abortion classic or dud?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I think its a lousy form of birth control,i am not sure that life does not begin at conception, i think it is traumtic for the mother


I think that there are not enough couples adopting, i think that the saftey of a clinic is better then a caot hanger and a back alley. i think that there are social and class issues that we have not dealt with


i think that i dont have a vulva, and therefore its not really my business.


there seems to be v. little rational discussion of this topic - do lets start one.

anthony easton (anthony), Saturday, 28 September 2002 08:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic, not least of all because if the body is able to decide to spontaneously abort a foetus for whatever (frequently physical) reason, then when the mind decides that it wants to abort one for whatever physical, social, economical, psychological, etc. reason then it should also be able to follow through with its decision.

toraneko (toraneko), Saturday, 28 September 2002 08:54 (twenty-two years ago)

It is a rotten form of abortion, and there are lots of couples who would love to adopt (and I speak as someone who was adopted), and it does carry risks (though invoking the coathanger and back alley may be dud - how many abortions resemble that?). On the other hand, I see no reason at all why a woman should be forced to carry the foetus to full term if she chooses not to, so I believe it should be available on demand. As to when life begins, I don't think there is an easy answer to that: I'm inclined to count it as a separate life from its mother when it can survive independently of its mother. How that tallies with the time limits in Canada, the US, Britain or anywhere else I don't know, but here at least the vast majority of abortions are carried out very early.

A story: in the '80s my wife suffered from Chron's Disease. One side effect was that, the doctors told her, she lost any chance of ever getting pregnant. Relieved rather than upset, she stopped taking the pill. In 1989 she became pregnant. Her doctors told her that her health would suffer hugely if she tried to have the baby; that she had only a tiny chance of carrying it to term; and that if she did there was only a tiny chance of the baby being born healthy. Neither of us wanted a child anyway. We wanted an abortion. We went to the Health Authority's appointment to set this up, and gave him this background. He said (I swear this is absolutely true) that the pregnancy was clearly a miracle, and had my wife considered that she might be carrying the Second Coming? Did she want to kill the Second Coming? Knowing we had to go through this doctor to get the abortion, we stayed calm but stood our ground. He eventually told my wife that she was a very evil woman who did not deserve this miracle, and he would authorise the abortion to protect the baby from her.

I know that doesn't make any kind of case for or against abortion, but I think it explains some of why I don't believe that it should be available at doctor's discretion: it gives crazed doctors this kind of colossal power over other people's lives.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 28 September 2002 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

martin i think you shd have reported that guy to someone: no WAY shd he have been doing that particular job

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 28 September 2002 15:13 (twenty-two years ago)

There's this one neighborhood of St. Paul I hang out occasionally due to a great old-school two-screen movie theater and a decent used bookstore. There's also a Planned Parenthood on the main drag, about 50 yards from a Burger King. Every so often there will be protesters marching around with huge placards of dead bloody aborted fetuses.

Let me emphasize again that this clinic is practically next door to a fucking Burger King.

Nate Patrin, Saturday, 28 September 2002 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark: This guy was a very senior doctor indeed, we found out - we were given to understand that pretty much any NHS abortion in Leicester had to get his approval. We did talk about complaining somewhere, but obviously it would have been our word against his, with no evidence of his lunacy at all, and my ex was very reluctant to go through any of the trouble it would entail. I was of course far more concerned about her mental comfort after going through that and the abortion itself to press her on this or go against her wishes.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 28 September 2002 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Nate if you want a placement joke the Planned Parenthood in the town I lived in in Michigan had a sign that said "PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Please Enter Through Back Alley."

nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 28 September 2002 19:10 (twenty-two years ago)

martin i find your story to be just plain bluddy awful, your poor wife ( and you ) it is a difficult decision anyway without some evil nutter forcing his views upon you.
i think abortion is a lousy form of birth control yes, but only if it is used as that. in certain circumstances i believe it is justifiable and women who choose it experience enough emotional turmoil without needing the harrassment of anti-abortionists. in the city i lived in last they used to stake out the clinics, loudly and nastily abusing women as they entered. police claimed to be powerless to prevent this and many women endured more trauma becuase of it.
the so-called back alley clinics went once abortion became legal here, and women no longer have to go through morally-twisted doctors to prove their case.

donna (donna), Saturday, 28 September 2002 19:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Except that there are a lot of rural areas of America where there are no abortion doctors within reach, and I believe that quite a few states still have parental consent laws.

One thing that's definitely dud: a LOT of doctors won't tell women about -or prescribe- the emergency contraception pill, which is nothing more than 2 birth control pills, taken 12 hours apart. It has to be taken within 72 hours, and I've heard horror stories of racing against the clock to try to find a doctor (esp. if you have a HMO) to prescribe it. That's just ridiculous; women should not have to be bouncing from doctor to doctor over something as simple as that.

lyra (lyra), Saturday, 28 September 2002 19:50 (twenty-two years ago)

as birth control, obviously not classic. my mom knew too many women when I was a kid who used it for that reason; I hate to imagine the health consequences. but I'm still completely for it remaining an option.

M Matos (M Matos), Saturday, 28 September 2002 23:21 (twenty-two years ago)

though invoking the coathanger and back alley may be dud - how many abortions resemble that?

I dont know how is it in places where abortion is okay but in Brasil where its prohibited most of the abortions by poor people are made by people there are more butchers than doctors. That or you take a shitload of pills there are prescribed for something else since there isnt a abortion pill

vic (vicc13), Saturday, 28 September 2002 23:51 (twenty-two years ago)

"I know that doesn't make any kind of case for or against abortion"

No but its unfortunate Martin, still Id be interseted in a rational explanation for abortion. Torankeo is the only one who appears to have any reason behind her beliefs. Anyone else?

Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 02:06 (twenty-two years ago)

yes i believe it should be an option to women in circumstances where health ( mental/physical/emotional ) is at risk, mother or baby.
i realise many people wish to adopt babies, but dont think this is sufficient reason to disallow abortions. there are so many complex issues to be considered by a woman when she finds herself pregnant, making abortions illegal doesnt stop them, it simply endangers the lives of women and allows the trade of back-alley coathanger type places to flourish.
the question of when life begins to exist is a tough one to answer as it seems to come down to every persons own belief system.

donna (donna), Sunday, 29 September 2002 02:16 (twenty-two years ago)

It is a tough question, and one I've thought about a lot- I'm a pacifist for religous reasons, and opposed to the death penalty for the same reasons, but I'm pro-choice. The best that I can come up with is that I've studied some biology, and to me life doesn't begin in the first 3 or 4 months.

lyra (lyra), Sunday, 29 September 2002 02:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Legal or not its another story, but its defently a dud.
Emotional trauma for the mothers, antiabortion wackos, prodeath wackos, antiabortion and prodeath wackos shooting eachother, antiaborotion wackos shooting doctors, doctors tossing fetuses out in the garbage like regular trash, cheesy TV shows (Degrassi not included) on the topic all adds up to being a super dud.

Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Sunday, 29 September 2002 02:45 (twenty-two years ago)

the fetal scooby doo episode on tv funhouse was very funny

ron (ron), Sunday, 29 September 2002 03:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Im trying hard to stay out of this one because I dont think this is the best format to discuss such an issue. I aint a woman either so that automatically puts me in the firing line.

The question of when life begins is a tough one though Donna I hope that its not something that cannot be looked at objectively -re belief systems.

Martin I find your definition about being able to survive independantly outside the mother not the most helpful- what happens in the future when they will be able to grow a baby from a test tube and never use the mother at all?

The Roe vs Wade really it was a non decision. The courts chose not to decide when life began because of conflicting medical evidence basically it was chucked in the too hard basket. Thirty years of medical evidence has swung the balance of scientific evidence in favour of the "religious pro life side" and will continue to do so. Thus we see arguments such as Tornakos ethical ones being pushed to the fore by abortion activists Id like to discuss that as well but later eh .

So when does life begin? Can we define it? Surely if we can define when death occurs we can define when life begins? That seems logical to me. So when do we die...
Where does life begin?:
1) Clinical death: Your heart stops. If when your heart stops, you’re dead, then by extension when your heart starts, you’re alive. Using this definition, most of even the earliest abortions are now illegal. But there is a problem. Clinical death is not final. You can be “brought back” from that, so it isn’t really death.


2) Biological death: All electrical activity in the brain stops. If when you cease to have an EKG reading you’re dead, then by extension when you start to have an EKG reading you’re alive. Since these brain impulses must be present to start the heart, they are readable before that. Even more of the earliest abortions are now illegal. But there is a problem. Even without the brain you can be put on machines that keep your body “alive”, so that isn’t really death, either.


3) Cellular breakdown and organ failure: The machines can feed you and pump your blood until your organs give out. Once the cell structure disintegrates and your organs fail there isn’t anything a machine can do for you. You would require an organ transplant which you would not get if you were in this degrading situation. Therefore, when your cell structure gives out you’re dead (really dead this time), SO BY DEFINITION WHEN YOUR CELL STRUCTURE IS FORMED (CONCEPTION) YOU ARE ALIVE.

I dont pretend to be an expert doctor, so my logic might be faulty nor take the moral high ground on abortion Id just like to hear rational sciencetific arguments for abortion not ethical ones as interesting as they are.

Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 03:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Abortion is great (as in INCREDIBLY fucking CLASSIC). Questions about when life begins are stupid. There is NO compelling reason to force a women to carry a child to term. Any argument which distracts from that ARGUMENT is a bullshit one.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Sunday, 29 September 2002 03:32 (twenty-two years ago)

compelling stuff alex. thanx

Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 03:57 (twenty-two years ago)

kiwi if the only question was that of when life begins it wouldnt be such a sticky subject. your points are interesting and valid enough from a scientific view, but another area to consider is that of choice - does or should a woman have control over what happens to her body when it involves the *possible/potential* life of another being?
even if life begins at "point a" does/should the pregnant woman still have the legal/ethical option of terminating for whatever reasons are relevant to her?

donna (donna), Sunday, 29 September 2002 05:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't consider "when life begins" to be relevant at all to whether or not abortion should be available. Not least of all because it's distinctly unlikely that any consensus on "when life begins" is going to occur.

I firmly believe that abortion should be freely available to those who want it, those who don't believe in abortions needn't have them. The exception to this being that if the father wants the foetus aborted then I don't believe the woman should be allowed to carry on with the pregnancy.

I do understand than many anti-abortionists feel that they must protect the rights of the foetus because it cannot protect itself - even if the parents believe in abortion, *perhaps* the foetus doesn't?? This is where I have to partially agree with Martin - I don't consider the foetus's "live" status to be important but I do not believe that a foetus has any rights. The main difference between Martin & my beliefs is that "when it can survive independently of its mother" doesn't do it for me. Foetuses can survive from less than 20 weeks old with medical support these days. I'd say "when it can survive without any more assistance than the average full-term baby" or something like that - although that would be a bit of a compromise because I don't think a woman who gives birth to a full-term baby and kills/attempts to kill it straight away has done anything wrong.

As for abortion as birth-control, I reckon this almost doesn't exist, even amongst women who say that is what they have done/will do. I'd say most of them are actually in total denial of their fertility status - which is really a psychological problem that may have "abortion as birth-control" as a resultant symptom, or they have a lot of difficulty with birth-control for maybe physical or non-compliant partner reasons. Especially when a woman is in a compromised state due to depression & other mental problems, drug-abuse, physical or psychological abuse, etc. responsibiliby for fertility control can be beyond her abilities. I know quite a few people who've had multiple abortions and not one of them considers it to be a "form of birth control" but rather an unpleasant but thankfully available last resort.

For a woman who uses the rhythm or billings methods for birth-control then perhaps 3 abortions in 20 years would be far more acceptable than being on the pill or depo-provera or whatever (let's say she is intolerant to hormonal contraceptives, gets urinary tract infections from using the diaphragm and is allergic to the spermicide, can't use an IUD and is or has a partner who is allergic to latex or a partner who is too well hung for condoms or refuses to use them due to decrease in sensation) - especially seeing as women who are using the pill/diaphragm/IUDs etc also get pregnant every so often.

toraneko (toraneko), Sunday, 29 September 2002 05:48 (twenty-two years ago)

The right to abortion must exist so long as birth control is not one hundred percent perfect (which it is not) and more importantly is not readily and simply available to all who need it (which it is not). This is a point I simply cannot and will not shrink from -- I am greatly sympathetic to a stance like Michelangelo's, to be sure. Abortion as, dare I say it, 'casual' birth control strikes me as fundamentally horrifying -- but the larger issues override what potential abuse may exist, and those issues are ones of privacy (as established in Roe vs. Wade), self-decision and much more besides. I think of all my friends who are female and imagine what they would be faced with if they found themselves with an unplanned pregnancy -- in that case, they, and they alone, must make the decision.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 September 2002 08:07 (twenty-two years ago)

By my definition, one needs to be sentient to be a human being.

As I see it (and have studied it), you're not sentient until at least 3 months (but I suspect it's more like 6 months). Thus, by my definition, a 2-month-old foetus is not human. I give not a scrap for 'potential human beings', the same way I don't worry about potential car accidents.

If it has not and will not happen, then those involved (including the 'potential' itself) are not harmed.

I dislike the way anti-abortionists are labelled 'pro-life'. In my eyes, abortion is pro-life. It's pro the lives of the parents, or those who would have to care for an 'unwanted' child.

Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 29 September 2002 09:01 (twenty-two years ago)

"I don't think a woman who gives birth to a full-term baby and kills/attempts to kill it straight away has done anything wrong."

Ah Im not really surprised at this type of thinking but it still horrifies me... but I guess my views must be as offensive to others as this is to me.

Torankeo

"Classic, not least of all because if the body is able to decide to spontaneously abort a foetus for whatever (frequently physical) reason, then when the mind decides that it wants to abort one for whatever physical, social, economical, psychological, etc. reason then it should also be able to follow through with its decision."

This to me is perhaps the most interesting point you make, still I find it difficult to accept as logical- any way I think about it.
Let me see if Im reading you right. Bear with me Ill try and extend your logic.

If we kill someone in self defense that gives us the right to murder *innocent*others?

If cancer or other diseases kill people then we should allowed to murder *innocent * others?

What you have avoided is intent.There is a crucial distinction between an unavoidable physical process taking place, and someone actually using his or her *will* to cause the death of another. Wrongdoing takes place in the will, whether in acting, or not acting.

Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 09:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Bear with me Ill try and extend your logic.

Why is it that this sentence is never followed up with an extrapolation that supports the original speaker?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Sunday, 29 September 2002 11:05 (twenty-two years ago)

if i were able to conceive, i'd like be aborting all over the place. I mean, it's just like shitting, but out of another hole.

Queen G (Queeng), Sunday, 29 September 2002 14:52 (twenty-two years ago)

i think also that talk of abortion as birth control is a little silly, because it's generally a painful, stressful, and expensive enough procedure that i don't really think most women would be eager to use it casually.

as lyra said, emergency contraception is a big part of this. it needs to be readily available to women who want it.

ginny, Sunday, 29 September 2002 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't get it - wasn't Kiwi all, like, "Let's bomb the shit out of Iraq' on some other thread? And now he's getting all worried about abortion?

Andrew L (Andrew L), Sunday, 29 September 2002 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Have you read Philip Roth's Nixon/Nam novel Our Gang, Andrew? It has a debate there about whether it's okay to massacre Vietnamese villagers if it then turns out that one was pregnant, and therefore the soldiers have performed an abortion. It's a hilarious debate, or possibly an hilarious debate.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 29 September 2002 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm inclined to count it as a separate life from its mother when it can survive independently of its mother.

me too. mind you...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3119/stupidbabies.html

mbosa, Sunday, 29 September 2002 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmmm I knew this would get a bit personal- Ill stick to what Anthony asked for a "little rational discussion of this topic".

Andrew Im not sure what gives you the right to create a whole new defintion of a human being. I would venture my guess but that would be uncharitable of me. No honest biologist would agree with you.

A "human being" is defined by objective reality -- i.e., someone existing [a "being"] and consisting of at least one living cell that contains "human" chromosomes. The term "human being" can't be defined by a political, arbitrary formula based on convenience to you.

Even pro-death courts admit that there are non-sentient "human beings" (both born and pre-born).


Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm vehemently pro-abortion.

& kiwi - yr third paragraph makes no sense/contradicts itself!

I R Secular Eschatologist (esskay), Sunday, 29 September 2002 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

There's this method called "the golden catapult" which...no, best stop....I can't believe this is even a debate.

Matt (Matt), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm pretty much of the same mind as Ned. (Thank you for putting your opinion so eloquently.)

I think it's completely tragic, too, that the 'using it as birth control' idea is so often bandied about by the antichoicers -- women who do that are probably a bit less mythic than the 'welfare queens' so often invoked by anti-public assistance politicians.

Also the high percentage of in-power antichoice types who are male = total dud to the umpteenth degree, because like they've ever had to deal with worrying over a missed period, or not having the money to feed and care for a baby if it comes to term? (Note how the antichoice and anti-public assistance politicans frequently walk in the same personae?) And how many of those placard-wavers have funded abortions of wives, daughters, mistressesof theirs, anyway? I suspect the answer to that question is not "zero."

maura (maura), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:42 (twenty-two years ago)

i think also that talk of abortion as birth control is a little silly, because it's generally a painful, stressful, and expensive enough procedure that i don't really think most women would be eager to use it casually.

actually i DO know someone who uses abortion as a method of contraception. i don't know why - its bloody illogical, you're not okay with condoms but you ARE okay with abortion??!!

other than that, i think abortion is classic, for exactly the reasons ned said. i also think that someone who has never and will never carry fetuses inside them has a downright gall to decide that abortion is wrong period. if you are the biological father of the child maybe you have some say but ultimately it is a womans choice because a woman plays a much greater role in childbearing than a man. i agree with toraneko that arguments when about when life begins are not productive. even if they were, defining what life is by using medical definitions of death is pretty faulty. what is not death != life.

di smith (lucylurex), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm pretty much of the same mind as Ned. (Thank you for putting your opinion so eloquently.)

*blush* To you and to Di both, thanks. :-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 30 September 2002 00:10 (twenty-two years ago)

you're not okay with condoms but you ARE okay with abortion??!!
meaning person who uses abortion aas casual method of contraception.

di smith (lucylurex), Monday, 30 September 2002 00:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Kiwi, I said "my definition", not "the definition". What you're arguing now is a matter of semantics.

All I was trying to illustrate (however muddily, and I apologise), is that I don't have any problem with destroying something that isn't sentient.

(unless it was once sentient, in the case of someone in a coma or some such, and has the potential to become sentient again. Obviously the destruction of such a future-sentient being would be detrimental to those who loved it in it's previous sentience.)

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 04:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Fair enough Andrew. Di your reply is not worth commenting on other than to ask do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis? I think Ill bow out of this one before it grows into an atomic kitten sized debacle.

Kiwi, Monday, 30 September 2002 04:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't see how you can interperet Di's comments as man-hating. All she did was highlight the fact that the discussion is one that should be of much more concern to women than men.

You're the only one who'll nurture this discussion into an "atomic kitten sized debacle" with blatantly provocative comments like "do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis?"

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 04:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Not only that, but Di also quite rightly illustrated that it is quite unfair for a man to all-out condemn abortion. No man can make that decision, and is never expected to, and thus has misplaced intentions in condemning the women who do.

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Andrew

A man and a woman make a fetus, the father needs some say.

anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:08 (twenty-two years ago)

the father needs some say

I don't agree with this, for any number of personal reasons. Your body is your own, not your partner's (or anyone else's for that matter).

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:16 (twenty-two years ago)

well we are not talking about one body, we are talking about a biological process that requires two

anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not saying that the man has no say, I'm just saying he has no right to flatly condemn the practice.

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:12 (twenty-two years ago)

And more specifically, to flatly condemn the practice when referring to potential people that they aren't fathering themselves!

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Men have no say.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:20 (twenty-two years ago)

To an aside:

The decision to abort a child is, ultimately, the mother's.

However, if a man and a woman are in a relationship together, and the woman becomes pregnant, obviously the two will have to have lengthly discussion, and arrive at a mutual decision, before any action is taken.

From the male point of view:

I would not want a child that is 'half me' being born without my consent, especially if I wouldn't be able to care for the child directly. I would expect many to react with sympathy for me on this issue.

On the other hand, were I anti-abortion, and were I wanting my partner (or ex-partner) to have this child on my behalf, I would expect people to react negatively towards me. I have no right to force someone else to have a child.

I guess the bottom line is this: before sleeping with someone you should find out how they feel about abortion. If you're not comfortable with their views, then don't fuck. End of story.

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Di your reply is not worth commenting on other than to ask do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis?

translate: you feminist bitch, shut your mouth, how dare you make valid criticisms of my flimsy arguments?

di smith (lucylurex), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:46 (twenty-two years ago)

However, if a man and a woman are in a relationship together, and the woman becomes pregnant, obviously the two will have to have lengthly discussion, and arrive at a mutual decision, before any action is taken.

I realize that this is considered the "logical" way of looking at pregnancy, but unfortunately it is wrong wrong wrong. A women HAS to DO NOTHING (and should not have to DO ANYTHING). She does not have to inform her husband. No mutual decision need be arrived at. No lengthy discussions either. A women wants to end a pregnancy, she does. No man, no other woman, no government, no religious organization should be able to decide whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term. End of story.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 30 September 2002 07:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay.

Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 07:33 (twenty-two years ago)

It's hard to say classic, because of the whole "Yay, give me some of that salty fetus soup" side of things, but i think it is important for abortion to be available, for reasons bought up above.

Additionally how pleasant is life likely to be if your parents resent you before you are even born.

Also, the morning after pill isn't "a simple fix", it's a bloody painful one

Sofa King Alternative (Sofa King Alternative), Monday, 30 September 2002 11:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Sofa writes:

"Additionally how pleasant is life likely to be if your parents resent you before you are even born."

I would guess that having my parents "resent" me would be slightly more pleasant than the alternative of having my parents "terminate" me before I was born. :-(

I wonder how many people here would rather not be living today because their parents weren't perfect.

El Catracho, Monday, 30 September 2002 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

There are millions of factors that could have resulted in my never existing, though - I am no more happy that my mother didn't abort me than I am that she didn't stay in London in the late 1960s and not meet my Dad. Common to both scenarios is that the "I" would not have been formed and so cannot be said to be better off or otherwise i.e. me being happy or sad about them would be stupid. Whereas knowing my mother wanted to terminate the pregnancy that resulted in me, but couldn't, would I'm sure affect me deeply.

Tom (Groke), Monday, 30 September 2002 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Tom writes: "I am no more happy that my mother didn't abort me than I am that she didn't stay in London in the late 1960s and not meet my Dad."

I suppose that you could be severely injured by either an accidental car crash or an intentional car crash; but you view both as morally equivalent events. Is life just a big game of chance? Is moral ambivalence the answer? That solution seems a bit defeatist.

El Catracho, Monday, 30 September 2002 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not about moral equivalence - it's about the impossibility of a non-existent being speculating on the reasons for their non-existence.

Tom (Groke), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

this is quite interesting. what if two people decide not to have sex but to just be friends. a 'potential life' has been lost hasn't it? this sounds facetious, but i do not mean it to be. they turned away, intentionally, from realising a life. yes, it may be further up the line than abortion, but the same idea? after all, surely this is catholicisms take on contraception, which also stops the realisation of a life. is

gareth (gareth), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:06 (twenty-two years ago)

fwiw, i am not stating an 'opinion' as such here, its just an interesting idea. i'm afraid i don't really see it as my place to tell anyone what they should do with their body. i'm not necessarily saying other people shouldn't tell other people. but i could never tell a woman what she do with her own body, i would find that quite hard

gareth (gareth), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Tom writes: "It's not about moral equivalence - it's about the impossibility of a non-existent being speculating on the reasons for their non-existence."

Looking at your argument, if your parents never met, you are correct: you would never have existed. If your mother chose to abort you, you would most certainly have existed. If you argue that you "didn't exist" in the second case, it's funny that pro-choice doctrines even claim that the baby of a pregnant woman doesn't "exist."

It seems that you want to tie personhood to consciousness--a "person" only exists when he/she is self-aware. Following this logic, murder is only wrong if the person killed "knows" that she has been killed. Would it be OK to kill someone in her sleep because she wouldn't realize that she was killed? She couldn't speculate on the reasons for her non-existence. So is this the new litmus test for murder: the victim must know that she has been murdered?

Gareth, you write: "what if two people decide not to have sex but to just be friends. a 'potential life' has been lost hasn't it?"

Gareth, I guess some would argue that a potential "opportunity" for life has been lost. But, in your hypothetical, no life has been lost, because no life had been created.

Enjoy

El Catracho, Monday, 30 September 2002 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

it is not that people are connecting personhood with consciousness (however you like to think about that word), but I think most people here (unlike yourself) would not identify a grown person with the earlier fetus/embryo/egg that they developed from. at some point most people would say, OK, they are not the same person.

Alan (Alan), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

No, El Catracho - what I am saying is that speculating on the reasons for non-existence from the perspective of the non-existent is pointless. If I was hit by a falling girder and killed, the point at which I was killed is the point at which it would cease to matter *to me* whether the girder's fall was accidental or intentional, because (though this is a matter of belief I grant you) after death the dead cannot be said to have preferences or opinions. *Before* death the living do have preferences - and the law assumes that said preference is to live, to the point of denying any claims otherwise. Hence to knowingly end a life is a crime.

This is obviously not a pro-choice argument, and I never said it was - I was just pointing out that "how would you like it if you had been aborted?" doesnt work as an argument.

(I am pro-choice as it happens for the simple reason that I think the mother has a right to decide whether or not a pregnancy should be brought to term. I think this does, morally, involve classification of foetuses as 'not-alive', and I'm willing to do that.)

Tom (Groke), Monday, 30 September 2002 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

there *are* feminist anti-abortionists, but the political movements who dominate that wing of the argument on the whole tend not to regard women as fully qualified people (unless they're still foetuses = reserve army of uncanvassable voters); the record on — for example — principled anti-war activism is mixed

"it has life = it is sacred" is not a position most christians adhere to: the get-out clause is of course the exchange of the "soul" (unquantifiable argument-winner) for "consciousness"

mark s (mark s), Monday, 30 September 2002 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate the idea that men have no right to have an opinion. To even say that you have to start out thinking that it's an acceptable choice. And if the matter of choice is an important moral issue than you cannot shut most people off from the entire debate (I mean discussing abortion in general, not making specific decisions for specific women).

Maria (Maria), Monday, 30 September 2002 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

The "men have no say" argument is half-ridiculous: "half" insofar as abortion as an issue is a legal and a legislative one. The half in which it's absolutely true, at least in the U.S., is that the legal basis for allowing it is a privacy one -- your womb, your business, tenancy and evictions alike. In this respect there really can't be a legal basis for granting a father "rights" of decision without overturning the entire rationale for allowing the procedure in the first place. Beyond which there's no reason to grant that autonomy: a man can impregnate any consenting female he wants, but there's absolutely no rational basis for arguing that she's then beholden to finish the process. The only argument that gets made there is that, well, the father might have strong beliefs about abortion, which is an incredibly dangerous argument: it essentially posits that abortion is right/wrong depending upon the beliefs of the parents, which is well beyond any rational or workable legal standard (not to mention insane).

Kiwi's definition of a "human being," above, would include the hangy bit of skin I just picked off of my pinky and flicked into the trash.

El Catracho doesn't get at what Gareth is pointing to, how purpose-laden the Catholic idea of sex is: i.e., if two people are going to copulate, they're not to do anything at all to try and prevent a live birth from resulting. (I'm still not certain where the great "rhythm"-type loopholes come from, as they seems to violate the overarching spirit of the doctrine.)

I think this issue comes down even more to religion than people like to think -- which is to say, I don't think it's so much a matter of asking at what point a fertilized cell becomes a murderable "person" as it is about a lot of people who have a sort of non-biological idea of "souls" lurking behind their thinking. (See El Catracho's questions to Tom.)

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 30 September 2002 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Pardon me, I didn't mean to put "autonomy" where it was in that first sentence. (I was thinking that the legal division of rights is based on the autonomy of both partners. The only place where this becomes a bit of an issue is the one area of non-autonomy: both parents are required to provide for the offspring, even if they had differing opinions as to whether it should have been carried to term. I seem to remember some locality discussing a really contentious way to circumvent this: if the father registered at some point during the first X weeks of a pregnancy and formally avowed his fathership and his preference for abortion or adoption, he could be released from those obligations -- I think some wanted this to be with or without the mother's consent.)

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 30 September 2002 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

The option of abortion should be freely available to all women. I guess I agree with Alex that ultimately the choice should be the woman's also, in the case of the 'parents' being completely estranged - conception from rape or whatever.
As the choice is the woman's I guess the responsibility is also, ie if she does decide the carry the child against the father's wishes she should be ready to take full responsibility for it.
I would hope that if I ever am in this situation I would tell the man involved and get his opinion before making any decisions, not because one is obliged to by being pregnant, but because to be in a relationship you need to talk about that kind of thing, not just pop off to the Dr's one morning.

isadora, Monday, 30 September 2002 21:26 (twenty-two years ago)

And not only that, as a woman getting an abortion surely you'd need as much emotional support as possible.

Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 01:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Bullshit. Don't speak for everyone, Andrew. Not all (and maybe not even MOST) women are traumatized by abortion. This is another one of the RIGHT's BIG FUCKING LIES designed to make WOMEN feel bad about doing something which really NO ONE should feel bad about.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 01:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Not all (and maybe not even MOST) women are traumatized by abortion.

IIRC, the most important factor affecting a woman's attitude after an abortion is the nature of support she receives (if any) from her family and friends, and most women report feeling relieved afterwards.

j.lu (j.lu), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 01:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks for proving my point, J.Lu.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 02:29 (twenty-two years ago)

The whole Choose Life forgets one thing: The life of the mother. It degrades the woman to the point where she merely carries the baby and has no choice over her own body.

Secondly: very rarely are women traumatized by abortion. This is a common misconception. It is a hard choice to make of course, but then most of the time she knows she has made the right choice.

nathalie (nathalie), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

i know women who have been traumatised by abortion, but not at the time more later on as they have been beset by feelings of guilt etc etc. in fact all the women i know who have terminated pregnancies say they were affected by it badly at some point afterward.
BUT i still say it should be freely available to those who choose it.

donna (donna), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 06:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think ANYONE said that people can't be traumatized by abortions (shit, I've met people who are traumatized because their PARENTS wouldn't buy them a Hello Kitty! toothbrush when they were six!) BUT behaving as though ABORTING a fetus is a) AUTOMATICALLY traumatic and b) SOMETHING that you ought to be TRAUMATIZED about is complete garbage. ONE of the REASONS (no it's probably not the only fucking one) why some women are overcome with these feelings of GUILT and TRAUMA (in the US anyway) is because the LITERATURE and RHETORIC of the Pro-Life Movement (and the unwitting support of a bunch of misguided Pro-Choicers, sigh) is designed to link those feelings with ABORTION (i.e. that you are a godless murderer, a bad mother, a harlot, etc etc.) Yeah yeah, Donna, you know people who felt bad afterwards, but don't pretend that this guilt is either predetermined (i.e. ALL people who get abortions feel BAD) or self-determined (i.e. it's NATURAL that people who abort fetuses will feel BAD) cuz that it's largely that sort of thinking which continues to perpetuate the MYTH that feeds that sort of guilt. And frankly it's fucking lame.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 06:24 (twenty-two years ago)

who gives a fuck if the piece of mucous flesh feels or not? Grass feels, cows feel - do the cows think about this before they shit on them? No. And imagine, that shit is shit made up of those blades of grasses' brothers and sisters, or what would have been if they hadn't been shitted. But shit is necessary, cow shit especially

Queen G (Queeng), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 06:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Reasons in my (limited) experience why women are traumatised by abortion:

1. the character of the debate around it, as Alex in SF says.

2. because they were pressured by partner, parents, or work environment into making the decision

3. because they do actually think that pro-lifers' arguments have a genuine moral force. I dont think its 'natural' to view a baby you're carrying as a separate individual but I've certainly known women who do feel that - and if you do think that then abortion surely will be traumatic, propaganda or no propaganda.

With 1 and 2 the trauma is the by-product of other people's misguided or evil actions. With 3 the trauma is the by-product of a difficult ethical choice. A compound problem with 2 and 3 I'd think is that women are then SOMETIMES told AFTERWARDS very AGGRESSIVELY that abortion is something NOBODY should feel ANY GUILT about it so ARE they some kind of WHINER whose parents wouldnt get them a TOOTHBRUSH?

Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 08:06 (twenty-two years ago)

hmmmmm well in my experience the associated feelings of guilt stem from the women in later years/months simply thinking about life and what it may have been like had the child they carried been born ie: childs 5th birthday etc type of thing. not from anyone elses view of what should be felt.
more like regret leading to guilt i guess.
i dont believe i stated that it was pre-determined at all, and neither did i state that all women feel this as i am simply going on my own experience ( the women i know who have had abortions ).
in fact, all i was actually doing was responding to a previous comment about trauma, and there are many women with many differing circumstances who consider and follow through with abortions so obviously there will be many differing reactions to it, including relief.

donna (donna), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 08:26 (twenty-two years ago)

i have been trying to find a previous comment made about a man having the right( or should have) to enforce an abortion on a woman if he as the father didnt want the child..........skimming this growing thread i cant see it but i think it was early on ........spotted it somewhere dammit.
no one has the right to enforce that upon another person...i dont care if he is the father, it isnt his body and if a woman chooses to continue with a pregnancy they need to do some serious talking about what the hell they plan to do re: whatever support he can provide or is willing to provide and what involvement he wants with the child, BUT no way should a man have the right to force an abortion.

donna (donna), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 08:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Hahahaha oh Tom you're a laff riot. Do you really think that people get told that very often anywhere other than message boards? Do you think the personaes people present on these things are really an accurate representation of who they are in real life? Anyway, I'm not arguing that people who feel bad (about abortion or lack of cute toothbrushes from parents) shouldn't be treated with empathy, I'm just pointing out that the automatic assumption that anyone whose had an abortion or didn't get cute toothbrushes is GOING to have a "bad" feeling about it afterwards is ludicrous. And the automatic assumption that they should feel "bad" is way MORE prevalent and damaging than any callousness that a feel sour apples like me may inflict on the couple poor souls who may have the misfortunre of running into to us online or in real life (assuming we actually even exist).

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 09:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you really think that people get told that very often anywhere other than message boards?

"Very often"? No. That it happens? Yes. It happened to someone I know quite well actually: a kind of angry resentment from friends and family that she did feel bad and didnt 'get over it'. I wasn't trying to be funny, Alex, and no I don't think it happens often at all and yes I think the general rhetorical climate/automatic assumptions around abortion is much worse which is why I put it as point #1 agreeing with you in my list.

Look, from my p.o.v. it's simple. Hand in hand with the absolute right a woman has to determine what happens in her pregnancy is an absolute right to feel however the hell she likes about it and not be told how she should or should not feel. Your uncharacteristically super-aggressive tone seemed to me (and maybe I overreacted cos I'm sensitive on this point too, see para above) to be suggesting that women who do feel traumatised are dismissable or suffering from some kind of false consciousness or irritating hindrances to the righteous pro-choice cause. Apologies if I misrepresented you on that.

Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 09:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Also why is it better to act like that on a message board where anyone might be reading than in real life where you at least (presumably) know who your audience is. "Oh it's OK I'm not like that in real life" - this is part of your and our 'real life' or you wouldn't spend so long on it!

Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 09:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I had a termination in 1996 and it changed me forever. Whether you terminate, carry to full term or miscarry - if you have ever been pregnant it changes your life forever, it may not traumatise you but it changes you. I was 19 years old, I had been through a series of very traumatic events and was barely holding it together, then I found out I was pregnant. I had no job and no money, I had no contact with my family and we lived in a slum. My then partner (who used to beat me up occasionally, not a lot, until afterwards) begged and pleaded with me not to terminate, right up to the last minute, but I knew I was mentally incapable of carrying a child to full term, never mind being a mother. I still carry guilt, it will never go away, I said goodbye to my baby before I went to theatre and as far as I'm concerned, group of cells or not, I killed my child and I have to live with that for the rest of my days. I also have to live with what I did to it's father, he never got over it. However, should I be in that situation again I'd do the same thing because when it comes right down to it I could not have coped with carrying a child, if it's a choice between me and a person I don't even know yet then I have to be selfish
I don't want your opinion of me or what I've done, the only opinions that matter to me are those of the people I love, but I feel some of you are looking only at the moral question and not the reality of what you would do should it happen to you.

Mystery, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Hello Nabisco,

You write:

"El Catracho doesn't get at what Gareth is pointing to..."

Nabisco, I do get what Gareth is "pointing to." I was simply answering his question that "pointed to" something else. He had a misconception. I addressed his misconception. I'm not going to pretend I know what he is thinking. I just kept it simple and answered his question.

Alan responds to me:

" it is not that people are connecting personhood with consciousness (however you like to think about that word), but I think most people here (unlike yourself) would not identify a grown person with the earlier fetus/embryo/egg that they developed from. at some point most people would say, OK, they are not the same person."

Alan, I wouldn't be able to identify close friends in their childhood pictures. Does this mean that they are "not the same person?" And if so, who were they back then? Is this more pro-choice wisdom: the fetus/child is an entirely distinct person? The fetus that developed into "Alan Trewartha": was that someone else? The logic is dizzying.

Back to Nabisco who writes:

"I think this issue comes down even more to religion than people like to think -- which is to say, I don't think it's so much a matter of asking at what point a fertilized cell becomes a murderable "person" as it is about a lot of people who have a sort of non-biological idea of "souls" lurking behind their thinking. (See El Catracho's questions to Tom.)"

I might agree with you that this can be seen as a "religious question." I think that there's a blurry line between fields like law, philosophy and religion--they all overlap one-another. To me, every attempt to impose temporal power is a morality issue. Every law, right down to speed limits, is an attempt to impose one person's beliefs on another. Every law is a "restriction of choice"--a imposition of "anti-choice" beliefs. I guess some die-hard pro-choice people will try to argue away this statement; but I leave it for everyone to consider on his/her own.

Mystery writes:

"I don't want your opinion of me or what I've done, the only opinions that matter to me are those of the people I love, but I feel some of you are looking only at the moral question and not the reality of what you would do should it happen to you."

Mystery, I respect your wishes and won't comment on your story. Separate from your personal experiences, I will say that you should not presume to know what is going on in another persons mind and judge them based on your "feelings." I know what choices I have made in my life, and I don't need someone chiding me as if this is all hypothetical to me.

All my best,

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

"the logic is dizzying" = take a few deep breaths then: yr idea of a person exists outside time

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:21 (twenty-two years ago)

clearer way to put it: it takes time and work to make a person, it doesn't happen in a magical mystical instant

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark writes:

"clearer way to put it: it takes time and work to make a person, it doesn't happen in a magical mystical instant"

OK, Mark...so is there a point at which you were 1/2 a "person"? Or is there a "magical mystical instant" when you transform from "blob of tissue" into "legal person" at birth. Is that the instant you're talking about? I'd better take a few deep breaths...

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:28 (twenty-two years ago)

El Catracho, I just want to avoid the A-word for a minute in the hope of gaining insight into the pro-life position. Can you answer me this: do you get more, less or equally upset for a foetus that dies in a miscarriage as you do for, say, a child who dies of leukemia?

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

erm the instant i'm "talking about" i'm saying doesn't exist, that's what the word "doesn't" is doing in that thread

if person [x] dies, are you entitled to back-argue from their corpse nature that since they were always going to be dead, being dead is part of their personhood so it doesn't matter when it occurs (some strands of martyr-friendly xtianity — arguing from the eternal nature of the soul i spose — have argued something not unlike this btw)?

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

(sorry for "thread" read "sentence")

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Nick,

I'm afraid you'll only be getting insight into my position. To me, the material loss would be equal. One life lost. Emotionally, I'd be affected by the relationship I had to the loss. If my wife and I had lost a child due to miscarriage, we would most certainly be affected by the loss, even more than the pain of the loss of life due to 9/11 (I'm trying to give something more contrasting than the child who dies of leukemia). Does that mean that roughly 3000 people are less important than the life of the fetus that was lost due to miscarriage? One of my co-workers is going through the emotional impact of his wife's miscarriage--I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It's a terrible loss.

Now, may I get some insight into your position: would you get more, less, or equally upset if your mother had died from colon cancer when you had a strong bond with her, versus when you had little or no relationship with her? In this case (as most), the emotional effects don't determine the value of the life.

Is an unknown homeless person's life "less valuable" than a rich person's? This reflects something truly American: "All men are created equal." Plenty of people have argued that economic classes determine the value of life, or that race determines the value of life, or that gender determines the value of life. I'm sure there were plenty of emotions backing up their arguments, too. But emotions can mislead.

Enjoy,

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark writes:

"erm the instant i'm "talking about" i'm saying doesn't exist, that's what the word "doesn't" is doing in that thread"

OK, Mark, so you're trying to demonstrate the absurdity of the pro-choice position? Now I get it...that's what "'doesn't' is doing in that thread." 8^)

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

El Catracho:
If the loss of a loved one would be equal to the loss of potential loved one I have hypothetical for you: If your wife was carrying your child but doctors told you giving birth would kill her, what would you do?

Plinky (Plinky), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

El C - I thought the 'all other things being equal' was assumed. So yes meant both the mother (or the foetus, if you wish) and the luekemia child being strangers. Can you answer that?

No, one person's subjective emotional response to a death is not a good guide to morality (though I wonder whether that if you aggregate/draw patterns from these responses, it is ultimately what all these matters rest on, for the non-religious) and I don't mean that if you say 'yes, obviously I'd be more upset by a child dying than a foetus' your argument is undermined. It was just of interest, that's all.

In answer to your question, yes, obviously it would make a huge difference how strong my mother bond was.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

no, i'm saying the need for a point of choice abt "arrival of legal personhood" is a fiction demanded by the necessity for laws to function: the fiction is shared by both sides, the disagreement being when it comes into play

personhood is a social manifestation of biology: but so is death, so rather, so it ought to be => one of the deep problems in this particular debate is that it's actually a face-off between two completely different (possibly incommensurable) versions of a refusal to believe in the existence of death

(v.loosely speaking, xtians — and/or kantian universalists — say it's just a bodily thing, but there's this eternal monad whose status remains unchanged; "secular humanists" think of it as condition which can be deferred, meliorated, somehow technologically or culturally dissolved, which is to say shuffled equably into a calculus abt general quality of life...)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

The assumption that an aborted foetus was going to develop into a live birth if it wasn't for the abortion would be erroneous in many cases.

The discussion about trauma resulting from abortion has mostly been contributed to by guys - and despite having covered many logical reasons why some women may feel trauma one very important reason was missed: Hormones.

Whether a woman is going to feel emotions of guilt, regret, relief, pleasure, or whatever from an abortion, she is definitly going to suffer from major hormonal upheaval when her body discovers it is not pregnant any more. She is also going suffer pain, lots of bleeding, perhaps some side effects from anaesthetics & antibiotics, and maybe skin changes, breast changes, hair-loss and depression from the hormonal changes. This means that a woman who feels not guilt/regret/social disapproval can still be quite traumatised.

The "child's 5th birthday" thing strikes me as something far more likely to be healthy reflection (of the this is where I am now, this is where I might have been, let's keep life in perspective and make judgements about what I where I want to be in the future variety) than guilt inducing regret.

It was me who said earlier that a woman should not be allowed to carry a foetus to full term if the father does not want the baby born. Some people may argue that if a man doesn't want his baby born then he shouldn't go around porking women. I don't have any objection to women having sex and deciding that they want the resulting foetus aborted and I consider men to have the right. I don't believe that anyone has the right to take another persons genes/gametes/whatever and use them to reproduce with against that persons will. Obviously forcing women to have abortions is a pretty horrendous thing to do but so is using someone else's genes to make a baby against their will. I doubt (I hope, I could be wrong) that many men would go this far if options such as having no financial or other responsibility for the child were available.

The tragedy in "losing a life" through abortion, miscarriage, childhood leukemia etc. is not the tragedy of losing a life, it's the tragedy of losing hope. For those who have invested all their hope in a maybe-potential life, then it's loss is a horrible thing.

toraneko (toraneko), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Plinky writes:

"If the loss of a loved one would be equal to the loss of potential loved one"

Plinky, I don't know exactly what you mean here when you say potential. Do you mean that the fetus has a potential for a relationship with me, or do you mean that the fetus has a potential for life?

You've given an interesting hypothetical. I'm sure there are plenty of variables like the month of pregnancy, etc. I'll try to be general.

1) I'd get a second opinion! This assumes that she doesn't need surgery immediately. That's a natural response to any serious diagnosis from a doctor. I'm here to tell you: doctors make mistakes.

2) If the second opinion confirmed a high risk to my wife's health, we would protect both lives while not actively killing either life. I would guess that this often results in premature, induced deliveries. The hospitals' NICUs work miracles each day. Chances are, some premie-babies will die, and others will live.

If you're so inclined, feel free to read this document regarding the ethics of your hypothetical. I'm sure that many others on the web will argue the details of this commonly discussed hypothetical better than I.

--------------------------

Nick writes:

"I thought the 'all other things being equal' was assumed."

Well, I may sound callous, but I'm not all that bothered that each day thousands of people whom I don't know die around the world. I just don't think about it...I don't see the point. Death is part of nature. Is there a difference between death and murder? Yes. Is there a difference between my emotional reaction to the death of a loved-one versus my reaction to the death of a stranger? Yes.

The fact that we don't "see" the preborn babies might take away some of the feeling of loss. The same thing happened to the Jews in Germany. Enough Germans didn't like Jewish people that they started killing them. And the deaths were hidden from view of the general public. One thing that the Allies did at the end of the war was get images out to show the atrocity. The images spoke for themselves. We don't need philosophers to explain to us that the concentration camps were immoral. Similarly, we don't need to ponder the minutiae of philosophical arguments to see the injustice.

Toraneko writes:

"The tragedy in "losing a life" through abortion, miscarriage, childhood leukemia etc. is not the tragedy of losing a life, it's the tragedy of losing hope. For those who have invested all their hope in a maybe-potential life, then it's loss is a horrible thing."

I'm sorry; I just want you to run this by me again. You believe that children who die from leukemia are not alive, but merely potential lives? Wow. When do we become "alive"? Is it when we get our driver's license? I know I was alive then!

Enjoy.

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

el catracho why are so you much more concerned with the feelings of the dead than the living?

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark writes:

"el catracho why are so you much more concerned with the feelings of the dead than the living?"

Mark, are you feeling left out because I didn't respond to you? I'm so sorry! I promise I'll pay more attention to you in the future! LOL.

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

The hope is invested in the potential.

toraneko (toraneko), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

haha no: sorry that was a bit snappish — i do think your framework somewhat implies this (as did your orginal hypothetical, and the question you just asked toraneko, who was making a point abt what constitutes tragedy, a category of no consequence to the dead)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

To be more verbose: The hope is invested in the imagined potential, not in the life.

It's like when two good-looking, 18 yr old, footy-playing guys die in a car crash. Everyone considers it such a tragedy because of their "potential". Not their potential to be wife-beating rapists though. Their potential to live out other people's fantasy lives. I suspect many people don't gain this potential until they have died.

toraneko (toraneko), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Toraneko,

Who do you rely on to "invest in you" and what would happen if they all closed their accounts? Do you cease to exist? :-)

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:35 (twenty-two years ago)

what the hell are you all arguing about?

Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Toraneko writes:

"The hope is invested in the imagined potential, not in the life.

It's like when two good-looking, 18 yr old, footy-playing guys die in a car crash. Everyone considers it such a tragedy because of their "potential". Not their potential to be wife-beating rapists though. Their potential to live out other people's fantasy lives. I suspect many people don't gain this potential until they have died."

Reflecting on your thoughts, I'd say this is a bit of a self-centered way to mourn others. Are we mourning that lost benefit that we could receive from the dead person had he/she lived? If so, does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?

The equations for this stuff become confusing fast: let's say I live comfortably on a small island with my beautiful wife. We have everything we need to live long lives. I value her; therefore her life has value. She values me; therefore I have value. But, if I had no value before she "gave" me my value, what is the "value" of my value for her?!?!? OK, I'm making myself dizzy... OK, so what happens if I stop valuing her? Does her life cease being valuable?

Well, Christians (or as Mark says, xtians :-) ) believe that life is inherently valuable. The US Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Without arguing about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, our government is saying that none of us need another person to "invest hope" in order to be valuable. No investment of hope for potential...life is unalienable right that no one else can give or take from us.

Enjoy.

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

El Catracho let me put the question this sort of graphically ridiculous-sounding way. Work from your assumption that a cell cluster is in fact a viable individual human being: what obligates the first human being -- the mother -- to have it in her body without her consent? (If it's really an "individal" what makes this not rape?)

That's ridiculous, right? But can you find a way to tell me it's ridiculous without acknowledging that there's a very close interplay of dependency involved there, a period during which this "potential life" is in fact not a separate entity but rather very much a body's work-in-progress (on which work can be suspended)?

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

(Another way of putting this is: if it's a "separate" human being with individual legal rights, what cruel trick keeps a mother from giving it up for adoption during the first trimester, and letting someone else give birth?)

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

"If so, does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?" In order to say yes to this, you have to argue that there's this big person-who-isn't-a-person outside time and history, in whom the recognition of value can reside.

Value means value to someone (sing or plur). This can include value to one's self obv (so does the self continue after death, cz if YES then why is death treated as a social problem?) or value to He Who Died for Us All or other deity (if you decide you need a super-being to ground inherent-value-for-no one-living). Erm there's a whole LOTTA dizzying stuff in this. The condition of possibility of either framework, to establish "inherent value", ends up valorising the unbiddable but also unreadable opinions of the non-living (also known as the ever-living) over the living, unfortunately: ppl who will die turn out to be second-calss citizens in this Eternal Polity.

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

(btw why does anthony only THINK he doesn't have a vulva?)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Nabisco writes:

Work from your assumption that a cell cluster is in fact a viable individual human being: what obligates the first human being -- the mother -- to have it in her body without her consent?

Work from your assumption that non-"viable individual human beings" don't have rights. Why can't I just run around intensive care units and pull the plugs of all the patients? Why can't I argue for my government to kill all those terminally ill (mentally or physically) who are draining our tax dollars for their medical treatment? Many people aren't "viable." If we could reduce the tax burden (ie. give citizens more "freedom of choice" with their money), why shouldn't we do this? Even more extreme: what if we could just kill ~10% of the least productive members of society? Despite the "graphically ridiculous" arguments, these ideas have all been championed at one time or another.

If society doesn't "consent" to these burdens (elderly, mentally ill, sick), is it still morally bound to care for them, or may it kill them? I think the situation is the same for both the mother and society.

For what it's worth, both the law and society often reprimand parents who fail to fulfill their obligation to protect and care for their children. What happened with the young mother who slapped her child under the watch of Big Brother? Maybe this mother didn't want to accept the responsibility of being a mother. Yet despite her daily problems, society sees it as her responsibility to care for her child.

Nabisco writes:

"El Catracho let me put the question this sort of graphically ridiculous-sounding way. (If it's really an "individal" what makes this not rape?)"

Are you really convinced that an unwanted baby is "raping" its mother? That's pretty weird. Well, OK it's ridiculous too. :-)

Mark writes:

"In order to say yes to this, you have to argue that there's this big person-who-isn't-a-person outside time and history, in whom the recognition of value can reside."

Actually, there's a big "person-who-isn't-a-human." A "person-who-isn't-a-person" would not be a person.

Well, there's a bunch of questions that science hasn't the slightest idea of how to answer. All the big questions of the Universe are pretty interesting to me. Theists and atheists come from different starting points; but I'm always interested in hearing the views on these questions from diverse points of view.

Enjoy.

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

The people who are covertly arguing from a Christian perspective are ethically & possibly morally obligated to I.D. themselves. The plain-as-day Christians here are failing, again and again, to state the single underlying belieft that motivates all their arguments viz. that the block of cells adhering to the uterus has in in the divine spark of life.

The new Christian strategy, though, is to pretend that their ridiculous claims would still be true in the absence of God. They wouldn't, though, and no amount of slumming down here with the godless intellectuals will change that.

[mandatory self-outing: I am in fact religious though not Christian]

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

"does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?"
assuming you want your answer to be YES, then this big-person-who-isn't-human (who is the guarantor of non people-directed inherent value) is not part of "people", hence not a person... an x-tian needs it both ways: hence person-who-is-not-a-person

ie it's not *my* contradiction

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

(i am an atheist born of self-invented xtian heretics: eg my mum — at the time secretary of the local anglican parish church council — once said to me "if they think jesus was the son of god they've got another think coming") (!!!)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

J0hn,

Hello. How are you doing today?

You write:

"The new Christian strategy, though, is to pretend that their ridiculous claims [hahaha, which claims have I made here?] would still be true in the absence of God. They wouldn't, though, and no amount of slumming down here with the godless intellectuals will change that."

OK, J0hn, I've spent most of my time here trying to figure out if non-Christians (atheists?) really think that any life has a provable value. If you review my posts, I'm not talking making many claims, let alone what you refer to as "ridiculous claims." I'm asking questions.

I haven't heard a reasoned argument yet that supports that any life is worth more than a hill of beans. Help me understand this, please. I'm coming here with questions that you seem afraid to answer. Is it that your arguments fall apart when you face these questions? Well, if your arguments answer my questions, why are you holding back?

Considering that you want us all to "ID" ourselves, why does Christianity matter if it's not part of the discussion? Why does your "mandatory self-outing" matter if it's not germane?

Despite your stance, most people here are interested in having a dialogue. If you're not, then why bother posting?

-------------

I wrote:

"does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?"

Mark responds:

"assuming you want your answer to be YES..."

Mark, I don't "want" you to answer yes or no. I just am interested in your answer. BTW, aside from your conjecture about my intentions, you didn't answer the question. Would you care to give me your answer?


Enjoy

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

El Catracho,

It is utterly germane if it's the sole informing ideology behind your reasoning, which is clearly the case here.

I am fine, thanks for asking :)

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 17:21 (twenty-two years ago)

also despite your insistence that you're "not making any claims," your rhetoric is loaded: just because your claims aren't made in the form of proclamations doesn't mean they aren't claims, Socrates/Aristotle demonstrated this and it's been no secret since then

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

i have answered the question, actually, El Catracho, and i've also given you reasoned argument abt whether life is worth "more than a hill of beans" (so has toraneko, whose answer was clear and eloquent): i think the living matter more than the non-living, and who they matter to is the living

i don't think you know what you mean by "value" and i don't think you know what you mean by "life"

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

J0hn writes:

"It is utterly germane if it's the sole informing ideology behind your reasoning, which is clearly the case here."

Is this some kind of a litmus test that you use on people? Should I believe that atheists' beliefs are their "sole informing ideology" behind their reasoning?

I'm just here asking some questions. Some people have chosen to answer and give their views. Others have chosen to skirt my question and focus on my intentions.

My intentions are to think about and discuss the questions that I ask. That's why I ask questions. I want to learn. I'm sorry if you think that I've got some kind of defect in my ability to reason because my beliefs don't match yours. Is my "rhetoric loaded"? Well, yes, just like everyone else here! Others have asked me to answer hypothetical questions. Would you argue that these questions weren't "loaded"? I guess if the questions weren't loaded they'd be empty, right? :-)

Could I turn the tables for a second? Let's say that an atheist posts a bunch of questions to a group of mostly Christian contributors. When the atheist asks hard questions, the Christians avoid the question and say, "Why should we waste our time with you, you are blinded by your atheism. If you were a Christian like us, you'd understand." Doesn't that sound like a cop-out? Well, it works both ways...it's still a cop-out when the tables are turned.

Either you have thought about the questions that I ask or you haven't. Either way, it's your opportunity to shine and show that atheists aren't afraid of these questions.

Maybe you believe that my questions are uninteresting. Well, in that case, no one's forcing you to answer. I personally wouldn't ask the questions if they didn't mean anything to me. I hope you would respect that.

Enjoy.

PS--I guess this thread proves the point--the abortion debate is a classic.

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 17:44 (twenty-two years ago)

the problem is, el catracho, that YOU'RE not thinking about yr questions, which is why you can't hear answers when they're given

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

But El Catracho my position is that you're not actually asking questions at all, any more than a police officer asking "Do you know how fast you were going?" is asking the arrestee whether he/she knows at what speed he/she was driving. The question actually means: "You were going really fast." And your questions don't sound like questions at all, they read like a position paper by a Christian anti-abortion crusader. That's what I meant my rhetoric: your questions, rhetorically speaking, do not function strictly as questions, and you know it, too, but when confronted about it you become evasive.

As I've pointed out, I'm not an atheist at all. As to whether atheism creates an ideological superstructure for the atheist in the way that Christianity does for the Christian: clearly not! Though Christians are fond of claiming that atheists are as reliant on faith in their daily lives as are Christians, it's not so. Atheists, for example, can believe that Christ rose from the dead if they like -- nothing in their atheism prevents them from believing that. A Christian, however, can't believe that Christ died & was buried & did not rise. From this example it's clear that atheism per se isn't a governing ideology in the way Christianity is. That's why I think you should be honest and begin your argument by saying "As a Christian, abortion seems wrong to me & here's why" rather than attempting to construct a sort of Socratics-for-Christ style of interrogation.

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:01 (twenty-two years ago)

"my rhetoric" should read "by rhetoric"

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:05 (twenty-two years ago)

The other problem, El Catracho, is that you either intentionally misread or simply choose not to address the points of view others are offering you -- which makes your boldfaced quoting hugely ironic. I don't anticipate your ever properly responding to anything anyone asks you, but I'll repeat what I meant: if we both agree that an unborn child is not "raping" its mother, then aren't we agreeing that an unborn child occupies a different conceptual and legal territory than an individual "human being?" And even if we don't agree on this, surely we can agree on the biological fact that an unborn child absorbs its mothers resources -- oxygen, nutrients, actual space: on what grounds to you place an obligation on the mother to provide that support against her will? (Note that one doesn't even have such an obligation for the care of a born infant!)

Your analogy to the terminally ill, by the way, supports my point entirely: as soon as a person is dependent on someone's providing life support to maintain life -- life support paid for and thus "provided" by family -- it's quite normal for the family to cease providing that support. (The strict analogy here is: if it's only through your actions -- above and beyond the provision of basic care, as with a child -- that a particular life can continue to exist, you're in no way obligated to continue providing that support.)

Another important question, just for informational purposes: are you arguing this on a moral or a legal level? Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief? (These are simple questions that you can't spend three paragraphs carefully avoiding, I hope.)

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:18 (twenty-two years ago)

J0hn writes:

"That's why I think you should be honest and begin your argument by saying, 'As a Christian, abortion seems wrong to me & here's why" rather than attempting to construct a sort of Socratics-for-Christ style of interrogation.'"

With all due respect to Socrates and Christ, my intent hasn't been to ask questions in order to push my position. Maybe my position's not too difficult to imagine. But I'm asking (not interrogating) people why they believe what they believe--I'm genuinely interested. I am not telling people what to believe. I am not attempting to ridicule others for their beliefs, even though others may want to Christian-bash here. I'm just asking questions. Don't get so defensive.

I wonder why you aren't faulting those who have presented totally loaded hypothetical questions to me. Is this something that I should be upset about? Are they "interrogating" me like a police officer? Do I care? No.

J0hn writes:

"it's clear that atheism per se isn't a governing ideology in the way Christianity is."

OK, so if atheism "isn't a governing ideology," don't you think it would be much more interesting to learn about the diversity of opinions of those free from a "governing ideology?" I ask myself questions and I have some answers. I'm curious how other people approach the same questions. Yet, you have expressed that it's better not to discuss these things. Sounds like thought police. Is that the part you need to play? Officer? :-)

All my best,

Officer Catracho.

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Congratulations on avoiding every last point that everyone's made about your postings. Did I miss the Sunday School where they explained how evasive & dishonest methods of debate were part & parcel of the Christian experience?

Incidentally, I haven't opined -- not once -- that it's better not to discuss things. I've pointed out that you aren't entering the discussion in good faith. I don't think that a discussion rooted in dishonesty can produce much more than a lot of words. I have always been eager to hear a variety of opinions; I'd just prefer to actually hear them, rather than having to root them out from "questions" that are actually arguments.

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Nabisco writes:

"I don't anticipate your ever properly responding to anything anyone asks you..."

Yet I already have responded to questions directly. The facts are against you.

Nabisco writes:

"Note that one doesn't even have such an obligation for the care of a born infant!"

Laws and penalties exist for those who do not care for infants. And they are pretty severe.

Nabisco writes:

"Your analogy to the terminally ill, by the way, supports my point entirely: as soon as a person is dependent on someone's providing life support to maintain life -- life support paid for and thus "provided" by family -- it's quite normal for the family to cease providing that support. (The strict analogy here is: if it's only through your actions -- above and beyond the provision of basic care, as with a child -- that a particular life can continue to exist, you're in no way obligated to continue providing that support.)"

If the family ceases to provide support, may the state cease to provide support? May the state terminate the life of the "useless eater"? I don't think many people would want to live in a country whose government acted in that way.

Nabisco writes:

"Another important question, just for informational purposes: are you arguing this on a moral or a legal level? Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief? (These are simple questions that you can't spend three paragraphs carefully avoiding, I hope.)"

Which questions do you claim that I have avoided?

1) Am I arguing on a moral or legal level?

I am asking questions which I myself face. I am curious to learn how others answer these questions. I suppose I'm asking the questions on a moral level. Basically, I'm trying to understand how other people form their personal morality. I've stated my motivations repeatedly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though.

2) Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief?

No, I'm just here asking questions. I promise I won't push my beliefs on anyone here; but I will state my position if anyone is curious. Is my morality influenced by my religious beliefs? Yes...I would suggest that everyone's religious beliefs (because they are so fundamental) have an important impact on their entire belief system.

Thanks

PS--J0hn, if you believe that I'm avoiding questions after this post, please support your claim with concrete examples.

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

J0hn writes:

"I have always been eager to hear a variety of opinions; I'd just prefer to actually hear them, rather than having to root them out from "questions" that are actually arguments."

Though you claim to be "eager to hear a variety of opinions," I'm actually acting on my interest to hear a variety of opinions.

Here's my question, J0hn:

"Does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?"

What "argument" do you have to root out? The question is there. It's an honest question. There's three possible answers: yes, no, or maybe. Which one do you believe and why?

Why do you need to keep avoiding the actual discussion and focus on personal attacks? The personal attacks don't matter to me. They aren't germane. :-)

Why are you afraid of such a simple question?

Enjoy

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

(El Catracho - since you're invoking state laws to support your position: is abortion illegal where you live?)

the actual mr. jones (actual), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

There's a wealth of places to start, but here:

2) Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief?

No, I'm just here asking questions. I promise I won't push my beliefs on anyone here; but I will state my position if anyone is curious. Is my morality influenced by my religious beliefs? Yes...I would suggest that everyone's religious beliefs (because they are so fundamental) have an important impact on their entire belief system.

This is anything but a straight answer. (It certainly isn't the kind of straight talk favored by the historical personage of Christ as we know him.) No-one asked if your morality was influenced by your religious beliefs. You re-cast the question to suit your own ends. Your questions aren't questions! At all! They're positions! If you want to have it out, then do so honestly, like Paul of Tarsus used to, for example.

The preceding has been a concrete example, or as concrete as we can get at the level of language, of how you haven't answered any of the questions people on this board have asked you.

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 18:59 (twenty-two years ago)

"If so, does life have inherent value outside of the value that other people give it?" In order to say yes to this, you have to argue that there's this big person-who-isn't-a-person outside time and history, in whom the recognition of value can reside.

I'd rather avoid the rest of the thread (i.e. the subject), but I have to say I don't agree with this at all -- the choice is not binary, God vs. social construction/"consensus": there are other alternatives. That's pretty much been one of the core issues that philosophy has been confronting since the Enlightenment, and even if you don't agree with them, it would be unwise to lightly dismiss the attempts that have been made to locate ethics in reason -- in other words, to say that (for one) valuing/having respect for human life is an inevitable consequence of the survival instinct/pleasure principle/etc. that should be present in a sentient, conscious, sane, non-omnipotent being who wants to continue to exist. Yeah, "proven by science", all the attendant dangers, etc., but it beats the hell out of the alternatives.

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

As to your question, my own position is yes, life has inherent value, but that a fetus doesn't equal life in the sense that an independently-thriving creature does.

I do hope for your own sake that you're a vegetarian, as your apparent position leaves little room for the killing of sentient beings who lack the means to speak on their own behalf.

also Phil is right: it's not either life has inherent value OR there's no God -- that's another one o' them Christian tricks

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

When did you stop beating your wife El Catracho?

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

El Catracho: I'm sorry, evidently it's not that you're avoiding questions, it's that you have zero ability to comprehend them or offer any substantial response to their central implications.

(E.g.: if your reading comprehension was as good as your written grammar you'd have noted that I was very plainly saying that the required level of care for an infant is less than what you're asking of a pregnant woman -- all you're really required to do is feed and generally shelter it as best you can, which is a lot less than feeding it, keeping it inside your body, eating for it, breathing for it, etc. So on the "questions you haven't answered" slate there is still that one, which is a very direct one: what obligates a woman to provide that care?) ("That care" is above and beyond the care of a born child -- see below -- so you can leave children out of it.)

(On the side-stepping front: you seemed to acknowledge that I was correct about families providing life support, and then jumped a little, saying "well would you want the state to do that." So far as I'm aware, we are not discussing any situation in which the state forces abortions -- we're talking about a woman herself deciding not to carry a child to term, which I'm equating to a family's decision not to provide for the ongoing life of another person who can't survive without someone else's providing for their basic body functions.) (I italicize that so you don't say "oh, well children need to be provided for too" -- I'm drawing a line here between caring for something and actually motoring its existence, i.e., without you it wouldn't just eventually starve but it would immediately cease to live.)

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:14 (twenty-two years ago)

it's not either life has inherent value OR there's no God -- that's another one o' them Christian tricks

Of course, the flip side of your point (which came off the flip side of my own, at that) is that it is entirely possible to be anti-abortion without locating that position in religious beliefs. I daresay the pro-choice rhetoric on this one -- i.e. that anyone who isn't of their views is a Bible-thumping, woman-hating cretin -- easily equals the rhetoric spouted by the pro-life folks about their own adversaries: both sides certainly will stereotype, generalize, and belittle those who don't agree with them, if it serves their own agendas.

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:14 (twenty-two years ago)

(On the other hand, even the most fanatical members of the pro-choice lobby aren't generally known for, y'know, shooting their adversaries...)

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:18 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm not dismissing any of that stuff phil: reason exists within the realm of the values of the living, of "people" (inc.non-human people if necessary), it's not a magical system of [?term unknown?] existing outside time and history

"social construction = consensus" isn't a defensible synonym, incidentally

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

both sides certainly will stereotype, generalize, and belittle

You're right, Phil. I just get kind of worked up when I feel like somebody's trying to weasel through a discussion without putting their cards on the table. I actually believe that the whole abortion question is actually painfully complex and generally do take the position that it ought to be left entirely to women. Our mutual friend Mr. Catracho, though, brings out the troo-black-metal-silence-the-Christians adolescent who's semi-latent within me.

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark, we're in danger of having a tree-falls-in-the-forest argument, I think. I'd agree, certainly, that the concept of "reason" automatically assumes sentient beings who possess it. But I also believe that some of its...shapes?...are not plastic. Abstractions can be real and dependent on consciousness: one might argue that, for some of them, that's the only thing they're dependent on.

And yes, social construction and consensus definitely aren't synonyms, nor did I intend to suggest they were. I invoked imprecisely.

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)

john or phil: am i being dumm here or can you provide me with a definition of "inherent value" where value doesn't mean "value to someone" (El Catracho could't and didn't: his inherent value DOES mean "value to someone" — someone called God — and so does "valuing/having respect for human life is an inevitable consequence of the survival instinct/pleasure principle/etc. that should be present in a sentient, conscious, sane, non-omnipotent being who wants to continue to exist" (give or take possible disagreement within the "etc" this is my position too, though EC dismissed it earlier as "somewhat selfish)

we value reason = reason is contained within the realm of the values of the living (even if we don't agree on what constitutes reason) (in the sense that i don't think knowledge eventually reaches an indisturbable plateau where you no longer have to worry about its truthm, and can just absorb it uncritically, and that this knowledge can be co-opted into the sphere of reason)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:31 (twenty-two years ago)

i guess i'm probably agnostic abt the non-plasticity of certain "shapes" (i'm also agnostic about the possibility of non-human life — angels archangels powers [somethings] and dominions, as long as they exist in time and space SOMEHOW)* , but i don't see that the existence of such shapes undermines what i was saying: value is still judgment of the nature of accord between the world and the shapes, and judgment is a living act

*if god is some big old v.ancient alien who can read all our minds and intervene in earth affairs, then he's "people", even if not my kind of people (necessarily) (if 12-foot tall and saurian i can reconsider)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I think you omitted thrones, maybe?

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:47 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, i don't believe in thrones, they're silly

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark, I think the question is phrased in a problematic way, at least for me: I've spent far more time examining it in terms of "Why should one give a tinker's damn about the Other?" Which, in a way, is the same question, but reframed in a way that's more useful. A friend of mine once wrote to me (in demolishing one of my arguments) that "It has always seemed to me that one's standpoint has to be materialistic, based socially rather than on fantasies of eternal hierarchies of values."

The Hegelian argument, insofar as I understand it, is congruent with my own: the value of any other human life is the value of one's own, because the process of becoming conscious demands that one be able to recognize oneself in the Other (a recognition in which reason and emotion collaborate -- the instinct for compassion plus the loglcal process which Hegel outlines) (while of course simultaneously recognizing that they are not oneself). Daevid Allen writes "You can't kill me"; maybe the second half of that statement is "...without killing you."

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)

(That post was fragmentary, but I can't really rewrite the Phenomenology here, either -- even summarizing it takes a book -- so...)

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

(In a way, the proverb quoted in Schindler's List -- "he who saves one life, saves the world entire" -- is the same thing, where the other and oneself are both, er, reciprocal metonyms [?] for humanity: infinity + infinity = infinity)

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)

De Sade via Blanchot is pretty insistent that the only way to verify the existence of the Other is to annihilate him completely, repeatedly, again & again & again

I don't know what this has to do with anything but but I can't think about Hegel without thinking about how De Sade dips his cup into the same waters and comes up with a completely different drink

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

J0hn writes:

"Our mutual friend Mr. Catracho, though, brings out the troo-black-metal-silence-the-Christians adolescent who's semi-latent within me."

See, J0hn, at least you're enjoying yourself. :-)

J0hn writes:

"I do hope for your own sake that you're a vegetarian, as your apparent position leaves little room for the killing of sentient beings who lack the means to speak on their own behalf."

Aren't vegetables living things too? According to that logic, your caricature of me should restrict his diet to a balanced diet of water, minerals and other non-living things! :-) Hmm...

J0hn writes:

"also Phil is right: it's not either life has inherent value OR there's no God -- that's another one o' them Christian tricks"

Well, I personally didn't assert (nor infer) the either/or. I simply asked a question related question--no "Christian tricks" here. The answer to the question (not just yes/no, but an attempt at a why) is still interesting to me.

J0hn, thanks for answering my question.

I wrote:

"2) Is your viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious or quasi-religious belief?

No, I'm just here asking questions. I promise I won't push my beliefs on anyone here; but I will state my position if anyone is curious. Is my morality influenced by my religious beliefs? Yes...I would suggest that everyone's religious beliefs (because they are so fundamental) have an important impact on their entire belief system."

J0hn, you weren't happy with this answer. I'm sorry. Let me try again: is my viewpoint strictly predicated on any religious belief? No. My religious beliefs are "predicated" on my viewpoint. Is that a better answer? Here's my breakdown: my viewpoint (my experiences, my education) made me arrive at my religious beliefs. My religious beliefs have an important impact on my entire belief system. I apologize if I didn't articulate my point well before. I hope you'll forgive me.

J0hn writes:

"The preceding has been a concrete example, or as concrete as we can get at the level of language, of how you haven't answered any of the questions people on this board have asked you."

J0hn, are you so sure you should be using absolute statements so freely? Must I re-post each of the questions that I have answered? Have I answered the hypothetical question from Plinky regarding my wife if she had a complicated pregnancy? Yes. I even gave a link. Nick asked me to compare the loss due to miscarriage to the death of a child from leukemia. I gave a complete answer. If you have any more accusations about my ability to answer other people's questions, please give me the specific question and I'd be happy to give the question another try.

Enjoy

PS--this is a fast moving thread!

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Phil,

You get the prize for both the most interesting answer and the most interesting re-phrasing of the question. For those who don't like my phrasing:

Why should one give a tinker's damn about the Other?

Enjoy

El Catracho, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Like Mystery, I had a pregnancy terminated in 1990. I was 17, minimum wage job, little money, also living with an abusive partner, and was at my lowest point when I learned I was pregnant (nb - the pill and antibiotics don't always mix). When I told my boyfriend, he beat me and threw me down the stairs.

I was emotionally incapable of caring for a child, and knew it, and really felt that I had no right to bring a child into the situation I was living in. I decided to terminate the pregnancy (I was 4 weeks along) and I'll harbor some feeling of guilt about it for the rest of my life, thanks partially to my Catholic upbringing, and partially to the letter my 'best' friend wrote me 7 years later berating me for having done it when I "knew" she and her husband were trying to have a baby (I didn't), and how could I have been so selfish.

Ultimately, though, I think I did what was best.

luna.c (luna.c), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Mr Catracho, does the word "sentient" not bear meaning for you?

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Among the arguments, can I offer some sympathy for those who have had abortions and are troubled by it, even though they are as sure as can be reasonably hoped that they made the right choice? I feel for you because it's exactly what my ex-wife went through - she always said that she never regretted it to the extent of doubting that it was the correct choice, but that she thought about it every day, with sadness. As the prospective father then (and never again: I have had a vasectomy since), I can't say I've ever really felt the same, though it does cross my mind to wonder, what if...

On the other facet of this thread, I can't remember the last time I saw such a volume of sustained, disingenuous, smug, bad-faith 'arguing' (or 'questioning' if you prefer) as from El Catracho here.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

i have followed this thread. it was going places (and did) but catracho has stopped it from going anywhere.

I'm starting to believe that he is a troll here.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark -- actually can't you get to your "value" question by sort of abstracting it through those social constructions? I mean, I imagine Catracho, if he actually answered questions, would answer something like this: we collectively and socially put a value on "life," an abstracted value that's meant to protect each of the individual-lives that any of us personally value in our immediate lives ... and thus there doesn't have to be a specific personal-value link in attendance to be angered by loss-of-life, because what we're being angered by is that our hard-and-fast constructed commitment to the value of "life" has been violated.

(In other words, I agree with you, although I think we're able to abstract those types of values until they do seem like they hinge on some overaching non-relative "rule" -- there doesn't have to actually be the arbiter-God so long as we've constructed rules we want to take approximately that seriously.)

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

i'd like to second Martin's sentiments. there's no way to say this without severely understating things but: that's awful luna.c - thankfully stories like yours and Mystery's and Martin's have kept this discussion from floating entirely out into the ether.

(with no offense intended to the ether-dwellers either)

the actual mr. jones (actual), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Nabisco -- that's exactly the kind of thing that isn't strong enough, in my view, to stand up: if I'm reading you correctly, your argument turns the entire spectrum of human ethical behavior into, essentially, a game of Monopoly.

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Well then I'd just repeat Mark's question at you, Phil. I mean, if human ethical behavior isn't dictated by our hopefully well-reasoned social constructions, they must come from elsewhere (e.g. God). It either derives from us or not-us, I don't see the third option.

Also note that was I was saying was what you said above (sort of): "the value of any human life is the value of my own" can derive from an outright social contract, a constructed agreement that we all value our lives and thus it stands to reason that not-killing is a net benefit to those collective life-values. I'm saying the end result of that is "thou shalt not kill," whether we thought it up or God said it; I don't think God said it, so I think we should.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:33 (twenty-two years ago)

In other words "value to a person" doesn't have to mean "value to a specific person" -- it can mean "values to many people, abstracted and extended by agreement into rules about the whole."

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:35 (twenty-two years ago)

As an attempt at value (that broadly tallies with Nabisco), I'd go from the fact that I value my life => my life has value, to the idea that (bar an absolutely solipsistic philosophy) there is no reason to think that my existence is any more special than anyone else's => everyone's life has value. This avoids having to survey the people around you to find out if your life is valued by them, or assuming that someone living entirely alone has no value. There are some jumps there, but I don't believe we can get any further than 'thought exists' with certainty.

One point: since my reason for beliving abortion should be available is nothing to do with the fate of the foetus and entirely about believing a woman has the right to control of her own body, I have nothing to say about what happens to the foetus after removal, which leads to some more questions. If it can be removed and then kept alive, what reason is there to object to this? Should the would-have-been mother know what happens? Or have any rights? Who is responsible for/in authority over the baby that might develop? I am not advocating this - the world is hardly short of people, though adoptive parents are in lengthy queues - but technology is extending the period where this is possible, so the fate of the foetus becomes more separated from the rights of the pregnant woman.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess it's the phrase "social constructions" that bothers me: my stance is that the principles that govern ethical behavior can be derived, using reason, from the material existence of consciousness in human beings. In other words, I guess in some sense I'm a moral absolutist, but my stance is materially based, not written in 6-foot-tall flaming golden letters on top of a mountain somewhere in Nevada. I don't claim to be an authority on exactly what those principles are, or how they should be enacted -- but I do believe that they exist, are products of reason, can be materially derived, and apply to all conscious, sentient beings, and that our ethical life may well be best lived teleologically (again, cf. Hegel).

Don't get me wrong, I agree that enlightened self-interest and the social contract -- or analogues thereof -- are in practice what allow society to function: human intercourse is governed, as you say, by constructed laws and contracts. But I stand firm by my belief that the principles that animate those laws and contracts are real and secular -- and that without those principles, they're little more than a charade.

Phil (phil), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:51 (twenty-two years ago)

This probably won't contribute much to this fascinating debate, but Martin's post prompted me to add my own personal experience. I had to have a pregnancy terminated some time ago when it was discovered to be ectopic. I didn't have a choice in this as it was a life-saving procedure. I didn't think for a minute prior to the operation that it would have such a huge impact on me. The decision was made very quickly and I was whipped off for surgery.

It was in the following months that it began to haunt me somewhat. Yes, I felt bereft at the loss of the pregnancy but the fact that it was necessary to save my life, justified the termination. But I began to question why, when organ transplants are so commonplace today, couldn't the foetus have been removed from my fallopian tube and replanted successfully in my womb. It quickly became apparent that this was not possible for various reasons and re-emphasised to me how totally and utterly dependent this 'life' was on the conditions being right in my body. Therefore, it would put paid to Martin's suggestion that removing the foetus and transplanting it elsewhere (another woman's womb?) would not be an option.

Curiously, Martin's other point about what happens to aborted foetus played heavily on my mind. It only struck my a couple of months after the termination and I've resisted contacting the hospital to date to find out, as I'm not sure I could handle the response, even though I'm already pretty sure about what happens. But I now believe I had a perfect right to say what should/shouldn't happen with my foetus, and yes Martin, you're right, it does throw up some pretty searching questions - questions which I've yet to get some shape and cohesive thought into. Apologies if this hasn't contributed to the philosophical/moral debate, but I just wanted to put it out there.

Saskia, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

see i think a one-size-fits-all answer to phil's (immeasurably improved) version of the question isn't needed, even assuming it;s possible:

"why shd i care about others?"

once we get beyond a basic "as people it's what we do already" (in other words, once we start to refine the answer into a practice, an argument, a culture, a polity, into something we can discuss and explore and use)

i. "care" is very roomy
ii. "others" is very roomy

i: eg just because you have your old dog put down when it gets sick doesn't mean you didn't adore it
ii: eg a pigfarmer who feeds porkchops to his kids (and not childchops to his hogs) nevertheless gives more than a cuss about all the species of other in his charge

sometimes people kill people *because* they love them: sometimes identification-confusion of "me" with "the other" goes too far

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

*would not be an option, should read, would be an option.

Saskia, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 22:23 (twenty-two years ago)

the key word is still (and always will be) "triage": because death actually exists, and because we are mortal and not omniscient

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

If you have a definition of "social construction" which excludes "be derived, using reason, from the material existence of consciousness in human beings" then you shouldn't have used SC to summarise my position, which doesn't exclude that!!

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 22:38 (twenty-two years ago)

nabisco i don't think i *do* agree with you about the abstraction-towards-inherent-value: what we get from abstraction is rules-of-thumb, which we then test against (the much more complex realm of) things in the world and how we value them

(part of) reason is this testing: but the tests aren't over yet (which is why we're arguing)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 22:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Toraneko:

I don't think a woman who gives birth to a full-term baby and kills/attempts to kill it straight away has done anything wrong.

I consider myself pro-choice, but that sounds completely insane to me.

Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 00:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Toraneko elucidates here Justyn

the actual mr. jones (actual), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 00:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Woops. I realize that part of Tom's confusion with my earlier (haha NOW much earlier) post was that I forgot a word in there (it also might have something to do with my habit of swearing and overcapitalizing haha). "This is another one of the RIGHT's BIG FUCKING LIES designed to make WOMEN feel bad about doing something which really NO ONE should feel bad about." There should be a NECESSARILLY in there (after the "should".)

I never said it was better or worse to act any way on a message board. I was just pointing out that the anonymity of the internet allows people a certain freedom to exaggerate (both themselves and their opinions) that "real" social interaction does not necessarilly allow. It's not that internet is "unreal", it's more that is not an adequate reflection of the kind of interaction most people have with one another in the work-a-day world. It's much like saying that the sort of social interaction you see college seminars are the same sort you will experience on a day to day basis at your job. And those differences (or more accurately perhaps the freedom and anonymity allowed by the internet) are precisely why you see people trolling internet message boards and not harrassing people at their local cafes (although I occassionally do that too so haha). The fact is though that anyone who posts on boards is (or should be) WELL aware that the range of opinions (and the unfilterability in a certain sense of those opinions) means that there is a HIGH probability that someone is gonna say something that offends you and that you may very well say something that will offend someone else. It's a fact of the medium.

That said, I didn't quite mean to sound quite as insensitive as I sounded so for anyone who thought that I was saying that feeling bad about their abortion was dopey or that their trauma was equivalent to not getting a toothbrush (which isn't actually what I said, but whatever) then I sincerely apologize. Obviously Tom is right, people have an absolute right to feel however they choose about whatever. It's the AUTOMATIC assumption that they SHOULD feel a certain way that I found problematic and I inadvertently allowed myself to become part of that problem.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 01:11 (twenty-two years ago)

there seems to be v. little rational discussion of this topic - do lets start one

more evidence that el catracho can't read.

di smith (lucylurex), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 01:36 (twenty-two years ago)

El Catracheo utterly destroys the best ILE has to offer without breaking a sweat.The evidence is there for all to read. Well done Sir/Madam for standing up for human life.

Kiwi, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 04:24 (twenty-two years ago)

utterly destroys the best ILE has to offer

You have got to be pulling my leg.

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 04:58 (twenty-two years ago)

haha someday the idiot virus i'm synthesizing will wipe you all out. someday...

jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 05:01 (twenty-two years ago)

No he's not kidding. He really is an idiot.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 05:02 (twenty-two years ago)

How scary are these people???
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00A10B

toraneko (toraneko), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 06:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I especially like the following comment from that Catholic forum thread:
...most of these people are nice enough- well educated young and ultra liberal they just struggle with morality issues .Perhaps someone can help them- though subtly, logic, reason etc will be the key.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), September 30, 2002.

toraneko (toraneko), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 06:08 (twenty-two years ago)

What's scary is that Kiwi thinks that El Cucaracha or whatever his fucking name is has successfully won a single argument on the whole thread.

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)

wow...

jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 06:15 (twenty-two years ago)

El C:

"Have I answered the hypothetical question from Plinky regarding my wife if she had a complicated pregnancy?"

I have read the article from your link, thank you.
I'm sorry but I don't think you did answer my question fully, I feel you skirted round the issue by giving a moral standpoint. What I was looking for was an honest, emotion based answer from you. If you had to choose between your wife and your unborn child, who would you choose? No matter how many religiuos, ethical, moral arguments we may have, when it comes right down to it, your life would be turned upside down and your emotions which would be in turmoil at that point. I just wondered if you were capable of getting down off your high horse and actually thinking how you would react put in that situation.

Plinky (Plinky), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 07:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Also sorry for taking the piss out of your capitalisations Alex in SF!

I haven't read the El Catracho stuff cause when I argued w/him way upthread it took him 3 go-rounds to get my basic point, if indeed he did. Is it worth reading?

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 07:45 (twenty-two years ago)

tom probably not, the same old shite gets trotted out again and again. if you'd lived through 3 referendums on abortion in ireland you'd have heard all this and more enough times to make you sick. as with the abortion debates in ireland those who inform and come out of it looking courageous are the people who speak openly of their personal experiences. the people who see the world as black and white and reckon that they can prescribe how others should live are sanctimoneous gits. this is all i will be saying on this issue.

angela (angela), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 08:45 (twenty-two years ago)

what's interesting to me about this thread is that i have always been of the opinion that those who already agree on lots argue the most -- my reasoning being that there is NO POINT in arguing about anything if you don't already agree with something. how CAN you argue if you are intellectually at incompatible starting points.

This thread has proven me wrong. To repeat what jim said: if kiwi/anyone on the greenspun forum thinks that el c has addressed any of the issues raised they are inhabiting a different mental world.

I think the nub of the disagreement appears to be a sort of essentialism, something akin to a belief in the supernatural: a belief in souls or the essential "life". fair?

Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 08:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I did read it. :( El-C is like one of the robots on Robot Wars with a huge great hammer which it keeps bashing against the other robots, not because it dents them but because it's the only weapon it has. With El-C the name of that hammer is 'reductio ad absurdum', a fantastically useful way of arguing if you want to be assured of not 'losing' on a bulletin board but almost completely irrelevant to the generally non-absurd way people actually live.

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 09:04 (twenty-two years ago)

alan i never felt i was arguing with el-c: he just completely didn't get it and read straight over the top of anything i was saying

phil of course i go hammer and tongs with because the difference between is microscopic!!

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 09:27 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, i suppose i could save my original supposition by saying that this thread doesn't really conform to an argument as such. As Tom says, it was more like coping with a haywire robot than a dialogue between people who actually understand/care about what the other is saying -- a pre-requisite for any fruitful argument. now i want to say something rude about momus. best not.

Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 09:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't belive someone would enlist people from other boards to argue this - it just seems so pathetic and sad. What does it prove, and whose mind has been changed? And even from a debate standpoint el-c far from "won".

Nicole (Nicole), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 09:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Nicole I think what Kiwi did was totally reasonable - it's an issue he cares a lot about and he didnt feel he could 'hold his own' against some of the people here. "Struggle with moral issues" is v patronising however, even though of course a lot of the people here do struggle with them, they just end up in a different position from Kiwi's.

It strikes me that technology will eventually provide a solution to the 'abortion question' by making it the norm for human infants to be conceived and gestated outside of a human womb.

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 09:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Perhaps, but understandably that 'norm' translates as 'the norm for those who can afford it' -- and doesn't that just open up a new can of worms...

Having said my piece all that way above, I figured I would just watch from the sidelines as El-C complained and all. Sorta sad, really.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Kiwi's belief, though, that El Catracho "destroyed the best ILE had to offer" by refusing to actually enter into a debate is utterly mystifying; I think what Kiwi means is "you steadfastly refused to actually enter the debate and thereby frustrated a few people, good show old bean"

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Hi Ned,

Actually, I've figured I'd just watch from the sidelines as you all complained about me with your little ad hominem attacks. I think I'll just sit back and pour myself a nice tall glass of lemonade. Yawn...sorta sad, really.

Enjoy.

El Catracho, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)

*scratches head in bemusement*

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:52 (twenty-two years ago)

if anyone from either side of the debate has thought about this, or considered a different point of view then el camatcho has won, and so has everyone else. if no one did, then, perhaps, some people got to win by fleshing out their opinion and being confident and forceful with it. i'm not sure.

gareth (gareth), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey Ned,

Martin said that I'm the one that is supposed to be smug, not you.

El Catracho, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)

or, i suppose it depends on how you define 'win'

el camatcho hasn't made me change my mind at all. but then, is that down to my inflexibility or el camatchos lack of persuaveness. do i feel like i've been 'defeated'? its difficult for me to think in such terms with an issue like this. i haven't been able to accept any of el camatchos points (but then he could say the same in reverse). is an argument like this 'winnable'? should it be?

gareth (gareth), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

*peers at screen some more, shrugs*

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)

ad hominem = against the person. maybe some people were doing that, others were questioning your ability to reason and argue. and rightly so.

Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 12:10 (twenty-two years ago)

This debate is the closest ILX has ever come to resembling a USENET newsgroup. This is not a compliment.

It strikes me that the mindsets of both "sides" of this conversation are sufficiently alien to each other that it shouldn't come as a surprise that everyone is walking out of this thinking that the other side is incapable of reason or logic.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 12:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Dan is totally right about USENET - the breaking of posts down to components as a way of ignoring the overall point; the reductio ad absurdem stuff; 'Socratic' as a synonym for 'evasive'; the final triumphant citing of 'ad hominem' combined with the bizarre Usenet-standard belief that one a.h. "attack" somehow invalidates everything else that's been said - it's all a terrible flashback. Nobody has mentioned Godwin's Law yet though sure enough look upthread and there are the Nazis!

Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 13:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah yeah I was a bit naughty getting help, lets be honest me vs Sinker, Tom and Nabisco is harldy fair and its not as if any of you guys are going to help me out

I am dumb . cheers kiwi

Kiwi, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

It strikes me that technology will eventually provide a solution to the 'abortion question' by making it the norm for human infants to be conceived and gestated outside of a human womb.

"Damn Jenny, that's a huge zit you've got on your forehead."
"That's not a zit, that's MY BABY, you horrible person! *sob*"

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 13:57 (twenty-two years ago)

El Catracho never answered my question and it was a fair one i thought.

the actual mr. jones (actual), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

''This debate is the closest ILX has ever come to resembling a USENET newsgroup. This is not a compliment.''

phew...i'm glad i wasn't 'around' back then if this was the case, week in week out.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I am going to simply repeat my post from upthread. IF the greater minds of ILE "lost" any debate (and no I have no interest in reading what anyone above said to El-C and vice versa) with anyone on this increasingly idiotic thread it was almost solely because the focus of the argument was shifted from the ONE essential unassailable fact of the abortion debate to the ludicrous metaphysical question which the Right to Life movement has based its entire existence upon. Focusing on questions of "life" where abortion (as a political and legal issue anyway) is concerned is a lose-lose situation for anyone who believes in the fundamental right of a woman to control her own pregnancy.

The repeat:

"Abortion is great (as in INCREDIBLY fucking CLASSIC). Questions about when life begins are stupid. There is NO compelling reason to force a women to carry a child to term. Any argument which distracts from that ARGUMENT is a bullshit one."

So if anyone on THIS board or ANY other board wants to focus on that FUNDAMENTAL question without resorting to the same tired smoke and mirrors of "when does life begin" then does so. But I guarantee that THIS is an ARGUMENT that you cannot win.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 21:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm sort of with you, Alex, but I don't think it's possible to separate those two arguments. You can draw the following recent narrative out of the abortion debate:

1. Supreme Court says it's okay to do.
2. Some people say "b-b-but that's murder!"
3. (Murder is still officially bad.)

I.e., the objection that's being raised is that the act is a "murder," and as such shouldn't be allowed no matter what negative effects that may have on anyone else. And since the number of people raising that objection is a significant one -- and since that's their sole central objection -- you can't really have much of a discussion with them without responding to that objection.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 21:46 (twenty-two years ago)

In other words, it's silly to call that question "smoke and mirrors" insofar as smoke and mirrors obscure the point, and for many people that is exactly the point, that a person is a person from conception onward and that you're not allowed to kill people.

(It's absolutely fine to say "well the Supreme Court disagreed so shut up cause I don't want to hear about it," but then you really shouldn't enter the discussion in the first place.)

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 21:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I really wish you could hear yourselves sometimes. In particular, a group of men, piling words upon words in an effort to win/score points/bolster ego/whatever. As a woman and ardent pro-choice advocator, I understand the necessity to debate and clarify this profoundly complex issue, but very few of you appear to have any ability to empathise or at the very least, have some level of emotional understanding of the subject. It all comes across as cold, overly-intellectualised and on occasion, unmindful of the fact that however much you try to downplay the fact, there is a huge emotional component to all of this, be it negative or positive.

Tatyana, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 21:54 (twenty-two years ago)

(hear, hear.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 21:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, Tatyana, you'll notice that this thread has, unsurprisingly, been made mostly about the moral and legal aspects of abortion, two areas in which emotional reactions don't contribute to very useful discussions.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)

emotion vs reason dichotomy?

di smith (lucylurex), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes and on a few occasions, when several people tried to introduce a more human aspect to the debate, it was quickly passed over in an effort to score a few more intellectual points.

Tatyana, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:07 (twenty-two years ago)

One woman described her personal experience of termination and she wasn't even acknowledged. She was totally ignored as the boys got on with the debate. Fucking sickening.

Tatyana, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course, several women on this thread have offered firsthand accounts of the experience, all of which have been overshadowed by a legal/ethical debate to which they're not particularly germane -- which isn't to say that they're not relevant, but that the experience of the act in one of a million variations doesn't necessarily help evaluate the morality of the act in the abstract.

That said, I think it would be interesting to have a thread that's not "abortion: right or wrong" but actually "abortion: personal experience thereof" (which is how this one sort of started out).

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

And I don't see what's sickening or surprising about the fact that those contributions weren't commented on extensively.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Extensively? She wasn't even acknowledged.

Tatyana, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:18 (twenty-two years ago)

there is something troubling about womens bodies being rationalised about by men, but since most of the people here are in full support of women controlling their own bodies, its not something i would choose to make a big deal of.

di smith (lucylurex), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

It seems to me, Tatyana, that what keeps arguments like these from becoming more "human" is a certain amount of natural sensitivity on the part of the posters...the people who shared personal stories relating to the topic certainly added depth to the argument, and I don't think it's that they were purposefully passed over in a rush to get to the intellectual stuff, but instead were only briefly acknowledged so as not to pry into or to argue with people's individual (and highly emotional) experiences.

Sadly, I feel that this argument, if it's ever won, will have to be won by cold, hard, undeniable logic (though I doubt, unfortunately, this will ever happen, especially since you can't logically argue against the existence of an abortion-hating god), because too many of the people fighting against it will NEVER be able to understand or to empathize with the emotions involved...

nory (nory), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Also note that part of the debate above was whether our ideas about an ethical question are meant to derive from personal experience, consensus, higher power, etc. -- in essence, to work out just how much bearing a personal/emotional experience has on an ethical issue as a whole. (So I guess I'm wondering: are you saying you think the emotional aspect does have bearing on the ethical question that became the central discussion? Or are you saying we should be less interested in the ethical question and more interested in personal experience?)

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

With all due respect Nory, I don't see a whole lot of "natural sensitivity" at all, that's my argument.

Tatyana, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Tatyana's points are exactly why I don't like joining abortion debates.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, Di, it's worth noting that there's only a male/female issue involved here if you proceed from the premise that abortion is morally fine. I sort of do, personally, but the people everyone is arguing with here would argue that "murder" is "murder," of male and female "potential lives," and that there's no sex bias involved in a man telling a woman not to murder someone, etc.

Tatyana: I was sort of vaguely in agreement with what you were saying earlier, but now I'm starting to think you can sort of fuck off -- you really have no idea how any of us feel about those posts, and it's rude and presumptuous to pretend that simply because we didn't openly express our feelings about them we must necessarily have none.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I totally disagree with you, Nabisco. There are TWO completely separate issues at work here: the political/legal one and the personal/moral one. The problem is that the latter is almost entirely USED to undermine the fundamental viability of the former. The "when does life begin" question must be answered by EACH individual considering an abortion, it SHOULD not be used to undermine the fact that EACH individual MUST have the right to be able to make ask themself the question if the circumstance arises. And that Tatyana is also why I am not particularly concerned (on this board anyway) about the emotional/human component of abortion, because the emotional component is often just used as another tool which certain people use to undermine the fundamental political fact of abortion (i.e. "there is NO compelling reason to force a woman to carry a child to term.) This is not a wholy PERSONAL issue. Abortions are NOT provided by anyone in 80% of US counties (and the percentage rises to 90 someodd percent in rural areas!) So sorry if I appear callous or cold, but in MY country this is a debate that me and my friends are losing and vulva or no, I am not going to concede it without a fight.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Goodnight gentlemen, I'm "fucking off"

Tatyana, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Alex, you're reasoning from the initial premise that you're already right! The whole reason there is an abortion debate is that some people believe life definitively begins at conception, that there's no relativity or personal-decision to be made concerning that, and as such that abortion is "murder" and should not be allowed. You don't want to argue with those people -- in fact, you're saying that they should shut up, because the more they say that the harder it becomes to support the established legal right of women to make their personal decisions on the matter. But they're saying it, and if you want to argue with them you have to address that point! (You're only saying "we all have the right to make the decision on our own" -- but their argument is "no, we shouldn't, we morally can't." You're negating them, not arguing against their claims.)

So you're right: they're using their moral decision on the matter in an effort to change the legal status of it. You can just say "no fair" to that, sure, but don't bother saying it to them.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:39 (twenty-two years ago)

(And many apologies, Tatyana: I figured someone who would describe other people's behavior as "fucking sickening" could handle a little "fuck off" in return.)

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the natural sensitivity can be inferred to exist in most of the men posting here, because of their obvious pro-choice viewpoints, and because of the arguments they've made. I'm not saying anyone shouldn't have been acknowledged, but really, how much could have been said (especially by a guy?) in acknowledgement? What can you say other than, "That's terrible, I really feel for you, I hope you're okay now." I'm sure that, had that woman told her story to these posters in real life, many of them would've given her a hug...but it's so difficult to type a response that doesn't seem trite.

Though I DO think it's a shame that the emotional element can't be a larger portion of the debate (its bearing on the ethical question, Nabisco), but I'm fairly positive that the powers-that-be (primarily men) sitting in some conference room or court room or white house discussing the possiblity of "reinterpreting" Roe v. Wade or some other such nonsense are not going to accept an empathetic, emotion-based stance.

nory (nory), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Not to imply that all men can't get the emotional part.

nory (nory), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I most certainly can, but I have a very early start in the morning.
Sorry for delay in responding, I was seeing to my child.

Tatyana, Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, you're right, men can't get the emotional part fully, nor can women who haven't faced this type of situation. All I'm saying is that some men can empathize about it better than others.

nory (nory), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm relieved to see I haven't scared you off entirely, Tatyana: that wasn't meant as a serious "go away," but it is very frustrating to have others make assumptions about how you may or may not feel about something (not to mention my being generally sick of the attitude that anyone who tries to discuss something on a hyper-rational level is obviously an emotionless self-aggrandizing prick).

For the record, my response to those posts ran about how Nory outlined it: I don't pretend to have had anything to say in response to them beyond the most generalized sympathy and good wishes (and approval). If you look at the beginning of the thread, you might agree that it would have run more in the direction you were asking for, if not for the arrival of posters who vigorously objected to the ethical premise of the thing as a whole (no matter what the circumstances, understandable, empathisable, or not).

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 23:36 (twenty-two years ago)

so how many googlers we going to get?

Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 23:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Nabisco, I AM negating their ARGUMENT (I said MANY times I don't belief their ARGUMENT is important) and their ARGUMENT is an ATTEMPT to negate (or deflect attention away from) my argument. And the FACT is that the premise that LIFE begins at conception can't and shouldn't be argued because FUNDAMENTALLY it is not the most important issue at play in the debate surrounding abortion (again as a political issue). And guess what, Nabisco, "they" are winning! They are controlling what is even being debated! And their ARGUMENT is limiting access to abortion and circumventing and undermining what is, for the moment anyway, the law of the land. Don't talk to me about arguing fair, this isn't about "fair". It's about control and it always will be.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 October 2002 23:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay, Alex, I think I'm just really really poor at stating my positions lately, because this is another one of those instances where I feel like we're just agreeing: what you just said, above, is what I meant when I said the other option was just to ignore their moral objections entirely. In that sense I completely agree with you: "we" have already "won" on the legal end, and the objections of a vocal opposition shouldn't undermine that clear decision. All I really meant was that it's not worth arguing that to them, as it doesn't address their concerns. But yeah, in the legal and political sphere I'm all for shelving that moral debate and enforcing what even Ashcroft is forced to describe as a "settled" ruling.

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 3 October 2002 00:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually there was some acknowledgement - check Martin S and 'the actual mr jones' posts. As a moderator of ILE one of the things I'm proud of is the amount of community feeling and general niceness that often comes out when a poster shares something like this, but generally this is best seen when it happens at the start of a thread, rather than when a debate's got up a full head of steam (even if it's going around in circles). I thought the posts were interesting and brave, but also out of my experience in terms of offering a comment - apologies on behalf of the boards to anyone who thinks they were treated insensitively.

Tom (Groke), Thursday, 3 October 2002 04:36 (twenty-two years ago)

This would have been a hopeless thread if all we had done was sit around sympathising with the bad experiences described. I mentioned that feeling, and I received some sympathy for my (sort of secondary) bad experience, but debate was forced in a way that really demanded logical, rational response (even to people not willing to engage honestly), and that did determine the course of things. Tom is right about the atmosphere here, and Nabisco is right that the thread could easily have gone another way. I do think Tatyana is unfair in taking rational argument as indicating a lack of sympathy - some of us do our best to get good at rationally arguing about this matter because we feel so strongly, not as some substitute for emotion but as an extra weapon in the fight.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 3 October 2002 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Very well put, Martin.

nory (nory), Thursday, 3 October 2002 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Not to mention, the whole reason for this thread was Anthony saying:
there seems to be v. little rational discussion of this topic - do lets start one.

If someone else would like an emotional discussion of this topic - then start one.

toraneko (toraneko), Friday, 4 October 2002 00:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Tatanya, thank you very much for your comments in my defence, it's much appreciated. I'd like to point out, however, that I did state I did not want any opinions on my story so perhaps this was the reason people did not respond to my posting. Thanks to those who did express sympathy though.
I was atempting to bring an emotional aspect to he debate becase I feel it's an emotional issue and it's very easy to debate an issue in this way without considering the felings of the millions of individuals involved in situations like this. Perhaps it was the wrong thread but I felt compelled to respond
It was very interesting and informative to read all of your postings and I think, despite some of the more extreme postings, it has ben helpful to me to hear some other viewpoints. Thank you

Mystery, Friday, 4 October 2002 09:46 (twenty-two years ago)

As I said in my original post, I know it's necessary to debate, discuss clarify ALL areas of the abortion issue. But I don't think the emotional/psychological component can be ignored or downplayed. It is an integral part as ultimately, however much you argue about it, we are talking about human beings and the gamut of emotions they run when faced with abortion. And incidentally, as I already said, the emotions experienced don't necessarily have to be negative but absolutely, they (emotions)are experienced and I don't think any well-rounded debate on such a complex issue can deny or neglect to address this. Mystery, I understood in your post that you didn't invite opinions or reactions but I was talking specifically about Saskia. I absolutely did not mean that everyone should have fawned over personal stories, what I did mean was that at least an acknowledgement of someone's honesty or courage to post a personal experience of termination was an obvious thing to do. But instead, she was completely ignored and it was on with the show. This is what pissed me off. By all means have the debate, but whatever happened to common courtesy and empathy? A debate should not have to exclude these, especially when the subject matter is so emotive (on so many levels) for many of those who experience it.

Tatyana, Friday, 4 October 2002 10:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I think this is one of the few times where the non-threaded format of ILE tells against it. On a threaded discussion Saskia's post would have been separated and more open-to-reply (and I think would have received the direct replies it deserves), whereas in the current format it ends up lost amid argumentative noise.

But yes, given that I do think honesty and courage here are a good thing I probably should take more time to acknowledge when someone posts about personal experience: I don't do it for the same reason I don't reply to every 'Happy Birthday' thread - after a while it would feel more dutiful and less meaningful, and so I try and keep it for the rare occasions when I feel I have something more than rote empathy to offer. Maybe this is a bad policy. FWIW, thankyou Saskia, Mystery, Martin and everyone else for feeling able to write about your experiences, and thankyou Tatyana for pulling us up on it.

Tom (Groke), Friday, 4 October 2002 11:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Tom, your response is appreciated.

Tatyana, Friday, 4 October 2002 11:48 (twenty-two years ago)

two years pass...
An excellent article. Basically just a day at a clinic, but very well done. (And written by a rock-crit legend, no less.)

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 18 September 2005 03:58 (twenty years ago)

The next time I hear somebody talkin' about how lame ILX has become and how everything was better back in the day, I will point them to the super brill thread title: "abortion classic or dud?"

Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Sunday, 18 September 2005 07:16 (twenty years ago)

haha that toraneko thing i quoted is still the most frightening thing i've ever read on ilx!

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 18 September 2005 08:16 (twenty years ago)

classic as a joke topic when you're pregnant!!

teeny (teeny), Sunday, 18 September 2005 13:21 (twenty years ago)

two years pass...

http://yaledailynews.com/story.html


Martine Powers
Staff Reporter
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008
Your Name
Your Email
Friend's Name
Friend's Email
Message
Submit
Close

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock — saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.

Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.

"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."

Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups — Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group — said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.

Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."

Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.

"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."

He, he

am0n, Saturday, 19 April 2008 05:39 (seventeen years ago)

rereading this thread has proven to me, pretty much definitively, that anyone who says ilx hasn't gone downhill is full of shit. it's hardly a perfect thread, but it's worthwhile and thoughtful in a way that 99% of ilx isn't, anymore.

Charlie Rose Nylund, Saturday, 19 April 2008 06:43 (seventeen years ago)

She did admit it was all a hoax, though. (xpost)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/yale-abortion-hoax-performance-art/2008/04/18/1208025477707.html

StanM, Saturday, 19 April 2008 07:53 (seventeen years ago)

Stam "comin' correct" M

roxymuzak, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:53 (seventeen years ago)

*STAN

roxymuzak, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:54 (seventeen years ago)

rereading this thread has proven to me, pretty much definitively, that anyone who says ilx hasn't gone downhill is full of shit. it's hardly a perfect thread, but it's worthwhile and thoughtful in a way that 99% of ilx isn't, anymore.

-- Charlie Rose Nylund, Saturday, 19 April 2008 06:43 (7 hours ago) Bookmark Link

Good point here from somebody I've never heard of.

Noodle Vague, Saturday, 19 April 2008 13:57 (seventeen years ago)

She did admit it was all a hoax, though. (xpost)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/yale-abortion-hoax-performance-art/2008/04/18/1208025477707.html

-- StanM, Saturday, 19 April 2008 07:53

man ur supposed to let it become a shitstorm thread first before dropping that

am0n, Saturday, 19 April 2008 16:31 (seventeen years ago)

Oops, sorry :-(

Maybe her hoax admission was a hoax too and it was true after all?

StanM, Saturday, 19 April 2008 16:39 (seventeen years ago)

The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said...

lol

Bodrick III, Saturday, 19 April 2008 16:42 (seventeen years ago)

Young person showing bad judgement in pursuit of attention shockah!

Aimless, Saturday, 19 April 2008 17:50 (seventeen years ago)

seven months pass...

Outrage over Planned Parenthood Christmas 'gift' cards
'It is difficult to think of a more tasteless, ghoulish thing to give anyone'
Posted: November 26, 2008
9:05 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/misc/pp.jpg

Planned Parenthood's "gift" certificates

Planned Parenthood, which in past years has promoted a "Choice on Earth" abortion campaign during the Christmas season, has a new outreach, offering Christmas gift certificates to be used for abortions.

"It is difficult to think of a more tasteless, ghoulish thing to give anyone. I refuse to refer to these financial instruments as gifts as they are nothing more than a legal way to put a hit out on someone," said a participant in a forum at the online Lone Star Times, where the plan was reported.

"Planned Parenthood, this generation's King Herod, you know, the guy who ordered the mass slaughter of babies when Jesus was born," added WND columnist Jill Stanek, who also documented the plan on her blog.

Display the classic magnetic bumper sticker: "Former embryo on board," only from WND's store.

According to the Lone Star Times, the nation's leading player in the abortion industry is "celebrating the most important crisis pregnancy of all time by selling gift certificates, perfect for the woman who has everything but moral fiber … And it's so much easier than finding the perfect 'Baby's First Christmas' ornament."

According to WISH-TV in Indianapolis, the controversial plan has people talking.

"People are making really tough decisions about putting gas in their car and food on their table, so we know that many women especially put healthcare at the bottom of their list to do," Chrystal Struben-Hall, an official for the abortion business, told the station.

The report said the certificates come in $25 increments and can be used for everything from birth control to $58 examinations that include breast exams and pap tests.

"They can be seen for sexually transmitted disease screenings, HIV tests and general prostate exams and those kinds of things," said Struben-Hall.

But can they be used for abortions?

Of course, Struben-Hall said. "We decided not to put restrictions on."

Stanek has campaigned to alert the American public of President-elect Barack Obama's extreme pro-abortion position. In fact, Obama considered partial birth abortion a "legitimate medical procedure" and opposed a requirement that abortionists provide life-preserving care for infants who survive abortion attempts, because of the burden it would impose on the abortionist.

On the Lone Star Times forums page, the reactions ranged from horror, to, well, horror:

* "A gift for those who only want to kill the very innocent."

* "Good for one dead baby."

* "Redeem this at Planned Parenthood. No other redemption possible. Ever."

* "I cannot think of a more evil organization."

* "What a marvelous way for the donor as well as the recipient-user to have blood on their hands."

* "No matter what you believe about abortions this has GOT to disgust people that you would 'give' that kind of thing as a gift to someone!?? I mean WHO would you give it to??? 'Here best friend in case you ever need an abortion.'"

* "I met a woman once who CELEBRATED her abortion because she was 'happy that no MAN could tell her what to do with her body.' It was all I could do to walk away silently without puking in her face. She's the kind of person that would give all the women she knew one of these gift death certificates.

WND has reported Planned Parenthood's various "Choice on Earth" campaigns at Christmas.

One promotion included a "holiday" card that said, "'Tis the season to share with family, friends, colleagues and loved ones the message of 'choice on earth.'"

At that time Jim Sedlak, executive director of American Life League's STOPP International, slammed Planned Parenthood.

"In its continual attempt to 'normalize' abortion, Planned Parenthood has once again chosen to offend the Christian community by releasing the latest edition of its 'Choice on Earth' holiday cards," said Sedlak in a statement. "Contrary to the open-minded image the abortion organization aims to present for itself, Planned Parenthood has zero tolerance for anyone – or any religious group – that recognizes abortion as an evil act that kills a pre-born baby."

The controversial theme is derived from a passage in the Gospel of Luke, where an angel announces to shepherds the birth of their savior in Bethlehem.

The King James version of the Bible states: "And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"

"By replacing 'peace' with 'choice,' or more accurately, 'killing the innocent on earth,' Planned Parenthood is essentially saying 'abortion on earth,'" Sedlak said. "This blatant mockery of Christian values – and of Christ Himself – truly demonstrates the bigoted, anti-religion, anti-God nature of Planned Parenthood."

WND reported during the 2008 presidential election campaign when Obama's team struck out at an abortion survivor.

It happened when an Obama advertisement implied the abortion survivor was part of a "sleazy" campaign for promoting a "despicable lie" about the senator's voting record.

Abortion survivor Gianna Jessen's responded, "I've dealt with worse; I survived an abortion."

As WND reported, the 31-year-old Jessen, who was born alive following her mother's botched abortion, made a television advertisement highlighting Obama's votes against born-alive infant protection bills while he was serving as a state senator in Illinois.

The Obama campaign responded with an advertisement of its own labeling Sen. John McCain's campaign ads as "sleazy" and "truly vile," while showing clips from Jessen's ad in the background, including a photo of Jessen.

Jessen then created another commercial in response, opening with clips of the Obama campaign's ad, which she says amounted to a personal attack.

"Seen this ad? In it, Senator Obama personally attacks me," Jessen says in the commercial. "I've dealt with worse; I survived an abortion."

The latest ad from Jessen can be seen below:

Jessen's organization, BornAliveTruth.org, is responsible for the advertisement and was not – as Obama's advertisement implied – connected to the McCain campaign.

dat dude delmar (and what), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 19:28 (sixteen years ago)

to answer the original question:

Never on the first date.

warmsherry, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 19:35 (sixteen years ago)

My feeling about that woman who survived her teenaged mother's attempted abortion is: did the abortion give you that underbite? Because THAT is something I would resent.

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 19:42 (sixteen years ago)

classic!

as a dude (goole), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 19:44 (sixteen years ago)

whatever happened to C on Ts?

Fox Force Five Punchline (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 19:45 (sixteen years ago)

a shower

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 19:55 (sixteen years ago)

I can't even begin to describe how angry that article made me. Fucking idiots.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 20:26 (sixteen years ago)

Oh and in case I needed to clarify I didn't mean the people at PP I meant whoever wrote and was quoted in that piece of shit "article".

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 20:27 (sixteen years ago)

"Sounds like a get out of being knocked up free card. It also sounds about as exciting as a set of new tires for the car. Can you see a mom giving one of these to a daughter ans telling her here is something to use when you screw up? I can't. "

Shithead. OK, I have to stop reading these now.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 20:28 (sixteen years ago)

If you follow to the original story, the gift certificates are intended to be used for routine health care. There are no restrictions, but clearly the story has been put thru the WMD distortion filter.

̿̿ ̿̿'̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪●)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿ (libcrypt), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 20:41 (sixteen years ago)

WND, not WMD.

̿̿ ̿̿'̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪●)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿ (libcrypt), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 20:42 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah I know, exactly! That was what I was angry at - the distorted perspective of the article! I don't have any probs with the certificates themselves.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Tuesday, 2 December 2008 20:54 (sixteen years ago)

where is kitten "I can has abortion?" .jpg

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 20:56 (sixteen years ago)

Display the classic magnetic bumper sticker: "Former embryo on board," only from WND's store.

when I wake up I see my self bearfooted (clotpoll), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 00:32 (sixteen years ago)

Bad freaking journalism, there.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 01:42 (sixteen years ago)

I love a good abortion, me.

chap, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 01:50 (sixteen years ago)

I don't think anyone ever uses abortion as "birth control," there aren't really any blasé "oops lol pregnant again?" women. Or so few as to nullify the percieved truth of the meme.

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 01:50 (sixteen years ago)

^^^
This is true, similar to the tabloid meme in this country of the council estate woman pumping out babies just to get benefits; it may happen very very occasionally, but not nearly enough to warrant the cutting of child benefits.

chap, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 01:54 (sixteen years ago)

Abortion is way too expensive, for one thing!

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 01:55 (sixteen years ago)

Though SURPRISINGLY its price has been almost untouched by inflation (thank god – the $400 I spent was still several months' free money, including groceries).

Abbott of the Trapezoid Monks (Abbott), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 01:56 (sixteen years ago)

Not if those darn liberals get their way!

xpost

chap, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 01:57 (sixteen years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/snewlaw.gif

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 08:57 (sixteen years ago)

from feministing:

Conservatives are freaking out because Planned Parenthood in Indiana is offering gift certificates. Granted, a pap smear is not the most exciting Christmas gift I can think of, but it sure is practical. Oh, wait -- you mean they're claiming these are going to be used for abortions? As if that's all Planned Parenthood does? I'm shocked.

links to news article:

The certificates come in $25 increments. They can be used for everything from birth control to $58 examinations that include breast exams and pap tests. Men who receive healthcare at Planned Parenthood can use them too.

"They can be seen for sexually transmitted disease screenings, HIV tests and general prostate exams and those kinds of things," said Struben-Hall.

Some Hoosiers 24-Hour News 8 talked to asked if the gift certificates could be used towards abortions. The answer is yes. But, Planned Parenthood said that's not the purpose of the gift certificates.

Struben-Hall said, "They really are intended for preventative healthcare. We decided not to put restrictions on the gift certificates so it's for whatever people feel they need the services for most."

schlump, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 14:06 (sixteen years ago)

I had an abortion when I was in my early 20s. The abortion was far less traumatic than having a baby and giving it up would have been. I knew I was not ready/able to be a mom. I got pregnant while using birth control. My boyfriend was a mean mofo. Best decision I ever made. The clinic was clean and caring. No regrets here.

Maria :D, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 16:47 (sixteen years ago)

this looks quite interesting

schlump, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 17:20 (sixteen years ago)

Femifisting.

I'm Ted Bell (libcrypt), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 18:17 (sixteen years ago)

ahhh those were the days, like candy from a fetus

Kiwi, Thursday, 4 December 2008 09:59 (sixteen years ago)

ugh ugh ugh fuck wnd seriously

BIG WORLD HOOS. WEBSTEEN. (BIG HOOS aka the steendriver), Thursday, 4 December 2008 10:09 (sixteen years ago)

meanwhile, on their way out of power:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.conscience30nov30,0,7247123.story

Rule will strengthen right to refuse care
Measure focuses on health workers' 'right of conscience'

By David G. Savage | Tribune Washington Bureau
November 30, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other health care workers to refuse to participate in any way in morally "objectionable procedures" such as abortion and possibly including birth control and artificial insemination.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that health care workers may also refuse to provide information or advice about abortion to patients.

It also seeks to cover far more employees. For example, in addition to a surgeon and a nurse in an operating room, the rule would extend to "an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments," the draft rule said...

Brotherhood of Stealing Shit to Sell to Trader Caravans (kingfish), Thursday, 4 December 2008 15:21 (sixteen years ago)

^ That is fucking ridiculous. If you don't want to dispense accurate MEDICAL information to which all your patients have a right then don't become a health care professional. Fuck.

I am helping with an annual meeting for the MA Emergency Contraception Network this afternoon. I wonder if this will be brought up.

Also, I love Jennifer Baumgardner.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Thursday, 4 December 2008 15:51 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, I read a quote from some religious spokesperson about how this will protect Catholic hospitals etc who said they should be protected from both PERFORMING the services, and also from having to REFER anyone to another practitioner. I mean, REALLY?@?@?

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Thursday, 4 December 2008 15:54 (sixteen years ago)

have definitely run into some srsly pro-life ppl at med school :-/

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Thursday, 4 December 2008 15:58 (sixteen years ago)

I'm sitting at my desk coding surveys we're conducting regarding educational attainment among preg and parenting teens. I just worked out that one of the respondents got preg at 12. So great we already don't provide these kids with accurate comprehensive sex ed and now we're going to further restrict their access to vital reproductive and sexual health services? Way to go Bush!

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Thursday, 4 December 2008 15:58 (sixteen years ago)

x-post

One of my prof is currently doing a study on med students and their decision whether or not to be trained to preform abortions. It sounds pretty interesting from what she's told me.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:01 (sixteen years ago)

That recent article (somewhere online?) was interesting, about the woman in med skoo who thought all the way through that she'd be an abortion doc but ended up realizing that even though she still supports students being trained to do abortions, a different field was a better fit for her.

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:05 (sixteen years ago)

Oooh, interesting. I'm going to see if I can find that. If you remember where it was online def let me know.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:06 (sixteen years ago)

WaPo

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:07 (sixteen years ago)

Also a detail not to be missed is that this rule-change is going to be an exec order, which will probably be on the stack of crap that the incoming Obama admin will just cancel come Jan 21st-ish.

Fun bit is that this is pretty much W not giving a shit about something for 8 years, but tossing a bone and just setting something up for RW douchebags to rail against and solicit funds for when it will inevitably be overturned.

Vault Boy Bobblehead: Drinking (kingfish), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:28 (sixteen years ago)

posted elsewhere about this, but a rep from Nat'l Advocates for Pregnant Women came and spoke and it was very eye-opening

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:29 (sixteen years ago)

Where did you post elsewhere about that? I wd like to know.

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:32 (sixteen years ago)

chicago thread. basically i just said that it infuriated me (eg. women that have refused c-sections are being locked up under the statutes used to protect fetuses).

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:34 (sixteen years ago)

ditto women that used illegal drugs during pregnancy: woman had a stillborn child, and was also discovered to have used cocaine while pregnant. locked up for HOMICIDE because the law said that the fetus was a person, and that she killed it with drugs. THIS IS DESPITE THE FACT THAT COCAINE HAS NOT BEEN LINKED TO STILLBIRTH whereas, say, EtOH has but no one goes to jail for that

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:35 (sixteen years ago)

Ahhhhh yes, is this an unfortunate side-effect of that drunk driver who killed a pregnant woman being prosecuted for TWO deaths??? I believe this is what's known as a slippery slope. o_O

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:37 (sixteen years ago)

btw she was a poor minority lady lol

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:38 (sixteen years ago)

>:(

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:38 (sixteen years ago)

:-( I am too busy to really think/post about this now but it's all such a dangerous thing legally and well - argh. It's just so complicated. I would have loved to hear that woman's talk.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:51 (sixteen years ago)

she was a real firebrand :D

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:56 (sixteen years ago)

OK, I had to look. From the NAPW website:

In the name of fetal rights and under the guise of the war on drugs, hundreds of women have been arrested for being pregnant and continuing to term in spite of a drug or alcohol problem. One state, South Carolina, by judicial fiat has declared that viable fetuses are legal persons and that pregnant women who use illegal drugs or engage in any other behavior that jeopardizes the fetus can be prosecuted as a child abusers or murders. Indeed, the arrest of pregnant women is not limited to those using illegal drugs. In Utah, a woman was charged with murder based on the claim that she caused a stillbirth by refusing to have a c-section earlier in her pregnancy.These arrests are taking place in spite of the lack of authorizing legislation and in spite of overwhelming opposition from medical, public health and child welfare organizations.

While hundreds of women have been arrested, there thousands more who have been subjected to punitive and counterproductive child welfare interventions that treat what women do or experience during pregnancy as evidence of civil child neglect or abuse. In increasing number of state are using a single unconfirmed positive drug test on new mothers or babies as a basis for involving child welfare authorities and in some cases removing the newborn from family custody. Women who have tested positive for drugs administered during labor, women in federally approved methadone treatment programs and women whose drug use in no way compromises their parenting ability have had their children taken from them.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:56 (sixteen years ago)

~~blood coming out of my eyeballs~~

Tanganyika laughter epidemic (gbx), Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah, head exploding, cannot think too much about it this morning lest I start screaming in all caps.

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Thursday, 4 December 2008 17:01 (sixteen years ago)

If fetuses are legal persons, can you have them arrested for stealing nutrients from your bloodstream?

Trackpants Tree, Thursday, 4 December 2008 17:04 (sixteen years ago)

A mirthless "haha" -- maybe it would lead to mandatory abortions, in order to keep the fetus in custody while his or her case went to trial.

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Thursday, 4 December 2008 17:05 (sixteen years ago)

~~blood coming out of my eyeballs~~
Yeah, head exploding, cannot think too much about it this morning lest I start screaming in all caps.

Exactly.

Lady Gorgorrand (ENBB), Thursday, 4 December 2008 17:06 (sixteen years ago)

Just one more way of preserving the rights of those who can afford to go to court...

One Community Service Mummy, hold the Straightedge Merman (Laurel), Thursday, 4 December 2008 17:06 (sixteen years ago)

engage in any other behavior that jeopardizes the fetus

height of ridiculousness. foetal rights outstripping women's rights.

jennifer baumgardner and amy richards are great. i went to see them read at bluestockings a month or so ago. i was reading a review of the recent abortion/family book that accused her of some white privilege, but it's kind of hard to take seriously because i learned about white privilege from their writings.

schlump, Thursday, 4 December 2008 18:49 (sixteen years ago)

one month passes...

RW'ers are freaking out over Obama's inauguration, and a lot of it is over abortion. It just seems like it is the only issue they care about.

Even if you didn't vote for Obama, it is an historic occasion, no? I think the sore loser attitude and the "one issue" approach says a lot about some people's commitment to politics.

I mean these people don't want to talk politics at all unless it is about abortion. I think this is very controlling and a bit disturbing. A lot of Republicans are pro-choice and are guilt tripped about their beliefs.

It's always some old religious white guy doing this. I go to church, and the people that nod their heads and do whatever the church says are usually white guys aged 50-70. What is the psychology behind this.

u s steel, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 11:56 (sixteen years ago)

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/01/pro-life_group_up_in_arms_over.php

"Set phasers to thrill!" (latebloomer), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 11:58 (sixteen years ago)

It's just tradition to show respect for the occasion, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.

What is it with these old white people who refuse to talk politics unless it is some religious issue (gays, abortion)? Younger people who are anti-abortion at least try to discuss it with others, in my experience.

What are these people so bitter about? If you disagree with abortion, you can still protest at a clinic or offer counseling for pregnant women.

u s steel, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 12:09 (sixteen years ago)

Even if you didn't vote for Obama, it is an historic occasion, no?

Seems there are some who disagree. Some friends of my grandparents are hosting an inauguration party and one woman has reportedly declined the invitation because she "sees nothing historic about the event". I don't even know on what grounds you could possibly argue that! It's just code for "I AIN'T VOTE FOR NO N1GG3R" afaic. Fuck this lady.

big papa cigarettes (╓abies), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 12:36 (sixteen years ago)

one month passes...

Hi 3v3rybody!

N3xt Monday 3v3ning, __________ ar3 co-sponsoring an MVA workshop h3r3 on campus! With a fr33 dinn3r!

MVA stands for manual vacuum aspiration. It's a r3lativ3ly simpl3 surgical t3chniqu3 for t3rminating a pr3gnancy. Two local physicians, Drs. __________________ , will b3 coming to campus to t3ach you (y3s, YOU) how to p3rform an abortion on a papaya.

If you'd lik3 to com3, 3at and l3arn, pl3as3, pl3as3, PL3AS3 RSVP to m3, or to ____________________ by th3 3nd of th3 w33k. W3 n33d to g3t an id3a of how many papayas to g3t, and how much food to ord3r.

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:16 (sixteen years ago)

l33t'd up for.....no particular reason, i guess

anyway, papayas!

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:16 (sixteen years ago)

uh

kingfish, Monday, 2 March 2009 23:20 (sixteen years ago)

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/04716e74-a9f1-4477-ad9d-54b10501f6c5.JPG

Euler, Monday, 2 March 2009 23:21 (sixteen years ago)

are you going??? sounds fun

я рилли (harbl), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:21 (sixteen years ago)

would it be rude to eat the papaya, after

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:26 (sixteen years ago)

OK that baby papaya thing is amazing.

Too Into Dancing to Argue (ENBB), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:29 (sixteen years ago)

I've heard of that, gbx. In that one article where the woman med stude went to the same workshop. Did I ever find that Wash Po article for you?

How can there be male ladybugs? (Laurel), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:30 (sixteen years ago)

Laurel I think you did because I read it after you mentioned it.

Too Into Dancing to Argue (ENBB), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:31 (sixteen years ago)

I don't think you did!

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:32 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111401698_pf.html

She linked to it upthread. Unless you're talking about a different article?

Too Into Dancing to Argue (ENBB), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:33 (sixteen years ago)

Good memory, E! Thanks for reposting.

How can there be male ladybugs? (Laurel), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:34 (sixteen years ago)

Papayas??

Regarding the idea that abortion is "traumatic to the mother"

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/127868/why_are_even_smart,_liberal_men_freaked_out_by_abortion/

And I wanted to throw in that I am fond of replacing "pro-life" with "compulsory pregnancy advocates" (thx Jenny, and feminist bloggers everywhere).

differently valid (Jesse), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:34 (sixteen years ago)

oh cool, thanks, i will read that E!

....later, at least

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Monday, 2 March 2009 23:41 (sixteen years ago)

Ah, now I understand about the papayas, sort of.

differently valid (Jesse), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 01:19 (sixteen years ago)

I would totally go to this fyi. Even if there were not fr33 f00d.

quincie, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 01:50 (sixteen years ago)

So would I.

Too Into Dancing to Argue (ENBB), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 02:02 (sixteen years ago)

should i go and BLOG about it?

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 02:52 (sixteen years ago)

You should go and learn about it so that if you decide you want to provide comprehensive women's health care services, you know how.

quincie, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 02:54 (sixteen years ago)

yowch

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 02:55 (sixteen years ago)

abortion never tasted this good
http://www.tinymuse.org/~mint/fastfood/papaya.gif

buzza, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 03:01 (sixteen years ago)

How was that a "yowch"?

Wasn't meant to be zingish.

quincie, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 03:02 (sixteen years ago)

oh sorry, i thought it was a zing :( but yeah, you are correct, I should go! am reading that article now, btw

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 03:02 (sixteen years ago)

hey GBX when does the medical community consider embryo/fetus a person? i mean is there a point your average dr considers "too late"?

quadratrillionaire (sunny successor), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:07 (sixteen years ago)

too late for the abort, of course

quadratrillionaire (sunny successor), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:08 (sixteen years ago)

I recalled the article when it was posted a while ago; it seemed relatively well-balanced and. . .

OK I bring the baggage of working in a lab with a very talented med student who chose the OBG-YN path but was all "no, I'm Catholic and there is no way I'd condone abortions." This was really bothersome to me--I really feel that particularly as a women's health provider, you are ethically obligated to provide at least a neutral opinion on abortion; even if you do not do abortions yourself, ethically you are obligated to advise a women of her options and make the appropriate referals according to her choice.

Obv. this is a debatable stance.

quincie, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:13 (sixteen years ago)

That question is decided by each state, sunny. Usually in the low-20s (weeks).
xpost

kate78, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:16 (sixteen years ago)

wow that seems late. is that to account for birth defects found at 20 wk ultrasound or also for people who decide they dont want a baby? or is that not an issue?

quadratrillionaire (sunny successor), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:41 (sixteen years ago)

Quincie I agree with you 100%.

Too Into Dancing to Argue (ENBB), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:44 (sixteen years ago)

SS - in MA for instance it's legal up until 24 weeks for any reason but only after 24 weeks if the mother's life is in danger.

Too Into Dancing to Argue (ENBB), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:46 (sixteen years ago)

Ugh I know of women--girls, really--who don't even understand that they are pregnant at 24 weeks???

quincie, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:49 (sixteen years ago)

Limits are imposed based on how each state defines "viability", or when a fetus could survive outside the womb. Exceptions for health of the mother are in place to allow for abortion even past those limits.

I, too, agree with you, quincie. I will not allow myself to get started on that topic...

kate78, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:52 (sixteen years ago)

x-post Yeah, I've seen that happen. It happens more frequently then you'd think esp with young girls.

There are so many situations that can make a woman seek an abortion that late. I one woman who was married but in an abusive relationship. She hadn't known she was pregnant until around 3 mo and then it took her a couple weeks to decide that she had to terminate. She then had several these complications with medical clearance due to a heart condition and rescheduling so that she just made it in at 23 weeks by which point she had to undergo a saline abortion which is really intense procedure.

Too Into Dancing to Argue (ENBB), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 04:56 (sixteen years ago)

q: When does human life begin?

a: What is the smallest number of grains that can constitute a heap?

(Inconveniently, the insolent physical world refuses to reconstitute itself to conform to our words for it.)

M.V., Tuesday, 3 March 2009 05:04 (sixteen years ago)

one of the most depressing things in the most recent abortion debate in britain was the way the time period was floated as an entirely subjective, moral, flexible measure; while there should obviously be debate that looks for an appropriate measure between one week being o k and fifty weeks not being o k, there are still fundamental, natural stages that should dictate the limits. the brain of a foetus is not fully developed at twenty weeks, and will not continue to develop outside of the womb, and so viability becomes this skewed measure of potential life trumping quality of life. it seems kind of low key to concentrate on the small variations between states and their time limits, but a consensus drop towards the low 20s would be pretty disasterous i think.

the girls not knowing they're pregnant thing is complicated too - young girls who don't present, people who don't or aren't in a fit state to acknowledge the pregnancy, people who for whatever reasons (relationship, economic) wouldn't have access to a doctor until closer to the time limit - i know it veers close to the grey areas the article talks about, but targeting the tiny group of late term abortions as a way of decreasing the number as a whole really hits some of the people most in need of abortions the hardest.

xp enbb - right. the stats on the number of abortions that happen in this period - it's miniscule, but it'll really disenfranchise sections of society desperately in need of such services

schlump, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 05:07 (sixteen years ago)

Schlump, what you said there is exactly what I would have tried to say had I not been exhausted and about to go to bed when I last posted. It is also the reason that I'm 100% pro choice for any reason at any time. Thank you.

Too Into Dancing to Argue (ENBB), Tuesday, 3 March 2009 13:22 (sixteen years ago)

two months pass...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/etienne_saint/abortiondifficult.jpg

blair underwood: "man up" (omar little), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:04 (sixteen years ago)

As evidenced in my previous posts on this thread this is a very serious issue to me and quite frankly Omar I'm offended by that.

TAT THY SAD EAGLE (ENBB), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:07 (sixteen years ago)

sorry :(

blair underwood: "man up" (omar little), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:08 (sixteen years ago)

Actually I'm not, it's awesome.

So is this ad for Baby Safe Haven brought to you by the people of my glorious state.

TAT THY SAD EAGLE (ENBB), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:08 (sixteen years ago)

whew~

i will refrain from reposting the five second films pregnant woman clip though

blair underwood: "man up" (omar little), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:10 (sixteen years ago)

lol @ "if you have a baby and don't know what to do"

fantazy land (harbl), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:11 (sixteen years ago)

man that rap gets downright mf doom in the middle

mastotmdom (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:12 (sixteen years ago)

The Baby Safe Haven clip is one of my fav things ever. The fist time I saw it on TV my jaw just dropped. I knew that the program existed but I couldn't believe the ad wasn't a parody.

TAT THY SAD EAGLE (ENBB), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:12 (sixteen years ago)

is it intentional that the baby is not seen? like was there research that if they showed the baby it would make people feel like that baby shouldn't be given up?

Philip Nunez, Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:14 (sixteen years ago)

I think it's probably more because given the $5 budget they probably had they couldn't hire a real babby and people wouldn't feel so bad about whatever doll that girl is holding being given up.

TAT THY SAD EAGLE (ENBB), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:17 (sixteen years ago)

ok i will repost it

blair underwood: "man up" (omar little), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:17 (sixteen years ago)

It is a difficult issue. I've never understood why the sides are necessarily alligned as they are: That is, Democrats consider themselves champions of the powerless, which could be the basis for a pro-life position, and Republicans consider themselves defenders of liberty against government intrusion, which could be the basis for a pro-choice position.

Anyway, I'm pro-choice, but conflicted about it. I like the old Clinton line about keeping abortion "Safe, Legal and Rare."

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:23 (sixteen years ago)

No to take away from D Esq. serious post but

xpost omg hahahahahahahaha @ that video

TAT THY SAD EAGLE (ENBB), Thursday, 21 May 2009 22:26 (sixteen years ago)

i definitely understand how non-asshole, non-bible beaters can be conflicted on this issue but at the end of the day, (1) legal = safer, and (2) none of my business, so...

what really grinds my gears is that if the religious right were reaaally that concerned about reducing abortions, they'd maybe get behind proper sex education and making contraception readily accessible. but they don't, which makes me think it's not really about their concern for the unborn and maybe more about political litmus tests, sexism and discrimination. and so maybe FUCK them.

^defense is impregnable (will), Thursday, 21 May 2009 23:19 (sixteen years ago)

(1) legal = safer

i'm pro-choice in a lot of ways, with (2) - constitutional right to privacy way behind a lot of other good reasons, but sometimes i think it starts and ends with (1); that old line about the time for an abortion debate being when abortion is readily and safely available. abortion is an option and is going to happen, so government should accommodate this and act accordingly. actually rolling back the existing laws - which i know is perpetually in the balance, but apparently at the moment 51% of usa is pro life - would be retrograde in so many ways beyond controlling whether or not women have reproductive rights or not.

re: daniel - i know that it's been polarised since forever in the states, but i think the entrenched democratic/pro-choice, republican/pro-life split has been reinforced by the rise of the religious right; there's a way more logical pairing between beliefs and policy there.

corps of discovery (schlump), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:24 (sixteen years ago)

Without the proper legal training but with some knowledge of the Supreme Court battles since Griswold vs Connecticut, I'm very curious about the line of reasoning that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, among others, follow: finding a right to abortion amid the right to privacy was a poor decision, and came too soon, at a time when state legislatures were about to allow abortions anyway. Thoughts?

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:34 (sixteen years ago)

(in other words, I'm open to the argument that justices like William O. Douglas went too far in pursuing a results-oriented jurisprudence)

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:35 (sixteen years ago)

"Ruth Bader Ginsberg, among others, follow: finding a right to abortion amid the right to privacy was a poor decision"

does she mean it's a tactical mistake or that it doesn't reasonably fall under privacy under any application?

Philip Nunez, Friday, 22 May 2009 00:42 (sixteen years ago)

Both. She was skeptical about locating a right to an abortion within the so-called right to privacy.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:43 (sixteen years ago)

I need to find a link to the article in which she wishes Harry Blackmun had used the due process clause instead of the Right to Privacy.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:43 (sixteen years ago)

nonono she wishes he had used equal protection, not the due process clause iirc

fantazy land (harbl), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:45 (sixteen years ago)

the due process "right to privacy" thing was kind of made up, perhaps a right to an abortion would be easier to ground in the equal protection clause but i'm not 100% convinced because of the way other EPC cases come out though. it's an interesting question, how stuff could have been different.

fantazy land (harbl), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:47 (sixteen years ago)

like around the same time geduldig v. aiello makes it look like it would have been impossible for the court to say there is a right to an abortion in the due process clause, that's what makes it hard for me to wrap my mind around. i dunno.

fantazy land (harbl), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:49 (sixteen years ago)

er i mean equal protection clause

fantazy land (harbl), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:49 (sixteen years ago)

i'm drinking btw

fantazy land (harbl), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:50 (sixteen years ago)

i think the tactical argument has a counterpart in what optimists are saying about obama and policies toward on gay rights: that they'll be easier to pass and built on stronger foundations if things progress incrementally rather than through turnaround legislation. i do not know if this is true of ginsberg's theory though.

corps of discovery (schlump), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:51 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah: Ginsberg theorizes that state legislatures were headed in this direction anyway.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:56 (sixteen years ago)

She has said, unequivocally, that Roe v Wade was a poorly decided and written decision.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 22 May 2009 00:57 (sixteen years ago)

i think many people, including pro-choicers agree that it was poorly written

Mr. Que, Friday, 22 May 2009 01:26 (sixteen years ago)

having a kid really fucks up with your belief system with most everything but esp wrt abortion. noone warns you about the vicious wave of regret.

I wish I was the royal trux (sunny successor), Friday, 22 May 2009 02:03 (sixteen years ago)

Yeah. Despite the fact that I hate how the pro-life movement uses post-abortion trauma as a platform now, I think that this is something that isn't addressed very well in general. The bottom line is that it is a serious issue and the feelings that one goes through afterwards are real and can be devastating.

TAT THY SAD EAGLE (ENBB), Friday, 22 May 2009 03:39 (sixteen years ago)

I've counseled some women during post-abortion check-ups and the experience was heartbreaking for me. I can't even imagine what it was like for them tbh.

TAT THY SAD EAGLE (ENBB), Friday, 22 May 2009 03:41 (sixteen years ago)

btw pretty sure i used to live with that dog up there, who is vexed by abortion

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/488863262_072763a23b.jpg?v=0

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Saturday, 23 May 2009 15:35 (sixteen years ago)

yay the return of fun afternoon with vacuum salesman guy

unattainable panini (jjjusten), Saturday, 23 May 2009 15:45 (sixteen years ago)

UH that is in reference to that picture, not the topic of abortion BTW

unattainable panini (jjjusten), Saturday, 23 May 2009 15:46 (sixteen years ago)

omg

TAT THY SAD EAGLE (ENBB), Saturday, 23 May 2009 15:51 (sixteen years ago)

LOL

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Saturday, 23 May 2009 15:58 (sixteen years ago)

still feelin bad for that dude :(

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Saturday, 23 May 2009 15:58 (sixteen years ago)

noone warns you about the vicious wave of regret.

You may have been warned, but did not regard it in the same way. Which makes sense. At the time you were faced with a wholly different set of circumstances and were working from a different pov.

Don't castigate yourself now. That sense of desperation you felt then was real enough.

Aimless, Saturday, 23 May 2009 18:19 (sixteen years ago)

I said this on another thread but I felt after mine that it was kind of right-wing propaganda that you were supposed to feel fucked up afterward. Things wld have been a lot easier if someone had said, "No, it's a complicated thing and of course it's okay and often natural to have volatile, unpredictable emotions. You're still a good person."

cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Saturday, 23 May 2009 20:42 (sixteen years ago)

but apparently at the moment 51% of usa is pro life

i didn't know this : /

for some reason i was under the impression that with males it's about 50-50,
and 60-40 with females (in favor of choice)

^defense is impregnable (will), Saturday, 23 May 2009 21:30 (sixteen years ago)

I'd say 45% prefers it to be legal and rare while another 45% thinks it should be illegal with certain exceptions.

•--• --- --- •--• (Pleasant Plains), Saturday, 23 May 2009 22:15 (sixteen years ago)

but apparently at the moment 51% of usa is pro life

i didn't know this : /

source

corps of discovery (schlump), Monday, 25 May 2009 04:21 (sixteen years ago)

noone warns you about the vicious wave of regret.

You may have been warned, but did not regard it in the same way. Which makes sense. At the time you were faced with a wholly different set of circumstances and were working from a different pov.

Don't castigate yourself now. That sense of desperation you felt then was real enough.

― Aimless, Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

no i was warned it would happen directly after and it didnt. i didnt think anything of it after or for the next 15 years but when i did have a kid it was like holy shit. the gravity of it smacked me in the face.

I wish I was the royal trux (sunny successor), Monday, 25 May 2009 04:59 (sixteen years ago)

I'm kind of surprised not to have seen anything on George Tiller's murder here. Fucking horrible.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEsxTHOvCbc954sBWc59DuoqWxiwD98J7UOG0

"As one of a few doctors across the nation to perform third-trimester abortions, Tiller had survived an earlier shooting, his clinic was bombed, his home picketed. He hired a Brink's armored truck to take him to work for several weeks, and he frequently had the protection of federal marshals. He built a new surgical center without windows and was known to wear a bulletproof vest, sometimes even to church."

That someone would have to go through all that (and still get murdered!) because they preform a medical procedure is beyond ridiculous.

___________________________________________

Also, seriously PETA?

http://www.kansas.com/946/story/836204.html

Fuck you <3 E (a vegetarian for over 16 years)

Chaki Demus & Pliers (ENBB), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 19:01 (sixteen years ago)

"That someone would have to go through all that (and still get murdered!) because they preform a medical procedure is beyond ridiculous."

You're dealing with some serious psychopaths on the so called "Right to Life" side. Almost al-Queada like delusion.

Bill Magill, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 19:08 (sixteen years ago)

I know. That's why it's beyond ridiculous.

Chaki Demus & Pliers (ENBB), Wednesday, 3 June 2009 19:18 (sixteen years ago)

RIP Tiller, sorry there are some really twisted fucks in this world.

cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:52 (sixteen years ago)

Keith's show the day this happened was really good, albeit heartbreaking.

cant go with u too many alfbrees (Abbott), Thursday, 4 June 2009 19:53 (sixteen years ago)

hero, that dude.

horseshoe, Thursday, 4 June 2009 22:20 (sixteen years ago)

Yes, definitely.

ENBB, Thursday, 4 June 2009 22:22 (sixteen years ago)

This was passed on to me by one of my former professors and I think it's a pretty great concept:

I Am Dr. Tiller

More info about the site here.

ENBB, Thursday, 4 June 2009 22:30 (sixteen years ago)

That's wonderful and is going to make me cry. A lot.

But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Thursday, 4 June 2009 22:45 (sixteen years ago)

wow, ditto and thanks, Erica!

horseshoe, Thursday, 4 June 2009 22:57 (sixteen years ago)

a good roundup of some testimonials from dr. tiller's patients.

would you ask tom petty that? (tipsy mothra), Thursday, 4 June 2009 23:10 (sixteen years ago)

Sullivan's run a slew of heartbreaking posts in the last week.

Bud Huxtable (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 4 June 2009 23:11 (sixteen years ago)

Protesters bored, miss their reason for existing :-(

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/us/08wichita.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

StanM, Monday, 8 June 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

Tiller clinic closes:

http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2009/06/dr-george-tillers-clinic-closes-for-good

sloth say hi to me (ENBB), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 11:09 (sixteen years ago)

And the assassin proclaims victory. I am not normally in favor of torture, but someone Abu Ghraib this fuck.

Hatfail of Hollow (Nicole), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 12:15 (sixteen years ago)

what for

i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:14 (sixteen years ago)

fun

am0n, Wednesday, 10 June 2009 15:17 (sixteen years ago)

three months pass...

http://mobile.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/10/07/okla_abortion/index.html

butt sound insanity (gbx), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:38 (fifteen years ago)

read that. wtf are they thinking? ok i know what they're thinking but x-(

steamed hams (harbl), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:39 (fifteen years ago)

infuriating

butt sound insanity (gbx), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:43 (fifteen years ago)

I just posted a link about this on facebook. I AM SO ANGRY!

*:--☆--:*:--☆:*:--☆--:*:--☆--: (ENBB), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:44 (fifteen years ago)

shit like this makes me want to secede and start my own country, whos with me?

& other try hard shitfests (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:50 (fifteen years ago)

Christ, what next? Forcing women who have had abortions to wear red armbands with foetus symbols on them?

...and the wizard blew his horn (Masonic Boom), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:51 (fifteen years ago)

Crazy. They can't do that, can they? It doesn't seem legally possible, and I am too lazy to comb through the whole issue. I want someone here to do it and then put it in a nutshell, please.

Beth Parker, Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:51 (fifteen years ago)

Let's not give them ideas because obviously there is no limit to the CRAZY.

& other try hard shitfests (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:52 (fifteen years ago)

what the fucking fuck how can this possibly be legal

the taint of Macca is strong (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:54 (fifteen years ago)

the good guys are attacking on procedural merits, but I can't help but think that there might be legit privacy concerns (legally). I looked over the opening questions of the questionnaire and they really did seem like they'd be enough to ID someone from small town. doubt it'd get by a univ IRB for instance

butt sound insanity (gbx), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:57 (fifteen years ago)

tbh i'm not sure it is legal but they do this all the time--pass an abortion law they suspect is unconstitutional or violates privacy laws because they want to see it challenged in courts that are favorable to them. so even if it's struck down they come out with case law that supports them overall. i think that's why the challengers tried the "single-subject rule" method first, to avoid getting a ruling about health privacy or abortion. xp

steamed hams (harbl), Thursday, 8 October 2009 16:58 (fifteen years ago)

^^^this seems savvy

butt sound insanity (gbx), Thursday, 8 October 2009 17:00 (fifteen years ago)

I don't know if this is any crazier than the healthcare "argument" about not using any of the federal money/tax credits for ANY insurance packages that, as part of their standard coverage MIGHT include abortions IN THE EVENT that you are even a woman and therefore hypothetically eligible for one at some point in your life.

The result of which, of course, would be for insurance companies to drop abortion coverage from all their plans. Which HEY is a lot easier than taking the issue back to the Supreme Court, huh guys?

that stupid-ass cannibal pen-pal of yours (Laurel), Thursday, 8 October 2009 17:03 (fifteen years ago)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/oklahoma.html

So there are only 6 abortion providers in the entire state of OK, a parental cosent law and a 24 hour waiting period. This is yet another law that might discourage women who are afraid of their identities being discovered (which in small towns could easily be done from the questions like Ev said) from obtaining abortions. Great.

*:--☆--:*:--☆:*:--☆--:*:--☆--: (ENBB), Thursday, 8 October 2009 17:09 (fifteen years ago)

Ha when I got an abortion I was worried somehow people were able to magically scan my mind & see this happened – let's just make the paranoia a reality, eh?

existential eggs (Abbott), Thursday, 8 October 2009 23:17 (fifteen years ago)

*googles*

butt sound insanity (gbx), Friday, 9 October 2009 01:15 (fifteen years ago)

(j/k <3 u abbs)

butt sound insanity (gbx), Friday, 9 October 2009 01:16 (fifteen years ago)

hahahahahahaha

existential eggs (Abbott), Friday, 9 October 2009 01:20 (fifteen years ago)

Are you fucking kidding me? Why on earth are you going to go & give a list of names & personal info to the same nutjobs who would murder doctors for the prestige of (legal) martyrdom? The very existence of such a list/database is essentially an open sanctioning of, at best, harassment & exclusion.

cervix-a-lot (Pillbox), Friday, 9 October 2009 01:25 (fifteen years ago)

does not include the name, address or "any information specifically identifying the patient." - I guess I should actually read things before indulging kneejerk posting impulses. Still, tho, a dubious proposition, the fuckheads.

cervix-a-lot (Pillbox), Friday, 9 October 2009 01:54 (fifteen years ago)

cervix-a-lot is concerned

steamed hams (harbl), Friday, 9 October 2009 02:12 (fifteen years ago)

wow, what the fuck

jackie off the chain (k3vin k.), Friday, 9 October 2009 02:46 (fifteen years ago)

this is not OK, lahoma

latebloomer, Friday, 9 October 2009 03:25 (fifteen years ago)

a store i worked at a couple of years ago, we'd occasionally get these faxes from an abortion clinic in another city, containing patient's full info. i rang them twice to tell them what was going on, you'd think they'd be a little more fucking careful. what if i was some religious nutto? that kind of info is a loaded gun in the wrong hands.

DAN P3RRY MAD AT GRANDMA (just1n3), Friday, 9 October 2009 03:40 (fifteen years ago)

You made the right call when you made the call jufteen.

existential eggs (Abbott), Friday, 9 October 2009 03:44 (fifteen years ago)

Collecting the information that OK wants to publish is nothing new. AB clinics already do this and confidentially report to state agencies. It's the posting it online that probably won't pass muster under HIPAA. What is that HIPAA waiver even gonna look like?

kate78, Friday, 9 October 2009 17:57 (fifteen years ago)

"by signing this waiver you agree to be targeted by murderous psychopaths"

the taint of Macca is strong (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 October 2009 19:06 (fifteen years ago)

Yeah, something like that.

kate78, Friday, 9 October 2009 20:16 (fifteen years ago)

three months pass...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_shooting_trial

^^ another day, another conservative activist judge

^^Prospective Liberal Troll (will), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 14:55 (fifteen years ago)

delete kansas

everybody's into weirdness right now (gbx), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:36 (fifteen years ago)

the important question in that article:

Does the Justice Department plan to file charges against Roeder under federal statutes guaranteeing access to clinics?

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:49 (fifteen years ago)

just wrote my congressman to ask that he do whatever is necessary to ensure federal charges under the access to clinics law & would urge pro-choice people who read this thread to do the same with their representatives. this is an outrage.

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:59 (fifteen years ago)

What will it take, someone walking into Phelps church and slaughtering them pre-emptively as potential abortionist killers, to make people realize this is a preposterously scandalous ruling?

Enfonce bien tes ongles et tes doigts délicats dans la jungle de (Michael White), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:12 (fifteen years ago)

the ruling is new; if the white house & congressmen made it known to the justice dept. that federal charges under the access to clinics law are called for now (not "after we see whether this ridiculously loaded deck pans out as both defense & the kansan judge clearly hope it will"), then there's opportunity for the whole anti-choice strategy here to backfire badly. I am holding off my usual cynicism about how committed the white house is to the right to choose and just urging people who give a shit about this to write their congressman NOW and say that you as a constituent believe that federal charges are called for.

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)

any time a murderous psycho is flabbergasted in a good way is a good time to pick up the phone and call yr congressional representatives

max, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:27 (fifteen years ago)

max you know more about politics than I do, is emailing as good as calling or do I need to be getting on the horn about this kinda thing

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:29 (fifteen years ago)

do both bro! im sure it works differently in all offices but my congressmans office has difft ppl answering the phones and checking email.

max, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:31 (fifteen years ago)

and even if its the same poor intern fielding all calls and emails at least they'll know how passionate you are

max, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:31 (fifteen years ago)

might as well fax 'em too come to think of it

max, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:31 (fifteen years ago)

voluntary manslaughter for premeditated murder...because you had a philosophical difference with your victim is like something from the worst episode of law & order ever

so fucking pissed

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:56 (fifteen years ago)

"I hate this episode of Law & Order" is my reaction to about half the rulings that make the new tho tbh

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:01 (fifteen years ago)

i feel like i am less mad about this than i should be

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:02 (fifteen years ago)

a little context from a lawyer bro:

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to defend himself. He may argue that his beliefs somehow change the elements of the offense of murder. But they do not as a matter of law. The judge can, and should, give him the right to make his defense any way he sees fit but the judge must also instruct the jury on the elements (premeditation, knowledge, purpose, etc.) of murder. And the jury cannot disregard those elements of the law simply because a criminal defendant decided to argue a ridiculous defense. That guy is going down.

i wish i felt a secure as he does on that final point. Kansas, etc...

Prospective Liberal Troll (will), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:15 (fifteen years ago)

yup that's kinda how i feel. most of the quotes in the article are from people who think the sky is falling or want to kill more abortionists, not necessarily people who know what they're talking about.

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)

That is the line I was thinking along as I read this story (no lawyer).

living like the Na'vi will never happen (HI DERE), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)

given kansas's definition of voluntary manslaughter if i was the judge i might let him present it too. he could even make himself look worse trying to do it.

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:18 (fifteen years ago)

I wonder, can they convict him on the lesser charge and then recommend he be locked up forever due to being batshit crazy?

living like the Na'vi will never happen (HI DERE), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:21 (fifteen years ago)

lol no

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:22 (fifteen years ago)

aw, that's too bad

living like the Na'vi will never happen (HI DERE), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:23 (fifteen years ago)

Despite the assurances of will's lawyer bro, I wrote my congresspeople.

Kylie is a vacant Phifer (kingkongvsgodzilla), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:27 (fifteen years ago)

"...an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."

Would that mean I could go and waste some Blackhawk employee on the theory that they might eventually end up murdering some in Mosul or wherever?

Unless he was prepared to argue that he shot Tiller in the foyer of the church because he thought Tiller was about to perform an abortion right there (and even then...), this should never have been ruled on this way.

Enfonce bien tes ongles et tes doigts délicats dans la jungle de (Michael White), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:28 (fifteen years ago)

but I mean - a judge also has the right to say that a defense is unmountable, doesn't he - a judge allowing a defense that's essentially "the crime isn't as bad because I disagreed w/my victim" is imo giving the defense way too much leeway - I mean, here's the prosecutor's take:

Prosecutors argued Monday that such a defense should not be considered because there is no evidence Tiller posed an imminent threat at the time of the killing.

"The State encourages this Court to not be the first to enable a defendant to justify premeditated murder because of an emotionally charged political belief," the prosecution wrote.

Vol. manslaughter = imminent threat or no go. I can't imagine an assassin would be allowed to mount the defense "my target was going to enact policies that would result in deaths," right?

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:29 (fifteen years ago)

"I hate this episode of Law & Order" is my reaction to about half the rulings that make the new tho tbh

I swear this was a recent L&O episode, I'm not even joking.

ô_o (Nicole), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)

this is an outrage.
this is an outrage.
this is an outrage.
this is an outrage.
this is an outrage.

everybody's into weirdness right now (gbx), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:34 (fifteen years ago)

i dunno maybe there is something in ks case law that says it has to be imminent but "unreasonable" doesn't imply that to me. i agree it sucks but, lawyering, u know?

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:34 (fifteen years ago)

i mean i get what yr saying harbl/will's brother, but unless this is some cagey 'give em enough rope' ploy by the court, i honestly can't read this as anything other than a sympathetic judge hoping to set some precedent that will allow murderous pro-lifers (and, oh i don't know, TERRORISTS?) a loophole to get out of heavy jail-time.

everybody's into weirdness right now (gbx), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:36 (fifteen years ago)

some precedent that will allow murderous pro-lifers (and, oh i don't know, TERRORISTS?) a loophole to get out of heavy jail-time.

which is why, beyond my own personal passion about the issue, this is a really terrible precedent - seriously wild-west stuff in a "I considered the decedent a bad actor" way. lawyer bros correct me if I'm wrong but a precedent's established by the use of the defense at all, right - not just successful use?

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:44 (fifteen years ago)

i don't know how many courts in america are following the important precedent of this one trial judge in kansas though

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:45 (fifteen years ago)

If someone murdered Roder on the steps of the courthouse L&O-style, couldn't they make the same argument in court?

ô_o (Nicole), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:46 (fifteen years ago)

it's not courts, it's that once precedent is established other judges can be persuaded to allow a case to proceed based on precedent having been established, i.e., you'd better believe every pro-life lawyer in the country will have his eyes on this as a way to wedge their murdering/clinic-bombing clients out of long-time charges

Lee Dorrian Gray (J0hn D.), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 18:47 (fifteen years ago)

i just don't feel like that's true is what i'm saying. the lawyers that defend these guys will try it yeah (they would anyway!) but other judges are not more likely to allow it imo. also if you look at what happened to like all the other abortion clinic bombers and doctor murderers, bad things happened to all of them. if you wanna talk about precedent it looks more like it cuts the other way and rev. don spitz is an idiot. beyond this particular case i actually think defendants should be allowed to present insane defenses if they want to, as a general rule.

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)

i DO agree it will make more unreasonable people think it's easier to get away with killing a doctor though, because they take advice from people like don spitz

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:16 (fifteen years ago)

at the same time i don't know how much of a deterrent life imprisonment was to them in the first place.....*thinks to self*

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:18 (fifteen years ago)

guy gives slightly more explanation in this article (warning: comments are ~nuts~) http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1672142.html

harbl, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 21:26 (fifteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/kansas.abortion.roeder.verdict/index.html?hpt=T2

GUILTY

The Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 29 January 2010 18:43 (fifteen years ago)

i wonder what Roeder's stance on capital punishment is?

┌∩┐(◕_◕)┌∩┐ (Steve Shasta), Friday, 29 January 2010 18:48 (fifteen years ago)

doesn't matter he's not up for the death penalty

The Tommy Westphall Universe Hypothesis (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 29 January 2010 18:49 (fifteen years ago)

What a frigging relief.

vacation to outer darkness (Abbott), Friday, 29 January 2010 19:10 (fifteen years ago)

*Whew*

Mit der Kattzheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Michael White), Friday, 29 January 2010 19:14 (fifteen years ago)

see i told u there was nothing to worry about : )

harbl, Friday, 29 January 2010 19:30 (fifteen years ago)

well done, jury.

goole, Friday, 29 January 2010 19:33 (fifteen years ago)

I hope he gets impregnated in jail fwiw

┌∩┐(◕_◕)┌∩┐ (Steve Shasta), Friday, 29 January 2010 19:37 (fifteen years ago)

only 37 minutes of deliberation!

kate78, Friday, 29 January 2010 19:49 (fifteen years ago)

one month passes...

so, what kind of positive changes could obama make in the next 3/7 years to the discourse regarding abortion?

we just have to get over it that's science (schlump), Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:10 (fifteen years ago)

Putting aborted babies in frappuccinos and giving them to the poor.

The Magnificent Colin Firth (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:32 (fifteen years ago)

How dare you figure out my moneymaking scheme.

Ned Raggett, Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:33 (fifteen years ago)

<IMG SRC="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg"; ALT="some text" WIDTH=32 HEIGHT=32>

h/t sweet_communist at Gawker.com

Stefanthenautilus, Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)

None. It was skillfully played a wedge issue by the Right to induce religious fundamentalists to vote against their economic interests.

And for the question, it really comes down to whether one believes a human soul exists (aside a thought placeholder or rhetorical gesture). As a materialist, I see suffering of the living (and of the unwanted to live) from unwanted pregnancies, but embryos with little neural development have the same moral weight as any other tissue. For dualists and other spiritualists, a soul must become conjoined with the embryo at some point. Its impossible to really speak sensibly about the matter as each position is a radical denial of the other's fundamental premises.

I think its reasonable to put the legality of earlier trimester abortions off-limits, while also allowing the religious to have a say in whether their tax dollars contribute to what they consider murder. I have the same say in voting against out war mongers that I consider murderers. So I don't have a problem with the Stupak amendment.

Planned Parenthood has some rather wealthy supporters. Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, for example, funded two-thirds of the first year's trials of RU-486. So long as the legality of early trimester medical abortions can be safeguarded, there are ways for private concerns to subsidize the costs.

Derelict, Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:43 (fifteen years ago)

dude, I fail.

Stefanthenautilus, Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:44 (fifteen years ago)

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg

Stefanthenautilus, Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:44 (fifteen years ago)

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg

ned ragú (suzy), Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:49 (fifteen years ago)

Thx.

Stefanthenautilus, Sunday, 21 March 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100405/pollitt

egregious apostrophising (schlump), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 16:13 (fifteen years ago)

katha pollitt otm

max, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 16:40 (fifteen years ago)

jesus i didn't know that about maternal mortality rates

horseshoe, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 16:43 (fifteen years ago)

It really IS a good list.

Il suffit de ne pas l'envier (Michael White), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 16:44 (fifteen years ago)

the climate with this is so insanely polarised right now though. it feels like the worst approach WRT the healthcare bill was to try to take abortion off the table and leave hyde untouched, out of play; my question above was trying to work out what kinda of confrontation and reverse psychology and general jedi mind tricks need to happen for there to be any kind of turnaround on protection of foetal rights, criminalisation of mothers & general attitudes.

egregious apostrophising (schlump), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 18:04 (fifteen years ago)

great article

k3vin k., Wednesday, 24 March 2010 18:26 (fifteen years ago)

Posted on a Yahoo News! Article:

"Abortion is evil and it is murder and anyone that disagrees, well, I guess Ronald Reagan said it best about those that value abortions. Honestly, to me, they are no better than those that strap bombs to themselves and kill lots of people, and especially the people that kill tons of children inside of the womb and then try to act as though nothing has ever happened to them in their lives. People like that are on par, if not exceeding, the worst of the black widow/black widower killers that I have seen in my life."

Usain Bolt Cola (Cattle Grind), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:58 (fifteen years ago)

note that was not me that posted that, but some other asshole

Usain Bolt Cola (Cattle Grind), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:58 (fifteen years ago)

black widow killers! hahahha

kate78, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:06 (fifteen years ago)

http://www.big-pix.com/shop/images/posters/f-blac-w.jpg

Obama, Wellstone and Darwinfish, Attorneys (Pancakes Hackman), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:10 (fifteen years ago)

I believe in retroactive abortion.

Usain Bolt Cola (Cattle Grind), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:12 (fifteen years ago)

so, what kind of positive changes could obama make in the next 3/7 years to the discourse regarding abortion?

I think Obama & his entire party have demonstrated that their only interested in this issue is as a bargaining chip, so don't look for "positive changes" imo

Twink Will Ferrell (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)

Its impossible to really speak sensibly about the matter as each position is a radical denial of the other's fundamental premises.

sorta feel this is true, hence it's an intractable issue.

by another name (amateurist), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:53 (fifteen years ago)

well, but lots of things are intractable issues - evolution vs. creationism, for example. so we set a societal baseline, and that's science over spiritual conviction. people on the "spiritual conviction" side of the q are welcome to live their lives as they see fit, but should be told, firmly and repeatedly, that they have no right whatsoever to legislate according to their beliefs.

Twink Will Ferrell (J0hn D.), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:57 (fifteen years ago)

Okay I've gotta disagree with this somewhat: "I think its reasonable to put the legality of earlier trimester abortions off-limits, while also allowing the religious to have a say in whether their tax dollars contribute to what they consider murder. I have the same say in voting against out war mongers that I consider murderers. So I don't have a problem with the Stupak amendment."

The right to bodily autonomy is a pretty basic human right. Asking to have a say in what happens with somebody else's uterus is a pretty big infringement upon that right, in addition to the fact that women have a specific constitutional right to legal abortion. In other areas of life, we don't consider it acceptable to curtail people's access to their constitutional rights just because somebody else doesn't want to pay for it. The gov't spends money (on police, security, etc.) every time some group wants to have a protest march or rally; they do that even if it's a Nazi skinhead rally or something, because citizens have freedom of speech & freedom of assembly. Do I get to decide I don't want to pay for those things, because I think the U.S. version of free speech is too lax? Hell, no! The same goes for other stuff like defending yourself in court: If we cut off gov't spending on it because some people don't like paying for criminals to have public defenders, we'd be in a fine mess.

I also think the fact that some people have "religious objections" to abortion is sort of a red herring. #1, these views don't deserve special consideration because they are religious in character. They're no more untouchable than whatever philosophical or ethical objections someone might have. And some Americans might have equally strong religious objections to birth control, prenatal care for unmarried women, viagra, keeping comatose people alive on respirators, or lots of other things. It would be absurd for insurance stop covering them for that reason. A person's medical decisions should be between them & their doctor; they're not up for a vote.

Alias (Gudrun Brangwen), Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:58 (fifteen years ago)

but there are ethical (if not typically explicitly or implicitly religious) underpinnings of all of our laws. and i don't think opposition to abortion is always essentially religious; often it is more broadly ethical in character. and i don't think it's as clear-cut as evolution vs. creation. there is no evidence for creation. issues with the personhood (or lack thereof) of a fetus at various stages of development are more contested and complicated.

by another name (amateurist), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:01 (fifteen years ago)

we're gonna get into the same damn centrist vs. progressive argument we always do here but giving up that ideological ground, as john says a lot, is really dangerous and should not be on the table. really agree with gudrun brangwen's post

k3vin k., Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:06 (fifteen years ago)

Gudrun is so completely OTM! On ILX it's easy to get annoyed with male posters having a huge abortion rights argument with very limited input from anyone who'd actually need one, but I care very little for anyone who trots out their ideology to attempt to deny me equal rights and I hate it even more when *women* do it.

Interesting conversation today: gay friend had to deal with some battyboy-type catcalling from black teens in his neighbourhood and challenged them with 'has being in a minority taught you NOTHING?' Pointed out to him that I could never say that to those kids if they were being rude to me, would probably have to go with 'being oppressed' instead.

suzy, Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:22 (fifteen years ago)

My opinion on abortion is that I don't have the right to tell a woman what she does with a foetus in her own body any more than she has the right to tell me what to do with my internal organs.

the only reason this even turned into a debate is because one can't just (cleanly) self-terminate pregnancies and have to seek out a specialist. well that and xtianity but that horse has been beaten to death.

Usain Bolt Cola (Cattle Grind), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:26 (fifteen years ago)

and on the third day, it rose again

LiveJournal (acoleuthic), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:29 (fifteen years ago)

i have an eerie feeling that we may be 2-3 posts away from a post involving necrophilia....

Usain Bolt Cola (Cattle Grind), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:30 (fifteen years ago)

equine christ necrophilia

LiveJournal (acoleuthic), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:30 (fifteen years ago)

the album-title coil had to shelve

LiveJournal (acoleuthic), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:30 (fifteen years ago)

ahahahahahahahha

Usain Bolt Cola (Cattle Grind), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:32 (fifteen years ago)

I think Obama & his entire party have demonstrated that their only interested in this issue is as a bargaining chip, so don't look for "positive changes" imo

eh maybe so, & i'm maybe putting too much faith in campaigning, senatorial obama's stated belief in repro rights, but the guy's in charge of every piecemeal bill that'll constitute a tide just like the erosive one of the bush years. the weird dynamic at the moment is that it's hard - or was hard prior to reading the pollitt article - to see any situations in which he's gonna be forced to stand up and address and defend, rather than avoid, abortion. there are tiny things like waiting until the day after the anniversary of roe to sign the (iirc) mexico city law, so as not to further inflame the opposition, that seem like attempts to manage/circumvent the ideological conflict.

sorta feel this is true, hence it's an intractable issue.

sure, but not everyone's drawn to one of the diametrically opposed positions; there's a huge middle ground which over the past however many years has drifted towards a more conservative anti choice stance - whether it's because of apathetic younger voters or different constituency makeup or whatever. i just don't think the incompatibility of the arguments have to impede on policy so much, because there are laws underneath and - like with gudrun's oppositions to whichever other policy areas - opposition can exist marginally. i'm sure there are things that can happen that liberate it from the separatist ghetto of medicine its currently seen as occupying so that it's perceived as a personal medical procedure, by most.

egregious apostrophising (schlump), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:37 (fifteen years ago)

On ILX it's easy to get annoyed with male posters having a huge abortion rights argument with very limited input from anyone who'd actually need one, but I care very little for anyone who trots out their ideology to attempt to deny me equal rights and I hate it even more when *women* do it.

hesitate slightly to go here but i kinda disagree with this, & w/barbara kruger:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LOouiLW1P4M/SjBqudcZ1iI/AAAAAAAAA-4/z2F0x01ypDk/s400/screen-capture-18.png

obviously this is true, and an indictment of the makeup of government, etc, but in any other situation i'm pretty okay relying on basic human understanding and empathy furnishing individuals with the skills to make a decision, irrespective of gender. i also don't think it's useful to totally distance guys from having some perspective on abortion - i'm not pushing for them to be considered as some equal partner in the equation, nor being part of the choice necessarily, but it just doesn't seem positive to present this as an issue from which they are immutably separate. a lot of things, like age, dictate how views change regarding repro rights, and i have no more time for the women in uk government who oppose abortion than i do the guys in the states. this is a very in a perfect world argument and i realise that we don't have the representatives who can process and empathise with the choice at hand, but it still bugs me a little.

egregious apostrophising (schlump), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:46 (fifteen years ago)

like:

My opinion on abortion is that I don't have the right to tell a woman what she does with a foetus in her own body any more than she has the right to tell me what to do with my internal organs.

OTM, but i don't think gender is the variable here: it's that you don't have the right to tell anyone what to do with their body. it implies that being anatomically similar would equip you with the authority to pass judgement on the myriad circumstances that lead to making a choice about abortion.

egregious apostrophising (schlump), Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:49 (fifteen years ago)

I'm on the side of Kruger and I cannot fathom what's swimming around in the brains of men who make anti-choice legislation their raison d'etre/a career thing. I think that's all the piece she made is asking us to consider here.

suzy, Thursday, 25 March 2010 00:54 (fifteen years ago)

his ENTIRE party!?

max, Thursday, 25 March 2010 02:03 (fifteen years ago)

i actually agree with schlump, i don't really use the "it's not my place to say one way or the other, i'm just a guy" argument (while it's empirically vaild) becuase it to me is a matter of medicine and public health, and as a future health care professional interested in pubilc health it's an issue i feel strongly about and want to contribute to

k3vin k., Thursday, 25 March 2010 03:33 (fifteen years ago)

people on the "spiritual conviction" side of the q are welcome to live their lives as they see fit, but should be told, firmly and repeatedly, that they have no right whatsoever to legislate according to their beliefs

kinda sums up this and just about every similar issue for me, but better than i'd have put it.

Jermaine Jenason (darraghmac), Friday, 26 March 2010 01:34 (fifteen years ago)

So a local doctor recently decided he was going to put a note on his door telling Obama-supporters they could find another doctor. He explained (probably to cover himself legally) that he wasn't turning them away, but if they saw the note and went elsewhere, so be it. (Seems a stupid business strategy in this day and age, no?).

Someone I know posts this on facebook and I reply critically, and a female who I don't know (but was on the other dude's friends list) smugly replies "Oh, but it's ok for a doctor to perform abortion?".

Why is abortion used so often in arguments where it doesn't even apply? For all I know that doctor doesn't even perform them.

I'm also real tired of people making us Pro-Choicers out to be goat blood drinking, baby murdering masses who hold monthly televised Abortion Parties.

Phoenix in Flight (Cattle Grind), Friday, 2 April 2010 13:00 (fifteen years ago)

Report this doctor to the licensing board. It'll take you fifteen minutes to find out their number & make the call. Health care professionals have no business pulling this kinda shit imo.

Abortion is essentially a reductio-ad-Hitlerum - once the conversation is successfully moved into a highly emotional place, the burden of defending one's arguments with reason/science is lifted and you can just yell at people.

Twink Will Ferrell (J0hn D.), Friday, 2 April 2010 13:44 (fifteen years ago)

The outspoken Grayson described Cassell’s sign as "ridiculous."

"I’m disgusted," he said. "Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ’Do no good.’ If this is the face of the right wing in America, it’s the face of cruelty. ... Why don’t they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?"

I love this blabbermouth.

kingkongvsgodzilla, Friday, 2 April 2010 13:59 (fifteen years ago)

I'm always surprised how much religion has a part to play in arguments about abortion - I'll be honest and say I have difficulties knowing 100% how I feel about it and religion (and politics) doesn't come into it - and I agree with the point above that 'beliefs' shouldn't be untouchable because they're religious in nature.

I would have thought the main point of disagreement boils down to whether a foetus of any size is a 'person' and hence it's wrong to kill them whether or not they're in someone else's body. Not "religiously" wrong, just wrong in the same way that killing anyone is wrong. I guess for pro-life (hate that phrase) ppl there is less harm done all round by continuing with the pregnancy than resorting to killing what they see as a person. These aren't my beliefs at all, but for a pro-lifer would abortion be any different from say, killing your conjoined twin who shared 'your' body?

I'm *really* not trying to start a clusterfuck but I can kind of see the logic *if* you are of the belief that conception immediately = person. How this squares with the right not to tell someone what to do with their body I don't know, but then if the foetus = a person they should have the same rights? Feel free to put me straight about any glaring wholes in this train of thought.....

Not the real Village People, Friday, 2 April 2010 18:33 (fifteen years ago)

IMO you don't have rights until you are born

STAY ALIVE USING EQUIPMENT (HI DERE), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:38 (fifteen years ago)

yep. there's no "conception certificate"

Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:39 (fifteen years ago)

^^^^

my full government name (WmC), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:40 (fifteen years ago)

if you're in the ground or inside another person, you don't belong to the body politic

Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:40 (fifteen years ago)

what about zombies

Mr. Que, Friday, 2 April 2010 18:40 (fifteen years ago)

zombies = "enemy combatants"

Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:43 (fifteen years ago)

xposts Ah I guess that's what the pro-lifers would like to change then.. ? although i'm guessing it would cause a whole chain of legal contradictions and the universe would implode.

Not the real Village People, Friday, 2 April 2010 18:43 (fifteen years ago)

the problem w/fetus = person is that you get into an almost necessarily metaphysical discussion about when life ~happens~ to an embryo. which basically means that we ARE discussing religion again, however vaguely.

if you believe that the moment a sperm augurs into an egg is the moment at which personhood is established, then zero kinds of abortion are tolerable. if you believe---as i'd wager most of your fence-sitting voters do---that a fetus goes from "weird growing thing in a lady's uterus" to "someone who will eventually have a SSN" at some, poorly delineated time between conception and delivery, then you've automatically opened the door to abortions, in general, if not to every variety.

if we lived in a fantasy world where some scientific test existed to say that "at 16 weeks the embryo does BLANK and is ~sentient~" then we'd probably all feel a lot better about drawing some hard and fast rules about the timing of abortions. since we don't, though, the only hard and fast rules we can draw are "abortions: y/n". if you believe that a woman's right to control her body is sacrosanct (and, similarly, that ANY person's right to medical privacy is inviolable), then you circle "y" and off we go. if you believe that every sperm is sacred and that the baby jesus appears to an embryo at the moment of conception, and that ending the growth of even a 8-celled organism is tantamount to murdering a real person with a name and friends and favorite foods, then circle "no" and buy all the women in yr life longer, less revealing dresses.

many xps

drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:46 (fifteen years ago)

h I guess that's what the pro-lifers would like to change then.. ? although i'm guessing it would cause a whole chain of legal contradictions and the universe would implode.

― Not the real Village People, Friday, April 2, 2010 1:43 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

fwiw they've succeeded in changing this in several states already, and it HAS caused no end of legal headaches. ironically, some of the ppl with the most headaches have been pregnant mothers (many of them pro-life!): some ladies want to go through with vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), which is often medically contraindicated. so even though OBs be shakin they damn heads, it is (like abortion) the right of these women to do as they wish with their bodies/fetuses. however, in states where laws have protected the rights of unborn children (murder a pregnant lady and get two counts of homicide), some women going against medical advice (AMA) and having VBsAC at home have been charged with negligence after their children died in child birth. similarly, some women have been charged with negligence/endangerment after, say, testing positive for substance use while pregnant. that these women are almost uniformly poor minorities doesn't really seem to bother anyone.

drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:51 (fifteen years ago)

I love how everything in medicine is an acronym

STAY ALIVE USING EQUIPMENT (HI DERE), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:53 (fifteen years ago)

ha, i was realizing that as i wrote that post

drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:53 (fifteen years ago)

it was mentioned on some other thread that the anti-abortion position is essentially an outgrowth of old-school anti-pleasure Xtian theology - one that holds that all sexual pleasure is wrong and a sin, and that the only time sex is okay is for reproduction. Ergo, "every sperm is sacred", fetuses are the same as people, sex is only between married people for the purpose of having babies, etc. Which is, to my mind, rooted in a fundamental misreading of humanity and results in an unhealthy proscription that is basically impossible to enforce.

xp

Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 April 2010 18:54 (fifteen years ago)

i love the word "contraindicated"

Mr. Que, Friday, 2 April 2010 18:54 (fifteen years ago)

Pro-lifers with genuine moral stances w/r/t right-to-life trumping other rights would naturally curve towards leftish positions on most everything else and it would be great if they could alienate and divide the rest of the movement, like I dunno, send everyone on their mailing lists advocacy literature on global warming, gun control, turn clinic protests into internal shouting matches on universal health care, that kind of thing.

Philip Nunez, Friday, 2 April 2010 18:58 (fifteen years ago)

smc - agreed, basically once you sign on for "sex before marriage is ok!" then you've kinda bought a ticket for the abortion party. which is why i'm actually pretty confident about the fact that it will be less and less of an issue once all the old people start dying.

mrque: yeah, it's a good one! useful in casual conversation, too, it just sounds so much more convincing than "would be a bad idea"

drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, 2 April 2010 19:00 (fifteen years ago)

like, it's no mystery why a small, persecuted religious group would develop a strident philosophy about the essential importance of procreation for the survival of their sect, but once you've become one of the biggest religions in the world and your species has attained uncontested dominance and security, it's kinda no longer necessary so can we jettison the archaic moralizing k thx bye

xp

Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 April 2010 19:01 (fifteen years ago)

Pro-lifers with genuine moral stances w/r/t right-to-life trumping other rights would naturally curve towards leftish positions on most everything else and it would be great if they could alienate and divide the rest of the movement, like I dunno, send everyone on their mailing lists advocacy literature on global warming, gun control, turn clinic protests into internal shouting matches on universal health care, that kind of thing.

― Philip Nunez, Friday, April 2, 2010 1:58 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

yr talking about that unicorn of american politics, the vegan hardline ecoxtian. they all live in vt and NoCal, dude, and are among the most marginal voting blocs in the country. srsly doubt that pamphleteering from smiling weirdos in painted schoolbuses would do much to divide anyone on the pro-life side of things

drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, 2 April 2010 19:04 (fifteen years ago)

xp to Philip Nunez
^^ yeah this is why I'm kind of baffled that it's lumped in with all other conservative beliefs, like you have to buy into a certain 'basket' of beliefs rather than picking them individually.

Not the real Village People, Friday, 2 April 2010 19:04 (fifteen years ago)

I wonder if Norm Macdonald would show up at an abortion rally with a Free Mumia sign.

Philip Nunez, Friday, 2 April 2010 19:05 (fifteen years ago)

pro-death penalty pro-lifers are a wonder to behold

Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 April 2010 19:05 (fifteen years ago)

oh man don't even get me started

drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, 2 April 2010 19:05 (fifteen years ago)

and i'm sure that they think that their inverse, pro-choice anti-death penalty ppl (ie - me), are just as amazing, but they're wrong >:(

drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, 2 April 2010 19:06 (fifteen years ago)

I'm kind of pro death penalty

Like, not in practice but in theory, by which I mean I feel that there are crimes heinous enough to call for execution, but I also believe our legal system, much like any/every legal system implemented on Earth, is too flawed to allow it.

this has been another installment in "HI DERE posts for the sake of posting"

STAY ALIVE USING EQUIPMENT (HI DERE), Friday, 2 April 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)

"unicorn of american politics, the vegan hardline ecoxtian."

ha this makes me picture actual vegan xian unicorns!

speaking of unicorns -- any conservatives post to ilx?

Philip Nunez, Friday, 2 April 2010 19:20 (fifteen years ago)

in local news, about the nice new PP center opened up just a little south of my neighborhood.

I think the new Planned Parenthood center on NE MLK Ave has a pretty good sense of humor.

The website notes that since the grand opening, nearly 300 anti-Planned Parenthood protesters have shown up on about 75 percent of the days the reproductive health center is open.

Rather than getting its knickers in a twist, Planned Parenthood is asking its supports to Pledge a Picket: you can donate 25 cents for every anti-abortion rights protester who shows up, or you can donate $1 for every day the right-to-life crew turns out. It's like a jogathon. But for abortion rights.

The website says Planned Parenthood has raised over $1,000 from supporters pledging a picket since the protests began.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2010/04/01/1270166779-pledge-a-picket_01.jpg

requiem for crunk (kingfish), Friday, 2 April 2010 19:38 (fifteen years ago)

pro-death penalty pro-lifers are a wonder to behold

― Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, April 2, 2010 3:05 PM (2 hours ago)

i disagree with each position but it's not that hard to understand their synergy, imo - basically there are the desirables (innocent babbies) and undesirables (poor/minority felons). some people "deserve to die"

k3vin k., Friday, 2 April 2010 21:50 (fifteen years ago)

also gbx is seriously the best poster on ilx imo. agree on the awesomeness of "contraindicated" too - i see it every day and it's still a dope word to me

k3vin k., Friday, 2 April 2010 21:51 (fifteen years ago)

aw ty ^_^

drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, 2 April 2010 22:19 (fifteen years ago)

so more on that rogue doctor. there's a poll on the website to determine whether the doc was in the right or wrong. there were three options, one was like "go get em doc", the other was like "he's wrong", and the third was "regardless of opinion this is unethical". first option got 84% of the vote. I really hope online ballot stuffing was going on :/.

Phoenix in Flight (Cattle Grind), Friday, 2 April 2010 23:12 (fifteen years ago)

^^ yeah this is why I'm kind of baffled that it's lumped in with all other conservative beliefs, like you have to buy into a certain 'basket' of beliefs rather than picking them individually.

― Not the real Village People, Friday, April 2, 2010 2:04 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

lots of studies illustrate that people's political or social "beliefs" are mostly formed by family/social milieu. the strongest indicator of whether you will be e.g. democrat or republican is whether your family and neighbors are democrats or republicans.

hardly surprising (and it prob. applies to most of us) that most people don't have time/energy/intellect/interest in getting to the basic ethical questions behind all of their beliefs and opinions, and instead assume what amounts to a kind of received wisdom on most of them.

by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 3 April 2010 09:38 (fifteen years ago)

of course these arguments have a hard time accounting for CHANGE, but i think they are more true than most would like to acknowledge.

by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 3 April 2010 09:39 (fifteen years ago)

also gbx's long post above gets to the heart of the issue (for me anyway), the fundamental uncertainty about what "life" is and when it begins. but of course even if we sorted this out (huge "if"), it would leave lots of basic ethical questions about why human life should be sacrosanct and that of other species' not at all (or less so).

i guess i just get exhausted by demagoguery on both sides of the issue.

by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 3 April 2010 09:41 (fifteen years ago)

i suppose i should distinguish "life" from "personhood." a fetus seems unquestionably alive, whether it is a "person" is a trickier matter. i'm tempted to say that any answer to this question is necessarily contingent.

by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 3 April 2010 09:42 (fifteen years ago)

imo it's not a person until it's born but am i callous for not really caring? if we had a scientific test for determining whether something is a person (to me that doesn't make any sense because personhood is not a scientific concept but eh) and it found a fetus became a person at 16 weeks, i would still be ok with abortion afterward just because it's in another person's body.

the thing i can't explain consistent with that is why i'm against the death penalty in 100% of cases. the unfairness of it is the main problem for me but even if it was fair i can't go along with killing a *person* even if it did something much much worse than occupying someone's body for 9 months. seems like i am pretty religious about it, and possibly do care about personhood, or i'm selfish about my body, maybe. or the fact that an execution doesn't remedy the condition of having murdered someone; it isn't doing anything useful except retribution.

harbl, Saturday, 3 April 2010 11:40 (fifteen years ago)

hmm I have never viewed the purpose of punishment as being anything more than acting as a deterrent for other people (although you're right in that people often prefer to see it as retribution)

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:04 (fifteen years ago)

well people try to justify it as a deterrent because it seems more rational but i do not believe them, also the dp is not a great deterrent for a lot of reasons
that's a whole other thread though :(

harbl, Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:09 (fifteen years ago)

not particularly useful as a deterrent tbh

xp

max, Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:10 (fifteen years ago)

if u guys want i could get high and write what i remember about foucault from college

max, Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:10 (fifteen years ago)

yeah I'm not saying that the dp is a good deterrent but it just seems as high as you can go without legalizing torture

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:12 (fifteen years ago)

anyway I can't hate on the death penalty because it has given us an awesome iron maiden song YEAAAAAAh YEAAAAH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HALLOWED BE THY NAME

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:16 (fifteen years ago)

*not gonna go all penology on the thread*

harbl, Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:20 (fifteen years ago)

take it to iltmi

max, Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:20 (fifteen years ago)

huh huh huh I hope that means what I think it means

are you a penologist, harbl

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:20 (fifteen years ago)

"Contradistinction" is almost as good as "contraindicated."

filling the medicare donut hole with the semen of liberal (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:22 (fifteen years ago)

contradancing

harbl, Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:24 (fifteen years ago)

CONTRA, iran

max, Saturday, 3 April 2010 12:31 (fifteen years ago)

Laws to protect human beings are manmade. Likewise, definitions of "life" and what constitutes a "human being" are manmade. We'll never come to a point where there's a consensus on this, I don't think.

I had a friend who spouted off nonsense about science 'proving' the child was alive and could feel pain. And then when I asked if he'd even think abortions were allowable if the mother's life was threatened, he said no - his opinion was that the mother had already been alive for a decent period of time, and it was time to let the child have a chance. Ya know, ignoring the fact that well the child might die too.

I hate the smugness of some of the pro-lifers. Another friend used to smugly state to me "It's not a choice". Um...yes, actually, it is.

Phoenix in Flight (Cattle Grind), Saturday, 3 April 2010 13:01 (fifteen years ago)

smugness is a bad attribute from anyone

by another name (amateurist), Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:20 (fifteen years ago)

agreed. there are those on our side that can be too....it's unfortunately a point that gets argued quite loudly and abrasively on both sides.

Phoenix in Flight (Cattle Grind), Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:30 (fifteen years ago)

pro-death penalty pro-lifers are a wonder to behold

― Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, April 2, 2010 3:05 PM (2 hours ago)

i disagree with each position but it's not that hard to understand their synergy, imo - basically there are the desirables (innocent babbies) and undesirables (poor/minority felons). some people "deserve to die"

― k3vin k., Friday, April 2, 2010 9:50 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

exactly, this is also why the torture debate doesn't really have any traction outside of liberal circles.

here come the friday afternoon dick emoticons (latebloomer), Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:33 (fifteen years ago)

so outside of liberal circles, Americans are basically pro-torture then?

tomofthenest, Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:42 (fifteen years ago)

yes

here come the friday afternoon dick emoticons (latebloomer), Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:45 (fifteen years ago)

I see I never weighed in on the original question in the thread title. Surely someone else must have said it already, but here goes anyway:

abortion == dud
abortion rights == classic

For all of the obvious reasons. No one likes abortions. No one says, "Yippee! Good times!" at the thought of going through with one. But in a bad situation, it can still be the best solution, and removing the possibility of abortion can certainly lead to a worse outcome - much worse for everyone involved.

Aimless, Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:45 (fifteen years ago)

x-post

most people are stupid, ignorant and pretty awful imo

here come the friday afternoon dick emoticons (latebloomer), Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:47 (fifteen years ago)

(i live in one of the reddest of red states so that might be coloring my cynicism right now so feel free to ignore)

here come the friday afternoon dick emoticons (latebloomer), Saturday, 3 April 2010 18:49 (fifteen years ago)

No one says, "Yippee! Good times!" at the thought of going through with one.

oh, c'mon, there's gotta be someone out there who does

here come the friday afternoon dick emoticons (latebloomer), Saturday, 3 April 2010 19:20 (fifteen years ago)

probably the type of person who writes Dead Ringers fan fiction

here come the friday afternoon dick emoticons (latebloomer), Saturday, 3 April 2010 19:22 (fifteen years ago)

http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-totally-psyched-about-this-abortion,10931/

rip sarah silverman 3/19/10 never forget (history mayne), Saturday, 3 April 2010 19:22 (fifteen years ago)

lol

as always, the onion was there first

here come the friday afternoon dick emoticons (latebloomer), Saturday, 3 April 2010 19:23 (fifteen years ago)

I see I never weighed in on the original question in the thread title. Surely someone else must have said it already, but here goes anyway:

abortion == dud
abortion rights == classic

For all of the obvious reasons. No one likes abortions. No one says, "Yippee! Good times!" at the thought of going through with one. But in a bad situation, it can still be the best solution, and removing the possibility of abortion can certainly lead to a worse outcome - much worse for everyone involved.

― Aimless, Saturday, April 3, 2010 2:45 PM (36 minutes ago)

i...understand what you're saying but this is kind of a touchy position to take. this basically describes my mom, who is pro-choice but doesn't think abortions should be publicly funded or at least doesn't have a problem with it not being tax-payer funded.

k3vin k., Saturday, 3 April 2010 19:25 (fifteen years ago)

his opinion was that the mother had already been alive for a decent period of time, and it was time to let the child have a chance. Ya know, ignoring the fact that well the child might die too.

Yeah it strikes me that this is what underlies a lot of this pro-life mindset. Kind of why I'm trying to boil down to what the actual pro-life argument is as it seems clouded by all this sort of crap.

imo it's not a person until it's born but am i callous for not really caring? if we had a scientific test for determining whether something is a person (to me that doesn't make any sense because personhood is not a scientific concept but eh) and it found a fetus became a person at 16 weeks, i would still be ok with abortion afterward just because it's in another person's body.

tbh yeah I find this ... odd. Maybe because it's a 'hidden' kind of process due to it being in another body? If it was born way premature and you had to 'put it down' could you still do it? Bit of a non-starter I guess as it would depend what the "determination" of person-status actually was. Dunno, I'm just thinking of a friend of a friend who had a seriously premature baby (didn't know she was pregnant thru most of it) and the baby has serious problems but it seems to me that just by being out of the mother's body there was no question of euthanising her or whatever. The same questions about quality of life etc were potentially there and I get the impression they would have considered abortion had there been time.

Not the real Village People, Saturday, 3 April 2010 19:29 (fifteen years ago)

^^ I mean hypothetically re the 'euthanising', the NHS hasn't stooped quite that low. My post seems stupid now, please ignore it.

Not the real Village People, Saturday, 3 April 2010 19:30 (fifteen years ago)

i'm confused

harbl, Saturday, 3 April 2010 19:36 (fifteen years ago)

this basically describes my mom, who is pro-choice but doesn't think abortions should be publicly funded

When I say "removing the possibility of abortion" is dud, that includes the fact that, for a poor person, not having the money for one removes the possibility of having one. So, the funding ought to be there, too, for those who require it. That shouldn't be a touchy problem for anyone who believes abortion is morally acceptable.

As for abortion itself being a dud experience, so is getting wisdom teeth pulled, or a colonoscopy. People do it anyway, for reasons far removed from the dudness of going through the experience.

Aimless, Saturday, 3 April 2010 21:50 (fifteen years ago)

Many socially conservative people believe abortions should be legal, but the woman should have to pay the bill. I often wonder why they don't just call it Slut Tax? It certainly seems like the manifestation of a particular mindset, and it's a prevalent attitude lurking under the surface of women who don't much like other women.

show us on the doll where the hotdish was served (suzy), Saturday, 3 April 2010 22:17 (fifteen years ago)

Suzy, the attitude is "that would never happen to ME". It's a self-esteem trip, it doesn't belong in real politics. I can see adopting that position if you are a strict fiscal conservative, but too many people inject their personal hang-ups into their political positions.

Band Fag X (u s steel), Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:23 (fifteen years ago)

Yes but it's 'that would never happen to me, because I'm not a SLUT.' There is a punishment angle there, too, that men are not presented with for their participation in an unplanned pregnancy.

Also my spies tell me Mpls/St. Paul is crawling with anti-abortion creeps this weekend, hope the equivalents of 16-year-old me go to where they are and give them Hell.

show us on the doll where the hotdish was served (suzy), Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:33 (fifteen years ago)

No one says, "Yippee! Good times!" at the thought of going through with one.

lol at my school some girl performed like 5-10 "abortions" over the course of a year for her "art" "project"

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:42 (fifteen years ago)

lol i remember reading about that on nutty pro-life blogs!

harbl, Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:42 (fifteen years ago)

That's a pretty expensive "statement," unless by "performed," you mean "pantomimed" or something.

demonic splendor, demonic majesty (Abbott), Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:43 (fifteen years ago)

wait "what"?

k3vin k., Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)

she just collected menstrual blood and said it was fetal tissue i think

harbl, Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:45 (fifteen years ago)

she collected a bunch of semen from her friends and then stuck it in herself and then took a bunch of herbal abortifacients, then she collected the blood and videotaped herself doing it and then smeared all the blood over a big plastic sheet or something and then projected the video onto the sheet

basically it was just like the art scenes in ghost world except with menstrual blood

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:48 (fifteen years ago)

it was pretty dumb and she had clearly not thought it through but hey that's art for ya I guess

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:49 (fifteen years ago)

I was kind of hoping she got knocked up & shilled out the $1000s to have that many really for real terminations. I would be impressed by anyone who managed to successfully get pregnant that many times in a year.

demonic splendor, demonic majesty (Abbott), Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:51 (fifteen years ago)

Which herbs was she taking? A lot of traditional abortifacients-tansy and pennyroyal, for example-are actually poisons that make the body so sick that it miscarries to save resources for itself. Rue and juniper are the safest, IIRC, but they are a little chancy.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Sunday, 4 April 2010 01:19 (fifteen years ago)

i don't think she really took anything, and this says she didn't even use real blood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_student_abortion_art_controversy

harbl, Sunday, 4 April 2010 01:22 (fifteen years ago)

yeah but I'm pretty sure those statements were made under pressure by the academy - IRL she seemed like the kind of person daft enough to actually carry it out (NB I have only met her like, once or twice)

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 01:24 (fifteen years ago)

Herbs as dangerous as henbane have been used in the past for, ah, "stoppages" or "promoting menustration."

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Sunday, 4 April 2010 01:26 (fifteen years ago)

it really hits the endowment & giving rates pretty hard when one of your students is getting national news coverage for making herself bleed a lot

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 01:27 (fifteen years ago)

if we lived in a fantasy world where some scientific test existed to say that "at 16 weeks the embryo does BLANK and is ~sentient~" then we'd probably all feel a lot better about drawing some hard and fast rules about the timing of abortions. since we don't, though, the only hard and fast rules we can draw are "abortions: y/n". if you believe that a woman's right to control her body is sacrosanct (and, similarly, that ANY person's right to medical privacy is inviolable), then you circle "y" and off we go.

This is pretty much how I view it and it is why I am 100% pro-choice at any point during the pregnancy and for any reason.

t(o_o)t (ENBB), Sunday, 4 April 2010 02:50 (fifteen years ago)

That art student girl was a fucking idiot. smdh.

t(o_o)t (ENBB), Sunday, 4 April 2010 02:56 (fifteen years ago)

thought the art student project was kind of ballsy and hilarious frankly

max, Sunday, 4 April 2010 12:55 (fifteen years ago)

me too kinda

harbl, Sunday, 4 April 2010 13:01 (fifteen years ago)

cant remember if im supposed to kneejerk hate art students or kneejerk defend them tho

max, Sunday, 4 April 2010 13:06 (fifteen years ago)

HAMMER4U MAX

http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/reflex-hammer.jpg

show us on the doll where the hotdish was served (suzy), Sunday, 4 April 2010 13:10 (fifteen years ago)

eh I thought that abortion arts thing had potential, but the girl was pretty stupid - really hate it when you justify doing outrageous things by saying "well I just wanted to start a discourse about aborton", artists should never talk about their own work

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 13:30 (fifteen years ago)

also caving in to the corporation means you're just not really into it

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 13:34 (fifteen years ago)

lol art-school chicks are always up to that sort of thing, chick obv didn't ACTUALLY do all that, it was a performance

plax (ico), Sunday, 4 April 2010 13:36 (fifteen years ago)

if i hated shit made by ppl who were inarticulate abt their own art i dont think i would like any art at all

and if i hated artists who backed down when push came to shove i dont think i would like any art at all

max, Sunday, 4 April 2010 14:12 (fifteen years ago)

I don't know. I just sorta find that kind of shock value performance art more annoying than anything else.

t(o_o)t (ENBB), Sunday, 4 April 2010 14:15 (fifteen years ago)

stando-art school bullshit shouldnt really be taken that srsly tbh, only reason there isnt a story like this every week is because they are boring, not bc they're not happening and instigating 3rd level local "controversy"

plax (ico), Sunday, 4 April 2010 14:16 (fifteen years ago)

well it's probably different for you guys cause you're on the outside looking in. she just kinda gave off the vibe of a space cadet and it was kinda like really, the national media are getting their rocks off over her?

and I realize where you're coming from max but to me it was just evidence that she wasn't really committed to the idea or her art - it was kind of like, even she knew it was a half-assed idea that she pulled out of her ass cause she needed to do a senior project, and she caved immediately once they threatened to prevent her from graduating. if you really think your art is worthwhile then stand your ground imo.

also the medium of presentation was such obfuscating bullshit too, project it from a VHS tape onto four plastic sheets hung in the shape of a cube?? did you happen to take polaroids or 8mm film too?? are you going to paste the negatives onto the plastic sheets?

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:31 (fifteen years ago)

but yeah if I knew bernard sumner I probably wouldn't like new order so

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:32 (fifteen years ago)

i wish i could say this was the worst ive heard

plax (ico), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:36 (fifteen years ago)

im not really invested in defending this "as art"--just think its easy to be dismissive & jaded abt art students & "manufactured controversy"

max, Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:39 (fifteen years ago)

yah Im dismissive & jaded abt nearly everything so

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:41 (fifteen years ago)

~would that my eyes could see again~

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:41 (fifteen years ago)

im dismissive and jaded abt dismissive jadedness

max, Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:46 (fifteen years ago)

classic!

― as a dude (goole), Tuesday, December 2, 2008 1:44 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest

haha

goole, Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:55 (fifteen years ago)

all im saying is that a controversy like this just needs the right moment to go viral, there's a confluence of reasons why that story got blown up, but really it was not because it was that sensational, just because it got picked up at the right moment and carried. Sounds like a bad art project that was being lol controversial, and saying that they are ten-a-penny in art school (an atmosphere where paul mccarthy, marina abramovich etc are like old masters at this stage) is not so much jaded as taxonomic tbh. her story got picked up, was easily used to illustrate a partic. point conserves had about the insane primitivism of liberal values wrt the life of the unborn, and so it seemed obvious that once it entered into an area of discourse ie conservative blogs/news shows/chat radio etc that are not usually keeping up to date with the local art scene, that due to its novelty and, due to perspective, novel shock value, the story grew legs.

Sure the girl went back on whether or not it was real. She was just some girl with a not so great idea that got caught in a larger media whirlwind than she bargained on from the bubble of her artschool/scene and when faced with that I mean, she probably just didn't want to have to explain to her parents why the money spent ontuition was now wasted. A lot of people do just go to art school w/o any long term goals of being artists, or realise that their commitment was not what they thought it was when they were 18. Holding some girl accountable for her artistic integrity under those circumstances just seems ridic naive imo.

plax (ico), Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:58 (fifteen years ago)

yeah i dont think we disagree i think u are just being meaner about it than i am

max, Sunday, 4 April 2010 15:59 (fifteen years ago)

i have a lot more *baggage* in this are than u tho

plax (ico), Sunday, 4 April 2010 16:01 (fifteen years ago)

booming post IKR

to clarify though, I don't really care that she went back on her stance or tried to have it both ways, it just annoyed me when people held her up as a serious or good or interesting artist or w/e given her waffling - I'm not hatin the playa I'm hatin the game

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 16:02 (fifteen years ago)

ah yeah i guess i only basically read negative cov'g of her, like either she was some kind of godless babykiller or she was a dumb art student, and i felt bad, she was just some kid who wanted 2 make art~~

max, Sunday, 4 April 2010 16:03 (fifteen years ago)

anyway apparently she's getting a ph.d in performance studies @ nyu so good on her, have a nice life~

ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Sunday, 4 April 2010 16:08 (fifteen years ago)

just a girl with a dream~~2 make art~~and abort her fetus

max, Sunday, 4 April 2010 16:09 (fifteen years ago)

for real tho, it is. i'm going to go on in dorm-room fashion for a while, sorry

lately tho, i've been thinking that the "is it really a ~person~?" line kind of misses the point. let's say a fetus is life, of some kind. it is living tissue, and its status as potential human life differentiates it from, say, your dog, or a rare tree, or i dunno a kobe ribeye or some other kind of "valued" organic life or product-of-life.

so, then, abortion has to be viewed as, yes, some kind of killing. it is distinct from a medical procedure like getting a bunion removed or something.

the rejoinder, then, is, so what. what difference does it make? really, what different world are we in, were a woman to be refused an abortion? or to have one? which world is better or worse?

i think human agency, increased human potential, human freedom-of-action, are the closest thing we have to a measure of "absolute good" there is. and i don't think this a "matter of principle," unverifiable, i think places and times where abortions are available and being performed are better places to live for everyone. that's correlation, of course.

Aimless position "abortion = dud, the right to one = classic" makes no sense to me. by nature, we are not free. nature is not liberating, and our creator hasn't granted us anything much good (the founding fathers are wrong about this). we have had the technical expertise to reach into pretty simple but fundamental processes of reproduction for a long time, and that's good. abortion is classic! the right to have one, that is, the ability to cease to be pregnant without the state messing with you, is a secondary question, and subject to argument.

goole, Sunday, 4 April 2010 16:12 (fifteen years ago)

yeah that's p much what i was trying to say, booming post

harbl, Sunday, 4 April 2010 17:26 (fifteen years ago)

i actually don't follow that post at all, not "i dont agree with it" but I could def. use a bit of clarification.

plax (ico), Sunday, 4 April 2010 17:48 (fifteen years ago)

yeah same here tbh, i think i agree though?

k3vin k., Sunday, 4 April 2010 17:50 (fifteen years ago)

unless i'm missing something, i think aimless just meant that no woman wants an abortion just like no woman wants a root canal. in that sense, they're not "classic" like a cold glass of lemonade on a hot day is. goole seems to be applying the "classic" label to humankind's ability to perform an abortion, humankind's willingness to make the right to abort law, and the act of undergoing the procedure itself, which is really detrimental to our effective "classic or dud?" rhetorical approach to analyzing the worthiness of things

iiiijjjj, Sunday, 4 April 2010 17:56 (fifteen years ago)

yeah that's about it.

goole, Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:00 (fifteen years ago)

I agree with both of them tbh.

t(o_o)t (ENBB), Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:02 (fifteen years ago)

I recently walked one of the ppl I'm working with through the entire thing from finding out she was pregnant to picking her up after the procedure and am about to do the same with another girl this week. I can't even imagine the sort of shitstorm that would have happened in either of these two girls' lives had this not been an option for them and shudder to think of either of them trying to parent another person at this point. Classic classic classic imo.

t(o_o)t (ENBB), Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:04 (fifteen years ago)

the thread title is framed awkwardly for the reasons aimless mentions. i think it would be more accurate to say "the right to have an abortion -- classic or dud," or something similar.

i haven't read many posts on the thread, so apologies if my point has already been made 10K times (and i'm guessing it has). it's just that the framing of the thread title jumps out at me every time i see it bob to the top of the "new answers" page.

Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:05 (fifteen years ago)

don't think it's meant to be taken literally iirc imo lmbao

iiiijjjj, Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)

i know. it just seems so strangely-worded to me.

Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:11 (fifteen years ago)

the thread title is framed awkwardly for the reasons aimless mentions.

I miss anthony as much for the o_O thread titles he would come up with as for anything else.

my full government name (WmC), Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:14 (fifteen years ago)

Search Results

what, thats a 100 000 a tube (dan flavin and auctions) (started by Anthony Easton on board I Love Everything on May 3, 2005)

there is a risk of the iowa pork queen being run out of buisness, this made me sad, so i wrote a poem about it (started by Anthony Easton on board I Love Everything on Jun 6, 2005)

which states are part of new england (started by Anthony Easton on board I Love Everything on Jan 30, 2006)

i know this dress is ugly, but is it also conceptually brilliant (started by Anthony Easton on board I Love Everything on Feb 2, 2006)

does anyone know how gives these fuckers money (started by Anthony Easton on board I Love Everything on Feb 7, 2006)

Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:17 (fifteen years ago)

first three posts on that flavin thread are so classic!

plax (ico), Sunday, 4 April 2010 18:22 (fifteen years ago)

unless i'm missing something, i think aimless just meant that no woman wants an abortion just like no woman wants a root canal. in that sense, they're not "classic" like a cold glass of lemonade on a hot day is. goole seems to be applying the "classic" label to humankind's ability to perform an abortion, humankind's willingness to make the right to abort law, and the act of undergoing the procedure itself, which is really detrimental to our effective "classic or dud?" rhetorical approach to analyzing the worthiness of things

― iiiijjjj, Sunday, April 4, 2010 1:56 PM (1 hour ago)

yeah but (and i am about to get into some serious, never-had-an-abortion projecting here, so bear with me) i think the distinction i'm trying to make is that while sure no one likes undergoing any medical procedure, an abortion is something that a woman undergoes because [insert any reason here], just like endodontic therapy is something a patient undergoes to prevent/eliminate infection of the root canal or surrounding tissue. consensual medical procedures are remedies that are imo themselves inherently good. i don't think this was aimless's intention at all but i'm just kinda reacting to my own perception of its framing as a "necessary evil."

k3vin k., Sunday, 4 April 2010 19:09 (fifteen years ago)

and yeah didn't read posts above re: framing - agree it's awkwardly worded but i think we're all on the same page

k3vin k., Sunday, 4 April 2010 19:11 (fifteen years ago)

iirc imo lmbao

― iiiijjjj, Sunday, April 4, 2010 1:11 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

laughing my booming ass off?

no more springs no more summers no more falls (sunny successor), Monday, 5 April 2010 00:07 (fifteen years ago)

tried for a while to think of a way to fit "abortion" in it, gave up

iiiijjjj, Monday, 5 April 2010 00:15 (fifteen years ago)

Lucifer made babby abortion options.

demonic splendor, demonic majesty (Abbott), Monday, 5 April 2010 01:41 (fifteen years ago)

liveblogging my bloody abortion, O'RLY

my full government name (WmC), Monday, 5 April 2010 01:43 (fifteen years ago)

slightly edited but:

it was mentioned on some other thread that the anti-abortion position is essentially an outgrowth of old-school anti-pleasure Xtian theology - one that holds that all sexual pleasure is wrong and a sin, and that the only time sex is okay is for reproduction. Ergo, "every sperm is sacred", fetuses are the same as people, sex is only between married people for the purpose of having babies, etc. Which is, to my mind, rooted in a fundamental misreading of humanity and results in an unhealthy proscription that is basically impossible to enforce.

― Kaleidoscope Funk Network (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, April 2, 2010 6:54 PM (6 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

smc - agreed, basically once you sign on for "sex before marriage is ok!" then you've kinda bought a ticket for the abortion party. which is why i'm actually pretty confident about the fact that it will be less and less of an issue once all the old people start dying.

― drink more beer and the doctor is a heghog (gbx), Friday, April 2, 2010 7:00 PM (6 days ago)

this is such a great exchange, what is the larger context for this line of reasoning? i have never come across it before and it is v. convincing!

plax (ico), Thursday, 8 April 2010 22:59 (fifteen years ago)

oh it's strictly Xtian (Jews were totally a-okay with sex and pleasure). But the hatred/denigration of the physical body is deeply rooted in Xtianity - sexual pleasure is a tool of the devil, the only good sex is the married/procreative kind, etc. Primarily this stems from the Xtian need to venerate the promise of the afterlife above the physical world we know and experience in our daily lives. Because if we accept the physical world we live in as worthwhile and as a source of pleasure, then we will have no need to believe in a heaven, and thus will have less of a motivation to seek redemption (and thus entry into heaven) via Jesus Christ. So a very complex and labored theology developed that posited that everything in the material world is essentially evil, corrupt, lacking in value - including the most basic pleasures that people would otherwise enjoy, such as sex. Combine this with the perfectly understandable need for a persecuted sect to increase its numbers via progeny at any cost, and voila the "married sex = good/sex for pleasure = BAD" dichotomy easily becomes firmly entrenched.

I forget which this thread was originally discussed on tho, sorry.

modern eunuch-like crooning (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 April 2010 23:35 (fifteen years ago)

this one!

not all good, not all right: the rest is just sounds (gbx), Thursday, 8 April 2010 23:36 (fifteen years ago)

wait, maybe not

not all good, not all right: the rest is just sounds (gbx), Thursday, 8 April 2010 23:37 (fifteen years ago)

this is what i think now btw! as an argument for abortion this makes more sense to me than anything i've heard before.

plax (ico), Thursday, 8 April 2010 23:38 (fifteen years ago)

i am surprised @ u plax

harbl, Thursday, 8 April 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)

???? i kinda thought you were on that train too, seems like an argument pretty analogous w/ ur suspicion of women-hating-women who r gung-ho abt pro-life as a way for slutty girls to get whats coming to them

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:14 (fifteen years ago)

for a long time ive felt like I knew i was in favour of abortion rights but having no real argument as to why

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:15 (fifteen years ago)

we all figured it was just cuz you were into murdering babies

modern eunuch-like crooning (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:25 (fifteen years ago)

I might be getting a skewed impression from this american life, but the few times they interview some old people on the subject, I get the sense that getting an abortion was not such a big deal in the 50s/earlier. Like this one scientist wanted to do some research on fetal cells and asked some ladies if he could have their discards, and they said, sure, no problem. He still had some left over in his freezer (!)

Philip Nunez, Friday, 9 April 2010 00:26 (fifteen years ago)

???? i kinda thought you were on that train too, seems like an argument pretty analogous w/ ur suspicion of women-hating-women who r gung-ho abt pro-life as a way for slutty girls to get whats coming to them

― plax (ico), Thursday, April 8, 2010 8:14 PM (13 minutes ago)

haha i am i mean you just alwys know about this stuff so i thought you were already on the train

harbl, Friday, 9 April 2010 00:28 (fifteen years ago)

the women-hating-women thing isn't me though i always get accused of woman-hating it seems bc i hate everyone

harbl, Friday, 9 April 2010 00:28 (fifteen years ago)

i mean the majority of my support for abortions4all comes from wariness of ppl trying to control bodies meaning both what's in your body and what you're doing with it, ie, sex

harbl, Friday, 9 April 2010 00:30 (fifteen years ago)

nah meant u were disapproving of women-haterz

abortion is such a high profile issue in this country (where it is still illegal fyi) that it just seems like it is important to have an opinion sometimes, its not something i'm really reasoned abt or educated on, (tho im hoping to change that u no?) always remember me and my friend 4lici4 (aged like 14) lecturing these fuckers called y0uth defence that do pro-life rallies around ireland about the right to choose on shop street on our lunch breaks

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:34 (fifteen years ago)

which is weird, cos i really had no idea what i was talking abt and even then i was pretty non-confrontational in gen.

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:37 (fifteen years ago)

wait what? abortion's illegal in the UK?!??

modern eunuch-like crooning (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:39 (fifteen years ago)

ireland?

just1n3, Friday, 9 April 2010 00:40 (fifteen years ago)

yeah

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:40 (fifteen years ago)

like, you just go to manchester for the wknd in reality, its a really irish way of dealing w/ it, we kindof export the dirty work. If it wasn't so easy to get an abortion (provided you are middle class at least) then we prolly would have legalised it by now but instead we get to preserve our facade of piety in this regard @ least while girls just hop on a ryanair and sign a fake name at the clinic.

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:43 (fifteen years ago)

it's legal here but as you may have heard people still have a world of trouble in most areas

harbl, Friday, 9 April 2010 00:44 (fifteen years ago)

when it's illegal, why are anti-abortionists complaining? are they complaining about the ryanair abortion junkets?

Philip Nunez, Friday, 9 April 2010 00:45 (fifteen years ago)

its a really irish way of dealing w/ it, we kindof export the dirty work.
as someone who was raised by irish catholic women this makes me lol

no more springs no more summers no more falls (sunny successor), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:45 (fifteen years ago)

in a its funny cause its true kind of lol

no more springs no more summers no more falls (sunny successor), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:46 (fifteen years ago)

i mean if you live in say mississippi it's probably as difficult for a low-income person to get one as it is in ireland xxpost

harbl, Friday, 9 April 2010 00:46 (fifteen years ago)

if that's true then that is fucked up

for me what's interesting is the weird play between class-structured necessities (i know quite a few girls who've had abortions in england) and that gross hypocritical symbolism, that is, people on low-incomes/social welfare are sacrificed their abortion rights, which in a way are not denied to their richer counterparts, in order to maintain a facade for everyone. I feel like (although this could just be my own prejudice so like) there is way less stigma attached to abortions among the middle-classes for this very reason.

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 00:54 (fifteen years ago)

The facade doesn't seem to be very convincing if there's pro-life rallies going on.

Philip Nunez, Friday, 9 April 2010 01:02 (fifteen years ago)

whats really weird is that y0uth defence have been around for a hella long time while "public opinion" has been pretty supportive of the abortion ban for that time.

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 01:06 (fifteen years ago)

i mean if you live in say mississippi it's probably as difficult for a low-income person to get one as it is in ireland xxpost

― harbl, Thursday, April 8, 2010 8:46 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

if that's true then that is fucked up

This happens a lot. South Dakota (I think it's SD) has only one abortion clinic in the whole state and a 24 hour waiting period law. Situations where a woman has to travel hours to get there and can only take one day off work or has difficulty arranging childcare for her existing children or any other number of situations can make attaining an abortion really fucking difficult. It's not just SD either. MA only has 5 abortion clinics in the whole state (last time I checked).

Sort of an aside but I'm taking one of the girls on my caseload to get an abortion next Friday. A month ago I took another girl on my caseload to do the same. They're both pregnant by the same gangbanging asshole who beats them up and fucks around and is a complete piece of shit in countless other ways. I realize that they are also responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies and believe me we've had several discussions about it - they both agreed to get Depo immediately after the procedures - but I hate that dude so much. I wish I could take him along and get him neutered or something next week. /rant

Aqua Backrat (ENBB), Friday, 9 April 2010 02:43 (fifteen years ago)

"can make attaining an abortion" errrr "obtaining" obv

Aqua Backrat (ENBB), Friday, 9 April 2010 02:47 (fifteen years ago)

i mean if you live in say mississippi it's probably as difficult for a low-income person to get one as it is in ireland xxpost

― harbl, Thursday, April 8, 2010 8:46 PM (1 hour ago)

This is very true. I run an abortion fund in the south & we often hear about and speak with poor women who were forced into parenthood solely because they couldn't afford the abortion procedure. Other roadblocks set up by right wing assholes to make abortions increasingly difficult for women to obtain are also numerous. Waiting periods, parental consent laws, judicial bypass process can be just as much of a hurdle to cross as the financial problem. Sucks.

mr. waffles (Nijoli), Friday, 9 April 2010 02:57 (fifteen years ago)

Fortunately the girls I work with are almost all on MA state funded health insurance program which covers the procedure in full.

Aqua Backrat (ENBB), Friday, 9 April 2010 02:59 (fifteen years ago)

http://charlespaolino.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/mittromney.jpg

iatee, Friday, 9 April 2010 03:02 (fifteen years ago)

ENBB you are my hero for the work you do btw just so you know.

Twink Will Ferrell (J0hn D.), Friday, 9 April 2010 03:07 (fifteen years ago)

^

fuckin' rainbows! (latebloomer), Friday, 9 April 2010 03:13 (fifteen years ago)

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w219/mwellenstein/Win/48px-Face-blushsvg.png

Aw man, that is exceptionally sweet. Thank you.

Aqua Backrat (ENBB), Friday, 9 April 2010 03:24 (fifteen years ago)

When I worked at a clinic in Boulder, we'd see a lot of women from western SD. About the same distance as Sioux Falls, with no 24h wait.

kate78, Friday, 9 April 2010 03:44 (fifteen years ago)

I've been volunteering at the local Boys & Girls Club and yr stories occasionally pass through my head when I'm working with the kids. Most of them are a lot younger, mind you, but the personalities are definitely remind me of ENBB's stories.

mh, Friday, 9 April 2010 03:45 (fifteen years ago)

I would be interested in knowing a bit more about the situations people tend to be in when choosing abortions - there is this implicit pro-life argument that it's people callously choosing sexual pleasure/unprotected or risky sex over the life of a foetus but I really can't imagine that's the case in the majority of circumstances? Like even if the condom split or something wouldn't most people take the morning after pill? Am I naive about kids' sexual education or opportunities to access morning-after pill/contraceptives? Or are a large proportion of women getting abortions victims of rape or pressured sex?

Not the real Village People, Friday, 9 April 2010 05:02 (fifteen years ago)

They vary. I've worked in 3 ab. clinics in 3 different states, and I've heard everything. Most have used birth control and got pregnant due to bc failure or using it incorrectly. Lotsa teenagers were using the method we liked to call "magical thinking". Most chose abortion because they weren't ready to be parents or weren't ready to be parents again.

kate78, Friday, 9 April 2010 05:13 (fifteen years ago)

Why Accidents (The Pregnant Kind) Happen

kate78, Friday, 9 April 2010 05:33 (fifteen years ago)

here in hong kong, there seems to be a pretty wide belief that taking birth control pills will affect your ability to get pregnant later in life/will cause damage to your future baby

fuck in rainbows, ☔ (dyao), Friday, 9 April 2010 05:45 (fifteen years ago)

xpost Yes, many women don't realize for example that diarrea neutralizes (?) the effect of the pill. I took a morning after pill just to make sure recently but many neglect to do so. If I hadn't taken it, fallen pregnant, I'm not sure what I would do. I encourage abortion if you do not want to have a baby, but from a personal standpoint I am not sure whether I would be able to go through with it. I have no reason (financial,..) to have an abortion. But otoh I wanted two kids, not three. Hopefully I never have to make that painful decision.

Dyao, yes, I think even in Japan they strongly believe that the pill is not good for you.

Nathalie (stevienixed), Friday, 9 April 2010 07:28 (fifteen years ago)

I would be interested in knowing a bit more about the situations people tend to be in when choosing abortions - there is this implicit pro-life argument that it's people callously choosing sexual pleasure/unprotected or risky sex over the life of a foetus but I really can't imagine that's the case in the majority of circumstances? Like even if the condom split or something wouldn't most people take the morning after pill? Am I naive about kids' sexual education or opportunities to access morning-after pill/contraceptives? Or are a large proportion of women getting abortions victims of rape or pressured sex?

― Not the real Village People, Friday, April 9, 2010 1:02 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

This is really an impossible question to answer although Kate did a good job. Most of the girls I work with know how conception works and how to prevent pregnancy but they have this mentality of "it's not going to happen to me". There are also tons of myths and fears floating around about birth control and how it will effect you. Also, many girls just get given the pill even though for a number of reasons they aren't able to remember to take a pill consistently. Another factor that plays a role in birth control usage and that cannot be underestimated is drugs/alcohol usage. I hear "I use condoms" all the time when I know damn well that these kids are getting high/drunk so often that there is no way they're enforcing condom usage each and every time they have sex.

Of the two girls I mentioned one of them already has two children and this was her fourth abortion. The other is a mother of one and has had at least one other abortion that I know of. They both live in situations of poverty and violence, are very young, are trauma survivors and have some mental health issues going on. All of these factors effect their decision making/reasoning abilities in some way when it comes to pregnancy prevention. Man, I could keep going on this one for a while. It really is just incredibly complex and varies so much from person to person etc.

Aqua Backrat (ENBB), Friday, 9 April 2010 10:59 (fifteen years ago)

ENBB you are my hero for the work you do btw just so you know.

― Twink Will Ferrell (J0hn D.), Thursday, April 8, 2010 10:07 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

GREAT JOB Mushroom head (gbx), Friday, 9 April 2010 11:46 (fifteen years ago)

great job, mushroom head

GREAT JOB Mushroom head (gbx), Friday, 9 April 2010 11:46 (fifteen years ago)

^^^

uh xpost

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 11:47 (fifteen years ago)

All of these factors effect their decision making/reasoning abilities in some way when it comes to pregnancy prevention. Man, I could keep going on this one for a while. It really is just incredibly complex and varies so much from person to person etc.

am v much enjoying this thread; sometimes i think that when there's only a limited part of the ideological spectrum participating in debate - ie no frothing pro lifers are present - then we can just tear each other apart challenging minute parts of one anothers views while basically agreeing. but i am learning a lot following.

the best thing i ever heard re: deterrence, reluctance and failure to use contraceptives was in a discussion on multiple abortions, seen as a point at which the understanding of some pro-life people can wane: just, "it is very easy to become pregnant", for a million reasons and irrespective of someone's personal history.

Earning your Masters in Library and Information Science is beautiful (schlump), Friday, 9 April 2010 14:56 (fifteen years ago)

Like even if the condom split or something wouldn't most people take the morning after pill? Am I naive about kids' sexual education or opportunities to access morning-after pill/contraceptives? Or are a large proportion of women getting abortions victims of rape or pressured sex?

― Not the real Village People, Friday, April 9, 2010 5:02 AM

This would be a fine theory if money was just not an issue for anyone. The morning after pill is not free and therefore not accessible to poor women who have trouble coming up with $40. It is also not carried at MOST pharmacies in the South and therefore not accessible to women in many counties. It is also not spoken of in sex ed classes in schools, and therefore MANY young girls have no idea what that even is or think that the abortion pill and morning after pill are the same thing.

Having been a director of a clinic and also a director of an abortion fund, it has been my experience that women have abortions for a variety of reasons: abusive relationships, mistakes when drinking, change in financial situation, lack of education/not taking birth control correctly, etc.

We had many girls who were on Depo Provera - and we had given them the shot- and it failed. You are never protected completely and you never know when your hormonal birth control has failed, until you get pregnant.

mr. waffles (Nijoli), Friday, 9 April 2010 15:04 (fifteen years ago)

That's why I had mine.

Ponies are horse children (Abbott), Friday, 9 April 2010 15:42 (fifteen years ago)

Depo FAIL.

Ponies are horse children (Abbott), Friday, 9 April 2010 15:42 (fifteen years ago)

there's got to be a morning after

velko, Friday, 9 April 2010 16:04 (fifteen years ago)

For what it's worth, from a male perspective, I think that lack of education is an issue across the board. That NPR article referencing that you really need to have a plan to not get pregnant is very true, but neglects to mention that you really need both people in on the same plan or there's another level of risk. Having one partner educated sometimes doesn't work when they're dragged down by another person who's an idiot about contraception.

mh, Friday, 9 April 2010 16:14 (fifteen years ago)

God I keep forgetting how much money is an issue here in the US. At home, birth control pills are free, I don't have to go to the doctor or pharmacy every month to get them, I can get like a year's supply at a time. Morning after pill is nothing like $40. You can go to a clinic and get free condoms. It's like they actually want to help me not get pregnant if I don't want to.

Here in the US I actually received a card from my healthcare insurance co about the joys of the pregnancy service they provide, pics of smiley babies. I mean wtf.

Not the real Village People, Friday, 9 April 2010 18:10 (fifteen years ago)

Well, some people actually want babies.

nickn, Friday, 9 April 2010 18:28 (fifteen years ago)

I wouldn't actually call it classic.
but it's better than having a 10 year old to look after, which is what I'd be doing right now.

not_goodwin, Friday, 9 April 2010 18:39 (fifteen years ago)

I hear "I use condoms"
Erica, my years in the biz have taught me that the most important follow-up question to this statement is "what percentage of the time do you use condoms?" It's never 100% and you can make a much more realistic bc plan with this knowledge.

kate78, Friday, 9 April 2010 18:41 (fifteen years ago)

Insurance companies in the US started doing more promotion of their pregnancy-related services due to the fact getting women to actually go to prenatal care makes it less likely that an unforeseen (and expensive) situation will pop up later. Also, it's part of the whole "don't fuck up your body, women of child-rearing age, because if you do and then get pregnant, we might have to pay out to help your messed-up kid."

OK, maybe it is not as bad as all that, but it sounds like something they'd think.

mh, Friday, 9 April 2010 18:42 (fifteen years ago)

no it's pretty much as bad as all that

Wood shavings! Laughing out loud! (HI DERE), Friday, 9 April 2010 18:43 (fifteen years ago)

oh yeah, we used condoms, but god know's how it happened.

not_goodwin, Friday, 9 April 2010 18:44 (fifteen years ago)

xps ha, no I know, they send me random stuff from time to time, but it was just the timing of it - as I was moaning about how annoying it was to go get the pill every month and also PAY for it, like are they trying to make me get pregnant? Also my mum dropping hints about how she was my age when she had me. Then smiley baby picture arrives saying HAVING A BABY? ARE YOU ALREADY PREGNANT??

Not the real Village People, Friday, 9 April 2010 19:49 (fifteen years ago)

I have no idea if it's a US-centric thing due to our culture of denial about sex (i.e. "I'm not having sex, so I don't need to have condoms") or what, but it seems like there's the unstated idea that if you trust someone enough to have sex with them, you should trust them enough to be reliable about contraception. As cliche as it is, in that Knocked Up movie where there's this miscommunication about whether or not a condom is needed and the reaction is basically, "oh, I thought you said it was cool." This shit happens.

mh, Friday, 9 April 2010 20:44 (fifteen years ago)

I posted this article over on the contraception thread earlier today. Unless we're talking about condoms, the burden of using--or even thinking about--birth control lies entirely on the ladies.

kate78, Friday, 9 April 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)

I'm trying to find a copy of that book I read on the Pro-choice movement(american author, came out in late '05/early '06, had a pink cover), and I remember her mentioning that one of her sources posted the entire book online for free:

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb5z5

I think this is the entirety of Leslie Reagan's _When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973_

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71011ZN1R6L.gif

WTF cat with unfitting music (kingfish), Friday, 9 April 2010 20:56 (fifteen years ago)

ding ding ding, found it.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413C3Tt2fhL.jpg

WTF cat with unfitting music (kingfish), Friday, 9 April 2010 21:03 (fifteen years ago)

is this rec/d reading then?

plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 21:44 (fifteen years ago)

I really enjoyed the 2nd book, first one i haven't read.

WTF cat with unfitting music (kingfish), Friday, 9 April 2010 21:47 (fifteen years ago)

I remember reading a while ago that one of the reasons teenage girls give for not using contreception is that the planning of sex makes them feel slutty, whereas if they can convince themselves that the sex "just happened" (swept away in the moment, one thing led to another, etc) they don't get that stigma. Don't know if this still holds any water.

nickn, Friday, 9 April 2010 22:29 (fifteen years ago)

That might get you a manslaughter charge instead of a murder charge if that was your defense for killing someone, but mysteriously, you still have the exact same effect when you impregnate someone whether you planned to or not.

mh, Friday, 9 April 2010 23:43 (fifteen years ago)

that cristina page book is dope btw. case studies and details on the ways in which abortion's been de-legalised outside of roe, like foetal rights laws, conscience laws etc.

Earning your Masters in Library and Information Science is beautiful (schlump), Saturday, 10 April 2010 11:42 (fifteen years ago)

"The morning after pill is not free and therefore not accessible to poor women who have trouble coming up with $40."

wtf, it's like 15 euros here.

Nathalie (stevienixed), Saturday, 10 April 2010 12:38 (fifteen years ago)

fifteen socialist euros

Earning your Masters in Library and Information Science is beautiful (schlump), Sunday, 11 April 2010 13:17 (fifteen years ago)

"The morning after pill is not free and therefore not accessible to poor women who have trouble coming up with $40."

wtf, it's like 15 euros here.

― Nathalie (stevienixed), Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:38 PM

Well, not everyone has 15 euros, either. BUT, in the states it ranges between $20 and $40. Ya'll also had the pill way before we did as well.

mr. waffles (Nijoli), Sunday, 11 April 2010 17:22 (fifteen years ago)

$55 in california

just1n3, Sunday, 11 April 2010 17:30 (fifteen years ago)

The place I work at has a health clinic two times which gives EC out for free.

Aqua Backrat (ENBB), Sunday, 11 April 2010 19:37 (fifteen years ago)

Mass does have a law that requires those 18 and under to either get a prescription for EC or buy it from specially trained pharmacists which not every drug store employs.

Aqua Backrat (ENBB), Sunday, 11 April 2010 19:39 (fifteen years ago)

Which is just to say that not only can it be $$, it can also be difficult for younger women to get a hold of.

Aqua Backrat (ENBB), Sunday, 11 April 2010 19:43 (fifteen years ago)

so, uh

The primary goal of the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" is to stop late-term abortions, supporters say. The state law makes it a felony for a doctor to abort a fetus at more than 20 weeks.

Nebraska is the first state to ban abortions based on the controversial notion that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

k3vin k., Wednesday, 14 April 2010 00:52 (fifteen years ago)

ahh yes let's go ahead and pass legislation based on questionable grey area opinions. fuck Nebraska, I'd like to sodomize em all with rancid cornhusk

Phoenix in Flight (Cattle Grind), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 03:46 (fifteen years ago)

new zealand abortion law is based on fetus viability, i.e. you can't legally terminate a pregnancy later than 20 weeks bc a fetus is considered to be viable outside the womb at that stage.

just1n3, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 04:03 (fifteen years ago)

bahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Phoenix in Flight (Cattle Grind), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 04:05 (fifteen years ago)

On the upside, yay Baltimore and Austin.

kate78, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 05:56 (fifteen years ago)

lol @ "Like even if the condom split or something wouldn't most people take the morning after pill?"

billion holla baby (roxymuzak), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 19:12 (fifteen years ago)

in a word, no

mh, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 19:19 (fifteen years ago)

EC cost me $50 here in NYC, just in case anyone is keeping track. And it pretty much cleaned out my bank account at the time -- at that price, it could very easily be "medicine vs food" for a lot of people, even middle-class-ish and gainfully employed ones.

Ask foreigners and they will tell you the gospel comes from America. (Laurel), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 19:23 (fifteen years ago)

So... better to just hope that you won't have a baby/expensive abortion? Seems like a lot of blame is being given to the US healthcare system - anyone have a perspective from the UK/Europe?
Really not meaning to sound like a dick, I am genuinely unenlightened about all this. I just realised I didn't notice Kate78's link upthread - off to read it now. And thanks to her and ENBB for sharing their experiences.

Not the real Village People, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 19:40 (fifteen years ago)

I haven't worked in the system, but I'd split the blame between the price of basic healthcare and preventative medical services, and the lack of anything resembling truly useful sex ed. On top of that, add the disadvantages of poverty in both eduction and access, and the problem only compounds for at-risk girls and women.

Ask foreigners and they will tell you the gospel comes from America. (Laurel), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 19:46 (fifteen years ago)

I wonder how much one worsens the other- if it were easier/cheaper to get contraceptives would poorer girls & women know more about how to get and use them? Obv I have had a v priveleged life but it was drummed into me from an early age that SEX = BABY TIMES unless you do something about it.
Actually I think most it came from reading problem pages in magazines which always took the line that you could become pregnant just from having semen anywhere near you.

Not the real Village People, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 19:56 (fifteen years ago)

Hell, normal middle-class white girls (and boys) can't get and/or don't know how to use contraceptives, so I don't know why anyone expects ANY young people to be on board.

Ask foreigners and they will tell you the gospel comes from America. (Laurel), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 20:02 (fifteen years ago)

how much does a for eg really early term in+out abortion cost?

plax (ico), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 20:34 (fifteen years ago)

also just read a stat that said that by the age of 45 one in three women will have had a abortion, this seems... high?

plax (ico), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 20:41 (fifteen years ago)

ok now I'm never going to in-n-out burger again.

Not the real Village People, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 20:49 (fifteen years ago)

I haven't met a pro-choice woman younger than 25 in years. (However, I mostly talk to working class and/or ethnic women, so that is probabally skewing the results.)

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 20:51 (fifteen years ago)

hm

k3vin k., Wednesday, 14 April 2010 20:55 (fifteen years ago)

i mostly ethnic women

velko, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:01 (fifteen years ago)

they never me

harbl, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:04 (fifteen years ago)

it what

plax (ico), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:05 (fifteen years ago)

get @ me, swarthies

velko, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:06 (fifteen years ago)

mmmm i just got a craving for my favorite type of food: ethnic

iiiijjjj, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:12 (fifteen years ago)

also just read a stat that said that by the age of 45 one in three women will have had a abortion, this seems... high?

This seems low/about right to me.

kate78, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:43 (fifteen years ago)

Prices at a clinic I used to work at:

Surgical Abortion
5 – 11 weeks LMP*: $415
12 – 13 weeks LMP*: $510
Oral Pre-medication: included
IV Conscious Sedation: $40
Rhogam (required if you have Rh- blood): $55
Post-surgical abortion follow-up: $40
Second Ultrasound, if needed: $50

Medication Abortion
5 weeks – 9 weeks, 0 days LMP*: $375
Rhogam (required if you have Rh- blood): $55
Post-medication abortion follow-up: included
Second Ultrasound, if needed: $50

kate78, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:44 (fifteen years ago)

thanks! what are the asterisks for? glad i started reading this thread, i mean, i usually feel like this is so outside of my own experience that its hard to think abt it, which is dead wrong obv.

plax (ico), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:49 (fifteen years ago)

i remember seeing a programme on abortion where they showed an early one where they inserted like a tube and it did a suction thing maybe and it took abt five minutes in total it seemed, surely that's not what costs 415 on that list(?)

plax (ico), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:52 (fifteen years ago)

the asterisks were to explain that LMP stands for "last menstrual period."

kate78, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:53 (fifteen years ago)

Another thing girls just "know" because you have to tell the doctors every time you go to the GYN.

Ask foreigners and they will tell you the gospel comes from America. (Laurel), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:54 (fifteen years ago)

haha i like never know the answer to that one

harbl, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:57 (fifteen years ago)

awkward boners not really feeling like such a biological scourge reading this thread anymore

plax (ico), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:58 (fifteen years ago)

i remember seeing a programme on abortion where they showed an early one where they inserted like a tube and it did a suction thing maybe and it took abt five minutes in total it seemed, surely that's not what costs 415 on that list(?)

Yes, it is. And the clinics make no money at that price. There are a lot of steps before and after the procedure: phone screening, ultrasound, counseling, blood typing, maybe starting an IV for sedation, recovery room, nurses on call.

kate78, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 22:00 (fifteen years ago)

When I'm not on any BC, I never know my LMP, I just go with how I feel that day and decide, "Yeah, it's probably about to start," or "I'm probably close to ovulation" or whatever. I never, ever look at a calendar. Lately, though, I always know.

Ask foreigners and they will tell you the gospel comes from America. (Laurel), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 22:01 (fifteen years ago)

I haven't met a pro-choice woman younger than 25 in years. (However, I mostly talk to working class and/or ethnic women, so that is probabally skewing the results.)

I was pro-life in high school. It's mostly because you're at the age where things are taught to you in black and white, so you think in black and white, and it's easy to point fingers when you a. haven't had to support yourself and b. you may not have even had sex yet

Phoenix in Flight (Cattle Grind), Wednesday, 14 April 2010 22:22 (fifteen years ago)

That's what I was thinking, too.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Thursday, 15 April 2010 03:46 (fifteen years ago)

this is probably an icky stereotype, but i've always assumed that women between the age of, say, 17-25 that are pro-life are "frigid virgins." uncharitable (and maybe sexist?) but it ties in pretty well with shakey's hypo re: opinions on pre-marital sex ----> abortion

like, any young woman with an active sex life that involves birth control is aware of situations in which those precautions might ~fail~ and despite any protestations to the contrary, i'm guessing that even the staunchest pre-marital sex-havin' pro-lifer would reassess her beliefs if she got Knocked Up

GREAT JOB Mushroom head (gbx), Thursday, 15 April 2010 14:44 (fifteen years ago)

If abortion had even been DISCUSSED (that I was aware of) I can guarantee I would have been pro-life, because I was pro-every other shitty conservative worldview, that's for sure.

Ask foreigners and they will tell you the gospel comes from America. (Laurel), Thursday, 15 April 2010 14:46 (fifteen years ago)

i'm guessing that even the staunchest pre-marital sex-havin' pro-lifer would reassess her beliefs if she got Knocked Up

― GREAT JOB Mushroom head (gbx), Thursday, 15 April 2010 14:44 (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

It would be nice to think so. More likely, they'd be all "Jesus has sent me a trial for me to ascend to heaven, or be forever damned" ....

Mark G, Thursday, 15 April 2010 14:59 (fifteen years ago)

they'd just raise a dangerously repressed telekinetic imo

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 April 2010 15:02 (fifteen years ago)

no idea how to google for this... i read a collection of anecdotal evidence from abortion providers who had served pro-life parents whose daughters had become pregnant. funny, they nearly all expected special treatment. "is there another door we can come in and out of?" etc.

really wish i could find that again.

goole, Thursday, 15 April 2010 15:07 (fifteen years ago)

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

well that wasn't hard.

goole, Thursday, 15 April 2010 15:09 (fifteen years ago)

door marked 'hypocrites' in neon

Jesse James Woods (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 April 2010 15:11 (fifteen years ago)

I've counseled thousands of women having abortions and a refrain I heard pretty frequently was, "I'm against abortion...for everybody but me."

kate78, Thursday, 15 April 2010 16:37 (fifteen years ago)

like, any young woman with an active sex life that involves birth control is aware of situations in which those precautions might ~fail~ and despite any protestations to the contrary, i'm guessing that even the staunchest pre-marital sex-havin' pro-lifer would reassess her beliefs if she got Knocked Up

The ones I knew just went ahead and had the baby.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Friday, 16 April 2010 03:21 (fifteen years ago)

in ref to: "Better to just hope you don't have a baby" or whatever:

Better than what? We're talking about people for whom the EC is not an option.

billion holla baby (roxymuzak), Friday, 16 April 2010 06:16 (fifteen years ago)

new zealand abortion law is based on fetus viability, i.e. you can't legally terminate a pregnancy later than 20 weeks bc a fetus is considered to be viable outside the womb at that stage.

― just1n3, Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:03 AM (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
bahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Hi Justine, I dont think this is nz law, we have abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

Still as sad as it ever was, oh well.

kiwi, Friday, 16 April 2010 12:44 (fifteen years ago)

fetus viability is such a weird precept

plax (ico), Friday, 16 April 2010 13:04 (fifteen years ago)

agreed

billion holla baby (roxymuzak), Friday, 16 April 2010 14:34 (fifteen years ago)

ummm if that's the case, then it's changed in the last 10yrs. it was certainly not legal in 2002.

just1n3, Friday, 16 April 2010 15:02 (fifteen years ago)

from the wikipedia page on nz abortion law:

Abortion is not allowed under any circumstances after 20 weeks of pregnancy except to save the woman's life.

fyi 'to save the woman's life' excludes the woman's threats to kill herself if she has to go through with the pregnancy.

just1n3, Friday, 16 April 2010 15:04 (fifteen years ago)

Specific exclusion.

Mark G, Friday, 16 April 2010 15:08 (fifteen years ago)

we just got rid of that in ireland

plax (ico), Friday, 16 April 2010 15:33 (fifteen years ago)

rid of what? abortion is legal there?

I Love Milf (k3vin k.), Friday, 16 April 2010 15:35 (fifteen years ago)

Nope, I think that we won't force a woman to stay in the country any more if we think she's travelling to abort.

just darraghmac tbh (darraghmac), Friday, 16 April 2010 15:37 (fifteen years ago)

i meant, you used to be able to have an abortion if you were assessed to be suicidal as a result of the pregnancy. We had a whole referendum to get rid of it.

plax (ico), Friday, 16 April 2010 15:52 (fifteen years ago)

lonely gal just thinking abort things

velko, Friday, 16 April 2010 16:09 (fifteen years ago)

:D

I Love Milf (k3vin k.), Friday, 16 April 2010 16:10 (fifteen years ago)

Good summary of the Nebraska law re 20 weeks
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18785-briefing-new-law-claims-a-fetus-can-feel-pain.html?full=true

Although I'm surprised that anyone really thinks it's relevant, whether or not you believe it should have human rights or w/ev surely the fact that its life is being ended is the 'key' point?

Not the real Village People, Friday, 16 April 2010 21:20 (fifteen years ago)

no the key point for anti-choicers is ginning up scientific evidence to support the contention that a fetus is alive, independent of it's mother, and therefore entitled to rights.

Looking forward to the gov't issuing "conception certificates" to fetuses btw... anti-choicers arguments are so illogical and nonsensical they would have clearly batshit and impossible-to-enforce ramifications should their arguments ever be taken seriously from a legal perspective.

I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 16 April 2010 21:26 (fifteen years ago)

yeah the people that push for these kind of laws aren't doing it because they think there really is a magical cutoff point, they're trying to push the boundaries of the law to (1) make it harder for at least a few people to get abortions, and (2) get someone to challenge it in court to eventually have roe v. wade overturned. roe has a bunch of language referred to as the "trimester framework" which treats abortion laws differently depending on the stage of the pregnancy during which abortion would be restricted. so you can restrict almost all abortions during the third trimester, but really can't ban anything during the first trimester, and the second one is somewhere in between. it's been modified since then by other cases but it's still around. also it's stupid. anyway i think that's what laws like that are trying to get at.

harbl, Friday, 16 April 2010 21:29 (fifteen years ago)

soon it will be a crime to wear a condom

Phoenix in Flight (Cattle Grind), Friday, 16 April 2010 21:30 (fifteen years ago)

x post justine, it certainly was never the intention of Parliment that we now have abortion on demand; the loophole as I understand it for late term abortions is danger to the mental health of the mother, ie abortion on demand.

From Crimes Act 1961

3) For the purposes of sections 183 and 186 of this Act, any act specified in either of those sections is done unlawfully unless, in the case of a pregnancy of more than 20 weeks' gestation, the person doing the act believes that the miscarriage is necessary to save the life of the woman or girl or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health

kiwi, Friday, 16 April 2010 22:30 (fifteen years ago)

A local pro-life group is picketing at the home of the doctor who delivered me because he performs abortions. Grrr.

tokyo rosemary, Saturday, 17 April 2010 13:34 (fifteen years ago)

maybe y'should send him a note saying thank you, & keep on keepin on

(can't decontaminate the general anything-on-ilx air of snark from this post, it's meant to be a sincere, wouldn't that be nice?, suggestion)

Earning your Masters in Library and Information Science is beautiful (schlump), Saturday, 17 April 2010 14:15 (fifteen years ago)

that orig. scanned as sincere 2 me

plax (ico), Saturday, 17 April 2010 15:05 (fifteen years ago)

schlump - I know my mother and her friends sent letters when he was being picketed 15 or so years ago.

I should send a letter to the editor of the local paper, they get enough crazy pro-life ones.

tokyo rosemary, Saturday, 17 April 2010 15:43 (fifteen years ago)

A local pro-life group is picketing at the home of the doctor who delivered me because he performs abortions. Grrr.

― tokyo rosemary, Saturday, April 17, 2010 8:34 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

cant docs just get around this by saying they need to do a d+c for some other reason? Thats what mine did.

no more springs no more summers no more falls (sunny successor), Saturday, 17 April 2010 19:13 (fifteen years ago)

of course 18 years later my current doc made an offhand comment about seeing an implantation site

no more springs no more summers no more falls (sunny successor), Saturday, 17 April 2010 19:14 (fifteen years ago)

one month passes...

A 13-year-old Pennsylvania girl was treated in the hospital after police say she had an at-home abortion with a lead pencil before giving her fetus to her 30-year-old boyfriend to bury.

Hospital officials in Polk Township called authorities when they were treating the girl they believed to be “recently pregnant.”

When they questioned the child, she admitted to aborting her baby with the pencil earlier that week.
According to a criminal complaint 30-year-old Michael Lisk, believed to be the child's boyfriend, instructed her to “push really hard” while having the contractions until the child gave birth on a toilet.

Police report that Lisk then instructed the girl to wrap the fetus in a plastic bag until he arrived to bury it in his backyard.

When police arrived to question him, he reportedly dug up the body for them and described his relationship with the child as a “marriage where you have sex all the time.”

He faces charges of rape of a child, statutory sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, corruption of a minor, concealing the death of a child and abuse of a corpse.

The girl has not been charged and is still receiving medical treatment for her injuries.

http://hiphopwired.com/2010/06/08/13-year-old-has-home-abortion-30-year-old-boyfriend-buries-fetus/

nakhchivan, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 09:52 (fifteen years ago)

i feel ill

gbx, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:39 (fifteen years ago)

terrible, terrible story all around

an indie-rock microgenre (dyao), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:47 (fifteen years ago)

30-year-old Michael Lisk can go fuck himself.

breaking that little dog's heart chakra (Abbott), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:14 (fifteen years ago)

Seriously. That whole story is just horrifying. my god.

o sh!t a ˁ˚ᴥ˚ˀ (ENBB), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 16:10 (fifteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/nyregion/19bigcity.html?ref=nyregion

k3vin k., Saturday, 19 June 2010 21:58 (fifteen years ago)

that article & its tone are such fucking bullshit I can barely contain myself

The idea is simple. It is about choice. Not choice as a euphemism for the right to have an abortion, but choice in the true sense of the word: options, informed consent and support for women trying to figure out what to do with an unwanted pregnancy.

FUCK YOU, NY TIMES: ACTUALLY WHAT-THE-WORD-MEANS-CHOICE IS WHAT THE MOVEMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT, PRO-CHOICE HAS NEVER MEANT "HOPE MORE PEOPLE HAVE ABORTIONS." NICE JOB LETTING THE RIGHT DETERMINE THE RHETORIC, NY TIMES & ALL CAPITULATING LEFTIES EVERYWHERE.

God I fuckin hate anybody who actually believes that pro-choice has ever in any way meant "opposed to people having babies who want to have babies." It's never been a euphemism: pro-choice has always & everywhere meant "it is the business of the pregnant woman, and of the pregnant woman alone, to say whether she will carry her pregnancy to term or not."

get your bucket of free wings (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Saturday, 19 June 2010 22:09 (fifteen years ago)

got as far as them dignifying sarah palin type "feminism" appropration

plax (ico), Saturday, 19 June 2010 22:14 (fifteen years ago)

otm, was coming here to say the same thing.

xpost

horseshoe, Saturday, 19 June 2010 22:15 (fifteen years ago)

that story about polk township i can't even

horseshoe, Saturday, 19 June 2010 22:15 (fifteen years ago)

otm yeah my eyes still haven't unrolled after reading that.

the worst is that for some reason it doesn't seem to want to criticize palin's quote, the one about how you can "give your child life and have a career too". sure, all you have to do is go through a nine month pregnancy and painful delivery you don't want, seems fair

xposts

k3vin k., Saturday, 19 June 2010 22:19 (fifteen years ago)

I am too livid to really participate in this discussion but want to say I appreciate people here who share my passion for the right of all women to full reproductive care, you are heroes, there are too few of us imo but stay strong.

get your bucket of free wings (underrated aerosmith albums I have loved), Saturday, 19 June 2010 22:21 (fifteen years ago)

i'm not even gonna read the whole thing. ugh. i do not NEED a "clear understanding of how adoption works" to get an abortion

Hans-Jörg Butt (harbl), Saturday, 19 June 2010 22:24 (fifteen years ago)

srsly fuck the tone of this article.
also, when i worked for p.parenthood in Chicago a decade ago, we had a (prochoice) social worker from an adoption agency there on site precisely so we could immediately address the needs/questions of the (1-2% of) women who considered adoption. Other pp affiliates and clinics i worked at always supplied referrals to adoption agencies.
i also worked at clinics in cleveland, and i'm wondering if I know the woman in the article...

kate78, Saturday, 19 June 2010 23:17 (fifteen years ago)

yeah, there are definitely planned parenthood clinics that offer adoption options. article is some bullshit.

original bgm, Sunday, 20 June 2010 02:44 (fifteen years ago)

yes. no person who provides abortion would want to give one to someone who was not informed of all options, or who did not really want to have one. it would be a liability. stupid!

(roxymuzak) ((((d-.-b)))) (roxymuzak), Monday, 21 June 2010 15:28 (fifteen years ago)

i'm not even gonna read the whole thing. ugh. i do not NEED a "clear understanding of how adoption works" to get an abortion

Yeah, it's ridiculous. It's not like most women who opt for an abortion aren't aware of what adoption is or how it works.

ô_o (Nicole), Monday, 21 June 2010 15:44 (fifteen years ago)

lol gimme a break

http://gawker.com/5319627/susan-dominus-is-the-best

kenny logins (goole), Monday, 21 June 2010 15:48 (fifteen years ago)

Oh, come on: the next person that suggests women need EXTRA EXPLAINING is probably 1) a man and 2) hasn't made it mentally to C20, never mind C21.

WHEN CROWS GO BAD (suzy), Monday, 21 June 2010 15:48 (fifteen years ago)

No, we don't agree with Susan Dominus all the time. But we're willing to forgive her, unlike her some of her more famous mustachioed peers. Anybody who can do the "Ride along with an immigrant cabbie on his first day on the job" or "The sun is out, watch as the city springs to life" pieces without making us gag is a little bit of magic. All metro color columnists sooner or later end up writing the types of man-on-the-street stories beloved by first-year J-School students ("What wisdom a shoeshine man must possess!"), but very few can do it without sounding like first-year J-School students with 20 years of hack work in their pockets.

weak

kenny logins (goole), Monday, 21 June 2010 15:49 (fifteen years ago)

gff, wai is dis in abortions thred?

WHEN CROWS GO BAD (suzy), Monday, 21 June 2010 15:55 (fifteen years ago)

she wrote the article in q

kenny logins (goole), Monday, 21 June 2010 15:57 (fifteen years ago)

four months pass...

awesome

(♥_♥) http://i46.tinypic.com/monk6.jpg (roxymuzak), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:44 (fourteen years ago)

this is great news - a lot of how access gets restricted is by pressuring hospitals not to offer abortion services.

here's a good place to tell anybody who doesn't know about this extremely worthwhile charity

honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 12 November 2010 17:48 (fourteen years ago)

would wear a trust women badge

there's a hearing in nyc on tuesday before decisions get made about the legality of crisis pregnancy centers, in other news. i just saw 12th and delaware: these things are egregiously gross

inimitable bowel syndrome (schlump), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:16 (fourteen years ago)

Whoa underraterd aerosmith that is a v good charity to know about! Thanks for the scoop.

Stop Non-Erotic Cabaret (Abbbottt), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:36 (fourteen years ago)

would wear a trust women badge

yup, where do i get mine

BIG MUFFIN (gbx), Friday, 12 November 2010 18:40 (fourteen years ago)

i still have mine

(♥_♥) http://i46.tinypic.com/monk6.jpg (roxymuzak), Friday, 12 November 2010 20:36 (fourteen years ago)

I can't see that this has been spoken about elsewhere, but, is this for real? http://www.birthornot.com/ This is hugely sad if it is. I expect it could be being orchestrated by a pro-life organisation. Very sad if there is a real couple behind it.

mmmm, Friday, 19 November 2010 10:06 (fourteen years ago)

On Thursday 25th November, former Conservative MP, anti-abortion activist and Strictly Come Dancing contestant Ann Widdecombe will be speaking at a fundraiser for anti-choice group ‘Right to Life’.
Billed as a chance to hear ‘Strictly Sensation’ Widdecombe talk about the challenges facing the anti-abortion movement in Europe, the £50-a-head dinner will take place at Royal Overseas House near the Ritz Hotel in central London and will also include speeches from Labour MP Jim Dobbin and Lib Dem MP John Pugh.

Ms Widdecombe seems keen to exploit her new-found TV fame to further the anti-choice agenda - and her appearance at the fundraiser has already been picked up by the press.

We think it’s time to remind the public about the real Ann Widdecombe - and why we must protect the right to safe, legal abortion.

Abortion Rights will be staging a demo outside the venue, and we want as many of our supporters as possible to join us. So why not come along? All Strictly-related placards welcome!

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/11/its_strictly_pr?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+thefword+(The+F-Word+Blog)

Like the picture they choose to go with this.

like an ant to a crumb (DavidM), Friday, 19 November 2010 11:41 (fourteen years ago)

re the "birth or not" site are they seriously getting ultrasounds every week?? no wonder american health care costs are through the roof!

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 19 November 2010 11:59 (fourteen years ago)

http://gawker.com/5694432/abortion+by+vote-probably-a-pro+life-stunt

kate78, Friday, 19 November 2010 18:20 (fourteen years ago)

Thought as much. Pretty pathetic.

mmmm, Friday, 19 November 2010 20:42 (fourteen years ago)

I tried to vote to abort, but there was an error instead of a web site.

I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Friday, 19 November 2010 20:46 (fourteen years ago)

It's not an ERROR it's a CHILD JESUS <3 U

Tub Girl Time Machine (Phil D.), Friday, 19 November 2010 21:19 (fourteen years ago)

Someone on another site commented that it doesn't look like either of them would be willing to do the work required to CONCEIVE a child, since by all appearances that guy probably sweats cheese. I'm a terrible person because even though I normally go on the warpath for uh size-ist BS, I snorted. And I'm quoting it here.

I've got ten bucks. SURPRISE ME. (Laurel), Friday, 19 November 2010 21:24 (fourteen years ago)

one month passes...
one month passes...

ugh South Dakota is the fucking worst

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers

ENBB, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:04 (fourteen years ago)

i don't understand how that can even remotely work, given that abortion is not technically legal in south dakota (even if they make it so difficult that it practically is).

just1n3, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:10 (fourteen years ago)

jesus

kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:20 (fourteen years ago)

sick

max, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:32 (fourteen years ago)

article makes it sound like it'll be a toothless law should it ever get passed, but the fact that someone had the stones to even suggest it is pretty fucking horrifying

ullr saves (gbx), Tuesday, 15 February 2011 17:44 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17dakota.html

NYT being kinda generous by describing this as 'South Dakota Shelves Bill Aimed at Defending Unborn'

your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:19 (fourteen years ago)

fyi the morning after pill today became available from pharmacies in ireland, so it's not all global backsliding.

Achillean Heel (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:31 (fourteen years ago)

WTG Ireland!

ENBB, Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:53 (fourteen years ago)

it's a thundering disgrace, tbf. I nearly dropped my shillelagh

Achillean Heel (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:07 (fourteen years ago)

first head shops, now this

max, Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:20 (fourteen years ago)

fyi the morning after pill today became available from pharmacies in ireland, so it's not all global backsliding.

― Achillean Heel (darraghmac), Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:31 AM (1 hour ago)

wow that's great - there must have been a huge shitstorm

kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:34 (fourteen years ago)

The Church's moral authority there is a little less acknowledged than before, shall we say.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:37 (fourteen years ago)

quite.

Passed without any fuss

Achillean Heel (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 February 2011 17:44 (fourteen years ago)

fucking disgusting that the south dakota bill is even being discussed

original bgm, Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:20 (fourteen years ago)

not on ilx, obv. by SD pols.

original bgm, Thursday, 17 February 2011 20:21 (fourteen years ago)

haha when i saw this was bumped i knew someone had posted that

☠ (roxymuzak), Thursday, 17 February 2011 22:35 (fourteen years ago)

http://gothamist.com/2011/02/23/anti-abortion_billboard_in_soho_tar.php

ENBB, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)

Really gross stuff.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:58 (fourteen years ago)

ugh

Achillean Heel (darraghmac), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:59 (fourteen years ago)

I refer them to Rep. Gwen Moore: "I know all about black babies, I've had three of them."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl1BhDXRoJo

Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:00 (fourteen years ago)

I can't believe I hadn't seen that before. Fucking right on Gwen Moore. I think I love her.

ENBB, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:04 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-22-2011/mother-f--kers

ENBB, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)

people should be tearing that ad off of the building. really now.

i think michelle goldberg, i forget, made the point that if congress & the house weren't so ridiculously uneven in terms of m/f makeup, it might be possible for issues relating to women to be debated significantly in a conversational way; people actually convincing others rather than spitting stats etc. right on to the two women who spoke up.

your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:10 (fourteen years ago)

it might be a little harder to say a lot of the sexist bullshit they get away with, but i'm not sure how it'd affect abortion policy; a recent poll i've seen showed that more women were opposed to abortion than men.

kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:18 (fourteen years ago)

That Gwen Moore speech DESERVES MORE APPLAUSE than that.

go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:25 (fourteen years ago)

that ad is vile. but at least these bozos weren't smart enough to edit their facebook comments!

hxxp://www.facebook.com/pages/Thats-Abortion/188038264562330

original bgm, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:34 (fourteen years ago)

That Gwen Moore speech deserves a goddamn medal! It's not often that anyone shoves the GOP's real attitude about minorities and their children, let alone poor people generally, right back in their faces on the floor of the House like that.

Du Musst Calamari Werden (Phil D.), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 21:43 (fourteen years ago)

i keep reading 'that's abortion' and hearing it sung to the tune of 'that's amore'

just1n3, Thursday, 24 February 2011 04:39 (fourteen years ago)

When the fetus hits the bucket like an organic rocket
That's abortion
When the world shines again and you can lift up your chin
That's abortion
Bells will ring ting-a-ling-a-ling, ting-a-ling-a-ling
And you'll sing "vita libera"
Hearts will play tippy-tippy-tay, tippy-tippy-tay
Without a care-a

When your tummy feels so light like a low-cal delight
That's abortion
When you dance down the street with a cloud at your feet
You're so free
When you walk down in a dream but your eyes they can see
With no distortion
Scuzza me, but you see, back in old Napoli
That's abortion

Tuomas, Thursday, 24 February 2011 13:39 (fourteen years ago)

(Hopefully that doesn't offend anyone.)

Tuomas, Thursday, 24 February 2011 13:47 (fourteen years ago)

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/CLASS/130-143.jpg

Aimless, Thursday, 24 February 2011 17:40 (fourteen years ago)

can anyone give examples of legal expansions of the class of cases of justifiable homicide, a la all the new bills trying to make it legal to kill abortion doctors?

j., Friday, 25 February 2011 06:43 (fourteen years ago)

Ask an Abortion Provider!

go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 4 March 2011 14:59 (fourteen years ago)

I have no regrets, and although I’ll never know what could have been PSYCH I do know what could have been! The dude and I would have broken up and I would have not finished college let alone grad school, and I would have been a fucking disaster of a mother, because even now the best I can promise to a child is to be convincing enough that they can't tell I secretly wish they were an adult instead.

your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Friday, 4 March 2011 15:40 (fourteen years ago)

I'm a former abortion provider and that article is otm, but I find her writing style pretty annoying.

kate78, Friday, 4 March 2011 15:58 (fourteen years ago)

kinda feel bad having excerpted one of the more lol bits above because it's otherwise affectingly and righteously OTM.

your LiveJournal experience (schlump), Friday, 4 March 2011 16:02 (fourteen years ago)

Ahhh kate, I'm sorry. I thought she was lol and great! But I'm an easy mark for sarccy/snarky voices.

go peddle your bullshit somewhere else sister (Laurel), Friday, 4 March 2011 16:05 (fourteen years ago)

don't get me wrong, I loves the snark, too. I just prefer a more subtle strain with less CAPS and !!

kate78, Friday, 4 March 2011 16:17 (fourteen years ago)

That article makes me wish I had become an abortion provider. Kind of.

wizards of wonder are the keepers of knowledge (Abbbottt), Friday, 4 March 2011 16:46 (fourteen years ago)

one month passes...

i cannot believe this:

The Justice Department filed a civil complaint against Angel Dillard, 44, after she sent what it alleges was a threatening letter to Dr. Mila Means. In denying the government's request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Dillard from coming within 250 feet of the doctor, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten said that while the letter was clearly meant to intimidate Means, it wasn't a threat.

...

Dillard, of Valley Center, wrote in her rambling letter in January that thousands of people from across the United States were looking into Means' background.

"They will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live," the letter said. "You will be checking under your car everyday — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Judge-denies-feds-request-on-Kan-activist-1344611.php

boehner und der club of gore (donna rouge), Thursday, 21 April 2011 16:57 (fourteen years ago)

that while the letter was clearly meant to intimidate Means, it wasn't a threat

So, in the interest of free speech, as long as you don't make a specific (and I assume credible) threat you can refer to the legitimacy or even the desirability of harming someone?

Periblepsis occasioned by homoeoteleuton (Michael White), Thursday, 21 April 2011 17:02 (fourteen years ago)

There is bad news on this front every day. Every single day now. Total radio silence from the Democratic party - it's never a good time for a Democratic politician to stand up for reproductive rights; this is ground they have decided to give. Actual underground strategies (clinics, etc) are going to be necessary during the next twenty years, in my opinion.

People who believe in the right to choose should make it clear to their elected reps that they will not vote for any politician who does not actively work to support the right to choose. That includes filibustering any bill that seeks to limit that right. This is one are in which "the other side will be worse" is visibly, clearly false: both "sides" are allowing this right to be eroded.

five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 21 April 2011 17:04 (fourteen years ago)

one area

five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 21 April 2011 17:05 (fourteen years ago)

So, in the interest of free speech, as long as you don't make a specific (and I assume credible) threat you can refer to the legitimacy or even the desirability of harming someone?

― Periblepsis occasioned by homoeoteleuton (Michael White), Thursday, April 21, 2011 1:02 PM (5 minutes ago)

um actually yeah. this particular case probably isn't protected though

k3vin k., Thursday, 21 April 2011 17:10 (fourteen years ago)

There is bad news on this front every day. Every single day now. Total radio silence from the Democratic party - it's never a good time for a Democratic politician to stand up for reproductive rights; this is ground they have decided to give. Actual underground strategies (clinics, etc) are going to be necessary during the next twenty years, in my opinion.

People who believe in the right to choose should make it clear to their elected reps that they will not vote for any politician who does not actively work to support the right to choose. That includes filibustering any bill that seeks to limit that right. This is one are in which "the other side will be worse" is visibly, clearly false: both "sides" are allowing this right to be eroded.

― five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, April 21, 2011 1:04 PM (5 minutes ago)

not news to anyone but: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/newsflash-gops-anti-abortion-drive-continues-unabated--on-the-state-level/2011/03/04/AF5GphDE_blog.html

k3vin k., Thursday, 21 April 2011 17:12 (fourteen years ago)

That stuff started at several state levels during the health care debate, as soon as Democratic willingness to trade abortion coverage for bill passage became clear. It's been ongoing throughout the present admin; it seems clear to me that people who support abortion rights are on their own now, politically.

five gone cats from Boston (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 21 April 2011 18:19 (fourteen years ago)

so the guy who currently occupies the louisiana state legislature seat previously held by davids duke and vitter filed this stupid piece of shit. obviously pointless but, i mean, fuck this dude.

metairie, louisiana: the worst place in the world. i wish they'd just build a wall around it.

adam, Thursday, 21 April 2011 18:58 (fourteen years ago)

"I beleive it would be in direct conflict with them ... and immediately go to court. That is the goal of the individuals who asked me to put this bill in."

Unexpected truthfulness.

Back up the lesbian canoe (Laurel), Thursday, 21 April 2011 19:06 (fourteen years ago)

lol what a dipshit

k3vin k., Thursday, 21 April 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)

Pro-Life is all very well if you don't have to make the choice. It is an issue for the individuals involved if they decide to terminate a pregnancy. There are always mitigating reasons why a pregnancy should not go to full term and numerous situations for a why a child should not be born into the world. This douche from metairie, louisiana is nothing more than ignorant.

I'd love to turn him into a 15 year old girl, from a rough estate, with no support or money and get him knocked up. Do you think he'd feel differently then?

Is that a bit harsh? It just makes me so angry.

I am leader of the sheeple (captain rosie), Thursday, 21 April 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

'Today, illegal abortions are the leading cause of death among young women in Latin America.'
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/birthrights/2011/04/201141275013687249.html

sensual bathtub (group: 698) (schlump), Monday, 9 May 2011 18:05 (fourteen years ago)

just incredibly sobering

sensual bathtub (group: 698) (schlump), Monday, 9 May 2011 18:06 (fourteen years ago)

four weeks pass...

sometimes I am proud of my city

metally ill (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 June 2011 17:24 (fourteen years ago)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ABORTION_BILLBOARD?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=

☂ (max), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:18 (fourteen years ago)

I thought Shakey lived in NY. huh. Good on them. I had to go to one of those places last year with a girl I was working with. I wrote about it on the 77 thread I had about that job but I'll quote it here because it was too funny not to:

"Today I had to take one of the girls I am working with to get an ultrasound to determine how far along she is in a pregnancy that she has decided to terminate. We went to a local place that turned out to be one of those pro-life pregnancy help centers in disguise where they lure ppl in and then try to convince them not to terminate by showing them pictures of aborted fetuses and feeding them a bunch of propaganda. So I was in the waiting room while they did the initial intake and all of a sudden I get a text from her saying "We've been together for 3 months". I was sorta O_Oconfused for a few minutes when the lady came out and said, "Erica? You can come in now, Sweetie".

I go in and M. has this ridiculous smirk on her face and I just looked at her like oh shit what did you do. I sit down and the lady says to me, "So, this is an interesting situation!" at which point M. grabbed my hand. It turned out that when she figured out what was up at the place, she told them that she just wanted a confirmation of pregnancy do show her doc and that I was her lover with whom she would be raising her child. She had told them this elaborate story about our relationship and gay love child and I got to sit there and listen to them suggest parenting classes for me since I've never had kids and our situation was so unique. They asked if I was excited and I sort of just stuttered at which point M said, "She is but she's just a little shy since she's new to this whole thing." I nearly burst out laughing about 200 times in that 10-15 minutes and we walked out with the docs she needed and a pack of free newborn diapers for our impending arrival."

Also that billboard story is fucking awful. Jesus.

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:24 (fourteen years ago)

omg that story

low-rent black gangster nicknamed Bootsy (DJP), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:25 (fourteen years ago)

hahahaha omg that story is awesome!!!

S'cool bro, I only cried a little (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:26 (fourteen years ago)

Yeah, it was amazing. I think I broke the skin on the insides of my cheeks that day from biting them so hard to keep from laughing.

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:30 (fourteen years ago)

that is a tremendous story

cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:45 (fourteen years ago)

Yay to the power of quick thinking!

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:45 (fourteen years ago)

http://blog.cagle.com/2011/06/rick-santorum-when-the-anti-choice-choose/

is this true? who will be my fact-checkin cuz

all the pretty HOOSes (gbx), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 21:59 (fourteen years ago)

this seems to confirm it:

http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188

badtz-maruizm (donna rouge), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:11 (fourteen years ago)

Upon their son’s death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen’s parents’ home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

“That’s my little guy,” Santorum says, pointing to the photo of Gabriel, in which his tiny physique is framed by his father’s hand. The senator often speaks of his late son in the present tense. It is a rare instance in which he talks softly.

He and Karen brought Gabriel’s body home so their children could “absorb and understand that they had a brother,” Santorum says. “We wanted them to see that he was real,” not an abstraction, he says. Not a “fetus,” either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described — “a 20-week-old fetus” — on a hospital form. They changed the form to read “20-week-old baby.”

badtz-maruizm (donna rouge), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:13 (fourteen years ago)

or, wait, i'm seeing that it's the "the labor was induced" aspect being called into question

badtz-maruizm (donna rouge), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:16 (fourteen years ago)

right.

all the pretty HOOSes (gbx), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:22 (fourteen years ago)

so if it was a 20-week old baby, does that mean it woulda been 9 months old when it came out the womb?

Motel Kamzoil, P.I. (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:44 (fourteen years ago)

i mean honestly if life begins at conception we should start counting those days in our age. except that'd make me 31 now so fuck that.

Motel Kamzoil, P.I. (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:45 (fourteen years ago)

that santorum thing is weird but no weirder than a lot of practices in various cultures. doesn't bother me that much, though i don't want that guy to be legislating anything. thankfully there's little chance of that happening.

by another name (amateurist), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:49 (fourteen years ago)

i want to know about the weird practices of other cultures! would feel more charitable to santorum if i knew of another group of human beings somewhere on the planet that would force their children to play with a "dead" fetus

☂ (max), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:51 (fourteen years ago)

be the most boring game of tag ever

Motel Kamzoil, P.I. (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:54 (fourteen years ago)

fwiw I personally think it's pretty strange but I know two families that had stillborns and did very similar things insofar as dressing up the babies and letting the other children get to hold them and hang out with them for a day or so after the delivery.

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:54 (fourteen years ago)

personally what people wanna do in those situations is up to them, it doesn't affect me in any way. as long as they aren't preaching to the world that everybody else should be too, which is an important caveat.

Motel Kamzoil, P.I. (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:56 (fourteen years ago)

yeah, exactly

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:56 (fourteen years ago)

me, personally, I'm terrible around dead things. funeral viewings are ok but when I saw my grandmother after she just died with her mouth still open it haunted me for days.

Motel Kamzoil, P.I. (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:57 (fourteen years ago)

i think its basically insanely gross and weird, i want to be compassionate and kind but i cant

☂ (max), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:02 (fourteen years ago)

if someone tried to put a dead fetus in my hand I'm pretty sure I'd drop it and run screaming...

Motel Kamzoil, P.I. (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:02 (fourteen years ago)

you could probably manage it if santorum weren't a raging asshole tho

xp

mookieproof, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:03 (fourteen years ago)

if someone tried to put a dead fetus in my hand I'm pretty sure I'd drop it and run screaming...

― Motel Kamzoil, P.I. (Neanderthal), Wednesday, June 15, 2011 6:02 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

not a ob-gyn doctor huh?

honestly there's something very moving about that story.

by another name (amateurist), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:05 (fourteen years ago)

i dunno. maybe. its hard to separate the santorums in their actuality as a grieving couple from their status as representatives of the repellent "culture of life."

like i said, i would rather be compassionate. but this is just a bridge to far for me. i would actually be interested to know if that kind of... dress up your fetus/stillborn baby ritual has any precedent in (world?) culture

☂ (max), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:06 (fourteen years ago)

i couldn't be a doctor whatsoever mostly due to the shit that scares me.....

Motel Kamzoil, P.I. (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:07 (fourteen years ago)

i honestly don't know anything about hospital protocol when it comes to these matters but i was kind of amazed the hospital let them even take the fetus home with them in the first place?

badtz-maruizm (donna rouge), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:09 (fourteen years ago)

honestly i don't know, but i feel like human society has the whole spectrum of practices surrounding death.

by another name (amateurist), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:09 (fourteen years ago)

i honestly don't know anything about hospital protocol when it comes to these matters but i was kind of amazed the hospital let them even take the fetus home with them in the first place?

― badtz-maruizm (donna rouge), Wednesday, June 15, 2011 6:09 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark

well they dipped it in rubbing alcohol first. /gallows humor

by another name (amateurist), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:10 (fourteen years ago)

my bio prof in college had a fetus in a jar that he would bring into class when it was broadly relevant.

by another name (amateurist), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:10 (fourteen years ago)

omg I probably shouldn't say that but I have a number of very Catholic conservative relatives who miscarried and wouldn't DARE do that. It's a sad occasion and holding the miscarried child just seemed kind of morbid and theatrical to them. I hope I don't offend.

They Spackled It, Jesus Christ (u s steel), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:33 (fourteen years ago)

would actually be interested to know if that kind of... dress up your fetus/stillborn baby ritual has any precedent in (world?) culture

Victorians took memento mori photos of their dead babies when photographic portraits became affordable, with the kids made up to look lifelike. It's not the same thing but I guess has the same motivation of wanting to remember the dead as a real kid the only way they could.

kinder, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 23:50 (fourteen years ago)

yeah thats the only precedent i could think of. i suppose viewings operate on a slightly similar level? but theres a level of ritual and distance there that separates it from... cuddling with the corpse

☂ (max), Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:00 (fourteen years ago)

again tho ive never been in that situation, so

☂ (max), Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:00 (fourteen years ago)

it's sorta awkward that this whole thing is pinned on the specific case study of that one couple, let alone that they're a couple tangled up in the guy's distasteful pro-life bs, because trying to understand the actual feelings & attitudes & intentions involved is impossible, whatever kind of external impression you have of them. like, devoid of any of the context of who they are and what meaning they attach to it, i can understand having some sort of reflex to involve your family in this having happened; if you have young kids & have been talking them through an on-going pregnancy and it ends prematurely and everything's changed, then, while in this case it seems graphic enough to be inappropriate, i can sort of see why showing them the foetus is a part of that ongoing process, of the narrative of 'you're going to have a sibling' -> no you aren't, this is what happened. to me, the narrative in that scenario is, this would've been your little brother & it didn't ever make it to personhood in the way it would've, rather than, this is a fully formed person, get this kid a social security number stat, etc, but to each their own (while outside of the legislature). i don't buy in to notions of foetal personhood, at all, but i feel like this is more about the existing family unit & the effects of a big change, maybe. carrying a foetus around day after day and then things ending, i think trying to get over the deep physical & metaphysical meanings of that is gonna be a pretty heavy undertaking sometimes.

stately, plump bunk moreland (schlump), Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:12 (fourteen years ago)

like - i don't know at what point this becomes a matter of degrees; it wouldn't be as alien to you to consider the couple having some time alone with a foetus after delivery, in the hospital, would it? with that being sorta i'd imagine not at all uncommon (although maybe, i am guessing, moreso after stages as early as 20 weeks), is it only becoming weird that there's this element of transport & clothing & photos & so on? because yeah they end up taking you to a weird place but some of them i can sorta see how you get there - clothing so the thing isn't naked, transport to get to yr family, etc.

i don't know why i am going to bat here. the '20-week baby' thing is sorta beyond, to me. & the thrust of the original article re: the guy's hypocrisy is obviously otm.

stately, plump bunk moreland (schlump), Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:18 (fourteen years ago)

As are you.

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:29 (fourteen years ago)

I mean that you're otm obv - didn't mean to imply any hypocrisy.

\(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:37 (fourteen years ago)

well put, schlump.

i think a couple wanting to have some time alone with a fetus/stillborn baby serves a similar kind of function as a viewing might (whatever that function is). but--yes--there is a line that gets crossed (to me) when the baby is clothed and driven several hours and photographed, and--this was the bit that really got me--played with... i dont know. i should stop speaking in generalities, there are likely "bring the corpse home" situations where id feel uncomfortable passing judgment, or less comfortable at any rate. id like to think its possible to be open to the myriad ways grief manifests itself without being "anything goes"

☂ (max), Thursday, 16 June 2011 00:48 (fourteen years ago)

yeah, sure; i think it is strange, and i think the debate over 'anything goes' has to butt up against the other concerns that are raised by it being a weird situation, like whether it's the best thing for everyone involved.

& no sweat erica!

stately, plump bunk moreland (schlump), Thursday, 16 June 2011 01:16 (fourteen years ago)

xps to max:

this isn't really the same thing but -
my grandfather was maori and when he died, a tangi (funeral) was held. his body was prepared, placed in an open casket and taken to his marae (i don't really know how to explain what a marae is, not very articulately anyway, but it's sort of the the center of your community if you're maori. his body was placed in the main hall, and i (as well as other close family members and friends) hung out there and slept there with his body for several days. a female had to be on either side of his body at all times (protocol).

we would touch his face and hands and talk to him, visitors would come all day every day to pay their respects, kiss his face etc. in the evenings, everyone at the marae would come into the main hall with him/us and we would tell stories about our experiences with him, play music and sing.

it's def not the same as 'playing' with a fetus, but there's a certain transitioning that takes place when you spend that much time with the body of a person you loved very much. i don't know if it really 'helps' - my grandfather's death was sudden but he had been ill for a long time, and while the tangi was v positive and comforting, it didn't really help me deal with the loss.

just1n3, Thursday, 16 June 2011 02:49 (fourteen years ago)

wikipedia has a pretty good description of marae.

just1n3, Thursday, 16 June 2011 02:51 (fourteen years ago)

that does make me feel a little more comfortable w/ the concept, i suppose. ty.

☂ (max), Thursday, 16 June 2011 02:54 (fourteen years ago)

i think there is a turn here in santorum's actions that prevent me from being too compassionate.

i'm going to make a leap here: frankly i think that the act of bringing a dead fetus home to be considered a brother and child for a certain amount of time was driven by his intense loathing of abortion. as in, he doesn't love babies so much that in result he can't abide abortion, he loves babies because he can't abide abortion. he is so deeply invested in the disgust with these medical procedures that he had to perform some kind of act of "empersoning" on the fetus. i think it was a political act as much as familial. especially since he and his wife had crossed a major red line.

goole, Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:04 (fourteen years ago)

it is weirdly moving tho, very much so, and horrifying

goole, Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:04 (fourteen years ago)

I don't know, I would like to think that's true because he's a repellent individual in so many ways, but it feels like projection on our part.

mh, Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:08 (fourteen years ago)

Now, if you put the stillborn kid in the freezer and take it out when you miss it, that would be really fucked up.

(sorry, after relating a similar story about a dog earlier today I couldn't resist)

mh, Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:09 (fourteen years ago)

yeah it's pretty project-y, sure

goole, Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:10 (fourteen years ago)

I really think for some people, possibly the Santorums, death and dead people, and even by extension dead bodies, hold almost as much fascination as the living and dealing with the divide is so emotionally disruptive that it defines a large portion of life.

mh, Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:12 (fourteen years ago)

this bit of the wapo article about santorum is what stops me from feeling any compassion at all

He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described — "a 20-week-old fetus" — on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."

Karen Santorum, a former nurse, wrote letters to her son during and after her pregnancy. She compiled them into a book, "Letters to Gabriel," a collection of prayers, Bible passages and a chronicle of the prenatal complications that led to Gabriel's premature delivery. At one point, her doctor raised the prospect of an abortion, an "option" Karen ridicules. "Letters to Gabriel" also derides "pro-abortion activists" and decries the "infanticide" of "partial-birth abortion," the legality of which Rick Santorum was then debating in the Senate. The book reads, in places, like a call to action.

☂ (max), Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:21 (fourteen years ago)

It's gotta feel really great to know that the choices you made were the only right choice and that you can put yourself on a pedestal as an example

mh, Thursday, 16 June 2011 03:39 (fourteen years ago)

wonder how much time mr santorum has spent changing the diapers of his seven children

mookieproof, Thursday, 16 June 2011 08:09 (fourteen years ago)

though i loathe rick santorum's politics, and it's hard not to see this an an extension of that, i'm not sure what to think abt the santorum family and their "baby gabriel" business. what families in that position do w their grief is not, generally speaking, something i care to judge.

we americans have become extremely skilled in the art of shielding ourselves from the unpleasant reality of death, but i'm by no means sure that's always such a good thing. it's the success of our defensive shielding that makes this story seem so grotesque, imo, not the fact that there's anything terribly wrong with the santorums' actions. the discomfort we feel is the product of their violation of a comfort-preserving taboo.

And the piano, it sounds like a carnivore (contenderizer), Thursday, 16 June 2011 09:15 (fourteen years ago)

I feel discomfort because they made a very personal choice to deal with an event in their family in the way they did and seem to think that their ideas about life and death and babies should be pushed on the population at large.

mh, Thursday, 16 June 2011 14:31 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.lamebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/just-KIDdin1.jpg

on a lighter note

mh, Thursday, 16 June 2011 14:43 (fourteen years ago)

i think its basically insanely gross and weird, i want to be compassionate and kind but i cant

nb the importance of the right to choose abortion is huge for me everybody knows that right but I mean - here's how to be compassionate about this behavior, which is totally weird and macabre to me too don't get me wrong but - when a family wants to have a baby and they've been to the first sonogram and listened to the heartbeat and then a couple weeks later felt the first kicks and then a few weeks after that started to feel the kicking & wriggling even harder - if you're planning on carrying that pregnancy to term, you start to think of the fetus as your kid. I think you find out the sex at 12 or 16 weeks so then it's not just your kid, it's your "son" or "daughter," and you're maybe spending a lot of time thinking "what am I going to call this little dude, I cannot wait to meet him." The Santorums, in the 19th week, having maybe* spent three-plus months going through the really profound thing that people are going through when they're in that state, go get a routine sonogram, just another happy appointment in the journey to their new baby, & when you're planning on carrying the pregnancy to term the techs don't refer to it as "the fetus" they say "the baby," so their techs/doctors say "bad news. If we don't do intrauterine surgery on the baby, he's going to die." And they get the surgery, only the wife spikes an insane fever, and high fever during pregnancy is really dangerous to the fetus, can damage its neural pathways permanently, and they have to induce. This is one of those "any way that people respond in this situation, no matter what that response is or who those people are, makes sense if you think about how acute the pain must be."

scenarios exactly like the Santorums', by the way, is one of the reasons why the NC law passed yesterday, the most restrictive mandatory-sonogram law in the country as of right now, is so inhuman. you need to terminate your pregnancy because the sonogram showed irremediable birth defects, there's zero chance of a healthy baby? ok cool - first you have to wait 24 hours and get "counseling" tho - also, I know that sonogram was traumatic but the law says I have to give you another one and that I have to describe it to you and you have to listen.

*I don't know them personally & everybody's different & plus I consider them genuinely evil people so maybe they spent those three months just worshipping the devil every day, idk

censored my own brad whitford joke (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 16 June 2011 14:51 (fourteen years ago)

^^^realest of talk

someone i am v close to miscarried and still (rightfully imo) considers it the loss of her son, not some other, different, kind of loss

all the pretty HOOSes (gbx), Thursday, 16 June 2011 15:02 (fourteen years ago)

*I don't know them personally & everybody's different & plus I consider them genuinely evil people so maybe they spent those three months just worshipping the devil every day, idk

^^ basically a generous, balanced appraisal of these guys when factoring in poster's exposure to entire days of repro legislation broadcasts on c-span

stately, plump bunk moreland (schlump), Thursday, 16 June 2011 15:10 (fourteen years ago)

aero v much otm

bite this display name (k3vin k.), Friday, 17 June 2011 03:40 (fourteen years ago)

Some good news! Indiana's law, one of the more repellently creative attempts to choke women's services out of existence, will be contested by the DOJ!

don't often find myself going "fuck yeah Department of Justice" but fuck yeah DOJ

censored my own brad whitford joke (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 17 June 2011 17:52 (fourteen years ago)

ready to be really, really offended?

http://images.floridaindependent.com/2011/06/Radiance-Foundation1.jpg

details here

this has been an ongoing tactic for a while but this is really stepping up the "I can't believe you're actually saying that" quotient

censored my own brad whitford joke (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 17 June 2011 19:33 (fourteen years ago)

Planned Parenthood was founded by someone into eugenics and they still want to abort all black babies, fyi

mh, Friday, 17 June 2011 20:08 (fourteen years ago)

Texas upping the ante

censored my own brad whitford joke (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:06 (fourteen years ago)

the more this shit happens the more my sighs turn into teeth gritting

why i am an anarcho-sandwich artist (Neanderthal), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:09 (fourteen years ago)

like really wondering just how close we are to overturning Roe v. Wade. like if taht ever happens I'm going to seriously have to reconsider whether I want to continue living here. my company has offices overseas.

why i am an anarcho-sandwich artist (Neanderthal), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:09 (fourteen years ago)

(obv I realize it's not on the horizon or anything, but I mean a decade or so in the future, if Dems don't have the White House and the Senate)....

why i am an anarcho-sandwich artist (Neanderthal), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:09 (fourteen years ago)

overturning Roe isn't really on their dance card at all because they're having incredible success at the state and county level. the current state-and-county attacks disperse what little resistance there is; you might mobilize some national pro-choice support around defending Roe, but it's hard to rally enough people to stop this stuff from happening. Post on Facebook & try to get people to call governors of states they don't even live in to veto legislation like this...in NC, the (Democratic) governor's probably going to veto the 24-hour-waiting-period/mandatory ultrasound with description/mandatory "counseling/handmaid's tale bill that just passed, but it's thought that there are enough Republicans & anti-choice Democrats to override the veto.

I've given my schtick before about how I don't think they'd actually overturn Roe even if it was a lead pipe cinch - that'd be like throwing political capital away. as long as they can shame, humiliate, frustrate and hopefully force poor and middle-income women to carry pregnancies to term, they're happy.

censored my own brad whitford joke (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:22 (fourteen years ago)

"Post on Facebook & try to get people to call governors of states they don't even live in to veto legislation like this" sc. "and see where it gets you"

censored my own brad whitford joke (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:23 (fourteen years ago)

Has there been much stealth radical tightening and rewriting of rules in blue states, or is this mostly a red state phenomenon right now? I remember when they tried to pull a fast one in ... South Dakota, right? And there was a voter revolt once people realized how far the legislation went. I wonder if something like that would/could ever be in the cards for a traditional conservative state like Texas.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:29 (fourteen years ago)

NC's governor is a Democrat who plans to veto the bill (and will be overridden). When the state senate is too blue to play along, they do it at the county level (cutting off insurance funding for county workers if the health care plan offers reproductive services of any kind) until they can get their act together at the state level. NY & California aren't really on the table but there's stuff in something like 14 states at this point, success in South Dakota & Nebraska really got them motivated as does the weakness of the national party on the right to abortion.

Voter revolt is hard to imagine because Democrats conceded the ideological ground on this years ago & focus on fetal defects, health of the mother, etc., instead of on a woman's right to an abortion, guaranteed by Roe. Winning back that ground would involve a pretty unimaginable combo of dedicated charismatic leadership & a well-orchestrated rhetorical shift.

censored my own brad whitford joke (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:37 (fourteen years ago)

Voter revolt is hard to imagine because Democrats conceded the ideological ground on this years ago & focus on fetal defects, health of the mother, etc., instead of on a woman's right to an abortion, guaranteed by Roe.

this is the bit that makes me see red

all the pretty HOOSes (gbx), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:40 (fourteen years ago)

trying to get data on which states have anti-choice bills passed or in play right now - first three months of 2011 saw 512 anti-choice bills introduced at the state level, according to some of the pro-choice blogs

censored my own brad whitford joke (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 18 June 2011 14:51 (fourteen years ago)

Voter revolt is hard to imagine because Democrats conceded the ideological ground on this years ago & focus on fetal defects, health of the mother, etc., instead of on a woman's right to an abortion, guaranteed by Roe.

I was like this once -- had a debate on a message board where some guy (teh actual guy who ran the board) kept using 'retarded' and 'mongoloid' and other variances as insults, and I and others finally called him out on it, and he backpedaled by saying he thought mothers should just get abortions when their kid was determined to be at risk for retardation.

and even though I was kinda revolted at the thought of someone merely terminating a pregnancy for that reason, y'know, that IS what pro-choice means...being able to abort your pregnancy for whatever reason.

if there is anything growing in my gut, I'm gonna be damned if I'm gonna let a buncha elder wrinkly white dudes tell me I'm not allowed to do anything about it if I decide I don't want it. REGARDLESS of why.

why i am an anarcho-sandwich artist (Neanderthal), Saturday, 18 June 2011 15:44 (fourteen years ago)

at which point conservatives want to paint you as "Pro-Death".

why i am an anarcho-sandwich artist (Neanderthal), Saturday, 18 June 2011 15:45 (fourteen years ago)

hell not even just conservatives

why i am an anarcho-sandwich artist (Neanderthal), Saturday, 18 June 2011 15:45 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/us/25indiana.html

A federal judge ruled Friday that the State of Indiana could not cut off money for Planned Parenthood clinics providing health care to low-income women on Medicaid.

jag goo (k3vin k.), Sunday, 26 June 2011 03:52 (fourteen years ago)

fuck.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/kansas-shut-down-all-abortion-clinics-friday

the charo and the pity (donna rouge), Thursday, 30 June 2011 21:57 (fourteen years ago)

well, the planned parenthood is gonna remain open now apparently, but this still means there is exactly one place for women in kansas to get an abortion

buzz aldrin is drunk aldrin (donna rouge), Thursday, 30 June 2011 22:56 (fourteen years ago)

This week has kinda been zero hour for a lot of this shit but there is great news out of South Dakota. A federal district court judge has blocked South Dakota's completely batshit 72-hour-waiting period PLUS you have to talk to a pro-life counselor (yes, really) law. Check out the judge kicking ass and taking names:

In finding that the “pregnancy help center” requirement is likely unconstitutional, the Court said: “Forcing a woman to divulge to a stranger at a pregnancy help center the fact that she has chosen to undergo an abortion humiliates and degrades her as a human being. The woman will feel degraded by the compulsive nature of the Pregnancy Help Center requirements, which suggest that she has made the ‘wrong’ decision, has not really ‘thought’ about her decision to undergo an abortion, or is ‘not intelligent enough’ to make the decision with the advice of a physician. Furthermore, these women are forced into a hostile environment.”

love in a grain elevator (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 1 July 2011 02:09 (fourteen years ago)

it's hard to feel great about shit like this, because it isn't necessarily progressing anything. everything that's happening with gay marriage laws is exciting because we're going from point A (injustice) to point B (slightly less injustice) while with abortion, everything was ALREADY FINE and the whole fucking deal is just defending the institution against assholes trying to take it back a few centuries.

lol i guess this is how tea partiers feel about gay marriage and abortion, just opposite day

Peepee Soaked Heckhole (zachlyon), Friday, 1 July 2011 02:21 (fourteen years ago)

it is actually doing a lot of good. right now, at the state level, shit's going down that's terrible. twice this week Federal courts have sided with the right to choose, in essence saying to the states "you don't get to do that." that's extremely valuable both practically & for purposes of precedent. the bad laws being passed by weaselly state legislatures are allowing higher courts to affirm the that the shit being passed is unconstitutional, that's some long-term good.

love in a grain elevator (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 1 July 2011 04:16 (fourteen years ago)

yeah, true, but i feel like the weaselly bullshit wasn't happening before the tea partiers came about and this shit wasn't even a concern back then. maybe that's selective memory, it just feels like we could be spending our time on other things.

Peepee Soaked Heckhole (zachlyon), Friday, 1 July 2011 05:36 (fourteen years ago)

Oh, Polandpaws. Not cool. Not cool at all.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-poland-to-vote-on-historic-bill-banning-all-abortions-after-massiv

Bloompsday (Trayce), Friday, 1 July 2011 09:18 (fourteen years ago)

“This project is a chance to finally reject the heritage of Nazism and Communism which brought ‘legal abortion’ to Poland in the first place,” Jacek Sapa of the PRO Foundation told LifeSiteNews. “It was Hitler and Stalin who imposed it on Poles and it’s high time we clearly disassociate ourselves from those deadly ideologies.”

*(^*&%^&^%$

Bloompsday (Trayce), Friday, 1 July 2011 09:19 (fourteen years ago)

"it was mussolini who brought efficient train service to this country and it's high time we clearly disassociate ourselves from such a punctual, sustainable method of transport"

devoted to boats (schlump), Friday, 1 July 2011 09:44 (fourteen years ago)

that site is v peculiar btw. we should all write a letter a day picking the weird sorta could-be-having-a-more-fun-teenage-life kid-who-writes-pro-life-letters-to-the-white-house's termination-maths apart.

devoted to boats (schlump), Friday, 1 July 2011 09:51 (fourteen years ago)

Yeah such a wtf line of argument, I have to say it also made me sick because now I can see US rightwingers going "LOOK SEE, THE COMMIES FORCED ABORTION ON THE POLISH therefore = EVIL".

Bloompsday (Trayce), Friday, 1 July 2011 09:52 (fourteen years ago)

WTF? i had no idea some states had those laws on the books...you can be charged with murder for taking drugs while pregnant?? how to i contribute to her defense fund

bros -izing bros (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 15:38 (fourteen years ago)

south dakota & nebraska too - there are a lot of these cases, which anti-choicers have been pursuing in order to get precedent on fetal personhood.

if this is an issue you care about in any way it is pretty vital that you get involved this year on a stay-informed-and-donate-like-crazy basis, 2012 is going to be a hard year for the right to choose if we don't all work together & demand that the people who we voted for & donated to stand up for reproductive rights.

love in a grain elevator (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 15:42 (fourteen years ago)

This is fucking batshit, do these cases get anywhere in court??

a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 15:59 (fourteen years ago)

from the linked story:

Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her fetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.

The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.

"That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough."

She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. "I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids," she said. "They say I'm a criminal, how do I answer that? I'm a good mother."

I repeat, if this is an issue you care about, all hands on deck. The other side has been working hard in the courts while prochoice voters have been pretty complacent about it & have allowed leaders to concede (important!) rhetorical/legislative ground.

love in a grain elevator (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 16:03 (fourteen years ago)

i'm not sure what apoplexy is really supposed to look like, but this story (and others i've heard) are just the thing to trigger it

i want to spit

g++ (gbx), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 16:07 (fourteen years ago)

what the

I mean really

what the

sticky crisco (a passing spacecadet), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 18:55 (fourteen years ago)

seriously almost all my focus on this is "what good can we do, now?" (A: only support candidates who are unapologetically prochoice; donate all you can to NNAF & similar organizations) but just to say what's in my heart, this is exactly the stuff that tiresome guys like yrs truly were hollering about when all the ground was being conceded on abortion rights in re: the health care bill. the pro-choice party made it abundantly clear, at the local & national levels, that it wasn't willing to spend any political capital defending the right to choose as a basic health care right. more shame on the people directly attacking the right, but great shame on those who didn't stand up for it when this season might have been prevented imo

love in a grain elevator (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 18:59 (fourteen years ago)

WTF? i had no idea some states had those laws on the books...you can be charged with murder for taking drugs while pregnant?? how to i contribute to her defense fund

Incidentally, the only people I've ever heard of that were in favor of those laws were men's rights groups.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 19:04 (fourteen years ago)

A federal court blocked the state of Kansas from enacting new temporary regulations for abortion clinics that could have shut down two of the three clinics in the state -- but state officials say they are devising an identical set of permanent regulations.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia granted a temporary injunction against the law, which requires all of the abortion clinics to be licensed annually under a new set of regulations by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

Robert Moser, secretary of health and environment for the state, said the department will follow the law, but "Judge Murguia's ruling is narrowly tailored and does not prevent KDHE from moving forward to establish permanent licensing regulations."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/court_blocks_kansas_abortion_rules_--_but_state_pl.php#more

Michael Bay, CEO of Transformers (Phil D.), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 19:08 (fourteen years ago)

/WTF? i had no idea some states had those laws on the books...you can be charged with murder for taking drugs while pregnant?? how to i contribute to her defense fund/

Incidentally, the only people I've ever heard of that were in favor of those laws were men's rights groups.

yeah I think I posted itt about this a couple years ago but there are vehemently pro life women that oppose these laws too

g++ (gbx), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 19:54 (fourteen years ago)

he baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.

Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how these charges came about. how did anybody apart from the mother and the doctor obtain any medical info about the mother's health and the cause of death?

a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 20:04 (fourteen years ago)

... the father?

DJP, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 20:11 (fourteen years ago)

what kind of asshole sues a woman that just had a miscarri - oh never mind...

a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 20:26 (fourteen years ago)

more info: http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20091209/ARTICLES/912095014/1011/NEWS?Title=Mom-on-trial-in-baby-s-death

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 20:47 (fourteen years ago)

there's a kind of sub-channel of alterna-depressing logic in the story linked above, in deeming prison totally-the-best-solution-for-the-people-involved, provided you accept the ridiculous logic in the first place. a hypothetical fifteen year old with a coke problem working their way out of a lost pregnancy does not need prison, no matter how much you want to intervene.

neo-realist shit i ever wrote (schlump), Tuesday, 5 July 2011 23:01 (fourteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

Women's Clinic Hit With Molotov Cocktail. (You don't even need to click that link to guess that this took place in Texas, probably.)

The incident is also unique because the McKinney location does not provide surgical procedures or abortions for their approximately 4,000 clients, Morgan said.

"It's an all-preventive care location: well-woman visits, breast and cervical cancer screenings, birth control," she said. "They don't provide legal safe abortions, only preventive care."

Why, it's almost as if the problem were with women's sexuality itself, and not abortion as such!

Texas, by the way, had the third-highest number of abortions of any state in the US as of 2007. They are also tied with DC and Oregon for the 9th-highest rate of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.

Dave Zuul (Phil D.), Thursday, 28 July 2011 14:52 (fourteen years ago)

Texas, by the way, is the second most populous of any state in the US.

charlie "lasagna-ish" sheen (Kerm), Thursday, 28 July 2011 14:54 (fourteen years ago)

Well, sure. But for a bunch of abortion-haters they sure have a lot of them. As many as those godless liberals in DC!

Dave Zuul (Phil D.), Thursday, 28 July 2011 14:57 (fourteen years ago)

me and the (then) missus got one once. i didn't really realize how traumatizing it was till i apologized years later for not being there for it, and mrs. wannabe was like "what are you talking about, you totally took me, you hung out with me before and after and stuff, thanks for that." and i was like "i did?" and she was like "of course, it was snowing and shit, don't you remember?" and i realized i had totally blocked it out and seriously couldn't remember the whole day at all. anyway it kinda makes me sad even now to think about killin off a lil' messiah, and i still cant even remember anything about that day.

but, i'd do the same again, thank god i the option was there, etc, so... sorta both. i mean i'm firmly in choice camp, but classic seems a little, um, glib?

messiahwannabe, Thursday, 28 July 2011 16:30 (fourteen years ago)

kinda feeling this is gonna cause a big rift in my family soon. my stepsister who is 18 just got knocked up by a 19 year old guy who she has been dating for a few weeks, who promptly dumped her upon hearing the news. my stepmom is trying to convince her to just "take care of it" as she knows the responsibility for the baby is going to fall on them, as she is in school and not exactly destined to be a doctor. i think she wants to have the baby to "get back" at her mom, as dumb as that sounds. but yeah we have some pro-lifers in my family, including my wife who was always brought up to believe that "it's still a baby". i'm not looking forward to this...

frogbs, Thursday, 28 July 2011 16:35 (fourteen years ago)

It also sounds like a generation gap thing to me--the stigma against young unmarried women having children is now completely gone, and I haven't met anyone under 21 that's pro-abortion rights for sometime now.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Thursday, 28 July 2011 19:51 (fourteen years ago)

I haven't met anyone under 21 that's pro-abortion rights for sometime now.

that's interesting to me. i wonder whether there's a lot of people w/a kind of vestigial teenage default position that abortion is killing a baby &c, that either comes up for review shortly after this period, or just doesn't. like i can imagine that there's a 'stage' at which you are primed to reconsider that, if you're lucky enough not to have to, but i would've thought it was maybe before 21. obviously ten trillion variables here.

schlump, Thursday, 28 July 2011 19:55 (fourteen years ago)

i think the "stigma" is really the least of her worries here

frogbs, Thursday, 28 July 2011 19:57 (fourteen years ago)

I agree.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:14 (fourteen years ago)

i know literally dozens of--probably more than a hundred--people under or around 21 who are pro-choice!

max, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:41 (fourteen years ago)

it's new york versus somewhere else though, right; bc i am in the same boat but i feel like it's a 'i don't know anyone who even knows anyone who voted bush!' kinda situation

schlump, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:42 (fourteen years ago)

in NYC, in LA, in NJ, in college w/ people from all over

max, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:43 (fourteen years ago)

iirc the numbers on abortion rights hold pretty evenly across age groups, unlike most other so-called "social issues"

max, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:43 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/28/us-abortion-northcarolina-idUSTRE76R6LW20110728

NC legislature overrides their governor's veto, women will be required to wait 24 hrs, be 'counseled", and have a mandatory ultrasound

Notinnymane (k3vin k.), Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:46 (fourteen years ago)

I think Christine lives in what is probably a predominantly Christian part of Florida. That could have something to do with it?

I know and have worked with people all across the board. Most of my friends are pro-choice but, for example, I'd say the majority of the kids I worked wiht last year (young inner city minorities) would probably identify as pro-life. From working in a clinic where terminations were provided, however, I know that identifying as pro-life doesn't necessarily mean much when it comes to behaviors. I saw a lot of women there for pre or post abortion appts who were "definitely pro-life".

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:49 (fourteen years ago)

I blame all the Teen Mom bullshit.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:51 (fourteen years ago)

yeah i always heard about "did you find your way to the clinic okay" "yes i used to picket here".
that's interesting about the numbers holding per age group, i would've thought it was still pretty regionally weighted, in the same way that i'd imagine that it's religiously weighted.

schlump, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:52 (fourteen years ago)

x-post - Heh. Well as someone who has also worked with and in support of teen parents I have some pretty strong feelings on that "Teen Mom bullshit" but I don't really think this is the place to get into that.

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:53 (fourteen years ago)

Just to be clear by "bullshit" I meant the ridiculous amount of hype that show is getting wrt to magazine covers and gossip sites and stuff. No larger comment on the issue of teenage pregnancy intended by my snarky, jokey comment.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 28 July 2011 20:56 (fourteen years ago)

I appreciate the clarification - it's a complicated topic!

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:03 (fourteen years ago)

someone make a thread about that show I would read it

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:04 (fourteen years ago)

I've thought about doing so many times and even discussed it with horseshoe but I am worried it would get ugly and tbh I'm not a regular watcher so don't really feel it's my place to start one.

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:05 (fourteen years ago)

Yeah I didn't mean for that to come out weird, just comes from a place of seeing so many people on my Facebook feed talking about Teen Mom.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:06 (fourteen years ago)

I guess fuckyeahteenmom is a tumblr

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)

lol started like a week ago

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:07 (fourteen years ago)

Following the Teen Mom tag is exhausting.
Every other post is, “Ryan is so hot!”

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:09 (fourteen years ago)

i watch teen mom sometimes (one of my sisters is obsessed with it) and if anything i think it's a force for good in terms of raising consciousness about birth control and reproductive choices in general. it can be really sad and hard to watch but it's a good show!

horseshoe, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:13 (fourteen years ago)

i defer to Erica on this subject, though, as she is an expert!

horseshoe, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:14 (fourteen years ago)

Yeah, I agree with that in general.

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:15 (fourteen years ago)

wait XPOST

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:15 (fourteen years ago)

I'm not agreeing with being an expert. lol.

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:15 (fourteen years ago)

"I would like to point out that I have been OTM on this subject, since I am an expert and all"

PAJAMARALLS? PAJAMALWAYS! (DJP), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:16 (fourteen years ago)

well, you are!

horseshoe, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:16 (fourteen years ago)

haha not you P3rry

horseshoe, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:17 (fourteen years ago)

"raising consciousness about birth control and reproductive choices in general"

I agree with that, I think. But then, well, I got in invitation in the mail yesterday to a baby shower for one of my former participants who is due with her 2nd kid in a couple months. I was at the birth of her 1st a little over a year ago. She updates her FB all the time about Teen Mom. IDK what I'm trying to say or what this has to do with anything but I watch that show and I'm like, "Shit that looks hard etc." and cringe when the girls/guys say things like, "We didn't use condoms because buying them is embarrassing" and yet it doesn't or hasn't had the same effect on some other viewers and I still don't get why. If we knew why then perhaps we'd be able to approach sex ed from a different angle and yeild some different results. idk. It's really complicated and I'm not being very eloquent here.

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:19 (fourteen years ago)

I find some of the research into adolescent brain development and decision making capability really interesting when it comes to this sort of thing but that's pretty tricky in terms of trying to empower teens while at same time recognizing that they literally might not actually have the capacity to make good and healthy decisions for themselves yet in terms of this stuff.

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:22 (fourteen years ago)

yeah it is complicated! i am actually really curious about how young women react to the show. my sister and i basically just view at as one big ad for condoms--these girls' lives are so hard! and so many of them are so so careful about birth control after they have their first kid, sort of heartbreakingly. but my sister and i are older and have no kids and are pretty set in our ways as far as reproductive rights are concerned. maybe it doesn't read that way to actual teenagers.

horseshoe, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:23 (fourteen years ago)

And forget about even thinking about that stuff in terms of abortion because that could be potentially devastating in terms of parental consent laws and stuff. See? COMPLICATED.

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:24 (fourteen years ago)

Not to derail the thread here but I thought that having a baby shower for your second child was NAGL. We only ran into this because lesbian friends of ours were having their second child, but since the other partner carried the first we thought that the partner carrying the second child deserved a shower but the emphasis was really taken off of presents. Anyway, point being a bunch of people got all up in arms and it caused kind of a rift among our friends.

Back to topic at hand.

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)

I strongly dislike the show teen mom but have prob watched too much considering who I think I am

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:27 (fourteen years ago)

And just who do you think you are, fantasy?

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:29 (fourteen years ago)

yeah explain!

horseshoe, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:29 (fourteen years ago)

Not an expert, thats for sure!

jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:30 (fourteen years ago)

x-post - Yeah from what I understand having a shower for your 2nd kid is considered to be pretty gauche but I don't think these ppl really give a shit about etiquettel. Also, it might be one of those rules that sort of died down in certain circles. Oh and I think it's the father's first kid and he's the one throwing it according to the invite so maybe he wanted to celebrate? That seems valid imo.

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:31 (fourteen years ago)

errr etiquette

ladies love draculas like children love stray dogs (ENBB), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:32 (fourteen years ago)

I mean I hate shows that I end up thinking are exploitative, like intervention, and almost all the people on teen mom are prob more horrible than people on addiction shows

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:38 (fourteen years ago)

oh yeah fair enough

horseshoe, Thursday, 28 July 2011 21:40 (fourteen years ago)

xxxxp Yes, and I also used to work with of disadvantaged teenagers on Medicaid. So my sample group is a little different.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Saturday, 30 July 2011 01:01 (fourteen years ago)

SF not having this crisis pregnancy center crap

Richard Nixon's Field of Warmth (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 23:38 (fourteen years ago)

one month passes...

Rare good news - federal judge strikes down some of the most offensive parts of the Texas law: the parts that required doctors to show a sonogram to women getting abortions & to force them to listen to the fetal heartbeat

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/31/texas.abortion.sonogram/index.html

pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 5 September 2011 15:36 (fourteen years ago)

I believe all women should be forced to look at smearograms before deciding to abort.

Mordy, Monday, 5 September 2011 15:37 (fourteen years ago)

The law "compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen," Sparks wrote.

Sparks otm

pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 5 September 2011 15:45 (fourteen years ago)

/The law "compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen," Sparks wrote./

Sparks otm

p much

remembrance of schwings past (gbx), Monday, 5 September 2011 15:47 (fourteen years ago)

mordy otm

max, Monday, 5 September 2011 15:47 (fourteen years ago)

next protest I go to I'm bringing an image of a smearogram on a sign w/o any text or anything

pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 5 September 2011 15:48 (fourteen years ago)

on the back of the posterboard you should write this

i like how yall try to figure the smearograms out

― that's cute, but it's WRONG (CaptainLorax), Thursday, September 1, 2011 11:49 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i just posted them because they look cool

― that's cute, but it's WRONG (CaptainLorax), Thursday, September 1, 2011 11:49 PM (4 days ago)

k3vin k., Monday, 5 September 2011 17:06 (fourteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/us/virginia-panel-tightens-abortion-clinic-rules.html?ref=us

stalk me shithead (from the makers of tickle me elmo) (k3vin k.), Friday, 16 September 2011 20:07 (fourteen years ago)

bullshit by any standard but particularly annoying coming from the party of anti-regulation hysteria

original bgm, Friday, 16 September 2011 21:15 (fourteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

HR 358 is on CSPAN right now - Republicans lying outright one after another about whether abortion is covered under Obama's health care bill. Please call your representative about this bill.

pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 13 October 2011 21:44 (thirteen years ago)

this is seriously the biggest waste of Congressional time imaginable - it's fucking appalling that these people are getting paid to debate this nonsense bill during times of massive unemployment etc.

pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 13 October 2011 21:51 (thirteen years ago)

Let's be clear here. Obama added an executive order to his health care bill prohibiting use of federal funds for abortion. (Which were already prohibited under Hyde.) That of course was meaningless to these people - they're now seeking to bar all funding under the health care plan to plans that cover abortion if paid for with private funds. this is why bargaining for the executive order was a complete waste & a terrible idea. it has emboldened them to further restrict women's rights. you should watch these hearings, with their ugly theocratic tone; they are illuminating.

pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 13 October 2011 21:59 (thirteen years ago)

three months pass...

and now, on a lighter note, the "Rosary of the Unborn." Each bead contains a fetus.

http://catholicvirtualmall.com/images/unborn.jpg

somehow this isn't idolatry, don't ask me how I'm busy actually worshipping fetuses.

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:12 (thirteen years ago)

this thread title always cracks me up

Hungry4Ass, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:31 (thirteen years ago)

That rosary is kind of cool. How long before people start wearing it to goth dance night.

โตเกียวเหมียวเหมียว aka Don Nots (Mount Cleaners) (Mount Cleaners), Friday, 3 February 2012 22:09 (thirteen years ago)

Spain's new right-wing govmt is going to re-ban abortion except in cases of mental or physical danger to the mother or of rape

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Friday, 3 February 2012 22:11 (thirteen years ago)

That rosary is kind of cool. How long before people start wearing it to goth dance night.

I am sorry but this is really fucking offensive. No person I know in the goth scene would find this "cool" to wear. I could not let that pass, even if that was meant to be a joke.

thanks to denial, I'm immortal! (Trayce), Saturday, 4 February 2012 06:26 (thirteen years ago)

Viriginia passed that terrible ultrasound bill, too.

http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2012/02/03/senate-passes-ultrasound-bill/

Frasier Ramon (EDB), Saturday, 4 February 2012 11:54 (thirteen years ago)

Godfuckingdammit.

frogbs, stills, and nash (Neanderthal), Saturday, 4 February 2012 14:00 (thirteen years ago)

btw that rosary is pretty cool but it needs more H.R. Giger vibes to it

mh, Saturday, 4 February 2012 16:34 (thirteen years ago)

I am sorry but this is really fucking offensive. No person I know in the goth scene would find this "cool" to wear. I could not let that pass, even if that was meant to be a joke.

cannot concur. old-school LA goths from the mid-eighties would have rocked the hell out of that rosary.

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 4 February 2012 17:28 (thirteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-medias-blinders-on-abortion.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

But of course millions of Americans — including, yes, millions of American women — do oppose Planned Parenthood. They oppose the 300,000-plus abortions it performs every year (making it the largest abortion provider in the country), and they oppose its tireless opposition to even modest limits on abortion.

no need to unpack what it means to 'oppose' abortion - just assume it means finding it distasteful, & so naturally choosing to forgo it in one's own life, rather than prescribing that it shouldn't be available to others; no need to consider the statistics of people getting abortions - more than one in four by the age of 45! - instead of people's breezy, stated theoretical preference about it as a social issue.

huge lol at the finale:

But reporters have different obligations. Even if some forms of partiality are inevitable, journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story.

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Sunday, 5 February 2012 11:37 (thirteen years ago)

uuugh i know you can all see how awful this article is but just:

In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person — and certainly no self-respecting woman — could possibly question or oppose.

we're not even gonna unpack a little bit what 'oppose' means, just aggressively brandish the idea of the self-respecting woman

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Sunday, 5 February 2012 11:56 (thirteen years ago)

uggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh or to make it sound like planned parenthood's political stance is some fuck you tactic it adopted to shove abortion in churchgoers' faces, rather than something it is forced to spend its money on in the face of like doctor killers & legislative sanctimony

maybe should have been on the nyt thread

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Sunday, 5 February 2012 11:57 (thirteen years ago)

I seriously am at the point now where I have to avoid reading articles like these because it makes me feel weary and sad.

frogbs, stills, and nash (Neanderthal), Sunday, 5 February 2012 13:26 (thirteen years ago)

Like I mean...I understand the average human being is not a Rhode's scholar, but it isn't exactly a high concept to understand the difference between "being pro-abortion" versus "thinking it should be available as an option".

legislating abortion is about a sensical as legislating what I'm allowed to do with the urine inside my urethra.

frogbs, stills, and nash (Neanderthal), Sunday, 5 February 2012 13:28 (thirteen years ago)

Why did they put Komen on such a high pedestal? There were plenty of reasons to question them before this, self-respecting woman or not.

mh, Sunday, 5 February 2012 14:45 (thirteen years ago)

http://selfishgiving.com/secure/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/newmid-kfc.png

Nicole, Sunday, 5 February 2012 14:54 (thirteen years ago)

if they really wanna be devoted to the cause, they should make pink chicken

frogbs, stills, and nash (Neanderthal), Sunday, 5 February 2012 15:00 (thirteen years ago)

xp The entire current Republican party platform is pretty much a fuck you tactic adopted to shove right-wing rightwinginess in 'liberal elites' faces, so you really can't fault him for figuring that everyone else has the same bad case of Political Opposition Defiant Disorder.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Sunday, 5 February 2012 16:24 (thirteen years ago)

cannot concur. old-school LA goths from the mid-eighties would have rocked the hell out of that rosary.

― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, February 5, 2012

I guess its more that I'm sick of the goth scene being associated with that kind of shit as if its how they all think but since I wrote that I have discovered a perth gothic nighclub has just gotten an arsekicking for running a night with drink specials including the "Date Rape" cocktail. So you know, gluh, I am glad I got out of the scene.

thanks to denial, I'm immortal! (Trayce), Monday, 6 February 2012 01:44 (thirteen years ago)

an interest toward showing the bizarre or macabre is kind of goth culture in a nutshell right

mh, Monday, 6 February 2012 02:33 (thirteen years ago)

Yahbut most ppl I know are v v pro femenist. Rape lulz arent seen as funny by anyone in my circle of friends. but sadly like anywhere, theres also a bunch of cocks who are all like "oh grow up and get over it" or "you cant take a joke" and, fuck that shit.

thanks to denial, I'm immortal! (Trayce), Monday, 6 February 2012 02:36 (thirteen years ago)

feminist. Fuck mah typos lately.

thanks to denial, I'm immortal! (Trayce), Monday, 6 February 2012 02:37 (thirteen years ago)

well yeah I have absolutely no defense for therape bit

the fetus rosary, that is kind of badass

mh, Monday, 6 February 2012 02:38 (thirteen years ago)

the _ rape

mh, Monday, 6 February 2012 02:38 (thirteen years ago)

It may be different in different countries. In US goth clubs / dance it wouldn't be unheard for someone to appropriate controversial religious jewelry. As long as it's "pretty".

โตเกียวเหมียวเหมียว aka Hucci Gucci Pucci (Mount Cleaners) (Mount Cleaners), Monday, 6 February 2012 02:39 (thirteen years ago)

Oh dont get me wrong, its the same here! I guess it was just the assumption all goths would go one further and think aborted fetuses (or, as I saw, rape jokes) are "edgy" and hilare.

Anyway sorry for the derail :)

thanks to denial, I'm immortal! (Trayce), Monday, 6 February 2012 03:03 (thirteen years ago)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/05/santorum-suggests-abortion-causes-breast-cancer/

StanM, Monday, 6 February 2012 11:33 (thirteen years ago)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/fox_fns_santorum_cancer_120205c-615x345.jpg

sobering to get these reminders of how reckless & mercenary these guys are, in between bouts of being amused seeing them butt around on-stage

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Monday, 6 February 2012 12:02 (thirteen years ago)

x-post - Ugh. That's such a tired false claim that has been repeatedly proven wrong. :[

wolf kabob (ENBB), Monday, 6 February 2012 16:14 (thirteen years ago)

I think it's one of those cases where they are wishing and hoping that if they repeat it enough it will become true.

Nicole, Monday, 6 February 2012 16:16 (thirteen years ago)

I don't even get the hypothesis there. If abortion makes breast cancer chances go up, wouldn't miscarriage or having a baby? It's just so out of left field

valleys of your mind (mh), Monday, 6 February 2012 16:24 (thirteen years ago)

You've never heard that one before?

wolf kabob (ENBB), Monday, 6 February 2012 17:15 (thirteen years ago)

The idea is that God is punishing the sinner. They were telling people as recently as the Eighties that having your breasts stimulated during sex would cause cancer.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Monday, 6 February 2012 18:41 (thirteen years ago)

I don't even get the hypothesis there. If abortion makes breast cancer chances go up, wouldn't miscarriage or having a baby? It's just so out of left field

It's a distortion of actual medicine though: carrying a pregnancy to term appears to lower the risk of breast cancer. Therefore, by stupid person logic, having an abortion "increases"a woman's chance of cancer. It's a willfully dishonest and cynical misappropriation of data.

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Monday, 6 February 2012 18:42 (thirteen years ago)

I have heard it before, but it just never fails to make me facepalm

valleys of your mind (mh), Monday, 6 February 2012 18:46 (thirteen years ago)

x-post - Yeah and also iirc there were several conflicting and inconclusive badly done studies way back when on induced and spontaneous miscarriage that muddied the waters.

wolf kabob (ENBB), Monday, 6 February 2012 18:48 (thirteen years ago)

Cue Nelson laugh:

http://jezebel.com/5882633/komen-posts-job-listing-for-position-that-looks-suspiciously-like-karen-handels

Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 February 2012 19:38 (thirteen years ago)

http://tumblr.thedailywh.at/post/17158470884/laughing-to-keep-from-crying-of-the-day-rep-john

original bgm, Monday, 6 February 2012 20:17 (thirteen years ago)

All time Nelson laugh, folks:

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/komen-official-quits-planned-parenthood-dispute/4da84e62a7d24064878b39df920b2821

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 15:46 (thirteen years ago)

They should have fired her last week, this is too little too late.

Nicole, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:01 (thirteen years ago)

But but but the birth of a wonderful new website!

http://karenhandelkomen.com/

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:13 (thirteen years ago)

While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline.

See, it wasn't about the money...wait.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:14 (thirteen years ago)

the extracts i read from the resignation letter read like flagwaves to anti-choice orgs, exercising some indignance & sudden pride. blarg.

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:51 (thirteen years ago)

Yay victimization complex

Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:19 (thirteen years ago)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/06/poor-womens-health-as-political-bargaining-chip/

I like this.

Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:05 (thirteen years ago)

Nicole otm

just1n3, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:53 (thirteen years ago)

not parody

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=nZix2Nm0fKw

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:44 (thirteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZix2Nm0fKw

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:44 (thirteen years ago)

Really glad I forgot my headphones at home today all of a sudden.

wolf kabob (ENBB), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:45 (thirteen years ago)

gggggggrrrrrr makes me want to stab people in the face

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:46 (thirteen years ago)

it's really more funny than anything

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:47 (thirteen years ago)

omg 3:20 i'm dying

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:48 (thirteen years ago)

okay I got to "vagina fruit rollups" and had to stop

(thinks and smiles) (DJP), Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:03 (thirteen years ago)

OK, what?

wolf kabob (ENBB), Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:08 (thirteen years ago)

can someone summarize that for me, I'm on iphone

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:30 (thirteen years ago)

PP wants to turn your kids into sex addicts to sell them condoms and abortions, much evidence therein

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:31 (thirteen years ago)

yeah, well, a-duh!

I still want to know about vaginal fruit snacks.

wolf kabob (ENBB), Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:31 (thirteen years ago)

thx goole

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:44 (thirteen years ago)

I still want to know about vaginal fruit snacks.

fructose + vagina sounds like a microorganism meltdown to me tbh

high five delivery device (Abbbottt), Thursday, 16 February 2012 19:57 (thirteen years ago)

I couldn't watch the whole thing, but 3:20 is definitely LOL funny.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 16 February 2012 20:52 (thirteen years ago)

hating on humans knowing that the clitoris is pleasurable is just the saddest thing

i'm surprised it had the 'subtlety' to try to slyly infer anything, when it's elsewhere so brash, but the "an intimate pose with what appears to be an adult man" thing is so deeply awful

john-claude van donne (schlump), Thursday, 16 February 2012 21:53 (thirteen years ago)

super.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/16/oklahoma-senate-passes-personhood-act-effectively-banning-all-abortions/

Prince Rebus (donna rouge), Friday, 17 February 2012 00:39 (thirteen years ago)

that author either didn't do enough research on this bill or the bill is so obviously unconstitutional that it'll be enjoined before it takes effect. i'm actually just as inclined to believe it's the former

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Friday, 17 February 2012 01:30 (thirteen years ago)

yeah that thing was cartoonishly awful

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Friday, 17 February 2012 01:31 (thirteen years ago)

ugh, Virginia.

hate living here tbh

encarta it (Gukbe), Friday, 17 February 2012 02:20 (thirteen years ago)

Asked once about abortions in the case of incest, Marshall replied that sometimes the incest was voluntary.

“The woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman,” he said.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

drawn to them like a moth toward a spanakopita (Laurel), Friday, 17 February 2012 02:33 (thirteen years ago)

ha that's refreshingly clear tbh

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 13:22 (thirteen years ago)

christians who claim to believe abortion is murder, but don't take up violent acts to stop it,* are they hypocrites? like it seems that if you feel murder is happening, you are ethical obligated to do whatever you can to stop it. is it that they don't really, really feel like it's murder (aka, it's like calling your opponent a Nazi - you know they aren't but you're using that language for rhetorical effect)? or is it that they do but they feel threatened by the state? maybe some feel guilty about not taking more drastic actions? i'm really curious about this, but it seems to be a huge ethical disconnect to me...

* nb I know some do, but they are in the minority, the vast majority do not

Mordy, Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:01 (thirteen years ago)

thinking about this tonight bc slate republished this tucker carlson article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/02/rick_santorum_prenatal_testing_and_abortion_tucker_carlson_s_classic_essay_on_prenatal_testing_and_the_abortion_of_down_syndrome_babies_.4.html

which i don't find compelling at all as an argument against abortion, but obviously it resonated w/ someone (at slate) pretty significantly that they went out of their way to republish it

Mordy, Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:09 (thirteen years ago)

"Read Tucker Carlson’s classic essay"

WHAT NEW TYPE OF TROLLING IS THIS?

valleys of your mind (mh), Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:13 (thirteen years ago)

On the other hand: http://open.salon.com/blog/sarah_gale/2012/02/19/why_rick_santorum_would_have_killed_my_daughter_1

A woman writes about how an amniocentesis saved her daughter's life 6 months into her pregnancy. Without prenatal testing covered by insurance, they'd never have been able to afford the test and her baby would not have lived even 24 hours.

A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:14 (thirteen years ago)

"Read Tucker Carlson's classic concerntrolling"

Mordy, Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:15 (thirteen years ago)

needs to be an animated gif of a spinning bowtie next to the byline

valleys of your mind (mh), Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:19 (thirteen years ago)

Meanwhile: Virginia.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:20 (thirteen years ago)

This is just bucketfuls of RAGH

Refusal to see the ultrasound results goes on a woman's permanent medical record. But we won't stick an ultrasound probe in her vagina now. Awesome.

Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:57 (thirteen years ago)

I have absolutely no idea what the ultrasound refusal record does. Biases future doctors? Marks the women as potential criminals when we finally get a religious oligarchy?

valleys of your mind (mh), Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:59 (thirteen years ago)

christians who claim to believe abortion is murder, but don't take up violent acts to stop it,* are they hypocrites? like it seems that if you feel murder is happening, you are ethical obligated to do whatever you can to stop it. is it that they don't really, really feel like it's murder (aka, it's like calling your opponent a Nazi - you know they aren't but you're using that language for rhetorical effect)? or is it that they do but they feel threatened by the state? maybe some feel guilty about not taking more drastic actions? i'm really curious about this, but it seems to be a huge ethical disconnect to me...

it definitely is a rhetorical disconnection. I suck at articulating the point, so i'll do what I do best and link to a better breakdown

...If someone really believed that children’s lives are at stake, they would be too busy chaining themselves across the front doors of hospitals to waste precious hours just talking, talking, talking — mostly about themselves and their alleged morals. Blog disputes, self-congratulation and the marking-off of tribal territory would be luxuries such a true believer could not afford when 3,300 children are about to be murdered and the clock is always ticking ticking ticking.

I have seen very, very few people whose behavior allowed me to believe that they really believed any such thing...

Spleen of Hearts (kingfish), Thursday, 23 February 2012 04:04 (thirteen years ago)

xpost mh: in lieu of a scarlet letter, basically. Who the fuck knows. So they can be tsk'd at by future doctors?

Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 23 February 2012 04:09 (thirteen years ago)

and yet I see similar behavior in other areas. i know ppl who sincerely believe that the united states is responsible for murdering children worldwide but they also live normal lives. i think some things you can believe, but bc of the relationship between the individual + the state, or the individual and society, or whatever, you just feel so powerless to act on your 'beliefs.' (obv there's some distance here from the core belief, but i don't think it means necessarily that they don't really believe it.) ppl in history have been witness to terrible crimes against their fellow man, and been unable to act. i'm not saying it is so here -- but it could be?

Mordy, Thursday, 23 February 2012 04:11 (thirteen years ago)

i think a lot of anti-abortion types see it as "wrong" and "immoral" in an abstract kind of way, the % that actually feels it is murder in a visceral way is relatively small, and those types are the ones out marching, harassing clinics etc.

buzza, Thursday, 23 February 2012 04:19 (thirteen years ago)

Guess Virginia isn't for Lovers anymore.

encarta it (Gukbe), Thursday, 23 February 2012 05:22 (thirteen years ago)

christians who claim to believe abortion is murder, but don't take up violent acts to stop it,* are they hypocrites? like it seems that if you feel murder is happening, you are ethical obligated to do whatever you can to stop it. is it that they don't really, really feel like it's murder (aka, it's like calling your opponent a Nazi - you know they aren't but you're using that language for rhetorical effect)? or is it that they do but they feel threatened by the state? maybe some feel guilty about not taking more drastic actions? i'm really curious about this, but it seems to be a huge ethical disconnect to me...

* nb I know some do, but they are in the minority, the vast majority do not

― Mordy, Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:01 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

most sects of christianity don't promote or condone violence. i haven't been to church in a while but I don't see the hypocrisy

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Thursday, 23 February 2012 05:46 (thirteen years ago)

wake me up when my ladyparts are *completely* illegal. just tell me what page in the margaret atwood anthology to turn to.

popcorn (get bent), Thursday, 23 February 2012 05:48 (thirteen years ago)

I get the impression a lot of people are against abortion until "it happens to them" in some way. Also, I recall seeing a clip where some guy went around at an anti abortion protest asking people, if they wanted abortion illegalised, does that mean they want all women in that situation sent to jail? Majority of ppl asked looked suprised, baffled, and said "oh, well... no, that seems harsh". I mean ffs.

Lindsay NAGL (Trayce), Thursday, 23 February 2012 08:08 (thirteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure a lot of pro-lifers will tell you "murder is murder."

Big Mr. Guess U.S.A. Champion (crüt), Thursday, 23 February 2012 08:10 (thirteen years ago)

i know ppl who sincerely believe that the united states is responsible for murdering children worldwide but they also live normal lives.

There's no way to stop it. That's my practical side.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 23 February 2012 08:15 (thirteen years ago)

I know more than one person who has worked at a clinic or as an escort for a clinic, who has seen protestors later show up at the same clinic to get an abortion for themselves or their daughters. And didn't feel they were being hypocrites at all! And were back protesting soon after!

A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Thursday, 23 February 2012 11:14 (thirteen years ago)

That happens alllllllll the time.

kate78, Thursday, 23 February 2012 19:29 (thirteen years ago)

"The only moral abortion is my abortion!"

kate78, Thursday, 23 February 2012 19:30 (thirteen years ago)

and Trayce, here's the video you mentioned upthread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

kate78, Thursday, 23 February 2012 19:36 (thirteen years ago)

This is kind of interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC/AAT

kinder, Friday, 24 February 2012 00:54 (thirteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.guernicamag.com/features/3535/ptacin_3_1_12

mookieproof, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 16:27 (thirteen years ago)

oh god, three days for a D&E? I feel so bad for the writer :(

mh, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 17:23 (thirteen years ago)

I feel the need to point out that the name of the procedure is a dilation and extraction or evacuation, not excavation. Her uterus isn't an archeological site.

kate78, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 18:16 (thirteen years ago)

http://images.45cat.com/the-cramps-whats-inside-a-girl-big-beat.jpg

the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 14 March 2012 18:19 (thirteen years ago)

Is a d&e the same as a d&c? I've only ever heard ”d&c” used in nz.

just1n3, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 19:35 (thirteen years ago)

D&C happens in first trimester, D&E later.

kate78, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 19:46 (thirteen years ago)

Those 3 choices. "So, no to all of them but which one would I say no to the least." Fuck.

And the convo with the mother about giving birth to the dead baby just ripped me apart.

Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 14 March 2012 19:53 (thirteen years ago)

I feel the need to point out that the name of the procedure is a dilation and extraction or evacuation, not excavation. Her uterus isn't an archeological site.

― kate78, Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:16 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol

wolf kabob (ENBB), Wednesday, 14 March 2012 19:56 (thirteen years ago)

yeah 'excavation' kinda threw me, I was like 'that's a bit of an extreme name for a procedure isn't it?'

I had images of frog dissection where the parts are splayed out and pinned and affixed with labels and I was v unhappy

Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 14 March 2012 19:58 (thirteen years ago)

Tennessee to facilitate murder of abortion providers:

A new bill headed for a vote by a Tennessee House committee this week targets abortion providers by requiring the state’s Department of Health to publish detailed information about doctors on a public website.

Known as H.B. 3308, or the “Life Defense Act of 2012,” the bill would not actually level any real “defense” of human embryos. Instead, it would require the Tennessee Department of Health to publish more detailed information about abortions carried out in the state, including the names of doctors who performed them and the hospitals they work with.

It would also require detailed statistics on abortions, including time, date, the woman’s medical conditions at the time, the age of the fetus, the type of procedure performed, the location of the procedure, and the woman’s age, race and marital status, along with details on how many times she has been pregnant.

While all states collect some basic information on abortions, H.B. 3308 would make Tennessee’s reporting the most detailed in the nation.

butvi wouls (Phil D.), Monday, 19 March 2012 17:30 (thirteen years ago)

the amount of time that tennessee state legislators spend on mean-spirited vindicitve bullshit is just amazing

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 19 March 2012 17:37 (thirteen years ago)

i sort of wish that story elaborated on what roeder's public justification for that bill is

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 19 March 2012 17:38 (thirteen years ago)

I started doing some digging to see the number of politicians murdered in Tennessee versus the number of doctors who performed abortions and ran across this wholly fascinating case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Looper

thuggish ruggish Brahms (DJP), Monday, 19 March 2012 17:39 (thirteen years ago)

yeahh

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 19 March 2012 17:42 (thirteen years ago)

Texas State Senator's Office Firebombed: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/sen-wendy-davis-fort-worth-office-hit-with-molotov-cocktail/

Apparently she is one of the very few pro-Planned Parenthood legislators in the state.

bring back the dream of buzz bin (Phil D.), Wednesday, 21 March 2012 15:04 (thirteen years ago)

insane.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill/

After an emotional 14-hour workday that included fist-fights between lobbyists and a walk-out by women Democrats, the Georgia House passed a Senate-approved bill Thursday night that criminalizes abortion after 20 weeks.

The bill, which does not contain rape or incest exemptions, is expected to receive a signature from Republican Gov. Nathan Deal.
Commonly referred to as the “fetal pain bill” by Georgian Republicans and as the “women as livestock bill” by everyone else, HB 954 garnered national attention this month when state Rep. Terry England (R-Auburn) compared pregnant women carrying stillborn fetuses to the cows and pigs on his farm. According to Rep. England and his warped thought process, if farmers have to “deliver calves, dead or alive,” then a woman carrying a dead fetus, or one not expected to survive, should have to carry it to term.

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile” pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.
If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,” which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

In order for a pregnancy to be considered “medically futile,” the fetus must be diagnosed with an irreversible chromosomal or congenital anomaly that is “incompatible with sustaining life after birth.” The Georgia “fetal pain” bill also stipulates that the abortion must be performed in such a way that the fetus emerges alive. If doctors perform the abortion differently, they face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison. Given all this, the so-called compromise suddenly does not look like much of a bargain.

For anti-choice lawmakers, it is an item of faith that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks. But scientists disagree. Reviews of all existing medical evidence have found that fetuses have not developed the neurological structures to feel pain until at least 25 weeks, and likely not until 28 weeks, in the third trimester.

Although Roe v. Wade set the precedent for abortion to be legal up to 24 weeks, state legislatures continue to ram through restrictive anti-choice laws. Georgia will join six other states with fetal pain restrictions—Nebraska, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma and Alabama. North Carolina prohibits abortion after 20 weeks.

Arizona is now poised to join the roster, as the Senate passed a 20-week abortion restriction Tuesday. The bill, which awaits final approval from the House, also requires women seeking abortions to look at a state-run website littered with anti-choice propaganda.

And in the Northeast, arguably the country’s most pro-choice region, the New Hampshire House voted Thursday to ban abortion after 20 weeks. The bill now moves to the Senate to join four other anti-abortion bills passed by the House this month.

Although GOP’s war on women continues to deal blow after blow, this week held two small victories: The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down mandated ultrasounds while the Idaho House dropped the ultrasound bill all together.

gimme prizza (crüt), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:08 (thirteen years ago)

these people are basically medieval and totally beyond redemption

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:15 (thirteen years ago)

meanwhile, my friends decided that at six months of age, their baby is finally smarter than their cats, although much less agile

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 14:54 (thirteen years ago)

sounds like a fair fight

john-claude van donne (schlump), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:31 (thirteen years ago)

Why Planned Parenthood won't take $500K

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholiday/2012/04/03/why-wont-planned-parenthood-take-500000/

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 18:52 (thirteen years ago)

The author and Tucker Max can both go jump off of a cliff.

Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 18:53 (thirteen years ago)

PP wouldn't even accept an anonymous donation from him.

Out of "principle" I guess.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 18:54 (thirteen years ago)

P: “I guess it’s the way you write about women.”

Tucker “What do you mean? I’m not negative towards women in my writing. Women love my writing; more than half my fans are female.”

PP: “Well…there are certain jokes you make we feel can be perceived in a certain negative manner.”

Tucker: “So because I made a fat girl joke you won’t accept a $500,000 donation?”

PP: “I wouldn’t characterize it that way.”

Tucker: “How would you then? I’m listening and I want your best quote.”

PP: “We don’t feel it would be appropriate, given Planned Parenthood’s mission and your body of work, to accept your donation.”

Tucker: “What? I thought Planned Parenthood’s mission was about helping women, not passing judgment on humor.”

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 18:56 (thirteen years ago)

planned parenthood otm

don where are you going with this?

surely an 'anonymous' donation in this particulars would not have been so, rendering the gesture moot

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 18:58 (thirteen years ago)

http://feministing.com/files/2012/04/tuckermaxtweet.jpg

yeah i wonder why this didn't work out, what a bunch of self righteous bitches

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 18:59 (thirteen years ago)

http://jezebel.com/5898721/tucker-maxs-bizarre-campaign-to-use-planned-parenthood-for-publicity

y'tulip, y'pea-brained earwig (donna rouge), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:00 (thirteen years ago)

The author and Tucker Max can both go jump off of a cliff.

This, a million times

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:03 (thirteen years ago)

plus the author spelled judgment wrong in the UPDATE

69, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:05 (thirteen years ago)

"humor"

the late great, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:06 (thirteen years ago)

maybe if we were in a pre-james-o'keefe age PP might have bitten, but big name liberal orgs are hypersensitive to trolling.

he could always give it to komen for the cure

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:08 (thirteen years ago)

you can spell judgment w/ the e or without

iatee, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:08 (thirteen years ago)

I have no idea how the anonymous donation works with PP.

It's an interesting discussion why people would reject (allegedly) anonymous money or if PP would return it if they found out later it was from someone like Tucker Max.

Then again, most abortion discussions always end with some form of absolutism.

(xp)

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:08 (thirteen years ago)

Also, I call bullshit on Tucker Max having $500k to donate

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:08 (thirteen years ago)

yeah I mean his movie made "$1.4 million at the box office on a $7 million budget"

iatee, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:09 (thirteen years ago)

Tucker thought about it for a few days and called me back, “They really did help me and my girlfriend when I was poor, I really do believe in their mission, and if this money doesn’t go to them it goes to the government anyway. Let’s do it.”

I am sure this is an exact transcript.

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:10 (thirteen years ago)

well basic logic would indicate that an anonymous donation from tucker max is not actually an anonymous donation

the late great, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:10 (thirteen years ago)

my hatred for Tucker Max needed no further justification but RAGH WHAT A DOUCHECANOE

god I hate that fucking guy

Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:11 (thirteen years ago)

your lines of "absolutism" don't have to be drawn all that tightly that so that tucker max is outside them, come off it

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:13 (thirteen years ago)

Never said it was, didn't imply it either. Just saying that with abortion, it usually comes down to one way or another with no space in between.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:15 (thirteen years ago)

Are there some charitable orgs that don't accept anonymous donations?

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:17 (thirteen years ago)

well, if you mean the two sides are "no abortions, ever" and "abortions can happen" then yeah it's pretty black and white, but that kind of ignores the fact that there are a lot of opinions in that range

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:18 (thirteen years ago)

that guy holiday is a straight-up liar, wouldnt trust anything he says/his version of events

no one has talked about tucker max in like 4 years and now all of a sudden hes on the front page of jezebel and salon and stuff

max, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:18 (thirteen years ago)

well dandy don straw men aren't much noted for intellectual depth

the late great, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:19 (thirteen years ago)

if tucker max gives you $500k the world is going to know

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:19 (thirteen years ago)

you can spell judgment w/ the e or without

― iatee, Wednesday, April 4, 2012 7:08 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

not if u are a real american

69, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:19 (thirteen years ago)

jez hed should read tucker max's successful campaign to use planned parenthood for publicity

max, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:19 (thirteen years ago)

well, if you mean the two sides are "no abortions, ever" and "abortions can happen" then yeah it's pretty black and white, but that kind of ignores the fact that there are a lot of opinions in that range

So PP advocates any opinions any opinions that restrict abortion on demand? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:23 (thirteen years ago)

haha this sentence from his publicist's roman is great:

As long as I’ve known Tucker—a card-carrying member of the University of Chicago School of Economics who also has a law degree from Duke—he has been pro-choice.

chicago econ AND duke law? there's no way he's an asshole!

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:24 (thirteen years ago)

haha

iatee, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:25 (thirteen years ago)

PP does what is legal and lobbies to
a) keep what they do in their practice legal
b) expand reproductive health funding, outreach, and education

As an organization, they're attempting to protect their remit?

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:25 (thirteen years ago)

Just saying that with abortion, it usually comes down to one way or another with no space in between.

You didn't say that Planned Parenthood was "one way!" While there are often opinions attached, they're a service organization and attempt to remain somewhat agnostic about the services they provide.

I mean, you wouldn't say "Well, with sexually transmitted infections, people are usually one way or the other with no space in-between"

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:27 (thirteen years ago)

PP does what is legal and lobbies to
a) keep what they do in their practice legal
b) expand reproductive health funding, outreach, and education

You know, when they aren't busy getting firebombed.

Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:30 (thirteen years ago)

For what it's worth, PP has refused to do abortions in a number of cases where abusive husbands, parents, or other controlling parties have shown up demanding that their child/wife/etc be given abortion services. This isn't the most common case, thankfully, but according to a friends who have worked there, it does happen.

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:30 (thirteen years ago)

you can spell judgment w/ the e or without

― iatee, Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:08 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

DIE

recent thug (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:31 (thirteen years ago)

it makes more sense w/ an e

iatee, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:32 (thirteen years ago)

why would we want to make it more confusing for people

iatee, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:33 (thirteen years ago)

PP doesn't believe in any abortion restriction and have been active in the courts on any abortion restrictions. It's pretty black and white to them.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:36 (thirteen years ago)

I don't think they are agnostic about that particular service at all.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:36 (thirteen years ago)

On the weekends they get together and eat the babies they murder. It's true.

Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:37 (thirteen years ago)

For the record, I would have taken Tucker Max's money.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:42 (thirteen years ago)

I wonder if Hitler gave to charity.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:43 (thirteen years ago)

how do you feel about abortion, don?

recent thug (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:43 (thirteen years ago)

the bad PR has, on some level, a monetary value, and it wouldn't be worth 500k

iatee, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:43 (thirteen years ago)

I love abortion but am FOR parental notification. I wonder if PP will send back my donation of $50?

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:44 (thirteen years ago)

if you become a public figure and do things that would look bad for pp's image they would probably be willing to send back your $50

iatee, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:45 (thirteen years ago)

fwiw, PP also strongly counsels people on how to use birth control, will pretty much give you ways of getting pregnant according to your financial need, and are pretty unambiguous about this. so yeah, they are firmly in the "black and white" of allowing access to it, but they're also some of the strongest believers in preventative measures

also, they'll gladly help you if you're pregnant or want to know about fertility, but psssh who cares right

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:46 (thirteen years ago)

give you ways of NOT getting pregnant I meant

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:47 (thirteen years ago)

oh crap I spoiled the game, PP really just wants to give you lots of ways to get pregnant so they can do more abortions

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:47 (thirteen years ago)

will pretty much give you ways of getting pregnant according to your financial need

this is a service i provide fyi

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:47 (thirteen years ago)

They also advise minors to notify their guardians in the case of an abortion. PP just fights it from becoming a law.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:50 (thirteen years ago)

Yup. Because sometimes... those guardians are the fathers.

uuuugh

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:53 (thirteen years ago)

"you should tell your parents what you are about to do before shooting them both and returning here for your abortion"

goole, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:55 (thirteen years ago)

the other thing I kept hearing about was a few immigrant communities that were for the most part well-meaning but were seriously not integrating into midwest norms. you know, like continuing to send your female children to school past elementary and not marrying them off at age 12 or just knocking them up at age 13

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:58 (thirteen years ago)

Yup. Because sometimes... those guardians are the fathers.

^^^^ this. seriously, if a teen doesn't want to tell her family she's having an abortion there's probably a damn good reason.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:01 (thirteen years ago)

not to minimize the point (which is very valid and not really one I'd considered before) but I'm pretty sure that there are reasons why a teenage girl might not want to tell her parents she's pregnant besides her father being the father

God, Music and Romeo and Juliet (DJP), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:03 (thirteen years ago)

I would be OK with parental notification laws if every single one was hand-delivered by

http://www.mrmedia.com/uploaded_images/chris_hansen.gif

Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:04 (thirteen years ago)

Many (most?) teen girls don't want to tell their parents much of anything.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:05 (thirteen years ago)

Everyone's against parental notification until they are actually facing the situation with their own daughter.

dandydonweiner, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:07 (thirteen years ago)

I seriously don't know what would have happened to me if I had got pregnant when I was a teenager. Getting beat up and thrown out of the house would be strong possibilities. Parental notification would be nice in a perfect world where everyone had functional family situations, but it is not a perfect world.

Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:10 (thirteen years ago)

Look, he said "everyone." Was that unclear?

Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:13 (thirteen years ago)

Dude how are you going to be facing the situation if there is no parental notification? You're not notified there's a situation! catch 22.

mh, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 22:03 (thirteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0420/1224314970161.html?via=mr

This lady got my #1 in the last election, thanks largely to my having dealt with her quite a lot as part of my job. She's very bright, professional, sympathetic, a good public rep at local and higher level. I'm bummed and shocked to find out that she's a fucking nutcase.

diafiyhm (darraghmac), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:49 (thirteen years ago)

I mean... it's not like she's factually incorrect re: the cause of unwanted pregnancies, but that position isn't really conducive to helpful public policy

I need new, hip khakis (DJP), Friday, 20 April 2012 14:55 (thirteen years ago)

the fact that she has looked at this modern social issue as a firstly/mainly theological thought exercise is blowin my fuckin mind, i voted for thomas aquinas joke's on me :?

diafiyhm (darraghmac), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:00 (thirteen years ago)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/boundedtile/2012/0420/1224314970161_1.jpg?ts=1334933884

She's fashionably incorrect re: her chinbeard and chops.

fruitsbs (beachville), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:04 (thirteen years ago)

drinking correlates highly with fornication, ime, maybe they should ban that

mh, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:06 (thirteen years ago)

let's not give her any fuckin ideas hey

diafiyhm (darraghmac), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:13 (thirteen years ago)

sorry irish joeks

mh, Friday, 20 April 2012 15:16 (thirteen years ago)

p sure the entire 'debate' aound this issue is a irish joek tbh

diafiyhm (darraghmac), Friday, 20 April 2012 15:22 (thirteen years ago)

one month passes...

guy who talks sense
obviously do not read the comments

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/05/why_i_perform_abortions_a_chri.html

blossom smulch (schlump), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 09:41 (thirteen years ago)

A+ person

twittering spinster (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:30 (thirteen years ago)

That guy is too logical and rational and compassionate for our shitty world

mh, Tuesday, 29 May 2012 21:08 (thirteen years ago)

HERO

catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 23:23 (thirteen years ago)

wanna print that shit and hand it out to everyone in the world (but mostly my abortion-leery medicos; lotta ppl that are "pro-choice" but that are kinda willing to cede ground on the late term abortion issue)

catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 23:27 (thirteen years ago)

<3

wolf kabob (ENBB), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 23:29 (thirteen years ago)

Utter Classic. I will rep for my abortion and Feminist Women's Health Center in ATL any day. I don't want to belittle anyone else's differing experiences, but I just want to put out there that it is not necessarily traumatizing for the woman. Being pregnant was what traumatized me.

I don't buy the claim that women use it as a form of birth control, and definitely not in Georgia. It's expensive, not exactly easy or convenient, and is usually not covered by Medicaid. If anyone was doing that, it would be a wealthier, more insured demographic that isn't usually accused of that sort of thing. I do agree that some women are irresponsible about or ignore the issue of birth control, but that's not the same as saying, "Oh whatever, I'll just get an abortion if I get pregnant."

Not sure how parental notification is justifiable, as it carries a risk of violence/homelessness/other totally shitty circumstances for the woman. xpost

Oh yeah, and fuck our new fetal pain bill.

emilys., Wednesday, 30 May 2012 01:13 (thirteen years ago)

guy who talks sense
obviously do not read the comments

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/05/why_i_perform_abortions_a_chri.html

― blossom smulch (schlump), Tuesday, May 29, 2012 5:41 AM (15 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thanks for this, what a clear thinker this guy is

call all destroyer, Wednesday, 30 May 2012 01:18 (thirteen years ago)

Yes, that interview is awesome

emilys., Wednesday, 30 May 2012 01:22 (thirteen years ago)

concur, this guy rules & states the pro-choice position so so well - powerful voice to hear imo

cosi fan whitford (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 02:25 (thirteen years ago)

didn't read the comments, and have decided that is the new way forward: "just don't ever read them."

catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 02:29 (thirteen years ago)

hi5 idea for life

he bit me (it felt like a diss) (m bison), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 02:33 (thirteen years ago)

I really like when news anchors segue into the "follow us on Facebook/Twitter" pitch with "now we want to hear what you have to say." lol, no you fucking don't, have you read the stuff they said last time you said that

cosi fan whitford (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 02:35 (thirteen years ago)

So true. A lot of papers now use Facebook login for comments, both for convenience and the idea it stops people from being anonymous dicks. They're only half right, in that people will gladly be dicks and sign their names.

mh, Thursday, 31 May 2012 06:18 (thirteen years ago)

there is a person is arguing dud!

http://checkmateprochoicers.tumblr.com

http://checkmateprochoicers.tumblr.com/aboutme

"Even though many girls who have abortions may be sluts, this blog is not about calling them sluts."

(via feministing)

goole, Wednesday, 6 June 2012 14:36 (thirteen years ago)

this is just trolling really. abortion is legal. checkmate, assholes

decrepit but free (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 6 June 2012 14:39 (thirteen years ago)

Yeah, Amanda Marcotte tap-danced all over their pointy little heads yesterday: The *best* arguments of anti-choicers, put in one place so people can laugh at them

Julie Derpy (Phil D.), Wednesday, 6 June 2012 14:42 (thirteen years ago)

(Please keep all submissions, comments, and reblogs kind and Christ-like. Even though many girls who have abortions may be sluts, this blog is not about calling them sluts. It is about stopping the new holocaust!)

new board description

blossom smulch (schlump), Wednesday, 6 June 2012 17:05 (thirteen years ago)

wild times in michigan:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120614/POLITICS02/206140467/1361/Lawmaker-barred-from-speaking-over--vagina--comment

goole, Thursday, 14 June 2012 22:08 (thirteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

What. The. Fuck.

JACKSON, Miss. — The phones buzzed over and over at Mississippi’s only abortion clinic on Monday. Yes, receptionists told the dozens of young women who called, they could still see a doctor about an unwanted pregnancy. But they would need to come soon.

Enlarge This Image

James Patterson for The New York Times

Anti-abortion activists at the Jackson Women's Health Organization on Monday next to a sign announcing the clinic's status.

Related

Mississippi Law Aimed at Abortion Clinic Is Blocked (July 2, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
.

The clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, was facing another deadline.

The clinic was scheduled to be shut on Monday because it was not in compliance with a new state law that requires doctors who perform abortions to be obstetrician-gynecologists with admitting privileges at local hospitals. But on Sunday, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement pending a hearing in 11 days. Had the clinic been forced to close, Mississippi would have been the only state with no abortion clinic.

That would be cause for celebration for the anti-abortion activists who have gathered every day for years in front of the pink-walled clinic to sing hymns, recite Bible verses and try to dissuade women from having abortions.

“We already have a plan for the building,” said Ron Nederhoed, an anti-abortion protester and retired psychologist. “We’re going to turn it into a museum to honor the children who were killed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/mississippis-lone-abortion-clinic-given-temporary-reprieve-fields-rush-of-calls.html?hp

a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 July 2012 01:15 (thirteen years ago)

A depressing but true fact: every day of our lives we have to make our peace with a vast quantity of human suffering. Every day all over the world people are tortured, killed, enslaved, raped and otherwise made to come into harm's way. And the reality is that we have no real choice but to shut a lot of this out of our minds, otherwise we would go insane. And yet, in the midst of all of this, the thing that these anti-abortion activists are so hung-up on is the fate of tiny little conceptuses that don't even have nervous systems in the first weeks of their existence.

aonghus, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 20:52 (thirteen years ago)

Even though it sounds like the concern of the MS law was more an anti-choice agenda than women's health, I still wouldn't want to have an abortion at a place where the docs don't have admitting privileges.

emilys., Wednesday, 4 July 2012 02:24 (thirteen years ago)

We are dealing with a similar law here, with similar consequences:

Knoxville’s two licensed clinics that offer surgical abortion, Knoxville Center for Reproductive Health (KCRH) and Volunteer Women’s Medical Clinic (VWMC), serve not just local women, who make up about a third of their patients, but virtually every county in East Tennessee and into Kentucky and Georgia. Chattanooga has no clinic, and more Hamilton County women visit Knoxville clinics than women from Blount or Sevier. Nearly one in 10 patients arrive from neighboring states.

At VWMC, Dr. Richard Manning is the primary physician, and he has opted not to restore his admitting privileges, which he relinquished years ago when he transitioned from full-time OB/GYN practice to the ambulatory surgery clinic. Dr. Manning is 69. As of Sunday, July 1 he can no longer perform abortions in Tennessee.

His colleague at KCRH, whose family requested we not use his name, applied for and received admitting privileges at University of Tennessee Medical Center. Days later he suffered a stroke, and two weeks ago he died. Another local doctor who worked at the clinic earlier in her career has stepped in temporarily, but she is unwilling to assume duties at either clinic permanently.

something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 July 2012 02:56 (thirteen years ago)

Even though it sounds like the concern of the MS law was more an anti-choice agenda than women's health, I still wouldn't want to have an abortion at a place where the docs don't have admitting privileges.

why

catbus otm (gbx), Thursday, 5 July 2012 22:54 (thirteen years ago)

okay, "sounds like"=definitely IS

I guess that was actually a pretty stupid statement on my part. I know abortions are some of the safest procedures there are, but I looked for a place with admitting privileges for extra reassurance. However, no privileges is still a lot safer than no clinics, and not everyone has the benefit of being able to shop around. And I guess in the rare event something did go wrong, it's not like you couldn't get transferred to a hospital anyway.

emilys., Friday, 6 July 2012 09:32 (thirteen years ago)

i think the deal w/ Mississippi was that the doctors were coming from other states to staff the clinic. i would suspect they have admitting privileges in their own state. i guess MS doctors were afraid they'd be harassed in their homes if they were performing abortions, or perhaps they're all insane pro-lifers themselves.

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 6 July 2012 12:21 (thirteen years ago)

i think "admitting privileges" is one of those things that can get its meaning twisted a bit in media coverage. many many docs no longer have (or want!) admitting privileges; the system just isn't structured that way anymore. APs (dont want to type that anymore) just mean that you can admit, and then follow, someone in the hospital. that is: someone seems ill during an office visit, you can admit them to the hospital directly, without being evaluated by the in-house team. that also means that you'll be rounding on them in the hospital and placing orders, etc. this is how medicine was done in Olde Tymes, but it's a pretty rare thing nowadays; busy outpatient docs just dont have the time to manage patients in clinic AND in the hospital.

but it has nothing to do with safety. someone not having APs doesn't mean they didn't qualify for them. the docs at my clinic have admitting privileges, but that's because it's a residency program that's associated with a hospital. the clinic staff docs take weekly turns on hospital duty so they don't have to round on their individual patients, uh, individually. but yr average community clinic isn't associated with a hospital at all, it wouldn't make sense. but they still have phones to call 911.

catbus otm (gbx), Friday, 6 July 2012 15:34 (thirteen years ago)

tl;dr

making abortions contingent on having a practitioner with "admitting privileges" is v clever concern-trolling by the right, since it calls into question an abortion doctor's credentials ("but he doesn't even have admitting privileges!") as well as making it seem as if they shit about women's health by making it seem like 'admitting privileges' are the only way a woman can get to a hospital. as if they wouldn't pass through the ED like every other jerk.

catbus otm (gbx), Friday, 6 July 2012 15:40 (thirteen years ago)

next phase: once doctors do have admitting privileges, make a short hospital stay mandatory so the doctor can only do one abortion, then has to go to the hospital to supervise

hot sauce delivery device (mh), Friday, 6 July 2012 15:43 (thirteen years ago)

clever concern-trolling by the right, since it calls into question an abortion doctor's credentials

yeah i've worked for some attys on some med mal litigation and opposing counsel is always making a big deal about this in front of the jury and the fact and expert witness docs are like, ummm yeah not a bfd.

it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 6 July 2012 15:49 (thirteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion-teen/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

this is enraging

PITILESS LIVE SHOW (DJP), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 14:46 (thirteen years ago)

also, this is exactly where we are headed

PITILESS LIVE SHOW (DJP), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 14:47 (thirteen years ago)

that's unspeakable, and obviously there should be no such prohibition in the first place, but wtf at those hematologists - the law seems vague enough that the situation seems clearly "treat now, worry about defending yourself in court later"

Al S. Burr! (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 21:08 (thirteen years ago)

also, this is exactly where we are headed

Yeah. It really makes concrete what the whole fight is about -- whether your body is your own, or whether you lose control of it as soon as a sperm wanders into an egg somewhere inside.

something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 22:01 (thirteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/index.html

tragic follow-up

ticagrelor rotini (k3vin k.), Sunday, 19 August 2012 03:07 (thirteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/us/politics/todd-akin-controversy-may-hurt-republican-chances.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Mr. Romney’s views align with that of the Mormon Church, which opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest or when the life of the woman is in danger. He has said he is personally opposed to abortion; as a Mormon bishop in the 1980s he attempted to talk a congregant out of terminating a pregnancy after doctors advised her to do so because of a potentially lethal blood clot.

this view has come up elsewhere lately too for obvious reasons. is the line of thinking, for a pro-life / abortion-is-murder person, supposed to be that you would definitely be killing the baby, but MAYBE the mother might still live, so the mother is supposed to chance it (or both are supposed to chance it), as being the most moral course of action?

j., Wednesday, 22 August 2012 04:09 (thirteen years ago)

Oh my god:

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-law-arizona-states-pregnancy-begins-two-weeks-before-conception

a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 27 August 2012 18:03 (thirteen years ago)

the fucking balls on these ppl

catbus otm (gbx), Monday, 27 August 2012 18:15 (thirteen years ago)

People are funny

Fiendish Doctor Wu (kingfish), Monday, 27 August 2012 18:19 (thirteen years ago)

Jordan Goldberg is the Center of Reproductive Rights state advocacy counsel. He stated that the law “disregards women’s health in a way I’ve never seen before. The women of Arizona can’t access medical treatments that other women can.”

What do you think? Should gestational age be figured from the first day of the last menstrual cycle or from the date of conception?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?? waiting to see polls on when other important events like hurricanes, solar flares, volcanic eruptions, presidential elections, etc. ought to be figured as taking place

why didn't they just write into the bill that according to the bill the bill became law two weeks before the legislature voted on it? two weeks before it was written?!?

j., Monday, 27 August 2012 23:25 (thirteen years ago)

why couldn't they have aborted this bill two weeks before it was written

The Radioheads are massive in the Man community (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 27 August 2012 23:28 (thirteen years ago)

"Women’s Health and Safety Act", Orwellian as fuck

A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Monday, 27 August 2012 23:46 (thirteen years ago)

i dunno if anyone mentioned this in this thread but i was hearing on npr a federal appeals court in texas said it's ok if texas wants to take away all the non-abortion state funds away from pp because it's *associated* with abortion in people's minds. and it's not a violation of the first amendment right (taking away money due to pro-abortion-rights advocacy) because texas has first amendment rights too. makes sense.

horribl ecreature (harbl), Tuesday, 28 August 2012 00:08 (thirteen years ago)

and this lady they talked to was like "this is what's best for women in texas"

horribl ecreature (harbl), Tuesday, 28 August 2012 00:08 (thirteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

wonderful imo article about abortion provision and how we neglect to afford the same moral and legal protections to conscientious providers as we do objectors

(i think this is free) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1206253

la goonies (k3vin k.), Thursday, 13 September 2012 00:38 (thirteen years ago)

http://jezebel.com/5944213/abortions-increase-by-25-in-totally-pro+life-arizona

a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Tuesday, 18 September 2012 23:59 (thirteen years ago)

one month passes...

YES

Force Boxman (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 October 2012 20:19 (twelve years ago)

three weeks pass...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 13:34 (twelve years ago)

Wretched.

One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 13:37 (twelve years ago)

fucking awful

乒乓, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 13:44 (twelve years ago)

Ireland's law against abortion was inherited from a British law enacted in 1861. It has never gone off the books, making Ireland one of only two nations in the European Union to ban abortion completely (the other being Malta). Ireland also amended its Constitution in 1983 to recognize a right to life in the unborn, "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother."

But in 1992, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that abortion was permitted if there was "a real and substantial risk" to the life of the mother. This judgment came in the wake of the X Case, when a 14-year-old girl, who was suicidal after becoming pregnant following a rape, was sequestered by the state in order to stop her obtaining an abortion in the UK. She subsequently miscarried.

Despite the ruling, Ireland's abortion ban was never revised to incorporate the court-mandated exception, leaving a legal limbo.

NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 13:58 (twelve years ago)

yeah. Posted that to the irish politics thread. Just dreadful.

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:02 (twelve years ago)

that's terrible.

one of the things that really stuck with me from reading this io9 report on an ongoing longitudinal study on women who are denied abortions was the finding that "even later abortion is safer than childbirth" -- it's so easy to forget just how dangerous pregnancy is, even without laws like this.

of course you end up shazaming yourself (c sharp major), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:07 (twelve years ago)

The court unanimously found there had been a violation of article 8 in respect of applicant C [ie a woman with cancer]. It concluded that the Irish authorities failed to comply with their obligations because of the absence of any legislative or regulatory procedure by which the applicant could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland in accordance with article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. The court awarded her €15,000 in damages.

Cardinal Seán Brady has pre-empted the report from the expert group appointed to examine how best to implement the judgment of the court, saying that Catholic bishops and priests will launch a full-scale campaign of opposition if there is any attempt by the Government to legislate for abortion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0904/1224323571167.html

NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:11 (twelve years ago)

"Politicians privately admit this is due to a belief on their part that people in the Irish Republic don't want abortion in Ireland as long as there's a British solution to the country's abortion problem."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

of course you end up shazaming yourself (c sharp major), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:12 (twelve years ago)

i don't think the majority of irish politicians believe any such thing.

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:16 (twelve years ago)

mainstream parties still made up of politicians that lean towards religiously conservative, and whether that's a public stance or held belief the effect is the same. they're also very conscious that , while a divisive issue, the loudest, longest and more focused protest will come from the 'no' side. shameful that this has kept them so long from legislating for even the medically necesasary cases.

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:20 (twelve years ago)

there's a british solution to the country's abortion problem, though sometimes it requires a cancer patient 'unemployed, depressed and living in poverty' to borrow €650 from 'a moneylender' to pay for the trip

NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:24 (twelve years ago)

sometimes feel like the whole fuckin country is the dragging tail-end of the solution to a british problem tbph

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:28 (twelve years ago)

this death is directly consequential from the failure by the legislature to confront the catholic hierarchy, whose bishops instituted a widespread cover-up of child rape by clerics and who now conspire to endanger the lives of pregnant women, and create a clear statutory exemption for these cases

the doctors in this instance were craven, but they suffer from the same uncertainty that the ECHR established was unlawful -- the best that could be said is that they ~probably~ would not have been prosecuted

NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:36 (twelve years ago)

hierarchy, probably not so much. Relations there are prob at a low since kenny's speeches of last year. But the on-the-ground catholic vote would come out strong against any party legislating for abortion, whereas the people either for or unbothered either way is probably a nebulous camp

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:43 (twelve years ago)

do you think a case like this will have any effect on public opinion, legislators or even the catholic hierarchy, or do you expect their responses to be entrenchment of the existing position?

#YOLO ONO (lex pretend), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:48 (twelve years ago)

dunno if i'm out of touch with home, but I reckon a yes vote would be carried, perhaps not resoundingly but i don't think it'd be so tight. am i wrong?

Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:54 (twelve years ago)

i'd be pretty surprised if nothing changes after this, photogenic middle class woman dying of septicaemia because 'nothing could be done', it's going to be a media shitstorm

it's rare to see a case that more perfectly illustrates the idiocy and moral squalour of a particular law for campaigning purposes

NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:57 (twelve years ago)

i think it will have an effect- i think that ireland is a growingly liberal country, certainly it's well past the days of church influencing most social issues in any meaningful way. A case like this might be the focal point needed to counteract the minority but hardcore catholic/conservative groups that have punched above their weight in the political discourse about abortion up til now.

That's hopefully not just wishful thinking, y'know? I do think there's a groundswell in favour of *at least* legislation covering abortion during medical intervention- our own supreme court has ruled this was a legal necessity almost a generation ago.

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:58 (twelve years ago)

it's amazing it's been so overlooked as an issue since whenever that information referendum happened.

Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:09 (twelve years ago)

early 90s was it?

Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:09 (twelve years ago)

x case etc was 93 iirc

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:10 (twelve years ago)

and FF in power for most of the intervening time. Tight buddies.

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:11 (twelve years ago)

jesus christ

all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:37 (twelve years ago)

can't really think of any excuse that these doctors aren't 1) evil, 2) cowards, or 3) both

all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:38 (twelve years ago)

i think there's a fair case for (c) incompetence, that they were not aware that there was a serious risk to the life of the patient, but rly there's not enough hard info to claim that just yet.

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:42 (twelve years ago)

In a country where abortion is banned, how many doctors even know how to safely perform one?

just1n3, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:45 (twelve years ago)

you'd need to have been in an irish hospital in the last while to credit that fully, maybe. Health system's chronically understaffed

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:45 (twelve years ago)

iirc most hospitals would be trained in d&c which is used sometimes post-miscarriage, which is basically the same procedure

under minnesota shakedown (mh), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:46 (twelve years ago)

idk just1ne, seems a fair question.

A clinic opened in belfast, ie in another country, last month- caused uproar as they will be offering family planning services

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:49 (twelve years ago)

wtf ireland

under minnesota shakedown (mh), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:50 (twelve years ago)

ianad but I think a d&c is a scraping of the womb, actually terminating a pregnancy is different

just1n3, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:17 (twelve years ago)

This story makes me so goddamn mad.

WilliamC, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:19 (twelve years ago)

There are different ways to perform abortion but a D&C is one of them. It's used for lots of things including terminating a pregnancy if one is present so I think that MH is right in that there would definitely be doctor's present who could have done so.

ENBB, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:22 (twelve years ago)

Dilation (or dilatation) and curettage (D&C) refers to the dilation (widening/opening) of the cervix and surgical removal of part of the lining of the uterus and/or contents of the uterus by scraping and scooping (curettage). It is a therapeutic gynecological procedure as well as a rarely used method of first trimester abortion.[1][2]

It's not the most common way to perform early abortions (I think that would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation maybe though I might be wrong on that) but it can be used. Oh but she way way further along than that so nevermind.

ENBB, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:24 (twelve years ago)

I think a D&C can only be used for abortion in the first trimester.

ENBB, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:24 (twelve years ago)

It's not used very often for abortion anymore because there are better/easier/safer ways that don't involve as much sedation, but it's still used for miscarriages in countries that don't allow other things that could be used for /easy/ abortions. Some first-trimester abortions are still done as "post-miscarriage" procedures in countries in a hush-hush manner

under minnesota shakedown (mh), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:25 (twelve years ago)

But yes, not applicable in this case

under minnesota shakedown (mh), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:25 (twelve years ago)

mainstream parties still made up of politicians that lean towards religiously conservative, and whether that's a public stance or held belief the effect is the same. they're also very conscious that, while a divisive issue, the loudest, longest and more focused protest will come from the 'no' side. shameful that this has kept them so long from legislating for even the medically necesasary cases.

Well, voter turnout has been so apathetic the last decade and old people are probably the single most reliable group anywhere so they are right to assume that this would be strongly fought by the No side. I would personally be pro abortion on demand, as would a lot of people I know, but...we emigrated. We have no vote! The part that worries me is not if there is popular opinion to change the law because I've fully believed there has been for some time now, but whether low turnout and the removal of likely Yes votes from contention would still force a No.

gyac, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:48 (twelve years ago)

agree fully, but i think events/occurrences like this could galvanise the yes vote (course, they yes side would need galvanising in order to force a vote in any case as things stand)

bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:50 (twelve years ago)

I don't doubt you for a second, and I also wonder if prospective No voters would stay at home if there was a vote. I see that there are protests outside the Dáil and the Embassy here in London. Good.

gyac, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 18:09 (twelve years ago)

three months pass...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/opinion/oconnor-surrogate-abortion/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

interesting story. parents pay woman to be their surrogate; when they see that the child will be born severely disabled, they ask her to terminate (something they agreed to beforehand). she refuses, but tries to haggle with them: for an extra $10k she's morally against it, but make it $15k and we'll talk

k3vin k., Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:26 (twelve years ago)

in Arkansas today the legislature overrode the governor's veto of some of the most egregious abortion restrictions in the country

available for sporting events (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:31 (twelve years ago)

christ. on the bright side, have to figure that'll be enjoined pretty quickly

k3vin k., Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:40 (twelve years ago)

reading my post again i don't mean to sound so critical of the woman - obviously the decision is hers and i recognize that many of the people who decide to be surrogates are poor. just interesting in the sense that it's the kind of thing you probably think about if you're a law student but i've never seen a news story like it before

k3vin k., Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:42 (twelve years ago)

classic

Gunoka Cuntles (Matt P), Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:44 (twelve years ago)

that cnn story disgusted me even though i am not against aborting a fetus with severe health problems, i don't blame the lady for refusing if she didn't want to. i don't feel good about people paying other people to carry a baby. i kind of blame anyone who does it for not seeing how it could turn bad. and $20k is not enough.

veryupsetmom (harbl), Wednesday, 6 March 2013 22:36 (twelve years ago)

one month passes...

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=18889946

wow this is awesome

k3vin k., Saturday, 6 April 2013 14:44 (twelve years ago)

six months pass...

Too little, too late but still a smidgen of justice: http://jezebel.com/prominent-anti-abortion-nut-loses-law-license-due-to-hi-1447961836

My question is primarily riparian (Phil D.), Saturday, 19 October 2013 12:07 (eleven years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/texas-abortion-law-left-in-effect/

fuck

twist boat veterans for stability (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 20 November 2013 00:10 (eleven years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/win-women-and-medical-evidence

showdown upcoming

k3vin k., Saturday, 21 December 2013 01:49 (eleven years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22270271/


Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.

METHODS: We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.

RESULTS: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

CONCLUSION: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

this seems like a pretty good argument-factoid

j., Thursday, 20 February 2014 00:58 (eleven years ago)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/18/how-wendy-davis-became-america-s-conscience-on-abortion.html

ah, another politician

k3vin k., Thursday, 20 February 2014 14:47 (eleven years ago)

are they... actually using the word "shero"? yup, it shows up again

Nhex, Thursday, 20 February 2014 14:54 (eleven years ago)

three weeks pass...

Hey guys, this is something I'm doing that's really important to me and if any of you can and want to help please donate. No donation is too small! Thanks :)

http://bowlathon.nnaf.org/nnafbowl/participantpage.asp?uid=7819&fundid=1864#.UycCQG7E07U.facebook

Airwrecka Bliptrap Blapmantis (ENBB), Monday, 17 March 2014 16:52 (eleven years ago)

Hey I'm posting this again because it's really fucking important to me and to the women this might help benefit.

This weekend every donation to my fundraiser will be matched 1:1 by an anonymous donor to a to a new fund in West Texas, the West Fund. This means your money goes twice as far and to a place that really needs it considering that Texas passed a law that made 1/3 of their abortion clinics close in the past 6 months and that thousands of rural TX women now have no legal access to abortion. Anything you can donate counts even $5 (which this weekend is $10). The matching thing is only now through tomorrow so this would be an excellent time to give if you can.

http://bowlathon.nnaf.org/nnafbowl/participantpage.asp?uid=7819&fundid=1864#.UycCQG7E07U.facebook

Airwrecka Bliptrap Blapmantis (ENBB), Saturday, 22 March 2014 17:50 (eleven years ago)

(thank you!)

Airwrecka Bliptrap Blapmantis (ENBB), Saturday, 22 March 2014 17:51 (eleven years ago)

good luck!!

kinder, Saturday, 22 March 2014 17:55 (eleven years ago)

thanks, lady :)

Airwrecka Bliptrap Blapmantis (ENBB), Saturday, 22 March 2014 17:59 (eleven years ago)

glhf

Allen (etaeoe), Saturday, 22 March 2014 18:46 (eleven years ago)

Thank you!! :D

Airwrecka Bliptrap Blapmantis (ENBB), Saturday, 22 March 2014 19:03 (eleven years ago)

worst golf tournament ever

MV, Saturday, 22 March 2014 21:36 (eleven years ago)

Hi guys. So the woman I'm "bowling" with is a former co-worker from when I interned at an organization dedicated to enabling communities to both prevent teen pregnancies and to increase opportunities for youth and young parents. She still works there now and is awesome. While I plan on volunteering with the EMA fund starting in the fall, she does so now and posted this earlier. It's worth sharing.

"The other night I went to a meeting of Eastern Massachusetts Abortion Fund volunteers. We spent a long time talking about difficult situations we had worked through with callers. It reminded me how vital our work is and most people don't know what our callers are dealing with. I'd like to share a few stories.

1. One caller was in her 20s and was in the military. She had been raped at a college party. Because military health insurance doesn't cover abortion, she turned to us. We were able to make her a $200 grant to cover what she couldn't pay for on her own.

2. Another caller was an employee of a Catholic school. Her insurance wouldn't cover the abortion and because she was a single woman, she would be fired if her employer knew she was pregnant. We gave her a grant.

3. A caller I worked with, in her 30s, had just left her abusive husband. She had been laid off from her job. She couldn't use her insurance because her husband was the policyholder and she was afraid for her safety if he found out. With the discount we get from Planned Parenthood, and a grant from us, she was able to have her abortion.

4. Another caller was an African immigrant whose birth control had failed. Because our state health insurance website has been riddled with glitches like Healthcare.gov, she was unable to get enrolled in our state insurance plan in time for the procedure, which was the next day. We gave her a grant.

We fund everyone who needs us, regardless of age, religion, or whether they are pro choice or not (yes, women who are against abortion have abortions and we help them too). We offer a nonjudgmental listening ear. We believe each person makes the best decisions for herself and her family.

Please donate."

http://bowlathon.nnaf.org/nnafbowl/participantpage.asp?uid=7819&fundid=1864#.UycCQG7E07U.facebook

Airwrecka Bliptrap Blapmantis (ENBB), Sunday, 30 March 2014 14:37 (eleven years ago)

two weeks pass...

Guys I promise this is the last time you'll hear about this but it's also your last chance to donate. Including donations people have given in person, I'm less than $100 from reaching my goal and any amount helps considering the following:

$5 will pay for bus fare to an appointment
$20 is gas money
$100 covers EMA’s phone bill for just 1 month!

Tomorrow is the big day so please give today if you can!

http://bowlathon.nnaf.org/nnafbowl/participantpage.asp?uid=7819&fundid=1864#.UycCQG7E07U.facebook

Airwrecka Bliptrap Blapmantis (ENBB), Wednesday, 16 April 2014 15:37 (eleven years ago)

ok

(my roommate is an abortion doula so i've been learning some)

ugh (lukas), Wednesday, 16 April 2014 15:49 (eleven years ago)

Hey, thank you so much! :) Also, that's an amazing job your roommate has!

Airwrecka Bliptrap Blapmantis (ENBB), Wednesday, 16 April 2014 15:57 (eleven years ago)

I chipped in a few late. Congrats on making the goal!

Nhex, Thursday, 17 April 2014 04:09 (eleven years ago)

classic

mattresslessness, Thursday, 17 April 2014 04:12 (eleven years ago)

classic

a strange man (mh), Thursday, 17 April 2014 04:27 (eleven years ago)

classic cubed

i also enjoy in line skateing (spazzmatazz), Thursday, 17 April 2014 07:15 (eleven years ago)

one year passes...

I can't help but love this as PR/trolling, but is it a viable legal strategy?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/06/satanists-file-federal-lawsuit-abortion-restrictions-violate-religious-freedom/#sthash.TDP961s4.dpuf

sleeve, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 01:32 (nine years ago)

classic

mattresslessness, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 01:34 (nine years ago)

four weeks pass...

speaking of viable legal strategies...

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/14/planned_parenthood_strikes_back_at_right_wing_scam_artists_with_major_lawsuit_heres_what_you_need_to_know/

sleeve, Thursday, 14 January 2016 22:50 (nine years ago)

RICO charges? huh. wonder what the odds are on that.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 14 January 2016 22:53 (nine years ago)

oh wow

https://twitter.com/brianmrosenthal/status/691736447448190976

BREAKING: Houston grand jury investigating fetal tissue videos declines to indict Planned Parenthood, indicts videographers instead. #txlege

goole, Monday, 25 January 2016 22:20 (nine years ago)

didn't even know that was a possibility

art, Monday, 25 January 2016 22:28 (nine years ago)

courts are protecting criminals instead of the 1st Amendment.

-san (Lamp), Monday, 25 January 2016 22:29 (nine years ago)

three weeks pass...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbhzVG8UMAAubad.png

fucking hell

mookieproof, Thursday, 18 February 2016 22:22 (nine years ago)

one month passes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/health/abortion-pill-mifeprex-ru-486-fda.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

good news from the FDA

k3vin k., Wednesday, 30 March 2016 22:46 (nine years ago)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/04/northern-irish-woman-suspended-sentence-self-induced-abortion?CMP=share_btn_tw

A reminder amid all the pointing of fingers at Trump / the US, that a woman can still get a suspended prison sentence in part of the UK for inducing a miscarriage. She was turned in to the police by her housemates.

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Monday, 4 April 2016 16:02 (nine years ago)

Fucking busybody housemates.

jedi slimane (suzy), Monday, 4 April 2016 16:19 (nine years ago)

ulster protestants: you know you're a shower of knuckle-dragging troglodytes when your stance on women's reproductive rights lags behind the main party voted for by the statelet's catholics.

trickle-down ergonomics (jim in glasgow), Monday, 4 April 2016 17:34 (nine years ago)

one month passes...

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/i-got-pregnant-the-first-time-i-had-sex

They also say that birth is a miracle and every child is special. That's some magical thinking. How many utterly amazing people do you know? I know a lot of assholes. And I'm confident that if I had birthed that kid, it would now be a pretty fucked-up adult. I'm also certain that not having a baby is not robbing the world of that person. I'm pretty great, but if I had been aborted, I promise you would not feel a void in the world. You'd all be fine.

just1n3, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 00:28 (nine years ago)

three months pass...

this guy:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/andy-richter-shares-personal-story-930968

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 21 September 2016 17:36 (nine years ago)

I hate when people uncritically gush about how someone is so great on twitter or fall over themselves praising a celebrity but I really do appreciate Andy Richter

dr. mercurio arboria (mh 😏), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:02 (nine years ago)

My best friend at the time and I had a two person Andy Richter fan club when we were in HS. We made shirts.

Benson and the Jets (ENBB), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:03 (nine years ago)

I'm sure it was acclaimed but I feel like he's tried to bury the historic lede that he met his wife doing a stage version of The Brady Bunch under this abortion story

dr. mercurio arboria (mh 😏), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 18:10 (nine years ago)

aw that's a wonderful story

have you ever even read The Drudge Report? Have you gone on Stormfron (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 21 September 2016 19:18 (nine years ago)

he will always be the Strangers with Candy "Career Day" guy to me

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 21 September 2016 19:20 (nine years ago)

six months pass...

god damn referral link, sorry:

time.com/4716160/anti-abortion-activists-charged-secret-filming-planned-parenthood

sleeve, Thursday, 30 March 2017 22:19 (eight years ago)

three months pass...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/alabama-conservatives-bully-12-year-old-rape-victim-to-not-have-abortion/

these people should be dropped into a volcano en masse

El Tuomasbot (milo z), Friday, 21 July 2017 04:27 (eight years ago)

six months pass...

After more than a decade at the helm of Planned Parenthood, @CecileRichards is planning to step down from her role as president: https://t.co/cqVFlHxleR

— Ruby Cramer (@rubycramer) January 24, 2018

mookieproof, Wednesday, 24 January 2018 18:45 (seven years ago)

one year passes...

Breaking: Alabama allows a suit from man AND fetus against abortion clinic where his girlfriend terminated her pregnancy. First under Alabama's new personhood law, asserting woman's rights third in line. Very scary case. https://t.co/xXCSyJN3AQ

— ilyse hogue (@ilyseh) March 5, 2019

the pregnancy was terminated at six weeks

mookieproof, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 17:54 (six years ago)

fuck's sake that's terrifying. lots of women wouldn't even know they're pregnant at '6 weeks'

kinder, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 18:05 (six years ago)

I mean not that that's the important issue

kinder, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 18:06 (six years ago)

absolutely horrendous

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 5 March 2019 18:26 (six years ago)

the articles read like that guy is still with his girlfriend. Maybe they are low in their knit cap/shitty tattoo fund$ thus the reason they are suing.

Yerac, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 18:33 (six years ago)

and abortion is absolute classique.

Yerac, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 18:34 (six years ago)

referring to it as a baby is wrong as fuck, may as well call it a teenager or middle aged person

kinder, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 18:58 (six years ago)

Humans are emotionally hard-wired to protect infants. The anti-abortion leadership understands this perfectly well and have consistently promoted fetuses to the status of infants in their propaganda. Literally no one in the "pro-life" faction ever says the word "fetus".

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:06 (six years ago)

I like how they call him a father, like sticking his dick in someone makes him a father.

Yerac, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:07 (six years ago)

I thought this was going to be about pro-lifers claiming abortions are happening after a babies are born.

HOW DOES THAT WORK

tokyo rosemary, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:14 (six years ago)

at six weeks it's not even a fetus, it's technically an embryo

mookieproof, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:20 (six years ago)

I usually call it a really strong sneeze while on your period.

Yerac, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:22 (six years ago)

That story is 100% terrifying. Fucking hell.

emil.y, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:46 (six years ago)

how do those shouting "INFANTICIDE!" reconcile their perception of liberals as both bleeding-hearts who tie themselves to trees so a butterfly's habitat won't be destroyed, and bloodlusting baby-killers?

A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:48 (six years ago)

When you know something is true, you don't need to reconcile its apparent internal contradictions because the truth cannot be inconsistent with the truth. It's just 'what is' and must be taken at face value.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:59 (six years ago)

Oh hi I’m going to Alabama this week, because my parents have chosen to live in that particular corner of hell.

I hate going down there and this makes it even worse.

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Tuesday, 5 March 2019 20:55 (six years ago)

True White Kid - it's easy - the left cares more about the butterfly (which doesn't matter) than AN ACTUAL HUMAN BEING. It's all about the "ensoulment" (actual concept). Which to me is, like, a religious concept and shouldn't be validated by government.

Speaking from personal experience here (family in the anti-abortion movement in the US) - if you're in the movement, you commit to "the unborn" at the expense of ALL OTHER LIFE, even "post-born" human life. You're expected to put that issue above all others. I guess that's why I didn't buy the arguments when they were first peddled to me in the early 80's. That commitment means NO environmental issues, NO to issues of social and economic justice, NO to peace activism. A handful of the A-A's do "seamless garment" politics, but I don't buy the "pro life" argument. It just seems to me that propagating this issue has been a way of disempowering the left. Jerry Falwell, for example, was a segregationist who adopted a "family values" agenda when segregation became politically unpalatable. A little too convenient.

Twee.TV (I M Losted), Wednesday, 6 March 2019 13:11 (six years ago)

per the wapo: The father of the pregnant teenager, who asked that his and his daughter’s names not be used to protect their privacy, said his “family is really distraught” over the lawsuit. He said his daughter was 16 and a high school senior, and that Magers was 19 and unemployed when they discovered that she was pregnant.

The guy suing is such a loser.

Yerac, Thursday, 7 March 2019 02:43 (six years ago)

"He said his daughter and Magers are no longer together. "I knew he was pressuring my daughter to have sex, and I can’t believe we are here now.”

Yerac, Thursday, 7 March 2019 02:44 (six years ago)

two months pass...

Months ago I listened to an episode of The Daily about Missouri's last open abortion clinic, and a husband/wife doctor team - he works in a clinic in MO, she works in a clinic across the border in IL. As MO's options dwindle, IL struggles to take up the slack. So I heard an interview with the Missouri director of health and human services yesterday, and it was maddening. I guess the burden of legal impositions is becoming such that the one MO clinic is in danger of closing, imminently (today? tomorrow?), which would leave MO with literally no place to get access to an abortion. The smug asshole kept saying she's very sympathetic, and understands there are two sides to the issue, but, well, if only the doctors simply submitted to the new rules (which, as written, could reportedly now leave them legally vulnerable to serious charges) we wouldn't have a problem. Last year, says the interviewer, 2018, there were apparently 3000 (I think she said this) abortions recorded in Missouri. If this last clinic closes, where would those people get their care? The smug asshole responds that abortion is still legal and that multiple neighboring states offer the service. So wait, says the interviewer. You are telling people who need medical care they will actually need to leave the state and travel somewhere else? Well, begins the asshole again, if only the doctors simply submitted to the new rules ...

Fuck all these backwoods shitholes.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 31 May 2019 12:34 (six years ago)

one year passes...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/abortion-geneva-consensus-declaration-trump-pompeo-azar-us-saudi-arabia-uganda-b1250419.html

The Trump administration has joined 32 illiberal or authoritarian countries in declaring that women have no intrinsic right to abortion.

The Geneva Consensus Declaration, which received no support from America’s liberal allies, calls on states to protect the health and “inalienable rights” of women, but appears largely aimed at curbing global abortion rights and promoting heterosexual family units.

It was co-sponsored by Brazil, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Uganda and the US, and was also signed by a host of autocratic countries including Saudi Arabia, Belarus and the United Arab Emirates.

…and Poland, of course, who has just tightened its already draconian abortion laws.

pomenitul, Friday, 23 October 2020 21:02 (four years ago)

co-sponsored by Brazil, Hungary, ok already terrifying

Neanderthal, Friday, 23 October 2020 22:40 (four years ago)

classic

it bangs for thee (Simon H.), Friday, 23 October 2020 23:07 (four years ago)

OP is not so sure and wants to have a rational discussion about it.

pomenitul, Friday, 23 October 2020 23:29 (four years ago)

Dayglo Abortions - really classic

Neanderthal, Friday, 23 October 2020 23:33 (four years ago)

i think that i dont have a vulva, and therefore its not really my business.

odd choice of body part, but fair

superdeep borehole (harbl), Friday, 23 October 2020 23:50 (four years ago)

i think that i dont have a vulva

better be sure

Neanderthal, Friday, 23 October 2020 23:54 (four years ago)

btw there was a positive end to the Baby Roe case mentioned last year

https://www.al.com/news/2019/08/judge-tosses-baby-roe-abortion-lawsuit-filed-against-huntsville-clinic.html

Neanderthal, Friday, 23 October 2020 23:57 (four years ago)

Poland last week made it illegal for women to seek abortions for cases where the foetus has a serious birth defect. Situations where the baby would be born unable to sustain life, where a woman would have to carry a child to term knowing it wouldn’t live outside the womb.

Polish citizens have been protesting the past few days. A friend of mine there says everyone’s out, not just the usual groups who go to protests.

I’m not sure we ever went as hard as disrupting Mass in Ireland, but this is significant from a country where the institutional regard for the Church has lingered.

At the weekend protesters in several towns and cities picketed and in some instances disrupted church services, amid signs that the anger felt by many Poles about the the Catholic church’s role in public life was spilling over into open confrontation.

At the Church of the Holy Cross in central Warsaw on Sunday, pro-choice protesters clashed with far-right activists, and one woman was taken away in an ambulance after allegedly being thrown down the steps in front of the church.

The far-right leader Robert Bąkiewicz announced that nationalist groups would create a “national guard” to defend churches from the protesters.


(From this article.)

Some of the protestors:

The table says "We are sorry for the inconvenience. We have a government to overthrow".
Hundreds of thousands of Poles in all cities have blocked the streets today. The traffic is being stopped. The protests get bigger and longer every day. #Poland #AbortionBan pic.twitter.com/cDo6BnUyHD

— Katarzyna Knapik (@ciotkarewolucji) October 26, 2020



‼️ Trasa Łazienkowska. Ruch w stronę crntrum blokują taksówkarze. Są logotypy wszystkich warszawskich korporacji, kilkadziesiąt samochodów. pic.twitter.com/HwO4gcru7Q

— Bartłomiej Eider (@bk_eider) October 26, 2020



On the 5th day of protests against anti-abortion rulling of Constitutional Tribunal, a lot of #Polish cities were blocked! Not only the biggest ones, also smaller like my hometown #Żywiec, city of 30,000 people ❤🖤 And I was one of the oldest! Get the fuck off, fundamentalists! pic.twitter.com/hPqCAUARhb

— Magda Dropek (@magdadropek) October 26, 2020

scampus milne (gyac), Monday, 26 October 2020 21:18 (four years ago)

best of luck, Poland. god, fuck the Duda administration

Neanderthal, Monday, 26 October 2020 21:26 (four years ago)

Spontaneous protest in support of #StrajkKobiet in #London against #Poland's new #abortion laws. Only a handful of Police officers, masks everywhere. pic.twitter.com/XIkig5iQPr

— Kasia Madera (@BBCKasiaMadera) October 26, 2020

scampus milne (gyac), Monday, 26 October 2020 21:41 (four years ago)

WATCH: Something extraordinary is happening in Poland

This story has not got the attention it deserves, night after night of protests, big crowds after a court ruling that further limited its restrictive abortion laws pic.twitter.com/R6o5VK19e6

— Darren McCaffrey (@DarrenEuronews) October 30, 2020

liberté, égalité, scampé (gyac), Friday, 30 October 2020 19:44 (four years ago)

classic

Give me a Chad Smith-type feel (map), Friday, 30 October 2020 19:45 (four years ago)

Polish ban delayed:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/03/poland-stalls-abortion-ban-amid-nationwide-protests

it bangs for thee (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 November 2020 13:33 (four years ago)

Yes, great for everyone who got there, but they have to keep pushing.

liberté, égalité, scampé (gyac), Wednesday, 4 November 2020 13:35 (four years ago)

US needs to take note.

the colour out of space (is the place) (PBKR), Wednesday, 4 November 2020 21:38 (four years ago)

two months pass...

Looks like the fash scum government won out in the end:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/poland-to-implement-near-total-ban-on-abortion-imminently

pomenitul, Wednesday, 27 January 2021 22:18 (four years ago)

Travelling abroad is the only option and it’s one they don’t have at the moment. Support and donate to the Abortion Support Network and to the organisations listed at the end of this article, and never ever take your rights for granted.

scampish inquisition (gyac), Wednesday, 27 January 2021 22:25 (four years ago)

one month passes...

Great job y'all:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/09/arkansas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

pomenitul, Wednesday, 10 March 2021 03:51 (four years ago)

fucking gross.

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:05 (four years ago)

wtf is wrong with these people? I'm so angry right now

kinder, Wednesday, 10 March 2021 09:18 (four years ago)

I think in some cases the age of timing of legal abortion should rise to fit the circumstance.
How old is Ted Cruz again?

Stevolende, Wednesday, 10 March 2021 13:18 (four years ago)

five months pass...

looks like dr. ligma is about to lose medical license no. 8008135

So… apparently Texas has passed some asinine anti-abortion law where private citizens can claim a fucking bounty for spying on their neighbours, and someone setup this site to take reports from anyone on which women to persecutehttps://t.co/FpQ8HimpaV

— Claire Ryan (@aetherlev) August 21, 2021

criminally negligible (harbl), Monday, 23 August 2021 16:17 (four years ago)

also C. Ray Oneater, M.D.

peace, man, Monday, 23 August 2021 21:13 (four years ago)

one month passes...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/politics/texas-abortion-ban-federal-judge-order-block/index.html

but thanks to SCOTUS punting, some facilities hesitant to re-open considering Texas has appealed already

Gardyloominati (Neanderthal), Thursday, 7 October 2021 22:37 (three years ago)

eight months pass...

was on leave when this email went out, but apparently my company is reimbursing colleagues who have to travel 50 or more miles for an abortion (though apparently this was already in place, unbeknownst to me, and is continuing and more visible now).

anybody else's company have policies like this? I am kind of smiling thinking of the pro-life assholes who probably got angry at this email and are putting in their 2 weeks notice.

Doop Snogg (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 6 July 2022 13:58 (three years ago)

I really thought our CEO would make an announcement like that last week or at least by this week. They were so on the money regarding the pandemic. And people working at our Mississippi distribution center are already living under an abortion ban.

There was an email soon after the decision, mentioning ‘divisive issues’ and ‘respecting others’ beliefs’ and that kind of crap. I heard that wasn’t gonna be THE announcement. But since then… nothing.

covidsbundlertanze op. 6 (Jon not Jon), Wednesday, 6 July 2022 20:45 (three years ago)

one year passes...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/health/otc-birth-control-pill.html

scott seward, Thursday, 13 July 2023 13:39 (two years ago)

i didn't see that coming...

scott seward, Thursday, 13 July 2023 13:40 (two years ago)

four months pass...

Paxton and Texas SCOTUS are fucking inhuman ghouls

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/us/texas-woman-leaves-state-abortion/index.html

STUPID CRAP FACE (Neanderthal), Monday, 11 December 2023 22:35 (one year ago)

Kate cox is a hero. Voluntarily signed up for weeks of expense and scrutiny and risk to her health, and probably years of harassment, to get them on the record.

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 12 December 2023 02:54 (one year ago)

Definitely

STUPID CRAP FACE (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 12 December 2023 03:42 (one year ago)

Highly recommend reading the Texas Supreme Court decision for the rage factor alone: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf.

It's like the Dred Scott decision, the same kind of viciousness disguised by dry judicial reasoning. And so hypocritical — they're like, "Hey, the law leaves it up to doctors, not judges." Not acknowledging at all that a doctor risks prosecution themselves by having to meet a standard that is both exacting and vague. Just so so awful. This is where we are just 18 months after Dobbs.

a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 December 2023 04:11 (one year ago)

and of course, we know not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to go to another state for the procedure, or might not be willing to go through the scrutiny in the same way.

this is what they wanted. literal control over women at the granular level.

STUPID CRAP FACE (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 12 December 2023 06:39 (one year ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.