You can’t manage your work life if you can’t talk about it
Recently I ran the following twitter:
“I’m in a board meeting. Having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there’s a fucked-up 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin.”
Why the uproar over this twitter?
Not only have bloggers written whole posts about the disgustingness of it, but 70 people unfollowed me, and people actually came to my blog and wrote complaints about the twitter on random, unrelated posts.
So, to all of you who think the twitter was outrageous, think about this:
Most miscarriages happen at work. Twenty-five percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Seventy-five percent of women who are of child-bearing age are working. Most miscarriages run their course over weeks. Even if you are someone who wanted the baby and are devastated by the loss, you’re not going to sit in bed for weeks. You are going to pick up your life and get back to it, which includes going back to work.
This means that there are thousands of miscarriages in progress, at work, on any given day. That we don’t acknowledge this is absurd. That it is such a common occurrence and no one thinks it’s okay to talk about is terrible for women.
Throughout history, the way women have gained control of the female experience is to talk about what is happening, and what it’s like. We see that women’s lives are more enjoyable, more full, and women are more able to summon resilience when women talk openly about their lives.
To all of you who said a miscarriage is gross: Are you unaware that the same blood you expel from a miscarriage is what you expel during menstruation? Are you aware that many people are having sex during menstruation and getting it on the sheets? Are you aware that many women actually like period sex? Wait. Here is a link I love, at askmen.com, telling men that women like it so much that men need to be aware of this preference.
To all of you who are aghast that I let myself get pregnant: having sex is playing with odds. There are no 100% sure methods of birth control. I am 42 years old. The likelihood of someone my age getting pregnant even with fertility treatment is less than 5%. The likelihood that a pregnancy in someone my age ends in a miscarriage is almost 75%. This means that even if I had done nothing for birth control it would have been as effective as a 25-year-old using a condom. So everyone who is complaining that I’m an idiot for getting pregnant should go buy a calculator.
To all of you who said I should not be happy about having a miscarriage: You are the ones short on empathy. Any woman who is pregnant but wishes she weren’t would of course be grateful when she has a miscarriage. Yes, there are many women who want the baby and have a miscarriage. I was one of them. I cried for days. I get it.
But if you have ever had an abortion, which I have, you would know that a miscarriage is preferable to an abortion. Even the Pope would agree with that.
And what is up with the fact that just one, single person commented about how Wisconsin has a three-week waiting period for abortions? It is absolutely outrageous how difficult it was going to be for me to get an abortion, and it’s outrageous that no one is outraged.
Wisconsin is one of twelve states that have 24-hour waiting periods. This puts a huge burden on an overworked system. These are also the states where there are few ways to get an abortion. For example, in Wisconsin, the only place to get abortion that is covered by insurance is at a Planned Parenthood clinic. There are 3 of them in all of Wisconsin. In Chicago, you can get an abortion at Planned Parenthood with less than 24 hours notice. In Wisconsin, there is a week and a half wait to get the first meeting and a week and half wait to get the abortion.
A digression: I’m linking to Planned Parenthood so everyone can make a donation. This organization is enabling women to have the right to abortion. Planned Parenthood seems to be the only effective, community-level force against states that are attempting to legislate the choice into oblivion.
To all of you who think this has nothing to do with work:
I think what really upsets people is the topic. We are not used to talking about the female experience, and especially not in the context of work. But so what? We can start now. The female experience is part of work. What we talk about when we talk about work defines how we integrate work into our lives. If work is going to support our lives, then we need to talk about how our lives interact with work. We need to be honest about the interaction if we hope to be honest about our work.
Personally, I think you are awesome.
I will make no apologies over controlling a woman’s body. We already have laws on the books protecting the unborn, if the woman is pregnant and doing illegal drugs, society can and does make laws protecting the baby. The society does make laws stating that if I hit a pregnant woman with my car and the baby dies but she does not, then I go to jail for vehicular manslaughter.
There are many laws on the books that people don’t agree with. NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assn:) is an organization to lobby Congress to legalize consenting sex between men and boys as long as the boys consent. So using your logic, we should legalize underage homosexual sex because we are telling people what they can do with their bodies and what they can’t.
As long as we are at it, I should be able to sexually abuse my minor daughter because I don’t want you telling me what I can do in the privacy of my own home.
By the way, I should also be able to beat my wife in my house, it is none of your business. If you don’t like it, don’t come over when the beatings are occuring. If you don’t believe in wife beating then don’t beat your wife, but don’t tell me what to do with mine, it is none of your business. After all I have the right to privacy.
John,
Your counterexamples are just silly. Each example involves denying the rights of the already-living, who by my theoretical standard claimed those rights from the day their life became viable outside of the womb.
You do not have the right to molest your child, beat your wife, not because its none of my or the government’s business, but because your rights end at the boundaries of your body and where another living, self-viable person’s body begins.
John Wilder makes the statement, “I will make no apologies over controlling a woman’s body.”
It means the woman has no say.
And it means a lot of scary implications.
Birth control could end up being banned as a consequence, since some people seem to think that “life begins at conception” which would make even the birth control pill illegal. Some people, especially a certain patriarchal legacy from the Roman Empire, seem to think every sperm is sacred, which would make even condoms illegal.
But it goes beyond that. Doctors have determined that drinking during pregnancy can have detrimental affects on the fetus. So do we start arresting pregnant women when they have a drink?
What about smoking? Can a woman who miscarries after smoking a cigarette be jailed for manslaughter?
What is to be considered an unnecessary, even reckless, risk? Riding a bicycle, where you could fall and suffer miscarriage?
What if the woman just has “unhealthy” eating habits? Toss her into prison?
Christie
Thank you Dee, you make my point for me. You are telling me what I can’t do in my own home in privacy. You state that my rights end with another’s self viable body. Again you play God. You have decreed that it has to be a self viable body, but a non viable body its okay to kill. Well a new born baby is not self viable. It can’t take care of itself and will die if it is not taken care of.
Again all of you pro choicers want to play God and determine morality according to your ethics and feelings just like the NAMBLA group wants to do, they want to modify law according to their “feelings”.
Thanks again Dee
John, I don’t think the argument is about privacy at all, as I tried to make clear. Privacy has nothing to do with any right to life matters.
You are right that a newborn baby is not entirely self-viable (although it would be for a few days even with no food, thats why babies are born with good amounts of baby fat).
But in a civilized society, we have OTHER ADULTS who can care for the baby but only outside of the womb. And it doesn’t require those other adults to give up a part of their body or health to sustain the now viable-in-the-sense-of breathing and organs functioning on their own.
A woman should not, and thankfully is not, obligated to donate her womb to sustain a life, just like we are not obligated to donate our “spare” kidneys.
The problem with the argument about who’s playing God is that you have to get everyone on the same page as you, with your specific beliefs about God. It’s like playing baseball and insisting the basketball players use the same rule book. If you’re talking about God, you have to recognize that you only get to let your God limit YOUR actions – no one else’s. You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you want to tell me your imaginary sky-friend gave you the right to tell me what I can do with my own body.
We disagree over what’s a viable life, a gamete or zygote, a heartbeat, ability to survive outside the womb, the first breath. Legally, it’s defined. Still, that’s not good enough for those who may also believe that birth control is wrong or life begins at conception. You don’t get to foist your particular belief on another viable, living, breathing human being, no matter what your inner control-freak tells you.
“Who’s playing God?” the answer is, inevitable, whoever thinks they’re speaking for God, of course.
Hey Dee and Catherine:
Actually it is all about privacy. That was the justification that the Supreme Court used to justify the Roe vs Wade decision. I agree that women have control over the bodies. When they don’t responsibly control them and get pregnant, then it is not just their body, they have created a new human being. The law today is that death occurs at the cessation of the heartbeat and brain death, no detectable brain wave activity.
The Supreme Court said in their decision that experts could not agree on the beginning of life. It is very simple if we can agree on the end of life, then the opposite should be true for the beginning of life. You can detect a fetal heartbeat 18 days from conception and fetal brain wave activity at 42 days from conception. Therefore you have a new life with separate fingerprints that will show up in a few days that makes them a unique human life.
You just can’t explain it away. You don’t want to have a baby, great, then don’t get pregnant. Once you do, it is just like my daughter, I can’t abuse her nor should you be able to kill an unborn baby because no one can see what you are doing.
You ignore the fact that with its 6week old heartbeat (which my doc told me couldnt be detected until 8 weeks as I eagerly awaited the evidence that my son was really on his way)
and fingerprints and brain waves, a fetus requires another person’s body to survive.
We don’t allow anyone to take over a body for one’s own survival. Killing for harvesting purposes is illegal.
Fetuses can’t harvest a woman’s womb without her consent, and I am glad to live in a country that recognizes that.
You are putting an innocent baby to death for the screw up of the mother. Instead of her being responsible, she makes the innocent baby pay the ultimate sacrifice and we have made it legal. I am sorry to live in a country that is so callous to innocent human life.
John Wider said, “I am sorry to live in a country that is so callous to innocent human life.”
John, may I suggest relocating to another country?
Larry
Posted by John Wider, You are putting an innocent baby to death for the screw up of the mother. Instead of her being responsible, she makes the innocent baby pay the ultimate sacrifice and we have made it legal. I am sorry to live in a country that is so callous to innocent human life
John,
You may consider adding her a helper, the man?
You may consider adding the suggested edits?
You are putting an innocent baby to death for the screw up of the mother (suggested edit: Father anad mother). Instead of her (suggested edit: the man and woman) being responsible, she (suggested edit: the man and woman) makes the innocent baby pay the ultimate sacrifice and we (the majority) have made it legal. I am sorry to live in a country that is so callous to innocent human life.
The man and woman create your “innocent” baby.
If men would “keep the zipper up” and “walked the talk, it would help.”
Larry
John, I never specifically said anything about privacy. That’s not my argument.
What I actually said was that some people believe that life begins at conception while others do not. You’re insisting that you know the correct definition of life. If I’ve got it wrong, I will have to deal with it later, assuming your imaginary sky friend is real. “Vengeance is mine, sayeth etc..” The law of the land differs from your belief, however, so your attempts to equate murder with abortion are unsuccessful to anyone who’s beliefs are different than yours.
Pro-Choice advocates will never equate *you* murdering your kindergartener or beating your wife to sovereignty over their bodies, no matter how much you’d like to equate those ideas. You’d like for us to think they’re equal, but luckily (for me and your wife, tho not for you perhaps) most Americans agree with me: Abortion is and should be legal. Abortion is not murder.
This Catholic is calling for your forcible sterilization.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/godblogging/2009/10/08/sterilize-penelope-trunk-and-then-please-teach-her-to-be-a-grownup/
You need to be more polite to the Pope, it seems ;)
I see you understand, Patrick, that it’s not so much that she HAD a miscarriage, it’s her being so “flip” about it that *twists their panties*. A woman is not to question the paradigm the men have created for her. She’s supposed to be reverential and respectful about her role in their sperm-transformer-to-sacred-life performance. She’s not grateful for their sperm, dammit, and that’s really offensive to control-freaks and those who love them.
Penelope’s sins are as follows as described by various comments above:
1. She had SEX
2. She got pregnant and wasn’t grateful or ashamed and remorseful
3. Her wantoness led to miscarriage
4. She rejoiced. She was “flip”. She hurt people’s feelings (oh dear!). She outraged faint-hearted women. She outraged men who would probably love to pin a Red-A on her chest for not being respectful of their insistence that her body is theirs to control. She didn’t apologize for any of the above things.
The obvious solution is to forcibly sterilize her, per the God-Lady link you helpfully listed.
;-)
thank you Catherine, for finally saying what i wish i could have articulated.
and fuck you Patrick, for even suggesting something as obscene as you deciding that Penelope deserves to be sterilized. you need to be locked up.
JW,
Do you feel you make your point better using profanity in a public forum and calling people names who disagree with your point?
I have no problem with it, it is a free country!
Larry
How many anti-abortion people have adopted older or special needs children?
Just asking- I still think Penelope Trunk is an idiot in her personal life but pretty good at business ie getting views, clicks,etc to her blog via these subjects.
econobiker,
You asked “How many anti-abortion people have adopted older or special needs children?”
I adopted 4 children, one with special needs. The children are all in their late 40s.
Larry
Larry you suggested that a woman be sterilized. do you actually understand the implications of saying such a thing? it is far worse than my use of the ‘f’ word.
and, i didn’t call anyone names. i said you need to be locked up, and if you continue to claim that women should be sterilized, hopefully you will be.
edit:
it was Patrick suggesting sterilization, not you Larry.
however i still do not thing using swear words is the worst offense that has been written here.
Posted by JW “Larry you suggested that a woman be sterilized. do you actually understand the implications of saying such a thing? it is far worse than my use of the ‘f’ word.
and, i didn’t call anyone names. i said you need to be locked up, and if you continue to claim that women should be sterilized, hopefully you will be.”
JW, can you show me the posting of my suggestion?
I think you may be confused about the issues or people?
Larry
Can the case against abortion can be made without God? Can atheists can be pro-life?
Can there be such a thing as "No God And No Abortions?" I a “pro-life atheist” and insist that a human life has intrinsic value, even though I don’t believe in God.
Abortion has been a wedge for more than 30 years because its moral volatility has forced Americans to choose sides: religious vs. secular, right vs. left, traditional vs. progressive. Atheists have generally aligned with the left. In a recent poll, nearly 40 percent of Christians who attended church weekly said they believed that abortion should always be illegal. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of people with no religion (not atheists necessarily) said that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Just as pro-life Christians argue that life is sacred because it’s given by God, pro-life atheists insist that “human life is intrinsically valuable” without God’s help.
I think there is nothing beyond this life – but life in and of itself is unique and special. In abortion, a human being ends up getting killed for no other reason than he or she wasn’t planned or wanted. I believe one should always err on the side of innocent human life.
I am "pro-life” and defend the use of the term “unborn child” against those on the left who say that an aborted fetus is nothing more than a growth, an appendix, a polyp. "Unborn child" seems to me to be a real concept. It’s not a growth or an appendix. At the same time, I don’t think “a woman” should be forced to choose, or even can be.
I do not recommend the overturning of Roe v. Wade. What I would prefer is for both “moral callousness” and “religion” to be excised from the abortion debate and for “science” to come up with solutions to unwanted pregnancies, like the abortifacient mifepristone (RU-486). (The New England Journal of Medicine or National Center for Biotechnology Information)
I think that will make abortion more like a contraceptive procedure than a surgical one.
I am amazed at how little the atheist talks about fetal science (terms like “viability” and “neural development” rarely come up) and how squeamishness I am on the matter, a squeamishness I present honestly, out of two personal experiences with abortion.
Though I vehemently reject religious arguments and my opinion may be inconsistent and imperfect, how is a pharmaceutical abortion any different from a surgical one? I’m happy to say some problems don’t have solutions.
In the abortion wars, I believe honest and civil reflection is indeed considered progress.
Heather
For every one on here, I sign my real name John Wilder because I will not hide un anonymity of a pen name, I use my real name. I don’t know who JW is, if it is just coincidental that the initials are the same, but I have posted no posts under JW.
Larry, you are right that both the man and the woman contributed to making the baby, however the Supreme Court prevents us from having any input or say so. We can’t stop the woman from killing our baby nor can we make them kill our baby. Hell even our minor daughters can have an abortion without our knowledge or consent even though she can’t get an aspirin from the school nurse without our consent. So no, the man has no say so and is not included in my comments because we are not allowed to.
In spite of that, when the woman wants to play God, gets pregnant and decides to keep it, then we are on the hook for 18 years of child support. Talk about sexism and the lack of EQUAL RIGHTS.
And yes I haved lived in another country. It just saddens me that in this country with our Bill of Rights telling us; “that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights being Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the Supreme Court chose to flout that document and wrote a twisted case for abortion rights based upon the woman’s RIGHT TO PRIVACY.;
John,
Men do have a say on one side of the equation: if he doesn’t want a baby, but the woman does, a man can do a simple little legal procedure called terminating his parental rights, and he will not be obligated for one cent of child support.
Our laws do try their best not to privilege one group over another. Don’t succeed 100%, but always getting better.
Another reason women need total say over our own bodies:
“And the risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with all abortion” (Christiansen & Collins, 2006).
Women take a risk just by deciding to carry a pregnancy. I found once becoming pregnant, on purpose, that it isn’t the rosy wonderful world commercials paint it as. It’s a serious assualt on a woman’s body, as someone earlier posted about. This doesn’t stop many of us who want to be mothers, despite the fact that it would actually be more rational to adopt unwanted born children then put one’s own body through something potentially life-threatening. But the point is… a biological event this serious should be every woman’s own PERSONAL CHOICE.
“And the risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with all abortion” (Christiansen & Collins, 2006).
Dee, do read anything other than feminazi anti life propaganda? Yes, the risk of death for women during pregnancy was 10 times more than abortion in 2006.
But if you do just 5 more minutes of research you would find that the exact figures for women who (tragically) died from childbirth in the US that year was 0.011% (11 out of 100,000).
That means that the number of women who die from abortions is very close to zero.
Pregnancy is a blessing not a sickness to be avoided. It’s incredible how easy it is to sway the minds of sheep with some cleverly-manipulated math…
My point, obviously, was not to do an expository essay extolling women to never become pregnant because it is too dangerous. Some commenters on here do not seem to realize that pregnancy, in addition to being simply unwanted, is a condition that carries risk, however small. And any condition that carries risk definitely deserves to be decided by the individual at risk.
We are lucky to live in the US that does manage to keep childbirth death rates low; some countries struggle with as high as a 20% childbirth death rate, due to lack of 21st century medical interventions. This illustrates that childbirth in its most natural, untouched form is very dangerous to women, and again, we are lucky to live in a country that has all but mastered the condition. Medicine, by the way, DOES consider pregnancy a “sickness”, because of all of the risk factors associated with it.
Guess how I know this, Jason? I’ve actually been pregnant, by choice. Have you? Ain’t a picnic. When CHOSEN, though, you willingly take on the risk and then try to do everything you can to lower risks. Still, women develop life threatening conditions while pregnant, which they only survive because we have great medicine. My cousin and mother almost died from undiagnosed pregnancy related high blood pressure. Another friend struggled in pain with gestational diabetes. There are so, so many serious problems that accompany pregnancy, and therefore pregnancy should only be undertaken by CHOICE.
One’s health is a sacrifice only a woman herself can make.
Dee,
I see what you’re saying, but consider all angles of this.
First, you mention that in some countries the risk of death in childbirth is as high as 20%. In many countries there are very many non-life-threatening conditions that become life-threatening due to their poverty and lack of medical resources. There are places where just drinking the water can be dangerous, so I don’t think these can be used to say pregnancy is “an assault on a woman’s body.”
“Medicine DOES consider pregnancy an illness…” I don’t think so. Since there’s no person or official body called “Medicine” I’m not sure how we could make this claim. I’m sure you probably read that somewhere but it’s still a very cryptic and dark way to describe a pregnancy.
“Guess how I know this Jason. I’ve actually been pregnant – Have You?” I’m sorry but this is not a strong argument. Yes you’re a woman and I as a man will never know what that’s like. This doesn’t give women moral authority to decide if and when another human lives or not. Do *You* know what it’s like to be an aborted child? If you think that’s ridiculous I suggest you google “abortion survivors” and read the heart-wrenching stories of living people who survived the murder attempts made on them by their own mothers. What do we say to these people? “Sorry, it was just too risky. So your mother exercised her choice…”
By the way, do you know that the vast majority of abortions are on perfectly healthy women with healthy pregnancies?
My whole beef with abortion has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose. As I note further below, I support a woman’s right to choose whether she has a child. It’s just that, once you’re pregnant you Have A Child. The decision has been made.
Pro abortionists want women to have the moral authority to decide whether the human life inside of her lives or dies. I’m sorry but being a woman doesn’t give you that authority. Are there some physical risks? Yes (though again, death is highly unlikely). Can I empathize with this as a man? No. That is a unique aspect of the female experience. And the physical burdens of pregnancy are a part of motherhood.
Yes a pregnant woman is already a mother. She is carrying a human life inside of her. It saddens me that this doesn’t seem to matter to some of you. Mothers who want to kill the life inside of them don’t want to be accountable for the decision they’ve *already made*. So they claim their unique identy as women gives them ultimate moral authority to make life and death decisions over other humans. It Does Not…
Additionally, men have control over women’s pregnancy by not impregnating them in the first place. Ha! Then there’s no moaning about what she does or doesn’t do with the pregnancy. This can be achieved a number of ways, such as using condoms, having a vasectomy, or simply keeping it in their pants. After that they are out of luck as far as any decisions go, unless the woman chooses to include them.
The male paradigm created the double-standard. Most annoyingly they usually fail to live up to their own expectations of women. They complain if a woman has sex outside of their approved domain, they complain when she has an abortion for not consulting them in the matter, and complain when she doesn’t and sues them for child-support. WTH’s their problem? Control-Freak Dudes, keep it buckled up, play responsibly, or shut up.
Our religious views have changed over the years.
The Church even burned an estimated 5 million women as witches, some of whose only crime was to ease the pain of childbirth.
The pain during childbirth was the punishment for Eve, and her original sin with the apple tree. Those deemed – witches' by the Church included all female scholars, priestesses, gypsies, mystics, nature lovers, herb gatherers, and any women 'suspiciously attuned to the natural world.'
Midwives were also killed for their heretical practice of using medical knowledge to ease the pain of childbirth – a suffering, the Church claimed, that was God's rightful punishment for Eve's partaking of the apple of Knowledge, thus giving birth to the idea of Original Sin.
During 300 years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women."
Change of views can be good. Anyone ready to go to the prayer-meeting tonight?
It time for the technological fix that would permit both the woman and “fetus-artificial-womb” to separate and continue on their independent ways.
In the field of ectogenesis, an artificial uterus (or womb) is a mechanism that is used to grow an embryo outside of the body of a female organism that would normally internally carry the embryo to term.
The time has come for the artificial uterus! It eliminates a lot of problems!
YES Kay Berry thank for your comment, now we are REALLY talking. i am studying Genomics and I think about this kind of development a lot.
thanks to all the posters for keeping the momentum of this conversation. but mostly thanks to Penelope for starting this conversation. we can all learn from communication, and I agree w/ what you said on CNN, that it is not TMI, it is part of our human lives. these are conversations that we NEED to have, as a species.
Hey Kay:
I would have no problem supporting the idea of the artificial uterus so that the baby could be supported until birth. The problem is, is that I have worked with far too many women when presented with the option of giving their babies up for adoption, that there were families or lawyers who would pay all of her medical bills and support her financially through the pregnancy.
The number one answer that I got was that the young women did not want to do it. Their reason was that they did not want a baby of theirs out in the world with someone else raising it instead of them so they would rather kill it than let someone else have it. A lot of women are very selfish and narcissitic. They would not allow their baby to be transferred to the artificial womb, but kudos for the creative thinking.
“And the risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with all abortion” (Christiansen & Collins, 2006).
Yeah, recognizing the toll of a pregnancy on her body and well-being is seriously selfish and narcissistic.
Yep. The quote is, has been, and always real be dead on: If men were the ones who got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Dee,
We are all familiar with the book, “Damned Lies and Statistics.” It explains how to untangle the numbers from the media, politicians, and activists.
I think your risk quote of “10 times as high” is “part truth” and qualifies as an example of “You Can Prove Anything With Statistics.”
The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse, and oversimplify!
However, you failed to mention:
After 20 weeks' gestation there is no statistically significant difference in maternal mortality rates between terminating a pregnancy by abortion and carrying it to term (Kochanek et al., 2004; Paul et al., 1999).
Abortion is a lucrative business. Those who defend it the most ardently often have a financial interest in keeping it legal and commonplace. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of Planned Parenthood, estimates that there were 1.21 million abortions performed in the U.S. in the year 2005.
When Planned Parenthood argues that they’re working hard to reduce the frequency of abortion, the fact remains that their “financial livelihood” is built on abortion. Those who defend abortion, arguing that it is “good and necessary” for a healthy society, are defending an institution which is making them very wealthy!
Planned Parenthood, then, is just like the big Tobacco companies. Does anyone really believe that tobacco companies want people to stop smoking? Does anyone really believe that Planned Parenthood wants people to stop having abortions? I suggest following the money.
Each year in the U.S., the abortion industry brings in approximately $831 million through their abortion services alone. If you add in the $337 million (or more) that Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) receives annually in government grants and contracts for, the annual dollar amount moves well past 1 billion.
Follow the money.
Beverly M
*****
Kochanek, Kenneth D., et al. (2004, October 12). “Deaths: Final Data for 2002.” National Vital Statistics Reports, 53(5). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Paul, Maureen, et al. (1999). A Clinician’s Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Dee:
I wonder if you are being deliberately sexist in your comment? Do you not understand you just passed judgement on all men that we are incapable of being selfless or nurturing. The message is VERY CLEARLY COMMUNICATED THAT INDEED MEN ARE INFERIOR TO WOMEN.
There is an excellent explanation of MISANDRY (reverse sexism directed at men by women) in Wikipedia. You can see it portrayed in the commercials today where the man is portrayed as a hapless and helpless boon who has invariably gotten himself and/or his family into trouble and can’t fix it. Then the heroic woman swoops in to save the day while throwing off condascending and sarcastic put downs to the husband.
Clearly with some women and feminists, there is no such thing as equality because clearly men don’t measure up.
You owe every man on here an apology. I take strenous exception to this kind of sexism.
John,
Using caps does not make your argument more valid, or make it make any more sense.
The quote I referenced has been around for at least 20 years. Its on a bumper sticker. I forget who originally coined the sentiment. It captures just one philosophy on the pro-choice side of the debate.
The comment is far from sexist; rather, it cleverly exposes the heart of sexism and misogyny. It’s a philosophy of choice that comments on reproductive control over one’s body, and infers that this kind of self-control is something men have, and would never tolerate being dismantled.
How you derived any other interpretation is unclear.
Actually, I find that comment sexist against women, John. It infers that women cannot be as good as men without a need for some outside source-a doctor or procedure or law-to be implemented to allow them the ability to legally dispose of their children. It implies they are inferior to men, because men have expressed no need for any such “right” in their lives, despite the ability of any woman to be able to force any man they procreate with to support their offspring by court order (so much for “…this kind of self-control is something men have…”) and that if men were biologically similar to women, they would also be inferior in the same way.
Are you certain Patrick was promoting the forced sterilization of Penelope? I read it differently. I though he was simply linking to GodBlogger’s site.
I think he was joking that Penelope should learn to be more polite to the Pope if she didn’t want Crazy God-Blogger Lady advocating forced sterilization ala the Third Reich.
To Dee and Linda:
Actually the sacrament statement has been around since the 70’s. It defines sexism and misandry.
If equal rights are the goal tbat feminists were seeking, then equality should be for both sexes. Men and women both contribute to the conception. Both were irresponsible in engaging in unprotected sex and not avoiding pregnancy.
What the Supreme Court did was to give unilateral control to women, allowing men to have no say whatsoever. They render men irrelevant. Even if the man wants to keep the child and raise it without the unwanting mom, they have not rights to their own child. The courts deprive the man of custody based upon the whims of the mother. Even if the couple are married, the husband has no say. The courts traditionally ignore father’s rights.
If you pro abortion advocates are going to be intellectually honest, then you should also advocate for the abolition of vehicular manslaughter laws for unborn children and relieve men of the burden of child support for unmarried couples. Otherwise you are just advocating that women are superior, that they can play God and that men are only good as sperm donors. You should really look up the word misandry in Wikipedia otherwise you can’t legitmately claim to want equal rights. Equal means that men also get equality which clearly they do not.
Let me sum this up, men have all of the responsibility and NO RIGHTS and you pro abortion advocates call that equality?
The unborn girls have no choice and no rights according to you pro abortion advocates. This is nothing close to equality. This is feminist fascism.
For all the men who want an equal say in whether the pregnancy is carried to term or aborted. We would be most happy to let you carry the developing fetus, you figure out the technicalities. Or, you could make sure your partner wants a baby before you impregnate her. Having sex with you doesn’t give you any kind of rights to our bodies.
Joan F:
Conversely having sex with men does not entitle you 30% of our income for the next 18 years. Women have all the rights and none of the responsibility while men have all of the responsibility and none of the rights.
There is a great example of equality portrayed in a recent tv commercial where there were two young boys who both wanted a peanut butter sandwhich but there was only one slice of bread left. The wise mother spread the peanut butter on the bread and told one boy that he could cut, but his brother got the right to choose which half he wanted. That insured equality that they could both live with.
You pro abortion advocates want to have the whole slice of bread and peanut butter and leave the other brother with nothing other than he had to buy the bread and the peanut butter, but he did not get to partake.
Equality is defined as either side is just as desirable. Instead you pro abortion advocates believe women are Gods and men are nothing more than sperm donors.
Admit that you are completely sexist. Sexism is not a single sex characteristic. Look up Misandry in Wikipedia.
John Wilder – It’s the law that controls child support, change it or keep better track of your sperm. Condoms are much cheaper than child support.
Joan F
Again you take no responsibilty for your actions. It is put on the men, and if you get pregnant than an innocent child has to pay the ultimate price for your lack of personal responsibility in controlling your fertility.
Condoms break, that is why I take responsibilty for my sexuality, I had a vaseectomy. I keep saying that the courts ignore men’s rights altogether. Women are gods and men are nothing more than sperm donors and you are still sexist.
John
No man is obligated to pay child support. All he has to do is terminate parental rights. So your argument on that point has zero weight.
Responsible men get vasectomies when they are tomcatting around and dont want children. Easy as pie to exert your rights.
What do responsible women do about their sexuality? Clearly Penelope is not responsible based upon her own admissions. Yet you pro abortion advocates defend it. There are IUD’s implantable birth control once a month pills, regular pills and shots done quarterly as well as tubal ligations. Yet she talks about what 4 unplanned pregnancies.
You still have not answered my challenges about women wanting more than equality and unfortunately in this society they are getting it, You still have not answered my charge of sexism and misandry.
Yes I have a vasectomy but I don’t cat around, I only practice sexsality in a committed monogamous relationship.
I agree with the earlier gentlemaan who was talking about facts rather than feelings. You pro abortion opponents keep talking in feelings, not talking facts and logic.
For those other people who were so rude in saying Fuck you or STFU you claim to believe in diversity unless it is a conservative disagreeing with you thne you want to censor or us or say rude things to us. You display your own character shortomings by such commments.
I want to respond to this comment from above by Nichole because she’s dead wrong at it needs to be pointed out:
“anti-choicers believe that having an abortion is the same as wilfully killing a baby. Here’s the thing, though: their assertion isn’t based in science or fact, it’s based in religion.”
First of all, being against abortion does not mean that someone is against “women’s choice.”
I’m all for women’s rights but being a woman does not give you the moral authority to decide when or whether another *Human Being* lives or dies.
Here are some facts that have nothing to do with religion:
1. Since I know you probably slept through Biology 101, you should know that biologists consider the event of self-directed cell division to be a defining and rudimentary aspect of biological life. This occurs almost immediately after conception – the **Human** embryo starts developing quickly – within days.
2. The very moment the cell divides it has a unique DNA profile every bit as complete as a full grown adult.
3. In its first 21 days, the heart, braim, spinal chord, and intestines of the embryo begin formation.
4. At 6 weeks doctors can detect the embryo’s heartbeat and brain impulses.
5. At 8 weeks the embryo’s facial features are apparent. It has eyes, nose, ears, hands, fingers, feet, toes, and hair.
Is it “viable” at this stage? No it’s not. But it is *Alive*. It is a Living Human. (By the way, just to be “scientific,” you should know that the premature babies that are born and live are also not “viable.” They require around the clock care and supervision for weeks or months. Are they “persons?” The fact that you people play these kind of semantic games with human life is frightening (not long ago in Europe Jews weren’t considered “people.” In the 1700’s blacks weren’t considered “people.”)
Infanticide (abortion) is not a women’s rights issue. It’s a Human Rights Issue. I am against abortion not for any religious reasons. I am prolife because I believe the rights of all human life should be protected – even the “non-viable.”
Did it ever occur to you that there are a lot of people in hospitals right now that are “non-viable” – meaning they cannot sustain their own lives?
So let me get this straight – because the child in her womb is “non-viable,” it’s expendable? Wow. (I sure help no one else in society becomes considered “non-viable…”)
And this brings us to the “human life support” argument I’ve heard some of the other pro-abortionists on here mention. It goes something like “you wouldn’t force a man to give a kidney to someone who needed a transplant or force him to use his body as life support for someone, but that’s what they’re doing to us poor victimized women…”
This analogy is so ridiculous I literally laughed when I read it, but let’s address it just for giggles and grins.
The reason I’m not obligated to give my kidneys to a stranger or let them use me for life support is that I have no personal responsibility for them – they were not in my care.
If someone is in your care you are responsible for their well-being. For example, if an elderly person was on life support in my house and I decided this made my electric bill too high and unplugged it, if they die I am liable because they were under my care.
This is why hospitals are sued so often when patients die due to mistakes and mishaps.
Another reason the “kidney donor” argument completely falls apart is the fact that you’re not responsible for the person being in that predicament. So it’s ridiulous to compare this to a child in your womb.
A child *IS* in the care of its mother – especially unborn children (they’re totally helpless). I can’t believe I actually have to tell people they’re responsible for the wellbeing of their own children. Also, the mother *IS* responsible for the child being there – in other words the baby didn’t make itself.
I’m sorry to be a fascist male pig, but in civilized societies we expect parents to at least make sure their kids don’t die. If you had a sick infant and refused to take it to the hospital do you know you’d go to jail for that?
Do whatever you want with your own body. I really don’t care. But don’t tell me that being a woman gives you the moral authority to decide when and if other *Humans* live or die. It doesn’t.
The real question in this whole debate is “At what point is innocent Human Life expendable?” For me the answer to that question is never.
For many of you it seems that observable growth, organs, heartbeats, and brain activity doesn’t matter – innocent Human Life is expendable whenever a woman decides it’s inconvenient for her.
Our laws protect endangeres species. We advocate for manitees, mountain lions, and white rhinos. If you destroy the egg of a bald eagle it carries a hefty fine and possible criminal charges (by the way, are their eggs “viable?”)
But kill all the unborn humans you want. You people are scary…
Dear Jason, only the woman who is pregnant can decide whether it is a blessing for her or not. Propaganda has nothing at all to do with whether a woman wants to bear a child, it is an entirely personal decision. If children are such a blessing go adopt a few, there are a lot of less than perfect children waiting for you.
Joan F,
I mentioned the word “blessing” nowhere in my post. So let me get this straight, because all kids aren’t a walk in the park women should have the right to kill the unborn?
What propaganda are you referring to? I used facts to support my opinions.
“Whether a woman wants to bear a child is an entirely personal decision.” If you read my post you should know that I Agree With You. A woman should absolutely have the choice of whether or not she has a child.
My point is that once you’re pregnant *You Have A Child* It is LIVING and growing inside of you.
Sorry but you shouldn’t have the “choice” to erase that decision (because it involves KILLING another human). But because our country is finished today you do. The courts have given you that. So go kill all the unborn you want. Because they’re an inconvenience to you. It may be incredibly evil, immature, and cowardly, but hey it’s legal – so go for it.
I want to offer kudos to Jason for his factual and logical statements for the discussion online.
I have some more facts and logic to add to the discussion. There has been much discussion about viable verses non viable human beings.
We abort viable babies all the time in this country. It is done by a process crudely named “partial birh abortion”.
Here a woman in a late term abortion goes in, they induce labor and then they turn the baby into the “breech” position which is always avoided in normal delivery. They then deliver all of the baby except the skull. The doctor then stabs the baby in the skull with scissors and opens up the hole to be able to insert the suction tube of the vacuum aspiration machine normally used to abort smaller babies and sucks out the baby’s brain shrinking the skull and delivers the rest of the baby.
Let us look at the facts and logic here. You are now literally determining whether a baby is a human being depending strictly on his position. If part of the baby’s body is still in the vagina, then it is not a person, but if you fully deliver the baby and the doctor then kills it, then it is first degree murder. The difference is 4 inches or the width of the baby’s head still in the vagina.
that baby is still in her vagina.
George Orwell was truly prophetic when he talked about “Newspeak” in his book 1984 published back in the 1940’s. Part of it was based upon his distaste for lack of logical thinking and reasoning and “thought contol” based upon feelings.
Jason and George Orwell are right, “you people are scary” and sexist to boot.
This debate can rage on and on, but solutions will only come from dedicated to work designed based on thinking about the outcomes we hope to achieve. I mean, if we eliminate the need for abortion, then you and I discussing when life begins becomes a purely theoretical, and thus far less emotional, debate.
And other countries that ARE solution focused, are solving this problem, they are reducing their abortion rates. If all we do is shriek and shrill about this issue on various forums, we Americans are as dumb as Europe thinks we are.
Too often (not always), pro-lifers are often anti-solution. They simultaneously believe that abortion is unthinkable, the problems of born unwanted children do not warrant a second thought, and that abstinence only education is the best. But that’s not what countries with LOW abortion rates actually do.
Here is a quick logic flow:
Every time that an unwanted pregnancy is prevented — either by:
Avoiding sexual activity or
Switching from a sexual act that is at a high risk for pregnancy to a less risky activity, or
By using safer sex, or
By using emergency contraception (a.k.a. EC, “morning after pill”) after intercourse if necessary,
THEN ONE ABORTION IS PREVENTED.
Dee,
America accomplished more in the 20th century than Europe accomplished in 200 years before that time. America’s not perfect by any stretch, but “Europe thinks we’re dumb” is hardly an argument that we should copy their social policies.
Many of the things we consider “progressive” about Europe are actually decreasing the quality of their society. For example, lots of dummies think it’s cool that marijuana and prostitution are legal in Amsterdam.
I’ve talked to people who lived in Amsterdam and said much of the city is a dirty, seemy hell-hole because of this. In fact, I was told that the city began closing some of the open prostitution and hash establishments in their tourist areas because of this.
Also keep in mind that much of Europe is socialist (France, Italy, Spain, etc). I’m aware that many of their countries provide programs like free daycare for women and I’m sure stuff like this helps to convince them not to murder their children, but programs like this come packaged in a collective (socialist) society.
Outlawing abortion is a solution, but obviously “progressives” consider this anathema, so they preach to us about how much better Europe is than us and how anti-abortionists are “anti-solution.” Because to them any solution that doesn’t include infanticide being legal isn’t a solution. (By the way, since abortion has already been legal for over 30 years, why is this still the primary issue for feminists?? Jesus, what else do you people want?? No rules? No boundaries?? Just let women kill infants whenever and however they want?)
For me the only real solutions left are personal – within the family. I’ll be teaching my children that human life is valuable and not to be violated. If you think it’s smart to teach yours that nothing, not even another human life should inconvenience a woman, than so be it…
Jason: I am glad you are such an authority on Europe. So Italy is Socialist? Silvio Berlusconi it’s Premier is the Richest Man in the country. France has Sacosi who was the right wing candidate. Just like the US has social programs that bail out Wall Street and Greedy Pro sports teams and interstae highways where you can drive your Humvee; European countiries have trains, education and health care for the masses. You may want to study Europe from someone other than Rush Limbaugh.
Hi Frederick,
No intention of knocking Europe. I’m actually of the opinion that the US is and has been socialist since the establishment of the federal reserve.
Just to be clear: I cannot stand Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Or Bill O-Reilly and do not listen to or watch them. Nor am I a republican or democrat.
On France: Yes I know that Sarcosy is in charge and that he is right wing. But one cannot ignore the huge social welfare state and the many industries that were deprivatized by Francois Miitterand in the 80’s (as the US is doing today with many of our industries).
And Italy, though they’ve made reforms in recent decades, does have a history with fascism, communism, and socialism (many of the influences of which remain.)
No offense if you’re European. Just pointing out that the more we ask governments to give and care for us, the more power and control they wield over our lives.
I am sick to death of you pro choicers stating that pro life people don’t do anything about unwanted children.
Pro lifers by and large are either Catholic or mainline protestand. All of which provide volunteer groups who will help a woman by paying all of her medical expenses and even house her if she has an unwanted pregnancy and is willing to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption or even if she changes her mind and decides to keep it.
The vast majority of these people selflessly volunteer their time and work for no pay.
How many people volunteer their time to help a woman abort. Do the doctors donate their time pro bono to do an abortion. Hell no, abortion is extremely profitable for them. They can do about 10 an hour assembly line style in the clinics. Do feminist nurses go volunteer their time to help a woman have an abortion? Hell no. Do feminist women volunteer to be receptionists in the clinics? Hell no. They all work for money in the very profitable abortion trade.
Chrisrian pro life doctors volunteer their time to deliver babies.
Christians lead the whole world in adopting babies, even special needs babies. I am sick to death of the slander by pro abortionists.
I have volunteered hundreds of hours to these pro life organizations. I don’t want any recognition but I will not let you spew such hateful slander without confronting you head on.
Killing an innocent baby is never a legitimate choice. We have become so dulled to the horror that we are now having more and more women killing their babies after they are born because it inconvenienced them. It got so out of hand that they had to enact a plan where women could drop their babies off at a police station, fire station or hospital with no questions or prosecutions.
If you don’t want to get pregnant, then you really really need to highly responsible in your sexual behavior avoiding getting pregnant instead of using abortion as a baack up birth control plan as Penelope and so many other women do.
John I agree with your points in your posts.
Lisa
Essentially, there are two ways to evaluate the “Cost of Life”. There is an immediate cost and a long-term cost.
Abortion is a means of eliminating the short-term cost. For a few hundred bucks you can free yourself from the financial burden of diapers and baby food, but you also free yourself from a relationship with your child, you free yourself from someday having the support and care of a grown son or daughter.
You free yourself from grand-kids and great grand-kids, and you free society from the long-term production and influence of an utterly unique human being.
Margaret
Dee,
We are all familiar with the book, “Damned Lies and Statistics.” It explains how to untangle the numbers from the media, politicians, and activists.
I think your risk quote of “10 times as high” is “part truth” and qualifies as an example of “You Can Prove Anything With Statistics.”
The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse, and oversimplify!
However, you failed to mention:
After 20 weeks' gestation there is no statistically significant difference in maternal mortality rates between terminating a pregnancy by abortion and carrying it to term (Kochanek et al., 2004; Paul et al., 1999).
Abortion is a lucrative business. Those who defend it the most ardently often have a financial interest in keeping it legal and commonplace. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of Planned Parenthood, estimates that there were 1.21 million abortions performed in the U.S. in the year 2005.
When Planned Parenthood argues that they’re working hard to reduce the frequency of abortion, the fact remains that their “financial livelihood” is built on abortion. Those who defend abortion, arguing that it is “good and necessary” for a healthy society, are defending an institution which is making them very wealthy!
Planned Parenthood, then, is just like the big Tobacco companies. Does anyone really believe that tobacco companies want people to stop smoking? Does anyone really believe that Planned Parenthood wants people to stop having abortions? I suggest following the money.
Each year in the U.S., the abortion industry brings in approximately $831 million through their abortion services alone. If you add in the $337 million (or more) that Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) receives annually in government grants and contracts for, the annual dollar amount moves well past 1 billion.
Follow the money.
Beverly M
*****
Kochanek, Kenneth D., et al. (2004, October 12). “Deaths: Final Data for 2002.” National Vital Statistics Reports, 53(5). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
Paul, Maureen, et al. (1999). A Clinician’s Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Penelope Trunk blogs “To all of you who said a miscarriage is gross: Are you unaware that the same blood you expel from a miscarriage is what you expel during menstruation? Are you aware that many people are having sex during menstruation and getting it on the sheets? Are you aware that many women actually like period sex? Wait. Here is a link I love, at askmen.com, telling men that women like it so much that men need to be aware of this preference.”
My definition of total disgust is your reference to “She Likes Period Sex.” The refereence to “The bonus of period sex is she is likely to be quite randy — hormones make this a positive (but obstacle-laden) time for nookie.” That is gross and nasty!
David
Jason–stop. Stop the snide attacks about the scientific knowledge base of others. It turns people off and prevents meaningful dialogue. It is also further proof, at least to me, that anti-choice is not about ‘saving the unborn’, ‘protecting life’, ‘respecting women’ or any other warm and fuzzy phrase. Rather, it is about men retaining privilege and access to women’s bodies. Yes, some self-loathing women buy into this, and help to support misogyny.
I am pro-choice, pro-child, pro-family. I wouldn’t wish an abortion on any woman, but I also wouldn’t stop any woman from having a safe and modern abortion. The alternative is harrowing. If abortion was criminalized tomorrow, women would still have abortions and many would die or suffer life altering, debilitating side effects. These women–our sisters, nieces, friends, daughters, wives, mother, and ourselves–would know the horrors of back alley abortions and self-induced abortions with coat hangers and worse. We can’t go back to those days, and we won’t.
AgnesW,
For crying out loud. You people are incredible.
I’m not “attacking” anyone with science. It’s called truth and I base my life off of it. If the truth that pregnant women are carrying Human Life inside of them and that it’s wrong to kill that life “turns you off,” that’s your problem.
I find it rather ridiculous (and sick) that you claim to be “pro-child” and also support infanticide. Do you know what these “procedures” entail? Do you know they shove a long pointed tube into the uteris and suck the living human body into it (tearing it to pieces) and then scrape any remains out with another?
And you call me the misogynist for being against this? Go to hell. I’m sick and tired of you people and your assumption of moral authority. Oh it’s not really a “baby.” Bullsh**. It’s a Human Life and it has rights. That’s my whole argument and not one of the whiners on here crying about women being victims will even address it.
More about you supposedly being pro-child: Are you really? I suggest you google “abortion survivors” and read some of the horrifying and heartbreaking stories of children who’ve survived the vicious murder attempts made against them in the womb.
Go read about little 3 year-olds with one arm, or cerebral palsy, or burned bodies (from saline injections which are still used even though doctors have publicly stated that they burn the “fetuses” inside and out and that some of them appear to feel pain…)
Go read it. And come back here and tell me that’s a woman’s right and I’m a misogynist for being against it. What would you say to one of these children since you’re so “pro-child”? “Sorry sweetie. We have to make sure our sisters and nieces have the right to safely do this to another innocent child. But don’t worry, in the future we’ll make sure the doctors get it right and actually kill the unborn so they don’t end up like you.” You’re a fraud.
By the way, did you know that there are millions of women who disagree with you (about 50/50 depending on the polls)? Women who are just as disgusted and angry about infanticide as I am? Are they also misogynists?
How pathetic. When confronted by the truth of what this “movement” has done (50 million + dead since 1973) all you people do is pull the sexist card and say “Men just want to dominate women.”
Why not just admit the awful truth? You people think that innocent human life, when it’s most vulnerable and helpless, is utterly expendable. If a woman wants to finish college, or further her career, or do whatever, she has every right to kill her unborn child in your eyes. There is no other option. Wolves do it. Lions do it. Why not us? Just admit it – It’s OK. No one’s going to come get you – It’s legal.
But stop bullsh*ting and trying to assume this phony moral, ethical stance that it’s about women’s rights and standing up against a “patriarchal male dominant society”. It’s like you all went to the same cheap nightschool ethics class and it’s pathetic.
This is a Human Rights issue and you believe the unborn have no rights. Simple. That’s where we disagree.
The funny thing is, I support a woman’s right to choose. As I’ve said elsewhere on here, a woman should have the right to choose when and if she has a child. But once you’re pregnant You Have A Child – the decision has been made. Pregnant women are mothers.
There is a living, growing human life inside of the womb at that stage.
Men will never understand or be able to empathize with pregnancy or motherhood – I know. The burdens and sacrifices of this circumstance are unique to the female experience. That doesn’t give mothers the right to “erase” their decision and kill the unborn.
But I’m sure none of this matters to you. If I don’t agree that women can kill innocent life for convenience (the reason for the vast majority of abortions), to you I’m an evil misogynist out to keep women down, barefoot in the kitchen.
This convenient but ridiculous mythology helps you people avoid the true heart of this whole issue – the humanity of the unborn. Innocent life means nothing to you. You Are Not “Pro-Child”…
John W asks: “Do feminist nurses go volunteer their time to help a woman have an abortion? Hell no. Do feminist women volunteer to be receptionists in the clinics? Hell no. They all work for money in the very profitable abortion trade.” Hell yes, is the correct answer.
As long as there have been women, there have been other women helping to bring each other’s children into the world and helping to end unwanted pregnancies.
Before abortion was legalized in this country feminist women maintained underground abortion clinics to give women safe abortions. Today, thousands of women volunteer at planned parenthood and help counsel women about their reproductive health.
FWIW, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit that provides a range of reproductive health services at low-cost or no-cost to women of all backgrounds. The notion that PP workers are raking in the money is absurd. The financial numbers cited by others cover a wide range of services, and does not reflect actual in the pocket profits for anyone.
Awnes W
I encourage you to review the public IRS filing(s) for all the Planned Parenthood (and associated orgnizations) to see how many millions were lost on “Wall Street” and other investment losses, the past year. Review the compensation of some its executives. It looks like a big salary to kill babies.
Mark
Agnes W.
Let me follow your logic. I should be able to sexually abuse my daughter because it is already outlawed and thoussands of dads still victimize their daughters.
Let’s do away with those prostitution laws because women are going to do it anyway, and please those drug laws are completely not working stop legalize drugs so we won’t have any more overdoses.
And those laws against murders, well that has not stopped anyone so lets legalize it and make it clean and painfree.
Why let’s do away with laws altogether because it does not stop criminal behavior and just let everyone do whatever they want to do. After all why should we force our morality on someone else. And by the way, the next time a woman tells me no, I will just go ahead and take her because date rape goes on all the time and why should she prevent me from doing what I want.
As to Planned Parenthood, I have heard doctor’s wives brag about their husband’s abortion profits go to pay for their Porsches. That sideline business is their play money.
And finally, you state that Jason’s pro life views are just ways for men to continue to have access to women’s bodies. Does that mean that you are lesbian and feel that if a man has sex with a woman that it is violating her.
If you had chosen to look up my referencde to Misandry in ?Wikipedia, one of the things in the reference listed a feminst college professor teaching in a woman’s studies classes that all sex between men and women including married sex is rape of the woman, even if she is deluded into thinking that she actually wants to.
You continue to operate in feelings only and have no factual logical basis for your feminist rantings.
You should know that MS magazine is a quarterly only magazine with a paltry subscription base of 150,000 where traditional women’s mags subscription base is in the millions. MS can’t even sell ads to their mag. So how relevant is feminism anyway?
John Wilder, you’re an ass. We don’t need any logic or facts or anything beyond the fact that it’s our body and we have a right to control it. A fetus is a parasite that we can rid ourselves of if we so desire.
Wow, it is always the same, you box a “feeler emotional” type into a corner with inescapable facts and logic, they always resort to name calling.
This time Joan F you made the double whammy calling me an ass and the baby a prasite like it is so much scum. You reveal your true feelings, there is nothing pro baby about you.
Your comments are scarily similar to past times when other bigoted, prejudiced people made statements like you are a nigger lover, kyke lover, niggers aren’t people, they are out property and we can do whatever we want with them, Jews are subhuman and a stain on the human race, women are not smart enough to have the vote. In cultures in this world we still have a patriarchal society who think that is perfectly alright to beat women or even kill them as an honor killing. If you spoke up for those women, you could be beaten jailed arrested or even killed. You are in great company of the prejudiced and bigoted.
A “parasite”. You really are arrogant and disdainful.
For the rest of you reading these posts,do you really want to let that comment stand. It has been said when good men do nothing, then evil flourishes. Thanks Joan F for displaying your inner nature. You have identified yourself.
John Wilder
Look at parasite in the dictionary, the definition is a perfect description of the relationship of a fetus to the woman carrying it.
I am pro wanted babies. I am anti unwanted babies.
Joan F,
I knew the truth would come out eventually. This is all about hatred of human life.
Unwanted babies = parasites? Wow.
I was going to ignore your disgusting post and let it speak for itself, but since you attempted to appeal to some semblance of intelligence (and failed), I thought I’d respond.
You may not think unborn children have any value, but from a scientific standpoint, they are certainly not anything close to parasites.
I’ll give my own quick analysis, but I’ve also included some definitions from various dictionaries since that’s where you told John to go (links are included so you can go yourself and get a much-needed education…)
Basically, a parasitic relationship occurs between 2 Species of plants or animals where there is a Host / Beneficiary relationship. Since I’m pretty sure babies / fetuses, are the same species as their mothers and grow inside of a fully functional reproductive system whose Specific Function is to support them, this alone means they cannot be parasites. Also, the placenta specifically acts to protect the developing child from infections and viruses (parasites). But I know you don’t believe me so here are the references. Pay attention to the last definition from Aberystwyth University in England where gestating fetuses are specifically excluded.
I know this won’t change anything. But in the future, just say “I hate unwanted babies.” Don’t try to appeal to science. Because it’s embarrassing if someone actually pulls your card on it…
All caps and emphasis are added by me…
parasitism (from the Encyclopædia Britannica)
relationship between Two Species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other, sometimes without killing it
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058426/parasitism (free temporary subscription required)
parasitism (from the Online Medical Dictionary)
A type of symbiosis where two (or more) organisms from different species live in close proximity to one another, in which one member depends on another for its nutrients, protection, and/or other life functions. The dependent member (the parasite) benefits from the relationship while the other one (the host) is harmed by it.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?parasitism
Parasitism (from the UPenn Vet School)
The term parasitism may be defined as a Two-Species association in which one species, the parasite, lives on or in a second species, the host, for a significant period of its life and obtains nourishment from it. This is a commonly accepted working definition of parasitism and using it we can emphasize several important features of the host-parasite relationship. Parasitism always involves two species, the parasite and the host.
http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/proje…troduction/intro_1.htm
Parasite (from U of MN)
A Parasite is by definition any organism which lives on or in the body of Another Organism Of A Different Species(i.e., the host). This definition allows the name ‘parasite’ to be attached to many living species, including bacteria, fungi and viruses.
http://www.cvm.umn.edu/academi…VM6201/stromberg_I.htm
Parasitism (from Aberystwyth University, England)
Parasitism is, like most other animal associations, defined in terms of Two Different Species who form a regular association, although this seems sensible, and It Does Exclude Consideration Of The Mammalian Foetus As Being Parasitic Upon Its Mother,there are some very interesting immunological parallels between the mechanisms the foetus uses to avoid being rejected by the immune response of its mother and the ways in which the parasites of mammals seek to avoid their hosts immune response.
http:// http://www.aber.ac.uk/~mpgwww/Edu/Para_ism/PaIsmTxt.html
Yes Joan F, you have cold bloodedly revealed your prejudice, that it is ok to kill babies if you don’t want them. You are not only sexist but ageist as well, that it is okay to kill people because they don’t meet your age requirements. How do you feel about killing off grandma?
Since Penelope self identifies as a Jew, then perhaps God’s commands revealed in the old testament to the Jews will be helpful. He said that: “the life of the flesh is in the blood” “that spilling innocent blood pollutes the land and it can’t be cleansed” He specifically forbid killing unwanted babies in sacrifice to the false god Molech.
Would you have a vet hack to death an unwanted puppy the way that they do with babies, chopping that puppy into small pieces?