

I never said that. Why do you keep on assuming things? Fetuses aren't children, so no, I don't support child abuse, infanticide, and assault on infants. Self defense isn't murder, so I don't support murder, either.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:18 AM


PCG: It doesn't matter that you think women should be punished for having sex, and it doesn't matter if the fetus has a "right to life".


Me: Another lie your side tells.

We don't believe women are punished for having sex. We believe that human life is at stake.

The fact that we side with the women who want to keep the babies agains the babies' fathers who don't show how ASNINE and HYSTERICAL your claims are that we hate women and want to take away their choices.

And you don't really believe in bodily autonomy where there are no consequences. At least not equally.

IN your view, men don't have bodily autonomy by your logic since you believe that if the children is theirs, they are responsible for them even if they want abortions and the mothers choose to keep them.

By your logic of you forcing men to be fathers, using your logic of what force means, you advocate rape of men. Your own logic, not mine.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:20 AM


"No, not all choices should be legal (when did I ever said that??), but all choices that have to do with a person's bodily autonomy should be legal."

Do you support pregnant women doing hardcore drugs illegally? Do you support driving drunk to the nth degree that put you and others at risk?

NO, you did not say that all choices should be legal. But what you did say is appeal to the hysterrical argument of those you disagree with being anti-choice, when you know full it is dishonest. If you appeal to that argument, then my point totally refutes yours. Saying it is a choice does not mean anything or prove it should be legal and by your own admission here, that's the case!

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:23 AM


You said in your post: "yes, I think it's a human being."

So now you want to deny that, or deny you support murder, infanticide, etc.?

If there is real human beings, as you admit to, then no dancing around that? You support right to murder of unborn humans, unborn babies, etc.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:24 AM


"We don't believe women are punished for having sex. We believe that human life is at stake."

Then stop using the "she had sex, so she must be punished!" logic.

"The fact that we side with the women who want to keep the babies agains the babies' fathers who don't show how ASNINE and HYSTERICAL your claims are that we hate women and want to take away their choices."

Wait, so you don't want to take away their choices? So you support abortion rights now? Great!

"IN your view, men don't have bodily autonomy by your logic since you believe that if the children is theirs, they are responsible for them even if they want abortions and the mothers choose to keep them.

By your logic of you forcing men to be fathers, using your logic of what force means, you advocate rape of men. Your own logic, not mine."

1) What the hell does this have to do with bodily autonomy?

2) When did I ever say anything about whether or not fathers should be forced into fatherhood? (or are you just spewing out random stuff again?)

If you're talking about child support, then this has nothing to do with BODILY autonomy, thus the word BODILY. Y'know, has to do with the BODY. Need a dictionary?

body-
the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.

autonomy-
independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.

Now put the two together..

I fully support a man's right to bodily autonomy. Any man that gets pregnant has the right to an abortion.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:25 AM


People really need to get a better logic than, "I support pro-choice, which means pro-life must be motivated by evil. If you disagree with me, then your intentions must be harmful."

This entire debate would run much more smoothly if people acknowledged that disagreements don't make a battle between good and evil, as though one side is pure and the other is cruel. Disagreements are chances to learn more about each other and learn more about assisting others- NOT "TEH ANTIZ ARE EVILZ!!!111!!"

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2010 11:26 AM


"Self defense isn't murder, so I don't support murder, either."


It's not self-defense if the mother's life is not in danger.

By your logic, if babies are breastfed by their mothers, the mothers are being assaulted.

Arguments like that only reveal your hatred of unborn babies. YOu may admit they are human beings but you treat them as PARASITES.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:26 AM


Btw, women are made to pay child support too, so you're point is moot.

"By your logic, if babies are breastfed by their mothers, the mothers are being assaulted."

If the woman is being FORCED to breastfeed, yes, it's assault. Otherwise, no, it's not assault. You apparently don't understand the concept of consent, so please don't have sex.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:28 AM


\\Prochoicegal says "Either way, the fetus does not have the right to use a person's body against her will."

Yes, it does.\\
Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 11:08 AM

Proof that antis do not care at all about the woman's thoughts or feelings.

"What? Someone/thing is using your body against your will? You're being assaulted? Too bad, we can violate you."

Absolutely terrifying. Why do you hate pregnant women?

Posted by: Kelsey at March 10, 2010 11:34 AM


PCG: Then stop using the "she had sex, so she must be punished!" logic.

Me: It is you in your warped world who claims that's punishment, not me. It says alot about your disdain for babies.

PCG; Wait, so you don't want to take away their choices? So you support abortion rights now? Great!

Me: Nice way to repeatedly twist our side's argument.

My point is that we are against right to murder anyone, including the unborn, and we side with pregnant women who want to keep the babies against men who want them to kill the babies.

PCG: 1) What the hell does this have to do with bodily autonomy?


Me: You are saying if women are forced to be mothers, then that's violating their rights to bodily autonomy. You say it is wrong to punish them with babies, in your eyes. So guess what? If you force men to be fathers when they don't want to using your logic you violate their bodily autonomy to have sex and get away from consequence of it.

PCG: If you're talking about child support, then this has nothing to do with BODILY autonomy, thus the word BODILY. Y'know, has to do with the BODY. Need a dictionary?

Me: No, you need lessons in logic 101. You spew hystericals and can't take it when those are used against you.

You say women should not be forced to be mothers, give children up for adoption, etc., based on their decisions to have sex.

Then by your logic, men's bodily autonomy are violated when they have sex and as result have to pay support for children they don't want.

And your definitions back my point, not yours.

PCG: Now put the two together..

Me: You believe the child is woman's property from conception til birth, but somehow becomes also responsibility of the men once they are born, when they have no rights to the chilld before birth. Sorry, can't have it both ways.

If the child is purely property of the woman and the woman alone, then take it logically: she can't force others to be responsible for what is her property alone.


PCG: I fully support a man's right to bodily autonomy. Any man that gets pregnant has the right to an abortion

Me: Sorry, but your goalposts moved here.

You say bodily autonomy for women means they can opt out of motherhood when they want but fathers cannot have a say and if the mothers choose birth, they by your logic are "punished" with babies by which they must support.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:35 AM


"You apparently don't understand the concept of consent, so please don't have sex."

More lies from you.

In actuality, you don't understand the concept of responsibility that comes with sex. You say pregnancy is punishment if the woman does not want the child, even if the sex is CONSENSUAL and she knew what can happen.

It is you if anything who don't understand consent.

When both men and women have sex CONSENTUALLY, they both assume in my view EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY for the baby that can come into being. That's not punishment.

It's responsibility. Done as result of CONSENT in sex.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:38 AM


PCG: body-
the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.

autonomy-
independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.

Me: By admitting the unborn are indeed HUMANS, you in effect support the WORST VIOLATIONS of others' BODILY AUTONOMY going by those definitions when you support right of folks to infringe on their rights to life, liberty, and against bodily harm.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:40 AM


Again, it's BODILY AUTONOMY. How is a person's bodily autonomy being violated when he/she is made to pay child support?

"You say bodily autonomy for women means they can opt out of motherhood when they wan"

Bodily autonomy=the freedom to decide what's going to happen to your body. What does this have to do with child support? Again, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't have sex until you understand this concept. I say this in all seriousness. There is far too much rape in this world.

By the way, I never stated my position on forced child support here. I don't know why you're assuming that I support it. Once again, another random assumption made by an anti.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:42 AM


Kelsey says "Proof that antis do not care at all about the woman's thoughts or feelings."

No, proof that I have an understanding of the concept of competing rights.

"What? Someone/thing is using your body against your will? You're being assaulted? Too bad, we can violate you."

STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT!

"Absolutely terrifying. Why do you hate pregnant women"

I don't hate pregnant women. I recognize that children are dependent upon their parents and thus have the right to not be neglected. This right sometimes usurps parental rights, but society recognizes this as just because the child can not care for herself.


Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 11:42 AM


PCG says: "Bodily autonomy=the freedom to decide what's going to happen to your body."

So you're fine with a pregnant woman doing crack the entire pregnancy, right?

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 11:46 AM


Jill, thanks for publishing this column and providing us with incontrovertible proof of your real motives behind all that "concern" you've displayed for @nextthurs on Twitter. It's clear that our guesses were correct, and you only care about her as far as you can use her.

Even with vaginal insertion, there are fewer than 1 deaths for every 100,000 medical abortions. RU486 is safer than many drugs we give our kids and take ourselves without thinking, like Penicillin (400 deaths per year) and NSAIDS like Aspirin, Ibuprofen, and Acetaminophen (76,000 deaths per year). While there's a small chance that @nextthurs experienced complications, it's probably far more likely that after seeing the death threats and abuse directed at Angie Jackson, she abandoned her live tweeting to protect her family from a similar experience.

Instead of conjecturing wildly about something you know no more about than the rest of us -- including me, even though I was the last person to hear from her -- why not use your column to expose a far greater threat, and talk about the 1-2 people who will die today from Penicillin, or the 208 people who will die today after taking an NSAID?

Posted by: Violet at March 10, 2010 11:46 AM


Lauren-

I'm not "fine" with anyone doing crack, but do I believe that people* should have the right to use it? Yes.

*Includes pregnant women. I know, I know, it's hard for you to grasp that pregnant women are people.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:49 AM


First of all, I don't know what super evil agenda you see in Jill's post, but all I see is concern. Also, What death threats, Violet? Angie made that claim, but I've never seen her back it up with any sort of proof. The only "death threat" I've seen is hers to her child.

Oh and by the way, PCG, a human at any stage of prenatal development is, by definition, a child.

From Merriam Webster: Child: An unborn or recently born person.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 11:52 AM


You believe we have the "right" to use a substance that is causing direct harm to another human being?

So, nursing mothers should also have the "right" to use crack?

Also, I never said that pregnant women weren't people. I say that they have all the rights and responsibility of any other parent, a fact that you continue to ignore in favor of pushing over strawmen.


Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 11:56 AM


Lauren-

The definition of child varies from dictionary to dictionary. According to dictionary.com-

"a person between birth and full growth "

Not that whether or not a fetus is a child should matter to the debate. Child or not, no one has the right to use a person's body against his or her consent.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:56 AM


You said in your post: "yes, I think it's a human being."

So now you want to deny that, or deny you support murder, infanticide, etc.?

If there is real human beings, as you admit to, then no dancing around that? You support right to murder of unborn humans, unborn babies, etc.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 11:24 AM


PCG -

You have not responded to this post by Punisher. In one post you say 'I believe it is a human being' and in another you say fetuses aren't children..... would you care to logically discuss the nuance I am missing here? At what gestational age does the human being become a child? Do you become a child after you become a human being? Can you be a human being without being a child?
Help me out here.

Posted by: knowsscience at March 10, 2010 11:58 AM


knowsscience-

Yeah, you can be a human being without being a child. Blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus, baby. That is the order. Fetuses become children at birth.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:01 PM


PCG says "no one has the right to use a person's body against his or her consent."

Yes, they do. One conjoined twin can not simply demand the other be removed. In sitautions in which one person is reliant upon the other and their continued conjoinment will not result in the death of either, the weaker person has teh right to use to other's body.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:01 PM


Violet,
I haven't seen any of the death threats so far. I keep hearing about them but haven't seen them yet. And I heard something about hit men too.
Cough it up, please.

Vannah,
This is hardly a friendly disagreement about who likes what flavor of ice cream. It is absolutely between good and evil! I can't think of anything much more evil than murdering an unborn human child in utero. Let's continue to turn up the heat!! The burden of proof is on the proabort side. They need to prove that an unborn human child is not killed in an abortion. I would have no problem with abortion then.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 12:01 PM


Prochoicegirl, I just showed you that the definition of child includes those humans yet to be born. You can't just ignore that definition because it doesn't suit your needs. The fact that it exists proves my point.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:05 PM


"In sitautions in which one person is reliant upon the other and their continued conjoinment will not result in the death of either, the weaker person has teh right to use to other's body."

So I assume you support forcing people to donate blood/organs, right?

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:06 PM


"Prochoicegirl, I just showed you that the definition of child includes those humans yet to be born. You can't just ignore that definition because it doesn't suit your needs. The fact that it exists proves my point. "

lol, okay, well, if you want to use that "logic", the fact that the definition that I posted exists proves MY point.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:09 PM


No, PCG organ and blood donation are represent extraordianry circumstances, not normal human development. As such, they fall outside the bounds of neglect.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:13 PM


Lauren-

So much for the " 'weaker' people have the right to use other people's bodies without their consent" argument.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:15 PM


So much for the " 'weaker' people have the right to use other people's bodies without their consent" argument.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:15 PM
------

So you're okay with "might makes right"?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 12:18 PM


PCG,

You obviously have little understanding to what my arguement actually is.

It isn't that "weaker people have the right to other people's bodies without their consent"

It's that the right to not be neglected overrides the rights of the parents. Conjoined twins enter the arguement at a different junction only to prove that the concept of bodily domain is not absolute.

Now, answer my question. Should I be able to smoke a crack pipe while nursing my child?

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:19 PM


First of all PCG says "lol, okay, well, if you want to use that "logic", the fact that the definition that I posted exists proves MY point."

No, it doesn't. It proves that in addition to unborn children, the term applies to born children up until adulthood. Your claim is that the term does not apply at all to the unborn, which I clearly refuted.

"So much for the " 'weaker' people have the right to use other people's bodies without their consent" argument."

That mistates my arguement. My point is not that weaker people have the right to use other people's body, it is that children have the right to not be neglected, even if this can only be accomplished by using their mother's body. The conjonined twins were used only to point out that the right to bodily domain is not absolute.

You're conflating the two.

Now answer my question. Should I have the "right" to smoke a crack pipe while nursing my daughter?


"


Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:24 PM


So help me out again here, PGC, you say that a woman who does not want to carry a human being to term and not allowed to have an abortion is a victim of assault?

And my follow up question is, who is she being assaulted by?

Posted by: knowsscience at March 10, 2010 12:24 PM


"It's that the right to not be neglected overrides the rights of the parents. "

That's like saying that a person shouldn't be able to defend him/herself against rape because s/he'd be "neglecting" the rapist. A person should be able to defend him/herself against a violation no matter what.

"Now, answer my question. Should I be able to smoke a crack pipe while nursing my child?"

A person should have the right to use drugs. No, I don't think that a mother should breastfeed her child if she's doing drugs. That'd be like putting drugs in a child's food. This can be avoided without violating anyone's bodily autonomy. She doesn't have to breastfeed, she may feed her child formula.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:25 PM


Btw, that WAS your argument. Here are your words, in case you forgot. "the weaker person has teh right to use to other's body."

knowsscience-

She's a victim of assault by the people forcing her through the pregnancy. If abortion were illegal, she'd be a victim of assault by the government, and by the people who fought to assault her (anti choicers)

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:29 PM


PCG says "That's like saying that a person shouldn't be able to defend him/herself against rape because s/he'd be "neglecting" the rapist."

No, the rapist has no rights that compete against the victim's rights. A child does. Try again.

It doesn't matter what you think someone "should" or "shouldn't" do. You said that the right to bodily domain is absolute. To support this argument you must hold that a woman can do whatever drugs she wants to while she nurses, regardless of the affect on the child. If the child dies, so be it. The mother should be charged with no crime. Her body, her choice.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:29 PM


"This can be avoided without violating anyone's bodily autonomy. She doesn't have to breastfeed, she may feed her child formula. "

But what if she WANTS to smoke crack and feed the baby at the same time? True, she can in THEORY avoid it, but she can also avoid abortion by gestating the baby to term. A woman WANTS to smoke crack and WANTS to breastfeed at the same time. Doesn't a denial of one violate her bodily autonomy? Just because there is an alternative doesn't really solve the issue. It's about HER body and being able to do with it what she pleases. Which of those two would you tell a woman that she can not do?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 12:31 PM


"No, the rapist has no rights that compete against the victim's rights. A child does. Try again."

The fetus doesn't have rights that compete against women's rights, either. Just because you think it should doesn't mean that it does.

"It doesn't matter what you think someone "should" or "shouldn't" do. You said that the right to bodily domain is absolute. To support this argument you must hold that a woman can do whatever drugs she wants to while she nurses, regardless of the affect on the child. If the child dies, so be it. The mother should be charged with no crime. Her body, her choice."

You completely ignored what I said. Yes, it's her body and her choice, and she should be able to use drugs. Feeding the baby formula doesn't violate her bodily autonomy.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:32 PM


Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:29 PM
-------

Was she raped? How did the child get in there in the first place?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 12:33 PM


PCG says "Btw, that WAS your argument. Here are your words, in case you forgot. "the weaker person has teh right to use to other's body."

Again, that was a tangental point to clarify that bodily domain is not absolute. The larger point involves neglect and competitive rights. Noncompulsary organ/blood donation does nothing to refute either point.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:34 PM


PCG,
Up the thread a ways you said you are against laws that force women to be shown ultrasounds.

There are no such laws. Ultrasound bills "force" abortionists to ask a woman IF she would like to be shown the ultrasound. She can say yes. She can say no.

We know why proaborts are so against showing a woman her ultrasound though. It clearly shows the humanity of the unborn. Women choose life for their unborn children when they see them clearly on the screen. It's bad for the abortion business.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 12:34 PM


"Again, that was a tangental point to clarify that bodily domain is not absolute. "

The right to bodily domain IS absolute. That's why self defense is allowed.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:39 PM


"The fetus doesn't have rights that compete against women's rights, either. Just because you think it should doesn't mean that it does."

Yes, he does. Our country is founded on the concept that we are endowed by our creator with rights. The fact that these rights are not recognized does not change the fact that they exist. The unborn fall in the same class as slaves before them. Nonperson humans. This class exists only to strip away rights for the benefit of another class.

As for breastfeeding/crack see Bobby Bambino's comment.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:41 PM


Chris-

"Was she raped? How did the child get in there in the first place?Was she raped? How did the child get in there in the first place?"

Why does it matter? Again, I'm not talking about forcing people to become pregnant. I'm talking about forcing people THROUGH pregnancies. There's a big, big, difference. Just because you think that women deserve to be punished for having sex (if you didn't think this, you wouldn't bring up the "what she raped?" talking point at all) doesn't mean that it's just to force women through pregnancies. Whether we're talking about a 9 year old rape victim (you people try to force people like her through pregnancies, too), or a 25 year old person who had sex willingly, it's assault to force a person through a pregnancy.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:43 PM




Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: 1as·sault
Pronunciation: &-'solt
Function: noun
Etymology: Old French assaut, literally, attack, ultimately from Latin assultus, from assilire to leap (on), attack
1 : the crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact —compare BATTERY
2 : the crime of assault accompanied by battery; specifically : SEXUAL ASSAULT in this entry called also assault and battery


I'm sorry PGC, as you can clearly see, assault carries the connotation of immediate physical contact or bodily harm. So if abortion was made illegal, no one would be assaulting the woman unable to obtain one, unless of course they were actually by definition, assaulting her. The case can't be made that the fetus is assaulting her for the very same reason. However, it is more logical to conclude that the human being (your words) she is carrying is the victim of immediate physical contact or bodily harm, i.e. assault, don't you think?

Posted by: knowsscience at March 10, 2010 12:44 PM


PCG says "The right to bodily domain IS absolute!"

No, it's not. Cavity searches are allowed, conjoined twins can not demand to be separated, a nursing or pregnant mother can not drink/do drugs, a police officer can perform a mandatory blood draw if you are suspected of driving under teh influence ect. ect.

There are plenty of times when bodily domain is overridden. The common thread in all of these situations is that someone else's life or health would be harmed if the rights were not infringed upon.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:44 PM


knowsscience-

"immediate physical contact or bodily harm."

As if pregnancy doesn't involve physical contact or bodily harm?

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:47 PM


Lauren-

Your belief that pregnant women should not have bodily autonomy, while other people should, exposes your hatred for pregnant women.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:51 PM


Please explain in detail how a woman may be "forced" to continue a pregnancy.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 12:51 PM


I'm talking about forcing people THROUGH pregnancies. There's a big, big, difference.
Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:43 PM
------

Consent to sex isn't consent to the high probability of pregnancy? Do you break contracts when people depend upon you?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 12:51 PM


Hi, Carla-

I was referring specifically to pro-choice gal. As far as abortion is concerned, I think that most people hate abortion but don't know what else to do about it- most people are sort of on the fence about it. I think that very few people are, well, Leroy Carhart. As far as people like him are concerned, I'm willing to speculate that he has no concern for good- but I think that most pro-choicers are pro-life: they wish that there were no such thing as abortion. In that sense, I believe that most pro-choicers are motivated by good, too.

I mean obviously some people don't want good- take the Taliban, for example. I'm pretty sure that they don't have a whole lot of care for the right thing to do...

But I believe that the vast majority of pro-choice people believe in the righteousness of what they do. Personally, the best way to achieve equality and to get everyone on board for pacifism (basically, to get those who are on the fence or pro-choice but hate abortion to work with us), I think that we need better education on everything from basic biology to philosophy (people are ignorant, wandering blindly and left to hating what they fear when they have no education- education means hope), better options for pregnant women, better tactics of reducing unintended pregnancies, and, let's be frank, we need our movement to synch up with other social justic movements. Movements work better when they have allies: the temperance supporters, suffragettes, and abolitionists all worked together and moved mountains.

I think that if pro-life teamed up with anti-genocide and other children's rights movements, we could do the same and we could get people who are motivated by good (pro-choicers motivated by good, that is) to listen and work towards peaceful solutions, solutions that fight abortion (three cheers for quality prenatal care!). :)

Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2010 12:52 PM


I'm talking about forcing people THROUGH pregnancies. There's a big, big, difference.
Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:43 PM
------

Consent to sex isn't consent to the high probability of pregnancy? Do you break contracts when people depend upon you?

Whether we're talking about a 9 year old rape victim (you people try to force people like her through pregnancies, too), or a 25 year old person who had sex willingly, it's assault to force a person through a pregnancy.

Would you rather be denied temporary liberty or have your life taken from you? Your choice....

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 12:53 PM


PGC - LOL!

You said the government and the "anti-choicers" would be committing the assault. That would be saying that I personally am committing the bodily harm..... Now you've switched directions and you are saying it is the pregnancy that is assaulting the woman.....come on...answer the question with some shred of logic, ok? Or else quit using hyperbolic terms like "assault" unless someone is really perpetrating an assault.

Posted by: knowsscience at March 10, 2010 12:54 PM


PCG "Your belief that pregnant women should not have bodily autonomy, while other people should, exposes your hatred for pregnant women. "

Wow, that's not even close to my belief. I belive that pregnant women should have bodily autonomy. They shouldn't be able to be raped or injected with something without their consent or forced into a surgery or...any of the possible other things that bodily domain protects that do not involve killing another human being.

It's that whole "killing another human being" part that causes issue. I never said that I don't believe that bodily domain exists, I said it isn't absolute. As I've pointed out above, it isn't.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:56 PM


PCG - we have BABY SHOWERS, not fetus showers. When a woman is pregnant, she is expecting a BABY. Fetus is Latin for "little one".

Fetal Development is so amazing....the heart begins to beat at 22 days after conception.

You didn't magically become a baby at birth, you were already a baby when conceived.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2010 12:56 PM


"Consent to sex isn't consent to the high probability of pregnancy? "

No, it's not. Again, you don't understand consent. Just like in sex, consent to kissing isn't consent to sex. Consent to vaginal sex isn't consent to anal sex.

"Would you rather be denied temporary liberty or have your life taken from you? Your choice"

When I was raped at 14, I decided that if I got pregnant I would kill myself because my parents wouldn't let me have an abortion. I would rather have my life taken from me.

PS- "denied temporary liberty"? Thank you for admitting that you don't believe in liberty for pregnant women.

carla-

"Please explain in detail how a woman may be "forced" to continue a pregnancy."

It's not really that complicated. If a pregnant woman has no access to abortion, then she has no other choice but to continue the pregnancy (or kill herself/resort to dangerous methods of abortion, which are NOT viable options). This is force.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:58 PM


And, once again, the definition carries the connotation of physical contact to CAUSE bodily harm..... there are many types of physical contact that do not cause harm, therefore they are not assault. And pregnancy? I've been through a few....no bodily harm, and I lived to tell about it.

Posted by: knowsscience at March 10, 2010 12:58 PM


PCG says "Consent to sex isn't consent to the high probability of pregnancy? "

No, it's not. Again, you don't understand consent. Just like in sex, consent to kissing isn't consent to sex. Consent to vaginal sex isn't consent to anal sex. "

None of your examples are parallels to sex and pregnancy. Pregnancy is the result of sex. Fringe benefits aside, reproduction is the end result of the reproductive act. No matter what you do to mitigate your chances of actually reproducing, you can not completely divorce the two.

None of your examples share this cause and effect relationship. The end result of kissing is not sex, nor is the end result of vaginal sex anal sex.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 1:01 PM


knowsscience-

"there are many types of physical contact that do not cause harm, therefore they are not assault."

By that definition, most sexual assault isn't assault.

Liz-

"PCG - we have BABY SHOWERS, not fetus showers. When a woman is pregnant, she is expecting a BABY."

When I get pregnant, I'm going to call it a fetus shower. ;)

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 1:02 PM


PGC -

You have been effectively exposed to be wholly illogical in your arguments (at least to my satisfaction). Now I can get on with my day! ;)

(I'm still chuckling over the 'assault' argument)

Posted by: knowsscience at March 10, 2010 1:05 PM


When I was raped at 14, I decided that if I got pregnant I would kill myself because my parents wouldn't let me have an abortion. I would rather have my life taken from me.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 12:58 PM
-----

That explains a lot. So rather than arguing, I'll just pray for you. You can't stop me, nor do I need your consent.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 1:08 PM


When I get pregnant, I'm going to call it a fetus shower. ;)

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 1:02 PM
----------

I'm getting the distinct impression that you're enjoying all the attention... heh

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 1:11 PM


knowsscience-

Your misogyny has been effectively exposed. You apparently think that, since sexual assault isn't real assault, it's a-okay!

Chris-

"That explains a lot. So rather than arguing, I'll just pray for you. You can't stop me, nor do I need your consent."

I wasn't planning on stopping you. Thanks for the prayers (assuming you're actually going to pray for me).

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 1:11 PM


PGC - Ok, I'll bite one more time.....are you saying that a pregnancy is a sexual assault? You said that the government and the 'anti-choicers' would be assaulting pregnant women by not allowing them to get abortions. I provided the legal definition of assault. So how does sexual assault fit in here? If someone doesn't get to abort the human being they are carrying, can I be charged with the crime of assault because I am pro-life? You also are trying to tell me a developing human being causes physical harm, right? How?

Posted by: knowsscience at March 10, 2010 1:16 PM


Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 1:11 PM
----

I have to go, but before I leave, I just want to let you know: I think you're simply playing the contrarian here today - in other words most of where you're coming from is intended to yank everyone's chain.

Yes - I'll pray for you - so you can have a fetus shower... and real joy. :-)

May God bless you!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 1:17 PM


Chris-

As if I like getting attention from antis. Yeah, I adore exposing myself to misogyny. I'm definitely a masochist. :\ *sarcasm*

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 1:18 PM


Or the woman may feel her child kick, realize he or she is ALIVE and have the courage to welcome her child with LOVE, like ALL WOMEN have the ability to.

Are you saying all pregnant women w/o access to abortion commit suicide? You are continuing to make NO SENSE!


Perhaps sex ed classes shouldn't teach that "babies come from unprotected sex" as if Pregnancy was an STD!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2010 1:18 PM


Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 1:18 PM
-----

Yup!!! Ha!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 1:20 PM


And, PGC, please provide evidence that I said sexual assault is not real assault and that it is A-OK. That's right, you can't. Once again, exposing the deficiency of logic in your arguments.

Posted by: knowsscience at March 10, 2010 1:21 PM


PCG, I went to the website linked to your name and saw your "how pro-choice are you" questionare.

I wanted to point out one of your answers here.

"4. In this country, abortion should be: safe, legal, accessible, and free."

Do you also believe that gun ownership should follow this paradigm? Should we all be given a free gun with no strings attached?

I ask because the right to bear arms is very clearly spelled out in our bill of rights, yet I've never seen a soul argue for these benefits. Would you?

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 1:22 PM


Liz-

"Are you saying all pregnant women w/o access to abortion commit suicide?"

*sigh* yet again, an anti assuming what I believe instead of asking me.

*facepalm*

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 1:22 PM


I think Liz just asked you. You can call her Liz instead of anti btw.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 1:40 PM


I really hope "NextThursday" is OK. If her RU-486 abortion is complete, I wouldI think she'd want everyone to know.... Maybe she thinks no one cares. I care.

Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2010 2:01 PM


I talked to Nextthurs before she did it. I feel bad for her. She has some severe issues with her own mother which have lead her to her actions. I'm not a qualified mental health professional, there was nothing I could do to dissuade her...She said she wished her mother had aborted her, I asked her if she was happy now and loved her family, she said yes, but she had this disconnect which wouldn't let her see that if she had been aborted, she wouldn't be alive and happy now, nor would her children, and she would be denying this baby the opportunity (no matter how bad in her mind) that her mother, even she claimed her mother regularly told her how much she hated and resented her, to live that she had been given by her mother. I see this same disconnect over, and over, and over, and over again that will not let these mothers (or pro-choicers in general) put themselves in the position of a baby in the womb-a HUMAN in the womb-just needing time to grow so that they can live their life, just like everyone else.

Posted by: xalisae at March 10, 2010 3:05 PM


X,
Is she ok? Some are wondering if she is in the hospital...I am praying for her and despite what PCG says many of us DO CARE!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 3:26 PM


I'm with Janet.

I care about "NextThursday." I think she made a poor choice to abort her child. But I don't want harm to come to her.

Maybe if she reads here, she could let one of us know she's okay?

Posted by: Cristy at March 10, 2010 3:55 PM


And with X and with carla. I should've finished reading.

Excellent point, X. It is far too dangerous mentally/emotionally for an aborting mother to make that connection. I know I couldn't.

Posted by: Cristy at March 10, 2010 3:58 PM


"*sigh* yet again, an anti assuming what I believe instead of asking me."


You mean the same way you constantly assume hatred of women as real motives behind pro-life view without bothering to check whether that is accurate or not?

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 4:52 PM


"Child or not, no one has the right to use a person's body against his or her consent."


Given that you incessantly play the "rape" card in regards to this, then by that logic, that makes you a rapist. Whether your mother wanted to have you for her baby is irrelevent here by your logic, since given she had sex with your father, that must mean, she never consented to being pregnant, since whether she wanted it or not, she got pregnant. No consent to pregnancy is involved after sex, to pregnancy, since it took place regardless of what she wanted or consented to.

By your logic, then the very moment you are conceived, you are assaulting your mother's body. Even if she wanted to be pregnant, according to you, you the unborn is assaulting your mother's body since you exist without her having say one way or the other if conception takes place after sex.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 5:02 PM


xalisae: that's scary what she said. Maybe she suffers from depression and low self esteem. I hope this young woman is okay.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 10, 2010 5:03 PM


PCG:

Re: "Compassion isn't so common on the anti-choice side"...our compassion for the life inside the womb is the driving force behind our fight. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that. I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold up.

That being said....I sincerely hope this misguided woman turns out to be okay.

Posted by: Mountain Mom at March 10, 2010 5:09 PM


PCG: Bodily autonomy=the freedom to decide what's going to happen to your body. What does this have to do with child support?

Me: Obviously, the only skill at debating you got is dodge people's points then merely repeat your arguments without addressing theirs.

You move the goal posts at every one of your arguments. If you want to argue it is violation of bodily autonomy in regards to the woman, you will even claim for prolifers to have the woman put the child up for adoption as substitution for abortion is violation of bodily autonomy.

Your own words, remember? Last I check, adoption takes place AFTER birth, NOT even birth.

So what does that have to do with bodily autonomy?

No, what you argue here is not bodily autonomy, but escaping consequences of poor choices to have sex.

The consequences you deny to men, but want for women.

But when it comes to these consequences for men, suddenly you take the word bodily autonony in a completely different sense than when you define it for women (for whom you includ adoption as involving bodily autonomy).

Sorry, but it is you who said if women are forced to become mothers, that is violation of their consent.

Apply that logic, also, then you are raping men by requiring them to care for children that is result of your so-called bodily autonomous decision to have sex.

PCG: Again, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't have sex until you understand this concept. I say this in all seriousness. There is far too much rape in this world.

Me: Never claim that sex should not involve a woman's consent. But like I said before, when you don't have a valid response to what I actually said, play the asinine card of we hate women and we are for rape of women.

Your idea of consent is to have the woman's autonomy violate the bodily autonomy of another, who you admit in your post is HUMAN. So by your own logic and rhetoric, you support RAPE of the unborn. Sorry your rhetoric applied to you. If you don't want it used against you, stop using it. Otherwise, your own words will be used against you, in much deserved way like this.

No, folks like you should not be having sex with your mindset. God forbid your children as result of sex grow up to know you see them as parasites and as rapists of your body if you decide after giving birth you did not want them after all. Folks like you deserve to be kept as far away from children as possible. And for that matter men should be wise enough not to involve themselves with someone who could think like you do seeing any child that results from sex with your boyfriend or husband is a rapist of your body.

I guess when you don't have a valid argument, claim I am all for women being raped against their will. As always, the hysterical rants are all you got.

No one suggests here it is ok to force a woman to have sex against her will. So you are merely engaging in hysterical screechings.

But if you consider a child being in the woman's body is raping her body, since it was pregnancy that occurred as result of sex, then I suggest you call yourself a rapist for the rest of your life and tell your mother she should have aborted you since you were raping her body before she got a chance to decide whether to keep you or abort you. Otherwise, don't be hypocritical and drop that stupid argument that the unborn is raping the woman's body if she decides the unborn does not have right to live.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 5:20 PM


PCG's arguments that our side support a woman's rape since we oppose abortion for convenience can be used against PCG in two ways:

1) By PCG's logic, that makes PCG a rapist for being the unborn in the mother's body, feeding off the mother's body, with no choice after sex on the part of the mother whether conception takes place or not.

2) B PCG's logic that makes PCG a rapist for violating the bodily autonomy of the unborn who PCG admits is human. If it is rape to require woman to keep her baby when pregnant, since to PCG it is violation of her bodily autonomy, then it is 100 times the case of rape to torture, abuse, and kill all at once the unborn, violating the bodily autonomy of that human (which PCG admits is the case).

Cannot have it both ways.

Remember PCG plays the card of our side is for women being raped if we believe they should not be allowed to kill their unborn to escape consequences of sex.

Can't complain about that card thrown back at one if one plays it in the first place, and if it is thrown back using the same exact logic that the person plays in the first place but used against that person.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 5:24 PM


Anti-abortion fighters ARE WOMEN. Many of us, if not most, are MOTHERS. We KNOW what a pregnancy entails. It not.that.bad. And we KNOW this, because WE'VE DONE THIS.

Those who support the legalized killing of humans in utero...Many I've seen are men. Women who have had abortions, not children. And mothers who aborted their first babies and now have nothing else to do about it but try to drown out their consciences with echoing screams of support of how wonderful abortion is. All they hear is how DANGEROUS it is to have babies, with skewed statistics and flawed CDC reporting (with the exception of the mothers who know better. They're just usually silent when this is mentioned). They've forgotten that it has always been the natural outcome of pregnancy.

And Carla, I don't know how this woman is doing. After I begged her to give her child the same chance her mother gave her, and asked her to think about this baby the same way she thought about her other children who were just like this one, she blocked me.

Posted by: xalisae at March 10, 2010 5:54 PM


X,
Thank you for fighting for her life and the life of her unborn baby. I heart your tenacity.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 6:04 PM


Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 1:18 PM
-------

I hope it was apparent I was just teasing you... :-)

I had to leave (running late) and so I dashed my last response off thinking you saw I was over the top, but then on a later reading I realized it might come across as being snarky. It wasn't intended that way.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 10, 2010 6:34 PM


PC GAL is too busy at the moment at her own blog to comment here.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 6:46 PM


Darn, Carla. I really wanted an answer to my gun question.

Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 6:57 PM


Click her name. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 10, 2010 7:25 PM


So after reading all of the BS about abortion being safer than childbirth, I decided to Google it.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/stakes.htm

Please note that the website I linked to is not associated with the pro-life movement. I found the results of this study to be quite interesting...a woman who has an abortion is four times more likely to die within a year of the procedure than a woman who bears a child? Hm. How does that fit in with the whole "abortion is safer than childbirth!" meme you anti-lifer's have going on?

Posted by: VivisMom at March 10, 2010 7:29 PM


"Darn, Carla. I really wanted an answer to my gun question."


Simple the so-called pro-choicers are by their own definition of the word choice anti-choice on rights to bear arm, on rights to life, liberty, and property, on rights of religious conscience of doctors, nurses, and taxpayers when it comes to funding or performing abortions, etc., etc.

See it is easy to answer, isn't it? :)

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 8:14 PM


I feel sorry for them. So many of them are people who were told they were hated by their own mothers...people who think that abortion will "un-rape" them...and people who can't show their own children the same empathy they would give an injured animal on the side of the road. Sad.

Posted by: xalisae at March 10, 2010 8:30 PM


@Punisher

Feel free to point me to the constitutional clauses or amendments that give us the rights to happiness or to religious conscience of doctors.

I'm curious to see what you can come up with that actually has legal backing.

Posted by: Greg at March 10, 2010 9:27 PM


"Feel free to point me to the constitutional clauses or amendments that give us the rights to happiness or to religious conscience of doctors."

Where did I mention the word rights to happiness?

I did not, though the idea of right to PURSUIT of happiness is mentioned in the Declaration.

I mention rights to life, liberty, and property, which are covered under the fifth and fourtenth amendments, and yes, abortion at point where it is considered back then to be humans, was illegal under common law back then as well.

As to religious conscience, see first amendment. It forbids Congress from making laws that would abridge free exercise of religion. When combined with the fact abortion is violation of right to life, it would have had legal backing by the founders.

If you are talking about now, it is up for grabs, given today, the Constitution is not treated with much reverence by many courts, and given that original intent pretty much has been discarded in favor of judicial activism.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 9:33 PM


http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html

James Wilson’s “Lectures on Law,” given at what eventually was to become the University of Pennsylvania, clearly affirm that the right to life encompasses the unborn. Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798. Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life?

Wilson clearly answers this question: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”4

Given Wilson’s exegesis, one cannot doubt that the Founders recognized that unborn infants are owed the full protection of the law. The key question thus becomes the point at which the unborn fetus becomes an unborn child.

Wilson, in agreement with the limited medical jurisprudence of his time, assumed that life begins with the “quickening" of the infant in his mother’s womb. As taught by Aristotle, the quickening was the point at which the fetus was infused with a human, rational soul. John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, first printed in 1839, defines the quickening as follows: “The motion of the foetus, when felt by the mother, is called quickening, and the mother is then said to be quick with child. This happens at different periods of pregnancy in different women, and in different circumstances, but most usually about the fifteenth or sixteenth week after conception….”

One of the sources of both Wilson’s and Bouvier’s opinion is William Blackstone’s widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769). Blackstone’s discussion of the quickening observes: “Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb… this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor…"

The ancient law referred to by Blackstone is best articulated by Henry Bracton (1216-1272), the renowned “Father of the Common Law.”5 As Roe reluctantly admits, Bracton categorized the abortion of a “formed or quickened” fetus as a form of homicide, “the slaying of man by man.” Wilson seems to agree with Bracton on this issue, and thus affirmed that the inalienable right to life applies just as much to unborn, quickened human beings as it does to any other human beings. The fact that Blackstone emphatically characterizes abortion as “a very heinous” crime suggests he may sympathize with the ancient law on this matter.

Needless to say, the Founders undoubtedly recognized that unborn infants older than 15 weeks possess a constitutionally protected and inalienable right to life. Given that, according to Planned Parenthood, at least 90 percent of all abortions occur in the first trimester, this conclusion seems almost irrelevant. To begin with, however, the obvious intentions of the Founders as well as the weight of the common law compel the Congress and the courts to prohibit abortion—for any reason—in the second and third trimesters. Abortions performed during these late stages are clearly murder—and cannot be justified by a penumbra of the 14th Amendment, the mother’s health or a woman’s “right to choose.”

Pro-abortionists assert that any restrictions on access to abortion in even the second and third trimesters are bound to result in the prohibition of abortion altogether. By the same logic, however, society would have no right to forbid any crime. The reason abortionists claim that women have an absolute right to an abortion at any time is because they recognize that even the right to an abortion during the first trimester is arbitrary. Douglas Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame, discussed this point in his 22 April 1996 statement before the House Committee on the Judiciary. Kmiec’s analysis of internal Supreme Court memoranda related to Roe vs. Wade revealed that Justice Harry A. Blackmun, author of the Roe majority opinion, even admitted to his fellow justices that “you will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point…is equally arbitrary…” (emphasis added).

What are we to make of this shocking statement? Perhaps the justices did not know that an infant’s heart begins beating at five weeks or that at eight weeks brain waves can be measured or that at 12 weeks the child can and does cry and sometimes sucks his thumb.

Abortion is legal today not because the justices did not know when life begins, but because the justices—as well as the 82 percent of Americans cited earlier—do not know what liberty is. For most Americans, liberty is the subjectively defined right to do whatever you can get away with. Sandra Day O’Connor memorialized this faulty conception of freedom in her 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision, which claimed that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

America’s Founding Fathers would have condemned such an opinion as madness. Because both life and liberty are “endowments” or “gifts” from God, the proper exercise of liberty requires that man adhere to the “laws of God and Nature’s God” in the use of his freedom. When James Wilson stated that life begins with the infant’s “quickening,” he was not making an “arbitrary” decision as to who is human and who is not. Wilson’s opinion was based upon a reasonable assessment of the best scientific, legal and philosophical opinions available at the time.

Had Wilson and the Founders had access to the discoveries of modern biology, they certainly would have agreed that life begins at conception. Medical discoveries in the years following the American Revolution increasingly encouraged American and English lawmakers to come to this conclusion. In 1803, for example, England adopted a law known as Lord Ellenborough’s Act that made it a capital offense to “cause and procure the Miscarriage of any Woman quick with child.” The law established severe penalties for aborting infants in the first trimester as well: “…if any Person or Persons…shall procure to be used or employed, any Instrument or other Means whatsoever, with Intent thereby to cause or procure the Miscarriage of any Woman not being, or not being proved to be, quick with Child at the Time of administering…that then and in every such Case the Person or Persons so offending, their Counsellors, Aiders, and Abettors, knowing of and privy to such Offence, shall be and are hereby declared to be guilty of Felony, and shall be liable to be fined, imprisoned, set in and upon the Pillory, publickly or privately whipped. …"

Bouvier, citing Theodric and John Beck’s 1835 Elements of Medical Jurisprudence, himself questions the age-old idea of the quickening, noting that “physiologists, perhaps with reason, think that the child is a living being from the moment of conception.” More to the point, Bouvier’s entry, “Foeticide,” comments that “recently, this term has been applied to designate the act by which criminal abortion is procured.” Such scholarship soon bore fruit, with Maine, in 1840, becoming the first state to ban the abortion of infants “quick or not.”6

Subsequent federal and state laws banning abortion altogether were a logical development of the Founding Fathers’ absolute reverence for the self-evident and inalienable right to life. It is no accident that the Declaration, as written by Thomas Jefferson, characterizes the right to life as the first of those three foundational rights for the sake of which government itself is instituted. Where there is no guarantee of the right to life, legitimate political authority simply does not exist. Where there is no guarantee to life for both the weak and the strong, the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all are themselves at risk. The “New Freedom” heralded by the Supreme Court and other partisans of the Sexual Revolution has thus turned into nothing less than a new enslavement. Only when we as a nation return to our faith in the Creator who gives us life and liberty will we again be truly free.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 9:35 PM


Greg,

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are listed in the United States Declaration of Independence as the three most "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.

The Bill of Rights guarantees religious freedom. The gov't cannot prohibit its free exercise. If your religion prohibits your from certain activities, such as selling meat or alcohol, or dispensing certain drugs or taking part in certain procedures, one would seem to be covered by this amendment. Tell me Greg, do grocers have a right not to sell items that violate their religious beliefs?

Now why don't you show us where the Constitution specifically mentions abortion?

Posted by: Mary at March 10, 2010 9:45 PM


Mary,

Not to mention how the ideas of natural law and pursuit of happiness back then were tied to the law of God, as revealed in Scriptures, which they saw the moral aspect of as the same as natural law and inseperably tied to one's happiness.

Blackstone (whose writing on the common law influenced the founders very much):

http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-1102.htm

But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reason, and could not otherwise be obtained than by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions, mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their inquiries, and the greater part of the world would have rested content in mental indolence, and ignorance it's inseparable companion. As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, "that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness." This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that this or that action tends to man's real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life: by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.

This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it's present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their Intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 9:52 PM


I notice something else about the defense of right to abortion here- the argument that babies are like rapists if they are unwanted by their mothers is a classic case of blaming the victim for getting themselves victimized. How often do rapists try to use as defense of the woman deserved what she got by how she addressed- a hideous tactic of blaming the victims?

No different from blaming the unborn for getting themselves killed- for allegedly being parasites in the mothers' bodies without their permissions.

So ironic abortionists should play the accusation the pro-life side promotes rape of women by saying the unborn should not be murdered for convenience.

Posted by: Punisher at March 10, 2010 9:56 PM


I read through about half of the comments, but I'm getting tired, so forgive me if I'm repeating.

PCG, I understand (meaning comprehend not agree with) your position re: bodily autonomy. You likened the killing of the fetus to self defense. Yet under the law, a person does not have a right to bodily autonomy that can be protected with deadly force in all circumstances. We only allow the use of deadly force to fend off an attack that threatens your life. So the defense response needs to be proportional. For example, if someone pushes you, you can't turn around and stab him/her. If a woman is being habitually subjected to life threatening beatings, but then waits to kill her husband when he's sleeping and there is no immediate threat, she is still charged under the law. Obviously, there is no perfect analogy as humans are only bodily dependent on their mothers at one stage in their lives. However, if we're arguing from a position of self-defense, argue correctly. Since very few pregnancies threaten the life of the mother, deadly force (abortion) would rarely be justified under traditional principles of bodily defense.

It's also important to remember that the fetus is exactly where it is suppose to be at that stage in it's life. It's not some outside attacker who has imposed him/herself on this hapless woman who is now to be "forced" to gestate it.

Posted by: CT at March 10, 2010 11:41 PM


I think she owns a parrot just because she likes having someone around that agrees with her.

Posted by: xalisae at March 11, 2010 12:48 AM


Ugh! I am so tired of this abortion tweeting, it is digusting and depressing.

I am two weeks away from my due date. Maybe I should tweet my delivery so I can give people something happy to talk about!

Posted by: Kristen at March 11, 2010 1:11 AM


I'm tired of hearing about the suffering the woman that took the pill endured. Are you crazy??? An innocent baby was killed. What about its pain. A woman that would tweet this kind of stuff is absolutely horrible. She'll have to meet that poor baby face to face on Judgment day.

Posted by: Kathy at March 11, 2010 2:41 AM


Not that whether or not a fetus is a child should matter to the debate. Child or not, no one has the right to use a person's body against his or her consent.

Posted by: ProChoiceGal at March 10, 2010 11:56 AM
-----

Enough games. Your statement about self-autonomy and abortion is an absolute absurdity.

Like expecting a newborn to dress and feed herself. Or work to pay the bills. And in so doing you contradict yourself.

Removing time and development of human beings equates one stage of development with every other. That's precisely the point we're making: that humans have equal rights (so you're assuming our position).

However, you then demand the biological process of pro-creation be rejected - in other words, time does matter to you, because the child is within the womb. This is absurd, and here's the proof:

If time were removed, both humans would have the same rights. So if mother and her daughter swapped places, that is, the mother was in her daughter's womb, you're stating the daughter would have the right to abort her mother.

If you say no she doesn't have the right to abort her, you've just contradicted yourself. If you say yes she can, you're reintroducing time for your benefit alone and reject the very process of motherhood.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You're committing several logical fallacies, however your biggest problem is - the bodily autonomy argument is circular reasoning as I've demonstrated above.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at March 11, 2010 5:37 AM


PCG, abortionist Warren Hern got a late night call at his Colorado abortion clinic. It was a good friend of his and the guy joked "What's up Warren?" "Still killing babies at this hour?" They shared a chuckle. Um, I'd venture to say that Hern is well aware that he kills children. Many other abortionists have also admitted that they kill, and many have expressed negative attitudes about the very women they perform abortions on.

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2010 10:16 AM


"You're committing several logical fallacies, however your biggest problem is - the bodily autonomy argument is circular reasoning as I've demonstrated above."


Chris, not to mention, according to PCG, if the baby is there without the mother's permission (which means all cases of pregnancies would fall into that, since conception takes place, whether permission of the mother is involved or not after she had sex), then that according to PCG, makes the baby "raping" the woman's body, unless then she decides she wants to keep the baby once she knows she is pregnant.

By such logic, it makes PCG guilty herself of as when she was unborn of raping her mother's body, and by such logic of how PCG defines bodily autonomy, that means every mother who aborts her unborn child is also guilty of rape. After all, PCG by admitting the unborn is human, proves that bodily autonomy also extends to the unborn as well. And given the twisted definition of rape and assault by PCG, if applied to the abortionist case, they would still be far more guilty by such logic, than PCG can ever accuse the unborn and/or the pro-lifers.

Another thing we might like to point out over and over each and every time PCG and those like her make these kinds of claims is that if we put others in position to defend on us for whether they live or die, then the claims of bodily autonomy is reason to kill them is invalid. The unborn did not choose to get conceived. Granted women don't get to pick which time, day, month, year, etc., a baby gets conceived, though she can have sex to increase chances of that those times. But she did when in consenting to sex, made a choice that could mean conception and could mean being responsible as much as the man for putting forth a human life that is dependent on the mother.

If I see someone drowning and do nothing, I would be guilty of neglect to do right thing but not murder, since I did put that person in that position. But if I pushed the person into the water or in any way cause the person to be in that position, where the person is dependent on me to save that person, I cannot claim my bodily autonomy allow me to not try to save the person.

I know it is not perfect analogy but I think it suffices to show how very flawed PCG's logic is.

Posted by: Punisher at March 11, 2010 10:35 AM


PCG, what became of your rapist? How much time did he get?

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2010 10:55 AM


Stereotypical radical 20 something feminist, has never been pregnant but presumes to be te authority on pregnancy/birth, has bought the lie that all women are victims and trots out the victim card to justify murder, uses her own victimization to victimize and abuse others, presumes victimizing others will 'unrape' her, meanwhile she reduces anything that doesn't support her view to a rape analogy-you can be a victim or a victor but you can't be both, and every time you denigrate women and childbirth you enable your rapist to have power over you. Just one of the many *choices* we face daily-marginalize everyone and call them 'prorape' because of your own anger, or be healed? It is our choices and what we DO about what is done to us that define our character-continue to be a victim if you want, or stand up and take back what was stolen from you. Meanwhile, stop using your own victimization to abuse others or stand as guilty as the one who abused you. You don't love women or womanhood by belittling women who don't support the murder of the unborn-you love them by wanting better for them and their children than abortion. Stop presuming to speak for all women because YOU DO NOT. If you can't handle that, then leave motherhood and childrearing to us big girls who don't need the feminist hive mind to tell us what to do, think, and say. Run on back to the hugbox on twitter for validation and backup and to scorn those who oppose you to a sympathetic ear-those of us who can think for ourselves will continue to do so.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at March 11, 2010 11:17 AM


I agree Jill G! PCG, you should really be getting some help with the rape that made you a victim! Abortion, like rape, is also an act of violence. I resent the fact that you really believe you are helping women, women like Angie Jackson, by cheering her on for tweeting about her abortion. Instead of being sad or angry about your own situation, you seem to be pimping more abortion on women as a final solution. Instead of admitting that you may still need some help in dealing with your own situation, you actually call for more violence against women. PCG, abortion solves nothing. And if you had taken the time to do more research, you would realize that many rapes go unreported or unpunished because abortionists don't report it. Victims of incest increase because of women like you who think abortion is the answer. You are actually doing a great disservice to all women.

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2010 11:39 AM


PGC -- first of all, I am sorry that you were raped, especially at such a young age. This is terrible!

Secondly, since you think that the right to bodily autonomy is absolute, do you believe in legalized prostitution? Do you think people who want to commit suicide should not be dissuaded? What about people who want to sell their bodily organs, even if it results in their death? Should this be legal, too?

Just curious.

Posted by: Phillymiss at March 11, 2010 11:48 AM


And I've got to be honest in telling you that I'm a little confused about your web site. It's almost like you are pushing abortion. Angie Jackson aborted for a different reason than you!! A man used her with her own consent. She got pregnant, and she's aborting with awful side effects. You're like "Thank you Angie!!!" For what? Why are you thanking her and PC doctors? Angie made herself a victim. She put herself in her own position. You are cheering on a sister who is aborting rather than saying "Angie, I hope you will take control over your body and stop letting men use you as a sex object!"

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2010 11:53 AM


Phillymiss, those were some great points! I think we all agree that PCG's rape is indeed awful. However, I'd like to know how PCG feels about abortion being used as birth control. And don't think for one minute it isn't. I recently met a woman who was on her 11th abortion at the age of 33. This is total violence against a woman's children as well as herself. I believe that this is where I shifted gears from PC to Pl! I kept meeting women who were on abortion 7,8,9. And not one of them was raped or an incest victim! They just kept sleeping around.

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2010 12:04 PM


The 'bodily autonomy' rhetoric is a crock, too. The right to life trumps all other right. Why? right to free speech-irrelevant if you're dead. Right to bear arms? irrelevant if you're dead. Unless you can prove your unborn child is an extension of your body, instead of a separate entity with its own blood type, DNA and often different sex, that argument only proves that abortion is murder, because it violates the autonomy of the child-your autonomy ENDS where his/her body begins. Just another lame attempt to demonize the unborn and reduce them to parasites/tapeworms/squatters-hey where have we heard that before...also an attempt (again) to trot out the victim card when there has been no victimization-radical feminism again...

Posted by: Jill Guidry at March 11, 2010 12:15 PM


@Kristen...when are you due? I'm due in April! As far as tweeting the birth, you should! I heard Elisabeth Hasselbeck did just that! Please do it!

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2010 12:16 PM


The 'bodily autonomy' rhetoric is a crock, too. The right to life trumps all other right. Why? right to free speech-irrelevant if you're dead. Right to bear arms? irrelevant if you're dead. Unless you can prove your unborn child is an extension of your body, instead of a separate entity with its own blood type, DNA and often different sex, that argument only proves that abortion is murder, because it violates the autonomy of the child-your autonomy ENDS where his/her body begins. Just another lame attempt to demonize the unborn and reduce them to parasites/tapeworms/squatters-hey where have we heard that before...also an attempt (again) to trot out the victim card when there has been no victimization-radical feminism again...would also like to know how letting someone stick sharp instruments up your crotch is 'less like rape' than the natural process of giving birth...

Posted by: Jill Guidry at March 11, 2010 12:17 PM


The momentary effects of the RU pill are not the result. The result will impact in later life. All of us discover to what is important if we live long enough. Killing her child will come home. She did it and she must have to live with it. She will never stop wondering. The end is bitter sadness and regret. Help her. Protect life.

Posted by: SC at March 11, 2010 1:00 PM


She may have aborted the only one who had the matching bone marrow needed to save her son's life down the road-she may have aborted the one who would have pulled her from the burning car-she may have aborted the only one who would care for her in old age-a private decision that effects no one? hardly. They dont think at all.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at March 11, 2010 1:13 PM


If anyone has time, I recommend that they watch Carrie Underwood's music video "Jesus Take The Wheel".....it's a beautiful pro-life video. I found it on You Tube, but I had no idea that it was about a woman considering an abortion.

Posted by: heather at March 11, 2010 1:19 PM


I'm sorry - there SHOULD be pain, misery and suffering with an abortion! YOU ARE KILLING A HUMAN BEING!! 'Nuff said! If you still want to go through with it, knowing that, have at it and live with the consequences.

No lectures. I was a lefty Dem for 26 years and contributed to both NARAL, CARAL and Planned Parenthood. Never again!

Posted by: Peg C. at March 11, 2010 3:41 PM


Dear Peg C.
There is also mercy, grace, forgiveness, hope and healing for those that regret their abortions.
I wouldn't wish the hell I have been through after abortion on my worst enemy.

Very grateful that you are no longer on the dark side. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 11, 2010 3:49 PM


Physical and emotional pain are the only fitting tributes to a life denied. Good for you, Peg. I see the usual proabort dismissal of the grieving father's letter posted here (concerning his daughter dying from RU486) 'gee too bad but one death is not enough to make abortion illegal'-makes their bogus claims of caring for women laughable-or they would be if they weren't so pathetic. Guess these professional victims don't know how to respond to a real victim. Another casualty of abortion-murdered consciences and dead hearts. And they wonder why we aren't buying the 'we love all women' sctick while they are pouring acid on our heads?

Posted by: Jill Guidry at March 11, 2010 3:59 PM


Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question wasnt it-were not actually people-we're ANTIs-forgot my Alinsky there-demonize, dehumanize, scorn and dismiss.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at March 11, 2010 4:03 PM


A woman is raped and gets pregnant. It should be her choice whether she wants to go through the hardships of a pregnancy because of this. I mean its obviously all her fault now right? I understand the pro-life side, but seriously, by saying that women shouldn't have a choice, you're basically saying women are too dumb to be able to make a choice by themselves. If abortion isn't allowed, then women shouldn't be able to make any other decision.

....Hmm..doesn't sound too bad.

Posted by: Itsnotthathard at March 11, 2010 4:08 PM


"A woman is raped and gets pregnant. It should be her choice whether she wants to go through the hardships of a pregnancy because of this."

That occurs in minority of the cases of abortions. The thing is your side when raising this is being disingenous. Even when folks on our side grant that exception and more extreme cases like mother's life in danger, your side demand the right in all cases. So when you raise this argument, it's pure red herring.


"I mean its obviously all her fault now right?"

No one on either side here holds that in this case. Asinine and dishonest accusation.


"I understand the pro-life side, but seriously, by saying that women shouldn't have a choice, you're basically saying women are too dumb to be able to make a choice by themselves."


No, you are lying about our beliefs again. We don't deny people should have choices in general, but we oppose right to certain choices, that will harm another human being, be it murder, rape, incest, kidnap, assault, battery, etc.

By your logic, if we make laws against these we are saying no one should have a choice and everyone under the law are to dumb to make a choice by themselves.

Your own side is all for laws restricting choices of others, especially choices that will harm those on your side. So playing claim our side is oppose to choice on one thing must mean oppose to choice in all things is purely disingenous of you.


"If abortion isn't allowed, then women shouldn't be able to make any other decision."

We see abortion as murder, period.

By your logic, then, if murder of a new born baby or serial killing of females are not allowed for men then men should not be able to make any other decision.

It does not follow that restricting choice that will harm another human being in life, liberty, or bodily integrity will mean we should restrict all choices. Like I said, logical fallacy your side throw at us, when in actuality, your side is really saying "do what we say, not what we do."


"....Hmm..doesn't sound too bad."

No, it is pure obsfucation to play choice card, on your part, not to mention logical fallacies and misrepresentations abound in your short post.

Posted by: Punisher at March 11, 2010 4:20 PM


I love it when the choicers come around saying some of the most anti-woman crap I've ever heard. It makes me giggle after reading that and then having someone call ME a "misogynist" later.

Posted by: xalisae at March 11, 2010 4:26 PM


INSH 4:08PM

Wasn't the woman denied the most important choice of all, not to be the victim of a sexual assault?
Is rape not so bad when a victim does not become pregnant? What if she's instead infected with AIDS? What if she's beaten and tortured? What if she's murdered?
What about Jaycee Dugard? What's worse, that she was kept as a sexual slave for years or that she bore two children?

To focus only on pregnancy is to trivialize this horrific crime.


Posted by: Mary at March 11, 2010 5:46 PM


"PGC -- first of all, I am sorry that you were raped, especially at such a young age. This is terrible!"


Whoa.

PGC, sorry to hear that happened to you. No matter the differences here you have with us, no one deserved what happened to you. Hope the justice system put away that monster who did that to you for a long, long time.

Take it for what it is worth, but I pray for recovery emotionally and physically (if need be), and that you become a stronger person, and if it is meant to be, it will enable you to help others and also help prevent what happen to you from happening to others. And that you grow out of all this to become a beautiful person on the inside to match the outward. God bless, and I apologize for some posters who call themselves like Prodeathforprochoicegal. Those like that do not reflect our views and the posts like that with names like that are classless and do not reflect our views.

Our views of right to life also extend to those like you as well, be it right to not have your life taken away or be it right not to have some man assault or hurt you at all.

Again, I am sorry to know that it happened to you, and I will give you this, regardless of how strong our differences are- you are a courageous woman for stepping forward and letting others know what happened to you. Peace be with you.

Posted by: Punisher at March 11, 2010 8:01 PM



What's especially infuriating to me is that this may be a monster the justice system didn't lock up to begin with because he "only" raped one woman or child. Something like that animal that is alleged to have raped and murdered the teenage girl in California.

Posted by: Mary at March 11, 2010 8:23 PM



I have been raped twice in my lifetime, first time as a teen so my heart goes out to you, PCG. Many pro-life women have been raped too. I remember all too well the fear that I could be pregnant after being raped. I was not but had I conceived either time, there would have been no choice but to have the child. I don't know whether I would have chose adoption or not. I did not talk about these rapes for many years. I just knew that if I had become pregnant that I could not take an innocent life because of the evil actions of someone else. Abortion will not make you un-raped. Disrespect and rape of females has increased since abortion has become legalized. Motherhood is scoffed at and children are referred to as baggage. There is very little respect left in our society for females and we in turn are killing our unborn at higher than ever rates (Dad hits Mom, Mom hits Kid, Kid kicks Dog, notice the pattern).

When I became pregnant with my first child during an abusive relationship, his father pressured me to abort him throwing money on the table to "get rid of it." This wonderful product of conception now helps care for the man who pushed me to kill him. When I was pregnant with my third baby, a heartbeat was hard to find because a large cyst was growing near him. The doctor recommended an abortion in order to test the cyst for cancer. I refused and this child is now my high-honors teenager.

I hear women talk about how proud they are of their (planned and unplanned) children even women that are poor, young, single, and high school dropouts. I have never heard a women brag about her abortion(s). There are reasons for this.

Abortion has not and will never solve the issue of unplanned pregnancy (unplanned pregnancies have actually increased since legalized abortion and there are logical reasons for this). Abortion does not enpower women. It only further hides and covers up self-control and self-esteem issues. Abortion further oppresses women and children and begets more violence. Making the right decision after making a wrong one is enpowering. Making life-affirming decisions after someone tries to spiritually and emotionally (and often physically)kill you through rape is enpowering.

Thanks to all of our parents who chose to have us in spite of the countless difficult circumstances surrounding our conceptions.

Stand up Tall Women! We are Bigger than Rape. We are Stronger than Abortion!


Posted by: Praxedes at March 11, 2010 9:37 PM


Mary @5:46:
I think that's why what Roman Polanski did wasn't rape rape--she couldn't have gotten pregnant.

To a liberal, it's not about trauma, violence, or loss of purity, or loss of innocence, or premature exposure to adult concepts. It's all about whether you can get pregnant.

That's why they have no problem with 14 year olds having sex, even if it wasn't really consensual, even if it's a young girl and a much older guy--but they are horrified we would deny abortions to children. Because giving birth would somehow take away their childhoods--can't they see if a 14 year old is having sex, not killing her children is not what would take away her childhood?

Posted by: ycw at March 12, 2010 6:05 AM


Amen, Praxedes!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 12, 2010 12:09 PM


Pro-Choice Gal tries to come off as so concerned about women and their rights. Here is a quote I found of hers talking on another pro-choice website. Says alot about how she feels about others who have opinions different from her own. Sounds like its more about winning to her than about what's true and good:


"hope you don't mind me smacking the antis around a little on your site..thwap me if I get outta hand :)"

Posted by: Praxedes at March 13, 2010 1:06 PM