Archives

RightWingGirl’s View on Abortions

You know what’s coming, right? I’m reblogging for the excellent rebuttal.

dinokitten:

bubonickitten:

rightwinggirl:

This probably won’t be shock or anything, me being a conservative and all. I am PRO-LIFE or as some call it Anti-Abortion. Whatever you call it, I just think it is wrong. No matter the situation, young teenager, rape, or incest. I believe every child concieved, God created for a reason, and is perfect no matter what. For me life starts in the womb.

Honestly, for teen pregancies, this my opinion— if you feel you are old enough to have sex then obviously you are old enough for a baby that might come out of it. Most teens that have abortions regret it later in life. Instead of pregant teenagers having abortions they should put their child up for adoption, and find a family that is looking for a child to raise as their own, but are unable to have their own child.

I might sound heartless and cold, when I say that girls/women that are raped or are affected by incest should not recieve abortions. My reason is that every child should have a chance to live, you never know you might have the next Albert Eisenstien, or even a President. Even if they do not become a seccessful politician or inventor, they should have a chance to live their life. They should be given a chance to live a fulfilling life, like eveyone on the earth today.

These are just my thoughts. Every child should be given a chance to live, no matter the situation.

1. “I believe every child concieved, God created for a reason, and is perfect no matter what. For me life starts in the womb.”

It doesn’t matter if for you life starts in the womb. It doesn’t matter if you would personally never get an abortion. It doesn’t mean you have the right to take that choice away from others.

2. “Most teens that have abortions regret it later in life.”

Citation needed.

3. “Instead of pregant teenagers having abortions they should put their child up for adoption, and find a family that is looking for a child to raise as their own, but are unable to have their own child.”

This is a very simplistic view on the matter. Abortions are done for numerous reasons. In all of those cases, putting it up for adoption still means that the person still has to carry the fetus to term, which is something that abortion is meant to prevent, should the individual be unable to carry the fetus to term for whatever reason. It should be an individual’s choice whether or not to remain pregnant. Otherwise, you are forcing that individual to allow the fetus to use their body for months against that individual’s consent.

4. “I might sound heartless and cold, when I say that girls/women that are raped or are affected by incest should not recieve abortions.”

Yes, that is heartless and cold. You’re forcing a person who has been victimized to continually relive that trauma for the next nine months of their life. You are forcing them to carry the result of their assault against their will. If that isn’t a callous expectation, I don’t know what is.

5. “My reason is that every child should have a chance to live, you never know you might have the next Albert Eisenstien, or even a President.”

That isn’t a valid reason. It’s not a child until it’s born, anyway. Also, for every 100 fertilized eggs in the U.S., 31 fail to implant, and of the 69 that do implant, 14 are miscarried (statistics from my Biology of Human Sexuality class). Any of those might have been the next Albert Einstein (I think you meant Einstein, yeah?) or the next President. So what? Just because fertilization occurs doesn’t mean the potential person, if born, is destined to be the next Einstein or the next President. There are many factors that would go into determining what that potential person, if born, would accomplish. And that includes having caretakers who want and can care for that potential person, should they be born.

6. “They should be given a chance to live a fulfilling life, like eveyone on the earth today.”

Which means that they shouldn’t be forcibly born to (a) parent(s) who do not want to or cannot take care of a(nother) child.

7. “Every child should be given a chance to live, no matter the situation.”

Again, it’s not a child until it’s born.

8. I’ll drop some links, because there are lots of people who are far more coherent than I am at the moment.

A recent response from STFUconservatives to an opinion very similar to yours:
http://stfuconservatives.tumblr.com/post/5201756347

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
http://abortioneers.blogspot.com/2010/06/want-to-talk-about-black-women-and.html

Abortion isn’t used as birth control, and many people who seek abortions were using at least one form of protection at the time they conceived:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/abortion-not-used-as-birth-control/story-e6frea83-1225874718678

Debunking myths:
http://abortiongang.org/2010/08/debunking-popular-anti-choice-myths/
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/04/23/10-worst-abortion-myths-and-how-to-refute-them/

Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”—very good read:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Morality and abortion:
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

Comprehensive rebuttals to common pro-life arguments:
http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/2996650111/well-the-abortion-debate-is-pretty-complex-and

oh good fuck that commentary. <33333

From The Angry Black Tumblr | Comment below or Reblog @ Tumblr

61 comments to RightWingGirl’s View on Abortions

  • John P.

    I remember abortion was the one subject in my ethics class that actually got people angry. It was the only argument in which neither side was really understanding the other. And after a lot of philosophical discussion we’d come to the conclusion that you’re either a person when A) your conceived, or B) you first leave your mother’s person. After that point it was straight back to who could shout at the other side the loudest.
    Ever since then I would usually avoid the subject all together because it seemed that no matter what people I tried talking to about it they all didn’t really want to examine their own beliefs so much as try and prove the that opposite was wrong.
    Normally I’d call my self pro-life but quite frankly the majority of people who argue against abortion focus less on the idea that the “fetus is a person” and more on “punish the woman who got knocked up”.
    Which is what got me the angriest about the whole argument for the side I actually believed in. This shouldn’t be about belittling woman and their choices it should be about who/what is or isn’t a person.

    Still, just because something is a controversial topic doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be addressed. In fact it should be addressed more because of that.

  • Clare

    I also like the rebuttal I read somewhere (can’t remember where argh) that – even if the fetus is considered to have the same ‘personhood’ as an adult – outlawing abortion would give the fetus MORE rights than any adult in the US. No adult or child has the legal right to use another’s body for sustenance again that person’s will. You can’t force someone to give blood or donate organs, even to a relative, even if that relative would otherwise die (and giving blood generally doesn’t take nine months or rip one’s gentialia open…). You might think it the right thing to do, to give up one’s bodily freedom to sustain another creature’s life, but there’s no basis for making it law.

  • FlyByNight

    Hm. The original pro-life comment is pretty weak, but the rebuttal isn’t the strongest I’ve seen either. It may be silly for me to poke at the logic of something that was probably written as a rant, but here goes:

    1: “It doesn’t matter if for you life starts in the womb… It doesn’t mean you have the right to take that choice away from others.”

    This isn’t really an argument. It only works if you presuppose the pro-choice argument to be correct. A pro-life person could just as easily say “It doesn’t matter if for you life only starts after birth, it doesn’t mean you have the right to kill it.” One of these statements will sound reasonable and the other will piss you off, depending on which viewpoint you hold. Neither statement discusses or debates anything, it’s just emotionally appealing rhetoric.

    4: “You’re forcing a person who has been victimized to continually relive that trauma for the next nine months of their life.”

    Pregnancy is not the same as reliving trauma, and an abortion won’t automatically make the trauma go away. Yes, a raped woman may very well have an easier time healing from her experience if she doesn’t carry a pregnancy to term, however pro-lifers believe you’re weighing the woman’s recovery against a human life.

    6. “Again, it’s not a child until it’s born.”

    The author says that like it’s a proven fact, but large numbers of people don’t think so. It’s kind of the reason for this entire debate.

    I agree with John P. that the ‘punish the woman who got knocked up’ idea is reprehensible. The issue at stake is the personhood or lack thereof of the fetus, and whether it’s okay or not to do away with it. My sympathies go out to any woman who gets pregnant unintentionally, it’s not an easy spot to be in.

    I’m looking forward to seeing what people have to say here.

    • Clare

      “Neither statement discusses or debates anything, it’s just emotionally appealing rhetoric.”

      But this isn’t a mere intellectual exercise – these laws and attitudes affect people’s actual lives. And human rights are all based on ‘emotional rhetoric’, as are the defenses of them that actually persuade people (not to mention the assaults – which is partly why the pro-life lobby has been so effective; why not use the same weapons to fight back?).

      “Pregnancy is not the same as reliving trauma, and an abortion won’t automatically make the trauma go away.”

      For many people it is, and does, and you have no right to make blanket statements about something that is extremely personal. Everyone deals with trauma differently, which is exactly why this choice should be theirs alone. Before you take the tired devil’s advocate position (is this a choice you might ever have to face yourself, out of interest?) you should remember how damaging losing bodily autonomy AGAIN is for people like this.

      • FlyByNight

        Sure, use emotional rhetoric if you like. It doesn’t further any actual conversation, but it does rally the troops pretty well. This blog makes a point of valuing conversation over flag-waving, which is why I was pointing it out as such.

        Yes, I’m sure a pregnancy adds to the trauma of rape for the great majority women. It must be awful. The birth control I’m on should theoretically prevent me from getting pregnant if I were raped, but shit happens – if I were in that spot, I’d sure be tempted to get an abortion, but I wouldn’t. I’d probably keep the child, given where I’m at in life. Again, I feel for anyone who is stuck in that spot, but the fetus is human in my book, and that’s more important.

        • Clare

          “It doesn’t further any actual conversation, but it does rally the troops pretty well.”

          I obviously can’t speak for the blog owner, but I find legal rights more important than ‘conversation’, and troop rallying is generally more effective in getting them.

          “if I were in that spot, I’d sure be tempted to get an abortion, but I wouldn’t”

          Otherwise known as making a choice.

          • FlyByNight

            You’re correct, rhetoric does generally win over logic or conversation. I don’t actually think that’s a good thing, but I can see why people are willing to use it to get what they believe in.

  • Sanoe

    I have always hated the idea that a child who grows up to be Albert Einstein, the President, or Beethoven is implicitly more valuable than a child who grows up to be a construction worker, grocer, or homemaker, and never understand why someone who calls themselves pro-life would talk as though that were implicitly true.

    • John P.

      Absolutely. The whole could be the next great world leader argument never stuck with me. The whole point of being pro-life is that all life is valued, not just those who will be famous.

    • Robin

      The flipside of that is that maybe that fetus that got aborted would have been the next Ted Bundy, or David Duke, or anyone else who spreads great misery in the world.

  • Veronica S.

    I actually don’t think it has anything to do with whether or not a fetus is a person. Other people are not allowed to use my body without my permission. Period.

  • FlyByNight

    Interesting comment, Veronica S, I haven’t heard that angle on it before. Clare touches on the same thing. (“No adult or child has the legal right to use another’s body for sustenance again that person’s will.”)

    This may get me burned at the stake here, so let me clarify ahead of time by saying that I don’t think pregnancy is ‘punishment’ in any way for a woman having sex. It is, however, a natural biological result. Your view would make sense to me if pregnancy were a parasite that shows up randomly for no observable reason, but it’s not. Sex has some risks – STDs, emotional complications, pregnancy (if female), or eighteen years of your paycheck (if male). From my point of view, people who have sex are responsible for managing those risks, and may have to deal with the fallout. Sure, no-one has the right to use your body against your will – but we all go into the bedroom knowing the possible results. Do you believe we’re not responsible for those results when they happen?

    (I can hear the ‘what about rape?!’ response from here. To keep it short and sweet, unlike Veronica S. I do think we’re morally obligated to to support the life of another if the only alternative is their death. Aside from pregnancy this situation almost never occurs, so it’s not surprising that there’s no legal precedent for it. I’d be happy to make one.)

    Sanoe, I agree, that argument’s pretty crappy. I think the point that pro-lifers are trying to make with it is that part of the intrinsic value of human life is the contributions we can make to the world, and it’s quite arrogant to say ‘the world doesn’t need this child, I’m not affecting anyone but me by getting rid of it’. It’s not a terribly strong argument against abortion, but I think it’s worth some consideration.

    • Clare

      @ FlyByNight

      “Do you believe we’re not responsible for those results when they happen?”

      Abortion IS taking responsibility and dealing with the ‘fallout’ (one which only affects marginalised people). So please don’t imply that women who want abortions are being irresponsible merely because you don’t agree with the way they’re going about it.

      “(I can hear the ‘what about rape?!’ response from here. To keep it short and sweet, unlike Veronica S. I do think we’re morally obligated to to support the life of another if the only alternative is their death. Aside from pregnancy this situation almost never occurs, so it’s not surprising that there’s no legal precedent for it. I’d be happy to make one.)”

      … You seem to be implying that rape victims should be forced to carry their rapists’ fetuses to term. And that living adults and children should be forcibly harvested to prolong the life of others (as long as it doesn’t kill them): ‘I’d be happy to make one’. And there are plenty of people who die because they cannot get organs, which would often be solved if everyone had to donate, so I don’t know why you think such a situation would ‘almost never occur’. But I can understand why you felt the need to preface your statements with omg-don’t-bite-my-head-off because, despite how politely you phrase them, the implications are pretty revolting.

      • FlyByNight

        Sorry, bad choice of words on my part, I was trying to open the door for conversation. I’m trying to suggest that there’s a middle ground between ‘They deserve it, the whores’ and ‘pregnancy is just another STD’. Are you saying that abortion rights only affect marginalized people, or am I misunderstanding you? I thought the demographics of women getting abortions were pretty widely spread.

        “You seem to be implying that rape victims should be forced to carry their rapists’ fetuses to term.” Yup, that is what I’m saying. If I believe that human life begins at conception, and that said life is intrinsically as valuable as you and me, that is the only view I can take.

        “there are plenty of people who die because they cannot get organs, which would often be solved if everyone had to donate, so I don’t know why you think such a situation would ‘almost never occur’” Really? You’ll have to enlighten me, I was under the impression that living donors are quite readily available.

        “I can understand why you felt the need to preface your statements with omg-don’t-bite-my-head-off because, despite how politely you phrase them, the implications are pretty revolting.” Revolting to you, I suppose. Your views are pretty revolting to me, too. Nice to have a civil discussion about them, though.

        • Clare

          “Are you saying that abortion rights only affect marginalized people, or am I misunderstanding you? I thought the demographics of women getting abortions were pretty widely spread.”

          I meant in that anyone needing an abortion has a uterus, even if they aren’t all women, so they face sexism at the very least. So yes, all marginalised.

          “Your views are pretty revolting to me, too. Nice to have a civil discussion about them, though.”

          Valuing thinking adults over tiny blobs that aren’t even conscious yet is revolting to you? Sure, OK. More emotional than logical, though.

          Sorry for the derail ABW. I’ll bow out.

        • Zanne

          Living donors provide only a fraction of needed donations. Things like kidneys, which come in pairs, can be donated by living donors, but who do you think donates hearts? Waiting lists for organs are long (over 100,00 people in the US, 18 die every day because they don’t get a needed organ, see here: http://www.organdonor.gov/Default.asp).

          Now you have some facts. Carry on.

  • John P.

    Well now I guess I’m unsure if I’m pro-life or pro-choice.
    On one hand the fetus has a right to life. It is a living being and has as much right to this world as anyone else, weather or not it grows up to be a US president.

    On the other hand the mother has the right to use her organs not only as she wants but as she needs.
    A pregnancy isn’t just carrying a child until it’s developed enough to breath on its own outside the womb. The mother has to go through great physical, emotional, and psychological stress. It doesn’t matter if she was raped or she is willingly having a child with a man she consented to having sex with. Pregnancy is rough. The mother, even under the best of circumstances, takes a huge risk having a child. And it’s wrong to force her to stress and endanger herself. She also has just as much a right to life as the fetus.

  • Digital Coyote

    The “God [did it] for a reason” always tack sets my teeth on edge, particularly when the person using it is arguing about the morality of having an abortion. It takes away a person’s bodily autonomy by reducing them to a vessel for something (allegedly) wrought by unstoppable and infallible providence. Going further to say that people who have been victimized should be made to carry evidence of a crime to term–for the benefit of others, as part of the will of a deity they might very well not believe in, or because that fetus might eventually grow in to an important person some day–is patently inhumane.

  • Blimfark Smith

    Is it just me, or should someone have stopped RightWingGirl at…?

    “I believe every child concieved, God created for a reason, and is perfect no matter what. For me life starts in the womb.”

    Um… I’m pretty sure the womb itself proverbially disagrees with her about the “perfect no matter what” and “Every [fertilized embryo] should be given a chance to live, no matter the situation.” Estimates vary, but a very large number of fertilized embryos don’t implant or are spontaneously aborted. I’m sure the argument would be along the lines of “it’s murder when we do it and natural when God does” but then isn’t God herself disputing all embryos should be given a chance to live, no matter the situation?

    I’m just sayin’…

  • Lynn

    Why is it that so called intelligent people cannot figure it out – if you have sex there is a chance that you could become pregnant. You decide to do it – you get pregnant and then skip off to the abortion clinic to have “something removed” from your body. If you truly cared about automony over your body, you would keep it better. Don’t fornicate and you won’t get pregnant – it’s that simple. And as far as choice is concerned. Have any of you actually read about an abortion procedure and how terribly violent it is for the woman. All actions have consequences. Even abortions have consequences. I will never understand the mind of anyone who is so careless as to get pregnant and then cooly and calmly decide to kill their “mistake” which is really a human being. Abortion is murder.

    • John P.

      If your argument for the rights of a fetus is that woman shouldn’t get knocked up in the first place you’re gonna need to do a lot better than that. People who are pro-life shouldn’t be degrading a woman by accusing her of sleeping around and just casually getting an abortion. It is about protecting the sanctity of life, not degrading it. It should be about the child’s right to life not about the how the mother is slutty or careless.
      And no one “cooly and camly” gets an abortion.

    • Everything John P. just said, plus:

      You’re assuming that the only women who have abortions are single and “promiscuous”. Married women have abortions when the couple decides not to have anymore children. A women whose medical condition would make a pregnancy life-threatening may choose to have an abortion. A victim of rape or incest may also choose to have an abortion. etc. etc. etc. Also, if a single, healthy woman does choose to have an abortion, it doesn’t make her decision any less valid than the previous reasons.

    • Blimfark Smith

      I don’t want to get food poisoning, so… by this reasoning… I shouldn’t eat?

      Lynn, what “so called intelligent people” have indeed figured out is that the world is a complex place and that we don’t have all of the information in advance that is necessary to make seemingly “simple” decisions. Given a) a world that shared your moral clarity & priorities, and b) that child birth can lead to complications that could cause the death of the fetus and/or mother, shouldn’t women just stop having children entirely so as to preclude even the possibility of needing an abortion for medical reasons? i.e., So there’s no chance they’ll be murders. If the world actually worked the way you want it to, how many children did you just moralize out of existence? But – despite the common outcome of the non-existence of a human being — you’re not a murderer… right?

  • Lynn

    If you don’t want to have a child. Don’t have sex. If your life is endangered by carrying and having a child, by all means, respect the sanctity of your own life and not have sex. There is no other way around it. Don’t have sex – you won’t get pregnant. End of story. Your decision to kill an unborn child is never valid. I always find it interesting that those who advocate the killing of an innocent unborn child who is the product of rape don’t make equally vitriolic arguments in favor of execution of the guilty rapist.

    • But that’s what it comes down to, isn’t? The desire to control other people’s sexuality. Sex exists outside of reproduction. And, as science has shown us, reproduction exists outside of sex. Since they are sometimes mutually exclusive, saying “if you don’t want to have a child, don’t have sex” makes absolutely no sense.

    • @Lynn, that’s just silly. Don’t have sex is the answer to everything? First, women who discover that pregnancies cause major, major health complications for them don’t always know that beforehand. they discover it when they get pregnant. And I am always up for opening a dialog on the death penalty for rapists.

      However, neither of those things is really the point. The point is that sex is awesome for many people, and to say folks should just not have it ignores that sex fulfills many needs, not just a reproductive one, as Angel points out. If you’re the kind of person who doesn’t like sex, then yeah, don’t have it unless you’re trying to have a baby. For that kind of person, the lack of sex is no big deal. But not everyone is like that, nor should everyone be. It’s ridiculous to suggest that humans should stop having sex if they don’t want babies.

      What’s not ridiculous? To say: hey, if you’re going to have sex and don’t want babies, use this birth control. Even better, if you don’t want babies OR STDs, use this more comprehensive birth control.

  • Aphrodite

    After reading all the comments, I don’t think anyone is considering the alternative. We had women dying from back alley abortions. Bleeding to death often alone. I’m not saying yay abortions for everyone, but they did not become legalized and regulating for no reason. My own sister had multiple abortions, and is an emotional mess because of it. I know she is not ok with it and never talks about it. Not everyone reacts that way, I’m sure, but it made me very careful (never been pregnant). I don’t judge anyone who’s had them, but it should not be used as a contraceptive. It needs to be the absolute last resort. I am pro-choose but don’t choose that for myself.

  • Lynn

    @Angry Black woman – your response is absolutely ridiculous and I am tired of you so called intelligent women dictating to the rest of us about our bodies and when our rights over our bodies begin. Sex is a very powerful thing – it can create life (pregnancy) and it can also take it (HIV/AIDS, cervical cancer, etc.). So anyone in this day and age, with all of the information out there that is available to relegate sex to some extracurricular activity while ignoring the consequences thereof is stupid and downright irresponsible. If you don’t want kids – don’t have sex. You seem to conveniently forget that contraception does not always stop pregnancies and condoms etc. don’t always stop the spread of disease. Each person has to have sense for his or herself. Protect yourself. Not only is indiscriminate sexual activity with various people dangerous to the health, it is emotionally unhealthy. When you join your body with another person’s there is an exchange of not only the physical. Unhealthy soul ties are also formed that can act in your life like a curse. Think before you act. We are not animals. We have the capacity to think rationally and not be driven by some inordinate lust that must be fulfilled come what may. We don’t go into heat. There are times of the month when a woman is not fertile and cannot become pregnant. Science and medicine are such that we can know when we are fertile and not fertile. Married women who don’t want to get pregnant can aim for those days. Women die on abortion tables in hospital and so called regulated clinics just like they die in the back alley abortion clinics. It is a violent procedure that can leave a woman scarred for life not just emotinally but physically as well. Get all of the information. It is out there.

    • am tired of you so called intelligent women dictating to the rest of us about our bodies and when our rights over our bodies begin.

      Um… Lynn, are you having a breakdown? Because I didn’t tell you what to do with your body at all. I didn’t say “have sex” or “if you have sex you have to use birth control” or put any dictates on you or other women. I said “If X, then Y” as a suggestion. If you want to have sex, and don’t want babies, you have few choices except for birth control under those circumstances.

      No one should have sex if they don’t want to. No one should have babies if they don’t want to. The whole point of the abortion debate IS “don’t tell me what to do with my body.” So I fail to see how somehow I am the one dictating your body’s rights to you. In fact, by insisting that I can’t have sex if I don’t want kids, you’re dictating what to do with MY body. So uh, yeah, maybe you need to rethink your statements.

      Also, you bring up the consequences of having sex and how people should not be ignorant of them: I agree. Which is why I advocate for better sex education. If you tell people exactly what could happen to them if they have sex, they can make more informed choices. I have not forgotten that contraception is not 100% effective, but the effectiveness rates of contraception and condom use are very high. Again, this is something that needs to be taught so that folks know.

      But I’m going to co-sign the comment that pointed out that sometimes food gives you food poisoning, does that mean we shoudl stop eating? There are obviously ways to mitigate this danger, and most people take them. But it only takes one bad chef or waiter who didn’t wash their hands to make me sick, no fault of mine. That doesn’t mean I starve myself forever.

      Also, why are you assuming indiscriminate sexual activity? That’s just a load of bull, too. Not everyone who has sex and doesn’t want a baby is promiscuous and indiscriminate. Jesus, lady, what cave do you live in?

      Apparently a world where sex is all about animal lusts or something. freaky.

      There are times of the month when a woman is not fertile and cannot become pregnant. Science and medicine are such that we can know when we are fertile and not fertile. Married women who don’t want to get pregnant can aim for those days.

      Okay, first, women can become pregnant even during their non-fertile times or when they *think* they’re not fertile. This science is not exact. Second, you said “no sex unless babies” but now you’re saying married women can use the rhythm method and that’s okay? How is tracking fertility times better than birth control or condoms? And how come married women are the only ones allowed to do this?

      I’m starting to think you’re a bit twisted, sister.

      Yes, women can still die from abortions today, but far less do because they no longer have to sneak around about it (in America). And yes, abortion can leave women with emotional issues. No one here is saying it can’t. What we are saying is that women should have the right to make that choice. The more informed the choice, the better.

  • Lynn

    @AngelH – pregnancy is not the only result from sex. You can contract a deadly STD that can kill you. Don’t you care about that at all. Are you so sex crazed that you don’t care that you literally put your life in danger everytime you lie down with some guy? Has it come to that. We are not bitches in heat. If you want to control your own body – and who doesn’t – then take care of it. Don’t expose it to disease and death. I have the presence of mind to take care of myself. I don’t understand why anyone who harps about rights over their own body doesn’t take precautions to protect that body.

    • You have officially lost your damn mind. No one here – especially not me – has said anything against using contrecpetion or protection against STDs or other diseases. Stop putting words in our mouth. Secondly, where did sudden interest in body automony come from? Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously when you then turn around and say, “I am tired of you so called intelligent women dictating to the rest of us about our bodies and when our rights over our bodies begin”. No, pro-choicers are tired of people like you forcing your own views concerning what we do with our bodies, including the right to have a safe abortion. Get your story straight before replying to me again.

    • Delux

      …bitches in heat? seriously? farreal? *bitches in heat*.

  • Lynn

    @AngelaH – you don’t have the sense to respond to anyone without cussing. Are you seriuos. Can you not formulate a cogent argument to support your position without resorting to cussing. Well, I am not intimidated by cussing so you can drop that crap. As far as having automony over one’s own body – that includes having the common sense to protect it from disease and other unwanted consequences. I am sick and tired of you so called pro-choicers talking down to the rest of us. We are all thinking and rational people – we should now that our actions have consequences. Is it too much to ask someone to think before they act. Are you serious. You so called pro choicers who are the ones forcing your crackpot idea and views down the throats of others – talking to women and girsl as if we are mindless dumb beasts who don’t have any control over our own bodies and who are too stupid to control ourselves. Are you for real? Really, in this day and age, with all of the information that is available concerning reproduction, sex and STD’s.

    • First of all the word is “cursing”. Secondly, spell my name correctly. If you want to get petty, I can go there but at least get your act together first. Most of your comment is just to stupid to reply to, but this:

      You so called pro choicers who are the ones forcing your crackpot idea and views down the throats of others…

      You do realize that this is a pro-choice blog, right? And who’s the one going into a pro-choice space trying to force ideas onto people?

  • Lynn

    And AngelaH – I never said you shouldn’t use contraception when having sex. If you read and understood my post – I was stating that one should exercise by control by keeping one’s legs closed. Understand now?

  • John P.

    Lynn started to sound like your standard troll a few replies back, I don’t know why we keep responding to her responses that are clearly meant to infuriate us.

    P.S. @Lynn you’re still getting the spelling for Angel H’s name wrong (it’s not Angela H).

  • Lynn

    @JohnP – I am not a troll. I am someone who thinks that women and girls have common sense and should exercise same when it comes to their own health care. Starting to think about your health when you find out that you are pregnant or infected is too late. And your comment about spelling is downright childish.

    @Angela – you have the gall to ask anyone else if they passed health class? You can’t seem to figure out that sex can lead to pregnancy and or STD. Did you pass it?

  • Lynn

    Abstinence is 100% effective against unwanted pregnancy.

    • Blimfark Smith

      In humans, that’s true. But the contrapositive (i.e., sex is effective for wanted pregnancy) isn’t. In fact, it can take many sexual acts whose deliberate intent is procreation to produce an “actual” (i.e., live born) child. Many of the intervening attempts will create embryos that do not survive. A low fertility couple can easily create & destroy more embryos than a highly fertile woman who gets an abortion. The first few might be considered negligent homicide… but, when it’s plain that the odds of conception are low, isn’t it as much murder to keep trying as it is to have an abortion for reasons of the mother’s health?

      As for the latter, the simplicity of the moral equation “health endangered = don’t have sex” breaks down immediately in the real world, in which perfect foreknowledge of outcomes is unavailable. I’m sure, given a choice, any woman who ended up dying of e.g. eclampsia would have been glad to take this advice… but my advice to you is not to share your wisdom with her grieving husband.

    • Robin

      Actually, no, it isn’t, because there’s always the chance that a woman will be raped. A woman choosing to stay abstinent doesn’t guarantee that sex will never be forced upon her. Women do get pregnant as a result of rape, and rape is shamefully common in our society.

      The situation is far more complex than you are pretending. Your vision seems to be that the only women who get abortions are single women running around having sex with every man they can find. Your suggestion that one should be abstinent if one doesn’t want children – I’ve been with my husband for 14 years now, and we have two children and we’re done having children, so we should be abstinent from here on out? Really? Sex is, for many people, a vital part of emotional and psychological closeness. I know marriages that have broken up because the sexual bonds between the partners withered, and they grew more and more distant. I don’t want that to happen to my own relationship, nor do I want to give up one of the basic joys of adult life, which is sexual contact.

      You’re also ignoring the fact that monogamy – even married monogamy – doesn’t mean one is safe. One’s partner can cheat on you, and then you can catch an STD. So if we should stay abstinent for fear of STDs, then we should NEVER have sex, EVER, because unless you keep your partner locked in a cage while you’re not around, you have no way of guaranteeing that they’re not doing something that will place you at risk of an STD. Sure, everybody thinks they could tell if their partner is cheating, but there have been way too many instances when the “perfect family man / perfect husband” (or wife equivalent) blindsided everyone when it came out that they were cheating.

      So essentially nobody should have sex, ever, for fear of accidental pregnancy, and even if you’re trying to get pregnant, you still shouldn’t have sex, because you could be getting exposed to an STD due to your partner’s potential infidelities. Perhaps we should set up a system of asexual reproduction where all sperm is tested for STDs prior to being used for in-vitro fertilization, and all people stay abstinent at all times, and of course this has to be in the context of a society where rape doesn’t occur and all fetuses are free of severe abnormalities.

      Sure, that could work.

  • Lynn

    @AngelaH – most of my comments are too stupid to reply to? That’s your argument? The reason that you cannot reply is that you cannot refute my assertions. The only thing that your comments reveals is that common sense ain’t so common.

  • John P.

    Lynn calls us stupid and childish, there’s no point in reasoning or trying to converse with people who call you stupid and childish.

  • Lynn

    @JohnP – you wouldn’t know reason if it bit you.

  • Lynn

    @AngelaH – evil hamster. What happened to the discussion about abortion and abstinence. Can’t support your position can you? Can’t defend yourself? Gotta stoop to name calling. Man – what a winner…

    • Lynn, the discossion went down the toilet the minute you ceased to make any sense. and, you know what, you are acting like a troll. This is your first and only warning: take a break from this discussion. Come back when you can argue without resorting to childishness. Also, please ensure you’re forming an argument that makes sense based on past statements.

  • Lynn

    Dear Angry Black Woman:
    I know that I don’t make any sense to any of you because you lack the ability to reason. What I have been trying to communicate to all of you is that your arguments in favor of abortion are not only wrong but insulting to the intelligence of all women and girls everywhere. To suggest that we are too stupid to control our own bodies is an outrage. But for whatever reason, you all just don’t get it. Oh well. We have not had any arguments. An argument requires two sides – and you all don’t have a side. Terrible. You simply dismiss what you cannot refute. That’s not arguing. That’s running away. And it’s cowardly.

    • … I don’t even know how to unpack this, as you are literally not making any sense. Ah well. Obviously we cannot have a valuable discussion so, Lynn, you should probably go elsewhere and complain about how everyone here just won’t listen to you.

    • Marianne

      Lynn, this simply isn’t true. There have been many thoughtful comments addressed to you and you have just ignored them. You simply ignore what you cannot refute. That’s not arguing. That’s running away. And it’s cowardly.

  • To suggest that we are too stupid to control our own bodies is an outrage.

    And yet you continue to do it by arguing that women shouldn’t get abortions.

  • Lynn

    Women should not have abortions. Exercising control over you body is something you should do everyday and you can avoid these situations.

  • Lynn

    Angry woman you are in denial – that’s the reason you can’t have a discussion. Logic plays no role in your world. Pity.

  • Aphrodite

    @Lynn:
    I don’t think anyone was initially trying to attack you. However, when you make such fleeting comments as “if you don’t want to get pregnant , keep your legs closed” it tends to offend a lot of people. Pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion the way you make it out to be. I do not want that for myself, but who am I to judge anyone or take their right to a very personal decision? The rhythm method isn’t 100% and abstinence is not likely in this society. If you want to go live in one that believes that go live with the Amish. Yes you offended me. If you want to have a rational discussion about something, try to develop better social skills.

  • Lynn

    Aphrodite – you offend me. Your very name offends me – after some pagen want to be goddess. Says alot about you and your “choices”. Anyway, no one has the right to murder anyone else. That’s not a “choice” that we have. Abortion is murder. If that offends you then hard cheese. Deal with it. But I am not going to be silent on this issue any longer. Pro-choicers or whatever you want to call your selves are not going to shame me in to silence on this issue. I am encouraging all of us who feel the same way to come and speak out boldly against this atrocity that is abortion. The silence on our end is over. Get ready to confront it. We won’t be quiet anymore.

  • Lynn

    And what do you mean absitnence is not possible in this society. That’s a bald face lie because there are many people who are managing to live quite happily and fulfilled lives by practicing it. We are not animals in heat – we can control ourselves. And while the rhythm method is not 100% effective, or so you claim, neither are condoms or any other form of contraceptive but that doesn’t keep prolifers from singing their praises.

  • @Angry Black Woman:
    I appreciate your web site. Thank you for a good place to talk about important things.
    @Lynn
    Again you resort to name-calling. Didn’t you accuse other people of that above? Oh well. I did not say abstinence was impossible. I said it was “not likely”. Develop some reading comprehension skills. Brain quest has some good workbooks to start with. If my name offends you, then don’t come out from the cave you live in during Easter or Christmas. Those both reek pagan or as you said “pagen” rituals. E.g. christmas trees, burning logs, easter eggs, the easter bunny. The list goes on. This site is American so I assume you, are as I am. We are lucky to live in a society that allows us to practice a religion, or not if we wish, freely. I wish you luck in your crusade on this issue, because if you keep alienating people to convince them of your opinions you won’t get far at all. In fact, be safe.

  • Springy

    Pro-life=anti-women, there’s my view on the subject. The will of a woman always supercedes the so-called “rights” of a fetus. I support abortion at all times by all women. I find it hypocritical that only women are encouraged not to have sex by anti-choicers. This issue is very important to me. I will not date a person who is not 100% pro-choice.