In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Virginia Pro-Lifers Work to Increase the Abortion Rate

Jill

Good baby:
embryo
Bad baby:
baby

“Pro-life” politicians in Virginia are cutting off hundreds of thousands of dollars in preventative services at Planned Parenthood.

The Virginia Senate voted Wednesday to cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood of Virginia because it offers abortions, an action that could endanger hundreds of thousands of dollars in state aid for women’s health-care programs.

The decision, a major setback for the Senate’s new Democratic majority, marks the first time in more than a decade that the Senate has decided against giving state aid to the organization because of its abortion-related activities.

Let’s be clear: Federal aid, and state aid from Virginia, are not paying for abortions. They are paying for pre-natal care, women’s health care, birth control, and sexual health education. Millions of women across the country benefit from those programs — and I’m one of them. I’ve used Planned Parenthood’s health care services in New York and in Washington State for annual exams and birth control when I didn’t have insurance. Without Planned Parenthood, I simply would not have been able to see a women’s health provider. I would not have been able to afford birth control. Planned Parenthood provides crucial services, and it does real damage to all sorts of women (but mostly lower-income and uninsured women) when those services are cut off in the name of “pro-life” politics. It also makes it more difficult for women to take care of the babies they already have when you make it harder for them to prevent pregnancy.

It also jacks up the abortion rate when women don’t have the resources to prevent pregnancy. If you make birth control expensive or inaccessible, it doesn’t mean that people will stop having sex — it just means that they’ll have riskier sex. It means that more women will get pregnant when they don’t want to. And that means that more women will terminate pregnancies.

It’s not rocket science, it’s common sense. And if “pro-life” legislators actually cared about saving fetuses (and born people), they’d be championing Planned Parenthood as the organization that has prevented more abortions in this country than any other. They’d be throwing money toward birth control, sex education, and HIV/AIDS programs.

Instead, they’re cutting them off.

And because they care about children so much, Virginia pro-life Republicans are also trying to cut teachers’ salaries by $227 million.

Thanks to ElleBeMe for the link.

113 thoughts on Virginia Pro-Lifers Work to Increase the Abortion Rate

  1. Amen! I’ve benefited from the services of PP in Colo and Indiana since I was 16. They have been invaluable when I don’t have insurance, and I even went to PP when I did have insurance because I find their clinics to be more accessable and friendly than regular clinics. For the life of me, I just can’t understand why anti-choicers refuse to ackowledge the connection between access to birth control and fewer abortions.

  2. You only see the Northern Virginia of DC and the burbs. The rest of VA, like PA, is essentially Dumbf**kistan. The income level plateaus at the DC area and then drops like the Grand Canyon in the remainder of the Commonwealth.

    George “Macaca” Allen felt perfectly safe and welcome when he said that word. Notice where he spoke.

    It’s not about you. If you are poorer, they get cheaper labor and hookers. Large families decrease the labor rate by increasing supply. Birth control reduces the supply of hookers (here and elsewhere) and raises costs. David Vitter would have liked to wear diapers for less.

  3. For the life of me, I just can’t understand why anti-choicers refuse to ackowledge the connection between access to birth control and fewer abortions.

    Because their politics have less to do with preventing abortion and far more to do controlling women, and deep seated issues with sex.

    If they admit that BC reduces abortions, that means women can have sex without consequences. Oh noes!!!!! Plus, if they actually endorse anything that actually reduces abortions, they’ll lose their panty-sniffing, pseudo-moral outrage cash cow.

  4. Not to mention that (at least in California), Planned Parenthood clinics offer well-baby care and immunizations. So they’re literally telling mothers that they don’t deserve to have healthy babies.

  5. Obamas record voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama’s vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide. Obama trivializes abortion by his attempt to find consensus social issues on which to base his campaign. He has a long record that neglects protecting pre-born children. 1452 black babies lose their lives to abortion every day in America. Unbelievably, Obama continues to refuse to address the disproportionate killing of African American babies in their mother’s womb. Obama even supports the killing of born and partially born children. OBAMA WOULD VOTE FOR HILLARY!
    I think very highly of Hillary. I admire her. I think she’s one of the most disciplined strong dedicated people I know. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence, and outstanding public service record, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons and no doubt would make an excellent “President of the United Sates”. She’s passionate about moving the country forward especially on issues like economy, health care and children. “Barack Obama “
    “Madame President of the United States…it’s an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman’s potential has no limitations. “Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.

  6. Why oh why do I read the comments on these? There are some really dumb people out there who want to be told what to think and what to believe.

    My favorite is the claim that PP is an “abortion mill” and is making SO MUCH PROFIT from all the abortions it does. Hello? It’s a non-profit organization.

  7. If you make birth control expensive or inaccessible, it doesn’t mean that people will stop having sex — it just means that they’ll have riskier sex.

    Which is the point. They’ll be punished for the consequences of their illicit sex, and the people who cut funds for PP (and the people who vote for these people) will get to bask in their moral superiority.

  8. At the end you mention their desire to cut teacher’s salaries by $227 million. Did you just ignore the other side to the argument in the article after that, or have you researched the matter and actually know the republican’s arguments are bogus?

    In any event, from what I read in the article (I know nothing else on this subject which is why I’m asking if you’re just spitting out rhetoric you like and ignoring the rhetoric you don’t care for or if you know something more on the matter) it seems fairly reasonable to try to save taxpayer’s money by forcing local governments to pay for the raises they choose to give. If the raises come from a group that never has to be fiscally responsible to pay for them it is bound to waste taxpayer money.

    In fact, I don’t even see how any other approach is justified. Also, in the article it says that “the proposed 2008-2010 House budget includes an additional $1.1 billion for public education, including a proposed 2 percent increase in teachers’ salaries later this year.”

  9. I have a question on Obama’s vote on aborted fetuses born alive. That’s this, right? What is wrong, from a pro-choice perspective, with saying that a baby born alive, even after an abortion, is a human? I mean, once she’s separate from it, that pretty much satisfies her right to control her own body, at least as far as pregnancy goes. So what is the pro-choice argument against it? Are we afraid that “accorded immediate protection under the law.” means potential criminal charges against a woman getting an abortion (but I’d think even “immediate” doesn’t mean retroactive, which is what it would have to be to punish her). Are we afraid that abortion clinics would be legally required to provide medical care for a preemie that they’re not capable of? Or are we just afraid of giving pro-lifers an inch (they are really sneaky).

    I’m sorry if I sound stupid. I’m 100% pro-choice, but this is just one thing I don’t quite get.

  10. I have a question on Obama’s vote on aborted fetuses born alive. That’s this, right? What is wrong, from a pro-choice perspective, with saying that a baby born alive, even after an abortion, is a human?

    Nothing. But that isn’t what the act said. You definitely aren’t stupid for missing it, though — the architects of the law purposely made this one confusing, and wrote it specifically to sound totally reasonable when it isn’t.

    Here’s what the act says:

    In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

    One thing you always want to look for in anti-choice legislation is the term “at any stage of development.” Part of their strategy is to ascribe personhood rights to embryos and fetuses, and to obscure what they’re doing by working it into legislation that everyone, in theory, should be able to agree on. The legislation they pushed on killing pregnant women (the Unborn Victims of Violence Act) was similar — instead of just protecting pregnant women, they established fetal personhood. Under U.S. law, it’s already against the law to kill an infant. So on its face, a law against killing a born infant — even after a failed abortion — would be unnecessary, because killing infants is already, without question, illegal. The entire purpose of this bill is to inject fetal rights language into Illinois law. That’s why pro-choicers didn’t support it.

    It’s also worth noting that the Illinois law was further unnecessary because a Federal Infant Born Alive Act had already been passed. The architect of the federal law was Charles Canady, the same guy who helped to put together the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This is his MO: He pens legislation that, on its face, sounds totally reasonable, but is in fact created entirely to lay anti-choice groundwork and enshrine fetal personhood into law.

    Finally, the chief proponent of the Illinois and federal Infant Born Alive Acts was none other than crazy-ass Jill Stanek — and she was the chief “witness” to babies supposedly being born and then killed. She’s an anti-choice nut and a liar, and these laws are largely her doing.

    Hope that explains things a little more thoroughly! The law itself is really deceiving, so you definitely don’t sound stupid or anti-choice.

  11. Ok here I go. I don’t know of one pro-lifer that wants women to not have access to health care. Access to health care–great, access to medical services–great, access to prenatal care–great, to help those with no insurance –great, but to terminate a life as a form of birth control is morally and ethically wrong. And no pro-lifer wants to force a woman to have a baby (just as most women seeking an abortion were forced to have had sex) Take away providing abortion , began to teach abstinence, and stop the racial genocides then we’d agree that PP would be a great benefit to those in need.
    We work with a crisis pregnancy center , and we would love to provide the care that PP does but we are don’t have access to funds or grants because we will not provide abortions. PP mainly has facilities in large cities, where we provide services in rural areas, if we had the funding PP has more women would receive care, access to medical services, prenatal care, education on birth control , adoption services, support, counseling and a host of other services would be provided. Instead, women suffer needless everyday, and we spend our time counseling woman who have had and abortion and were not told all the facts and now are suffering from depression.

  12. Bullshit, Katie. Name me one national pro-life organization that supports birth control access. Name one that supports increased welfare dollars for low-income families. Name one that supports universal healthcare.

    Not National Right to Life. Not the American Life League. Not Operation Rescue.

    Does your crisis pregnancy center give out birth control? Do you even employ real doctors?

    And what about the fact that most women don’t want to be abstinent? You can teach abstinence all the live-long day, but 97% of Americans will have sex before marriage. And what about married couples? A lot of them want to prevent pregnancy too (not everyone desires to have as many babies as God gives them). What do you say to them?

    And do you also offer counseling to the women who suffer from depression after being forced to give birth? Because study after study has shown that post-partum depression is far, far more common than post-abortion depression. And the single biggest factor in depression, after childbirth or abortion, is lack of choice — women who are forced into one or the other experience significant stress and depressive disorders.

    If you look at international abortion rates, you’ll see that illegal abortion has no correlation with lower abortion rates. It is, however, correlated with a much higher death rate from abortion. The countries with the lowest abortion rates have the most liberal abortion laws — they also have great sex ed and widespread contraception access. We know that when abortion is illegal, the rate doesn’t decrease, but far more women die. That’s what your “pro-life” movement is promoting. Do you have any actual solutions that will help women in the real world? (Beyond telling them “don’t have sex” — that ain’t gonna work for me, or for most other women).

  13. Katie, I’m married but we can’t afford to have children. Should my husband and I stay abstinent until we are ready for children?

  14. Mnemosyne: Not sure if that’s what Katie supports, but many (most?) of us pro-lifers (well, I hate labeling myself pro-life because I’d at least like to believe my view is more nuanced but for simplicity sake in this black and white argument on this site I’d be on the pro-life side) would support not just your right to birth control, but also inclusion in federal and state health-care programs making it available to those who cannot afford it along with other medications.

    unfortunately it is hard to take that middle of the road position because the far-right reacts in an extreme fashion to the far-left’s extreme views on abortion (or vice-versa) and then the far-left reacts to that and around and around we go.

  15. Not sure if that’s what Katie supports, but many (most?) of us pro-lifers (well, I hate labeling myself pro-life because I’d at least like to believe my view is more nuanced but for simplicity sake in this black and white argument on this site I’d be on the pro-life side) would support not just your right to birth control, but also inclusion in federal and state health-care programs making it available to those who cannot afford it along with other medications.

    Yes, because I have the Magical Wedding Ring on my finger that makes all of my fucking okay. Weird how one day I was horrible and bad and sinful for living with my boyfriend, and then the very next day I was suddenly washed clean of sin because we signed a marriage license.

    You’d almost think there was a problem with the way we view sex and not with me having sex when I wasn’t married, wouldn’t you?

  16. First off I’m not sure what I said to deserve that hostile response.

    Second, I never said anything about your specifically being married.

    Third, while I do think there is a legitimate distinction between married and unmarried sex, that doesn’t mean I (or other pro-lifers) think unwed people should not be allowed to have access to birth control.

    You’re certainly entitled to believe there is no moral distinction between pre-marital sex and sex when you’re married, but you just cannot take the position that others are not entitled to a different view of morality unless you claim to have a monopoly on determining what is, and what is not, moral and immoral

  17. Third, while I do think there is a legitimate distinction between married and unmarried sex, that doesn’t mean I (or other pro-lifers) think unwed people should not be allowed to have access to birth control.

    No national pro-life organization in the United States supports birth control. The Republican party consistently pushes for laws that limit birth control access. I think you’re right that most pro-life people realize that birth control is the best way to prevent abortion, and most people who are uncomfortable with abortion don’t want to outlaw birth control. Most thinking people realize that limiting birth control access increases the abortion rate. You aren’t represented by pro-life groups or the GOP, yet many “pro-life” Americans still throw their support behind both. Excuse me if I’m a little tired of supposedly pro-life people backing parties and groups that seek to limit women’s rights rather than actually do anything to decrease abortion.

  18. While I do not know which groups take what approach I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right. That’s exactly my point. As I wrote above

    unfortunately it is hard to take that middle of the road position because the far-right reacts in an extreme fashion to the far-left’s extreme views on abortion (or vice-versa) and then the far-left reacts to that and around and around we go.

    Hopefully you don’t find it uncivil of me to say but I do think you’re part of the problem. I think those who espouse far left views force those on the right to react (and vice versa–those on the far right are equally to blame). Those of us in the middle (i’d like to believe it is the bulk of the country, the silent majority) get drowned out because as with most areas, it is the most extreme views which are the most vocal.

    In a sense it is our fault for not being loud enough, but the reality is that it is tough to shout and extreme a nuanced, middle-of-the-road, position in the sound-byte, sensationalist, world we live in.

  19. Please accept my apology for not slinging pro-choice or pro-life hate or curse words in my entry. I don’t even have any propaganda to reveal. I hope that my point is understandable without them…..

    I don’t pretend to know everything that goes on in politics, or in other people’s minds…. But I just want to say that I’m glad that my mother didn’t abort me and I’m glad that I didn’t abort two of my children. And I know both sides, while it didn’t destroy my life; I occasionally still grieve for my aborted first child. I was young and didn’t get and/or understand the information on how it would affect me.

    I know that when I work and pay taxes and I would prefer that my money go towards what I consider responsible needs…..

    If that means that it doesn’t fund entities that kill babies, then so be it. It that means that it doesn’t fund entities that want to do stem cell research, then so be it. These entities already have funding from the private sector. Funding should come from people who support it.

    If it means that we stop giving money to people who won’t work, so be that too. I don’t expect the government to take care of me or my company and neither should anyone else.

    Accordingly, I don’t expect the government to pay for explaining abstinence or birth control to my children.

    Public funds should go towards programs which the support the country…. Not special interests; be it liberal or conservative.

  20. First off I’m not sure what I said to deserve that hostile response.

    Second, I never said anything about your specifically being married.

    Since I specifically stated that I was asking the question because I was married, your response did not come across at all as a general one aimed at all married and unmarried women. It came across as, Married women deserve health care and birth control, but unmarried women get what they deserve.

    Third, while I do think there is a legitimate distinction between married and unmarried sex, that doesn’t mean I (or other pro-lifers) think unwed people should not be allowed to have access to birth control.

    You are distinctly in the minority among pro-life people. You, personally, may not want to take away my access to birth control, but Pharmacists for Life sure do, unless I show them my magical marriage license that allows me to have it. And even then, they still might refuse it to me because they think that their religious beliefs should be allowed to block my access to health care.

    Are you still wondering why you got a hostile response?

    You’re certainly entitled to believe there is no moral distinction between pre-marital sex and sex when you’re married, but you just cannot take the position that others are not entitled to a different view of morality unless you claim to have a monopoly on determining what is, and what is not, moral and immoral.

    And yet pro-life groups do claim to have a monopoly on morality, and they are trying to change our laws so that everyone has to adhere to their morality. You may believe that premarital sex is wrong, but no one is trying to pass a law to force you to have premarital sex. There are people who are trying to pass laws that outlaw abortion and, eventually, birth control. How is that not imposing their moral views on someone who doesn’t share them?

  21. azok: The safest method of birth control* for women of any age and smoking status is barrier protection with abortion as a backup. So if you deny women access to abortion in case of contraception failure then you deny them the ability to use the safest form of birth control available.

    *Ok, technically, abstinence, used perfectly, is safer at least in the immediate term. Given that people who are unmarried and not in a long term relationship tend to not live as long, maybe not in the long term, but at least in the short term. However, almost no one who uses abstinence uses it perfectly and consistently and any failures can lead to pregnancy, which is quite dangerous.

  22. but for simplicity sake in this black and white argument on this site I’d be on the pro-life side

    You are on the pro-forced pregnancy side. Period.

    but you just cannot take the position that others are not entitled to a different view of morality unless you claim to have a monopoly on determining what is, and what is not, moral and immoral

    Well that right there is the pro-choice argument, ‘cept your side insists that it has the moral high ground.

  23. Third, while I do think there is a legitimate distinction between married and unmarried sex,

    Why?

  24. But I just want to say that I’m glad that my mother didn’t abort me

    I’m glad my parents met. I’m glad they decided to make a family together. I’m glad my mother ovulated when she did. I’m glad they chose to have sex around that ovulation. (Though I’m not sure that it was the wisest choice from their point of view: my sister was barely one at the time.) I’m glad the particular sperm that got to the oocyte first did so. I’m glad that my mother didn’t get rubella while she was pregnant. In short, I’m glad for all the improbably things that led to my being born. Abortion is the least of my existential worries and, probably, the least of yours too.

  25. Are you still wondering why you got a hostile response?

    yes i’m still wondering why I got a hostile response.

    you said you’re married and asked whether you ought to be able to get access to birth control medication. I responded to what you wrote and said you should get it. And for that you attack me. I’m sorry but you attributed to me things I never said and made false and baseless assumptions.

    as for this pharmasists group for life (sorry, the link didnt work for me so i couldnt look at it) if they’re a private organization then adhering to their beliefs as to when life begins seems fine to me. some other group can take your position and you can go there. why should they be forced to hand you medicine that, in their mind, is going to destroy a life or a potential life? if you try to give counter examples to claim this position leads to extreme and absurd results then please make sure they correlate to a dispute over the protection of life/potential life.

    And yet pro-life groups do claim to have a monopoly on morality, and they are trying to change our laws so that everyone has to adhere to their morality. You may believe that premarital sex is wrong, but no one is trying to pass a law to force you to have premarital sex. There are people who are trying to pass laws that outlaw abortion and, eventually, birth control. How is that not imposing their moral views on someone who doesn’t share them?

    First off, let me be clear, I’m not necessarily claiming to agree with the stances you list above as those you don’t like. However, my response is simple. Democracy allows groups of people to make moral judgments about how we want to structure our society. No, not all the time, but often. It is inherently necessary (despite some claims to the contrary), particularly in this area where no one can truly claim to ‘know’ when life begins, and when, even if it has not begun, when the ‘potential life’ is so valuable as to either need protection or, for sake of morality, be protected. Again, you can take any approach you want, but you just have to realize that others may have a different view and thus try to get their approach to be the one our society takes. Living together in a society often involves a choice between mutually exclusive positions and someone’s position won’t win. Again, my position is somewhere in between what you want and what these people you apparently despise want, but they should all, through the halls of democracy, duke it out.

    gotta run, so if i dont respond for a bit please dont think i’m ignoring you.

  26. kristen, thanks for telling me what i believe.

    diane, are you joking? if you’re claiming there is no legitimate moral distinction then please explain.

  27. I occasionally still grieve for my aborted first child.

    Kim: I apologize for being dismissive in my earlier post. I’m sorry that your abortion caused and causes you grief. It’s none of my business, but may I suggest that if you haven’t already done so you should talk to someone about it? Someone who won’t say either “you should feel guilty forever” or “you should be over it–it was no big deal”, but will simply let you talk about how you feel and maybe help you find your way toward healing the unresolved grief?

  28. diane, are you joking? if you’re claiming there is no legitimate moral distinction then please explain.

    I don’t think she is, and I’d like you to explain this “moral distinction” as well, azok. My (opposite-sex) partner and I have been together for 14 years in a committed, monogamous relationship. We’re expecting our first child (a girl) next month. We are unmarried.

    What is it about that piece of paper (the marriage license) that makes my relationship less moral without one?

  29. I know that when I work and pay taxes and I would prefer that my money go towards what I consider responsible needs…..

    That’s the thing. Tax money isn’t your money. It’s everyone’s money. Every working person pays taxes, because every working person uses and benefits from public entities. You can’t drive to work without paying for the roads you drive on. That would be stealing. The only way you can control where tax money goes is through your vote. And if you vote for people who will take public funding away from Planned Parenthood because some of them provide abortions (most don’t, and tax money doesn’t go towards paying for them), then you’re also voting to take funding away for birth control, STD testing and care, pap smears, and many other gynecological services.

  30. if you’re claiming there is no legitimate moral distinction then please explain.

    You’ll have to be more specific. No legitimate moral distinction between what and what?

  31. we would love to provide the care that PP does but we are don’t have access to funds or grants because we will not provide abortions.

    Cite sources. Why does providing abortions supposedly get Planned Parenthood more funding? In my experience, exactly the opposite is the case.

  32. But I just want to say that I’m glad that my mother didn’t abort me and I’m glad that I didn’t abort two of my children.

    And I’m really glad that my dad decided to cheat on his wife so that I could be concieved. Monogamy is really overrated. Think about all those cute little babies that would grow up to be wonderful people like me except they won’t get a chance because their parents are pro-monogamy! And abstinence! How could I have ever been born if my never-married mother believed abstinence was ok! How many babies never get the chance to live because of abstinence and monogamy?

  33. Excuse me if I’m a little tired of supposedly pro-life people backing parties and groups that seek to limit women’s rights rather than actually do anything to decrease abortion.

    Amen.

    As long as you “pro-lifers” continue to support anti-choice legislation, anti-choice lawmakers and anti-choice organizations, you ARE hurting women. If you think birth control should be widely available, put your money where your mouth is.

    Kim, it’s great that you’re pleased with the way your life has turned out. What do your life decisions have to do with the lives of other women? I’m happy with my tattoo; does that mean I should force YOU to get the same one? What’s right for you is not necessarily right for everyone else. You had the CHOICE to make your life decisions; other women deserve to make THEIR OWN choices as well. Sometimes we regret the choices we make, but that’s life. Your regrets should have no bearing on other people’s lives.

    You’re happy your mom gave birth to you… and? It sounds like you’re advocating 24/7 procreative sex, so no non-existant “people” miss their chances to be created, gestated and born. Should I try to use all my eggs before I die? People don’t exist until they’re actually created. Had your mom and dad had sex a few minutes later than they did, perhaps you’d have never been made. And since you would not exist in that case, what does it matter?

  34. Bullshit, Katie. Name me one national pro-life organization that supports birth control access. Name one that supports increased welfare dollars for low-income families. Name one that supports universal healthcare.

    Bullshit, Jill.

    Those are political, SOCIALIST positions. Your theory: you can’t be pro-life unless you are a socialist. Well, I happen to oppose universal health care because, in part, it would increase the number of abortions. (Yes, you read that right.) Abortions cost $400 or so, right? Labour and delivery is $10,000 at a hospital if all goes smoothly, $3,000-$4,000 at home, and $100,000 if there are complications and the child is born early.

    There is an unlimited need for health care. In many people’s minds, hundreds of thousands of dollars for an extra six months of life is totally justified. Rationing of care is inevitable. As a pro-lifer, I vigourously oppose universal health care because:
    1. I don’t want the government to determine who lives and who dies;
    2. I don’t want a government with a vested financial interest in abortion and euthanasia (as end-of-life care and childbirth are both very expensive and common medical needs);
    3. I do not want anyone to lose the more fundamental negative right: the right to seek health care, free from government intrusion. (I do not think that killing your unborn child is “health care,” so forgive me on that one.)
    4. Reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid are so low that doctors do not participate in them, if at all possible. If we go to universal health care, we would lose our top-quality physicians, who will no longer find it financially feasible to spend a quarter-million dollars, plus interest, and ten years of their lives on their post-college education to be paid peanuts. I do not want treatment by lousy doctors; I’ll pay more for treatment by good doctors. I certainly do not want to arrive at the point where doctors will be forced to work too long and spend too little time with their patients to give them excellent care. Dead people isn’t pro-life, Jill.

    Some facts, because you seem to need them:
    *Women who earn up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level and are pregnant are eligible for Medicaid;
    *Disabled persons who have worked for more than 10 years are eligible for Medicare;
    *Depending on the state, children whose parents earn less than 300% of the federal poverty level are eligible for SCHIP, although many of them are not covered;
    *the Democrats did their best to expand SCHIP to the wealthy while ignoring the kids who are in genuine need: parents who are not Medicaid eligible (earning more than 42% of the FPL) often do not sign their kids up for this care;
    *Catholic Charities and pregnancy crisis centers receive millions of dollars in PRIVATE donations (yes, our own money; we don’t force our fellow citizens to pay for our ideals) to give medical care to women in crisis pregnancy;
    *Catholics run charity hospitals which give excellent, high-quality, and affordable care to those in need, as part of their religious mission;
    *Students for Life chapters have organised drives for donations, baby food, diapers, and other things needed by women in crisis pregnancy, in addition to ensuring that their colleges are friendly places for students and faculty who are pregnant.

    Charity hospitals, pregnancy centers, community support, drives for pregnant women – all supported by our own money, often with little or no help from the state. There is no mandate that pro-lifers embrace socialism.

  35. Those are political, SOCIALIST positions. Your theory: you can’t be pro-life unless you are a socialist.

    Nope. My theory is that if you’re pro-life, you’ll take steps that actually help to preserve life.

    Are your roads socialist? The police force? Education? Do we have socialist fire departments? Why should my tax dollars have to pay to save your house from burning?

    See how silly, selfish and childish these arguments are?

  36. Catholic Charities and pregnancy crisis centers receive millions of dollars in PRIVATE donations (yes, our own money; we don’t force our fellow citizens to pay for our ideals) to give medical care to women in crisis pregnancy

    Oh please. I would suggest looking up the amount of money religious organizations receive from federal and state governments. You don’t force your fellow citizens to pay for your ideals, my white ass.

  37. Booohoohoo, anti-choice groups are so poor and receive no money from the government!! Or, not.
    Yeah, that’s right. MY TAXES are being used to fund your deceitful, callous, phony, hypocritical anti-choice organizations. SOCIALIST!!1!11!ONE!

  38. Did I say that I think other women don’t have the right to abortions? No. Did I say that I don’t want to pay for it? Yes. The government is not our mommy. It shouldn’t have any say in a lot of things we do. But, when we force the government to pay for programs, there will always be strings attached.

    “My” money…. “Taxpayer” money…. Symantics…..
    My point is: I personally prefer that when I pay taxes, it not go to things I don’t support. My opinion, I’m not asking anyone to agree nor am I telling anyone that his or her opinion is wrong. Please don’t attempt to read between the lines as to what I advocate. I’m not that deep.

    Do I think that tax dollars should be spent on finding out if athletes are using steroids? No. Do I think that tax dollars should be spent on paying politicians after they complete their terms? No. Do I think that Planned Parenthood or any other non-profit organization should get funding from us (the taxpayers)? No. While there are thousands of worthy causes, I feel like people should support the ones they believe in… not the ones that the government chooses.

    Yes, we chose the government. But not one policy maker can make everyone happy. And I would be willing to bet that once they’re in office, they can’t make everything go the way they told their constituents it would go. Does everyone agree that money should be spent on the war? No. Does everyone agree that welfare needs to be abolished? No.

    Am I making a difference when I take food and clothing to the shelter? Yes. Am I making a difference when I hire workers from the state workforce commission? Yes. Do I feel like my taxes would be better served by teaching a man a skill instead of handing him a check? Yes. Do I feel like it’s the government’s responsibility to raise my kids or pay for my prenatal exams? No. It’s my responsibility. That’s why I work.

    I wish that a performer who makes $92.5 million in one concert tour would spend it on job training (or Planned Parenthood for that matter). But guess what? I can’t tell them where their money should go. Neither should our government. Those with should help those without because it’s the right thing to do… not because the government says so. I just feel that when we ask the government to pay for everything, we are giving them more power to run our lives and our businesses.

    No, I don’t have the answers, and No, I don’t know everything that goes on in the world. But I reiterate my belief that if I want to support a girls softball association or a food pantry that I do it with my money. I would never suggest that anyone else be forced to support those causes through their taxes. I like my tattoos too. Did I ask the government to pay for them?

    Working person is the key. How profitable is a business that pays an employee who doesn’t work? How profitable is a government who pays its citizens not to work?

    And how productive is a blog that attempts to destroy another person’s opinion instead of simply stating his or her own? Maybe I’m a bit Pollyanna but I’m all for “Yea Us!” instead of “Boo You!” I definitely don’t belong on this site…. There’s just too much “hating” going on.

  41. Do I feel like my taxes would be better served by teaching a man a skill instead of handing him a check? Yes.

    How nice for men. But what about women with small children (or men who are single parents of young children)? Does your generosity extent to offering them government subsidized daycare or even (gasp) welfare until their kids are old enough to go to school? Because if not, you’re encouraging abortion: many women have abortions for economic reasons, i.e. being unable to support a child. And while “pregnancy crisis centers” offering them a free pack of diapers is all good and well, it’s hardly enough.

  42. as for this pharmasists group for life (sorry, the link didnt work for me so i couldnt look at it) if they’re a private organization then adhering to their beliefs as to when life begins seems fine to me. some other group can take your position and you can go there.

    They’re a private organization that places their pharmacists in public pharmacies where they can deny prescribed medication to patients on the grounds that filling that prescription violates their moral values.

    why should they be forced to hand you medicine that, in their mind, is going to destroy a life or a potential life?

    Because it’s their job. If they don’t like the idea of having to fill birth control prescriptions, they should go work in a boys’ school where the issue will never come up. Taking a job that you know you can’t do is unethical.

    Let’s say you get into a car accident and are rushed to the emergency room. The doctor refuses to give you a blood transfusion because she’s a Jehovah’s Witness, and her religion forbids blood transfusions. I assume you’re fine with that. After all, to do otherwise is to force the doctor to violate her religious beliefs.

    if you try to give counter examples to claim this position leads to extreme and absurd results then please make sure they correlate to a dispute over the protection of life/potential life.

    So you’ll only allow medical personnel to put your life in danger if there’s a chance that your embryo might die? How noble.

    A woman in Nicaragua died because that country’s restrictive abortion laws made doctors wait to terminate her ectopic pregnancy until her life was actually in danger, and they waited too long. So instead of saving the life of the one person who could be saved — the mother — both died.

  43. Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more valuable than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

    Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

    Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-valuable tissue mass to valuable human being? If the unborn are not already human and valuable, merely changing their location can’t make them so.

    Degree of Dependency: If viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

  44. But I just want to say that I’m glad that my mother didn’t abort me and I’m glad that I didn’t abort two of my children.

    I sometimes wonder if my mother should have aborted me. They discovered that her cancer had recurred while she was pregnant with me and she had to choose between starting treatment immediately (which meant aborting me) or waiting until she gave birth and then starting treatment. I’m not so egotistical as to assume that of course it was more important for me to live.

    It’s bad enough for me to have to wonder if she made the right choice. It would be ten times worse to find out that she didn’t do it of her own free will and that she was forced to give birth to me.

    I wish I could ask her these questions, but the cancer killed her when I was seven, so I’ll never know the answers.

  45. “she had to CHOOSE between starting treatment immediately (which meant aborting me) or waiting until she gave birth”

    It is not egotistical, anymore that it is presumptious for me to say that OBVIOUSLY you were more important.

  46. It is not egotistical, anymore that it is presumptious for me to say that OBVIOUSLY you were more important.

    To her and my father? Yes. But they made the CHOICE, as you pointed out. Our “pro-life” friends would argue that she shouldn’t even have had the choice, that my unformed fetal life was so clearly more important than her 30 years of life and 10 years of public service that she shouldn’t have been allowed to choose to have an abortion if that had been what they decided.

  47. diane, how can you be confused? when, after I wrote this: Third, while I do think there is a legitimate distinction between married and unmarried sex.

    You respond with this: “why”

    I asked you how you could think otherwise. In what way do I need to be more specific?

    In any event I’ll explain why there is a legitimate moral distinction even though it shocks me that you actually don’t think it is obvious that one exists.

    Sickle, since I’m apparently also addressing you, you quoted me when I wrote “diane, are you joking? if you’re claiming there is no legitimate moral distinction then please explain.” and then said

    I don’t think she is, and I’d like you to explain this “moral distinction” as well, azok. My (opposite-sex) partner and I have been together for 14 years in a committed, monogamous relationship. We’re expecting our first child (a girl) next month. We are unmarried.

    What is it about that piece of paper (the marriage license) that makes my relationship less moral without one?

    First of all, you should have your child in good health!

    Second of all, there’s no reason you cannot believe the two are entirely the same.

    However, the reason many would argue it is different is because by and large society has decided that the way we proclaim our total commitment to one another is through the process we created for marriage. certainly a different one could have been made, but the one we made is this one.

    Indeed, if you felt they were no different why not just get married? what’s the difference (you needn’t answer that of course if it is too pesonal, i’m just trying to point out you may very well believe there is in fact a difference).

    We do this in all areas because we create methods for communicating to one another and society at large various realities. Even if someone went to Yale law school and graduated top of their class, if they give legal advice as an attorney they’re in trouble. Why? they’re unquestionably as competent, and almost certainly more so, than most first year attorneys and many seasoned attorneys as well. It’s because we’ve created this system where the piece of paper matters. So for marriage we’ve used that as our way of doing it. Again, we could have thought up a system but we chose this one.

    You have every right to choose not to get married and you most certainly are free to believe your relationship is every bit the same as those who go through a ceremony and get the piece of paper which both demonstrate to the public in an official manner their commitment.

    But for those that believe a couple committed to one another is the moral choice, if you opt out of the system then you can’t expect them to view your relationship the exact same way they view those who opt in to the method of commitment that as a society for quite some time has been accepted as the standard method for doing so.

    And how productive is a blog that attempts to destroy another person’s opinion instead of simply stating his or her own? Maybe I’m a bit Pollyanna but I’m all for “Yea Us!” instead of “Boo You!” I definitely don’t belong on this site…. There’s just too much “hating” going on.

    Kiim, I agree. There is a lot of anger and hate on this site and it’s unfortunate that the positions taken by most everyone on the site is not developed in a more “here’s why we’re right” but instead a “here’s why everyone else is wrong” approach.

  48. Did I say that I think other women don’t have the right to abortions? No. Did I say that I don’t want to pay for it? Yes. The government is not our mommy. It shouldn’t have any say in a lot of things we do. But, when we force the government to pay for programs, there will always be strings attached.

    But tax money doesn’t go towards paying for abortion. You are not paying for abortion. The only one’s who are paying for abortion are the women who are getting them. Tax money that goes to Planned Parenthood is paying for other things, like birth control and gynecological exams, not abortion.

    Yes, we chose the government. But not one policy maker can make everyone happy. And I would be willing to bet that once they’re in office, they can’t make everything go the way they told their constituents it would go. Does everyone agree that money should be spent on the war? No. Does everyone agree that welfare needs to be abolished? No.

    Am I making a difference when I take food and clothing to the shelter? Yes. Am I making a difference when I hire workers from the state workforce commission? Yes. Do I feel like my taxes would be better served by teaching a man a skill instead of handing him a check? Yes. Do I feel like it’s the government’s responsibility to raise my kids or pay for my prenatal exams? No. It’s my responsibility. That’s why I work.

    These two paragraphs contradict each other. Since we vote in our government, it becomes their responsibility when something goes wrong with the government system. If the number of babies being born with birth defects and genetic disorders are being born from poor women, then somebody has to step in, and it’s not going to be someone from a private corporation. Maybe subsidized prenatal care is a good idea for that reason. It sure is a hell of a lot cheaper than making accommodations for these children in public schools (as per the Americans with Disabilities Act, you know, that pesky piece of legislation that doesn’t allow public and private schools and employers to discriminate against people with disabilities. Socialism at its worst!).

    I wish that a performer who makes $92.5 million in one concert tour would spend it on job training (or Planned Parenthood for that matter). But guess what? I can’t tell them where their money should go. Neither should our government. Those with should help those without because it’s the right thing to do… not because the government says so. I just feel that when we ask the government to pay for everything, we are giving them more power to run our lives and our businesses.

    This analogy is faulty. Your taxes and their taxes go to the same place. And we’re not asking our government to pay for everything. We’re asking that poor people get equal services as rich people. Health care is not a privilege that should only be reserved to people who can afford insurance or pay out-of-pocket. We’re not all as fortunate as you.

    No, I don’t have the answers, and No, I don’t know everything that goes on in the world. But I reiterate my belief that if I want to support a girls softball association or a food pantry that I do it with my money. I would never suggest that anyone else be forced to support those causes through their taxes. I like my tattoos too. Did I ask the government to pay for them?

    But the thing is, you’re not going to. “If I want to.” You expect people not to depend on the government and depend on the generous citizenry of the country, but people are only going to donate “if they want to.” Can Americans depend on you and every other citizen to fill the food banks? Put out fires? Make sure our schools have up-to-date textbooks? Not if they don’t want to!

    Working person is the key. How profitable is a business that pays an employee who doesn’t work? How profitable is a government who pays its citizens not to work?

    The minimum wage is currently $5.15/hour (which, when adjusted for inflation, is less than it was 50 years ago when health insurance was non-profit). A full-time minimum-wage job pays around a whopping $10,500 a year. A single mother in that job is in poverty. Working doesn’t guarantee that you can pay to take care of yourself and your dependents. This idea that if you work hard enough all your problems will be solved is an illusion.

  49. So, your thesis is that we should then allow abortions when the mother has a good record of public service?

  50. I’m glad you work, Kim. Really I am. But wonderful health care providers mean diddly/squat for people who can’t even afford to have routine check-ups. And lots of those people are already working – at dead end jobs that don’t pay enough to afford extras like health care. Or they can’t work, like my mother-in-law. Or they’re disabled (Have you checked the unemployment rates for disabled people lately? I guarantee you, it’s not because they don’t want to work). I’m not keen on living in a society that hangs people out to dry like that.

  51. to those making points about how messed up our health care system is, i don’t think anyone denies that. and if you’re honest, then wherever you stand on any issue you’ll agree that basically every politician has been gutless by not being willing to be straight with people and tell them that a lot of people have to be burned big time for us to solve the problem. that is the grim reality from a fiscal perspective and both parties refuse to step up because if they get it done then a lot of them will ruin their own political careers.

    still, i’m not sure it is fair to attack anyone’s position on abortion based on these matters. there’s a general problem with health care and it affects a lot of areas. focusing on abortion is really just looking at a symptom of this problem. and obviously if you’re advocating any one treatment (e.g. abortion) over another (e.g. some other type of care) then it really has nothing to do with getting help and everything to do with getting the type of help you want the government to provide. then it becomes a standard question of whether taxpayers want to pay for it and the democratic process should determine this.

    mnemosyne: if, as individuals, they want to deny people medicine when working at a store which wants to provide it then i see your point. I still think it is quite complicated and I’d rather not try to discuss something like that via typing because it will take forever. however, if a private store (which I thought we were talking about b/c you referred to a general group) doesnt want to give it then it is not their job.

    you clearly misunderstood my point and used the exact type of analogies which are just plain wrong to use here. you used life and death situations for a woman as a comparison to a person not wanting to hand a healthy woman a drug to kill her child (i say kill b/c that’s presumably what these people believe is occurring) how are those even remotely comparable?

  52. That is a nice little thought experiment, theobromophile. Maybe we would expect it to shake out that way if we did not have any real-world examples to look at to see what universal health care actually does to the abortion rate.

    In reality, there are several countries with universal health care that we can look at. Western Europe, particularly socialist Scandanavia, has the lowest abortion rate in the entire world, even though abortion is legal and sometimes even free. Good thing it is exactly as free as contraception, pregnancy, birth, having a preemie etc. so it all adds up to less abortions in the end.

    So much for your argument.

  53. not sure why, but for some reason my comments apparently take hours to be “approved” so i’ll have to check back later.

  54. not sure why, but for some reason my comments apparently take hours to be “approved” so i’ll have to check back later.

    We have a tight mod queue — I moderate out dozens of comments every hour. But I also have a life, so I don’t always have time to clear out the queue every five minutes. For example, it is currently 2:08am where I am, and I should be in bed, but instead I am approving and posting comments because I spent the last three hours away from the intertubes.

    Point being (and sorry if I sound snappy, it’s just that it’s 2am), we’re doing the best we can to get your comments up as quickly as possible. Please be patient. I know it’s frustrating.

  55. No national pro-life organization in the United States supports birth control. The Republican party consistently pushes for laws that limit birth control access. I think you’re right that most pro-life people realize that birth control is the best way to prevent abortion, and most people who are uncomfortable with abortion don’t want to outlaw birth control.

    Please don’t be disingenuous.

    “Birth control” encompasses everything from condoms to abortions. Are you talking about contraceptives? plan B, which may prevent the implantion of a fertilised egg? IUDs, some of which are designed to prevent implantation or to force the uterus to expel an implanted embryo? RU-486, which prevents the birth of a child? abortion?

    How does one “support” birth control? A big chunk of the conservative platform – sadly, one neglected by this administration – is that tax dollars ought not be used for purposes unrelated to the functioning of government.* You’re basically saying that conservatives ought to give up their principles to be more like your principles, because you happen to not like the result. Well, tough.

    An honest question: does Planned Parenthood not give any reduced prices for abortion? I was under the impression that they were subsidised.

    If it does, the tax dollars are going to support abortion, however directly or indirectly. If the tax dollars go to purpose A, which then frees up money for purpose B, it can hardly be said that not a cent goes to purpose B.

    Birth control is ridiculously cheap. Wal-Mart is giving it away for $9/month, which amounts to a grand $117/year (assuming 28-day, not one-month, cycle of pills). Many places given condoms away for free. Well, for $117/year, then, you have some pretty reliable contraception. Why does the government need to intervene?

    By the way, what do you all think of this? Is it not the logical consequence of the movement you all espouse?

    *To address a later, and thoroughly ridiculous, point: there is a difference between using tax money to make a functioning government, and using tax money to meet individual needs. Even the crazy libertarians, of which I am one, know that tax dollars must be used to 1) prevent aggression (police force, civil and criminal justice system, military), and 2) ensure the proper functioning of the civitas (building infrastructure). You cannot leap from the most fundamental roles of government, supported by everyone but anarchists, to your socialist ideals and pretend that they are equivalent. A quick lesson in (apparently, much-needed) political theory: socialists control the distribution of resources through the community. Those resources are often money, capital, and property, but include health care. So yes, when you want universal health care, you are espousing a fundamentally socialist position. Health care, at least in the sense you discuss, is not a part of non-aggression (mandatory vaccination against highly communicable diseases may be the one exception to this), nor of infrastructure-building. It is fundamentally individual, not statist, in nature, which sucks for you and your argument.

  56. I should add – most ardent pro-lifers I know (and there are quite a lot) have no problem with contraception. They just think that:
    1. it should not be funded by the government, and
    2. once the sperm hits an egg, it’s not contraception, it’s abortion.

    I know of only one or two pro-lifers who are against any form of birth control, even in marriage, and even they do not want to make that the law of the land. The Catholics who practise Natural Family Planning are now being joined by the environmentalists who don’t want to put hormones in the ecosystem and women who don’t want to put pharmaceuticals in their bodies for years on end. NFP is about 98% effective; couples who practise it have an 8% divorce rate.

    (While I am not trying to sell anyone on NFP, I would just like to point out that those who use NFP, or encourage it above other forms of birth control, are not talking about rolling the dice on the rhythm method. They are advocating for a sensible, environementally-friendly means by which to limit fertility. Frankly, I find it really awesome to hear about how men respond to it, as they have a responsibility to prevent pregnancy as well. I have had enough bad boyfriends to think that it’s pretty cool when men take an active, responsible role in preventing pregnancy, because most men of my generation say, “Can’t we just have sex and you can have an abortion if you get pregnant?”.)

  57. however, if a private store (which I thought we were talking about b/c you referred to a general group) doesnt want to give it then it is not their job.

    You have to define what you mean by “private store.” If you are the owner of a small business and don’t want to fill them, that’s your business, though you shouldn’t be surprised if people stop giving you their business.

    If you work for a chain store like Wal-Mart or Walgreens, is that still a “private store”? If a large chain is a private store and there is no company-wide policy to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, can a staff pharmacist decide on her own not to fill them? If the large chain does have a company-wide policy that birth control prescriptions must be filled, can the pharmacist refuse anyway on the grounds that it violates her religious beliefs? These are not academic questions — these are things that are actually happening in stores across the country.

    Cab drivers in Minneapolis will not transport people who are carrying bottles of wine or liquor from the airport because it violates their beliefs as Muslims. I assume you’re fine with that as well, since they’re private businessmen.

    you used life and death situations for a woman as a comparison to a person not wanting to hand a healthy woman a drug to kill her child (i say kill b/c that’s presumably what these people believe is occurring) how are those even remotely comparable?

    Because — and I know this is hard for you to understand — birth control pills do not kill fertilized eggs. It was thought that maybe possibly one way that birth control pills worked was to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg, but that has now been scientifically shown to not be the case.

    A pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for birth control pills or emergency contraception on the grounds that it “kills babies” is acting purely from religious belief and not from any grounding in science whatsoever. So your argument is that a health care provider has every right to make his or her patients conform to the health care provider’s religious beliefs, regardless of what the patient believes and regardless of what medical science says.

    Let’s take a non life-or-death situation since they seem to upset you so much that you can’t think logically. Let’s say that, after looking at all of the evidence, you decide not to have your infant son circumcised, because there is no medical need for it. Your pediatrician is Jewish, so she schedules the circumcision over your objections because her religious beliefs require it.

    Now, it’s not going to kill your son to be circumcised so, by your lights, it should be perfectly legal for the doctor to go ahead because her religious beliefs require circumcision even though yours do not, correct? If not, why is her religious and non-scientific insistence on circumcision any different than a pharmacist’s religious and non-scientific refusal to prescribe birth control pills?

  58. 1. it should not be funded by the government, and

    Does that mean that they’re also opposed to government funding for Viagra and Cialis? After all, if the argument is that the government should not be funding drugs that have to do with sex, it would seem pretty important to take those off Medicare and Medicaid as covered drugs.

    2. once the sperm hits an egg, it’s not contraception, it’s abortion.

    So their religious belief should trump medical science, which says that pregnancy begins at implantation? And their religious belief should be allowed to decide what medication women are allowed to have, regardless of what medical science says?

  59. So, your thesis is that we should then allow abortions when the mother has a good record of public service?

    My thesis is that we should allow abortions when the woman decides it’s in her best interest to have one. Why are you under the impression that you should have any say in a stranger’s healthcare decisions?

  60. not to change the subject…

    But I would like to mention that recently my mother, who works and can’t afford insurance, and is a breast cancer survivor was turned away for a mammogram by countless organizations and clinics, some actually b/c she has had cancer b/f, and they are only for those who have never had one…

    everyone except for PP. PP was more than happy to help her get her mammogram. They were able to help her get her annual cancer screening, and provided some services that someone who has also survived cervical cancer should be getting.

    so, yeah, I applaud PP for helping my mother. I actually applaud them for all they do.

    Hurting PP by taking away tax dollars isn’t stopping abortions, since tax dollars can’t be used for them anyway. What it does do is prevent women from getting standard health care when they can’t receive it anywhere else.

  61. once the sperm hits an egg, it’s not contraception, it’s abortion.

    Sigh. Another pro-lifer who doesn’t know biology. What a surprise. The first sperm to encounter an egg doesn’t get through. It takes several sperm to penetrate the egg’s outer layers. And conception is far from over when a sperm successfully fuses with the egg’s membrane. There are several other steps that must proceed correctly before conception is completed. This is college biology stuff, folks. At least it was when I was in college. They probably teach it in HS by now. Nothing exotic.

  62. . Well, I happen to oppose universal health care because, in part, it would increase the number of abortions. (Yes, you read that right.) Abortions cost $400 or so, right? Labour and delivery is $10,000 at a hospital if all goes smoothly, $3,000-$4,000 at home, and $100,000 if there are complications and the child is born early.

    That’s a dumb reason to oppose universal health care. What government health care wouldn’t cover labor and delivery? Did I miss when the Voluntary Human Extinction movement became a viable party?

    But you know who isn’t going to be paying $10,000 for a birth? Women who don’t have health insurance. Who the hell has 10,000 lying around? Now $400 many can do. So you want to force uninsured women to have abortions? Ok, no one’s dragging them to the abortion clinic if they don’t have $10,000. So, what about the women who show up at a hospital in labor, no health insurance and no $10,000? I doubt they tell them to give birth in the parking lot. So somewhere they have to pass on the cost of that delivery. My guess is that’s how birth got to be $10,000 in the first place. Another reason would be malpractice insurance. If you fuck up a birth, and the baby is permanently disabled, the malpractice award can be in the millions, because the medical costs of caring for a disabled person from birth until death is insane. But, what if we had universal healthcare, and suddenly, all parents of disabled children know that their child would always have the healthcare s/he needs? Then malpractice suits would just be punitive damages, and would be a fraction of the current awards. So, birth would probably be cheaper under universal healthcare, but there’s no way it wouldn’t be covered, and there’s no way in hell that America would let abortions be covered and not birth. Not going to happen.

  63. Yeah, Theo is back! How fun.

    “Well, I happen to oppose universal health care because, in part, it would increase the number of abortions. (Yes, you read that right.) Abortions cost $400 or so, right? Labour and delivery is $10,000 at a hospital if all goes smoothly, $3,000-$4,000 at home, and $100,000 if there are complications and the child is born early.

    There is an unlimited need for health care. In many people’s minds, hundreds of thousands of dollars for an extra six months of life is totally justified. Rationing of care is inevitable. As a pro-lifer, I vigourously oppose universal health care because:
    1. I don’t want the government to determine who lives and who dies;
    2. I don’t want a government with a vested financial interest in abortion and euthanasia (as end-of-life care and childbirth are both very expensive and common medical needs);
    3. I do not want anyone to lose the more fundamental negative right: the right to seek health care, free from government intrusion. (I do not think that killing your unborn child is “health care,” so forgive me on that one.)
    4. Reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid are so low that doctors do not participate in them, if at all possible. If we go to universal health care, we would lose our top-quality physicians, who will no longer find it financially feasible to spend a quarter-million dollars, plus interest, and ten years of their lives on their post-college education to be paid peanuts. I do not want treatment by lousy doctors; I’ll pay more for treatment by good doctors. I certainly do not want to arrive at the point where doctors will be forced to work too long and spend too little time with their patients to give them excellent care.”

    I love Theo’s logic. If we had universal health care, then the government would perform surprise abortions on women who do not need them because they are cheaper than births. Yep, that would happen. She also thinks its a “fundamental right” to pay for one’s own health care. Yep, only people with money should have health care. Those crazy socialists thinking that all people matter! And to top it off, if we had universal health care, the quality of doctors would magically diminish and no one would go to medical school.

    Funny, because in Canada we’ve had universal health care for years, and our doctors receive scholarships to go to med school, they care well for their patients, and they do not favour abortions over births. But Theo’s world really has nothing to do with reality.

  64. However, the reason many would argue it is different is because by and large society has decided that the way we proclaim our total commitment to one another is through the process we created for marriage.

    And? Some of us aren’t sheeple. Some of us actually like to think for ourselves and make our own choices.

    But for those that believe a couple committed to one another is the moral choice, if you opt out of the system then you can’t expect them to view your relationship the exact same way they view those who opt in to the method of commitment that as a society for quite some time has been accepted as the standard method for doing so.

    Why do you pro-reproductive slavery people think anyone cares what you think? Srsly. Why do you think we care if you disapprove?

    You’re entirely free to live your life any way you want.

    And so are we.

    As long as you keep your traditionalist nonsense out of my life, and don’t try to legistlate it, there’s no problem.

  65. Ouyangdan:

    Funny you should mention how PP saved your mother’s life. PPVA is asking all women who have had life-saving treatment from PP to send in their stories.

    To help illustrate this point, tomorrow morning we will be delivering the personal stories we received from people across the state about Planned Parenthood’s prevention health care programs. (See the email that inspired us to ask for your stories at “Funding for Planned Parenthood saved me from cancer.”)

    http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/PPstories

    Another amusing, but hardly funny take on this is how denial of funds for PPVA is REALLY because our Governor Tim Kaine denied state funding for abstinence only education programs and the purported “pro-life” parties are incensed they’ll be losing STATE DOLLARS. Gee – I guess tax money is okay to spend on their programs, huh?

    So PP saves lives of women and men, women and men who would otherwise be denied treatment for CANCER therapy or other medical conditions. Pro-life? Ye are all pro-liars.

  66. I have had enough bad boyfriends to think that it’s pretty cool when men take an active, responsible role in preventing pregnancy, because most men of my generation say, “Can’t we just have sex and you can have an abortion if you get pregnant?”.)

    Either complete BS or your taste in men is seriously lacking. I’ll refrain from commenting on specifically what I think the problem is.

  67. But for those that believe a couple committed to one another is the moral choice, if you opt out of the system then you can’t expect them to view your relationship the exact same way they view those who opt in to the method of commitment that as a society for quite some time has been accepted as the standard method for doing so.

    What a pantsload. So in order to have legit fucking, society has to approve?

    The only thing a marriage does is legally qualify a couple to share in insurance and benefits. That is it. So your flowery nonsense of “society recognizing a committment” is purile nonsense. Furthermore, you are aware that not all married people get married to have society recognize their committment. I suggest you look at all the reasons people marry.

    So tell everyone here again how sex is different between unmarried people and married people. Let’s see how far you can stretch the taffy.

  68. unfortunately it is hard to take that middle of the road position because the far-right reacts in an extreme fashion to the far-left’s extreme views on abortion (or vice-versa)

    What is this “far left” extreme view on abortion? I’ve looked in my communist manifesto, but amazingly enough it isn’t listed as to what I should believe….

  69. kristen, thanks for telling me what i believe.

    hey, I call ’em like I see ’em. you want to focus on the baybees, the ‘pre-born’ Americans, the potential lives, whatever. but you choose to ignore the flip-side of that belief. you do believe that any woman who gets pregnant should be compelled to carry the pregnancy. Pro-forced preganncy is a very precise term for that stance. and don’t even start with that ‘but it’s only 9 months of inconvenience’ bullshit.

    If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-valuable tissue mass to valuable human being?

    *shaking head in disbelief*

  70. jill. got it. I only made the comment because so many times after i posted a dozen of other posts submitted afterward would show up while i waited a few hours for mine to appear. that only matters to me because it makes it tough to have the conversation flow. no worries though. i realize your website your rules. i was just letting others know why it could take a while to respond.

    mnemosyne:

    your first issue has nothing to do with abortion law and everything to do with the relationship between an employee and the company and a subsidiary and the parent company. it’s an employment law and a corporations law question. for abortion law, it only matters whether you think a private company (define it however you want) has a right to say we’re not giving you something because we think it is murder, or, just wrong to destroy potential life.

    again, as I said earlier, examples like your cab driver really are a complicated matter but it’s not about abortion. it’s really about where we draw the line on an individual’s right to refuse certain activity on the job even if the employer demands it be done. that’s an employment law question and abortion is just one of a myraid of examples where it comes up, but abortion is not the issue. i will just mention that while the comparison is legitimate, there is a difference between an employee telling his or her employer I refuse to do something because I believe it is murder (and no one can say she is factually wrong because there is no absolute as to when life begins) and the refusal to carry out your job because someone has something in a bag you don’t want them to have.

    Because — and I know this is hard for you to understand —

    Let’s take a non life-or-death situation since they seem to upset you so much that you can’t think logically.

    i understand on this blog only views opposing the bloggers must be done civilly, but i’m not sure why, since i’ve been civil, you feel the need to act like a jerk.

    as for your point about birth control pills, I honestly do not know the science on this specific area. Presumably people take the pills to at least prevent pregnancy since they’re called birth control pills. so the religious argument will still come up though I most certainly agree this gets it a lot closer to the muslim liquor argument from above. i’ve got no problem with whatever the universally accepted science is playing a significant factor in determining an individual’s rights relative to his or her employer. but again, that’s not abortion law as much as it is employment and freedom-of-religion law.

    Let’s take a non life-or-death situation since they seem to upset you so much that you can’t think logically. Let’s say that, after looking at all of the evidence, you decide not to have your infant son circumcised, because there is no medical need for it. Your pediatrician is Jewish, so she schedules the circumcision over your objections because her religious beliefs require it.

    Now, it’s not going to kill your son to be circumcised so, by your lights, it should be perfectly legal for the doctor to go ahead because her religious beliefs require circumcision even though yours do not, correct? If not, why is her religious and non-scientific insistence on circumcision any different than a pharmacist’s religious and non-scientific refusal to prescribe birth control pills?

    Did you get this from a tv show or something? Jews do not believes they have to circumcise someone else’s child. I could act like a jerk in lambasting you for your complete ignorance of other religions and your willingness to just throw out these ridiculous notions, but I’ll instead just say you probably want to be more familiar with others religious beliefs before you say something less you look silly and insensitive (insensitive because in any area you cared about and/or respected (e.g. abortion rights or related science) you wouldn’t just bandy about ideas without taking a moment to confirm their veracity)).

    Now, as per your comment

    mnemosyne:

    your first issue has nothing to do with abortion law and everything to do with the relationship between an employee and the company and a subsidiary and the parent company. it’s an employment law and a corporations law question. for abortion law, it only matters whether you think a private company (define it however you want) has a right to say we’re not giving you something because we think it is murder, or, just wrong to destroy potential life.

    again, as I said earlier, examples like your cab driver really are a complicated matter but it’s not about abortion. it’s really about where we draw the line on an individual’s right to refuse certain activity on the job even if the employer demands it be done. that’s an employment law question and abortion is just one of a myraid of examples where it comes up, but abortion is not the issue. i will just mention that while the comparison is legitimate, there is a difference between an employee telling his or her employer I refuse to do something because I believe it is murder (and no one can say she is factually wrong because there is no absolute as to when life begins) and the refusal to carry out your job because someone has something in a bag you don’t want them to have.

    Because — and I know this is hard for you to understand —

    Let’s take a non life-or-death situation since they seem to upset you so much that you can’t think logically.

    i understand on this blog only views opposing the bloggers must be done civilly, but i’m not sure why, since i’ve been civil, you feel the need to act like a jerk.

    as for your point about birth control pills, I honestly do not know the science on this specific area. Presumably people take the pills to at least prevent pregnancy since they’re called birth control pills. so the religious argument will still come up though I most certainly agree this gets it a lot closer to the muslim liquor argument from above. i’ve got no problem with whatever the universally accepted science is playing a significant factor in determining an individual’s rights relative to his or her employer. but again, that’s not abortion law as much as it is employment and freedom-of-religion law.

    Let’s take a non life-or-death situation since they seem to upset you so much that you can’t think logically.

    despite your snot-nose comment i’ll try again to respectfully explain to you why the two are not analogous.

    Situation 1: saving mother in life and death situation VS. unborn fetus
    Situation 2: healthy mother who just wants abortion VS. unborn fetus

    They’re not morally comparable on any level.

    Now, I’m happy to take the time to thoroughly respond even if I really think the answer is obvious and I already gave it (e.g. what I just wrote), but you have to at least pretend you can talk respectfully and civilly to someone who disagrees with you.

  71. sorry, obviously the quotes got messed up.

    i do wish there was a preview before submitting. also, can anyone explain to me how to edit? i click on edit and it just brings me down here to post something else.

    here’s how the last part of the prior post should look, beginning with …

    Now, as per your comment

    mnemosyne:

    Because — and I know this is hard for you to understand —

    Let’s take a non life-or-death situation since they seem to upset you so much that you can’t think logically.

    i understand on this blog only views opposing the bloggers must be done civilly, but i’m not sure why, since i’ve been civil, you feel the need to act like a jerk.

    as for your point about birth control pills, I honestly do not know the science on this specific area. Presumably people take the pills to at least prevent pregnancy since they’re called birth control pills. so the religious argument will still come up though I most certainly agree this gets it a lot closer to the muslim liquor argument from above. i’ve got no problem with whatever the universally accepted science is playing a significant factor in determining an individual’s rights relative to his or her employer. but again, that’s not abortion law as much as it is employment and freedom-of-religion law.

    Let’s take a non life-or-death situation since they seem to upset you so much that you can’t think logically.

    despite your snot-nose comment i’ll try again to respectfully explain to you why the two are not analogous.

    Situation 1: saving mother in life and death situation VS. unborn fetus
    Situation 2: healthy mother who just wants abortion VS. unborn fetus

    They’re not morally comparable on any level.

    Now, I’m happy to take the time to thoroughly respond even if I really think the answer is obvious and I already gave it (e.g. what I just wrote), but you have to at least pretend you can talk respectfully and civilly to someone who disagrees with you.

  72. Betty Boondoggle: did you even bother to read the entire post and look at it in context? I might have said half a dozen times there’s no reason you need to believe this. I was responding to someone who wanted to know why someone could distinguish between pre-marital and marital sex based on our system of defining marriage.

    And I ask you, as I ask so many others here, why do you need to express your opinion in such a snotty, demeaning way??

    Why do you pro-reproductive slavery people think anyone cares what you think? Srsly. Why do you think we care if you disapprove?

    Again, why the name-calling and false attributions to me. I was responding to someone’s question as to how I could think differently from them so I don’t even understand your attempt to humiliate me by asking me why I think someone cares if I ‘disapprove.’

    Like I said, this board has a one way street on civility and I do think it reflects poorly on all of you.

  73. ElleBeMe: wow, yet another jerk of a response. i’ll try to respond anyway.

    What a pantsload. So in order to have legit fucking, society has to approve?

    The only thing a marriage does is legally qualify a couple to share in insurance and benefits. That is it. So your flowery nonsense of “society recognizing a committment” is purile nonsense. Furthermore, you are aware that not all married people get married to have society recognize their committment. I suggest you look at all the reasons people marry.

    So tell everyone here again how sex is different between unmarried people and married people. Let’s see how far you can stretch the taffy.

    What are you talking about?

    First, I didn’t say that is the reason people marry. So attributing to me things I never said really isn’t much of an argument.

    Second, here is your argument

    The only thing a marriage does is legally qualify a couple to share in insurance and benefits. That is it.

    How, other than laughing, should I respond to a counterargument which says I’m wrong because you said so?

    What is this “far left” extreme view on abortion? I’ve looked in my communist manifesto, but amazingly enough it isn’t listed as to what I should believe….

    won’t even respond to this.

  74. Jill,

    should I list all the jerk responses I’ve received for you to spell out your double-standard?

    I’m sorry but you all really ought to be embarrassed. Your techniques for dismissing and attacking those who disagree with you are IDENTICAL to many of the techniques employed by racists, bigots, sexists (ironically) and other hate groups. You demean and attack the person. That’s a reflection of the approach used to post concepts on the site as well.

    I think there are some unreasonable and absurd views on this site, but for the most part while I disagree with them they’re legitimate, sophisticated, and well-developed. The fact that so many of you, including (in particular) the bloggers, feel the need to display your message by lambasting everyone else combined with not tolerating responses in kind undermines the otherwise legitimate and interesting points.

    I don’t stop by here once in a while to just fill an echo-chamber with 101 people I agree with. It’s far more stimulating for me to go on a site like this, where I know at least some of the people are very well educated and bright, so I can get grilled by lots of bright people who disagree with me. That’s the way I determine whether my views are on solid ground or whether I need to reassess them. It’s a real shame this entire site is designed to discuss everything in the most uncivil manner possible.

  75. I wrote: “kristen, thanks for telling me what i believe.”

    you responded:

    hey, I call ‘em like I see ‘em. you want to focus on the baybees, the ‘pre-born’ Americans, the potential lives, whatever. but you choose to ignore the flip-side of that belief. you do believe that any woman who gets pregnant should be compelled to carry the pregnancy. Pro-forced preganncy is a very precise term for that stance. and don’t even start with that ‘but it’s only 9 months of inconvenience’ bullshit.

    You call them like you see them? I’ve written a few posts on a board (and I think your comment was after I literally had posted a few hundred words) and you assume on a matter which could fill a library you understand my view on this complicated and nuanced issue? Basically you judge people’s positions after reading the opening paragraph to their book and don’t bother reading the rest. Impressive.

    you do believe that any woman who gets pregnant should be compelled to carry the pregnancy.

    I expect a post which has only the following in it: I’M SORRY AZOK, I WAS WRONG. It should be in bold and large font.

    Otherwise, show me where I ever said that I believe “any woman who gets pregnant should be compelled to carry the pregnancy.”

  76. Either complete BS or your taste in men is seriously lacking. I’ll refrain from commenting on specifically what I think the problem is.

    Thanks for the random insult. Passive-aggressive, worthless bitches make my day.

    No, it couldn’t be that society condones this behaviour, which allows otherwise very decent people to think this way. Clearly, I’m either a liar or a bad person – it would never, ever be that your pro-abortion position is a great thing for young, single men who like to screw.

    Such crap.

  77. Bushfire, what are you on? Seriously. I never said that the government would perform surprise abortions, but, then again, you’re from the group who thinks that lack of abortion would mean that the government would run around impregnanting women with turkey basters, so I can’t be too shocked.

    Canadian education is a lot less expensive than American eduction to begin with; scholarships here would have to be incredible in order to entice the best to go to med school. Extremely talented Americans can out-earn extremely talented people in other countries; it’s not just that we need to pay doctors enough to not be poor, but we need to pay them enough to not be investment bankers. There are a lot of economic differences which make it impossible to do straight-up comparisons between two countries and pretend that something which works for one will function equally well in another.

    Pray tell, why do Canadians cross the border into America to seek health care? 🙂

  78. I, too, would love to know what constitutes an “extreme pro-choice” position. What – I really, really, really, believe abortion should be the woman’s choice? I really, really, really don’t want to punish sexually active women?

  79. Thanks for the random insult. Passive-aggressive, worthless bitches make my day.

    Oh good, misogyny. How refreshing.

    Clearly, I’m either a liar or a bad person – it would never, ever be that your pro-abortion position is a great thing for young, single men who like to screw.

    She didn’t say you were a bad person. It’s pretty clear it’s about bad choices. you know, like being pro-reproductive slavery.

    BTW, It’s a great thing for young, single women who like to screw too.

    ___

    “I might have said half a dozen times there’s no reason you need to believe this. I was responding to someone who wanted to know why someone could distinguish between pre-marital and marital sex based on our system of defining marriage.”

    I believe you were asked why you make a distinction and what that distinction is. You can say “there’s no reason for you to believe this”, but when you’re completely dismissing and insulting other people’s relationships for some seriously goofy reasons, you’re going to get less-than-friendly responses.

    “And I ask you, as I ask so many others here, why do you need to express your opinion in such a snotty, demeaning way??”

    We’ve heard all this before –all the excuses, all the false information, etc. Pro-reproductive slavery bullshit offends me deeply. Waxing moralistic while passing judgment on other people (while not being quite brave enough to admit it) deeply offends me.

    IMO, anti-choice arguments are inherently misogynistic. That also deeply offends me.

    “Like I said, this board has a one way street on civility and I do think it reflects poorly on all of you.”

    Once again, why do you assume anyone else has to care what you think?

    This is an inherently controversial subject that inflames a lot of passionate responses. If you don’t like that, why broach the subject?

  80. Passive-aggressive, worthless bitches make my day.

    Great! Can the ad homs, or you’re banned.

  81. Sarah, you want to know what an extreme position is, then see Bettie’s post below yours.

    particularly

    IMO, anti-choice arguments are inherently misogynistic. That also deeply offends me.

    anyone who does not agree with bettie’s approach is not only wrong, but they ought not be entitled to their view in the democratic process, and they should be publicly demeaned and attacked for having a different view. that’s extreme.

    Bettie:

    1. where did i completely dismiss and insult someone else’s relationship? You don’t read what I write, you just insert whatever you want to believe I am saying and then attribute it to me. Show me where I completely dismissed and insulted anyone’s relationship.

    2. Basically you’re offended that anyone disagrees with you! Anyone with a different view should keep their mouth shut and realize they’re wrong. If not, please do elaborate what alternative positions to yours regarding abortion are acceptable. You’ve made it quite clear that anyone who views pre-marital sex and sex during marriage as different is, in your eyes, scum of the earth.

    3. Just because it is controversial and people have deeply held beliefs doesnt mean people cannot argue passionately without demeaning those they disagree with. I know this because I’ve been doing in this entire thread.

    Do you think when professors get up to debate the issue at various events they resort to the tactics people like you and others on this board employ?

    I’m sorry but strong feelings are no excuse for acting like a jerk.

    Moreover, Jill and other administrators on this site love to dish it out but refuse to take it, so maybe you should address that last comment to them.

  83. Passive-aggressive, worthless bitches make my day.

    It appears that Zuzu is kinder than I am today by offering you a warning. I have no such patience. I just banned you. Bye bye.

  84. most men of my generation say, “Can’t we just have sex and you can have an abortion if you get pregnant?”.)

    I don’t know what men you’ve been hanging around with, but I’ve never had a man say that to me at, er, a critical moment. Anecdote aside, abusive boyfriends are more likely to try to get women pregnant to trap them than to coerce or force them to have an abortion. So pro-lifers, willingly or not, are playing right into the hands of abusers when they try to make it more difficult for women to get abortions.

  85. NFP is about 98% effective; couples who practise it have an 8% divorce rate.

    They can also fly.

    P.S. Atheitst have the lowest divorce rate of any religious (or non-religious) group. Become an atheist today!

  86. Atheitst have the lowest divorce rate of any religious (or non-religious) group. Become an atheist today!

    Probably because we don’t expect the sex to suddenly become wonderful after we’re married if it was only mediocre before.

  87. P.P.S. For the sake of argument, let’s say people who practive NFP have an 8% divorce rate. Why, on it’s face, is that a good thing? Couples who practice NFP are likely to be the kind of people who strongly oppose divorce. That doesn’t mean their marriages are functional or happy. It just means they’re married.

  88. For the sake of argument, let’s say people who practive NFP have an 8% divorce rate. Why, on it’s face, is that a good thing?

    Actually, I’m not sure it isn’t a bad thing. I’m not going to post links because I’m writing quickly before going back to work, but I seem to remember that there is a correlation between higher divorce rates and lower rates of domestic abuse. And lower rates of spousal murder (both men murdering their wives and vice versa.) Unless one is arguing that murdering your spouse is better than divorcing him/her perhaps?

  89. Great, theobromophile again. Should I just take it as read that my husband and I should never, ever have sex again, because otherwise I obviously deserve to lose my vision and have brain surgery?

    azok – there’s a problem with your #1 and #2 cases that I don’t think you’ve looked at. (There’s more problems than that in my estimation, but I think you’re aware of those.) There’s no bright dividing line between the two cases. Perfectly healthy pregnancies can go disastrously wrong, and women with every medical indication that they shouldn’t be able to tolerate a pregnancy occassionally finagle it through somehow. I nearly bled to death from a normal c-section at the end of a normal pregnancy. It’s always, always a gamble.

  90. anyone who does not agree with bettie’s approach is not only wrong, but they ought not be entitled to their view in the democratic process, and they should be publicly demeaned and attacked for having a different view. that’s extreme.

    It’s Betty. B-E-T-T-Y.

    I said none of things you’re pretending I did. Stop lying.

    I said the arguments anti-choicers make are inherently misogynistic. And they are.

    Show me where I completely dismissed and insulted anyone’s relationship.

    Read your posts.

    You’ve made it quite clear that anyone who views pre-marital sex and sex during marriage as different is, in your eyes, scum of the earth.

    I also didn’t say that. Stop lying.

    I’m sorry but strong feelings are no excuse for acting like a jerk.

    Why do you assume people have to care what you think? If you can’t take it, don’t. No one is forcing you to come here.

  91. Probably because we don’t expect the sex to suddenly become wonderful after we’re married if it was only mediocre before.

    What! You mean having a relationship sanctioned by an imaginary gawd and a bunch of nosy strangers doesn’t makes marriage go happily ever aftah?!

  92. 89 tapetum: i’ve responded to lots of different things people said to me so it’s hard to know which post(s) you’re referring to without going back through everything.

    However, I get your basic point and that’s totally legit and a powerful argument.

    I’ll be clearer here. I was, and am, referring to a comparison between a healthy woman who wants to abort not out fear of health complications but for convenience sake. just not interested in having a kid at the moment.

    I’m not aware of what other problems there are with my pointing out why the two cases are distinct and not analogous for this purpose. What are they?

    Betty:

    I misspelled your online name. ok. sorry. relax.

    I said: Show me where I completely dismissed and insulted anyone’s relationship.”
    your response:

    Read your posts.

    I read them and I don’t see it. Please show me.

    I said: You’ve made it quite clear that anyone who views pre-marital sex and sex during marriage as different is, in your eyes, scum of the earth.

    You responded: I also didn’t say that. Stop lying.

    Here’s what you said before:

    We’ve heard all this before –all the excuses, all the false information, etc. Pro-reproductive slavery bullshit offends me deeply. Waxing moralistic while passing judgment on other people (while not being quite brave enough to admit it) deeply offends me.

    IMO, anti-choice arguments are inherently misogynistic. That also deeply offends me.

    So anyone who is anti-choice (the way you define anti-choice apparently) inherently hates women and deeply offends you. if you don’t like my replacing those with scum of the earth ok. Should I say completely and absolutely disgusts and offends you instead? I don’t think what I wrote is ‘lying.

    On the other hand I’m waiting for you to back up these wonderful assertions you’ve attributed to me.

    I said: I’m sorry but strong feelings are no excuse for acting like a jerk.

    You responded: Why do you assume people have to care what you think? If you can’t take it, don’t. No one is forcing you to come here.

    I don’t get this line you keep using of “why do you assume people have to care what you think?” Is that a third grade insult of some kind? I’m not sure how I’m supposed to respond to it.

    As for the “If you can’t take it, don’t. No one is forcing you to come here,” do you not find it hypocritical for administrators to ban anyone who says admittedly highly in-appropriate attacks, but to condone, and themselves post, ad-hominem after ad-hominem attack?

    And you’re missing my point. Sure I can take it. I’m just saying it belittles you and weakens your arguments when instead of substantively responding to what I’m saying you lash out out me with ad-hominem attacks and derogatory remarks.

    Moreover, I’m explaining to you that having strong beliefs is a great thing. Being passionate about your views is wonderful. But there’s no reason that those two things necessitate expressing the strong views you have in an unpleasant and uncivil manner.

    I have very strong opinions on these matters and believe in them deeply. I don’t have a need, or the desire even, to lash out at you. In fact, even as you attack me personally, it doesn’t bother me since it just suggests your belief in your position is not based in reason as much as emotion.

    I think those pro-abortion, save those like you who are not only pro-abortion but also refusing to grant that alternative legitimate and reasonable viewpoints exist (in my book a misogynistic viewpoint is not legitimate or reasonable), have a lot of powerful arguments. I agree with a few of them, and the ones I disagree with I still often use to play devil’s advocate with those who are pro-life.

    For your own health and happiness (unfortunately, I anticipate some snide or sarcastic response to this even though I do mean it sincerely), I encourage you (and others here too) to be proud and happy with your views in a positive way. When you express to others your viewpoints do it in a way which says “here’s why I believe what I believe” instead of what this board is chalk full of, which is “here’s why you’re stupid, vile, and awful for not believing what I believe.”

    Anyway, I wish you no ill-will betty, really I don’t. I just wish you’d relax and calmly respond to what people who disagree with you say instead of lashing out at them.

  93. i will just mention that while the comparison is legitimate, there is a difference between an employee telling his or her employer I refuse to do something because I believe it is murder (and no one can say she is factually wrong because there is no absolute as to when life begins) and the refusal to carry out your job because someone has something in a bag you don’t want them to have.

    Let me put this in boldface, because you don’t seem to be getting it: BIRTH CONTROL PILLS DO NOT CAUSE ABORTIONS. The people who claim they refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills because they cause abortions are either completely ignorant of their chosen medical field (in which case I’d rather not have them doing my medical treatment) or are lying so they can refuse birth control to someone.

    If you refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills, you’re not doing it because you’re oh-so-worried about the fetuses. You’re doing it because you don’t want women using birth control at all. Period.

    It’s interesting how you started out claiming that you’re in favor of birth control and then immediately defend the notion that pharmacists should be allowed to deprive patients of birth control pills just because they disapprove of them. It’s also interesting that you seem to think that contraception in and of itself is so controversial that people should be allowed to refuse to sell it.

    Did you get this from a tv show or something? Jews do not believes they have to circumcise someone else’s child.

    That’s why it’s a hypothetical situation. Perhaps you’ve heard of such things. You seemed to get very upset by my bringing up real-life situations where actual real women died because of policies that “pro-life” groups advocate, so I thought a hypothetical one might help a bit here.

    Since you believe that health care workers should be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others, such as by refusing to fill their birth control prescriptions, then what would your objection be to a doctor who insisted that her patients follow her personal religious beliefs and have their son circumcised? You have argued here several times that the religious beliefs of the health care provider trump those of the patient, so I don’t think my hypothetical scenario is that far off from your insistence that pharmacists can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs.

    Situation 1: saving mother in life and death situation VS. unborn fetus
    Situation 2: healthy mother who just wants abortion VS. unborn fetus

    They’re not morally comparable on any level.

    Who’s talking morals? You can have whatever moral beliefs you want. You can believe that people who are having premarital sex are immoral. You can believe that women who have abortions “just because they want to” are immoral. Many people on this blog think that eating meat is immoral. Should we allow vegans to work at Honeybaked Ham and refuse to serve meat to customers because it’s their moral belief?

    It’s when you try to put your personal moral beliefs into law and make everyone else follow it, including people who do not share your moral beliefs, that we run into the argument.

    Again: your side wants to legislate that their personal moral beliefs are more important than my personal moral beliefs, so therefore I should be legally prevented from having an abortion even if I want one. Why? Because even though you do not know me and have never met me, you think you can decide from a distance whether or not my abortion is “moral” and should be permitted.

    It must be nice to be able to look at people walking down the street and decide that you’re more moral than they are, so you should be allowed to make healthcare decisions for them. Because when you legislate whose abortion is “moral” and whose abortion is “immoral,” that’s exactly what you’re doing.

  94. diane:

    Atheitst have the lowest divorce rate of any religious (or non-religious) group. Become an atheist today!

    Link? (hopefully a reputable, non-biased, study). I highly doubt this is so, and if it is, are you sure it isn’t because atheists marry far less often than other groups?

  95. You mean having a relationship sanctioned by an imaginary gawd and a bunch of nosy strangers doesn’t makes marriage go happily ever aftah?!

    Well, anecdotally, my grandparents’ relationship lasted (apparently happily) for 55 years, until the death of my grandfather, despite their never having gotten a sex license together (which we only found out after both were dead…they always claimed to be married…there may have been some laws about race preventing them from getting the stranger approval form). On the other hand, my uncle’s gone through five divorces. Gee, why don’t I think that marriage is a guarentee of a stable relationship?

  96. azok: I’d be happy to give links for any claims I have made, but I didn’t make that one. I was quoting. Ask SarahMC for a link if you’re interested.

  98. mneymosyne:

    Let me put this in boldface, because you don’t seem to be getting it: BIRTH CONTROL PILLS DO NOT CAUSE ABORTIONS. The people who claim they refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills because they cause abortions are either completely ignorant of their chosen medical field (in which case I’d rather not have them doing my medical treatment) or are lying so they can refuse birth control to someone.
    If you refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills, you’re not doing it because you’re oh-so-worried about the fetuses. You’re doing it because you don’t want women using birth control at all. Period.

    What are you responding to? Did you not read what I wrote? I said:

    as for your point about birth control pills, I honestly do not know the science on this specific area. Presumably people take the pills to at least prevent pregnancy since they’re called birth control pills. so the religious argument will still come up though I most certainly agree this gets it a lot closer to the muslim liquor argument from above. i’ve got no problem with whatever the universally accepted science is playing a significant factor in determining an individual’s rights relative to his or her employer. but again, that’s not abortion law as much as it is employment and freedom-of-religion law.

    It’s interesting how you started out claiming that you’re in favor of birth control and then immediately defend the notion that pharmacists should be allowed to deprive patients of birth control pills just because they disapprove of them. It’s also interesting that you seem to think that contraception in and of itself is so controversial that people should be allowed to refuse to sell it.

    I don’t get this either. Are you suggesting there’s a contradiction in my views?

    I’m against a lot of speech and disagree with many religious or other protected viewpoints. Why because I disagree with them should I not defend their right to refuse?

    Do you not want to defend freedoms of religion, speech, etc. if they’re ones you strongly disagree with? Sorry, but I do.

    I said: Did you get this from a tv show or something? Jews do not believes they have to circumcise someone else’s child.

    You responded: That’s why it’s a hypothetical situation. Perhaps you’ve heard of such things.

    Yes, I have heard of them. Good ones just don’t ever involve situations which mischaracterize a religious groups beliefs.

    You seemed to get very upset by my bringing up real-life situations where actual real women died because of policies that “pro-life” groups advocate, so I thought a hypothetical one might help a bit here.

    When did I get upset? I just told you at least three times your analogy is flawed. Substantively disagreeing with your analogy because it doesn’t make sense is different than being upset.

    Since you believe that health care workers should be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others, such as by refusing to fill their birth control prescriptions,

    Umm, isn’t it imposing on the worker to force them to do something? They want to be inactive. You want to force them to act.

    This is a great example of your inability to analyze these matters in an intellectually rigorous and honest way.

    That doesn’t mean there cannot be an element of truth to your view that their inaction imposes some restrictions on you, but if the guiding principle to pro-choice is the CHOICE, then how can you possibly want to force someone else to do something instead of giving them a choice??

    Who’s talking morals? … It’s when you try to put your personal moral beliefs into law and make everyone else follow it, including people who do not share your moral beliefs, that we run into the argument.

    Do you not realize you’re trying to do the same thing? If someone believes a fetus is a life or as potential life has more value than a woman deciding to abort for no reason other than she feels like it and you want to have laws which go against that, you’re making a moral judgment and putting it into law.

    For me that’s fine because that’s the way democracy works. If you don’t realize that (apparently you don’t) then you should look around you. If you prefer the word value judgment as opposed to moral judgment then so be it.

    Statutes are often explicitly and even more so, implicitly, based on moral or value judgments. Why are certain things tax exempt, why do we think we should have a progressive tax structure, why do we not allow various adult themes in certain locations or at certain times. There are other reasons too, but morals and value judgments are involved.

    You may disagree with the value judgments taken, but you’re in fantasy land if you think by disagreeing with the judgments taken you have not made a value judgment yourself.

    I’m guessing your not a law school student or a lawyer (don’t worry, even if I am it doesn’t mean I’m proud of it 😉 ), because otherwise you’d certainly realize that the law, at the end of the day, is a body of rules designed to ensure as a society we interact with each other in a particular way which necessitates value judgments all the time. We have guiding principles, none more important than the bill of rights, but often their are even clashes there.

    Like I said, I don’t want to get into details of employer and employee relationships or religious rights.

    I’m just trying to explain to you why your really myopic for not realizing the types of things you want to force on others, and mistaken by not realizing you’re taking moral or value judgment based stances.

    The last part of your post has basically gone of the deep end. I never said I wanted to stop you from having an abortion. You’re reasoning has taken you from

    1. my explaining to you why it is legitimate for people to want to have the right to refuse to give you birth control pills (in your world this reads: “they must be forced to do this, otherwise I don’t have a choice)

    to

    2. I personally want legislation banning all abortions.

    You’ve attributed things to me I never said from the very beginning (when you posed a question as a married woman and I responded to you and then you lashed out at me for focusing on married women even though I was just responding to your question as you posed it) and continue to do so.

    You continue to miss or ignore my points, likely due in large part do to what I just said above.

    And you think your views are amoral when in fact they quite plainly take a moral position as I’ve laid out in this post.

  99. So anyone who is anti-choice (the way you define anti-choice apparently) inherently hates women and deeply offends you. if you don’t like my replacing those with scum of the earth ok. Should I say completely and absolutely disgusts and offends you instead? I don’t think what I wrote is ‘lying.

    Let me replace “lying” then with “completely wrong”.

    In that entire quote I never once mentioned any people. I was talking about the arguments. Except for the “not quite brave enough to admit it” line which was directed entirely at you for feigning ignorance about why your baloney about sex outside of marriage is insulting.

    Anti-choice arugments are inherently misogynistic. And while, yes, I do think there is no small amount of misogynists in the anti-choice movement, I also think there’s no small amount of people duped into repeating misogynistic arguments because they’ve been fooled by all the false “save the baybehs!” stuff.

    Misogynists disgust me yes – bigotry is disgusting.

    it doesn’t bother me since it just suggests your belief in your position is not based in reason as much as emotion.

    😆 I’ve volunteered at PP for years. I was a cop – so I’ve seen plenty of your sick cohorts and what they do when people don’t agree with them. My anger at the pile of misogynist bilge known as “pro-life” ( a more inaccurate name there couldn’t possibly be) is based on years of experience.

    You think you’re peddaling anything new? You’re not. Seen it all before and it still stinks like the pile of rotten baloney that it is.

    So, next time, spare us your assumptions and judgments.

    I think those pro-abortion, save those like you who are not only pro-abortion but also refusing to grant that alternative legitimate and reasonable viewpoints exist (in my book a misogynistic viewpoint is not legitimate or reasonable), have a lot of powerful arguments.

    pro-abortion? Wow, you are getting desperate aren’t you. I didn’t expect you to trot out the anti-choice faux-words so quickly.

    There isn’t an alternative legitimate or reasonable viewpoint. Like I said, I’ve been around people like you for a long time. All you’ve got is shame and misinformation, lies and grandstanding.

    You can’t deny women autonomy and call that a “reasonable” differing opinion. Unless you actually think slavery is good, you know, for *some* people.

    I just wish you’d relax and calmly respond to what people who disagree with you say instead of lashing out at them.

    I can’t even believe you had the fucking gall to tell me how about myself. What makes you think you know anything about me when all you know comes from a handful of posts? What makes you think I’m not happy and proud? I didn’t respond to your garbage with kisses and flowers, so you think you know me?

    Spare me the feigned concerned for my well-being. Your arrogance and concern trolling are pathetic.

    _____

    “(hopefully a reputable, non-biased, study)”

    Gotta love the irony of an anti-choicer demanding non-biased sources.

    I highly doubt this is so, and if it is, are you sure it isn’t because atheists marry far less often than other groups?

    What makes you think we marry less often? Do you actually know any atheists or is this more assumptions and judgment?

    Religious Tolerance.org’s divorce study

  100. Thanks for the link Sarah.

    Diane, if you didn’t have the link, how were you so ready and eager to accept Sarah’s assertion in your post #86 without having any idea if it was remotely reliable or not? Obviously this question is somewhat rhetorical since I am suggesting you basically heard something you liked so you accepted it, whereas if you disagreed (for example if someone showed a study that atheists have the worse relationships) you’d pounce on them for proof.

    Sarah,

    Very interesting. Still, as I suspected this falls WAY short of what you asserted and I suspect my comment above to Diane applies to you as well. It fits with what you want to believe so you accept it.

    Here are the problems:
    1. I don’t know who this Barna Research Group is, if they have any particular biases etc. As someone who is somewhat, though not terribly, familiar with statistics, I know that 9 out of 10 studies are bunk. It takes a lot more than what’s here to have something close to a reliable study. I’m not claiming it doesn’t exist, I’m just saying it’s not there.

    2. Most importantly, you asserted “Atheitst have the lowest divorce rate of any religious (or non-religious) group. Become an atheist today!”

    When reading that, where did you get the idea that it listed all religious and non-religious groups?

    I don’t see a single non-religious group except for atheists/agnostics (which by the way are very different so lumping them together doesn’t necessarily make sense).

    I don’t see any mention of muslims. Perhaps because there numbers in the US are so small the study didn’t focus on them, but still, you claimed “any religion” and there are billions of them. Moreover, I imagine they wouldn’t accept being categorized as one group, just as this study analyzed a whole slew of christian groups.

    I laughed out loud when I saw these groupings:
    Jews
    Born-again Christians
    Other Christians
    Atheists, Agnostics

    There were many breakdowns for various christian groups but “Jews” are one group. Do you actually take a study like that seriously? It could be legitimate for christian groups, I don’t know, but either you lump all jews as one religious group (which would make you really really ignorant) or you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    So basically, even if the study is legit on what it purports to show, it says nothing about 2 of the 3 major religions, let alone all the others. Somehow from this you were comfortable saying “Atheitst have the lowest divorce rate of any religious (or non-religious) group. Become an atheist today!”

    3. The study itself says, as I suspected, “The normal lifestyle of American young adults is to live together for a period of time in a type of informal trial marriage. These relationships frequently do not endure.”

    Clearly based on my conversation here with others, many agnostics and atheists take this approach. Since many do not care for marriage in its traditional sense, a true statistical analysis would include what atheists and agnostics consider equal to traditional marriage. If in a couple’s mind what they have is a marriage, then a study which ignores these relationships in calculating divorces for the purposes you wanted to use this study for is highly flawed.

    Basically, those three points, especially two and three, show your assertion is bunk.

    Just because you like something doesn’t mean you should accept it without thoroughly analyzing it.

  101. Umm, isn’t it imposing on the worker to force them to do something? They want to be inactive. You want to force them to act.

    LOL

    I want to be inactive at my job, too. My boss wants to force me to act. Do you support my “right” to do nothing at work whilst being compensated by my employer?

  102. Also, dude, what I said about atheists and marriage was meant to be funny. Do I really need to explain my point?

    And, there are plenty of lawyers who frequent this blog. That you think you’re the smartest one commenting right now is a real hoot. You admit that you don’t know anything about conscience clauses, and weren’t aware of the fact that none of the anti-choice groups support comprehensive sex-ed or birth control, and yet you’re so confident speaking about this stuff.

  103. Betty (99)

    In that entire quote I never once mentioned any people. I was talking about the arguments.

    Misogynists disgust me yes – bigotry is disgusting.

    My anger at the pile of misogynist bilge known as “pro-life” ( a more inaccurate name there couldn’t possibly be) is based on years of experience.

    How is the first comment consistent with the rest?

    You’re focusing on the people and, from statements like these

    “’Ive volunteered at PP for years. I was a cop – so I’ve seen plenty of your sick cohorts and what they do when people don’t agree with them. My anger at the pile of misogynist bilge known as “pro-life” ( a more inaccurate name there couldn’t possibly be) is based on years of experience.

    you definitely sound like your hatred for particular people, or groups of people, who are pro-life, causes you to lump anyone pro-life into the same category. that’s called stereotyping.

    “your sick cohorts”? Sounds like you’re referring to abuse. Whatever it is you’re referring to, why on earth are you calling them my cohorts?

    I honestly think you have emotional issues and if others who agree with you substantively cared about you they’d privately pull you aside to help you. Your vitriol is so above and beyond anything rationale. You hear someone is pro-life, or takes pro-life positions and you go off on them.

    I don’t understand, pro-choice isn’t a term of art as much as pro-abortion?
    i’ll use pro-choice if you prefer, but please don’t delude yourself into thinking it isn’t employing the very same technique you deplore.

    I wrote: hopefully a reputable, non-biased, study
    You responded: Gotta love the irony of an anti-choicer demanding non-biased sources.

    I don’t get it. Your stereotyping with every stroke of the keyboard! Because, apparently, lots of “anti-choicer” (am I supposed to say now that you’re getting desperate as you did when I said pro-abortion?) people use biased studies therefore I personally do? Or therefore I personally shouldnt expect a non-biased study?

    I said: I highly doubt this is so, and if it is, are you sure it isn’t because atheists marry far less often than other groups?

    You responded: What makes you think we marry less often? Do you actually know any atheists or is this more assumptions and judgment?

    You do realize I was discussing with you specifically and others on this very board about the notion that not getting married in the technical sense, but staying in a committed relationship, ought to be treated the same as marriage? So this “assumption and judgment” is based on YOU!

    Also, if you read my post in 100 you’ll see the study appears to back up my hunch (and since I asked it as a question, it was just that, a hunch. but given your stance, and others, throughout this conversation, the hunch clearly had a basis).

    There isn’t an alternative legitimate or reasonable viewpoint. Like I said, I’ve been around people like you for a long time. All you’ve got is shame and misinformation, lies and grandstanding.

    You can’t deny women autonomy and call that a “reasonable” differing opinion. Unless you actually think slavery is good, you know, for *some* people.

    (emphasis is mine)

    I’ll just say it once more because there’s no point in going any further. I think you have emotional problems and need help. There’s no substantive point in what you wrote above so there is nothing really for me to argue with. How about we agree I’m scum and you talk out your anger with someone? I don’t expect a response to that, but if we were in person debating this I really would stop arguing with you at this point but it’s no fun anymore since you really sound like you’re suffering emotionally.

    I obviously disagree with you strongly, but that doesn’t mean I want you to be so bitter and filled with such rage.

    I can’t even believe you had the fucking gall to tell me how about myself. What makes you think you know anything about me when all you know comes from a handful of posts? What makes you think I’m not happy and proud? I didn’t respond to your garbage with kisses and flowers, so you think you know me?

    Spare me the feigned concerned for my well-being. Your arrogance and concern trolling are pathetic.

    I don’t know you. Of course. But when I disagree with you on an issue and continually lump me in with people you’ve met who are ‘pro-life’ and have abused women or done other awful things, then ya, I know enough to know that you have issues.

    Clearly now that I read this my prior points above will probably not be taken too well, but I’m not sure how I can convince you I really don’t have any ill-will toward you and wish you weren’t so angry?

  104. I said: Umm, isn’t it imposing on the worker to force them to do something? They want to be inactive. You want to force them to act.

    Sarah:
    LOL

    I want to be inactive at my job, too. My boss wants to force me to act. Do you support my “right” to do nothing at work whilst being compensated by my employer?

    Again, not following the conversation. We were dealing with a situation where the company doesn’t want to do something. Not an individual employee at a store.

    I spent paragraphs in repeated posts making this point. Please, read what I wrote so I don’t have to respond to nonsense.

  105. Also, dude, what I said about atheists and marriage was meant to be funny. Do I really need to explain my point?

    Noted. So if I try to be funny by saying atheists and agnostics don’t even know the first thing about any religion, they can’t even get married and when they do they usually end up in divorce or disfunctional families. Become *insert some religion* today! that seems ok to you?

    Apparently your guiding principle here is that it is fine to say some absurd and unfounded statement when it doesn’t bother you.

    Also, if you’re just being funny why produce a study? Basically you got called on it and resorted to the lame tactic of saying “oh, just a joke.” sad.

    And, there are plenty of lawyers who frequent this blog. That you think you’re the smartest one commenting right now is a real hoot. You admit that you don’t know anything about conscience clauses, and weren’t aware of the fact that none of the anti-choice groups support comprehensive sex-ed or birth control, and yet you’re so confident speaking about this stuff.

    Please show me where I said anything of the sort. You’re just attacking my character via a strawman. Invent the fact I ever claimed to know everything or be the smartest person, and then knock it down by showing some other things I don’t think I ever said. When did I discuss conscience clauses, or sex-ed??

    Anyway, basically I called you on a study that was bunk for your assertion and your response to my substantive post was 1. i was only kidding 2. your an arrogant and your stupid.

  107. I think this thread has run its course. I’m sorry so many decided to not even try to answer my substantive questions and instead responded with personal hostility.

    Honestly, I did not come here to change anyone’s mind (that would be quite naive), but I did hope to have a fruitful discussion. Instead, I had a bunch of very angry and often hypocritical people spew hatred, bigotry, and demagoguery.

    Sadly, no one feels even remotely bothered by their stereotyping, false accusations, misattributions, yet they want to boot anyone with a hostile opinion who says anything uncivil. Even worse, if anyone responds at all, it will likely include a snide or sarcastic comment.

    So that I’m not accused of running away (not sure how given the flow of the conversation that’s possible, but you never know), if someone has a specific question that, in their mind, I avoided (i don’t think there are any, but maybe I missed it) then let me know and I’ll respond to it.

    Even if it is plainly not reciprocated, all the best.

    I do mean it and wish someone could explain to me how I can show on a thread that I have no ill-will toward anyone without sounding sarcastic or insincere.

  108. If you’re still around, Theo, perhaps you should clarify your point for us. How exactly would abortion increase if health care were universal?

  109. By the way, although I’m on the pro-choice side, I do have to agree with the pro-lifers on the fact that Jill is biased in her moderation. Many of us, including me, have posted ad-hom attacks on pro-lifers and they get through, but one “bitch” from a pro-lifer gets her banned.

  110. Azok – I read that entire thing and laughed my ass off. You are so far off the point I beginning to wonder if you have the ability to comprehend what you read. But, no matter – the fact that you think you can read people’s mind and see into people’s souls is creepy and weird. The fact that you think you know all about someone based on a few posts and your cloying preconceived notions is funny, but sad. You clearly have some issues. So take your own advice and seek some help. Delusions are unheathly.

  111. No, it couldn’t be that society condones this behaviour, which allows otherwise very decent people to think this way. Clearly, I’m either a liar or a bad person – it would never, ever be that your pro-abortion position is a great thing for young, single men who like to screw.

    Theo, theo….in my many years of dating before I was married never once was I suggested by my partner to have an abortion if I became pregnant. None of my friends have ever encountered such a stance – and believe me I would know for the audacity of such a question would boot them faster from bed than piss on the sheets.

    So yes, I think you are full of it or your taste in men is seriously lacking and frankly, from all of the purile shite you post, I’ll wager it’s a sprinkling of both.

    So don’t blame your dating problems on your generation, perhaps you should look a bit inward as to why you’ve been asked on more than one occasion to ditch the condoms and have an abortion if something goes wrong. It could be the men you choose – and wouldn’t it be ironic if they were your comrades in your RTL movement. GUFFAW

  112. Azok, stop talking about things of which you have no knowledge. Educate yourself about conscience clauses before you tell me what we’re really talking about.

    I suppose I will have to explain my joke:

    Someone said that couples who practice NFP have a very low divorce rate, presumably as an attempt to convince us that NFP is the way to go.
    But correlation does not equal causation.
    I replied sarcastically by saying that *atheists* have a low divorce. You know, so you should become an atheist to save your marriage. It was not earnest advice. I was mocking the logical fallacy re: NFP.

  113. Many of us, including me, have posted ad-hom attacks on pro-lifers and they get through, but one “bitch” from a pro-lifer gets her banned.

    I think the difference is that that comment was a blatantly misogynist insult as opposed to a garden-variety one.

Comments are currently closed.